Mutational and Transcriptomic Landscape of AML with Core-Binding Factor Rearrangements
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Acute myeloid leukemias (AML) with t(8;21)(q22;q22);RUNX1-RUNX1T1 and inv(16)(p13.1q22) or t(16;16)(p13.1;q22);CBFB-MYH11 are recurrent genetic entities commonly designated as core binding factor (CBF) AML. Both subgroups have distinct gene expression signatures and are characterized by recurrent mutations in KIT, FLT3, and RAS pathway genes. More recently, ASXL1 and ASXL2 mutations have been identified in t(8;21) AML. The TCGA study has analyzed a limited number of AML with CBF rearrangements, but to date more comprehensive CBF AML cohorts have not been unbiasedly explored by next-generation sequencing. Therefore, we have performed RNA sequencing of 415 genetically diverse AML specimens, including 48 CBF AML samples. In this analysis, we compared the mutational profile and transcriptomic landscape of both CBF subgroups to that of non-CBF AML. Methods Analysis of mutations and gene expression was performed as previously described (Lavallée et al, Nature Genetics, doi:10.1038/ng.3371). Mutations in all genes that are recurrently mutated in hematological malignancies are reported. In order to identify novel acquired recurrent mutations in CBF subgroups, genes with variants in ≥ 3 samples were systematically confirmed by Sanger sequencing of non-tumoral DNA. Results Genes mutated in the t(8;21) cohort are: KIT (8/20, 40%), FLT3 and ASXL2 (4/20 each, 20%), ASXL1, NRAS, ZBTB7A, TET2, SMC1A (3/20 each, 15%), DNMT3A (2/20), and JAK2, SMC3, STAG2, WT1, and CSF3R (1/20 each). Mutations in inv(16) AML are found in the following genes: KIT (14/28, 50%), NRAS (12/28, 43%), FLT3 (8/28, 29%), PRRC2B (3/28, 11%), KRAS (2/28, 7%) and BCORL1, DNMT3A, GATA2 and NF1 (1/28). The most frequent mutations were found in activated signaling genes (KIT, NRAS, KRAS, FLT3, JAK2, CSF3R), identified in 14/20 (70%) and 25/28 (89%) of t(8;21) and inv(16) AML samples respectively. 38% of mutated samples contained 2 to 5 such mutations, and the sum of their variant allele frequencies never exceeded ~50%, suggesting that each mutation occurs in a different subclone. This result supports the hypothesis that these mutations and CBFfusion genes are strong collaborators in AML. Several novel observations emerged from these analyses. First, we identified 2 frameshift and 1 missense novel acquired mutations in ZBTB7A, which are specific to the t(8;21) subgroup (3/20 vs 1/395, p = 0.0004). ZBTB7A encodes a transcription factor of the POK/ZBTB family and other genes encoding this family of transcription factors, such as BCL6 and PLZF, are rearranged in hematological malignancies. Second, we established that ASXL2 mutations are very rare (2/395) in t(8;21) negative samples and thus specifically associated to RUNX1 -RUNX1T1 fusions (p < 0.0001). Third, mutually exclusive mutations in cohesin complex genes (SMC1A, SMC3 and STAG2) are frequent in t(8;21) AML (5/20, 25%). Lastly, a novel acquired PRRC2B A1506S missense mutation was identified in 3 inv(16) AML samples. PRRC2B, a gene with poorly described functions, was the only non-activated signaling gene recurrently mutated in this subgroup. Using the most significantly and differentially expressed genes, we identified signatures of 145 and 127 genes specific to t(8;21) and inv(16) groups, respectively. 78% and 81% of these genes have not been previously described in gene set enrichment analyses of CBF AML, and are potential novel CBF diagnostic markers or genes that are functionally related to CBF fusions. Using gene signatures and principal component analyses (PCA), CBF subgroups homogeneously clustered together with one sole exception: a sample harboring a t(16;21);RUNX1-CBFA2T3 unambiguouslygrouped with t(8;21) specimens. The rare but recurrent RUNX1-CBFA2T3 chimeric proteins are known to share similar structural characteristics with RUNX1-RUNX1T1, and our observations now unify the transcriptomic networks of these 2 genetic entities. We also identified and characterized 8 additional RUNX1 fusions in our AML cohort, including 6 novel fusions, which share a different transcriptomic profile compared to RUNX1-RUNX1T1 positive samples, thereby suggesting that they might have distinct functional consequences. Conclusion Our comprehensive RNA sequencing analysis substantially contributes to a better understanding of mutations and gene expression profiles in CBF AML, and reports a unity between RUNX1 -RUNX1T1 and RUNX1-CBFA2T3 genetic networks. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».