Aberrant RHAMM Splicing in Multiple Myeloma (MM) and Its Implications for Immunotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Receptor for hyaluronan-mediated motility (RHAMM) or CD168 has been a promising target for MM immunotherapy because it is overexpressed in MM cells. RHAMM has been tested as a target for an anti-RHAMM peptide vaccination approach in MM and other hematological malignancies. Although RHAMM peptide-induced immune response in patients, clinical outcomes were mixed, that can be a result of equal expression levels of RHAMM in different subpopulation of bone marrow (BM) cells in MM patients and healthy donors (HD). To enhance current RHAMM-peptide and future immunotherapeutic approaches, we investigated the cause of altered RHAMM mRNA splicing in MM patients. mRNA splicing has the potential to produce numerous mis-spliced genes, creating novel disease markers; some resulting proteins are likely to contain neoantigens selectively expressed on MM tumor cells. Methods/results: Splicing alterations can be caused by single nucleotide variations (SNVs) that affect splicing regulatory elements (SREs), or by deregulated splicing factors (SFs). We evaluated the incidence of SNVs located in the vicinity of the RHAMM. We identified a total of 57 SNVs: 72% SNVs are in the intronic region, and 28% are in the RHAMM coding region. We used the "HEXplorer" tool and predicted that four SNVs have the potential to contribute to aberrant RHAMM splicing in MM either by altering SF binding to SREs or by impacting splice site selection. Predicted SNVs were evaluated using an in vivo splicing assay to identify SNV-clusters causing aberrant RHAMM splicing. We have observed progressive overexpression of core SF PTBP1/2 (polypyrimidine track-binding protein) in MM patients and associated with disease progression. Since SNVs on the RHAMM modulate canonical SF binding sites, we tested the effects of PTBP1/2 deregulation on RHAMM splicing. We expressed PTBP1/2 in H929 cells, and then evaluated the RHAMM splicing pattern in transfected cells at a single cell (SC) level. SC analyses showed that overexpression of PTBP1/2 increased (2.5-fold) the RHAMM-V3:FL ratio in MM cells. SC analyses also identified overexpression of the RHAMM-V3 splice variant in 18% of H929 SCs expressing PTBP1, and in 37% of cells expressing PTBP2, confirmed at the single cell (SC) level. In BM-infiltrating myeloid cells, analyses showed 50% of myeloid cells express the RHAMM-V3 variant alone, and 79% of plasma cells (PCs) express this variant in combination with RHAMM-FL. Moreover, the RHAMM-V3/FL ratio in PCs is elevated (2.6-fold), further confirming a correlation between the RHAMM variant ratio and the clinical outcome. Next, we determined RHAMM-V3/FL ratios in BM stromal cells from 16 MM patients: MM-BMSC samples exclusively express the RHAMM-V3 in combination with RHAMM-FL and the RHAMM-V3:FL is 1.8 fold. In BMSC samples derived from healthy donors (HD), we detected relatively low-level expression of RHAMM-FL as compared to expression levels of RHAMM-FL in MM patients, while RHAMM-V3 transcripts were undetectable. SC analysis of RHAMM FL and splice variant transcripts in MM BMSC and HD-BMSC agreed with the analyses done on the MM HD-BMSC bulk population. We did not detect any MM BMSC cells expressing RHAMM-V3 alone and the RHAMM V3/FL ratio was 1.6-fold, which is lower than that in MM-PCs. MM-BMSC screening also identified a new splice variant of RHAMM, that was absent in MM PCs or in MM myeloid cells. Conclusions: Our study suggests that aberrant RHAMM splicing in MM can result from SNPs/SNVs affecting SRE due to the upregulation of PTBP1/2. Our study is the first to show that the RHAMM-V3 variant is associated with PTBP2 overexpression. The identification of cell type-specific RHAMM splicing events identifies novel targets for improved immunotherapy in MM. Disclosures Chu: Celgene: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Teva: Consultancy; Amgen Inc.: Honoraria. Anderson:C4 Therapeutics: Other: Scientific founder ; OncoPep: Other: Scientific founder ; Gilead Sciences: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Sanofi-Aventis: Other: Advisory Board.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".