MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Exportin-1 Connects Dynamic Transcription and Translation of Genotoxic Stress Genes in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patients

2017· article· en· W3169767623 on OpenAlexaff
Rossella Marullo, María V. Revuelta, Nahuel Zamponi, Biljana Čuljković, Shao Ning Yang, Haelee Ahn, Giorgio Inghirami, Katherine L. B. Borden, Leandro Cerchietti

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEtoposideDNA damageDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaCancer researchDNA repairGene expressionGeneGene dosageLymphomaMolecular biologyDNAChemotherapyImmunologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Exportin-1 (XPO1), that exports a subset of proteins from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, is amplified in 30% of DLBCL. Regardless of XPO1 gene status, DLBCLs require XPO1 to proliferate and survive as demonstrated in pre-clinical (Marullo et al. AACR 2015) and clinical (Kuruvilla at al. Blood 2017) studies with the covalent XPO1 inhibitor selinexor. However, the mechanism underlying such dependency remains unknown. We analyzed the expression of XPO1 protein in a cohort of 57 DLBCL patients by IHC and correlated with XPO1 gene status and clinical outcome. XPO1 increased copy number is associated with elevated protein expression (p = 0.03) and, importantly, patients with elevated XPO1 levels (XPO1 high) are less likely to respond to RCHOP as refractory/early relapse diseases (p = 0.005). This suggests that XPO1 high DLBCL could be biologically fitter to tolerate genotoxic stress. To explore this hypothesis, we compared gene expression profiles (RNA-sequencing) of XPO1 high (n = 15) vs. XPO1 low (n = 16) DLBCLs by DESeq2. XPO1 high DLBCLs were enriched (q To gain insight into the mechanism by which XPO1 enhances genotoxic stress tolerance, we exposed a panel of 5 DLBCL cell lines to DNA damaging agents (etoposide, doxorubicin, mechloretamine) with or without XPO1 inhibition (selinexor). Comet assay experiments revealed that selinexor did not affect the amount of DNA damage induced by chemotherapy, but delayed cell's ability to repair the DNA damage (P>0.005). This translated into a significant increase of sensitivity toward otherwise sub-lethal effect of chemotherapy, as all the combinations tested showed synergistic effect on growth inhibition. To determine the existence of a therapeutic window to capitalize on this effect, we evaluated the combination of CHOP +/- selinexor in an XPO1 high DLBCL patient-derived xenograft mice model (n = 40). Combination treatment achieved higher anti-lymphoma effect compared to either selinexor or CHOP alone (p>0.005 and p= 0.0015, respectively). Importantly, no increase in toxicity was observed by biochemistry or pathological examination. Thus, proliferating DLBCL cells but not normal cells rely on XPO1 to survive exogenous genotoxic stress. To characterize the molecular consequences of XPO1 inhibition, we quantified the expression of proteins involved in DNA damage response and repair (immunoblotting). Exposure to selinexor decreased the expression of a subset of these proteins including CHEK1, BRCA1, BCL6 and RAD51. This reduction was neither due to decreased gene transcription (qRT-PCR) nor to increased protein degradation (cycloheximide chase). Instead, analysis of nascent proteins by L-azido-homo-alanine labeling revealed that XPO1 inhibition decreases the synthesis of specific DNA damage repair proteins whose increased turnover is required to survive genotoxic stress. Since XPO1 inhibition affected only a subset of proteins, the mechanism may involve selective decrease in nuclear export of mRNA templates. Thus, we quantified the nuclear/cytoplasmic ratio of mRNAs encoding for DNA damage repair proteins in DLBCL cells treated with selinexor. XPO1 inhibition resulted in nuclear retention of BRCA1, RAD51, BCL6 and CHEK1 mRNAs but not of β-actin. Since XPO1 is unable to directly bind mRNAs, we reasoned that its inhibition may impair the export of proteins carrying mRNA (ribonucleoproteins). Indeed, we identified eIF4E as one of these cargoes. Immunofluorescence experiments revealed that eIF4E is retained in the nucleus of DLBCL cells upon XPO1 inhibition and its nuclear retention is enhanced in etoposide-treated cells. Moreover, RIP-qPCR experiments revealed that eIF4E binds several DNA damage repair mRNAs such as CHEK1, BCL6 and BRCA1 in the nucleus of DLBCL cells and this binding increases significantly in response to DNA damage. Overall, our data demonstrate that XPO1, by regulating the selective export of mRNA-binding proteins, promotes genotoxic stress tolerance thus conferring a survival advantage to XPO1high DLBCLs. Disclosures Yang: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Cerchietti: Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Weill Cornell Medicine - New York Presbyterian Hospital: Employment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicRNA Research and Splicing→French-language works237,207→