Search

Background:In breast cancer (BC), radiotherapy (RT) is used adjuvantly to prevent recurrence and also in the palliative setting. Clinical signs of RT response are often not apparent for several weeks post-treatment and we currently lack tools to predict or monitor tumor response to RT early during treatment. The aim was to identify tumor-secreted biomarkers whose release reflects response to RT, which could be monitored during treatment in the blood or intratumorally by an implantable biosensor, currently under development within the Implantable Microsystems for Personalised Anti-Cancer Therapy (IMPACT) program. Methods: A series of experiments assessed the effect of different radiation doses (2-10Gy) on 3 human BC cell lines – MDA-MB-231 (ER-), MCF-7 (ER+) and HBL-100 (ER-) –, 1 canine breast cancer and 2 sheep lung cancer lines. Culture media was collected from each dose experiment at a range of post-radiation time-points (1-24 hours). Proteins were isolated from collected media for secretome mass spectrometry (MS) analysis. A subset of treatment/time conditions were repeated in the same BC cell lines and radioresistant (RR) derivatives from which RNA was extracted and analysed using Lexogen QuantSeq for whole-genome transcriptomics.In-lab candidate biomarker validation was carried out using immuhistochemistry (IHC), immunofluorescence (IF) and western blotting (WB) using validated antibodies. Levels of candidate biomarkers were also assessed in normal and untreated BC tissues using IHC. ELISA-based methods are currently under investigation for detection of the lead candidate biomarkers in the blood of large animal cancer models treated with RT. Results: Biomarker discovery using the MS data revealed 4 promising candidates: EIF3G, SEC24C, YBX3 and TK1. These are released from BC and animal cancer cells sensitive to radiation in a dose-dependent manner 24 hours after treatment. Analysis of the transcriptomic data showed an 8-fold higher expression of the genes encoding the 4 candidates in the radio-sensitive parental cell lines compared to the RR cell lines. IF and WB confirmed lower intracellular expression of the 4 proteins in RR cells compared to the parental lines. WB of collected culture media confirmed release of each of the 4 candidates 24 hours after a 2Gy dose of radiation in only the parental lines. GAPDH was not found in these media samples, demonstrating that protein release was not due to cell lysis. Conclusions: · We have identified 4 promising biomarkers which are released from cancer cells sensitive to RT and not released from RR derivatives. · All 4 candidates are released 24 hours after a 2Gy radiation dose, which fits with the current clinical dosing schedule where radiation is administered at 24 hour intervals. Ongoing work will elucidate if these biomarkers can be reliably detected in blood or intratumorally using implantable biosensors. · There are currently no validated predictive tools to monitor RT response during treatment. If successfully validated, these biomarkers could have a clinical role in personalising RT dosing schedules and durations for solid tumors in the neoadjuvant and palliative setting, thus optimising treatment and preventing the administration of ineffective RT and its associated side effects. Citation Format: Meehan J, Gray M, Turnbull AK, Martinez-Perez C, Bonello M, Ward C, Langdon SP, McLaughlin S, MacLennan M, Dixon JM, Wills J, Quinn N, Finich AJ, von Kriegsheim A, Cameron D, Kunkler IH, Murray A, Argyle D. Tumor-secreted predictive biomarkers of response to radiotherapy in breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-12-24.

Malignant hyperthermia (MH) is a clinical response happened to patient who is sensitive with inhaled anesthesia drug that could cause suddently death. Many previous studies showed that malignant hyperthermia strongly related to genetic background of patients including RYR1, CACNA1S or STAC3 gene polymorphisms. With the development of high technology such as next generation sequencing, scientists found that 37 to 86 percents of MH cases had RYR1 mutations and approximately 1 percent of those had CACNA1S mutations. Gene analysis testing was recommended to apply for patient with MH medical history or MH patient’s family relations. Keywords Malignant hyperthermia, inhaled anesthesia, RYR1, CACNA1S, STAC3. References [1] G. Torri, Inhalation anesthetics: a review, Minerva Anestesiologica 76 (2010) 215–228. [2] N. Kassiri, S. Ardehali, F. Rashidi, S. Hashemian, Inhalational anesthetics agents: The pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamics, and their effects on human body, Biomed. Biotechnol. Res. J. BBRJ 2 (2018) 173. https://doi.org/10.4103/bbrj.bbrj_6618.[3] H. Rosenberg, N. Sambuughin, S. Riazi, R. Dirksen, Malignant Hyperthermia Susceptibility, in: M.P. Adam, H.H. Ardinger, R.A. Pagon, S.E. Wallace, L.J. Bean, K. Stephens, A. Amemiya (Eds.), GeneReviews, University of Washington, Seattle, Seattle (WA), 19932020. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1146/ (accessed February 2, 2020).[4] H. Rosenberg, N. Pollock, A. Schiemann, T. Bulger, K. Stowell, Malignant hyperthermia: a review, Orphanet J. Rare Dis 10 (2015) 93. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-015-0310-1.[5] D. Carpenter, C. Ringrose, V. Leo, A. Morris, R.L. Robinson, P.J. Halsall, P.M. Hopkins, M.-A. Shaw, The role of CACNA1S in predisposition to malignant hyperthermia, BMC Med. Genet 10 (2009) 104. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2350-10-104.[6] S. Riazi, N. Kraeva, P.M. Hopkins, Updated guide for the management of malignant hyperthermia, Can. J. Anaesth. J. Can. Anesth 65 (2018) 709–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-018-1108-0.[7] S. Riazi, N. Kraeva, P.M. Hopkins, Malignant Hyperthermia in the Post-Genomics Era: New Perspectives on an Old Concept, Anesthesiology 128 (2018) 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000001878.[8] [D.M. Miller, C. Daly, E.M. Aboelsaod, L. Gardner, S.J. Hobson, K. Riasat, S. Shepherd, R.L. Robinson, J.G. Bilmen, P.K. Gupta, M.-A. Shaw, P.M. Hopkins, Genetic epidemiology of malignant hyperthermia in the UK, BJA Br. J. Anaesth 121 (2018) 944–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2018.06.028.[9] T.A. Beam, E.F. Loudermilk, D.F. Kisor, Pharmacogenetics and pathophysiology of CACNA1S mutations in malignant hyperthermia, Physiol. Genomics 49 (2017) 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1152/physiolgenomics.00126.2016.[10] I.T. Zaharieva, A. Sarkozy, P. Munot, A. Manzur, G. O’Grady, J. Rendu, E. Malfatti, H. Amthor, L. Servais, J.A. Urtizberea, O.A. Neto, E. Zanoteli, S. Donkervoort, J. Taylor, J. Dixon, G. Poke, A.R. Foley, C. Holmes, G. Williams, M. Holder, S. Yum, L. Medne, S. Quijano-Roy, N.B. Romero, J. Fauré, L. Feng, L. Bastaki, M.R. Davis, R. Phadke, C.A. Sewry, C.G. Bönnemann, H. Jungbluth, C. Bachmann, S. Treves, F. Muntoni, STAC3 variants cause a congenital myopathy with distinctive dysmorphic features and malignant hyperthermia susceptibility, Hum. Mutat 39 (2018) 1980–1994. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.23635.[11] A.F. Dulhunty, The voltage-activation of contraction in skeletal muscle, Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol 57 (1992) 181–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/0079-6107(92)90024-Z.[12] C. Franzini-Armstrong, A.O. Jorgensen, Structure and Development of E-C Coupling Units in Skeletal Muscle, Annu. Rev. Physiol 56 (1994) 509–534. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ph.56.030194.002453.[13] D.H. MacLennan, M. Abu-Abed, C. Kang, Structure-function relationships in Ca(2+) cycling proteins, J. Mol. Cell. Cardiol 34 (2002) 897–918. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmcc.2002.2031.[14] H. Rosenberg, M. Davis, D. James, N. Pollock, K. Stowell, Malignant hyperthermia, Orphanet J. Rare Dis 2 (2007) 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-2-21.[15] S.M. Karan, F. Crowl, S.M. Muldoon, Malignant hyperthermia masked by capnographic monitoring, Anesth. Analg 78 (1994) 590–592. https://doi.org/10.1213/00000539-199403000-00029.[16] M.G. Larach, G.A. Gronert, G.C. Allen, B.W. Brandom, E.B. Lehman, Clinical presentation, treatment, and complications of malignant hyperthermia in North America from 1987 to 2006, Anesth. Analg 110 (2010) 498–507. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181c6b9b2.[17] M.G. Larach, A.R. Localio, G.C. Allen, M.A. Denborough, F.R. Ellis, G.A. Gronert, R.F. Kaplan, S.M. Muldoon, T.E. Nelson, H. Ording, H. Rosenberg, B.E. Waud, D.J. Wedel, A Clinical Grading Scale to Predict Malignant Hyperthermia Susceptibility, Anesthesiology 80 (1994) 771–779. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199404000-00008.[18] D. Schneiderbanger, S. Johannsen, N. Roewer, F. Schuster, Management of malignant hyperthermia: diagnosis and treatment, Ther. Clin. Risk Manag 10 (2014) 355–362. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S47632.[19] R. Robinson, D. Carpenter, M.-A. Shaw, J. Halsall, P. Hopkins, Mutations in RYR1 in malignant hyperthermia and central core disease, Hum. Mutat 27 (2006) 977–989. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.20356.[20] M.L. Alvarellos, R.M. Krauss, R.A. Wilke, R.B. Altman, T.E. Klein, PharmGKB summary: very important pharmacogene information for RYR1, Pharmacogenet. Genomics 26 (2016) 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1097/FPC.0000000000000198.[21] A. Merritt, P. Booms, M.-A. Shaw, D.M. Miller, C. Daly, J.G. Bilmen, K.M. Stowell, P.D. Allen, D.S. Steele, P.M. Hopkins, Assessing the pathogenicity of RYR1 variants in malignant hyperthermia, BJA Br. J. Anaesth 118 (2017) 533–543. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aex042.[22] P.M. Hopkins, H. Rüffert, M.M. Snoeck, T. Girard, K.P.E. Glahn, F.R. Ellis, C.R. Müller, A. Urwyler, European Malignant Hyperthermia Group, European Malignant Hyperthermia Group guidelines for investigation of malignant hyperthermia susceptibility, Br. J. Anaesth 115 (2015) 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev225.[23] N.T. Thuy, L.N. Thanh, N.T.T. Mau, N.H. Hoang, N.T.K. Lien, D.D. Long, N.T. Bình, D.A. Tien, N.C. Huu, N.T. Hieu, P.T.H. Nhung, V.T. Thom, Whole exome sequencing revealed a pathogenic variant in a gene related to malignant hyperthermia in a Vietnamese cardiac surgical patient: A case report, Ann. Med. Surg 48 (2019) 88–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2019.10.030.[24] B. Neuhuber, U. Gerster, F. Döring, H. Glossmann, T. Tanabe, B.E. Flucher, Association of calcium channel α1S and β1a subunits is required for the targeting of β1a but not of α1S into skeletal muscle triads, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 95 (1998) 5015–5020. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.9.5015.[25] M. Whirl-Carrillo, E.M. McDonagh, J.M. Hebert, L. Gong, K. Sangkuhl, C.F. Thorn, R.B. Altman, T.E. Klein, Pharmacogenomics Knowledge for Personalized Medicine, Clin. Pharmacol. Ther 92 (2012) 414–417. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2012.96.[26] N. Monnier, V. Procaccio, P. Stieglitz, J. Lunardi, Malignant-hyperthermia susceptibility is associated with a mutation of the alpha 1-subunit of the human dihydropyridine-sensitive L-type voltage-dependent calcium-channel receptor in skeletal muscle, Am. J. Hum. Genet 60 (1997) 1316–1325 . https://doi.org/10.1086/515454.[27] S.L. Stewart, K. Hogan, H. Rosenberg, J.E. Fletcher, Identification of the Arg1086His mutation in the alpha subunit of the voltage-dependent calcium channel (CACNA1S) in a North American family with malignant hyperthermia, Clin. Genet 59 (2001) 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399 0004.2001.590306.x.[28] P.J. Toppin, T.T. Chandy, A. Ghanekar, N. Kraeva, W.S. Beattie, S. Riazi, A report of fulminant malignant hyperthermia in a patient with a novel mutation of the CACNA1S gene, Can. J. Anaesth. J. Can. Anesth 57 (2010) 689–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-010-9314-4.[29] E.J. Horstick, J.W. Linsley, J.J. Dowling, M.A. Hauser, K.K. McDonald, A. Ashley-Koch, L. Saint-Amant, A. Satish, W.W. Cui, W. Zhou, S.M. Sprague, D.S. Stamm, C.M. Powell, M.C. Speer, C. Franzini-Armstrong, H. Hirata, J.Y. Kuwada, Stac3 is a component of the excitation-contraction coupling machinery and mutated in Native American myopathy, Nat. Commun 4 (2013) 1952. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2952.[30] D.S. Stamm, A.S. Aylsworth, J.M. Stajich, S.G. Kahler, L.B. Thorne, M.C. Speer, C.M. Powell, Native American myopathy: Congenital myopathy with cleft palate, skeletal anomalies, and susceptibility to malignant hyperthermia, Am. J. Med. Genet. A 146A (2008) 1832–1841. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.32370.[31] A. Polster, B.R. Nelson, S. Papadopoulos, E.N. Olson, K.G. Beam, Stac proteins associate with the critical domain for excitation–contraction coupling in the II–III loop of CaV1.1, J. Gen. Physiol 150 (2018) 613–624. https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.201711917.[32] S.M. Wong King Yuen, M. Campiglio, C.-C. Tung, B.E. Flucher, F. Van Petegem, Structural insights into binding of STAC proteins to voltage-gated calcium channels, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 114 (2017) E9520–E9528. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708852114.[33] M. Grabner, R.T. Dirksen, N. Suda, K.G. Beam, The II-III loop of the skeletal muscle dihydropyridine receptor is responsible for the Bi-directional coupling with the ryanodine receptor, J. Biol. Chem 274 (1999) 21913–21919. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.274.31.21913.[34] J. Nakai, T. Tanabe, T. Konno, B. Adams, K.G. Beam, Localization in the II-III loop of the dihydropyridine receptor of a sequence critical for excitation-contraction coupling, J. Biol. Chem 273 (1998) 24983–24986. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.273.39.24983.[35] C.J. Morton, I.D. Campbell, SH3 domains. Molecular “Velcro,” Curr. Biol. CB 4 (1994) 615–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00134-2.[36] A. Zafra-Ruano, I. Luque, Interfacial water molecules in SH3 interactions: Getting the full picture on polyproline recognition by protein-protein interaction domains, FEBS Lett 586 (2012) 2619–2630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2012.04.057.

Meiosis is one of the defining events in gametogenesis. Male and female germ cells both undergo one round of meiotic cell division during their development in order to reduce the ploidy of the gametes, and thereby maintain the ploidy of the species after fertilisation. However, there are some aspects of meiosis in the female germline, such as the prolonged arrest in dictyate, that appear to predispose oocytes to missegregate their chromosomes and transmit aneuploidies to the next generation. These maternally-derived aneuploidies are particularly problematic in humans where they are major contributors to miscarriage, age-related infertility, and the high incidence of Down's syndrome in human conceptions. This review will discuss how events that occur in foetal oocyte development and during the oocytes’ prolonged dictyate arrest can influence meiotic chromosome segregation and the incidence of aneuploidy in adult oocytes.

Mobilization of retrotransposons to new genomic locations is a significant driver of mammalian genome evolution, but these mutagenic events can also cause genetic disorders. In humans, retrotransposon mobilization is mediated primarily by proteins encoded by LINE-1 (L1) retrotransposons, which mobilize in pluripotent cells early in development. Here we show that TEX19.1, which is induced by developmentally programmed DNA hypomethylation, can directly interact with the L1-encoded protein L1-ORF1p, stimulate its polyubiquitylation and degradation, and restrict L1 mobilization. We also show that TEX19.1 likely acts, at least in part, through promoting the activity of the E3 ubiquitin ligase UBR2 towards L1-ORF1p. Moreover, loss of Tex19.1 increases L1-ORF1p levels and L1 mobilization in pluripotent mouse embryonic stem cells, implying that Tex19.1 prevents de novo retrotransposition in the pluripotent phase of the germline cycle. These data show that post-translational regulation of L1 retrotransposons plays a key role in maintaining trans-generational genome stability in mammals.

D. H. Maclennan, M. Abu-Abed and Chulhee Kang. Structure–Function Relationships in Ca2+ Cycling Proteins. Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology (2002) 34, 897–918.

The viability of any species requires that the genome is kept stable as it is transmitted from generation to generation by the germ cells. One of the challenges to transgenerational genome stability is the potential mutagenic activity of transposable genetic elements, particularly retrotransposons. There are many different types of retrotransposon in mammalian genomes, and these target different points in germline development to amplify and integrate into new genomic locations. Germ cells, and their pluripotent developmental precursors, have evolved a variety of genome defence mechanisms that suppress retrotransposon activity and maintain genome stability across the generations. Here, we review recent advances in understanding how retrotransposon activity is suppressed in the mammalian germline, how genes involved in germline genome defence mechanisms are regulated, and the consequences of mutating these genome defence genes for the developing germline.