Search

Simple Summary: The last decade has seen dramatic changes in cancer treatment. Various methods of the immunotherapy of solid tumors, including treatment with targeted monoclonal antibodies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, bi- or trispecific immune cell enhancers, and antibody derivatives (e.g., antibody–drug conjugates), in addition to adoptive cell transfer or cell therapy, are being actively developed. A number of these approaches target tumor cells directly, while several other strategies aim to neutralize immunosuppressive elements in the tumor microenvironment (TME) and transform TME from immunologically "cold" to "hot". Although many of these approaches have received clinical approval, each has inherent limitations that are considered in this review. Additionally, we discuss recent innovations in immunotherapy to improve clinical efficacy in solid tumors and strategies to overcome the limitations of various immunotherapy. In recent years, the arrival of the immunotherapy industry has introduced the possibility of providing transformative, durable, and potentially curative outcomes for various forms of malignancies. However, further research has shown that there are a number of issues that significantly reduce the effectiveness of immunotherapy, especially in solid tumors. First of all, these problems are related to the protective mechanisms of the tumor and its microenvironment. Currently, major efforts are focused on overcoming protective mechanisms by using different adoptive cell therapy variants and modifications of genetically engineered constructs. In addition, a complex workforce is required to develop and implement these treatments. To overcome these significant challenges, innovative strategies and approaches are necessary to engineer more powerful variations of immunotherapy with improved antitumor activity and decreased toxicity. In this review, we discuss recent innovations in immunotherapy aimed at improving clinical efficacy in solid tumors, as well as strategies to overcome the limitations of various immunotherapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The tandem PHD finger–bromodomain, found in many chromatin-associated proteins, has an important role in gene silencing by the human co-repressor KRAB-associated protein 1 (KAP1). Here we report the three-dimensional solution structure of the tandem PHD finger–bromodomain of KAP1. The structure reveals a distinct scaffold unifying the two protein modules, in which the first helix, αZ, of an atypical bromodomain forms the central hydrophobic core that anchors the other three helices of the bromodomain on one side and the zinc binding PHD finger on the other. A comprehensive mutation-based structure-function analysis correlating transcriptional repression, ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme 9 (UBC9) binding and SUMOylation shows that the PHD finger and the bromodomain of KAP1 cooperate as one functional unit to facilitate lysine SUMOylation, which is required for KAP1 co-repressor activity in gene silencing. These results demonstrate a previously unknown unified function for the tandem PHD finger–bromodomain as an intramolecular small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) E3 ligase for transcriptional silencing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Tandem PHD and bromodomains are often found in chromatin-associated proteins and have been shown to cooperate in gene silencing. Each domain can bind specifically modified histones: the mechanisms of cooperation between these domains are unknown. We show that the PHD domain of the KAP1 corepressor functions as an intramolecular E3 ligase for sumoylation of the adjacent bromodomain. The RING finger-like structure of the PHD domain is required for both Ubc9 binding and sumoylation and directs modification to specific lysine residues in the bromodomain. Sumoylation is required for KAP1-mediated gene silencing and functions by directly recruiting the SETDB1 histone methyltransferase and the CHD3/Mi2 component of the NuRD complex via SUMO-interacting motifs. Sumoylated KAP1 stimulates the histone methyltransferase activity of SETDB1. These data provide a mechanistic explanation for the cooperation of PHD and bromodomains in gene regulation and describe a function of the PHD domain as an intramolecular E3 SUMO ligase. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

MDM2 is a RING domain ubiquitin E3 ligase and a major regulator of the p53 tumor suppressor. MDM2 binds to p53, inactivates p53 transcription function, inhibits p53 acetylation, and promotes p53 degradation. Here, we present evidence that MDM2 interacts with the nuclear corepressor KAP1. The binding is mediated by the N-terminal coiled-coil domain of KAP1 and the central acidic domain of MDM2. KAP1 stimulates formation of p53–HDAC1 complex and inhibits p53 acetylation by interacting with MDM2. Expression of KAP1 cooperates with MDM2 to promote p53 ubiquitination and degradation. The tumor suppressor ARF competes with KAP1 in MDM2 binding; oncogene induction of ARF expression reduces MDM2–KAP1 interaction. Depletion of endogenous KAP1 expression by RNAi stimulates p53 transcriptional activity, sensitizes p53 response to DNA damage, and increases apoptosis. Therefore, MDM2 interaction with KAP1 contributes to p53 functional regulation. ARF may regulate p53 acetylation and stability in part by inhibiting KAP1–MDM2 binding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the article "A KLF4-miRNA-206 Autoregulatory Feedback Loop Can promote or Inhibit Protein Translation depending upon Cell Context," by Chen-Chun Lin, Ling-Zhi Liu, Joseph B. Addison, William F. Wonderlin, Alexey V. Ivanov and J. Michael Ruppert, is presented.

The mammalian Polycomblike protein PHF1 was previously shown to interact with the Polycomb group (PcG) protein Ezh2, a histone methyltransferase whose activity is pivotal in sustaining gene repression during development and in adulthood. As Ezh2 is active only when part of the Polycomb Repressive Complexes (PRC2-PRC4), we examined the functional role of its interaction with PHF1. Chromatin immunoprecipitation experiments revealed that PHF1 resides along with Ezh2 at Ezh2-regulated genes such as the HoxA loci and the non-Hox MYT1 and WNT1 genes. Knockdown of PHF1 or of Ezh2 led to up-regulated HoxA gene expression. Interestingly, depletion of PHF1 did correlate with reduced occupancy of Bmi-1, a PRC1 component. As expected, knockdown of Ezh2 led to reduced levels of its catalytic products H3K27me2/H3K27me3. However, reduced levels of PHF1 also led to decreased global levels of H3K27me3. Notably, the levels of H3K27me3 decreased while those of H3K27me2 increased at the up-regulated HoxA loci tested. Consistent with this, the addition of PHF1 specifically stimulated the ability of Ezh2 to catalyze H3K27me3 but not H3K27me1/H3K27me2 in vitro. We conclude that PHF1 modulates the activity of Ezh2 in favor of the repressive H3K27me3 mark. Thus, we propose that PHF1 is a determinant in PcG-mediated gene repression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nuclear domains called ND10 or PML nuclear bodies contain interferon (IFN)-upregulated proteins like PML and Sp100. Paradoxically, herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) begins its transcriptional cascade at aggregates of ND10-associated proteins, which in turn are destroyed by the HSV-1 immediate-early protein ICP0. While PML is essential in the formation of ND10, the function of Sp100 in the cells' defense against viral infection is unknown. In this study we investigated the potential antiviral effect of IFN-β-induced Sp100. We found that IFN-β treatment leads to a differential accumulation of four Sp100 isoforms in different cell lines. Using an HEK293 cell line derivative, 293-S, producing no detectable amounts of Sp100 even after IFN exposure, we analyzed individual Sp100 isoforms for their effect on HSV-1 infection. Sp100 isoforms B, C, and HMG, but not Sp100A, suppressed ICP0 and ICP4 early after infection. Isoforms B, C, and HMG suppressed expression from the ICP0 promoter in transient transfection, whereas Sp100A enhanced expression. Moreover, Sp100A localized in ND10, whereas the repressive isoforms were either dispersed within the nucleus or, at unphysiologically higher expression levels, formed new aggregates. The repressive activity was dependent on an intact SAND domain, since Sp100B bearing a W655Q mutation in the SAND domain lost this repressive activity and accumulated in ND10. Using RNA interference to knock down the repressive Sp100 isoforms B, C, and HMG, we find that they are an essential part of the IFN-β-mediated suppression of ICP0 expression. These data suggest that repression by the Sp100 isoforms B, C, and HMG takes place outside of ND10 and raise the possibility that viral genomes at Sp100A accumulations are more likely to start their transcription program because of a more permissive local environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]