METHODS: Freshly isolated mouse BM cells were initially exposed to 1,4-BQ at 1.25 to 5 µM for 24 h, followed by miRNAs and TF studies in BM cells. Then, the miRNAs expression was further evaluated in HSPCs of different lineages comprised of myeloid, erythroid and pre-B lymphoid progenitors following 7-14 days of colony forming unit (CFU) assay.
RESULTS: Exposure to 1,4-BQ in BM cells significantly (p
AIM: To investigate the correlation of HOXA4 and HOXA5 promoter DNA hypermethylation with imatinib resistance among CML patients.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Samples from 175 Philadelphia positive CML patients (83 good response and 92 BCR-ABL non-mutated imatinib resistant patients) were subjected to Methylation Specific High Resolution Melt Analysis for methylation levels quantification of the HOXA4 and HOXA5 promoter regions. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was done to elucidate the optimal methylation cut-off point followed by multiple logistic regression analysis. Log-Rank analysis was done to measure the overall survival difference between CML groups. The optimal methylation cut-off point was found to be at 62.5% for both HOXA4 and HOXA5. Chronic myeloid leukemia patients with ≥63% HOXA4 and HOXA5 methylation level were shown to have 3.78 and 3.95 times the odds, respectively, to acquire resistance to imatinib. However, overall survival of CML patients that have ≤62% and ≥ 63% methylation levels of HOXA4 and HOXA5 genes were found to be not significant (P-value = 0.126 for HOXA4; P-value = 0.217 for HOXA5).
CONCLUSION: Hypermethylation of the HOXA4 and HOXA5 promoter is correlated with imatinib resistance and with further investigation, it could be a potential epigenetic biomarker in supplement to the BCR-ABL gene mutation in predicting imatinib treatment response among CML patients but could not be considered as a prognostic marker.
METHODS: We analysed expression of NFIA and NFIB in mRNA expression data of high-grade astrocytoma and with immunofluorescence co-staining. Furthermore, we induced NFI expression in patient-derived subcutaneous glioblastoma xenografts via in vivo electroporation.
RESULTS: The expression of NFIA and NFIB is reduced in glioblastoma as compared to lower grade astrocytomas. At a cellular level, their expression is associated with differentiated and mature astrocyte-like tumour cells. In vivo analyses consistently demonstrate that expression of either NFIA or NFIB is sufficient to promote tumour cell differentiation in glioblastoma xenografts.
CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that both NFIA and NFIB may have an endogenous pro-differentiative function in astrocytomas, similar to their role in normal astrocyte differentiation. Overall, our study establishes a basis for further investigation of targeting NFI-mediated differentiation as a potential differentiation therapy.