PURPOSE: The Ewing sarcoma family of tumors (EFT) is characterized by fusions of the EWSR1 gene on chromosome 22q12 with either one of the genes encoding members of the ETS family of transcription factors, in the majority of cases FLI1 or ERG. Many alternative EWSR1-ETS gene fusions have been encountered, due to variations in the locations of the EWSR1 and ETS genomic breakpoints. The resulting heterogeneity in EWSR1-ETS fusion transcripts may further be increased by the occurrence of multiple splice variants within the same tumor. Here we present a retrospective study designed to detect all of the EWSR1-FLI1 and EWSR1-ERG fusion transcripts in a series of 23 fresh frozen EFT tissues. METHODS: RT-PCR and nested fluorescent multiplex PCR were used to amplify EWSR1-FLI1 and EWSR1-ERG transcripts from EFT tissues. Fusion transcripts were identified by laser-induced fluorescent capillary electrophoresis and confirmed by sequence analysis. RESULTS: Nine different EWSR1-FLI1 fusion transcripts and one EWSR1-ERG fusion transcript were identified in 21 out of 23 fresh frozen EFT tissue samples. In five cases multiple fusion transcripts were found to coexist in the same tumor sample. We additionally reviewed previous reports on twelve cases with multiple EWSR1-ETS fusion transcripts. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative splicing may frequently affect the process of EFT-associated fusion gene transcription and, as such, may significantly contribute to the pathogenic role of EFT-associated chromosome translocations. In a considerable number of cases this may result in multiple splice variants within the same tumor.
PURPOSE: The Ewing sarcoma family of tumors (EFT) is characterized by fusions of the EWSR1 gene on chromosome 22q12 with either one of the genes encoding members of the ETS family of transcription factors, in the majority of cases FLI1 or ERG. Many alternative EWSR1-ETS gene fusions have been encountered, due to variations in the locations of the EWSR1 and ETS genomic breakpoints. The resulting heterogeneity in EWSR1-ETS fusion transcripts may further be increased by the occurrence of multiple splice variants within the same tumor. Here we present a retrospective study designed to detect all of the EWSR1-FLI1 and EWSR1-ERG fusion transcripts in a series of 23 fresh frozen EFT tissues. METHODS: RT-PCR and nested fluorescent multiplex PCR were used to amplify EWSR1-FLI1 and EWSR1-ERG transcripts from EFT tissues. Fusion transcripts were identified by laser-induced fluorescent capillary electrophoresis and confirmed by sequence analysis. RESULTS: Nine different EWSR1-FLI1 fusion transcripts and one EWSR1-ERG fusion transcript were identified in 21 out of 23 fresh frozen EFT tissue samples. In five cases multiple fusion transcripts were found to coexist in the same tumor sample. We additionally reviewed previous reports on twelve cases with multiple EWSR1-ETS fusion transcripts. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative splicing may frequently affect the process of EFT-associated fusion gene transcription and, as such, may significantly contribute to the pathogenic role of EFT-associated chromosome translocations. In a considerable number of cases this may result in multiple splice variants within the same tumor.
Authors: Károly Szuhai; Marije Ijszenga; Danielle de Jong; Apollon Karseladze; Hans J Tanke; Pancras C W Hogendoorn Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Janos Sumegi; Jun Nishio; Marilu Nelson; Robert W Frayer; Deborah Perry; Julia A Bridge Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2010-11-26 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Barbara Patócs; Krisztina Németh; Miklós Garami; Gabriella Arató; Ilona Kovalszky; Miklós Szendroi; György Fekete Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Marie-Cecile Le Deley; Olivier Delattre; Karl-Ludwig Schaefer; Sue A Burchill; Gabriele Koehler; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; Thomas Lion; Christopher Poremba; Julien Marandet; Stelly Ballet; Gaelle Pierron; Samantha C Brownhill; Michaela Nesslböck; Andreas Ranft; Uta Dirksen; Odile Oberlin; Ian J Lewis; Alan W Craft; Heribert Jürgens; Heinrich Kovar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Zoubek; B Dockhorn-Dworniczak; O Delattre; H Christiansen; F Niggli; I Gatterer-Menz; T L Smith; H Jürgens; H Gadner; H Kovar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lu Wang; Rohit Bhargava; Tao Zheng; Leonard Wexler; Margaret H Collins; Diane Roulston; Marc Ladanyi Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2007-08-09 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Melissa D Mathias; Alexander J Chou; Paul Meyers; Neerav Shukla; Meera Hameed; Narasimhan Agaram; Lu Wang; Michael F Berger; Michael Walsh; Alex Kentsis Journal: J Pediatr Hematol Oncol Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.289
Authors: Patrick J Grohar; Suntae Kim; Guillermo O Rangel Rivera; Nirmalya Sen; Sara Haddock; Matt L Harlow; Nichole K Maloney; Jack Zhu; Maura O'Neill; Tamara L Jones; Konrad Huppi; Magdalena Grandin; Kristen Gehlhaus; Carleen A Klumpp-Thomas; Eugen Buehler; Lee J Helman; Scott E Martin; Natasha J Caplen Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Anneleen Decock; David Creytens; Steve Lefever; Joni Van der Meulen; Jasper Anckaert; Ariane De Ganck; Jill Deleu; Bram De Wilde; Carolina Fierro; Scott Kuersten; Manuel Luypaert; Isabelle Rottiers; Gary P Schroth; Sandra Steyaert; Katrien Vanderheyden; Eveline Vanden Eynde; Kimberly Verniers; Joke Verreth; Jo Van Dorpe; Jo Vandesompele Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Joanna Przybyl; Katarzyna Kozak; Hanna Kosela; Slawomir Falkowski; Tomasz Switaj; Iwona Lugowska; Anna Szumera-Cieckiewicz; Konrad Ptaszynski; Beata Grygalewicz; Magdalena Chechlinska; Barbara Pienkowska-Grela; Maria Debiec-Rychter; Janusz A Siedlecki; Piotr Rutkowski Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 3.064