Literature DB >> 25927994

CARM1 and BAF155: an example of how chromatin remodeling factors can be relocalized and contribute to cancer.

Olafur A Stefansson1,2, Manel Esteller3,4,5.   

Abstract

In a recent article, Wang and colleagues reported the discovery of a mechanism by which CARM1 regulates the genomic localization of BAF155 (a SWI/SNF subunit involved in chromatin remodeling) through post-translational methylation at R1064 arginine residues. This modification leads to the relocalization of BAF155-containing SWI/SNF complexes to regions containing genes involved in the Myc oncogenic pathway. The results presented are evidence that these interactions constitute a mechanism by which the BAF155 chromatin remodeling factor contributes to cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25927994      PMCID: PMC4053224          DOI: 10.1186/bcr3657

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res        ISSN: 1465-5411            Impact factor:   6.466


Background

A consistent finding across various cancer genome sequencing projects is the identification of recurrent mutations in genes known to be functionally involved in processing histone marks or controlling chromatin dynamics. These mutations are collectively referred to as epigenetic genes. As an example, recurrent mutations in breast cancer are found in chromatin remodeling factors such as ARID1A, ARID1B and SMARCD1 [1-4]. These observations reinforce the link between deregulated chromatin remodeling processes and cancer development, as research indicated as far back as the late 1990s [5]. But how? What is the mechanism? Mechanistic insight has been lacking and there is very little direct information to show how deregulated chromatin remodeling, whether through acquired mutations in genes encoding remodeling factors or not, can contribute to cancer [6]. Wang and colleagues recently carried out elaborate experiments that enabled them to identify BAF155 (a subunit of the SWI/SNF complex) as a substrate for CARM1 methyltransferase and to provide insight into the mechanism by which this factor can lead to or enhance the process of cancer origin development and progression [7].

CARM1-mediated methylation of BAF155 at arginine residue R1064

The results presented by Wang and colleagues bring into sharp focus the limitations of RNA interference compared with the advantages of recently developed genome editing techniques for studying the biological activities of enzymes in vivo. Using an experimental system for monitoring the dynamics of arginine methylation, and through short hairpin RNA-mediated knockdown of CARM1 mRNA transcripts (90% reduction) in MCF7 breast cancer cell lines, the authors demonstrate that the RNA interference technique is insufficient to reduce CARM1 methyltransferase functionality. Even very limited expression levels of CARM1 were shown to be sufficient to sustain its methyltransferase activity. Using the zinc finger nuclease technique, CARM1 knockout clones were generated for the MCF7 and MDA-MB-231 breast cancer models and the HEK293T kidney cell line and were validated as CARM1 dysfunctional. By carrying out immunoprecipitation and mass spectrometry, Wang and colleagues identified BAF155 (also known as SMARCC1) as a substrate of CARM1 methyltransferase activity [7]. The authors then demonstrated that methylation of BAF155 at arginine residue R1064 affects the colony-formation capacity of MCF7 breast cancer cells and that this modification is entirely dependent on CARM1. Chromatin immunoprecipitation and high-throughput DNA sequencing of BAF155 further showed that BAF155 arginine methylation dramatically affects its genomic location. Methyl-BAF155 was found to be enriched at genes involved in the c-Myc pathway – well known for its link to carcinogenesis – and to be a potential marker for clinical applications in cancer diagnosis and prognosis.

The clinical value of deregulated chromatin remodeling factors in cancer: a novel therapeutic approach?

In the past few years the field of cancer epigenetics has attracted considerable attention because of its potential in the area of personalized medicine [8]. The results of Wang and colleagues contribute to this purpose by suggesting a potential therapeutic approach for targeting the regulators of chromatin remodeling factors; that is, CARM1 methyltransferase inhibition by small-molecule drug compounds. This would be predicted to inhibit relocalization of BAF155 and thereby abolish its ability to promote the expression of Myc-pathway oncogenes. This therapeutic option could be useful in the context of lowering the risk of disease relapse or, equally relevant, as a cancer-preventative strategy in high-risk groups (for example, in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers). RNA interference knockdown experiments revealed CARM1 be a difficult target, however, so it might be impossible to inhibit the methyltransferase effectively at clinically achievable doses. Nevertheless, it is intriguing that, by targeting post-translational modifiers of chromatin remodeling factors, we could influence whether they occupy genes that confer either oncogenic or tumor-suppressive properties. Several cancer-associated chromatin remodeling factors other than BAF155 have already been identified in breast cancer; for example, ARID1A, ARID1B, SMARCD1, PBRM1, BAF60A and BRG1. Exciting new evidence is emerging from the discovery that ARID1A-mutant cancer cells are highly vulnerable to loss of ARID1B expression [9], and similarly for BRG1/SMARCA4-mutated cancers to the loss of BRM/SMARCA2 [10]. Another notable example in this context includes the development of LSD1 drug inhibitors, since this gene is part of the NuRD-chromatin remodeling complex [11]. In conclusion, the discoveries made by Wang and colleagues are an important source of insight as they not only provide a mechanistic explanation of how deregulated chromatin remodeling factors can contribute to cancer, but also hint at therapeutic potentials that deserve further attention in preclinical research.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
  11 in total

Review 1.  SWI/SNF nucleosome remodellers and cancer.

Authors:  Boris G Wilson; Charles W M Roberts
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2011-06-09       Impact factor: 60.716

2.  An integrated genomic approach identifies ARID1A as a candidate tumor-suppressor gene in breast cancer.

Authors:  A Mamo; L Cavallone; S Tuzmen; C Chabot; C Ferrario; S Hassan; H Edgren; O Kallioniemi; O Aleynikova; E Przybytkowski; K Malcolm; S Mousses; P N Tonin; M Basik
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2011-09-05       Impact factor: 9.867

3.  CARM1 methylates chromatin remodeling factor BAF155 to enhance tumor progression and metastasis.

Authors:  Lu Wang; Zibo Zhao; Mark B Meyer; Sandeep Saha; Menggang Yu; Ailan Guo; Kari B Wisinski; Wei Huang; Weibo Cai; J Wesley Pike; Ming Yuan; Paul Ahlquist; Wei Xu
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2014-01-13       Impact factor: 31.743

4.  A synthetic lethality-based strategy to treat cancers harboring a genetic deficiency in the chromatin remodeling factor BRG1.

Authors:  Takahiro Oike; Hideaki Ogiwara; Yuichi Tominaga; Kentaro Ito; Osamu Ando; Koji Tsuta; Tatsuji Mizukami; Yoko Shimada; Hisanori Isomura; Mayumi Komachi; Koh Furuta; Shun-Ichi Watanabe; Takashi Nakano; Jun Yokota; Takashi Kohno
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 5.  Epigenetic modifications in breast cancer and their role in personalized medicine.

Authors:  Olafur A Stefansson; Manel Esteller
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 4.307

Review 6.  LSD1 inhibition: a therapeutic strategy in cancer?

Authors:  James T Lynch; William J Harris; Tim C P Somervaille
Journal:  Expert Opin Ther Targets       Date:  2012-09-08       Impact factor: 6.902

7.  Truncating mutations of hSNF5/INI1 in aggressive paediatric cancer.

Authors:  I Versteege; N Sévenet; J Lange; M F Rousseau-Merck; P Ambros; R Handgretinger; A Aurias; O Delattre
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1998-07-09       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  The landscape of cancer genes and mutational processes in breast cancer.

Authors:  Philip J Stephens; Patrick S Tarpey; Helen Davies; Peter Van Loo; Chris Greenman; David C Wedge; Serena Nik-Zainal; Sancha Martin; Ignacio Varela; Graham R Bignell; Lucy R Yates; Elli Papaemmanuil; David Beare; Adam Butler; Angela Cheverton; John Gamble; Jonathan Hinton; Mingming Jia; Alagu Jayakumar; David Jones; Calli Latimer; King Wai Lau; Stuart McLaren; David J McBride; Andrew Menzies; Laura Mudie; Keiran Raine; Roland Rad; Michael Spencer Chapman; Jon Teague; Douglas Easton; Anita Langerød; Ming Ta Michael Lee; Chen-Yang Shen; Benita Tan Kiat Tee; Bernice Wong Huimin; Annegien Broeks; Ana Cristina Vargas; Gulisa Turashvili; John Martens; Aquila Fatima; Penelope Miron; Suet-Feung Chin; Gilles Thomas; Sandrine Boyault; Odette Mariani; Sunil R Lakhani; Marc van de Vijver; Laura van 't Veer; John Foekens; Christine Desmedt; Christos Sotiriou; Andrew Tutt; Carlos Caldas; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Samuel A J R Aparicio; Anne Vincent Salomon; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Andrea L Richardson; Peter J Campbell; P Andrew Futreal; Michael R Stratton
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-09-23       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types.

Authors:  Cyriac Kandoth; Michael D McLellan; Fabio Vandin; Kai Ye; Beifang Niu; Charles Lu; Mingchao Xie; Qunyuan Zhang; Joshua F McMichael; Matthew A Wyczalkowski; Mark D M Leiserson; Christopher A Miller; John S Welch; Matthew J Walter; Michael C Wendl; Timothy J Ley; Richard K Wilson; Benjamin J Raphael; Li Ding
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 49.962

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.