| Literature DB >> 33196013 |
Diletta Fontana1, Daniele Ramazzotti1, Andrea Aroldi1,2, Sara Redaelli1, Vera Magistroni1, Alessandra Pirola3, Antonio Niro1, Luca Massimino1, Cristina Mastini1, Virginia Brambilla4, Silvia Bombelli1, Silvia Bungaro5, Alessandro Morotti6, Delphine Rea7, Fabio Stagno8, Bruno Martino9, Leonardo Campiotti10, Giovanni Caocci11, Emilio Usala12, Michele Merli13, Francesco Onida14, Marco Bregni15, Elena Maria Elli2, Monica Fumagalli2, Fabio Ciceri16, Roberto A Perego1, Fabio Pagni4, Luca Mologni1, Rocco Piazza1,2, Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini1,2.
Abstract
Atypical chronic myeloid leukemia (aCML) is a BCR-ABL1-negative clonal disorder, which belongs to the myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative group. This disease is characterized by recurrent somatic mutations in SETBP1, ASXL1 and ETNK1 genes, as well as high genetic heterogeneity, thus posing a great therapeutic challenge. To provide a comprehensive genomic characterization of aCML we applied a high-throughput sequencing strategy to 43 aCML samples, including both whole-exome and RNA-sequencing data. Our dataset identifies ASXL1, SETBP1, and ETNK1 as the most frequently mutated genes with a total of 43.2%, 29.7 and 16.2%, respectively. We characterized the clonal architecture of 7 aCML patients by means of colony assays and targeted resequencing. The results indicate that ETNK1 variants occur early in the clonal evolution history of aCML, while SETBP1 mutations often represent a late event. The presence of actionable mutations conferred both ex vivo and in vivo sensitivity to specific inhibitors with evidence of strong in vitro synergism in case of multiple targeting. In one patient, a clinical response was obtained. Stratification based on RNA-sequencing identified two different populations in terms of overall survival, and differential gene expression analysis identified 38 significantly overexpressed genes in the worse outcome group. Three genes correctly classified patients for overall survival.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33196013 PMCID: PMC7655091 DOI: 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000497
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hemasphere ISSN: 2572-9241
Figure 1Oncoprint. Oncoprint showing somatic mutations for a panel of 12 genes in 37 patients.
Figure 2Colony formation assay. X axis represents different treatments and Y axis represents total number of colonies formed, normalized to 100 (colony counts in control conditions). Results are shown as the mean± s.d. (n = 2). (A) Patient CMLPh-003 carrying NRAS G12R mutation. (B) Patient CMLPh-006 carrying KRAS A146 V mutation. (C) Patient CMLPh-039 carrying NRAS G12R mutation. (D) Patient CMLPh-010 carrying KIT D816 V mutation. (E) Patient CMLPh-040 carrying CSF3R T618I mutation.
Figure 3Clonal architecture of aCML patients. Schematic representation of the clonal architecture of 7 aCML patients whose bone marrow mononuclear cells were grown in semisolid medium and underwent targeted resequencing based on previously identified somatic mutations. CBLhet indicates a heterozygous somatic mutation; CBLhom indicates a homozygous somatic CBL mutation.
Figure 4Effects of trametinib and phosphoethanolamine in patient CMLPh-042. (A) Colony-forming assay at the onset: bone marrow derived cells were left untreated or treated with phosphoethanolamine 1 mm, trametinib 10 nM, trametinib 100 nM, or combination of the two drugs. Colonies were counted after 15 days. (B) Colony-forming assay performed at relapse after treatment with trametinib 1 mg/day.(C) Number of colonies at the onset. (D) Number of colonies at relapse.
Figure 5In-vivo experiments. (A) Overall survival (OS) of mice treated with 1 mg/kg trametinib by oral gavage once a day (red line) as compared with controls (black line). OS were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier plot and the log-rank test. (B) Analysis of human CD45 cells in peripheral blood assessed by flow cytometry in PDX models treated with 1 mg/kg trametinib compared to controls. Representative plots are shown. (C) Immunohistochemistry (human CD45 expression) of bone and spleen PDX models treated with 1 mg/kg trametinib by oral gavage once a day compared to controls. Representative images are shown. Scale bar: 200 μm.
Figure 6Overall survival curve (Kaplan-Meier curve). Overall survival curve censored at 24 months shows significantly different outcomes (low-rank p = 0.004).
Figure 7Gene ontology and pathway heatmaps. (A) Heatmap showing expression for a set of selected cancer-related GO terms is presented. (B) Heatmap showing expression for a set of selected cancer-related pathways is presented.
Differentially expressed genes between the two clusters of patients.
| Gene Name | Median Good Prognosis | Median Bad Prognosis | Log2 fold change Good prognosis/Bad prognosis | p value Two-Sided | OncoScore | Is Oncogene? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54.50 | 185.00 | −1.76 | 0.00004 | 50.49 | 1 | |
| 60.50 | 184.00 | −1.60 | 0.00407 | 75.65 | 1 | |
| 203.00 | 802.00 | −1.98 | 0.00074 | 74.80 | 1 | |
| 20.50 | 78.00 | −1.93 | 0.00317 | 30.00 | 1 | |
| 199.50 | 532.00 | −1.42 | 0.00006 | 33.33 | 1 | |
| 18.00 | 95.00 | −2.40 | 0.00003 | 45.99 | 1 | |
| 138.00 | 430.00 | −1.64 | 0.00200 | 45.75 | 1 | |
| 119.00 | 304.00 | −1.35 | 0.00048 | 72.57 | 1 | |
| 24.50 | 99.00 | −2.01 | 0.03693 | 42.60 | 1 | |
| 78.50 | 227.00 | −1.53 | 0.00029 | 0.00 | 0 | |
| 57.50 | 274.00 | −2.25 | 0.00010 | 52.13 | 1 | |
| 26.50 | 318.00 | −3.58 | 0.00188 | 44.21 | 1 | |
| 31.00 | 348.00 | −3.49 | 0.00203 | 44.22 | 1 | |
| 175.50 | 502.00 | −1.52 | 0.00103 | 34.94 | 1 | |
| 84.50 | 376.00 | −2.15 | 0.00225 | 70.66 | 1 | |
| 825.00 | 2040.00 | −1.31 | 0.00686 | 31.55 | 1 | |
| 614.00 | 1830.00 | −1.58 | 0.00136 | 78.73 | 1 | |
| 160.50 | 445.00 | −1.47 | 0.00005 | 41.29 | 1 | |
| 136.50 | 722.00 | −2.40 | 0.00880 | 31.28 | 1 | |
| 216.00 | 598.00 | −1.47 | 0.00053 | 88.03 | 1 | |
| 212.50 | 599.00 | −1.50 | 0.00017 | 55.23 | 1 | |
| 177.50 | 1031.00 | −2.54 | 0.00095 | 69.59 | 1 | |
| 13.00 | 79.00 | −2.60 | 0.00165 | 82.83 | 1 | |
| 323.50 | 960.00 | −1.57 | 0.00224 | 61.57 | 1 | |
| 329.50 | 1437.00 | −2.12 | 0.00227 | 56.94 | 1 | |
| 34.50 | 186.00 | −2.43 | 0.00173 | 79.54 | 1 | |
| 3.00 | 27.00 | −3.17 | 0.00371 | 50.88 | 1 | |
| 3.50 | 23.00 | −2.72 | 0.00122 | 12.07 | 0 | |
| 196.00 | 485.00 | −1.31 | 0.00005 | 14.73 | 0 | |
| 34.00 | 126.00 | −1.89 | 0.00004 | 12.30 | 0 | |
| 22.50 | 58.00 | −1.37 | 0.00460 | 80.49 | 1 | |
| 21.00 | 50.00 | −1.25 | 0.00734 | 58.62 | 1 | |
| 29.50 | 101.00 | −1.78 | 0.00059 | 18.08 | 0 | |
| 264.50 | 608.00 | −1.20 | 0.00172 | 80.79 | 1 | |
| 62.50 | 525.00 | −3.07 | 0.00057 | 74.33 | 1 | |
| 223.00 | 769.00 | −1.79 | 0.00005 | 47.38 | 1 | |
| 16.00 | 190.00 | −3.57 | 0.00019 | 50.28 | 1 | |
| 159.00 | 608.00 | −1.94 | 0.00006 | 90.62 | 1 |
The table reports a list of 38 genes significantly higher expressed in the cluster with bad prognosis. Median expression values for the 2 clusters, Log2 fold change Good vs Bad prognosis, and t-tests to assess their differences are also reported. Their OncoScore as well as their classification as oncogenes (marked as 1 in the table) are presented.
Figure 8Heatmap showing fold change for the threetop differentially expressed genes used to classify good vs bad prognosis subtypes is presented.