| Literature DB >> 34109125 |
Stefano Ratti1, Camilla Evangelisti1, Sara Mongiorgi1, Alessia De Stefano1, Antonietta Fazio1, Francesca Bonomini1, Matilde Y Follo1, Irene Faenza1, Lucia Manzoli1, Bhavwanti Sheth2, Magdalena C Vidalle2, Scott T Kimber2, Nullin Divecha2, Lucio Cocco1, Roberta Fiume1.
Abstract
Polyphosphoinositides (PPIns) and their modulating enzymes are involved in regulating many important cellular functions including proliferation, differentiation or gene expression, and their deregulation is involved in human diseases such as metabolic syndromes, neurodegenerative disorders and cancer, including Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML). Given that PPIns regulating enzymes are highly druggable targets, several studies have recently highlighted the potential of targeting them in AML. For instance many inhibitors targeting the PI3K pathway are in various stages of clinical development and more recently other novel enzymes such as PIP4K2A have been implicated as AML targets. PPIns have distinct subcellular organelle profiles, in part driven by the specific localisation of enzymes that metabolise them. In particular, in the nucleus, PPIns are regulated in response to various extracellular and intracellular pathways and interact with specific nuclear proteins to control epigenetic cell state. While AML does not normally manifest with as many mutations as other cancers, it does appear in large part to be a disease of dysregulation of epigenetic signalling and many novel therapeutics are aimed at reprogramming AML cells toward a differentiated cell state or to one that is responsive to alternative successful but limited AML therapies such as ATRA. Here, we propose that by combining bioinformatic analysis with inhibition of PPIns pathways, especially within the nucleus, we might discover new combination therapies aimed at reprogramming transcriptional output to attenuate uncontrolled AML cell growth. Furthermore, we outline how different part of a PPIns signalling unit might be targeted to control selective outputs that might engender more specific and therefore less toxic inhibitory outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: AML; PI3K; PIP4K; PLCB1; bioinformatic; epigenetic; phosphoinositides; transdifferentiation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34109125 PMCID: PMC8181149 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.678824
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1PPIns may be phosphorylated on the 3, 4 and 5 positions to generate seven possible PPIns, each with a different spatial occupancy, that is recognized by different effector proteins. Recruitment of the necessary effector protein is guaranteed by the different accumulation of PPIns in the subcellular compartments. Here are some examples of how different PPIns interact with different effector proteins to convert chemical diversity into diverse functional functions.
Figure 2Schematic representation (on the left side) of PLC activation which hydrolyses PIP2 into DAG and IP3. These last two are intermediate second messengers that can regulate many cell functions such as proliferation, differentiation, signal transduction and gene expression. On the right side, ligand binding to membrane receptor drives PI3K activation and consequent phosphorylation of PIP2 into PIP3 and subsequent activation of the AKT/mTOR pathway. These activated players can as well regulate many cell functions such as proliferation, differentiation, signal transduction and gene expression. PIP3 can be dephosphorylated to PIP2 by phosphatases such as PTEN and SHIP1. Many intermediate players are omitted for figure clarity.
Figure 3In transdifferentiation a somatic cell can pass from a somatic differentiated change to: this process can be achieved by knowing the transcription factors and the epigenetic regulators that can drive this transition. We propose that PPIns, by being able to regulate epigenetic and transcription factors, could help this transition.
Figure 4(A) The TGCA AML patient data base was used to assess survival outcomes with respect to low or high expression of various PPIns modulating enzymes to demonstrate complex signalling and outcomes within enzymes from the same family. As examples we shown that low expression of PIP4K2A, PIP4K2C or MTMR1 is associated with increased survival. Surprisingly however the expression of PIP4K2B, a family member with PIP4K2A and 2C shows survival outcomes that are opposite with respect to its expression. Similar data are observed MTMR4 and 7 where high expression is associated with increased survival in AML. These data suggest that the complexity in PPIns signalling could be exploited to generate modulatory pathways that could be beneficial for AML treatment. (B) A schematic diagram illustrating that PPIns inhibitors could act at 3 points within a PPIns signalling unit: (i) inhibition of the PPIns modulating enzyme will impair all downstream targets and associated gene expression programs (A:L) (ii) inhibition of the activity of a PHD containing protein will likely impair all the genes that the protein regulates (gene A and gene B) or (iii) allosteric inhibition of in the interaction of PPIns with a specific interacting domain will impair selected output which might be tuned to specific pathways and therefore engender less toxic outcomes. In this example inhibition of two PHD domain interactions is shown which impair expression of gene A and gene F.