Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Alerts
  • Advertising/recruitment
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Author's Takes
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • 100th Anniversary of Insulin's Discovery (Jan 2021)
    • Hypoxia-inducible factors in disease pathophysiology and therapeutics (Oct 2020)
    • Latency in Infectious Disease (Jul 2020)
    • Immunotherapy in Hematological Cancers (Apr 2020)
    • Big Data's Future in Medicine (Feb 2020)
    • Mechanisms Underlying the Metabolic Syndrome (Oct 2019)
    • Reparative Immunology (Jul 2019)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • Recently published
    • In-Press Preview
    • Commentaries
    • Concise Communication
    • Editorials
    • Viewpoint
    • Top read articles
  • Clinical Medicine
  • JCI This Month
    • Current issue
    • Past issues

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Author's Takes
  • Recently published
  • In-Press Preview
  • Commentaries
  • Concise Communication
  • Editorials
  • Viewpoint
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Alerts
  • Advertising/recruitment
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
Differential impact of RB status on E2F1 reprogramming in human cancer
Christopher McNair, … , Myles Brown, Karen E. Knudsen
Christopher McNair, … , Myles Brown, Karen E. Knudsen
Published December 4, 2017
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2018;128(1):341-358. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI93566.
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Cell biology Oncology

Differential impact of RB status on E2F1 reprogramming in human cancer

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

The tumor suppressor protein retinoblastoma (RB) is mechanistically linked to suppression of transcription factor E2F1-mediated cell cycle regulation. For multiple tumor types, loss of RB function is associated with poor clinical outcome. RB action is abrogated either by direct depletion or through inactivation of RB function; however, the basis for this selectivity is unknown. Here, analysis of tumor samples and cell-free DNA from patients with advanced prostate cancer showed that direct RB loss was the preferred pathway of disruption in human disease. While RB loss was associated with lethal disease, RB-deficient tumors had no proliferative advantage and exhibited downstream effects distinct from cell cycle control. Mechanistically, RB loss led to E2F1 cistrome expansion and different binding specificity, alterations distinct from those observed after functional RB inactivation. Additionally, identification of protumorigenic transcriptional networks specific to RB loss that were validated in clinical samples demonstrated the ability of RB loss to differentially reprogram E2F1 in human cancers. Together, these findings not only identify tumor-suppressive functions of RB that are distinct from cell cycle control, but also demonstrate that the molecular consequence of RB loss is distinct from RB inactivation. Thus, these studies provide insight into how RB loss promotes disease progression, and identify new nodes for therapeutic intervention.

Authors

Christopher McNair, Kexin Xu, Amy C. Mandigo, Matteo Benelli, Benjamin Leiby, Daniel Rodrigues, Johan Lindberg, Henrik Gronberg, Mateus Crespo, Bram De Laere, Luc Dirix, Tapio Visakorpi, Fugen Li, Felix Y. Feng, Johann de Bono, Francesca Demichelis, Mark A. Rubin, Myles Brown, Karen E. Knudsen

×

Figure 1

RB loss is frequent in CRPC and can be detected in circulating tumor DNA.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
RB loss is frequent in CRPC and can be detected in circulating tumor DNA...
(A) Mutual exclusivity plot indicating presence or absence of multiple alterations with each sample in the SU2C cohort (left) and frequency of indicated alterations in SU2C CRPC cohort (n = 144, right). CNA, copy number alteration. (B) Prevalence of specific RB alterations. (C) Schematic of ctDNA collection and sequencing of CRPC samples by the Karolinska Institute (top) and copy number alterations in RB pathway genes identified within the Karolinska ctDNA cohort through sequencing of a 1.3-Mb panel (bottom left) and prevalence of specific RB alterations (bottom right).
Follow JCI:
Copyright © 2021 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts