Search

Liver progenitor cells have the potential to repair and regenerate a diseased liver. The success of any translational efforts, however, hinges on thorough understanding of the fate of these cells after transplant, especially in terms of long-term safety and efficacy. Here, we report transplantation of a liver progenitor population isolated from human fetal livers into immune-permissive mice with follow-up up to 36 weeks after transplant. We found that human progenitor cells engraft and differentiate into functional human hepatocytes in the mouse, producing albumin, alpha-1-antitrypsin, and glycogen. They create tight junctions with mouse hepatocytes, with no evidence of cell fusion. Interestingly, they also differentiate into functional endothelial cell and bile duct cells. Transplantation of progenitor cells abrogated carbon tetrachloride-induced fibrosis in recipient mice, with downregulation of procollagen and anti-smooth muscle actin. Paradoxically, the degree of engraftment of human hepatocytes correlated negatively with the anti-fibrotic effect. Progenitor cell expansion was most prominent in cirrhotic animals, and correlated with transcript levels of pro-fibrotic genes. Animals that had resolution of fibrosis had quiescent native progenitor cells in their livers. No evidence of neoplasia was observed, even up to 9 months after transplantation. Human fetal liver progenitor cells successfully attenuate liver fibrosis in mice. They are activated in the setting of liver injury, but become quiescent when injury resolves, mimicking the behavior of de novo progenitor cells. Our data suggest that liver progenitor cells transplanted into injured livers maintain a functional role in the repair and regeneration of the liver. S tem C ells 2018;36:103-113 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Backgroud & Aims Gastric cancer (GC) is the third leading cause of global cancer mortality. Adenosine-to-inosine RNA editing is a recently described novel epigenetic mechanism involving sequence alterations at the RNA but not DNA level, primarily mediated by ADAR (adenosine deaminase that act on RNA) enzymes. Emerging evidence suggests a role for RNA editing and ADARs in cancer, however, the relationship between RNA editing and GC development and progression remains unknown. Methods In this study, we leveraged on the next-generation sequencing transcriptomics to demarcate the GC RNA editing landscape and the role of ADARs in this deadly malignancy. Results Relative to normal gastric tissues, almost all GCs displayed a clear RNA misediting phenotype with ADAR1/2 dysregulation arising from the genomic gain and loss of the ADAR1 and ADAR2 gene in primary GCs, respectively. Clinically, patients with GCs exhibiting ADAR1/2 imbalance demonstrated extremely poor prognoses in multiple independent cohorts. Functionally, we demonstrate in vitro and in vivo that ADAR-mediated RNA misediting is closely associated with GC pathogenesis, with ADAR1 and ADAR2 playing reciprocal oncogenic and tumor suppressive roles through their catalytic deaminase domains, respectively. Using an exemplary target gene PODXL (podocalyxin-like), we demonstrate that the ADAR2-regulated recoding editing at codon 241 (His to Arg) confers a loss-of-function phenotype that neutralizes the tumorigenic ability of the unedited PODXL . Conclusions Our study highlights a major role for RNA editing in GC disease and progression, an observation potentially missed by previous next-generation sequencing analyses of GC focused on DNA alterations alone. Our findings also suggest new GC therapeutic opportunities through ADAR1 enzymatic inhibition or the potential restoration of ADAR2 activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

RNA editing introduces nucleotide changes in RNA sequences. Recent studies have reported that aberrant adenosine-to-inosine RNA editing is implicated in cancers. Until now, very few functionally important protein-recoding editing targets have been discovered. Here, we investigated the role of a recently discovered protein-recoding editing target COPA (coatomer subunit α) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Clinical implication of COPA editing was studied in a cohort of 125 HCC patients. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout of the editing site complementary sequence (ECS) was used to delete edited COPA transcripts endogenously. COPA editing-mediated change in its transcript or protein stability was investigated upon actinomycin D or cycloheximide treatment, respectively. Functional difference in tumourigenesis between wild-type and edited COPA (COPA WT vs. COPA I164V) and the exact mechanisms were also studied in cell models and mice. ADAR2 binds to double-stranded RNA formed between edited exon 6 and the ECS at intron 6 of COPA pre-mRNA, causing an isoleucine-to-valine substitution at residue 164. Reduced editing of COPA is implicated in the pathogenesis of HCC, and more importantly, it may be involved in many cancer types. Upon editing, COPAWT switches from a tumour-promoting gene to a tumour suppressor that has a dominant-negative effect. Moreover, COPAI164V may undergo protein conformational change and therefore become less stable than COPAWT. Mechanistically, COPAI164V may deactivate the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway through downregulation of caveolin-1 (CAV1). We uncover an RNA editing-associated mechanism of hepatocarcinogenesis by which downregulation of ADAR2 caused the loss of tumour suppressive COPA I164V and concurrent accumulation of tumour-promoting COPA WT in tumours; a rapid degradation of COPAI164V protein and hyper-activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway further promote tumourigenesis. RNA editing is a process in which RNA is changed after it is made from DNA, resulting in an altered gene product. In this study, we found that RNA editing of a gene known as coatomer subunit α (COPA) is lower in tumour samples and discovered that this editing process changes COPA protein from a tumour-promoting form to a tumour-suppressive form. Loss of the edited COPA promotes the development of liver cancer. • Under-editing of COPA is implicated in the pathogenesis of HCC and may be involved in many cancer types. • COPA undergoes an RNA editing-mediated functional switch from a tumour-promoting gene to a tumour suppressor. • COPAI164V represses the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signalling pathway in HCC. • ADAR2 -mediated COPA editing could prevent tumourigenesis by balancing the turnover of COPA as a pool of COPA WT vs. COPA I164V. • When HCC occurs, downregulation of ADAR2 leads to under-editing of COPA , interrupting this balance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, author uncover death associated protein 3 (DAP3) as a potent repressor of editing and a strong oncogene in cancer. It discusses the suppression of adenosine-to-inosine RNA editome by death associated protein 3 (DAP3) promotes cancer progression. It mentions the negative regulation of editing mechanism by which DAP3 promotes cancer development.

RNA editing introduces nucleotide changes in RNA sequences. Recent studies have reported that aberrant A-to-I RNA editing profiles are implicated in cancers. Albeit changes in expression and activity of ADAR genes are thought to have been responsible for the dysregulated RNA editome in diseases, they are not always correlated, indicating the involvement of secondary regulators. Here, we uncover DAP3 as a potent repressor of editing and a strong oncogene in cancer. DAP3 mainly interacts with the deaminase domain of ADAR2 and represses editing via disrupting association of ADAR2 with its target transcripts. PDZD7 , an exemplary DAP3-repressed editing target, undergoes a protein recoding editing at stop codon [Stop →Trp (W)]. Because of editing suppression by DAP3, the unedited PDZD7 WT , which is more tumorigenic than edited PDZD7 Stop518W , is accumulated in tumors. In sum, cancer cells may acquire malignant properties for their survival advantage through suppressing RNA editome by DAP3., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC).)

Adenosine-to-inosine (A-to-I) RNA editing, catalyzed by Adenosine DeAminases acting on double-stranded RNA(dsRNA) (ADAR), occurs predominantly in the 3' untranslated regions (3'UTRs) of spliced mRNA. Here we uncover an unanticipated link between ADARs (ADAR1 and ADAR2) and the expression of target genes undergoing extensive 3'UTR editing. Using METTL7A (Methyltransferase Like 7A), a novel tumor suppressor gene with multiple editing sites at its 3'UTR, we demonstrate that its expression could be repressed by ADARs beyond their RNA editing and double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) binding functions. ADARs interact with Dicer to augment the processing of pre-miR-27a to mature miR-27a. Consequently, mature miR-27a targets the METTL7A 3'UTR to repress its expression level. In sum, our study unveils that the extensive 3'UTR editing of METTL7A is merely a footprint of ADAR binding, and there are a subset of target genes that are equivalently regulated by ADAR1 and ADAR2 through their non-canonical RNA editing and dsRNA binding-independent functions, albeit maybe less common. The functional significance of ADARs is much more diverse than previously appreciated and this gene regulatory function of ADARs is most likely to be of high biological importance beyond the best-studied editing function. This non-editing side of ADARs opens another door to target cancer., (© The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Nucleic Acids Research.)

Adenosine-to-inosine (A-to-I) RNA editing, the most prevalent mode of transcript modification in higher eukaryotes, is catalysed by the adenosine deaminases acting on RNA (ADARs). A-to-I editing imposes an additional layer of gene regulation as it dictates various aspects of RNA metabolism, including RNA folding, processing, localization and degradation. Furthermore, editing events in exonic regions contribute to proteome diversity as translational machinery decodes inosine as guanosine. Although it has been demonstrated that dysregulated A-to-I editing contributes to various diseases, the precise regulatory mechanisms governing this critical cellular process have yet to be fully elucidated. However, integration of previous studies revealed that regulation of A-to-I editing is multifaceted, weaving an intricate network of auto- and transregulations, including the involvement of virus-originated factors like adenovirus-associated RNA. Taken together, it is apparent that tipping of any regulatory components will have profound effects on A-to-I editing, which in turn contributes to both normal and aberrant physiological conditions. A complete understanding of this intricate regulatory network may ultimately be translated into new therapeutic strategies against diseases driven by perturbed RNA editing events. Herein, we review the current state of knowledge on the regulatory mechanisms governing A-to-I editing and propose the role of other co-factors that may be involved in this complex regulatory process.