Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Journal Sections
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Precision Medicine and Therapeutic Resistance
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immuno-oncology
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
    • Journal Press Releases
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • 10th Anniversary
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Discovery
Cancer Discovery
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Journal Sections
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Precision Medicine and Therapeutic Resistance
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immuno-oncology
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
    • Journal Press Releases
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • 10th Anniversary
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Review

Misregulation of Pre-mRNA Alternative Splicing in Cancer

Jian Zhang and James L. Manley
Jian Zhang
Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James L. Manley
Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-0253 Published November 2013
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Alternative splicing of mRNA precursors enables one gene to produce multiple protein isoforms with differing functions. Under normal conditions, this mechanism is tightly regulated in order for the human genome to generate proteomic diversity sufficient for the functional requirements of complex tissues. When deregulated, however, cancer cells take advantage of this mechanism to produce aberrant proteins with added, deleted, or altered functional domains that contribute to tumorigenesis. Here, we discuss aspects of alternative splicing misregulation in cancer, focusing on splicing events affected by deregulation of regulatory splicing factors and also recent studies identifying mutated components of the splicing machinery.

Significance: An increasing body of evidence indicates that aberrant splicing of mRNA precursors leads to production of aberrant proteins that contribute to tumorigenesis. Recent studies show that alterations in cellular concentrations of regulatory splicing factors and mutations in components of the core splicing machinery provide major mechanisms of misregulation of mRNA splicing in cancer. A better understanding of this misregulation will potentially reveal a group of novel drug targets for therapeutic intervention. Cancer Discov; 3(11); 1228–37. ©2013 AACR.

Introduction

The vast majority of protein-coding genes in humans contain multiple exons. Splicing of mRNA precursors (pre-mRNA), the removal of introns and the joining of flanking exons, is a fundamental step in the production of the encoded protein. Although the splicing of individual exons must be precise, the selection of exons to be included in the final mRNA allows a certain degree of plasticity. Alternative use of exons, or alternative splicing, enables a single gene to produce multiple mRNA variants. More than 90% of human genes produce transcripts that are alternatively spliced (1, 2), and 60% of the splice variants encode distinct protein isoforms (3). Protein isoforms of a given gene can have different or even opposing functions (4, 5). Thus, alternative splicing is considered to be a major mechanism for generating proteomic diversity (6).

Regulation of alternative splicing is tightly controlled during normal tissue differentiation (7, 8). Misregulation of alternative splicing can lead to production of aberrant protein isoforms, which may contribute to diseases including cancer. Genome-wide studies have revealed more than 15,000 tumor-associated splice variants in a wide variety of cancers (9–11). Computational analysis of tumor-associated splice variants indicates that alternative splicing occurs with genes involved in almost every aspect of cancer cell biology, including proliferation, differentiation, cell-cycle control, metabolism, apoptosis, motility, invasion, and angiogenesis (9). In a functional screen of selected splice variants, it was found that 10% (4 of 41 tested) of alternative splicing events specific to breast and/or ovarian cancers contribute to cancer cell survival (12). Although the functional significance of cancer-specific alternative splicing events is still largely unexplored, the link between aberrant alternative splicing and cancer has been established (4, 13, 14).

Aberrant alternative splicing events often reflect abnormalities in splicing regulation. Pre-mRNA splicing is generally regulated by cis-acting splicing sequences in primary transcripts and trans-acting splicing factors that bind to these RNA sequences (15). Alterations in protein levels and activity of regulatory splicing factors, mutations in cis-acting splicing sequences, and mutations in the core components of the splicing machinery itself may result in aberrant alternative splicing in cancer and contribute to many cancer phenotypes. Here, we discuss recent studies on the misregulation of alternative splicing in cancer. For more insights into the importance and mechanisms of alternative splicing regulation in health and disease, the reader is referred to several excellent reviews (4, 5, 14, 15).

Alternative Splicing Patterns in Cancer

Alternative splicing patterns in cancer cells reflect those found in normal cells. Global analysis of more than 15,000 cancer-specific splice variants in 27 types of cancer shows that the average number of cancer-specific splice variants per gene is smaller than that of tissue-specific splice variants in 35 normal tissues (1.51 vs. 1.99; ref. 9). This is expected, because tissue-specific splice variants are required for generating the necessary proteomic complexities of human tissues, and the splice variants have undergone extensive natural selection during the course of evolution (16, 17). Cancer-specific splice variants, which may bestow survival advantages to cancer cells, often result in rapid death of the human subject that harbors the cancer, and therefore are selected against rather than selected for at the organismal level. Regardless, cancer-specific alternative splicing includes all of the five main alternative splicing patterns observed in normal tissues: cassette exons, alternative 5′ splice sites, alternative 3′ splice sites, intron retention, and mutually exclusive exons (Fig. 1), suggesting that cancer cells and differentiated cells use fundamentally similar splicing mechanisms. To illustrate the alternative splicing patterns that cancer cells use to gain survival advantages, we describe below an exemplary set of functionally important alternative splicing events (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Examples of alternative splicing patterns in cancer. The main alternative splicing patterns in cancer cells include cassette exons (skipping of one exon, skipping of multiple exons, and exon inclusion), alternative 5′ splice sites, alternative 3′ splice sites, intron retention, and mutually exclusive exons. Specific examples discussed in the text are shown.

Cassette Exons: Skipping of One Exon

The RON gene encodes a tyrosine kinase receptor for macrophage-stimulating protein (MSP). Under normal conditions, RON is involved in cell mobility and invasion in response to MSP binding (18, 19). A splice isoform, ΔRON, which lacks exon 11, is overexpressed in a number of cancers (20). Skipping of exon 11 results in the deletion of an extracellular domain that affects the proteolytic maturation of the protein. The truncated ΔRON is constitutively active (even in the absence of its ligand) and promotes cancer invasiveness (21).

Cassette Exons: Skipping of Multiple Exons

BRAF is a proto-oncogene encoding the serine/threonine-protein kinase BRAF, which regulates the mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal–regulated kinase (MAPK/ERK) signaling pathway. An often fatal mutation (V600E) was found in more than half of the patients with malignant melanomas (22). Effective treatment can involve the use of BRAF inhibitors such as PLX4032 (vemurafenib), to which BRAFV600E is sensitive. However, skipping of exons 4–8 during splicing of BRAFV600E transcripts results in an in-frame deletion of the N-terminal RAS-binding domain. The truncated enzyme is insensitive to the inhibitors and therefore confers melanoma cell resistance to the drugs (23).

Cassette Exons: Exon Inclusion

Spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) functions as a tumor suppressor in breast cancer (24), but acts as an oncogene in T-cell lymphomas (25), chronic leukemias (26), and head and neck carcinomas (27). This paradox had not been explained until recently when Prinos and colleagues (12) found that SYK expresses two distinct splice isoforms, a longer SYK(L) and shorter SYK(S) isoform. SYK(L), which includes exon 9 and is found in many cancers, promotes cell survival and tumor malignancy. Switching SYK(L) to SYK(S), which lacks exon 9, induces apoptosis of ovarian cancer cells, whereas a switch in the opposite direction, which can be induced by epidermal growth factor, leads to cancer cell growth.

Alternative 5′ Splice Sites

Alternative splicing of BCL2L1 pre-mRNA (encoding BCL-X) is the best-known example of this pattern. BCL-X belongs to the BCL-2 protein family, whose members form hetero- or homodimers that act as anti- or proapoptotic regulators both in health and in disease (28). BCL2L1 produces two splice isoforms, BCL-XL and BCL-XS, through the alternative use of two competing 5′ splice sites in exon 2 (29). The longer isoform BCL-XL has antiapoptotic effects and is overexpressed in various cancer types (30–32). In contrast, the shorter isoform BCL-XS is proapoptotic and is downregulated in cancer (33).

Alternative 3′ Splice Sites

VEGF is a mitogen that stimulates angiogenesis required for tumor growth (34, 35). Pre-mRNA of VEGF contains eight exons, with two competing 3′ splice sites in exon 8. Alternative use of the 3′ splice sites leads to production of two families of VEGF isoforms (36). Selection of the proximal 3′ splice sites produces one family of isoforms called VEGFxxx, where xxx indicates the number of amino acids on the protein. When the distal 3′ splice sites are used, VEGF produces the other isoform family VEGFxxxb. These two isoform families have opposing functions: VEGFxxx isoforms are proangiogenic and are overexpressed in a number of tumors, whereas VEGFxxxb isoforms are antiangiogenic and downregulated in tumors (36). It is believed that the opposing functions are caused by the distinct C-termini produced by alternative use of the 3′ splice sites. The C-terminus of VEGFxxxb (for example, VEGF165b) fails to bind to its receptor, neurophilin 1, which is required for full activation of VEGF signal transduction (37).

Intron Retention

STAT2 is a transcription factor and a main component of the Janus-activated kinase (JAK)/STAT signaling pathway (38). Upon IFN stimulation, STAT2 dimerizes with STAT1, and the heterodimer translocates to the nucleus and activates transcription of IFN-responsive genes. Through this pathway, IFN induces apoptosis of cancer cells (38). IFN is used as a treatment for many cancers, and is most effective in hematologic malignancies (39). However, cancer cells frequently develop resistance to IFN. Du and colleagues (40) discovered that IFN-resistant cells produce a STAT2 splice variant containing intron 19. This retained intron introduces a stop codon before the Src homology 2 domain, leading to disruption of STAT dimerization.

Mutually Exclusive Exons

Pyruvate kinase M (PKM) is a metabolic enzyme that catalyzes the last step of glycolysis, and alternative splicing of PKM pre-mRNA is critical for tumor metabolism. Tumor cells have long been known for their use of massive amounts of glucose and production of large quantities of lactate, even in the presence of oxygen (aerobic glycolysis or the Warburg effect; ref. 41). Aerobic glycolysis produces ATP less efficiently, but it is believed to promote accumulation of glycolytic intermediates that are channeled to biosynthesis pathways for making new tumor cells. It is now clear that the switch between aerobic glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation is at least partly achieved by alternative splicing of PKM pre-mRNA. PKM has two mutually exclusive exons: exon 9 (E9) and exon 10 (E10). Alternative splicing of these exons results in production of two isoforms: the adult isoform PKM1, which includes E9 but not E10, and the embryonic isoform PKM2, which includes E10 but not E9 (42). PKM2 is ubiquitously expressed in tumors, whereas PKM1 is expressed in differentiated tissues, such as muscle and brain (42–44). Replacing PKM2 with PKM1 in tumor cells reduced lactate production and increased oxidative phosphorylation. When the cells were injected into nude mice, tumor growth was greatly inhibited (44).

Complex Splicing Patterns

Mouse double minute 2 homolog (MDM2) is a negative regulator of the p53 tumor suppressor (45). The MDM2 gene has 12 exons, and alternative splicing of its pre-mRNA involves skipping of one or more exons and use of several cryptic splice sites, leading to production of at least 40 splice variants in various tumors and normal tissues (46). Full-length MDM2 binds to p53, acts as an ubiquitin ligase, and facilitates proteasomal degradation of p53 (47, 48). The functions of most MDM2 splice isoforms are unclear. At least four of the splice isoforms (MDM2-A, -B, -C, and -D) in human cancers lack part of the p53-binding domain, and therefore are unable to bind to and degrade p53 (49). Interestingly, the most frequently expressed tumor isoform, MDM2-B, binds to full-length MDM2 and sequesters it, leading to accumulation of p53. However, the increased p53 activity contrasts with the transforming ability of MDM2-B (49), consistent with a more complex view of MDM2 function (50).

As described above, and in many other instances not discussed here, aberrant alternative splicing in cancer enables individual genes to produce distinct protein isoforms with deleted, added, or altered domains. This in turn brings about different or even opposing functions that contribute to a variety of cancer cell activities such as growth, apoptosis, invasiveness, drug resistance, angiogenesis, and metabolism.

Misregulation of Alternative Splicing in Cancer by Regulatory Splicing Factors

Splicing regulation is essentially the process of selecting splice sites in pre-mRNA transcripts. This process is generally directed by cis-acting regulatory sequences and trans-actingRNA-binding proteins (RBP; ref. 15). Well-studied RBPs include two families: serine/arginine-rich (SR) proteins and heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoproteins (hnRNP; refs. 15, 51–55). SR proteins bind to exonic splicing enhancers (ESE) and intronic splicing enhancers (ISE) and usually promote exon inclusion. In contrast, hnRNPs bind to exonic splicing silencers (ESS) and intronic splicing silencers (ISS) and in most cases lead to exon skipping (15, 51–55). Thus, one major mechanism of alternative splicing misregulation is through alterations in the levels and activity of RBPs. Below we describe a few RBPs that have been implicated in misregulation of alternative splicing in cancer.

SRSF1 (formerly known as ASF/SF2) is perhaps the best-known SR protein, and is involved in both constitutive and regulated splicing as well as other cellular processes. It is upregulated in various human tumors, and its induced overexpression leads to transformation of mammary epithelial cells and immortal rodent fibroblasts, suggesting that it may be a proto-oncogene (56, 57). SRSF1 affects alternative splicing of many target pre-mRNAs, some of which are known to contribute to tumorigenesis. It binds to an ESE in exon 12 of RON and promotes the skipping of exon 11 to produce ΔRON, which enhances cancer invasiveness (20). Overexpression of SRSF1 leads to inclusion of exon 12a of BIN1 (a tumor-suppressor gene), and the resulting isoform loses tumor-suppressor activity due to its inability to interact with MYC (56). In addition, SRSF1 promotes the production of isoform 2 of S6K1 through alternative splicing, and overexpression of this isoform is able to transform NIH3T3 cells (56). SRSF1 also modulates alternative splicing of MNK2 pre-mRNA: overexpression of SRSF1 results in production of the MNK2b isoform, promoting MAPK-independent phosphorylation of the eukaryotic initiation factor eIF4E, which enhances cap-dependent translation and may contribute to oncogenic transformation (56). It has also been shown that SRSF1 can interact directly with mTOR to facilitate phosphorylation of the translation inhibitor 4E-BP, leading to 4E-BP release from eIF4E and activation of translation (58). Recently, Anczukow and colleagues (57) found that SRSF1 stimulates production of isoform BIM γ1, which lacks exons 2 and 3 of BCL2L11 (a proapoptotic BCL-2 family member), and concomitantly downregulates production of BIN1+13, a BIN1 isoform that includes exon 13. Expression of BIM γ1 increased acinar size and decreased apoptosis, whereas expression of isoform BIN1+13 did the opposite. Therefore, it was proposed that BIM γ1 upregulation and BIN1+13 downregulation combined contribute to SRSF1-induced tumorigenesis (57). Recently, it was shown that SRSF1 is regulated by MYC: MYC directly binds to two noncanonical E-boxes in the SRSF1 promoter and activates its transcription. Knockdown of MYC downregulates SRSF1 expression in lung cancer cell lines (59).

SRSF3 (formerly SRp20) is another serine/arginine-rich protein that has been implicated in misregulation of alternative splicing in cancer. It is overexpressed in human cervical, lung, breast, stomach, skin, bladder, colon, liver, thyroid, and kidney cancers (60). Overexpression of SRSF3 leads to transformation of rodent fibroblasts, suggesting that it is a proto-oncogene (60). Knockdown of SRSF3 results in apoptosis of a variety of cancer cells (60, 61). It was shown that knockdown of SRSF3 led to skipping of exon 8 of homeodomain-interacting protein kinase-2 (HIPK2), an antioncogene that induces tumor cell apoptosis. Full-length HIPK2 binds to an E3 ubiquitin ligase (Siah-1) and is constantly degraded, whereas the isoform HIPK2 Δe8, which lacks 27 amino acids, loses the ability to bind to Siah-1 and therefore is resistant to protein degradation. HIPK2 Δe8 still retains antioncogenic activity and therefore induces apoptosis (61). Tang and colleagues (62) provided evidence that SRSF3 also regulates alternative splicing of p53. Binding of SRSF3 to exon i9 of p53 inhibits production of isoform p53β. Downregulation of SRSF3 induces p53β production and promotes cellular senescence. Finally, Wang and colleagues (63) identified an SRSF3-binding site in exon 10 of PKM pre-mRNA and showed that knockdown of SRSF3 resulted in an approximately 20% switch from PKM2 to PKM1 and reduced lactate production.

hnRNP A1 and hnRNP A2 are two structurally and functionally related hnRNPs that likely play a role in cancer. Both proteins are overexpressed in a wide variety of cancers (42, 64, 65). RNA interference (RNAi)–mediated knockdown of hnRNP A1 and A2 (A1/A2) together results in apoptosis in cancer cells, but not in normal cells, suggesting that the two proteins are important for cancer cell growth (64). Golan-Gerstl and colleagues (65) showed that overexpression of hnRNP A2 in NIH3T3 cells induces skipping of RON exon 11 and production of ΔRON. Knockdown of RON inhibited the hnRNP A2-mediated transformation. A recent genome-wide analysis of alternative splicing events using high-throughput sequencing of RNA isolated by cross-linking immunoprecipitation (HITS-CLIP) showed that hnRNP A1 and A2 each potentially regulates more than 2,000 alternative splicing events (66). One important finding is that A1/A2 share many (one third) common targets, one of which is PKM. As mentioned above, deregulation of PKM alternative splicing is known to be critical for glucose metabolism in tumor cells. David and colleagues (42) showed that A1/A2 together with another hnRNP protein, PTB, bind to sequences flanking exon 9 of PKM pre-mRNA, repress E9 inclusion, and promote E10 inclusion. Expression levels of A1/A2 and PTB were found to correlate perfectly with the ratios of PKM2/PKM1 in a number of normal brain and glioma samples. Knockdown of A1/A2 and PTB, or of MYC, which drives their expression, results in switching from PKM2 to PKM1 (42). Consistent with these findings, another study showed that A1/A2 and PTB knockdown leads to a decrease of lactate production in a glioblastoma cell line (43). Chen and colleagues (67) further showed how mechanistically the protein levels of A1/A2 and PTB determine the outcome of PKM alternative splicing: at high levels, A1/A2 and PTB predominantly bind to sites in and around exon 9 to repress E9 inclusion, but when their levels are reduced, their binding shifts to sites flanking exon 10, preventing E10 inclusion.

PTB (also known as hnRNP I) is an hnRNP that binds to polypyrimidine-rich intronic elements and in most cases represses the inclusion of the regulated exon (68). It has been shown that PTB is upregulated in ovarian cancer and gliomas (42, 69, 70). Knockdown of PTB suppresses ovarian tumor cell growth and invasiveness in vitro (70). However, overexpression of PTB in immortalized or normal cells does not enhance proliferation, anchorage-independent growth, or invasion (71), suggesting that PTB may play a necessary, but not transforming, role in tumorigenesis. PTB is known to regulate several alternative splicing events that are relevant to cancer. Binding of PTB to an ISS element in the FGFR1 transcript leads to skipping of the α exon and production of isoform FGFR-1β (72). This truncated receptor has higher affinity for FGF-1 (73), and might facilitate malignant progression of astrocytic tumors (74). PTB also regulates alternative splicing of USP5, a deubiquitinating enzyme whose knockdown can lead to accumulation of p53 (75). Two USP5 isoforms can be generated by use of alternative 5′ splice sites in exon 15. In glioblastoma, high levels of PTB inhibit the proximal 5′ splice site and use of the distal 5′ splice site produces USP5 isoform 2. Switching isoform 2 to isoform 1 using antisense oligonucleotides inhibited growth and migration of two glioblastoma cell lines (69). Genome-wide studies of PTB-regulated alternative splicing events in HeLa cells using HITS-CLIP showed that PTB not only represses but also activates exon inclusion, depending on its binding site location with respect to the regulated exons (68, 76). The functional significance of these PTB-regulated alternative splicing events has not been examined, although one of the PTB targets is an ISS element upstream of exon 9 of PKM (68). As discussed earlier, PTB binds to this ISS and, together with hnRNP A1/A2, regulates PKM alternative splicing (42). The fact that tumor cells overexpress and recruit three different hnRNP proteins to regulate PKM alternative splicing reinforces the importance of producing PKM2 in tumor cells.

hnRNP H has recently been implicated in oncogenesis through the misregulation of alternative splicing of both IG20/MADD and RON pre-mRNAs (77). hnRNP H is upregulated in gliomas and binds to an ESS in exon 16 of IG20/MADD, leading to skipping of exon 16 and production of the MADD isoform, which is necessary and sufficient for cell survival (77). RNAi-mediated knockdown of hnRNP H reverses alternative splicing, producing the exon 16–containing IG20 isoform, and results in cell death of both U373 glioma and HeLa cells, possibly through IG20-triggered caspase-8 activation (78). In addition, hnRNP H binds to a similar ESS in exon 11 of RON and leads to skipping of exon 11 and production of ΔRON, which promotes cell invasiveness (77).

In the above examples, misregulation of alternative splicing occurs in the absence of genetic mutations and, in many cases, without changes in the overall levels of the alternatively spliced transcripts. Switching from one isoform to another is regulated by the levels and activity of RBPs, either individually or in combination. A recent proteomic study revealed as many as 860 RBPs in humans (79). However, only a couple dozen are well studied. A genome-wide analysis shows that each of six tested RBPs binds to multiple sites and more than half of all alternative splicing events are regulated by multiple RBPs (66). It remains a difficult challenge to determine how these hundreds of RBPs cooperate and coordinately regulate the tens of thousands of normal alternative splicing events that are required for tissue differentiation (16, 17, 80). Any misregulation in this process may generate aberrant alternative splicing that leads to serious consequences, such as cancer.

Mutations in the Core Splicing Machinery and Cancer

All of the above studies describe how changes in the intracellular levels of splicing regulatory proteins can contribute to cancer. What was lacking, however, were any examples of mutations in genes encoding splicing proteins that either cause or contribute to neoplastic transformation. A number of recent studies, though, have identified mutations affecting components of the core splicing machinery that play critical roles in neoplasia. Given the importance of these findings to our appreciation of the role of splicing in cancer, we discuss these studies in some detail.

In 2011, Yoshida and colleagues (81) reported recurrent somatic mutations in the genes encoding components of the RNA splicing machinery in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), a diverse group of myeloid neoplasms characterized by an abnormality in myeloid blood cell production and propensity of progression into acute myeloid leukemia. The most frequently mutated genes encode splicing factors SF3B1, U2AF1, SRSF2, and ZRSR2. Mutational frequencies for SF3B1 are particularly high in refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts (RARS) and RARS with thrombocytosis (RARS-T), ranging from 64% to 83% (81–83). SF3B1 is also frequently mutated in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL; refs. 84–86), as well as in uveal melanoma (87, 88). All SF3B1 mutations are heterozygous, and none are nonsense mutations or introduce a frameshift (Fig. 2A). The mechanism through which the splicing factor mutations misregulate RNA splicing and subsequently lead to disease is still unknown. Here, we offer our perspectives.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Splicing factor mutations and aberrant splicing patterns. A, distribution of mutations in SF3B1. B, aberrant splicing with defects in 3′ splice site (ss) recognition. Outcomes of defects in 3′ splice site recognition or utilization are diagrammed.

SF3B1, U2AF1, SRSF2, and ZRSR2 are all involved in the selection of splice sites at the 3′ end of introns. Mutations in these genes most likely reflect defects in 3′ splice site recognition during RNA splicing. As shown in Fig. 2B, defects in 3′ splice site recognition (but with normal 5′ splice site recognition) can result in two 5′ splice sites competing for one 3′ splice site, an alternative splicing pattern that resembles alternative 5′ splice sites. A frequent outcome of alternative 5′ splice sites is the selection of the 5′ splice sites proximal to the downstream 3′ splice sites (89). As a result, the final mRNA product often has retained introns (Fig. 2B). In support of this speculation, Yoshida and colleagues (81) showed that expression of mutant U2AF1 results in large-scale (∼5%) intron retention in HeLa cells. Because introns are rich with stop codons, retained introns frequently introduce into the mRNA premature termination codons that activate nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD), which was observed in the HeLa cells expressing mutant U2AF1 (81). It must be noted that not every intron is retained by 5%, but instead some introns are retained whereas others are not. For example, intron 59 of BIRC6 pre-mRNA is mostly retained, but no retention is found in intron 58 or 60 of the same gene. This “all-or-nothing” (technically “more-or-less”) splicing pattern implies that there is intron sequence specificity for mutant U2AF1. Because most of the mRNAs with retained introns are rapidly degraded by NMD, it is difficult to identify sequence conservation in those degraded introns. Therefore, NMD inhibitors may be useful to help identify the targets of the mutated splicing factors.

Several studies have begun to examine the role of SF3B1 in MDS. Visconte and colleagues (90) showed that knockdown of SF3B1 in K562 cells resulted in retention of introns. However, SF3B1 knockdown did not produce ring sideroblasts, possibly because K562 cells are not able to differentiate along the erythroid lineage. Indeed, in healthy human bone marrow cells, ring sideroblast formation was induced by meayamycin, an SF3B1 inhibitor (90). However, this SF3B1 “haploinsufficiency” hypothesis cannot explain the absence of nonsense and frameshift mutations in SF3B1, which suggests that the mutated protein likely maintains structural integrity, but with altered function. RNA sequencing analysis of samples from one healthy donor and 2 patients with SF3B1 mutations revealed that 130 genes were differentially expressed, of which 94% (an unusually high percentage) had lower expression in patients (90). One explanation for this is that some introns in these genes are retained and the mRNA is rapidly degraded through NMD. Nevertheless, none of these downregulated genes is involved in mitochondrial function or related to the ring sideroblast phenotype. This may reflect the choice of control. Visconte and colleagues used total bone marrow cells from a healthy donor as a control, which contains a mixture of all types of blood cells with unknown cell ratios, making a complex gene expression profile. When purified CD34+ cells were used as a control, Papaemmanuil and colleagues (83) found that key genes in the mitochondrial pathways are downregulated in patients with MDS carrying SF3B1 mutations. In particular, the mitochondrial gene ABCB7 is consistently downregulated in patients with RARS, suggesting that it may be a key mediator of ineffective erythropoiesis of RARS (91). Indeed, Nikpour and colleagues (92) recently showed that reduced expression of ABCB7 in normal bone marrow markedly reduced erythroid differentiation and growth with accumulation of mitochondrial ferritin, a phenotype similar to that observed in intermediate RARS erythroblasts. It remains to be determined how SF3B1 mutations result in downregulation of ABCB7, although it is possible that intron retention followed by NMD contributes.

The link between the splicing gene mutations and clonal expansion of hematopoietic stem cells remains unclear. Expression of mutant U2AF1 leads to death, rather than promoting growth, of both HeLa cells and TF-1 cells in vitro (81). This unexpected result might reflect the fact that the outcome of splicing defects may depend on certain cellular contexts, as knockdown of SF3B1 in K562 does not induce the ring sideroblast phenotype, whereas inhibition of SF3B1 in bone marrow cells does (90). Another unexpected result is that mutant U2AF1 impairs the reconstitution capability, rather than promoting clonal expansion, of mouse CD34+ cells (81). A possible explanation for this stems from the perhaps unexpected differences between mouse and human alternative splicing. Recent studies have shown that mouse alternative splicing is drastically different from human alternative splicing (16, 17). Even though human and mouse splicing factors are almost identical (SF3B1 and SRSF2 are 100%, U2AF1 is 96%, and ZRSR2 is 82% identical between human and mouse), only one quarter of human alternative splicing events were observed in mice (16). Therefore, using mouse models to study human diseases that reflect changes in alternative splicing, or aberrant splicing more generally, may be misleading.

Several other lines of evidence also suggest that the effects of spliceosomal gene mutations may be dependent on cellular contexts. For example, patients with MDS carrying SF3B1 mutations generally have a favorable prognosis, whereas SF3B1 mutations in CLL correlate with poor overall survival and resistance to chemotherapy (85, 86, 93–95). Unlike in adult MDS, spliceosomal mutations are rare in pediatric MDS and juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia (96). In uveal melanoma, SF3B1 mutations are frequent (87, 88), but none of the 85 cutaneous melanomas had an SF3B1 mutation (97). This cellular-context dependency of effects provides an opportunity for developing antitumor drugs: tumor cells and normal cells are known to have different cellular contexts; therefore, modulating the activities of spliceosomal proteins will likely yield different, even opposing, effects. Indeed, spliceosome modulators such as sudemycins, pladienolide B, FR901464, and its derivative spliceostatin A (SSA) have potent toxicity to tumor cell lines, but display little toxicity to normal cells (98–100). It has been shown that FR901464 and SSA bind to the SF3b complex and promote retention of intron 1 of p27, a cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) inhibitor. Translation of the intron 1–containing pre-mRNA leads to production of a C-terminal truncated protein isoform p27*, which is resistant to proteasomal degradation and inhibits CDK2 kinase activity, thereby inhibiting cell growth (101). SSA treatment also leads to intron retention in VEGF and results in reduction of VEGF levels (possibly by NMD), inhibiting cancer cell angiogenesis (102). Although the exact mechanism of selective tumor cytotoxicity remains to be fully explored, one explanation is that growth of cancer cells often relies on oncogenic protein isoforms (arising from alternative splicing), which are lacking in normal cells.

Conclusions

It has become clear that aberrant pre-mRNA alternative splicing is a major contributor to cancer phenotypes. With the rapid advances in high-throughput RNA-sequencing technologies, more cancer-specific alternative splicing events will likely be discovered. However, our understanding of the misregulation of alternative splicing in cancer lags far behind. The past decades have implicated only a handful of RBPs in this process. It remains a challenge to study systematically how the likely hundreds of RBPs (as well as components of the core splicing machinery) coordinately regulate tens of thousands of alternative splicing events in normal tissues and how they misregulate alternative splicing in cancer. Nevertheless, therapeutic intervention targeting either the cancer-specific alternative splicing events themselves or the splicing factors that misregulate them is promising. Given that cancer cells use alternative splicing mechanism to gain survival advantages, it also will be important in the future to explore alternative splicing regulation in still greater depth to find ways to combat cancer.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: J. Zhang, J.L. Manley

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: J. Zhang, J.L. Manley

Grant Support

This work is supported by a grant (R01GM048259; to J.L. Manley) from the NIH. J. Zhang is the recipient of an American Brain Tumor Association Basic Research Fellowship in Honor of Denise Kimball.

  • Received May 29, 2013.
  • Revision received July 11, 2013.
  • Accepted July 19, 2013.
  • ©2013 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Wang ET,
    2. Sandberg R,
    3. Luo S,
    4. Khrebtukova I,
    5. Zhang L,
    6. Mayr C,
    7. et al.
    Alternative isoform regulation in human tissue transcriptomes. Nature 2008;456:470–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Pan Q,
    2. Shai O,
    3. Lee LJ,
    4. Frey BJ,
    5. Blencowe BJ
    . Deep surveying of alternative splicing complexity in the human transcriptome by high-throughput sequencing. Nat Genet 2008;40:1413–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Leoni G,
    2. Le Pera L,
    3. Ferre F,
    4. Raimondo D,
    5. Tramontano A
    . Coding potential of the products of alternative splicing in human. Genome Biol 2011;12:R9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. David CJ,
    2. Manley JL
    . Alternative pre-mRNA splicing regulation in cancer: pathways and programs unhinged. Genes Dev 2010;24:2343–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Kelemen O,
    2. Convertini P,
    3. Zhang Z,
    4. Wen Y,
    5. Shen M,
    6. Falaleeva M,
    7. et al.
    Function of alternative splicing. Gene 2013;514:1–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Nilsen TW,
    2. Graveley BR
    . Expansion of the eukaryotic proteome by alternative splicing. Nature 2010;463:457–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Bland CS,
    2. Wang ET,
    3. Vu A,
    4. David MP,
    5. Castle JC,
    6. Johnson JM,
    7. et al.
    Global regulation of alternative splicing during myogenic differentiation. Nucleic Acids Res 2010;38:7651–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Johnson MB,
    2. Kawasawa YI,
    3. Mason CE,
    4. Krsnik Z,
    5. Coppola G,
    6. Bogdanovic D,
    7. et al.
    Functional and evolutionary insights into human brain development through global transcriptome analysis. Neuron 2009;62:494–509.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. He C,
    2. Zhou F,
    3. Zuo Z,
    4. Cheng H,
    5. Zhou R
    . A global view of cancer-specific transcript variants by subtractive transcriptome-wide analysis. PLoS ONE 2009;4:e4732.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Venables JP,
    2. Klinck R,
    3. Bramard A,
    4. Inkel L,
    5. Dufresne-Martin G,
    6. Koh C,
    7. et al.
    Identification of alternative splicing markers for breast cancer. Cancer Res 2008;68:9525–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Shapiro IM,
    2. Cheng AW,
    3. Flytzanis NC,
    4. Balsamo M,
    5. Condeelis JS,
    6. Oktay MH,
    7. et al.
    An EMT-driven alternative splicing program occurs in human breast cancer and modulates cellular phenotype. PLoS Genet 2011;7:e1002218.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Prinos P,
    2. Garneau D,
    3. Lucier JF,
    4. Gendron D,
    5. Couture S,
    6. Boivin M,
    7. et al.
    Alternative splicing of SYK regulates mitosis and cell survival. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2011;18:673–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Grosso AR,
    2. Martins S,
    3. Carmo-Fonseca M
    . The emerging role of splicing factors in cancer. EMBO Rep 2008;9:1087–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Cooper TA,
    2. Wan L,
    3. Dreyfuss G
    . RNA and disease. Cell 2009;136:777–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Chen M,
    2. Manley JL
    . Mechanisms of alternative splicing regulation: insights from molecular and genomics approaches. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2009;10:741–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Barbosa-Morais NL,
    2. Irimia M,
    3. Pan Q,
    4. Xiong HY,
    5. Gueroussov S,
    6. Lee LJ,
    7. et al.
    The evolutionary landscape of alternative splicing in vertebrate species. Science 2012;338:1587–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Merkin J,
    2. Russell C,
    3. Chen P,
    4. Burge CB
    . Evolutionary dynamics of gene and isoform regulation in Mammalian tissues. Science 2012;338:1593–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Gaudino G,
    2. Follenzi A,
    3. Naldini L,
    4. Collesi C,
    5. Santoro M,
    6. Gallo KA,
    7. et al.
    RON is a heterodimeric tyrosine kinase receptor activated by the HGF homologue MSP. EMBO J 1994;13:3524–32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Wagh PK,
    2. Peace BE,
    3. Waltz SE
    . Met-related receptor tyrosine kinase Ron in tumor growth and metastasis. Adv Cancer Res 2008;100:1–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Ghigna C,
    2. Giordano S,
    3. Shen H,
    4. Benvenuto F,
    5. Castiglioni F,
    6. Comoglio PM,
    7. et al.
    Cell motility is controlled by SF2/ASF through alternative splicing of the Ron protooncogene. Mol Cell 2005;20:881–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Collesi C,
    2. Santoro MM,
    3. Gaudino G,
    4. Comoglio PM
    . A splicing variant of the RON transcript induces constitutive tyrosine kinase activity and an invasive phenotype. Mol Cell Biol 1996;16:5518–26.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Davies H,
    2. Bignell GR,
    3. Cox C,
    4. Stephens P,
    5. Edkins S,
    6. Clegg S,
    7. et al.
    Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature 2002;417:949–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Poulikakos PI,
    2. Persaud Y,
    3. Janakiraman M,
    4. Kong X,
    5. Ng C,
    6. Moriceau G,
    7. et al.
    RAF inhibitor resistance is mediated by dimerization of aberrantly spliced BRAF(V600E). Nature 2011;480:387–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Coopman PJ,
    2. Do MT,
    3. Barth M,
    4. Bowden ET,
    5. Hayes AJ,
    6. Basyuk E,
    7. et al.
    The Syk tyrosine kinase suppresses malignant growth of human breast cancer cells. Nature 2000;406:742–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Feldman AL,
    2. Sun DX,
    3. Law ME,
    4. Novak AJ,
    5. Attygalle AD,
    6. Thorland EC,
    7. et al.
    Overexpression of Syk tyrosine kinase in peripheral T-cell lymphomas. Leukemia 2008;22:1139–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Buchner M,
    2. Fuchs S,
    3. Prinz G,
    4. Pfeifer D,
    5. Bartholome K,
    6. Burger M,
    7. et al.
    Spleen tyrosine kinase is overexpressed and represents a potential therapeutic target in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer Res 2009;69:5424–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Luangdilok S,
    2. Box C,
    3. Patterson L,
    4. Court W,
    5. Harrington K,
    6. Pitkin L,
    7. et al.
    Syk tyrosine kinase is linked to cell motility and progression in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. Cancer Res 2007;67:7907–16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Chao DT,
    2. Korsmeyer SJ
    . BCL-2 family: regulators of cell death. Annu Rev Immunol 1998;16:395–419.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Boise LH,
    2. Gonzalez-Garcia M,
    3. Postema CE,
    4. Ding L,
    5. Lindsten T,
    6. Turka LA,
    7. et al.
    bcl-x, a bcl-2-related gene that functions as a dominant regulator of apoptotic cell death. Cell 1993;74:597–608.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Xerri L,
    2. Parc P,
    3. Brousset P,
    4. Schlaifer D,
    5. Hassoun J,
    6. Reed JC,
    7. et al.
    Predominant expression of the long isoform of Bcl-x (Bcl-xL) in human lymphomas. Br J Haematol 1996;92:900–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Olopade OI,
    2. Adeyanju MO,
    3. Safa AR,
    4. Hagos F,
    5. Mick R,
    6. Thompson CB,
    7. et al.
    Overexpression of BCL-x protein in primary breast cancer is associated with high tumor grade and nodal metastases. Cancer J Sci Am 1997;3:230–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Takehara T,
    2. Liu X,
    3. Fujimoto J,
    4. Friedman SL,
    5. Takahashi H
    . Expression and role of Bcl-xL in human hepatocellular carcinomas. Hepatology 2001;34:55–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Ma X,
    2. Zhao Y,
    3. Li Y,
    4. Lu H,
    5. He Y
    . Relevance of Bcl-x expression in different types of endometrial tissues. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2010;29:14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Keck PJ,
    2. Hauser SD,
    3. Krivi G,
    4. Sanzo K,
    5. Warren T,
    6. Feder J,
    7. et al.
    Vascular permeability factor, an endothelial cell mitogen related to PDGF. Science 1989;246:1309–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Leung DW,
    2. Cachianes G,
    3. Kuang WJ,
    4. Goeddel DV,
    5. Ferrara N
    . Vascular endothelial growth factor is a secreted angiogenic mitogen. Science 1989;246:1306–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Biselli-Chicote PM,
    2. Oliveira AR,
    3. Pavarino EC,
    4. Goloni-Bertollo EM
    . VEGF gene alternative splicing: pro- and anti-angiogenic isoforms in cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2012;138:363–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Kawamura H,
    2. Li X,
    3. Harper SJ,
    4. Bates DO,
    5. Claesson-Welsh L
    . Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A165b is a weak in vitro agonist for VEGF receptor-2 due to lack of coreceptor binding and deficient regulation of kinase activity. Cancer Res 2008;68:4683–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Gough DJ,
    2. Levy DE,
    3. Johnstone RW,
    4. Clarke CJ
    . IFNgamma signaling-does it mean JAK-STAT?Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2008;19:383–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Goldstein D,
    2. Laszlo J
    . The role of interferon in cancer therapy: a current perspective. CA Cancer J Clin 1988;38:258–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Du Z,
    2. Fan M,
    3. Kim JG,
    4. Eckerle D,
    5. Lothstein L,
    6. Wei L,
    7. et al.
    Interferon-resistant Daudi cell line with a Stat2 defect is resistant to apoptosis induced by chemotherapeutic agents. J Biol Chem 2009;284:27808–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Warburg O
    . On the origin of cancer cells. Science 1956;123:309–14.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. David CJ,
    2. Chen M,
    3. Assanah M,
    4. Canoll P,
    5. Manley JL
    . HnRNP proteins controlled by c-Myc deregulate pyruvate kinase mRNA splicing in cancer. Nature 2010;463:364–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Clower CV,
    2. Chatterjee D,
    3. Wang Z,
    4. Cantley LC,
    5. Vander Heiden MG,
    6. Krainer AR
    . The alternative splicing repressors hnRNP A1/A2 and PTB influence pyruvate kinase isoform expression and cell metabolism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:1894–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Christofk HR,
    2. Vander Heiden MG,
    3. Harris MH,
    4. Ramanathan A,
    5. Gerszten RE,
    6. Wei R,
    7. et al.
    The M2 splice isoform of pyruvate kinase is important for cancer metabolism and tumour growth. Nature 2008;452:230–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Momand J,
    2. Zambetti GP,
    3. Olson DC,
    4. George D,
    5. Levine AJ
    . The mdm-2 oncogene product forms a complex with the p53 protein and inhibits p53-mediated transactivation. Cell 1992;69:1237–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Bartel F,
    2. Taubert H,
    3. Harris LC
    . Alternative and aberrant splicing of MDM2 mRNA in human cancer. Cancer Cell 2002;2:9–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Haupt Y,
    2. Maya R,
    3. Kazaz A,
    4. Oren M
    . Mdm2 promotes the rapid degradation of p53. Nature 1997;387:296–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Kubbutat MH,
    2. Jones SN,
    3. Vousden KH
    . Regulation of p53 stability by Mdm2. Nature 1997;387:299–303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Sigalas I,
    2. Calvert AH,
    3. Anderson JJ,
    4. Neal DE,
    5. Lunec J
    . Alternatively spliced mdm2 transcripts with loss of p53 binding domain sequences: transforming ability and frequent detection in human cancer. Nat Med 1996;2:912–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Manfredi JJ
    . The Mdm2-p53 relationship evolves: Mdm2 swings both ways as an oncogene and a tumor suppressor. Genes Dev 2010;24:1580–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Fu XD
    . The superfamily of arginine/serine-rich splicing factors. RNA 1995;1:663–80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Graveley BR
    . Sorting out the complexity of SR protein functions. RNA 2000;6:1197–211.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Long JC,
    2. Caceres JF
    . The SR protein family of splicing factors: master regulators of gene expression. Biochem J 2009;417:15–27.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Martinez-Contreras R,
    2. Cloutier P,
    3. Shkreta L,
    4. Fisette JF,
    5. Revil T,
    6. Chabot B
    . hnRNP proteins and splicing control. Adv Exp Med Biol 2007;623:123–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Manley JL,
    2. Tacke R
    . SR proteins and splicing control. Genes Dev 1996;10:1569–79.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    1. Karni R,
    2. de Stanchina E,
    3. Lowe SW,
    4. Sinha R,
    5. Mu D,
    6. Krainer AR
    . The gene encoding the splicing factor SF2/ASF is a proto-oncogene. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2007;14:185–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Anczukow O,
    2. Rosenberg AZ,
    3. Akerman M,
    4. Das S,
    5. Zhan L,
    6. Karni R,
    7. et al.
    The splicing factor SRSF1 regulates apoptosis and proliferation to promote mammary epithelial cell transformation. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2012;19:220–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Michlewski G,
    2. Sanford JR,
    3. Caceres JF
    . The splicing factor SF2/ASF regulates translation initiation by enhancing phosphorylation of 4E-BP1. Mol Cell 2008;30:179–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Das S,
    2. Anczukow O,
    3. Akerman M,
    4. Krainer AR
    . Oncogenic splicing factor SRSF1 is a critical transcriptional target of MYC. Cell Rep 2012;1:110–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Jia R,
    2. Li C,
    3. McCoy JP,
    4. Deng CX,
    5. Zheng ZM
    . SRp20 is a proto-oncogene critical for cell proliferation and tumor induction and maintenance. Int J Biol Sci 2010;6:806–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Kurokawa K,
    2. Akaike Y,
    3. Masuda K,
    4. Kuwano Y,
    5. Nishida K,
    6. Yamagishi N,
    7. et al.
    Downregulation of serine/arginine-rich splicing factor 3 induces G1 cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in colon cancer cells. Oncogene 2013 Mar 18. [Epub ahead of print].
  62. 62.↵
    1. Tang Y,
    2. Horikawa I,
    3. Ajiro M,
    4. Robles AI,
    5. Fujita K,
    6. Mondal AM,
    7. et al.
    Downregulation of splicing factor SRSF3 induces p53beta, an alternatively spliced isoform of p53 that promotes cellular senescence. Oncogene 2013;32:2792–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Wang Z,
    2. Chatterjee D,
    3. Jeon HY,
    4. Akerman M,
    5. Vander Heiden MG,
    6. Cantley LC,
    7. et al.
    Exon-centric regulation of pyruvate kinase M alternative splicing via mutually exclusive exons. J Mol Cell Biol 2012;4:79–87.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. 64.↵
    1. Patry C,
    2. Bouchard L,
    3. Labrecque P,
    4. Gendron D,
    5. Lemieux B,
    6. Toutant J,
    7. et al.
    Small interfering RNA-mediated reduction in heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoparticule A1/A2 proteins induces apoptosis in human cancer cells but not in normal mortal cell lines. Cancer Res 2003;63:7679–88.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. 65.↵
    1. Golan-Gerstl R,
    2. Cohen M,
    3. Shilo A,
    4. Suh SS,
    5. Bakacs A,
    6. Coppola L,
    7. et al.
    Splicing factor hnRNP A2/B1 regulates tumor suppressor gene splicing and is an oncogenic driver in glioblastoma. Cancer Res 2011;71:4464–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    1. Huelga SC,
    2. Vu AQ,
    3. Arnold JD,
    4. Liang TY,
    5. Liu PP,
    6. Yan BY,
    7. et al.
    Integrative genome-wide analysis reveals cooperative regulation of alternative splicing by hnRNP proteins. Cell Rep 2012;1:167–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Chen M,
    2. David CJ,
    3. Manley JL
    . Concentration-dependent control of pyruvate kinase M mutually exclusive splicing by hnRNP proteins. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2012;19:346–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Xue Y,
    2. Zhou Y,
    3. Wu T,
    4. Zhu T,
    5. Ji X,
    6. Kwon YS,
    7. et al.
    Genome-wide analysis of PTB-RNA interactions reveals a strategy used by the general splicing repressor to modulate exon inclusion or skipping. Mol Cell 2009;36:996–1006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Izaguirre DI,
    2. Zhu W,
    3. Hai T,
    4. Cheung HC,
    5. Krahe R,
    6. Cote GJ
    . PTBP1-dependent regulation of USP5 alternative RNA splicing plays a role in glioblastoma tumorigenesis. Mol Carcinog 2012;51:895–906.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. He X,
    2. Pool M,
    3. Darcy KM,
    4. Lim SB,
    5. Auersperg N,
    6. Coon JS,
    7. et al.
    Knockdown of polypyrimidine tract-binding protein suppresses ovarian tumor cell growth and invasiveness in vitro . Oncogene 2007;26:4961–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Wang C,
    2. Norton JT,
    3. Ghosh S,
    4. Kim J,
    5. Fushimi K,
    6. Wu JY,
    7. et al.
    Polypyrimidine tract-binding protein (PTB) differentially affects malignancy in a cell line-dependent manner. J Biol Chem 2008;283:20277–87.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. 72.↵
    1. Jin W,
    2. Bruno IG,
    3. Xie TX,
    4. Sanger LJ,
    5. Cote GJ
    . Polypyrimidine tract-binding protein down-regulates fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 alpha-exon inclusion. Cancer Res 2003;63:6154–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. 73.↵
    1. Wang F,
    2. Kan M,
    3. Yan G,
    4. Xu J,
    5. McKeehan WL
    . Alternately spliced NH2-terminal immunoglobulin-like Loop I in the ectodomain of the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptor 1 lowers affinity for both heparin and FGF-1. J Biol Chem 1995;270:10231–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. 74.↵
    1. Yamaguchi F,
    2. Saya H,
    3. Bruner JM,
    4. Morrison RS
    . Differential expression of two fibroblast growth factor-receptor genes is associated with malignant progression in human astrocytomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994;91:484–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. 75.↵
    1. Dayal S,
    2. Sparks A,
    3. Jacob J,
    4. Allende-Vega N,
    5. Lane DP,
    6. Saville MK
    . Suppression of the deubiquitinating enzyme USP5 causes the accumulation of unanchored polyubiquitin and the activation of p53. J Biol Chem 2009;284:5030–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.↵
    1. Llorian M,
    2. Schwartz S,
    3. Clark TA,
    4. Hollander D,
    5. Tan LY,
    6. Spellman R,
    7. et al.
    Position-dependent alternative splicing activity revealed by global profiling of alternative splicing events regulated by PTB. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2010;17:1114–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. Lefave CV,
    2. Squatrito M,
    3. Vorlova S,
    4. Rocco GL,
    5. Brennan CW,
    6. Holland EC,
    7. et al.
    Splicing factor hnRNPH drives an oncogenic splicing switch in gliomas. EMBO J 2011;30:4084–97.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. 78.↵
    1. Mulherkar N,
    2. Prasad KV,
    3. Prabhakar BS
    . MADD/DENN splice variant of the IG20 gene is a negative regulator of caspase-8 activation. Knockdown enhances TRAIL-induced apoptosis of cancer cells. J Biol Chem 2007;282:11715–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. 79.↵
    1. Castello A,
    2. Fischer B,
    3. Eichelbaum K,
    4. Horos R,
    5. Beckmann BM,
    6. Strein C,
    7. et al.
    Insights into RNA biology from an atlas of mammalian mRNA-binding proteins. Cell 2012;149:1393–406.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    1. Barash Y,
    2. Calarco JA,
    3. Gao W,
    4. Pan Q,
    5. Wang X,
    6. Shai O,
    7. et al.
    Deciphering the splicing code. Nature 2010;465:53–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Yoshida K,
    2. Sanada M,
    3. Shiraishi Y,
    4. Nowak D,
    5. Nagata Y,
    6. Yamamoto R,
    7. et al.
    Frequent pathway mutations of splicing machinery in myelodysplasia. Nature 2011;478:64–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    1. Visconte V,
    2. Makishima H,
    3. Jankowska A,
    4. Szpurka H,
    5. Traina F,
    6. Jerez A,
    7. et al.
    SF3B1, a splicing factor is frequently mutated in refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts. Leukemia 2012;26:542–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    1. Papaemmanuil E,
    2. Cazzola M,
    3. Boultwood J,
    4. Malcovati L,
    5. Vyas P,
    6. Bowen D,
    7. et al.
    Somatic SF3B1 mutation in myelodysplasia with ring sideroblasts. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1384–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    1. Wang L,
    2. Lawrence MS,
    3. Wan Y,
    4. Stojanov P,
    5. Sougnez C,
    6. Stevenson K,
    7. et al.
    SF3B1 and other novel cancer genes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2011;365:2497–506.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    1. Rossi D,
    2. Bruscaggin A,
    3. Spina V,
    4. Rasi S,
    5. Khiabanian H,
    6. Messina M,
    7. et al.
    Mutations of the SF3B1 splicing factor in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: association with progression and fludarabine-refractoriness. Blood 2011;118:6904–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. 86.↵
    1. Quesada V,
    2. Conde L,
    3. Villamor N,
    4. Ordonez GR,
    5. Jares P,
    6. Bassaganyas L,
    7. et al.
    Exome sequencing identifies recurrent mutations of the splicing factor SF3B1 gene in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Nat Genet 2012;44:47–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. Harbour JW,
    2. Roberson ED,
    3. Anbunathan H,
    4. Onken MD,
    5. Worley LA,
    6. Bowcock AM
    . Recurrent mutations at codon 625 of the splicing factor SF3B1 in uveal melanoma. Nat Genet 2013;45:133–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    1. Martin M,
    2. Masshofer L,
    3. Temming P,
    4. Rahmann S,
    5. Metz C,
    6. Bornfeld N,
    7. et al.
    Exome sequencing identifies recurrent somatic mutations in EIF1AX and SF3B1 in uveal melanoma with disomy 3. Nat Genet 2013;45:933–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    1. Hicks MJ,
    2. Mueller WF,
    3. Shepard PJ,
    4. Hertel KJ
    . Competing upstream 5′ splice sites enhance the rate of proximal splicing. Mol Cell Biol 2010;30:1878–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. 90.↵
    1. Visconte V,
    2. Rogers HJ,
    3. Singh J,
    4. Barnard J,
    5. Bupathi M,
    6. Traina F,
    7. et al.
    SF3B1 haploinsufficiency leads to formation of ring sideroblasts in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 2012;120:3173–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. 91.↵
    1. Boultwood J,
    2. Pellagatti A,
    3. Nikpour M,
    4. Pushkaran B,
    5. Fidler C,
    6. Cattan H,
    7. et al.
    The role of the iron transporter ABCB7 in refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts. PLoS ONE 2008;3:e1970.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.↵
    1. Nikpour M,
    2. Scharenberg C,
    3. Liu A,
    4. Conte S,
    5. Karimi M,
    6. Mortera-Blanco T,
    7. et al.
    The transporter ABCB7 is a mediator of the phenotype of acquired refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts. Leukemia 2013;27:889–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    1. Malcovati L,
    2. Papaemmanuil E,
    3. Bowen DT,
    4. Boultwood J,
    5. Della Porta MG,
    6. Pascutto C,
    7. et al.
    Clinical significance of SF3B1 mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes and myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms. Blood 2011;118:6239–46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  94. 94.↵
    1. Patnaik MM,
    2. Lasho TL,
    3. Hodnefield JM,
    4. Knudson RA,
    5. Ketterling RP,
    6. Garcia-Manero G,
    7. et al.
    SF3B1 mutations are prevalent in myelodysplastic syndromes with ring sideroblasts but do not hold independent prognostic value. Blood 2012;119:569–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  95. 95.↵
    1. Makishima H,
    2. Visconte V,
    3. Sakaguchi H,
    4. Jankowska AM,
    5. Abu Kar S,
    6. Jerez A,
    7. et al.
    Mutations in the spliceosome machinery, a novel and ubiquitous pathway in leukemogenesis. Blood 2012;119:3203–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  96. 96.↵
    1. Hirabayashi S,
    2. Flotho C,
    3. Moetter J,
    4. Heuser M,
    5. Hasle H,
    6. Gruhn B,
    7. et al.
    Spliceosomal gene aberrations are rare, coexist with oncogenic mutations, and are unlikely to exert a driver effect in childhood MDS and JMML. Blood 2012;119:e96–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. 97.↵
    1. Schilling B,
    2. Bielefeld N,
    3. Sucker A,
    4. Hillen U,
    5. Zimmer L,
    6. Schadendorf D,
    7. et al.
    Lack of SF3B1 R625 mutations in cutaneous melanoma. Diagn Pathol 2013;8:87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. 98.↵
    1. Kaida D,
    2. Schneider-Poetsch T,
    3. Yoshida M
    . Splicing in oncogenesis and tumor suppression. Cancer Sci 2012;103:1611–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. 99.↵
    1. Bonnal S,
    2. Vigevani L,
    3. Valcarcel J
    . The spliceosome as a target of novel antitumour drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2012;11:847–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.↵
    1. Webb TR,
    2. Joyner AS,
    3. Potter PM
    . The development and application of small molecule modulators of SF3b as therapeutic agents for cancer. Drug Discov Today 2013;18:43–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    1. Kaida D,
    2. Motoyoshi H,
    3. Tashiro E,
    4. Nojima T,
    5. Hagiwara M,
    6. Ishigami K,
    7. et al.
    Spliceostatin A targets SF3b and inhibits both splicing and nuclear retention of pre-mRNA. Nat Chem Biol 2007;3:576–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. 102.↵
    1. Furumai R,
    2. Uchida K,
    3. Komi Y,
    4. Yoneyama M,
    5. Ishigami K,
    6. Watanabe H,
    7. et al.
    Spliceostatin A blocks angiogenesis by inhibiting global gene expression including VEGF. Cancer Sci 2010;101:2483–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Discovery: 3 (11)
November 2013
Volume 3, Issue 11
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Discovery article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Misregulation of Pre-mRNA Alternative Splicing in Cancer
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Discovery
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Discovery.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Misregulation of Pre-mRNA Alternative Splicing in Cancer
Jian Zhang and James L. Manley
Cancer Discov November 1 2013 (3) (11) 1228-1237; DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-0253

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Misregulation of Pre-mRNA Alternative Splicing in Cancer
Jian Zhang and James L. Manley
Cancer Discov November 1 2013 (3) (11) 1228-1237; DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-0253
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Alternative Splicing Patterns in Cancer
    • Misregulation of Alternative Splicing in Cancer by Regulatory Splicing Factors
    • Mutations in the Core Splicing Machinery and Cancer
    • Conclusions
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Grant Support
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Targeting of Checkpoint Receptors within the DNAM1 Axis
  • Anticancer drug repurposing in COVID-19
  • Resistance to KRASG12C Inhibitors
Show more Review
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • OnlineFirst
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info For

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Discovery

  • About the Journal
  • Editors
  • Journal Sections
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Discovery
eISSN: 2159-8290
ISSN: 2159-8274

Advertisement