Cited by 242Glioma Diagnosis and TreatmentAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchEpigenetics and DNA Methylation

Efficient induction of differentiation and growth inhibition in IDH1 mutant glioma cells by the DNMT inhibitor decitabine

Open access
Turcan, Sevin, Fabius, Armida W. M., Borodovsky, Alexandra, Pedraza, Alicia, Brennan, Cameron, Huse, Jason, Viale, Agnes, Riggins, Gregory J. +1 more·2013·Oncotarget

Abstract

// Sevin Turcan 1,* , Armida W. M. Fabius 1,* , Alexandra Borodovsky 2 , Alicia Pedraza 1 , Cameron Brennan 1 , Jason Huse 1 , Agnes Viale 3 , Gregory J. Riggins 2 , and Timothy A. Chan 1,4,5 1 Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2 Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 3 Genomics Core, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 4 Dept. of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 5 Brain Tumor Center, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. * These authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Timothy A. Chan, email: // Keywords : glioma, isocitrate dehydrogenase, methylation, epigenetics, treatment Received : September 12, 2013 Accepted : September 16, 2013 Published : September 16, 2013 Abstract Mutation in the IDH1 or IDH2 genes occurs frequently in gliomas and other human malignancies. In intermediate grade gliomas, IDH1 mutation is found in over 70% of tumors. These mutations impart the mutant IDH enzyme with a neomorphic activity – the ability to synthesize 2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG). This ability leads to a reprogramming of chromatin state, a block in differentiation, and the establishment of the glioma hypermethylator phenotype (G-CIMP). It has been hypothesized but not proven that the extensive DNA methylation that occurs in G-CIMP tumors helps maintain and “lock in” glioma cancer cells in a dedifferentiated state. Here, we tested this hypothesis by treating patient derived IDH1 mutant glioma initiating cells (GIC) with non-cytotoxic, epigenetically targeted doses of the DNMT inhibitor decitabine. Global methylome analysis of treated IDH1 mutant GICs showed that DAC treatment resulted in reversal of DNA methylation marks induced by IDH and the re-expression of genes associated with differentiation. Accordingly, treatment of IDH1 mutant glioma cells resulted in a dramatic loss of stem-like properties and efficient adoption of markers of differentiation, effects not seen in decitabine treated IDH wild-type GICs. Induction of differentiation was much more efficient than that seen following treatment with a specific inhibitor of mutant IDH enzyme (Agios). Decitabine also decreased replicative potential and tumor growth in vivo . Reexpression of polycomb regulated genes accompanied these DAC-induced phenotypes. In total, our data indicates that targeting the pathologic DNA methylation in IDH mutant cells can reverse mutant IDH induced hypermethylation and block in differentiation and promote tumor control. These findings have substantial impact for exploring new treatment strategies for patients with IDH mutant gliomas.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18632/oncotarget.1412

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mutant IDH inhibitors may not be effective in all IDH-mutant cancers; in many IDH-mutant glioma models they fail to reverse epigenetic changes or inhibit tumor proliferation despite lowering 2-HG.

    “Despite success in some preclinical models and patients with AML, mutant IDH inhibitors may not be effective in all IDH-mutant cancers. For example, these drugs are unable to reverse epigenetic changes or inhibit tumor proliferation in many models of IDH mutant glioma, despite a robust ability to lower 2-HG in cells and tumors (Tateishi et al., 2015; Turcan et al., 2013).”

    From Targeting Metabolism for Cancer Therapy (2017) · cites this paper as Turcan et al., 2013

  • Tumors harboring an IDH mutation have increased sensitivity to hypomethylating agents, electron transport chain inhibitors, depletion of NAD+, and chemoradiotherapy.

    “For example, tumors harboring an IDH mutation have increased sensitivity to hypomethylating agents (Turcan et al., 2013), electron transport chain inhibitors (Grassian et al., 2014), depletion of the coenzyme NAD+ (Tateishi et al., 2015) and chemoradiotherapy (Cairncross et al., 2014).”

    From Targeting Metabolism for Cancer Therapy (2017) · cites this paper as Turcan et al., 2013

  • Sensitivity to mutant IDH inhibitors appears to differ between leukemia and solid tumor models.

    “Even among cancers where mutant IDH is an oncogenic driver, sensitivity to mutant IDH inhibitors appears to differ between leukemia and solid tumor models (Tateishi et al., 2015; Turcan et al., 2013).”

    From Targeting Metabolism for Cancer Therapy (2017) · cites this paper as Turcan et al., 2013

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Turcan, S., Fabius, A. W. M., Borodovsky, A., Pedraza, A., Brennan, C., Huse, J., Viale, A., Riggins, G. J., & Chan, T. A.
Affiliations
  • Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
Oncotarget
Published
2013-09-16
Volume
4
Issue
10
Pages
1729-1736
ISSN
1949-2553 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158900087
Cited by
240
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 1
FWCI
11.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Oncotarget (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Sontag Foundation
  • Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH T32, T32 grant)
  • National Cancer Institute (T32CA160001, R01CA154767, R01CA177828, P30CA008748)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
Keywords
IDH1 mutation, glioma, DNA methylation, DNMT inhibitors, glioma stem cells, differentiation, 2-hydroxyglutarate, G-CIMP, epigenetic reprogramming, stem cell-like properties, methylome, hypomethylating agents, gene expression reprogramming, tumor growth inhibition, IDH2
MeSH terms
Decitabine, Animals, Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic, Azacitidine, Brain Neoplasms, Cell Differentiation, DNA (Cytosine-5-)-Methyltransferases, Female, Glioma, Humans, Isocitrate Dehydrogenase, Mutation, Mice, SCID, DNA Methylation, Cell Growth Processes, Mice, Heterografts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review