From www.bloodjournal.org by guest on June 15, 2017. For personal use only. REVIEW ARTICLE Chromatin Remodeling and Leukemia: New Therapeutic Paradigms By Robert L. Redner, Jianxiang Wang, and Johnson M. Liu L OCAL REMODELING OF chromatin is a key step in the transcriptional activation of genes. Dynamic changes in the nucleosomal packaging of DNA must occur to allow transcriptional proteins contact with the DNA template. The realization that the proteins that regulate the modification of chromatin are themselves disrupted in many leukemic chromosomal rearrangements has generated new excitement in the study of chromatin structure. Recent reports have kindled the hope that pharmacological manipulation of chromatin remodeling might develop into a potent and specific strategy for the treatment of these leukemias. In this review, we will discuss the structure of chromatin and the mechanisms by which cells remodel chromatin, alteration of these pathways in leukemias, and therapeutic approaches. CHROMATIN: BEADS ON A STRING OR STRING ON BEADS? The condensation of DNA into an ordered chromatin structure allows the cell to solve the topological problems associated with storing huge molecules of chromosomal DNA within the nucleus. DNA is packaged into chromatin in orderly repeating protein-DNA complexes called nucleosomes.1,2 Each nucleosome consists of approximately 146 bp of double-stranded DNA wrapped 1.8 times around a core of 8 histone molecules (Fig 1). Two molecules each of H2A, H2B, H3, and H4 comprise the histone ramp around which the DNA superhelix winds. Stretches of DNA up to 100 bp separate adjacent nucleosomes. Multiple nuclear proteins bind to this linker region, some of which may be responsible for the ordered wrapping of strings of nucleosomes into higher-order chromatin structures.3,4 Nucleosomal structure has been well characterized by x-ray crystallographic studies, most recently to a resolution of 2.8 Å.1 The histones are arranged as heterodimers of H2A and H2B, H3 and H4; the heterodimers, in turn, form a tetrameric structure known as the octamer core. Each histone heterodimer binds approximately 30 bp of DNA through electrostatic contacts with the phosphate backbone in the minor groove of the DNA. The interaction with histones causes the DNA to become distorted and bend and bulge at several positions: this twisting of the helix results in a deviation of the periodicity of the basepairs as they spiral along the DNA superhelix. The change in periodicity leads to alignment of the DNA minor grooves to form channels, through which pass the random-coil histone tails. The histone tails are thus able to contact the DNA on the exterior of the nucleosomal particle to further stabilize DNA/histone interactions. Although nucleosomal architecture depends primarily on nonspecific interactions between histones and the phosphate backbone of DNA, the thermodynamic stability of the interaction is influenced by the basepair composition of the DNA. A-T–rich sequences in particular impart the DNA with flexibility that allows it to form the tertiary structures necessary for optimal nucleosomal packing.1,5 In addition, histone leucine residues bound to the minor groove of DNA are able to interact Blood, Vol 94, No 2 (July 15), 1999: pp 417-428 with nearby thymidine residues; arginines form hydrogen bonds with neighboring pyrimidines. These sequence-specific characteristics likely contribute to variations in the number of bases in each nucleosome particle, the length of internucleosomal spacer DNA, and the phasing of adjacent nucleosomes. NUCLEOSOMAL REMODELING Both distortion of the periodicity of the superhelix and electrostatic shielding by the positively charged histones act to constrain the access of nonhistone proteins to nucleosomal DNA.6,7 Extensive remodeling of chromatin structure, particularly at cis-acting promoter sites necessary for transcriptional initiation, must take place for the DNA template to become accessible to the transcriptional machinery. A complete picture of the way in which DNA separates from nucleosomes during transcription is not yet available, but most likely only partial dissociation from the core histones is necessary.8 Several mechanisms have been identified that contribute to chromatin remodeling. They vary from those that alter histoneDNA interaction to those that physically dissociate the DNA from histones in an ATP-dependent manner to those that destabilize histone-histone tetramerization (see the recent review by Tsukiyama and Wu9 for a more detailed discussion). All of these processes likely act simultaneously and in concert to regulate access to the DNA template. Two of the mechanisms are particularly relevant to the discussion of leukemic fusion proteins (see below): histone acetylation and ATPase-mediated DNA-histone dissociation. The best understood mechanism by which cells regulate chromatin structure is posttranslational modification of histones by acetylation.10-15 Change in electrostatic attraction for DNA and steric hindrance introduced by the hydrophobic acetyl group leads to destabilization of the interaction of histones with DNA.1,11-13,15,16 Lysine residues in the N-terminal extensions of H2B, H3, and H4 that bind to the exterior surface of nucleosomes are particularly accessible to acetylation. Acetylation of residues within the octamer core interferes with formation of the histone heterodimers and tetramers around which the DNA winds. Furthermore, posttranslational modification of histones interferes with interactions with nonhistone, chromatinassociated proteins, such as MeCP2 (which binds to methylated regions of DNA17) and the high-mobility group proteins From the Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; and the Hematology Branch, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Bethesda MD. Submitted February 4, 1999; accepted April 19, 1999. Supported by National Institutes of Health Grant No. CA67346 and American Institute for Cancer Research Grant No. 98B039 to R.L.R. Address reprint requests to Robert L. Redner, MD, E1058 Biomedical Science Tower, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 211 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; e-mail: redner⫹@pitt.edu. r 1999 by The American Society of Hematology. 0006-4971/99/9402-0049$3.00/0 417 From www.bloodjournal.org by guest on June 15, 2017. For personal use only. 418 REDNER, WANG, AND LIU (HMG,18,19 so named for their properties in electrophoretic fields), which also contribute to higher-order nucleosomal packing. In summary, acetylation of histones disrupts nucleosomes and allows the DNA to become accessible to transcriptional machinery. Removal of the acetyl groups allows the histones to bind more tightly to DNA and to maintain a transcriptionally repressed chromatin architecture. Acetylation is mediated by a series of enzymes with histone acetylase (histone acetyl transferase [HAT]) activity; conversely, acetyl groups are removed by specific histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes. The ability to modulate histone acetylation in a gene-specific fashion presents a challenge for cells. The state of histone acetylation is determined by the balance between competing enzymatic activities of histone acetyltransferases and deacetylases. Fine regulation of the catalytic activities of these enzymes likely involves cooperative subunit interaction and posttranslational modification. However, our limited understanding of the regulation of gene-specific histone acetylation is best captured in the rather simplistic model of local recruitment of acetylases or deacetylases by sequence-specific DNA binding proteins. The paradigm for local remodeling of chromatin through gene-specific recruitment of HAT activity is the retinoic acid receptor (RAR).20 Because RAR-mediated chromatin remodeling is perturbed in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL; see below), it is appropriate to consider this model in some depth; similar models have been developed for other transcriptional activators and repressors.21 RAR is a ligand-dependent transcriptional activator.22 Through its zinc (Zn) finger domain, it binds as a heterodimer with a related protein, RXR,23 to a well-defined consensus DNA sequence found in the promoters of retinoic acid-responsive genes.24 In the absence of ligand (retinoic acid [RA]), the RXR/RAR heterodimer binds to DNA and actively represses transcription below the basal level expected from random initiation by the transcriptional machinery.25a It does this through an indirect mechanism. The RXR/RAR heterodimer binds a nuclear corepressor molecule, either NCoR26,27 (Nuclear Receptor Co-Repressor) or SMRT28,29 (Silencing Mediator of Retinoid and Thyroid Receptors), through specific interaction domains in the ligand-binding region of RAR. N-CoR, the better analyzed of the 2, binds to many sequence-specific DNA-binding transcriptional repressor proteins (Table 1). N-CoR (or SMRT) itself binds another intermediary protein, Sin3, which serves as a bridge to HDAC1, a histone deacetylase30-32 (there have been 3 homologous HDACs Table 1. Corepressor Proteins Homolog N-CoR (Nuclear Receptor Corepressor) SMRT (Silencing Mediator of Retinoid and Thyroid Receptors) Sin3 SMRT Nuclear receptors, others No N-CoR Nuclear receptors, others No N-CoR or SMRT DNAbinding proteins Sin3 No HDAC Binds to Deacetylase Activity Protein Yes Table 2. Histone Acetylases Human Histone Acetylase Alternate Name p300 PCAF (CBP-associated factor) NCoA-1 (nuclear coactivator-1) NCoA-2 p/CIP (p300/CBP cointegratorassociated protein) TAFII250 MOZ Homolog CBP (CREBbinding protein) Part of Coactivator Complex Yes Yes SRC-1 NCoA-2, p/CIP Yes TIF-2, GRIP-1 RAC3/AIBI/ACTR NCoA-1, p/CIP NCoA-1, NCoA-2 Yes Yes No No identified in human cells33). Thus, the end result of the association of unliganded RAR/RXR with N-CoR is to recruit HDAC1 to the local environment of the promoter. By removing acetyl groups from histones and restructuring the chromatin into a repressive configuration, HDAC1 serves as the effector molecule in this pathway. N-CoR, Sin3, and HDAC1 function in many repressive pathways, including transcriptional silencing by the MAD/MAX members of the MYC family,30,31,34,35 ETO36-38 (see below), and other members of the steroid hormone receptor superfamily.26,32 Binding of ligand to RAR initiates a conformational change in the C-terminus of RAR, which contains the N-CoR binding site.39-41 An amphipathic helix within RAR (helix 12, which is highly conserved within the steroid receptor superfamily) swings into a position that both locks the ligand into its binding pocket and creates a new hydrophobic domain. N-CoR does not bind to this altered conformation of RAR, and hence the N-CoR/Sin3/HDAC1 complex dissociates itself from liganded RAR. In its place, the newly created hydrophobic domain within RAR binds a large multimolecular complex that enhances transcriptional activation.21,42,43 Several components of this coactivator complex have been identified (Table 2), including the adenovirus E1A-associated protein p300, pCAF (CBPassociated factor44), and a family of homologous 160-kD proteins, including p/CIP (p300/CBP cointegrator-associated protein),43,45 NCoA-146 (nuclear coactivator-1, also known as SRC-142), and NCoA-2 (also known as TIF-246-48). p300, or the homologous cyclic-AMP response-element-binding protein cofactor CBP,21,43,49,50 has been shown to interact through nonoverlapping domains with at least a dozen DNA-binding transcriptional activators, including other members of the steroid hormone receptor family, members of the STAT family, Jun, Fos, AML1, and Myb (see review by Giles et al51). In this regard, p300/CBP serves as a bridge between multiple transcriptional activators. Several members of this complex have HAT activity, including pCAF,44,52 the 160-kD proteins,53 and p300/ CBP itself.50 Thus, recruitment of the coactivator complex brings several histone acetylases to the proximity of the promoter to which RAR binds, so that the deacetylated histones can be efficiently acetylated. The coactivator complex serves to reverse the suppressive effects of the N-CoR/Sin3/HDAC1 From www.bloodjournal.org by guest on June 15, 2017. For personal use only. CHROMATIN REMODELING IN LEUKEMIA complex and, by decreasing the affinity of histones for DNA, remodel nucleosomal configuration so that the DNA template can be accessed for transcription. It is as yet unclear which of the proteins in the complex directly interact with histones, which acetylate other proteins in the complex (or the proteins that comprise the basal transcriptional machinery), which stabilize the nascent basal transcriptional machinery or, which, as has been proposed for p300/CBP, function in all 3 capacities.50 An interesting twist to this paradigm has recently arisen through studies of DNA methylation, which has been a longaccepted mechanism of transcriptional suppression54,55. A possible contributor to the transcriptional-silencing effect of DNAmethylation may be the MeCP family of proteins, which specifically bind to regions of methylated DNA between adjacent nucleosomes.56 The MeCP2 protein directly binds Sin3/HDAC1.17 Thus, by recruiting a histone deacetylase, MeCP2-binding leads to a change in the state of histone acetylation and in the chromatin structure of methylated DNA. Whether this mechanism directly mediates the transcriptional silencing effects of DNA methylation or whether it serves a synergistic or supporting role is not yet clear. However, it leads to the interesting speculation that DNA-methyltransferase inhibitors such as 5-azacytidine57 might alter transcriptional activity by indirectly remodeling regions of methylated chromatin. A second mechanism for alteration of chromatin that is less well understood than acetylation of histones involves an ATP-dependent enzymatic activity that directly acts on nucleosomal structure. Based on analogous protein complexes in yeast and Drosophila (known by the acronyms SWI/SNF,58-62 NURF,63 and RSC64,65), it has been proposed that these complexes act as ATP-dependent motors that track along the DNA strands and pull them away from the histone octamer cores.59-62,66 During this shift of histone-DNA contact points, the DNA would presumably become accessible to the transcriptional machinery. However, there is conflicting evidence to suggest that these complexes serve to maintain chromatin in a repressive configuration, perhaps through dissociating other chromatin-associated proteins from the DNA, such as errant TATA-binding protein.67 Reinforcing the concept of interplay between the chromatin remodeling mechanisms is the finding that 2 members of the human p300-associated coactivator complex68,69 have the predicted ATPase activities requisite for a SWI/SNF type of engine. DISRUPTION OF CHROMATIN REMODELING MECHANISMS IN LEUKEMIA APL: Abnormal histone deacetylation. Chromatin remodeling is fundamental to transcription. The models presented above outline the normal control of chromatin remodeling during gene-specific transcription. Disruption of these mechanisms gives rise to transcriptional chaos and leukemic transformation. The best understood example of this is in APL (FrenchAmerican-British [FAB] M3). APL holds a unique position in the study of leukemias in that it is the only form of leukemia and the only malignancy described to date that responds to differentiation therapy. First published in Blood by Huang et al70 from the Shanghai Institute of Hematology, APL blasts undergo terminal differentiation in response to all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA). Differentiation 419 therapy with ATRA has become the mainstay of therapy for this disease.71,72 Although relapses uniformly occur when used by itself, in combination with conventional chemotherapy, ATRA has revolutionized the treatment of APL, generating response rates of close to 90%, with 3-year disease-free survival greater than 75%.73 The explanation for the restriction of the success of ATRA therapy to the M3 subtype of leukemias likely lies in the chromatin alterations induced by the RAR-fusion proteins expressed uniquely in APL cells (Fig 2). RAR␣ (there are 3 homologous RAR proteins, called ␣, , and ␥) is a transcriptional activator that binds to specific DNA sequences and inducibly recruits corepressor or coactivator complexes to regulate transcription of retinoic acid-responsive genes (see above). Ordered expression of retinoic acid-responsive genes is necessary for myeloid development; dominant-negative mutants of RAR␣ inhibit myeloid maturation at the promyelocytic stage.74,75 All patients with APL have a chromosomal translocation within the second intron of the RAR␣ locus on chromosome 17q12 to produce a chimeric protein comprised of all but the first 30 AA of RAR␣.76 The N-terminal fusion partners are PML77,78 on chromosome 15q21, PLZF79 on chromosome 11q23, NPM80 on chromosome 5q31, or NUMA81 on chromosome 11q13. The PML-fusion is the most common: only 8 patients with PLZF-RAR␣,82 3 with NPM-RAR␣,80 and 1 with NUMA-RAR␣81 have been described to date. All of these RAR␣ fusion proteins contain the DNA-binding, heterodimerization, ligand-binding, corepressor-binding, and coactivatorbinding motifs of RAR␣. Like wild-type RAR␣, they bind to retinoic acid-response elements in DNA and, under appropriate conditions, can activate transcription of RA-target genes.77,80,83,84 However, at physiological levels of retinoic acid, PMLRAR␣ represses rather than activates transcription.85-88 This is apparently the consequence of enhanced interaction between PML-RAR␣ and the N-CoR/Sin3/HDAC1 corepressor complex. PML-RAR␣ binds N-CoR at levels of ligand that are otherwise sufficient to release the corepressor complex from wild-type RAR␣. By maintaining the promoters of RAresponsive genes in a repressive deacetylated configuration, PML-RAR␣ suppresses transcription and produces the identical phenotype to that experimentally produced by a dominantnegative inhibitor of RAR␣.74 Only at pharmacological levels of ligand does PML-RAR␣ release N-CoR, recruit a coactivator complex, and allow histone acetylation and chromatin remodeling to proceed. Thus, for PML-RAR␣–expressing APL cells, pharmacological levels of RA are needed to induce differentiation. If the end result of PML-RAR␣ binding to the corepressor complex is active repression of transcription through a HDAC1dependent pathway, then one would predict that the APL phenotype might be overcome by inhibitors of HDAC. This prediction has been validated by the finding that RA and inhibitors of HDAC1 (see below) synergize to induce differentiation of the APL cell line, NB4, or U937 cells engineered to express PML-RAR␣.85-87 The molecular mechanism underlying the strong interaction of PML-RAR␣ with N-CoR is not yet known: there is apparently no direct binding between PML and N-CoR. Fusion with PML presumably inhibits the ligandinduced conformational changes necessary for release of the From www.bloodjournal.org by guest on June 15, 2017. For personal use only. 420 Fig 1. Cartoon of nucleosomal structure. (A) represents the random-coiled tails of the histone octamer intertwined with DNA. (B) represents the nucleosome with histones acetylated (acetyl groups drawn as lollipop structures). The acetylated histone tails do not bind the DNA strands. This allows the DNA to assume a more open configuration that is accessible to the transcriptional machinery. N-CoR complex. A similar mechanism may also be at play with the NPM-RAR␣ t(5;17) fusion, which is also retinoic acidresponsive.89 The t(11;17)(q23;q12) chromosomal translocation of APL fuses the same sequences of RAR␣ to the N-terminus of PLZF.79 PLZF is itself a DNA-binding transcription factor, capable of binding N-CoR via the 120 AA N-terminal POZ 90, 91 motif (conserved between poxvirus and zinc finger proteins) retained in the PLZF-RAR␣ fusion.92-94 As a result, PLZFRAR␣ interacts with N-CoR through 2 binding sites: a liganddependent site in the RAR␣ domain and a ligand-independent site in the PLZF N-terminus.85-88,93 When retinoic acid binds to the ligand-binding domain of PLZF-RAR␣, the RAR␣ domain of the fusion protein loses its attraction for N-CoR, but the PLZF ligand-independent domain continues to bind N-CoR. As a result, even in the presence of pharmacological levels of retinoic acid, N-CoR/Sin3/HDAC1 remains tethered to RAresponsive promoters, permanently suppressing transcription and blocking differentiation. This model explains the lack of response of t(11;17) patients to ATRA differentiation therapy95 REDNER, WANG, AND LIU and may explain in part the observation that t(11;17) blasts show morphologic features indicating less differentiation than classical APL cells.82 Based on this model, one would predict that inhibitors of HDAC might partially overcome the suppressive effects of PLZF-RAR␣. This is indeed the case: several groups have recently demonstrated that inhibitors of HDAC1 synergize with retinoic acid to induce differentiation of otherwise nonresponsive PLZF-RAR␣ cells.85-88 AML1-ETO: Exchanging a coactivator for a corepressor. The AML1-ETO oncoprotein has recently been shown to alter gene expression through an analogous mechanism of errant recruitment of an N-CoR repressor complex. AML1-ETO is derived from the fusion of the AML1 gene on chromosome 21q22 with the ETO (also called MTG8) locus on chromosome 8q22 (see review by Hiebert et al96). Accounting for over 10% of acute myeloid leukemias (AML), t(8;21) is seen exclusively in FAB M2. Patients with t(8;21) have a better response rate to chemotherapy and a higher remission rate than M2 patients with normal karyotype.97,98 AML1 is a sequence-specific DNA binding protein that complexes with core binding factor  (CBF) to activate transcription of target genes.99 Many of the AML1-dependent genes have been implicated in myeloid maturation, including interleukin-3 (IL-3), granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF), myeloperoxidase, and neutrophil elastase.96 Unlike the RAR␣ model discussed in detail above, AML1/CBF binds no ligand; regulation of AML1 activity occurs as a result of transcriptional and posttranslational modulation of AML1 (as yet, these mechanisms have been poorly defined). Recently, it has been shown that the C-terminus of AML1 interacts with a p300-containing coactivator complex,100 suggesting that one of the mechanisms by which AML1 activates transcription is through local histone acetylation and nucleosomal remodeling. AML1-ETO, on the other hand, inhibits transcription of AML1-responsive genes.99,101 AML1-ETO knock-in mice102 have similar embryonic-lethal phenotype as aml1 knock-out mice,25 which show absent fetal liver hematopoiesis. The AML1-ETO protein contains the N-terminal 177 AA of AML1, including the runt homology domain that mediates sequencespecific DNA binding,99 fused to near full-length ETO protein.103 ETO was originally identified through its involvement in the t(8;21) translocation. Expressed in CD34 cells and in the brain,104 ETO shares regions of homology with the Drosophila Nervy protein.103 It contains 2 putative C-terminal Zn-finger domains, but has not yet been shown to directly interact with DNA. Little is known about its normal function. It acts as a transforming oncogene when overexpressed in NIH3T3 cells.105 In tests of its ability to modulate transcription, ETO acts as a repressor, although it is not yet clear how this relates to the function of wild-type ETO.36 Recently, our group demonstrated that ETO’s ability to repress transcription is mediated through its interaction with N-CoR and recruitment of an N-CoR/Sin3/HDAC1 complex.36 These results have been confirmed by 2 other laboratories.37,38 Because the N-CoR interaction domain maps to the Zn-finger regions of ETO, a region that is retained in the AML1-ETO fusion, the same domain likely mediates AML1-ETO’s repressive effects. AML1-ETO mutants that lack this domain lose From www.bloodjournal.org by guest on June 15, 2017. For personal use only. CHROMATIN REMODELING IN LEUKEMIA 421 Fig 2. Fusion proteins in acute promyelocytic leukemia. (A) indicates the unliganded interactions of the RXR/RAR␣ heterodimer with an N-CoR/Sin3/HDAC1 complex. Upon binding retinoid acid, the RXR/RAR␣ heterodimer releases the corepressor complex and binds a coactivator complex with histone acetylase activity. (B) indicates the analogous interactions of the RXR/PML-RAR␣ heterodimer with the corepressor complex. Release of the corepressor complex occurs only in the presence of pharmacological levels of retinoic acid. (C) depicts the ligand-independent binding of the corepressor complex to PLZF-RAR␣. (It has been proposed, but not yet been formally demonstrated, that liganded RXR/PLZF-RAR␣ binds both coactivator and corepressor complexes.) Chromatin remodeling occurs only in the presence of both RA and an HDAC inhibitor. Fig 3. AML-ETO fusion protein. (A) depicts the association of the AML1 transcriptional activator with a coactivator complex; (B) indicates the binding of a corepressor to the AML-ETO fusion protein. Fig 4. MLL-CBP. One of several models for MLL-CBP function. (A) MLL binds to DNA through interactions between its AT hooks and the minor groove of DNA. (B) MLL-CBP alters chromatin structure at MLL-target sites through the action of the histone acetyltransferase domain of CBP. From www.bloodjournal.org by guest on June 15, 2017. For personal use only. 422 their ability to recruit N-CoR and lose their ability to repress transcription and inhibit differentiation.36,38 The model that has developed is the following (Fig 3): AML1-ETO binds to AML1 consensus sequences in DNA. Unlike wild-type AML1, the fusion protein does not initiate p300/CBP-directed histone acetylation and transcriptional activation. Rather, the opposite occurs: through its ETO domain, AML1-ETO recruits N-CoR/ Sin3/HDAC1. By permanently tethering this repressive complex to AML1-responsive promoters, AML1-ETO actively suppresses transcription by maintaining the histones in a deacetylated conformation and making DNA inaccessible to the transcriptional apparatus. Inhibition of the expression of AML1responsive genes leads to a block in myeloid development and leukemic transformation of the maturing hematopoietic progenitors. One might predict that HDAC inhibitors could overcome the effects of AML1-ETO and lead to reversal of the leukemic phenotype; preliminary data suggests that this strategy of chromatin-remodeling therapy holds promise for the treatment of t(8;21) acute myeloid leukemia (see below). MLL fusions: A SET of alterations. The MLL locus is involved in a greater assortment of chromosomal rearrangements in leukemias than any other gene (see recent reviews by Downing and Look106 and Cimino et al107). Translocations or inversions of this gene on chromosome 11q23 are associated with a variety of FAB subtypes and some lymphoid malignancies as well (thus the name, Mixed Lineage Leukemia). Because of its involvement in the t(4;11) pediatric B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL),108 MLL is also called ALL1. MLL rearrangement is found in both de novo leukemias and chemotherapy-associated (most often topoisomerase-inhibitor) secondary leukemias. All of the 11q23 leukemias are aggressive, respond poorly to chemotherapy, and have a poor prognosis. More than 40 translocation sites have been identified for MLL, and nearly 20 fusion partners have been cloned. Partial tandem duplication of MLL with an abnormal MLL/MLL fusion occurs in AML patients with the (⫹11) karyotype109 and is sometimes seen in leukemias with normal karyotype. Possibly relating to a fragile site in the MLL locus, all of the rearrangements cluster within exons 5-11.110 The MLL gene111-114 is more than 100 kb long, encodes an 11.7-kb transcript with 23 exons,110 and gives rise to a protein of 3972 AA. Clues to the function of MLL have come from the identification of domains that share homology with other known proteins. The most significant match is seen in 4 domains that are conserved with the Drosophila protein Trithorax (TRX), giving rise to the alternative name for MLL as the human trithorax gene (HRX or HTRX).111-114 In Drosophila, TRX positively regulates homeotic gene expression,115-118 which in turn directs development of embryonic structures. In mammalian hematopoiesis, MLL is thought to regulate expression of homeobox (HOX) genes,119 which serve a similar critical role as transcriptional activators of developmentally expressed gene families. It follows that dysregulation of HOX gene expression would have global consequences for hematopoietic cells and give rise to aggressive malignant transformation. As expected, murine mll ⫺/⫺ knockouts are embryonic lethal.119 Mll ⫹/⫺ animals have numerous developmental skeletal abnormalities, as well as abnormal hematopoiesis.119 MLL has a series of N-terminal domains known as AT-hooks REDNER, WANG, AND LIU and a Zn-finger motif in its C-terminus.111-115 As with other AT-hook containing proteins, it is thought that the AT-hooks allow MLL to bind to the minor groove of DNA (Fig 4A). Although it has not been shown to recognize specific DNA sequence motifs, TRX does localize to discrete areas of polytene chromosomes in Drosophila.120 Several of these sites have been identified as regulatory regions of target genes, supporting the hypothesis that TRX and MLL associate physically with cis-acting elements of target genes to facilitate their expression during appropriate stages of development. Unlike TRX, MLL has an N-terminal region that shares homology with the regulatory region, but not the catalytic domain, of DNA methyltransferases112; the significance of this is not yet clear, although one could speculate that this region might participate in chromatin structure recognition. Perhaps key to their function, MLL and TRX share a highly conserved C-terminal 150 AA protein interaction domain, known as the SET domain.120 This region is also found in a number of other proteins that have transcriptional regulatory roles. Through its SET domain, MLL has been shown to bind INI1 and SNR1, 2 proteins that are homologous to members of the SWI/SNF complex.120 SWI/ SNF complexes alter chromatin structure in an ATP-dependent fashion (see above). To date, coprecipitation experiments have failed to identify MLL or TRX as part of a stable SWI/SNF-like complex, indicating that the interaction may be a transient one.120 It is reasonable to speculate that MLL serves as a chromatinbinding protein that serves a regulatory function necessary for expression of target genes. Through its SET domain, MLL recruits an SWI/SNF-like ATPase-engine that changes the nucleosomal structure to maintain an open chromatin conformation. Supporting this hypothesis is the observation that initial transcription of downstream targets of MLL occurs normally in mll-null mice; however, in the absence of MLL, transcription of MLL-target genes cannot be maintained.119 It is difficult to propose a single model that would suggest a common mechanism for all of the MLL fusion proteins, including the partial-tandem duplication of MLL itself (Table 3). In all of the MLL fusions (with the exception being the partial-tandem duplication), the N-terminal AT hooks and methyltransferase homology domains are retained, but the C-terminal Zn-finger and SET domains are lost.121 One simple model is that loss of the ability to recruit the SWI/SNF complex disrupts MLL function as a regulator of gene expression. In the tandem MLL duplication, in which the SET domain is preserved, one might postulate that the altered MLL conformation, and the abnormal distance of the SET domain from the N-terminal AT-hooks, might render the MLL protein nonfunctional. However, the picture for 11q23 rearrangements is likely not Table 3. MLL Fusion Proteins That May Affect Chromatin Remodeling Fusion Karyotype Potential Target Pathway All MLL-fusions MLL-AF9 MLL-ENL MLL-CBP MLL-p300 Any 11q23 abnormality t(9;11)(p22;q23) t(11;19)(q23;p13.3) t(11;16)(q23;p13) t(11;23)(q23;q13) SWI/SNF SWI/SNF SWI/SNF and/or HAT HAT HAT From www.bloodjournal.org by guest on June 15, 2017. For personal use only. CHROMATIN REMODELING IN LEUKEMIA so simple. Two of its fusion partners,122 AF9 in t(9;11)(p22;q23) and ENL in t(11;19)(q23;p13.3), are homologous to proteins that are themselves associated with the SWI/SNF complex.123 Fusion with the DNA-binding AT-hook domain of MLL might result in permanent tethering of a SWI/SNF-like complex to MLL targets, resulting in constitutive activation of the SWI/ SNF chromatin remodeling complex. Another speculative model is that the fusions disrupt MLL-target chromatin structure through recruitment of histone acetylase enzymes. For example, ENL contains a transcriptional activation domain that is retained in the MLL-ENL fusion. Through its activation motif, ENL might tether an HAT-containing coactivator complex to MLL target genes. Switching HATs. Two other MLL-fusions potentially act through a similar gain-of-function mechanism involving histone acetylase complexes: t(11;16)(q23;p13) and t(11;23)(q23; q13) fuse the upstream sequences of MLL to CBP124-126 and p300,127 respectively. Most of the domains of CBP and p300 are retained, including those that bind other components of the coactivator complex, as well as the catalytic domain that encodes histone acetylase activity (Fig 4B). For these fusions it is likely that abnormal chromatin remodeling occurs either though constitutive activation of HAT activity or through recruitment of other acetyltransferase components of the coactivator complex. Histone acetylases are also mutated in the t(8;16)(p11;p13)128 and inv(8)(p11;q13)48 chromosomal rearrangements associated with M4 and M5 AML. In the first, CBP is fused to upstream elements of a gene called MOZ.128 MOZ itself has predicted acetyltransferase activity, although its targets and biological function have not yet been determined. MOZ contains a variant Zn-finger but has not been shown to bind DNA. In the MOZ-CBP fusion the Zn-finger and catalytic domain of MOZ are fused to almost the entire CBP protein. The breakpoint in CBP is similar to that seen in the MLL-CBP fusion (see above). MOZ-CBP therefore has 2 HAT activities. Similarly, the inv(8) rearrangement fuses the upstream sequences of MOZ to TIF2.48 TIF2 is a homologue of p/CIP, a component of the CBP/p300 coactivator complex. The domain of p/CIP that mediates direct interaction with nuclear hormone receptors is lost in the MOZ-fusion, but the CBP-interaction domain is retained. TIF2 itself is predicted to have acetyltransferase activity, and, like MOZ-CBP, MOZ-TIF2 retains the acetyltransferase homology domains from each of the fusion partners.48 Like the MOZ-CBP rearrangement, such fusion proteins might result in altered chromatin remodeling of MOZ targets either through a dominant-negative effect, altered substrate specificity of the fusion enzyme, or recruitment of a HAT-containing coactivator complex to MOZ targets. Any of these mechanisms might impair normal chromatin remodeling, leading to aberrant transcription. It is worth noting that the MOZ-CBP t(8;16) and MOZ-TIF2 inv(8) leukemias have virtually identical FAB M5 phenotypes,48,128 suggesting that the 2 fusions have a similar final common pathway. CHROMATIN THERAPY Excitement in the field of chromatin structure has been generated with the realization that remodeling mechanisms might be targeted in therapeutic strategies. Preliminary studies, 423 mostly in the in vitro setting, have focused on inhibition of histone deacetylase, in part because HDAC1 was one of the first enzymes identified in nucleosomal remodeling, because its function is best understood, and because it is the only candidate for which specific inhibitors have been identified. Butyric acid, or butyrate, a physiologic byproduct of colonic bacterial fermentation, was the first identified of the HDAC inhibitors.129-131 It functions as a competitive inhibitor of HDAC, perhaps by mimicking the normal substrate (butyrate is a 4-carbon molecule, whereas acetyl groups are 2-carbon). In micromolar concentrations, butyrate is not specific for HDAC: it also inhibits phosphorylation and methylation of nuclear proteins as well as DNA methylation. Its analog phenylbutyrate132,133 acts in a similar manner. More specific for HDAC than butyrate or its analogs are trichostatin A134,135 (TSA) and trapoxin136,137 (TPX). TSA, a product of Streptomyces hygropicus, was originally isolated as an antifungal agent. TPX, a cyclic tetrapeptide containing 2 L-phenylalanines, was identified in screens of fungal metabolites that induced morphological reversion of transformed NIH3T3 cells.138 TPX and TSA have emerged as potent inhibitors of the histone deacetylases. TSA reversibly inhibits, whereas TPX irreversibly binds to and inactivates the HDAC enzyme. TSA inhibits histone deacetylation with a Ki of 3.4 nmol/L,135 about 1,000-fold less than butyrate; TPX is even more potent. Unlike butyrate and its analogs, nonspecific inhibition of other enzyme systems has not yet been reported for TSA or TPX. To date, no data are available on the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of TSA or TPX. Besides TSA, TPX, and butyrate and its derivatives, a number of hybrid polar compounds139,140 have been found to potently inhibit HDAC enzymes, such as suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid and mcarboxycinnamic acid bishydroxamide. Tributyrin,141 a triglyceride with butyrate molecules esterified at the 1, 2, or 3 positions, holds potential as a long-acting, orally administered prodrug. A major issue concerning the use of such HDAC inhibitors is the potential for modulating chromatin of genes that are not involved in the leukemia or genes in nonleukemic bystander cells. As discussed above, the translocations that cause HDAC to function in inappropriate ways do not truly alter the enzyme itself, but rather bring the normal enzyme into a chromatin environment that it would not otherwise contact. Would HDAC inhibitors have unwanted nonspecific effects that disrupt chromatin of all genes in a cell? Although the explanations are not yet apparent, experience in multiple tissue culture systems has suggested that the effects of HDAC inhibitors are limited. Butyrate, at doses that should inhibit HDAC enzymatic activity, does not kill cells.129 However, the nonspecific effects of butyrate on phosphorylation and methylation make it difficult to draw definite conclusions as to the contribution of HDAC inhibition to its biological effects. TSA has been used in a number of in vitro settings: it was first shown to induce differentiation of MEL cells,142 without having significant apoptotic or transforming effects on the cells. TSA inhibition of HDAC has been shown to increase acetylation of only a subset of promoters,143 suggesting that a minority of genes are regulated through HDAC-dependent chromatin remodeling mechanisms. The observation of normal ordered differentiation From www.bloodjournal.org by guest on June 15, 2017. For personal use only. 424 in APL model systems with a variety of HDAC inhibitors85-88 supports the notion that these agents do not have global effects on chromatin structure and gene expression. HDAC inhibitors in leukemia. We have already alluded to the relationship between RA responsiveness, the HDAC complex, and the RAR␣-fusion proteins in APL. APL has become the paradigm for the application of HDAC inhibitors. As described above, HDAC inhibitors synergize with retinoic acid to overcome the PML-RAR␣ and PLZF-RAR␣ induced maturation blockade in cell models.85-88 Pandolfi’s group87 has shown that, similar to patients with APL, PML-RAR␣ transgenic mice responded to RA treatment, whereas PLZF-RAR␣ transgenic mice developed RA-resistant leukemia. In vitro, neither RA nor TSA had significant effects on the PLZF-RAR␣ blasts, but together they induced differentiation. The interpretation of this data is that RA alone failed to release the N-CoR/Sin3/HDAC1 complex from PLZF-RAR␣; that TSA acted downstream to inhibit the HDAC complex, but did not induce recruitment of a coactivator complex; and that only in the presence of both molecules could the suppressive effects of PLZF-RAR␣ be overcome. These studies are consistent with other reports that suggest that HDAC inhibitors might have a role in APL therapy.85-88 The recent report of blast-cell differentiation and successful remission induction in a patient with PLZF-RAR␣ treated with a combination of ATRA and granulocyte colonystimulating factor (G-CSF)144 raises speculation as to whether G-CSF might alter HDAC activity. Besides PLZF-RAR␣ blasts, some PML-RAR␣–expressing APL cells do not respond to RA alone but may differentiate in response to the combination of RA and an HDAC inhibitor. Several patient samples have been identified to have mutations in the C-terminal region of PML-RAR␣, near the N-CoR binding domain.145 Warrell’s group at Memorial SloanKettering has attempted to capitalize on such in vitro observations, reporting the use of the HDAC inhibitor phenylbutyrate in a PML-RAR␣ patient who was in her third relapse.146 She had previously been induced with ATRA and chemotherapy, treated in first remission with ATRA and allogeneic bone marrow transplantation, and treated in second relapse with arsenic trioxide after failing reinduction with ATRA or standard chemotherapy. After 11 days on ATRA at 45 mg/m2/d, no change was observed in her bone marrow. At that time, phenylbutyrate was added to her regimen at a dose of 150 mg/kg/d. Immunofluorescence and Western blot analysis of blood and bone marrow mononuclear cells documented a time-dependent increase in histone acetylation (presumably as a result of antagonization of HDAC). Over the next 3 weeks, the doses of both ATRA and phenylbutyrate were increased to 90 mg/m2/d and 210 mg/kg, respectively. A bone marrow performed 2 weeks after the addition of the phenylbutyrate showed a decrease in the percentage of leukemic cells from 23% to 9%. A bone marrow 10 days later showed elimination of leukemic blasts. After a second course of therapy, she achieved a molecular remission (PML-RAR␣ negative) and continued to be in remission after 6 months. Aside from APL, HDAC inhibitors have a potential role in the treatment of AML1-ETO AML (see above). We and others have proposed that AML1-ETO’s leukemic potential is mediated by the recruitment of an HDAC-containing complex to REDNER, WANG, AND LIU AML1-responsive promoters.36-38 In our own experiments,147 we found that TSA or phenylbutyrate was able to partially reverse transcriptional repression mediated by the ETO moiety of AML1-ETO. In vitro treatment of an AML1-ETO cell line (Kasumi-1) with clinically attainable levels of phenylbutyrate induced partial differentiation and apoptosis. Such results may herald the therapeutic application of HDAC inhibitors for t(8;21) AML in the future. The clinical use of HDAC inhibitors need not be limited to patients with obvious abnormalities in histone deacetylation pathways. In 1983, continuous infusion of butyrate, at a dose of 500 mg/kg/d, was reported to induce a partial remission in a patient with myelomonocytic leukemia.148 No chromosomal abnormalities were noted in this case. It is possible that this patient did have an unrecognized rearrangement that would have aberrantly recruited a histone deacetylase to an abnormal target or that inhibition of HDAC may have compensated for an underactive HAT. Alternatively, the effects might not have been related to fusion gene-specific effects. For example, phenylbutyrate has been reported to upregulate the B7 costimulatory molecule on AML blasts,149 suggesting a role in immune surveillance. These exciting results with HDAC inhibitors invigorate the search for other means of modulating chromatin remodeling. Despite the current dearth of specific inhibitors of HAT and SWI/SNF enzymes, the development of inhibitory peptides is a potential avenue that has yet to be pursued. Thanks to insights gained from studies of the molecular biology of leukemia, chromatin therapy may emerge as a potent antileukemia strategy of the future. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors thank Daniel E. Johnson, Margaret V. Ragni, and Richard A. Steinman for critical reading of the manuscript and Neal Young for encouragement and support. REFERENCES 1. Luger K, Mader AW, Richmond RK, Sargent DF, Richmond TJ: Crystal structure of the nucleosome core particle at 2.8 A resolution. Nature 389:251, 1997 2. Rhodes D: Chromatin structure. The nucleosome core all wrapped up. Nature 389:233, 1997 3. Olins AL, Olins DE: Spheroid chromatin units ( bodies). Science 183:330, 1974 4. Finch JT, Klug A: Solenoidal model for superstructure in chromatin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 73:1897, 1976 5. Cao H, Widlund HR, Simonsson T, Kubista M: TGGA repeats impair nucleosome formation. J Mol Biol 281:253, 1998 6. Schild-Poulter C, Sassone-Corsi P, Granger-Schnarr M, Schnarr M: Nucleosome assembly on the human c-fos promoter interferes with transcription factor binding. Nucleic Acids Res 24:4751, 1996 7. Studitsky VM, Clark DJ, Felsenfeld G: Overcoming a nucleosomal barrier to transcription. Cell 83:19, 1995 8. Geraghty DS, Sucic HB, Chen J, Pederson DS: Evidence that partial unwrapping of DNA from nucleosomes facilitates the binding of heat shock factor following DNA replication in yeast. J Biol Chem 273:20463, 1998 9. Tsukiyama T, Wu C: Chromatin remodeling and transcription. Curr Opin Genet Dev 7:182, 1997 10. Bartsch J, Truss M, Bode J, Beato M: Moderate increase in histone acetylation activates the mouse mammary tumor virus promoter From www.bloodjournal.org by guest on June 15, 2017. For personal use only. CHROMATIN REMODELING IN LEUKEMIA and remodels its nucleosome structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:10741, 1996 11. Grunstein M: Histone acetylation in chromatin structure and transcription. Nature 389:349, 1997 12. Hebbes TR, Thorne AW, Crane-Robinson C: A direct link between core histone acetylation and transcriptionally active chromatin. EMBO J 7:1395, 1988 13. Tse C, Sera T, Wolffe AP, Hansen JC: Disruption of higher-order folding by core histone acetylation dramatically enhances transcription of nucleosomal arrays by RNA polymerase III. Mol Cell Biol 18:4629, 1998 14. Vettese-Dadey M, Grant PA, Hebbes TR, Crane-Robinson C, Allis CD, Workman JL: Acetylation of histone H4 plays a primary role in enhancing transcription factor binding to nucleosomal DNA in vitro. EMBO J 15:2508, 1996 15. Walia H, Chen HY, Sun JM, Holth LT, Davie JR: Histone acetylation is required to maintain the unfolded nucleosome structure associated with transcribing DNA. J Biol Chem 273:14516, 1998 16. Ura K, Kurumizaka H, Dimitrov S, Almouzni G, Wolffe AP: Histone acetylation: Influence on transcription, nucleosome mobility and positioning, and linker histone-dependent transcriptional repression. EMBO J 16:2096, 1997 17. Nan X, Ng HH, Johnson CA, Laherty CD, Turner BM, Eisenman RN, Bird A: Transcriptional repression by the methyl-CpG-binding protein MeCP2 involves a histone deacetylase complex. Nature 393: 386, 1998 18. Tremethick DJ, Hyman L: High mobility group protein 14 and 17 can prevent the close packing of nucleosomes by increasing the strength of protein contacts in the linker DNA. J Biol Chem 271:12009, 1996 19. Postnikov YV, Herrera JE, Hock R, Scheer U, Bustin M: Clusters of nucleosomes containing chromosomal protein HMG-17 in chromatin. J Mol Biol 274:454, 1997 20. Glass CK, Rose DW, Rosenfeld MG: Nuclear receptor coactivators. Curr Opin Cell Biol 9:222, 1997 21. Utley RT, Ikeda K, Grant PA, Cote J, Steger DJ, Eberharter A, John S, Workman JL: Transcriptional activators direct histone acetyltransferase complexes to nucleosomes. Nature 394:498, 1998 22. Evans R: The steroid and thyroid hormone receptor superfamily. Nature 240:889, 1988 23. Yu VC, Delsert C, Andersen B, Holloway JM, Devary OV, Naar AM, Kim SY, Boutin JM, Glass CK, Rosenfeld MG: RXR beta: A coregulator that enhances binding of retinoic acid, thyroid hormone, and vitamin D receptors to their cognate response elements. Cell 67:1251, 1991 24. Umesono K, Murakami KK, Thompson CC, Evans RM: Direct repeats as selective response elements for the thyroid hormone, retinoic acid, and vitamin D3 receptors. Cell 65:1255, 1991 25. Okuda T, van Deursen J, Hiebert SW, Grosveld G, Downing JR: AML1, the target of multiple chromosomal translocations in human leukemia, is essential for normal fetal liver hematopoiesis. Cell 84:321, 1996 25a. Yang N, Schule R, Mangelsdorf DJ, Evans RM: Characterization of DNA binding and retinoic acid binding properties of retinoic acid receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 9:3559, 1991 26. Horlein AJ, Naar AM, Heinzel T, Torchia J, Gloss B, Kurokawa R, Ryan A, Kamei Y, Soderstrom M, Glass CK, Rosenfeld MG: Ligand-independent repression by the thyroid hormone receptor mediated by a nuclear receptor co-repressor. Nature 377:397, 1995 27. Kurokawa R, Soderstrom M, Horlein A, Halachmi S, Brown M, Rosenfeld MG, Glass CK: Polarity-specific activities of retinoic acid receptors determined by a co-repressor. Nature 377:451, 1995 28. Chen JD, Evans RM: A transcriptional co-repressor that interacts with nuclear hormone receptors. Nature 377:454, 1995 29. Chen JD, Umesono K, Evans RM: SMRT isoforms mediate 425 repression and anti-repression of nuclear receptor heterodimers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:7567, 1996 30. Alland L, Muhle R, Hou H Jr, Potes J, Chin L, Schreiber-Agus N, DePinho RA: Role for N-CoR and histone deacetylase in Sin3-mediated transcriptional repression. Nature 387:49, 1997 31. Laherty CD, Yang WM, Sun JM, Davie JR, Seto E, Eisenman RN: Histone deacetylases associated with the mSin3 corepressor mediate Mad transcriptional repression. Cell 89:349, 1997 32. Heinzel T, Lavinsky RM, Mullen TM, Soderstrom M, Laherty CD, Torchia J, Yang WM, Brard G, Ngo SD, Davie JR, Seto E, Eisenman RN, Rose DW, Glass CK, Rosenfeld MG: A complex containing N-CoR, mSin3 and histone deacetylase mediates transcriptional repression. Nature 387:43, 1997 33. Hassig CA, Tong JK, Fleischer TC, Owa T, Grable PG, Ayer DE, Schreiber SL: A role for histone deacetylase activity in HDAC1mediated transcriptional repression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:3519, 1998 34. Ayer DE, Lawrence QA, Eisenman RN: Mad-Max transcriptional repression is mediated by ternary complex formation with mammalian homologs of yeast repressor Sin3. Cell 80:767, 1995 35. Harper SE, Qiu Y, Sharp PA: Sin3 corepressor function in Myc-induced transcription and transformation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:8536, 1996 36. Wang JX, Hoshino T, Redner RL, Kajigaya S, Liu JM: ETO, fusion partner in t(8-21) acute myeloid leukemia, represses transcription by interaction with the human N-CoR/mSin3/HDAC1 complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:10860, 1998 37. Gelmetti V, Zhang JS, Fanelli M, Minucci S, Pelicci PG, Lazar MA: Aberrant recruitment of the nuclear receptor corepressor-histone deacetylase complex by the acute myeloid leukemia fusion partner ETO. Mol Cell Biol 18:7185, 1998 38. Lutterbach B, Westendorf JJ, Linggi B, Patten A, Moniwa M, Davie JR, Huynh KD, Bardwell VJ, Lavinsky RM, Rosenfeld MG, Glass C, Seto E, Hiebert SW: ETO, a target of t(8-21) in acute leukemia, interacts with the N-CoR and mSin3 corepressors. Mol Cell Biol 18:7176, 1998 39. Driscoll JE, Seachord CL, Lupisella JA, Darveau RP, Reczek PR: Ligand-induced conformational changes in the human retinoic acid receptor detected using monoclonal antibodies. J Biol Chem 271:22969, 1996 40. Heery DM, Kalkhoven E, Hoare S, Parker MG: A signature motif in transcriptional co-activators mediates binding to nuclear receptors. Nature 387:733, 1997 41. Lin BC, Hong SH, Krig S, Yoh SM, Privalsky ML: A conformational switch in nuclear hormone receptors is involved in coupling hormone binding to corepressor release. Mol Cell Biol 17:6131, 1997 42. Jenster G, Spencer TE, Burcin MM, Tsai SY, Tsai MJ, O’Malley BW: Steroid receptor induction of gene transcription: A two-step model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:7879, 1997 43. Torchia J, Rose DW, Inostroza J, Kamei Y, Westin S, Glass CK, Rosenfeld MG: The transcriptional co-activator p/CIP binds CBP and mediates nuclear-receptor function. Nature 387:677, 1997 44. Blanco JC, Minucci S, Lu J, Yang XJ, Walker KK, Chen H, Evans RM, Nakatani Y, Ozato K: The histone acetylase PCAF is a nuclear receptor coactivator. Genes Dev 12:1638, 1998 45. Beato M, Candau R, Chavez S, Mows C, Truss M: Interaction of steroid hormone receptors with transcription factors involves chromatin remodelling. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 56:47, 1996 46. McKenna NJ, Nawaz Z, Tsai SY, Tsai MJ, O’Malley BW: Distinct steady-state nuclear receptor coregulator complexes exist in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:11697, 1998 47. Li H, Gomes PJ, Chen JD: RAC3, a steroid/nuclear receptorassociated coactivator that is related to SRC-1 and TIF2. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:8479, 1997 48. Carapeti M, Aguiar RC, Goldman JM, Cross NC: A novel fusion From www.bloodjournal.org by guest on June 15, 2017. For personal use only. 426 between MOZ and the nuclear receptor coactivator TIF2 in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 91:3127, 1998 49. Eckner R: p300 and CBP as transcriptional regulators and targets of oncogenic events. Biol Chem 377:685, 1996 50. Martinez-Balbas MA, Bannister AJ, Martin K, Haus-Seuffert P, Meisterernst M, Kouzarides T: The acetyltransferase activity of CBP stimulates transcription. EMBO J 17:2886, 1998 51. Giles RH, Peters D, Breuning MH: Conjunction dysfunction— CBP/p300 in human disease. Trends Genet 14:178, 1998 52. Imhof A, Yang XJ, Ogryzko VV, Nakatani Y, Wolffe AP, Ge H: Acetylation of general transcription factors by histone acetyltransferases. Curr Biol 7:689, 1997 53. Spencer TE, Jenster G, Burcin MM, Allis CD, Zhou J, Mizzen CA, McKenna NJ, Onate SA, Tsai SY, Tsai MJ, O’Malley BW: Steroid receptor coactivator-1 is a histone acetyltransferase. Nature 389:194, 1997 54. Razin A, Cedar H: DNA methylation and gene expression. Microbiol Rev 55:451, 1991 55. Davey C, Pennings S, Allan J: CpG methylation remodels chromatin structure in vitro. J Mol Biol 267:276, 1997 56. Nan X, Campoy FJ, Bird A: MeCP2 is a transcriptional repressor with abundant binding sites in genomic chromatin. Cell 88:471, 1997 57. Jones PA: Altering gene expression with 5-azacytidine. Cell 40:485, 1985 58. Burns LG, Peterson CL: The yeast SWI-SNF complex facilitates binding of a transcriptional activator to nucleosomal sites in vivo. Mol Cell Biol 17:4811, 1997 59. Cote J, Peterson CL, Workman JL: Perturbation of nucleosome core structure by the SWI/SNF complex persists after its detachment, enhancing subsequent transcription factor binding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:4947, 1998 60. Logie C, Peterson CL: Catalytic activity of the yeast SWI/SNF complex on reconstituted nucleosome arrays. EMBO J 16:6772, 1997 61. Schnitzler G, Sif S, Kingston RE: Human SWI/SNF interconverts a nucleosome between its base state and a stable remodeled state. Cell 94:17, 1998 62. Ryan MP, Jones R, Morse RH: SWI-SNF complex participation in transcriptional activation at a step subsequent to activator binding. Mol Cell Biol 18:1774, 1998 63. Mizuguchi G, Tsukiyama T, Wisniewski J, Wu C: Role of nucleosome remodeling factor NURF in transcriptional activation of chromatin. Mol Cell 1:141, 1997 64. Cairns BR, Lorch Y, Li Y, Zhang M, Lacomis L, ErdjumentBromage H, Tempst P, Du J, Laurent B, Kornberg RD: RSC, an essential, abundant chromatin-remodeling complex. Cell 87:1249, 1996 65. Lorch Y, Cairns BR, Zhang M, Kornberg RD: Activated RSCnucleosome complex and persistently altered form of the nucleosome. Cell 94:29, 1998 66. Ito T, Bulger M, Pazin MJ, Kobayashi R, Kadonaga JT: ACF, an ISWI-containing and ATP-utilizing chromatin assembly and remodeling factor. Cell 90:145, 1997 67. Auble DT, Wang DY, Post KW, Hahn S: Molecular analysis of the SNF2/SWI2 protein family member Mot1, an ATP-driven enzyme that dissociates TATA-binding protein from DNA. Mol Cell Biol 17:4842, 1997 68. Wang W, Cote J, Xue Y, Zhou S, Khavari PA, Biggar SR, Muchardt C, Kalpana GV, Goff SP, Yaniv M, Workman JL, Crabtree GR: Purification and biochemical heterogeneity of the mammalian SWI-SNF complex. EMBO J 15:5370, 1996 69. Dallas PB, Cheney IW, Liao DW, Bowrin V, Byam W, Pacchione S, Kobayashi R, Yaciuk P, Moran E: p300/CREB binding proteinrelated protein p270 is a component of mammalian SWI/SNF complexes. Mol Cell Biol 18:3596, 1998 70. Huang ME, Ye YC, Chen SR, Chai JR, Lu JX, Zhoa L, Gu LJ, REDNER, WANG, AND LIU Wang ZY: Use of all-trans retinoic acid in the treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia. Blood 72:567, 1988 71. Warrell RJ, Frankel SR, Miller WJ, Scheinberg DA, Itri LM, Hittelman WN, Vyas R, Andreeff M, Tafuri A, Jakubowski A, Gabrilove J, Gordon MS, Dmitrovsky E: Differentiation therapy of acute promyelocytic leukemia with tretinoin (all-trans-retinoic acid). N Engl J Med 324:1385, 1991 72. Warrell R Jr, de The H, Wang ZY, Degos L: Acute promyelocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 329:177, 1993 73. Tallman MS, Andersen JW, Schiffer CA, Appelbaum FR, Feusner JH, Ogden A, Shepherd L, Willman C, Bloomfield CD, Rowe JM, Wiernik PH: All-trans-retinoic acid in acute promyelocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 337:1021, 1997 74. Tsai S, Collins SJ: A dominant negative retinoic acid receptor blocks neutrophil differentiation at the promyelocyte stage. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:7153, 1993 75. Tsai S, Bartelmez S, Heyman R, Damm K, Evans R, Collins S: A mutated retinoic acid receptor-alpha exhibiting dominant-negative activity alters the lineage evelopment of a multipotent hematopoietic cell line. Genes Dev 6:2258, 1992 76. Borrow J, Goddard AD, Sheer D, Solomon E: Molecular analysis of acute promyelocytic leukemia breakpoint cluster region on chromosome 17. Science 249:1577, 1990 77. Kakizuka A, Miller WJ, Umesono K, Warrell RJ, Frankel SR, Murty VV, Dmitrovsky E, Evans RM: Chromosomal translocation t(15;17) in human acute promyelocytic leukemia fuses RAR alpha with a novel putative transcription factor, PML. Cell 66:663, 1991 78. de The H, Chomienne C, Lanotte M, Degos L, Dejean A: The t(15;17) translocation of acute promyelocytic leukaemia fuses the retinoic acid receptor alpha gene to a novel transcribed locus. Nature 347:558, 1990 79. Chen Z, Brand NJ, Chen A, Chen SJ, Tong JH, Wang ZY, Waxman S, Zelent A: Fusion between a novel Kruppel-like zinc finger gene and the retinoic acid receptor-alpha locus due to a variant t(11;17) translocation associated with acute promyelocytic leukaemia. EMBO J 12:1161, 1993 80. Redner RL, Rush EA, Faas S, Rudert WA, Corey SJ: The t(5;17) variant of acute promyelocytic leukemia expresses a nucleophosminretinoic acid receptor fusion. Blood 87:882, 1996 81. Wells RA, Hummel JL, De Koven A, Zipursky A, Kirby M, Dube I, Kamel-Reid S: A new variant translocation in acute promyelocytic leukaemia: Molecular characterization and clinical correlation. Leukemia 10:735, 1996 82. Licht JD, Chomienne C, Goy A, Chen A, Scott AA, Head DR, Michaux JL, Wu Y, DeBlasio A, Miller WH, Zelenetz AD, Wilman CL, Chen Z, Chen S-J, Zelent A, Macintyre E, Veil A, Cortes J, Kantarjian H, Waxman S: Clinical and molecular characterization of a rare syndrome of acute promyelocytic leukemia associated with translocation (11;17). Blood 85:1083, 1995 83. Licht JD, Shaknovitch R, English MA, Melnick A, Li J-Y, Reddy JC, Dong S, Chen S-J, Zelent A, Waxman S: Reduced and altered DNA-binding and transcriptional properties of the PLZF-retinoic acid receptor-␣ chimera generated in t(11;17)-associated acute promyelocytic leukemia. Oncogene 12:323, 1996 84. de The H, Lavau C, Marchio A, Chomienne C, Degos L, Dejean A: The PML-RAR alpha fusion mRNA generated by the t(15;17) translocation in acute promyelocytic leukemia encodes a functionally altered RAR. Cell 66:675, 1991 85. Grignani F, Dematteis S, Nervi C, Tomassoni L, Gelmetti V, Cioce M, Fanelli M, Ruthardt M, Ferrara FF, Zamir I, Seiser C, Grignani F, Lazar MA, Minucci S, Pelicci PG: Fusion proteins of the retinoic acid receptor-alpha recruit histone deacetylase in promyelocytic leukaemia. Nature 391:815, 1998 86. Guidez F, Ivins S, Zhu J, Soderstrom M, Waxman S, Zelent A: Reduced retinoic acid-sensitivities of nuclear receptor corepressor From www.bloodjournal.org by guest on June 15, 2017. For personal use only. CHROMATIN REMODELING IN LEUKEMIA binding to PML- and PLZF-RAR-alpha underlie molecular pathogenesis and treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia. Blood 91:2634, 1998 87. He LZ, Guidez F, Tribioli C, Peruzzi D, Ruthardt M, Zelent A, Pandolfi PP: Distinct interactions of PML-RAR-alpha and PLZF-RARalpha with co-repressors determine differential responses to RA in APL. Nat Genet 18:126, 1998 88. Lin RJ, Nagy L, Inoue S, Shao WL, Miller WH, Evans RM: Role of the histone deacetylase complex in acute promyelocytic leukaemia. Nature 391:811, 1998 89. Redner RL, Corey SJ, Rush EA: Differentiation of t(5;17) variant acute promyelocytic leukemic blasts by all-trans retinoic acid. Leukemia 11:1014, 1997 90. Ahmad KF, Engel CK, Prive GG: Crystal structure of the BTB domain from PLZF. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:12123, 1998 91. Li X, Lopez-Guisa JM, Ninan N, Weiner EJ, Rauscher F3, Marmorstein R: Overexpression, purification, characterization, and crystallization of the BTB/POZ domain from the PLZF oncoprotein. J Biol Chem 272:27324, 1997 92. Hong SH, David G, Wong CW, Dejean A, Privalsky ML: SMRT corepressor interacts with PLZF and with the PML-retinoic acid receptor alpha (RARalpha) and PLZF-RARalpha oncoproteins associated with acute promyelocytic leukemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:9028, 1997 93. David G, Alland L, Hong SH, Wong CW, DePinho RA, Dejean A: Histone deacetylase associated with mSin3A mediates repression by the acute promyelocytic leukemia-associated PLZF protein. Oncogene 16:2549, 1998 94. Dhordain P, Albagli O, Lin RJ, Ansieau S, Quief S, Leutz A, Kerckaert JP, Evans RM, Leprince D: Corepressor SMRT binds the BTB/POZ repressing domain of the LAZ3/BCL6 oncoprotein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:10762, 1997 95. Guidez F, Huang W, Tong JH, Dubois C, Balitrand N, Waxman S, Michaux JL, Martiat P, Degos L, Chen Z, Chomienne C: Poor response to all-trans retinoic acid therapy in a t(11;17) PLZF/RAR alpha patient. Leukemia 8:312, 1994 96. Hiebert SW, Downing JR, Lenny N, Meyers S: Transcriptional regulation by the t(8;21) fusion protein, AML-1/ETO. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 211:253, 1996 97. Bloomfield CD, Shuma C, Regal L, Philip PP, Hossfeld DK, Hagemeijer AM, Garson OM, Peterson BA, Sakurai M, Alimena G, Berger R, Rowley JD, Ruutu T, Mitelman F, Dewald GW, Swansbury J: Long-term survival of patients with acute myeloid leukemia: A third follow-up of the Fourth International Workshop on Chromosomes in Leukemia. Cancer 80:2191, 1997 98. Bennett JM, Young ML, Andersen JW, Cassileth PA, Tallman MS, Paietta E, Wiernik PH, Rowe JM: Long-term survival in acute myeloid leukemia: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group experience. Cancer 80:2205, 1997 99. Meyers S, Downing JR, Hiebert SW: Identification of AML-1 and the (8;21) translocation protein (AML-1/ETO) as sequence-specific DNA-binding proteins: The runt homology domain is required for DNA binding and protein-protein interactions. Mol Cell Biol 13:6336, 1993 100. Kitabayashi I, Yokoyama A, Shimizu K, Ohki M: Interaction and functional cooperation of the leukemia-associated factors AML1 and p300 in myeloid cell differentiation. EMBO J 17:2994, 1998 101. Frank R, Zhang J, Uchida H, Meyers S, Hiebert SW, Nimer SD: The AML1/ETO fusion protein blocks transactivation of the GM-CSF promoter by AML1B. Oncogene 11:2667, 1995 102. Yergeau DA, Hetherington CJ, Wang Q, Zhang P, Sharpe AH, Binder M, Marin-Padilla M, Tenen DG, Speck NA, Zhang DE: Embryonic lethality and impairment of haematopoiesis in mice heterozygous for an AML1-ETO fusion gene. Nat Genet 15:303, 1997 103. Lenny N, Meyers S, Hiebert SW: Functional domains of the t(8;21) fusion protein, AML-1/ETO. Oncogene 11:1761, 1995 427 104. Erickson PF, Dessev G, Lasher RS, Philips G, Robinson M, Drabkin HA: ETO and AML1 phosphoproteins are expressed in CD34⫹ hematopoietic progenitors: Implications for t(8;21) leukemogenesis and monitoring residual disease. Blood 88:1813, 1996 105. Wang J, Wang M, Liu JM: Transformation properties of the ETO gene, fusion partner in t(8;21) leukemias. Cancer Res 57:2951, 1997 106. Downing JR, Look AT: MLL fusion genes in the 11q23 acute leukemias. Cancer Treat Res 84:73, 1996 107. Cimino G, Rapanotti MC, Sprovieri T, Elia L: ALL1 gene alterations in acute leukemia: Biological and clinical aspects. Haematologica 83:350, 1998 108. Janssen JW, Ludwig WD, Borkhardt A, Spadinger U, Rieder H, Fonatsch C, Hossfeld DK, Harbott J, Schulz AS, Repp R, Sykkora KW, Hoelzer D, Bartram CR: Pre-pre-B acute lymphoblastic leukemia: High frequency of alternatively spliced ALL1-AF4 transcripts and absence of minimal residual disease during complete remission. Blood 84:3835, 1994 109. Caligiuri MA, Strout MP, Schichman SA, Mrozek K, Arthur DC, Herzig GP, Baer MR, Schiffer CA, Heinonen K, Knuutila S, Nousiainen T, Ruutu T, Block AW, Schulman P, Pedersen-Bjergaard J, Croce CM, Bloomfield CD: Partial tandem duplication of ALL1 as a recurrent molecular defect in acute myeloid leukemia with trisomy 11. Cancer Res 56:1418, 1996 110. Rasio D, Schichman SA, Negrini M, Canaani E, Croce CM: Complete exon structure of the ALL1 gene. Cancer Res 56:1766, 1996 111. Djabali M, Selleri L, Parry P, Bower M, Young BD, Evans GA: A trithorax-like gene is interrupted by chromosome 11q23 translocations in acute leukaemias. Nat Genet 2:113, 1992 112. Ma Q, Alder H, Nelson KK, Chatterjee D, Gu Y, Nakamura T, Canaani E, Croce CM, Siracusa LD, Buchberg AM: Analysis of the murine All-1 gene reveals conserved domains with human ALL-1 and identifies a motif shared with DNA methyltransferases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:6350, 1993 113. Parry P, Djabali M, Bower M, Khristich J, Waterman M, Gibbons B, Young BD, Evans G: Structure and expression of the human trithorax-like gene 1 involved in acute leukemias. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:4738, 1993 114. Tkachuk DC, Kohler S, Cleary ML: Involvement of a homolog of Drosophila trithorax by 11q23 chromosomal translocations in acute leukemias. Cell 71:691, 1992 115. Breen TR, Harte PJ: Molecular characterization of the trithorax gene, a positive regulator of homeotic gene expression in Drosophila. Mech Dev 35:113, 1991 116. Breen TR, Harte PJ: Trithorax regulates multiple homeotic genes in the bithorax and Antennapedia complexes and exerts different tissue-specific, parasegment-specific and promoter-specific effects on each. Development 117:119, 1993 117. Mazo AM, Huang DH, Mozer BA, Dawid IB: The trithorax gene, a trans-acting regulator of the bithorax complex in Drosophila, encodes a protein with zinc-binding domains. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:2112, 1990 118. Orlando V, Jane EP, Chinwalla V, Harte PJ, Paro R: Binding of trithorax and polycomb proteins to the bithorax complex—Dynamic changes during early drosophila embryogenesis. EMBO J 17:5141, 1998 119. Yu BD, Hanson RD, Hess JL, Horning SE, Korsmeyer SJ: MLL, a mammalian trithorax-group gene, functions as a transcriptional maintenance factor in morphogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:10632, 1998 120. Rozenblatt-Rosen O, Rozovskaia T, Burakov D, Sedkov Y, Tillib S, Blechman J, Nakamura T, Croce CM, Mazo A, Canaani E: The C-terminal SET domains of ALL-1 and Trithorax interact with the INI1 and SNR1 proteins, components of the SWI/SNF complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:4152, 1998 From www.bloodjournal.org by guest on June 15, 2017. For personal use only. 428 121. Zeleznik-Le NJ, Harden AM, Rowley JD: 11q23 translocations split the ‘‘AT-hook’’ cruciform DNA-binding region and the transcriptional repression domain from the activation domain of the mixedlineage leukemia (MLL) gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:10610, 1994 122. Nakamura T, Alder H, Gu Y, Prasad R, Canaani O, Kamada N, Gale RP, Lange B, Crist WM, Nowell PC, Croce CM, Canaani E: Genes on chromosomes 4, 9, and 19 involved in 11q23 abnormalities in acute leukemia share sequence homology and/or common motifs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:4631, 1993 123. Cairns BR, Henry NL, Kornberg RD: TFG/TAF30/ANC1, a component of the yeast SWI/SNF complex that is similar to the leukemogenic proteins ENL and AF-9. Mol Cell Biol 16:3308, 1996 124. Sobulo OM, Borrow J, Tomek R, Reshmi S, Harden A, Schlegelberger B, Housman D, Doggett NA, Rowley JD, Zeleznik-Le NJ: MLL is fused to CBP, a histone acetyltransferase, in therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia with a t(11;16)(q23;p13.3). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:8732, 1997 125. Rowley JD, Reshmi S, Sobulo O, Musvee T, Anastasi J, Raimondi S, Schneider NR, Barredo JC, Cantu ES, Schlegelberger B, Behm F, Doggett NA, Borrow J, Zeleznik-Le N: All patients with the T(11;16)(q23;p13.3) that involves MLL and CBP have treatmentrelated hematologic disorders. Blood 90:535, 1997 126. Taki T, Sako M, Tsuchida M, Hayashi Y: The t(11;16)(q23;p13) translocation in myelodysplastic syndrome fuses the MLL gene to the CBP gene. Blood 89:3945, 1997 127. Ida K, Kitabayashi I, Taki T, Taniwaki M, Noro K, Yamamoto M, Ohki M, Hayashi Y: Adenoviral E1A-associated protein p300 is involved in acute myeloid leukemia with t(11;22)(q23;q13). Blood 90:4699, 1997 128. Borrow J, Stanton V Jr, Andresen JM, Becher R, Behm FG, Chaganti RS, Civin CI, Disteche C, Dube I, Frischauf AM, Horsman D, Mitelman F, Volinia S, Watmore AE, Housman DE: The translocation t(8;16)(p11;p13) of acute myeloid leukaemia fuses a putative acetyltransferase to the CREB-binding protein. Nat Genet 14:33, 1996 129. Candido EP, Reeves R, Davie JR: Sodium butyrate inhibits histone deacetylation in cultured cells. Cell 14:105, 1978 130. Boffa LC, Vidali G, Mann RS, Allfrey VG: Suppression of histone deacetylation in vivo and in vitro by sodium butyrate. J Biol Chem 253:3364, 1978 131. Vidali G, Boffa LC, Bradbury EM, Allfrey VG: Butyrate suppression of histone deacetylation leads to accumulation of multiacetylated forms of histones H3 and H4 and increased DNase I sensitivity of the associated DNA sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 75:2239, 1978 132. Elder DJ, Morgan P, Kelly DJ: Anaerobic degradation of trans-cinnamate and omega-phenylalkane carboxylic acids by the photosynthetic bacterium Rhodopseudomonas palustris: Evidence for a beta-oxidation mechanism. Arch Microbiol 157:148, 1992 133. Samid D, Hudgins WR, Shack S, Liu L, Prasanna P, Myers CE: Phenylacetate and phenylbutyrate as novel, nontoxic differentiation inducers. Adv Exp Med Biol 501, 1997 134. Yoshida M, Beppu T: Reversible arrest of proliferation of rat 3Y1 fibroblasts in both the G1 and G2 phases by trichostatin A. Exp Cell Res 177:122, 1988 135. Yoshida M, Kijima M, Akita M, Beppu T: Potent and specific inhibition of mammalian histone deacetylase both in vivo and in vitro by trichostatin A. J Biol Chem 265:17174, 1990 REDNER, WANG, AND LIU 136. Itazaki H, Nagashima K, Sugita K, Yoshida H, Kawamura Y, Yasuda Y, Matsumoto K, Ishii K, Uotani N, Nakai H, Terui A, Yoshimatsu S, Ikanishi Y, Nakagawa Y: Isolation and structural elucidation of new cyclotetrapeptides, trapoxins A and B, having detransformation activities as antitumor agents. J Antibiot 43:1524, 1990 137. Kijima M, Yoshida M, Sugita K, Horinouchi S, Beppu T: Trapoxin, an antitumor cyclic tetrapeptide, is an irreversible inhibitor of mammalian histone deacetylase. J Biol Chem 268:22429, 1993 138. Yoshida M, Horinouchi S, Beppu T: Trichostatin A and trapoxin: Novel chemical probes for the role of histone acetylation in chromatin structure and function. Bioessays 17:423, 1995 139. Richon VM, Webb Y, Merger R, Sheppard T, Jursic B, Ngo L, Civoli F, Breslow R, Rifkind RA, Marks PA: Second generation hybrid polar compounds are potent inducers of transformed cell differentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:5705, 1996 140. Richon VM, Emiliani S, Verdin E, Webb Y, Breslow R, Rifkind RA, Marks PA: A class of hybrid polar inducers of transformed cell differentiation inhibits histone deacetylases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:3003, 1998 141. Newmark HL, Young CW: Butyrate and phenylacetate as differentiating agents: practical problems and opportunities. J Cell Biochem 22:247, 1995 (suppl 1) 142. Yoshida M, Nomura S, Beppu T: Effects of trichostatins on differentiation of murine erythroleukemia cells. Cancer Res 47:3688, 1987 143. Van Lint C, Emiliani S, Verdin E: The expression of a small fraction of cellular genes is changed in response to histone hyperacetylation. Gene Exp 5:245, 1996 144. Jansen JH, de Ridder MC, Geertsma WMC, Erpelinck CAJ, Smit B, Slater R, vd Reijden BA, Greef GE, Sonneveld P, Lowenberg B: Complete remission of t(11;17) positive acute promyelocytic leukemia by all-trans retinoic acid and G-CSF. Blood 92:402a, 1998 (abstr, suppl 1) 145. Ding W, Li YP, Nobile LM, Grills G, Carrera I, Paietta E, Tallman M, Wiernik PH, Gallagher RE: Leukemic cellular retinoic acid resistance and missense mutations in the PML-RAR␣ fusion gene after relapse of acute promyelocytic leukemia from treatment with all-trans retinoic acid and intensive chemotherapy. Blood 92:1172, 1998 146. Warrell RP, He LZ, Richon V, Calleja E, Pandolfi PP: Therapeutic targeting of transcription in acute promyelocytic leukemia by use of an inhibitor of histone deacetylase. J Nat Cancer Inst 90:1621, 1998 147. Wang JX, Saunthararajah Y, Redner RL, Liv JM: Inhibitors of histone deacetylase relieve ETO-mediated repression and induce differentiation of AML1-ETO leukemia cells. Cancer Res (in press) 148. Novogrodsky A, Dvir A, Ravid A, Shkolnik T, Stenzel KH, Rubin AL, Zaizov R: Effect of polar organic compounds on leukemic cells. Butyrate-induced partial remission of acute myelogenous leukemia in a child. Cancer 51:9, 1983 149. Mizuno S, Tokunaga Y, Maeda M, Inaba S, Miyamoto T, Akashi K, Godno H, Niho Y: Inhibitor of histone deacetylase upregulates B7 molecules in acute myelogenous leukemia. Blood 92:616a, 1998 (abstr, suppl 1) From www.bloodjournal.org by guest on June 15, 2017. For personal use only. 1999 94: 417-428 Chromatin Remodeling and Leukemia: New Therapeutic Paradigms Robert L. Redner, Jianxiang Wang and Johnson M. Liu Updated information and services can be found at: http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/94/2/417.full.html Articles on similar topics can be found in the following Blood collections Review Articles (710 articles) Information about reproducing this article in parts or in its entirety may be found online at: http://www.bloodjournal.org/site/misc/rights.xhtml#repub_requests Information about ordering reprints may be found online at: http://www.bloodjournal.org/site/misc/rights.xhtml#reprints Information about subscriptions and ASH membership may be found online at: http://www.bloodjournal.org/site/subscriptions/index.xhtml Blood (print ISSN 0006-4971, online ISSN 1528-0020), is published weekly by the American Society of Hematology, 2021 L St, NW, Suite 900, Washington DC 20036. Copyright 2011 by The American Society of Hematology; all rights reserved.
© Copyright 2025 Paperzz