Evidence for a Transport-Trap Mode of Drosophila melanogaster gurken mRNA Localization

The Drosophila melanogaster gurken gene encodes a TGF alpha-like signaling molecule that is secreted from the oocyte during two distinct stages of oogenesis to define the coordinate axes of the follicle cell epithelium that surrounds the oocyte and its 15 anterior nurse cells. Because the gurken receptor is expressed throughout the epithelium, axial patterning requires region-specific secretion of Gurken protein, which in turn requires subcellular localization of gurken transcripts. The first stage of Gurken signaling induces anteroposterior pattern in the epithelium and requires the transport of gurken transcripts from nurse cells into the oocyte. The second stage of Gurken signaling induces dorsovental polarity in the epithelium and requires localization of gurken transcripts to the oocyte's anterodorsal corner. Previous studies, relying predominantly on real-time imaging of injected transcripts, indicated that anterodorsal localization involves transport of gurken transcripts to the oocyte's anterior cortex followed by transport to the anterodorsal corner, and anchoring. Such studies further indicated that a single RNA sequence element, the GLS, mediates both transport steps by facilitating association of gurken transcripts with a cytoplasmic dynein motor complex. Finally, it was proposed that the GLS somehow steers the motor complex toward that subset of microtubules that are nucleated around the oocyte nucleus, permitting directed transport to the anterodorsal corner. Here, we re-investigate the role of the GLS using a transgenic fly assay system that includes use of the endogenous gurken promoter and biological rescue as well as RNA localization assays. In contrast to previous reports, our studies indicate that the GLS is sufficient for anterior localization only. Our data support a model in which anterodorsal localization is brought about by repeated rounds of anterior transport, accompanied by specific trapping at the anterodorsal cortex. Our data further indicate that trapping at the anterodorsal corner requires at least one as-yet-unidentified gurken RLE

Epigenetic reprogramming at estrogen-receptor binding sites alters 3D chromatin landscape in endocrine-resistant breast cancer

Endocrine therapy resistance frequently develops in estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer, but the underlying molecular mechanisms are largely unknown. Here, we show that 3-dimensional (3D) chromatin interactions both within and between topologically associating domains (TADs) frequently change in ER+ endocrine-resistant breast cancer cells and that the differential interactions are enriched for resistance-associated genetic variants at CTCF-bound anchors. Ectopic chromatin interactions are preferentially enriched at active enhancers and promoters and ER binding sites, and are associated with altered expression of ER-regulated genes, consistent with dynamic remodelling of ER pathways accompanying the development of endocrine resistance. We observe that loss of 3D chromatin interactions often occurs coincidently with hypermethylation and loss of ER binding. Alterations in active A and inactive B chromosomal compartments are also associated with decreased ER binding and atypical interactions and gene expression. Together, our results suggest that 3D epigenome remodelling is a key mechanism underlying endocrine resistance in ER+ breast cancer

Mucin expression in gastric- and gastro-oesophageal signet-ring cell cancer: results from a comprehensive literature review and a large cohort study of Caucasian and Asian gastric cancer

Background: The literature on the prognostic relevance of signet-ring cell (SRC) histology in gastric cancer (GC) is controversial which is most likely related to inconsistent SRC classification based on haematoxylin–eosin staining. We hypothesised that mucin stains can consistently identify SRC-GC and predict GC patient outcome. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature review on mucin stains in SRC-GC and characterised the mucin expression in 851 Caucasian GC and 410 Asian GC using Alcian Blue (AB)-Periodic Acid-Schiff (PAS), MUC2 (intestinal-type mucin), and MUC5AC (gastric-type mucin). The relationship between mucin expression and histological phenotype [poorly cohesive (PC) including proportion of SRCs, non-poorly cohesive (non-PC), or mucinous (MC)], clinicopathological variables, and patient outcome was analysed. Results: Depending on mucin expression and cut-offs, the positivity rates of SRC-GC reported in the literature varied from 6 to 100%. Patients with MUC2 positive SRC-GC or SRC-GC with (gastro)intestinal phenotype had poorest outcome. In our cohort study, PC with ≥ 10% SRCs expressed more frequently MUC2, MUC5AC, and ABPAS (p < 0.001, p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). Caucasians with AB positive GC or combined ABPAS-MUC2 positive and MUC5AC negative had poorest outcome (all p = 0.002). This association was not seen in Asian patients. Conclusions: This is the first study to suggest that mucin stains do not help to differentiate between SRC-GC and non-SRC-GC. However, mucin stains appear to be able to identify GC patients with different outcome. To our surprise, the relationship between outcome and mucin expression seems to differ between Caucasian and Asian GC patients which warrants further investigations