Characterization of H3.3K36M as a tool to study H3K36 methylation in cancer cells

Recurrent mutations at key lysine residues in the histone variant H3.3 are thought to play an etiologic role in the development of distinct subsets of pediatric gliomas and bone and cartilage cancers. H3.3K36M is one such mutation that was originally identified in chondroblastomas, and its expression in these tumors contributes to oncogenic reprogramming by triggering global depletion of dimethylation and trimethylation at H3K36 with a concomitant increase in the levels of H3K27 trimethylation. H3.3K36M expression can also cause epigenomic changes in cell types beyond chondrocytic cells. Here we show that expression of H3.3K36M in HT1080 fibrosarcoma cancer cells severely impairs cellular proliferation, which contrasts its role in promoting transformation of chondrocytic cells. H3.3K36M-associated cellular toxicity phenocopies the specific depletion of H3K36me2, but not loss of H3K36me3. We further find that the H3K36me2-associated toxicity is largely independent of changes in H3K27me3. Together, our findings lend support to the argument that H3K36me2 has distinct roles in cancer cells independent of H3K36me3 and H3K27me3, and highlight the use of H3.3K36M as an epigenetic tool to study H3K36 and H3K27 methylation dynamics in diverse cell types

Residency Program Directors' Views on Research Conducted During Medical School: A National Survey

Purpose: With the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 transition to pass/fail in 2022, uncertainty exists regarding how other residency application components, including research conducted during medical school, will inform interview and ranking decisions. The authors explore program director (PD) views on medical student research, the importance of disseminating that work, and the translatable skill set of research participation. Method: Surveys were distributed to all U.S. residency PDs and remained open from August to November 2021 to query the importance of research participation in assessing applicants, whether certain types of research were more valued, productivity measures that reflect meaningful research participation, and traits for which research serves as a proxy. The survey also queried whether research would be more important without a numeric Step 1 score and the importance of research vs other application components. Results: A total of 885 responses from 393 institutions were received. Ten PDs indicated that research is not considered when reviewing applicants, leaving 875 responses for analysis. Among 873 PDs (2 nonrespondents), 358 (41.0%) replied that meaningful research participation will be more important in offering interviews. A total of 164 of 304 most competitive specialties (53.9%) reported increased research importance compared with 99 of 282 competitive (35.1%) and 95 of 287 least competitive (33.1%) specialties. PDs reported that meaningful research participation demonstrated intellectual curiosity (545 [62.3%]), critical and analytical thinking skills (482 [55.1%]), and self-directed learning skills (455 [52.0%]). PDs from the most competitive specialties were significantly more likely to indicate that they value basic science research vs PDs from the least competitive specialties. Conclusions: This study demonstrates how PDs value research in their review of applicants, what they perceive research represents in an applicant, and how these views are shifting as the Step 1 exam transitions to pass/fail