ADAR-Mediated A>I(G) RNA Editing in the Genotoxic Drug Response of Breast Cancer

Epitranscriptomics is a field that delves into post-transcriptional changes. Among these modifications, the conversion of adenosine to inosine, traduced as guanosine (A>I(G)), is one of the known RNA-editing mechanisms, catalyzed by ADARs. This type of RNA editing is the most common type of editing in mammals and contributes to biological diversity. Disruption in the A>I(G) RNA-editing balance has been linked to diseases, including several types of cancer. Drug resistance in patients with cancer represents a significant public health concern, contributing to increased mortality rates resulting from therapy non-responsiveness and disease progression, representing the greatest challenge for researchers in this field. The A>I(G) RNA editing is involved in several mechanisms over the immunotherapy and genotoxic drug response and drug resistance. This review investigates the relationship between ADAR1 and specific A>I(G) RNA-edited sites, focusing particularly on breast cancer, and the impact of these sites on DNA damage repair and the immune response over anti-cancer therapy. We address the underlying mechanisms, bioinformatics, and in vitro strategies for the identification and validation of A>I(G) RNA-edited sites. We gathered databases related to A>I(G) RNA editing and cancer and discussed the potential clinical and research implications of understanding A>I(G) RNA-editing patterns. Understanding the intricate role of ADAR1-mediated A>I(G) RNA editing in breast cancer holds significant promise for the development of personalized treatment approaches tailored to individual patients’ A>I(G) RNA-editing profiles

Beyond tobacco: genomic disparities in lung cancer between smokers and never-smokers

Abstract Background Tobacco use is one of the main risk factors for Lung Cancer (LC) development. However, about 10–20% of those diagnosed with the disease are never-smokers. For Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) there are clear differences in both the clinical presentation and the tumor genomic profiles between smokers and never-smokers. For example, the Lung Adenocarcinoma (LUAD) histological subtype in never-smokers is predominately found in young women of European, North American, and Asian descent. While the clinical presentation and tumor genomic profiles of smokers have been widely examined, never-smokers are usually underrepresented, especially those of a Latin American (LA) background. In this work, we characterize, for the first time, the difference in the genomic profiles between smokers and never-smokers LC patients from Chile. Methods We conduct a comparison by smoking status in the frequencies of genomic alterations (GAs) including somatic mutations and structural variants (fusions) in a total of 10 clinically relevant genes, including the eight most common actionable genes for LC (EGFR, KRAS, ALK, MET, BRAF, RET, ERBB2, and ROS1) and two established driver genes for malignancies other than LC (PIK3CA and MAP2K1). Study participants were grouped as either smokers (current and former, n = 473) or never-smokers (n = 200) according to self-report tobacco use at enrollment. Results Our findings indicate a higher overall GA frequency for never-smokers compared to smokers (58 vs. 45.7, p-value < 0.01) with the genes EGFR, KRAS, and PIK3CA displaying the highest prevalence while ERBB2, RET, and ROS1 the lowest. Never-smokers present higher frequencies in seven out of the 10 genes; however, smokers harbor a more complex genomic profile. The clearest differences between groups are seen for EGFR (15.6 vs. 21.5, p-value: < 0.01), PIK3CA (6.8 vs 9.5) and ALK (3.2 vs 7.5) in favor of never-smokers, and KRAS (16.3 vs. 11.5) and MAP2K1 (6.6 vs. 3.5) in favor of smokers. Alterations in these genes are comprised almost exclusively by somatic mutations in EGFR and mainly by fusions in ALK, and only by mutations in PIK3CA, KRAS and MAP2K1. Conclusions We found clear differences in the genomic landscape by smoking status in LUAD patients from Chile, with potential implications for clinical management in these limited-resource settings