1. Cancer Biology
  2. Developmental Biology
Download icon

Fetal and neonatal hematopoietic progenitors are functionally and transcriptionally resistant to Flt3-ITD mutations

  1. Shaina N Porter
  2. Andrew S. Cluster
  3. Wei Yang
  4. Kelsey A Busken
  5. Riddhi M Patel
  6. Jiyeon A Ryoo
  7. Jeffrey A Magee  Is a corresponding author
  1. Washington University School of Medicine, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 11
  • Views 1,613
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e18882 doi: 10.7554/eLife.18882

Abstract

The FLT3 Internal Tandem Duplication (FLT3ITD) mutation is common in adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) but rare in early childhood AML. It is not clear why this difference occurs. Here we show that Flt3ITD and cooperating Flt3ITD/Runx1 mutations cause hematopoietic stem cell depletion and myeloid progenitor expansion during adult but not fetal stages of murine development. In adult progenitors, FLT3ITD simultaneously induces self-renewal and myeloid commitment programs via STAT5-dependent and STAT5-independent mechanisms, respectively. While FLT3ITD can activate STAT5 signal transduction prior to birth, this signaling does not alter gene expression until hematopoietic progenitors transition from fetal to adult transcriptional states. Cooperative interactions between Flt3ITD and Runx1 mutations are also blunted in fetal/neonatal progenitors. Fetal/neonatal progenitors may therefore be protected from leukemic transformation because they are not competent to express FLT3ITD target genes. Changes in the transcriptional states of developing hematopoietic progenitors may generally shape the mutation spectra of human leukemias.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used
    1. Levine RL
    2. Shin A
    (2015) Tet2-/-Flt3ITD and WT stem and progenitor cells
    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no: GSE57244).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Shaina N Porter

    Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Andrew S. Cluster

    Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Wei Yang

    Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kelsey A Busken

    Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Riddhi M Patel

    Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jiyeon A Ryoo

    Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jeffrey A Magee

    Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, United States
    For correspondence
    Magee_J@kids.wustl.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0766-4200

Funding

U.S. Department of Defense (CA130124)

  • Jeffrey A Magee

St. Baldrick's Foundation (Scholar Award)

  • Jeffrey A Magee

Hyundai Hope On Wheels (Hope Scholar)

  • Jeffrey A Magee

Gabrielle's Angel Foundation for Cancer Research (Medical Research Award)

  • Jeffrey A Magee

Children's Discovery Institute of Washington University and St. Louis Children's Hospital (Faculty Scholar Award)

  • Jeffrey A Magee

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K12-HD076224)

  • Jeffrey A Magee

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (5T32HD043010-12)

  • Andrew S. Cluster

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All mice were housed in the Department for Comparative Medicine at Washington University. All animals were handled and procedures were performed according to institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols 20130134 and 20160087. These protocols were approved by the Washington University Committees on the Use and Care of Animals.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Scott A Armstrong, Harvard University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: June 16, 2016
  2. Accepted: November 21, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 23, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 12, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Porter et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,613
    Page views
  • 358
    Downloads
  • 11
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    Peter Rodgers, Andy Collings
    Editorial

    As the final outputs of the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology are published, it is clear that preclinical research in cancer biology is not as reproducible as it should be.

    1. Cancer Biology
    Timothy M Errington et al.
    Feature Article

    We conducted the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology to investigate the replicability of preclinical research in cancer biology. The initial aim of the project was to repeat 193 experiments from 53 high-impact papers, using an approach in which the experimental protocols and plans for data analysis had to be peer reviewed and accepted for publication before experimental work could begin. However, the various barriers and challenges we encountered while designing and conducting the experiments meant that we were only able to repeat 50 experiments from 23 papers. Here we report these barriers and challenges. First, many original papers failed to report key descriptive and inferential statistics: the data needed to compute effect sizes and conduct power analyses was publicly accessible for just 4 of 193 experiments. Moreover, despite contacting the authors of the original papers, we were unable to obtain these data for 68% of the experiments. Second, none of the 193 experiments were described in sufficient detail in the original paper to enable us to design protocols to repeat the experiments, so we had to seek clarifications from the original authors. While authors were extremely or very helpful for 41% of experiments, they were minimally helpful for 9% of experiments, and not at all helpful (or did not respond to us) for 32% of experiments. Third, once experimental work started, 67% of the peer-reviewed protocols required modifications to complete the research and just 41% of those modifications could be implemented. Cumulatively, these three factors limited the number of experiments that could be repeated. This experience draws attention to a basic and fundamental concern about replication – it is hard to assess whether reported findings are credible.