BackgroundNeural stem cells are currently being investigated as potential therapies for neurodegenerative diseases, stroke, and trauma. However, concerns have been raised over the safety of this experimental therapeutic approach, including, for example, whether there is the potential for tumors to develop from transplanted stem cells.Methods and FindingsA boy with ataxia telangiectasia (AT) was treated with intracerebellar and intrathecal injection of human fetal neural stem cells. Four years after the first treatment he was diagnosed with a multifocal brain tumor. The biopsied tumor was diagnosed as a glioneuronal neoplasm. We compared the tumor cells and the patient's peripheral blood cells by fluorescent in situ hybridization using X and Y chromosome probes, by PCR for the amelogenin gene X- and Y-specific alleles, by MassArray for the ATM patient specific mutation and for several SNPs, by PCR for polymorphic microsatellites, and by human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing. Molecular and cytogenetic studies showed that the tumor was of nonhost origin suggesting it was derived from the transplanted neural stem cells. Microsatellite and HLA analysis demonstrated that the tumor is derived from at least two donors.ConclusionsThis is the first report of a human brain tumor complicating neural stem cell therapy. The findings here suggest that neuronal stem/progenitor cells may be involved in gliomagenesis and provide the first example of a donor-derived brain tumor. Further work is urgently needed to assess the safety of these therapies.

Adenosine-to-inosine (A-to-I) RNA editing was recently shown to be abundant in the human transcriptome, affecting thousands of genes. Employing a bioinformatic approach, we identified significant global hypoediting of Alu repetitive elements in brain, prostate, lung, kidney, and testis tumors. Experimental validation confirmed this finding, showing significantly reduced editing in Alu sequences within MED13 transcripts in brain tissues. Looking at editing of specific recoding and noncoding sites, including in cancer-related genes, a more complex picture emerged, with a gene-specific editing pattern in tumors vs. normal tissues. Additionally, we found reduced RNA levels of all three editing mediating enzymes, ADAR, ADARB1, and ADARB2, in brain tumors. The reduction of ADARB2 correlated with the grade of malignancy of glioblastoma multiforme, the most aggressive of brain tumors, displaying a 99% decrease in ADARB2 RNA levels. Consistently, overexpression of ADAR and ADARB1 in the U87 glioblastoma multiforme cell line resulted in decreased proliferation rate, suggesting that reduced A-to-I editing in brain tumors is involved in the pathogenesis of cancer. Altered epigenetic control was recently shown to play a central role in oncogenesis. We suggest that A-to-I RNA editing may serve as an additional epigenetic mechanism relevant to cancer development and progression.

RNA-editing-mediated exon evolution

A primate-specific exon is found to be dependent on RNA editing for its exonization.

Adenosine-to-inosine (A-to-I) RNA editing alters the original genomic content of the human transcriptome and is essential for maintenance of normal life in mammals. A-to-I editing in Alu repeats is abundant in the human genome, with many thousands of expressed Alu sequences undergoing editing. Little is known so far about the contribution of Alu editing to transcriptome complexity. Transcripts derived from a single edited Alu sequence can be edited in multiple sites, and thus could theoretically generate a large number of different transcripts. Here we explored whether the combinatorial potential nature of edited Alu sequences is actually fulfilled in the human transcriptome. We analyzed datasets of editing sites and performed an analysis of a detailed transcript set of one edited Alu sequence. We found that editing appears at many more sites than detected by earlier genomic screens. To a large extent, editing of different sites within the same transcript is only weakly correlated. Thus, rather than finding a few versions of each transcript, a large number of edited variants arise, resulting in immense transcript diversity that eclipses alternative splicing as mechanism of transcriptome diversity, although with less impact on the proteome.

No abstract