Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:03:58.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Genomic Imprinting Involved in the Pathogenesis of Hyperdiploid and Haploid Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia of Childhood?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

O.A. Haas
O.A. Haas*
Affiliation:
Children's Cancer Research Institute (CCRI), St. Anna's Children's Hospital, Vienna, Austria
*
Children's Cancer Research Institute (CCRI), St. Anna Children's Hospital, Kinderspitalgasse 6, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. E-mail: [email protected].

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Hyperdiploidy with a chromosome number between 51 and 65 and a mean peak at 55 occurs as a distinct karyotype pattern in approximately 25-30% of ALLs in childhood [1, 2]. It is considered a favorable prognostic factor. The most intriguing cytogenetic peculiarities of these leukemias are the nearly exclusive presence of nonrandom numerical abnormalities due to the gain of chromosomes 4, 6, 10, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 and X [1, 2]. In contrast, chromosomes 1, 2, 3, 12 and 16 are rarely involved [1, 2]. Typically, the affected chromosomes are present in three copies, with chromosome 21 also often being tetrasomic.

Near-haploid cases, on the other hand, are extremely rare and have a bad prognosis [1, 2]. They contain at least one copy of each chromosome, a second copy of one of the sex chromosomes and both chromosomes 21 in most instances. In addition, two copies of chromosomes 10, 14 and 18 are commonly found.

In the majority of cases of hyperdiploid ALL, the mechanism leading to the increased number of chromosomes is unknown. However, once formed, the abnormal karyotype is uniform and stable in the malignant cell population. Molecular genetic studies performed by Onodera et al. [3] revealed that the hyperdiploid karyotype usually arises by a simultaneous event during a single abnormal cell division from a diploid karyotype. Occasionally, this can also occur by doubling of the chromosomes from a near-haploid karyotype [4]. In virtually all cases, tetrasomy of chromosome 21 was generated by a duplication of both the maternally and paternally derived homolog. This finding was one of the main arguments for the notion that hyperdiploidy cannot be caused by stepwise or sequential gains from a diploid karyotype or by consecutive losses from a tetraploid karyotype.

Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 45 , Issue 1-2 , April 1996 , pp. 239 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1996

References

REFERENCES

1. Pui, CH, Crist, WM, Look, AT: Biology and clinical significance of cytogenetic abnormalities in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1990; 76: 1449–463.Google Scholar
2. Raimondi, SC: Current status of cytogenetic research in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1993; 81: 2237–2251.Google Scholar
3. Onodera, N, McCabe, NR, Rubin, CM: Formation of a hyperdiploid karyotype in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 1992; 80: 203–208.Google Scholar
4. Onodera, N, McCabe, NR, Nachman, JB, Johnson, FL, Le Beau, MM, Rowley, JD, Rubin, CM: Hyperdiploidy arising from near-haploidy in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Genes Chromosom Cancer 1992; 4: 331–336.Google Scholar
5. Wasserman, R, Galili, N, Ito, Y, Reichard, BA, Shane, S, Rovera, G: Predominance of fetal type DJH joining in young children with B precursor lymphoblastic leukemia as evidence for an in utero transforming event. J Exp Med 1992; 176: 1577–1581.Google Scholar
6. Haas, OA: Genomic imprinting. I: Molecular basis for an important new genetic concept. Int J Pediatr Hematol Oncol, in press.Google Scholar
7. Haas, OA: Genomic imprinting. II: Its role in the pathogenesis of neoplastic diseases. Int J Pediatr Hematol Oncol, in press.Google Scholar
8. Tsuchiya, H, Matsuda, I, Kaneko, Y: Why does childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia with hyperdiploidy show a favorable prognosis? Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1990; 50: 273–275.Google Scholar
9. Baylin, SB, Makos, M, Wu, J, Yen, RWC, De Bustros, A, Vertino, P, Nelkin, BD: Abnormal patterns of DNA methylation in human neoplasia: Potential consequences for tumor progression. Cancer Cells 1991; 3: 383–390.Google ScholarPubMed
10. Harris, H: Suppression of malignancy in hybrid cells: The mechanism. J Cell Sci 1985; 79: 83–94.Google Scholar
11. Saxon, PJ, Srivatsan, ES, Stanbridge, EJ: Introduction of human chromosome 11 via microcell transfer controls tumorigenic expression of HeLa cells. EMBO J 1986; 5: 3461–3466.Google Scholar
12. Sandhu, AK, Hubbard, K, Kaur, GP, Jha, KK, Ozer, HL, Athwal, RS: Senescence of immortal human fibroblasts by the introduction of normal human chromosome 6. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994; 91: 5498–5502.Google Scholar
13. Hensler, PJ, Annab, LA, Barrett, JC, Pereira-Smith, OM: A gene involved in control of human cellular senescence on human chromosome 1q. Mol Cell Biol 1994; 14: 2291–2297.Google Scholar
14. Ogata, T, Ayusawa, D, Namba, M, Takahashi, E, Oshimura, M, Oishi, M: Chromosome 7 suppresses indefinite division of nontumorigenic immortalized human fibroblast cell lines KMST-6 and SUSM-1. Mol Cell Biol 1993; 13: 6036–6043.Google Scholar
15. Greaves, MF: Speculations on the cause of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Leukemia 1988; 2: 120–125.Google Scholar
16. Selker, EU: DNA methylation and chromatin structure: A view from below. Trends Biochem Sci 1990; 15: 103–107.Google Scholar
17. Naumova, A, Hansen, M, Strong, L, Jones, PA, Hadjistilianou, D, Mastrangelo, D, Griegel, S, Rajewsky, MF, Shields, J, Donoso, L, Wang, M, Sapienza, C: Concordance between parental origin of chromosome 13q loss and chromosome 6p duplication in sporadic retinoblastoma. Am J Hum Genet 1994; 54: 274–281.Google Scholar
18. Knudson, AG, Meadows, AT: Sounding board: Regression of neuroblastoma IV-S; A genetic hypothesis. N Engl J Med 1980; 302: 1254–1256.Google Scholar