An Sp1/Sp3 binding polymorphism confers methylation protection.

Hundreds of genes show aberrant DNA hypermethylation in cancer, yet little is known about the causes of this hypermethylation. We identified RIL as a frequent methylation target in cancer. In search for factors that influence RIL hypermethylation, we found a 12-bp polymorphic sequence around its transcription start site that creates a long allele. Pyrosequencing of homozygous tumors revealed a 2.1-fold higher methylation for the short alleles (P<0.001). Bisulfite sequencing of cancers heterozygous for RIL showed that the short alleles are 3.1-fold more methylated than the long (P<0.001). The comparison of expression levels between unmethylated long and short EBV-transformed cell lines showed no difference in expression in vivo. Electrophorectic mobility shift assay showed that the inserted region of the long allele binds Sp1 and Sp3 transcription factors, a binding that is absent in the short allele. Transient transfection of RIL allele-specific transgenes showed no effects of the additional Sp1 site on transcription early on. However, stable transfection of methylation-seeded constructs showed gradually decreasing transcription levels from the short allele with eventual spreading of de novo methylation. In contrast, the long allele showed stable levels of expression over time as measured by luciferase and approximately 2-3-fold lower levels of methylation by bisulfite sequencing (P<0.001), suggesting that the polymorphic Sp1 site protects against time-dependent silencing. Our finding demonstrates that, in some genes, hypermethylation in cancer is dictated by protein-DNA interactions at the promoters and provides a novel mechanism by which genetic polymorphisms can influence an epigenetic state.

Specific, Reversible Cytostatic Protection of Normal Cells Against Negative Effects of Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy is a common and effective method to treat many forms of cancer. However, treatment of cancer with chemotherapy has severe side effects which often limit the doses of therapy administered. Because some cancer chemotherapeutics target proliferating cells and tissues, all dividing cells, whether normal or tumor, are affected. Cell culture studies have demonstrated that UCN-01 is able to reversibly and selectively arrest normal dividing cells; tumor cells lines do not undergo this temporary arrest. Following UCN-01 treatment, normal cells displayed a 50-fold increase in IC50 for camptothecin; tumor cells showed no such increased tolerance. We have examined the response of the proliferating tissues of the mouse to UCN- 01 treatment, using the small bowel epithelium as a model system. Our results indicate that UCN-01 treatment can cause a cell cycle arrest in the gut epithelium, beginning 24 hours following UCN-01 administration, with cell proliferation remaining suppressed for one week. Two weeks post-UCN-01 treatment the rate of proliferation returns to normal levels. 5-FU administered during this period demonstrates that UCN-01 is able to provide protection to normal cells of the mouse within a narrow window of efficacy, from three to five days post-UCN-01. UCN-01 pretreated mice displayed improved survival, weight status and blood markers following 5-FU compared to control mice, indicating that UCN-01 can protect normal dividing tissues. The mechanism by which UCN-01 arrests normal cells in vivo was also examined. We have demonstrated that UCN-01 treatment in mice causes an increase in the G1 phase cell cycle proteins cdk4 and cyclin D, as well as the inhibitor p27. Phosphorylated Rb was also elevated in the arrested cells. These results are a departure from cell culture studies, in which inhibition of G1 phase cyclin dependent kinases led to hyposphosphorylation of Rb. Future investigation will be required to understand the mechanism of UCN-01 action. This is important information, especially for identification of alternate compounds which could provide the protection afforded by UCN-01.

Editorial: The Demands of Protection, Preservation,and Permanency: Where Has Family Preservation Gone?

This Journal issue provides three important articles that will aid us in explaining what we do in service to families. We are very pleased to have the opportunity to print a major address delivered by William Meezan on "Translating Rhetoric to Reality: The Future of Family and Children's Services." The challenges of serving families under an evolution of models in Kansas is presented in "Family Preservation Services Under Managed Care: Current Practices and Future Directions" by Melanie Pheatt, Becky Douglas, Lori Wilson, Jody Brook, and Marianne Berry. What people doing the work think is addressed by the piece titled, "Perceptions of Family Preservation Practitioners: A Preliminary Study" by Judith Hilbert, Alvin L. Sallee, and James K. Ott. Finally, this issue presents a number of very interesting reviews of new resources.