Patent Grant
11938138
The Sequence Listing, which is a part of the present disclosure, includes a computer-readable form comprising nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences of the present invention (file name “019486-US-NP_Replacement_Sequence_Listing_ST25.txt” created Tuesday, Sep. 21, 2021; 11,414 bytes). The subject matter of the Sequence Listing is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
The present disclosure generally relates to treating leukemias.
Among the various aspects of the present disclosure is the provision of methods for increasing chemotherapy sensitivity or decreasing chemotherapy resistance using BET inhibitors.
An aspect of the present disclosure provides for a method of treating a subject having cancer comprising: administering a BET inhibitor in an amount sufficient to (i) convert tumor-initiating cancer cells into a more chemotherapeutically-sensitive state; or (ii) reduce an amount of stem-like or CD24high cells compared to the amount of stem-like or CD24high cells prior to BET treatment.
In some embodiments, the subject has cancer cells and the cancer cells have a high proportion of stem-like cells (e.g., a greater than or equal proportion CD24high cells to CD24low cells).
In some embodiments, a percentage of chemoresistant (stem-like) cells decreases and a percentage of differentiated, chemosensitive, erythroleukemic cells increases compared to the cells prior to BET inhibiting agent treatment.
In some embodiments, reducing an amount of chemoresistant (stem-like) cells results in the cancer cells becoming more sensitive to treatment with a chemotherapeutic agent.
In some embodiments, the subject is treated with the BET inhibitor prior to receiving a chemotherapeutic treatment (e.g., imatinib).
In some embodiments, the BET inhibitor and chemotherapeutic agent are administered simultaneously with the chemotherapeutic agent.
In some embodiments, the BET inhibitor and chemotherapeutic agent are administered after the chemotherapeutic agent.
In some embodiments, administering the BET inhibitor to the subject increases potency of any chemotherapeutic that targets a differentiated cell state more efficiently than a stem-like cell state.
In some embodiments, the chemotherapeutic is selected from a chemotherapy agent that targets the differentiated cell state more efficiently than a stem-like cell state.
In some embodiments, the cancer cells are leukemia cells, or any cancer having chemo-resistant stem-like cell states regulated by BRD4.
Another aspect of the present disclosure provides for a method of detecting stem-like cells and detecting differentiated, erythroleukemic cells in cancer cells comprising: measuring a level CD24high and CD24low using fluorescent activated cell sorting (FACS); wherein if the subject has a high proportion of stem-like cells (CD24high) compared to differentiated, erythroleukemic cells (CD24low), the subject is treated with a BET inhibiting agent before, during, or after chemotherapy.
Another aspect of the present disclosure provides for a method of monitoring a subject receiving cancer treatment comprising: measuring a level CD24high and CD24low using fluorescent activated cell sorting (FACS); and determining if the subject has an increased proportion of stem-like cells (CD24high) compared to differentiated, erythroleukemic cells (CD24low); or determining if the subject has an increased proportion of stem-like cells (CD24high) to the proportion of stem-like cells (CD24high) prior to treatment (e.g., chemotherapy or BET inhibiting agent treatment).
In some embodiments, if the subject has an increased proportion of stem-like cells (CD24high) compared to differentiated, erythroleukemic cells (CD24low), the subject is not responding to treatment.
In some embodiments, if the subject has an increased proportion of stem-like cells (CD24high) to the proportion of stem-like cells (CD24high) prior to treatment (e.g., chemotherapy or BET inhibiting agent treatment), the subject is not responding to treatment.
In some embodiments, the subject is treated with a BET inhibiting agent.
Another aspect of the present disclosure provides for a method of monitoring a subject at risk for relapse comprising: measuring a level CD24high and CD24low using fluorescent activated cell sorting (FACS); and determining if the subject has an increased proportion of stem-like cells (CD24high) compared to differentiated, erythroleukemic cells (CD24low); or determining if the subject has an increased proportion of stem-like cells (CD24high) to the proportion of differentiated, erythroleukemic cells (CD24low) compared to a prior measurement of the proportion of CD24high and the proportion of CD24low cells.
In some embodiments, if the subject has an increased proportion of stem-like cells (CD24high) compared to differentiated, erythroleukemic cells (CD24low), the subject is at risk for relapse.
In some embodiments, if the subject has an increased proportion of stem-like cells (CD24high) to the proportion of differentiated, erythroleukemic cells (CD24low) compared to a prior measurement of the proportion of CD24high and the proportion of CD24low cells, the subject is at risk for relapse.
In some embodiments, the subject is administered between about 1-10 days of BET inhibitor treatment prior to being administered a chemotherapeutic agent (e.g., imatinib).
In some embodiments, the chemotherapeutic agent is imatinib.
In some embodiments, the BET inhibiting agent is JQ1.
Other objects and features will be in part apparent and in part pointed out hereinafter.
Those of skill in the art will understand that the drawings, described below, are for illustrative purposes only. The drawings are not intended to limit the scope of the present teachings in any way.
The present disclosure is based, at least in part, on the discovery that the stem-like cell state in leukemia is regulated by BRD4, an epigenetic reader that is associated with enhancers. As shown herein, it was found that small molecules that inhibit this protein's function, BET inhibitors, can cause the stem-like cells to transition to the more differentiated, erythroleukemic cells, making the population of cells more sensitive to the chemotherapeutic agent, imatinib.
The cure rate of leukemia has improved substantially in the last few decades, and now up to 90% of children can expect to achieve long term remission. However, only 40% of adults achieve remission, and even for children there can be long term effects associated with treatment. As a result, an improved therapeutic strategy for leukemia remains an important goal. Recently, it has become apparent that leukemias are not homogenous populations of cells—there is considerable genetic and epigenetic cell-to-cell variability among cancer cells, and this can have important consequences on response to therapy. For example, experiments using an in vitro cell line model of leukemia demonstrated that this cancer is composed of stem-like cells as well as more differentiated, erythroleukemic cells, and these two cell states were found to have different chemo-sensitivities, with the stem-like cells being more resistant to treatment. We recently found that the stem-like cell state in leukemia is regulated by BRD4, an epigenetic reader that is associated with enhancers. Furthermore, we found that small molecules that inhibit this protein's function, BET inhibitors, can cause the stem-like cells to transition to the more differentiated, erythroleukemic cells, making the population of cells more sensitive to imatinib. Based on these results, the technology comprises the following:
Examples of stemness-related markers in different cancer types are known in the art and can be used as markers for the methods described herein (see Zhao et al. Cancer Trans Med. 2017; 3(3): 87-95, incorporated herein by reference).
Stemness-Related Transcriptional Factor (TF) Markers in Cancer:
Sternness-Related Markers in Different Cancer Types:
Modifications can include:
Bromodomain and Extraterminal Domain (BET) Inhibiting Agent
One aspect of the present disclosure provides for targeting of BET (e.g., BRD4, particularly, but can also target BRD2, BRD3, testis-ovary specific BRDT), its receptor, or its downstream signaling. The present disclosure provides methods of treating or preventing cancer based on the discovery that BET inhibitors tumor initiating cells into a more chemotherapeutically-sensitive state.
As described herein, inhibitors of BET (e.g., antibodies, fusion proteins, small molecules) can reduce or prevent chemotherapy resistance in cancers with stem-like cell states regulated by BRD4.
A BET inhibiting agent can be any agent that can inhibit BET, downregulate BET, or knockdown BET.
For example, the BET inhibiting agent can be JQ1, commonly used to disrupt BRD4 binding and alter target gene expression. Other BET inhibiting agents can be I-BET, PFI-1, I-BET151, MS417, etc.
These BET inhibitors target tumor cells and do not affect normal tissues. This selectivity appears to be mediated by the inhibitors' preferential binding to superenhancers, which are noncoding regions of DNA which bind multiple transcription factors and are critical to the expression of a cell's identity. In the laboratory, researchers have found that Brd4 normally localizes to superenhancers; (it appears JQ1 does the same) limiting Brd4 binding in these critical regions and contributing to the drug's tumor-specific effects.
Other BET inhibiting agents currently known and those being studied in clinical trials can be used (see e.g., Alqahtani et al. Future Sci OA. 2019 March; 5(3): FSO372, incorporated herein by reference).
BET inhibitors are a class of drugs that reversibly bind the bromodomains of Bromodomain and Extra-Terminal motif (BET) proteins BRD2, BRD3, BRD4, and BRDT, and prevent protein-protein interaction between BET proteins and acetylated histones and transcription factors.
BET inhibitors currently in clinical trials:
Phase I clinical data with single agent BET inhibitors
In vivo combination studies of BET inhibitors:
Formulation
The agents and compositions described herein can be formulated by any conventional manner using one or more pharmaceutically acceptable carriers or excipients as described in, for example, Remington's Pharmaceutical Sciences (A. R. Gennaro, Ed.), 21st edition, ISBN: 0781746736 (2005), incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Such formulations will contain a therapeutically effective amount of a biologically active agent described herein, which can be in purified form, together with a suitable amount of carrier so as to provide the form for proper administration to the subject.
The term “formulation” refers to preparing a drug in a form suitable for administration to a subject, such as a human. Thus, a “formulation” can include pharmaceutically acceptable excipients, including diluents or carriers.
The term “pharmaceutically acceptable” as used herein can describe substances or components that do not cause unacceptable losses of pharmacological activity or unacceptable adverse side effects. Examples of pharmaceutically acceptable ingredients can be those having monographs in United States Pharmacopeia (USP 29) and National Formulary (NF 24), United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc, Rockville, Maryland, 2005 (“USP/NF”), or a more recent edition, and the components listed in the continuously updated Inactive Ingredient Search online database of the FDA. Other useful components that are not described in the USP/NF, etc. may also be used.
The term “pharmaceutically acceptable excipient,” as used herein, can include any and all solvents, dispersion media, coatings, antibacterial and antifungal agents, isotonic, or absorption delaying agents. The use of such media and agents for pharmaceutical active substances is well known in the art (see generally Remington's Pharmaceutical Sciences (A. R. Gennaro, Ed.), 21st edition, ISBN: 0781746736 (2005)). Except insofar as any conventional media or agent is incompatible with an active ingredient, its use in the therapeutic compositions is contemplated. Supplementary active ingredients can also be incorporated into the compositions.
A “stable” formulation or composition can refer to a composition having sufficient stability to allow storage at a convenient temperature, such as between about 0° C. and about 60° C., for a commercially reasonable period of time, such as at least about one day, at least about one week, at least about one month, at least about three months, at least about six months, at least about one year, or at least about two years.
The formulation should suit the mode of administration. The agents of use with the current disclosure can be formulated by known methods for administration to a subject using several routes which include, but are not limited to, parenteral, pulmonary, oral, topical, intradermal, intratumoral, intranasal, inhalation (e.g., in an aerosol), implanted, intramuscular, intraperitoneal, intravenous, intrathecal, intracranial, intracerebroventricular, subcutaneous, intranasal, epidural, intrathecal, ophthalmic, transdermal, buccal, and rectal. The individual agents may also be administered in combination with one or more additional agents or together with other biologically active or biologically inert agents. Such biologically active or inert agents may be in fluid or mechanical communication with the agent(s) or attached to the agent(s) by ionic, covalent, Van der Waals, hydrophobic, hydrophilic or other physical forces.
Controlled-release (or sustained-release) preparations may be formulated to extend the activity of the agent(s) and reduce dosage frequency. Controlled-release preparations can also be used to effect the time of onset of action or other characteristics, such as blood levels of the agent, and consequently affect the occurrence of side effects. Controlled-release preparations may be designed to initially release an amount of an agent(s) that produces the desired therapeutic effect, and gradually and continually release other amounts of the agent to maintain the level of therapeutic effect over an extended period of time. In order to maintain a near-constant level of an agent in the body, the agent can be released from the dosage form at a rate that will replace the amount of agent being metabolized or excreted from the body. The controlled-release of an agent may be stimulated by various inducers, e.g., change in pH, change in temperature, enzymes, water, or other physiological conditions or molecules.
Agents or compositions described herein can also be used in combination with other therapeutic modalities, as described further below. Thus, in addition to the therapies described herein, one may also provide to the subject other therapies known to be efficacious for treatment of the disease, disorder, or condition.
Therapeutic Methods
Also provided is a process of treating, preventing, or reversing chemotherapy resistance or remission in a subject in need of administration of a therapeutically effective amount of a BET inhibiting agent, so as to increase sensitivity to chemotherapy treatment.
Methods described herein are generally performed on a subject in need thereof. A subject in need of the therapeutic methods described herein can be a subject having, diagnosed with, suspected of having, or at risk for developing cancer or in remission. A determination of the need for treatment will typically be assessed by a history, physical exam, or diagnostic tests consistent with the disease or condition at issue. Diagnosis of the various conditions treatable by the methods described herein is within the skill of the art. The subject can be an animal subject, including a mammal, such as horses, cows, dogs, cats, sheep, pigs, mice, rats, monkeys, hamsters, guinea pigs, and humans or chickens. For example, the subject can be a human subject.
Generally, a safe and effective amount of a BET inhibiting agent is, for example, an amount that would cause the desired therapeutic effect in a subject while minimizing undesired side effects. In various embodiments, an effective amount of a BET inhibiting agent described herein can substantially inhibit cancer, slow the progress of cancer, or limit the development of cancer.
According to the methods described herein, administration can be parenteral, pulmonary, oral, topical, intradermal, intramuscular, intraperitoneal, intravenous, intratumoral, intrathecal, intracranial, intracerebroventricular, subcutaneous, intranasal, epidural, ophthalmic, buccal, or rectal administration.
When used in the treatments described herein, a therapeutically effective amount of a BET inhibiting agent can be employed in pure form or, where such forms exist, in pharmaceutically acceptable salt form and with or without a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient. For example, the compounds of the present disclosure can be administered, at a reasonable benefit/risk ratio applicable to any medical treatment, in a sufficient amount to increase chemotherapy sensitivity.
The amount of a composition described herein that can be combined with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier to produce a single dosage form will vary depending upon the subject or host treated and the particular mode of administration. It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the unit content of agent contained in an individual dose of each dosage form need not in itself constitute a therapeutically effective amount, as the necessary therapeutically effective amount could be reached by administration of a number of individual doses.
Toxicity and therapeutic efficacy of compositions described herein can be determined by standard pharmaceutical procedures in cell cultures or experimental animals for determining the LD50 (the dose lethal to 50% of the population) and the ED50, (the dose therapeutically effective in 50% of the population). The dose ratio between toxic and therapeutic effects is the therapeutic index that can be expressed as the ratio LD50/ED50, where larger therapeutic indices are generally understood in the art to be optimal.
The specific therapeutically effective dose level for any particular subject will depend upon a variety of factors including the disorder being treated and the severity of the disorder; activity of the specific compound employed; the specific composition employed; the age, body weight, general health, sex and diet of the subject; the time of administration; the route of administration; the rate of excretion of the composition employed; the duration of the treatment; drugs used in combination or coincidental with the specific compound employed; and like factors well known in the medical arts (see e.g., Koda-Kimble et al. (2004) Applied Therapeutics: The Clinical Use of Drugs, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, ISBN 0781748453; Winter (2003) Basic Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 4th ed., Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, ISBN 0781741475; Sharqel (2004) Applied Biopharmaceutics & Pharmacokinetics, McGraw-Hill/Appleton & Lange, ISBN 0071375503). For example, it is well within the skill of the art to start doses of the composition at levels lower than those required to achieve the desired therapeutic effect and to gradually increase the dosage until the desired effect is achieved. If desired, the effective daily dose may be divided into multiple doses for purposes of administration. Consequently, single dose compositions may contain such amounts or submultiples thereof to make up the daily dose. It will be understood, however, that the total daily usage of the compounds and compositions of the present disclosure will be decided by an attending physician within the scope of sound medical judgment.
Again, each of the states, diseases, disorders, and conditions, described herein, as well as others, can benefit from compositions and methods described herein. Generally, treating a state, disease, disorder, or condition includes preventing, reversing, or delaying the appearance of clinical symptoms in a mammal that may be afflicted with or predisposed to the state, disease, disorder, or condition but does not yet experience or display clinical or subclinical symptoms thereof. Treating can also include inhibiting the state, disease, disorder, or condition, e.g., arresting or reducing the development of the disease or at least one clinical or subclinical symptom thereof. Furthermore, treating can include relieving the disease, e.g., causing regression of the state, disease, disorder, or condition or at least one of its clinical or subclinical symptoms. A benefit to a subject to be treated can be either statistically significant or at least perceptible to the subject or to a physician.
Administration of a BET inhibiting agent can occur as a single event or over a time course of treatment. For example, a BET inhibiting agent can be administered daily, weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly. For treatment of acute conditions, the time course of treatment will usually be at least several days. Certain conditions could extend treatment from several days to several weeks. For example, treatment could extend over one week, two weeks, or three weeks. For more chronic conditions, treatment could extend from several weeks to several months or even a year or more.
Treatment in accord with the methods described herein can be performed prior to, concurrent with, or after conventional treatment modalities for cancer.
A BET inhibiting agent can be administered simultaneously or sequentially with another agent, such as a chemotherapeutic agent, an antibiotic, an anti-inflammatory, or another agent. For example, a BET inhibiting agent can be administered simultaneously with another agent, such as a chemotherapeutic agent, an antibiotic or an anti-inflammatory. Simultaneous administration can occur through administration of separate compositions, each containing one or more of a BET inhibiting agent, a chemotherapeutic agent, an antibiotic, an anti-inflammatory, or another agent. Simultaneous administration can occur through administration of one composition containing two or more of a BET inhibiting agent, a chemotherapeutic agent, an antibiotic, an anti-inflammatory, or another agent. A BET inhibiting agent can be administered sequentially with a chemotherapeutic agent, an antibiotic, an anti-inflammatory, or another agent. For example, a BET inhibiting agent can be administered before or after administration of a chemotherapeutic agent, an antibiotic, an anti-inflammatory, or another agent.
Chemotherapeutic Agents
The BET inhibitors described herein can increase a cancer cells sensitivity to a chemotherapeutic agent. As described herein, the BET inhibitors can increase sensitivity to imatinib. Imatinib is specific tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor that is used in the therapy of Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia and gastrointestinal stromal tumors, both of which are marked by an abnormal, constitutively expressed tyrosine kinase that causes unregulated cell growth. Imatinib is in a class of medications called kinase inhibitors. It works by blocking the action of the abnormal protein that signals cancer cells to multiply.
A chemotherapeutic agent can be any one or combination of Abiraterone Acetate; Abitrexate (Methotrexate); Abraxane (Paclitaxel Albumin-stabilized Nanoparticle Formulation); ABVE; ABVE-PC; AC; AC-T; Adcetris (Brentuximab Vedotin); ADE; Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine; Adriamycin (Doxorubicin Hydrochloride); Afatinib Dimaleate; Afinitor (Everolimus); Akynzeo (Netupitant and Palonosetron Hydrochloride); Aldara (Imiquimod); Aldesleukin; Alecensa (Alectinib); Alectinib; Alemtuzumab; Alkeran (Melphalan Hydrochloride); Alkeran (Melphalan); Alimta (Pemetrexed Disodium); Aloxi (Palonosetron Hydrochloride); Ambochlorin/Amboclorin (Chlorambucil); Amifostine; Aminolevulinic Acid; Anastrozole; Aprepitant; Aredia (Pamidronate Disodium); Arimidex (Anastrozole); Aromasin (Exemestane); Arranon (Nelarabine); Arsenic Trioxide; Arzerra (Ofatumumab); Asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi; Atezolizumab; Avastin (Bevacizumab); Avelumab; Axitinib; Azacitidine; Bavencio (Avelumab) BEACOPP; Becenum (Carmustine); Beleodaq (Belinostat); Belinostat; Bendamustine Hydrochloride; BEP; Bevacizumab; Bexarotene; Bexxar (Tositumomab and Iodine I 131 Tositumomab); Bicalutamide; BiCNU (Carmustine); Bleomycin; Blinatumomab; Blincyto (Blinatumomab); Bortezomib; Bosulif (Bosutinib); Bosutinib; Brentuximab Vedotin; BuMel; Busulfan; Busulfex (Busulfan); Cabazitaxel; Cabometyx (Cabozantinib-S-Malate); Cabozantinib-S-Malate; CAF; Campath (Alemtuzumab); Camptosar (Irinotecan Hydrochloride); Capecitabine; CAPOX; Carac (Fluorouracil-Topical); Carboplatin; Carboplatin-Taxol; Carfilzomib; Carmubris (Carmustine); Casodex (Bicalutamide); CEM; Ceritinib; Cerubidine (Daunorubicin Hydrochloride); Cervarix (Recombinant HPV Bivalent Vaccine); Cetuximab; CEV; Chlorambucil; Chlorambucil-prednisone; CHOP; Cisplatin; Cladribine; Clafen (Cyclophosphamide); Clofarabine; Clofarex (Clofarabine); Clolar (Clofarabine); CMF; Cobimetinib; Cometriq (Cabozantinib-S-Malate); COPDAC; COPP; COPP-ABV; Cosmegen (Dactinomycin); Cotellic (Cobimetinib); Crizotinib; CVP; Cyclophosphamide; Cyfos (Ifosfamide); Cyramza (Ramucirumab); Cytarabine; Cytarabine Liposome; Cytosar-U (Cytarabine); Cytoxan (Cyclophosphamide); Dabrafenib; Dacarbazine; Dacogen (Decitabine); Dactinomycin; Daratumumab; Darzalex (Daratumumab); Dasatinib; Daunorubicin Hydrochloride; Decitabine; Defibrotide Sodium; Defitelio (Defibrotide Sodium); Degarelix; Denileukin Diftitox; Denosumab; DepoCyt (Cytarabine Liposome); Dexamethasone; Dexrazoxane Hydrochloride; Dinutuximab; Docetaxel; Doxil (Doxorubicin Hydrochloride Liposome); Doxorubicin Hydrochloride; Doxorubicin Hydrochloride Liposome; Dox-SL (Doxorubicin Hydrochloride Liposome); DTIC-Dome (Dacarbazine); Efudex (Fluorouracil-Topical); Elitek (Rasburicase); Ellence (Epirubicin Hydrochloride); Elotuzumab; Eloxatin (Oxaliplatin); Eltrombopag Olamine; Emend (Aprepitant); Empliciti (Elotuzumab); Enzalutamide; Epirubicin Hydrochloride; EPOCH; Erbitux (Cetuximab); Eribulin Mesylate; Erivedge (Vismodegib); Erlotinib Hydrochloride; Erwinaze (Asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi); Ethyol (Amifostine); Etopophos (Etoposide Phosphate); Etoposide; Etoposide Phosphate; Evacet (Doxorubicin Hydrochloride Liposome); Everolimus; Evista (Raloxifene Hydrochloride); Evomela (Melphalan Hydrochloride); Exemestane; 5-FU (Fluorouracil Injection); 5-FU (Fluorouracil-Topical); Fareston (Toremifene); Farydak (Panobinostat); Faslodex (Fulvestrant); FEC; Femara (Letrozole); Filgrastim; Fludara (Fludarabine Phosphate); Fludarabine Phosphate; Fluoroplex (Fluorouracil-Topical); Fluorouracil Injection; Fluorouracil-Topical; Flutamide; Folex (Methotrexate); Folex PFS (Methotrexate); FOLFIRI, FOLFIRI-BEVACIZUMA13, FOLFIRI-CETUXIMA13, FOLFIRINOX; FOLFOX; Folotyn (Pralatrexate); FU-LV; Fulvestrant; Gardasil (Recombinant HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine); Gardasil 9 (Recombinant HPV Nonavalent Vaccine); Gazyva (Obinutuzumab); Gefitinib; Gemcitabine Hydrochloride; Gemcitabine-Cisplatin; GEMCITABINE-OXALIPLATIN; Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin; Gemzar (Gemcitabine Hydrochloride); Gilotrif (Afatinib Dimaleate); Gleevec (Imatinib Mesylate); Gliadel (Carmustine Implant); Gliadel wafer (Carmustine Implant); Glucarpidase; Goserelin Acetate; Halaven (Eribulin Mesylate); Hemangeol (Propranolol Hydrochloride); Herceptin (Trastuzumab); HPV Bivalent Vaccine, Recombinant; HPV Nonavalent Vaccine, Recombinant; HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine, Recombinant; Hycamtin (Topotecan Hydrochloride); Hydrea (Hydroxyurea); Hydroxyurea; Hyper-CVAD; Ibrance (Palbociclib); Ibritumomab Tiuxetan; Ibrutinib; ICE; Iclusig (Ponatinib Hydrochloride); Idamycin (Idarubicin Hydrochloride); Idarubicin Hydrochloride; Idelalisib; Ifex (Ifosfamide); Ifosfamide; Ifosfamidum (Ifosfamide); IL-2 (Aldesleukin); Imatinib Mesylate; Imbruvica (Ibrutinib); Imiquimod; Imlygic (Talimogene Laherparepvec); Inlyta (Axitinib); Interferon Alfa-2b, Recombinant; Interleukin-2 (Aldesleukin); Intron A (Recombinant Interferon Alfa-2b); Iodine I 131 Tositumomab and Tositumomab; Ipilimumab; Iressa (Gefitinib); Irinotecan Hydrochloride; Irinotecan Hydrochloride Liposome; Istodax (Romidepsin); Ixabepilone; Ixazomib Citrate; Ixempra (Ixabepilone); Jakafi (Ruxolitinib Phosphate); JEB, Jevtana (Cabazitaxel); Kadcyla (Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine); Keoxifene (Raloxifene Hydrochloride); Kepivance (Palifermin); Keytruda (Pembrolizumab); Kisgali (Ribociclib); Kyprolis (Carfilzomib); Lanreotide Acetate; Lapatinib Ditosylate; Lartruvo (Olaratumab); Lenalidomide; Lenvatinib Mesylate; Lenvima (Lenvatinib Mesylate); Letrozole; Leucovorin Calcium; Leukeran (Chlorambucil); Leuprolide Acetate; Leustatin (Cladribine); Levulan (Aminolevulinic Acid); Linfolizin (Chlorambucil); LipoDox (Doxorubicin Hydrochloride Liposome); Lomustine; Lonsurf (Trifluridine and Tipiracil Hydrochloride); Lupron (Leuprolide Acetate); Lupron Depot (Leuprolide Acetate); Lupron Depot-Ped (Leuprolide Acetate); Lynparza (Olaparib); Mardibo (Vincristine Sulfate Liposome); Matulane (Procarbazine Hydrochloride); Mechlorethamine Hydrochloride; Megestrol Acetate; Mekinist (Trametinib); Melphalan; Melphalan Hydrochloride; Mercaptopurine; Mesna; Mesnex (Mesna); Methazolastone (Temozolomide); Methotrexate; Methotrexate LPF (Methotrexate); Methylnaltrexone Bromide; Mexate (Methotrexate); Mexate-AQ (Methotrexate); Mitomycin C; Mitoxantrone Hydrochloride; Mitozytrex (Mitomycin C); MOPP; Mozobil (Plerixafor); Mustargen (Mechlorethamine Hydrochloride); Mutamycin (Mitomycin C); Myleran (Busulfan); Mylosar (Azacitidine); Mylotarg (Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin); Nanoparticle Paclitaxel (Paclitaxel Albumin-stabilized Nanoparticle Formulation); Navelbine (Vinorelbine Tartrate); Necitumumab; Nelarabine; Neosar (Cyclophosphamide); Netupitant and Palonosetron Hydrochloride; Neulasta (Pegfilgrastim); Neupogen (Filgrastim); Nexavar (Sorafenib Tosylate); Nilandron (Nilutamide); Nilotinib; Nilutamide; Ninlaro (Ixazomib Citrate); Nivolumab; Nolvadex (Tamoxifen Citrate); Nplate (Romiplostim); Obinutuzumab; Odomzo (Sonidegib); OEPA; Ofatumumab; OFF; Olaparib; Olaratumab; Omacetaxine Mepesuccinate; Oncaspar (Pegaspargase); Ondansetron Hydrochloride; Onivyde (Irinotecan Hydrochloride Liposome); Ontak (Denileukin Diftitox); Opdivo (Nivolumab); OPPA; Osimertinib; Oxaliplatin; Paclitaxel; Paclitaxel Albumin-stabilized Nanoparticle Formulation; PAD; Palbociclib; Palifermin; Palonosetron Hydrochloride; Palonosetron Hydrochloride and Netupitant; Pamidronate Disodium; Panitumumab; Panobinostat; Paraplat (Carboplatin); Paraplatin (Carboplatin); Pazopanib Hydrochloride; PCV; PEB; Pegaspargase; Pegfilgrastim; Peginterferon Alfa-2b; PEG-Intron (Peginterferon Alfa-2b); Pembrolizumab; Pemetrexed Disodium; Perjeta (Pertuzumab); Pertuzumab; Platinol (Cisplatin); Platinol-AQ (Cisplatin); Plerixafor; Pomalidomide; Pomalyst (Pomalidomide); Ponatinib Hydrochloride; Portrazza (Necitumumab); Pralatrexate; Prednisone; Procarbazine Hydrochloride; Proleukin (Aldesleukin); Prolia (Denosumab); Promacta (Eltrombopag Olamine); Propranolol Hydrochloride; Provenge (Sipuleucel-T); Purinethol (Mercaptopurine); Purixan (Mercaptopurine); Radium 223 Dichloride; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Ramucirumab; Rasburicase; R-CHOP; R-CVP; Recombinant Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Bivalent Vaccine; Recombinant Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Nonavalent Vaccine; Recombinant Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Quadrivalent Vaccine; Recombinant Interferon Alfa-2b; Regorafenib; Relistor (Methylnaltrexone Bromide); R-EPOCH; Revlimid (Lenalidomide); Rheumatrex (Methotrexate); Ribociclib; R-ICE; Rituxan (Rituximab); Rituximab; Rolapitant Hydrochloride; Romidepsin; Romiplostim; Rubidomycin (Daunorubicin Hydrochloride); Rubraca (Rucaparib Camsylate); Rucaparib Camsylate; Ruxolitinib Phosphate; Sclerosol Intrapleural Aerosol (Talc); Siltuximab; Sipuleucel-T; Somatuline Depot (Lanreotide Acetate); Sonidegib; Sorafenib Tosylate; Sprycel (Dasatinib); STANFORD V; Sterile Talc Powder (Talc); Steritalc (Talc); Stivarga (Regorafenib); Sunitinib Malate; Sutent (Sunitinib Malate); Sylatron (Peginterferon Alfa-2b); Sylvant (Siltuximab); Synribo (Omacetaxine Mepesuccinate); Tabloid (Thioguanine); TAC; Tafinlar (Dabrafenib); Tagrisso (Osimertinib); Talc; Talimogene Laherparepvec; Tamoxifen Citrate; Tarabine PFS (Cytarabine); Tarceva (Erlotinib Hydrochloride); Targretin (Bexarotene); Tasigna (Nilotinib); Taxol (Paclitaxel); Taxotere (Docetaxel); Tecentriq (Atezolizumab); Temodar (Temozolomide); Temozolomide; Temsirolimus; Thalidomide; Thalomid (Thalidomide); Thioguanine; Thiotepa; Tolak (Fluorouracil-Topical); Topotecan Hydrochloride; Toremifene; Torisel (Temsirolimus); Tositumomab and Iodine I 131 Tositumomab; Totect (Dexrazoxane Hydrochloride); TPF; Trabectedin; Trametinib; Trastuzumab; Treanda (Bendamustine Hydrochloride); Trifluridine and Tipiracil Hydrochloride; Trisenox (Arsenic Trioxide); Tykerb (Lapatinib Ditosylate); Unituxin (Dinutuximab); Uridine Triacetate; VAC; Vandetanib; VAMP; Varubi (Rolapitant Hydrochloride); Vectibix (Panitumumab); Velban (Vinblastine Sulfate); Velcade (Bortezomib); Velsar (Vinblastine Sulfate); Vemurafenib; Venclexta (Venetoclax); Venetoclax; Viadur (Leuprolide Acetate); Vidaza (Azacitidine); Vinblastine Sulfate; Vincasar PFS (Vincristine Sulfate); Vincristine Sulfate; Vincristine Sulfate Liposome; Vinorelbine Tartrate; VIP; Vismodegib; Vistogard (Uridine Triacetate); Voraxaze (Glucarpidase); Vorinostat; Votrient (Pazopanib Hydrochloride); Wellcovorin (Leucovorin Calcium); Xalkori (Crizotinib); Xeloda (Capecitabine); XELIRI; XELOX; Xgeva (Denosumab); Xofigo (Radium 223 Dichloride); Xtandi (Enzalutamide); Yervoy (Ipilimumab); Yondelis (Trabectedin); Zaltrap (Ziv-Aflibercept); Zarxio (Filgrastim); Zelboraf (Vemurafenib); Zevalin (Ibritumomab Tiuxetan); Zinecard (Dexrazoxane Hydrochloride); Ziv-Aflibercept; Zofran (Ondansetron Hydrochloride); Zoladex (Goserelin Acetate); Zoledronic Acid; Zolinza (Vorinostat); Zometa (Zoledronic Acid); Zydelig (Idelalisib); Zykadia (Ceritinib); or Zytiga (Abiraterone Acetate).
Cancer
Methods and compositions as described herein can be used for the prevention, treatment, or slowing the progression of cancer or tumor growth. For example, the cancer can be Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL); Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML); Adrenocortical Carcinoma; AIDS-Related Cancers; Kaposi Sarcoma (Soft Tissue Sarcoma); AIDS-Related Lymphoma (Lymphoma); Primary CNS Lymphoma (Lymphoma); Anal Cancer; Appendix Cancer; Gastrointestinal Carcinoid Tumors; Astrocytomas; Atypical Teratoid/Rhabdoid Tumor, Childhood, Central Nervous System (Brain Cancer); Basal Cell Carcinoma of the Skin; Bile Duct Cancer; Bladder Cancer; Bone Cancer (including Ewing Sarcoma and Osteosarcoma and Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma); Brain Tumors; Breast Cancer; Bronchial Tumors; Burkitt Lymphoma; Carcinoid Tumor (Gastrointestinal); Childhood Carcinoid Tumors; Cardiac (Heart) Tumors; Central Nervous System cancer; Atypical Teratoid/Rhabdoid Tumor, Childhood (Brain Cancer); Embryonal Tumors, Childhood (Brain Cancer); Germ Cell Tumor, Childhood (Brain Cancer); Primary CNS Lymphoma; Cervical Cancer; Cholangiocarcinoma; Bile Duct Cancer Chordoma; Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL); Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML); Chronic Myeloproliferative Neoplasms; Colorectal Cancer; Craniopharyngioma (Brain Cancer); Cutaneous T-Cell; Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS); Embryonal Tumors, Central Nervous System, Childhood (Brain Cancer); Endometrial Cancer (Uterine Cancer); Ependymoma, Childhood (Brain Cancer); Esophageal Cancer; Esthesioneuroblastoma; Ewing Sarcoma (Bone Cancer); Extracranial Germ Cell Tumor; Extragonadal Germ Cell Tumor; Eye Cancer; Intraocular Melanoma; Intraocular Melanoma; Retinoblastoma; Fallopian Tube Cancer; Fibrous Histiocytoma of Bone, Malignant, or Osteosarcoma; Gallbladder Cancer; Gastric (Stomach) Cancer; Gastrointestinal Carcinoid Tumor; Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST) (Soft Tissue Sarcoma); Germ Cell Tumors; Central Nervous System Germ Cell Tumors (Brain Cancer); Childhood Extracranial Germ Cell Tumors; Extragonadal Germ Cell Tumors; Ovarian Germ Cell Tumors; Testicular Cancer; Gestational Trophoblastic Disease; Hairy Cell Leukemia; Head and Neck Cancer; Heart Tumors; Hepatocellular (Liver) Cancer; Histiocytosis, Langerhans Cell; Hodgkin Lymphoma; Hypopharyngeal Cancer; Intraocular Melanoma; Islet Cell Tumors; Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors; Kaposi Sarcoma (Soft Tissue Sarcoma); Kidney (Renal Cell) Cancer; Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis; Laryngeal Cancer; Leukemia; Lip and Oral Cavity Cancer; Liver Cancer; Lung Cancer (Non-Small Cell and Small Cell); Lymphoma; Male Breast Cancer; Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma of Bone or Osteosarcoma; Melanoma; Melanoma, Intraocular (Eye); Merkel Cell Carcinoma (Skin Cancer); Mesothelioma, Malignant; Metastatic Cancer; Metastatic Squamous Neck Cancer with Occult Primary; Midline Tract Carcinoma Involving NUT Gene; Mouth Cancer; Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Syndromes; Multiple Myeloma/Plasma Cell Neoplasms; Mycosis Fungoides (Lymphoma); Myelodysplastic Syndromes, Myelodysplastic/Myeloproliferative Neoplasms; Myelogenous Leukemia, Chronic (CML); Myeloid Leukemia, Acute (AML); Myeloproliferative Neoplasms; Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinus Cancer; Nasopharyngeal Cancer; Neuroblastoma; Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma; Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer; Oral Cancer, Lip or Oral Cavity Cancer; Oropharyngeal Cancer; Osteosarcoma and Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma of Bone; Ovarian Cancer Pancreatic Cancer; Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (Islet Cell Tumors); Papillomatosis; Paraganglioma; Paranasal Sinus and Nasal Cavity Cancer; Parathyroid Cancer; Penile Cancer; Pharyngeal Cancer; Pheochromocytoma; Pituitary Tumor; Plasma Cell Neoplasm/Multiple Myeloma; Pleuropulmonary Blastoma; Pregnancy and Breast Cancer; Primary Central Nervous System (CNS) Lymphoma; Primary Peritoneal Cancer; Prostate Cancer; Rectal Cancer; Recurrent Cancer Renal Cell (Kidney) Cancer; Retinoblastoma; Rhabdomyosarcoma, Childhood (Soft Tissue Sarcoma); Salivary Gland Cancer; Sarcoma; Childhood Rhabdomyosarcoma (Soft Tissue Sarcoma); Childhood Vascular Tumors (Soft Tissue Sarcoma); Ewing Sarcoma (Bone Cancer); Kaposi Sarcoma (Soft Tissue Sarcoma); Osteosarcoma (Bone Cancer); Uterine Sarcoma; Sezary Syndrome (Lymphoma); Skin Cancer; Small Cell Lung Cancer; Small Intestine Cancer; Soft Tissue Sarcoma; Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Skin; Squamous Neck Cancer with Occult Primary, Metastatic; Stomach (Gastric) Cancer; T-Cell Lymphoma, Cutaneous; Lymphoma; Mycosis Fungoides and Sezary Syndrome; Testicular Cancer; Throat Cancer; Nasopharyngeal Cancer; Oropharyngeal Cancer; Hypopharyngeal Cancer; Thymoma and Thymic Carcinoma; Thyroid Cancer; Thyroid Tumors; Transitional Cell Cancer of the Renal Pelvis and Ureter (Kidney (Renal Cell) Cancer); Ureter and Renal Pelvis; Transitional Cell Cancer (Kidney (Renal Cell) Cancer; Urethral Cancer; Uterine Cancer, Endometrial; Uterine Sarcoma; Vaginal Cancer; Vascular Tumors (Soft Tissue Sarcoma); Vulvar Cancer; or Wilms Tumor. Brain or spinal cord tumors can be acoustic neuroma; astrocytoma, atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (ATRT); brain stem glioma, chordoma; chondrosarcoma; choroid plexus; CNS lymphoma; craniopharyngioma; cysts; ependymoma; ganglioglioma; germ cell tumor; glioblastoma (GBM); glioma, hemangioma; juvenile pilocytic astrocytoma (JPA); lipoma; lymphoma; medulloblastoma; meningioma; metastatic brain tumor; neurilemmomas; neurofibroma; neuronal & mixed neuronal-glial tumors; non-Hodgkin lymphoma; oligoastrocytoma; oligodendroglioma; optic nerve glioma, pineal tumor; pituitary tumor; primitive neuroectodermal (PNET); rhabdoid tumor; or schwannoma. An astrocytoma can be grade I pilocytic astrocytoma, grade II—low-grade astrocytoma, grade III anaplastic astrocytoma, or grade IV glioblastoma (GBM), or a juvenile pilocytic astrocytoma. A glioma can be a brain stem glioma, ependymoma, mixed glioma, optic nerve glioma, or subependymoma.
Administration
Agents and compositions described herein can be administered according to methods described herein in a variety of means known to the art. The agents and composition can be used therapeutically either as exogenous materials or as endogenous materials. Exogenous agents are those produced or manufactured outside of the body and administered to the body. Endogenous agents are those produced or manufactured inside the body by some type of device (biologic or other) for delivery within or to other organs in the body.
As discussed above, administration can be parenteral, pulmonary, oral, topical, intradermal, intratumoral, intranasal, inhalation (e.g., in an aerosol), implanted, intramuscular, intraperitoneal, intravenous, intrathecal, intracranial, intracerebroventricular, subcutaneous, intranasal, epidural, intrathecal, ophthalmic, transdermal, buccal, and rectal.
Agents and compositions described herein can be administered in a variety of methods well known in the arts. Administration can include, for example, methods involving oral ingestion, direct injection (e.g., systemic or stereotactic), implantation of cells engineered to secrete the factor of interest, drug-releasing biomaterials, polymer matrices, gels, permeable membranes, osmotic systems, multilayer coatings, microparticles, implantable matrix devices, mini-osmotic pumps, implantable pumps, injectable gels and hydrogels, liposomes, micelles (e.g., up to 30 μm), nanospheres (e.g., less than 1 μm), microspheres (e.g., 1-100 μm), reservoir devices, a combination of any of the above, or other suitable delivery vehicles to provide the desired release profile in varying proportions. Other methods of controlled-release delivery of agents or compositions will be known to the skilled artisan and are within the scope of the present disclosure.
Delivery systems may include, for example, an infusion pump which may be used to administer the agent or composition in a manner similar to that used for delivering insulin or chemotherapy to specific organs or tumors. Typically, using such a system, an agent or composition can be administered in combination with a biodegradable, biocompatible polymeric implant that releases the agent over a controlled period of time at a selected site. Examples of polymeric materials include polyanhydrides, polyorthoesters, polyglycolic acid, polylactic acid, polyethylene vinyl acetate, and copolymers and combinations thereof. In addition, a controlled release system can be placed in proximity of a therapeutic target, thus requiring only a fraction of a systemic dosage.
Agents can be encapsulated and administered in a variety of carrier delivery systems. Examples of carrier delivery systems include microspheres, hydrogels, polymeric implants, smart polymeric carriers, and liposomes (see generally, Uchegbu and Schatzlein, eds. (2006) Polymers in Drug Delivery, CRC, ISBN-10:0849325331). Carrier-based systems for molecular or biomolecular agent delivery can: provide for intracellular delivery; tailor biomolecule/agent release rates; increase the proportion of biomolecule that reaches its site of action; improve the transport of the drug to its site of action; allow colocalized deposition with other agents or excipients; improve the stability of the agent in vivo; prolong the residence time of the agent at its site of action by reducing clearance; decrease the nonspecific delivery of the agent to nontarget tissues; decrease irritation caused by the agent; decrease toxicity due to high initial doses of the agent; alter the immunogenicity of the agent; decrease dosage frequency, improve taste of the product; or improve shelf life of the product.
Active compounds are administered at a therapeutically effective dosage sufficient to treat a condition associated with a condition in a patient. For example, the efficacy of a compound can be evaluated in an animal model system that may be predictive of efficacy in treating the disease in a human or another animal, such as the model systems shown in the examples and drawings.
An effective dose range of a therapeutic can be extrapolated from effective doses determined in animal studies for a variety of different animals. In general a human equivalent dose (HED) in mg/kg can be calculated in accordance with the following formula (see, e.g., Reagan-Shaw et al., FASEB J., 22(3):659-661, 2008, which is incorporated herein by reference):
HED (mg/kg)=Animal dose (mg/kg)×(Animal Km/Human Km)
Use of the Km factors in conversion results in more accurate HED values, which are based on body surface area (BSA) rather than only on body mass. Km values for humans and various animals are well known. For example, the Km for an average 60 kg human (with a BSA of 1.6 m2) is 37, whereas a 20 kg child (BSA 0.8 m2) would have a Km of 25. Km for some relevant animal models are also well known, including: mice Km of 3 (given a weight of 0.02 kg and BSA of 0.007); hamster Km of 5 (given a weight of 0.08 kg and BSA of 0.02); rat Km of 6 (given a weight of 0.15 kg and BSA of 0.025) and monkey Km of 12 (given a weight of 3 kg and BSA of 0.24).
Precise amounts of the therapeutic composition depend on the judgment of the practitioner and are peculiar to each individual. Nonetheless, a calculated HED dose provides a general guide. Other factors affecting the dose include the physical and clinical state of the patient, the route of administration, the intended goal of treatment and the potency, stability and toxicity of the particular therapeutic formulation.
The actual dosage amount of a compound of the present disclosure or composition comprising a compound of the present disclosure administered to a subject may be determined by physical and physiological factors such as type of animal treated, age, sex, body weight, severity of condition, the type of disease being treated, previous or concurrent therapeutic interventions, idiopathy of the subject and on the route of administration. These factors may be determined by a skilled artisan. The practitioner responsible for administration will typically determine the concentration of active ingredient(s) in a composition and appropriate dose(s) for the individual subject. The dosage may be adjusted by the individual physician in the event of any complication.
Screening
Also provided are methods for screening for BET inhibitors that increase chemotherapy potency or reduce chemotherapy resistance.
The subject methods find use in the screening of a variety of different candidate molecules (e.g., potentially therapeutic candidate molecules).
Candidate substances for screening according to the methods described herein include, but are not limited to, fractions of tissues or cells, nucleic acids, polypeptides, siRNAs, antisense molecules, aptamers, ribozymes, triple helix compounds, antibodies, and small (e.g., less than about 2000 mw, or less than about 1000 mw, or less than about 800 mw) organic molecules or inorganic molecules including but not limited to salts or metals.
Candidate molecules encompass numerous chemical classes, for example, organic molecules, such as small organic compounds having a molecular weight of more than 50 and less than about 2,500 Daltons. Candidate molecules can comprise functional groups necessary for structural interaction with proteins, particularly hydrogen bonding, and typically include at least an amine, carbonyl, hydroxyl or carboxyl group, and usually at least two of the functional chemical groups. The candidate molecules can comprise cyclical carbon or heterocyclic structures and/or aromatic or polyaromatic structures substituted with one or more of the above functional groups.
A candidate molecule can be a compound in a library database of compounds. One of skill in the art will be generally familiar with, for example, numerous databases for commercially available compounds for screening (see e.g., ZINC database, UCSF, with 2.7 million compounds over 12 distinct subsets of molecules; Irwin and Shoichet (2005) J Chem Inf Model 45, 177-182). One of skill in the art will also be familiar with a variety of search engines to identify commercial sources or desirable compounds and classes of compounds for further testing (see e.g., ZINC database; eMolecules.com; and electronic libraries of commercial compounds provided by vendors, for example: ChemBridge, Princeton BioMolecular, Ambinter SARL, Enamine, ASDI, Life Chemicals etc.).
Candidate molecules for screening according to the methods described herein include both lead-like compounds and drug-like compounds. A lead-like compound is generally understood to have a relatively smaller scaffold-like structure (e.g., molecular weight of about 150 to about 350 kD) with relatively fewer features (e.g., less than about 3 hydrogen donors and/or less than about 6 hydrogen acceptors; hydrophobicity character xlog P of about −2 to about 4) (see e.g., Angewante (1999) Chemie Int. ed. Engl. 24, 3943-3948). In contrast, a drug-like compound is generally understood to have a relatively larger scaffold (e.g., molecular weight of about 150 to about 500 kD) with relatively more numerous features (e.g., less than about 10 hydrogen acceptors and/or less than about 8 rotatable bonds; hydrophobicity character xlog P of less than about 5) (see e.g., Lipinski (2000) J. Pharm. Tox. Methods 44, 235-249). Initial screening can be performed with lead-like compounds.
When designing a lead from spatial orientation data, it can be useful to understand that certain molecular structures are characterized as being “drug-like”. Such characterization can be based on a set of empirically recognized qualities derived by comparing similarities across the breadth of known drugs within the pharmacopoeia. While it is not required for drugs to meet all, or even any, of these characterizations, it is far more likely for a drug candidate to meet with clinical successful if it is drug-like.
Several of these “drug-like” characteristics have been summarized into the four rules of Lipinski (generally known as the “rules of fives” because of the prevalence of the number 5 among them). While these rules generally relate to oral absorption and are used to predict bioavailability of compound during lead optimization, they can serve as effective guidelines for constructing a lead molecule during rational drug design efforts such as may be accomplished by using the methods of the present disclosure.
The four “rules of five” state that a candidate drug-like compound should have at least three of the following characteristics: (i) a weight less than 500 Daltons; (ii) a log of P less than 5; (iii) no more than 5 hydrogen bond donors (expressed as the sum of OH and NH groups); and (iv) no more than 10 hydrogen bond acceptors (the sum of N and O atoms). Also, drug-like molecules typically have a span (breadth) of between about 8 Å to about 15 Å.
Kits
Also provided are kits. Such kits can include an agent or composition described herein and, in certain embodiments, instructions for administration. Such kits can facilitate performance of the methods described herein. When supplied as a kit, the different components of the composition can be packaged in separate containers and admixed immediately before use. Components include, but are not limited to a BET inhibitor and, optionally, a chemotherapeutic agent. Such packaging of the components separately can, if desired, be presented in a pack or dispenser device which may contain one or more unit dosage forms containing the composition. The pack may, for example, comprise metal or plastic foil such as a blister pack. Such packaging of the components separately can also, in certain instances, permit long-term storage without losing activity of the components.
Kits may also include reagents in separate containers such as, for example, sterile water or saline to be added to a lyophilized active component packaged separately. For example, sealed glass ampules may contain a lyophilized component and in a separate ampule, sterile water, sterile saline each of which has been packaged under a neutral non-reacting gas, such as nitrogen. Ampules may consist of any suitable material, such as glass, organic polymers, such as polycarbonate, polystyrene, ceramic, metal or any other material typically employed to hold reagents. Other examples of suitable containers include bottles that may be fabricated from similar substances as ampules, and envelopes that may consist of foil-lined interiors, such as aluminum or an alloy. Other containers include test tubes, vials, flasks, bottles, syringes, and the like. Containers may have a sterile access port, such as a bottle having a stopper that can be pierced by a hypodermic injection needle. Other containers may have two compartments that are separated by a readily removable membrane that upon removal permits the components to mix. Removable membranes may be glass, plastic, rubber, and the like.
In certain embodiments, kits can be supplied with instructional materials. Instructions may be printed on paper or other substrate, and/or may be supplied as an electronic-readable medium or video. Detailed instructions may not be physically associated with the kit; instead, a user may be directed to an Internet web site specified by the manufacturer or distributor of the kit.
Compositions and methods described herein utilizing molecular biology protocols can be according to a variety of standard techniques known to the art (see e.g., Sambrook and Russel (2006) Condensed Protocols from Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, ISBN-10:0879697717; Ausubel et al. (2002) Short Protocols in Molecular Biology, 5th ed., Current Protocols, ISBN-10: 0471250929; Sambrook and Russel (2001) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 3d ed., Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, ISBN-10: 0879695773; Elhai, J. and Wolk, C. P. 1988. Methods in Enzymology 167, 747-754; Studier (2005) Protein Expr Purif. 41(1), 207-234; Gellissen, ed. (2005) Production of Recombinant Proteins: Novel Microbial and Eukaryotic Expression Systems, Wiley-VCH, ISBN-10: 3527310363; Baneyx (2004) Protein Expression Technologies, Taylor & Francis, ISBN-10:0954523253).
Definitions and methods described herein are provided to better define the present disclosure and to guide those of ordinary skill in the art in the practice of the present disclosure. Unless otherwise noted, terms are to be understood according to conventional usage by those of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
In some embodiments, numbers expressing quantities of ingredients, properties such as molecular weight, reaction conditions, and so forth, used to describe and claim certain embodiments of the present disclosure are to be understood as being modified in some instances by the term “about.” In some embodiments, the term “about” is used to indicate that a value includes the standard deviation of the mean for the device or method being employed to determine the value. In some embodiments, the numerical parameters set forth in the written description and attached claims are approximations that can vary depending upon the desired properties sought to be obtained by a particular embodiment. In some embodiments, the numerical parameters should be construed in light of the number of reported significant digits and by applying ordinary rounding techniques. Notwithstanding that the numerical ranges and parameters setting forth the broad scope of some embodiments of the present disclosure are approximations, the numerical values set forth in the specific examples are reported as precisely as practicable. The numerical values presented in some embodiments of the present disclosure may contain certain errors necessarily resulting from the standard deviation found in their respective testing measurements. The recitation of ranges of values herein is merely intended to serve as a shorthand method of referring individually to each separate value falling within the range. Unless otherwise indicated herein, each individual value is incorporated into the specification as if it were individually recited herein. The recitation of discrete values is understood to include ranges between each value.
In some embodiments, the terms “a” and “an” and “the” and similar references used in the context of describing a particular embodiment (especially in the context of certain of the following claims) can be construed to cover both the singular and the plural, unless specifically noted otherwise. In some embodiments, the term “or” as used herein, including the claims, is used to mean “and/or” unless explicitly indicated to refer to alternatives only or the alternatives are mutually exclusive.
The terms “comprise,” “have” and “include” are open-ended linking verbs. Any forms or tenses of one or more of these verbs, such as “comprises,” “comprising,” “has,” “having,” “includes” and “including,” are also open-ended. For example, any method that “comprises,” “has” or “includes” one or more steps is not limited to possessing only those one or more steps and can also cover other unlisted steps. Similarly, any composition or device that “comprises,” “has” or “includes” one or more features is not limited to possessing only those one or more features and can cover other unlisted features.
All methods described herein can be performed in any suitable order unless otherwise indicated herein or otherwise clearly contradicted by context. The use of any and all examples, or exemplary language (e.g., “such as”) provided with respect to certain embodiments herein is intended merely to better illuminate the present disclosure and does not pose a limitation on the scope of the present disclosure otherwise claimed. No language in the specification should be construed as indicating any non-claimed element essential to the practice of the present disclosure.
Groupings of alternative elements or embodiments of the present disclosure disclosed herein are not to be construed as limitations. Each group member can be referred to and claimed individually or in any combination with other members of the group or other elements found herein. One or more members of a group can be included in, or deleted from, a group for reasons of convenience or patentability. When any such inclusion or deletion occurs, the specification is herein deemed to contain the group as modified thus fulfilling the written description of all Markush groups used in the appended claims.
All publications, patents, patent applications, and other references cited in this application are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety for all purposes to the same extent as if each individual publication, patent, patent application or other reference was specifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes. Citation of a reference herein shall not be construed as an admission that such is prior art to the present disclosure.
Having described the present disclosure in detail, it will be apparent that modifications, variations, and equivalent embodiments are possible without departing the scope of the present disclosure defined in the appended claims. Furthermore, it should be appreciated that all examples in the present disclosure are provided as non-limiting examples.
The following non-limiting examples are provided to further illustrate the present disclosure. It should be appreciated by those of skill in the art that the techniques disclosed in the examples that follow represent approaches the inventors have found function well in the practice of the present disclosure, and thus can be considered to constitute examples of modes for its practice. However, those of skill in the art should, in light of the present disclosure, appreciate that many changes can be made in the specific embodiments that are disclosed and still obtain a like or similar result without departing from the spirit and scope of the present disclosure.
This example describes the discovery of bromodomain-dependent cell-state transitions in leukemic cells, a novel genetic element that can be mapped from mRNA and directed by DNA-binding proteins, combined gene expression and transcription factor binding data from single cells, and multiple transcription factors mapped in several cell lines and the mouse cortex.
Details of the experiments are detailed in the below Results, Discussion, and Methods sections. Below is a summary of pertinent results. K562 is a chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) cell line first isolated in 1970 (Lozzio and Lozzio, 1975) and has been a workhorse of molecular biology ever since (Zhou et al., 2019). Recently, K562 cultures have been shown to be mixtures of a stem-like state characterized by high levels of the surface marker CD24, and a more differentiated, erythroleukemic state marked by low CD24 expression, with individual cells dynamically oscillating between these two extremes (Litzenburger et al., 2017). Since we profiled BRD4 binding in K562 cells with scCC, we wondered whether we could see evidence of these two states in the scRNA-seq data. Principal components analysis (PCA) of single cell gene expression (
Super-enhancers and BRD4 are thought to mark genes important for specifying cell identity, and while the strongest evidence for this comes from comparisons between organ systems and sharply delineated disease states (Hnisz et al., 2013; Whyte et al., 2013), recent studies have shown that even closely related subpopulations of the same cell type can show subtle changes in BRD4 enrichment and enhancer utilization (Knoechel et al., 2014; Rathert et al., 2015). Therefore, we asked whether we could detect any differences in BRD4 binding between CD24high and CD24low cells. We first stratified scCC insertions by cell state, assigning 41,707 to the stem-like state and 38,482 to the differentiated cluster (
We next investigated whether the observed differences in BRD4 binding might be causally responsible for establishing these two cell states. Since modulation of this epigenetic reader has been previously shown to influence cell identity across a range of tissues (Di Micco et al., 2014; Kfoury et al., 2017; Najafova et al., 2017), we hypothesized that perturbing BRD4 would change the distribution of cells in the stem-like and differentiated states. Moreover, due to the asymmetric nature of significant hits in
To test this hypothesis, we treated cells with the small molecule bromodomain inhibitor JQ1, commonly used to disrupt BRD4 binding and alter target gene expression (Delmore et al., 2011; Garcia-Carpizo et al., 2018; Lovén et al., 2013; Sdelci et al., 2019). We observed that JQ1 exposure was sufficient to shift the population from one containing equal proportions of CD24high/CD24low cells to one comprised of almost exclusively CD24low cells (>95% CD24low cells,
While JQ1 shows greatest affinity for BRD4, it does have some promiscuity toward other bromodomains, such as those of the related bromodomain and extraterminal domain (BET) proteins BRD2 and BRD3 (Filippakopoulos et al., 2010). Thus, it was possible that the observed state shift may be arising through off-target effects and not through BRD4 itself. To address this, we specifically downregulated BRD4 expression with CRISPRi using a dCas9-KRAB (Fulco et al., 2016; Xie et al., 2017) fusion directed to the BRD4 locus. We confirmed, with qRT-PCR, that our BRD4 guide RNA (gRNA) resulted in knockdown of BRD4 and not BRD2 nor BRD3 (
We next sought to obtain further evidence that bromodomain inhibition shifts K562 cell state by performing a direct functional assay. The CD24high/CD24low K562 cell states have been previously shown to have different chemosensitivities, with the latter population showing more apoptosis when exposed to imatinib (Litzenburger et al., 2017). We wondered whether bromodomain perturbation similarly increased imatinib sensitivity, or if its effect was restricted to modulating CD24. We tested this by first pre-treating K562 cells with either DMSO or JQ1 for five days. In the DMSO-treated group, the fraction of CD24high cells rose to 54% on average, while the mean for JQ1-treated cells was 17% (
Finally, we asked whether the JQ1-induced K562 cell state shift could be a non-specific response to generic drug treatment. To test this, we treated K562 cultures with cell cycle inhibitors, another class of commonly used antineoplastic agents. We used lovastatin and nocodazole, two drugs classically used to synchronize cells in culture (Jackman and O'Connor, 1998), as well as the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors CVT-313 (Brooks et al., 1997) and RO-3306 (Vassilev et al., 2006). We first confirmed that all drugs perturbed cell cycle by altering the proportions of cells in either G1 or G2/M phase (
Cellular heterogeneity confounds in situ assays of transcription factor (TF) binding. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) deconvolves cell types from gene expression, but no technology links cell identity to TF binding sites (TFBS) in those cell types. We present self-reporting transposons (SRTs) and use them in single-cell calling cards (scCC), a novel assay for simultaneously measuring gene expression and mapping TFBS in single cells. The genomic locations of SRTs are recovered from mRNA, and SRTs deposited by exogenous, TF-transposase fusions can be used to map TFBS. We then present scCC, which map SRTs from scRNA-seq libraries, simultaneously identifying cell types and TFBS in those same cells. We benchmark multiple TFs with this technique. Next, we use scCC to discover BRD4-mediated cell-state transitions in K562 cells. Finally, we map BRD4 binding sites in the mouse cortex at single-cell resolution, establishing a new method for studying TF biology in situ.
Introduction
Transcription factors (TFs) regulate the gene expression patterns that specify cell state (Gurdon, 2016; Hafler et al., 2012; Mizuguchi et al., 2001; Zhu et al., 2012). They are central to a number of critical developmental processes including the maintenance of pluripotency (Liu et al., 2008; Takahashi and Yamanaka, 2006), fate choice (Mizuguchi et al., 2001; Zhu et al., 2012), and embryogenesis (Fogarty et al., 2017). Perturbing TF activity can disrupt cellular development, homeostasis, or function, resulting in altered morphology (Gonen et al., 2018; Kvon et al., 2016), cellular transdifferentiation (Davis et al., 1987), or increased susceptibility to disease (Lee and Young, 2013). A better understanding of TF binding during development and homeostasis would provide insights into how cellular diversity arises and is maintained under normal and abnormal biological conditions.
Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has emerged as the de facto approach for characterizing cellular diversity in complex tissues and organisms (Campbell et al., 2017; Cao et al., 2017; Fincher et al., 2018; Han et al., 2018; Karaiskos et al., 2017; Zeisel et al., 2015). Recently, multi-modal scRNA-seq technologies have emerged (Angermueller et al., 2016; Cao et al., 2018; Clark et al., 2018; Dey et al., 2015; Macaulay et al., 2015; Peterson et al., 2017; Stoeckius et al., 2017) linking transcriptional information to other genomic assays. These methods address the fact that, while scRNA-seq can describe the current state of a biological system, it alone cannot explain how that state arose. A notable lacuna in the single-cell repertoire is a method for jointly assaying transcriptome and TF binding. Such a method would lead to the genome-wide identification of TF binding sites across multiple cell types in complex tissues. Chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) is the most popular approach to studying TF binding (Johnson et al., 2007), and, while a number of antibody-based single-cell methods to detect DNA-protein contacts have been reported (Ai et al., 2019, Carter et al., 2019, Grosselin et al., 2019, Heiner et al., 2019, Harada et al., 2019, Kaya-Okur et al., 2019, Rotem et al., 2015, Wang et al., 2019), these techniques have generally mapped highly abundant proteins, such as modified histones and CTCF. DamID can recover TF binding sites by detecting nearby exogenously methylated adenines (Greil et al., 2006; Vogel et al., 2007), but in single cells it has only been used to study lamina-associated domains (Kind et al., 2013, 2015; Rooijers et al., 2019). A combined single-cell assay of DamID and transcriptome (scDam&T-seq) has been described (Rooijers et al., 2019) but is a plate-based assay that limits throughput. None of the other single-cell techniques that measure DNA-protein interactions simultaneously capture mRNA, restricting their use to predetermined cell types. Single-cell assays for transposase-accessible chromatin using sequencing (ATAC-seq; Buenrostro et al., 2015; Cao et al., 2018) could be used to identify nucleosome-free regions that may be bound by TFs, though they rely on motif inference to identify potential DNA binding proteins. These assays do not directly measure TF occupancy nor can they be used to study transcriptional regulators that bind DNA indirectly or non-specifically, such as chromatin remodelers.
We have previously developed transposon calling cards to assay TF binding (Wang et al., 2007, 2011, 2012a). This system relies on two components: a fusion between a TF and a transposase and a transposon carrying a reporter gene. The fusion transposase deposits transposons near TF binding sites, which are subsequently amplified from genomic DNA and sequenced. Thus, the redirected transposase leaves “calling cards” at the genomic locations it has visited, which can be identified later in time. The result is a genome-wide assay of all binding sites for that particular TF. In mammalian cells, we have heterologously expressed the piggyBac transposase (Ding et al., 2005) fused to the TF SP1 and shown that the resulting pattern of insertions reflects SP1's binding preferences (Wang et al., 2012a). However, this method was only feasible in bulk preparations of thousands of cells.
Here, we present single-cell calling cards (scCC), an extension of transposon calling cards that simultaneously profiles mRNA content and TF binding at single-cell resolution. The key component of our work is the self-reporting transposon (SRT), a novel element whose genomic location can be mapped from mRNA. We show that the RNA-based calling card method is more efficient than our standard DNA-based protocol and can be used to map TF binding sites with a directed transposase. We also demonstrate that the unfused piggyBac transposase, through its native affinity for the bromodomain TF BRD4, can be used to identify BRD4-bound super-enhancers (SEs). We then present the scCC method, which allows cell-type-specific mapping of SRTs from scRNA-seq libraries. Thus, in one experiment, we can cluster cells by transcriptional identity and identify TF binding sites within those cell types. We highlight the range of this technology using a breadth of TFs in a variety of cell lines. We then use scCC to discover bromodomain-dependent cell-state dynamics in K562 cells. Finally, we identify cell-type-specific BRD4 binding sites in vivo in the postnatal mouse cortex. These results demonstrate that scCC could be a broadly applicable tool to study specific TF binding interactions across multiple cell types within heterogeneous systems.
Results
SRTs Can Be Mapped from mRNA Instead of Genomic DNA
To combine scRNA-seq with calling cards, we first developed a transposon whose genomic location could be determined from mRNA. We created a piggyBac SRT by removing the polyadenylation signal (PAS) downstream of the reporter gene (
SRTs are mapped following reverse transcription (RT) and PCR amplification of self-reporting transcripts. These transcripts contain stretches of adenines that are derived from either cryptic PASs or templated propyladenine tracts in genomic DNA downstream of the SRT insertion site (
To compare how the new RNA-based approach fares against our standard DNA-based method (Wang et al., 2012a), we tested both protocols on the same population of cells. Our DNA-based library yielded 31,001 insertions, while the RNA-based protocol recovered 62,500 insertions (TABLE 1). Importantly, 80% of the insertions found by DNA calling cards were also recovered in the RNA-based library (25,060 insertions;
aBiological replicates.
bThese experiments were used to assess DNA- vs. RNA-based recovery (FIG. 2C).
Clustering of Undirected piggyBac Insertions Identifies BRD4-Bound SEs
Previous studies have shown that undirected piggyBac preferentially inserts transposons near SEs (Yoshida et al., 2017), unique regulatory elements involved in regulating cell identity (Hnisz et al., 2013). SEs are enriched for the histone modification H3K27ac as well as Pol II and transcriptional coactivators like the mediator element MED1 and the bromodomain protein BRD4 (Hnisz et al., 2013; Lovén et al., 2013; Whyte et al., 2013). piggyBac has a strong biophysical affinity for BRD4, as these proteins can be co-immunoprecipitated (Gogol-Döring et al., 2016). Thus, we hypothesized that, given the millions of insertions recoverable by SRTs (TABLE 1), we would be able to identify BRD4-bound SEs simply from the localization of undirected piggyBac transpositions.
In HCT-116 cells, undirected piggyBac showed non-uniform densities of insertions at BRD4-bound loci (
We next assessed whether undirected piggyBac peaks can be used to identify BRD4-bound SEs. We constructed receiver-operator characteristic curves based on our ability to detect SEs from piggyBac (
We also investigated how similar piggyBac transposition is to that of Tn5, the transposase used in ATAC-seq (Buenrostro et al., 2013, 2015) to identify open chromatin. Since BRD4 and H3K27ac co-occur at accessible loci, it may be that undirected calling cards and ATAC-seq provide redundant information. If that were the case, we should be able to identify BRD4-bound SEs with high sensitivity from ATAC-seq data alone, much as we have shown for piggyBac. We called SEs using publicly available ATAC-seq data from HCT-116 cells (Ponnaluri et al., 2017) in the same manner that we did for BRD4 ChIP-seq. We found almost no overlap between BRD4-bound SEs and these so-called SEs from ATAC-seq data (
scCC Enables Simultaneous Identification of Cell Type and Cell-Type-Specific BRD4 Binding Sites
We next sought to recover SRTs from scRNA-seq libraries, which would let us identify cell types from transcriptomic clustering and, using the same source material, simultaneously profile TF binding in those cell types. We adopted the 10× Chromium platform due to its high efficiency of cell and transcript capture as well as its ease of use (Zheng et al., 2017) but with a modified protocol (Methods). We split the first-strand synthesis product in two: one half is used to generate a scRNA-seq library, while the other half undergoes specific amplification for SRTs followed by circularization. The circularization step brings the cell barcode and unique molecular index (UMI), found at the 3′ ends of each transcript, next to the transposon-genome junction. In this way, SRTs can be mapped and assigned to single cells using high-throughput short read sequencing (
We first validated scCC by performing a species-mixing experiment with human HCT-116 cells and mouse N2a cells transfected with hyperactive piggyBac (HyPBase) and PB-SRT-Puro. The resulting scRNA-seq library showed strong species separation with an estimated multiplet rate of 3.2% (
1a
4b
4b
9c
aThis library was from a species-mixing experiment (FIG. 4B and FIG. 10).
bThese libraries were demultiplexed from a cell line-mixing experiment (FIG. 4C-FIG. 4D and FIG. 11).
cThis experiment is further stratified by cell type in TABLE 3.
We then asked whether scCC could discern cell-type-specific BRD4 binding. We transfected two human cell lines, HCT-116 and K562, with HyPBase and PB-SRT-Puro and mixed them together. The resulting scRNA-seq libraries clearly distinguished these two cell types (
scCC Identifies Binding Sites across a Spectrum of TFs and in a Variety of Cell Types
Our success mapping BRD4 SEs in single cells gave us confidence that we would also be able to map TF binding with scCC. We transfected HCT-116 and K562 cells with an SP1 fusion construct (SP1-HyPBase) and performed scCC (TABLE 2). As was observed in bulk (Supplemental Methods), SP1-HyPBase-directed insertions recovered from single cells localized to SP1 binding sites in both HCT-116 and K562 cells (
We next performed scCC in HepG2 cells with the pioneer factor FOXA2 (TABLE 2), which has been shown to be required for normal liver development and drives core transcriptional networks in cancer cells (Fournier et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2005). As with SP1, we observed a specific enrichment of insertions at FOXA2 binding sites (
Last, we mapped the binding of BAP1 in the uveal melanoma cell line OCM-1A (Yen et al., 2018) using scCC (TABLE 2). Unlike SP1 and FOXA2, BAP1 does not bind DNA directly; instead, it is drawn to chromatin in a complex (Carbone et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2010) where it acts as a histone deubiquitinase. Despite this indirect interaction, we were able to resolve sharp BAP1-directed peaks (
Collectively, these results indicate that scCC can successfully map DNA-protein interactions for a range of TFs and in a variety of cell types. Furthermore, scCC showed high reproducibility in all four tested conditions (R2 between 0.71 and 0.95;
scCC Reveal Bromodomain-Dependent Cell-State Dynamics in K562 Cells
SEs and BRD4 are thought to mark genes important for specifying cell identity, and, while the strongest evidence for this comes from comparisons between organ systems or between sharply delineated disease states (Hnisz et al., 2013; Whyte et al., 2013), recent studies have shown that even closely related subpopulations of the same cell type can show subtle changes in BRD4 enrichment and enhancer utilization (Knoechel et al., 2014; Rathert et al., 2015). Recently, K562 cultures have been shown to be mixtures of a stem-like state characterized by high levels of the surface marker CD24, and a more differentiated, erythroleukemic state marked by low CD24 expression, with individual cells dynamically oscillating between these two extremes (Litzenburger et al., 2017). As we had profiled BRD4 binding in K562 cells with scCC, we wondered whether we could see evidence of these two states and, if so, whether there was differential utilization of BRD4 between them.
We first scored cells based on a principal-component analysis (PCA) of gene expression (
We next investigated whether the observed differences in BRD4 binding might be causally responsible for establishing these two cell states. Downregulating BRD4 has been shown to influence cell identity across a range of cell types (Di Micco et al., 2014; Kfoury et al., 2017; Najafova et al., 2017). Thus, we hypothesized that BRD4 inhibition would change the distribution of cells in the stem-like and differentiated states. Moreover, due to the asymmetric nature of significant hits (
We tested this hypothesis by treating cells with JQ1, a small-molecule bromodomain inhibitor often used to disrupt BRD4 binding and alter target gene expression (Delmore et al., 2011; Garcia-Carpizo et al., 2018; Lovén et al., 2013; Sdelci et al., 2019). JQ1 treatment shifted the population from one containing equal proportions of CD24high/CD24low cells to one composed of almost exclusively CD2low cells (>95%,
While JQ1 shows greatest affinity for BRD4, it does have some promiscuity toward other bromodomains, including the orthologs BRD2 and BRD3 (Filippakopoulos et al., 2010). To address whether off-target effects were responsible for the shift in cell states, we downregulated BRD4 expression with CRISPR interference (CRISPRi). We confirmed that our BRD4 guide RNA (gRNA) specifically reduced expression of BRD4 and not BRD2 nor BRD3 (
CD24high/CD24low cells have been previously shown to have different chemosensitivities, with the latter population showing more apoptosis when exposed to imatinib (Litzenburger et al., 2017). Therefore, we asked whether BRD4 inhibition increases imatinib sensitivity in K562 cells. If so, it would imply that the observed state shift functionally alters K562 cells as opposed to simply modulating a cell-surface marker. We first pretreated K562 cells with either DMSO or JQ1 and then challenged each pretreatment group with either DMSO or imatinib and stained for apoptosis. In the DMSO pretreatment group, the percentage of CD24high cells rose to 54% on average, while for JQ1-pretreated cells the mean was 17% (
Finally, we examined whether the JQ1-induced K562 cell-state shift was a non-specific response to generic drug treatment. We treated K562 cultures with a panel of cell-cycle inhibitors, another class of commonly used antineoplastic agents. We first confirmed that all drugs altered the proportions of cells in either G1 or G2/M phase (
scCC Deconvolves Cell-Type-Specific BRD4 Binding Sites in the Mouse Cortex
To establish broad utility for scCC, we sought to record TF binding in vivo. Since in vivo models preclude puromycin selection, we designed an SRT carrying a fluorescent reporter (
Next, we delivered PB-SRT-tdTomato and HyPBase to the postnatal mouse cortex by performing adeno-associated viral (AAV) transduction (Cammack et al., 2020) in P0-2 pups and then generating scRNA-seq and scCC libraries between P14 and P28. Most transduced cells were neurons or astrocytes (TABLE 2 and TABLE 3;
Last, we asked whether scCC in vivo could discriminate BRD4 binding between closely related cell types, much as we had shown in vitro with K562 cells. From our scRNA-seq data, we identified upper- and lower-layer cortical excitatory neurons (
Discussion
scCC enables simultaneous characterization of gene expression and TF binding in heterogeneous systems. The method is robust and flexible: we have demonstrated that it can map multiple kinds of DNA binding proteins—from sequence-specific TFs like SP1 and FOXA2, to indirect, chromatin-associated factors like BRD4 and BAP1—in a variety of in vitro systems and in vivo in the mouse cortex. Furthermore, our finding that cell-state transitions in K562 cells are mediated by bromodomain proteins including BRD4 demonstrates how scCC can lead to new hypotheses about transcriptional regulation in dynamic systems. Our approach fills a recognized void in the field (Shapiro et al., 2013; Shema et al., 2019) and is readily compatible with high-throughput droplet microfluidic platforms such as the 10× Chromium. We anticipate this technique will empower researchers to study TF binding in a variety of challenging ex vivo and in situ models.
The defining feature of scCC is the SRT. While here we have reported piggyBac and Sleeping Beauty SRTs (Supplemental Methods), the self-reporting paradigm may be broadly generalizable. Expanding the palette of SRT systems could yield further insight into chromatin dynamics (Yoshida et al., 2017). Moreover, SRTs may enable multiplexed studies of TF binding, either through the simultaneous expression of many TFs, each tagged to a different transposase, or through the use of multiple barcoded TF-piggyBac fusions expressed polyclonally in culture. Since SRTs can be widely dispersed through the genome, full-length sequencing of self-reporting transcripts may find new PASs (Supplemental Methods). Finally, SRTs could lead to new single-cell transposon-based assays. For example, just as CRISPR/Cas9 has been combined with scRNA-seq to assess the transcriptional effects of many single gene perturbations in parallel (Datlinger et al., 2017; Dixit et al., 2016), SRTs could enable massively multiplexed transposon mutagenesis screens to be read out by scRNA-seq.
One concern with calling cards is the potential for insertional mutagenesis of target genes leading to cell death and, consequently, false negatives. Previous work in diploid yeast found that calling cards are deposited into the promoters of essential and non-essential genes at comparable frequencies (Wang et al., 2011). Since mammalian genomes have much larger intergenic regions than yeast, human and mice genomes are likely also able to tolerate calling card transpositions. Long-term follow-up of mice transduced intracranially with AAV calling cards showed no significant tissue pathology, behavioral deficits, developmental defects, or metabolic dysregulation (Cammack et al., 2020). This suggests calling cards imposes, at most, a small mutagenic burden, though more studies are needed to verify this.
Another potential drawback of calling cards is that exogenous expression of a TF at supraphysiological levels may lead to ectopic binding and, consequently, false positives. We note that over 90% of our peaks from scCC of SP1 in HCT-116 cells and FOXA2 in HepG2 cells were within 1,000 bp of a ChIP-seq peak from the respective TF. This suggests that calling card peaks reflect endogenous binding, though this behavior may vary by factor. Overexpression might also alter the transcriptome of transfected cells. Comparing gene expression levels between cells treated with TF-piggyBac and the undirected piggyBac control cells can determine whether there is transcriptional perturbation and to what extent. Tagging the endogenous TF locus with piggyBac ensures native expression levels and would alleviate both concerns.
The relatively few insertions recovered on a per-cell basis inflates the number of cells that must be analyzed. We recommend processing enough cells to obtain at least 15,000 insertions to analyze BRD4-bound SEs with undirected piggyBac, and at least 30,000 insertions for both constructs in TF-directed experiments. This should achieve moderate sensitivities (˜50%; Supplemental Methods) that can be increased by collecting more insertions. The scant data recovered on a per-cell level likely stem from limited transposase activity—up to 15-30 insertions per cell for PBase (Kettlun et al., 2011; Saridey et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2008; Wilson et al., 2007) and potentially up to 100 for HyPBase (Kalhor et al., 2018; Yusa et al., 2011)—and the low capture rate of mRNA transcripts in droplet scRNA-seq (Hwang et al., 2018). This sparsity precludes certain kinds of analyses, such as multimodal data integration. Moreover, piggyBac's strict preference for TTAA tetramers also contributes to broader peaks with lower spatial resolution. While we overcame the latter constraint by focusing on peak centers and narrow peaks, peak width is inversely correlated with the number of insertions analyzed; as such, improving recovery of SRTs from single cells should be prioritized. Some of these gains may come organically as the transcript capture rates of scRNA-seq technologies improve. Since the per-cell costs for scRNA-seq are falling exponentially (Svensson et al., 2018), combining scCC with sample multiplexing strategies like cell hashing (Stoeckius et al., 2018) or combinatorial barcoding (Rosenberg et al., 2018) may be an attractive approach to increase sensitivity.
Finally, calling card insertions, being integrated into the genome and preserved through mitosis, could serve as a molecular memory for recording TF binding events. The use of an inducible transposase (Qi et al., 2017) would enable the recording and identification of temporally restricted TF binding sites. This would help uncover the stepwise order of events underlying the regulation of specific genes and inform cell-fate decision making. More generally, transposon insertions could serve as barcodes of developmental lineage. Single transposition events have been used to delineate relationships during hematopoiesis (Rodriguez-Fraticelli et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2014). Multiplexing several SRTs across every cell in an organism could code lineage in a cumulative and combinatorially diverse fashion, generating high-resolution cellular phylogenies.
Key Resources Table
Resource Availability
Materials Availability
Plasmids generated in this study have been deposited to Addgene, where possible, and are available to the community. Plasmids encoding the piggyBac transposase are not available through Addgene due to licensing restrictions. These plasmids are available upon request to the Lead Contact.
Data and Code Availability
Data generated in this study have been submitted to the Gene Expression Ominbus (GEO) with accession number GSE148448. All code used to analyze the data is available online at https://github.com/arnavm/calling_cards.
Experimental Model and Subject Details
HCT-116, N2a, HEK293T, and HepG2 cells were cultured in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1% of either penicillin-streptomycin or antibiotic-antimycotic. K562 (unless otherwise indicated) and OCM-1A cells were grown under the same conditions as described above, replacing DMEM with RPMI 1640 Medium. Cells were grown at 37° C. with 5% carbon dioxide (CO2). Media was replenished every 2 days. HepG2 cells were a gift from the Genome Engineering iPSC Center (GEiC) at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine. OCM-1A cells were a gift from Dr. Michael Onken. For the CD24high/CD24low cell state analyses, K562 cells were grown in IMDM containing 10% v/v FBS and 1% penicillin-streptomycin at 37° C. with 5% CO2. Frozen aliquots were thawed and passaged every 48 hours until they reached a maximum concentration of 800,000 cells/ml. For experiments, cells were seeded at mid-log phase concentrations, around 400,000 cells/ml. At this point, ratio of CD24high/CD24low cells was approximately 1:1, as determined by flow cytometry.
All mouse experiments were done following procedures described in (Cammack et al., 2020). In brief, we cloned the PB-SRT-tdTomato and HyPBase constructs into AAV vectors. The Hope Center Viral Vectors Core at Washington University in St. Louis packaged each construct in AAV9 capsids. Titers for each virus ranged between 1.1×1013 and 2.2×1013 viral genomes/ml. We mixed equal volumes of each virus and performed intracranial cortical injections of the mixture into newborn wild-type C57BL/6J pups (P0-2). As a gating control, we injected one litter-matched animal with AAV9-PB-SRT-tdTomato only. After 2 to 4 weeks, we sacrificed mice and dissected the cortex (8 libraries) or hippocampus (1 library). The sex of mice was not taken into consideration. All animal practices and procedures were approved by the Washington University in St. Louis Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) in accordance with National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines.
Method Details
DNA-Versus RNA-Based Recovery
Approximately 500,000 HCT-116 cells were plated in a single well of a 6-well plate. Cells were transfected with 2.5 μg of the SP1-PBase plasmid and 2.5 μg of the PB-SRT-Puro plasmid using Lipofectamine 3000 following manufacturer's instructions. After 24 hours, cells were split and plated 1:10 in each of three 10 cm dishes. Puromycin was then added to a final concentration of 2 μg/ml and colonies were grown under selection for two weeks. We obtained approximately 2,300 colonies. All cells were pooled together and split into two populations. One half was subjected to DNA extraction, self-ligation, and inverse PCR, as described previously (Wang et al., 2012a), with the following modification: digestion with MspI was not performed as the SRT construct contained an second MspI cut site near the terminal repeat. The other half of cells underwent RNA extraction and SRT library preparation (see below).
In Vitro Bulk Calling Card Experiments
We cotransfected 10-12 replicates of HCT-116 cells with 5 μg of PB-SRT-Puro plasmid and 5 μg PBase plasmid via Neon electroporation Each replicate contained 2×106 cells. As a negative control, we transfected one replicate of HCT-116 cells with 5 μg PB-SRT-Puro plasmid only. We used the following settings—pulse voltage: 1,530 V; pulse width: 20 ms; pulse number: 1. We used the same experimental setup for experiments with PB-SRT-Puro and each of SP1-PBase, HyPBase, and SP1-HyPBase plasmids, as well as with SB-SRT-Puro and SB100X (the latter a gift from Dr. Zsuzsanna Izsvák, Mátés et al., 2009) plasmids. After transfection, each replicate was plated into a 10 cm dish. For the OCM-1A library, we transfected 1.25 μg of PB-SRT-Puro and 1.25 μg of either HyPBase or BAP1-HyPBase (the latter a gift from Dr. Michael Onken; Yen et al., 2018) using the TranslT-LT1 transfection reagent following manufacturer's protocol for 6-well plates. Puromycin was added after 24 hours to a final concentration of 2 μg/ml. Cells were grown under selection for one week, by which time almost all negative control transfectants were dead. After 7 days, we dissociated each replicate with trypsin-EDTA and created single cell suspensions in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Aliquots of each replicate were cryopreserved in cell culture media (see above) supplemented with 5% DMSO. The remaining cells were pelleted by centrifugation at 300 g for 5 minutes. Cell pellets were either processed immediately or kept at −80° C. in RNAProtect Cell Reagent.
Isolation and RT of Bulk RNA
Total RNA was isolated from each replicate using the RNEasy Plus Mini Kit following manufacturer's instructions. Briefly, cell pellets were resuspended in 600 μl of Buffer RLT Plus with 1% 2-mercaptoethanol. Cells were homogenized by vortexing. DNA was removed by running lysate through gDNA Eliminator spin columns, while RNA was bound by passing the flow-through over RNEasy spin columns. An on-column treatment with DNaseI was also performed. After washing, RNA was eluted in 40 μl RNase-free H2O. RNA was quantitated using the Qubit RNA HS Assay Kit.
We performed first strand synthesis on each replicate with Maxima H Minus Reverse Transcriptase. We mixed 2 μg of total RNA with 1 μl 10 mM dNTPs and 1 μl of 50 μM SMART_dT18VN primer (for a complete list of oligonucleotides, see TABLE 4), brought the total volume up to 14 μl, and incubated it at 65° C. for 5 minutes. After transferring to ice and letting rest for 1 minute, we added 4 μl 5× Maxima RT Buffer, 1 μl RNaseOUT, and 1 μl of 1:1 Maxima H Minus Reverse Transcriptase diluted in 1× RT Buffer (100 U). The solution was mixed by pipetting and incubated at 50° C. for 1 hour followed by heat inactivation at 85° C. for 10 minutes. Finally, we digested with 1 μl RNaseH at 37° C. for 30 minutes. cDNA was stored at −20° C.
Amplifying Self-Reporting Transcripts from RNA
The PCR conditions for amplifying self-reporting transcripts (i.e., transcripts derived from self-reporting transposons) involved mixing 1 μl cDNA template with 12.5 μl Kapa HiFi HotStart ReadyMix, 0.5 μl 25 μM SMART primer, and either 1 μl of 25 μM SRT_PAC_F1 primer (in the case of puromycin selection) or 0.5 μl of 25 μM SRT_tdTomato_F1 primer (in the case of tdTomato screening). The mixture was brought up to 25 μl with ddH2O. Thermocycling parameters were as follows: 95° C. for 3 minutes; 20 cycles of: 98° C. for 20 s—65° C. for 30 s—72° C. for 5 minutes; 72° C. for 10 minutes; hold at 4° C. forever. As a control, cDNA quality can be assessed with exon-spanning primers for β-actin [see TABLE 4 for examples of human primers (Raff et al., 1997))] under the same thermocycling settings.
PCR products were purified using AM Pure XP beads. 12 μl of resuspended beads were added to the 25 μl PCR product and mixed homogenously by pipetting. After a 5-minute incubation at room temperature, the solution was placed on a magnetic rack for 2 minutes. The supernatant was aspirated and discarded. The pellet was washed twice with 200 μl of 70% ethanol (incubated for 30 s each time), discarding the supernatant each time. The pellet was left to dry at room temperature for 2 minutes. To elute, we added 20 μl ddH2O to the pellet, resuspended by pipetting, incubated at room temperature for 2 minutes, and placed on a magnetic rack for one minute. Once clear, the solution was transferred to a clean 1.5 mL tube. DNA concentration was measured on the Qubit 3.0 Fluorometer using the dsDNA High Sensitivity Assay Kit.
Generation of Bulk RNA Calling Card Libraries
Calling card libraries from bulk RNA were generated using the Nextera XT DNA Library Preparation Kit. One nanogram of PCR product was resuspended in 5 μl ddH2O. To this mixture we added 10 μl Tagment DNA (TD) Buffer and 5 μl Amplicon Tagment Mix (ATM). After pipetting to mix, we incubated the solution in a thermocycler preheated to 55° C. The tagmentation reaction was halted by adding 5 μl Neutralization Tagment (NT) Buffer and was kept at room temperature for 5 minutes. The final PCR was set up by adding 15 μl Nextera PCR Mix (NPM), 8 μl ddH2O, 1 μl of 10 μM transposon primer (e.g., OM-PB-NNN) and 1 μl Nextera N7 indexed primer. The transposon primer anneals to the end of the transposon terminal repeat—piggyBac, in the case of OM-PB primers, or Sleeping Beauty, in the case of OM-SB primers—and contains a 3 base pair barcode sequence. Every N7 primer contains a unique index sequence that is demultiplexed by the sequencer. Each replicate was assigned a unique combination of barcoded transposon primer and indexed N7 primer, enabling precise identification of each library's sequencing reads.
The final PCR was run under the following conditions: 95° C. for 30 s, 13 cycles of: 95° C. for 10 s—50° C. for 30 s—72° C. for 30 s, 72° C. for 5 minutes; hold at 4° C. forever. After PCR, the final library was purified using 30 μl (0.6×) AMPure XP beads, as described above. The library was eluted in 11 μl ddH2O and quantitated on an Agilent TapeStation 4200 System using the High Sensitivity D1000 ScreenTape.
Colony Formation Assay
For the piggyBac transfectants, we electroporated 500,000 HCT-116 cells with 750 ng of PB-SRT-Puro and 750 ng of either HyPBase or SP1-HyPBase plasmid using the aforementioned Neon settings. For the SRT-only conditions, cells received 750 ng of PB-SRT-Puro. We used the same design for the Sleeping Beauty transfectants, replacing the transposases with either SB100X or SP1-SB100X and using SB-SRT-Puro as the transposon. Each set of 500,000 cells were plated in a single well of a 6-well plate and allowed to recover overnight. We then added puromycin to a final concentration of 2 μg/ml. We cultured cells under selection for one week. Colonies were visualized using a solution comprising 1×PBS, 1% formaldehyde, 1% methanol, and 0.05% w/v crystal violet. After aspirating median, we covered cells with this solution, staining plates for 20 minutes washing under cold water and air drying.
In Vitro single Cell Calling Card Experiments
All cell lines (HCT-116, K562, N2a, HepG2, and OCM-1A) were cultured as described above. HCT-116 cells were transfected using Neon electroporation with the aforementioned settings. K562 cells were electroporated with the following settings—pulse voltage: 1,450 V; pulse width: 10 ms; pulse number: 3. N2a cells were electroporated with the following settings—pulse voltage: 1,050 V; pulse width: 30 ms; pulse number: 2. HepG2 cells were electroporated with the following settings—pulse voltage: 1,200 V; pulse width: 50 ms; pulse number: 1. Each replicate for electroporation was comprised of 2×106 cells. All cells were allowed to recover for 24 hours before undergoing puromycin selection. A negative control replicate, transfected only with PB-SRT-Puro, was treated identically in parallel. Replicates were harvested once the negative control cells had died. For the species mixing experiment, we transfected one replicate each of HCT-116 and N2a cells with 5 μg PB-SRT-Puro and 5 μg HyPBase. For the cell line mixing experiment, we transfected four replicates each of HCT-116 and K562 cells with 5 μg PB-SRT-Puro and 5 μg HyPBase. In all cases, cells were cultured independently and mixed immediately prior to generating single cell emulsions. For single cell calling cards analysis of SP1 binding in HCT-116 and K562 cells, we transfected four replicates each with 5 μg PB-SRT-Puro and 5 μg SP1-HyPBase. These libraries were not mixed. We used the demultiplexed data from the cell line mixing experiment with HyPBase as controls. For single cell calling cards analysis of FOXA2 binding in HepG2 cells, we transfected six replicates each with 5 μg PB-SRT-Puro; three of these replicates were co-transfected with 5 μg HyPBase, while the other three were co-transfected with 5 μg FOXA2-HyPBase. We used the mouse ortholog of FOXA2, which has 97% primary sequence identity with human FOXA2. For single cell calling cards analysis of BAP1 binding in OCM-1A cells, we lipofected (as described above) six replicates each with 1.25 μg PB-SRT-Puro; three of these replicates were co-transfected with 1.25 μg HyPBase, while the other three were co-transfected with 1.25 μg BAP1-HyPBase.
Single Cell RNA-Seq Library Preparation
Single cell RNA-seq libraries were prepared using 10× Genomics' Chromium Single Cell 3′ Library and Gel Bead Kit. Each replicate was targeted for recovery of 6,000 cells. Library preparation followed a modified version of the manufacturer's protocol. We prepared the Single Cell Master Mix without RT Primer, replacing it with an equivalent volume of Low TE Buffer. Gel-in-emulsion (GEM) generation and GEM-RT incubation proceeded as instructed. At the end of Post GEM-RT cleanup, we added 36.5 μl Elution Solution I and transferred 36 μl of the eluted sample to a new tube (instead of 35.5 μl and 35 μl, respectively). The eluate was split into two 18 μl aliquots and kept at −20° C. until ready for further processing. One fraction was kept for single cell calling cards library preparation (see next section), while the other half was further processed into a single cell RNA-seq library.
We then added the RT Primer sequence to the products in the scRNA-seq aliquot. We created an RT master mix by adding 20 μl of Maxima 5×RT Buffer, 20 μl of 20% w/v Ficoll PM-400, 10 μl of 10 mM dNTPs, 2.5 μl RNase Inhibitor and 2.5 μl of 100 μM 10×_TSO. To this solution we added 18 μl of the first RT product and 22 μl of ddH2O. Finally, we added 5 μl Maxima H Minus Reverse Transcriptase, mixed by flicking, and centrifuged briefly. This reaction was incubated at 25° C. for 30 minutes followed by 50° C. for 90 minutes and heat inactivated at 85° C. for 5 minutes.
The solution was purified using DynaBeads MyOne Silane following 10× Genomics' instructions, beginning at “Post GEM-RT Cleanup-Silane DynaBeads” step D. The remainder of the single cell RNA-seq protocol, including purification, amplification, fragmentation, and final library amplification, followed manufacturer's instructions.
Single Cell Calling Cards Library Preparation
To amplify self-reporting transcripts from single cell RNA-seq libraries, we took 9 μl of RT product (the other half was kept in reserve) and added it to 25 μl Kapa HiFi HotStart ReadyMix and 15 μl ddH2O. We then prepared a PCR primer cocktail comprising 5 μl of 100 μM Bio_Illumina_Seq1_scCC_10×_3×PT primer, 5 μl of 100 μM Bio_Long_PB_LTR_3×PT, and 10 μl of 10 mM Tris-HCl, 0.1 mM EDTA buffer. One μl of this cocktail was added to the PCR mixture and placed in a thermocycler. Thermocycling settings were as follows: 98° C. for 3 minutes; 20-22 cycles of 98° C. for 20 s—67° C. for 30 s—72° C. for 5 minutes; 72° C. for 10 minutes; 4° C. forever. PCR purification was performed with 30 μl AMPure XP beads (0.6× ratio) as described previously. The resulting library was quantitated on an Agilent TapeStation 4200 System using the High Sensitivity D5000 ScreenTape.
Single cell calling card library preparation was performed using the Nextera Mate Pair Sample Prep Kit with modifications to the manufacturer's protocol. The library was circularized by bringing 300 fmol (approximately 200 ng) of DNA up to a final volume of 268 μl with ddH2O, then adding 30 μl Circularization Buffer 10× and 2 μl Circularization Ligase (final concentration: 1 nM). This reaction was incubated overnight (12-16 hours) at 30° C. After removal of linear DNA (following manufacturer's instructions), we sheared the library on a Covaris E220 Focused-ultrasonicator with the following settings—peak power intensity: 200; duty factor: 20%; cycles per burst: 200; time: 40 s, temperature: 6° C.
The library preparation was performed per manufacturer's instructions until adaptor ligation. We designed custom adapters (TABLE 4) so that the standard Illumine sequencing primers would not interfere with our library. Adapters were prepared by combining 4.5 μl of 100 μM scCC_P5_adapter, 4.5 μl of 100 μM scCC_P7_adapter, and 1 μl of NEBuffer 2, then heating in a thermocycler at 95° C. for 5 minutes, then holding at 70° C. for 15 minutes, then ramping down at 1% until it reached 25° C., holding at that temperature for 5 minutes, before keeping at 4° C. forever. One microliter of this custom adaptor mix was used in place of the manufacturer's recommended DNA Adaptor Index. The ligation product was cleaned per manufacturer's instructions. For the final PCR, the master mix was created by combining 20 μl Enhanced PCR Mix with 28 μl of ddH2O and 1 μl each of 25 μM scCC_P5_primer and 25 μM scCC_P7_primer. This was then added to the streptavidin bead-bound DNA and amplified under the following conditions: 98° C. for 30 s, 15 cycles of: 98° C. for 10 s—60° C. for 30 s—72° C. for 2 minutes; 72° C. for 5 minutes; 4° C. forever. All of the PCR supernatant was transferred to a new tube and purified with 35 μl (0.7×) AMPure XP beads following manufacturer's instructions. The final library was eluted in 25 μl Elution Buffer and quantitated on an Agilent TapeStation 4200 System using the High Sensitivity D1000 ScreenTape.
Staining Protocols for K562 Cells
CD24 surface protein was quantified using monoclonal human antibodies. Cells were spun down at 300 g for 3 minutes and washed twice with 1 mL of Cell Staining Buffer. The cell pellet was then resuspended in 50 μl of Cell Staining Buffer containing 0.2 μg of either CD24-APC or CD24-BV421. The tube was rotated at 4° C. in the dark for 30 minutes. After, cells were washed twice (as before) and finally resuspended in 200 μl of Cell Staining Buffer. Cells were excited with 450/45 and 660/20 lasers (wavelength/filter bandwidth, both in nm). For concomitant analysis of DNA content, we used CD24-APC. Cells were incubated with 10 μg/ml Hoechst 33342 in 5 mL of growth medium for 30 minutes prior to the staining protocol. For simultaneous assessment of apoptosis, cells were stained with CD24-BV421. After the final wash, instead of resuspending in 200 μl of Cell Staining Buffer, cells were washed twice with Annexin V Staining Buffer. Cells were then incubated in 50 μl Annexin V Staining Buffer containing 0.2 μg Annexin V-FITC and 100 μg/ml propidium iodide (PI). The reaction was incubated for 15 minutes at room temperature in the dark. Afterward, we added 150 μl of Annexin V Staining Buffer and proceeded to flow cytometry. All samples were measured on a Beckman-Coulter CytoFLEX S flow cytometer. Cells were excited with 450/45, 525/40, and 610/20 lasers. We collected 10,000 events per sample. The resulting data were processed with FlowJo Software for Mac Version 10.
JQ1 Treatment of K562 Cells
For the longitudinal treatment of K562 cells with JQ1, we seeded cells at log phase growth and treated them with growth medium containing DMSO (˜0.4% final concentration) or 250 nM JQ1 (dissolved in DMSO). Medium was replaced every 48 hours without splitting. On days 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, cells were split in half: one half was stained for CD24 and DNA content, while the other half was stained for CD24 and apoptosis (both described above). Experiments were performed with three biological replicates.
For qRT-PCR, we cultured K562 cells in either DMSO or 250 nM JQ1, in triplicate, and collected cells at 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 hours of treatment. Cells were pelleted, resuspended in 300 μl of RNA CellProtect, and stored at −80° C. When we were ready to extract RNA, we thawed cells, prepared samples using QIAGEN RNEasy Plus Mini Kit, and quantitated with the Qubit RNA High Sensitivity kit. We reverse transcribed 500 ng of RNA with the SuperScript VILO cDNA Synthesis Kit in a 20 μl reaction, with the following thermocycling parameters: 25° C. for 10 minutes; 42° C. for 2 hours; 85° C. for 5 minutes. We then performed PCR with 2 μl of the RT product as template, 1 μl each of forward and reverse primer (10 μM), 6 μl ddH2O, and 10 μl PowerUp SYBR Green Master Mix. We ran the PCR on an ABI QuantStudio 3 with the following settings: 2 minutes at 50° C., then 2 minutes at 95° C. (hot start); 45 cycles of 95° C. for 15 s followed by 60° C. for 1 minute. We generated melt curves after each PCR and all samples yielded a single peak. Gene-specific primers were obtained from PrimerBank (Wang et al., 2012b). Data were normalized to the levels of 6-actin.
BRD4 CRISPRi of K562 Cells
For CRISPRi, we first made lentivirus expressing dCas9-KRAB (Fulco et al., 2016; Xie et al., 2017) from Addgene plasmid #89567, a gift from Gary Hon, packaged in HEK293T cells along with pMD2.G (Addgene plasmid #12259) and psPAX2 (Addgene plasmid #12260), both gifts from Didier Trono. We cloned a BRD4 guide RNA, selected from the Dolcetto collection (Sanson et al., 2018), into the sgOpti plasmid (Addgene plasmid #85681, a gift from Eric Lander & David Sabatini) using Golden Gate assembly with Esp3I. We used an in-house pipeline to design a non-targeting gRNA sequence, which was cloned into CROP-seq-opti (Lalli et al., 2019). Plasmids were transfected into HEK293T cells using Lipofectamine 2000. Media was collected after 24 and 48 hours, and subsequently concentrated using Lenti-X Concentrator. Viral titers were functionally assed on HEK293T cells using the appropriate antibiotic (blasticidin or puromycin).
Next, we generated a polyclonal pool of dCas9-KRAB-expressing K562 cells. We seeded each well of a 6-well plate with 200,000 cells each containing 2 mL of growth media supplemented with 4 μg/ml polybrene and 1,000,000 infectious lentiviral particles for an estimated multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5. Plates were centrifuged at 2,000 g for 30 minutes and returned to the incubator. After 48 hours, cells were split to mid-log phase concentration (˜400,000 cells/nil) and selected on blasticidin (10 μg/ml) for 48 hours. We made frozen stocks from these cells.
For the knockdown experiments, cells were thawed and allowed to recover for 4 days. We confirmed that the proportions of CD24high/CD24low was approximately equal at this point. We then seeded 200,000 cells into each well of a 6-well plate. Three wells received the BRD4 gRNA lentivirus, while the other three received the non-targeting gRNA lentivirus, at MOI 2.5. We followed the same transduction protocol described above. After 48 hours of incubation, puromycin was added to the medium at a final concentration of 2 μg/ml. After a further 48 hours, cells were passaged 1:1 into 10 cm dishes containing 10 mL of growth medium. The surviving cells were allowed to expand for a further 5 days before being stained for CD24 (nine days after gRNA transduction.)
The BRD4 gRNA was validated by performing qRT-PCR on RNA samples from treated cells with primers for either BRD2, BRD3, or BRD4, as described above.
Imatinib Treatments of K562 Cells
Cells were challenged with imatinib either after JQ1 treatment or BRD4 CRISPRi. For the former, we plated 200,000 cells each well of a 6-well plate with 2 mL of growth medium. Half of the wells received DMSO while the other half received 250 nM JQ1. Cells were incubated for 5 days, with fresh media changes on days 1, 2, and 3. On day 5, a portion of each well was stained for CD24. The remaining cells in each well were split between two new wells. One well continued to receive medium supplemented with DMSO, while the other was treated with medium containing imatinib mesylate at a concentration of 1 μM. After 48 hours, every well was stained for CD24 as well as annexin V and propidium iodide, for apoptotic activity. Cells undergoing BRD4 or non-targeted CRISPRi were split in two and treated with either DMSO or imatinib (1 μM) as described and in triplicate. The resulting data were processed with FlowJo. We set gates such that we could exclude debris but that we would capture both live and dying cells. This gate was used to calculate levels of annexin V and PI.
Cell Cycle Perturbation of K562 Cells
We perturbed the cell cycle with lovastatin and nocodazole, two drugs classically used to synchronize cells in culture (Jackman and O'Connor, 2001), as well as the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors CVT-313 (Brooks et al., 1997) and RO-3306 (Vassilev et al., 2006). All drugs were dissolved in DMSO except nocodazole, which was dissolved in ethanol. We treated 200,000 cells per well in 6-well plates with either DMSO, ethanol (˜0.4% final concentration), 250 nM JQ1, 12 μM lovastatin, 40 ng/μl nocodazole (in ethanol), 2 μM CVT-313, or 4.5 μM RO-3306. Media was refreshed every 48 hours. After 36 hours of treatment, we stained for CD24 levels and nuclear DNA content. We gated for live, single cells using the forward scatter (FSC) and side scatter channels (SSC). Univariate cell cycle analysis was performed with FlowJo. We confirmed that all drugs perturbed cell cycle by altering the proportions of cells in either G1 or G2/M phase (
SRT-td Tomato Fluorescence Validation
To test the fluorescence properties of the SRT-tdTomato construct, we transfected K562 cells as previously described with either 1 μg of pUC19 plasmid; 0.5 μg of PB-SRT-tdTomato plasmid and 0.5 μg pUC19; 0.5 μg of PB-SRT-tdTomato and 0.5 μg pBase plasmid; and 0.5 μg of PB-SRT-tdTomato and 0.5 μg HyPBase plasmid. Cells were allowed to expand for 8 days, after which fluorescence activity was assayed on an Attune NxT Flow Cytometer with an excitation wavelength of 561 nm. Flow cytometry data were visualized using FlowCal (Castillo-Hair et al., 2016). We also performed bulk RNA calling cards on HEK293T cells transfected with SRT-tdTomato with or without HyPBase plasmid. While these cells were not sorted based on fluorescence activity, the SRT library from cells transfected with both SRT and transposase were more complex and contained many more insertions than the library from cells receiving SRT alone (Supplemental Methods).
In Vivo scCC Experiments
We separately packaged the PB-SRT-tdTomato and HyPBase constructs in AAV9 viral particles (Cammack et al., 2020) and delivered mixtures of both viruses to the developing mouse cortex via intracranial injections at P1. After 2-4 weeks, we dissected the cortex, dissociated it to a single cell suspension, performed FACS to isolate tdTomato-positive cells, and generated both scRNA-seq and scCC libraries.
Mouse cortical tissues were dissociated to single suspensions following a modification of previously published methods (Avey et al., 2018; Saxena et al., 2012). We incubated samples in a papain solution containing Hibernate-A with 5% v/v trehalose, 1×B-27 Supplement, 0.7 mM EDTA, 70 μM 2-mercaptoethanol, and 2.8 mg/ml papain. After incubation at 37° C., cells were treated with DNaseI, triturated through increasingly narrow fire-polished pipettes, and passed through a 40-micron filter prewetted with resuspension solution: Hibernate-A containing 5% v/v trehalose, 0.5% Ovomucoid Trypsin Inhibitor, 0.5% Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA), 33 μg/ml DNaseI (Worthington), and 1×B-27 Supplement. The filter was washed with 6 mL of resuspension solution. The resulting suspension was centrifuged for 4 minutes at 250 g. The supernatant was discarded. The pellet was then resuspended in 2 mL of resuspension solution and resuspended by gentle pipetting.
We eliminated subcellular debris using gradient centrifugation. We first prepared a working solution of 30% w/v OptiPrep Density Gradient Medium mixed with an equal volume of 1× Hank's Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS) with 0.5% BSA. We then prepared solutions of densities 1.057, 1.043, 1.036, and 1.029 g/ml using by combining the working solution with resuspension solution at ratios of 0.33:0.67, 0.23:0.77, 0.18:0.82, and 0.13:0.87, respectively. We layered 1 mL aliquots of each solution in a 15 mL conical tube beginning with the densest solution on the bottom. The cell suspension was added last to the tube and centrifuged for 20 minutes at 800 g at 12° C. The top layer was then aspirated and purified cells were isolated from the remaining layers. These cells were then resuspended in FACS buffer: 1×HBSS, 2 mM MgCl2, 2 mM MgSO4, 1.25 mM CaCl2, 1 mM D-glucose, 0.02% BSA, and 5% v/v trehalose. Cells were centrifuged for 4 minutes at 250 g, the supernatant was discarded, and the pellet was resuspended in FACS buffer by gentle pipetting.
Cells were then sorted based on fluorescence activity. As a gating control, we analyzed cells from cortices injected with AAV9-PB-SRT-tdTomato only. We then collected cells from brains transfected with AAV9-PB-SRT-tdTomato and AAV9-HyPBase whose fluorescence values exceeded the gate. After sorting, cells were centrifuged for 3 minutes at 250 g. The supernatant was discarded and cells were resuspended in FACS buffer at a concentration appropriate for 10× Chromium 3′ scRNA-seq library preparation.
Quantification and Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed in Python 3.7.3 using SciPy (Virtanen et al., 2020) and statsmodels (Seabold and Perktold, 2010) as well as R 3.5.3 using the multcomp package (Hothorn et al., 2008). Flow cytometry figures were created with FlowJo. All other figures were created with Python using matplotlib (Hunter, 2007). Statistical details for individual experiments have been provided in the main text, figure legends, and Method Details. In general, we used 10-12 replicates for bulk RNA calling cards experiments; at least three separate libraries for single cell calling cards experiments; and three biological replicates for the K562 cell state experiments.
Interpreting Calling Card Tracks
Calling card tracks depict recovered transposons as discrete data points. Each circle in the track is an independent transposition event whose genomic coordinate is along the x axis. The y axis is the number of reads supporting each insertion on a log10 scale. The total, genome-wide library size is shown at left (n). To better compare transpositions across libraries with different numbers of insertions, we also plotted the normalized local insertion rate as a density track.
Sequencing and Analysis: Bulk DNA CC Libraries
DNA calling card libraries were sequenced on the Illumine HiSeq 2500 platform. To increase the complexity of the library, PhiX was added at a final loading concentration of 50%. Reads were demultiplexed by the 3 base-pair barcode TAG followed by the end of the transposon terminal repeat, culminating with the piggyBac insertion site motif TTAA. Reads that had exact matches to these sequences were hard trimmed using cutadapt (Martin, 2011) with the following settings: -g “∧Calling Card Sequence”—minimum-length 1—discard-untrimmed -e 0—no-indels. Reads passing this filter were then trimmed of vector sequence along read 2 using cutadapt with the following settings: -g “∧ATCACTTAAGCCGGTAC””—minimum-length 1—discard-untrimmed -e 0—no-indels. The remaining reads were aligned to the human genome (build hg38) with NovoAlign and the following settings: -n 40 -o SAM -o SoftClip. Aligned reads were validated by confirming that they mapped adjacent to the insertion site motif. Successful reads were then converted to calling card format (.ccf.; see http://wiki.wubrowse.org/Calling_card) using custom programs (available at https://github.com/arnavm/calling_cards) and visualized on the WashU Epigenome Browser v46 (Zhou et al., 2011) (http://epigenomegateway.wustl.edu/legacy/).
Sequencing and Analysis: Bulk RNA CC Libraries
Multiple calling card libraries were pooled together for sequencing on the Illumina HiSeq 2500 platform with 50% phiX. Reads were demultiplexed by the N7 index sequences added during the final PCR. Read 1 began with the 3 base-pair barcode followed by the end of the transposon terminal repeat, culminating with the insertion site motif (TTAA in the case of piggyBac; TA in the case of Sleeping Beauty) before entering the genome. piggyBac reads were checked for exact matches to the barcode, transposon sequence, and insertion site at the beginning of reads before being hard trimmed using cutadapt with the following settings: -g “∧NNNGCGTCAATTTTACGCAGACTATCTTTCTAGGGTTAA”—minimum-length 1—discard-untrimmed -e 0—no-indels, where NNN is replaced with the primer barcode. Sleeping Beauty libraries were trimmed with the following settings: -g “∧NNNTAAGTGTATGTAAACTTCCGACTTCAACTGTA”—minimum-length 1—discard-untrimmed -e 0—no-indels. Reads passing this filter were then trimmed of any trailing Nextera adaptor sequence, again using cutadapt and the following settings: -a “CTGTCTCTTATACACATCTCCGAGCCCACGAGACTNNNNNNNNNNTCTCGT ATGCCGTCTTCTGCTTG”—minimum-length 1. The remaining reads were aligned to the human genome (build hg38) with NovoAlign and the following settings: -n 40 -o SAM -o SoftClip. Aligned reads were validated by confirming that they mapped adjacent to the insertion site motif. Successful reads were then converted to calling card format (.ccf.) and visualized on the WashU Epigenome Browser v46 (Zhou et al., 2011) (http://epigenomegateway.wustl.edu/legacy/).
Sequencing and Analysis: scRNA-seq Libraries
scRNA-seq libraries were sequenced on either Illumina HiSeq 2500 or NovaSeq machines. Reads were analyzed using 10× Genomics' Cell Ranger with the following settings: —expect-cells=6000—chemistry=SC3Pv2—localcores=16—localmem=30. The digital gene expression matrices from 10× were then further processed with scanpy (Wolf et al., 2018) for identification of highly variable genes, batch correction, dimensionality reduction, and Louvain clustering. Processed scRNA-seq datasets were stored as .loom files (http://loompy.org). We cross-referenced gene expression data with published datasets (Rosenberg et al., 2018; Rouillard et al., 2016; Saunders et al., 2018; Tasic et al., 2018; Zeisel et al., 2018) to assign cell types. The species mixing analysis was performed using Drop-seq_tools (Macosko et al., 2015).
Sequencing and Analysis: scCC Libraries
scCC libraries were sequenced on Illumina NextSeq 500 machines (v2 Reagent Cartridges) with 50% PhiX. We used the standard Illumina primers for read 1 and index 2 (BP10 and BP14, respectively), and custom primers for read 2 and index 1 (TABLE 4). Read 1 sequenced the cell barcode and unique molecular index of each self-reporting transcript. Read 2 began with GGTTAA (end of the piggyBac terminal repeat and insertion site motif) before continuing into the genome. Reads containing this exact hexamer were trimmed using cutadapt with the following settings: -g “∧GGTTAA”—minimum-length 1—discard-untrimmed -e 0—no-indels. Reads passing this filter were then trimmed of any trailing P7 adaptor sequence, again using cutadapt and with the following settings: -a “AGAGACTGGCAAGTACACGTCGCACTCACCATGANNNNNNNNNATCTCGT ATGCCGTCTTCTGCTTG”—minimum-length 1. Reads passing these filters were aligned using 10× Genomics' cellranger with the following settings:—expect-cells=6000—nosecondary—chemistry=SC3Pv2—localcores=16—localmem=30. This workflow also managed barcode validation and collapsing of UMIs. Aligned reads were validated by verifying that they mapped adjacent to TTAA tetramers. Reads were then converted to calling card format (.ccf.). Finally, to minimize the presence of intermolecular artifacts, we required that each insertion must have been tagged by at least two different UMIs. We used the set of validated cell barcodes from each scRNA-seq library to demultiplex library-specific barcoded insertions from the scCC data. This approach requires no shared cell barcodes between individual scCC (and scRNA-seq) libraries. As a result, we excluded insertions from non-unique cell barcodes, which represented a very small number of total cells lost (<1% per multiplexed library). More details on these steps are also provided in the associated protocols. For the species mixing experiment, cells were classified as either human or mouse if at least 80% of self-reporting transcripts in that cell mapped to the human or mouse genome, respectively, and as a multiplet. The estimated multiplet rate was calculated by doubling the observed percentage of human-mouse multiplet, to account for human-human and mouse-mouse doublets.
Peak Calling on Calling Card Data
We called peaks in calling card data using Bayesian blocks (Scargle et al., 2013), a noise-tolerant algorithm for segmenting discrete, one-dimensional data, using the astropy implementation (Robitaille et al., 2013; The Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018). Bayesian blocks segments the genome into non-overlapping blocks where the density of calling card insertions is uniform. By comparing the segmentation against a background model, we were able to use Poisson statistics to assess whether a given block shows statistically significant enrichment for insertions. Let
B={b1,b2, . . . bn}
represent the set of blocks found by performing Bayesian block segmentation on all insertions from a TF-directed experiment (e.g., SP1-PBase). For each block bi, let xi be the number of insertions in that block in the TF-directed experiment. Similarly, let y′i be the number of insertions in that block in the undirected experiment (e.g., PBase) normalized to the total number of insertions found in the TF-directed experiment. Then, for each block we calculated the Poisson p value of observing at least xi insertions assuming a Poisson distribution with expectation
y′i:P(k≥xi|λ=y′i).
We accepted all blocks that were significant beyond a particular p value threshold.
For the analysis of TF-directed insertions, either in bulk or in single cells, we added a pseudocount of 1 to y′i, the number of insertions in block bi in the undirected experiment. We selected all blocks whose p values were significant at a Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate of 5% (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995). We polished peak calls by merging statistically significant blocks that were within 250 bases of each other and by aligning block edges to coincide with TTAAs.
To identify BRD4 binding sites from undirected piggyBac insertions, we segmented those insertions using Bayesian blocks. For each block bi, we let x′i denote the number of undirected insertions in that block. We also calculated x′i, the expected number of insertions in block bi assuming piggyBac insertions were distributed uniformly across the genome. We did this by dividing the total number of TTAAs in the genome by the total number of undirected insertions, then multiplying this value by the number of TTAAs in block. Then, for each block we calculated the Poisson p value
p(k≥xi|λ=x′i).
We accepted all blocks that were significant beyond a particular p value threshold. Finally, we merged statistically-significant blocks that were within 12,500 bases of each other (Pott and Lieb, 2015; Whyte et al., 2013).
For the bulk PBase and HyPBase analysis, we used p value cutoffs of 10−30 and 10−62, respectively. (We chose these stringent thresholds to better resolve super-enhancers, which is our primary focus here.) For both in vitro and in vivo single cell HyPBase analyses, we used a p value cutoff of 10−9. To identify the differentially-bound loci between CD24high/CD24ow K562 cells, as well as between upper and lower cortical layer neurons (i.e., Pou3f2/Brn-2, Bcl11b/Ctip2, and Foxp2), we used the same framework as described above for TF-directed analysis but did reciprocal enrichment analyses, where one dataset was used as the “experiment” track and the other as the “control” track, and vice-versa. This results in two one-sided hypothesis tests. When analyzing differential binding between upper and lower cortical layer neurons, we used a p value cutoff of 10−9. For the CD24high/CD24low K562 analysis, we restricted our hypothesis testing to BRD4-bound peaks found in the cell line mixing experiment that had at least 20 insertions between both groups. For each peak, we normalized the number of insertions from each population by a library-specific scaling factor and calculated the fold change in binding as log2(Normalized CD24high insertions/Normalized CD24low insertions)|. We then took the smaller of the two p values and adjusted for multiple hypotheses at a Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate of 10%. This was plotted against the fold-change values to generate the volcano plot (colored circles indicate significant peaks after FDR correction). Data points were annotated when peaks overlapped or were near a single gene.
Density tracks were generated by taking the Bayesian blocks segmentation of each calling card dataset and, for each block, calculating the normalized number of insertions and dividing by the length of the block in kilobases (insertions per kilobase per million mapped insertions, or IPKM). This was plotted as a bedgraph file with smoothing applied in the WashU Epigenome Browser (25 pixel windows).
Custom code to facilitate these analyses is available online (https://github.com/arnavm/calling_cards). Detailed instructions on how to analyze calling card data are provided in the linked protocols.
TF Binding Analysis
We compared our TF-directed calling card peaks to publicly available ChIP-seq datasets. See below for more details on aligning and analyzing ChIP-seq data. We collated a list of unique transcription start sites (TSSs) by taking the 5′-most coordinates of RefSeq Curated genes in the hg38 build (UCSC Genome Browser). A list of CpG islands in HCT-116 and K562 cells and their methylation statuses were derived from previously-published Methyl-seq data (Brunner et al., 2009). We used the liftOver tool (Hinrichs et al., 2006) to convert coordinates from hg18 to hg38. We tested for enrichment in SP1-directed insertions at TSSs, CpG islands, and unmethylated CpG islands with the G test of independence. We used the same test when testing enrichment of BAP1-directed insertions at TSSs. For motif discovery, we restricted our analysis to peaks less than 5,000 bp in length. We then used MEME-ChIP (Machanick and Bailey, 2011) with a dinucleotide shuffled control and the following settings: -dna -nmeme 600 -seed 0 -ccut 250 -meme-mod zoops -meme-minw 4 -meme-nmotifs 10. Motifs were aligned on the web version of Tomtom (Gupta et al., 2007) querying the “Vertebrates (In vivo and in silico)” database. We cross-referenced BAP1 scCC binding sites with publicly available BAP1 shRNA data (Yen et al., 2018), focusing on genes that showed a significant change in gene expression (adjusted p value <0.05).
BRD4 Sensitivity, Specificity, and Precision
We used a published BRD4 ChIP-seq dataset (McCleland et al., 2016) to identify BRD4-bound super-enhancers in HCT-116 cells, following previously-described methods (Lovén et al., 2013; Whyte et al., 2013). We first called peaks using MACS 1.4.1 (Zhang et al., 2008) at p<10−9 (using the parameters -p 1e-9—keep-dup=“auto” -f BAM -g hs -w -S—space=50), then fed this into ROSE. We discarded artifactual loci less than 2,000 bp in size, yielding a final list of 162 super-enhancers. To evaluate sensitivity, we used BEDtools (Quinlan and Hall, 2010) to ask what fraction of piggyBac peaks, at various p value thresholds, overlapped the set of BRD4-bound super-enhancers. To measure specificity, we created a list of regions predicted to be insignificantly enriched (p>0.1) for BRD4 ChIP-seq signal. We then sampled bases from this region such that the distribution of peak sizes was identical to that of the 162 super-enhancers. We sampled to 642× coverage, sufficient to cover each base with one peak, on average. We then asked what fraction of our piggyBac peaks overlapped these negative peaks and subtracted that value from 1 to obtain specificity. Finally, we calculated precision, or positive predictive value, by dividing the total number of detected super-enhancer peaks by the sum of the super-enhancer peaks and the false positive peaks.
Downsampling and Replication Analysis
When performing downsampling analyses on calling card insertions, we randomly sampled insertions without replacement and in proportion to the number of reads supporting each insertion. Peaks were called on the downsampled insertions at a range of p value cutoffs. Linear interpolation was performed using NumPy (Oliphant, 2015) and visualized using matplotlib (Hunter, 2007). Replication was assessed by splitting calling card insertions into two, approximately equal, files based on their barcode sequences. Each new file was treated as a single biological experiment. For each peak called from the joint set of all insertions, we plotted the number of normalized insertions (IPM) in one replicate on the x axis and the other replicate on y axis.
Analysis of External Datasets
For ChIP-seq, ATAC-seq, and DNase-seq data, we aligned raw reads using Novoalign with the following settings for single-end datasets: -o SAM -o SoftClip; while paired-end datasets were mapped with the additional flag -i PE 200-500. To calculate and visualize the fold enrichment in ChIP-seq signal at calling card peaks, we used deeptools (Ramirez et al., 2016). We tested for significant mean enrichment in BRD4 ChIP-seq signal at piggyBac peaks over randomly shuffled control peaks with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Chromatin state analysis was performed using ChromHMM as previously described (Ernst et al., 2011). For each chromatin state, we plotted the mean and standard deviation of the rate of normalized insertions (IPKM). We called peaks on SP1 ChIP-seq, DNase- and ATAC-seq data using MACS 2 with the following settings: -q 0.05—keep-dup=“auto.” For the analysis of “super-enhancers” from ATAC-seq data, we used control data derived from ATAC-seq on deproteinized human genomic DNA (Martins et al., 2018) and followed the same steps for calling super-enhancers from BRD4 ChIP-seq data (above). If necessary, files were converted to hg38 using liftOver (Hinrichs et al., 2006).
Cell State Analyses of K562: scRNA-seq and scCC
Cell state analysis was performed on batch-corrected K562 scRNA-seq data derived from the HyPBase cell line mixing experiment. Principal components analysis (PCA) of single cell gene expression
Analysis of K562 Experiments
We analyzed the JQ1 time course experiment using a two-way ANOVA with treatment and day as the independent variables and the percentage of CD24low cells as the dependent variable. For the analysis of annexin V levels in either JQ1- or DMSO-treated CD24high and CD24low cells, we used a three-way ANOVA with treatment, cell state, and day as independent variables. The imatinib experiments following either JQ1 or BRD4 CRISPRi pretreatment were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA with pretreatment (JQ1/DMSO or NT/BRD4 gRNA) and treatment as the independent variables. Multiple hypothesis correction was performed using Tukey's honestly significant difference. For the cell cycle inhibitor experiment, data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA with Dunnett's post hoc test using either DMSO or EtOH (for RO-3306) as controls.
In Vivo scCC Analysis and Validation
Single cell RNA-seq and single cell calling card libraries were prepared, sequenced, and analyzed as described above. Cell types were assigned based on the expression of key marker genes and cross-referenced with recent cortical scRNA-seq datasets (Rosenberg et al., 2018; Saunders et al., 2018; Tasic et al., 2018; Zeisel et al., 2018). BRD4-bound peak calls were validated by comparing to a previously published cortical H3K27ac ChIP-seq dataset (Stroud et al., 2017). Read alignment and statistical analysis were performed as described above.
The specificity of BRD4-bound gene expression in astrocytes and neurons was analyzed by first identifying all genes within 10,000 bases of astrocyte and neuronal BRD4 peaks. Although assigning an enhancer to its target gene is a difficult problem, using the nearest gene is common practice (Gasperini et al., 2019). To control for sensitivity of gene detection, we downsampled the neuron insertions to the same number of astrocyte insertions, then called peaks and identified nearby genes in this subset. We used gene expression data from a bulk RNA-seq dataset (Zhang et al., 2014) to compute the specificity of gene expression between astrocytes and neurons. We first discarded genes whose expression was not measured, and then set the value for genes with 0.1 FPKM to zero (to better distinguish non-expressed genes from lowly-expressed genes). Finally, for each gene gi, we calculated the specificity as AstrocyteFPKM(gi)=[AstrocyteFPKM](gi)+NeuronFPKM(gi). Thus, a value of 0 denotes a gene purely expressed in neurons, a value of 0.5 for a gene equally expressed in both cell types, and a value of 1 for a gene purely expressed in astrocytes. After accounting for differences in library size, we identified 383 genes near astrocyte peaks and 184 genes near neuron peaks, with 46 genes found in both datasets. We plotted the distributions of gene expression specificity for these gene sets. (
Additional Resources
We have created a number of protocols describing how to perform all aspects of bulk and single cell calling cards, from molecular biology and sequencing through data analysis and visualization. While these are listed in the Key Resources Table, we have also created a publicly accessible portal for easy access to all our workflows: https://www.protocols.io/groups/calling-cards/. Moving forward, this resource should contain the most up-to-date information.
Molecular Biology of Self-Reporting Transposons (SRTs)
Self-reporting transposons (SRTs) are synthetic constructs that generate transcripts whose 3′ untranslated regions (UTRs) contain the genomic sequence identifying the SRT's insertion site. These transcripts can be recovered using a poly(T) reverse transcription (RT) primer tailed with a universal priming site at one end of the transcripts. It is unclear whether self-reporting transcripts are truly polyadenylated like protein-coding mRNA (i.e. contain non-templated 3′ adenines added by poly(A) polymerase after cleavage from RNA polymerase II) or contain templated stretches of adenine to which the RT primer can internally hybridize. Regardless, transcripts are amplified after first-strand synthesis. We then perform a pair of nested PCRs with an intermediate tagmentation step (Picelli et al., 2014) to recover the transposon-genome junction. After adapter trimming and alignment, the 5′ coordinates of these reads specify the genomic locations of insertions in the library (
Supplemental Methods
Additional Validation of SRTs
To confirm that our molecular protocol was specific for transposed SRTs (as opposed to the original plasmid copy), we generated libraries from cells transfected with either piggyBac SRTs alone or SRTs alongside piggyBac transposase. Libraries generated without transposase yielded very few reads mapping to the genome; however, protocol is highly efficient when transposase is added (
Noise Reduction
A common artifact observed in DNA-based transposon recovery is a large fraction of reads aligning to the donor transposon plasmid instead of the genome. Although this can be mitigated by long selection times or by digestion with the methyladenine-sensitive enzyme DpnI (Wang et al., 2012a), these methods do not completely eliminate background and are not compatible with all experimental paradigms (e.g. viral transduction). To reduce this artifact, we included a hammerhead ribozyme (Yen et al., 2004) in the SRT plasmid downstream of the 5′ terminal repeat (TR). Before transposition, the ribozyme will cleave the nascent transcript originating from the marker gene, thus preventing RT. Transposition allows the SRT to escape the downstream ribozyme, leading to recovery of the self-reporting transcript. In our comparison of DNA- and RNA-based recovery, about 15% of reads from the DNA library aligned to the plasmid, compared to fewer than 1% of reads from the RNA library (
Uniform Recovery of SRTs
Since SRT recovery relies on transcription, we wondered if SRTs deposited in euchromatic regions were recovered more efficiently than SRTs in less permissive chromatin states, which might lead to biases when mapping TF binding. As piggyBac is known to preferentially insert near active chromatin (Yoshida et al., 2017), this question cannot be easily answered using this transposon. Prior studies have shown that the Sleeping Beauty transposase (Ivics et al., 1997; Mates et al., 2009) has very little preference for chromatin state (Yoshida et al., 2017). Therefore, we created a self-reporting Sleeping Beauty transposon and compared its genome-wide distribution to that of SRTs deposited by wild-type piggyBac (TABLE 1;
SRTs are Compatible with TF-Directed Calling Cards
Since the SRT is a new reagent, we sought to confirm that bulk RNA calling cards can, like DNA calling cards (Wang et al., 2012a), be used to identify TF binding sites. We transfected 10-12 replicates of HCT-116 cells with plasmids containing the PB-SRT-Puro donor transposon and SP1 fused to either piggyBac (SP1-PBase) or a hyperactive variant of piggyBac (Yusa et al., 2011) (SP1-HyPBase). As controls, we also transfected a similar number of replicates with undirected PBase or HyPBase, respectively. We obtained 410,588 insertions from SP1-PBase and 1,521,048 insertions from PBase; similarly, we obtained 2,029,931 SP1-HyPBase insertions and 5,771,207 insertions from HyPBase (TABLE 1).
Just as we had observed previously with DNA calling cards (Wang et al., 2012a), RNA calling cards were also redirected by SP1-PBase and SP1-HyPBase to SP1-bound regions of the genome (
SP1 is known to preferentially bind near transcription start sites (TSSs) and is also thought to play a role in demethylating CpG islands (Brandeis et al., 1994; Macleod et al., 1994; Philipsen and Suske, 1999). We confirmed that the SP1-directed transposases preferentially inserted SRT calling cards near TSSs, CpG islands, and unmethylated CpG islands at statistically significant frequencies (p<10−9 in each instance, G test of independence;
Hyperactive piggyBac Insertions Identify BRD4-Bound Super-Enhancers
We analyzed hyperactive piggyBac transposase (HyPBase) data in identical fashion to the standard piggyBac transposase (PBase). Undirected HyPBase showed non-uniform densities of insertions at BRD4-bound loci (
Redirectability of piggyBac
piggyBac's baseline preference for BRD4 raises questions about how efficiently TF-piggyBac fusions can redirect insertions near TF binding sites. We further analyzed the bulk SP1-directed experiments and found that SP1-piggyBac increased insertion density at SP1-bound, BRD4-depleted regions by five- to seven-fold, on average (
Downsampling Analysis
To project how transposon calling cards would scale to single cell experiments, where molecular techniques show broadly reduced sensitivity compared their bulk counterparts, we simulated assay performance under increasingly sparse conditions. We quantified the relationship between SE sensitivity and the number of insertions recovered in undirected calling cards experiments by downsampling the data from the PBase and HyPBase experiments in half-log increments and calculating sensitivity (
The resulting contour plots (
Molecular Biology of Single Cell Calling Cards
Single cell calling cards (scCC) uses a modified version of the bulk SRT amplification protocol since the cell barcode and transposon-genome junction may be too far to sequence with short-read technology. To overcome this, we amplify with primers that bind to the universal priming sequence next to the cell barcode and the terminal sequence of the piggyBac TR. These primers are biotinylated and carry a 5′ phosphate group (TABLE 4). The PCR products of this amplification are diluted and allowed to circularize overnight. They are then sheared and captured with streptavidin-coated magnetic beads (Methods). The rest of the library is prepared on-bead and involves end repair, A-tailing, and adapter ligation (Methods). A final PCR step adds the required Illumina sequences for high-throughput sequencing (Methods). The standard Illumina read 1 primer sequences the cell barcode and UMI, while a custom read 2 primer, annealing to the end of the piggyBac 5′ TR, sequences into the genome. Thus, we collect both the location of a piggyBac insertion as well as its cell of origin. Cells undergo droplet encapsulation and barcoding using the 10× Chromium protocol, with the omission of the template switch oligonucleotide (TSO; Methods) from the RT step. The resulting product is then split in two: one half is used to generate the scRNA-seq library (including adding back the TSO) while the other half undergoes the scCC protocol. After sequencing, the shared cell barcodes between both libraries are used to connect individual insertions to specific cell types.
Single Cell RNA-seq of the Mouse Cortex
We chose the mouse cortex for our in vivo proof-of-concept because it is a heterogeneous tissue that has been the focus of several recent single cell studies (Rosenberg et al., 2018; Saunders et al., 2018; Tasic et al., 2018; Zeisel et al., 2015, 2018). We collected nine scRNA-seq libraries from P14-P28 mice, encompassing 35,950 cells and 111,382 insertions (TABLE 2). We clustered cells by their mRNA profiles and used established marker genes to classify different cell types (
Discussion on SRT Recovery and Polyadenylation Signals
Mapping SRTs using cellular RNA appears to be substantially more efficient than the DNA-based inverse PCR method, but the reasons for this are unclear. Some efficiency is likely gained by eliminating self-ligation, as well as having multiple mRNA copies of each insertion to buffer against PCR artifacts. It is also unknown what fraction of self-reporting transcripts are actually polyadenylated as opposed to merely containing A-rich genomic tracts. Non-genic polyadenylation signals (PASs) prevent anti-sense transcription (Chiu et al., 2018), which suggests that PASs may be more common in the genome than previously appreciated. Targeted 3′-end sequencing (Chen et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2016) of SRT libraries should help resolve this question, while long-read sequencing of self-reporting transcripts may identify non-canonical PASs
Discussion on piggyBac's Affinity for BRD4
The natural affinity of piggyBac for BRD4 makes it ideal for studying BRD4-bound SEs, which play important regulatory roles in development and disease (Hnisz et al., 2013; Lovén et al., 2013; Whyte et al., 2013). It is unclear why piggyBac has this predilection. BRD4 has an intrinsically disordered region and cooperative interactions between BRD4 and coactivators like MED1 may mediate the formation of intranuclear condensates (Sabari et al., 2018) at SEs. One hypothesis is that piggyBac has a similarly disordered domain that allows it to preferentially enter condensates and enrich SEs with insertions. If such a domain exists, mutating it may make unfused piggyBac more uniform in its insertion profile, improving its utility for TF-directed calling cards.
Discussion on Designing TF-piggyBac Fusions
Although we exclusively used N-terminal fusions in this study, calling cards can also work with C-terminal fusions (Yen et al., 2018). For viral constructs where space is limited, we have also had success fusing a TF's binding domain to piggyBac (Cammack et al., 2020). In general, multiple fusion strategies should be tested to empirically determine the optimal construct, particularly if the binding domain lies near one of the termini. Finally, some TFs may not bind when fused to piggyBac and thus would not work with calling cards, though in our experience this is uncommon (less than 25% of the time or so).
Supporting Citations
The following references appear in the Supplemental Information: Chen et al., 2017, Chiu et al., 2018, Ivics et al., 1997, Picelli et al., 2014, Sabari et al., 2018, Yen et al., 2004, Zheng et al., 2016.
This application claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 63/049,658 filed on 9 Jul. 2020, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
This invention was made with government support under HG009750, MH109133, MH117070, GM007200, HG000045, and HG009986 awarded by the National Institutes of Health. The government has certain rights in the invention.
| Entry |
|---|
| Abramson J.S. et al. (2015) BET Inhibitor CPI-0610 Is Well Tolerated and Induces Responses in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma and Follicular Lymphoma: Preliminary Analysis of an Ongoing Phase 1 Study. Blood. vol. 126, No. 23, p. 1491. |
| Adeegbe D.O. et al. (2018) BET Bromodomain Inhibition Cooperates with PD-1 Blockade to Facilitate Antitumor Response in Kras-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. vol. 6, No. 10, pp. 1234-1245. |
| Alqahtani A. et al. (2019) Bromodomain and extra-terminal motifinhibitors: a review of preclinical and clinicaladvances in cancer therapy. Future Sci OA. vol. 5, No. 3, FSO372, 20 pages. |
| Amorim S. et al. (2016) Bromodomain inhibitor OTX015 in patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma: a dose-escalation, open-label, pharmacokinetic, phase 1 study. Lancet Haematol. vol. 3, No. 4, pp. e196-e204. |
| Angermueller C. et al. (2016). Parallel single-cell sequencing links transcriptional and epigenetic heterogeneity. Nat Methods. vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 229-232. |
| Avey D. et al. (2018). Single-Cell RNA-Seq Uncovers a Robust Transcriptional Response to Morphine by Glia. Cell Rep. vol. 24, No. 13, pp. 3619-3629.e4. |
| Benjamini Y. and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J. R. Statist. Soc. B. vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 289-300. |
| Berthon C. et al. (2016). Bromodomain inhibitor OTX015 in patients with acute leukaemia: a dose-escalation, phase 1 study. Lancet Haematol. vol. 3, No. 4, pp. e186-e195. |
| Bhadury J. et al. (2014). BET and HDAC inhibitors induce similar genes and biological effects and synergize to kill in Myc-induced murine lymphoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. vol. 111, No. 26, pp. E2721-E2730. |
| Bolin S. et al. (2018) Combined BET bromodomain and CDK2 inhibition in MYC-driven medulloblastoma. Oncogene. vol. 37, No. 21, pp. 2850-2862. |
| Brandeis M. et al. (1994). Sp1 elements protect a CpG island from de novo methylation. Nature. vol. 371, No. 6496, pp. 435-438. |
| Brooks E.E. et al. (1997). CVT-313, a Specific and Potent Inhibitor of CDK2 That Prevents Neointimal Proliferation. J. Biol. Chem. vol. 272, No. 46, pp. 29207-29211. |
| Brunner A.L. et al. (2009). Distinct DNA methylation patterns characterize differentiated human embryonic stem cells and developing human fetal liver. Genome Res. vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 1044-1056. |
| Buenrostro J.D. et al. (2013). Transposition of native chromatin for fast and sensitive epigenomic profiling of open chromatin, DNA-binding proteins and nucleosome position. Nat Methods vol. 10, No. 12, pp. 1213-1218. |
| Buenrostro J.D. et al. (2015). Single-cell chromatin accessibility reveals principles of regulatory variation. Nature vol. 523, pp. 486-490. |
| Bui M. H. et al. (2017) Preclinical Characterization of BET Family Bromodomain Inhibitor ABBV-075 Suggests Combination Therapeutic Strategies. Cancer Res. vol. 77, No. 11, pp. 2976-2989. |
| Cadinanos J., and Bradley A. (2007). Generation of an inducible and optimized piggyBac transposon system. Nucleic Acids Res. vol. 35, No. 12, e87, 8 pages. |
| Cammack A.J. et al. (2020). A viral toolkit for recording transcription factor-DNA interactions in live mouse tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, vol. 117, No. 18, pp. 10003-10014. |
| Campagne A. et al. (2019). BAP1 complex promotes transcription by opposing PRC1-mediated H2A ubiquitylation. Nat Commun. vol. 10, No. 348, 15 pages. |
| Campbell J.N. et al. (2017). A molecular census of arcuate hypothalamus and median eminence cell types. Nat Neurosci. vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 484-496. |
| Cao J. et al. (2017). Comprehensive single-cell transcriptional profiling of a multicellular organism. Science vol. 357, No. 6352, pp. 661-667. |
| Cao J. et al. (2018). Joint profiling of chromatin accessibility and gene expression in thousands of single cells. Science vol. 361, No. 6409, pp. 1380-1385. |
| Carbone M. et al. (2013). BAP1 and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 153-159. |
| Carter B. et al. (2019). Mapping histone modifications in low cell number and single cells using antibody-guided chromatin tagmentation (ACTseq). Nat Commun vol. 10, No. 3747, 5 pages. |
| Castillo-Hair S.M. et al. (2016). FlowCal: A User-Friendly, Open Source Software Tool for Automatically Converting Flow Cytometry Data from Arbitrary to Calibrated Units. ACS Synth Biol. vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 774-780. |
| Chen W. et al. (2017). Alternative Polyadenylation: Methods, Findings, and Impacts. Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 287-300. |
| Chiu A.C. et al. (2018). Transcriptional Pause Sites Delineate Stable Nucleosome-Associated Premature Polyadenylation Suppressed by U1 snRNP. Mol Cell. vol. 69, No. 4, pp. 648-663.e7. |
| Cho S.W. et al. (2018). Promoter of IncRNA Gene PVT1 Is a Tumor-Suppressor DNA Boundary Element. Cell vol. 173, No. 6, pp. 1398-1412.e22. |
| Clark S.J. et al. (2018). scNMT-seq enables joint profiling of chromatin accessibility DNA methylation and transcription in single cells. Nature Commun. vol. 9, No. 781, 9 pages. |
| Datlinger P. et al. (2017). Pooled CRISPR screening with single-cell transcriptome readout. Nat Methods vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 297-301. |
| Davis R.L., Weintraub H., and Lassar A.B. (1987). Expression of a single transfected cDNA converts fibroblasts to myoblasts. Cell vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 987-1000. |
| Delmore J.E. et al. (2011). BET Bromodomain Inhibition as a Therapeutic Strategy to Target c-Myc. Cell vol. 146, No. 6, pp. 904-917. |
| Dey A. et al. (2012). Loss of the Tumor Suppressor BAP1 Causes Myeloid Transformation. Science vol. 337, No. 6101, pp. 1541-1546. |
| Dey S.S. et al. (2015). Integrated genome and transcriptome sequencing of the same cell. Nature Biotechnology vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 285-289. |
| Di Micco R. et al. (2014). Control of Embryonic Stem Cell Identity by BRD4-Dependent Transcriptional Elongation of Super-Enhancer-Associated Pluripotency Genes. Cell Reports vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 234-247. |
| Ding S. et al. (2005). Efficient transposition of the piggyBac (PB) transposon in mammalian cells and mice. Cell vol. 122, No. 3, pp. 473-483. |
| Dixit A. et al. (2016). Perturb-Seq: Dissecting Molecular Circuits with Scalable Single-Cell RNA Profiling of Pooled Genetic Screens. Cell vol. 167, No. 7, pp. 1853-1866.e17. |
| Dombret H. et al. (2014) A Phase 1 Study of the BET-Bromodomain Inhibitor OTX015 in Patients with Advanced Acute Leukemia. Blood. vol. 124, No. 21, p. 117. |
| Ernst J. et al. (2011). Mapping and analysis of chromatin state dynamics in nine human cell types. Nature vol. 473, pp. 43-49. |
| Fan X. et al. (2008). Expression of liver X receptor β is essential for formation of superficial cortical layers and migration of later-born neurons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. vol. 105, No. 36, pp. 13445-13450. |
| Feng Q. et al. (2014). An epigenomic approach to therapy for tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer. Cell Res. vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 809-819. |
| Filippakopoulos P. et al. (2010). Selective inhibition of BET bromodomains. Nature vol. 468, No. 7327, pp. 1067-1073. |
| Fincher C.T. et al. (2018). Cell type transcriptome atlas for the planarian Schmidtea mediterranea. Science vol. 360, No. 6391, eaaq1736, 14 pages. |
| Fiskus W. et al. (2014) Highly active combination of BRD4 antagonist and histone deacetylase inhibitor against human acute myelogenous leukemia cells. Mol Cancer Ther. vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 1142-1154. |
| Fogarty N.M.E. et al. (2017). Genome editing reveals a role for OCT4 in human embryogenesis. Nature vol. 55, No. 7674, pp. 67-73. |
| Folkerts H. et al. (2019). Elevated VMP1 expression in acute myeloid leukemia amplifies autophagy and is protective against venetoclax-induced apoptosis. Cell Death Dis. vol. 10, No. 6, 421, 12 pages. |
| Fournier M. et al. (2016). FOXA and master transcription factors recruit Mediator and Cohesin to the core transcriptional regulatory circuitry of cancer cells. Sci Rep. vol. 6, No. 34962, 11 pages. |
| Fulco C.P. et al. (2016). Systematic mapping of functional enhancer-promoter connections. Science. vol. 354, No. 6313, pp. 769-773. |
| Fullwood M.J. et al. (2009). An oestrogen-receptor-a-bound human chromatin interactome. Nature vol. 462, No. 7269, pp. 58-64. |
| Garcia-Carpizo V. et al. (2018). CREBBP/EP300 bromodomains are critical to sustain the GATA1/MYC regulatory axis in proliferation. Epigenetics & Chromatin vol. 11, No. 1, 30, 15 pages. |
| Gasperini M. et al. (2019). A Genome-wide Framework for Mapping Gene Regulation via Cellular Genetic Screens. Cell. vol. 176, No. 1-2, pp. 377-390. |
| Gogol-Doring A. et al. (2016). Genome-wide Profiling Reveals Remarkable Parallels Between Insertion Site Selection Properties of the MLV Retrovirus and the piggyBac Transposon in Primary Human CD4+ T Cells. Mol Ther. vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 592-606. |
| Gonen N. et al. (2018). Sex reversal following deletion of a single distal enhancer of Sox9. Science vol. 360, No. 6396, pp. 1469-1471. |
| Gopalakrishnan R. et al. (2016). Immunomodulatory drugs target IKZF1-IRF4-MYC axis in primary effusion lymphoma in a cereblon-dependent manner and display synergistic cytotoxicity with BRD4 inhibitors. Oncogene. vol. 35, No. 14, pp. 1797-1810. |
| Greil F., Moorman C., and Van Steensel B. (2006). DamID: Mapping of In Vivo Protein-Genome Interactions Using Tethered DNA Adenine Methyltransferase. In DNA Microarrays, Part A: Array Platforms and Wet-Bench Protocols, (Elsevier), pp. 342-359. |
| Grosselin K. et al. (2019). High-throughput single-cell ChIP-seq identifies heterogeneity of chromatin states in breast cancer. Nat Genet. vol. 51, pp. 1060-1066. |
| Gupta S. et al. (2007). Quantifying similarity between motifs. Genome Biol. vol. 8, No. 2, R24, 9 pages. |
| Gurdon J.B. (2016). Cell Fate Determination by Transcription Factors. In Essays on Developmental Biology, Part A, (Elsevier), pp. 445-454. |
| Hafler B.P. et al. (2012). Transcription factor Olig2 defines subpopulations of retinal progenitor cells biased toward specific cell fates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. vol. 109, No. 20, pp. 7882-7887. |
| Hainer S.J. et al. (2019). Profiling of Pluripotency Factors in Single Cells and Early Embryos. Cell vol. 177, No. 5, pp. 1319-1329.e11. |
| Han X. et al. (2018). Mapping the Mouse Cell Atlas by Microwell-Seq. Cell vol. 172, No. 5, pp. 1091-1107.e17. |
| Harada A. et al. (2019). A chromatin integration labelling method enables epigenomic profiling with lower input. Nat Cell Biol. vol. 21, pp. 287-296. |
| Heinemann A. et al. (2015) Combining BET and HDAC inhibitors synergistically induces apoptosis of melanoma and suppresses AKT and YAP signaling. Oncotarget. vol. 6, No. 25., pp. 21507-21521. |
| Hinrichs A.S. et al. (2006). The UCSC Genome Browser Database: update 2006. Nucleic Acids Res. vol. 34, pp. D590-D598. |
| Hnisz D. et al. (2013). Super-Enhancers in the Control of Cell Identity and Disease. Cell vol. 155, No. 4, pp. 934-947. |
| Ho T.T. et al. (2017). Autophagy maintains the metabolism and function of young and old stem cells. Nature vol. 543, pp. 205-210. |
| Hothorn T., Bretz F., and Westfall P. (2008). Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biom. J. vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 346-363. |
| Hunter, J.D. (2007). Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 90-95. |
| Hwang B., Lee J.H., and Bang D. (2018). Single-cell RNA sequencing technologies and bioinformatics pipelines. Exp Mol Med. vol. 50, No. 96, 14 pages. |
| Ivics Z. et al. (1997). Molecular Reconstruction of Sleeping Beauty, a Tc1-like Transposon from Fish, and Its Transposition in Human Cells. Cell vol. 91, No. 4, pp. 501-510. |
| Jackman J., and O'Connor P.M. (1998). Methods for Synchronizing Cells at Specific Stages of the Cell Cycle. Curr Protoc in Cell Biol. pp. 8.3.1-8.3.20. |
| Jing Y. et al. (2016) Concomitant BET and MAPK blockade for effective treatment of ovarian cancer. Oncotarget. vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 2545-2554. |
| Johnson D.S. et al. (2007). Genome-Wide Mapping of in Vivo Protein-DNA Interactions. Science vol. 316, No. 5830, pp. 1497-1502. |
| Jostes S. et al. (2017) The bromodomain inhibitor JQ1 triggers growth arrest and apoptosis in testicular germ cell tumours in vitro and in vivo. J Cell Mol Med. vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 1300-1314. |
| Kalhor R. et al. (2018). Developmental barcoding of whole mouse via homing CRISPR. Science vol. 361, No. 6405, eaat9804, 14 pages. |
| Karaiskos N. et al. (2017). The Drosophila embryo at single-cell transcriptome resolution. Science vol. 358, No. 6360, pp. 194-199. |
| Kaya-Okur H.S. et al. (2019). CUT&Tag for efficient epigenomic profiling of small samples and single cells. Nat Commun. vol. 10, No. 1930, 10 pages. |
| Kettlun C. et al. (2011). Manipulating piggyBac transposon chromosomal integration site selection in human cells. Mol Ther. vol. 19, No. 9, pp. 1636-1644. |
| Kfoury N. et al. (2017). Brd4-bound enhancers drive critical sex differences in glioblastoma. bioRxiv 199059, 29 pages. |
| Kind J. et al. (2013). Single-Cell Dynamics of Genome-Nuclear Lamina Interactions. Cell vol. 153, No. 1, pp. 178-192. |
| Kind J. et al. (2015). Genome-wide Maps of Nuclear Lamina Interactions in Single Human Cells. Cell vol. 163, No. 1, pp. 134-147. |
| Klein A.M. et al. (2015). Droplet Barcoding for Single-Cell Transcriptomics Applied to Embryonic Stem Cells. Cell vol. 161, No. 5, pp. 1187-1201. |
| Knoechel, B. et al. (2014). An epigenetic mechanism of resistance to targeted therapy in T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Nat Genet. vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 364-370. |
| Koblish H.K. et al. (2016) The BET inhibitor INCB054329 enhances the activity of checkpoint modulation in syngeneic tumor models. Cancer Res. vol. 76, No. 4 Supp, 4904, 4 pages. |
| Kvon E.Z. et al. (2016). Progressive Loss of Function in a Limb Enhancer during Snake Evolution. Cell. vol. 167, No. 3, pp. 633-642.e11. |
| Lalli M.A. et al. (2019). High-throughput single-cell functional elucidation of neurodevelopmental disease-associated genes reveals convergent mechanisms altering neuronal differentiation. bioRxiv 862680, 48 pages. |
| Lawrence M., Daujat S., and Schneider R. (2016). Lateral Thinking: How Histone Modifications Regulate Gene Expression. Trends Genet. vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 42-56. |
| Lee C.S. et al. (2005). The initiation of liver development is dependent on Foxa transcription factors. Nature vol. 435, pp. 944-947. |
| Lee T.I., and Young R.A. (2013). Transcriptional Regulation and Its Misregulation in Disease. Cell vol. 152, No. 6, pp. 1237-1251. |
| Lee D.H. et al. (2015) Synergistic effect of JQ1 and rapamycin for treatment of human osteosarcoma. Int J Cancer. vol. 136, No. 9, pp. 2055-2064. |
| Litzenburger U.M. et al. (2017). Single-cell epigenomic variability reveals functional cancer heterogeneity. Genome Biol vol. 18, No. 15, 12 pages. |
| Liu X. et al. (2008). Yamanaka factors critically regulate the developmental signaling network in mouse embryonic stem cells. Cell Res. vol. 18, No. 12, pp. 1177-1189. |
| Liu X. et al. (2016) Combination of BET inhibitor INCB054329 and LSD1 inhibitor INCB059872 is synergistic for the treatment of AML in vitro and in vivo. Cancer Res. vol. 76, No. 14, Supp., 2 pages. |
| Loven J. et al. (2013). Selective Inhibition of Tumor Oncogenes by Disruption of Super-Enhancers. Cell. vol. 153, No. 2, pp. 320-334. |
| Lozzio C. and Lozzio B. (1975). Human chronic myelogenous leukemia cell-line with positive Philadelphia chromosome. Blood. vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 321-334. |
| Macaulay I.C. et al. (2015). G&T-seq: parallel sequencing of single-cell genomes and transcriptomes. Nat Methods. vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 519-522. |
| Machanick P. and Bailey T.L. (2011). MEME-ChIP: motif analysis of large DNA datasets. Bioinformatics vol. 27, No. 12, pp. 1696-1697. |
| Macleod D. et al. (1994). Sp1 sites in the mouse aprt gene promoter are required to prevent methylation of the CpG island. Genes Dev. vol. 8, No. 19, pp. 2282-2292. |
| Macosko E.Z. et al. (2015). Highly Parallel Genome-wide Expression Profiling of Individual Cells Using Nanoliter Droplets. Cell. vol. 161, No. 5, pp. 1202-1214. |
| Martin M. (2011). Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet. Journal. vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 10-12. |
| Martins A.L. et al. (2018). Universal correction of enzymatic sequence bias reveals molecular signatures of protein/DNA interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. vol. 46, No. 2, e9, 12 pages. |
| Massard C. et al. (2016). 3LBA—A phase Ib trial with MK-8628/OTX015, a small molecule inhibitor of bromodomain (BRD) and extra-terminal (BET) proteins, in patients with selected advanced solid tumors. European Journal of Cancer. vol. 69, pp. S2-S3. |
| Matatall K.A. et al. (2013). BAP1 deficiency causes loss of melanocytic cell identity in uveal melanoma. BMC Cancer. vol. 13, No. 371, 12 pages. |
| Mates L. et al. (2009). Molecular evolution of a novel hyperactive Sleeping Beauty transposase enables robust stable gene transfer in vertebrates. Nature Genetics. vol. 41, pp. 753-761. |
| Matkar S. et al. (2015) An Epigenetic Pathway Regulates Sensitivity of Breast Cancer Cells to HER2 Inhibition via FOXO/c-Myc Axis. Cancer Cell. vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 472-485. |
| Matkar S. et al. (2017) Kinase inhibitors of HER2/AKT pathway induce ERK phosphorylation via a FOXO-dependent feedback loop. Am J Cancer Res. vol. 7, No. 7, pp. 1476-1485. |
| McCleland M.L. et al. (2016). CCAT1 is an enhancer-templated RNA that predicts BET sensitivity in colorectal cancer. J Clin Invest. vol. 126, No. 2, pp. 639-652. |
| Meir Y.-J.J. et al. (2011). Genome-wide target profiling of piggyBac and Tol2in HEK 293: pros and cons for gene discovery and gene therapy. BMC Biotechnol. vol. 11, No. 28, 19 pages. |
| Mi H. et al. (2017). PANTHER version 11: expanded annotation data from Gene Ontology and Reactome pathways, and data analysis tool enhancements. Nucleic Acids Res. vol. 45, No. D1, pp. D183-D189. |
| Mizuguchi R. et al. (2001). Combinatorial Roles of Olig2 and Neurogenin2 in the Coordinated Induction of Pan-Neuronal and Subtype-Specific Properties of Motoneurons. Neuron. vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 757-771. |
| Molyneaux B.J. et al. (2007). Neuronal subtype specification in the cerebral cortex. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 427-437. |
| Muralidharan S.V. et al. (2017). BET bromodomain inhibitors synergize with ATR inhibitors in melanoma. Cell Death Dis. vol. 8, e2981, 7 pages. |
| Najafova Z. et al. (2017). BRD4 localization to lineage-specific enhancers is associated with a distinct transcription factor repertoire. Nucleic Acids Res. vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 127-141. |
| O'Dwyer P.J et al. (2016). GSK525762, a selective bromodomain (BRD) and extra terminal protein (BET) inhibitor: results from part 1 of a phase I/II open-label single-agent study in patients with NUT midline carcinoma (NMC) and other cancers. Cancer Rex. vol. 76, No. 14, Supp., 2 pages. |
| Paoluzzi L. et al. (2016). BET and BRAF inhibitors act synergistically against BRAF-mutant melanoma. Cancer Med. vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 1183-1193. |
| Peterson V.M. et al. (2017). Multiplexed quantification of proteins and transcripts in single cells. Nat Biotechnol. vol. 35, No. 10, pp. 936-939. |
| Philipsen S. and Suske G. (1999). A tale of three fingers: the family of mammalian Sp/XKLF transcription factors. Nucleic Acids Res. vol. 27, No. 15, pp. 2991-3000. |
| Picelli S. et al. (2014). Tn5 transposase and tagmentation procedures for massively scaled sequencing projects. Genome Res. vol. 24, No. 12, pp. 2033-2040. |
| Ponnaluri V.K.C. et al. (2017). NicE-seq: high resolution open chromatin profiling. Genome Biol. vol. 18, No. 122, 15 pages. |
| Postel-Vinay S. et al. (2019). First-in-human phase I study of the bromodomain and extraterminal motif inhibitor BAY 1238097: emerging pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship and early termination due to unexpected toxicity. Eur J Cancer. vol. 109, pp. 103-110. |
| Pott S. and Lieb J.D. (2014). What are super-enhancers? Nat Genet. vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 8-12. |
| Pucilowska J. et al. (2012). Disrupted ERK Signaling during Cortical Development Leads to Abnormal Progenitor Proliferation, Neuronal and Network Excitability and Behavior, Modeling Human Neuro-Cardio-Facial-Cutaneous and Related Syndromes. J Neurosci. vol. 32, No. 25, pp. 8663-8677. |
| Qi Z. et al. (2017). An optimized, broadly applicable piggyBac transposon induction system. Nucleic Acids Res. vol. 45, No. 7, e55, 13 pages. |
| Quinlan A.R. and Hall I.M. (2010). BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 841-842. |
| Raff T. et al. (1997). Design and Testing of β-Actin Primers for RT-PCR that Do Not Co-amplify Processed Pseudogenes. BioTechniques vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 456-460. |
| Ramirez F. et al. (2016). deepTools2: a next generation web server for deep-sequencing data analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. vol. 44, No. W1, pp. W160-W165. |
| Ra{hacek over (s)}in M.-R. et al. (2007). Numb and Numbl are required for maintenance of cadherin-based adhesion and polarity of neural progenitors. Nat Neurosci. vol. 10, No. 7, pp. 819-827. |
| Rathert P. et al. (2015). Transcriptional plasticity promotes primary and acquired resistance to BET inhibition. Nature vol. 525, No. 7570, pp. 543-547. |
| Robitaille T.P. et al. (2013). Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy. A&A. vol. 558, No. A33, 9 pages. |
| Rodriguez-Fraticelli A.E. et al. (2018). Clonal analysis of lineage fate in native haematopoiesis. Nature vol. 553, No. 7687, pp. 212-216. |
| Rooijers K. et al. (2019). Simultaneous quantification of protein-DNA contacts and transcriptomes in single cells. Nat Biotechnol. vol. 37, pp. 766-772. |
| Ropolo A. et al. (2007). The Pancreatitis-induced Vacuole Membrane Protein 1 Triggers Autophagy in Mammalian Cells. J. Biol. Chem. vol. 282, No. 51, pp. 37124-37133. |
| Rosenberg A.B. et al. (2018). Single-cell profiling of the developing mouse brain and spinal cord with split-pool barcoding. Science vol. 360, No. 6385, pp. 176-182. |
| Rotem A. et al. (2015). Single-cell ChIP-seq reveals cell subpopulations defined by chromatin state. Nat Biotechnol. vol. 33, No. 11, pp. 1165-1172. |
| Rouillard A.D. et al. (2016). The harmonizome: a collection of processed datasets gathered to serve and mine knowledge about genes and proteins. Database. vol. 2016, baw100, 16 pages. |
| Sabari B.R. et al. (2018). Coactivator condensation at super-enhancers links phase separation and gene control. vol. 361, No. 6400, eaar3958, 13 pages. |
| Sanson K.R. et al. (2018). Optimized libraries for CRISPR-Cas9 genetic screens with multiple modalities. Nat Commun. vol. 9, No. 5416, 15 pages. |
| Saridey S.K. et al. (2009). PiggyBac transposon-based inducible gene expression in vivo after somatic cell gene transfer. Mol Ther. vol. 17, No. 12, pp. 2115-2120. |
| Saunders A. et al. (2018). Molecular Diversity and Specializations among the Cells of the Adult Mouse Brain. Cell vol. 174, No. 4, pp. 1015-1030.e16. |
| Saxena A. et al. (2012). Trehalose-enhanced isolation of neuronal sub-types from adult mouse brain. BioTechniques vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 381-385. |
| Scargle J.D. et al. (2013). Studies in Astronomical Time Series Analysis. VI. Bayesian Block Representations. APJ. vol. 764, No. 167, 26 pages. |
| Scheiber I.F. and Dringen R. (2013). Astrocyte functions in the copper homeostasis of the brain. Neurochem Int. vol. 62, No. 5, pp. 556-565. |
| Schuster D.J. et al. (2014). Biodistribution of adeno-associated virus serotype 9 (AAV9) vector after intrathecal and intravenous delivery in mouse. Front in Neuroanat. vol. 8, No. 42, 14 pages. |
| Sdelci S. et al. (2019). MTHFD1 interaction with BRD4 links folate metabolism to transcriptional regulation. Nat Genet. vol. 51, pp. 990-998. |
| Seabold S. and Perktold J. (2010). statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with python. In 9th Python in Science Conference, pp. 92-96. |
| Shahbazi J. et al. (2016) The Bromodomain Inhibitor JQ1 and the Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor Panobinostat Synergistically Reduce N-Myc Expression and Induce Anticancer Effects. Clin Cancer Res. vol. 22, No. 10, pp. 2534-2544. |
| Shapiro E., Biezuner T., and Linnarsson S. (2013). Single-cell sequencing-based technologies will revolutionize whole-organism science. Nat Rev Genet. vol. 14, No. 9, pp. 618-630. |
| Shapiro G.I. et al. (2020) A Phase 1 study of RO6870810, a novel bromodomain and extra-terminal protein inhibitor, in patients with NUT carcinoma, other solid tumours, or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Br J Cancer. vol. 124, No. 4, pp. 744-753. |
| Shema E., Bernstein B.E., and Buenrostro J.D. (2019). Single-cell and single-molecule epigenomics to uncover genome regulation at unprecedented resolution. Nat Genet. vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 19-25. |
| Shively C.A. et al. (2019). Homotypic cooperativity and collective binding are determinants of bHLH specificity and function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. vol. 116, No. 32, pp. 16143-16152. |
| Sloan C.A. et al. (2016). ENCODE data at the ENCODE portal. Nucleic Acids Res. vol. 44, No. D1, pp. D726-D732. |
| Stathis A. et al. (2016). Clinical Response of Carcinomas Harboring the BRD4-NUT Oncoprotein to the Targeted Bromodomain Inhibitor OTX015/MK-8628. Cancer Discov. vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 492-500. |
| Stoeckius M. et al. (2017). Simultaneous epitope and transcriptome measurement in single cells. Nat Methods vol. 14, No. 9, pp. 865-868. |
| Stoeckius M. et al. (2018). Cell Hashing with barcoded antibodies enables multiplexing and doublet detection for single cell genomics. Genome Biology vol. 19, No. 224, 12 pages. |
| Stroud H. et al. (2017). Early-Life Gene Expression in Neurons Modulates Lasting Epigenetic States. Cell vol. 171, No. 5, pp. 1151-1164.e16. |
| Stubbs M. et al. (2016). Abstract 3780: Activity of the BET inhibitor INCB054329 in models of lymphoma. Cancer Res. vol. 76, No. 14, Supp., 2 pages. |
| Stubbs M.C. et al. (2019) The Novel Bromodomain and Extraterminal Domain Inhibitor INCB054329 Induces Vulnerabilities in Myeloma Cells That Inform Rational Combination Strategies. Clin Cancer Res. vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 300-311. |
| Sun J. et al. (2014). Clonal dynamics of native haematopoiesis. Nature vol. 514, No. 7522, pp. 322-327. |
| Svensson V., Vento-Tormo R., and Teichmann S.A. (2018). Exponential scaling of single-cell RNA-seq in the past decade. Nature Protocols vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 599-604. |
| Takahashi K. and Yamanaka S. (2006). Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors. Cell vol. 126, No. 4, pp. 663-676. |
| Tasic B. et al. (2018). Shared and distinct transcriptomic cell types across neocortical areas. Nature vol. 563, No. 7729, pp. 72-78. |
| The Astropy Collaboration et al. (2018). The Astropy Project: Building an inclusive, open-science project and status of the v2.0 core package. AJ vol. 156, No. 3, 123, 19 pages. |
| The ENCODE Project Consortium (2012). An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, 57-74. |
| Tontsch-Grunt U. et al. (2018) Synergistic activity of BET inhibitor BI 894999 with PLK inhibitor volasertib in AML in vitro and in vivo. Cancer Lett. vol. 421, pp. 112-120. |
| Vassilev L.T. et al. (2006). Selective small-molecule inhibitor reveals critical mitotic functions of human CDK1. Proc Nat Acad Sci. vol. 103, No. 28, pp. 10660-10665. |
| Virtanen P. et al. (2020). SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods. vol. 17, pp. 261-272. |
| Vogel M.J., Peric-Hupkes D., and Van Steensel B. (2007). Detection of in vivo protein-DNA interactions using DamID in mammalian cells. Nat Protoc. vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 1467-1478. |
| Wang H., Johnston M., and Mitra R.D. (2007). Calling cards for DNA-binding proteins. Genome Res. vol. 17, pp. 1202-1209. |
| Wang W. et al. (2008). Chromosomal transposition of PiggyBac in mouse embryonic stem cells. Proc Nat Acad Sci. vol. 105, No. 27, pp. 9290-9295. |
| Wang H. et al. (2011). Calling Cards enable multiplexed identification of the genomic targets of DNA-binding proteins. Genome Res. vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 748-755. |
| Wang H. (2012). “Calling Cards” for DNA-Binding Proteins in Mammalian Cells. Genetics. vol. 190, No. 3, pp. 941-949. |
| Wang X. et al. (2012). PrimerBank: a PCR primer database for quantitative gene expression analysis, 2012 update. Nucleic Acids Res. vol. 40, pp. D1144-D1149. |
| Wang Q. et al. (2019). CoBATCH for High-Throughput Single-Cell Epigenomic Profiling. Mol Cell. vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 206-216.e7. |
| Whyte W.A. et al. (2013). Master Transcription Factors and Mediator Establish Super-Enhancers at Key Cell Identity Genes. Cell. vol. 153, No. 2, pp. 307-319. |
| Wilson M.H., Coates C.J., and George A.L. (2007). PiggyBac transposon-mediated gene transfer in human cells. Mol Ther. vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 139-145. |
| Wolf F.A., Angerer P., and Theis F.J. (2018). SCANPY : large-scale single-cell gene expression data analysis. Genome Biol. vol. 19, No. 1, 15, 5 pages. |
| Wong C. et al. (2014) The bromodomain and extra-terminal inhibitor CPI203 enhances the antiproliferative effects of rapamycin on human neuroendocrine tumors. Cell Death Dis. vol. 5, No. 10, e1450, 14 pages. |
| Wu S.C.-Y. et al. (2006). piggyBac is a flexible and highly active transposon as compared to sleeping beauty, Tol2, and Mos1 in mammalian cells. Proc Nat Acad. vol. 103, No. 41, pp. 15008-15013. |
| Xie S. et al. (2017). Multiplexed Engineering and Analysis of Combinatorial Enhancer Activity in Single Cells. Mol Cell. vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 285-299.e5. |
| Yen L. et al. (2004). Exogenous control of mammalian gene expression through modulation of RNA self-cleavage. Nature. vol. 431, pp. 471-476. |
| Yen M. et al. (2018). Transposase mapping identifies the genomic targets of BAP1 in uveal melanoma. BMC Med Genomics. vol. 11, No. 1, 97, 11 pages. |
| Yoshida J. et al. (2017). Chromatin states shape insertion profiles of the piggyBac, Tol2 and Sleeping Beauty transposons and murine leukemia virus. Scientific Reports. vol. 7, 43613, 18 pages. |
| Yu H. et al. (2010). The Ubiquitin Carboxyl Hydrolase BAP1 Forms a Ternary Complex with YY1 and HCF-1 and Is a Critical Regulator of Gene Expression. Mol Cell Biol. vol. 30, No. 21, pp. 5071-5085. |
| Yusa K. et al. (2011). A hyperactive piggyBac transposase for mammalian applications. Proc Nat Acad Sci. vol. 108, No. 4, pp. 1531-1536. |
| Zeisel A. et al. (2015). Cell types in the mouse cortex and hippocampus revealed by single-cell RNA-seq. Science. vol. 347, No. 6226, pp. 1138-1142. |
| Zeisel A. et al. (2018). Molecular Architecture of the Mouse Nervous System. Cell. vol. 174, No. 4, pp. 999-1014.e22. |
| Zhang Y. et al. (2008). Model-based Analysis of ChIP-Seq (MACS). Genome Biol. vol. 9, No. 9, R137, 9 pages. |
| Zhang Y. et al. (2014). An RNA-Sequencing Transcriptome and Splicing Database of Glia, Neurons, and Vascular Cells of the Cerebral Cortex. J Neurosci. vol. 34, No. 36, pp. 11929-11947. |
| Zhao W. et al. (2017) Stemness-Related Markers in Cancer. Cancer Transl Med. vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 87-95. |
| Zheng G.X.Y. et al. (2017). Massively parallel digital transcriptional profiling of single cells, Nat Commun. vol. 8, 14049, 12 pages. |
| Zheng D., Liu X., and Tian B. (2016). 3′READS+, a sensitive and accurate method for 3′ end sequencing of polyadenylated RNA. RNA. vol. 22, No. 10, pp. 1631-1639. |
| Zhou B. et al. (2019). Comprehensive, integrated, and phased whole-genome analysis of the primary ENCODE cell line K562. Genome Res. vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 472-484. |
| Zhou X. et al. (2011). The Human Epigenome Browser at Washington University. Nat Methods. vol. 8, No. 12, pp. 989-990. |
| Zhu X. et al. (2012). Olig2-dependent developmental fate switch of NG2 cells. Development vol. 139, No. 13, pp. 2299-2307. |
| Zuber J. et al. (2011). RNAi screen identifies Brd4 as a therapeutic target in acute myeloid leukaemia. Nature vol. 478, No. 7370, pp. 524-528. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20220016131 A1 | Jan 2022 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 63049658 | Jul 2020 | US |
