George Daley and colleagues show that Lin28 and Lin28B promote cellular transformation by repressing let-7 family members, leading to derepression of let-7 targets. They also find that LIN28 and LIN28B are overexpressed in ∼15% of primary human tumors and cancer cell lines and that their expression is associated with aggressive disease and poor prognosis across multiple tumor types. Multiple members of the let-7 family of miRNAs are often repressed in human cancers1,2, thereby promoting oncogenesis by derepressing targets such as HMGA2, K-Ras and c-Myc3,4. However, the mechanism by which let-7 miRNAs are coordinately repressed is unclear. The RNA-binding proteins LIN28 and LIN28B block let-7 precursors from being processed to mature miRNAs5,6,7,8, suggesting that their overexpression might promote malignancy through repression of let-7. Here we show that LIN28 and LIN28B are overexpressed in primary human tumors and human cancer cell lines (overall frequency ∼15%), and that overexpression is linked to repression of let-7 family miRNAs and derepression of let-7 targets. LIN28 and LIN28b facilitate cellular transformation in vitro, and overexpression is associated with advanced disease across multiple tumor types. Our work provides a mechanism for the coordinate repression of let-7 miRNAs observed in a subset of human cancers, and associates activation of LIN28 and LIN28B with poor clinical prognosis.

Carney-Stratakis syndrome, an inherited condition predisposing affected individuals to gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) and paraganglioma, is caused by germline mutations in succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) subunits B, C, or D, leading to dysfunction of complex II of the electron transport chain. We evaluated the role of defective cellular respiration in sporadic GIST lacking mutations in KIT or PDGFRA (WT). Thirty-four patients with WT GIST without a personal or family history of paraganglioma were tested for SDH germline mutations. WT GISTs lacking demonstrable SDH genetic inactivation were evaluated for SDHB expression by immunohistochemistry and Western blotting and for complex II activity. For comparison, SDHB expression was also determined in KIT mutant and neurofibromatosis-1–associated GIST, and complex II activity was also measured in SDH -deficient paraganglioma and KIT mutant GIST; 4 of 34 patients (12%) with WT GIST without a personal or family history of paraganglioma had germline mutations in SDHB or SDHC . WT GISTs lacking somatic mutations or deletions in SDH subunits had either complete loss of or substantial reduction in SDHB protein expression, whereas most KIT mutant GISTs had strong SDHB expression. Complex II activity was substantially decreased in WT GISTs. WT GISTs, particularly those in younger patients, have defects in SDH mitochondrial complex II, and in a subset of these patients, GIST seems to arise from germline-inactivating SDH mutations. Testing for germline mutations in SDH is recommended in patients with WT GIST. These findings highlight a potential central role of SDH dysregulation in WT GIST oncogenesis.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) harbor driver mutations of signal transduction kinases such as KIT, or, alternatively, manifest loss-of-function defects in the mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) complex, a component of the Krebs cycle and electron transport chain. We have uncovered a striking divergence between the DNA methylation profiles of SDH-deficient GIST (n = 24) versus KIT tyrosine kinase pathway–mutated GIST (n = 39). Infinium 450K methylation array analysis of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues disclosed an order of magnitude greater genomic hypermethylation relative to SDH-deficient GIST versus the KIT-mutant group (84.9 K vs. 8.4 K targets). Epigenomic divergence was further found among SDH-mutant paraganglioma/pheochromocytoma (n = 29), a developmentally distinct SDH-deficient tumor system. Comparison of SDH-mutant GIST with isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutant glioma, another Krebs cycle–defective tumor type, revealed comparable measures of global hypo- and hypermethylation. These data expose a vital connection between succinate metabolism and genomic DNA methylation during tumorigenesis, and generally implicate the mitochondrial Krebs cycle in nuclear epigenomic maintenance. Significance: This study shows that SDH deficiency underlies pervasive DNA hypermethylation in multiple tumor lineages, generally defining the Krebs cycle as mitochondrial custodian of the methylome. We propose that this phenomenon may result from a failure of maintenance CpG demethylation, secondary to inhibition of the TET 5-methylcytosine dioxgenase demethylation pathway, by inhibitory metabolites that accumulate in tumors with Krebs cycle dysfunction. Cancer Discov; 3(6); 648–57. ©2013 AACR. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 591

Human chromosome 14q32.2 harbors the germline-derived primary DLK1-MEG3 intergenic differentially methylated region (IG-DMR) and the postfertilization-derived secondary MEG3-DMR, together with multiple imprinted genes. Although previous studies in cases with microdeletions and epimutations affecting both DMRs and paternal/maternal uniparental disomy 14-like phenotypes argue for a critical regulatory function of the two DMRs for the 14q32.2 imprinted region, the precise role of the individual DMR remains to be clarified. We studied an infant with upd(14)pat body and placental phenotypes and a heterozygous microdeletion involving the IG-DMR alone (patient 1) and a neonate with upd(14)pat body, but no placental phenotype and a heterozygous microdeletion involving the MEG3-DMR alone (patient 2). The results generated from the analysis of these two patients imply that the IG-DMR and the MEG3-DMR function as imprinting control centers in the placenta and the body, respectively, with a hierarchical interaction for the methylation pattern in the body governed by the IG-DMR. To our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating an essential long-range imprinting regulatory function for the secondary DMR. Genomic imprinting is a process causing genes to be expressed in a parent-of-origin specific manner—some imprinted genes are expressed from maternally inherited chromosomes and others from paternally inherited chromosomes. Imprinted genes are often located in clusters regulated by regions that are differentially methylated according to their parental origin. The human chromosome 14q32.2 imprinted region harbors the germline-derived primary DLK1-MEG3 intergenic differentially methylated region (IG-DMR) and the postfertilization-derived secondary MEG3-DMR, together with multiple imprinted genes. Perturbed dosage of these imprinted genes, for example in patients with paternal and maternal uniparental disomy 14, causes distinct phenotypes. Here, through analysis of patients with microdeletions recapitulating some or all of the uniparental disomy 14 phenotypes, we show that the IG-DMR acts as an upstream regulator for the methylation pattern of the MEG3-DMR in the body but not in the placenta. Importantly, in the body, the MEG3-DMR functions as an imprinting control center. To our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating an essential function for the secondary DMR in the regulation of multiple imprinted genes. Thus, the results provide a significant advance in the clarification of underlying epigenetic features that can act to regulate imprinting.

Mutations in the tumor suppressor genes SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD (or collectively SDHx) cause the inherited paraganglioma syndromes, characterized by pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas. However, other tumors have been associated with SDHx mutations, such as gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) specifically in the context of Carney–Stratakis syndrome. Previously, we have shown that SDHB immunohistochemistry is a reliable technique for the identification of pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas caused by SDHx mutations. We hypothesized that GISTs in patients with SDHx mutations would be negative immunohistochemically for SDHB as well. Four GISTs from patients with Carney–Stratakis syndrome and six from patients with Carney triad were investigated by SDHB immunohistochemistry. Five GISTs with KIT or PDGFRA gene mutations were used as controls. In addition, SDHB immunohistochemistry was performed on 42 apparently sporadic GISTs. In cases in which the SDHB immunohistochemistry was negative, mutational analysis of SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD was performed. All GISTs from patients with Carney–Stratakis syndrome and Carney triad were negative for SDHB immunohistochemically. In one patient with Carney–Stratakis syndrome, a germline SDHB mutation was found (p.Ser92Thr). The five GISTs with a KIT or PDGFRA gene mutation were all immunohistochemically positive for SDHB. Of the 42 sporadic tumors, one GIST was SDHB-negative. Mutational analysis of this tumor did not reveal an SDHx mutation. All SDHB-negative GISTs were located in the stomach, had an epithelioid morphology, and had no KIT or PDGFRA mutations. We show that Carney–Stratakis syndrome- and Carney-triad-associated GISTs are negative by immunohistochemistry for SDHB in contrast to KIT- or PDGFRA-mutated GISTs and a majority of sporadic GISTs. We suggest that GISTs of epithelioid cell morphology are tested for SDHB immunohistochemically. In case of negative SDHB staining in GISTs, Carney–Stratakis syndrome or Carney triad should be considered and appropriate clinical surveillance should be instituted.