Abstract
Paragangliomas and pheochromocytoma (PPGLs) are hereditary tumors in about 40% of cases. Mutations in the genes encoding for components of the mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase protein complex (SDHB, SDHD, SDHC) are among the most prevalent. Most PPGLs have a benign behavior, but patients with germline SDHB mutations may develop metastatic PPGLs in up to 30% of cases. This suggest that the SDH substrate, succinate, is key for the activation of the metastatic cascade. The last decade has witnessed significant advances in our understanding of how succinate may have oncogenic properties. It is now widely accepted that succinate is an oncometabolite that modifies the epigenetic landscape of SDH-deficient tumors via modulating the activities of DNA and histone modification enzymes. In this chapter, we summarize recent discoveries linking SDH-deficiency and metastasis in SDH-deficient PPGLs via inhibition of DNA methylcytosine dioxygenases, histone demethylases and modified expression of non-coding RNAs. We also highlight promising therapeutic avenues that may be used to counteract epigenetic deregulations.
Keywords
- paraganglioma
- pheochromocytoma
- metastasis
- epigenetic
- DNA methylation
- histone methylation
- succinate
1. Introduction
Paragangliomas and pheochromocytomas (PPGLs) are rare neuroendocrine tumors that originate in the diffuse paraganglionic tissue and the adrenal gland, respectively. Approximately 40% of these tumors are hereditary and related to germline mutations in
One of the peculiarities of PPGLs is that they are generally slow growing, indolent tumors that are not life-threatening. However, 10–30% (according to different studies) of the PPGLs metastasize and once metastasis occurs, treatment options are rather limited and patients have poor prognosis, often with less than 50% surviving at 5 years [3]. Surgery can improve the prognosis but standard chemotherapeutic regimen with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and dacarbazine, or radionuclide therapy with 131 Iodine-radiolabelled metaiodobenzylguanidine result in only partial responses. Thus, there is still a long road to reach therapeutic improvements. Further challenges for clinicians come from the fact that, in half of the cases, metastases are not present during the initial treatment of the patient but emerge over a period of undetermined time, which may even exceed 10 years after diagnosis of the primary tumor. For this reason, these patients receive long-term, post-treatment surveillance. However, the duration as well as the interval of the follow-up screening is poorly defined. Following these reasonings, the WHO 2017 Classification of Tumors of Endocrine Organs stated that PPGLs should be considered as tumors of undetermined biologic potential and should not be termed benign but should be classified as metastatic or not metastatic [4]. Given that all PPGLs are recognized as exhibiting malignant potential to some extent, the risk for malignant behavior must be determined to be able to pinpoint cases at risk of future metastases directly in the early post-operative period, a knowledge that would have a significant clinical impact.
Despite overwhelming advances in understanding the molecular mechanisms of PPGL development made in the last decade, the factors governing the emergence of metastasis are still very poorly understood. Considerable efforts have been made in identifying histopathological features suggestive of metastatic behavior using pre-defined algorithms. The Pheochromocytoma of the Adrenal Gland Scaled Score (PASS) and the Grading System for Adrenal Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma (GAPP), rely on different histopathologic features or on a combination of histopathologic, immunohistochemical (Ki-67 index) and biochemical (catecholamine production) parameters, respectively, as tools to distinguish PPGLs with potential for aggressive behavior [5]. However, these algorithms lack accuracy and have a high degree of inter-observer variability thus complicating their clinical roll-out. Hence, the guiding of therapeutic decision-making by using predictive biomarkers in PPGL patients require in-depth knowledge of the biology of this neoplasia.
2. Epigenetic and SDH-deficiency: a connection with metastatic potential
The metastatic cascade involves a succession of cell phenotypic alterations that spans from the acquisition of local invasive activity, the intravasation of cancer cells into blood and lymphatic vessels, their subsequent extravasation in the parenchyma of distant tissues and finally their growth forming macroscopic tumors. How a primary PPGL-tumor cell becomes metastatic and what are the molecular events involved in this process remain to be known. With the emergence of genomic profiling technologies, single gene/protein or multi-gene “signature”-based assays have been introduced to measure specific molecular pathway deregulations in cancer which could be used as clinically useful biomarkers. In PPGLs’ patients, it is well established that the presence of inactivating germline mutations in the
One of the most relevant hints on the molecular mechanisms involved in metastasis came from the The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Program. These studies revealed that metastatic
Epigenetics is defined as heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve a change in DNA sequence. Epigenetic changes occur in many types of cancer cells and include DNA methylation, histone modification, and small RNAs. Aberrant hypermethylation can lead to silencing of tumor-suppressor genes, histone modifications control the accessibility of the chromatin and transcriptional activities inside a cell, and microRNAs (miRNAs) can negatively control their target gene expression post-transcriptionally. Herein, we provide a perspective on the recent advances and challenges in our understanding of how epigenetic deregulations may underlie the progression of SDH-deficient PPGLs towards a metastatic disease and highlight promising therapeutic avenues that may be used to counteract those epigenetic deregulations.
3. Succinate: an oncometabolite driving epigenetic deregulation in SDH-deficient PPGLs
The SDH complex links the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA) and the mitochondria respiratory chain by the coupling of succinate oxidation to fumarate to the reduction of ubiquinone to ubiquinol at the mitochondrial complex II (Figure 1). The fumarate/succinate ratio and the redox state of the ubiquinone pool act as signal transducers known to modulate the regulatory programs that control cell fate. Loss of SDH activity leads to dramatic elevation of its natural substrate, succinate. The succinate generated in the mitochondrial matrix is exported to the cytosol where it can inhibit 2-oxoglutarate (2OG)-dependent dioxygenases such as ten-eleven translocation (TET) DNA cytosine-oxidizing enzymes and prolyl hydroxylases (PHD) [15].

Figure 1.
Schematic representation of the SDH-mediated connection between the Krebs cycle and the mitochondrial respiratory chain. The succinate dehydrogenase complex is part of both, the Krebs cycle at the mitochondria matrix and the mitochondria respiratory chain in the inner mitochondrial membrane. It is composed of four subunits (SDHA, SDHB, SDHC and SDHD) that couples the succinate oxidation to fumarate to the reduction of ubiquinone (coenzyme Q: CoQ) to ubiquinol via FAD at the mitochondrial complex II. The mitochondria respiratory chain consists of four membrane-bound, multimeric protein complexes (complexes I, II, III, and IV) that catalyzes the oxidation of reducing equivalents, mainly nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH), using the terminal electron acceptor oxygen. This electron transfer is linked to the ATP synthase, which generates ATP.
PHD enzymes catalyze the prolyl-hydroxylation of the hypoxia-inducible factors HIF1α and HIF2α which transcriptionally regulates HIFα-responsive genes and conform the major hub involved in oxygen-sensing (Figure 2). These genes serve to adapt cells to oxygen deficiencies and their over-activation under pathologic conditions may also have pro-tumorigenic activity. HIFα proteins are degraded under physiological conditions by a mechanism requiring active PHD enzymes. PHD-catalyzed prolyl-hydroxylation of HIFα proteins is required by their recognition by VHL, subsequent ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation. Low oxygen levels and succinate repress PHD activities thus leading to the stabilization and functional activation of HIFα proteins. This oxygen-sensing pathway has long been considered a driver mechanism of metastasis in tumors with SDH-deficiencies [16]. However, although HIF1α protein and HIF1α-responsive genes are over-expressed in PPGLs carrying

Figure 2.
Oxygen and oncometabolite dependent regulation of HIFα. Under physiological conditions, prolyl hidroxylases (PHD) hydroxylate two proline residues in HIFα subunits thus allowing their recognition by the von Hipple-Lindau protein (VHL). VHL is a component of a ubiquitination protein complex that ubiquitinate (Ub) prolyl-hydroxylated HIFα for degradation by the proteasome. PHDs activity rely on oxygen (O2) and oxoglutarate (2-OG). When oxygen concentration diminishes below physiological levels the activity of PHDs is inhibited leading to the dissociation of VHL from HIFα which results in HIFα stabilization that is transported to the nucleus, binds to HIFβ and activates transcription of target genes by binding to hypoxia-responsive elements (HRE) in their promoter regions. Succinate, as well as fumarate, structurally mimics 2-OG and inhibits PHDs (product inhibition) when present at elevated concentrations, as observed in tumor cells carrying inactivating mutations-driven disfunction of SDH or fumarate hydratase.
In addition to PHDs, succinate, which can accumulate to millimolar levels in
In addition to DNA epigenetic alterations, metastasis in PPGLs patients has also been shown to be associated with other epigenetic traits such as aberrant expression of long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) [21] and microRNAs (miRNAs) [22, 23] although these deregulations are not specific of SDH-deficient metastatic PPGLs.
3.1 Succinate-induced DNA hypermethylation
Site-specific DNA hypermethylation in regions of DNA with a high density of cytosine-guanine (CpG) dinucleotides in promoters represent a common feature of the cancer-associated epigenetic landscape. These CpG hypermethylations are linked with repressive chromatin modifications and silencing of tumor suppressor genes. We discuss here the current understanding of the epigenetic basis of metastasis in
To identify epigenetic alterations relevant for metastasis, we recently performed a comprehensive analysis of DNA methylation in metastatic PPGLs with and without
Gene set enrichment analysis revealed that the hypermethylated promoters in metastatic

Figure 3.
Outline of the epigenetic changes induced by abnormal succinate accumulation due to

Figure 4.
High level long-range hypermethylation of the clustered
3.2 Long-range hypermethylation of clustered protocadherin genes in metastatic SDHB -mutated PPGLs
We also found that, not only

Figure 5.
Consistent with previous findings in colon cancer cell lines [37], we found in that decreased
Targeting any of the protocadherin genes is challenging given that they are highly expressed in nervous system where exert relevant functions for the establishment and maintenance of specific neuronal connections. It is imperative, thus, to unravel the signaling pathways downstream
3.3 Succinate-induced histone methylation
Gene expression can also be altered by changes in chromatin structure via chemical modification of amino acids on histone tails. Accumulation of high levels of succinate in SDH-deficient PPGLs inhibits JmjC domain-containing histone demethylases (KDMs) [19, 47, 48]. These KDMs remove the methyl group on lysine in histone tails, which can either activate or repress transcription depending on the specifically modified lysine residues. Generally, H3K4, H3K36 and H3K79 methylations are considered to mark active transcription, whereas H3K9, H3K27 and H4K20 methylations are thought to be associated with silenced chromatin states [49].
Succinate increases methylation of H3K27 and H3K79 [19]. Trimethylation of H3K27 is a hallmark of repressed transcription. It is tightly associated with inactive gene promoters and also the gene promoters that were found hypermethylated in
Succinate induces inhibition of the activities of KDM4A which remove methylation on histone 3 lysine 9 (H3K9) [51, 52]. H3K9 methylation is the mark of heterochromatin, which is the condensed, transcriptionally inactive state of chromatin. Importantly, Sulkowski et al. have recently shown that increased succinate levels, induced by SDH silencing, can also repress homology-dependent DNA repair (HDR) by directly inhibiting the H3K9 demethylase KDM4B, leading to global elevation of trimethylated H3K9 chromatin marks at loci surrounding DNA breaks. This masks a local H3K9 trimethylation signal that is essential for the proper execution of HDR [51] (Figure 4). This finding underscores the notion that decreased DNA repair acts as a key oncogenic mechanism in SDH-deficient PPGLs, similarly to the underlying mechanisms of the familial breast and ovarian cancer predisposition syndromes linked to the
3.4 Succinate-induced loss of insulators
DNA hypermethylation outside of gene promoters may also have significant impacts on PPGL pathophysiology, especially when hypermethylation occurs at the CCCTC-binding factor (CTCF) insulators. Insulators are DNA regulatory elements that block the interaction between gene enhancers and gene promoters. They block the spreading of enhancers action and thus insulate, or shield, gene promoters from unwanted regulation [53, 54]. CTCF dimerization, when it is bound to different DNA sequences, mediates long-range chromatin looping allowing the insulation of promoters from enhancer sequences (Figure 4). Many proto-oncogenes are isolated in such domains and thus protected from promiscuous enhancer interactions. The CTCF insulator is methylation-sensitive and may be displaced by DNA methylation. DNA hypermethylation at CTCF insulators is traduced in promiscuous enhancer-promoter interactions with the subsequent induction of the affected genes [53, 55].
Recent studies of SDH-deficient gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) have uncovered the frequent hypermethylation of CTCF insulators where DNA methylation replaces CTCF binding [55, 56]. This ubiquitous insulator losses leads SDH-deficient cells to acquire promiscuous enhancer-promoter interactions and an altered genome topology promoting expression of genes such as
3.5 Succinate-induced protein succinylation
SDH inactivation induces accumulation of the immediate upstream metabolite, succinyl-CoA. Succinyl-CoA is the substrate used for the succinylation of proteins, in which succinyl group is transferred to a lysine residue of a protein. It is a recently identified common and widespread posttranslational modification that directly couples TCA cycle metabolism, via succinyl-CoA, to alterations in the structures and activities of proteins involved in diverse cellular processes [57].
Lysine succinylation can occur by a non-enzymatic chemical reaction. This suggests that the abundance of succinyl-CoA would be one of the main governing factors of protein succinylation. A recent study have demonstrated that knockdown of
4. microRNA and lncRNA
RNA-based mechanisms of epigenetic regulation are less well understood than mechanisms involved on DNA methylation and histones but have also profound roles in gene regulation, development and tumorigenesis. Several recent studies have analyzed the pattern of expression of non-coding RNAs, including microRNAs (miRNAs) and long-non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), in metastatic PPGLs.
Mature miRNAs (~22 nucleotides long) base-pair with target mRNAs to inhibit translation or direct mRNA degradation. Several studies have shown over-expression of miR-183 in metastatic compared with non-metastatic PPGLs, irrespective of the genotype of the tumor [23, 63]. Higher levels of miR-483-5p have been also in metastatic tumors compared with benign tumors [23, 64]. Given the rarity of PPGLs, in general, and of metastatic PPGLs with
miR-210 is one of the best characterized miRNAs downstream HIF1α activation and a candidate tumor-driver of metabolic reprogramming in cancer [65]. Some studies have proposed that up-regulation of miR-210 is a hallmark of the

Figure 6.
miR-210-
lncRNAs are usually defined as non-coding RNAs greater than 200 nucleotides [70]. Although their functions are not well understood they seem to have key roles in gene regulation which depend on their localization and their specific interactions with DNA, RNA and proteins. Their tissue-specific and condition-specific expression patterns suggest that lncRNAs could be potential biomarkers. Recent reports described DGCR9, FENDRR, HIF1A-AS2, MIR210HG [71] and BC063866 [21] with significantly elevated expression in metastatic compared to benign PPGLs. Expression of BC063866 was found significantly elevated in
5. Epigenetic drugs as therapeutic strategies for patients with metastatic PPGLs
Among epigenetic drugs, despite their limitations, DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) inhibitors are the most effective epigenetic therapy developed to date. Azacitidine and decitabine are cytidine analogues that incorporate themselves into replicating DNA and inhibit DNMTs. This implies that these inhibitors have broad cellular effects leading to global loss of DNA methylation. Hence their use as epigenetic drugs have to deal with strategies to minimize the off-target effects. The use of effective methods for drug delivery reduces side effects and attains a higher therapeutic index. There are various delivery systems like nanocarriers (nanogels, liposomes, dendrimers, and polymeric nanoparticles) that enhance drug stability, permeability and retention. Low doses have received regulatory approval for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia who are not candidates for conventional induction chemotherapy. The use of the DNMT inhibitor, guadecitabine, is currently been evaluated in patients with PPGLs associated with SDH-deficiency under phase II clinical trial.
Other epigenetic drugs include the inhibitors of histone-lysine methyltransferases [72]. Multiple PRC2 inhibitors are currently being evaluated in ongoing phase I/II clinical trials in a range of cancers [73]. Most hypermethylated genes in metastatic
The findings that overproduction of succinate suppresses HDR provide a mechanistic basis for the use novel effective strategies to exploit these defects for therapeutic gain. HDR repression in SDH-deficient tumors enhances cellular dependence on alternative, poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase (PARP) dependent DNA repair mechanisms, which appears to offer a compelling opportunity for targeted therapeutic intervention in oncometabolite-driven cancers. A large body of scientific evidence and clinical trials led to FDA approval of PARP inhibitor monotherapy for the treatment of various cancers harboring mutations in HDR machinery, including those with BRCA1/2 loss [74]. It should be explored whether the HDR defect conferred by succinate accumulation is strong enough to put into practice this therapeutic strategy in SDH-deficient driven cancers. One interesting possibility will be to add DNA-damaging therapies to PARP antagonists to maximize therapeutic efficacy. Notably, the PARP inhibitor olaparib in combination with temozolamide is currently undergoing testing in phase II clinical study in metastatic PPGLs.
Hypersuccinylation can also be a target of therapy in metastatic PPGLs. Succinyl-CoA accumulated in SDH-deficient tumors can be condensed with glycine by D-aminolevulinate synthase 1 to form 5-aminolevulinate and enter the heme biosynthesis pathway. Therefore, glycine supplementation may facilitate removal of succinyl-CoA and inhibit succinylation. Relief of hypersuccinylation by glycine supplementation, has been shown to result in inhibited growth of hypersuccinylated tumors [59], thus shedding lights on alternative approaches for
6. Conclusions
Metastasis is the most letal attribute of PPGLs, especially in patients with compromised SDH activity. Since the initial discovery of succinate as an oncometabolite that induces DNA hypermethylation, the knowledges that illustrate its role on epigenetic reprogramming and metastasis development continues to expand. The best characterized changes, DNA and histone methylation, could be efficiently and globally neutralized by DNA or histone hypomethylating agents, well-known epi-drugs that could be tested as single- or multi-drug therapy in metastatic SDH-deficient PPGLs. The activity of these epigenetic therapies, however, is not limited to cancer cells but have broad cellular effects leading to global loss of DNA methylation and off-target effects. Emerging scientific knowledges on the impacts that succinate-induced modification of the epigenetic code has on cancer development and progression is certainly empowering the research community to develop more effective, less toxic, and better tolerated therapies.
Acknowledgments
MDC is funded by Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria (grant numbers FIS PI17/01901 and PI20/01754) and the Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer, CIBERONC, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII).
Notes/thanks/other declarations
L.C. thanks the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades for the FPU predoctoral contract. T.C. thanks to the Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer, CIBERONC, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) for her contract. A.S.J.M. thanks to Principado de Asturias and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (GRUPIN) for his contract. Figures 1–3 were created with BioRender.com.
Acronyms and abbreviations
DNA methyltransferase homology-dependent DNA repair Long-range epigenetic silencing poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase paraganglioma and pheochromocytoma polycomb repressive complex 2 succinate dehydrogenase tricarboxylic acid cycle The cancer genome atlas
References
- 1.
Buffet A, Burnichon N, Favier J, Gimenez-Roqueplo AP. An overview of 20 years of genetic studies in pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Best Practice and Research: Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2020;34(2):101416. DOI: 10.1016/j.beem.2020.101416 - 2.
Weber A, Hoffmann MM, Neumann HPH, Erlic Z. Somatic Mutation Analysis of the SDHB, SDHC, SDHD, and RET Genes in the Clinical Assessment of Sporadic and Hereditary Pheochromocytoma. Horm Cancer. 2012;3(4):187-192. DOI: 10.1007/s12672-012-0113-y - 3.
Hamidi O. Metastatic pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: recent advances in prognosis and management . Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity. 2019;26(3):146-154. DOI: 10.1097/MED.0000000000000476 - 4.
Lam AK yin. Update on Adrenal Tumours in 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) of Endocrine Tumours . Endocrine Pathology. 2017; 28(3):213-227. DOI: 10.1007/s12022-017-9484-5 - 5.
Wachtel H, Hutchens T, Baraban E, Schwartz LE, Montone K, Baloch Z, et al. Predicting metastatic potential in pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: A comparison of PASS and GAPP scoring systems. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . 2020;105(12). DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa608 - 6.
Lee H, Jeong S, Yu Y, Kang J, Sun H, Rhee JK, et al. Risk of metastatic pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma in SDHx mutation carriers: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Genetics. 2020;57(4):217-225. DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106324 - 7.
Crona J, Lamarca A, Ghosal S, Welin S, Skogseid B, Pacak K. Genotype-phenotype correlations in pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: A systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2019;26(5):539-550. DOI: 10.1530/ERC-19-0024 - 8.
Buffet A, Morin A, Castro-Vega L-J, Habarou F, Lussey-Lepoutre C, Letouzé E, et al. Germline Mutations in the Mitochondrial 2-Oxoglutarate/Malate Carrier SLC25A11 Gene Confer a Predisposition to Metastatic Paragangliomas. Cancer Res. 2018;78(8):1914-1922. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-17-2463 - 9.
Job S, Draskovic I, Burnichon N, Buffet A, Cros J ôme, Lepine C, et al. Telomerase activation and ATRX mutations are independent risk factors for metastatic pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Clin Cancer Res . 2019;25(2):760-770. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0139 - 10.
Luo Z, Li J, Qin Y, Ma Y, Liang X, Xian J, et al. Differential expression of human telomerase catalytic subunit mRNA by in situ hybridization in pheochromocytomas. Endocr Pathol. 2006;17(4):387-398. DOI: 10.1007/s12022-006-0010-4 - 11.
Vezzosi D, Bouisson M, Escourrou G, Laurell H, Selves J, Seguin P, et al. Clinical utility of telomerase for the diagnosis of malignant well-differentiated endocrine tumours. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2006;64(1):63-67. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2265.2005.02417.x - 12.
Suh YJ, Choe JY, Park HJ. Malignancy in Pheochromocytoma or Paraganglioma: Integrative Analysis of 176 Cases in TCGA. Endocr Pathol. 2017;28(2):159-164. DOI: 10.1007/s12022-017-9479-2 - 13.
Fishbein L, Leshchiner I, Walter V, Danilova L, Robertson AG, Johnson AR, et al. Comprehensive Molecular Characterization of Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma. Cancer Cell. 2017;31(2):181-193. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.01.001 - 14.
Letouzé E, Martinelli C, Loriot C, Burnichon N, Abermil N, Ottolenghi C, et al. SDH Mutations Establish a Hypermethylator Phenotype in Paraganglioma. Cancer Cell. 2013;23(6):739-752. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.04.018 - 15.
Losman JA, Koivunen P, Kaelin WG. 2-Oxoglutarate-dependent dioxygenases in cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2020;20(12):710-726. DOI: 10.1038/s41568-020-00303-3 - 16.
Pollard PJ, El-Bahrawy M, Poulsom R, Elia G, Killick P, Kelly G, et al. Expression of HIF-1α, HIF-2α (EPAS1), and their target genes in paraganglioma and pheochromocytoma with VHL and SDH mutations. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(11):4593-4598. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2006-0920 - 17.
Bernardo-Castiñeira C, Sáenz-de-Santa-María I, Valdés N, Astudillo A, Balbín M, Pitiot AS, et al. Clinical significance and peculiarities of succinate dehydrogenase B and hypoxia inducible factor 1α expression in parasympathetic versus sympathetic paragangliomas. Head Neck. 2019;41(1):79-91. DOI: 10.1002/hed.25386 - 18.
Merlo A, de Quiros SB, Secades P, Zambrano I, Balbín M, Astudillo A, et al. Identification of a signaling axis HIF-1α/microRNA-210/ISCU independent of SDH mutation that defines a subgroup of head and neck paragangliomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(11):E2194-200. DOI: 97(11):E2194-200 - 19.
Xiao M, Yang H, Xu W, Ma S, Lin H, Zhu H, et al. Inhibition of α-KG-dependent histone and DNA demethylases by fumarate and succinate that are accumulated in mutations of FH and SDH tumor suppressors. Genes Dev. 2012;26(12):1326-1338. DOI: 10.1101/gad.191056.112 - 20.
Morin A, Goncalves J, Moog S, Castro-Vega LJ, Job S, Buffet A, et al. TET-Mediated Hypermethylation Primes SDH-Deficient Cells for HIF2α-Driven Mesenchymal Transition. Cell Rep. 2020;30(13):4551-4566.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.03.022 - 21.
Job S, Georges A, Burnichon N, Buffet A, Amar L, Bertherat J, et al. Transcriptome Analysis of lncRNAs in Pheochromocytomas and Paragangliomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(3):dgz168. DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgz168 - 22.
Calsina B, Castro-Vega LJ, Torres-Pérez R, Inglada-Pérez L, Currás-Freixes M, Roldán-Romero JM, et al. Integrative multi-omics analysis identifies a prognostic miRNA signature and a targetable miR-21-3p/TSC2/ mTOR axis in metastatic pheochromocytoma/ paraganglioma. Theranostics. 2019;9(17):4946-4958. DOI: 10.7150/thno.35458 - 23.
Patterson E, Webb R, Weisbrod A, Bian B, He M, Zhang L, et al. The microRNA expression changes associated with malignancy and SDHB mutation in pheochromocytoma. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2012;19(2):157-166. DOI: 10.1530/ERC-11-0308 - 24.
Bernardo-Castiñeira C, Valdés N, Celada L, Martinez ASJ, Sáenz-de-Santa-María I, Bayón GF, et al. Epigenetic Deregulation of Protocadherin PCDHGC3 in Pheochromocytomas/Paragangliomas Associated With SDHB Mutations. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(11):5673-5692 - 25.
Khan AA, Lee AJ, Roh TY. Polycomb group protein-mediated histone modifications during cell differentiation. Epigenomics. Future Medicine. 2015; 7(1):75-84. DOI: 10.2217/epi.14.61 - 26.
Conway E, Healy E, Bracken AP. PRC2 mediated H3K27 methylations in cellular identity and cancer. Current Opinion in Cell Biology. 2015:37:42-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.ceb.2015.10.003 - 27.
Baksh SC, Finley LWS. Metabolic Coordination of Cell Fate by α-Ketoglutarate-Dependent Dioxygenases. Trends in Cell Biology. 2020;31(1):24-36DOI: 10.1016/j.tcb.2020.09.010 - 28.
Wu Q, Zhang T, Cheng JF, Kim Y, Grimwood J, Schmutz J, et al. Comparative DNA sequence analysis of mouse and human protocadherin gene clusters. Genome Research. 2001;11(3):389-404. DOI: 10.1101/gr.167301 - 29.
Mountoufaris G, Chen W V., Hirabayashi Y, O’Keeffe S, Chevee M, Nwakeze CL, et al. Multicluster Pcdh diversity is required for mouse olfactory neural circuit assembly. Science. 2017;356(6336):411-414. DOI: 10.1126/science.aai8801 - 30.
Thu CA, Chen W V., Rubinstein R, Chevee M, Wolcott HN, Felsovalyi KO, et al. Single-cell identity generated by combinatorial homophilic interactions between α, β, and γ protocadherins. Cell. 2014;158(5):1045-1059. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.07.012 - 31.
Chen W V., Maniatis T. Clustered protocadherins. De . 2013;140(16):3297-3302. DOI: 10.1242/dev.090621 - 32.
Chen W V., Alvarez FJ, Lefebvre JL, Friedman B, Nwakeze C, Geiman E, et al. Functional significance of isoform diversification in the protocadherin gamma gene cluster. Neuron. 2012;75(3):402-409. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.039 - 33.
Lefebvre JL, Kostadinov D, Chen W V., Maniatis T, Sanes JR. Protocadherins mediate dendritic self-avoidance in the mammalian nervous system. Nature. 2012;488(7412):517-521. DOI: 10.1038/nature11305 - 34.
Wang KH, Lin CJ, Liu CJ, Liu DW, Huang RL, Ding DC, et al. Global methylation silencing of clustered proto-cadherin genes in cervical cancer: Serving as diagnostic markers comparable to HPV. Cancer Med. 2015;4(1):43-55. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.335 - 35.
Vega-Benedetti AF, Loi E, Moi L, Blois S, Fadda A, Antonelli M, et al. Clustered protocadherins methylation alterations in cancer. Clin Epigenetics. 2019;11(1):100. DOI: 10.1186/s13148-019-0695-0 - 36.
Banelli B, Brigati C, Di Vinci A, Casciano I, Forlani A, Borz L, et al. A pyrosequencing assay for the quantitative methylation analysis of the PCDHB gene cluster, the major factor in neuroblastoma methylator phenotype. Lab Investig. 2012;92(3):458-465. DOI: 10.1038/labinvest.2011.169 - 37.
Dallosso AR, Øster B, Greenhough A, Thorsen K, Curry TJ, Owen C, et al. Long-range epigenetic silencing of chromosome 5q31 protocadherins is involved in early and late stages of colorectal tumorigenesis through modulation of oncogenic pathways. Oncogene. 2012;31(40):4409-4419. DOI: 10.1038/onc.2011.609 - 38.
Vanharanta S, Massagué J. Origins of Metastatic Traits. Cancer Cell. 2013;24(4):410-421. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.09.007 - 39.
Garrett AM, Bosch PJ, Steffen DM, Fuller LC, Marcucci CG, Koch AA, et al. CRISPR/Cas9 interrogation of the mouse Pcdhg gene cluster reveals a crucial isoform-specific role for Pcdhgc4. PLoS Genet. 2019;15(12). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008554 - 40.
Garrett AM, Schreiner D, Lobas MA, Weiner JA. γ-Protocadherins Control Cortical Dendrite Arborization by Regulating the Activity of a FAK/PKC/MARCKS Signaling Pathway. Neuron. 2012;74(2):269-276. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.01.028 - 41.
Chen J, Lu Y, Meng S, Han MH, Lin C, Wang X. α- and γ-protocadherins negatively regulate PYK2. J Biol Chem. 2009;284(5):2880-2890. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M807417200 - 42.
Suo L, Lu H, Ying G, Capecchi MR, Wu Q. Protocadherin clusters and cell adhesion kinase regulate dendrite complexity through Rho GTPase. J Mol Cell Biol. 2012;4(6):362-376. DOI: 10.1093/jmcb/mjs034 - 43.
Keeler AB, Schreiner D, Weiner JA. Protein kinase C phosphorylation of a γ-protocadherin C-terminal lipid binding domain regulates focal adhesion kinase inhibition and dendrite arborization. J Biol Chem. 2015;290(34):20674-20686. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M115.642306 - 44.
Keeler AB, Molumby MJ, Weiner JA. Protocadherins branch out: Multiple roles in dendrite development . Cell Adhesion and Migration. 2015;9(3):214-226. DOI: 10.1080/19336918.2014.1000069 - 45.
Oudijk L, Papathomas T, De Krijger R, Korpershoek E, Gimenez-Roqueplo AP, Favier J, et al. The mTORC1 Complex Is Significantly Overactivated in SDHX -Mutated Paragangliomas. Neuroendocrinology. 2017;105(4):384-393. DOI: 10.1159/000455864 - 46.
Zhang X, Wang X, Qin L, Xu T, Zhu Z, Zhong S, et al. The dual mTORC1 and mTORC2 inhibitor PP242 shows strong antitumor activity in a pheochromocytoma PC12 cell tumor model. Urology. 2015;85(1):273.e1-273.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.09.020 - 47.
Cervera AM, Bayley JP, Devilee P, McCreath KJ. Inhibition of succinate dehydrogenase dysregulates histone modification in mammalian cells. Mol Cancer. 2009;8:89. DOI: 10.1186/1476-4598-8-89 - 48.
Smith EH, Janknecht R, Maher JL. Succinate inhibition of α-ketoglutarate-dependent enzymes in a yeast model of paraganglioma. Hum Mol Genet. 2007;16(24):3136-3148. DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddm275 - 49.
Hyun K, Jeon J, Park K, Kim J. Writing, erasing and reading histone lysine methylations. Experimental and Molecular Medicine. 2017;49(4):e324. DOI: 10.1038/emm.2017.11 - 50.
Ljungman M, Parks L, Hulbatte R, Bedi K. The role of H3K79 methylation in transcription and the DNA damage response. Mutation Research. 2019;780:48-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2017.11.001 - 51.
Sulkowski PL, Oeck S, Dow J, Economos NG, Mirfakhraie L, Liu Y, et al. Oncometabolites suppress DNA repair by disrupting local chromatin signalling. Nature. 2020;582(7813):586-591. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2363-0 - 52.
Savani MR, Abdullah KG, McBrayer SK. Amplifying the Noise: Oncometabolites Mask an Epigenetic Signal of DNA Damage. Mol Cell . 2020;79(3):368-370. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.07.014 - 53.
Flavahan WA, Drier Y, Liau BB, Gillespie SM, Venteicher AS, Stemmer-Rachamimov AO, et al. Insulator dysfunction and oncogene activation in IDH mutant gliomas. Nature. 2016;529(7584):110-114. DOI: 10.1038/nature16490 - 54.
Özdemir I, Gambetta MC. The role of insulation in patterning gene expression. Genes. 2019;10(10):767. DOI: 10.3390/genes10100767 - 55.
Flavahan WA, Drier Y, Johnstone SE, Hemming ML, Tarjan DR, Hegazi E, et al. Altered chromosomal topology drives oncogenic programs in SDH-deficient GISTs. Nature. 2019;575(7781):229-233. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1668-3 - 56.
Zhao Y, Feng F, Guo QH, Wang YP, Zhao R. Role of succinate dehydrogenase deficiency and oncometabolites in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2020;26(34):5074-5089. DOI: 10.3748/WJG.V26.I34.5074 - 57.
Zhang Z, Tan M, Xie Z, Dai L, Chen Y, Zhao Y. Identification of lysine succinylation as a new post-translational modification. Nat Chem Biol . 2011;7(1):58-63. DOI: 10.1038/nchembio.495 - 58.
Li F, He X, Ye D, Lin Y, Yu H, Yao C, et al. NADP+-IDH Mutations Promote Hypersuccinylation that Impairs Mitochondria Respiration and Induces Apoptosis Resistance. Mol Cell. 2015;60(4):661-675. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.10.017 - 59.
Wang Y, Guo YR, Liu K, Yin Z, Liu R, Xia Y, et al. KAT2A coupled with the α-KGDH complex acts as a histone H3 succinyltransferase. Nature. 2017;552(7684):273-277. DOI: 10.1038/nature25003 - 60.
Smestad J, Erber L, Chen Y, Maher LJ. Chromatin Succinylation Correlates with Active Gene Expression and Is Perturbed by Defective TCA Cycle Metabolism. iScience. 2018;2:63-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2018.03.012 - 61.
Guo Z, Pan F, Peng L, Tian S, Jiao J, Liao L, et al. Systematic Proteome and Lysine Succinylome Analysis Reveals the Enhanced Cell Migration by Hyposuccinylation in Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer. Mol Cell Proteomics . 2020;mcp.RA120.002150. DOI: 10.1074/mcp.ra120.002150 - 62.
Yang G, Yuan Y, Yuan H, Wang J, Yun H, Geng Y, et al. Histone acetyltransferase 1 is a succinyltransferase for histones and non-histones and promotes tumorigenesis. EMBO Rep. 2020;e50967. DOI: 10.15252/embr.202050967 - 63.
Castro-Vega LJ, Letouzé E, Burnichon N, Buffet A, Disderot PH, Khalifa E, et al. Multi-omics analysis defines core genomic alterations in pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Nat Commun. 2015;6:6044. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms7044 - 64.
Meyer-Rochow GY, Jackson NE, Conaglen J V., Whittle DE, Kunnimalaiyaan M, Chen H, et al. MicroRNA profiling of benign and malignant pheochromocytomas identifies novel diagnostic and therapeutic targets. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2010;17(3):835-846. DOI: 10.1677/ERC-10-0142 - 65.
Bavelloni A, Ramazzotti G, Poli A, Piazzi M, Focaccia E, Blalock W, et al. Mirna-210: A current overview. Anticancer Research. 2017;37(12):6511-6521. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.12107 - 66.
Tsang VHM, Dwight T, Benn DE, Meyer-Rochow GY, Gill AJ, Sywak M, et al. Overexpression of miR-210 is associated with SDH-related pheochromocytomas, paragangliomas, and gastrointestinal stromal tumours. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2014;21(3):415-426. DOI: 10.1530/ERC-13-0519 - 67.
Chan SY, Zhang YY, Hemann C, Mahoney CE, Zweier JL, Loscalzo J. MicroRNA-210 Controls Mitochondrial Metabolism during Hypoxia by Repressing the Iron-Sulfur Cluster Assembly Proteins ISCU1/2. Cell Metab. 2009;10(4):273-284. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2009.08.015 - 68.
Ruff SM, Ayabe RI, Malekzadeh P, Good ML, Wach MM, Gonzales MK, et al. MicroRNA-210 May Be a Preoperative Biomarker of Malignant Pheochromocytomas and Paragangliomas. J Surg Res. 2019;243:1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.04.086 - 69.
Merlo A, Bernardo-Castiñeira C, Sáenz-de-Santa-María I, Pitiot AS, Balbín M, Astudillo A, et al. Role of VHL, HIF1A and SDH on the expression of miR-210: Implications for tumoral pseudo-hypoxic fate. Oncotarget. 2016;8(4):6700-6717. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.14265 - 70.
Ponting CP, Oliver PL, Reik W. Evolution and Functions of Long Noncoding RNAs. Cell. 2009;136(4):629-641. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.02.006 - 71.
Ghosal S, Das S, Pang Y, Gonzales MK, Huynh TT, Yang Y, et al. Long intergenic noncoding RNA profiles of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: A novel prognostic biomarker. Int J Cancer. 2020;146(8):2326-2335. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32654 - 72.
Rugo HS, Jacobs I, Sharma S, Scappaticci F, Paul TA, Jensen-Pergakes K, et al. The Promise for Histone Methyltransferase Inhibitors for Epigenetic Therapy in Clinical Oncology: A Narrative Review. Advances in Therapy. 2020; 37(7):3059-3082 p. 3059-82. DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01379-x - 73.
Duan R, Du W, Guo W. EZH2: A novel target for cancer treatment. Journal of Hematology and Oncology. 2020;13(1):104. DOI: 10.1186/s13045-020-00937-8 - 74.
Slade D. PARP and PARG inhibitors in cancer treatment . Genes and Development. 2020;34(5-6):360-394 p. 360-94. DOI: 10.1101/gad.334516.119