Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Sep 22.
Published in final edited form as: RNA Dis. 2015 Jul;2(3):e894.

The converging roles of BRD4 and gene transcription in pluripotency and oncogenesis

Tao Wu 1, Mary E Donohoe 1
PMCID: PMC4578175  NIHMSID: NIHMS717908  PMID: 26405693

Pluripotent embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and cancer cells share traits and molecular mechanisms, such as the ability to self-renew and a block in cellular differentiation. Both ESCs and tumor cells have a large proliferative capacity and cellular plasticity. One common denominator linking these two cell types is the BET family member, BRD4. BRD4 plays a critical role in gene regulation, recruiting the active form of Positive Elongation Factor b (P-TEFb) to RNA polymerase II at paused promoters ultimately resulting in the production of elongated mRNAs. BRD4 is deregulated in many cancers making it an attractive therapeutic target. Here, we highlight the recent findings coupling the role of BRD4 in pluripotency and tumorigenesis.

BRD4 in gene regulation

BRD4 is a member of the BET (bromodomain and extraterminal domain) tandem bromodomain-containing family that binds acetylated histones H3 and H4 and influences gene regulation [1]. BRD4 was originally identified as a mitotic chromosome-binding protein that remains associated with acetylated chromatin throughout the entire cell cycle [2, 3]. This unique property makes BRD4 a candidate for mitotic or epigenetic bookmarking after cellular division. Prior to mitosis the nuclear envelope breaks down, the chromatin condenses, most regulators separate from the mitotic chromosomes, and transcription ceases [4]. After mitosis, the genes have a remarkable memory through chromatin factors that “bookmark” genes to be expressed or silenced resuming the same gene expression patterns indistinguishable from the mother cell prior to cellular division [5].

RNA polymerase II (RNA Pol II) elongation is a rate-limiting step in gene transcription [6]. At many developmental genes RNA Pol II stalls or pauses after the synthesis of a nascent transcript about 30–65 nucleotides in length [7]. In human ESCs, nearly 30% of genes transcription undergoes a transcriptional pausing [8]. This suggests that transcriptional pausing and elongation are additional checkpoints control during development [9]. To relieve RNA Pol II pausing and enter the productive mRNA elongation state, additional proteins such as BRD4 are necessary to reverse the stalled RNA Pol II. BRD4 directly influences gene transcription associating with positive elongation factor b (P-TEFb) [10, 11]. The BRD4-P-TEFb interaction enhances RNA pol II, releases transcriptional pausing, and mediates productive elongated mRNAs. The recruitment of BRD4 and P-TEFb mediates elongation by phophorylating serine 2 on RNA Pol II’s carboxy terminal domain and releasing the pausing factors NELF (Negative Elongation Factor) and DSIF (DRB-sensitivity-inducing factor) [6, 7].

BRD4 in oncogenesis

In addition to its role in gene regulation, BRD4 is important for human disease. BRD4 is a target for viral-encoded regulators in human immunodeficiency virus and human papillomavirus allowing these infectious agents to hijack the cellular machinery facilitating selective viral genome integration during mitosis [12,13]. BRD4 deregulation is linked to numerous cancers. Cancer cells often exploit the host cell’s transcriptional and chromatin regulatory machinery to propagate their oncogenic gene expression profiles. NUT midline carcinoma (NMC) is a group of malignant and highly lethal cancers, arising from chromosomal translocations involving the NUT (Nuclear protein in Testis) gene on chromosome 15q14 [14]. In the majority of NMC cases, the NUT-containing chromosome translocates to the Brd4 gene on chromosome 19 [14]. This BRD4-NUT protein fusion results in a poorly differentiated and highly aggressive carcinoma with a mean survival of six months. Besides NMC, BRD4 deregulation is found in leukemia, hepatocellular carcinoma, breast cancer, and brain cancers [1517]. BRD4’s function in cancer is associated with epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) [18], stem cell-like conversion, and primary stress responses. BRD4 protects chromatin from DNA damage signaling, further implicating its role as gatekeeper in normal cells and oncogenesis [19].

Indeed, BRD4 is a therapeutic target for multiple cancers. Small-molecule inhibition of BRD4’s bromodomains or targeting small interfering hairpin RNAs eliminates several malignant cancer cells including leukemia, melanoma, prostate, and breast cancers [15, 16, 2027]. Pharmacological inhibition of BET bromodomain proteins with small molecules (such as JQ1 and I-BETs) interferes with BRD4’s requirement for enhancer function and transcriptional elongation in different cancers [15, 28, 29]. The inhibition of BRD4 is accompanied by terminal differentiation through down regulation of c-MYC, a factor that regulates transcriptional pause release and important for tumor viability [15, 29]. Recently BRD4 was found to control HOTAIR, a long noncoding RNA essential for glioblastoma proliferation [30]. This suggests BRD4 may be a therapeutic target in Glioblastoma Multiforme one of the most common and aggressive malignant adult brain tumors.

Converging themes in pluripotent and cancer cells

Both pluripotent and cancer cells have common features such as rapid cell cycles, featuring a diminution of G1 phase, and high telomerase activity [31]. Together, these can result in uncontrolled cellular proliferation. ESCs and cancer cells have a loss of G1 cell cycle checkpoint after DNA damage [32]. The plasticity of their cell type is underscored as upon transplantation into immunodeficient mice where both ESCs and cancer cells form benign and malignant tumors, respectively [33]. Notably both have changes in epithelial and mesechymal states. Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition (MET) regulate cellular plasticity during embryonic development and in oncogenesis [34]. EMT is a process in which polarized cell lose their cell-cell adhesion, become mobile and invasive gaining mesenchymal features. EMT in cancer cells contributes to tumor development, invasion, dissemination, and resistance to therapies [34]. The Twist transcription factor is a key activator of EMT. Twist has a diacetylated histone H4-like domain that recruits BRD4. Together this Twist-BRD4 interaction directs gene expression in basal-like breast cancer [26]. Disruption of the BRD4-diacetylated Twist interactions with BET inhibitors can suppress tumorigenesis in basal-like breast cancer [26].

MET is a reversal of epithelial characteristics and in oncogenesis is associated with metastases [34]. In normal development, stem cells are at the top of the somatic lineage hierarchy and utilize both EMT and MET to generate all of the embryonic germ layers: ectoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm. Optimal epigenetic reprogramming from the somatic state to induced pluripotency requires a sequential EMT-MET mechanism. The tumor suppressor protein p53 is frequently mutated in cancers and can modulate epithelial and mesenchymal states [3437]. P53 is a barrier to somatic cell reprogramming, whereas mutations in p53 augment epigenetic reprogramming in induced pluripotency [3840]. The p53 somatic reprogramming block is mediated by inhibition of MET [41]. Interestingly BRD4 interacts with p53 resulting in a phosphorylation switch, targeting both proteins to acetylated chromatin for gene-specific activation [42].

The master regulators OCT4, SOX2, c-MYC, and KLF4 control the pluripotent gene expression during embryogenesis, in ESCs, and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). The exciting discovery by Yamanaka’s group demonstrated that the expression of these four transcription factors in fibroblast somatic cells converts them to iPSCs [43]. Interestingly, these core stem cell transcription factors are upregulated in several types of human cancers. OCT4 is expressed in pancreatic cancer, oral squamous cell carcinoma, seminoma, and bladder cancer [33, 4448]. SOX2 overexpression results in cancer stem cell-like characteristics, which influence tumor formation and aggressiveness in squamous cell carcinoma, lung cancer, serous ovarian cancers, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, and brain cancers [4953]. Indeed, SOX2 is associated with chemotherapy and tamoxifin resistance in breast cancer [5053]. In addition to its role in induced pluripotency, KLF4 is believed to act as an oncogene in breast cancer [54]. The transcription factor c-MYC is a well-known mediator in oncogenesis and is activated in nearly 70% of all human cancers [55]. A c-MYC protein network accounts for the similarities between ESC and cancer stem cell transcriptional programs [56].

Cancer cells exhibit an increased utilization of glycolysis for carbon metabolism, rather than mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation even in the presence of oxygen [57]. This phenomenon is called the “Warburg effect”, a pyruvate-lactate metabolism that rapidly generates ATP, is observed in numerous tumors reflecting their highly proliferative state. Similarly, pluripotent ESCs prefer a glycolysis metabolism [5860]. Within hours of ESC cellular differentiation, a metabolic switch occurs and oxidative phosphorylation dominates [57]. The ESC glycolytic step differs from the Warburg effect (a metabolic pyruvate-lactate step), in that a pyruvate-acetyl CoA step enhances the high rates of cytosolic acetyl-CoA synthesis proposed to maintain the levels of histone acetylation post-translational modification (PTM) necessary for pluripotency [61]. These studies further extend the connection in ESCs between metabolic intermediates and an open or permissive chromatin state.

Pluripotent and cancer cells have distinctive epigenetic profiles. One highlight is the status of X-chromosome inactivation (XCI), a crucial epigenetic process that silences one of the two female Xs to balance the gene dosage with XY males [62]. XCI is tightly linked with pluripotency, with epigenetic silencing commencing during cellular differentiation. In contrast, a global reprogramming and reactivation of the silenced X [6364] accompany the conversion of female somatic cells to iPSCs. In undifferentiated ESCs, the long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) Xite (the enhancer for Tsix), Tsix (the anti-sense repressor of Xist), and Xist (the silencer) are all expressed on the single male X and both female X-chromosomes [62]. Following cellular differentiation, the male X extinguishes the expression of these lncRNAs to retain a single, active X (Xa). Differentiating female ESCs have a choice of active (Xa) versus inactive X (Xi). On the future Xa, Xite and Tsix expression keep the silencer lncRNA Xist levels low. On the future Xi, Xist and Tsix are extinguished resulting in a robust upregulation of Xist levels [62]. Xist subsequently recruits heterochromatic silencing factors. OCT4 lies at the top of the XCI hierarchy regulating the pluripotent-associated lncRNAs Xite and Tsix [65]. OCT4 partners with the chromatin insulator, CTCF, specifying the early decision of XCI counting (XCI occurs when there is more than one X), X-X homologous pairing (a chromosomal dance necessary for XCI), and choice (the mutually exclusive decision of active versus inactive X) [65]. This epigenetic memory is observed in XCI as once chosen for activation or inactivation, the same female X-chromosome retains its fate after cell division.

Pluripotent and cancer cells both display an epigenetic ground state with hypomethylation and a paucity of PTM silent marks such as histone 3 lysine 27 trimethylation (H3K27me3) that decorates the inactive X-chromosome in differentiated female cells [62]. For nearly sixty years it has been observed that the Barr body, the heterochromatic inactive X-chromosome is lacking in the nuclei of breast and ovarian cancers [66].

Oxygen status is crucial for human ESCs and tumorigenesis. The presence of two active female X-chromosomes (XaXa) exemplifies the ground state of pluripotency in mouse ESCs [63]. Human female ESCs show invariable XCI status (exhibiting partial or complete XCI) due to their advanced developmental stage during derivation as well as between subcultures of a single human ESC line [67]. The epigenetic ground state of human ESCs (XaXa) is obtained during derivation and culture upon exposure to physiological levels of oxygen, suggesting that oxygen maintains a more developmental immature state [67]. Thus, the ground state of epigenetics (XCI) in human ESCs is established by increasing oxygen. Tumor cells frequently outgrow their normal blood supply and develop hypoxia and hypoglycemia. This results in a series of events in which cancer cells take advantage of the normal cellular stress response. Normal cells respond to the hypoxia by increased tissue oxygenation to stabilize homeostasis. In contrast, tumor cells engage a vicious cycle of growth and starvation [68]. The overall result is that hypoxia increases tumor aggression and metastasis. Overall, an ESC-like signature is present in poorly differentiated tumors [31]. The parallels that link the pluripotent and tumor cell types are of huge interest. A commonality is the BET family member BRD4.

BRD4 is crucial for pluripotent gene expression and the lncRNAs that regulate XCI

Although BRD4 is known to play crucial roles in cancers, very little is known about its function in normal development. Mutation of the mouse Brd4 results in a peri-implantation lethal [69]. This is a crucial time during lineage segregation with the formation of the pluripotent epiblast (the source of ESCs and the embryo proper) and female X-chromosome inactivation (XCI) establishment, a crucial epigenetic process that silences the dosage disparity between XX females and XY males [63]. Taken together, these results suggest that BRD4 may play a role in both of these early development processes. Therefore, we postulated that BRD4 interacts with pluripotent factors and functions in the coupled processes of pluripotency and XCI. Indeed, we discovered that BRD4 physically interacts with OCT4 in ESCs. We determined that male and female ESCs show similar BRD4 protein levels during cellular differentiation at differentiation day 0 (pre-XCI), day 4 (time of XCI establishment), and day 8 (post-XCI) [70]. This is in contrast to OCT4 expression, which shows a diminution of protein expression upon differentiation. The OCT4 transcription factor directly regulates the XCI lncRNAs Xite and Tsix. OCT4 triggers X-chromosome pairing and counting [65]. During the shift away from pluripotency by removal of leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) and mouse embryonic feeder layers, the lncRNAs Xite and Tsix are extinguished. In contrast, upon differentiation the silencer Xist is robustly expressed reflective of XCI. These XCI lncRNAs are transcribed in both the sense and anti-sense orientation suggesting that tight control of RNA Pol II is necessary for their regulation.

OCT4 is a master regulator of the pluripotent fate targeting Xite, Tsix, Nanog, Sox2, and Oct4 itself [65, 7173]. As ESCs differentiate, the chromatin shifts from a transcriptionally permissive euchromatic or “open state” to a more heterochromatic or “closed state” [7476]. These chromatin changes are exemplified by alterations in histone PTMs, chromatin configuration, the presence of the Polycomb group proteins, and gene expression [77, 78]. In ESCs both OCT4 and BRD4 occupy the regulatory regions of pluripotent genes such as Nanog, Oct4, Sox2, Xite, and Tsix [70]. Using an OCT4-regulated ESC line [79], we determined that OCT4 recruits BRD4 to selective regulatory regions such as the Nanog promoter [70].

The small molecule, JQ1, which selectively binds the bromodomains, can inhibit the BET domain proteins [15, 28]. We posited that inhibition of BRD4 by JQ1 alters the pluripotent status in ESCs. First, we performed a dose curve of JQ1 in male and female ESCs. Interestingly, JQ1 inhibits c-MYC protein as previously reported but in addition we demonstrated that OCT4 levels are decreased [70]. Next, we queried BRD4, P-TEFb, and histone H4 acetylation status at pluripotent regulatory regions in ESCs using quantitative Chromatin immunoprecipitation. (qChIP). JQ1 exposure specifically displaces BRD4 and P-TEFb occupancy without altering H4 acetylation levels [70]. The BET inhibition diminished pluripotent gene expression, shifting the cell fate of the treated ESCs to neuroectoderm identity. In contrast, the RNA Pol II inhibitors Hexim1 and Sens3 were upregulated suggesting that BRD4 represses these genes [70]. JQ1 exposure in differentiated female cells greatly diminishes Xist lncRNA expression but does not reactivate genes along the silent X-chromosome. Consistent with the JQ1 treatment, loss of Brd4 by small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) in ESCs reduces the expression of pluripotent genes as well as Xite and Tsix [70]. Overexpression of the BRD4 in ESCs enhances the levels of pluripotent genes. These results support the findings of DiMicco et al. for a role of BRD4 in human ESCs [80]. Taken together, our results suggest that BRD4 activates the pluripotent and XCI genes in ESCs. BRD4 maintains ESC identity and fate.

Conclusion

Herein we have summarized similarities and differences between pluripotent and stem cells. We have highlighted the recent findings for BRD4 and stem cell identity. However many outstanding questions remain. Such as is BRD4 involved in X-X chromosome pairing? Does BRD4 provide the epigenetic memory for female XCI fate retaining the same active and inactive X-chromosomes after cellular division? Our understanding of how BRD4 functions in normal developmental processes is crucial for elucidating its deregulation in cancers.

Figure 1. Model of BRD4 action in pluripotency.

Figure 1

BRD4 interacts with P-TEFb resulting in the phosphorylation of RNA Pol II serine 2 (Ser 2), a release from pausing of the nascent RNA strand, and the productive transcriptional elongation of the pluripotency related genes. Inhibition of BRD4 with a BET inhibitor, JQ1, or depletion of BRD4 by knockdown ablates the production transcription of the pluripotency genes. RNA Pol II is unable to elongate as evident by the presence of serine 5 (Ser 5) phosphorylation and a lack of Ser 2 phosphorylation. This results in a shift away from pluripotency and differentiation to the neuroectoderm cell fate.

Acknowledgments

We thank Drs. Yasunao Kamikawa, Geri Kreitzer, and Wilfredo Mellado for critically reading this manuscript. Work in the Donohoe lab is supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01MH090267), the Burke Foundation, the Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation, and the Eisenberg Ahsen Foundation.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest

T.W. and M.E.D. declare that there are not potential conflicts of interest.

References

  • 1.Chiang CM. Brd4 engagement from chromatin targeting to transcriptional regulation: selective contact with acetylated histone H3 and H4. F1000 Biol Rep. 2009;1:98–105. doi: 10.3410/B1-98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dey A, Ellenberg J, Farina A, Coleman AE, Maruyama T, Sciortino S, et al. A bromodomain protein, MCAP, associates with mitotic chromosomes and affects G(2)-to-M transition. Mol Cell Biol. 2000;20:6537–6549. doi: 10.1128/mcb.20.17.6537-6549.2000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dey A, Chitsaz F, Abbasi A, Misteli T, Ozato K. The double bromodomain protein Brd4 binds to acetylated chromatin during interphase and mitosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:8758–8763. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1433065100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zaidi SK, Young DW, Montecino MA, Lian JB, van Wijnen AJ, Stein JL, et al. Mitotic bookmarking of genes: a novel dimension to epigenetic control. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11:583–589. doi: 10.1038/nrg2827. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kadauke S, Blobel GA. Mitotic bookmarking by transcription factors. Epigenetics Chromatin. 2013;6:6–16. doi: 10.1186/1756-8935-6-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zhou Q, Li T, Price DH. RNA polymerase II elongation control. Annu Rev Biochem. 2012;81:119–143. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-052610-095910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Adelman K, Lis JT. Promoter-proximal pausing of RNA polymerase II: emerging roles in metazoans. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13:720–731. doi: 10.1038/nrg3293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Guenther MG, Levine SS, Boyer LA, Jaenisch R, Young RA. A chromatin landmark and transcription initiation at most promoters in human cells. Cell. 2007;130:77–88. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.05.042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Levine M. Paused RNA polymerase II as a developmental checkpoint. Cell. 2011;145:502–511. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.04.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yang Z, Yik JH, Chen R, He N, Jang MK, Ozato K, Zhou Q. Recruitment of P-TEFb for stimulation of transcriptional elongation by the bromodomain protein Brd4. Mol Cell. 2005;19:535–545. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2005.06.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yang Z, He N, Zhou Q. Brd4 recruits P-TEFb to chromosomes at late mitosis to promote G1 gene expression and cell cycle progression. Mol Cell Biol. 2008;28:967–976. doi: 10.1128/MCB.01020-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bisgrove DA, Mahmoudi T, Henklein P, Verdin E. Conserved P-TEFb-interacting domain of BRD4 inhibits HIV transcription. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:13690–13695. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0705053104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.You J, Croyle JL, Nishimura A, Ozato K, Howley PM. Interaction of the bovine papillomavirus E2 protein with Brd4 tethers the viral DNA to host mitotic chromosomes. Cell. 2004;117:349–360. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(04)00402-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.French CA, Miyoshi I, Aster JC, Kubonishi I, Kroll TG, Dal Cin P, et al. BRD4 bromodomain gene rearrangement in aggressive carcinoma with translocation t(15;19) Am J Pathol. 2001;159:1987–1992. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63049-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Delmore JE, Issa GC, Lemieux ME, Rahl PB, Shi J, Jacobs HM, et al. BET bromodomain inhibition as a therapeutic strategy to target c-Myc. Cell. 2011;146:904–917. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.08.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zuber J, Shi J, Wang E, Rappaport AR, Herrmann H, Sison EA, et al. RNAi screen identifies Brd4 as a therapeutic target in acute myeloid leukaemia. Nature. 2011;478:524–528. doi: 10.1038/nature10334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mertz JA, Conery AR, Bryant BM, Sandy P, Balasubramanian S, Mele DA, et al. Targeting MYC dependence in cancer by inhibiting BET bromodomains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:16669–16674. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1108190108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Alsarraj J, Walker RC, Webster JD, Geiger TR, Crawford NP, Simpson RM, et al. Deletion of the proline-rich region of the murine metastasis susceptibility gene Brd4 promotes epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition- and stem cell-like conversion. Cancer Res. 2011;71:3121–3131. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-4417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Floyd SR, Pacold ME, Huang Q, Clarke SM, Lam FC, Cannell IG, et al. The bromodomain protein Brd4 insulates chromatin from DNA damage signalling. Nature. 2013;498:246–250. doi: 10.1038/nature12147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Asangani IA, Dommeti VL, Wang X, Malik R, Cieslik M, Yang R, et al. Therapeutic targeting of BET bromodomain proteins in castration-resistant prostate cancer. Nature. 2014;510:278–282. doi: 10.1038/nature13229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bandopadhayay P, Bergthold G, Nguyen B, Schubert S, Gholamin S, Tang Y, et al. BET bromodomain inhibition of MYC-amplified medulloblastoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:912–925. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cho H, Herzka Zheng W, Qi J, Wilkinson JE, Bradner JE, et al. RapidCaP, a novel GEM model for metastatic prostate cancer analysis and therapy, reveals myc as a driver of Pten-mutant metastasis. Cancer Discov. 2014;4:318–333. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-0346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dawson MA, Prinjha RK, Dittmann A, Giotopoulos G, Bantscheff M, Chan WI, et al. Inhibition of BET recruitment to chromatin as an effective treatment for MLL-fusion leukaemia. Nature. 2011;478:529–533. doi: 10.1038/nature10509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lockwood WW, Zejnullahu K, Bradner JE, Varmus H. Sensitivity of human lung adenocarcinoma cell lines to targeted inhibition of BET epigenetic signaling proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:19408–19413. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1216363109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Segura MF, Fontanals-Cirera B, Gaziel-Sovran A, Guijarro MV, Hanniford D, Zhang G, et al. BRD4 sustains melanoma proliferation and represents a new target for epigenetic therapy. Cancer Res. 2013;73:6264–6276. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-0122-T. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Shi J, Wang Y, Zeng L, Wu Y, Deng J, Zhang Q, et al. Disrupting the interaction of BRD4 with diacetylated Twist suppresses tumorigenesis in basal-like breast cancer. Cancer Cell. 2014;25:210–225. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2014.01.028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Whyte WA, Orlando DA, Hnisz D, Abraham BJ, Lin CY, Kagey MH, et al. Master transcription factors and mediator establish super-enhancers at key cell identity genes. Cell. 2013;153:307–319. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.03.035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Filippakopoulos P, Qi J, Picaud S, Shen Y, Smith WB, Fedorov O, et al. Selective inhibition of BET bromodomains. Nature. 2010;468:1067–1073. doi: 10.1038/nature09504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rahl PB, Lin CY, Seila AC, Flynn RA, McCuine S, Burge CB, et al. c-Myc regulates transcriptional pause release. Cell. 2010;141:432–445. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pastori C, Kapranov P, Penas C, Peschansky V, Volmar CH, Sarkaria JN, et al. The Bromodomain protein BRD4 controls HOTAIR, a long noncoding RNA essential for glioblastoma proliferation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112:8326–8331. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1424220112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ben-Porath I, Thomson MW, Carey VJ, Ge R, Bell GW, Regev A, et al. An embryonic stem cell-like gene expression signature in poorly differentiated aggressive human tumors. Nat Genet. 2008;40:499–507. doi: 10.1038/ng.127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kim J, Orkin SH. Embryonic stem cell-specific signatures in cancer: insights into genomic regulatory networks and implications for medicine. Genome Med. 2011;3:75–83. doi: 10.1186/gm291. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wasik AM, Grabarek J, Pantovic A, Cieslar-Pobuda A, Asgari HR, Bundgaard-Nielsen C, et al. Reprogramming and carcinogenesis--parallels and distinctions. Int Rev Cell Mol Biol. 2014;308:167–203. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800097-7.00005-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Polyak K, Weinberg RA. Transitions between epithelial and mesenchymal states: acquisition of malignant and stem cell traits. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9:265–273. doi: 10.1038/nrc2620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kim NH, Kim HS, Li XY, Lee I, Choi HS, Kang SE, et al. A p53/miRNA-34 axis regulates Snail1-dependent cancer cell epithelial-mesenchymal transition. J Cell Biol. 2011;195:417–433. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201103097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Choi YJ, Lin CP, Ho JJ, He X, Okada N, Bu P, et al. miR-34 miRNAs provide a barrier for somatic cell reprogramming. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13:1353–1360. doi: 10.1038/ncb2366. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chang CJ, Chao CHW, Xia JY, Yang Y, Xiong CW, Li, et al. p53 regulates epithelial-mesenchymal transition and stem cell properties through modulating miRNAs. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13:317–323. doi: 10.1038/ncb2173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kawamura T, Suzuki J, Wang YV, Menendez S, Morera LB, Raya A, et al. Linking the p53 tumour suppressor pathway to somatic cell reprogramming. Nature. 2009;460:1140–1144. doi: 10.1038/nature08311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Marion RM, Strati K, Li H, Murga M, Blanco R, Ortega S, et al. A p53-mediated DNA damage response limits reprogramming to ensure iPS cell genomic integrity. Nature. 2009;460:1149–1153. doi: 10.1038/nature08287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Sarig R, Rivlin N, Brosh R, Bornstein C, Kamer I, Ezra O, et al. Mutant p53 facilitates somatic cell reprogramming and augments the malignant potential of reprogrammed cells. J Exp Med. 2010;207:2127–2140. doi: 10.1084/jem.20100797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Brosh R, Assia-Alroy Y, Molchadsky A, Bornstein C, Dekel E, Madar S, et al. p53 counteracts reprogramming by inhibiting mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition. Cell Death Differ. 2013;20:312–320. doi: 10.1038/cdd.2012.125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wu SY, Lee AY, Lai HT, Zhang H, Chiang CM. Phospho switch triggers Brd4 chromatin binding and activator recruitment for gene-specific targeting. Mol Cell. 2013;49:843–857. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.12.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006;126:663–676. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lu Y, Zhu H, Shan H, Lu J, Chang X, Li X, et al. Knockdown of Oct4 and Nanog expression inhibits the stemness of pancreatic cancer cells. Cancer Lett. 2013;340:113–123. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2013.07.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Linn DE, Yang X, Sun F, Xie Y, Chen H, Jiang R, et al. A Role for OCT4 in Tumor Initiation of Drug-Resistant Prostate Cancer Cells. Genes Cancer. 2010;1:908–916. doi: 10.1177/1947601910388271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Guo Y, Liu S, Wang P, Zhao S, Wang F, Bing L, et al. Expression profile of embryonic stem cell-associated genes Oct4, Sox2 and Nanog in human gliomas. Histopathology. 2011;59:763–775. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03993.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kumar SM, Liu S, Lu H, Zhang H, Zhang PJ, Gimotty PA, et al. Acquired cancer stem cell phenotypes through Oct4-mediated dedifferentiation. Oncogene. 2012;31:4898–4911. doi: 10.1038/onc.2011.656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chiou SH, Wang ML, Chou YT, Chen CJ, Hong CF, Hsieh WJ, et al. Coexpression of Oct4 and Nanog enhances malignancy in lung adenocarcinoma by inducing cancer stem cell-like properties and epithelial-mesenchymal transdifferentiation. Cancer Res. 2010;70:10433–10444. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-2638. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Boumahdi S, Driessens G, Lapouge G, Rorive S, Nassar D, Le Mercier M, et al. SOX2 controls tumour initiation and cancer stem-cell functions in squamous-cell carcinoma. Nature. 2014;511:246–250. doi: 10.1038/nature13305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Chou YT, Lee CC, Hsiao SH, Lin SE, Lin SC, Chung CH, et al. The emerging role of SOX2 in cell proliferation and survival and its crosstalk with oncogenic signaling in lung cancer. Stem Cells. 2013;31:2607–2619. doi: 10.1002/stem.1518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Chen S, Xu Y, Chen Y, Li X, Mou W, Wang L, et al. SOX2 gene regulates the transcriptional network of oncogenes and affects tumorigenesis of human lung cancer cells. PLoS One. 2012;7:e36326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036326. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bareiss PM, Paczulla A, Wang H, Schairer R, Wiehr S, Kohlhofer U, et al. SOX2 expression associates with stem cell state in human ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2013;73:5544–5555. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-4177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Piva M, Domenici G, Iriondo O, Rabano M, Simoes BM, Comaills V, et al. Sox2 promotes tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer cells. EMBO Mol Med. 2014;6:66–79. doi: 10.1002/emmm.201303411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Yori JL, Seachrist DD, Johnson E, Lozada KL, Abdul-Karim FW, Chodosh LA, et al. Kruppel-like factor 4 inhibits tumorigenic progression and metastasis in a mouse model of breast cancer. Neoplasia. 2011;13:601–610. doi: 10.1593/neo.11260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Nilsson JA, Cleveland JL. Myc pathways provoking cell suicide and cancer. Oncogene. 2003;22:9007–9021. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1207261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Araki R, Hoki Y, Uda M, Nakamura M, Jincho Y, Tamura C, et al. Crucial role of c-Myc in the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cells. 2011;29:1362–1370. doi: 10.1002/stem.685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Shyh-Chang N, Daley GQ. Metabolic switches linked to pluripotency and embryonic stem cell differentiation. Cell Metab. 2015;21:349–350. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Wang T, Chen K, Zeng X, Yang J, Wu Y, Shi X, et al. The histone demethylases Jhdm1a/1b enhance somatic cell reprogramming in a vitamin-C-dependent manner. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;9:575–587. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2011.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Shyh-Chang N, Daley GQ, Cantley LC. Stem cell metabolism in tissue development and aging. Development. 2013;140:2535–2547. doi: 10.1242/dev.091777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Carey BW, Finley LW, Cross JR, Allis CD, Thompson CB. Intracellular alpha-ketoglutarate maintains the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells. Nature. 2015;518:413–416. doi: 10.1038/nature13981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Moussaieff A, Rouleau M, Kitsberg D, Cohen M, Levy G, Barasch D, et al. Glycolysis-mediated changes in acetyl-CoA and histone acetylation control the early differentiation of embryonic stem cells. Cell Metab. 2015;21:392–402. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Payer B, Lee JT. X chromosome dosage compensation: how mammals keep the balance. Annu Rev Genet. 2008;42:733–772. doi: 10.1146/annurev.genet.42.110807.091711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Payer B, JT, Lee JT. Coupling of X-chromosome reactivation with the pluripotent stem cell state. RNA Biol. 2014;11:798–807. doi: 10.4161/rna.29779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Maherali N, Sridharan R, Xie W, Utikal J, Eminli S, Arnold K, et al. Directly reprogrammed fibroblasts show global epigenetic remodeling and widespread tissue contribution. Cell Stem Cell. 2007;1:55–70. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2007.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Donohoe ME, Silva SS, Pinter SF, Xu N, Lee JT. The pluripotency factor Oct4 interacts with Ctcf and also controls X-chromosome pairing and counting. Nature. 2009;460:128–132. doi: 10.1038/nature08098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Pageau GJ, Hall LL, Ganesan S, Livingston DM, Lawrence JB. The disappearing Barr body in breast and ovarian cancers. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7:628–633. doi: 10.1038/nrc2172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Lengner CJ, Gimelbrant AA, Erwin JA, Cheng AW, Guenther MG, Welstead GG, et al. Derivation of pre-X inactivation human embryonic stem cells under physiological oxygen concentrations. Cell. 2010;141:872–883. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.04.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Welford SM, Giaccia AJ. Hypoxia and senescence: the impact of oxygenation on tumor suppression. Mol Cancer Res. 2011;9:538–544. doi: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-11-0065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Houzelstein D, Bullock SL, Lynch DE, Grigorieva EF, Wilson VA, Beddington RS. Growth and early postimplantation defects in mice deficient for the bromodomain-containing protein Brd4. Mol Cell Biol. 2002;22:3794–3802. doi: 10.1128/MCB.22.11.3794-3802.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Wu T, Pinto HB, Kamikawa YF, Donohoe ME. The BET family member BRD4 interacts with OCT4 and regulates pluripotency gene expression. Stem Cell Reports. 2015;4:390–403. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.01.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Chew JL, Loh YH, Zhang W, Chen X, Tam WL, Yeap LS, et al. Reciprocal transcriptional regulation of Pou5f1 and Sox2 via the Oct4/Sox2 complex in embryonic stem cells. Mol Cell Biol. 2005;25:6031–6046. doi: 10.1128/MCB.25.14.6031-6046.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Navarro P, Chambers I, Karwacki-Neisius V, Chureau C, Morey C, Rougeulle C, et al. Molecular coupling of Xist regulation and pluripotency. Science. 2008;321:1693–1695. doi: 10.1126/science.1160952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Navarro P, Oldfield A, Legoupi J, Festuccia N, Dubois A, Attia M, et al. Molecular coupling of Tsix regulation and pluripotency. Nature. 2010;468:457–460. doi: 10.1038/nature09496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Azuara V, Perry P, Sauer S, Spivakov M, Jorgensen HF, John RM, et al. Chromatin signatures of pluripotent cell lines. Nat Cell Biol. 2006;8:532–538. doi: 10.1038/ncb1403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Meshorer E, Misteli T. Chromatin in pluripotent embryonic stem cells and differentiation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006;7:540–546. doi: 10.1038/nrm1938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Niwa H. Open conformation chromatin and pluripotency. Genes Dev. 2007;21:2671–2676. doi: 10.1101/gad.1615707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Bernstein BE, Mikkelsen TS, Xie X, Kamal M, Huebert DJ, Cuff J, et al. A bivalent chromatin structure marks key developmental genes in embryonic stem cells. Cell. 2006;125:315–326. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.02.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Boyer LA, Plath K, Zeitlinger J, Brambrink T, Medeiros LA, Lee TI, et al. Polycomb complexes repress developmental regulators in murine embryonic stem cells. Nature. 2006;441:349–353. doi: 10.1038/nature04733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Niwa H, Miyazaki J, Smith AG. Quantitative expression of Oct-3/4 defines differentiation, dedifferentiation or self-renewal of ES cells. Nat Genet. 2000;24:372–376. doi: 10.1038/74199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Di Micco R, Fontanals-Cirera B, Low V, Ntziachristos P, Yuen SK, Lovell CD, et al. Control of embryonic stem cell identity by BRD4-dependent transcriptional elongation of super-enhancer-associated pluripotency genes. Cell Rep. 2014;9:234–247. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.08.055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES