Cancer Specific Antigens Encoded in "Junk" DNA

Although we have made great strides in cancer treatment with things like chemotherapy and radiation, both of these therapies harm the healthy cells in the patients body while trying to eliminate the cancer causing cells. These treatments causes things like hair loss, weight loss, appetite loss, edema, fatigue, and many more negative side effects to the patient. In trying to find a safe and effective cancer treatment, scientist have sought to identify the antigens that are present on the surface of the cancer cells but not on healthy cells. This will allow them to pinpoint the mutant cancer cells, but unfortunately the hunt for these Tumor-Specific Antigens (TSA's) has largely been focused on predicting the mutated peptides from the cancer genome in individual patients, making them different for each cancer patient.

In trying to solve this problem, Claude Perreault expanded her solution to more than one patient at a time. She decided to use mass spectrometry to identify the peptides on the surface of different types of cancer cells in mice and humans. Her research discovered 40 TSAs. Of the 23 TSAs from humans, "most were not mutated and instead were generated from sequences whose expression is normally suppressed epigenetically, and many were shared among patients and tumor types", says Perreault.

The next step was to find where these peptides came from, so Perreault and her researchers searched every segment of mouse and human DNA. They discovered that over 90% of the TSAs came from "junk DNA," regions in the DNA that were previously thought to be noncoding. To see if the TSAs discovered would jump start the mice immune system, they injected them into the mouse. From this they found that some of the TSAs showed a weak immune response, but others showed an impressive immune response with one giving a 100% survival rate in mice.

I believe that researching TSAs to a greater depth could be a huge breakthrough in treating cancers. TSAs have the potential to eliminate some of the horrible side effects of chemotherapy and radiation and only get rid of the cells that are harming the patient. Although we have yet to prove that TSAs are a better alternative to other already established cancer treatments, with more studies I believe that tumor-specific antigens could be the future of curing cancers.

Junk DNA plays pivotal role in cancer

     In biology, we are taught that within DNA there are genes that code for RNA and the RNA is transcribed into proteins. In most classes, there are in-depth chapters that cover the entire process of transcription and translation. It puts the focus on DNA that codes for proteins, and a lot of times we forget that only a small portion of our DNA actually codes for proteins. The rest of our DNA that does not code for proteins has been given the name "junk DNA." However, we are currently living through the time when researchers are beginning to discover the true purposes of this "junk" and how this is changing our perception of what we previously thought as irrelevant.

     This article brings to attention another role of "junk DNA" by explaining a recent research finding. A research team recently found that one of the roles of "junk DNA" is promoting tumor growth. Specifically, they found that the "junk DNA" reinforces the binding of a specific protein called BRD4, which essentially keeps tumor-promoting genes active at very high levels. Because this is such a new finding, the article merely talks about the discovery and the potential applications and how it could possibly change the way we think of "junk DNA."

     This article was very enlightening for me because when I was first taught biology, my teacher had said that "junk" is an unfair name for non-coding DNA and that it has other uses that we just don't know yet. She thought one day it could have critical information in the treatment of cancer. I was really fascinated by this because it puts into perspective how much we actually know about biology. Only a small amount of our DNA actually codes for proteins, so just that fact alone is such a huge gateway for research to understand even more of biology's unanswered questions. It is really exciting the more research that goes into these biological concepts we don't yet understand because we are learning so much about things that the world had no explanation for only a few years ago. I find it neat that I get to live through and learn biology in a time where the science is still constantly changing and some of our unanswered questions are being answered. This article mostly just mentions the discovery of this connection between "junk DNA" and tumor growth. I think a lot more questions will have to be answered before we can find an applicable treatment for tumor growth using this knowledge. I would love to see some form of gene regulation treatment go into helping cure cancer, because it shows the power of science and how some people in a research lab have the power to change how biology is viewed in the future. I hope that I am lucky enough to live through these new discoveries, but that I will also get to see these discoveries applied to real life cancer treatments.

Article
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322789.php

Related
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180411131659.htm

Satellite DNA = Junk DNA or is it?

Since Satellite DNA has been known about by many nicknames that have been associated with it, such as, junk, and selfish DNA. Thought to previously hold no real purpose for our function in survival. Yukiko Yamashita thought otherwise, believing that we would have gotten rid of it by now if we truly did not need it. Satellite DNA does not code for protein, so what purpose could it serve? In Yamashita's experiment she used Drosophila melanogaster and mice cells to test what would happen if you were to remove the repetitive sequencing of Satellite DNA. Yamashita and her colleges focused on D1, a protein known to bind to Satellite DNA. When this experiment was conducted on developing sperm and egg cells (germ cells) they started to die off one by one. The team later found that micro-nuclei outside of the nucleus. This meant the genome was not entirely encapsulated inside the nucleus (meaning the cell can not survive). It is believed that Satellite DNA helps chromosomes be pulled together in the nucleus ("if D1 protein cannot grab the satellite DNA, the cell loses its ability to form a complete nucleus and...dies." (1)) These experiments were then tested on mice cells and reveled the same results. Yamashita may have found the purpose to the junk we did not believe we needed.

REFERENCES:
(1) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180411131659.htm
(2) https://elifesciences.org/articles/34122