Review ArticleReview

Epigenetics of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: biomarkers and therapeutic potentials

Pan Lai and Yang Wang
Cancer Biology & Medicine February 2021, 18 (1) 34-51; DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0216

Abstract

Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCLs) are a heterogeneous group of skin-homing non-Hodgkin lymphomas. There are limited options for effective treatment of patients with advanced-stage CTCL, leading to a poor survival rate. Epigenetics plays a pivotal role in regulating gene expression without altering the DNA sequence. Epigenetic alterations are involved in virtually all key cancer-associated pathways and are fundamental to the genesis of cancer. In recent years, the epigenetic hallmarks of CTCL have been gradually elucidated and their potential values in the diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic intervention have been clarified. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of the best-studied epigenetic modifications in CTCL, including DNA methylation, histone modifications, microRNAs, and chromatin remodelers. These epigenetic regulators are essential in the development of CTCL and provide new insights into the clinical treatments of this refractory disease.

keywords

Introduction

Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCLs) are a heterogeneous group of lymphoproliferative disorders characterized by the infiltration of skin-homing malignant T lymphocytes1. The most common variants are mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS), which account for more than 60% of all CTCLs1. MF generally manifests as a low level lymphoma with an indolent clinical course, presenting as erythematous patches and plaques. Some patients inevitably progress to advanced stages with skin tumor and extra-cutaneous dissemination of malignant T cells to lymph nodes, blood, and visceral organs1. SS is a leukemic variant of CTCL that features aggressive disease progression with systemic involvement and poor prognosis1. Although 71% of patients present with early stage disease, disease progression occurs in 34% and 26% of patients with MF and SS, respectively2. Cutaneous CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder (CD30+LPD) is the second most common form of CTCL, comprising a spectrum of diseases that range from lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) to primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (PCALCL), which are characterized by a recurrent course and favorable prognosis3.

The treatment of CTCL primarily depends on the stage of the disease and escalates in a stepwise manner. The management of early stage disease (stages IA-IIA) focuses on skin-directed therapy consisting of topical agents, ultraviolet phototherapy, and local radiotherapy4,5. Systemic biological agents, including interferons or retinoids, are needed in patients with more extensive infiltration4,5. Systemic chemotherapy is usually reserved for patients with advanced or refractory/recurrent (R/R) CTCL6,7. Although good responses are reported with both single agent and combination chemotherapy regimens, the overall outcomes are disappointing when compared with other lymphomas4. The most commonly reported regimen used in CTCL is CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone). Recent evidence-based studies reported that the overall survival rates remain unchanged for more intensive regimens and these regimens have little clinical benefit compared with less intensive regimens4. Antibody therapies (mogamulizumab, alemtuzumab, and brentuximab vedotin) with significant clinical benefits have been developed in recent years4. However, the treatments for advanced CTCLs are mostly palliative, not curative, except for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, but the optimal regimen and timing remain unclarified4. Therefore, the development of effective treatments for patients with advanced CTCL is urgently needed. The molecular pathogenesis of CTCL remains largely unknown. Even in the era of next-generation sequencing (NGS), only a few genetic defects with pathogenic significance have been identified in CTCL8,9. Recurrent cancer mutations that have been described, including mutations in PLCG1, are restricted to a small portion of CTCL patients10. The cytogenetic drivers in most CTCL patients therefore remain to be elucidated.

Epigenetics is defined as a stably heritable phenotype resulting from changes in the chromosome without alterations in the DNA sequence. Epigenetics plays a central role in the pathogenesis of various cancers, including CTCL11,12. Substantial evidence now supports the effects of the epigenome on every component of gene regulation, including DNA methylation, post-translational histone modifications, chromatin structure, and microRNAs (miRNAs). Furthermore, epigenetic changes regulate a wide variety of cellular processes, including cell survival, proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis12. The classical hallmarks of human cancer can potentially be achieved purely through epigenome deregulation11. Preclinical studies have shown that epigenetic alterations are potentially reversible through pharmacological manipulation, and the list of available epigenetic modifiers is steadily growing13. Moreover, epigenetic markers can be exploited as clinically relevant disease biomarkers for diagnosis, prognostication, and prediction of treatment responses12.

Over the past two decades, studies on epigenetic changes have identified the missing link between lymphoma-specific gene expression patterns and the absence of genetic alterations in CTCL14–17. These findings have improved our understanding of CTCL pathophysiology and facilitated the discovery of new disease biomarkers and therapeutic targets. More importantly, not all cancers are equally susceptible to epigenetic therapies. It is now evident from both clinical and preclinical studies that hematopoietic malignancies, including CTCLs, are more vulnerable to epigenetic interventions than solid malignancies. For example, azacitidine, a DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) inhibitor, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes18. Clinical responses to another DNMT inhibitor, decitabine, are encouraging in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia19. The histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis), vorinostat and romidepsin, as two epigenetic drugs (“epi-drugs”) approved by the FDA for R/R CTCL patients, provide evidence to support epigenetic intervention as a promising treatment for this disease20,21.

Our aims in this review are to describe the main epigenetic alterations in CTCL, with an emphasis on their essential roles in the pathogenesis of CTCL, and to describe how these aberrations can potentially be utilized in clinical settings (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Figure 1

Epigenetic modifications in CTCL. Epigenetic alterations are implicated in the pathogenesis of CTCL, involving DNA methylation, histone modification, microRNA, and chromatin remodelers. These aberrant epigenetic modifiers demonstrate a broad role in altering chromatin accessibility status and regulating the transcriptional expression of a variety of tumor-related genes. Some “epi-drugs” exert promising antitumor effects in CTCL by targeting the key epigenetic enzymes. TSGs, tumor suppressor genes; 5-hmc, 5-hydroxymethylcytosine; HDAC, histone deacetylase; HAT, histone acetylase; HDACi, histone deacetylase inhibitor; LSD1, lysine-specific histone demethylase 1A; EZH2, enhancer of zeste homolog 2; onco-miRNAs, oncogenic microRNAs; miRNAs, microRNAs; SNF5, SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex subunit SNF5; SATB1, Special AT-rich region binding protein 1; DNMT, DNA methyltransferase; SWI/SNF, switching defective/sucrose nonfermenting; TFs, transcription factors; RNA pol, RNA polymerase; DNMTi, DNA methyltransferase inhibitor; EZH2i, enhancer of zeste homolog 2 inhibitor.

DNA methylation

The earliest indications of an epigenetic link to cancer were derived from gene expression and DNA methylation studies22–24. DNA methylation is one of the most ubiquitous epigenetic modifications regulating gene expression24–27. The best-characterized DNA methylation process involves the addition of a methyl group (CH3) at the C5 position of the cytosine ring by DNMTs, yielding 5-methylcytosine (5-mC)28. DNMTs include DNMT1, which maintains preexisting methylation patterns, and DNMT3A and DNMT3B, which establish new sites of methylation29,30. Although global hypomethylation is commonly observed in malignant cells, the best-studied epigenetic alterations in cancer are the methylation changes that occur within CpG islands, which are present in 70% of all mammalian promoters23,31. CpG islands are CpG-rich sequences that are generally unmethylated in mammals and usually contain 200 to 2,000 nucleotides, of which > 50% are CpGs. Approximately 60% to 70% of gene promoters contain CpG islands31–34. Promoter methylation is the best-studied epigenetic mediator of oncogenic effects35. Using powerful techniques for the investigation of DNA methylation, such as sodium bisulfite conversion, CpG-island microarrays, and restriction landmark genomic scanning, an array of altered promoter methylation has been identified in CTCL. Table 1 lists methylation alterations in genes with potential tumor suppressor or oncogene functions in CTCL and their potential roles in clinical settings.

View this table:
Table 1

The aberrantly-methylated genes and their functions in cutaneous T-cell lymphomas

DNA hypermethylation

In 2000, promoter hypermethylation-driven silencing of CDKN2A was reported in CTCL and was associated with aggressive disease36. The CDKN2A gene encodes a nuclear protein that can block cell cycle progression by effectively inhibiting the kinase activity of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6, thereby exerting tumor suppressor functions. Subsequently, a large body of knowledge has gradually accumulated concerning the specific pattern of DNA hypermethylation in CTCL. The evidence indicates the epigenetic silencing of diverse tumor suppressor genes including those involved in cell cycle regulation (CDKN2A, CDKN2B, CDKN1A, and RARB), the insulin growth factor pathway (IGF2 and SOCS1), pluripotent regulation of stem cells (NEUROG1), apoptosis signaling (TP73, FAS, and TMS1), cell differentiation (PPARG), DNA repair (MGMT and MLH1), chromosomal instability (CHFR), and other putative tumor suppressors (BCL7A, THBS4, PTPRG, CMTM2, SHP-1, SAMHD1, and CD26)14,37–39.

MLH1 is a DNA mismatch repair gene that is involved in correcting mutations during DNA replication40. Promoter hypermethylation-mediated silencing of the MLH1 gene was identified in 64% of CTCL patients showing microsatellite instability, suggesting that aberrant methylation of the MLH1 gene promoter may be important in disease progression in a subset of CTCL patients40. The tumor suppressor, Src homology region 2 domain-containing phosphatase 1 (SHP-1), is an important negative regulator of cell signaling for the interleukin (IL)-2-mediated Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT3) pathway41. Promoter hypermethylation-induced loss of SHP-1 has been frequently reported in the tumor stages of MF and MF cell lines41,42. This was associated with phosphorylated (p)-STAT3 activation, which induces DNMT1 to methylate the SHP-1 promoter41–44. These results indicate that epigenetic silencing of SHP-1 may play a role in the pathogenesis of CTCLs by permitting the persistence of oncogenic STAT3 signaling and, possibly, other receptor complexes.

Resistance to apoptosis is a crucial mechanism for the accumulation of malignant T-cells in CTCL lesions. Deficiencies in FAS-mediated activation-induced cell death (AICD) play pivotal roles in CTCL pathogenesis45. Decreased or absent FAS expression, due to hypermethylation in five specific CpG dinucleotides in the FAS promoter, has been reported in a significant proportion of CTCL patients17. In a similar vein, inactivation of the TP73 gene via promoter hypermethylation also contributes to the AICD resistance, facilitating the development of CTCL14,46.

The methylation of PPARG, a critical gene involved in cell differentiation, shows remarkable differences among stage I classical MFs with a distinct prognosis37. PPARG was demonstrated as a significant predictor of disease progression within the 6-year follow-up period, even after adjustment for patients’ age and sex37. A more recent study has shown that recurrent promoter hypermethylation of the chemokine-like factor, CMTM2, is sufficient to distinguish 15 SS patients from 7 erythrodermic inflammatory dermatosis patients with 100% specificity and 100% sensitivity, indicating its utility as an epigenetic clinical diagnostic marker for CTCL47.

DNA hypomethylation

In contrast to promoter hypermethylation of specific tumor suppressors, aberrant transcriptional activation associated with DNA hypomethylation at specific loci in the promoters were reported in genes related to CTCL oncogenesis.

Ectopic plastin-3 (PLS3) expression was previously reported in Sézary cells and served as a biomarker for SS48. Jones et al.49 reported that the hypomethylation of CpG dinucleotides in the PLS3 promoter induced abnormal activation of this non-lymphoid gene in CTCL cells. Accordingly, exposing PLS negative lymphoid cell lines to the hypomethylating agent, azacitidine, resulted in increased transcriptional activity of the PLS3 promoter and upregulation of PLS3 expression50. Direct epigenetic modifications related to overexpression were identified in two other candidate oncogenes, GATA6 and TWIST150. Hypomethylation-mediated GATA6 activation induced aberrant CD137 ligand expression and promoted multiple tumor-driving pathways in the proliferation of CTCL cell lines and tumor formation in NSG and C57BL/6 mouse models51. Special AT-rich region binding protein 1 (SATB1), a global transcription regulator overexpressed in a portion of CD30+LPDs, was demonstrated to promote the proliferation of malignant CD30+ T cells52. Its upregulation has been associated with DNA demethylation on a specific CpG-rich region of the SATB1 promoter52,53.

DNA hydroxy-methylation

In 2009, two seminal studies describing the presence of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5-hmC) offered the first insights into the metabolism of 5-mC54,55. Ten eleven translocation (TET) 1-3 enzymes play a critical role in epigenetic stability by oxidizing 5-mC to 5-hmC56. Global loss of 5-hmC is an epigenetic biomarker in CTCL, including MF and CD30+LPDs57,58. The level of 5-hmC decreased along with disease progression in MF and was associated with poor prognosis57. NGS has identified somatic mutations in the TET2 gene in a small subset of SS patients59. However, in MF and CD30+LPDs, the 5-hmC loss seemed to be in an TET-independent manner57. Thus, the relationship between TET2 mutation and the loss of 5-hmC remains to be elucidated.

Histone modification

Histone modifications have been related to many cellular processes during normal physiological growth and cancer. Chromatin has a dynamic configuration used to package DNA and organize the eukaryotic genome60. Its basic functional unit, the nucleosome, consists of a 147-base-pair segment of DNA wrapped around the octameric histone complex61. The histone octamer contains two copies of each histone (H2A, H2B, H3, and H4). Each possesses a globular central domain and a tail enriched in lysine and arginine residues. The N-terminal “tail” region projects from the nucleosome, which is accessible to post-translational modifications at specific amino acid residues62. More recent studies have revealed that the globular domains of histone can also be modified in the same way63. The considerable diversity in histone modifications introduces a remarkable complexity that is beginning to be elucidated. These modifications include acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation, ubiquitination, and sumoylation as well as uncommon variants, such as succinylation, butyrylation, and neddylation64,65. These modifications can influence gene expression either directly by modifying the histone-DNA interaction, or indirectly by altering recognition sites and accessibility for specific binding proteins, and further regulating gene expressions involved in critical cellular processes66,67. Notably, these modifications may also occur in nonhistone proteins to support their biological functions, such as transcription factors or cytoplastic proteins68. With the advent of chromatin immunoprecipitation coupled with DNA microarray analysis or massive parallel sequencing (ChIp-chip or ChIp-seq), the global profile of histone modifications in human cancers can be monitored69. Dysregulation in the pattern of histone modifications has been extensively correlated with neoplastic transformation and differs according to tumor type66. Acetylation and methylation, as two main types of histone modifications associated with oncogenesis, have been well-studied in CTCL.

Histone acetylation

Acetylation of lysine on histone tails is highly dynamic and is important for the regulation of chromatin structure, gene transcription, and DNA repair70. Histone acetylation is a reversible process catalyzed by two opposing classes of enzymes, histone acetylases (HATs) and histone deacetylases (HDACs)70. HATs transfer acetyl groups from acetyl-CoA to the ε-amino group of lysine residues, which neutralizes the lysine positive charge and further untightens compact chromatin and enhances the accessibility of the transcriptional mechanism67. Conversely, HDACs catalyze the removal of the acetyl group from histones, leading to chromatin condensation and gene transcriptional repression71,72. The dynamic equilibrium of the two enzyme families plays a critical role in governing numerous cellular processes and disease states73. Dysregulated patterns of histone acetylation have been detected in a variety of cancers with gain-of-function mutations or overexpression of HDACs74. In recent decades, a great deal of attention has focused on interventions for aberrant enzymes to achieve normalcy. The use of HDACis leads to the accumulation of acetylated histones and the reverse of dysregulated expression of critical genes enriched in cellular processes such as apoptosis or cell cycle, as well as oncogenic signaling, such as mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MAPK/ERK) and JAK/STAT pathways in CTCL75. HDACis have emerged as novel cancer therapeutic agents, especially for hematological malignancies that include CTCL (see HDACis section).

Histone methylation

In contrast to histone acetylation, histone methylation changes the compaction status of the chromatin and creates docking sites in the chromatin that can be recognized by various proteins, such as transcription initiation factors64. The methyl groups are added to lysine and arginine residues in the histone tails76. Lysines may be mono-, di-, or tri-methylated, and arginine residues may be symmetrically or asymmetrically methylated77. This varied methylation pattern leads to the activation or repression of gene expression, depending on the residue that is methylated77. Histone methylation regulates many biological functions that are crucial for normal cell differentiation, and has a central role in carcinogenesis and tumor progression77,78. Lysine-specific histone demethylase 1A (LSD1) is the first reported histone demethylase that can induce gene silencing as a subunit of the transcriptional corepressor “coREST”79. Domatinostat, a novel HDACi that also targets LSD1, induces cell cycle arrest in the G2/M phase and decreases the growth of CTCL cells80. Polycomb group proteins are the most studied histone-associated proteins in cancer. Enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2), the catalytic component of polycomb repressive complex 2, contains a catalytic SET domain that mediates histone H3 lysine 27 trimethylation to induce transcriptional silencing81. Heterozygous missense mutations resulting in the substitution of tyrosine 641 (Y641) within the SET domain of EZH2 were noted in 22% of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and this mutation conferred increased histone methylation catalytic activity, while loss-of-function mutations in EZH2 conferred a poor prognosis in myeloid malignancies and T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia82–84. EZH2 inhibitors, including tazemetostat, valemetostat, CPI-1205, and GSK2816126, induce proliferation arrest, differentiation, and eventual apoptosis of DLBCL cells over the course of several days, and have shown encouraging preliminary results in clinical trials85–88. However, NGS studies in CTCL failed to find recurrent mutations in the EZH2 gene. Our group identified overexpression of EZH2 in the CD30+ anaplastic T cells in PCALCLs, and showed that targeting EZH2 catalytic activity exerts a direct antitumor cell effect and also promotes T-cell-mediated immunity at the tumor site, which has significant implications for treating cutaneous CD30+LPDs as well as transformed MF75.

MiRNAs

MiRNAs are small, single-stranded, non-coding RNAs that are 18 to 25 nucleotides in length. They have a broad impact on gene regulation at post-transcriptional levels89,90. There are approximately 1,000 miRNA genes in the human genome with evolutionary conservation91. DNA encoding these miRNAs are located in the exons or introns of protein-coding genes (70%), encoding host messenger RNAs (mRNAs) and miRNAs simultaneously, or within intergenic areas (30%) as independent transcription units for miRNAs92. Mature miRNA products recognize specific sequences in the 3′ untranslated regions of their target mRNAs and repress gene expression by blocking mRNA translation or inducing mRNA degradation89. Interestingly, each miRNA has the potential to modulate more than one target gene, and multiple miRNAs can regulate the expression of a single target mRNA, illustrating a robust network of miRNA regulation91. MiRNAs have broad roles in various biological processes, including apoptosis, differentiation, proliferation, and metabolism. They have been increasingly recognized as being vital for normal development and may be compromised in diseases such as cancer93. Evidence has demonstrated dysregulation of miRNAs in a broad range of cancers including CTCL94,95. MiRNAs can be upregulated or downregulated in tumor tissues, although a greater proportion of miRNAs seems to be overexpressed, rather than underexpressed, in cancer94. Recent large-scale sequencing studies have gradually elucidated the global miRNA landscape in CTCL. In Table 2, we list upregulated or downregulated miRNAs found in CTCL patients or CTCL cell lines, and review their functions as either oncogenic miRNAs, tumor-suppressive miRNAs, or diagnostic/prognostic markers, according to their impact on respective target genes.

View this table:
Table 2

The functional microRNA aberrations in cutaneous T-cell lymphomas

Oncogenic miRNAs

A portion of miRNAs can act as oncogenic miRNAs (onco-miRNAs). Their overexpression inhibits the expression of tumor suppressor genes and contributes to the initiation or development of cancers. The list of onco-miRNAs in CTCL is short (Table 2), but their broad impact should be emphasized with a potential role in the clinical setting.

MiR-155 is one of the first described onco-miRNAs in the context of cancers96. Aberrant overexpression of miR-155 has been described in multiple cohorts of CTCL patients97–101. Several studies demonstrated increased miR-155 levels from skin-limited CTCL to advanced stages, suggesting that miR-155 is involved in tumor progression of MF98. The upregulation of miR-155 was induced by increased transcription of the miR-155 precursor gene, BIC (B-cell integration cluster) and highly activated transcription factor STAT5 in malignant T cells102. STAT5-mediated miR-155 expression directly represses the promoter region of the putative tumor suppressor SATB1, which in turn enhanced the expression of cytokines characteristic of T helper 2 (Th2) polarization, including IL-5 and IL-9101. The oncogenic role of miR-155 was investigated by transducing anti-miR-155 into MyLa cells103. Increased G2/M cell cycle arrest and increased apoptosis were observed in response to vorinostat and SL111 (an inducer of cell cycle arrest) treatment, as well as reduced tumor formation in xenograft models after blocking miR-155103. Transcriptome profiling before and after treatment with cobomarsen (an optimized anti-miR-155) identified miR-155 downstream targets involved in multiple survival pathways associated with CTCL oncogenesis, including JAK/STAT, MAPK/ERK, and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT) pathways99. The upregulation of miR-21 was identified in Sézary cells and was associated with poor outcomes in a subset of SS patients104. Another study demonstrated that constitutively activated STAT3 directly bound to the promoter of the precursor gene of miR-21, resulting in the upregulation of miR-21 and induction of malignant T-cell survival and apoptotic resistance of Sézary cells105. Deep-sequencing analysis identified increased miR-214 expressions in purified CD4+ T cells from SS patients, compared with that in patients with erythroderma dermatitis and healthy controls106. Further studies demonstrated that miR-214 was upregulated via transcription factor twist-related protein 1 (TWIST1), incorporating the tumor-promoting factor bromodomain-containing protein 4 (BRD4)107. Both miR-214 antagonist and BRD4 inhibitor decreased the tumor severity in CTCL mouse models107.

In addition to its oncogenic role, several miRNA signatures are involved in chemotherapy resistance, which remains a severe barrier to efficient antitumor therapies108. In CTCL, upregulated miR-122 was shown to block chemotherapy-induced apoptosis by enhancing the anti-apoptotic AKT/P53 pathway in CTCL cells109. Bortezomib treatment suppressed Myc proto-oncogene protein (MYC) that, in turn, transcriptionally induced miR-125b-5p to block drug-induced apoptosis, thereby reducing the drug sensitivity of CTCL cells to bortezomib110.

Tumor-suppressive miRNAs

Several miRNAs exhibit tumor-suppressive effects in CTCL. Their generally weak or absent expression in many subsets of CTCL patients have been closely correlated with the malignant transformation of T cells.

Decreased expression of miR-29b was found in the miRNome profile of CTCL patients compared to the profile of healthy controls15,111. Diminished miR-29b reportedly induced the accumulation of tumor-promoting protein BRD4, which bound acetylated histones throughout the genome to regulate other tumor-related genes and highly activate IL-15 signaling, which, in turn, led to aberrant expression of miR-29b15. Bortezomib was shown to increase miR-29b expression and block the IL-15/miR-29b/BDR4 loop in vitro and prevent tumor progression in murine models of CTCL15. MiR-233 expression was downregulated in both skin lesions and peripheral blood mononuclear cells from a proportion of MF patients and further decreased as the clinical stage advanced112. Diminished miR-233 was correlated with the overexpression of the oncogenic transcription factor, E2F1, and the myocyte-specific enhancer factor, 2C (MEF2C)112. These authors and others reported that miR-233 also negatively targets TOX, which encodes an essential transcription factor in CD4+ T cell development and plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of MF with aberrantly increased expression in early MF112,113. MiR-150 was identified as a tumor-suppressive miRNA in advanced CTCL, as significant downregulation was found in purified malignant cells from advanced MF and SS patients, compared with normal T cells from healthy controls114. The authors also reported that miR-150 directly targets CCR6114. The repressed expression of miR-150 upregulated C-C motif chemokine 20 (CCL20)-C-C chemokine receptor type 6 (CCR6) interaction and inhibited CTCL cell migration in vitro and in vivo114. Furthermore, the pan-HDACis, vorinostat and panobinostat, inhibited metastasis by restoring miR-150 in advanced CTCL115. Hypermethylated silencing of miR-200c in some MF patients was associated with overexpression of the Notch-ligand protein jagged-1 (JAG1) and activation of neurogenic locus notch homolog protein 1 (NOTCH1) in MF116. The lack of miR-16 expression in CTCL was implicated in overcoming cellular senescence, which is an early step in carcinogenesis117. Forced expression of miR-16 enhanced p21 expression by downregulation of the polycomb group protein BMI-1, thereby inducing cellular senescence117. Intriguingly, this process was recapitulated by vorinostat treatment in CTCL cells117.

MiRNAs as diagnostic/prognostic markers

The potential of miRNAs as biomarkers is based on their small size, relatively limited numbers, and stability in a variety of biological specimens that include tissue, blood, and stool118,119. A number of studies have tried to evaluate the potential of miRNAs as diagnostic or prognostic markers in CTCL. However, only a few studies have involved large patient cohorts, precisely defined patient populations, and independent validation cohorts120–122. So far, none of these biomarkers has met the key requirements for adoption in the clinical setting.

In disease diagnosis, various combinations of 3 to 5 miRNAs, the so-called “miRNA classifiers”, were investigated as novel diagnostic markers. Ralfkiaer et al.120 reported that upregulated miR-155 and 2 dysregulated miRNAs (miR-203 and miR-205) could distinguish early MF patients with subtle histopathological changes from benign inflammatory disease donors with a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 97% in their cohort. This result was validated in another cohort of 30 CTCL patients with similar desirable results123. Dusílková et al.124 established a diagnostic plasma miRNA classifier based on 5 miRNAs by adding reductions of miR-22/miR-223 to the miR-155/miR-203/miR-205 classifier. The authors reported increased sensitivity (94%) and specificity (100%) in a small cohort124. In a more recent study involving 154 CTCL patients, a set of 5 miRNAs (miR-200b, miR-203, miR130b, miR-142-3p, and miR-155) successfully classified CTCL subtypes including early stage MF, advanced stage MF, and other subtypes of CTCL with a sensitivity of 93%, 96%, and 97.5%, respectively, and a specificity of 80%121. Erythrodermic MF and SS are difficult to clinically distinguish because of their similar clinical and histological features125. Rittig et al.126 retrospectively compared the miRNA expression profiles between these two subtypes and found 27 differentially expressed miRNAs. Further screening of miRNA collections as diagnostic classifiers requires validation in prospective cohorts. A group of miRNAs (miR-29b, miR-155, miR-27b, miR-93, and miR-92a) showed differential expression between PCALCL lesions and tumor-stage MF in a small proportion of patients111. Whether these miRNAs can serve as diagnostic markers to classify PCALCL and MF remains to be determined in studies with larger cohorts.

The prognostic value of miRNA signatures has been extensively investigated in the past decade. MiR-21 upregulation has been associated with unfavorable outcomes in MF patients104. Maj et al.127 found that let-7a was downregulated in advanced stages of MF. The level of let-7a expression was an independent unfavorable prognostic indicator, based on data of univariate survival analysis and a multivariate Cox regression model127. MiR-155 and miR-200b were associated with 5-year overall survival (OS) in a CTCL cohort, outperforming the Ki-67 prognostic mediator121. When combined with Ki-67, miRNA expression generated a prognostic classifier to predict 5-year OS with 77% sensitivity and 81.1% specificity121. A classifier based on 3 miRNAs (miR-106b-5p, miR-148a-3p, and miR338-3p) distinguished the high risk group in a cohort of 154 patients with early stage MF122.

Chromatin-remodeling complex

DNA is organized as chromatin, which maintains the dynamic balance between the compact structure and open state60. Alteration of chromatin, as an early but complex step in the control of genome-wide gene expression, requires multiple regulatory elements, including histone modifications and chromatin-remodeling complexes (i.e., remodelers)64,128. Remodelers utilize ATP-hydrolytic energy to move, eject, and restructure the packed or unpacked DNA in nucleosomes. The remodelers participate in DNA-template processes, including replication, transcription, and repair128. Concerning transcriptional regulation, remodelers can physically interact with other transcription factors to induce transcriptional activation or repression. These interactions are crucial in multiple cancers, including CTCL12. Remodelers can be classified into 4 distinct families based on their compositions: switching defective/sucrose nonfermenting (SWI/SNF), imitation switch (ISWI), chromodomain-helicase DNA-binding protein (CHD), and inositol requiring 80 (INO80)128. The SWI/SNF complex is one of the most well-studied human remodelers characteristic of tumor suppressive effects in multiple cancer types129. SNF5 is one of the main central subunits of the SWI/SNF complex and is mutated in malignancies129. SNF5 deficiency mediates SATB1 downregulation via physical binding and induces apoptosis resistance in Sézary cells101. SATB1 is a nuclear matrix-associated protein that acts as a T-cell lineage-specific chromatin organizer130. SATB1 provides a docking platform for a variety of chromatin-remodeling factors, folds chromatin into loops, and binds to specific DNA elements, thereby regulating the transcription of various genes associated with T-cell development and differentiation130. Aberrant SATB1 expression has been identified in multiple subtypes of CTCLs, with context-dependent functions. The loss of SATB1 expression was first identified in malignant SS cells versus normal CD4+ T cells. The expression was functionally correlated with resistance to apoptosis through the regulation of FASL/CD95L transcription131. Multiple groups have identified the attenuation of SATB1 in MF and its relationship to disease progression and Th2 polarization, supporting the tumor-suppressive function of SATB1 in CTCLs101,132,133. In contrast, SATB1 overexpression associated with promoter demethylation was demonstrated in the CD30+ anaplastic T cells in a portion of CD30+LPDs, and was shown to promote CD30+ cell proliferation by inhibiting G1 cell cycle arrest, suggesting a complicated and context-dependent role of SATB1 in malignant T cells52,75. The role of chromatin remodelers in CTCL remains unclear and further in-depth investigations are required.

Targeting epigenetic modifications in CTCL treatments

DNMT inhibitors

The major tumor-specific DNA methylation profile of CTCL features the significant hypermethylation of tumor suppressor genes. This profile information has facilitated the development of novel therapeutic strategies. DNMT inhibitors that induce hypomethylation, azacitidine, and decitabine, represent the first class of epigenetic-modulating drugs to be approved by the FDA for hematological malignancies18,134. Abundant research data have demonstrated that DNA demethylating agents can de-repress methylation-silenced genes in CTCL cell lines14,37. Preclinical studies have demonstrated the promising efficacy of these drugs in advanced CTCL135,136. An ongoing phase I trial of decitabine plus pembrolizumab for CTCL and PTCL are of interest (NCT03240211).

In addition, methotrexate (MTX), an antimetabolite that blocks the action of dihydrofolate reductase and is widely used in treating CTCL, was recently proposed as an epigenetic regulator capable of blocking the synthesis of methionine, thereby reducing the level of S-adenosylmethionine, the major methyl group donor of DNMTs137. MTX disturbs the methylation of the FAS promoter in malignant lymphocytes38. MTX and its more potent analog pralatrexate may be valuable as novel agents to correct aberrant DNA methylation in CTCL137.

HDACis

Vorinostat, a pan-HDACi, was the first to be approved by the FDA in 2006 for the treatment of R/R CTCL patients20. The selective HDACi, romidepsin, which targets HDAC1 and 2, was approved for CTCL and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) patients in 2009 (Table 3)77,138. Vorinostat and romidepsin have achieved clinical efficacies of 24.2% to 34.0% in terms of overall response rate (ORR). Both drugs are well tolerated with mild to modest side effects, including thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and gastrointestinal disturbance139–141. Belinostat was approved for R/R PTCL and CTCL in 2015, based on its promising efficacy and manageable safety profile142,143. More recently, chidamide, a novel benzamide class of selective HDACi that inhibits HDAC1, HDAC2, HDAC3, and HDAC10, was approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) (China) for the treatment of R/R PTCL and CTCL144. A 28% ORR and 14% complete remission rate were reported for chidamide144.

View this table:
Table 3

Histone deacetylase inhibitors approved or in ongoing clinical trials in cutaneous T-cell lymphomas

Other promising HDACis are being evaluated in ongoing clinical trials for advanced CTCL (Table 3). In addition to its established role in multiple myeloma, panobinostat displayed an ORR of 17.3% in a phase II trial for R/R CTCL patients145,146. SHP-141 gel, an HDACi agent used for the topical treatment of early stage skin-limited CTCL, has notably also demonstrated a skin-restricted response in stage IA–IB CTCL patients with no systemic toxicity in phase I and II trials147,148.

New multi-targeting HDACis against multiple biological targets has been developed in recent years. A dual HDAC/PI3K inhibitor, CUDC-907, was evaluated in a phase I clinical trial for R/R lymphoma and multiple myeloma149. It showed some efficacy in patients with DLBCL149. However, only 2 T-cell lymphoma patients were recruited, and they showed little response to this compound149.

In addition, combination therapies of HDACi and conventional therapy have been widely investigated in CTCL. It is likely that many epigenetic drugs offer synergistic benefits with conventional chemotherapies. This strategy of combination therapy may increase therapeutic efficacy and reduce the likelihood of drug resistance. Several case reports have proposed stronger therapeutic benefits with good tolerance when using HDACis combined with other systemic treatments such as interferon-gamma150,151. Vorinostat combined with bexarotene for refractory CTCL has been identified as the maximum tolerated dose in a phase I trial, and clinical efficacy of this combination therapy is anticipated152. A recent phase I study on R/R CTCL subjects showed promising clinical safety and efficacy of the combined regimen of romidepsin plus liposomal doxorubicin153. These studies may facilitate future combination therapies, demonstrating the added benefit of epigenetic agents and conventional medicines.

Targeting miRNAs

The miRNAs have demonstrated important roles in CTCL pathogenesis and disease progression thus promoting the idea that they are potentially attractive therapeutic targets. Two treatment approaches are currently used in miRNA-targeted therapies in CTCLs. In one approach, the upregulation of onco-miRNAs is inhibited by an oligonucleotide antagonist. In the other approach, the dysregulated miRNA expression is reversed by existing drugs. Cobomarsen, an oligonucleotide inhibitor of miR-155, was shown to regulate multiple survival pathways and reduce the proliferation and survival of CTCL cells99. Good tolerance and clinical activity of cobomarsen were reported in preliminary data from a phase II trial for patients with MF stages I–III (NCT02580552). The trial is ongoing and the final safety and efficacy data are anticipated154. Other than the antisense oligonucleotides, reversal of miR-214 by a BRD4 inhibitor, restoration of miR-29b by bortezomib, as well as upregulation of miR-16 and miR-150 by vorinostat have been reported15,107,115,117. The findings highlight the potential of miRNA-targeted treatment as a novel supplement to improve the therapeutic sensitivity of current antitumor agents for R/R CTCL.

Perspectives and conclusions

Crosstalk between epigenetic regulators and their therapeutic potentials

In the past decade, an improved understanding of epigenetic regulatory mechanisms, particularly cancer-specific epigenetic alterations, has radically altered views concerning the understanding and treatment of CTCL. Epigenetic alterations in DNA methylation, histone modification, miRNAs, and chromatin-remodeling complexes, are involved in the regulation of apoptotic resistance, cell cycle arrest, and triggering cellular pathways related to the development of CTCL. These events facilitate the neoplastic transformation in CTCL. Notably, crosstalk within the epigenetic network has been demonstrated in both normal and malignant cells155. These epigenetic modifiers function in an orchestrated manner to fine-tune a complex regulatory network with important crosstalk between them. For example, DNA methylation status is an epigenetic checkpoint that silences the expression of tumor suppressor miR-220c in MF tumor-stage samples and CTCL cell lines116. MiR-155 deficiency reportedly increases the sensitivity to vorinostat in CTCL cells, with reversal of aberrant miR-16 expression by vorinostat in vitro103,117. These interactions add another layer of complexity to the epigenetic regulation of CTCL. This raises the more fundamental issue of rationally designed combination epigenetic therapies, because the efficacy of epigenetic-based monotherapies in CTCL is limited139,140. Emerging therapeutic strategies that take advantage of crosstalk between different epigenetic mechanisms have been developed, including multi-compound drugs156. Preclinical studies revealed synergistic epigenetic modulatory effects of romidepsin and azacitidine on CTCL157. Hydralazine/valproate (TRANSKRIP™), a multi-compound agent packaging an HDACi valproate together with the DNMT inhibitor hydralazine, was well tolerated and efficient, with an ORR of 71% reported in a phase II study for R/R CTCL158. Clinical trials regarding the combined application of “epi-drugs” in CTCL are expected.

Discovering predictive biomarkers for epi-drug responses

In part due to the heterogeneity of the genome/transcriptome/epigenome of individual patients, the response rates of current single agent epigenetic drugs are relatively low. Precise predictive indicators for therapeutic responses are a recognized unmet need140. Downregulated expression of the BCL11B gene159, overexpression of LAIR2160, or recurrent genetic alterations (RAD23B copy number loss and STAT3 Y640F variant161) have been reported as potential indicators of HDACi resistance in laboratory investigations. Using the assay for transposase-accessible chromatin sequencing (ATAC-seq) that can map the open chromatin sites throughout the genome, a seminal study indicated that only patients who responded well to HDACis showed a gain of chromatin accessibility in CTCL cells after treatment162,163. The utilization of multiple NGS technologies is required to reveal the multi-omics features that are interfered by epigenetic drugs. Drug sensitivity tests and drug screenings based on the individual genome/epigenome maps in larger cohorts are needed to identify unified and precise predictive biomarkers to assist drug selection in advanced CTCL patients.

Tumor microenvironment and epigenetic modifiers

Epigenetic plasticity interferes with the progress of cancer cell development and also reengineers the tumor microenvironment164,165. Immune cells that infiltrate around malignant T cells in the skin are also vulnerable to epigenetic modifiers. A recent study showed that HDACi-induced chromatin accessibility was greater in host T cells than in CTCL cells, suggesting an essential role of host immune cells in epigenetic therapy162. EZH2 and DNMT inhibitors play an essential role in enhancing host immunity against cancer in preclinical models166,167. Our recent study showed that EZH2 inhibitors derepressed C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 10 (CXCL10) and facilitated the recruitment of effector CD4+ and CD8+ T cells into the tumor microenvironment via a CXCL10/C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 3 (CXCR3) interaction in PCALCL75. However, the complex interplay between malignant T cells and tumor-infiltrating immune cells in CTCL and their implications for epigenetic modifications remains largely unknown and merits exploration in the future.

Discovering new epigenetic modifications in CTCL

Several epigenetic pathways with prominent biological functions have emerged and are of great interest in the field of oncology. These include long non-coding RNA (lncRNA), N6-methyladenine (m6A), and 5-methylcytosine (m5C) modification of RNA168–170. Transcriptome sequencing has revealed the dysregulation of several lncRNAs in CTCL171. However, their functions and clinical implications remain to be elucidated171. Exploring these newly defined epigenetic pathways in CTCL may help to replenish their specific epigenome spectrum and shed light on the molecular pathogenesis of this disease.

In conclusion, we are entering a very exciting era of epigenetics in CTCL, although our understanding of epigenome alterations in CTCL is at the very early stages. Improved understanding of epigenetic plasticity could advance diagnostic strategies and yield new therapeutic regimens that exploit the vulnerabilities of transformed malignant T cells.

Grant support

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 81872214 and 81922058).

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest statement No potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.

  • Received May 6, 2020.
  • Accepted July 30, 2020.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

References

  1. 1.↵
    2. Willemze R,
    3. Cerroni L,
    4. Kempf W,
    5. Berti E,
    6. Facchetti F,
    7. Swerdlow SH, et al.
    The 2018 update of the WHO-EORTC classification for primary cutaneous lymphomas. Blood. 2019; 133: 1703–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    2. Agar NS,
    3. Wedgeworth E,
    4. Crichton S,
    5. Mitchell TJ,
    6. Cox M,
    7. Ferreira S, et al.
    Survival outcomes and prognostic factors in mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome: validation of the revised International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer staging proposal. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 4730–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    2. Kempf W,
    3. Pfaltz K,
    4. Vermeer MH,
    5. Cozzio A,
    6. Ortiz-Romero PL,
    7. Bagot M, et al.
    EORTC, ISCL, and USCLC consensus recommendations for the treatment of primary cutaneous CD30-positive lymphoproliferative disorders: lymphomatoid papulosis and primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011; 118: 4024–35.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    2. Gilson D,
    3. Whittaker SJ,
    4. Child FJ,
    5. Scarisbrick JJ,
    6. Illidge TM,
    7. Parry EJ, et al.
    British association of dermatologists and U.K. Cutaneous lymphoma group guidelines for the management of primary cutaneous lymphomas 2018. Br J Dermatol. 2019; 180: 496–526.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    2. Willemze R,
    3. Hodak E,
    4. Zinzani PL,
    5. Specht L,
    6. Ladetto M.
    Primary cutaneous lymphomas: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2018; 29: iv30–40.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    2. Scarisbrick JJ,
    3. Prince HM,
    4. Vermeer MH,
    5. Quaglino P,
    6. Horwitz S,
    7. Porcu P, et al.
    Cutaneous Lymphoma International Consortium study of outcome in advanced stages of mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome: effect of specific prognostic markers on survival and development of a prognostic model. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 3766–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    2. Quaglino P,
    3. Maule M,
    4. Prince HM,
    5. Porcu P,
    6. Horwitz S,
    7. Duvic M, et al.
    Global patterns of care in advanced stage mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome: a multicenter retrospective follow-up study from the Cutaneous Lymphoma International Consortium. Ann Oncol. 2019; 30: 494.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    2. Ungewickell A,
    3. Bhaduri A,
    4. Rios E,
    5. Reuter J,
    6. Lee CS,
    7. Mah A, et al.
    Genomic analysis of mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome identifies recurrent alterations in TNFR2. Nat Genet. 2015; 47: 1056–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    2. Park J,
    3. Yang J,
    4. Wenzel AT,
    5. Ramachandran A,
    6. Lee WJ,
    7. Daniels JC, et al.
    Genomic analysis of 220 CTCLs identifies a novel recurrent gain-of-function alteration in RLTPR (p.Q575E). Blood. 2017; 130: 1430–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    2. Vaque JP,
    3. Gomez-Lopez G,
    4. Monsalvez V,
    5. Varela I,
    6. Martinez N,
    7. Perez C, et al.
    PLCG1 mutations in cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. Blood. 2014; 123: 2034–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    2. Allis CD,
    3. Jenuwein T.
    The molecular hallmarks of epigenetic control. Nat Rev Genet. 2016; 17: 487–500.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    2. Taby R,
    3. Issa JP.
    Cancer epigenetics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010; 60: 376–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    2. Kelly AD,
    3. Issa JJ.
    The promise of epigenetic therapy: reprogramming the cancer epigenome. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2017; 42: 68–77.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    2. van Doorn R,
    3. Zoutman WH,
    4. Dijkman R,
    5. de Menezes RX,
    6. Commandeur S,
    7. Mulder AA, et al.
    Epigenetic profiling of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: promoter hypermethylation of multiple tumor suppressor genes including BCL7a, PTPRG, and p73. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 3886–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    2. Kohnken R,
    3. Wen J,
    4. Mundy-Bosse B,
    5. McConnell K,
    6. Keiter A,
    7. Grinshpun L, et al.
    Diminished microRNA-29b level is associated with BRD4-mediated activation of oncogenes in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2018; 131: 771–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.
    2. Li Y,
    3. Wang J,
    4. Yu M,
    5. Wang Y,
    6. Zhang H,
    7. Yin J, et al.
    SNF5 deficiency induces apoptosis resistance by repressing SATB1 expression in Sézary syndrome. Leuk Lymphoma. 2018; 59: 2405–13.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    2. Jones CL,
    3. Wain EM,
    4. Chu CC,
    5. Tosi I,
    6. Foster R,
    7. McKenzie RC, et al.
    Downregulation of Fas gene expression in Sézary syndrome is associated with promoter hypermethylation. J Invest Dermatol. 2010; 130: 1116–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    2. Kaminskas E,
    3. Farrell A,
    4. Abraham S,
    5. Baird A,
    6. Hsieh L-S,
    7. Lee S-L, et al.
    Approval summary: azacitidine for treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2005; 11: 3604–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    2. Kantarjian HM,
    3. Thomas XG,
    4. Dmoszynska A,
    5. Wierzbowska A,
    6. Mazur G,
    7. Mayer J, et al.
    Multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial of decitabine versus patient choice, with physician advice, of either supportive care or low-dose cytarabine for the treatment of older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 2670–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    2. Mann BS,
    3. Johnson JR,
    4. Cohen MH,
    5. Justice R,
    6. Pazdur R.
    FDA approval summary: vorinostat for treatment of advanced primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Oncologist. 2007; 12: 1247–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    2. Piekarz RL,
    3. Frye R,
    4. Turner M,
    5. Wright JJ,
    6. Allen SL,
    7. Kirschbaum MH, et al.
    Phase II multi-institutional trial of the histone deacetylase inhibitor romidepsin as monotherapy for patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 5410–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    2. Greger V,
    3. Passarge E,
    4. Höpping W,
    5. Messmer E,
    6. Horsthemke B.
    Epigenetic changes may contribute to the formation and spontaneous regression of retinoblastoma. Hum Genet. 1989; 83: 155–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    2. Feinberg AP,
    3. Vogelstein B.
    Hypomethylation distinguishes genes of some human cancers from their normal counterparts. Nature. 1983; 301: 89–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    2. Herman JG.
    Hypermethylation of tumor suppressor genes in cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 1999; 9: 359–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.
    2. Bird A.
    DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory. Genes Dev. 2002; 16: 6–21.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  26. 26.
    2. Jones PA,
    3. Laird PW.
    Cancer-epigenetics comes of age. Nat Genet. 1999; 21: 163–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    2. Jones PA,
    3. Baylin SB.
    The fundamental role of epigenetic events in cancer. Nat Rev Genet. 2002; 3: 415–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    2. Lyko F.
    The DNA methyltransferase family: a versatile toolkit for epigenetic regulation. Nat Rev Genet. 2018; 19: 81–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    2. Okano M,
    3. Bell DW,
    4. Haber DA,
    5. Li E.
    DNA methyltransferases Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b are essential for de novo methylation and mammalian development. Cell. 1999; 99: 247–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    2. Sen GL,
    3. Reuter JA,
    4. Webster DE,
    5. Zhu L,
    6. Khavari PA.
    DNMT1 maintains progenitor function in self-renewing somatic tissue. Nature. 2010; 463: 563–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    2. Weber M,
    3. Hellmann I,
    4. Stadler MB,
    5. Ramos L,
    6. Paabo S,
    7. Rebhan M, et al.
    Distribution, silencing potential and evolutionary impact of promoter DNA methylation in the human genome. Nat Genet. 2007; 39: 457–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.
    2. Lander ES,
    3. Linton LM,
    4. Birren B,
    5. Nusbaum C,
    6. Zody MC,
    7. Baldwin J, et al.
    Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature. 2001; 409: 860–921.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.
    2. Larsen F,
    3. Gundersen G,
    4. Lopez R,
    5. Prydz H.
    Cpg islands as gene markers in the human genome. Genomics. 1992; 13: 1095–107.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    2. Bird A,
    3. Taggart M,
    4. Frommer M,
    5. Miller OJ,
    6. Macleod D.
    A fraction of the mouse genome that is derived from islands of nonmethylated, CpG-rich DNA. Cell. 1985; 40: 91–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    2. Herman JG,
    3. Baylin SB.
    Gene silencing in cancer in association with promoter hypermethylation. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349: 2042–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    2. Navas IC,
    3. Ortiz-Romero PL,
    4. Villuendas R,
    5. Martinez P,
    6. Garcia C,
    7. Gomez E, et al.
    p16(INK4A) gene alterations are frequent in lesions of mycosis fungoides. Am J Pathol. 2000; 156: 1565–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    2. Ferrara G,
    3. Pancione M,
    4. Votino C,
    5. Quaglino P,
    6. Tomasini C,
    7. Santucci M, et al.
    A specific DNA methylation profile correlates with a high risk of disease progression in stage I classical (Alibert-Bazin type) mycosis fungoides. Br J Dermatol. 2014; 170: 1266–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    2. Wu J,
    3. Wood GS.
    Reduction of Fas/CD95 promoter methylation, upregulation of Fas protein, and enhancement of sensitivity to apoptosis in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Arch Dermatol. 2011; 147: 443–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    2. Novelli M,
    3. Fava P,
    4. Sarda C,
    5. Ponti R,
    6. Osella-Abate S,
    7. Savoia P, et al.
    Blood flow cytometry in Sézary syndrome: new insights on prognostic relevance and immunophenotypic changes during follow-up. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015; 143: 57–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    2. Scarisbrick JJ,
    3. Mitchell TJ,
    4. Calonje E,
    5. Orchard G,
    6. Russell-Jones R,
    7. Whittaker SJ.
    Microsatellite instability is associated with hypermethylation of the hMLH1 gene and reduced gene expression in mycosis fungoides. J Invest Dermatol. 2003; 121: 894–901.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    2. Witkiewicz A,
    3. Raghunath P,
    4. Wasik A,
    5. Junkins-Hopkins JM,
    6. Jones D,
    7. Zhang Q, et al.
    Loss of SHP-1 tyrosine phosphatase expression correlates with the advanced stages of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Hum Pathol. 2007; 38: 462–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    2. Zhang Q,
    3. Raghunath PN,
    4. Vonderheid E,
    5. Odum N,
    6. Wasik MA.
    Lack of phosphotyrosine phosphatase SHP-1 expression in malignant T-cell lymphoma cells results from methylation of the SHP-1 promoter. Am J Pathol. 2000; 157: 1137–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.
    2. Sommer VH,
    3. Clemmensen OJ,
    4. Nielsen O,
    5. Wasik M,
    6. Lovato P,
    7. Brender C, et al.
    In vivo activation of STAT3 in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Evidence for an antiapoptotic function of STAT3. Leukemia. 2004; 18: 1288–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    2. Zhang Q,
    3. Wang HY,
    4. Marzec M,
    5. Raghunath PN,
    6. Nagasawa T,
    7. Wasik MA.
    STAT3- and DNA methyltransferase 1-mediated epigenetic silencing of SHP-1 tyrosine phosphatase tumor suppressor gene in malignant T lymphocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102: 6948–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    2. Ni X,
    3. Zhang C,
    4. Talpur R,
    5. Duvic M.
    Resistance to activation-induced cell death and bystander cytotoxicity via the Fas/Fas ligand pathway are implicated in the pathogenesis of cutaneous T cell lymphomas. J Invest Dermatol. 2005; 124: 741–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    2. Lissy NA,
    3. Davis PK,
    4. Irwin M,
    5. Kaelin WG,
    6. Dowdy SF.
    A common E2f-1 and p73 pathway mediates cell death induced by TCR activation. Nature. 2000; 407: 642–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    2. van Doorn R,
    3. Slieker RC,
    4. Boonk SE,
    5. Zoutman WH,
    6. Goeman JJ,
    7. Bagot M, et al.
    Epigenomic analysis of Sézary syndrome defines patterns of aberrant DNA methylation and identifies diagnostic markers. J Invest Dermatol. 2016; 136: 1876–84.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    2. Su MW,
    3. Dorocicz I,
    4. Dragowska WH,
    5. Ho V,
    6. Li G,
    7. Voss N, et al.
    Aberrant expression of T-plastin in Sézary cells. Cancer Res. 2003; 63: 7122–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    2. Jones CL,
    3. Ferreira S,
    4. McKenzie RC,
    5. Tosi I,
    6. Caesar JA,
    7. Bagot M, et al.
    Regulation of T-plastin expression by promoter hypomethylation in primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2012; 132: 2042–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    2. Wong HK,
    3. Gibson H,
    4. Hake T,
    5. Geyer S,
    6. Frederickson J,
    7. Marcucci G, et al.
    Promoter-specific hypomethylation is associated with overexpression of PLS3, GATA6, and TWIST1 in the Sézary syndrome. J Invest Dermatol. 2015; 135: 2084–92.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    2. Kamijo H,
    3. Miyagaki T,
    4. Shishido-Takahashi N,
    5. Nakajima R,
    6. Oka T,
    7. Suga H, et al.
    Aberrant CD137 ligand expression induced by GATA6 overexpression promotes tumor progression in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2018; 132: 1922–35.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Gu X,
    4. Zhang G,
    5. Wang L,
    6. Wang T,
    7. Zhao Y, et al.
    SATB1 overexpression promotes malignant T-cell proliferation in cutaneous CD30+ lymphoproliferative disease by repressing p21. Blood. 2014; 123: 3452–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    2. Jia Q,
    3. Wu W,
    4. Wang Y,
    5. Alexander PB,
    6. Sun C,
    7. Gong Z, et al.
    Local mutational diversity drives intratumoral immune heterogeneity in non-small cell lung cancer. Nat Commun. 2018; 9: 5361.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    2. Tahiliani M,
    3. Koh KP,
    4. Shen Y,
    5. Pastor WA,
    6. Bandukwala H,
    7. Brudno Y, et al.
    Conversion of 5-methylcytosine to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in mammalian DNA by MLL partner TET1. Science. 2009; 324: 930–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    2. Kriaucionis S,
    3. Heintz N.
    The nuclear DNA base 5-hydroxymethylcytosine is present in Purkinje neurons and the brain. Science. 2009; 324: 929–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    2. Rasmussen KD,
    3. Helin K.
    Role of TET enzymes in DNA methylation, development, and cancer. Genes Dev. 2016; 30: 733–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. 57.↵
    2. Qiu L,
    3. Liu F,
    4. Yi S,
    5. Li X,
    6. Liu X,
    7. Xiao C, et al.
    Loss of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine is an epigenetic biomarker in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2018; 138: 2388–97.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    2. De Souza A,
    3. Tinguely M,
    4. Pfaltz M,
    5. Burghart DR,
    6. Kempf W.
    Loss of expression of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in CD30-positive cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders. J Cutan Pathol. 2014; 41: 901–6.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    2. da Silva Almeida AC,
    3. Abate F,
    4. Khiabanian H,
    5. Martinez-Escala E,
    6. Guitart J,
    7. Tensen CP, et al.
    The mutational landscape of cutaneous T cell lymphoma and Sézary syndrome. Nat Genet. 2015; 47: 1465–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    2. Khorasanizadeh S.
    The nucleosome: from genomic organization to genomic regulation. Cell. 2004; 116: 259–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    2. Richmond TJ,
    3. Davey CA.
    The structure of DNA in the nucleosome core. Nature. 2003; 423: 145–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    2. Jenuwein T,
    3. Allis CD.
    Translating the histone code. Science. 2001; 293: 1074–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    2. Pradeepa MM,
    3. Grimes GR,
    4. Kumar Y,
    5. Olley G,
    6. Taylor GC,
    7. Schneider R, et al.
    Histone H3 globular domain acetylation identifies a new class of enhancers. Nat Genet. 2016; 48: 681–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    2. Kouzarides T.
    Chromatin modifications and their function. Cell. 2007; 128: 693–705.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    2. Kebede AF,
    3. Schneider R,
    4. Daujat S.
    Novel types and sites of histone modifications emerge as players in the transcriptional regulation contest. FEBS J. 2015; 282: 1658–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    2. Strahl BD,
    3. Allis CD.
    The language of covalent histone modifications. Nature. 2000; 403: 41–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    2. Tessarz P,
    3. Kouzarides T.
    Histone core modifications regulating nucleosome structure and dynamics. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2014; 15: 703–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    2. Brunmeir R,
    3. Xu F.
    Functional regulation of PPARs through post-translational modifications. Int J Mol Sci. 2018; 19: 1738.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    2. Park PJ.
    ChIP-seq: advantages and challenges of a maturing technology. Nat Rev Genet. 2009; 10: 669–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    2. Struhl K.
    Histone acetylation and transcriptional regulatory mechanisms. Genes Dev. 1998; 12: 599–606.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  71. 71.↵
    2. Ashburner BP,
    3. Westerheide SD,
    4. Baldwin AS, Jr..
    The p65 (RelA) subunit of NF-kappaB interacts with the histone deacetylase (HDAC) corepressors HDAC1 and HDAC2 to negatively regulate gene expression. Mol Cell Biol. 2001; 21: 7065–77.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. 72.↵
    2. Ikenoue T,
    3. Inoki K,
    4. Zhao B,
    5. Guan KL.
    PTEN acetylation modulates its interaction with PDZ domain. Cancer Res. 2008; 68: 6908–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. 73.↵
    2. Lee DY,
    3. Hayes JJ,
    4. Pruss D,
    5. Wolffe AP.
    A positive role for histone acetylation in transcription factor access to nucleosomal DNA. Cell. 1993; 72: 73–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    2. Barneda-Zahonero B,
    3. Parra M.
    Histone deacetylases and cancer. Mol Oncol. 2012; 6: 579–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    2. Yi S,
    3. Sun J,
    4. Qiu L,
    5. Fu W,
    6. Wang A,
    7. Liu X, et al.
    Dual role of EZH2 in cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma: promoting tumor cell survival and regulating tumor microenvironment. J Invest Dermatol. 2018; 138: 1126–36.
    OpenUrl
  76. 76.↵
    2. Byvoet P,
    3. Shepherd GR,
    4. Hardin JM,
    5. Noland BJ.
    The distribution and turnover of labeled methyl groups in histone fractions of cultured mammalian cells. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1972; 148: 558–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    2. Greer EL,
    3. Shi Y.
    Histone methylation: a dynamic mark in health, disease and inheritance. Nat Rev Genet. 2012; 13: 343–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    2. Esteller M.
    Epigenetics in cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 1148–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    2. Shi Y,
    3. Lan F,
    4. Matson C,
    5. Mulligan P,
    6. Whetstine JR,
    7. Cole PA, et al.
    Histone demethylation mediated by the nuclear amine oxidase homolog LSD1. Cell. 2004; 119: 941–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    2. Wobser M,
    3. Weber A,
    4. Glunz A,
    5. Tauch S,
    6. Seitz K,
    7. Butelmann T, et al.
    Elucidating the mechanism of action of domatinostat (4SC-202) in cutaneous T cell lymphoma cells. J Hematol Oncol. 2019; 12: 30.
    OpenUrl
  81. 81.↵
    2. Comet I,
    3. Riising EM,
    4. Leblanc B,
    5. Helin K.
    Maintaining cell identity: PRC2-mediated regulation of transcription and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016; 16: 803–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    2. Ernst T,
    3. Chase AJ,
    4. Score J,
    5. Hidalgo-Curtis CE,
    6. Bryant C,
    7. Jones AV, et al.
    Inactivating mutations of the histone methyltransferase gene EZH2 in myeloid disorders. Nat Genet. 2010; 42: 722–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.
    2. Aries IM,
    3. Bodaar K,
    4. Karim SA,
    5. Chonghaile TN,
    6. Hinze L,
    7. Burns MA, et al.
    PRC2 loss induces chemoresistance by repressing apoptosis in T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Exp Med. 2018; 215: 3094–114.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.↵
    2. McCabe MT,
    3. Ott HM,
    4. Ganji G,
    5. Korenchuk S,
    6. Thompson C,
    7. Van Aller GS, et al.
    EZH2 inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for lymphoma with EZH2-activating mutations. Nature. 2012; 492: 108–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    2. Italiano A,
    3. Soria JC,
    4. Toulmonde M,
    5. Michot JM,
    6. Lucchesi C,
    7. Varga A, et al.
    Tazemetostat, an EZH2 inhibitor, in relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and advanced solid tumours: a first-in-human, open-label, phase 1 study. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19: 649–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. 86.
    2. Yap TA,
    3. Winter JN,
    4. Giulino-Roth L,
    5. Longley J,
    6. Lopez J,
    7. Michot JM, et al.
    Phase I study of the novel enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) inhibitor GSK2816126 in patients with advanced hematologic and solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2019; 25: 7331–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  87. 87.
    2. Brach D,
    3. Johnston-Blackwell D,
    4. Drew A,
    5. Lingaraj T,
    6. Motwani V,
    7. Warholic NM, et al.
    EZH2 inhibition by Tazemetostat results in altered dependency on B-cell activation signaling in DLBCL. Mol Cancer Ther. 2017; 16: 2586–97.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. 88.↵
    2. Yamagishi M,
    3. Hori M,
    4. Fujikawa D,
    5. Ohsugi T,
    6. Honma D,
    7. Adachi N, et al.
    Targeting excessive EZH1 and EZH2 activities for abnormal histone methylation and transcription network in malignant lymphomas. Cell Rep. 2019; 29: 2321–37.e7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. 89.↵
    2. Bartel DP.
    MicroRNAs: genomics, biogenesis, mechanism, and function. Cell. 2004; 116: 281–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    2. Lai EC.
    microRNAs: runts of the genome assert themselves. Curr Biol. 2003; 13: R925–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    2. Chen CZ.
    MicroRNAs as oncogenes and tumor suppressors. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353: 1768–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.↵
    2. Rodriguez A,
    3. Griffiths-Jones S,
    4. Ashurst JL,
    5. Bradley A.
    Identification of mammalian microRNA host genes and transcription units. Genome Res. 2004; 14: 1902–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  93. 93.↵
    2. Hammond SM,
    3. Bernstein E,
    4. Beach D,
    5. Hannon GJ.
    An RNA-directed nuclease mediates post-transcriptional gene silencing in Drosophila cells. Nature. 2000; 404: 293–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.↵
    2. Garzon R,
    3. Calin GA,
    4. Croce CM.
    MicroRNAs in cancer. Annu Rev Med. 2009; 60: 167–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. 95.↵
    2. Kohnken R,
    3. Mishra A.
    MicroRNAs in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: the future of therapy. J Invest Dermatol. 2019; 139: 528–34.
    OpenUrl
  96. 96.↵
    2. Metzler M,
    3. Wilda M,
    4. Busch K,
    5. Viehmann S,
    6. Borkhardt A.
    High expression of precursor microRNA-155/BIC RNA in children with Burkitt lymphoma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2004; 39: 167–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    2. Sandoval J,
    3. Diaz-Lagares A,
    4. Salgado R,
    5. Servitje O,
    6. Climent F,
    7. Ortiz-Romero PL, et al.
    MicroRNA expression profiling and DNA methylation signature for deregulated microRNA in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2015; 135: 1128–37.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  98. 98.↵
    2. Moyal L,
    3. Barzilai A,
    4. Gorovitz B,
    5. Hirshberg A,
    6. Amariglio N,
    7. Jacob-Hirsch J, et al.
    Mir-155 is involved in tumor progression of mycosis fungoides. Exp Dermatol. 2013; 22: 431–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  99. 99.↵
    2. Seto AG,
    3. Beatty X,
    4. Lynch JM,
    5. Hermreck M,
    6. Tetzlaff M,
    7. Duvic M, et al.
    Cobomarsen, an oligonucleotide inhibitor of miR-155, co-ordinately regulates multiple survival pathways to reduce cellular proliferation and survival in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2018; 183: 428–44.
    OpenUrl
  100. 100.
    2. Fava P,
    3. Bergallo M,
    4. Astrua C,
    5. Brizio M,
    6. Galliano I,
    7. Montanari P, et al.
    miR-155 expression in primary cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCL). J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017; 31: e27–9.
    OpenUrl
  101. 101.↵
    2. Fredholm S,
    3. Willerslev-Olsen A,
    4. Met O,
    5. Kubat L,
    6. Gluud M,
    7. Mathiasen SL, et al.
    SATB1 in malignant T cells. J Invest Dermatol. 2018; 138: 1805–15.
    OpenUrl
  102. 102.↵
    2. Kopp KL,
    3. Ralfkiaer U,
    4. Gjerdrum LM,
    5. Helvad R,
    6. Pedersen IH,
    7. Litman T, et al.
    STAT5-mediated expression of oncogenic miR-155 in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Cell Cycle. 2013; 12: 1939–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. 103.↵
    2. Moyal L,
    3. Yehezkel S,
    4. Gorovitz B,
    5. Keren A,
    6. Gilhar A,
    7. Lubin I, et al.
    Oncogenic role of microRNA-155 in mycosis fungoides: an in vitro and xenograft mouse model study. Br J Dermatol. 2017; 177: 791–800.
    OpenUrl
  104. 104.↵
    2. Narducci MG,
    3. Arcelli D,
    4. Picchio MC,
    5. Lazzeri C,
    6. Pagani E,
    7. Sampogna F, et al.
    MicroRNA profiling reveals that miR-21, miR486 and miR-214 are upregulated and involved in cell survival in Sézary syndrome. Cell Death Dis. 2011; 2: e151.
  105. 105.↵
    2. van der Fits L,
    3. van Kester MS,
    4. Qin Y,
    5. Out-Luiting JJ,
    6. Smit F,
    7. Zoutman WH, et al.
    MicroRNA-21 expression in CD4+ t cells is regulated by STAT3 and is pathologically involved in Sézary syndrome. J Invest Dermatol. 2011; 131: 762–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. 106.↵
    2. Qin Y,
    3. Buermans HP,
    4. van Kester MS,
    5. van der Fits L,
    6. Out-Luiting JJ,
    7. Osanto S, et al.
    Deep-sequencing analysis reveals that the miR-199a2/214 cluster within DNM3os represents the vast majority of aberrantly expressed microRNAs in Sézary syndrome. J Invest Dermatol. 2012; 132: 1520–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. 107.↵
    2. Kohnken R,
    3. McNeil B,
    4. Wen J,
    5. McConnell K,
    6. Grinshpun L,
    7. Keiter A, et al.
    Preclinical targeting of microRNA-214 in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2019; 139: 1966–74.e3.
    OpenUrl
  108. 108.↵
    2. An X,
    3. Sarmiento C,
    4. Tan T,
    5. Zhu H.
    Regulation of multidrug resistance by microRNAs in anti-cancer therapy. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2017; 7: 38–51.
    OpenUrl
  109. 109.↵
    2. Manfe V,
    3. Biskup E,
    4. Rosbjerg A,
    5. Kamstrup M,
    6. Skov AG,
    7. Lerche CM, et al.
    miR-122 regulates p53/Akt signalling and the chemotherapy-induced apoptosis in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. PLoS One. 2012; 7: e29541.
  110. 110.↵
    2. Manfe V,
    3. Biskup E,
    4. Willumsgaard A,
    5. Skov AG,
    6. Palmieri D,
    7. Gasparini P, et al.
    cMyc/miR-125b-5p signalling determines sensitivity to bortezomib in preclinical model of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. PLoS One. 2013; 8: e59390.
  111. 111.↵
    2. Benner MF,
    3. Ballabio E,
    4. van Kester MS,
    5. Saunders NJ,
    6. Vermeer MH,
    7. Willemze R, et al.
    Primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma shows a distinct miRNA expression profile and reveals differences from tumor-stage mycosis fungoides. Exp Dermatol. 2012; 21: 632–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  112. 112.↵
    2. McGirt LY,
    3. Adams CM,
    4. Baerenwald DA,
    5. Zwerner JP,
    6. Zic JA,
    7. Eischen CM.
    miR-223 regulates cell growth and targets proto-oncogenes in mycosis fungoides/cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2014; 134: 1101–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. 113.↵
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Wang Y,
    4. Yu R,
    5. Huang Y,
    6. Su M,
    7. Xiao C, et al.
    Molecular markers of early-stage mycosis fungoides. J Invest Dermatol. 2012; 132: 1698–706.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. 114.↵
    2. Ito M,
    3. Teshima K,
    4. Ikeda S,
    5. Kitadate A,
    6. Watanabe A,
    7. Nara M, et al.
    MicroRNA-150 inhibits tumor invasion and metastasis by targeting the chemokine receptor CCR6, in advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2014; 123: 1499–511.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  115. 115.↵
    2. Abe F,
    3. Kitadate A,
    4. Ikeda S,
    5. Yamashita J,
    6. Nakanishi H,
    7. Takahashi N, et al.
    Histone deacetylase inhibitors inhibit metastasis by restoring a tumor suppressive microRNA-150 in advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Oncotarget. 2017; 8: 7572–85.
    OpenUrl
  116. 116.↵
    2. Gallardo F,
    3. Sandoval J,
    4. Diaz-Lagares A,
    5. Garcia R,
    6. D’Altri T,
    7. Gonzalez J, et al.
    Notch1 pathway activation results from the epigenetic abrogation of notch-related microRNAs in mycosis fungoides. J Invest Dermatol. 2015; 135: 3144–52.
    OpenUrl
  117. 117.↵
    2. Kitadate A,
    3. Ikeda S,
    4. Teshima K,
    5. Ito M,
    6. Toyota I,
    7. Hasunuma N, et al.
    MicroRNA-16 mediates the regulation of a senescence-apoptosis switch in cutaneous T-cell and other non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Oncogene. 2016; 35: 3692–704.
    OpenUrl
  118. 118.↵
    2. Chen X,
    3. Ba Y,
    4. Ma L,
    5. Cai X,
    6. Yin Y,
    7. Wang K, et al.
    Characterization of microRNAs in serum: a novel class of biomarkers for diagnosis of cancer and other diseases. Cell Res. 2008; 18: 997–1006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. 119.↵
    2. Mohr AM,
    3. Mott JL.
    Overview of microRNA biology. Semin Liver Dis. 2015; 35: 3–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    2. Ralfkiaer U,
    3. Hagedorn PH,
    4. Bangsgaard N,
    5. Lovendorf MB,
    6. Ahler CB,
    7. Svensson L, et al.
    Diagnostic microRNA profiling in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). Blood. 2011; 118: 5891–900.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  121. 121.↵
    2. Shen X,
    3. Wang B,
    4. Li K,
    5. Wang L,
    6. Zhao X,
    7. Xue F, et al.
    MicroRNA signatures in diagnosis and prognosis of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2018; 138: 2024–32.
    OpenUrl
  122. 122.↵
    2. Lindahl LM,
    3. Besenbacher S,
    4. Rittig AH,
    5. Celis P,
    6. Willerslev-Olsen A,
    7. Gjerdrum LMR, et al.
    Prognostic miRNA classifier in early-stage mycosis fungoides: development and validation in a Danish nationwide study. Blood. 2018; 131: 759–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  123. 123.↵
    2. Marstrand T,
    3. Ahler CB,
    4. Ralfkiaer U,
    5. Clemmensen A,
    6. Kopp KL,
    7. Sibbesen NA, et al.
    Validation of a diagnostic microRNA classifier in cutaneous t-cell lymphomas. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014; 55: 957–8.
    OpenUrl
  124. 124.↵
    2. Dusilkova N,
    3. Basova P,
    4. Polivka J,
    5. Kodet O,
    6. Kulvait V,
    7. Pesta M, et al.
    Plasma miR-155, miR-203, and miR-205 are biomarkers for monitoring of primary cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. Int J Mol Sci. 2017; 18: 2136.
    OpenUrl
  125. 125.↵
    2. Kohler S,
    3. Kim YH,
    4. Smoller BR.
    Histologic criteria for the diagnosis of erythrodermic mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome: a critical reappraisal. J Cutan Pathol. 1997; 24: 292–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. 126.↵
    2. Rittig AH,
    3. Lindahl LM,
    4. Johansen C,
    5. Celis P,
    6. Odum N,
    7. Iversen L, et al.
    The microRNA expression profile differs between erythrodermic mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome. Acta Derm Venereol. 2019; 99: 1148–53.
    OpenUrl
  127. 127.↵
    2. Maj J,
    3. Jankowska-Konsur A,
    4. Sadakierska-Chudy A,
    5. Noga L,
    6. Reich A.
    Altered microRNA expression in mycosis fungoides. Br J Dermatol. 2012; 166: 331–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  128. 128.↵
    2. Clapier CR,
    3. Cairns BR.
    The biology of chromatin remodeling complexes. Annu Rev Biochem. 2009; 78: 273–304.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. 129.↵
    2. Halliday GM,
    3. Bock VL,
    4. Moloney FJ,
    5. Lyons JG.
    SWI/SNF: a chromatin-remodelling complex with a role in carcinogenesis. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2009; 41: 725–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  130. 130.↵
    2. Yasui D,
    3. Miyano M,
    4. Cai S,
    5. Varga-Weisz P,
    6. Kohwi-Shigematsu T.
    SATB1 targets chromatin remodelling to regulate genes over long distances. Nature. 2002; 419: 641–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. 131.↵
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Su M,
    4. Zhou LL,
    5. Tu P,
    6. Zhang X,
    7. Jiang X, et al.
    Deficiency of SATB1 expression in Sézary cells causes apoptosis resistance by regulating FasL/CD95L transcription. Blood. 2011; 117: 3826–35.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  132. 132.↵
    2. Grzanka A,
    3. Grzanka D,
    4. Gagat M,
    5. Tadrowski T,
    6. Sokolowska-Wojdylo M,
    7. Marszalek A, et al.
    Correlation of SATB1 expression with clinical course of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. Pol J Pathol. 2012; 63: 101–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  133. 133.↵
    2. Grzanka D,
    3. Gagat M,
    4. Izdebska M,
    5. Marszalek A.
    Expression of special AT-rich sequence-binding protein 1 is an independent prognostic factor in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Oncol Rep. 2015; 33: 250–66.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  134. 134.↵
    2. Oki Y,
    3. Aoki E,
    4. Issa JP.
    Decitabine–bedside to bench. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2007; 61: 140–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. 135.↵
    2. Jain S,
    3. Washington A,
    4. Leaf RK,
    5. Bhargava P,
    6. Clark RA,
    7. Kupper TS, et al.
    Decitabine priming enhances mucin 1 inhibition mediated disruption of redox homeostasis in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Mol Cancer Ther. 2017; 16: 2304–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  136. 136.↵
    2. Schcolnik-Cabrera A,
    3. Dominguez-Gomez G,
    4. Duenas-Gonzalez A.
    Comparison of DNA demethylating and histone deacetylase inhibitors hydralazine-valproate versus vorinostat-decitabine incutaneous T-cell lymphoma in HUT78 cells. Am J Blood Res. 2018; 8: 5–16.
    OpenUrl
  137. 137.↵
    2. Wood GS,
    3. Wu J.
    Methotrexate and pralatrexate. Dermatol Clin. 2015; 33: 747–55.
    OpenUrl
  138. 138.↵
    2. Grant S,
    3. Easley C,
    4. Kirkpatrick P.
    Vorinostat. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007; 6: 21–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  139. 139.↵
    2. Foss F,
    3. Coiffier B,
    4. Horwitz S,
    5. Pro B,
    6. Prince HM,
    7. Sokol L, et al.
    Tolerability to romidepsin in patients with relapsed/refractory T-cell lymphoma. Biomark Res. 2014; 2: 16.
    OpenUrl
  140. 140.↵
    2. Olsen EA,
    3. Kim YH,
    4. Kuzel TM,
    5. Pacheco TR,
    6. Foss FM,
    7. Parker S, et al.
    Phase IIb multicenter trial of vorinostat in patients with persistent, progressive, or treatment refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 3109–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  141. 141.↵
    2. Bates SE,
    3. Eisch R,
    4. Ling A,
    5. Rosing D,
    6. Turner M,
    7. Pittaluga S, et al.
    Romidepsin in peripheral and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: mechanistic implications from clinical and correlative data. Br J Haematol. 2015; 170: 96–109.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  142. 142.↵
    2. Foss F,
    3. Advani R,
    4. Duvic M,
    5. Hymes KB,
    6. Intragumtornchai T,
    7. Lekhakula A, et al.
    A phase II trial of belinostat (PXD101) in patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2015; 168: 811–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  143. 143.↵
    2. Lee HZ,
    3. Kwitkowski VE,
    4. Del Valle PL,
    5. Ricci MS,
    6. Saber H,
    7. Habtemariam BA, et al.
    FDA approval: belinostat for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2015; 21: 2666–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  144. 144.↵
    2. Shi Y,
    3. Dong M,
    4. Hong X,
    5. Zhang W,
    6. Feng J,
    7. Zhu J, et al.
    Results from a multicenter, open-label, pivotal phase II study of chidamide in relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2015; 26: 1766–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  145. 145.↵
    2. Duvic M,
    3. Dummer R,
    4. Becker JC,
    5. Poulalhon N,
    6. Ortiz Romero P,
    7. Grazia Bernengo M, et al.
    Panobinostat activity in both bexarotene-exposed and -naive patients with refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: results of a phase II trial. Eur J Cancer. 2013; 49: 386–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  146. 146.↵
    2. Tzogani K,
    3. van Hennik P,
    4. Walsh I,
    5. De Graeff P,
    6. Folin A,
    7. Sjöberg J, et al.
    EMA review of panobinostat (Farydak) for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. Oncologist. 2018; 23: 631–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  147. 147.↵
    2. Duvic M,
    3. Kim YH,
    4. LeBoeuf NR,
    5. Porcu P,
    6. Hastings J,
    7. Bassuner J, et al.
    A phase 2 randomized study of SHAPE Gel (SHP-141) in patients with early-stage cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: interim results. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34: 7562.
    OpenUrl
  148. 148.↵
    2. Kim YH,
    3. Krathen M,
    4. Duvic M,
    5. Wong H,
    6. Porcu P,
    7. Tacastacas J, et al.
    A phase 1b study in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) with the novel topically applied skin-restricted histone deacteylase inhibitor (HDAC-i) SHP-141. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 8525.
    OpenUrl
  149. 149.↵
    2. Younes A,
    3. Berdeja JG,
    4. Patel MR,
    5. Flinn I,
    6. Gerecitano JF,
    7. Neelapu SS, et al.
    Safety, tolerability, and preliminary activity of CUDC-907, a first-in-class, oral, dual inhibitor of HDAC and PI3K, in patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma or multiple myeloma: an open-label, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17: 622–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  150. 150.↵
    2. Gardner JM,
    3. Introcaso CE,
    4. Nasta SD,
    5. Kim EJ,
    6. Vittorio CC,
    7. Rook AH.
    A novel regimen of vorinostat with interferon gamma for refractory Sézary syndrome. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009; 61: 112–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  151. 151.↵
    2. Samimi S,
    3. Morrissey K,
    4. Anshelevich S,
    5. Evans K,
    6. Gardner J,
    7. Musiek A, et al.
    Romidepsin and interferon gamma: a novel combination for refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013; 68: e5–6.
    OpenUrl
  152. 152.↵
    2. Dummer R,
    3. Beyer M,
    4. Hymes K,
    5. Epping MT,
    6. Bernards R,
    7. Steinhoff M, et al.
    Vorinostat combined with bexarotene for treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: in vitro and phase I clinical evidence supporting augmentation of retinoic acid receptor/retinoid X receptor activation by histone deacetylase inhibition. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012; 53: 1501–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  153. 153.↵
    2. Vu K,
    3. Wu CH,
    4. Yang CY,
    5. Zhan A,
    6. Cavallone E,
    7. Berry W, et al.
    Romidepsin plus liposomal doxorubicin is safe and effective in patients with relapsed or refractory T-cell lymphoma: results of a phase I dose-escalation study. Clin Cancer Res. 2020; 26: 1000–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  154. 154.↵
    2. Querfeld C,
    3. Foss FM,
    4. Kim YH,
    5. Pinter-Brown L,
    6. William BM,
    7. Porcu P, et al.
    Phase 1 trial of cobomarsen, an inhibitor of MIR-155, in cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Blood. 2018; 132: 2903.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  155. 155.↵
    2. Du J,
    3. Johnson LM,
    4. Jacobsen SE,
    5. Patel DJ.
    DNA methylation pathways and their crosstalk with histone methylation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2015; 16: 519–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  156. 156.↵
    2. Bewersdorf JP,
    3. Shallis R,
    4. Stahl M,
    5. Zeidan AM.
    Epigenetic therapy combinations in acute myeloid leukemia: what are the options? Ther Adv Hematol. 2019; 10: 2040620718816698.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  157. 157.↵
    2. Rozati S,
    3. Cheng PF,
    4. Widmer DS,
    5. Fujii K,
    6. Levesque MP,
    7. Dummer R.
    Romidepsin and azacitidine synergize in their epigenetic modulatory effects to induce apoptosis in CTCL. Clin Cancer Res. 2016; 22: 2020–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  158. 158.↵
    2. Espinoza-Zamora JR,
    3. Labardini-Méndez J,
    4. Sosa-Espinoza A,
    5. López-González C,
    6. Vieyra-García M,
    7. Candelaria M, et al.
    Efficacy of hydralazine and valproate in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a phase II study. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2017; 26: 481–7.
    OpenUrl
  159. 159.↵
    2. Fu W,
    3. Yi S,
    4. Qiu L,
    5. Sun J,
    6. Tu P,
    7. Wang Y.
    BCL11B-mediated epigenetic repression is a crucial target for histone deacetylase inhibitors in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2017; 137: 1523–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  160. 160.↵
    2. Andrews JM,
    3. Schmidt JA,
    4. Carson KR,
    5. Musiek AC,
    6. Mehta-Shah N,
    7. Payton JE.
    Novel cell adhesion/migration pathways are predictive markers of HDAC inhibitor resistance in cutaneous T cell lymphoma. EBioMedicine. 2019; 46: 170–83.
    OpenUrl
  161. 161.↵
    2. Butler RM,
    3. McKenzie RC,
    4. Jones CL,
    5. Flanagan CE,
    6. Woollard WJ,
    7. Demontis M, et al.
    Contribution of STAT3 and RAD23B in primary Sézary cells to histone deacetylase inhibitor FK228 resistance. J Invest Dermatol. 2019; 139: 1975–84.e2.
    OpenUrl
  162. 162.↵
    2. Qu K,
    3. Zaba LC,
    4. Satpathy AT,
    5. Giresi PG,
    6. Li R,
    7. Jin Y, et al.
    Chromatin accessibility landscape of cutaneous T cell lymphoma and dynamic response to HDAC inhibitors. Cancer Cell. 2017; 32: 27–41.e4.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  163. 163.↵
    2. Buenrostro JD,
    3. Wu B,
    4. Chang HY,
    5. Greenleaf WJ.
    ATAC-seq: a method for assaying chromatin accessibility genome-wide. Curr Protoc Mol Biol. 2015; 109: 21.29.1–21.29.9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  164. 164.↵
    2. Lu Y,
    3. Chan Y-T,
    4. Tan H-Y,
    5. Li S,
    6. Wang N,
    7. Feng Y.
    Epigenetic regulation in human cancer: the potential role of epi-drug in cancer therapy. Mol Cancer. 2020; 19: 79.
    OpenUrl
  165. 165.↵
    2. Cao J,
    3. Yan Q.
    Cancer epigenetics, tumor immunity, and immunotherapy. Trends Cancer. 2020; 6: 580–92.
    OpenUrl
  166. 166.↵
    2. Chiappinelli Katherine B,
    3. Strissel Pamela L,
    4. Desrichard A,
    5. Li H,
    6. Henke C,
    7. Akman B, et al.
    Inhibiting DNA methylation causes an interferon response in cancer via dsRNA including endogenous retroviruses. Cell. 2015; 162: 974–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  167. 167.↵
    2. Peng D,
    3. Kryczek I,
    4. Nagarsheth N,
    5. Zhao L,
    6. Wei S,
    7. Wang W, et al.
    Epigenetic silencing of TH1-type chemokines shapes tumour immunity and immunotherapy. Nature. 2015; 527: 249–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  168. 168.↵
    2. Liu L,
    3. Wang Y,
    4. Wu J,
    5. Liu J,
    6. Qin Z,
    7. Fan H.
    N(6)-Methyladenosine: a potential breakthrough for human cancer. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2020; 19: 804–13.
    OpenUrl
  169. 169.
    2. Shi H,
    3. Chai P,
    4. Jia R,
    5. Fan X.
    Novel insight into the regulatory roles of diverse RNA modifications: re-defining the bridge between transcription and translation. Mol Cancer. 2020; 19: 78.
    OpenUrl
  170. 170.↵
    2. Amelio I,
    3. Bernassola F,
    4. Candi E.
    Emerging roles of long non-coding RNAs in breast cancer biology and management. Semin Cancer Biol. 2020; S1044-579X(20)30155-3.
  171. 171.↵
    2. Lee CS,
    3. Ungewickell A,
    4. Bhaduri A,
    5. Qu K,
    6. Webster DE,
    7. Armstrong R, et al.
    Transcriptome sequencing in Sézary syndrome identifies Sézary cell and mycosis fungoides-associated lncRNAs and novel transcripts. Blood. 2012; 120: 3288–97.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  172. 172.
    2. Gallardo F,
    3. Esteller M,
    4. Pujol RM,
    5. Costa C,
    6. Estrach T,
    7. Servitje O.
    Methylation status of the p15, p16 and MGMT promoter genes in primary cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. Haematologica. 2004; 89: 1401–3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  173. 173.
    2. de Silva S,
    3. Wang F,
    4. Hake TS,
    5. Porcu P,
    6. Wong HK,
    7. Wu L.
    Downregulation of SAMHD1 expression correlates with promoter DNA methylation in Sézary syndrome patients. J Invest Dermatol. 2014; 134: 562–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  174. 174.
    2. Cristofoletti C,
    3. Picchio MC,
    4. Lazzeri C,
    5. Tocco V,
    6. Pagani E,
    7. Bresin A, et al.
    Comprehensive analysis of PTEN status in Sézary syndrome. Blood. 2013; 122: 3511–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  175. 175.
    2. Ballabio E,
    3. Mitchell T,
    4. van Kester MS,
    5. Taylor S,
    6. Dunlop HM,
    7. Chi J, et al.
    MicroRNA expression in Sézary syndrome: identification, function, and diagnostic potential. Blood. 2010; 116: 1105–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  176. 176.
    2. Kohnken R,
    3. Kodigepalli KM,
    4. Mishra A,
    5. Porcu P,
    6. Wu L.
    MicroRNA-181 contributes to downregulation of SAMHD1 expression in CD4+ T-cells derived from Sézary syndrome patients. Leuk Res. 2017; 52: 58–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Keywords