Genetic context of oncogenic drivers dictates vascular sarcoma development in aP2-Cre mice.

Angiosarcomas are aggressive vascular sarcomas that arise from endothelial cells and have an extremely poor prognosis. Because of the rarity of angiosarcomas, knowledge of molecular drivers and optimized treatment strategies is lacking, highlighting the need for in vivo models to study the disease. Previously, we generated genetically engineered mouse models of angiosarcoma driven by aP2-Cre-mediated biallelic loss of Dicer1 or conditional activation of KrasG12D with Cdkn2a loss that histologically and genetically resemble human tumors. In the present study, we found that DICER1 functions as a potent tumor suppressor and its deletion, in combination with either KRASG12D expression or Cdkn2a loss, is associated with angiosarcoma development. Independent of the genetic driver, the mTOR pathway was activated in all murine angiosarcoma models. Direct activation of the mTOR pathway by conditional deletion of Tsc1 with aP2-Cre resulted in tumors that resemble intermediate grade human kaposiform hemangioendotheliomas, indicating that mTOR activation was not sufficient to drive the malignant angiosarcoma phenotype. Genetic dissection of the spectrum of vascular tumors identified genes specifically regulated in the aggressive murine angiosarcomas that are also enriched in human angiosarcoma. The genetic dissection driving the transition across the malignant spectrum of endothelial sarcomas provides an opportunity to identify key determinants of the malignant phenotype, novel therapies for angiosarcoma, and novel in vivo models to further explore angiosarcoma pathogenesis. © 2022 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

miR-497 target gene regulatory network in angiosarcoma.

Angiosarcoma is a vascular sarcoma that is highly aggressive and metastatic. Due to its rarity, treatment options for patients are limited, therefore more research is needed to identify possible therapeutic vulnerabilities. We previously found that conditional deletion of Dicer1 drives angiosarcoma development in mice. Given the role of DICER1 in canonical microRNA (miRNA) biogenesis, this suggests that miRNA loss is important in angiosarcoma development. After testing miRNAs previously suggested to have a tumor-suppressive role in angiosarcoma, microRNA-497-5p (miR-497) suppressed cell viability most significantly. We also found that miR-497 overexpression led to significantly reduced cell migration and tumor formation. To understand the mechanism of miR-497 in tumor suppression, we identified clinically relevant target genes using a combination of RNA-sequencing data in an angiosarcoma cell line, expression data from angiosarcoma patients, and target prediction algorithms. We validated miR-497 direct regulation of CCND2, CDK6, and VAT1. One of these genes, VAT1, is an understudied protein that has been suggested to promote cell migration and metastasis in other cancers. Indeed, we find that pharmacologic inhibition of VAT1 with the natural product Neocarzilin A reduces angiosarcoma migration. Implications: This work supports the potent tumor-suppressive abilities of miR-497 in angiosarcoma, providing evidence for its potential as a therapeutic, and provides insight into the mechanisms of tumor suppression through analysis of the target gene regulatory network of miR-497.

Target gene regulatory network of miR-497 in angiosarcoma.

Angiosarcoma (AS) is a vascular sarcoma that is highly aggressive and metastatic. Due to its rarity, treatment options for patients are limited, therefore more research is needed to identify possible therapeutic vulnerabilities. We previously found that conditional deletion of Dicer1 drives AS development in mice. Given the role of DICER1 in canonical microRNA (miRNA) biogenesis, this suggests that miRNA loss is important in AS development. After testing miRNAs previously suggested to have a tumor-suppressive role in AS, microRNA-497-5p (miR-497) suppressed cell viability most significantly. We also found that miR-497 overexpression led to significantly reduced cell migration and tumor formation. To understand the mechanism of miR-497 in tumor suppression, we identified clinically relevant target genes using a combination of RNA-sequencing data in an AS cell line, expression data from AS patients, and target prediction algorithms. We validated miR-497 direct regulation of CCND2, CDK6, and VAT1. One of these genes, VAT1, is an understudied protein that has been suggested to promote cell migration and metastasis in other cancers. Indeed, we find that pharmacologic inhibition of VAT1 with the natural product Neocarzilin A reduces AS migration. This work provides insight into the mechanisms of miR-497 and its target genes in AS pathogenesis.

Knowledge or Abilities? How Undergraduates Define Intelligence.

Whether students view intelligence as a fixed or malleable trait (i.e., their "mindset") has significant implications for their responses to failure and academic outcomes. Despite a long history of research on mindset and its growing popularity, recent meta-analyses suggest that mindset does a poor job of predicting academic outcomes for undergraduate populations. Here, we present evidence that these mixed results could be due to ambiguous language on the mindset scale. Specifically, the term "intelligence" is a referent in every item of the mindset scale but is never defined, which could result in differing interpretations and measurement error. Therefore, we conducted an exploratory, qualitative study to characterize how undergraduate students define intelligence and how their definitions may influence how they respond to the mindset scale. We uncovered two distinct ways that undergraduates define intelligence: knowledge and abilities (e.g., ability to learn, solve problems). Additionally, we found that students' definitions of intelligence can vary across contexts. Finally, we present evidence that students who define intelligence differently also interpret and respond to the items on the mindset scale differently. We discuss implications of these results for the use and interpretation of the mindset scale with undergraduate students.