RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Adaptor protein, phosphotyrosine interacting with PH domain and leucine zipper 1 (APPL1) plays a crucial role in regulating insulin signaling and glucose metabolism. Mutations in the APPL1 gene have been associated with the development of maturity-onset diabetes of the young type 14 (MODY14). Currently, only two mutations [c.1655T>A (p.Leu552*) and c.281G>A p.(Asp94Asn)] have been identified in association with this disease. Given the limited understanding of MODY14, it is imperative to identify additional cases and carry out comprehensive research on MODY14 and APPL1 mutations. AIM: To assess the pathogenicity of APPL1 gene mutations in diabetic patients and to characterize the functional role of the APPL1 domain. METHODS: Patients exhibiting clinical signs and a medical history suggestive of MODY were screened for the study. Whole exome sequencing was performed on the patients as well as their family members. The pathogenicity of the identified APPL1 variants was predicted on the basis of bioinformatics analysis. In addition, the pathogenicity of the novel APPL1 variant was preliminarily evaluated through in vitro functional experiments. Finally, the impact of these variants on APPL1 protein expression and the insulin pathway were assessed, and the potential mechanism underlying the interaction between the APPL1 protein and the insulin receptor was further explored. RESULTS: A total of five novel mutations were identified, including four missense mutations (Asp632Tyr, Arg633His, Arg532Gln, and Ile642Met) and one intronic mutation (1153-16A>T). Pathogenicity prediction analysis revealed that the Arg532Gln was pathogenic across all predictions. The Asp632Tyr and Arg633His variants also had pathogenicity based on MutationTaster. In addition, multiple alignment of amino acid sequences showed that the Arg532Gln, Asp632Tyr, and Arg633His variants were conserved across different species. Moreover, in in vitro functional experiments, both the c.1894G>T (at Asp632Tyr) and c.1595G>A (at Arg532Gln) mutations were found to downregulate the expression of APPL1 on both protein and mRNA levels, indicating their pathogenic nature. Therefore, based on the patient's clinical and family history, combined with the results from bioinformatics analysis and functional experiment, the c.1894G>T (at Asp632Tyr) and c.1595G>A (at Arg532Gln) mutations were classified as pathogenic mutations. Importantly, all these mutations were located within the phosphotyrosine-binding domain of APPL1, which plays a critical role in the insulin sensitization effect. CONCLUSION: This study provided new insights into the pathogenicity of APPL1 gene mutations in diabetes and revealed a potential target for the diagnosis and treatment of the disease.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Nuclear factor-kappaB (NF-kappaB) activation induces resistance to irinotecan. Preclinically, thalidomide and COX-2 inhibitors reduce NF-kappaB activation. We tested the feasibility of combining irinotecan with thalidomide and thalidomide/celecoxib in patients with refractory malignancies. PATIENTS/METHODS: The study was conducted in two parts. First, the optimal dose of thalidomide (400 or 200 mg daily) in combination with irinotecan 125 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks was determined. In the second part, celecoxib 400 mg twice-daily was added to irinotecan/thalidomide. Pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and thalidomide alone or concurrently were evaluated. Tumor necrosis factor alpha, beta-fibroblast growth factor, and NF-kappaB activation were measured in blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). No CYP450 enzyme inducers/inhibitors were allowed. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled: Eleven received thalidomide 400 mg, 13 thalidomide 200 mg and 12 thalidomide 400 mg and celecoxib, with irinotecan. For the two-drug combination, there was a higher rate of moderate/severe diarrhea/myelosuppression with thalidomide 200 mg. Thus thalidomide 400 mg was combined with celecoxib. The triple combination resulted in similar toxicity as the doublet with the lower thalidomide dose. Concurrent administration of irinotecan/thalidomide did not influence pharmacokinetics. Anti-tumor responses occurred in two patients and prolonged stabilization in eight others. NF-kappaB activation increased over time. Patients experiencing tumor response or prolonged stabilization had lower NF-kappaB activation, albeit not statistically significant (P = 0.124). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of thalidomide/irinotecan is safe and devoid of PK interactions. Thalidomide 400 mg appeared more suitable for combination, whereas the addition of celecoxib did not improve tolerability. Tumor-specific studies in patients with lesser prior treatment will be necessary to establish the therapeutic impact of the combinations.