PRMT5: An Emerging Target for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

1. Introduction

Since the 1990s, the global pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) incidences and deaths across 185 countries have increased by 2.3 fold, partly coinciding with the increasing prevalence of diabetes and obesity [ 1 ]. Previously difficult to treat cancers like metastatic melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer both have significantly improved 5-year overall survival (OS) with immunotherapy, approximately 50% and 30%, respectively [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Comparatively, the 5 year OS of all patients diagnosed with PDAC has only marginally improved to 15% over the same period [ 7 ]. The poor outcome reflects the fact that less than 20% of all patients diagnosed with PDAC are eligible for upfront surgical resection and complete combination adjuvant chemotherapy [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Furthermore, the degree of improvement may be overestimated, given that actual incidences and mortality can be underrepresented in a national registry [ 11 ]. This has led to global pancreatic cancer genomic profiling efforts to gain a better understanding of the root causes and potential therapeutic vulnerabilities in this disease. Unfortunately, finding targeted therapies that benefit a reasonable number of subpopulations living with pancreatic cancer remains elusive [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].

Nonetheless, genomic profiling has uncovered distinct PDAC molecular subgroups with their own metabolic and prognostic differences that may explain the clinical heterogeneity in PDAC outcomes [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Moffit’s classical versus basal subtype classification appears to be the simplest given its binary nature [ 24 ]. However, as the current subtyping methods depend on relative differences in gene expression across a set of genes and a cohort of samples, the issue of relativity limits robust, reproducible classification of all patients into their given molecular subtypes. “Subtype discordant” cases are where the molecular subtype called can be prone to switching depending on the mix of samples in the cohort and display intermediate clinical and molecular characteristics [ 29 ]. In reality, single-cell sequencing has revealed that the discordant cases may at least be partially due to intra-tumoral heterogeneity and having variable, co-existing proportions of both classical and basal subtype cells [ 26 ]. Incorporation of molecular subtyping into clinical trials has been slow despite the development of single sample classifiers due to the time delays introduced with obtaining RNA sequencing and reproducibility of subtype classification [ 24 , 26 , 30 , 31 ]. Nonetheless, treatment implications of these prognostic molecular subtypes are now emerging [ 30 , 31 ]. Moffit’s basal subtype is similar to the better known basal-like subtype in breast carcinoma, though there are no subtype-specific mutations [ 24 ]. Moffitt subtypes of PDAC demonstrate enrichment for certain genomic aberrations (e.g., TP53, KTM2A) and altered RNA processing related genes, but the biological significance of the altered transcriptomes has only been partially elucidated [ 27 , 32 ].

Past genomic profiling efforts have also revealed that alteration in RNA processing, with recurrent mutations in splicing factors SF3B1, RBM10 and U2AF1, is one of the hallmark drivers of PDAC tumorigenesis [ 22 ]. Unfortunately, this mechanism has not yet been able to be targeted. Recently, Escobar-Hoyos et al. have shown that mutant p53 in PDAC confers an aggressive phenotype via indirectly mediating alternative splicing of GAP17, which results in sustained oncogenic KRAS signalling [ 33 ]. At the same time, a mutant p53 PDAC mouse model treated with an SF3B1 (splicing factor) inhibitor (e.g., S3B-8800) showed a more remarkable survival benefit over p53 wildtype PDAC [ 33 ]. This suggests that whilst alternative splicing confers selective growth advantage, it also renders PDAC more vulnerable to further perturbation in splicing, similar to MYC-driven tumours [ 34 , 35 ]. These observations support the concept that targeting RNA processing could be a promising strategy in PDAC. However, an alternative splicing factor inhibitor is likely needed, given that SF3B1 is already recurrently mutated in PDAC [ 22 ].

Numerous reports demonstrate that high protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) expression is associated with a worse prognosis across multiple cancer types, including PDAC. Inhibition of PRMT5 in preclinical models leads to reduced tumour growth [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. One of the many pleiotropic effects of PRMT5 is the methylation of the small nuclear ribonucleoproteins (snRNP) that govern the site of splicesome activity and a repertoire of protein and RNA interactions. Therefore, unsurprisingly, PRMT5 inhibition results in significant perturbation in alternative splicing [ 44 ]. Given the emerging evidence that alternative splicing is both central to PDAC tumorigenesis and renders PDAC susceptible to drugs targeting this process, PRMT5 inhibitors therefore present as a potential novel therapeutic class to combat this malignancy. The main biological pathways reported to be involved in PRMT5 inhibition are p53/MDM4, FBXW7/c-Myc, and AKT/GSK3β/β-Catenin. However, the relationship between cancer growth inhibition and the observed PRMT5 inhibitor effect on altered splicing and these three pathways remains unclear. While c-Myc regulation is likely critical in mediating the deleterious effects of overexpressed PRMT5 in PDAC, the interdependency and the relative importance of different pathways modulating c-Myc activity (FBXW7 epigenetic repression vs GSK3β driven) requires further elucidation. Furthermore, with the increasing recognition of the importance of pancreatic stroma in governing its metastatic potential and the response to therapy, the implications for PRMT5 inhibitors in this context also needs to be considered, given their purported immunomodulatory effects [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ].

2. Clinical Challenges with the Treatment of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC)

In the best-case scenario, patients newly diagnosed with PDAC undergo both surgical resection and complete six months of modified FOLFIRINOX adjuvant chemotherapy to achieve a median OS of 54 months and 5 year OS of 43% [ 9 , 53 ]. Survival in patients with metastatic disease receiving FOLFIRINOX is much more limited, with an 18 months OS of only 19% [ 54 ]. Comprehensive genomic profiling and identification of actionable genomic aberrations only offer limited benefit to 2.5% of patients diagnosed with PDAC due to the rarity of these subgroups and difficulty of access to targeted treatments [ 13 ]. Nonetheless, universal germline testing is recommended for all patients diagnosed with PDAC, as 5–20% will have hereditable mutations irrespective of family history [ 55 , 56 , 57 ]. Pathological germline variants will have hereditary implications but not necessarily personalised treatment implications.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved olaparib for PDAC patients who are carriers of germline BRCA mutations. However, olaparib only confers 3.8 months improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) without any OS benefit, nor improvement in quality of life compared to a truncated course of chemotherapy [ 58 , 59 ]. Although targeting gene fusions involving N-TRK or NRG-1 and using anti-PD1/PDL-1 therapies for microsatellite unstable subtypes have been reported to offer more significant clinical benefits, only limited patients included in the trials/case series had PDAC diagnosis [ 14 , 16 , 18 , 60 , 61 ]. Therefore, some uncertainty remains regarding the true clinical benefit of these therapies for PDAC patients. KRAS mutation is the predominant driver in PDAC but has been largely untargetable until recently in those with G12C mutation, for which the prevalence of mutation is low at 1% [ 60 , 62 , 63 ]. Although limited mutation targeting therapies are available, they are not universally recommended across international guidelines [ 61 , 64 , 65 ]. With the increasing incidence of PDAC associated with an ageing population, the poor survival and lack of effective therapies beyond conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy for most PDAC patients, there is a strong clinical need for therapies with a novel mechanism of action [ 1 ].

3. Protein Arginine Methyltransferase 5 as a Potential Novel Target

Protein arginine methylation is an important post-translational modification that involves protein arginine methyltransferases (PRMTs) catalysing the transfer of methyl group from S-Adenosylmethionine (SAM) to arginine residues on histone and non-histone proteins [ 66 ]. The addition of methyl groups makes the protein side-chain more hydrophobic, which alters protein-protein and protein-RNA interactions [ 67 , 68 ]. This can lead to diverse effects on the expression of genes and thus proteins which have been the subject of recent reviews [ 66 , 69 ]. The nine different PRMTs are classified into three types based on their predominant type of arginine methylation. Type I (PRMT1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8) mediates both asymmetrical dimethylation (ADMA) and monomethylation of arginine (MMA), type II (PRMT5, 9) mediates symmetrical dimethylation (SDMA) and MMA and type III (PRMT7) mediates MMA solely [ 70 ]. PRMT5 is the predominant type II methyltransferase that has a breadth of activity in multiple cellular processes [ 71 ], including DNA repair [ 45 , 46 ], cell stemness and survival [ 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 ], primordial germ cell induction [ 76 , 77 ], ribosome biogenesis [ 78 ], RNA transport and Golgi body integrity [ 79 ], and regulation of metabolism [ 80 ]. In addition, PRMT5 regulates gene expression through multiple mechanisms, including histone methylation mediated transcriptional suppression [ 81 ], alteration of protein interactions [ 82 ] and use of alternative gene promoters [ 83 ]. PRMT5 has also been shown to play a vital role in splicesome fidelity and activity, altering the predominant transcript/isoform used [ 84 ] and through post-translational modification of proteins, reducing protein stability [ 85 ] and signal transduction [ 86 ] ( Figure 1 ).

During the past 10 years, PRMT5 has emerged as a potential therapeutic target in multiple solid tumours [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ] and haematological malignancies [ 87 ]. High PRMT5 expression in PDAC patients is associated with 5 year OS of 13% versus 46% in low expressors [ 88 ]. PRMT5 knockdown via short hairpin RNA or utilising an inhibitory compound like GSK3326595 is associated with reduced proliferation in pancreatic cell lines and organoids and reduced FDG-PET avidity in xenograft models of PDAC [ 85 , 89 ]. There is also evidence that PRMT5 inhibition increases sensitivity to gemcitabine, a commonly used chemotherapeutic agent in PDAC [ 90 , 91 ]. It has also emerged that KRAS mutation correlates with higher PRMT5 expression in colorectal cancer and increased susceptibility to PRMT5 inhibition [ 92 ]. If a similar predisposition is seen in PDAC, this could have profound significance given that >90% of PDAC have a KRAS mutation [ 20 ].

The effect of PRMT5 inhibition on PDAC growth is also intriguing as this may be mediated by its effect on alternative splicing and may represent a novel therapeutic class [ 93 ]. Aberrant splicing has been recognised as a mechanism that promotes PDAC tumorigenesis and therapeutic resistance [ 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 ]. Emerging evidence suggests that alternative splicing dependent tumours, like mutant p53 PDAC and both MYC and SF3B1 (splicing factor) mutation-driven cancers, are more vulnerable to further perturbation in splicing [ 33 , 34 , 95 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 ]. Therefore, PRMT5 inhibition presents an attractive therapeutic strategy to perturb splicing via methylation-dependent modulation of spliceosome assembly and inducing genotoxicity and cell death via epigenetic reprogramming [ 74 , 108 , 109 ]. This has led to phase I trials of PRMT5 inhibitors (GSK3326595 and JNJ64619178) in haematological malignancies and solid cancers. Their respective activities in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, breast and adenoid cystadenocarcinoma have recently been reported with proven safety [ 110 , 111 ]. Similar trials with PF-06939999 ( NCT03854227 ), PRT811 ( NCT04089449 ) and PRT543 ( NCT03886831 ) are currently ongoing. While PRMT5 inhibitors have not yet been trialled in PDAC, pre-clinical support for its inclusion in trials is accumulating.

The translation of PRMT5 into a therapeutic target has been slow due to challenges in identifying the relevant mechanism of action, since PRMT5 is involved in a plethora of pathways and multilevel control of gene and protein expression ( Figure 1 ) [ 112 ]. Furthermore, PRMT5’s control of gene expression can be modulated by other methyltransferases. For example, PRMT7 methylates distal H4R17 arginine residues on histone tail, which enhances PRMT5 methylating efficiency on histone H4R3 in a process called positive cooperativity [ 113 ]. This increased efficiency of post-translational methylation by PRMT5 may alter the rate and scope of biological response. However, the synergy generated by positive cooperativity may go undetected by conventional differential gene expression analysis if mRNA expression remains unchanged. PRMT5 can act as an epigenetic repressor for micro RNA (miRNA) expression to enhance c-Myc and cyclin D1 signalling [ 114 ]. Furthermore, PRMT5 itself can also be regulated by miRNA and long non-coding RNA [ 115 ]. The functional significance of these non-genetic mutation factors is generally less understood. Therefore, it conceptually adds to the complexity when deciphering the underlying mechanistic process that underpins PRMT5 inhibitors’ efficacy.

4. Decoding the Mechanisms of Action of PRMT5 Inhibitor in Cancers

Although PRMT5 has differing roles in many cellular processes, three characterised pathways are thought to mediate the growth inhibition effect seen with PRMT5 inhibitors. Depending on which biological pathway is pertinent to the growth inhibitory action of PRMT5, different PDAC molecular subtypes may have different responses to PRMT5 inhibitors.

4.1. p53/MDM4 Axis

One of the best-characterised effects of PRMT5 inhibition is the upregulation of p53 activity through alternative splicing of MDM4 ( Figure 2 ). PRMT5 inhibition promotes skipping exon 6 of MDM4 (shorter, less stable MDM4 isoform), resulting in the loss of the p53 interacting domain and thus releasing MDM4′s repression of p53. In p53 wildtype cells, this leads to increased p21 expression and RB mediated G1 cell cycle arrest and cell death [ 91 , 116 , 117 ]. Regulation of MDM4 by PRMT5 inhibition has been demonstrated in p53 wildtype melanoma, breast, lymphoma and multiple myeloma cell lines and mouse models [ 91 , 116 , 117 ]. The introduction of exogenous full-length MDM4 reduces sensitivity to PRMT5 inhibition, with reduced p21 activation but no change in p53 protein levels. Therefore, the induction in p53 activity may be due to other mechanisms such as direct methylation by PRMT5 [ 118 ]. In mutant p53 cell lines, no change in p21 levels were observed with PRMT5 inhibition [ 82 ]. Thus, the relevance of this axis to PDAC is less certain when considering 65–85% of PDAC have mutant p53 [ 21 , 119 , 120 ].

4.2. AKT/GSK3β/β-Catenin Axis

In PDAC cell lines, PRMT5 indirectly induces autophosphorylation of tyrosine residues Y1068 and Y1172 on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) ( Figure 2 ). It is associated with increased phosphorylation and activation of AKT and subsequent phosphorylation mediated inhibition of GSK3β and activation of β-Catenin, which enhances epithelial to mesenchymal transition and increased metastatic potential ( Figure 2 ) [ 108 ]. Similar dysregulation of this axis has been observed in colorectal and lung cancer [ 109 , 121 ]. Of interest, PRMT5 methylation of the EGFR receptor at Y1175 positively modulates the phosphorylation of EGFR Y1173 residue in the breast cancer setting. However, it has the opposite effect on cellular growth to those seen in PDAC, with attenuation of ERK signalling [ 86 ]. Whilst reduction in PTEN activity through promoter suppression by PRMT5 can lead to an alternative mechanism of upregulation of this axis in glioblastoma, the same is not observed in PDAC, lung cancer and gastric cancer [ 42 , 90 , 122 , 123 ]. In lymphoma cell lines, PRMT5 mediates epigenetic repression of AXIN2 and WIF1, leading to indirect activation of AKT, which could be another alternative upstream mechanism; however, this has not been investigated in PDAC [ 124 ]. This array of modulators to AKT/GSK3β/β-Catenin highlights that the mechanism of action of PRMT5 will have to be validated in each cancer type, whilst the repeated alterations within this axis argue for its significance.

If the PRMT5 inhibitory effect is mediated via the GSK3β axis, its effectiveness may be limited to a subset of PDAC based on the effects seen with direct GSK3β inhibitor. Despite KRAS mutation being the main driver for PDAC tumourigenesis, only a subset of KRAS mutant shows dependency where siRNA inhibition of KRAS induces apoptosis and caspase-mediated death. Similarly, GSK3β inhibition selectively causes apoptosis in these “KRAS dependent” PDAC [ 125 ]. More recently, direct GSK3β inhibition has been shown to suppress growth in Moffitt’s basal molecular subtype PDAC, but not in the classical subtype [ 30 ]. These observations suggest that PRMT5’s clinical efficacy may be dictated by the molecular background seen in the cell line models [ 125 ]. Whilst GSK3β may be an essential node of control, it has multiple downstream effectors, including NFkβ and mTOR pathways [ 126 ]. The significance of these parallel pathways in mediating the growth inhibitory effect of PRMT5 inhibitors has not been considered.

The ability of PRMT5 to regulate pathways at multiple levels further adds to the complexity in deciphering its primary mechanism of action. For example, PRMT5 can modulate the NFkβ pathway via (1) regulation of GSK3β and a subsequent inhibitory effect on IKK, (2) direct methylation of p65 subunit l, preventing translocation of NFkβ into the nucleus [ 127 ] ( Figure 2 ), and lastly (3) repression of FBXW7 leading to increased NFKβ2 expression [ 128 ]. The multiple points of control on biological pathways seem to be a recurring theme and pose challenges to the mechanistic understanding of PRMT5. It raises the question of whether targeting multiple points in a pathway is necessary for its growth inhibitory effect or if this redundancy may confer an advantage where resistance to therapy is less likely to emerge.

4.3. FBXW7/c-Myc Axis

FBXW7 is a potent tumour suppressor gene that functions as part of the Skp1-Cullin1-F-box (SCF) ubiquitin ligase complex that targets major oncoproteins, including Notch-1 [ 116 ], c-Myc, cyclin E [ 117 ], c-Jun, and E2F1 for ubiquitination and subsequent degradation [ 119 ]. Unsurprisingly, recurrent deletion and mutation in FBXW7 is seen in many cancer types and is associated with a worse prognosis [ 120 , 122 , 123 , 129 , 130 ]. In PDAC, FBXW7 expression is commonly downregulated due to ERK phosphorylation of FBXW7, leading to its polyubiquitination mediated degradation, with subsequent stabilisation of c-Myc [ 131 , 132 , 133 ]. In patients with high PRMT5 expression, FBXW7 expression is further lowered due to methylation mediated epigenetic silencing of the FBXW7 promoter ( Figure 2 ) [ 85 ]. Conversely, PRMT5 inhibition in PDAC xenografts upregulates FBXW7 expression with a corresponding reduction in c-Myc protein stability and glycolytic activity [ 85 ].

Of note, the degradation of MYC requires priming by ERK-dependent phosphorylation at serine 62 followed by GSK3B mediated phosphorylation at threonine 58 before MYC can interact with FBXW7 for polyubiquitination mediated degradation [ 119 ]. Therefore, it is unclear if downregulation of c-Myc induced by PRMT5 inhibition is predominantly due to increased GSK3B mediated phosphorylation of c-Myc or upregulation of FBXW7 gene expression, or via the indirect effect of both axes on reducing ß-Catenin ( Figure 2 ) [ 134 ]. To further complicate PRMT5’s role in c-Myc expression, PRMT5 also has multiple other pleiotropic effects on both the MAPK and PI3K pathways that can modulate MYC activity ( Figure 2 ) (see [ 135 ] and review [ 136 ]). The relative importance of these other pathways has yet to be assessed in the PDAC context and whether these accessory pathways lead to therapy resistance or synergy is uncertain. Adopting an unbiased systematic approach, coupled with analysis of multi-omic changes over different time points would assist in identifying critical essential genes and decipher the order of activation that may govern the temporal activity of PRMT5 and the diversity of interaction.

5. PRMT5 and Alternative Splicing: Potential Key Mechanism of Action of PRMT5 Inhibitors

Besides identifying the alterations in signalling in different biological pathways, examining how alternative splicing is perturbed may shed light on PRMT5 inhibitors’ mechanism of action as the two are seemingly linked. PRMT5 inhibition leads to thousands of alternative splicing events (ASEs) with enrichment in genes in RNA processing [ 93 ]. However, it is challenging to discern which of the thousands of ASEs are pathways of interest with confidence or make any claims beyond prognostic associations or pathway enrichment. Nevertheless, baseline differences in the top 45 differential splicing events in glioblastoma can form a splicing signature that seems to differentiate between good and poor responders to PRMT5 inhibition better than mutational status [ 137 ]. Similarly, greater activation of caspases and subsequent apoptosis is observed following PRMT5 inhibition in cells with splicing factor gene mutations (i.e., SF3B1) [ 37 , 113 , 138 ]. These observations further support the need to account for baseline differences in altered splicing in PDAC when interpreting the response to PRMT5 inhibitors, especially when certain spliced variants are themselves associated with prognostic implications [ 139 , 140 ].

Curiously, the addition of PRMT1 to PRMT5 inhibition in a pancreatic cancer cell line induces a synergistic increase in >2400 novel ASEs compared with PRMT5 or PRMT1 inhibitor alone. Conversely, only approximately 220 ASEs were commonly induced by both inhibitors individually [ 93 ]. Dual combination treatment ameliorates the compensatory increase in methylation by other PRMTs when PRMT1 is inhibited alone, resulting in more complete inhibition of all types of methylation [ 93 , 131 ]. It is unclear whether the synergy in cancer growth inhibition from the combination of PRMT inhibitors arises from more complete inhibition/methylation of common substrates or whether synergy arises from apparent functional redundancy. There are examples where both PRMTs similarly regulate a common substrate, such as SPT5, modifying its interaction with RNA polymerase II [ 141 ]. However, the two PRMTs can also have an opposite effect on common substrates such as p65 in the NFkB pathway [ 127 , 142 ] and the regulation of E2F1 in determining cell survival [ 143 , 144 , 145 ]. Detailed examination of the individual and common ASEs associated with PRMT1 and PRMT5 inhibition has not been reported, nor has the impact of the novel repertoire of ASEs associated with inhibiting the PRMTs in combination. Despite the synergy, little is known regarding the role of PRMT1 in alternative splicing other than in acute megakaryoblastic leukaemia, where PRMT1 alters the splicing activity of a splicing factor, RBM15 and blocks cellular differentiation [ 132 ].

Similarly, in acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) cell lines, combination PRMT1 and PRMT5 inhibition also result in synergistic increases in novel ASEs [ 133 ]. The vast majority of the altered splicing results in changes to the canonical splicing pattern and only <20% are novel splicing events [ 133 ]. Whilst non-canonical changes may seem subtle, splicing changes with RBM10 and the MDM4/p53 axis mentioned above can significantly influence tumorigenesis [ 118 , 146 ]. Likewise, altered splicing of splicing factor SRSF1 can alter the repertoire and affinity of the mRNAs it interacts with, for which the biological consequences remain only partially elucidated [ 133 , 147 ]. In AML, the enhanced growth inhibition with combination treatment was partially mediated by downregulation of essential survival genes and increased EZH2 expression via alternative splicing by SRSF2 [ 35 , 133 ]. Whilst re-expression of EZH2 has a tumour suppressor effect in myeloid malignancies, it is the depletion of EZH2 in PDAC that is associated with conversion towards the less aggressive, classical molecular subtype [ 31 , 148 ]. Therefore, mechanisms suggested in other cancers may not translate to PDAC, and thus further validation is warranted.

Reliance on published gene expression data and splicing analysis following PRMT5 treatment at a single timepoint limits the potential to assess the biological effects of PRMT5 inhibitors comprehensively. Detained introns from alternative splicing impair mRNA transport out of the nucleus, thus reducing mRNA translation (Step 6, Figure 2 ) [ 138 , 149 ]. PRMT5 also methylates various heterozygous nuclear ribonucleoproteins (hnRNPs) that directly modulate mRNA export out of the nucleus [ 138 ]. Positive cooperativity of PRMT5 with other methyltransferases and the aforementioned mechanisms do not necessarily change mRNA expression level, but may still alter protein expression significantly. Based on differential gene expression analysis, the mechanistic effect of PRMT5 inhibition in glioblastoma may be related to PRMT5 induced altered expression of genes associated with cell regulation [ 137 , 147 ]. However, a wide variation in growth inhibition is seen across patient-derived samples, which was better explained by pre-existing splicing differences between molecular subtypes [ 137 ]. This again supports the importance of alternative splicing as a mechanism of action for PRMT5 inhibition in a way previously not considered. The spatial and temporal control of PRMT5 by its co-binding factors likely contributes towards the time, spatial and dose-dependent effects of PRMT5 inhibitors [ 84 ]. Thus, the current single time point RNASeq may not fully describe the effects of PRMT5 inhibitors.

6. Potential Selective Predictive Response Biomarkers

With the pleiotropic effects of PRMT5 and the multitude of possible mechanisms of action of PRMT5 inhibitors, a predictive biomarker is ever more critical to better select appropriate patients who will benefit from targeted PRMT5 inhibition. Unfortunately, currently proposed biomarkers of sensitivity to PRMT5 inhibition are inadequate at predicting the growth inhibitory effect and thus preclude their incorporation into clinical practice even though they offer mechanistic insights.

The most commonly cited biomarker of sensitivity is the homozygous deletion of the methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) gene. This occurs in 25% of PDAC, owing to the MTAP gene’s proximity to the frequently deleted CDKN2A gene on chromosome 9 [ 150 , 151 ]. Biologically, MTAP is involved in the metabolism of 2-methylthioadenosine (MTA) and regenerates methionine needed for S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAM) production. In the absence of MTAP, accumulated MTA acts as an intrinsic and selectively competitive inhibitor with a >100 fold preference for PRMT5 SAM binding pocket over other PRMTs. This reduces SAM binding to PRMT5 and in turn, limits PRMT5’s methyltransferase activity [ 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 ]. In MTAP deleted pancreatic organoids, increased PRMT5 inhibitor sensitivity with more significant growth inhibition were observed, whilst resistance was seen in the MTAP wildtype organoids [ 89 ]. Of note, a subset of MTAP wildtype organoids demonstrated similar sensitivity to PRMT5 inhibition as MTAP deleted organoids, where the degree of sensitivity was better predicted by MTA level rather than MTAP status [ 89 ]. This may reflect that the binding of MTA to PRMT5 also impairs the binding of GSK3326595 to the substrate-binding pocket [ 154 ]. Therefore, although low MTA and PRMT5 inhibitor concentration showed synergistic enhanced PRMT5 inhibition, the synergy is markedly attenuated at a high concentration of either MTA or PRMT5 inhibitor [ 50 ]. Newer generations of PRMT5 inhibitors are designed to escape this competition, so it remains to be seen if MTAP status may still be of relevance [ 157 , 158 ].

Although the relevance of MTAP appears somewhat promising based on pancreatic organoid data alone, examination across a wider number of cell lines suggests MTAP status predictiveness is less robust. Further examination across 11 pancreatic cell lines and a broader 64 cell line panel revealed no correlation between response to PRMT5 inhibition and MTAP status [ 152 , 156 ]. Equally, there was no difference between SDMA levels (a functional measure of PRMT5 activity) as determined by MTAP status [ 152 ]. Nonetheless, in MTAP deleted cell lines, the growth inhibition seen with PRMT5 inhibitor treatment can be recapitulated by inhibiting PRMT5’s co-binding factors (e.g., RIOK1, PICln, MEP50, CORP5) and MATA2A, the enzyme responsible for the production of SAM methyl donor [ 152 , 159 ]. Each co-binding factor directs PRMT5 towards a different cellular process. Yet, all these different cellular processes are seemingly of equal importance to maintaining cellular growth in MTAP deleted cells when the reverse is not seen in MTAP wildtype. Unfortunately, a boutique CRISPR screen of >1000 gene regulators has failed to explain this phenomenon [ 153 ]. Therefore, a more detailed assessment of the biological effects of each of the binding partners is needed, or a wider whole-genome CRISPR screen would provide an unbiased approach. Although homozygous deletion of MTAP is associated with increased PRMT5 inhibitor sensitivity in some pancreatic organoids, broader examination of the impact of MTAP status across different tumour cells lines suggests that it is not a reliable biomarker of sensitivity to PRMT5 inhibition [ 96 , 160 , 161 ]. Nonetheless, MTAP status is a contributory factor representing incompletely characterised molecular differences that partially predict the response to PRMT5 inhibition.

The other common “biomarker” used in the field is measuring the SDMA level, which is a functional measure of PRMT5 specific methylation activity rather than its clinical/biological effect [ 152 , 162 ]. In the METEOR-1 phase one study, despite near-complete suppression of SDMA in both plasma and tissue biopsy after 14 days of treatment with GSK3266595, wide variation from a two-fold increase in size to partial response was seen across several different tumours [ 110 ]. Nonetheless, more complete inhibition of SDMA (>80–90%) across 240 cell lines trended towards increased PRMT5 inhibitor sensitivity (growth inhibition) [ 84 ]. A similar proxy is H4R3me2, which measures the repressive histone methylation activity of PRMT5 but does not capture the activity of PRMT5 on non-histone proteins [ 112 , 156 ]. A higher ratio of CLNS1A expression to RIOK1 expression had also been proposed as another biomarker [ 147 ]. However, similar to all functional biomarkers aforementioned, their relevance outside of the specific molecular context to which they were initially identified is questionable. The disconnect between the enzymatic inhibition of PRMT5 as a target and the observed biological effect is puzzling but probably not surprising given the multitude of effects it has across gene expression and cellular processes.

What is less discussed outside of the haematological context is the relevance of recurrent mutation in splicing factors that may confer increased sensitivity to PRMT5 inhibition, arising from their increased susceptibility to further perturbation of altered splicing [ 96 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 ]. For instance, the recurrent mutation in splicing factors such as SRSF2, U2AF1, ZRSR2, or SF3B1 in myelodysplastic syndrome is associated with a more significant reduction in cancer cell numbers in response to PRMT5 inhibition [ 164 , 167 ]. Similar vulnerabilities may exist in PDAC as recurrent mutations in U2AF1, SF3B1 and RBM10 are known drivers in PDAC tumorigenesis [ 22 ]. However, whether it is the added global splicing stress or a specific altered splicing event that underpins this synergistic effect remains to be revealed. Some preliminary evidence supports the former, where myelodysplastic syndrome with splicing factor(s) mutations shows excessive R loop formation, leading to DNA damage and subsequent cell death [ 167 ]. The challenge will be developing methods to comprehensively measure the change in the repertoire of mRNA and protein interactions due to PRMT5 inhibition and determine how this affects the translational capacity and efficiency, with and without splicing factor mutations [ 133 , 160 ]. Unfortunately, the inability to identify specific subgroups of patients that may benefit from treatment with a PRMT5 inhibitor has contributed to its limited utility and efficacy seen in the current early phase trials [ 110 , 111 ].

7. PRMT5 Inhibition and Its Implications for Tumour Microenvironment

With limited targetable mutations in PDAC, attention had turned to target the characteristic desmoplastic stroma that supports PDAC tumorigenesis. Traditionally, the desmoplastic stroma was thought to confer chemotherapy resistance which could be reversed with sonic hedgehog inhibitors in pre-clinical models. However, a clinical trial of this inhibitor led to the paradoxical acceleration of PDAC growth [ 168 ]. The sonic hedgehog inhibitor happened to inhibit myofibroblast cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and also reduced fibrotic type I collagen deposition, leading to loss of its tumour restraining properties [ 72 , 169 ]. The resultant influx of regulatory T cells was also thought to contribute to reduced survival [ 169 ]. The spatial arrangement of myofibroblast CAFs near PDAC cells and the more immunosuppressive, inflammatory CAFs in the periphery is maintained by PDAC secretion of TGFB and IL1, respectively [ 170 ]. Besides the fibrotic reaction, the pancreatic stroma is characterised by high interstitial pressure due to the presence of hyaluronic acid, which causes vascular collapse and impedes chemotherapy delivery, thus conferring resistance [ 161 ]. Despite promising earlier phase trials, pegvorhyaluronidase alfa (targeting hyaluronan) ended in a negative phase III trial [ 161 , 171 ].

Further evidence of PDAC and stroma interaction comes from the observation that mutant p53 PDAC can educate CAFs. These “educated” CAFs can instruct the more indolent wildtype p53 PDAC to adopt a more invasive phenotype, either directly via facilitation of invasion, or indirectly by increasing perlecan/HSPG2 secretion. [ 35 , 171 ]. In the classical molecular subtype of PDAC, the stroma upregulates cholesterol synthesis to support aberrant cholesterol uptake, whilst the basal subtype adopts more of a fibrotic phenotype [ 172 ]. These observations highlight the importance of stroma in governing the behaviour of PDAC and supporting the maintenance of the molecular subtype. Perturbation of stroma can have inadvertent consequences on its tumour restraining properties. Thus, the effect of novel PDAC therapies on stroma should be evaluated to mitigate the risk of failure in the clinic.

PRMT5 inhibition may enhance immunogenicity in PDAC, based on the predicted impact on the PDAC microenvironment and effects reported in other cancers. Outside of the microsatellite unstable setting, immunotherapy trials in PDAC have all been negative [ 173 , 174 ], except the COMBAT trial, a phase IIA trial, where there was evidence of activity in combination with a CXCR4 antagonist [ 175 ]. This likely reflects the immunosuppressive environment, partly mediated by inflammatory CAFs that arise from IL1a secreted by PDAC and the result of NFKB pathway activation [ 170 ]. PRMT5 inhibition may suppress inflammatory CAFs by hypomethylation of p65, which precludes its translocation into the nucleus, thus inhibiting NFKB mediated transcription [ 127 ]. In addition, PRMT5 inhibition can also cause alternative splicing of TIP60 (histone acetyltransferase) and decreased methylation of TIP60 cofactor, RUVBL1, both of which lead to decreased TIP60 mediated acetylation of FOXP3 ( Figure 2 , bottom panel) [ 45 , 46 ]. This results in increased degradation of FOXP3+ regulatory T cells followed by a secondary influx of CD8 + T cells [ 47 ]. In addition, both enzymes contribute to the mobilisation of 53BP1 and promoting homologous recombination repair and reactivation of p53 mediated apoptosis [ 82 ]. In melanoma, PRMT5 inhibition has been shown to increase both neoantigen expression via perturbation of alternative splicing and also immunogenicity with increased MHC class I expression through hypomethylation of NLRC5 [ 48 , 49 ]. These observed effects of PRMT5 may contribute to increased immunogenicity, but they require validation in PDAC.

In contrast, in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells, PRMT5 inhibition reduces CD8+ T cell proliferation via the MDM4/p53 axis and reduces metabolic activity (glycolysis and fatty acid oxidation) via inhibition of AKT/mTOR pathways [ 50 ]. PRMT5 inhibition can also impair Th17 cell differentiation, with reduced T helper cell proliferation and cytotoxic lymphocyte recruitment through reduced γc-cytokine signalling [ 52 , 176 ]. It would appear that the proliferation and survival of B cells and T cells are also dependent on PRMT5-facilitated splicing of IL2 receptor and JAK3 [ 52 , 177 ]. Although PRMT5 inhibition appears to reduce activation and recruitment of the immune system in the periphery compartment, PRMT5 inhibition has an immune promoting effect in the tumour microenvironment. The overall net effect of PRMT5 inhibition on the immune system is unclear. There is currently a relative paucity of research in this domain, except for the METEOR-1 study containing an arm combining GSK3326595 with pembrolizumab ( NCT02783300 ).

8. Discussion

In the era of precision oncology, melanoma and lung cancer have recently seen giant strides in improving survival outcomes, with the advent of immunotherapy and the identification of subgroups amenable to targeted therapies. Advanced PDAC continues to have a poor prognosis with a median survival of fewer than 12 months [ 54 ] and with rising incidences. Therefore, a strong unmet clinical need exists for novel therapies, especially those of a novel therapeutic class. The interest in developing PRMT5 inhibitors stems from the observation across multiple tumour types that high expression of PRMT5 is associated with worse prognosis and its inhibition in various preclinical models has led to PDAC regression. In addition, PRMT5 inhibition mediated alternative splicing could pose as a novel therapy against a hallmark driver of PDAC tumorigenesis that has not been successfully targeted to date [ 22 ]. Based on current evidence, there is a possibility that the therapy will only benefit up to 20% of patients who are basal molecular subtype [ 30 ]. Regardless, this targeted treatment will still be the only treatment that encapsulates a substantial subgroup within the PDAC cohort [ 24 ]. Furthermore, early phase trials have already demonstrated the safety of this class of drugs [ 110 , 111 ]. Thus, PRMT5 is poised for rapid translation into PDAC treatment once the underlying mechanism is better elucidated.

The scientific challenge is that PRMT5 has multiple cellular functions and regulates signalling at multiple levels within a pathway and via differing mechanisms. Nonetheless, the regulation of c-Myc expression thus far seems to be central to mediating the inhibition of cancer growth. The apparent redundancy of inhibitory actions that PRMT5 has on c-Myc stability is not well understood. However, PRMT5 inhibition may result in a longer duration of disease control due to concurrent inhibition of multiple parallel signalling pathways. This potentially reduces the rate of adaptive resistance development that is seen with other targeted therapies. Lack of a singular mechanism of action, as seen with oncogenes, and the varied mechanisms across different cancers suggest that its mechanism of action is likely unique to a particular cancer type. However, given that the response to PRMT5 inhibitor therapy is partially dependent on molecular contexts such as MTAP deletion or altered splicing as seen in glioblastoma, its mechanism may not be tissue-specific but molecularly defined. Therefore, understanding the alternative splicing landscape in PDAC is likely to be important in defining the use of PRMT5 inhibitors for this disease. With the poor response rate seen in early phase trials, there is a strong need for a better predictive response biomarker, as the current “biomarker” of SDMA levels are functional measures of PRMT5 activity but not necessarily representative of its biological effect [ 152 ].

To advance the translation of PRMT5 inhibitors to a clinical trial in PDAC, better elucidation of the PRMT5 inhibitor’s mechanism of action and/or identification of appropriate predictive response biomarkers will be paramount. Firstly, acknowledging the plethora of potential actions of PRMT5, unbiased and systematic assessment of which genes PRMT5 inhibition affects will be beneficial to narrow down biological pathways of relevance. Examples of these approaches would include whole-genome CRISPR screens to identify the essential genes required for response to PRMT5 inhibition and transcriptomic assessment of differential gene expression and splicing changes. However, reliance on conventional knock-out screens or transcriptomic analysis alone is insufficient to elucidate the multiplicity of effects that PRMT5 can have over gene and protein expression. Therefore, multi-omic strategies, including proteomic, are likely needed to comprehensively ascertain the relative importance and interdependency of different mechanisms that PRMT5 can concurrently modulate, such as epigenetic, translational efficiency, RNA transport, protein stability and crosstalk with phosphorylation and ubiquitination processes [ 178 ] ( Figure 1 ). Nonetheless, the benefit of being in the precision oncology era is the accessibility of both bioinformatics and laboratory-based approaches to tackle the complexity of PRMT5 as a biological target and potentially shorten the drug target’s translational timeline.

Lastly, with the emerging evidence suggesting the importance of stroma in determining PDAC behaviour and the dynamic nature of the stroma, PRMT5 inhibitor development in PDAC must be considered in this context. It remains to be further elucidated whether the pro-immunomodulatory effect PRMT5 inhibition has on the microenvironment is sufficient to override the inhibition of immune cells in the peripheral system. This is particularly important in the PDAC setting, where there are insufficient numbers of activated immune cells to orchestrate an immune response, perhaps explaining the negative findings in immunotherapy trials to date.

With all these caveats, PRMT5 remains a potential target for PDAC, and its ability to modulate alternative splicing provides a novel therapeutic class for the treatment of this disease. Biologically, with PRMT5 having multiple control points within and across differing signalling pathways, this agent may be less likely to induce tumour adaptation and resistance, as seen in many targeted therapies [ 179 ]. Currently, trials combining PRMT5 inhibitors with 5-azacitidine ( NCT03614728 ) and Pembrolizumab ( NCT02783300 ) are planned. Other rational combinations may be possible with an improved understanding of its underlying mechanism of action. PRMT5 as a target has its merit, but overall, further research is needed to maximize its utilisation in PDAC cancer care.

9. Conclusions

In view of limited targeted therapy options available and continued poor survival with conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy, novel therapeutic options are needed to improve the survival outcomes of patients with advanced PDAC significantly. PRMT5 inhibition poses an interesting target given its effects on alternative splicing, a known hallmark driver in PDAC pathogenesis. The pleiotropic effects of PRMT5 inhibition may depend on the molecular context and thus differ from conventional oncogene inhibitor therapy. While this poses challenges to understanding its mechanism of action and appropriate patient selection, PRMT5 inhibition may result in less chance of therapy resistance, due to redundancy in its actions on either the same or complimentary signaling pathways. Therefore, PRMT5 inhibition is a note worthy target to further develop for the treatment of PDAC.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Laura Kirby for providing proofreading of the manuscript.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author Contributions

M.K.C.L. conceptualised and drafted the first draft of the manuscript. K.E.S., S.M.G., G.A.M. supervised and provided critical feedback on all drafts, including the final edition of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Foundation and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grants to G.A. McArthur and K.E. Sheppard (1158190 & 1175894); a University of Melbourne Research Scholarship by the Department of Clinical Pathology, a Royal Australiasian College of Physician Aotearoa New Zealand Fellows Research Entry Scholarship and a PanCare Foundation Onwards & Upwards Damien Woodruff Scholarship to M.K.C.L., S.M.G. is also supported by another NHMRC grant (1178568). The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Conflicts of Interest

M.K.C.L., S.M.G. and K.E. Sheppard declare no conflict of interests. G.A.M. has been a principal investigator for clinical trials with Array Biopharma/Pfizer and Roche/Genentech. All revenues were paid to his institution as reimbursement for trial costs.

References

1. Pourshams A. Sepanlou S.G. Ikuta K.S. Bisignano C. Safiri S. Roshandel G. Sharif M. Khatibian M. Fitzmaurice C. Nixon M.R. The global, regional, and national burden of pancreatic cancer and its attributable risk factors in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019 4 934 947 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30347-4 31648972 PMC7026711

2. Hellmann M.D. Paz-Ares L. Bernabe Caro R. Zurawski B. Kim S.-W. Carcereny Costa E. Park K. Alexandru A. Lupinacci L. De La Mora Jimenez E. Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 381 2020 2031 10.1056/NEJMoa1910231 31562796

3. Larkin J. Chiarion-Sileni V. Gonzalez R. Grob J.-J. Rutkowski P. Lao C.D. Cowey C.L. Schadendorf D. Wagstaff J. Dummer R. Five-Year Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 381 1535 1546 10.1056/NEJMoa1910836 31562797

4. Garon E.B. Hellmann M.D. Rizvi N.A. Carcereny E. Leighl N.B. Ahn M.-J. Eder J.P. Balmanoukian A.S. Aggarwal C. Horn L. Five-Year Overall Survival for Patients with Advanced Non‒Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Pembrolizumab: Results from the Phase I KEYNOTE-001 Study J. Clin. Oncol. 2019 37 2518 2527 10.1200/JCO.19.00934 31154919 PMC6768611

5. Reck M. Rodríguez-Abreu D. Robinson A.G. Hui R. Csőszi T. Fülöp A. Gottfried M. Peled N. Tafreshi A. Cuffe S. Five-Year Outcomes with Pembrolizumab versus Chemotherapy for Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer with PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥ 50% J. Clin. Oncol. 2021 JCO-21 10.1200/jco.21.00174 PMC8280089 33872070

6. Robert C. Ribas A. Schachter J. Arance A. Grob J.-J. Mortier L. Daud A. Carlino M.S. McNeil C.M. Lotem M. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): Post-hoc 5-year results from an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study Lancet Oncol. 2019 20 1239 1251 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30388-2 31345627

7. Latenstein A.E.J. Van Roessel S. Van Der Geest L.G.M. Bonsing B.A. Dejong C.H.C. Groot Koerkamp B. De Hingh I.H.J.T. Homs M.Y.V. Klaase J.M. Lemmens V. Conditional Survival after Resection for Pancreatic Cancer: A Population-Based Study and Prediction Model Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2020 27 2516 2524 10.1245/s10434-020-08235-w 32052299 PMC7311496

8. Sugumar K. Gupta S. Hue J.J. Ocuin L.M. Rothermel L. Hardacre J. Ammori J.B. Winter J.M. The impact of multi-agent chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A population-based study utilizing the SEER database J. Clin. Oncol. 2021 39 416 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.3_suppl.416

9. Conroy T. Hammel P. Hebbar M. Ben Abdelghani M. Wei A.C. Raoul J.-L. Choné L. Francois E. Artru P. Biagi J.J. FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine as Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 379 2395 2406 10.1056/NEJMoa1809775 30575490

10. Von Hoff D.D. Ervin T. Arena F.P. Chiorean E.G. Infante J. Moore M. Seay T. Tjulandin S.A. Ma W.W. Saleh M.N. Increased Survival in Pancreatic Cancer with nab-Paclitaxel plus Gemcitabine N. Engl. J. Med. 2013 369 1691 1703 10.1056/NEJMoa1304369 24131140 PMC4631139

11. Fest J. Ruiter R. van Rooij F.J.A. van der Geest L.G.M. Lemmens V.E.P.P. Ikram M.A. Coebergh J.W. Stricker B.H. van Eijck C.H.J. Underestimation of pancreatic cancer in the national cancer registry—Reconsidering the incidence and survival rates Eur. J. Cancer 2017 72 186 191 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.11.026 28033529

12. Pishvaian M.J. Bender R.J. Halverson D. Rahib L. Hendifar A.E. Mikhail S. Chung V. Picozzi V.J. Sohal D. Blais E.M. Molecular Profiling of Patients with Pancreatic Cancer: Initial Results from the Know Your Tumor Initiative Clin. Cancer Res. 2018 24 5018 5027 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0531 29954777

13. Pishvaian M.J. Blais E.M. Brody J.R. Lyons E. Dearbeloa P. Hendifar A. Mikhail S. Chung V. Sahai V. Sohal D.P.S. Overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving matched therapies following molecular profiling: A retrospective analysis of the Know Your Tumor registry trial Lancet Oncol. 2020 21 508 518 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30074-7 32135080 PMC7453743

14. Jones M.R. Williamson L.M. Topham J.T. Lee M.K. Goytain A. Ho J. Denroche R.E. Jang G.-H. Pleasance E.D. Shen Y. NRG1 gene fusions are recurrent, clinically actionable gene rearrangements in KRAS wild-type pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Clin. Cancer Res. 2019 25 4674 4681 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0191 31068372

15. Drilon A. Laetsch T.W. Kummar S. Dubois S.G. Lassen U.N. Demetri G.D. Nathenson M. Doebele R.C. Farago A.F. Pappo A.S. Efficacy of Larotrectinib in TRKFusion–Positive Cancers in Adults and Children N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 378 731 739 10.1056/NEJMoa1714448 29466156 PMC5857389

16. Doebele R.C. Drilon A. Paz-Ares L. Siena S. Shaw A.T. Farago A.F. Blakely C.M. Seto T. Cho B.C. Tosi D. Entrectinib in patients with advanced or metastatic NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours: Integrated analysis of three phase 1–2 trials Lancet Oncol. 2020 21 271 282 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30691-6 31838007 PMC7461630

17. Liu S.V. Feldman R. Borghaei H. Gadgeel S.M. Ma P.C. Nieva J.J. Spira A.I. Vanderwalde A.M. Wozniak A.J. Jonna S. Incidence of Neuregulin1 ( NRG1 ) gene fusions across tumor types J. Clin. Oncol. 2018 36 12084 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.12084

18. Demols A. Perez-Casanova L. Rocq L. Charry M. Nève N.D. Verrellen A. Ramadhan A. Campenhout C.V. Clercq S.D. Maris C. NTRK gene fusions in bilio-pancreatic cancers J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 e16664 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.e16664

19. Forsythe A. Zhang W. Phillip Strauss U. Fellous M. Korei M. Keating K. A systematic review and meta-analysis of neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase gene fusion frequencies in solid tumors Adv. Med. Oncol. 2020 12 175883592097561 10.1177/1758835920975613 PMC7758559 33425024

20. Aguirre A.J. Nowak J.A. Camarda N.D. Moffitt R.A. Ghazani A.A. Hazar-Rethinam M. Raghavan S. Kim J. Brais L.K. Ragon D. Real-time Genomic Characterization of Advanced Pancreatic Cancer to Enable Precision Medicine Cancer Discov. 2018 8 1096 1111 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-0275 29903880 PMC6192263

21. Aung K.L. Fischer S.E. Denroche R.E. Jang G.-H. Dodd A. Creighton S. Southwood B. Liang S.-B. Chadwick D. Zhang A. Genomics-Driven Precision Medicine for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Early Results from the COMPASS Trial Clin. Cancer Res. 2018 24 1344 1354 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-2994 29288237 PMC5968824

22. Bailey P. Chang D.K. Nones K. Johns A.L. Patch A.-M. Gingras M.-C. Miller D.K. Christ A.N. Bruxner T.J.C. Quinn M.C. Genomic analyses identify molecular subtypes of pancreatic cancer Nature 2016 531 47 10.1038/nature16965 26909576

23. Karasinska J.M. Topham J.T. Kalloger S.E. Jang G.H. Denroche R.E. Culibrk L. Williamson L.M. Wong H.-L. Lee M.K.C. O’Kane G.M. Altered Gene Expression along the Glycolysis–Cholesterol Synthesis Axis Is Associated with Outcome in Pancreatic Cancer Clin. Cancer Res. 2019 26 135 146 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1543 31481506

24. Moffitt R.A. Marayati R. Flate E.L. Volmar K.E. Loeza S.G.H. Hoadley K.A. Rashid N.U. Williams L.A. Eaton S.C. Chung A.H. Virtual microdissection identifies distinct tumor- and stroma-specific subtypes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Nat. Genet. 2015 47 1168 10.1038/ng.3398 26343385 PMC4912058

25. Collisson E.A. Sadanandam A. Olson P. Gibb W.J. Truitt M. Gu S. Cooc J. Weinkle J. Kim G.E. Jakkula L. Subtypes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and their differing responses to therapy Nat. Med. 2011 17 500 10.1038/nm.2344 21460848 PMC3755490

26. Chan-Seng-Yue M. Kim J.C. Wilson G.W. Ng K. Figueroa E.F. O’Kane G.M. Connor A.A. Denroche R.E. Grant R.C. McLeod J. Transcription phenotypes of pancreatic cancer are driven by genomic events during tumor evolution Nat. Genet. 2020 52 231 240 10.1038/s41588-019-0566-9 31932696

27. Espiau-Romera P. Courtois S. Parejo-Alonso B. Sancho P. Molecular and Metabolic Subtypes Correspondence for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Classification J. Clin. Med. 2020 9 4128 10.3390/jcm9124128 PMC7767410 33371431

28. Puleo F. Nicolle R. Blum Y. Cros J. Marisa L. Demetter P. Quertinmont E. Svrcek M. Elarouci N. Iovanna J. Stratification of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas Based on Tumor and Microenvironment Features Gastroenterology 2018 155 1999 2013.e1993 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.08.033 30165049

29. Topham J.T. Karasinska J.M. Lee M.K.C. Csizmok V. Williamson L.M. Jang G.H. Denroche R.E. Tsang E.S. Kalloger S.E. Wong H.L. Subtype-Discordant Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Tumors Show Intermediate Clinical and Molecular Characteristics Clin. Cancer Res. 2021 27 150 157 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2831 33051307

30. Brunton H. Caligiuri G. Cunningham R. Upstill-Goddard R. Bailey U.M. Garner I.M. Nourse C. Dreyer S. Jones M. Moran-Jones K. HNF4A and GATA6 Loss Reveals Therapeutically Actionable Subtypes in Pancreatic Cancer Cell Rep. 2020 31 107625 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107625 32402285 PMC9511995

31. Patil S. Steuber B. Kopp W. Kari V. Urbach L. Wang X. Küffer S. Bohnenberger H. Spyropoulou D. Zhang Z. EZH2 Regulates Pancreatic Cancer Subtype Identity and Tumor Progression via Transcriptional Repression of GATA6 Cancer Res. 2020 80 4620 4632 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-0672 32907838

32. Hoadley K.A. Yau C. Wolf D.M. Cherniack A.D. Tamborero D. Ng S. Leiserson M.D.M. Niu B. McLellan M.D. Uzunangelov V. Multiplatform Analysis of 12 Cancer Types Reveals Molecular Classification within and across Tissues of Origin Cell 2014 158 929 944 10.1016/j.cell.2014.06.049 25109877 PMC4152462

33. Escobar-Hoyos L.F. Penson A. Kannan R. Cho H. Pan C.-H. Singh R.K. Apken L.H. Hobbs G.A. Luo R. Lecomte N. Altered RNA Splicing by Mutant p53 Activates Oncogenic RAS Signaling in Pancreatic Cancer Cancer Cell 2020 38 198 211 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.05.010 32559497 PMC8028848

34. Hsu T.Y.T. Simon L.M. Neill N.J. Marcotte R. Sayad A. Bland C.S. Echeverria G.V. Sun T. Kurley S.J. Tyagi S. The spliceosome is a therapeutic vulnerability in MYC-driven cancer Nature 2015 525 384 388 10.1038/nature14985 26331541 PMC4831063

35. Fong J.Y. Pignata L. Goy P.-A. Kawabata K.C. Lee S.C.-W. Koh C.M. Musiani D. Massignani E. Kotini A.G. Penson A. Therapeutic Targeting of RNA Splicing Catalysis through Inhibition of Protein Arginine Methylation Cancer Cell 2019 36 194 209.e199 10.1016/j.ccell.2019.07.003 31408619 PMC7194031

36. Gu Z. Gao S. Zhang F. Wang Z. Ma W. Davis R.E. Wang Z. Protein arginine methyltransferase 5 is essential for growth of lung cancer cells Biochem. J. 2012 446 235 241 10.1042/BJ20120768 22708516 PMC3865921

37. Tan L. Xiao K. Ye Y. Liang H. Chen M. Luo J. Qin Z. High PRMT5 expression is associated with poor overall survival and tumor progression in bladder cancer Aging 2020 12 8728 8741 10.18632/aging.103198 32392182 PMC7244052

38. Jing P. Zhao N. Ye M. Zhang Y. Zhang Z. Sun J. Wang Z. Zhang J. Gu Z. Protein arginine methyltransferase 5 promotes lung cancer metastasis via the epigenetic regulation of miR-99 family/FGFR3 signaling Cancer Lett. 2018 427 38 48 10.1016/j.canlet.2018.04.019 29679612

39. Barbarino M. Cesari D. Bottaro M. Luzzi L. Namagerdi A. Bertolino F.M. Bellan C. Proietti F. Somma P. Micheli M. PRMT5 silencing selectively affects MTAP -deleted mesothelioma: In vitro evidence of a novel promising approach J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2020 24 5565 5577 10.1111/jcmm.15213 32301278 PMC7214180

40. Liu M. Yao B. Gui T. Guo C. Wu X. Li J. Ma L. Deng Y. Xu P. Wang Y. PRMT5-dependent transcriptional repression of c-Myc target genes promotes gastric cancer progression Theranostics 2020 10 4437 4452 10.7150/thno.42047 32292506 PMC7150477

41. Lattouf H. Kassem L. Jacquemetton J. Choucair A. Poulard C. Trédan O. Corbo L. Diab-Assaf M. Hussein N. Treilleux I. LKB1 regulates PRMT5 activity in breast cancer Int. J. Cancer 2019 144 595 606 10.1002/ijc.31909 30289978 PMC6294691

42. Shimizu D. Kanda M. Sugimoto H. Shibata M. Tanaka H. Takami H. Iwata N. Hayashi M. Tanaka C. Kobayashi D. The protein arginine methyltransferase 5 promotes malignant phenotype of hepatocellular carcinoma cells and is associated with adverse patient outcomes after curative hepatectomy Int. J. Oncol. 2017 50 381 386 10.3892/ijo.2017.3833 28101581 PMC5238779

43. Zhu F. Rui L. PRMT5 in gene regulation and hematologic malignancies Genes Dis. 2019 6 247 257 10.1016/j.gendis.2019.06.002 32042864 PMC6997592

44. Escobar-Hoyos L. Knorr K. Abdel-Wahab O. Aberrant RNA Splicing in Cancer Annu. Rev. Cancer Biol. 2019 3 167 185 10.1146/annurev-cancerbio-030617-050407 32864546 PMC7453310

45. Hamard P.-J. Santiago G.E. Liu F. Karl D.L. Martinez C. Man N. Mookhtiar A.K. Duffort S. Greenblatt S. Verdun R.E. PRMT5 Regulates DNA Repair by Controlling the Alternative Splicing of Histone-Modifying Enzymes Cell Rep. 2018 24 2643 2657 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.08.002 30184499 PMC6322662

46. Clarke T.L. Sanchez-Bailon M.P. Chiang K. Reynolds J.J. Herrero-Ruiz J. Bandeiras T.M. Matias P.M. Maslen S.L. Skehel J.M. Stewart G.S. PRMT5-Dependent Methylation of the TIP60 Coactivator RUVBL1 Is a Key Regulator of Homologous Recombination Mol. Cell 2017 65 900 916.e907 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.01.019 28238654 PMC5344794

47. Goel P.N. Grover P. Greene M.I. PRMT5 and Tip60 modify FOXP3 function in tumor immunity Crit. Rev. Immunol. 2020 40 283 295 10.1615/CritRevImmunol.2020034789 33426818

48. Smart A.C. Margolis C.A. Pimentel H. He M.X. Miao D. Adeegbe D. Fugmann T. Wong K.-K. Van Allen E.M. Intron retention is a source of neoepitopes in cancer Nat. Biotechnol. 2018 36 1056 1058 10.1038/nbt.4239 30114007 PMC6226333

49. Kim H. Kim H. Feng Y. Li Y. Tamiya H. Tocci S. Ronai Z.E.A. PRMT5 control of cGAS/STING and NLRC5 pathways defines melanoma response to antitumor immunity Sci. Transl. Med. 2020 12 eaaz5683 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaz5683 32641491 PMC7508354

50. Strobl C.D. Schaffer S. Haug T. Völkl S. Peter K. Singer K. Böttcher M. Mougiakakos D. Mackensen A. Aigner M. Selective PRMT5 Inhibitors Suppress Human CD8+ T Cells by Upregulation of p53 and Impairment of the AKT Pathway Similar to the Tumor Metabolite MTA Mol. Cancer Ther. 2020 19 409 419 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-19-0189 31712395

51. Webb L.M. Narvaez Miranda J. Amici S.A. Sengupta S. Nagy G. Guerau-De-Arellano M. NF-κB/mTOR/MYC Axis Drives PRMT5 Protein Induction After T Cell Activation via Transcriptional and Non-transcriptional Mechanisms Front. Immunol. 2019 10 524 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00524 30941147 PMC6433977

52. Inoue M. Okamoto K. Terashima A. Nitta T. Muro R. Negishi-Koga T. Kitamura T. Nakashima T. Takayanagi H. Arginine methylation controls the strength of γc-family cytokine signaling in T cell maintenance Nat. Immunol. 2018 19 1265 1276 10.1038/s41590-018-0222-z 30323341

53. Conroy T. Hammel P. Turpin A. Belletier C. Wei A.C. Mitry E. Lopez A. Francois E. Artru P. Biagi J. Unicancer PRODIGE 24/CCTG PA6 trial: Updated results of a multicenter international randomized phase III trial of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (mFFX) versus gemcitabine (gem) in patients (pts) with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC) Ann. Oncol. 2021 32 S1334 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.08.2137

54. Conroy T. Desseigne F. Ychou M. Bouché O. Guimbaud R. Bécouarn Y. Adenis A. Raoul J.-L. Gourgou-Bourgade S. de la Fouchardière C. FOLFIRINOX versus Gemcitabine for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2011 364 1817 1825 10.1056/NEJMoa1011923 21561347

55. Cremin C. Lee M.K.-C. Hong Q. Hoeschen C. Mackenzie A. Dixon K. McCullum M. Nuk J. Kalloger S. Karasinska J. Burden of hereditary cancer susceptibility in unselected patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma referred for germline screening Cancer Med. 2020 9 4004 4013 10.1002/cam4.2973 32255556 PMC7286471

56. Salo-Mullen E.E. O’Reilly E.M. Kelsen D.P. Ashraf A.M. Lowery M.A. Yu K.H. Reidy D.L. Epstein A.S. Lincoln A. Saldia A. Identification of germline genetic mutations in patients with pancreatic cancer Cancer 2015 121 4382 4388 10.1002/cncr.29664 26440929 PMC5193099

57. Lowery M.A. Wong W. Jordan E.J. Lee J.W. Kemel Y. Vijai J. Mandelker D. Zehir A. Capanu M. Salo-Mullen E. Prospective Evaluation of Germline Alterations in Patients With Exocrine Pancreatic Neoplasms JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2018 110 1067 1074 10.1093/jnci/djy024 29506128 PMC6186514

58. Golan T. Hammel P. Reni M. Van Cutsem E. Macarulla T. Hall M.J. Park J.-O. Hochhauser D. Arnold D. Oh D.-Y. Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 381 317 327 10.1056/NEJMoa1903387 31157963 PMC6810605

59. Golan T. Hammel P. Reni M. Cutsem E.V. Macarulla T. Hall M.J. Park J.O. Hochhauser D. Arnold D. Oh D.-Y. Overall survival from the phase 3 POLO trial: Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2021 39 378 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.3_suppl.378

60. Thein K. Banks K. Saam J. Raymond V.M. Roszik J. Meric-Bernstam F. Janku F. Hong D.S. The prevalence of KRASG12C mutations utilizing circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in 80,911 patients with cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 3547 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.3547

61. Tempero M.A. Malafa M.P. Al-Hawary M. Behrman S.W. Benson A.B. Cardin D.B. Chiorean E.G. Chung V. Czito B. Del Chiaro M. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2021 19 439 457 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0017 33845462

62. Hendifar A.E. Blais E.M. Ng C. Thach D. Gong J. Sohal D. Chung V. Sahai V. Fountzilas C. Mikhail S. Comprehensive analysis of KRAS variants in patients (pts) with pancreatic cancer (PDAC): Clinical/molecular correlations and real-world outcomes across standard therapies J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 4641 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.4641

63. Hong D.S. Fakih M.G. Strickler J.H. Desai J. Durm G.A. Shapiro G.I. Falchook G.S. Price T.J. Sacher A. Denlinger C.S. KRASG12C Inhibition with Sotorasib in Advanced Solid Tumors N. Engl. J. Med. 2020 383 1207 1217 10.1056/NEJMoa1917239 32955176 PMC7571518

64. Sohal D.P.S. Kennedy E.B. Cinar P. Conroy T. Copur M.S. Crane C.H. Garrido-Laguna I. Lau M.W. Johnson T. Krishnamurthi S. Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 3217 3230 10.1200/JCO.20.01364 32755482 PMC12974607

65. Ducreux M. Cuhna A.S. Caramella C. Hollebecque A. Burtin P. Goéré D. Seufferlein T. Haustermans K. Van Laethem J.L. Conroy T. Cancer of the pancreas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up Ann. Oncol. 2015 26 v56 v68 10.1093/annonc/mdv295 26314780

66. Guccione E. Richard S. The regulation, functions and clinical relevance of arginine methylation Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2019 20 642 657 10.1038/s41580-019-0155-x 31350521

67. Meister G. Assisted RNP assembly: SMN and PRMT5 complexes cooperate in the formation of spliceosomal UsnRNPs EMBO J. 2002 21 5853 5863 10.1093/emboj/cdf585 12411503 PMC131082

68. Dolzhanskaya N. Methylation regulates the intracellular protein-protein and protein-RNA interactions of FMRP J. Cell Sci. 2006 119 1933 1946 10.1242/jcs.02882 16636078

69. Wu Q. Schapira M. Arrowsmith C.H. Barsyte-Lovejoy D. Protein arginine methylation: From enigmatic functions to therapeutic targeting Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2021 20 509 530 10.1038/s41573-021-00159-8 33742187

70. Tewary S.K. Zheng Y.G. Ho M.-C. Protein arginine methyltransferases: Insights into the enzyme structure and mechanism at the atomic level Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2019 76 2917 2932 10.1007/s00018-019-03145-x 31123777 PMC6741777

71. Karkhanis V. Hu Y.-J. Baiocchi R.A. Imbalzano A.N. Sif S. Versatility of PRMT5-induced methylation in growth control and development Trends Biochem. Sci. 2011 36 633 641 10.1016/j.tibs.2011.09.001 21975038 PMC3225484

72. Hu D. Gur M. Zhou Z. Gamper A. Hung M.-C. Fujita N. Lan L. Bahar I. Wan Y. Interplay between arginine methylation and ubiquitylation regulates KLF4-mediated genome stability and carcinogenesis Nat. Commun. 2015 6 8419 10.1038/ncomms9419 26420673 PMC4598737

73. Cho E.-C. Zheng S. Munro S. Liu G. Carr S.M. Moehlenbrink J. Lu Y.-C. Stimson L. Khan O. Konietzny R. Arginine methylation controls growth regulation by E2F-1 EMBO J. 2012 31 1785 1797 10.1038/emboj.2012.17 22327218 PMC3321197

74. Chiang K. Zielinska A.E. Shaaban A.M. Sanchez-Bailon M.P. Jarrold J. Clarke T.L. Zhang J. Francis A. Jones L.J. Smith S. PRMT5 Is a Critical Regulator of Breast Cancer Stem Cell Function via Histone Methylation and FOXP1 Expression Cell Rep. 2017 21 3498 3513 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.11.096 29262329 PMC5746596

75. Jin Y. Zhou J. Xu F. Jin B. Cui L. Wang Y. Du X. Li J. Li P. Ren R. Targeting methyltransferase PRMT5 eliminates leukemia stem cells in chronic myelogenous leukemia J. Clin. Investig. 2016 126 3961 3980 10.1172/JCI85239 27643437 PMC5096815

76. Ancelin K. Lange U.C. Hajkova P. Schneider R. Bannister A.J. Kouzarides T. Surani M.A. Blimp1 associates with Prmt5 and directs histone arginine methylation in mouse germ cells Nat. Cell Biol. 2006 8 623 630 10.1038/ncb1413 16699504

77. Ohinata Y. Payer B. O’Carroll D. Ancelin K. Ono Y. Sano M. Barton S.C. Obukhanych T. Nussenzweig M. Tarakhovsky A. Blimp1 is a critical determinant of the germ cell lineage in mice Nature 2005 436 207 213 10.1038/nature03813 15937476

78. Ren J. Wang Y. Liang Y. Zhang Y. Bao S. Xu Z. Methylation of Ribosomal Protein S10 By Protein-Arginine Methyltransferase 5 Regul. Ribosome Biogenesis J. Biol. Chem. 2010 285 12695 12705 10.1074/jbc.M110.103911 20159986 PMC2857073

79. Zhou Z. Sun X. Zou Z. Sun L. Zhang T. Guo S. Wen Y. Liu L. Wang Y. Qin J. PRMT5 regulates Golgi apparatus structure through methylation of the golgin GM130 Cell Res. 2010 20 1023 1033 10.1038/cr.2010.56 20421892

80. Liu L. Zhao X. Zhao L. Li J. Yang H. Zhu Z. Liu J. Huang G. Arginine Methylation of SREBP1a via PRMT5 Promotes De Novo Lipogenesis and Tumor Growth Cancer Res. 2016 76 1260 1272 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1766 26759235

81. Pal S. Vishwanath S.N. Erdjument-Bromage H. Tempst P. Sif S.D. Human SWI/SNF-Associated PRMT5 Methylates Histone H3 Arginine 8 and Negatively Regulates Expression of ST7 and NM23 Tumor Suppressor Genes Mol. Cell. Biol. 2004 24 9630 9645 10.1128/MCB.24.21.9630-9645.2004 15485929 PMC522266

82. Jansson M. Durant S.T. Cho E.-C. Sheahan S. Edelmann M. Kessler B. La Thangue N.B. Arginine methylation regulates the p53 response Nat. Cell Biol. 2008 10 1431 1439 10.1038/ncb1802 19011621

83. Banasavadi-Siddegowda Y.K. Russell L. Frair E. Karkhanis V.A. Relation T. Yoo J.Y. Zhang J. Sif S. Imitola J. Baiocchi R. PRMT5–PTEN molecular pathway regulates senescence and self-renewal of primary glioblastoma neurosphere cells Oncogene 2017 36 263 274 10.1038/onc.2016.199 27292259 PMC5240810

84. Gerhart S.V. Kellner W.A. Thompson C. Pappalardi M.B. Zhang X.-P. Montes De Oca R. Penebre E. Duncan K. Boriack-Sjodin A. Le B. Activation of the p53-MDM4 regulatory axis defines the anti-tumour response to PRMT5 inhibition through its role in regulating cellular splicing Sci. Rep. 2018 8 9711 10.1038/s41598-018-28002-y 29946150 PMC6018746

85. Qin Y. Hu Q. Xu J. Ji S. Dai W. Liu W. Xu W. Sun Q. Zhang Z. Ni Q. PRMT5 enhances tumorigenicity and glycolysis in pancreatic cancer via the FBW7/cMyc axis Cell Commun. Signal. 2019 17 30 10.1186/s12964-019-0344-4 30922330 PMC6440122

86. Hsu J.-M. Chen C.-T. Chou C.-K. Kuo H.-P. Li L.-Y. Lin C.-Y. Lee H.-J. Wang Y.-N. Liu M. Liao H.-W. Crosstalk between Arg 1175 methylation and Tyr 1173 phosphorylation negatively modulates EGFR-mediated ERK activation Nat. Cell Biol. 2011 13 174 181 10.1038/ncb2158 21258366 PMC3048027

87. Zhu F. Guo H. Bates P.D. Zhang S. Zhang H. Nomie K.J. Li Y. Lu L. Seibold K.R. Wang F. PRMT5 is upregulated by B-cell receptor signaling and forms a positive-feedback loop with PI3K/AKT in lymphoma cells Leukemia 2019 33 2898 2911 10.1038/s41375-019-0489-6 31123343 PMC7494157

88. Berglund L. Björling E. Oksvold P. Fagerberg L. Asplund A. Al-Khalili Szigyarto C. Persson A. Ottosson J. Wernérus H. Nilsson P. A Genecentric Human Protein Atlas for Expression Profiles Based on Antibodies Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2008 7 2019 2027 10.1074/mcp.R800013-MCP200 18669619

89. Driehuis E. Van Hoeck A. Moore K. Kolders S. Francies H.E. Gulersonmez M.C. Stigter E.C.A. Burgering B. Geurts V. Gracanin A. Pancreatic cancer organoids recapitulate disease and allow personalized drug screening Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019 116 26580 26590 10.1073/pnas.1911273116 31818951 PMC6936689

90. Wei X. Yang J. Adair S.J. Ozturk H. Kuscu C. Lee K.Y. Kane W.J. O’Hara P.E. Liu D. Demirlenk Y.M. Targeted CRISPR screening identifies PRMT5 as synthetic lethality combinatorial target with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer cells Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020 117 28068 28079 10.1073/pnas.2009899117 33097661 PMC7668168

91. Kane W.J. Adair S.J. Nagdas S. Liu D. Wei X. Adli M. Bauer T.W. Abstract PO-007: PRMT5 inhibition sensitizes pancreatic cancer to gemcitabine in orthotopic and metastatic murine models J. Cancer Res. 2020 80 PO-007 10.1158/1538-7445.PANCA20-PO-007

92. Shifteh D. Sapir T. Pahmer M. Haimowitz A. Goel S. Maitra R. Protein Arginine Methyltransferase 5 as a Therapeutic Target for KRAS Mutated Colorectal Cancer Cancers 2020 12 2091 10.3390/cancers12082091 PMC7465151 32731506

93. Fedoriw A. Rajapurkar S.R. O’Brien S. Gerhart S.V. Mitchell L.H. Adams N.D. Rioux N. Lingaraj T. Ribich S.A. Pappalardi M.B. Anti-tumor Activity of the Type I PRMT Inhibitor, GSK3368715, Synergizes with PRMT5 Inhibition through MTAP Loss Cancer Cell 2019 36 100 114.e125 10.1016/j.ccell.2019.05.014 31257072

94. Calabretta S. Bielli P. Passacantilli I. Pilozzi E. Fendrich V. Capurso G. Fave G.D. Sette C. Modulation of PKM alternative splicing by PTBP1 promotes gemcitabine resistance in pancreatic cancer cells Oncogene 2016 35 2031 2039 10.1038/onc.2015.270 26234680 PMC4650269

95. David C.J. Manley J.L. Alternative pre-mRNA splicing regulation in cancer: Pathways and programs unhinged Genes Dev. 2010 24 2343 2364 10.1101/gad.1973010 21041405 PMC2964746

96. Seiler M. Yoshimi A. Darman R. Chan B. Keaney G. Thomas M. Agrawal A.A. Caleb B. Csibi A. Sean E. H3B-8800, an orally available small-molecule splicing modulator, induces lethality in spliceosome-mutant cancers Nat. Med. 2018 24 497 504 10.1038/nm.4493 29457796 PMC6730556

97. Ueda J. Matsuda Y. Yamahatsu K. Uchida E. Naito Z. Korc M. Ishiwata T. Epithelial splicing regulatory protein 1 is a favorable prognostic factor in pancreatic cancer that attenuates pancreatic metastases Oncogene 2014 33 4485 4495 10.1038/onc.2013.392 24077287 PMC4041859

98. Unruh D. Turner K. Srinivasan R. Kocatürk B. Qi X. Chu Z. Aronow B.J. Plas D.R. Gallo C.A. Kalthoff H. Alternatively spliced tissue factor contributes to tumor spread and activation of coagulation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Int. J. Cancer 2014 134 9 20 10.1002/ijc.28327 23754313 PMC4122306

99. Vickers S.M. Huang Z.-Q. MacMillan-Crow L. Greendorfer J.S. Thompson J.A. Ligand activation of alternatively spliced fibroblast growth factor receptor-1 modulates pancreatic adenocarcinoma cell malignancy J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2002 6 546 553 10.1016/S1091-255X(02)00036-7 12127120

100. Chakedis J. French R. Babicky M. Jaquish D. Howard H. Mose E. Lam R. Holman P. Miyamoto J. Walterscheid Z. A novel protein isoform of the RON tyrosine kinase receptor transforms human pancreatic duct epithelial cells Oncogene 2016 35 3249 3259 10.1038/onc.2015.384 26477314 PMC4837108

101. Wei D. Wang L. Kanai M. Jia Z. Le X. Li Q. Wang H. Xie K. KLF4α Up-regulation Promotes Cell Cycle Progression and Reduces Survival Time of Patients with Pancreatic Cancer Gastroenterology 2010 139 2135 2145 10.1053/j.gastro.2010.08.022 20727893 PMC3245983

102. Sveen A. Kilpinen S. Ruusulehto A. Lothe R.A. Skotheim R.I. Aberrant RNA splicing in cancer; expression changes and driver mutations of splicing factor genes Oncogene 2016 35 2413 2427 10.1038/onc.2015.318 26300000

103. Bonnal S. Vigevani L. Valcárcel J. The spliceosome as a target of novel antitumour drugs Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2012 11 847 859 10.1038/nrd3823 23123942

104. Dvinge H. Kim E. Abdel-Wahab O. Bradley R.K. RNA splicing factors as oncoproteins and tumour suppressors Nat. Rev. Cancer 2016 16 413 430 10.1038/nrc.2016.51 27282250 PMC5094465

105. Dong X. Chen R. Understanding aberrant RNA splicing to facilitate cancer diagnosis and therapy Oncogene 2020 39 2231 2242 10.1038/s41388-019-1138-2 31819165

106. Koh C.M. Bezzi M. Low D.H.P. Ang W.X. Teo S.X. Gay F.P.H. Al-Haddawi M. Tan S.Y. Osato M. Sabò A. MYC regulates the core pre-mRNA splicing machinery as an essential step in lymphomagenesis Nature 2015 523 96 100 10.1038/nature14351 25970242

107. Hayes G.M. Carrigan P.E. Beck A.M. Miller L.J. Targeting the RNA Splicing Machinery as a Novel Treatment Strategy for Pancreatic Carcinoma Cancer Res. 2006 66 3819 3827 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-4065 16585209

108. Ge L. Wang H. Xu X. Zhou Z. He J. Peng W. Du F. Zhang Y. Gong A. Xu M. PRMT5 promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition via EGFR-β-catenin axis in pancreatic cancer cells J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2020 24 1969 1979 10.1111/jcmm.14894 31851779 PMC6991680

109. Yan Y. Zhao P. Wang Z. Liu Z. Wang Z. Zhang J. Ding Y. Hua X. Yu L. PRMT5 regulates colorectal cancer cell growth and EMT via EGFR/Akt/GSK3β signaling cascades Aging 2021 13 4468 10.18632/aging.202407 33495409 PMC7906165

110. Siu L.L. Rasco D.W. Postel-Vinay S. Martin-Romano P. Menis J. Opdam F.L. Heinhuis K.M. Egger J.L. Gorman S. Parasrampuria R. METEOR-1: A Phase I Study of GSK3326595, a First-In-Class Protein Arginine Methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) Inhibitor, in Advanced Solid Tumors Ann. Oncol. 2019 30 v159 10.1093/annonc/mdz244

111. Villar M.V. Spreafico A. Moreno V. Braña I. Hernandez T. Razak A.A. Wang J. Haddish-Berhane N. Mehta J. Johnson A. 537MO First-in-human study of JNJ-64619178, a protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancers Ann. Oncol. 2020 31 S470 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.651

112. Kim H. Ronai Z.E.A. PRMT5 function and targeting in cancer Cell Stress 2020 4 199 215 10.15698/cst2020.08.228 32743345 PMC7380451

113. Jain K. Jin C.Y. Clarke S.G. Epigenetic control via allosteric regulation of mammalian protein arginine methyltransferases Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017 114 10101 10106 10.1073/pnas.1706978114 28874563 PMC5617285

114. Karkhanis V. Alinari L. Ozer H.G. Chung J. Zhang X. Sif S. Baiocchi R.A. Protein arginine methyltransferase 5 represses tumor suppressor miRNAs that down-regulate CYCLIN D1 and c-MYC expression in aggressive B-cell lymphoma J. Biol. Chem. 2020 295 1165 1180 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)49877-2 31822509 PMC6996892

115. Li Z. Zhang J. Liu X. Li S. Wang Q. Di C. Hu Z. Yu T. Ding J. Li J. The LINC01138 drives malignancies via activating arginine methyltransferase 5 in hepatocellular carcinoma Nat. Commun. 2018 9 1572 10.1038/s41467-018-04006-0 29679004 PMC5910401

116. Babaei-Jadidi R. Li N. Saadeddin A. Spencer-Dene B. Jandke A. Muhammad B. Ibrahim E.E. Muraleedharan R. Abuzinadah M. Davis H. FBXW7 influences murine intestinal homeostasis and cancer, targeting Notch, Jun, and DEK for degradation J. Exp. Med. 2011 208 295 312 10.1084/jem.20100830 21282377 PMC3039859

117. Minella A.C. Welcker M. Clurman B.E. Ras activity regulates cyclin E degradation by the Fbw7 pathway Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005 102 9649 9654 10.1073/pnas.0503677102 15980150 PMC1172263

118. Bezzi M. Teo S.X. Muller J. Mok W.C. Sahu S.K. Vardy L.A. Bonday Z.Q. Guccione E. Regulation of constitutive and alternative splicing by PRMT5 reveals a role for Mdm4 pre-mRNA in sensing defects in the spliceosomal machinery Genes Dev. 2013 27 1903 1916 10.1101/gad.219899.113 24013503 PMC3778243

119. Welcker M. Clurman B.E. FBW7 ubiquitin ligase: A tumour suppressor at the crossroads of cell division, growth and differentiation Nat. Rev. Cancer 2008 8 83 93 10.1038/nrc2290 18094723

120. Yokobori T. Mimori K. Iwatsuki M. Ishii H. Onoyama I. Fukagawa T. Kuwano H. Nakayama K.I. Mori M. p53-Altered FBXW7 Expression Determines Poor Prognosis in Gastric Cancer Cases Cancer Res. 2009 69 3788 3794 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-2846 19366810

121. Zhang S. Ma Y. Hu X. Zheng Y. Chen X. Targeting PRMT5/Akt signalling axis prevents human lung cancer cell growth J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2019 23 1333 1342 10.1111/jcmm.14036 30461193 PMC6349228

122. Iwatsuki M. Mimori K. Ishii H. Yokobori T. Takatsuno Y. Sato T. Toh H. Onoyama I. Nakayama K.I. Baba H. Loss of FBXW7, a cell cycle regulating gene, in colorectal cancer: Clinical significance Int. J. Cancer 2010 126 1828 1837 10.1002/ijc.24879 19739118

123. Enkhbold C. Utsunomiya T. Morine Y. Imura S. Ikemoto T. Arakawa Y. Kanamoto M. Iwahashi S. Saito Y. Ishikawa D. Loss of FBXW7 expression is associated with poor prognosis in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma Hepatol. Res. 2014 44 E346 E352 10.1111/hepr.12314 24552289

124. Chung J. Karkhanis V. Baiocchi R.A. Sif S. Protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) promotes survival of lymphoma cells via activation of WNT/beta-catenin and AKT/GSK3beta proliferative signaling J. Biol. Chem. 2019 294 7692 7710 10.1074/jbc.RA119.007640 30885941 PMC6514641

125. Kazi A. Xiang S. Yang H. Delitto D. Trevino J. Jiang R.H.Y. Ayaz M. Lawrence H.R. Kennedy P. Sebti S.M. GSK3 suppression upregulates β-catenin and c-Myc to abrogate KRas-dependent tumors Nat. Commun. 2018 9 4535 10.1038/s41467-018-07644-6 30514931 PMC6279809

126. Duda P. Akula S.M. Abrams S.L. Steelman L.S. Martelli A.M. Cocco L. Ratti S. Candido S. Libra M. Montalto G. Targeting GSK3 and Associated Signaling Pathways Involved in Cancer Cells 2020 9 1110 10.3390/cells9051110 PMC7290852 32365809

127. Wei H. Wang B. Miyagi M. She Y. Gopalan B. Huang D.B. Ghosh G. Stark G.R. Lu T. PRMT5 dimethylates R30 of the p65 subunit to activate NF- B Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013 110 13516 13521 10.1073/pnas.1311784110 23904475 PMC3746871

128. Arabi A. Ullah K. Branca R.M.M. Johansson J. Bandarra D. Haneklaus M. Fu J. Ariës I. Nilsson P. Den Boer M.L. Proteomic screen reveals Fbw7 as a modulator of the NF-κB pathway Nat. Commun. 2012 3 976 10.1038/ncomms1975 22864569 PMC4354031

129. Kurashige J. Watanabe M. Iwatsuki M. Kinoshita K. Saito S. Hiyoshi Y. Kamohara H. Baba Y. Mimori K. Baba H. Overexpression of microRNA-223 regulates the ubiquitin ligase FBXW7 in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma Br. J. Cancer 2012 106 182 188 10.1038/bjc.2011.509 22108521 PMC3251856

130. Ibusuki M. Yamamoto Y. Shinriki S. Ando Y. Iwase H. Reduced expression of ubiquitin ligase FBXW7 mRNA is associated with poor prognosis in breast cancer patients Cancer Sci. 2011 102 439 445 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01801.x 21134077

131. Dhar S. Vemulapalli V. Patananan A.N. Huang G.L. Di Lorenzo A. Richard S. Comb M.J. Guo A. Clarke S.G. Bedford M.T. Loss of the major Type I arginine methyltransferase PRMT1 causes substrate scavenging by other PRMTs Sci. Rep. 2013 3 1311 10.1038/srep01311 23419748 PMC3575585

132. Zhang L. Tran N.-T. Su H. Wang R. Lu Y. Tang H. Aoyagi S. Guo A. Khodadadi-Jamayran A. Zhou D. Cross-talk between PRMT1-mediated methylation and ubiquitylation on RBM15 controls RNA splicing eLife 2015 4 e07938 10.7554/eLife.07938 26575292 PMC4775220

133. Radzisheuskaya A. Shliaha P.V. Grinev V. Lorenzini E. Kovalchuk S. Shlyueva D. Gorshkov V. Hendrickson R.C. Jensen O.N. Helin K. PRMT5 methylome profiling uncovers a direct link to splicing regulation in acute myeloid leukemia Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2019 26 999 1012 10.1038/s41594-019-0313-z 31611688 PMC6858565

134. Jiang J.-X. Sun C.-Y. Tian S. Yu C. Chen M.-Y. Zhang H. Tumor suppressor Fbxw7 antagonizes WNT signaling by targeting β-catenin for degradation in pancreatic cancer Tumor Biol. 2016 37 13893 13902 10.1007/s13277-016-5217-5 27485116

135. Andreu-Perez P. Esteve-Puig R. De Torre-Minguela C. Lopez-Fauqued M. Bech-Serra J.J. Tenbaum S. Garcia-Trevijano E.R. Canals F. Merlino G. Avila M.A. Protein Arginine Methyltransferase 5 Regulates ERK1/2 Signal Transduction Amplitude and Cell Fate through CRAF Sci. Signal. 2011 4 ra58 10.1126/scisignal.2001936 21917714 PMC6312726

136. Sapir T. Shifteh D. Pahmer M. Goel S. Maitra R. Protein Arginine Methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) and the ERK1/2 & PI3K Pathways: A Case for PRMT5 Inhibition and Combination Therapies in Cancer Mol. Cancer Res. 2021 19 388 394 10.1158/1541-7786.mcr-20-0745 33288733 PMC7925377

137. Sachamitr P. Ho J.C. Ciamponi F.E. Ba-Alawi W. Coutinho F.J. Guilhamon P. Kushida M.M. Cavalli F.M.G. Lee L. Rastegar N. PRMT5 inhibition disrupts splicing and stemness in glioblastoma Nat. Commun. 2021 12 979 10.1038/s41467-021-21204-5 33579912 PMC7881162

138. Shen E.C. Henry M.F. Weiss V.H. Valentini S.R. Silver P.A. Lee M.S. Arginine methylation facilitates the nuclear export of hnRNP proteins Genes Dev. 1998 12 679 691 10.1101/gad.12.5.679 9499403 PMC316575

139. Yang C. Wu Q. Huang K. Wang X. Yu T. Liao X. Huang J. Zhu G. Gong Y. Han C. Genome-Wide Profiling Reveals the Landscape of Prognostic Alternative Splicing Signatures in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Front. Oncol. 2019 9 511 10.3389/fonc.2019.00511 31275849 PMC6591313

140. Yu M. Hong W. Ruan S. Guan R. Tu L. Huang B. Hou B. Jian Z. Ma L. Jin H. Genome-Wide Profiling of Prognostic Alternative Splicing Pattern in Pancreatic Cancer Front. Oncol. 2019 9 773 10.3389/fonc.2019.00773 31552163 PMC6736558

141. Kwak Y.T. Guo J. Prajapati S. Park K.-J. Surabhi R.M. Miller B. Gehrig P. Gaynor R.B. Methylation of SPT5 Regulates Its Interaction with RNA Polymerase II and Transcriptional Elongation Properties Mol. Cell 2003 11 1055 1066 10.1016/S1097-2765(03)00101-1 12718890

142. Reintjes A. Fuchs J.E. Kremser L. Lindner H.H. Liedl K.R. Huber L.A. Valovka T. Asymmetric arginine dimethylation of RelA provides a repressive mark to modulate TNFα/NF-κB response Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016 113 4326 4331 10.1073/pnas.1522372113 27051065 PMC4843428

143. Roworth A.P. Carr S.M. Liu G. Barczak W. Miller R.L. Munro S. Kanapin A. Samsonova A. La Thangue N.B. Arginine methylation expands the regulatory mechanisms and extends the genomic landscape under E2F control Sci. Adv. 2019 5 eaaw4640 10.1126/sciadv.aaw4640 31249870 PMC6594773

144. Zheng S. Moehlenbrink J. Lu Y.-C. Zalmas L.-P. Sagum C.A. Carr S. McGouran J.F. Alexander L. Fedorov O. Munro S. Arginine Methylation-Dependent Reader-Writer Interplay Governs Growth Control by E2F-1 Mol. Cell 2013 52 37 51 10.1016/j.molcel.2013.08.039 24076217 PMC4129656

145. Connor A.A. Denroche R.E. Jang G.H. Lemire M. Zhang A. Chan-Seng-Yue M. Wilson G. Grant R.C. Merico D. Lungu I. Integration of Genomic and Transcriptional Features in Pancreatic Cancer Reveals Increased Cell Cycle Progression in Metastases Cancer Cell 2019 35 267 282.e267 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.12.010 30686769 PMC6398439

146. Zhao J. Sun Y. Huang Y. Song F. Huang Z. Bao Y. Zuo J. Saffen D. Shao Z. Liu W. Functional analysis reveals that RBM10 mutations contribute to lung adenocarcinoma pathogenesis by deregulating splicing Sci. Rep. 2017 7 40488 10.1038/srep40488 28091594 PMC5238425

147. Braun C.J. Stanciu M. Boutz P.L. Patterson J.C. Calligaris D. Higuchi F. Neupane R. Fenoglio S. Cahill D.P. Wakimoto H. Coordinated Splicing of Regulatory Detained Introns within Oncogenic Transcripts Creates an Exploitable Vulnerability in Malignant Glioma Cancer Cell 2017 32 411 426.e411 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.08.018 28966034 PMC5929990

148. Ernst T. Chase A.J. Score J. Hidalgo-Curtis C.E. Bryant C. Jones A.V. Waghorn K. Zoi K. Ross F.M. Reiter A. Inactivating mutations of the histone methyltransferase gene EZH2 in myeloid disorders Nat. Genet. 2010 42 722 726 10.1038/ng.621 20601953

149. Boutz P.L. Bhutkar A. Sharp P.A. Detained introns are a novel, widespread class of post-transcriptionally spliced introns Genes Dev. 2015 29 63 80 10.1101/gad.247361.114 25561496 PMC4281565

150. Zhang H. Chen Z.-H. Savarese T.M. Codeletion of the genes for p16INK4, methylthioadenosine phosphorylase, interferon-α1, interferon-β1, and other 9p21 markers in human malignant cell lines Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 1996 86 22 28 10.1016/0165-4608(95)00157-3 8616780

151. Raphael B.J. Hruban R.H. Aguirre A.J. Moffitt R.A. Yeh J.J. Stewart C. Robertson A.G. Cherniack A.D. Gupta M. Getz G. Integrated Genomic Characterization of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Cancer Cell 2017 32 185 203.e113 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.07.007 28810144 PMC5964983

152. Marjon K. Cameron M.J. Quang P. Clasquin M.F. Mandley E. Kunii K. McVay M. Choe S. Kernytsky A. Gross S. MTAP Deletions in Cancer Create Vulnerability to Targeting of the MAT2A/PRMT5/RIOK1 Axis Cell Rep. 2016 15 574 587 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.03.043 27068473

153. Gao G. Zhang L. Villarreal O.D. He W. Su D. Bedford E. Moh P. Shen J. Shi X. Bedford M.T. PRMT1 loss sensitizes cells to PRMT5 inhibition Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 47 5038 5048 10.1093/nar/gkz200 30916320 PMC6547413

154. Chan-Penebre E. Kuplast K.G. Majer C.R. Boriack-Sjodin P.A. Wigle T.J. Johnston L.D. Rioux N. Munchhof M.J. Jin L. Jacques S.L. A selective inhibitor of PRMT5 with in vivo and in vitro potency in MCL models Nat. Chem. Biol. 2015 11 432 437 10.1038/nchembio.1810 25915199

155. Kirovski G. Stevens A.P. Czech B. Dettmer K. Weiss T.S. Wild P. Hartmann A. Bosserhoff A.K. Oefner P.J. Hellerbrand C. Down-Regulation of Methylthioadenosine Phosphorylase (MTAP) Induces Progression of Hepatocellular Carcinoma via Accumulation of 5′-Deoxy-5′-Methylthioadenosine (MTA) Am. J. Pathol. 2011 178 1145 1152 10.1016/j.ajpath.2010.11.059 21356366 PMC3069916

156. Mavrakis K.J. McDonald E.R. Schlabach M.R. Billy E. Hoffman G.R. deWeck A. Ruddy D.A. Venkatesan K. Yu J. McAllister G. Disordered methionine metabolism in MTAP/CDKN2A-deleted cancers leads to dependence on PRMT5 Science 2016 351 1208 1213 10.1126/science.aad5944 26912361

157. Lin H. Wang M. Zhang Y.W. Tong S. Leal R.A. Shetty R. Vaddi K. Luengo J.I. Discovery of Potent and Selective Covalent Protein Arginine Methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) Inhibitors ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2019 10 1033 1038 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.9b00074 31312404 PMC6627734

158. Palte R.L. Schneider S.E. Altman M.D. Hayes R.P. Kawamura S. Lacey B.M. Mansueto M.S. Reutershan M. Siliphaivanh P. Sondey C. Allosteric Modulation of Protein Arginine Methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2020 11 1688 1693 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.9b00525 32944135 PMC7488283

159. Kalev P. Hyer M.L. Gross S. Konteatis Z. Chen C.-C. Fletcher M. Lein M. Aguado-Fraile E. Frank V. Barnett A. MAT2A inhibition blocks the growth of MTAP-deleted cancer cells by reducing PRMT5-dependent mRNA splicing and inducing DNA damage Cancer Cell 2021 39 209 224 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.12.010 33450196

160. Bedford M.T. Clarke S.G. Protein Arginine Methylation in Mammals: Who, What, and Why Mol. Cell 2009 33 1 13 10.1016/j.molcel.2008.12.013 19150423 PMC3372459

161. Jacobetz M.A. Chan D.S. Neesse A. Bapiro T.E. Cook N. Frese K.K. Feig C. Nakagawa T. Caldwell M.E. Zecchini H.I. Hyaluronan impairs vascular function and drug delivery in a mouse model of pancreatic cancer Gut 2013 62 112 120 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302529 22466618 PMC3551211

162. Kryukov G.V. Wilson F.H. Ruth J.R. Paulk J. Tsherniak A. Marlow S.E. Vazquez F. Weir B.A. Fitzgerald M.E. Tanaka M. MTAPdeletion confers enhanced dependency on the PRMT5 arginine methyltransferase in cancer cells Science 2016 351 1214 1218 10.1126/science.aad5214 26912360 PMC4997612

163. Lee S.C.-W. Dvinge H. Kim E. Cho H. Micol J.-B. Chung Y.R. Durham B.H. Yoshimi A. Kim Y.J. Thomas M. Modulation of splicing catalysis for therapeutic targeting of leukemia with mutations in genes encoding spliceosomal proteins Nat. Med. 2016 22 672 678 10.1038/nm.4097 27135740 PMC4899191

164. Obeng E.A. Chappell R.J. Seiler M. Chen M.C. Campagna D.R. Schmidt P.J. Schneider R.K. Lord A.M. Wang L. Gambe R.G. Physiologic Expression of Sf3b1 K700E Causes Impaired Erythropoiesis, Aberrant Splicing, and Sensitivity to Therapeutic Spliceosome Modulation Cancer Cell 2016 30 404 417 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.08.006 27622333 PMC5023069

165. Wang E. Lu S.X. Pastore A. Chen X. Imig J. Chun-Wei Lee S. Hockemeyer K. Ghebrechristos Y.E. Yoshimi A. Inoue D. Targeting an RNA-Binding Protein Network in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Cancer Cell 2019 35 369 384.e367 10.1016/j.ccell.2019.01.010 30799057 PMC6424627

166. Shirai C.L. White B.S. Tripathi M. Tapia R. Ley J.N. Ndonwi M. Kim S. Shao J. Carver A. Saez B. Mutant U2AF1-expressing cells are sensitive to pharmacological modulation of the spliceosome Nat. Commun. 2017 8 14060 10.1038/ncomms14060 28067246 PMC5227701

167. Chen L. Chen J.-Y. Huang Y.-J. Gu Y. Qiu J. Qian H. Shao C. Zhang X. Hu J. Li H. The Augmented R-Loop Is a Unifying Mechanism for Myelodysplastic Syndromes Induced by High-Risk Splicing Factor Mutations Mol. Cell 2018 69 412 425.e416 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.12.029 29395063 PMC5957072

168. Rhim A.D. Oberstein P.E. Thomas D.H. Mirek E.T. Palermo C.F. Sastra S.A. Dekleva E.N. Saunders T. Becerra C.P. Tattersall I.W. Stromal elements act to restrain, rather than support, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Cancer Cell 2014 25 735 747 10.1016/j.ccr.2014.04.021 24856585 PMC4096698

169. Özdemir B.C. Pentcheva-Hoang T. Carstens J.L. Zheng X. Wu C.C. Simpson T.R. Laklai H. Sugimoto H. Kahlert C. Novitskiy S.V. Depletion of Carcinoma-Associated Fibroblasts and Fibrosis Induces Immunosuppression and Accelerates Pancreas Cancer with Reduced Survival Cancer Cell 2014 25 719 734 10.1016/j.ccr.2014.04.005 24856586 PMC4180632

170. Biffi G. Oni T.E. Spielman B. Hao Y. Elyada E. Park Y. Preall J. Tuveson D.A. IL1-Induced JAK/STAT Signaling Is Antagonized by TGFβ to Shape CAF Heterogeneity in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Cancer Discov. 2019 9 282 301 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-0710 30366930 PMC6368881

171. Tempero M.A. Cutsem E.V. Sigal D. Oh D.-Y. Fazio N. Macarulla T. Hitre E. Hammel P. Hendifar A.E. Bates S.E. HALO 109-301: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of pegvorhyaluronidase alfa (PEGPH20) + nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (AG) in patients (pts) with previously untreated hyaluronan (HA)-high metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA) Pancreat. Cancer 2020 38 638 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.4_suppl.638

172. Nicolle R. Blum Y. Marisa L. Loncle C. Gayet O. Moutardier V. Turrini O. Giovannini M. Bian B. Bigonnet M. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Therapeutic Targets Revealed by Tumor-Stroma Cross-Talk Analyses in Patient-Derived Xenografts Cell Rep. 2017 21 2458 2470 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.11.003 29186684 PMC6082139

173. O’Reilly E.M. Oh D.-Y. Dhani N. Renouf D.J. Lee M.A. Sun W. Fisher G. Hezel A. Chang S.-C. Vlahovic G. Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab for Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma JAMA Oncol. 2019 5 1431 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1588 31318392 PMC6647002

174. Renouf D.J. Knox J.J. Kavan P. Jonker D. Welch S. Couture F. Lemay F. Tehfe M. Harb M. Aucoin N. LBA65 The Canadian Cancer Trials Group PA.7 trial: Results of a randomized phase II study of gemcitabine (GEM) and nab-paclitaxel (Nab-P) vs GEM, nab-P, durvalumab (D) and tremelimumab (T) as first line therapy in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcino Ann. Oncol. 2020 31 S1195 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.2300

175. Bockorny B. Semenisty V. Macarulla T. Borazanci E. Wolpin B.M. Stemmer S.M. Golan T. Geva R. Borad M.J. Pedersen K.S. BL-8040, a CXCR4 antagonist, in combination with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer: The COMBAT trial Nat. Med. 2020 26 878 885 10.1038/s41591-020-0880-x 32451495

176. Webb L.M. Sengupta S. Edell C. Piedra-Quintero Z.L. Amici S.A. Miranda J.N. Bevins M. Kennemer A. Laliotis G. Tsichlis P.N. Protein arginine methyltransferase 5 promotes cholesterol biosynthesis–mediated Th17 responses and autoimmunity J. Clin. Investig. 2020 130 1683 1698 10.1172/JCI131254 32091410 PMC7108896

177. Litzler L.C. Zahn A. Meli A.P. Hébert S. Patenaude A.-M. Methot S.P. Sprumont A. Bois T. Kitamura D. Costantino S. PRMT5 is essential for B cell development and germinal center dynamics Nat. Commun. 2019 10 22 10.1038/s41467-018-07884-6 30604754 PMC6318318

178. Kampen K.R. Sulima S.O. Vereecke S. Keersmaecker K. Hallmarks of ribosomopathies Nucleic Acids Res. 2020 48 1013 1028 10.1093/nar/gkz637 31350888 PMC7026650

179. Marine J.-C. Dawson S.-J. Dawson M.A. Non-genetic mechanisms of therapeutic resistance in cancer Nat. Rev. Cancer 2020 20 743 756 10.1038/s41568-020-00302-4 33033407