PRMT5 and CDK4/6 inhibition result in distinctive patterns of alternative splicing in melanoma

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 2;18(11):e0292278. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292278. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

Drugs targeting cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) are promising new treatments for melanoma and other solid malignancies. In studies on CDK4/6 inhibitor resistance, protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) regulation of alternative splicing was shown to be an important downstream component of the CDK4/6 pathway. However, the full effects of inhibition of CDK4/6 on splicing events in melanoma and the extent to which they are dependent on PRMT5 has not been established. We performed full-length mRNA sequencing on CHL1 and A375 melanoma cell lines treated with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib and the PRMT5 inhibitor GSK3326595 and analysed data for differential gene expression and differential pre-mRNA splicing induced by these agents. Changes in gene expression and RNA splicing were more extensive under PRMT5 inhibition than under CDK4/6 inhibition. Although PRMT5 inhibition and CDK4/6 inhibition induced common RNA splicing events and gene expression profiles, the majority of events induced by CDK4/6 inhibition were distinct. Our findings indicate CDK4/6 has the ability to regulate alternative splicing in a manner that is distinct from PRMT5 inhibition, resulting in divergent changes in gene expression under each therapy.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Alternative Splicing*
  • Cell Line, Tumor
  • Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4 / genetics
  • Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4 / metabolism
  • Humans
  • Melanoma* / drug therapy
  • Melanoma* / genetics
  • Melanoma* / metabolism
  • Protein-Arginine N-Methyltransferases / metabolism
  • RNA Splicing

Substances

  • Protein-Arginine N-Methyltransferases
  • PRMT5 protein, human
  • CDK4 protein, human
  • Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the Peter MacCallum Cancer Foundation, in addition to Cancer Council Victoria Grant 1108149 and National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Grant 1042986 to KES and Victorian Cancer Agency fellowship MCRF17005 to DLG. LHC, LRJL and SA were awarded doctoral scholarships from The University of Melbourne. SA received additional support from Cancer Therapeutics CRC. These funding bodies had no involvement in the design of the study, nor in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, and were not involved in the writing of this manuscript.