Abstract
Differentiation therapy has proven to be a success story for patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia. However, the remaining subtypes of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are treated with cytotoxic chemotherapies that have limited efficacy and a high likelihood of resistance. As differentiation arrest is a hallmark of AML, there is increased interest in developing differentiation-inducing agents to enhance disease-free survival. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of current reports and future avenues of nucleic acid therapeutics for AML, focusing on the use of targeted nucleic acid drugs to promote differentiation. Specifically, we compare and discuss the precision of small interfering RNA, small activating RNA, antisense oligonucleotides, and aptamers to modulate gene expression patterns that drive leukemic cell differentiation. We delve into preclinical and clinical studies that demonstrate the efficacy of nucleic acid-based differentiation therapies to induce leukemic cell maturation and reduce disease burden. By directly influencing the expression of key genes involved in myeloid maturation, nucleic acid therapeutics hold the potential to induce the differentiation of leukemic cells towards a more mature and less aggressive phenotype. Furthermore, we discuss the most critical challenges associated with developing nucleic acid therapeutics for myeloid malignancies. By introducing the progress in the field and identifying future opportunities, we aim to highlight the power of nucleic acid therapeutics in reshaping the landscape of myeloid leukemia treatment.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) develops due to the inefficient differentiation and uncontrolled proliferation of immature myeloblasts. As all AML subtypes result from a differentiation block, the differentiation process is a possible therapeutic target. In acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) for example, the combination of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide has transformed APL from a deadly diagnosis into a highly curable disease. ATRA acts to restore the expression of pro-differentiation genes that are transcriptionally repressed by the fusion oncoprotein PML::RARɑ and together with arsenic trioxide also results in proteosome-mediated degradation of PML::RARɑ [1]. More recently, hypomethylating agents and certain targeted therapies are reported to exert their therapeutic effect by inducing terminal differentiation [2]. Yet, outside of APL, differentiation agents are not used with curative intent.
All leukemic blasts originate from a relatively small population of leukemic stem cells (LSCs) which evolved during clonal hematopoiesis. Due to their quiescent state and unique metabolism, LSCs evade the eradicating effects of cytotoxic agents that target rapidly dividing cells, resulting in eventual relapse in many patients [3]. Therefore, a lasting cure for AML depends on eliminating LSCs and reducing leukemic blast burden. Differentiation therapy has the potential to improve patient outcomes in AML due to its unique approach of inducing leukemic blasts, and even LSCs, to mature into functional, non-malignant cells [4]. This strategy is targeted and less toxic as it spares healthy cells and reduces side effects associated with the widespread damage caused by cytotoxic chemotherapies.
Myeloid differentiation is primarily regulated by transcription factor networks, non-coding RNAs (ncRNA), and signaling cascades that dictate lineage commitment decisions [5] and are communicated via protein-protein, protein-DNA, RNA-DNA, or RNA-RNA interactions. As these interactions often lack well-defined ligand binding sites [6] and occur in difficult-to-access nuclear locations [7], it remains a challenge to develop small molecule inhibitors capable of effectively modulating myeloid differentiation. Nucleic acid therapeutics (NATs) are poised to address these challenges given that they can target genes and transcripts based on sequence, circumventing “undruggable” interactions and targets lacking binding pockets. Specifically, NATs utilize DNA or RNA molecules to modulate gene expression or protein function [8], offering a personalized treatment based on a patient’s genetic profile.
The goal of this review is to promote collaboration between the fields of oligonucleotide chemistry and hematology-oncology to advance the development of differentiation therapies for devastating myeloid malignancies. We describe key mechanisms and applications of NATs, review pre-clinical and clinical examples of NATs as differentiation agents in myeloid leukemias, and provide NAT design and delivery strategies to modulate relevant AML therapeutic targets.
Mechanism and molecular design of nucleic acid therapeutics
Here, for each NAT modality, we describe the mechanism and current approval phase to provide context for the applicability of NATs for myeloid leukemias.
Small interfering RNA
Small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) are short RNA duplexes that take advantage of the RNA interference (RNAi) pathway discovered by Fire & Mello [9], thereby allowing for exogenous control over gene expression (Fig. 1) [10]. Since the approval of the first siRNA drug Patisiran [11] in 2018, five other siRNA therapies received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of genetic disorders. There are eight siRNA formulations in phase I-II clinical trials for cancers, including B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NCT04995536); however, there are currently no siRNAs approved or in clinical trials for myeloid leukemias.
siRNAs provide precise silencing of mutated or overexpressed transcripts due to their ability to differentiate target RNAs from the rest of the transcriptome. Therefore, siRNAs can selectively target fusion transcripts from chromosomal rearrangements, genes upregulated due to epigenetic activation, and ncRNA that act to suppress expression of anti-proliferative genes in leukemias.
Antisense oligonucleotides
Antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) are short single-stranded oligonucleotides that target and alter RNA processing, thereby regulating translation. ASOs are mechanistically unique due to their ability to either silence, enhance, or manipulate the expression of gene variants [12]. Six distinct ASO mechanisms have been identified: RNase H1-dependent ASOs and several RNase H1-independent mechanisms [13, 14], which include steric block ASOs, splice-switching ASOs, antagomir ASOs (anti-miRNA), mRNA stabilizing ASOs, and ASO-mediated inhibition of antisense transcripts (Fig. 2).
Over the past 25 years, ten ASO drugs have obtained FDA-approval, yet there are currently no ASOs approved for the treatment of any myeloid malignancy. As we will describe later, clinical trial recruitment is in progress for two steric block ASO candidates for AML: a phase IIb trial of “BP1001” in combination with venetoclax/decitabine for newly diagnosed AML (NCT02781883), and a phase I/Ib study of “BP1002” for refractory/relapsed AML (NCT05190471). Unfortunately, three ASOs failed in clinical trials for AML. While all were well tolerated by patients (NCT00780052, NCT00085124, NCT01018069), complete remission was sub-optimal.
Despite certain setbacks, ASOs are a promising and applicable therapeutic strategy for myeloid leukemias because the range and variety of their therapeutic mechanism matches the genetic diversity and heterogeneity found in myeloid leukemias. For example, antagomirs correct miRNA imbalances, while steric block ASOs reduce the cellular burden of oncogenic genes. Furthermore, different ASOs could be mixed and combined to target the spectrum of genetic dysregulation.
Aptamers
Aptamers are single-stranded oligonucleotides that fold into 3D structures enabling specific binding to various targets. These molecules cannot be designed via complementarity but must be selected via an integrative in vitro selection process known as Systematic Evolution of Ligands by Exponential enrichment (SELEX) (Fig. 3A). Aptamers function much like antibodies, but are more easily chemically synthesized, highly stable, and reversible in vivo [15]. As such, aptamers can act as therapeutics and drug delivery tools [16] (Fig. 3B).
Two aptamer therapies are on the market, the first was approved in 2004 (Pegaptanib) and very recently Avacincaptad pegol (2023) received FDA approval, though both for age-related macular degeneration. One aptamer candidate, AS1411, has been tested for relapsed/refractory AML in a phase II clinical trial [17]. The study reported an optimistic outcome for patients receiving the combination of AS1411 with high dose cytarabine, but no follow up study has been conducted since the 2009 report. Regardless, there is interest in aptamers for various cancers as evidenced by Olaptesed pegol, an aptamer candidate in clinical trials for pancreatic cancer (NCT04901741). However, perhaps where aptamers are poised for the most important impact is in their targeted delivery. Aptamers can target cell surface markers and interfere with oncogenic signalling by either inhibiting or activating the receptor. Given that leukemic blasts and LSCs can be distinguished from healthy cells via cell surface markers, patient-tailored aptamers may offer improved drug-selectively to target challenging LSC populations buried in the bone marrow niche.
Small activating RNA
Small activating RNAs (saRNAs) target genomic loci and transcriptionally activate gene expression (Fig. 4) [18]. saRNAs are the most recent NAT, and therefore most designs are in the pre-clinical stages of development, and none have received FDA-approval. However, one saRNA candidate, MTL-CEBPA, is currently in phase II clinical trials for hepatocellular carcinoma (NCT04710641) [19].
There are currently no saRNAs approved or in clinical trials for myeloid leukemias. Interest in these NATs is increasing given that many transcription factors responsible for myeloid differentiation are epigenetically silenced or inhibited. Given pharmacological challenges to restore their expression, saRNAs can increase the repertoire of drug targets in myeloid leukemias by restoring target activity to “healthy” levels.
Challenges with developing nucleic acid therapeutics for myeloid leukemias
Significant progress has been made, particularly by chemists, to transform nucleic acids into drug-like compounds. As of January 2024, 17 NATs are FDA approved [20], and many more are in clinical trials. Nonetheless, several challenges remain. Here, we describe some of the general challenges in developing NATs and unique challenges in NAT development for myeloid malignancies.
Universal challenges with developing NATs
There are universal challenges with developing NATs independent of the target disease. It is relatively “straightforward” to design and screen a large array of NATs for a specific target (often hundreds or more sequences). However, translating “hits” from the discovery phase to preclinical and then clinical phase is not trivial in part because chemical modifications impact the pharmacokinetics/dynamics, off-target effects, and tissue-specific delivery of a NAT. Indeed, chemical modifications play a crucial role in transforming oligonucleotides into pharmaceutical drugs. Multiple rounds of optimization are often required to decipher which chemical modifications, and which combinations of those modifications, should be used in a NAT. Chemical modifications impact metabolic stability, protein binding, toxicity, immunoreactivity, and more [21]. As such, every single parameter must be independently tested following the addition of a chemical modification to assess for changes in pharmacokinetics. For example, both phosphorothioate (PS) backbone modifications and phosphorodiamidate morpholinos (PMO) increase NAT serum stability, yet have opposing actions on plasma protein affinity, with PS increasing affinity and PMOs reducing affinity [21]. With increased plasma protein affinity, NATs will have a longer serum half-life, whereas NATs with reduced plasma protein affinity will be rapidly excreted.
Chemical modifications also impact pharmacodynamics and thus must be tailored for each NAT mechanism: where some modifications enhance gene regulatory effects by improving binding affinity with target RNAs, others can interfere with NAT activity [22]. For example, modifications to ASOs that result in an RNA-like structure will not recruit RNase H1 upon hybridization with target RNA. Hence, RNase H1-dependent ASOs are often synthesized as “gapmer” ASOs composed of a short DNA sequence flanked by heavily modified ribonucleotides to prevent degradation [20]. In contrast, steric block ASOs benefit from adopting modifications that improve stability, regardless of whether they mimic RNA. For siRNAs, both passenger and guide strands are now commonly fully modified. However, the location and type of chemical modification must be tested to ensure proper formation of a functional silencing complex and efficient hybridization with target RNA [10, 22]. Fortunately, our understanding of chemical modifications and their impact on NAT function is rapidly expanding. Indeed, NAT chemistry is an ongoing research area that cannot be fairly summarized here. Recent review articles authored by experts in the field [20,21,22] provide extensive details regarding advances in nucleic acid chemistry and the modification strategies used for generating successful and clinically approved siRNAs and ASOs. Table 1 describes chemical modifications that are commonly applied to NATs.
Lack of efficacy is one of the main reasons NATs fail in clinical trials [21]. Two recent examples of failed NATs include drisapersen (an exon skipping ASO developed for Duchenne muscular dystrophy) [23] and tominersen (an ASO targeting the mutated transcript in Huntington’s Disease) [24]. Despite demonstrating promising efficacy in two independent phase II trials, drisapersen development was terminated following its phase III trial as the treatment failed to significantly slow disease progression. Similarly, a phase III trial of tominersen was interrupted due to a lack of observed improvement in treated patients. While phase I and II trials provide valuable insights, phase III clinical trials include a broader patient population with greater genetic diversity. This variation in outcomes between earlier and later stages of clinical development is a common challenge in drug development and requires special consideration when translating promising results from controlled settings to real-world scenarios.
NATs may also fail in clinical trials due to a misunderstanding of their mechanism of action [22]. Off-target effects may mimic the expected mechanism yet remain incapable of eliciting the intended therapeutic benefit in a clinical trial. An example of this is oblimersen (also known as G3139), an 18-nucleotide ASO with a phosphorothioate backbone designed to silence the expression of the anti-apoptotic factor BCL-2 (B-cell lymphoma 2) (ref. [25].). Despite encouraging phase I results, a larger phase III study in older AML patients showed no significant improvement in overall survival [26]. Subsequent investigations revealed that oblimersen’s efficacy was not due to selective BCL-2 downregulation, but rather non-specific apoptosis-related off-target effects induced by its phosphorothioate backbone [27]. To mitigate this, we suggest detailed mechanistic studies to help ensure clinical success.
Finally, an ongoing challenge in the clinical applicability of NATs depends on efficient and specific delivery to extrahepatic tissues. Due to their large size, anionic charge, and susceptibility to nucleases, many NATs require carriers for cellular entry. Lipid-carriers, such as liposomal nanoparticles (LNPs), are commonly used for the systemic delivery of NATs [28]. However, approximately 90% of intravenously injected LNPs localize to the liver [29], meaning other organ systems receive only a fraction of the injected NAT. Furthermore, delivery entails not only transporting NATs to the target cells (i.e., cellular uptake and biodistribution), but also ensuring sufficient internalization within those cells. Even when LNPs reach the target cells, endosomal escape is limited, with only 2–3% of packaged nucleic acids reaching the cytosol [30]. Fortunately, improving endosomal escape and tissue-specific targeting are major ongoing research areas in the field (reviewed here [31, 32]).
Myeloid leukemia-specific challenges in NAT development
AML presents unique challenges for NAT development. While cancer-specific surface markers have propelled the development of immunotherapies, there are limited tumour-associated antigens that are unique to AML blasts [33]. Indeed, AML proves to be particularly challenging to selectively target because both leukemic blasts and healthy cells tend to express the same antigen markers. As a result, clinical trials using targeted immunotherapies in AML have failed due to significant toxicities [34], and similar challenges apply when designing targeted NATs for AML. In addition to universal delivery challenges of NATs, it remains challenging to deliver to myeloid malignancies due to the slow vasculature flow and highly mineralized extracellular matrix of the bone marrow [35]. Therefore, bone marrow-delivery may require higher drug doses to overcome the low bioavailability and achieve therapeutic levels.
Most notably, the heterogenous nature of AML and the lack of preclinical models that can recapitulate the intra- and interpatient heterogeneity has resulted in the notoriously slow development of targeted therapies for AML [36]. The current knowledge of clonal evolution of AML suggests that it is the culmination of many mutations that result in the selection and growth of leukemic clones [37]. Therefore, therapies that target only one or two driver mutations of the disease are likely not effective to rid all leukemic cells, and/or may cause selection pressure and the emergence of subclones, leading to disease relapse and resistance. Consequently, NATs must be developed with this heterogenous nature in mind, likely including synergistic combination therapies. As such, testing and developing a new NAT for AML includes additional pre-clinical studies to determine the best drug combinations and doses for efficacy and safety. Furthermore, clinical trial design for NATs must consider patient stratification strategies to favour improved outcome, ensuring the right NATs are given for the right subset of AML patients. Stratification may include the clinical transcriptome-based assay recently described for AML risk stratification [38] but getting sufficient enrollment for the particular subtype can take additional time. Nonetheless, given that myeloid leukemia patients often lack therapeutic options, there is a pressing need for NATs even if only for a small subset of patients.
Application of nucleic acid therapeutics to myeloid malignancies
We categorized recent reports exploring the application of NATs to myeloid leukemias into five target classes: fusion oncogenes, signal transducers involved in programmed cell death, cell division and/or growth, non-coding RNA, transcription factors, and cell surface receptors. Within each of these categories, NATs targeting a specific gene were grouped into a subcategory. We describe the rationale for targeting that gene in myeloid malignancies, the experimental design and results reported in each study, and provide insight into potential future directions.
Fusion oncogenes
RUNX1::ETO
Approximately 10% of AML cases are caused by the t(8;21) translocation resulting in the RUNX1::ETO gene product that inhibits granulocytic differentiation and promotes excessive proliferation [39]. RUNX1::ETO is reported to act as a transcriptional repressor by recruiting histone deacetylases and DNA methyl transferases to tumour suppressor genes and critical myeloid transcription factors [40].
Recently, RUNX1::ETO was inhibited using an siRNA targeting the fusion site, which resulted in myeloid differentiation in vitro and in vivo and increased overall survival in xenograft murine models of AML [41]. RUNX1::ETO siRNA encapsulated in LNPs labeled with an in vivo-compatible dye were intravenously injected into Kasumi-1 AML-engrafted mice, confirming LNPs uptake in leukemic cells and accumulation in leukemic reservoirs. RUNX1::ETO siRNA-treated mice exhibited efficient knockdown of RUNX1::ETO expression, reduced growth of leukemic cells in vivo, and improved survival compared to control siRNA. Importantly, when untreated mice were re-transplanted with leukemic cells isolated from previously treated mice, engraftment was markedly reduced with 50% of secondary recipient mice never developing AML. Previous RUNX1::ETO siRNA studies demonstrated that RUNX1::ETO depletion induces terminal differentiation [42, 43]. Taken together, these results indicate that targeting RUNX1::ETO via siRNA could reduce the aggressivity and proliferative capacity of leukemic cells. Nonetheless, further studies are needed to assess the curative potential of siRNA-mediated inhibition of RUNX1::ETO combined with currently used therapies such as hypomethylating agents.
BCR::ABL1
The BCR::ABL1 oncogene results from the translocation of chromosome 9 and chromosome 22, also termed the “Philadelphia chromosome”, found in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). BCR::ABL1 encodes the BCR::ABL1 oncoprotein with constitutive tyrosine kinase activity that leads to uncontrolled proliferation of myeloid progenitor cells that, unlike AML, can still terminally differentiate [44]. Small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors, the first of which was imatinib, have been developed to inhibit BCR::ABL1 activity. However, resistance via point mutations in the BCR::ABL1 protein remains a clinical problem. Furthermore, many studies have evaluated NATs to target BCR::ABL1 due to its well-established importance in disease initiation. In addition, experimental models of CML, such as the cell line K562 isolated from a patient in blast crisis, exhibit very similar characteristics to AML, making them useful for modeling the disease and understanding the application of NATs in AML.
The first siRNA designed against the BCR::ABL1 fusion mRNA was reported by Wilda et al. [45]. By transfecting a BCR::ABL1 fusion-targeting siRNA into K562 cells, mRNA and protein levels were downregulated resulting in morphological changes indicating megakaryocytic differentiation compared to controls. While silencing potential was well-established, the authors failed to improve the siRNA design with chemical modifications. Nonetheless, this study introduced the possibility of developing targeted RNA-based therapies that selectively act on tumor-specific fusion mRNAs while sparing normal cells. As such, many other studies investigating BCR::ABL1 siRNAs [46, 47] and ASOs [48] have been explored.
Sixteen years later, Valencia-Serna et al. [49]. demonstrated in vivo administration of a functional BCR::ABL1 siRNA effectively silenced BCR::ABL1 mRNA expression and suppressed the growth of a xenotransplanted CML tumour in nude mice. To address the emergence of BCR::ABL1 mutations, such BCR::ABL1 targeted NATs could be useful for patients exhibiting resistance to BCR::ABL1 small molecule inhibitors, and to further understand the long-term potential of using NATs to target fusion oncogenes.
Signal transducers involved in programmed cell death, cell division and/or growth
BCL-2
BCL-2 is often overexpressed in AML blasts and is associated with a poor prognosis and chemotherapy resistance. Furthermore, a murine leukemia model with conditional expression of BCL-2 demonstrated that leukemic cells depend on BCL-2 for survival and growth [50]. As such, inhibiting or downregulating BCL-2 is a logical treatment strategy. Venetoclax, a small molecule BH3-mimic, inhibits BCL-2, forcing cells into programmed cell death and is prescribed for elderly, newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory AML. While targeted BCL-2 inhibition with venetoclax in combination with hypomethylating agents or low-dose cytarabine can achieve clinically meaningful responses in up to 70% of patients, the acquisition of resistance to therapy frequently occurs within a median time of approximately 1 year, through mechanisms such as overexpression of other BCL-2-family members [51]. In this context, NATs could provide complementary therapeutic strategies to target emerging mechanisms of resistance.
First designed and tested for leukemia in 1990 [25], BCL-2-targeting ASOs are arguably the most extensively studied NATs in myeloid leukemias. The next generation BCL-2 ASO, BP1002, has improved pharmacokinetic properties compared to the first-generation BCL-2 ASO, oblimersen. BP1002 is incorporated into a neutral-charge, non-toxic liposome and contains a fully p-ethoxy modified backbone, a modification that masks the internucleotide phosphate charge with an ethyl group, improving the oligonucleotide’s nuclease resistant and limiting off-target effects [52]. BP1002 is particularly relevant for venetoclax-resistant leukemic cells, which have 2-3-fold higher BCL-2 expression than sensitive cells. Treating such cells with BP1002 in combination with decitabine resulted in ~60% decrease in cell proliferation compared to venetoclax with decitabine [53]. The phase I trial of BP1002, which is now recruiting (end date August 2024, NCT05190471) will assess BP1002 as a monotherapy for relapsed AML and BP1002 with decitabine for refractory AML. Further research could explore the combination of BP1002 with novel anti-apoptotic inhibitors [54] to address venetoclax-resistance.
MCL-1
Programmed cell death is often dysregulated in myeloid malignancies due to the upregulation of anti-apoptotic factors such as BCL-2 and MCL-1 (myeloid cell leukemia sequence 1). These proteins inhibit apoptosis via protein-protein interactions with pro-apoptotic proteins BAX, BAK and BH3-only proteins, thereby preventing the formation of the mitochondrial outer membrane pore and release of cytochrome C [55]. In addition to the role of MCL-1 in the regulation of apoptosis, MCL-1 is involved in controlling the myeloblast to neutrophil transition [56]. Historically, inhibiting MCL-1 has proven challenging due to the lack of specificity, poor cell permeability, and weak binding by small molecule inhibitors [57].
With the goal of inhibiting MCL-1 using NATs, Yang et al. [58]. demonstrated the differentiation-inducing effects of siRNA-mediated knockdown of MCL-1 in AML cell lines. MCL-1-targeting siRNA or control siRNA were electroporated into ATRA-sensitive NB4 and PL21 cell lines, inducing >10-fold protein knockdown. MCL-1 silencing in NB4 and PL21 cells increased myelomonocytic differentiation as measured by CD11b. As MCL-1 downregulation contributes to ATRA-mediated differentiation, the authors hypothesized that further MCL-1 downregulation could potentiate ATRA’s effects. Indeed, co-treatment of NB4 and PL21 cells with 0.1 μM ATRA and MCL-1 siRNA resulted in 2.5-fold increase in C/EBPε (regulator of promyelocyte to myelocyte transition) expression compared to cells treated with ATRA and control siRNA. Furthermore, MCL-1 siRNA treatment sensitized the ATRA-resistant cells U937 and KG-1 to ATRA-mediated differentiation, resulting in an increase of CD11b expression compared to controls. This finding was supported in another study demonstrating MCL-1 siRNA mediated inhibition of leukemic cell proliferation and viability [59].
The results described to-date open new combination therapy possibilities. For example, MCL-1 siRNA with the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax could provide a synergistic effect as both cooperate on the same pathway. Furthermore, as constitutive FLT3 signalling due to FLT3-ITD mutations enhances MCL-1 expression [60], combining FLT3 inhibitors with MCL-1 siRNA could potentiate the effects of inhibiting downstream FLT3 signalling. Despite these possibilities, these combination therapies should be tested with caution as MCL-1 is expressed endogenously in all cells and regulates the critical process of cell division/cell death. Therefore, selective delivery and tight regulation of the dose would be necessary to direct MCL-1 inhibition to high MCL-1-expressing malignant cells.
Grb2
Grb2 (growth factor receptor-bound protein 2) is a critical component of tyrosine kinase signalling. With over 50% of AML patients having tyrosine kinase-related mutations (i.e., FLT3-ITD, c-kit, JAK2) that require enhanced Grb2 activity to drive oncogenic pathways [61], inhibiting Grb2 is an interesting therapeutic target.
First reported by Tari et al. [62]. in 1999, BP-1001 is an 18-nucleotide ASO with p-ethoxy backbone incorporated into a neutral liposome. The neutral nature of the liposome reduces interactions with plasma proteins, increasing both circulation time and cellular uptake. Preclinical studies of BP-1001 in a murine xenograft model of BCR::ABL1-positive CML cells demonstrated that treated mice had a 2-fold increase in overall survival compared to mice receiving a control liposome [63]. This prompted the first phase I clinical trial of BP-1001 in refractory/relapsed AML and CML patients [64]. No dose-related toxicity was noted for BP-1001 and only one of 21 patients in the trial experienced BP-1001-related toxicity. The superior safety profile of BP-1001 was attributed to the p-ethoxy backbone modification which does not induce complement activation or coagulation. Five of six patients treated with only one cycle of BP-1001 plus low-dose cytarabine had a reduction in bone marrow blasts (>50% reduction), and three out of the six achieved complete remission (with or without incomplete haematological recovery). Together these results demonstrate BP-1001’s anti-leukemic activity for relapsed/refractory AML. Currently, a phase IIa trial of BP-1001 in combination with venetoclax and decitabine in untreated and refractory/relapsed AML (NCT02781883) is underway, with an estimated completion date of December 2024.
Non-coding RNA
miR-21 & miR-196b
Over 50% of AMLs exhibit HOXA9 (Homeobox A9) overexpression often caused by mixed-lineage leukemia (MLL)-translocations or NPM1 (Nucleophosmin1) mutations. MLL fusion proteins interact with other HOX co-activators and preferentially activate HOX gene transcription. In normal hematopoiesis, HOXA9 maintains the proliferative ability and clonogenicity of progenitor cells in part by maintaining the expression of microRNAs miR-21 and miR-196b. As such, many AML patients present with increased levels of miR-21 and miR-196b [65].
To counteract the pro-leukemic effects of HOXA9 overexpression, Velu et al. [65]. designed antagomirs against miR-21 and miR-196b. The antagomiR-21 (a21) and antagomiR-196b (a196b) sequences are perfectly complementary to their respective targets. The antagomirs contain phosphorothioate linkages and 2′-OMe sugars to increase stability and affinity, and a 3′ cholesterol modification to interact with lipoprotein receptors on myeloid lineage cells. After confirming miRNA knockdown, the impact of a21 and a196b on proliferation was assessed in MLL-fusion protein-expressing cells; both their combined and individual use decreased colony-forming units, indicating specific reduction in oncogenic HOX-related proliferation. Next, the in vivo therapeutic potential of a21 and a196b was tested in combination with a standard cytarabine and anthracycline regimen. Immunodeficient mice (NOD/SCID/SGM3 mice) were implanted with primary human hematopoietic cells transformed with both MLL-AF9 fusion protein and oncogenic NRAS. Following engraftment, the mice were treated with a consistent release of antagomirs or controls via a pump for 6 weeks. Mice treated with a21 + a196b and induction chemotherapy (cytarabine/doxorubicin) survived longer than mice treated with controls and chemotherapy, demonstrating the powerful anti-leukemic effect of antagomir therapy, especially in combination treatments. Though there are currently no co-delivery systems for NATs, this study demonstrates the synergistic potential of co-developing NATs that modulate different targets from the same pathway.
miR-181a
microRNA 181a (miR-181a) is downregulated in specific leukemias, particularly CML. Previous reports demonstrate the anti-proliferative activity of miR-181a mimics in the CML cell line K562 [66]. However, short, pre-processed miRNA mimics cannot fully recapitulate the endogenous primitive (pri)-miRNA structure that may have unknown, but physiologically important, actions in the cells. Therefore, Su et al. [67]. developed saRNA targeting the miR-181a promoter, “saRNA-3”, that induced a 2.5-fold increase in relative pri-miR-181a expression and inhibited proliferation and colony forming capacity of the cells. To assess the potential imatinib-sensitizing effect of increased miR181a expression, saRNA-3 or control RNA were administered to immunodeficient mice engrafted with imatinib-sensitive or imatinib-resistant K562-luciferase cells. Co-administration of saRNA-3 with imatinib decreased leukemic burden (indirectly measured by luciferase bioluminescence) and increased overall survival compared to control saRNA, in both imatinib-sensitive and -resistant cohorts. Future research could investigate the differential effects of miRNA mimics and saRNAs on miR-181a’s anti-leukemic action, aiding in classifying the various ncRNA-targeting approaches.
Transcription factors
STAT3
Signal transduction and activator of transcription (STAT) proteins are a family of transcription factors frequently overactive in various cancer types, leading to the upregulation of genes involved in cell proliferation, anti-apoptosis, angiogenesis, and immune evasion. In the context of myeloid leukemias, the significance of targeting STAT3 stems from its control over immune cell differentiation and proliferation. STAT3 is overexpressed in leukemic stem cells and associated with poor prognosis [68], remaining an important target for NAT development.
As STAT3 has been established as a key player in many types of cancer, a novel STAT3 ASO, known as AZD9150, is currently undergoing clinical investigation for the treatment of lymphoma and lung cancer [69]. AZD9150 is 16-nucleotide ASO containing 10 phosphorothioate modified DNA nucleotides flanked by three constrained ethyl-bridged nucleic acid (cET-BNA) residues (described in Table 1) on both ends. STAT3 gene expression is reduced due to the binding of the ASO to the 3′-UTR of STAT3 mRNA, preventing proper translation. AZD9150 treatment caused knockdown of STAT3 expression in AML cell lines and human primary myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)/AML stem cells [68], resulting in an increase in erythroid and myeloid differentiated colonies. Importantly, no such change in differentiated colonies was noted in AZD9150-treated samples from healthy controls. Next, to assess the translatability of these in vitro and ex vivo experiments, AZD9150 was administered to irradiated immunodeficient mice transplanted with AML bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells. Compared to non-targeting control ASO, AZD9150 treatment decreased malignant cells engraftment in the bone marrow. AZD9150 treatment also induced erythroid and myeloid differentiation in MDS stem cell colonies. A common symptom of MDS is cytopenia due to inefficient hematopoiesis. Therefore, using a differentiation-inducing therapy like AZD9150 could provide patients with MDS an opportunity to increase red blood cell, neutrophil, and/or platelet count without the high burden of regular blood transfusions.
An alternative form of STAT3 inhibition was described using siRNA conjugated to a cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG) oligonucleotide for selective targeting to cells expressing toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9). TLR9 endogenously recognizes and engulfs bacterial and viral DNA containing CpG motifs, thereby CpG-siRNA conjugates were delivered preferentially to TLR9-positive cells. As TLR9 is highly expressed on myeloid-derived cells, this is of particular interest for myeloid malignancies. Hossain et al. [70]. demonstrated targeted delivery of CpG-siRNA to murine leukemic cells and subsequent STAT3 knockdown in vivo resulting in increased percent survival and reduced leukemic cell penetrance in bone marrow and spleen. The authors further demonstrated that reduction in leukemic burden was attributed to the CpG-STAT3 siRNA-induced differentiation of leukemic cells to antigen-presenting cells expressing immunostimulatory markers, ultimately recruiting CD8 + T-cells. With limited immunotherapy options for AML, this study demonstrates the potential of NAT-mediated differentiation to sensitize the immune system to leukemic cells. Further testing in humanized AML mouse models would provide stronger evidence for the siRNA as an immunotherapy. A challenge with studying the role of the immune system in leukemia progression is that AML xenograft models cannot recapitulate the immune phenotype observed in immunocompetent mice and humans because engraftment of human AML is not possible without T-cells, B-cells, and NK cells ablation [71].
DDX5
DEAD-box RNA helicase (DDX5) is a multiprotein complex that controls the expression of many transcription factors. AML cells demonstrate dependence on DDX5 to maintain their proliferative capability [72]. Therefore, Wu et al. [73]. designed and validated the therapeutic potential of DDX5-targeting siRNA in APL cell lines NB4 and HL-60. DDX5 protein knockdown in NB4 and HL-60 cells resulted in a decrease in proliferating cells and an increase in CD14-expressing cells compared to control siRNA-treated cells, suggesting that DDX5-siRNA treatment induced monocytic differentiation in both cell lines. As the focus of this study was not to develop a therapeutically relevant NAT targeting DDX5 for AML, further work is necessary to validate the in vivo translatability. Furthermore, potential repurposing of DDX5-targeting phosphorothioate-modified ASO [74] (originally designed for treatment prostate cancer) may be useful for AML.
Cell surface receptors
CD33
CD33 is a myeloid differentiation antigen that is expressed on myeloid progenitor cells, such as myeloblasts or monoblasts, but is not expressed on multipotent progenitor cells. As AML blasts have elevated expression of CD33, it is a potential target [75]. As such, gemtuzumab ozogamicin, a CD33-targeted monoclonal antibody conjugated to the cytotoxic agent ozogamicin was approved by the FDA as a targeted therapy for AML. Antibodies often elicit immune responses in patients, therefore, aptamers may be advantageous in terms of immune response [76].
Yang et al. [77]. therefore developed a CD33-specific DNA aptamer that targets CD33-positive cells and differentiated between CD33-expressing and non-expressing cells in vitro and in vivo. The aptamer was identified using cell-SELEX with positive and negative screening. The CD33-aptamer was assessed for in vivo biodistribution and specificity using immunodeficient mice with CD33-positive (HL-60) or CD33-negative (A549) tumors. Labeled CD33-aptamer localized to CD33-positive tumors, liver, and kidneys within 1 hour, sustaining this localization even after 24 h. No aptamer was found in CD33-negative tumors, confirming its targeting ability. A shorter but functional version of the aptamer was then loaded with the anthracycline doxorubicin. Targeted delivery of doxorubicin could limit the off-target consequences while increasing the cytotoxic payload reaching leukemic cells. Treatment of CD33-positive HL-60 cells with doxorubicin-aptamer conjugate resulted in cell cycle arrest in G2 phase, whereas no such effect was noted with CD33-negative cells.
In addition to CD33, many aptamers are being developed for other AML targets including nucleolin [78], CD123 (ref. [79].), and CD117 (ref. [80].), yet very few have been tested for clinical application. While aptamers have documented advantages over antibodies in terms of size and production, a head-to-head comparison of the CD33-targeted aptamer compared to the clinically approved CD33 antibody gemtuzumab would be useful for understanding the limitations and opportunities for aptamer based in vivo targeting.
Future opportunities for differentiation-inducing NATs in myeloid malignancies
Here we discuss future opportunities for differentiation-inducing NATs in myeloid leukemias, highlighting potential targets identified from fundamental mechanistic studies and discussing possible solutions for improving delivery to leukemic cells.
Potential NAT targets identified from fundamental biology studies
The genetic heterogeneity of myeloid leukemias is associated with treatment challenges, yet it also opens the door for personalized treatment approaches with NATs. Many dysregulated factors have been identified; in particular, transcription factors and ncRNAs that influence differentiation but are challenging to target via small molecules and proteins. For example, the transcription factor targets MYB and GFI1 were identified in multiple screens using RNAi [81] and CRISPR [82, 83] where loss of function favored myeloid differentiation. Furthermore, transcription factors that govern healthy myeloid differentiation (reviewed [5]) can also be fine-tuned using NATs to reprogram leukemic cells to a healthy phenotype. Similarly, numerous ncRNAs including lncRNAs [84], miRNAs [85,86,87], and circRNAs [88] have been identified via RNA-sequencing, RT-qPCR, and microarray experiments in AML. These targets can be blocked using antagomirs, mimicked using siRNAs/saRNAs, or increased via saRNAs to promote differentiation (Table 2).
Improving delivery of NATs with nucleic acid conjugates
There is ongoing work to improve NAT delivery to leukemic cells including the use of red-blood cell derived extracellular vesicles [89], lipid-polymer nanoparticles [90], and DNA origami nanostructures [91]. To further improve delivery, more efforts to conjugate delivery vehicles with aptamers could be explored. Indeed, SELEX enables aptamers to differentiate leukemic cell-types [92] and potentially target leukemic cells over healthy cells. New aptamers could be selected for AML-specific targets such as CLL1, CD99, CD157, and TIM3 [93,94,95]. Furthermore, given the clonal heterogeneity of AML, future efforts should examine whether decorating a delivery vehicle with a combination of aptamers targeting different cell surface markers improves outcomes in this heterogenous disease.
How to design your own NAT
“Drugging the genome” is now a reality thanks to the major developments in NATs over the past decades. Designing a NAT starts with identifying the target sequence and deciphering the target dysregulation mechanism. Next, the class of NAT is selected based on target expression and dysregulation. The literature contains design outlines for each type of NAT (siRNA [96], ASO [97], saRNA [98], aptamer [99]); however, design rules are improved each year. Figure 5 provides a guide to identify and design the best-suited NAT for your target.
Finding a lead NAT requires designing, synthesizing, and screening hundreds to thousands of sequences. In silico tools allow for the prediction of certain off-target effects, but so far, no tool has reliably predicted toxicity based on chemical modifications. Therefore, NAT design must be a collaborative effort with oligonucleotide experts and leukemia researchers to maximize therapeutic effect and minimize toxicity. Specific safety considerations that are unique to NATs are reviewed here [100].
In an academic setting, high-throughput screening may not always be feasible, therefore performing iterative rounds of small-scale screening assays may be necessary. Upon proof-of-concept, additional pre-clinical studies may require collaboration with large institutions or companies to validate and optimize the hit.
Concluding remarks
Drug development for myeloid leukemias lags behind that of many other cancers, resulting in poor treatment options for patients with these malignancies. NATs exhibit versatility in their capacity to target and modulate specific genetic and molecular aberrations that underlie myeloid leukemias, offering a promising avenue for tailored and effective treatments. As our understanding of myeloid diseases deepens, and therapeutic strategies continue to evolve, NATs are poised to play a vital role in improving outcomes and quality of life for patients with myeloid leukemias.
References
Tomita A, Kiyoi H, Naoe T. Mechanisms of action and resistance to all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (As2O3) in acute promyelocytic leukemia. Int J Hematol. 2013;97:717–25.
Stubbins RJ, Karsan A. Differentiation therapy for myeloid malignancies: beyond cytotoxicity. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11:193.
Stelmach P, Trumpp A. Leukemic stem cells and therapy resistance in acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica. 2023;108:353–66.
de Thé H. Differentiation therapy revisited. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018;18:117–27.
Rosenbauer F, Tenen DG. Transcription factors in myeloid development: balancing differentiation with transformation. Nat Rev Immunol. 2007;7:105–17.
Lu H, Zhou Q, He J, Jiang Z, Peng C, Tong R, et al. Recent advances in the development of protein–protein interactions modulators: mechanisms and clinical trials. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2020;5:213.
Dang CV, Reddy EP, Shokat KM, Soucek L. Drugging the ‘undruggable’ cancer targets. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17:502–8.
Kulkarni JA, Witzigmann D, Thomson SB, Chen S, Leavitt BR, Cullis PR, et al. The current landscape of nucleic acid therapeutics. Nat Nanotechnol. 2021;16:630–43.
Fire A, Xu S, Montgomery MK, Kostas SA, Driver SE, Mello CC. Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 1998;391:806–11.
Hu B, Zhong L, Weng Y, Peng L, Huang Y, Zhao Y, et al. Therapeutic siRNA: state of the art. Sig Transduct Target Ther. 2020;5:101.
Adams D, Gonzalez-Duarte A, O’Riordan WD, Yang C-C, Ueda M, Kristen AV, et al. Patisiran, an RNAi Therapeutic, for Hereditary Transthyretin Amyloidosis. N. Engl J Med. 2018;379:11–21.
Roberts TC, Langer R, Wood MJA. Advances in oligonucleotide drug delivery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020;19:673–94.
Crooke ST, Liang X-H, Baker BF, Crooke RM Antisense technology: a review. J Biol Chem. 2021;296.
Khorkova O, Stahl J, Joji A, Volmar C-H, Wahlestedt C. Amplifying gene expression with RNA-targeted therapeutics. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023;22:539–61.
Ni S, Zhuo Z, Pan Y, Yu Y, Li F, Liu J, et al. Recent progress in aptamer discoveries and modifications for therapeutic applications. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2021;13:9500–19.
Yang S, Li H, Xu L, Deng Z, Han W, Liu Y, et al. Oligonucleotide aptamer-mediated precision therapy of hematological malignancies. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2018;13:164–75.
Stuart RK, Stockerl-Goldstein K, Cooper M, Devetten M, Herzig R, Medeiros B, et al. Randomized phase II trial of the nucleolin targeting aptamer AS1411 combined with high-dose cytarabine in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML). J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:7019.
Tan CP, Sinigaglia L, Gomez V, Nicholls J, Habib NA. RNA activation—a novel approach to therapeutically upregulate gene transcription. Molecules. 2021;26:6530.
Sarker D, Plummer R, Meyer T, Sodergren MH, Basu B, Chee CE, et al. MTL-CEBPA, a small activating RNA therapeutic upregulating C/EBP-α, in patients with advanced liver cancer: a first-in-human, multicenter, open-label, phase I trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26:3936–46.
Hofman CR, Corey DR. Targeting RNA with synthetic oligonucleotides: clinical success invites new challenges. Cell Chem Biol. 2024;31:125–38.
Egli M, Manoharan M. Chemistry, structure and function of approved oligonucleotide therapeutics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51:2529–73.
Gait MJ, Agrawal S. Introduction and History of the Chemistry of Nucleic Acids Therapeutics. Methods Mol Biol. 2022;2434:3–31.
Goemans N, Mercuri E, Belousova E, Komaki H, Dubrovsky A, McDonald CM, et al. A randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of an antisense oligonucleotide, drisapersen, in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscul Disord. 2018;28:4–15.
Imbimbo BP, Triaca V, Imbimbo C, Nisticò R. Investigational treatments for neurodegenerative diseases caused by inheritance of gene mutations: lessons from recent clinical trials. Neural Regen Res. 2023;18:1679–83.
Reed JC, Stein C, Subasinghe C, Haldar S, Croce CM, Yum S, et al. Antisense-mediated inhibition of BCL2 protooncogene expression and leukemic cell growth and survival: comparisons of phosphodiester and phosphorothioate oligodeoxynucleotides. Cancer Res. 1990;50:6565–70.
Walker AR, Marcucci G, Yin J, Blum W, Stock W, Kohlschmidt J, et al. Phase 3 randomized trial of chemotherapy with or without oblimersen in older AML patients: CALGB 10201 (Alliance). Blood Adv. 2021;5:2775–87.
Winkler J, Stessl M, Amartey J, Noe CR. Off-target effects related to the phosphorothioate modification of nucleic acids. ChemMedChem 2010;5:1344–52.
Tenchov R, Bird R, Curtze AE, Zhou Q. Lipid nanoparticles─from liposomes to mRNA vaccine delivery, a landscape of research diversity and advancement. ACS Nano. 2021;15:16982–7015.
Chander N, Basha G, Yan Cheng MH, Witzigmann D, Cullis PR. Lipid nanoparticle mRNA systems containing high levels of sphingomyelin engender higher protein expression in hepatic and extra-hepatic tissues. Mol Ther Method Clin Develop. 2023;30:235–45.
Jung HN, Lee SY, Lee S, Youn H, Im HJ. Lipid nanoparticles for delivery of RNA therapeutics: current status and the role of in vivo imaging. Theranostics 2022;12:7509–31.
Paunovska K, Loughrey D, Dahlman JE. Drug delivery systems for RNA therapeutics. Nat Rev Genet. 2022;23:265–80.
Dowdy SF, Setten RL, Cui XS, Jadhav SG. Delivery of RNA therapeutics: the great endosomal escape! Nucleic Acid Ther. 2022;32:361–8.
Vago L, Gojo I. Immune escape and immunotherapy of acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Investig. 2020;130:1552–64.
Shao R, Li Z, Xin H, Jiang S, Zhu Y, Liu J, et al. Biomarkers as targets for CAR-T/NK cell therapy in AML. Biomarker Res. 2023;11:65.
Mercier FE, Ragu C, Scadden DT. The bone marrow at the crossroads of blood and immunity. Nat Rev Immunol. 2012;12:49–60.
Estey E, Levine RL, Löwenberg B. Current challenges in clinical development of “targeted therapies”: the case of acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2015;125:2461–6.
Alagpulinsa DA, Toribio MP, Alhallak I, Shmookler Reis RJ. Advances in understanding the molecular basis of clonal hematopoiesis. Trends Mol Med. 2022;28:360–77.
Docking TR, Parker JDK, Jädersten M, Duns G, Chang L, Jiang J, et al. A clinical transcriptome approach to patient stratification and therapy selection in acute myeloid leukemia. Nat Commun. 2021;12:2474.
Reikvam H, Hatfield KJ, Kittang AO, Hovland R, Bruserud Ø. Acute myeloid leukemia with the t(8;21) translocation: clinical consequences and biological implications. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2011;2011:104631.
Pabst T, Mueller BU, Harakawa N, Schoch C, Haferlach T, Behre G, et al. AML1-ETO downregulates the granulocytic differentiation factor C/EBPalpha in t(8;21) myeloid leukemia. Nat Med. 2001;7:444–51.
Issa H, Swart LE, Rasouli M, Ashtiani M, Nakjang S, Jyotsana N, et al. Nanoparticle-mediated targeting of the fusion gene RUNX1/ETO in t(8;21)-positive acute myeloid leukaemia. Leukemia 2023;37:820–34.
Ptasinska A, Assi SA, Mannari D, James SR, Williamson D, Dunne J, et al. Depletion of RUNX1/ETO in t(8;21) AML cells leads to genome-wide changes in chromatin structure and transcription factor binding. Leukemia. 2012;26:1829–41.
Heidenreich O, Krauter J, Riehle H, Hadwiger P, John M, Heil G, et al. AML1/MTG8 oncogene suppression by small interfering RNAs supports myeloid differentiation of t(8;21)-positive leukemic cells. Blood. 2003;101:3157–63.
Cilloni D, Saglio G. Molecular pathways: BCR-ABL. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:930–7.
Wilda M, Fuchs U, Wössmann W, Borkhardt A. Killing of leukemic cells with a BCR/ABL fusion gene by RNA interference (RNAi). Oncogene. 2002;21:5716–24.
Remant KC, Thapa B, Valencia-Serna J, Domun SS, Dimitroff C, Jiang X, et al. Cholesterol grafted cationic lipopolymers: Potential siRNA carriers for selective chronic myeloid leukemia therapy. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2020;108:565–80.
Yang C, Panwar N, Wang Y, Zhang B, Liu M, Toh H, et al. Biodegradable charged polyester-based vectors (BCPVs) as an efficient non-viral transfection nanoagent for gene knockdown of the BCR–ABL hybrid oncogene in a human chronic myeloid leukemia cell line. Nanoscale. 2016;8:9405–16.
Zhang X, Koh CG, Yu B, Liu S, Piao L, Marcucci G, et al. Transferrin receptor targeted lipopolyplexes for delivery of antisense oligonucleotide g3139 in a murine k562 xenograft model. Pharm Res. 2009;26:1516–24.
Valencia-Serna J, Aliabadi HM, Manfrin A, Mohseni M, Jiang X, Uludag H. siRNA/lipopolymer nanoparticles to arrest growth of chronic myeloid leukemia cells in vitro and in vivo. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2018;130:66–70.
Letai A, Sorcinelli MD, Beard C, Korsmeyer SJ. Antiapoptotic BCL-2 is required for maintenance of a model leukemia. Cancer Cell. 2004;6:241–9.
Ong F, Kim K, Konopleva MY. Venetoclax resistance: mechanistic insights and future strategies. Cancer Drug Resist. 2022;5:380–400.
Gutiérrez-Puente Y, Tari AM, Stephens C, Rosenblum M, Guerra RT, Lopez-Berestein G. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and tissue distribution of liposomal p-ethoxy antisense oligonucleotides targeted to Bcl-2. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999;291:865–9.
Abstract from Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021 Gagliardi M, Ashizawa AT The combination of liposomal Bcl-2 antisense oligonucleotide (BP1002) with decitabine is efficacious in venetoclax-resistant cells. Cancer Research. 2021;81:Abstract nr 939.
Maiti A, Carter BZ, Andreeff M, Konopleva MY. SOHO state of the art updates and next questions | Beyond BCL-2 inhibition in acute myeloid leukemia: other approaches to leverage the apoptotic pathway. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2022;22:652–8.
Widden H, Placzek WJ. The multiple mechanisms of MCL1 in the regulation of cell fate. Commun Biol. 2021;4:1029.
Steimer DA, Boyd K, Takeuchi O, Fisher JK, Zambetti GP, Opferman JT. Selective roles for antiapoptotic MCL-1 during granulocyte development and macrophage effector function. Blood. 2009;113:2805–15.
Wan Y, Dai N, Tang Z, Fang H. Small-molecule Mcl-1 inhibitors: emerging anti-tumor agents. Eur J Medicinal Chem. 2018;146:471–82.
Yang J, Ikezoe T, Nishioka C, Yokoyama A. Over-expression of Mcl-1 impairs the ability of ATRA to induce growth arrest and differentiation in acute promyelocytic leukemia cells. Apoptosis. 2013;18:1403–15.
Karami H, Baradaran B, Esfahani A, Sakhinia M, Sakhinia E. Therapeutic effects of myeloid cell leukemia-1 siRNA on human acute myeloid leukemia cells. Adv Pharm Bull. 2014;4:243–8.
Yoshimoto G, Miyamoto T, Jabbarzadeh-Tabrizi S, Iino T, Rocnik JL, Kikushige Y, et al. FLT3-ITD up-regulates MCL-1 to promote survival of stem cells in acute myeloid leukemia via FLT3-ITD-specific STAT5 activation. Blood. 2009;114:5034–43.
Fernandez S, Desplat V, Villacreces A, Guitart AV, Milpied N, Pigneux A, et al. Targeting tyrosine kinases in acute myeloid leukemia: why, who and how? Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20:3429.
Tari AM, Hung M-C, Li K, Lopez-Berestein G. Growth inhibition of breast cancer cells by Grb2 downregulation is correlated with inactivation of mitogen-activated protein kinase in EGFR, but not in ErbB2, cells. Oncogene. 1999;18:1325–32.
Tari AM, Gutiérrez-Puente Y, Monaco G, Stephens C, Sun T, Rosenblum M, et al. Liposome-incorporated Grb2 antisense oligodeoxynucleotide increases the survival of mice bearing bcr-abl-positive leukemia xenografts. Int J Oncol. 2007;31:1243–50.
Ohanian M, Tari Ashizawa A, Garcia-Manero G, Pemmaraju N, Kadia T, Jabbour E, et al. Liposomal Grb2 antisense oligodeoxynucleotide (BP1001) in patients with refractory or relapsed haematological malignancies: a single-centre, open-label, dose-escalation, phase 1/1b trial. Lancet Haematol. 2018;5:e136–e146.
Velu CS, Chaubey A, Phelan JD, Horman SR, Wunderlich M, Guzman ML, et al. Therapeutic antagonists of microRNAs deplete leukemia-initiating cell activity. J Clin Invest. 2014;124:222–36.
Fei J, Li Y, Zhu X, Luo X. miR-181a post-transcriptionally downregulates oncogenic RalA and contributes to growth inhibition and apoptosis in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). PLoS One. 2012;7:e32834.
Su R, Li C, Wang X, Li Z, Wen Z, Yin Z, et al. PPFIA1-targeting miR-181a mimic and saRNA overcome imatinib resistance in BCR-ABL1-independent chronic myeloid leukemia by suppressing leukemia stem cell regeneration. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2023;32:729–42.
Shastri A, Choudhary G, Teixeira M, Gordon-Mitchell S, Ramachandra N, Bernard L, et al. Antisense STAT3 inhibitor decreases viability of myelodysplastic and leukemic stem cells. J Clin Invest. 2018;128:5479–88.
Hong D, Kurzrock R, Kim Y, Woessner R, Younes A, Nemunaitis J, et al. AZD9150, a next-generation antisense oligonucleotide inhibitor of STAT3 with early evidence of clinical activity in lymphoma and lung cancer. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7:314ra185.
Hossain DM, Dos Santos C, Zhang Q, Kozlowska A, Liu H, Gao C, et al. Leukemia cell-targeted STAT3 silencing and TLR9 triggering generate systemic antitumor immunity. Blood. 2014;123:15–25.
Kurtz KJ, Conneely SE, O’Keefe M, Wohlan K, Rau RE. Murine models of acute myeloid leukemia. Front Oncol. 2022;12:854973.
Mazurek A, Park Y, Miething C, Wilkinson JE, Gillis J, Lowe SW, et al. Acquired dependence of acute myeloid leukemia on the DEAD-box RNA helicase DDX5. Cell Rep. 2014;7:1887–99.
Wu J, You YQ, Ma YX, Kang YH, Wu T, Wu XJ, et al. DDX5-targeting fully human monoclonal autoantibody inhibits proliferation and promotes differentiation of acute promyelocytic leukemia cells by increasing ROS production. Cell Death Dis. 2020;11:552.
Le TK, Cherif C, Omabe K, Paris C, Lannes F, Audebert S, et al. DDX5 mRNA-targeting antisense oligonucleotide as a new promising therapeutic in combating castration-resistant prostate cancer. Mol Ther. 2023;31:471–86.
Liu J, Tong J, Yang H. Targeting CD33 for acute myeloid leukemia therapy. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:24.
Hansel TT, Kropshofer H, Singer T, Mitchell JA, George AJT. The safety and side effects of monoclonal antibodies. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:325–38.
Yang C, Wang Y, Ge MH, Fu YJ, Hao R, Islam K, et al. Rapid identification of specific DNA aptamers precisely targeting CD33 positive leukemia cells through a paired cell-based approach. Biomater Sci. 2019;7:938–50.
Soundararajan S, Wang L, Sridharan V, Chen W, Courtenay-Luck N, Jones D, et al. Plasma membrane nucleolin is a receptor for the anticancer aptamer AS1411 in MV4-11 leukemia cells. Mol Pharm. 2009;76:984–91.
Wang M, Wu H, Duan M, Yang Y, Wang G, Che F, et al. SS30, a novel thioaptamer targeting CD123, inhibits the growth of acute myeloid leukemia cells. Life Sci. 2019;232:116663.
Zhao N, Pei S-N, Qi J, Zeng Z, Iyer SP, Lin P, et al. Oligonucleotide aptamer-drug conjugates for targeted therapy of acute myeloid leukemia. Biomaterials. 2015;67:42–51.
Suzuki H, Forrest AR, van Nimwegen E, Daub CO, Balwierz PJ, Irvine KM, et al. The transcriptional network that controls growth arrest and differentiation in a human myeloid leukemia cell line. Nat Genet. 2009;41:553–62.
Wang E, Zhou H, Nadorp B, Cayanan G, Chen X, Yeaton AH, et al. Surface antigen-guided CRISPR screens identify regulators of myeloid leukemia differentiation. Cell Stem Cell. 2021;28:718–.e16.
Tzelepis K, Koike-Yusa H, De Braekeleer E, Li Y, Metzakopian E, Dovey OM, et al. A CRISPR dropout screen identifies genetic vulnerabilities and therapeutic targets in acute myeloid leukemia. Cell Rep. 2016;17:1193–205.
Gourvest M, Brousset P, Bousquet M. Long noncoding RNAs in acute myeloid leukemia: functional characterization and clinical relevance. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11:1638.
Bi L, Sun L, Jin Z, Zhang S, Shen Z. MicroRNA-10a/b are regulators of myeloid differentiation and acute myeloid leukemia. Oncol Lett. 2018;15:5611–9.
Wallace JA, O’Connell RM. MicroRNAs and acute myeloid leukemia: therapeutic implications and emerging concepts. Blood. 2017;130:1290–301.
Gong JN, Yu J, Lin HS, Zhang XH, Yin XL, Xiao Z, et al. The role, mechanism and potentially therapeutic application of microRNA-29 family in acute myeloid leukemia. Cell Death Differ. 2014;21:100–12.
Singh V, Uddin MH, Zonder JA, Azmi AS, Balasubramanian SK. Circular RNAs in acute myeloid leukemia. Mol Cancer. 2021;20:149.
Usman WM, Pham TC, Kwok YY, Vu LT, Ma V, Peng B, et al. Efficient RNA drug delivery using red blood cell extracellular vesicles. Nat Commun. 2018;9:2359.
Guimarães PPG, Figueroa-Espada CG, Riley RS, Gong N, Xue L, Sewastianik T, et al. In vivo bone marrow microenvironment siRNA delivery using lipid–polymer nanoparticles for multiple myeloma therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2023;120:e2215711120.
Halley PD, Lucas CR, McWilliams EM, Webber MJ, Patton RA, Kural C, et al. Daunorubicin-loaded DNA origami nanostructures circumvent drug-resistance mechanisms in a leukemia model. Small. 2016;12:308–20.
Sefah K, Tang ZW, Shangguan DH, Chen H, Lopez-Colon D, Li Y, et al. Molecular recognition of acute myeloid leukemia using aptamers. Leukemia. 2009;23:235–44.
Chung SS, Eng WS, Hu W, Khalaj M, Garrett-Bakelman FE, Tavakkoli M, et al. CD99 is a therapeutic target on disease stem cells in myeloid malignancies. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9:eaaj2025.
Krupka C, Lichtenegger FS, Köhnke T, Bögeholz J, Bücklein V, Roiss M, et al. Targeting CD157 in AML using a novel, Fc-engineered antibody construct. Oncotarget.2017;8:35707–17.
Haubner S, Perna F, Köhnke T, Schmidt C, Berman S, Augsberger C, et al. Coexpression profile of leukemic stem cell markers for combinatorial targeted therapy in AML. Leukemia. 2019;33:64–74.
Fakhr E, Zare F, Teimoori-Toolabi L. Precise and efficient siRNA design: a key point in competent gene silencing. Cancer Gene Ther. 2016;23:73–82.
Partridge W, Xia S, Kwoh TJ, Bhanot S, Geary RS, Baker BF. Improvements in the tolerability profile of 2′-O-methoxyethyl chimeric antisense oligonucleotides in parallel with advances in design. Screen Other Methods Nucleic Acid Ther. 2021;31:417–26.
Wang J, Place RF, Portnoy V, Huang V, Kang MR, Kosaka M, et al. Inducing gene expression by targeting promoter sequences using small activating RNAs. J Biol Methods. 2015;2:e14.
Sefah K, Shangguan D, Xiong X, O’Donoghue MB, Tan W. Development of DNA aptamers using Cell-SELEX. Nat Protoc. 2010;5:1169–85.
Goyenvalle A, Jimenez-Mallebrera C, van Roon W, Sewing S, Krieg AM, Arechavala-Gomeza V, et al. Considerations in the preclinical assessment of the safety of antisense oligonucleotides. Nucleic Acid Ther. 2023;33:1–16.
Acknowledgements
We thank Bruktawit Maru for proofreading the paper. All graphics were created using Biorender.com.
Funding
This work was supported by a Cole Foundation Grant to MM.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
OK reviewed the literature. OK and MM wrote the manuscript. All authors revised and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kovecses, O., Mercier, F.E. & McKeague, M. Nucleic acid therapeutics as differentiation agents for myeloid leukemias. Leukemia (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-024-02191-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-024-02191-0