First, LSD1 is unable to demethylate histone tails while the SNAG domain name of GFI1, which mimics the structure of the N-terminal tail of histone H3 (Baron et?al., 2011), occupies its substrate-binding pocket. is usually induced through blockade of?LSD1s histone demethylase activity. However, we observed that rapid, considerable, drug-induced changes in transcription occurred without genome-wide accumulation of the histone modifications targeted for demethylation by LSD1 at sites of LSD1 binding and that a demethylase-defective mutant rescued knockdown AML cells as efficiently as wild-type protein. Rather, LSD1 inhibitors disrupt the conversation of LSD1 and RCOR1 with the SNAG-domain transcription repressor GFI1, which is bound to a discrete set of enhancers located close to transcription factor genes that regulate myeloid differentiation. Physical separation of LSD1/RCOR1 from GFI1 is required for drug-induced differentiation. The consequent inactivation of GFI1 prospects to increased enhancer histone acetylation within hours, which directly correlates with the upregulation of nearby subordinate genes. gene rearrangement and display similar phenotypic responses following LSD1 inhibition to those observed in main knockdown (KD) using a lentiviral short hairpin RNA (shRNA) construct targeting the 3 UTR substantially reduced the clonogenic potential of THP1 AML cells (Figures 2BC2D). Concomitant forced expression of wild-type (WT) partially B-HT 920 2HCl rescued the KD phenotype (Figures 2BC2D). Of notice, forced expression of K661A mutant LSD1 did likewise, with the greater degree of rescue likely due to a higher level of expression of the K661A versus the WT construct (Physique?2B). We performed comparable experiments in murine MLL-AF9 AML cells with comparable results. Forced expression of either human WT LSD1 or K661A mutant LSD1 in KD cells (using a construct that does not target human for knockdown (KD) or a non-targeting control (NTC), with puromycin drug resistance as the selectable marker. (B) Western blot shows expression of the indicated proteins in the indicated conditions B-HT 920 2HCl after HDAC5 48?hr of drug selection. (C) Bar graph shows mean SEM for colony-forming cell (CFC) frequencies of drug-resistant cells relative to controls, enumerated after 10?days in semisolid culture (n?= 3). ?p? 0.05 for the indicated comparison using one-way ANOVA and Fishers least significant difference test. B-HT 920 2HCl (D) Representative images of colonies from (C). (E and F) GSEA plots show enrichment of gene units regulated by (E) KD or (F) KD (Suzuki et?al., 2009) among genes ranked according to fold change in expression following treatment of THP1 AML cells with 250?nM OG86 for 24?hr. (G) Image summarizes GSEA results. Blue circles indicate transcription factors where KD mimics transcriptional changes observed upon LSD1 inhibition. Pink circles indicate genes where KD induces downregulation of gene units that are upregulated following LSD1 inhibition. Large circles indicate genes highlighted in (E) and (F). (HCJ) THP1 AML cells were treated with 250?nM OG86 for 48?hr. Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated using (H) anti-GFI1, (I) anti-LSD1 or anti-RCOR1, and (J) anti-LSD1 in the indicated conditions, and western blots representative of at least three experiments are shown. IP, immunoprecipitation; Cy, cytoplasmic; Nu, nuclear. (K) Cartoon summarizes results of immunoprecipitation studies. See also Figure? S2 and Furniture S4 and S5. Pharmacologic Inhibition of LSD1 Mimics KD Given the physical conversation of LSD1 with several transcription factors (Lynch et?al., 2012), we next sought to determine whether its pharmacologic inhibition by OG86 mimics the transcriptional effects of transcription factor KD. To address this, we recognized gene sets with expression significantly up- or downregulated by at least 2-fold following siRNA-induced KD of 46 genes coding for transcription factors and other proteins. Transcriptome data were from a prior study that also made B-HT 920 2HCl use of THP1 AML cells (Suzuki et?al., 2009) (Table S4). Using gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA), we observed that only gene units up- or downregulated by or KD were concordantly enriched among those up- or downregulated following treatment of THP1 AML cells with OG86 (Figures 2E and 2F; Table S5). Thus, in THP1 AML cells, pharmacologic inhibition of LSD1 mimics depletion of or transcripts (Physique?2G). is not expressed in THP1 cells (Table S2). Consistent with the increased expression of a myeloid differentiation program following OG86 treatment, among genes upregulated following LSD1 inhibition, there was also significant enrichment of gene units whose expression is usually sustained by myeloid transcription factors such as SPI1 (PU.1), CEBPA, CBFB, and IRF8 (Figures 2G and S2F; Table S5). Pharmacologic Inhibition of LSD1 Impairs Conversation with GFI1 and Chromatin Given that physical association of LSD1 with the N-terminal SNAG domain name of GFI1 is essential for the function of GFI1 as a transcription repressor.