Article Text

Download PDFPDF
RSPO2 abnormal transcripts result from read-through in liver tumours with high ß-catenin activation and CTNNB1 mutations
  1. Quentin Bayard1,2,
  2. Jean-Charles Nault1,2,3,
  3. Jessica Zucman-Rossi1,2,4
  1. 1 Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Inserm, Paris, France
  2. 2 Université de Paris, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
  3. 3 Hepatology Department, Hopital Jean Verdier, APHP, Université Paris 13, Bondy, France
  4. 4 Oncology Department, Hopital Européen Georges Pompidou, APHP, Paris, France
  1. Correspondence to Professor Jessica Zucman-Rossi, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris 75006, France; jessica.zucman-rossi{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Thomas Longerich and collaborators1 recently published an intriguing observation in hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) showing an activation of the Wnt/ß-catenin signalling pathway without CTNNB1 or APC mutations. The authors identified a recurrent deletion leading to a fusion between a short interspersed nuclear element (SINE) sequence and RSPO2 gene in three HCAs and three hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) all activated for ß-catenin, including one tumour with CTNNB1 mutations and five tumours without APC or CTNNB1 mutations. The authors proposed RSPO2fusion as a recurrent mechanism of ß-catenin activation in liver tumourigenesis.

Following this original observation, we analysed the expression and rearrangement of RSPO2 in a series of 10 HCAs and 163 HCCs analysed with RNAseq. We identified a correlation of RSPO2 mRNA expression with several genes known to be positively …

View Full Text


  • Contributors J-CN, QB and JZ-R: generation and analysis of data, and writing and approval of the manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.