Available online on 15.03.2026 at http://jddtonline.info

Journal of Drug Delivery and Therapeutics

Open Access to Pharmaceutical and Medical Research

Copyright   © 2026 The  Author(s): This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial use provided the original author and source are credited

Open Access Full Text Article   Review Article

Chromatin Addiction in NUT Carcinoma: Targeted Epigenetic Pharmacology Beyond BET Inhibition

Pavankumar Pandurang Wankhade ¹*, Onkar Pradip Ghorpade ², Onkar Satish Kokane ², Urmila Narayan Ganjpure ², Prachi Shantaram Dhonde ²

1. Assistant Professor, Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Pharmacy, Akurdi, Pune, India 

2. Students, Third Year Bachelor of Pharmacy, Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Pharmacy, Akurdi, Pune, India

 

 

Introduction

NUT carcinoma (NC) is classified as one of the most aggressive types of cancer, characterized by chromosomal rearrangements of the NUTM1 gene, in most cases fusing with members of bromodomain and extra terminal (BET) family, that is BRD4, BRD3, or NSD3^9,10. Few rearrangements are responsible for the production of oncoproteins which alters the chromatin regulating process, leads to the rampant overexpression of genes as well as stopping cellular differentiation. Once termed NUT midline carcinoma because of the common midline structures it altered, NC is now known to originate from a range of sites, that is the head and neck, lungs, mediastinum, and various other visceral organs ¹¹.

From a public health perspective, Nut Carcinoma affects all age groups paediatrics to adults. It does not show a preference for one sex over another^11,12. While the real nature of disease is not known; a fact that NC is very much an underdiagnosed issue which we considered that the rareness of the disease and the similarity of its histology to that of other differentiated or undifferentiated carcinomas¹². The clinical feature of this disease is very aggressive which include rapid tumour growth, early break out of metastasis and resistance to what we consider to be standard treatments. Reports show overall survival is between 6 to 9 months even in the setting of intensive multimodal therapy that's includes surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy^12,13.

Tumours often have no unique histopathological features and may be misdiagnosed as poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma, small cell carcinoma or other high-grade malignance¹³. The good point is the identification of the NUTM1 rearrangement or overexpression of the NUT protein, usually obtainable via immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as next generation sequencing^9,14. Its happens because delayed and missed diagnoses are clinically common reason, it needs to more awareness, and the demonstration of simple molecular tests is clearly part of the routine work process of obscure carcinoma.

NC is driven by a unique oncogenic program of chromatin dis-regulation at the cellular level. The BRD4-NUT fusion binds to acetylated histones and these complexes can registered key histone acetyltransferases (HATs), such as p300/CBP, leading to the formation of large hyperacetylated chromatin domains that both supports oncogenic transcription and blocks normal cellular differentiation^10,15. It creates dependency on dysfunctional epigenetic control. That indicates the concept of chromatin addiction in the tumour cell that it can no longer survive without constantly maintaining its aberrant status¹⁶.

 

FIGURE 1: Pathogenesis of NUT Carcinoma 

Due to the minimum effectiveness of standard cytotoxic therapies, there is an urgent requirement for mechanism-based therapies that would specifically inhibit the underlying epigenetic drivers of Nut Carcinoma. The first agent which targets on BRD-NUT-mediated transcriptional programs are BET Inhibiters; which shows the evidence activity in preclinical models and clinical trials of early phase¹⁷. Yet less than half of the selected compounds are shows complete and long-lasting responses, that's highlighting the complexity of epigenetic dependencies maintaining this cancer. These restrictions have promoted the search for other chromatin-mediated uniqueness its needs to the rational combination therapy to overcome epigenetic dependence and drug resistance^16–18.

 Molecular Genetics of NUT Carcinoma

NUT carcinoma (NC) is characterized by translocations and gene fusions that's Repeatedly bringing together the NUTM1 (Nuclear Protein in Testis, Midline Carcinoma Family Member 1) gene on chromosome 15q14 with a partner gene. These rearrangements lead to the formation of oncogenic fusion genes, which is main feature of NC pathogenesis¹⁰. Unlike most carcinomas with a complex mutational landscape; NC is genetically simple as well as NUTM1 fusions are recognized as the main oncogene driver ⁹.

The most frequent fusion partner of NUTM1 is BRD4, in ~70% of reported cases, followed by BRD3 and less frequently NSD3 ^9,10,17. These partners are encoded by genes, its leads to the binding of acetylated histones and then regulates transcription in the context of chromatin. The resultant fictional oncoproteins maintain the high affinity chromatin-binding domains of BET proteins those of the chromatin-modifying enzyme and acquire portions of NUTM1. Its form functional domains, resulting in marked perturbations in both gene expression and global chromatin structures ^9,15.

The most well characterized oncogenic driver in NC is the BRD4-NUT fusion oncoprotein. BRD4 consists of a pair of bromodomains which can identify acetylated lysine's on the tails of histones. It creates the bond between fusion protein and active chromatin ¹⁷.

 The fusion of NUT with the histone acetyl transferases p300/CBP happens the large blocks and localized hyperacetylation of transcriptionally active chromatin known as “mega domains”^15,19. These mega domains include many important oncogenes such as MYC and TP63. These further leading to the continued activation of the transcription machinery while silencing global cellular differentiation programs¹⁹.

 

 

 

Figure 2: Molecular Genetics of NUT Carcinoma

Table 1: feature and description of NUT Carcinoma

 

 

BRD3-NUT combinations work same as BRD4, even though they aren't seen as much but it follows all rule²⁰. This whole NSD3-NUT fusion thing is a bit different; it's like a special group because NUTM1 gets mixed with a histone methyltransferase then its lead to the H3K36 methylation. At the end these all come together in bad path then genes are read caused by a change in how the DNA wraps around itself ²¹. Then NUTM1 fusions have turned into cancer causing cells gets DNA loose and stopping the cells from maturing. It indicates the highly aggressive behaviour of it while treatment to BET proteins and other chromatin regulators¹⁷

 

 

NUTM1 Rearrangement

        ↓

BRD4-NUT Fusion Protein

        ↓

Recruitment of p300 / CBP

        ↓

Global Histone Hyperacetylation

        ↓

Chromatin Megadomain Formation

        ↓

Super-Enhancer Amplification

        ↓

MYC / TP63 Activation

        ↓

Differentiation Blockade

        ↓

Aggressive Tumour Growth

 

 

Concept of Chromatin Addiction

Definition

Simply put, chromatin addiction is what happens when cancer cells can't live without certain chromatin regulators and other chromatin changers; they need these to keep running their cancer-causing gene programs and to stay alive as a cell. The main difference between this and genetic driver mutations is that this addiction comes from a need for these regulators and not from having changes in the genes that make them.  The need for continuous epigenetic reinforcement that maintains the expression of cancer-causing genes while blocking differentiation or tumour-suppressing routes is clearly shown in this dependency^23,16.

By becoming addicted to chromatin cancer cells take advantage of the ability to quickly change how their genes are turned on and off through epigenetic changes and modifications to the proteins that make up chromatin. This makes these cells especially sensitive to any disruption of the machinery responsible for organizing and modifying chromatin.

Distinction from Oncogene Addiction

In the world of cancer biology, we observe a fascinating phenomenon known as oncogene addiction. This term describes how cancer cells come to rely heavily on the activity of just one main oncogene. When this oncogene is blocked or turned off, the cancer cells either stop growing completely (known as growth arrest) or undergo cell death (apoptosis). A couple of well-known cases illustrating this concept are BCR-ABL in chronic myeloid leukaemia and a mutated form of EGFR in lung cancer.²²

In discrepancy, chromatin dependence involves reliance on epigenetic controllers similar as histone methyltransferases, chromatin compendiums, or redoing complexes- that control the expression of large gene networks rather than a single oncogenic motorist. While oncogene dependence is primarily driven by aberrant signalling falls, chromatin dependence reflects a reliance on global transcriptional and epigenetic control mechanisms that maintain oncogenic cell countries²³. therefore, chromatin dependence represents a broader and further integrative vulnerability, particularly in cancers lacking clear practicable oncogene mutations.

 

 

 

FIGURE 3:  Chromatin Addiction vs Oncogene Addiction

 

 

Figure 4: comparison of normal vs affected cells.

Table 2: Comparison of Chromatin Addiction with Related Concepts

Feature	Chromatin Addiction	Oncogene Addiction	Transcriptional Addiction	Enhancer Hijacking
Core concept	Epigenetic dependency	Genetic dependency	High transcriptional demand	Structural regulatory alteration
Primary driver	Chromatin regulators	Single oncogene	Transcription machinery	Chromosomal rearrangement
Scale of effect	Global gene networks	Single pathway	Genome-wide transcription	Locus-specific
Dependency type	Functional	Genetic	Functional	Structural
Reversibility	Often reversible	Often irreversible	Partially reversible	Fixed genomic change
Key references	23,16	22	16,29	30,31

 

Table 3: Relationship Between Chromatin Addiction and Transcriptional Control

Parameter	Chromatin Addiction	Transcriptional Addiction
Focus	Epigenetic infrastructure	Transcriptional output
Key regulators	EZH2, DOT1L, BRD4, SWI/SNF	RNA Pol II, CDK7, CDK9
Functional role	Stabilizes oncogenic programs	Sustains high transcription
Conceptual hierarchy	Upstream, broader	Downstream, narrower
Dependency overlap	High	High

 

Distinction from Transcriptional Addiction

Transcriptional dependence describes the reliance of cancer cells on exceptionally high situations of transcriptional exertion to sustain rapid-fire proliferation and survival. This miracle is constantly driven by oncogenes similar as MYC and supported by transcriptional ministry including RNA polymerase II, CDK7, CDK9, and bromodomain- containing proteins similar as BRD4 ^16,29. Chromatin dependence is conceptually broader than transcriptional dependence. While transcriptional dependence emphasizes transcriptional affair, chromatin dependence encompasses the epigenetic armature that enables and stabilizes this affair, including chromatin availability, enhancer geographies, and histone revision patterns. In numerous surrounds, transcriptional dependence can be viewed as a functional consequence of chromatin dependence, as cancer cells calculate on chromatin controllers to sustain high transcriptional flux ¹⁶.

 Distinction from Enhancer Hijacking

Enhancer hijacking involves the chromosomal rearrangement of certain oncogenes so that they become activated through misplaced contacts with chromosomal enhancers or super-enhancers ³⁰. This locus-specific mechanism is dependent on three-dimensional rearrangements of the genome. Chromatin addiction differs in that it is not the absence of structural alterations but is the functional reliance on chromatin regulators. Still, enhancer hijacking may initiate chromatin addiction due to the oncogenic expression programs that become reliant on enhancer-associated chromatin factors like BRD4 and the Mediator complex ^27,30. Thus, enhancer hijacking may be seen as an initial event that strengthens chromatin-related vulnerabilities.

 

 

Table 4: Enhancer Hijacking as a Driver of Chromatin Addiction

Feature	Enhancer Hijacking	Contribution to Chromatin Addiction
Mechanism	Genomic rearrangement	Creates enhancer-driven dependencies
Genomic scale	Locus-specific	Pathway or program-level
Effect on chromatin	Super-enhancer formation	Increased reliance on enhancer readers
Key chromatin factors	BRD4, Mediator	BRD4, CDK9
Representative studies	30,31	27,30

 

 

Conceptual Integration

As a group, chromatin addiction offers a coherent explanation for the interplay between the dysregulation of the epigenome, control of transcription, and the identity of cancer cells. It stands apart from, but is related to, oncogene, transcription, and enhancer hijacking addictions. It demonstrates, for each of these concepts, how cancerous cells uphold and locked oncogenic states due to continuous epigenetic control. It shows the value of developing therapeutics aimed at the epigenome and chromatin for a wide range of cancers. ^23,28,32 

 

 

Table 5: Representative Examples of Chromatin Addiction in Cancer

Cancer Type	Chromatin Dependency	Targeted Factor	Key Reference
MLL-rearranged leukemia	H3K79 methylation	DOT1L	23
Germinal center B-cell lymphoma	Polycomb repression	EZH2	23
MYC-driven tumors	Super-enhancer regulation	BRD4	16,28
ARID1A-mutant cancers	Chromatin remodelling imbalance	SWI/SNF complex	32

 

 

Epigenetic Landscape in NUT Carcinoma

In the world of cancer, NUT carcinoma stands out as an uncommon but extremely fast-growing form of squamous cancer. What sets it apart is how it's not so much about having a lot of genetic mutations but more about having trouble with how genes are regulated. This puts it in a category all its own as a kind of cancer that's mainly fuelled by problems in how the cell's chromatin structure functions.^9,10

 

 

Figure 5: Epigenetic Landscape in NUT Carcinoma

 

Global Histone Hyperacetylation

The BRD4- NUT emulsion protein aberrantly recruits the histone acetyltransferase p300/ CBP, performing in global histone hyperacetylation, particularly at H3K27 and H3K18 remainders¹⁵. This hyperacetylated chromatin state promotes wide transcriptional activation and disrupts normal epigenetic compartmentalization. Unlike physiological acetylation, which is spatially confined, acetylation in NUT melanoma spreads over large genomic regions, buttressing oncogenic transcriptional circuits¹⁹.

Mega domain Formation

A hallmark of NUT melanoma is the conformation of large hyperacetylated chromatin regions known as megadomains, which can gauge hundreds of kilobases to megabases ¹⁵. These megadomains are planted at active enhancers and expand through a feed-forward medium involving BRD4 binding to acetylated histones and continued reclamation of p300. Megadomains stamp normal chromatin boundaries and reorganize three- dimensional genome armature, leading to unhappy activation of growth- promoting genes ³⁷.

Super-Enhancer-Driven Transcription

Mega domains in NUT melanoma constantly lap with super-enhancers, performing in extreme transcriptional modification of oncogenes similar as MYC, TP63, and SOX2. This super-enhancer-driven recap creates a state of transcriptional dependence, wherein excrescence cells come dependent on sustained enhancer exertion and chromatin anthology proteins to maintain oncogenic gene expression programs. ^19,27

Differentiation Arrest

The epigenetic alterations induced by BRD4-NUT lead to a profound block in epithelial differentiation. Genes required for squamous differentiation are repressed or excluded from megadomains, while proliferation-associated genes are selectively activated^10,20. Experimental disruption of BRD4-NUT function restores differentiation, highlighting differentiation arrest as a direct consequence of chromatin dysregulation rather than irreversible genetic changes.

 

 

Table 6: Hallmark & Functional Outcome NUT Carcinoma

Hallmark	Functional Outcome
Global histone hyperacetylation	Sustained oncogenic transcription
Megadomain formation	Override of normal chromatin boundaries
Super-enhancer amplification	Extreme transcriptional dependency
Differentiation arrest	Maintenance of undifferentiated state
Epigenetic plasticity	Rapid adaptation to therapy

 

 

BET Proteins and Limitations of BET Inhibition

Mechanism of BET Proteins

The bromodomain and extra-terminal (BET) protein family, comprising BRD2, BRD3, BRD4, and BRDT, functions as epigenetic readers that recognize acetylated lysine residues on histone tails²⁸. BET proteins facilitate transcriptional activation by recruiting transcriptional elongation factors, Mediator complexes, and RNA polymerase II to active chromatin regions. In NUT carcinoma, BRD4 is hijacked by fusion with NUT, converting a normal transcriptional co-activator into a dominant oncogenic driver ⁹.

 

 

 

FIGURE 6: Mechanism of BET Proteins

Table 7: BET Proteins: Functions and Therapeutic Targeting

BET Protein	Normal Function	Role in NUT Carcinoma	Therapeutic Relevance	References
BRD4	Transcriptional elongation	Fusion with NUT drives oncogenesis	Primary BETi target	9,28
BRD3	Transcription regulation	Minor compensatory role	Potential resistance mediator	28
BRD2	Chromatin binding	Partial functional redundancy	Limits BETi selectivity	28
BRDT	Germline-specific	Not involved	Off-target concern	28

 

 

BET Inhibitors

BET inhibitors (BETi) are small molecules that competitively bind to bromodomains, displacing BET proteins from acetylated chromatin. Prototype compounds such as JQ1 demonstrated potent preclinical activity in NUT carcinoma by collapsing mega domains, downregulating oncogene expression, and inducing squamous differentiation ^17,42. These findings provided strong proof-of-concept for targeting epigenetic dependencies in chromatin-driven cancers.

Clinical Outcomes

Early-phase clinical trials of BET inhibitors in NUT carcinoma and other solid tumours showed partial responses and transient disease stabilization, but durable responses were uncommon ^43,44. While some patients experienced rapid tumour regression, resistance frequently emerged, and overall survival benefits were limited. These outcomes suggest that BET inhibition alone may be insufficient to fully suppress the complex epigenetic circuitry maintained by BRD4-NUT.

 

 

 

 

Table 8: Clinical Experience with BET Inhibitors in NUT Carcinoma and Solid Tumours

BET Inhibitor	Study Phase	Key Clinical Outcomes	Major Toxicities	References
JQ1 (prototype)	Preclinical	Tumor regression, differentiation	Not clinically tested	17,42
OTX015 (MK-8628)	Phase I	Partial responses, short duration	Thrombocytopenia, fatigue	43, 44
Birabresib (OTX015)	Phase I/II	Disease stabilization	GI toxicity, cytopenias	44
CPI-0610	Phase I	Limited solid tumor efficacy	Hematologic toxicity	45

 

FIGURE 8. Epigenetic Targets Beyond BET Proteins

 

 

Toxicities

Dose-limiting toxicities of BET inhibitors include thrombocytopenia, gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue, and reversible hematologic suppression, reflecting the essential role of BET proteins in normal transcriptional regulation ^44,45. The narrow therapeutic window has constrained dose escalation and long-term administration, limiting clinical efficacy.

Resistance Mechanisms

Resistance to BET inhibition arises through multiple mechanisms, including:

• Reactivation of oncogenic transcription via alternative enhancers
• Compensation by non-BET chromatin readers
• Kinase signaling pathway activation
• Adaptive rewiring of transcriptional networks ^46,47

 

 

Figure 9: Limitations and Resistance to BET Inhibition

 

These resistance mechanisms underscore the plasticity of epigenetic regulation and suggest that combination strategies, such as BET inhibitors with CDK9 inhibitors, histone acetyltransferase inhibitors, or differentiation-inducing agents, may be required for durable responses.

Initial Epigenetic Therapy

        ↓

Partial Tumor Response

        ↓

Epigenetic Plasticity

        ↓

Enhancer Switching

        ↓

Transcriptional Rewiring

        ↓

Therapeutic Resistance

 

Table 9: Mechanisms of Resistance to BET Inhibition

 

 

Targeting Transcriptional Machinery Beyond BET Proteins

So BET bromodomain inhibitors have demonstrated the therapeutic value of disrupting transcriptional addiction in carcinoma, the resistance mechanisms and dose-limiting toxicities & harmful reaction have prompted interest in alternative & complementary nodes of the transcriptional machinery. The key targets include cyclin-dependent kinase 9 which is CDK9, the Mediator complex & RNA polymerase II which is RNA'PII) itself, all of which play central roles in transcriptional initiation and elongation.

CDK9 as a Therapeutic Target

CDK9, the catalytic component of the positive transcription elongation factor b (P-TEFb) complex, phosphorylates the C-terminal domain (CTD) of RNA'P II at Ser2, enabling productive transcriptional elongation. CDK9 is particularly critical for sustaining transcription of short-lived, oncogenic transcripts such as MYC, MCL-1, and CCND1 ^48,49. Dysregulated CDK9 activity has been observed in multiple malignancies, including hematologic cancers and solid tumors, making it an attractive therapeutic target.

Selective CDK9 inhibitors, such as SNS-032, AZD4573, and atuveciclib, have shown potent suppression of oncogenic transcriptional programs and induction of apoptosis in preclinical models ^50-52. Importantly, next-generation inhibitors aim to improve selectivity over other CDKs to minimize hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities associated with earlier pan-CDK inhibitors.

 

 

 

FIGURE 10: Transcriptional Machinery Targets Beyond BET Proteins

 

 

Targeting the Mediator Complex

The Mediator complex works as a transcriptional co-regulator that bridges sequence-specific transcription factors & RNA'P II. Followings are the subunits, MED1, MED12, and MED15 have been implicated in oncogenic transcription & particularly in super-enhancer-driven gene expression programs ^53,54. Genetic alterations in Mediator parts, example MED12 mutations, have been linked to aberrant transcriptional activation and drug resistance in carcinma⁵⁵.

Although direct pharmacological targeting of the Mediator complex remains challenging due to the large, multi-subunit structure indirect strategies such as disrupting Mediator transcription factor interactions, targeting associated kinases like CDK8/CDK19 have shown promise ^56,57.

 RNA Polymerase II and Transcriptional Elongation Control

 The RNA'P II itself represents a downstream convergence point of multiple transcriptional regulatory pathways. It inhibition of RNA'P II phosphorylation, pausing and elongation can broadly suppress oncogenic transcriptional outputs. Compounds such as α-amanitin-based antibody-drug conjugates and small-molecule inhibitors of transcriptional elongation have demonstrated selective toxicity in transcriptionally addicted cancer cells^58,59.

Furthermore, dysregulation of RNA'P II CTD phosphorylation dynamics has been joined to genomic instability & altered transcriptional fidelity & reinforcing the rationale for therapeutic intervention at this level ⁶⁰.

 

 

 Combination Strategies Targeting Transcriptional Addiction

 

FIGURE 9: Rationale for Combination Epigenetic Therapy 

 

 

The interconnected nature of transcriptional regulation & combination strategies targeting multiple components of the transcriptional machinery are increasingly being discovered. Co-inhibition of BET proteins & CDK9 has shown synergistic suppression of super-enhancer driven oncogenes & delayed resistance onset ^61,46. Similarly, combining transcriptional inhibitors with epigenetic modulators, DNA-damaging agents, or BCL-2 family inhibitors enhances antitumor efficacy by exploiting cancer cells’ dependence on continuous transcription ^63,16.

 

 

FIGURE 11: Combination Transcriptional Inhibition Strategy

 

 

Such combinatorial approaches are allow for dose reduction, improved therapeutic windows, & broader applicability across tumor types because transcriptional dysregulation.

Chromatin Writers as Therapeutic Targets: HATs and HMTs

Overview

Chromatin writers are enzymes which catalyze covalent post-translational modifications are on histones, so regulating chromatin architecture & gene expression. These include histone acetyltransferases which is HATs & histone methyltransferases which is HMTs, which play crusial roles in transcriptional regulation, DNA repair, & cell fate determination. Dysregulation of chromatin writers is a hallmark of many diseases particularly carsinoma making them attractive therapeutic targets ^23,66.

 

 

FIGURE 12: Chromatin Writers as Therapeutic Targets

 

Histone Acetyltransferases (HATs)

Biological Function

Histone acetyltransferases catalyze the transfer of acetyl groups from acetyl-CoA to lysine residues on histone tails, resulting in chromatin relaxation & transcriptional activation. Major HAT families include the GNAT family which are GCN5 &PCAF, the MYST family which are TIP60 & MOZ, & the p300/CBP family, which works as transcriptional co-activators ⁶⁷.

Beyond histones, HATs also acetylate non-histone substrates such as transcription factors example p53 & MYC, thereby expanding their regulatory influence on cellular signalling networks ⁶⁸.

Therapeutic Rationale

Aberrant HAT activity contributes to oncogenesis through slow activation of oncogenic transcriptional programs & disruption of tumor suppress or pathways. For instant mutations or altered expression of p300/CBP have been reported in leukemia, lymphoma, & solid tumors ⁶⁹. Therefore, pharmacolgical inhibition of HATs has emerged as a potential strategy to inhibite transcriptional addiction in carcinoma cells.

Challenges

Even though their promise, therapeutic targeting of HATs faces several difficulties. First, HATs often exert both oncogenic and tumor-suppressive functions depending on cellular context, complicating therapeutic intervention⁷⁰. And, their enzymatic mechanisms involve huge, flexible protein complexes, it makes the development of selective small-molecule inhibitors hard. Finally, inhibition of HATs may lead to widespread transcriptional perturbations and potential toxicity because their roles in normal cellular homeostasis ⁷¹.

Histone Methyltransferases (HMTs)

General Role

Histone methyltransferases catalyze the mono-, di-, or tri-methylation of lysine or arginine residues on histones. Unlike acetylation, histone methylation can be associated with either transcriptional activation or repression, depending on the specific residue modified. HMTs are highly specific enzymes and have been strongly linked to disease pathogenesis ⁴¹.

EZH2 as a Therapeutic Target

Biological Significance

Enhancer of zested homolog 2 (EZH2) is the catalytic subunit of the Polycom Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2) and mediates trimethylation of histone H3 at lysine 27 (H3K27me3), a repressive chromatin mark. EZH2 is frequently overexpressed or mutated in haematological malignancies and solid tumours, leading to silencing of tumour suppressor genes ⁴⁰.

Therapeutic Rationale

Gain-of-function EZH2 mutations create oncogenic dependencies that can be pharmacologically exploited. This has led to the development of selective EZH2 inhibitors, such as haemostats, which has demonstrated clinical efficacy and received regulatory approval for epithelioid sarcoma and follicular lymphoma³⁸.

Challenges

Despite clinical success, resistance to EZH2 inhibition frequently emerges through secondary mutations, pathway compensation, or epigenetic reprogramming. Furthermore, EZH2 also plays roles in immune regulation and stem cell maintenance, raising concerns regarding long-term inhibition and off-target effects ³⁶.

NSD Family of Histone Methyltransferases

Biological Role

The nuclear receptor-binding SET domain (NSD) which family-including NSD1as well as NSD2 (WHSC1/MMSET), & NSD3-primarily catalyzes methylation of histone H3 lysine 36 (H3K36). NSD class members regulate transcriptional elongation, chromatin stability, & DNA damage responses ³⁵.

Therapeutic Rationale

NSD dysregulation has been implicated in multiple cancers, in this multiple myeloma, acute leukemia, & breast cancer. NSD2 hyperactivity drives oncogenic transcriptional programs & genomic instability, making it an developing epigenetic drug target ³⁴.

Challenges

Targeting NSD proteins remains tough due to controlled structural information, enzymatic redundancy, & the lack of highly selective inhibitors. Additionally, NSD-mediated H3K36 methylation crosses with other epigenetic pathways, complicating prediction of therapeutic results ³³.

Conclusion

Chromatin writers such as HATs & HMTs shows a promising class of therapeutic targets due to their central role in epigenetic regulation & disease progression. While remarkble progress has been made-particularly with EZH2 inhibitors-challenges remain in achieving selectivity, overcoming resistance, & reducing toxicity. Upcoming therapeutic strategies in which involvement of combination therapies, biomarker-guided patient selection, & next-generation epigenetic inhibitors to fully exploit chromatin writers in precision medicine ⁵.

Chromatin Erasers in NUT Carcinoma Therapy

NUT carcinoma (NC) is a rare, aggressive malignancy defined by chromosomal rearrangements involving the NUTM1 gene, most commonly forming BRD4-NUT fusion oncoproteins. These fusions drive global chromatin hyperacetylation and block cellular differentiation, resulting in uncontrolled proliferation. Chromatin erasers, particularly histone deacetylases (HDACs) and lysine demethylases such as LSD1 (KDM1A), have emerged as promising therapeutic targets aimed at reversing this epigenetic blockade and inducing differentiation ^9,19.

 

 

FIGURE 13: HDAC and LSD1 in NUT Carcinoma

 

HDAC Inhibitors in NUT Carcinoma

Mechanistic Rationale

HDACs happens removal of acetyl groups from histones, leading to chromatin compaction and later transcriptional repression. In NUT carcinoma, BRD4-NUT fusion proteins recruit histone acetyltransferases (HATs), creating hyperacetylated “megadomains” that maintain oncogenic transcription. HDAC inhibitors (HDACi) counteract this process by globally increasing histone acetylation, disrupting megadomain integrity and restoring differentiation-associated gene expression ²⁰.

Preclinical and Clinical Evidence

Preclinical studies have demonstrated that HDAC inhibitors such as vorinostat and panobinostat induce squamous differentiation and growth arrest in NUT carcinoma cell lines. Clinically, transient responses and differentiation-associated tumor regression have been observed in patients treated with HDAC inhibitors, providing proof-of-concept for epigenetic differentiation therapy in this disease ^75,76.

 Challenges

Despite initial responses, HDAC inhibitor monotherapy is often limited by toxicity, lack of durability, and incomplete differentiation. Additionally, broad-spectrum HDAC inhibition affects multiple cellular pathways, increasing the risk of off-target effects and limiting therapeutic windows ⁷⁷.

LSD1 (KDM1A) as a Therapeutic Target

Role in NUT Carcinoma

LSD1 is a flavin-dependent histone demethylase that clear mono- & dimethyl groups from H3K4 & H3K9, thereby regulating transcriptional repression & activation. LSD1 cooperates with BRD4-NUT-driven transcriptional programs to maintain an undifferentiated state in cancer cells ⁷⁸.

Differentiation Induction

Pharmacological inhibition of LSD1 has been shown to induce terminal squamous differentiation & inhibite tumor growth in cancer models. LSD1 inhibitors promote reactivation of differentiation-associated genes and enhance chromatin accessibility, reinforcing differentiation-based therapeutic techniques ⁷⁹.

Pharmacodynamic Considerations

Effective LSD1 supression requires sustained target engagement, as imperfect demethylase inhibition may  unsuccessful induce stable differentiation. Pharmacodynamic biomarkers, such as changes in H3K4 methylation and differentiation marker expression, are critical for monitoring therapeutic response & optimizing dosing techniques ⁸⁰.

Targeted Protein Degradation Strategies

PROTAC Technology

Concept and Mechanism

Proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) are heterobifunctional molecules that at the same time bind a target protein & an E3 ubiquitin ligase, leading to ubiquitination & proteasomal degradation of the target. Unlike conventional inhibitors, PROTACs remove the entire protein, including both enzymatic & scaffolding role ⁸¹.

BET Protein Degraders

Rationale in NUT Carcinoma

BET family proteins, particularly BRD4, are central drivers of NUT cancer pathogenesis through BRD4-NUT fusion proteins. BET inhibitors stops bromodomain-acetyl-lysine interactions but do not remove the oncogenic fusion protein. BET-directed PROTACs overcome this ristriction by inducing selective degradation of BRD4-NUT, resulting extra profound transcriptional suppression & differentiation induction ^82,83.

 

 

FIGURE 14: PROTAC-Based Targeted Protein Degradation

 

 

Preclinical Evidence

BET degraders such as dBET6 & ARV-825 have demonstrated superior efficacy compared to BET inhibitors in cancer models, leading to fast loss of BRD4-NUT, collapse of oncogenic transcriptional programs, & sustained differentiation action ⁸⁴.

 Advantages of Targeted Degradation Over Inhibition

Targeted protein degradation offers several advantages on classical inhibition:
  (i) removal of non-enzymatic functions,
  (ii) catalytic mode of action allowing decreasing dosing,
  (iii) potential to cover resistance mutations, &
  (iv) increase selectivity through degradation rather than occupancy-based inhibition ⁸⁵.

So, challenges remain, including pharmacokinetic optimization, tissue distribution, & potential off-target degradation ⁸⁶.

Conclusion

Chromatin erasers and targeted protein degradation techniques complementary therapeutic approaches in cancer. HDAC & LSD1 inhibitors primarily work by inducing differentiation through epigenetic reprogramming, while PROTAC-based BET degraders directly removes oncogenic which are BRD4-NUT. Integrating differentiation therapy with targeted protein degradation may offer synergistic benefits & shows a promising direction for upcoming therapeutic development in this otherwise lethal disease ⁸⁷.

Mechanisms of Resistance and Epigenetic Plasticity

Epigenetic therapies, which includes suppreser of chromatin regulators and targeted protein degradation strategies, showing antitumor activity. While ,therapeutic resistance frequently come, it is   conveyed by genetic alterations but also cause by epigenetic plasticity. Epigenetic plasticity means the capacity of carcinoma cells to react to selective pressure by dynamically reprogramming chromatin states. This plasticity facilitates tumor cells by baypassing effects while maintaining survival and proliferative capacity ^73,89.

 

 

FIGURE 15: Mechanisms of Epigenetic Therapy Resistance

 

Enhancer Switching and Transcriptional Rewiring

Enhancer switching is important mechanism which underlying oppose to epigenetic therapies .A  Drug-sensitive super-enhancers can be disable by carcinoma cells, where as , anather enhancer network that support malignant transcription can be started. The redistribution of transcription factors, chromatin readers, and co-activators like BRD4 frequently mediates this procedure, which results in the protection of critical gene expression thriugh the face of treatment suppression ⁹⁰.Such enhancer reprogramming has been observed following BET resistance & other chromatin-targeted therapies,which allowing tumors to bypass dependency on the originally targeted regulatory substance ⁴⁶.

Compensatory Signaling Pathways

Also, resistance to epigenetic therapy is maintained by compensatory activation of parallel signaling pathways. Other transcriptional or epigenetic enzymes that restore chromatin accessibility & transcriptional output may be upregulated when one chromatin regulator is supressed. One histone-modifying enzyme can be inhibited, example, by enhancing the activity of functionally redundant writers, erasers, or chromatin remodelers ⁹². 

These compensatory responses emphasize the interconnected nature of epigenetic networks and underscore the restrictions of monotherapy approaches ⁹³.

Adaptive Chromatin Remodeling

Adaptive chromatin remodelling shoes a dynamic response in which carcinoma cells alter nucleosome positioning, histone modification patterns & chromatin accessibility to accommodate therapeutic stress. These changes may be reversible & non-mutational, enabling fast phenotypic adaptation without lifetime genetic alterations ⁹⁴. Because of its fast onset, variation across tumour populations, and propensity to promote the later acquisition of prolong genetic resistance mechanisms, this type of resistance is especially difficult to control ⁶². 

Immuno-Epigenetic Interactions

Epigenetic Regulation of Immune Evasion

Epigenetic mechanisms play a major role in shaping tumor-immune interactions. Epigenetic silencing is a strategy used by cancer cells to alter the expression of immunological checkpoints, suppress interferon signaling, and downregulate antigen presentation machinery. For instance, repressing genes involved in antigen processing and presentation through DNA methylation and histone modifications can aid immunological escape ⁹⁶. Moreover, epigenetic dysregulation may influence the tumor microenvironment by controlling the expression of cytokines, chemokines, and immunosuppressive proteins that limit immune cell infiltration and activity ⁹⁷.

 

 

FIGURE 16: Immuno-Epigenetic Interactions

 

Impact on Tumor Immunogenicity

Epigenetic therapy can make tumors more immunogenic by making type I interferon responses stronger, making viral mimicry, and turning on endogenous retroviral elements. These effects make tumors more visible to the immune system and help activate antitumor immune responses ⁹⁸. Also, chromatin-modifying drugs have been shown to change the levels of immune checkpoint molecules like PD-L1. This gives a reason for combining immune checkpoint inhibition with epigenetic therapy ⁹⁹.

Rationale for Combination with Immunotherapy

Epigenetics is important for immune evasion and resistance, so combining immunotherapy with epigenetic treatments is an interesting idea. Immunotherapies can use this higher immunogenicity to make long-lasting responses against cancer, and epigenetic drugs can help the immune system find tumors more easily ¹⁰⁰. Preclinical and early clinical studies   indicate that these combinations may overcome immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance and expand the patient population that benefits from immunotherapy. ¹⁰¹

Conclusion

When cancer fights back against epigenetic drugs, it's usually because it can change things really fast internally. It switches up its programming, or it finds a way to compensate for the drug's effect, just making adjustments. Plus, these epigenetic controls are also how the cancer hides from the immune system, which is bad. So, it makes total sense to combine immune therapy with these epigenetic medicines. We really need to know more about how those two areas interact if we want to make drug combos that actually work and keep working long term ²³.

Clinical and Pharmacological Challenges

Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), biomarker discovery, and trial design provide significant obstacles to the clinical development of targeted and epigenetic therapeutics in ultra-rare tumors like NUT carcinoma and comparable transcriptionally driven cancers. Due to the great rarity of these disorders, patient accrual is limited, and in order to produce useful clinical data, single-arm, non-randomized trials, basket studies, or adaptive trial designs are frequently required ^103,104. These methods can speed up the discovery of new drugs, but they also make evaluating efficacy more difficult, reduce statistical power, and mainly depend on surrogate goals like response rate or response length rather than overall survival ¹⁰⁵. Therapeutic optimization is made more difficult by pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors. Due to on-target toxicities in normal transcriptionally active tissues, several epigenetic agents, such as BET inhibitors, CDK9 inhibitors, and histone-modifying enzyme inhibitors, have limited therapeutic windows⁷⁷. It is still very difficult to achieve prolonged target engagement without dose-limiting toxicity, especially for drugs that target global transcriptional regulators like BRD4, EZH2, or LSD1 ⁹². In this situation, reasonable dose selection depends on PK/PD modelling and early integration of pharmacodynamic readouts, such as changes in histone modification, transcriptional signatures, or displacement of chromatin-associated proteins ⁸⁰.

 

 

FIGURE 17: Clinical and Translational Challenges in Epigenetic Therapy

 

 

Biomarkers play a critical role in biomarker discovery to aid in patient selection criteria, target engagement assessments, and therapeutic response predictions. Driven molecular fusion events, such as NUTM 1, play a crucial role in ultra-rare cancers as key diagnostic biomarkers; however, a relative shortage of prognostic and pharmacodynamics biomarkers is perceived⁹⁵. Tumour heterogeneity, the availability of tissue samples, and the use of archival samples pose challenges in biomarker validation⁹¹. Circulating tumour DNA, chromatin accessibility assessments, and transcriptional as well as epigenetic biomarkers have emerged as novel non-invasive strategies to examine the efficacy of a given therapeutic regimen as well as the molecular response of the body to that therapeutic approach ^65,88.

Finally, there are also logistic and regulatory challenges. In the case of ultra-rare tumors, international multi-center collaboration along with centralized molecular diagnostics and harmonization of trial methodologies is especially needed²⁴. Besides these challenges, the successful examples of targeted therapy development in rare molecular subsets teach us the value of innovative trial designs, deep PK/PD integration, and biomarker-driven strategy for translation of mechanistic insight into durable therapeutic benefit¹⁰².

Future Directions and Research Gaps

The future of epigenetic therapy in these transcriptionally driven and very rare tumors depends on the development of precision epigenetic approaches that incorporate molecular context, dynamic chromatin states, and patient-specific vulnerabilities. Emerging approaches aim to reduce systemic toxicity while selectively targeting modulating disease-defining epigenetic dependencies, whereas first-generation epigenetic drugs broadly target chromatin regulators ³³. This includes the rational development of combination regimens targeting either transcriptional co-factors, cooperative chromatin regulators, or signaling pathways that support malignant transcriptional programs ⁷⁴.

 

 

 

FIGURE 18: Future Directions in Precision Epigenetic Therapy

 

 

The knowledge gap regarding the epigenetic dependencies, which are yet to be understood, is yet to be addressed. Suppression of epigenetic regulators results in adaptive chromatin remodelling or lineage plasticity, which promotes the development of treatment resistance ⁷³. The epigenetic regulators often involve pleiotropy. For the identification of compensatory responses and the synthetic lethal interactions that could be employed as treatments, the application of functional genomics is a necessity ⁷². 

One interesting way to improve the practical use of epigenetic treatments is through liquid biopsy technologies. Cell-free nucleosomes, circulating RNA profiles, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) provide less invasive methods to monitor tumor burden, identify resistance-related epigenetic changes, and assess therapy response in real time ⁶⁵. However, we still have a lot to understand about using liquid biopsy in developing epigenetic drugs, particularly for tracking chromatin-state changes and transcriptional reprogramming ⁶⁴. To fully make use of their clinical potential, tests need to be standardized and validated in future clinical studies.

Another aspect of translational value is the need for a connection between basic research models and human cancer. Standard cell-line models cannot replicate the influence of the microenvironment and epigenetics that occur in human cancer ⁶². More complex models such as xenografts, patient-derived organoids, and genetically engineered mice with a realistic epigenetic framework are rapidly gaining importance in assessing the effectiveness of therapy and the mechanism of resistance ³⁹. There will be a need for the incorporation of these models with the dynamic molecular profile to inculcate epigenetics in achieving a sustainable clinical response.

Finally, practical matters of implementation in both regulation and the clinic need to be addressed in future work. To validate biomarkers and develop precision epigenetics, there will be a need for worldwide collaboration and innovative study design because of the relative rarity of many cancers that are epigenetically driven ²⁴. All these developments will inform the next generation of epigenetics drugs, which will be both revolutionary from a clinical point of view and epigenetics based.

 Key Points Summary: Chromatin Addiction in NUT Carcinoma

• Disease Definition & Biology
  1. Fusions in the NUTM1 gene, the majority of which are BRD4-NUT, result in NUT carcinoma (NC), a highly rare and aggressive type of cancer that results in high chromatin dysfunction, but not high mutation rates ^1-3,9. 
  2. The massive hyperacetylated chromatin regions formed by p300/CBP recruited by the BRD4-NUT fusion protein result in inhibition of cell differentiation and activation of the oncogenes MYC and TP63^10,15,19.
• Chromatin Addiction Paradigm
  1. NC is a prototypical example of chromatin addiction, wherein the maintenance of the tumour rather than a specific signalling oncogene depends on the preservation of abnormal epigenetic patterns^16, 23.  
  2. While chromatin addiction can be distinguished from oncogene and transcriptional addiction, there exist molecular similarities between chromatin addiction and both concepts above mentioned^16,22,29.
• BET Inhibition: Promise and Limitations
  1. In animal models, BET inhibitors (BETi) JQ1 induce differentiation, mega domain collapse, and BRD4-NUT dissociation^17, 42.
  2. Owing to toxicity and adaptive resistance mechanisms, partial and transient responses to BETi (OTX015) have been observed in clinical trials ^43-47.
• Beyond BET: Expanded Epigenetic Targets
  1. An important suppressive dependency in NC is EZH2 (PRC2), where EZH2 inhibitors, such as haemostat, Ellinger et al. expressed^6,7. 
  2. The NSD histone methyltransferases and histone acetyltransferases p300/CBP are novel targets that play a role in creating a malignant chromatin configuration^8,21,35.
• Chromatin Erasers & Differentiation Therapy
  1. Although both non-selectivity and toxicity remain to be addressed, the inhibitors of HDAC and LSD1 promote squamous differentiation and inhibit growth^75–80.
  2. NC cell epigenetics are reversible, and epigenetics is addressed through differentiation therapy.
• Targeted Protein Degradation
  1. Removal of both enzymatic and scaffold contributions is more effective in targeting the degradation of BRD4-NUT in BET PROTACs, such as dBET6 and ARV825, than in BET inhibitors^82–85. 
  2. Resistance to occupancy can be overcome by targeted degradation.
• Resistance & Epigenetic Plasticity
  1. Resilience is a result of chromatin compensated regulators, enhancer switches, and adaptive chromatin remodelling, all of which have a high degree of epigenetic plasticity^46,73,90.
  2.  Combination and multi-targeted therapy would be preferred over single-agent methods.
• Immuno-Epigenetic Interactions
  1. Dysregulation in epigenetics might facilitate immune evasion, and epigenetics medications may increase tumour immunogenicity and make malignancies more susceptible to immunotherapeutic strategies^96–101. 
  2. Immunotherapeutic combinations and logical approaches to epigenetics show promise.
• Clinical Challenges & Future Directions
  1. Important obstacles include the design of clinical trials for ultra-rare illnesses, exact treatment time limits, and the lack of reliable biologic prognostic biomarkers^103–105 .
  2. Future advancements would require international cooperation, liquid biopsies, functional genomics, and precision epigenetics combinations^24,65,72.

Conclusion

NUT carcinoma represents perhaps the best example of a chromatin-driven malignancy, where oncogenesis is sustained through profound and persistent dependence on aberrant epigenetic states rather than via profound genetic alterations. Central to this disease is the BRD4-NUT fusion oncoprotein that enables megadomain formation, super-enhancer-driven oncogene expression, global histone hyperacetylation, and persistent arrest in cellular differentiation. This biology forms the basis for the concept of chromatin addiction, where tumour survival and growth rely on relentless support of the dysregulated chromatin architecture and transcriptional programs. Although BET inhibitors showed proof of concept to treat this addiction, their short half-life, toxicity, and rapid onset of resistance point to the limitations of mono-Agent approaches. Increasing evidence suggests that a more complex interplay of epigenetically collaborating factors, including chromatin writers (p300/CBP, EZH2, NSD proteins), erasers (HDACs, LSD1), transcriptional kinases (CDK9), and chromatin readers apart from BET proteins, maintains NUT carcinomatosis. The more comprehensive disruption of the carcinogenic chromatin pattern has been made possible through treatments that transcend BET inhibition, particularly reasoning combinations, differentiation therapies, and targeted protein degradation.

Critically, by means of enhancer switching, transcriptional rewiring, and adaptive chromatin remodelling, the remarkable degree of epigenetic plasticity, which characterizes NUT carcinomas, confers resistance, yet conversely, permits the possibility of therapy. Powerful pharmacodynamic biomarkers and real-time molecular monitoring are required in order to pursue multi-targeted and adaptive therapies. On the other hand, novel insights provided by immuno-epigenetics suggest that epigenetic therapies also render NUT carcinoma sensitive to immunotherapeutic interventions.

In conclusion, A paradigm shift, therefore, is needed from sole node inhibition to a more integrated and precise form of epigenetic pharmacology directed at the whole range of chromatin dependencies that underlie this disease. In order for the molecular insights obtained to lead to a tangible benefit for patients afflicted with this lethal cancer, progress therefore will be needed in the areas of functional genomics, protein degradation, biomarker development, and novel trial design.

Acknowledgement: Would you like to thank Dr N.S. Vyawahare Principle of Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Pharmacy, Akurdi, Pune for their kind support and encouragement throughout the process.

Conflict of Interest: None

Funding: Nil

References

1.     NUT carcinoma (NC; formerly NUT midline carcinoma) is defined by NUTM1 chromosomal rearrangements and BRD-NUT fusion oncogenes, resulting in aggressive clinical behaviour. Wikipedia. 2025.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUT_carcinoma 

2.     The BRD4-NUT oncoprotein forms hyperacetylated “mega domains” that drive oncogenic transcription and block differentiation. Wang et al., Trans Cancer Res. 2025.https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9870903/ 

3.     BET inhibitors compete with acetyl-lysine interactions to displace BRD4-NUT from chromatin, demonstrating preclinical efficacy but limited clinical durability. NUTM1-Rearranged Neoplasms, MDPI Cancer 2025. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cancers/special_issues/NUTM1_Neoplasia   

4.     Jones PA, Issa JP, Baylin S. Targeting the cancer epigenome for therapy. Nat Rev Genet. 2016;17(10):630-641. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2016.93  

5.     EZH2, a PRC2 histone methyltransferase, is a dependency in NC; its inhibition with haemostats reverses repressive chromatin marks and synergizes with BET inhibitors to suppress NC growth. Huang et al., Cancer Res. Alekseyenko 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37747726/ 

6.     Commentary on epigenetic cooperativity in NC highlights the therapeutic synergy of combining EZH2 inhibition with BET inhibition. Epigenetic Cooperativity, Cancer Res 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38037453/ 

7.     p300/CBP histone acetyltransferase inhibition disrupts BRD4-NUT function and synergizes with BET inhibitors, identifying alternative epigenetic targets. Therapeutic targeting of p300/CBP HAT, Oncogene. 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32366905/   

8.     French CA. NUT carcinoma: clinicopathologic features, diagnosis, and molecular genetics. Patho Int. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32366905/ 

9.     French CA, et al. BRD4-NUT fusion oncogene: a unique mechanism of transcriptional dysregulation in carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2003. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12543779/ 

10.  Bauer DE, et al. Clinicopathologic features and long-term outcomes of NUT carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2012. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22851582/ 

11.  Chau NG, et al. Aggressive clinical behaviour and poor outcomes in NUT carcinoma. Cancer. 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27509377/ 

12.  Stelow EB. A review of NUT carcinoma. Head Neck Pathol. 2011. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21246463 

13.  Haack H, et al. Diagnosis of NUT midline carcinoma using NUT-specific monoclonal antibodies. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19510026/ 

14.  Reynoird N, et al. Oncogenesis by sequestration of histone acetyltransferases in NUT carcinoma. EMBO J. 2010. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/emboj.2010.176 

15.  Bradner JE, et al. Transcriptional addiction in cancer and therapeutic targeting of chromatin regulators. Cell. 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28125750/ 

16.  Filippakopoulos P, et al. Selective inhibition of BET bromodomains. Nature. 2010.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20871596/

17.  Tanaka M, et al. Epigenetic vulnerabilities and combination strategies in NUT carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37747726/ 

18.  AA, et al. The oncogenic BRD4-NUT chromatin regulator drives abnormal transcriptional activation. Genes Dev. 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26220994/ 

19.  Grayson AR, et al. BRD3-NUT oncogenic fusion drives NUT carcinoma through chromatin dysregulation. Mol Cell Biol. 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25378525/ 

20.  French CA, et al. NSD3-NUT fusion oncogene in NUT carcinoma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25131729/ 

21.  Weinstein IB. Addiction to oncogenes-the Achilles heel of cancer. Science. 2002;297:63-64. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12098689/ 

22.  Dawson MA, Kouzarides T. Cancer epigenetics: from mechanism to therapy. Cell. 2012;150:12-27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22770212/ 

23.  Kummar S, Williams PM, Lih CJ, et al. Application of molecular profiling in clinical trials for rare cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(24):2755-2762. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4334817 

24.  Mohammad HP, Helin K. Oncohistones: drivers of pediatric cancers. Genes Dev. 2017;31:2313-2324. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5795778/ 

25.  Beroukhim R, et al. The landscape of somatic copy-number alteration across human cancers. Nature. 2010;463:899-905. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 

26.  Hnisz D, et al. Super-enhancers in the control of cell identity and disease. Cell. 2013;155:934-947. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 

27.  Filippakopoulos P, Knapp S. Targeting bromodomains: epigenetic readers of lysine acetylation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2014;13:337-356. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 

28.  McKeown MR, Bradner JE. Therapeutic strategies to inhibit transcriptional drivers in cancer. Cell. 2014;158:26-41 . https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 

29.  Northcott PA, et al. Enhancer hijacking activates GFI1 family oncogenes in medulloblastoma. Nature. 2014;511:428-434. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 

30.  Flavahan WA, et al. Insulator dysfunction and oncogene activation in IDH mutant gliomas. Nature. 2016;529:110-114. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 

31.  Helming KC, Wang X, Roberts CWM. Vulnerabilities of mutant SWI/SNF complexes in cancer. Cancer Cell. 2014;26:309-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2014.07.018 

32.  Bennett RL, Licht JD. Targeting epigenetics in cancer. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2018;58:187-207. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010617-052933 

33.  Kuo AJ, et al. NSD2 links dimethylation of H3K36 to oncogenic programming. Mol Cell. 2011;44(4):609-620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2011.08.042 

34.  Lucio-Eterovic AK, et al. Role of the NSD family in chromatin regulation. Epigenetics. 2011;6(5):518-524. https://doi.org/10.4161/epi.6.5.14930 

35.  McCabe MT, et al. EZH2 inhibition as a therapeutic strategy. Epigenomics. 2012;4(2):113-128. https://doi.org/10.2217/epi.12.8 

36.  Nagarajan S, et al. Chromatin topology reorganization by BRD4-NUT fusion proteins. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2017;24:800-810. https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.3458 

37.  Italiano A, et al. Tazemetostat in advanced epithelioid sarcoma. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(11):1423-1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30471-2 

38.  Hidalgo M, Amant F, Biankin AV, et al. Patient-derived xenograft models: an emerging platform for translational cancer research. Cancer Discov. 2014;4(9):998-1013. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-14-0001 

39.  Kim KH, Roberts CW. Targeting EZH2 in cancer. Nat Med. 2016;22(2):128-134. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4036 

40.  Greer EL, Shi Y. Histone methylation: a dynamic mark in health, disease and inheritance. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13(5):343-357 . https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3173 

41.  Delmore JE, et al. BET bromodomain inhibition as a therapeutic strategy to target c-Myc. Cell. 2011;146:904-917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.08.017 

42.  Stathis A, et al. Clinical response of carcinomas harboring the BRD4-NUT oncoprotein to BET inhibition. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:492-500. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-1335 

43.  Amorim S, et al. Bromodomain inhibitor OTX015 in patients with acute leukemia and lymphoma. Nat Med. 2016;22:141-147. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4013 

44.  Shapiro GI, et al. Phase I studies of BET inhibitors in solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:512-520. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1548 

45.  Shu S, et al. Response and resistance to BET bromodomain inhibitors in triple-negative breast cancer. Nature. 2016;529:413-417. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16508 

46.  Fong CY, et al. BET inhibitor resistance emerges from adaptive chromatin remodeling. Nat Commun. 2015;6:8512. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9512 

47.  Peterlin BM, Price DH. Controlling the elongation phase of transcription with P-TEFb. Mol Cell. 2006;23(3):297-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2006.06.014 

48.  Lu H, Xue Y, Yu GK, et al. Compensatory induction of MYC expression by sustained CDK9 inhibition via a BRD4-dependent mechanism. eLife. 2015;4:e06535. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06535 

49.  Lücking U, Scholz A, Lienau P, et al. Identification of atuveciclib (BAY 1143572), a potent, selective, and orally active CDK9 inhibitor. ChemMedChem. 2017;12(21):1776-1793. https://doi.org/10.1002/cmdc.201700447 

50.  Cidado J, Boiko S, Proia T, et al. AZD4573 is a highly selective CDK9 inhibitor that suppresses MCL-1 and induces apoptosis in hematologic cancer models. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(4):922-934. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1853 

51.  Tong WG, Chen R, Plunkett W, et al. Phase I and pharmacologic study of SNS-032, a potent inhibitor of CDK2, 7, and 9. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(18):3015-3022. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.8383 

52.  Whyte WA, Orlando DA, Hnisz D, et al. Master transcription factors and mediator establish super-enhancers at key cell identity genes. Cell. 2013;153(2):307-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.03.035 

53.  Allen BL, Taatjes DJ. The Mediator complex: a central integrator of transcription. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2015;16(3):155-166. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3951 

54.  Huang S, Hölzel M, Knijnenburg T, et al. MED12 controls the response to multiple cancer drugs through regulation of TGF-β receptor signaling. Cell. 2012;151(5):937-950.   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.10.035 

55.  Pelish HE, Liau BB, Nitulescu II, et al. Mediator kinase inhibition further activates super-enhancer-associated genes in AML. Nature. 2015;526(7572):273-276. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14962 

56.  Clarke PA, Ortiz-Ruiz MJ, TePoele R, et al. Assessing the mechanism and therapeutic potential of modulators of the human Mediator complex-associated kinases. Cancer Res. 2016;76(7):1876-1888. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-2323 

57.  Mounir Z, Korn JM, Westerling T, et al. ERG signaling in prostate cancer is driven through PRMT5-dependent transcriptional elongation. Cell Rep. 2016;17(12):3165-3178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.11.075 

58.  Heffeter P, Pape VF, Enyedy ÉA, et al. Antibody-drug conjugates based on RNA polymerase II inhibition for cancer therapy. Cancer Res. 2019;79(12):3126-3138. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-2954 

59.  Harlen KM, Churchman LS. The code and beyond: transcription regulation by the RNA polymerase II carboxy-terminal domain. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2017;18(4):263-273. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2017.10 

60.  Lu X, Ning Z, Li Z, et al. Synergistic inhibition of super-enhancer-driven oncogenic transcription by BET and CDK9 inhibitors. Mol Cancer Ther. 2019;18(11):2054-2066. https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-19-0312 

61.  Brock A, Chang H, Huang S. Non-genetic heterogeneity-a mutation-independent driving force for the somatic evolution of tumours. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10(5):336-342.   https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2556 

62.  Bhadury J, Nilsson LM, Muralidharan SV, et al. BET and CDK9 inhibitors synergistically induce apoptosis in MYC-driven lymphomas. Leukemia. 2016;30(10):2031-2041. https://www.nature.com/articles/leu201510 

63.  Zwirner K, Sehouli J, Petry KU, et al. Circulating nucleosomes as epigenetic biomarkers in cancer. Clin Epigenetics. 2018;10:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13148-015-0139-4 

64.  Murtaza M, Dawson SJ, Tsui DWY, et al. Non-invasive analysis of acquired resistance to cancer therapy by sequencing of plasma DNA. Nature. 2013;497(7447):108-112. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11168 

65.  Audia JE, Campbell RM. Histone modifications and cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2016;8(4):a019521. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a019521 

66.  Bannister AJ, Kouzarides T. Regulation of chromatin by histone modifications. Cell Res. 2011;21(3):381-395. https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2011.22 

67.  Choudhary C, et al. Lysine acetylation targets protein complexes and co-regulates major cellular functions. Science. 2009;325(5942):834-840. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1175371 

68.  Iyer NG, et al. p300/CBP and cancer. Oncogene. 2004;23(24):4225-4231. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1207118 

69.  Sapountzi V, Côté J. MYST-family histone acetyltransferases: beyond chromatin. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2011;68(7):1147-1156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-010-0594-9 

70.  Baell JB, Miao W. Histone acetyltransferase inhibitors: where art thou? Future Med Chem. 2016;8(13):1525-1528. https://doi.org/10.4155/fmc-2016-0165 

71.  Kadoch C, Crabtree GR. Reversible disruption of epigenetic complexes by chemical and genetic perturbation. Nat Chem Biol. 2015;11(5):287-296. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.1798 

72.  Sharma SV, Lee DY, Li B, et al. A chromatin-mediated reversible drug-tolerant state in cancer cell subpopulations. Cell. 2010;141(1):69-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.02.027 

73.  McKeown MR, Bradner JE. Therapeutic strategies to inhibit transcriptional drivers in cancer. Cell. 2014;158(1):26-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.024 

74.  Schwartz BE, et al. Differentiation of NUT carcinoma by epigenomic reprogramming. Cancer Res. 2011;71(7):2686-2696. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3513 

75.  Bauer DE, et al. Clinical responses to BET inhibition in NUT carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(15):1207-1216. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.01833 

76.  West AC, Johnstone RW. New and emerging HDAC inhibitors for cancer treatment. J Clin Invest. 2014;124(1):30-39. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI69738 

77.  Mohammad HP, et al. LSD1 inhibition induces differentiation and cell death in NUT midline carcinoma. Cancer Cell. 2015;28(1):57-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2015.06.005 

78.  Maiques-Diaz A, Somervaille TCP. LSD1: biologic roles and therapeutic targeting. Epigenomics. 2016;8(8):1103-1116. https://doi.org/10.2217/epi-2016-0021 

79.  Fiskus W, et al. Pharmacodynamic biomarkers of LSD1 inhibition. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(6):1601-1612. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2768 

80.  Sakamoto KM, et al. Protacs: chimeric molecules that target proteins to the Skp1-Cullin-F box complex for ubiquitination and degradation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98(15):8554-8559. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.141230798 

81.  Lu J, et al. Hijacking the E3 ubiquitin ligase cereblon to efficiently target BRD4. Chem Biol. 2015;22(6):755-763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chembiol.2015.05.009 

82.  Zengerle M, Chan KH, Ciulli A. Selective small molecule induced degradation of the BET bromodomain protein BRD4. ACS Chem Biol. 2015;10(8):1770-1777. https://doi.org/10.1021/acschembio.5b00216 

83.  Winter GE, et al. Drug development: Phthalimide conjugation as a strategy for in vivo target protein degradation. Science. 2015;348(6241):1376-1381. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab1433 

84.  Bondeson DP, et al. Catalytic in vivo protein knockdown by small-molecule PROTACs. Nat Chem Biol. 2015;11(8):611-617. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.1858 

85.  Sun X, Rao Y. PROTACs as potential therapeutic agents. Drug Discov Today. 2020;25(5): 1015-1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2020.03.026 

86.  Stathis A, Bertoni F. BET proteins as targets for anticancer treatment. Cancer Discov. 2018;8(1):24-36. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-0601 

87.  Flavahan WA, Gaskell E, Bernstein BE. Epigenetic plasticity and the hallmarks of cancer. Science. 2017;357(6348):eaal2380. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal2380  

88.  Hinohara K, Polyak K. Intratumoral heterogeneity: more than just mutations. Trends Cell Biol. 2019;29(7):569-579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2019.03.003

89.  Mansour MR, et al. Oncogene regulation by dynamic enhancer-promoter associations. Nature. 2014;514(7522):381-385. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13794 

90.  Hyman DM, Taylor BS, Baselga J. Implementing genome-driven oncology. Cell. 2017;168(4):584-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.12.015 

91.  Dawson MA. The cancer epigenome: concepts, challenges, and therapeutic opportunities. Science. 2017;355(6330):1147-1152. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7304  

92.  Flavahan WA, et al. Epigenetic plasticity and the hallmarks of cancer. Science. 2017;357(6348):eaal2380. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal2380  

93.  Feinberg AP, Koldobskiy MA, Göndör A. Epigenetic modulators, modifiers and mediators in cancer aetiology and progression. Nat Rev Genet. 2016;17(5):284-299. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.13  

94.  French CA. NUT carcinoma: clinicopathologic features, pathogenesis, and treatment. Pathol Int. 2018;68(11):583-595. https://doi.org/10.1111/pin.12727 

95.  Dunn GP, et al. Cancer immunoediting: from immunosurveillance to tumor escape. Nat Immunol. 2002;3(11):991-998. https://doi.org/10.1038/ni1102-991 

96.  Binnewies M, et al. Understanding the tumor immune microenvironment. Nat Med. 2018;24(5):541-550. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0014-x 

97.  Chiappinelli KB, et al. Inhibiting DNA methylation causes an interferon response in cancer via dsRNA including endogenous retroviruses. Cell. 2015;162(5):974-986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.011 

98.  Topper MJ, et al. Epigenetic therapy ties MYC depletion to reversing immune evasion and treating lung cancer. Cell. 2017;171(6):1284-1300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.10.022 

99.  Jones PA, Ohtani H, Chakravarthy A, De Carvalho DD. Epigenetic therapy in immune-oncology. Nat Rev Cancer. 2019;19(3):151-161. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-019-0109-9 

100.            Stone ML, et al. Epigenetic therapy activates type I interferon signaling in murine ovarian cancer to reduce immunosuppression and tumor burden. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114(51):E10981-E10990. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712514114 

101.            Drilon A, Laetsch TW, Kummar S, et al. Efficacy of larotrectinib in TRK fusion-positive cancers in adults and children. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(8):731-739. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1714448 

102.            Park JJH, Siden E, Zoratti MJ, et al. Systematic review of basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials: a landscape analysis of master protocols. Trials. 2019;20:572. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3664-1 

103.            Woodcock J, LaVange LM. Master protocols to study multiple therapies, multiple diseases, or both. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(1):62-70. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1510062 

104.            U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Rare diseases: common issues in drug development guidance for industry. FDA; 2019. https://www.fda.gov/media/120091/download 

105.            Shapiro GI, LoRusso P, Dowlati A, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations in the development of epigenetic therapies. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(17):512-520. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?