Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Warburg effect’ Category


from The American Association for Cancer Research aacr.org:

 

AACR Congratulates Dr. William G. Kaelin Jr., Sir Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Dr. Gregg L. Semenza on 2019 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

10/7/2019

PHILADELPHIA — The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) congratulates Fellow of the AACR Academy William G. Kaelin Jr., MDSir Peter J. Ratcliffe, MD, FRS, and AACR member Gregg L. Semenza, MD, PhD, on receiving the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discoveries of how cells sense and adapt to oxygen availability.

Kaelin, professor of medicine at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School in Boston; Ratcliffe, director of Clinical Research at the Francis Crick Institute in London; and Semenza, director of the Vascular Program at the Institute for Cell Engineering at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, are being recognized by the Nobel Assembly at the Karolinska Institute for identifying the molecular machinery that regulates the activity of genes in response to varying levels of oxygen, which is one of life’s most essential adaptive processes. Their work has provided basic understanding of several diseases, including many types of cancer, and has laid the foundation for the development of promising new approaches to treating cancer and other diseases.

Kaelin, Ratcliffe, and Semenza were previously recognized for this work with the 2016 Lasker-DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award.

Kaelin’s research focuses on understanding how mutations affecting tumor-suppressor genes cause cancer. As part of this work, he discovered that a tumor-suppressor gene called von Hippel–Lindau (VHL) is involved in controlling the cellular response to low levels of oxygen. Kaelin’s studies showed that the VHL protein binds to hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) when oxygen is present and targets it for destruction. When the VHL protein is mutated, it is unable to bind to HIF, resulting in inappropriate HIF accumulation and the transcription of genes that promote blood vessel formation, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). VEGF is directly linked to the development of renal cell carcinoma and therapeutics that target VEGF are used in the clinic to treat this and several other types of cancer.

Kaelin has been previously recognized with numerous other awards and honors, including the 2006 AACR-Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Award.

Ratcliffe independently discovered that the VHL protein binds to HIF. Since then, his research has focused on the molecular interactions underpinning the binding of VHL to HIF and the molecular events that occur in low levels of oxygen, a condition known as hypoxia. Prior to his work on VHL, Ratcliffe’s research contributed to elucidating the mechanisms by which hypoxia increases levels of the hormone erythropoietin (EPO), which leads to increased production of red blood cells.

Semenza’s research, which was independent of Ratcliffe’s, identified in exquisite detail the molecular events by which the EPO gene is regulated by varying levels of oxygen. He discovered HIF and identified this protein complex as the oxygen-dependent regulator of the EPO gene. Semenza followed up this work by identifying additional genes activated by HIF, including showing that the protein complex activates the VEGF gene that is pivotal to the development of renal cell carcinoma.

The recognition of Kaelin and Semenza increases the number of AACR members to have been awarded a Nobel Prize to 70, 44 of whom are still living.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is awarded by the Nobel Assembly at the Karolinska Institute for discoveries of major importance in life science or medicine that have changed the scientific paradigm and are of great benefit for mankind. Each laureate receives a gold medal, a diploma, and a sum of money that is decided by the Nobel Foundation.

The Nobel Prize Award Ceremony will be Dec. 10, 2019, in Stockholm.

Please find following articles on the Nobel Prize and Hypoxia in Cancer on this Open Access Journal:

2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for contributions to Cancer Immunotherapy to James P. Allison, Ph.D., of the University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Dr. Allison shares the prize with Tasuku Honjo, M.D., Ph.D., of Kyoto University Institute, Japan

The History, Uses, and Future of the Nobel Prize, 1:00pm – 6:00pm, Thursday, October 4, 2018, Harvard Medical School

2017 Nobel prize in chemistry given to Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank, and Richard Henderson  for developing cryo-electron microscopy

Tumor Ammonia Recycling: How Cancer Cells Use Glutamate Dehydrogenase to Recycle Tumor Microenvironment Waste Products for Biosynthesis

Hypoxia Inducible Factor 1 (HIF-1)[7.9]

 

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Lesson 10 on Cancer, Oncogenes, and Aberrant Cell Signal Termination in Disease for #TUBiol3373

Curator: Stephen J. Williams

Please click on the following file to get the Powerpoint Presentation for this lecture

cell signaling 10 lesson_SJW 2019

There is a good reference to read on The Hallmarks of Cancer published first in 2000 and then updated with 2 new hallmarks in 2011 (namely the ability of cancer cells to reprogram their metabolism and 2. the ability of cancer cells to evade the immune system)

a link to the PDF is given here:

hallmarks2000

hallmarks2011

Please also go to other articles on this site which are relevant to this lecture.  You can use the search box in the upper right hand corner of the Home Page or these are few links you might find interesting

Development of Chemoresistance to Targeted Therapies: Alterations of Cell Signaling & the Kinome

Proteomics, Metabolomics, Signaling Pathways, and Cell Regulation: a Compilation of Articles in the Journal http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

Feeling the Heat – the Link between Inflammation and Cancer

Lesson 4 Cell Signaling And Motility: G Proteins, Signal Transduction: Curations and Articles of reference as supplemental information: #TUBiol3373

Immunotherapy Resistance Rears Its Ugly Head: PD-1 Resistant Metastatic Melanoma and More

Novel Mechanisms of Resistance to Novel Agents

 

Read Full Post »


Tumor Ammonia Recycling: How Cancer Cells Use Glutamate Dehydrogenase to Recycle Tumor Microenvironment Waste Products for Biosynthesis

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

A feature of the tumorigenic process is the rewiring of the metabolic processes that provides a tumor cell the ability to grow and thrive in conditions of limiting nutrients as well as the ability to utilize waste products in salvage pathways for production of new biomass (amino acids, nucleic acids etc.) required for cellular growth and division 1-8.  A Science article from Spinelli et al. 9 (and corresponding Perspective article in the same issue by Dr. Chi V. Dang entitled Feeding Frenzy for Cancer Cells 10) describes the mechanism by which estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer cells convert glutamine to glutamate, release ammonia  into the tumor microenvironment, diffuses into tumor cells and eventually recycle this ammonia by reductive amination of a-ketoglutarate by glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) to produce glutamic acid and subsequent other amino acids needed for biomass production.   Ammonia can accumulate in the tumor microenvironment in poorly vascularized tumor. Thus ammonia becomes an important nitrogen source for tumor cells.

Mammalian cells have a variety of mechanisms to metabolize ammonia including

  • Glutamate synthetase (GS) in the liver can incorporate ammonia into glutamate to form glutamine
  • glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) converts glutamate to a-ketoglutarate and ammonia under allosteric regulation (discussed in a post on this site by Dr. Larry H. Berstein; subsection Drugging Glutaminolysis)
  • the reverse reaction of GDH, which was found to occur in ER+ breast cancer cells, a reductive amination of a-ketoglutarate to glutamate11, is similar to the reductive carboxylation of a-ketoglutarate to citrate by isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) for fatty acid synthesis (IDH is overexpressed in many tumor types including cancer stem cells 12-15), and involved in immune response and has been developed as a therapeutic target for various cancers. IDH mutations were shown to possess the neomorphic activity to generate the oncometabolite, 2-hydroxyglutarate (2HG) 16-18. With a single codon substitution, the kinetic properties of the mutant IDH isozyme are significantly altered, resulting in an obligatory sequential ordered reaction in the reverse direction 19.

 

In the Science paper, Spinelli et al. report that ER+ breast cancer cells have the ability to utilize ammonia sources from their surroundings in order to produce amino acids and biomass as these ER+ breast cancer cells have elevated levels of GS and GDH with respect to other breast cancer histotypes.

GDH was elevated in ER+ luminal cancer cells and the quiescent epithelial cells in organoid culture

However proliferative cells were dependent on transaminases, which transfers nitrogen from glutamate to pyruvate or oxaloacetate to form a-ketoglutarate and alanine or aspartate. a-ketoglutarate is further metabolized in the citric acid cycle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1.    Reductive amination and transamination reactions of glutamic acid.  Source http://www.biologydiscussion.com/organism/metabolism-organism/incorporation-of-ammonia-into-organic-compounds/50870

Spinelli et al. showed GDH is necessary for ammonia reductive incorporation into a-ketoglutarate and also required for ER+ breast cancer cell growth in immunocompromised mice.

In addition, as commented by Dr. Dang in his associated Perspectives article, (quotes indent)

The metabolic tumor microenvironment produced by resident cells, such as fibroblasts and macrophages, can create an immunosuppressive environment 20.  Hence, it will be of great interest to further understand whether products such as ammonia could affect tumor immunity or induce autophagy  (end quote indent)

 

 

 

Figure 2.  Tumor ammonia recycling.  Source:  From Chi V. Dang Feeding Frenzy for cancer cells.  Rights from RightsLink (copyright.com)

Metabolic recycling of ammonia via glutamate dehydrogenase supports breast cancer biomass

Jessica B. Spinelli1,2, Haejin Yoon1, Alison E. Ringel1, Sarah Jeanfavre2, Clary B. Clish2, Marcia C. Haigis1 *

1.      1Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 2.      2Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.

* *Corresponding author. Email: marcia_haigis@hms.harvard.edu

Science  17 Nov 2017:Vol. 358, Issue 6365, pp. 941-946 DOI: 10.1126/science.aam9305

Abstract

Ammonia is a ubiquitous by-product of cellular metabolism; however, the biological consequences of ammonia production are not fully understood, especially in cancer. We found that ammonia is not merely a toxic waste product but is recycled into central amino acid metabolism to maximize nitrogen utilization. In our experiments, human breast cancer cells primarily assimilated ammonia through reductive amination catalyzed by glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH); secondary reactions enabled other amino acids, such as proline and aspartate, to directly acquire this nitrogen. Metabolic recycling of ammonia accelerated proliferation of breast cancer. In mice, ammonia accumulated in the tumor microenvironment and was used directly to generate amino acids through GDH activity. These data show that ammonia is not only a secreted waste product but also a fundamental nitrogen source that can support tumor biomass.

 

 

References

1          Strickaert, A. et al. Cancer heterogeneity is not compatible with one unique cancer cell metabolic map. Oncogene 36, 2637-2642, doi:10.1038/onc.2016.411 (2017).

2          Hui, S. et al. Glucose feeds the TCA cycle via circulating lactate. Nature 551, 115-118, doi:10.1038/nature24057 (2017).

3          Mashimo, T. et al. Acetate is a bioenergetic substrate for human glioblastoma and brain metastases. Cell 159, 1603-1614, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.025 (2014).

4          Sousa, C. M. et al. Erratum: Pancreatic stellate cells support tumour metabolism through autophagic alanine secretion. Nature 540, 150, doi:10.1038/nature19851 (2016).

5          Sousa, C. M. et al. Pancreatic stellate cells support tumour metabolism through autophagic alanine secretion. Nature 536, 479-483, doi:10.1038/nature19084 (2016).

6          Commisso, C. et al. Macropinocytosis of protein is an amino acid supply route in Ras-transformed cells. Nature 497, 633-637, doi:10.1038/nature12138 (2013).

7          Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. A. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100, 57-70 (2000).

8          Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. A. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144, 646-674, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 (2011).

9          Spinelli, J. B. et al. Metabolic recycling of ammonia via glutamate dehydrogenase supports breast cancer biomass. Science 358, 941-946, doi:10.1126/science.aam9305 (2017).

10        Dang, C. V. Feeding frenzy for cancer cells. Science 358, 862-863, doi:10.1126/science.aaq1070 (2017).

11        Smith, T. J. & Stanley, C. A. Untangling the glutamate dehydrogenase allosteric nightmare. Trends in biochemical sciences 33, 557-564, doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2008.07.007 (2008).

12        Metallo, C. M. et al. Reductive glutamine metabolism by IDH1 mediates lipogenesis under hypoxia. Nature 481, 380-384, doi:10.1038/nature10602 (2011).

13        Garrett, M. et al. Metabolic characterization of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant and IDH wildtype gliomaspheres uncovers cell type-specific vulnerabilities. Cancer & metabolism 6, 4, doi:10.1186/s40170-018-0177-4 (2018).

14        Calvert, A. E. et al. Cancer-Associated IDH1 Promotes Growth and Resistance to Targeted Therapies in the Absence of Mutation. Cell reports 19, 1858-1873, doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2017.05.014 (2017).

15        Sciacovelli, M. & Frezza, C. Metabolic reprogramming and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in cancer. The FEBS journal 284, 3132-3144, doi:10.1111/febs.14090 (2017).

16        Dang, L. et al. Cancer-associated IDH1 mutations produce 2-hydroxyglutarate. Nature 462, 739-744, doi:10.1038/nature08617 (2009).

17        Gross, S. et al. Cancer-associated metabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate accumulates in acute myelogenous leukemia with isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 mutations. The Journal of experimental medicine 207, 339-344, doi:10.1084/jem.20092506 (2010).

18        Ward, P. S. et al. The common feature of leukemia-associated IDH1 and IDH2 mutations is a neomorphic enzyme activity converting alpha-ketoglutarate to 2-hydroxyglutarate. Cancer cell 17, 225-234, doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2010.01.020 (2010).

19        Rendina, A. R. et al. Mutant IDH1 enhances the production of 2-hydroxyglutarate due to its kinetic mechanism. Biochemistry 52, 4563-4577, doi:10.1021/bi400514k (2013).

20        Zhang, X. et al. IDH mutant gliomas escape natural killer cell immune surveillance by downregulation of NKG2D ligand expression. Neuro-oncology 18, 1402-1412, doi:10.1093/neuonc/now061 (2016).

 

Other articles on this Open Access Journal on Cancer Metabolism Include:

 

Is the Warburg Effect the Cause or the Effect of Cancer: A 21st Century View?

 

Accumulation of 2-hydroxyglutarate is not a biomarker for malignant progression of IDH-mutated low grade gliomas

 

 

Protein-binding, Protein-Protein interactions & Therapeutic Implications [7.3]

Is the Warburg effect an effect of deregulated space occupancy of methylome?

Therapeutic Implications for Targeted Therapy from the Resurgence of Warburg ‘Hypothesis’

New Insights on the Warburg Effect [2.2]

The Inaugural Judith Ann Lippard Memorial Lecture in Cancer Research: PI 3 Kinase & Cancer Metabolism

Renal (Kidney) Cancer: Connections in Metabolism at Krebs cycle and Histone Modulation

Warburg Effect and Mitochondrial Regulation- 2.1.3

Refined Warburg Hypothesis -2.1.2

 

Read Full Post »


Agios Pharmaceuticals target the metabolism of cancer cells for making drugs that essentially try to repair cancer cells

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

A small biotech behind a groundbreaking approach to tackling cancer just got its first drug approved

http://www.businessinsider.com/fda-approves-agios-pharmaceuticals-drug-targeting-cancer-cell-metabolism-2017-8

See

Cancer Metabolism

http://www.agios.com/research/cancer-metabolism/

Metabolic Immuno-Oncology

http://www.agios.com/research/metabolic-immuno-oncology/

 

 

The VOICE of Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

Cancer cells didn’t need as much oxygen to metabolize sugar as normal cells. 

Not correct. Cancer cells metabolize glucose by aerobic glycolysis (4 ATP) with an impaired mitochondrial oxygen utilization (36 ATP). 

There is a reverse Warburg effect in which the underlying stromal cell carries out crosstalk with the epithelial cell. 

There is also a 3rd dimension. Cells undergo a series of adaptive changes tied to proteostasis. This involves the sulfur amino acid cysteine and disulfide bonds, which is involved with protein oligomerization in the ER, and also signaling in the mitochondria with mDNA and the nucleus. 

Read Full Post »


Pancreatic Cancer Targeted Treatment?

Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

 

MGH study identifies potential treatment target for pancreatic cancer

Molecular signature found in 30 percent of PDAC tumors, associated with more aggressive cancer

http://www.massgeneral.org/about/pressrelease.aspx?id=1933&

 

Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) investigators have identified the first potential molecular treatment target for the most common form of pancreatic cancer, which kills more than 90 percent of patients. Along with finding that the tumor suppressor protein SIRT6 is inactive in around 30 percent of cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the team identified the precise pathway by which SIRT6 suppresses PDAC development, a mechanism different from the way it suppresses colorectal cancer. The paper will appear in the June 2 issue of Cell and have been published online.

“With the advance of cancer genomics, it has become evident that alterations in epigenetic factors – those that control whether and when other genes are expressed – represent some of the most frequent alterations in cancer,” says Raul Mostoslavsky, MD, PhD, of the MGH Cancer Center, senior author of the report.  “Yet, not many of those factors have been described before, and those that have been identified have not been linked to specific downstream targets.  Not only did more than a third of analyzed PDAC patient samples exhibit the molecular signature we identified, those patients also turned out to have very poor prognoses.”

Among its other functions, SIRT6 is known to control how cells process glucose, and a 2012 study by Mostoslavsky’s team found that its ability to suppress colorectal cancer involves control of a process called glycolysis.  But while that study also found reduced SIRT6 expression in PDAC tumor cells, the current investigation indicated that SIRT6 deficiency promotes PDAC through a different mechanism. Experiments in cell lines and animal models revealed that low SIRT6 levels in PDAC were correlated with increased expression of Lin28b, an oncoprotein normally expressed during fetal development.

Lin28b expression proved to be essential to the growth and survival of SIRT6-deficient PDAC cells and acted by preventing a family of tumor-suppressing mRNAs called let-7 from blocking expression of three genes previously associated with increased aggressiveness and metastasis in pancreatic cancers.  All of these hallmarks – reduced SIRT6, increased Lin28b and reduced let-7 expression – were found in tumor samples from patients who died more quickly.

“A general message from these studies is that cancer cells benefit from modulating epigenetic factors like SIRT6 by acquiring the ability to override normal cellular growth control patterns,” says Mostoslavsky, an associate professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate member at the Broad Institute.  “Each tumor type may acquire a unique set of capabilities that may provide tumor-specific growth and survival advantages, which may need to be determined for each kind of cancer.  In terms of our findings regarding PDAC, we are intrigued by the downstream pathways controlled by Lin28b and how they increase aggressiveness and metastasis, and we are hopeful that developing in the future Lin28b inhibitors could benefit this subset of PDAC patients, who currently have very few treatment options.”

 

SIRT6 Suppresses Pancreatic Cancer through Control of Lin28b

Sita Kugel, Carlos Sebastián, Julien Fitamant,…., Alon Goren, Vikram Deshpande, Nabeel Bardeesy, Raul Mostoslavsky

Figure thumbnail fx1
Highlights
  • Loss of SIRT6 cooperates with oncogenic Kras to drive pancreatic cancer
  • SIRT6 regulates the oncofetal protein Lin28b through promoter histone deacetylation
  • Lin28b drives the growth and survival of SIRT6-deficient pancreatic cancer
  • SIRT6 and Lin28b expression define prognosis in specific pancreatic cancer subsets

Chromatin remodeling proteins are frequently dysregulated in human cancer, yet little is known about how they control tumorigenesis. Here, we uncover an epigenetic program mediated by the NAD+-dependent histone deacetylase Sirtuin 6 (SIRT6) that is critical for suppression of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), one of the most lethal malignancies. SIRT6 inactivation accelerates PDAC progression and metastasis via upregulation of Lin28b, a negative regulator of the let-7 microRNA. SIRT6 loss results in histone hyperacetylation at theLin28b promoter, Myc recruitment, and pronounced induction of Lin28b and downstream let-7 target genes, HMGA2, IGF2BP1, and IGF2BP3. This epigenetic program defines a distinct subset with a poor prognosis, representing 30%–40% of human PDAC, characterized by reduced SIRT6 expression and an exquisite dependence on Lin28b for tumor growth. Thus, we identify SIRT6 as an important PDAC tumor suppressor and uncover the Lin28b pathway as a potential therapeutic target in a molecularly defined PDAC subset.

 

The multifaceted functions of sirtuins in cancer

Angeliki Chalkiadaki & Leonard Guarente  Affiliations  Corresponding author
Nature Reviews Cancer (2015); 15:608–624     http://dx.doi.org:/10.1038/nrc3985

The sirtuins (SIRTs; of which there are seven in mammals) are NAD+-dependent enzymes that regulate a large number of cellular pathways and forestall the progression of ageing and age-associated diseases. In recent years, the role of sirtuins in cancer biology has become increasingly apparent, and growing evidence demonstrates that sirtuins regulate many processes that go awry in cancer cells, such as cellular metabolism, the regulation of chromatin structure and the maintenance of genomic stability. In this article, we review recent advances in our understanding of how sirtuins affect cancer metabolism, DNA repair and the tumour microenvironment and how activating or inhibiting sirtuins may be important in preventing or treating cancer.

 

Figure 1: Overview of the role of sirtuins in the regulation of cancer metabolism

The inhibitory effects of sirtuin 3 (SIRT3), SIRT4 and SIRT6 on metabolic pathways that drive cancer cells are depicted. In normal cells, SIRT6 functions as a co-repressor for the transcription factors hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF1α…

 

Tumor suppressor p53 cooperates with SIRT6 to regulate gluconeogenesis by promoting FoxO1 nuclear exclusion

Ping Zhanga,1, Bo Tua,1, Hua Wangb , Ziyang Caoa , Ming Tanga , … , Bin Gaob , Robert G. Roederd,2, and Wei-Guo Zhua,e,2
PNAS | July 22, 2014;111(29): 10684–10689 |   http://www.pnas.org/content/111/29/10684.full.pdf  http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. 1073/pnas.1411026111/-/DCSupplemental.

In mammalian cells, tumor suppressor p53 plays critical roles in the regulation of glucose metabolism, including glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation, but whether and how p53 also regulates gluconeogenesis is less clear. Here, we report that p53 efficiently down-regulates the expression of phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (PCK1) and glucose-6-phosphatase (G6PC), which encode rate-limiting enzymes in gluconeogenesis. Cell-based assays demonstrate the p53-dependent nuclear exclusion of forkhead box protein O1 (FoxO1), a key transcription factor that mediates activation of PCK1 and G6PC, with consequent alleviation of FoxO1- dependent gluconeogenesis. Further mechanistic studies show that p53 directly activates expression of the NAD+-dependent histone deacetylase sirtuin 6 (SIRT6), whose interaction with FoxO1 leads to FoxO1 deacetylation and export to the cytoplasm. In support of these observations, p53-mediated FoxO1 nuclear exclusion, down-regulation of PCK1 and G6PC expression, and regulation of glucose levels were confirmed in C57BL/J6 mice and in liver-specific Sirt6 conditional knockout mice. Our results provide insights into mechanisms of metabolism-related p53 functions that may be relevant to tumor suppression.

As the “guardian of the genome,” tumor suppressor p53 has been reported to coordinate diverse cellular responses to a broad range of environment stresses (1) and to play antineoplastic roles by activating downstream target genes involved in DNA damage repair, apoptosis, and cell-cycle arrest (2). Recent studies have indicated broader roles for p53 in mediating metabolic changes in cells under various physiological and pathological conditions (3–7). For example, p53 was reported to influence the balance between glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation by inducing the p53-induced glycolysis and apoptosis regulator (TIGAR) and by regulating the synthesis of cytochrome c oxidase 2 (SCO2) (3), respectively, thus promoting the switch from glycolysis to oxidative phosphorylation. p53 also may impede metabolism by reducing glucose import (4) or by inhibiting the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP) (5). More recently, context-dependent inhibitory (6) or stimulatory (7, 8) effects of p53 on gluconeogenesis have been reported. It thus is clear that p53 plays important roles in glucose regulation in mammalian cells. Glucose homeostasis is maintained by a delicate balance between intestinal absorption of sugar, gluconeogenesis, and the utilization of glucose by the peripheral tissues, irrespective of feeding or fasting (9). The gluconeogenesis pathway is catalyzed by several key enzymes that include the first and last rate-limiting enzymes of the process, phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (PCK1) and glucose-6-phosphatase (G6PC), respectively. The expression of both PCK1 and G6PC is controlled mainly at the transcription level. For example, the transcription factor forkhead box protein O1 (FoxO1) activates gluconeogenesis through direct binding to the promoters of G6PC and PCK1 (10). A dominant negative FoxO1 lacking its transactivation domain significantly decreases gluconeogenesis (11) whereas FoxO1 ablation impairs fasting- and cAMP-induced PCK1 and G6PC expression (12). Therefore, factors influencing expression of FoxO1 or its binding activity to the PCK1 and G6PC promoters are potential targets for gluconeogenesis regulation. The transcription activity of FoxO family members is regulated by a sophisticated signaling network. Various environmental stimuli cause different posttranslational modifications of FoxO proteins, including phosphorylation, acetylation, ubiquitination, and methylation (13–15). The phosphorylation of FoxO proteins is known to be essential for their shuttling between the nucleus and cytoplasm. For example, kinase Akt/PKB phosphorylates FoxO1 at threonine 24 and at serines 256 and 319, which in turn leads to 14-3-3 binding and subsequent cytoplasmic sequestration. The acetylation of FoxO proteins also affects their trafficking and DNA-binding activities (15–17). Sirtuin (SIRT)1, a homolog of the yeast silent information regulator-2 (Sir2), has been identified as a deacetylase for FoxO proteins (15, 17, 18). Of the seven mammalian sirtuins, SIRT1, SIRT6, and SIRT7 are localized to the nucleus (19), and SIRT6 was recently reported to act as a central player in regulating the DNA damage response, glucose metabolism, and aging (20–26). Using a knockout mouse model, it was found that SIRT6 functions as a corepressor of the transcription factor Hif1α to suppress glucose uptake and glycolysis.

Significance: Beyond its canonical functions in processes such as cell-cycle arrest, apoptosis, and senescence, the tumor suppressor p53 has been increasingly implicated in metabolism. Here, in vitro and in vivo studies establish a role for p53 in gluconeogenesis through a previously unidentified mechanism involving (i) direct activation of the gene encoding the NAD-dependent deacetylase sirtuin 6 (SIRT6), (ii) SIRT6-dependent deacetylation and nuclear exclusion of forkhead box protein O1 (FoxO1), and (iii) downregulation of FoxO1-activated genes (G6PC and PCK1) that are rate-limiting for gluconeogenesis. These results have implications for proposed tumor-suppressor functions of p53 through regulation of metabolic pathways.

Among a variety of other functions, SIRT6 was previously connected to glucose metabolism. For example, SIRT6 acts as a corepressor of the transcription factor Hif1-α to suppress glycolysis (23). Conversely, the deletion of Sirt6 in mice results in severe hypoglycemia (33) whereas the liver-specific deletion of Sirt6 leads to increased glycolysis and triglyceride synthesis (23, 34). Our study adds further evidence that SIRT6 plays an important role in glucose metabolism by connecting p53 transcription activity and gluconeogenesis. Our data also reemphasize a previously established role for SIRT6 in regulating the acetylation state and nuclear localization of FoxO proteins, albeit in a divergent manner. Thus, the Caenorhabditis elegans SIRT6/7 homolog SIR-2.4 was implicated in DAF-16 deacetylation and consequent nuclear localization and function in stress responses (35); and the effect was reported to be indirect and to involve a stress-induced inhibition by SIR-2.4 of CBP-mediated acetylation of DAF-16 that is independent of its deacetylase activity. These results, emphasizing context-dependent SIRT6 mechanisms, contrast with the SIRT6 deacetylase activity requirement for FoxO1 nuclear exclusion in the present study and a likely direct effect of SIRT6 on FoxO1 deacetylation based on their direct interaction, the SIRT6 deacetylase activity requirement, and precedent (15, 17, 18) from direct SIRT1-mediated deacetylation of FoxO proteins.

Despite a high genetic diversity, cancer cells exhibit a common set of functional characteristics, one being the “Warburg effect”: i.e., continuous high glucose uptake and a higher rate of glycolysis than that in normal cells (36). To favor the rapid proliferation requirement for high ATP/ADP and ATP/AMP ratios, cancer cells use large amounts of glucose. p53, as one of the most important tumor suppressors, exerts its antineoplastic function through diverse pathways that include the regulation of glucose metabolism. Thus, p53 regulates glucose metabolism by activation of TIGAR (3), which lowers the intracellular concentrations of fructose-2,6-bisphosphate and decreases glycolysis. On the other hand, p53 activation causes down-regulation of several glycolysisrelated factors such as phosphoglycerate mutase (PGM) (37) and the glucose transporters (4). Expression of p53 also can limit the activity of IκBα and IκBβ, thereby restricting the activation of NFκB and dampening the expression of glycolysis-promoting genes such as GLUT3 (38). As a reverse glycolysis pathway, gluconeogenesis generates glucose from noncarbohydrate precursors and is conceivably essential for tumor cell growth. However, the current study further supports the notion (6) that p53 is also involved in a gluconeogenesis inhibition pathway, which in this case is executed by enhanced SIRT6 expression and subsequent FoxO1 nuclear exclusion. These results raise the interesting possibility that an inhibition of gluconeogenesis may contribute to the tumorsuppressive function of p53.

 

http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/DownloadFile/1/2496/20065/1/21/fphar-03-00022_pdf

http://www.jcpjournal.org/journal/DOIx.php?id=10.15430/JCP.2013.18.3.221
Keywords : Oncogenes, Tumor suppressors, Glutamine metabolism, Cancer cells … p53 is a well-known protein which is involved in many cellular functionsincluding cell … deprivation activates p53 by regulating protein phosphatase 2A ( PP2A). …. and tumor suppressors may affect glutamine metabolism in cancercells

 

Protein controlling glucose metabolism also a tumor suppressor

Finding supports metabolic strategies to control tumor growth

http://www.massgeneral.org/about/pressrelease.aspx?id=1530    December 6, 2012

A protein known to regulate how cells process glucose also appears to be a tumor suppressor, adding to the potential that therapies directed at cellular metabolism may help suppress tumor growth.  In their report in the Dec. 7 issue of Cell, a multi-institutional research team describes finding that cells lacking the enzyme SIRT6, which controls how cells process glucose, quickly become cancerous.  They also found evidence that uncontrolled glycolysis, a stage in normal glucose metabolism, may drive tumor formation in the absence of SIRT6 and that suppressing glycolysis can halt tumor formation.

“Our study provides solid evidence that SIRT6 may function as a tumor suppressor by regulating glycolytic metabolism in cancer cells,” says Raul Mostoslavsky, MD, PhD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Cancer Center, senior author of the report.  “Critically, our findings indicate that, in tumors driven by low SIRT6 levels, drugs that may inhibit glycolysis – currently a hot research topic among biotechnology companies – could have therapeutic benefits.”

The hypothesis that a switch in the way cells process glucose could set off tumor formation was first proposed in the 1920s by German researcher Otto Warburg, who later received the Nobel Prize for discoveries in cellular respiration.  He observed that, while glucose metabolism is normally a two-step process involving glycolysis in the cellular cytoplasm followed by cellular respiration in the mitochondria, in cancer cells rates of glycolysis are up to 200 times higher.  Warburg’s proposition that this switch in glucose processing was a primary cause of cancer did not hold up, as subsequent research supported the role of mutations in oncogenes, which can spur tumor growth if overexpressed, and tumor suppressors, which keep cell proliferation under control.  But recent studies have suggested that alterations in cellular metabolism may be part of the process through which activated oncogenes or inactivated tumor suppressors stimulate cancer formation.

A 2010 study led by Mostoslavsky found that the absence of SIRT6 – one of a family of proteins called sirtuins that regulate many important biological pathways – appears to “flip the switch” from normal glucose processing to the excess rates of glycolysis seen in cancer cells. The current study was specifically designed to investigate whether SIRT6’s control of glucose metabolism also suppresses tumor formation.  The research team first showed that cultured skin cells from embryonic mice lacking SIRT6 proliferated rapidly and quickly formed tumors when injected into adult mice.  They also confirmed elevated glycolysis levels in both cells lacking SIRT6 and tumor cells and found that formation of tumors through SIRT6 deficiency did not appear to involve oncogene activation.

Analysis of tumor samples from patients found reduced SIRT6 expression in many – particularly in colorectal and pancreatic tumors.  Even among patients whose tumors appeared to be more aggressive, higher levels of SIRT6 expression may have delayed or, for some, prevented relapse.   In a mouse model programmed to develop numerous colon polyps, the researchers showed that lack of intestinal SIRT6 expression tripled the formation of polyps, many of which became invasive tumors.  Treating the animals with a glycolytic inhibitor significantly reduced tumor formation, even in the absence of SIRT6.

“Our results indicate that, at least in certain cancers, inhibiting glycolytic metabolism could provide a strong alternative way to halt cancer growth, possibly acting synergistically with current anti-tumor therapies,” says Mostoslavsky, an assistant professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.  “Cancer metabolism has only recently emerged as a hallmark of tumorigenesis, and the field is rapidly expanding.  With the current pace of research and the speed at which some basic discoveries are moving into translational studies, it is likely that drugs targeting cancer metabolism may be available to patients in the near future.”

 

THE HISTONE DEACETYLASE SIRT6 IS A NOVEL TUMOR SUPPRESSOR THAT CONTROLS CANCER METABOLISM

Reprogramming of cellular metabolism is a key event during tumorigenesis. Despite being known for decades (Warburg effect), the molecular mechanisms regulating this switch remained unexplored. Here, we identify SIRT6 as a novel tumor suppressor that regulates aerobic glycolysis in cancer cells. Importantly, loss of SIRT6 leads to tumor formation without activation of known oncogenes, while transformed SIRT6-deficient cells display increased glycolysis and tumor growth, suggesting that SIRT6 plays a role in both establishment and maintenance of cancer. Using a conditional SIRT6 allele, we show that SIRT6 deletion in vivoincreases the number, size and aggressiveness of tumors. SIRT6 also functions as a novel regulator of ribosome metabolism by co-repressing MYC transcriptional activity. Lastly, SIRT6 is selectively downregulated in several human cancers, and expression levels of SIRT6 predict prognosis and tumor-free survival rates, highlighting SIRT6 as a critical modulator of cancer metabolism. Our studies reveal SIRT6 to be a potent tumor suppressor acting to suppress cancer metabolism.

Cancer cells are characterized by the acquisition of several characteristics that enable them to become tumorigenic (Hanahan and Weinberg, 2000). Among them, the ability to sustain uncontrolled proliferation represents the most fundamental trait of cancer cells. This hyperproliferative state involves the deregulation of proliferative signaling pathways as well as loss of cell cycle regulation. In addition, tumor cells need to readjust their energy metabolism to fuel cell growth and division. This metabolic adaptation is directly regulated by many oncogenes and tumor suppressors, and is required to support the energetic and anabolic demands associated with cell growth and proliferation (Lunt and Vander Heiden, 2011).

Alteration in glucose metabolism is the best-known example of metabolic reprogramming in cancer cells. Under aerobic conditions, normal cells convert glucose to pyruvate through glycolysis, which enters the mitochondria to be further catabolized in the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA) to generate adenosine-5’-triphosphate (ATP). Under anaerobic conditions, mitochondrial respiration is abated; glucose metabolism is shifted towards glycolytic conversion of pyruvate into lactate. This metabolic reprogramming is also observed in cancer cells even in the presence of oxygen and was first described by Otto Warburg several decades ago (Warburg, 1956; Warburg et al., 1927). By switching their glucose metabolism towards “aerobic glycolysis”, cancer cells accumulate glycolytic intermediates that will be used as building blocks for macromolecular synthesis (Vander Heiden et al., 2009). Most cancer cells exhibit increased glucose uptake, which is due, in part, to the upregulation of glucose transporters, mainly GLUT1 (Yamamoto et al., 1990; Younes et al., 1996). Moreover, cancer cells display a high expression and activity of several glycolytic enzymes, including phospho-fructose kinase (PFK)-1, pyruvate kinase M2, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)-A and pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase (PDK)-1 (Lunt and Vander Heiden, 2011), leading to the high rate of glucose catabolism and lactate production characteristic of these cells. Importantly, downregulation of either LDH-A or PDK1 decreases tumor growth (Bonnet et al., 2007; Fantin et al., 2006; Le et al., 2010) suggesting an important role for these proteins in the metabolic reprogramming of cancer cells.

Traditionally, cancer-associated alterations in metabolism have been considered a secondary response to cell proliferation signals. However, growing evidence has demonstrated that metabolic reprogramming of cancer cells is a primary function of activated oncogenes and inactivated tumor suppressors (Dang et al., 2012;DeBerardinis et al., 2008; Ward and Thompson, 2012). Despite this evidence, whether the metabolic reprogramming observed in cancer cells is a driving force for tumorigenesis remains as yet poorly understood.

Sirtuins are a family of NAD+-dependent protein deacetylases involved in stress resistance and metabolic homeostasis (Finkel et al., 2009). In mammals, there are seven members of this family (SIRT1-7). SIRT6 is a chromatin-bound factor that was first described as a suppressor of genomic instability (Mostoslavsky et al., 2006). SIRT6 also localizes to telomeres in human cells and controls cellular senescence and telomere structure by deacetylating histone H3 lysine 9 (H3K9) (Michishita et al., 2008). However, the main phenotype SIRT6 deficient mice display is an acute and severe metabolic abnormality. At 20 days of age, they develop a degenerative phenotype that includes complete loss of subcutaneous fat, lymphopenia, osteopenia, and acute onset of hypoglycemia, leading to death in less than ten days (Mostoslavsky et al., 2006). Recently, we have demonstrated that the lethal hypoglycemia exhibited by SIRT6 deficient mice is caused by an increased glucose uptake in muscle and brown adipose tissue (Zhong et al., 2010). Specifically, SIRT6 co-represses HIF-1α by deacetylating H3K9 at the promoters of several glycolytic genes and, consequently, SIRT6 deficient cells exhibit increased glucose uptake and upregulated glycolysis even under normoxic conditions (Zhong et al., 2010). Such a phenotype, reminiscent of the “Warburg Effect” in tumor cells, prompted us to investigate whether SIRT6 may protect against tumorigenesis by inhibiting glycolytic metabolism.

Here, we demonstrate that SIRT6 is a novel tumor suppressor that regulates aerobic glycolysis in cancer cells. Strikingly, SIRT6 acts as a first hit tumor suppressor and lack of this chromatin factor leads to tumor formation even in non-transformed cells. Notably, inhibition of glycolysis in SIRT6 deficient cells completely rescues their tumorigenic potential, suggesting that enhanced glycolysis is the driving force for tumorigenesis in these cells. Furthermore, we provide new data demonstrating that SIRT6 regulates cell proliferation by acting as a co-repressor of c-Myc, inhibiting the expression of ribosomal genes. Finally, SIRT6 expression is downregulated in human cancers, strongly reinforcing the idea that SIRT6 is a novel tumor suppressor.

…..

In addition to controlling glucose metabolism in cancer cells, our current work unravels a novel function of SIRT6 as a regulator of ribosomal gene expression. One of the main features of cancer cells is their high proliferative potential. In order to proliferate, cancer cells readjust their metabolism to generate biosynthetic precursors for macromolecular synthesis (Deberardinis et al., 2008). However, protein synthesis also requires the activation of a transcriptional program leading to ribosome biogenesis and mRNA translation (van Riggelen et al., 2010). As a master regulator of cell proliferation, MYC regulates ribosome biogenesis and protein synthesis by controlling the transcription and assembly of ribosome components as well as translation initiation (Dang et al., 2012; van Riggelen et al., 2010). Our results show that SIRT6 specifically regulates the expression of ribosomal genes. In keeping with this, SIRT6-deficient tumor cells exhibit high levels of ribosomal protein gene expression. Beyond ribosome biosynthesis, MYC regulates glucose and glutamine metabolism (Dang et al., 2012). Our results show that glutamine – but not glucose – metabolism is rescued in SIRT6-deficient/MYC knockdown cells, suggesting that SIRT6 and MYC might have redundant roles in regulating glucose metabolism.

Overall, our results indicate that SIRT6 represses tumorigenesis by inhibiting a glycolytic switch required for cancer cell proliferation. Inhibition of glycolysis in SIRT6-deficient cells abrogates tumor formation, providing proof of concept that inhibition of glycolytic metabolism in tumors with low SIRT6 levels could provide putative alternative approaches to modulate cancer growth. Furthermore, we uncover a new role for SIRT6 as a regulator of ribosome biosynthesis by co-repressing MYC transcriptional activity. Our results indicate that SIRT6 sits at a critical metabolic node, modulating both glycolytic metabolism and ribosome biosynthesis (Figure 7L). SIRT6 deficiency deregulates both pathways, leading to robust metabolic reprogramming that is sufficient to promote tumorigenesis bypassing major oncogenic signaling pathway activation.

 

Lack of cellular enzyme triggers switch in glucose processing

Understanding mechanism underlying SIRT6 activity may help treat diabetes, cancer

http://www.massgeneral.org/about/pressrelease.aspx?id=1196   January 21, 2010

A study investigating how a cellular enzyme affects blood glucose levels in mice provides clues to pathways that may be involved in processes including the regulation of longevity and the proliferation of tumor cells. In their report in the January 22 issue of Cell, a Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)-based team of researchers describes the mechanism by which absence of the enzyme SIRT6 induces a fatal drop in blood sugar in mice by triggering a switch between two critical cellular processes.

“We found that SIRT6 functions as a master regulator of glucose levels by maintaining the normal processes by which cells convert glucose into energy,” says Raul Mostoslavsky, MD, PhD, of the MGH Cancer Center, who led the study. “Learning more about how this protein controls the way cells handle glucose could lead to new approaches to treating type 2 diabetes and even cancer.”

SIRT6 belongs to a family of proteins called sirtuins, which regulate important biological pathways in organisms from bacteria to humans. Originally discovered in yeast, sirtuins in mammals have been shown to have important roles in metabolic regulation, programmed cell death and adaptation to stress. SIRT6 is one of seven mammalian sirtuins, and Mostoslavsky’s team previously showed that mice lacking the protein die in the first month of life from acute hypoglycemia. The current study was designed to investigate exactly how lack of SIRT6 causes this radical drop in blood sugar.

Normally cells convert glucose into energy through a two-step process. The first stage called glycolysis takes place in the cytoplasm, where glucose is broken down into an acid called pyruvate and a few molecules of ATP, the enzyme that provides the energy to power most biological processes. Pyruvate is taken into cellular structures called mitochondria, where it is further processed to release much greater amounts of ATP through a process called cellular respiration.

In a series of experiments in mouse cells, the researchers showed that SIRT6-deficiency hypoglycemia is caused by increased cellular uptake of glucose and not by elevated insulin levels or defects in the absorption of glucose from food. They then found increased levels of glycolysis and reduced mitochondrial respiration in SIRT6-knockout cells, something usually seen when cells are starved for oxygen or glucose, and showed that activation of the switch from cellular respiration to glycolysis is controlled through SIRT6’s regulation of a protein called HIF1alpha. Normally, SIRT6 represses glycolytic genes through its role as a compactor of chromatin – the tightly wound combination of DNA and a protein backbone that makes up chromosomes. In the absence of SIRT6, this structure is opened, causing activation of these glycolytic genes. The investigators’ finding increased expression of glycolytic genes in living SIRT6-knockout mice – which also had elevated levels of lactic acid, characteristic of a switch to glycolytic glucose processing – supported their cellular findings.

Studies in yeast, worms and flies have suggested a role for sirtuins in aging and longevity, and while much of the enzymes’ activity in mammals is unclear, SIRT6’s control of critical glucose-metabolic pathways could signify a contribution to lifespan regulation. Elevated glycolysis also is commonly found in tumor cells, suggesting that a lack of SIRT6 could contribute to tumor growth. Conversely, since knocking out SIRT6 causes blood sugar to drop, limited SIRT6 inhibition could be a novel strategy for treating type 2 diabetes.

“There’s a lot we still don’t know about SIRT6,” adds Mostoslavsky, who is an assistant professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. “We need to identify the factors that interact with SIRT6 and determine how it is regulated; investigate whether it acts as a tumor suppressor and how it might help lower glucose levels in diabetes; and determine its target organs in living animals, all of which we are investigating.”

 

A tale of metabolites: the crosstalk between chromatin and energy metabolism

Mitochondrial metabolism influences histone and DNA modifications by retrograde signaling and activation of transcriptional programs. Considering the high number of putative sites for acetylation and methylation in chromatin, we propose in this Perspective that epigenetic modifications might impinge on cellular metabolism by affecting the pool of acetyl-CoA and SAM.

Metabolism can be defined as the sum of chemical reactions that occur within a cell to sustain life. It is also the way that a cell interacts with energy sources: in other words, it is the coordination of energy intake, its utilization and storage that ultimately allows growth and cell division. In animal cells, mitochondria have evolved to become the most efficient system to generate energy. This organelle consumes carbon sources via oxidative phosphorylation to produce ATP, the energy currency of the cell. Additionally, the mitochondria produces intermediate metabolites for the biosynthesis of DNA, proteins and lipids.

Under basic dividing conditions, uptake of nutrients is tightly regulated through growth signaling pathways, thus differentiated cells engage in oxidative metabolism, the most efficient mechanism to produce energy from nutrients. Cells metabolize glucose to pyruvate through glycolysis in the cytoplasm, and this pyruvate is then oxidized into CO2 through the mitochondrial TCA cycle. The electrochemical gradient generated across the inner mitochondrial membrane facilitates ATP production in a highly efficient manner. Studies in recent years indicate that under conditions of nutrient excess, cells increase their nutrient uptake, adopting instead what is known as aerobic glycolysis, an adaptation that convert pyruvate into lactate, enabling cells to produce intermediate metabolites to sustain growth (anabolic metabolism) (1). Interestingly, most cancer cells undergo the same metabolic switch (Warburg Effect), a unique evolutionary trait that allows them to grow unabated. Although aerobic glycolysis generates much less ATP from glucose compared to oxidative phosphorylation, it provides critical intermediate metabolites that are used for anaplerotic reactions, and therefore is an obligatory adaptation among highly proliferative cells. In response to variations in nutrient availability, cells regulate their metabolic output, coordinating biochemical reactions and mitochondrial activity by altering transcription of mitochondrial genes through both activation of transcription factors, such as PGC1α, and chromatin modulators that exert epigenetic changes on metabolic genes.

Mitochondrial dysfunction has been implicated in aging, degenerative diseases and cancer. Proper mitochondrial function can be compromised by the accumulation of mutations in mitochondrial DNA that occur during aging. In addition, reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced during oxidative phosphorylation can promote oxidative damage to DNA, protein and lipids, in turn adversely affecting global cellular functions. In recent years, several studies have illustrated a novel unexpected link between metabolism and gene activity: fluctuations in mitochondrial and cytoplasmic metabolic reactions can reprogram global metabolism by means of impacting epigenetic dynamics. These studies will be briefly summarized in the first part of this article. In the second part, we will propose a provocative novel hypothesis: the crosstalk between metabolism and epigenetics is a two-way street, and defects in chromatin modulators may affect availability of intermediate metabolites, in turn influencing energy metabolism.

Metabolism impacts epigenetics

A regulated crosstalk between metabolic pathways in the mitochondria and epigenetic mechanisms in the nucleus allows cellular adaptations to new environmental conditions. Fine-tuning of gene expression is achieved by changes in chromatin dynamics, including methylation of DNA and posttranslational modifications of histones: acetyl, methyl and phosphate groups can be added by acetyltransferases, methyltransferases and kinases, respectively, to different residues on histones. Given the number of residues that can potentially undergo modifications in histone tails and in the DNA, it is reasonable to consider that metabolic changes affecting the availability of these metabolites will impact epigenetics (as discussed below).

Recently, acetylation of proteins was revealed to be as abundant as phosphorylation (2). This posttranslational modification involves the covalent binding of an acetyl group obtained from acetyl-CoA to a lysine. In histones, acetylation can modify higher order chromatin structure and serve as a docking site for histone code readers. Recent mass spectrometry studies have uncovered the complete acetylome in human cells and revealed that protein acetylation occurs broadly in the nucleus, cytoplasm and mitochondria, affecting more than 1700 proteins (2). Acetylation of proteins depends on the availability of acetyl-CoA in each cellular compartment, but this metabolite is produced in the mitochondria and cannot cross the mitochondrial membrane. In single cell eukaryotes, the pool of acetyl groups required for histone acetylation comes from the production of acetyl-CoA by the enzyme acetyl-CoA synthetase (Acs2p), which is responsible of converting acetate into acetyl-CoA. In mammalian cells, although they have a homolog enzyme to Acs2p, AceCS1, the majority of acetyl-CoA is produced from mitochondrion-derived citrate by the enzyme adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-citrate lyase (ACL) (3). ACL is present in the cytoplasm and in the nucleus, and is responsible for the production of acetyl-CoA from citrate in both compartments. Citrate is generated in the metabolism of glucose and glutamine in the TCA cycle. In contrast to acetyl-CoA, citrate can cross the mitochondrial membrane and diffuse through the nuclear pores into the nucleus, where it can be converted into acetyl-CoA by ACL. Wellen and colleagues found that ACL is required for acetylation of histones under normal growth conditions; knockdown of ACL decreases the pool of acetyl-CoA in the nucleus and reduces the level of histone acetylation (3). Strikingly, reduction in histone acetylation occurs preferentially around glycolytic genes, leading to downregulation of their transcription and therefore inhibition of glycolysis. These observations reveal a process where glucose metabolism dictates histone acetylation that in a feedback mechanism controls the rate of glycolysis.

Notably, deacetylation of histones also exhibits a metabolic influence. Deacetylation of histones is achieved by class I and class II histone deacetylases (HDACs) and by a separate class (class III), also known as sirtuins. Sirtuins use NAD+ as a cofactor for deacetylation, and the ratio of NAD+/NADH regulates their activity. In diets rich in carbohydrates, growth factors stimulate cellular glucose uptake and the production of energy is carried out through glycolysis. In this context, the NAD+/NADH ratio decreases, in turn inhibiting, in theory, sirtuins in the cytoplasm (Sirt2) and nucleus (Sirt1, Sirt6 and Sirt7). In fact, low Sirt1 and Sirt6 activity generates a global increase in protein acetylation. Interestingly, Sirt6, which is exclusively nuclear, deacetylates H3K9 Hif1α target genes, repressing their transcription. Since most of these genes are glycolytic, deacetylation of histones by Sirt6 modulates glycolysis. Indeed, SIRT6-deficient mice experience a dramatic increase in glucose uptake for glycolysis, triggering a fatal hypoglycemia in few weeks (4).

In animal cells, both histone acetylation and deacetylation are under the control of glucose metabolism through the availability of acetyl-CoA and NAD+, respectively. However, is this metabolic control restricted to acetylation, or can other reactions in the nucleus be influenced by the energy status of the cell?

Histone methyltransferases (HMTs) use S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) to transfer a methyl group onto lysine and arginine residues on histone tails. SAM is produced from methionine by the enzyme S-adenosyl methionine transferase (MAT) in a reaction that uses ATP. The recent finding of MAT in the nucleus suggests that the SAM pool could also be controlled locally in this compartment (5). The reverse reaction catalyzed by histone demethylases (HDMs) uses flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD+) and α-ketoglutarate as coenzymes. FAD is a common redox coenzyme that exists in two different redox states. In its reduced state, FADH2 is a carrier of energy and when oxidized, FAD+ is consumed in the oxidation of succinate to fumarate by the enzyme succinate dehydrogenase (complex II) in one of the last steps of the TCA cycle. On the other hand, α-ketoglutarate is an intermediate in the TCA cycle. It is generated from isocitrate by the enzymes isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 (IDH1-cytosolic and IDH2-mitochondrial) (Figure 1A–B). Based on these findings, it is easy to infer that the amount of coenzymes used for histone methylation and demethylation could also be controlled by metabolic reactions. Moreover, the different cellular compartments compete for the same metabolites. Indeed, changes in diet that affect the biosynthesis of SAM, FAD and α-ketoglutarate in the mitochondria and cytoplasm have been shown to impact histone methylation (6).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is nihms447752f1.jpg

Figure 1   A) Diagram depicting two-way crosstalk between metabolites in cytoplasm/mitochondria and chromatin.

More recently, some of the metabolic enzymes responsible for producing cofactors for nuclear biochemical reactions have been found mutated in cancer. For instance, IDH1 and IDH2 somatic mutations are recurrent in gliomas and acute myeloid leukemias (AML). These mutations lead not only to a decreased production of α-ketoglutarate but also to a new activity: α-ketoglutarate is in fact converted into 2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG), a metabolite rarely found in normal cells. The new metabolite is a competitive inhibitor of α-ketoglutarate-dependent dioxygenase enzymes, including the Jumonji C (JmjC) domain containing histone demethylases and the recently discovered TET family of 5-methylcytosine (5mC) hydroxylases involved in DNA demethylation (7). By inhibiting JmjC and TET enzymes, the aberrant production of 2-HG generates a genome-wide histone and DNA hypermethylation phenotype. This is considered to be, at least in part, at the origin of tumorigenesis in IDH1 and IDH2 mutated cells and for this reason, 2-HG may earn its place as an oncometabolite. The discovery that mutations in metabolic enzymes may influence tumorigenesis by means of controlling genome-wide epigenetic changes caused a paradigm shift, indicating that such metabolic abnormalities may affect cancer beyond the Warburg Effect.  ….

Chromatin modifications and cellular metabolism are tightly connected. Thus far the only aspects that have been considered are the retrograde signaling, with mitochondrial metabolites affecting histone modifications, and the anterograde transcriptional regulation of metabolism. A third aspect of the link between nucleus and metabolism has been, in our opinion, omitted so far: a direct influence of chromatin on acetyl-CoA and SAM availability, which may have an essential role also in cancer establishment and development (Figure 1A–B). Notably, a shift towards glycolytic metabolism is now considered a hallmark of cancer cells. It is also true that multiple tumors carry mutations in chromatin modifiers. However, new studies suggest that those two processes may be much more intertwined that previously appreciated, further blurring the limits on their respective roles in tumorigenesis. There is no doubt that changes in metabolite availability can drastically impact chromatin modifications. We believe that the opposite may be true as well. At least in mouse models, deficiency in two chromatin modifiers, SIRT6 and Jhdm2, causes drastic metabolic abnormalities. Even though some of those phenotypes depend on changes in gene-expression, we would like to propose that severe attrition of metabolite pools might as well play a role, a possibility that awaits experimental proof.

……

 

Investigators at UC San Diego say that when they blocked a well known signaling molecule that plays a major role in driving colorectal cancer, an escape pathway emerged that allowed tumors to continue to grow.

The pathway they explored, ERK1/2, is a problem for about a third of all colorectal cancer patients, says Petrus R. de Jong, MD, PhD, a co-first author on the paper.

“Since we were genetically deleting the ERK1/2 pathway, we expected to see less cell proliferation,” said de Jong. “Instead, the opposite occurred. There was more cell growth and loss of organization within the cells.”

The problem was ERK5, the investigators add. And when that was blocked as well in animal models and cell lines for the disease, the combination approach proved more effective in halting cancer growth.

“If you block one pathway, cancer cells usually mutate and find another pathway that ultimately allows for a recurrence of cancer growth,” said co-first author Koji Taniguchi. “Usually, mutations occur over weeks or months. But other times, as in this case, the tumor does not need to develop mutations to find an escape route from targeted therapy. When you find the compensatory pathway and block both, there is no more escape.”

 

GEN News Highlights    May 18, 2016   http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/blocking-cancer-signaling-leads-to-discovery-of-new-tumor-promoting-pathway/81252738/
Blocking Cancer Signaling Leads to Discovery of New Tumor-Promoting Pathway

 Immunofluorescent staining of intestinal epithelium tissue shows cell growth (green). In a normal mouse model (left), cell growth is controlled, but in a mouse model with the ERK1/2 pathway blocked (right) increased cell proliferation and loss of organization occurred. [UC San Diego Health]

An international research team lead by scientists at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine uncovered some surprising results while investigating a potential therapeutic target for the ERK1 and two pathways. These signaling pathways are widely expressed and known to drive cancer growth in one-third of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The UCSD team found that an alternative pathway immediately emerges when ERK1/2 is halted, thus allowing tumor cell proliferation to continue.

“Since we were genetically deleting the ERK1/2 pathway, we expected to see less cell proliferation,” explained co-lead study author Petrus R. de Jong, M.D., Ph.D., translational scientist at Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute. “Instead, the opposite occurred. There was more cell growth and loss of organization within the cells.”

The exciting part of this new study is investigators found that treating both ERK1/2 and the compensatory pathway ERK5 concomitantly with a combination of drug inhibitors halted CRC growth more effectively in both mouse models and human CRC cell lines.

“We show that loss of Erk1/2 in intestinal epithelial cells results in defects in nutrient absorption, epithelial cell migration, and secretory cell differentiation,” the authors wrote. “However, intestinal epithelial cell proliferation is not impeded, implying compensatory mechanisms. Genetic deletion ofErk1/2 or pharmacological targeting of MEK1/2 results in supraphysiological activity of the ERK5 pathway. Furthermore, targeting both pathways causes a more effective suppression of cell proliferation in murine intestinal organoids and human CRC lines.”

The findings from this study were published recently in Nature Communications in an article entitled “ERK5 Signalling Rescues Intestinal Epithelial Turnover and Tumour Cell Proliferation upon ERK1/2 Abrogation.”

The ERK pathway plays a critical role in embryonic development and tissue repair because it instructs cells to multiply and start dividing, but when overactivated cancer growth often occurs.

“Therapies aimed at targeting ERK1/2 likely fail because this mechanism is allowing proliferation through a different pathway,” noted senior study author Eyal Raz, M.D., professor of medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine. “Previously, ERK5 didn’t seem important in colorectal cancer. This is an underappreciated escape pathway for tumor cells. Hence, the combination of ERK1/2 and ERK5 inhibitors may lead to more effective treatments for colorectal cancer patients.”

Currently, there are 1.2 million people living with CRC in the United States, making it the third most common cancer among men and women. In 2016 alone, an estimated 134,490 new cases are expected to be diagnosed, so understanding the molecular mechanisms that drive tumor promotion are paramount to treating this disease effectively.

“If you block one pathway, cancer cells usually mutate and find another pathway that ultimately allows for a recurrence of cancer growth,” remarked co-lead study author Koji Taniguchi, M.D., Ph.D., senior researcher at the Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo. “Usually, mutations occur over weeks or months. But other times, as in this case, the tumor does not need to develop mutations to find an escape route from targeted therapy. When you find the compensatory pathway and block both, there is no more escape.”

The researchers were excited by their findings but urged caution at over interpretation of their initial findings and suggested that other classes of inhibitors be tested in combination with ERK5 inhibitors in human CRC cells in preclinical mouse models before any patient trial can begin.

 

ERK5 signalling rescues intestinal epithelial turnover and tumour cell proliferation upon ERK1/2 abrogation

Petrus R. de JongKoji TaniguchiAlexandra R. HarrisSamuel BertinNaoki TakahashiJen DuongAlejandro D. CamposGarth PowisMaripat CorrMichael Karin & Eyal Raz
Nature Communications 7, Article number:11551  doi:10.1038/ncomms11551

The ERK1/2 MAPK signalling module integrates extracellular cues that induce proliferation and differentiation of epithelial lineages, and is an established oncogenic driver, particularly in the intestine. However, the interrelation of the ERK1/2 module relative to other signalling pathways in intestinal epithelial cells and colorectal cancer (CRC) is unclear. Here we show that loss of Erk1/2in intestinal epithelial cells results in defects in nutrient absorption, epithelial cell migration and secretory cell differentiation. However, intestinal epithelial cell proliferation is not impeded, implying compensatory mechanisms. Genetic deletion of Erk1/2 or pharmacological targeting of MEK1/2 results in supraphysiological activity of the ERK5 pathway. Furthermore, targeting both pathways causes a more effective suppression of cell proliferation in murine intestinal organoids and human CRC lines. These results suggest that ERK5 provides a common bypass route in intestinal epithelial cells, which rescues cell proliferation upon abrogation of ERK1/2 signalling, with therapeutic implications in CRC.

The extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2 (ERK1/2) are part of the classical family of mammalian mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs), which also include three c-Jun amino-terminal kinases (JNK1/2/3), four p38 isoforms and its lesser-known counterpart, ERK5. The serine/threonine kinases ERK1 (MAPK3, also known as p44 MAPK) and ERK2 (MAPK1, also known as p42 MAPK) show 83% amino acid identity, are ubiquitously expressed and typically activated by growth factors and phorbol esters, whereas the p38 and JNK pathways are mainly activated by inflammatory cytokines and stress1. MAPKs are involved in regulation of mitosis, gene expression, cell metabolism, cell motility and apoptosis. ERK1/2 are activated by MEK1 and MEK2, which themselves are activated by Raf-1, A-Raf or B-Raf1, 2. Ras proteins (K-Ras, H-Ras or N-Ras) are small GTPases that can be activated by receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) or G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), which recruit Raf proteins to the plasma membrane where they are activated. Together, these modules constitute the Ras–Raf–MEK–ERK pathway3.

The activation of ERK1/2 results in their nuclear translocation where they can phosphorylate a variety of nuclear targets such as Elk-1, c-Fos and c-Myc1, in addition to p90 ribosomal S6 kinases (p90RSKs) and mitogen- and stress-activated protein kinases, MSK1/2. The full repertoire of substrates for ERK1/2 consists of at least 160 cellular proteins4. These proteins are typically involved in the regulation of cell proliferation—more specifically, G1/S-phase cell cycle progression—and differentiation. However, their cellular effects are context-dependent and determined by the spatial and temporal dynamics of ERK1/2 activity5, which are highly regulated by scaffolding proteins and phosphatases3, 6, 7.

Despite vast literature on the role of ERK1/2 in cell proliferation, the absolute requirement of this signalling module in rapidly dividing tissues relative to other signalling pathways is unknown. The small intestinal epithelium is particularly suitable to address this question given the short (4–8 days) and dynamic life cycle of intestinal epithelial cells (IECs). Lgr5+ intestinal stem cells at the intestinal crypt base produce transit-amplifying cells, which then undergo a number of proliferative cycles before terminal differentiation into absorptive enterocytes at the crypt–villus border. Enterocytes then migrate to the villus tip where they undergo anoikis and are shed into the gut lumen8. All of these cellular events are tightly coordinated by the Wnt, Notch, bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) and Hedgehog pathways9, whereas the roles of ERK1/2 remain to be charted. In the intestines, the ERK1/2 pathway is likely activated by autocrine and paracrine factors downstream of RTKs, such as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)10, and by exogenous microbial-derived substrates that signal through the Toll-like receptor (TLR)/MyD88 pathway11.

To study the effects of ERK1/2 in the adult intestinal epithelium, we generated mice with a conditional (IEC-specific) and tamoxifen-inducible deletion of Erk2 on the Erk1−/− background, which completely abrogates this pathway. We show that the ERK1/2 signalling module, surprisingly, is dispensable for IEC proliferation. Genetic deletion of Erk1/2 in primary IEC or treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) cell lines with MEK1/2 inhibitors results in compensatory activation of the ERK5 pathway. Moreover, the treatment of human CRC lines with a combination of MEK1/2 and ERK5 inhibitors is more efficacious in the inhibition of cancer cell growth. Thus, compensatory signalling by ERK5 suggests a potential rescue pathway that has clinical implications for targeted therapy in colorectal cancer.

….

Figure 1: Wasting disease associated with malabsorption in Erk1/2ΔIEC mice.

ERK1/2ΔIEC causes wasting and enterocyte dysfunction

Here we show that ERK1/2 signalling in mouse intestinal epithelium is dispensable for cell proliferation, while it resulted in abnormal differentiation of enterocytes, wasting disease and ultimately lethality (Fig. 1). Consistent with these findings, ERK1/2 MAPKs were shown to be associated with the enterocyte brush border and activated upon RTK stimulation or feeding27 or electrical field stimulation in polarized epithelium28. This seems at odds with literature that suggest that maintained ERK1/2 signalling precludes enterocyte differentiation29, 30. A possible explanation for this discrepancy could be that cycling IEC in the transit amplifying zone of the crypt require relatively high levels of active ERK1/2, which is readily blocked by pharmacological intervention, whereas a transition to low level ERK1/2 activity in IEC migrating into the villus compartment promotes the absorptive enterocyte differentiation program that is only perturbed upon complete genetic deletion of Erk1/2. Little is known about the role of ERK1/2 signalling in the life cycle of secretory cells in the gut. A recent report by Heuberger et al.15 described that IEC-specific deletion of non-receptor tyrosine phosphatase, Shp2, resulted in the loss of p-ERK1/2 levels in the small intestine. This coincided with an increased number of Paneth cells at the expense of goblet cells in the small intestine, as well as shortening of villi. They also observed the strongest staining for epithelial p-ERK1/2 in the TA zone. This p-ERK1/2+ staining pattern and the architectural organization of the TA zone were lost in Shp2 knockout mice. Interestingly, the deleterious effects of Shp2 deficiency were rescued by expression of constitutively active MEK1. A model was proposed in which the balance between Wnt/β-catenin and MAPK signalling determines Paneth cell versus goblet cell differentiation, respectively15. This proposed crucial role for ERK1/2 MAPK signalling in intestinal secretory cell differentiation is consistent with our observations inERK1/2ΔIECmice.

Migration and differentiation are functionally intertwined in the intestines, as demonstrated by the immature phenotype of mislocalized Paneth cells observed in ΔIEC mice (Fig. 2). Critical to epithelial cell migration is proper cytoskeleton reorganization mediated by the small GTPases of the Rho family, cell polarization regulated by Cdc42 and dynamic adhesion through cell–matrix and cell–cell interaction via integrin/FAK/Src signalling31. The ERK1/2 module is used as a downstream effector of many of these pathways in the intestine, including Rho GTPases32, FAK33and Src34, and has been suggested to promote cell motility33, 35. RTK signalling also contributes to cell migration, for example, Eph–Ephrin receptor interactions are crucial for correct positioning of Paneth cells36. Ephrin receptor-induced epithelial cell migration has been shown to be mediated by Src and ERK1/2 activation37, 38, which may explain the Paneth cell mislocalization observed in ΔIEC mice. In summary, the ERK1/2 module is indispensable for full maturation of both absorptive enterocytes and the secretory lineage (Fig. 7a), confirming its crucial role in the integration of cellular cues required for determination of epithelial cell fate.

Figure 7: Roles of ERK1/2 and ERK5 in intestinal homeostasis and tumorigenesis.

Roles of ERK1/2 and ERK5 in intestinal homeostasis and tumorigenesis.

(a) When the ERK1/2 pathway is intact, extracellular cues that are transduced via RTKs or GPCRs activate Ras under physiological conditions, or alternatively, Ras is constitutively active in colorectal cancer (RasΔ*), which preferentially activates the Raf–MEK1/2–ERK1/2 module. The nuclear and transcriptional targets of ERK1/2 are crucial for enterocyte and secretory cell differentiation, IEC migration, as well as cell proliferation under homeostatic and oncogenic conditions. Importantly, ERK1/2 activation also results in the activation of negative feedback mechanisms that suppress its upstream kinases (for example, RTKs, son of sevenless, Raf) and activate dual specificity phosphatases (DUSPs), resulting in the silencing of the ERK5 module. (b) Upon abrogation of MEK1/2 or genetic knockout ofErk1/2, the lack of negative feedback mechanisms (that is, feedback activation) results in upregulation of the Ras–Raf–MEK5–ERK5 module, which maintains cell proliferation under physiological conditions, or results in continued tumour cell proliferation in colorectal cancer, respectively. However, the lack of activation of ERK1/2-specific targets results in differentiation and migration defects of intestinal epithelial cells culminating in malabsorption, wasting disease and mortality. Compensatory upregulation of the ERK5 pathway in CRC can be reversed by targeted treatment with its specific inhibitor, XMD8-92.

An unexpected finding was the redundancy of ERK1/2 in the gut with regard to cell proliferation.Erk1/2 deletion was compensated by upregulated ERK5 signalling. Genetic targeting of ERK1/2 in vitro previously showed that Erk2 knockdown is more effective than Erk1 knockdown in suppressing cell proliferation, although this may be related to higher expression levels of the former39. The effect of gene dosage was demonstrated in vivo by the observations that whileErk1−/− mice are viable12 and Erk2−/− mice die in utero13, Erk2+/− mice are only viable when at least one copy of Erk1 is present. However, mice heterozygous (+/−) for both Erk1 and Erk2 alleles were born at lower than Mendelian ratio39. More recently, it was reported that transgenic expression of ERK1 can compensate for Erk2 deletion40, demonstrating functional redundancy between both family members. Deletion of Erk1/2 in adult skin tissue resulted in hypoplasia, which was associated with G2/M cell cycle arrest, without notable differentiation defects of keratinocytes41. These data differ from our observations in the intestines, which might be explained by incomplete and transient siRNA-mediated knockdown of ERK1/2 in primary keratinocyte cultures41, compared with more efficient genomic deletion of Erk1 and Erk2 that is typically achieved by the Villin-Cre-ERT2 system14, possibly resulting in different outcomes.

Both ERK1/2 and ERK5 have been described to promote cell cycle progression, although they have different upstream signalling partners, MEK1/2 and MEK5, respectively1. Furthermore, ERK2 and ERK5 proteins share only about 66% sequence identity, and MEK5 is phosphorylated by MEKK2/3, which can also activate the p38 and JNK pathways42. The ERK5 pathway is classically activated by stress stimuli, in addition to mitogens; thus, it shares features of both the ERK1/2, and p38 and JNK pathways, respectively43. ERK5 induces expression of cyclin D1 (refs 44, 45), and suppresses expression of cyclin dependent kinase inhibitors46, thereby promoting G1/S-phase cell cycle progression. Importantly, the role of ERK5 in IEC differentiation and intestinal homeostasis is currently unknown. Knockout of Erk1/2 in IEC induced activity of ERK5, which was not detectable in naive mice (Fig. 3). These data suggest that the ERK1/2 and ERK5 modules may share proximal signalling components. Although EGFR is a likely candidate in this context19, 20, we found that abrogation of EGFR signalling did not prevent enhanced ERK5 activity upon MEK1/2 inhibition. Although it was originally suggested that ERK5 signalling is independent of Ras20, other groups established that Ras, either through physiological signalling47, or by its oncogenic activity48,49, activates the MEK5–ERK5 signalling axis. Thus, rewiring of signalling networks downstream of Ras could explain the supraphysiological activity of ERK5 upon conditional deletion of Erk1/2 in the intestines. In fact, it has been shown that ERK1/2 signalling mediates negative feedback on ERK5 activity50, possibly through transcriptional activation of dual specificity phosphatases (DUSPs)51. Alternatively, ERK1/2-induced FOS-like antigen 1 (Fra-1) may negatively regulate MEK5 (ref. 52). These data suggest that ERK5 is a default bypass route downstream of RTK-Ras and activated upon loss of ERK1/2-mediated repression, thereby ensuring the transduction of mitogenic signals to the nucleus (Fig. 7b). Consistent with this concept, we found that ERK5 inhibition induces atrophy of ΔIEC intestinal organoids (Fig. 4). In addition, important downstream transcriptional targets of ERK5 and ERK1/2 overlap, such as immediate-early gene Fra1 and oncogene c-Myc, whereas c-Fos and Egr1 were specifically induced by ERK1/2 (Fig. 6 and Supplementary Fig. 7). Specificity of ERK1/2 over ERK5 and other MAPK family members for the activation of c-Fos has been previously described53, demonstrating their differential biological output despite the shared ability to transduce potent mitogenic signals.

Our findings may be relevant for the use of MAPK inhibitors in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Although there was only a mild phenotype in the colons of ΔIEC mice under homeostatic conditions, the Ras–RAF–MEK–ERK pathway is generally upregulated in malignant cells including CRC54. Targeted therapy typically results in feedback activation of upstream players of the targeted kinase, which are then able to reactivate the same pathway or utilize bypass signalling routes55. For example, on activation, ERK1/2 phosphorylates EGFR, son of sevenless56, and Raf57, thereby terminating upstream signalling activity. Knockout of Erk1/2 eliminates this negative feedback. Our data suggest that ERK5 is a putative resistance pathway in the context of targeted treatment with MEK1/2 or ERK1/2 inhibitors (Fig. 7b). Different classes of MEK1/2 inhibitors display various modes of resistance to therapy (innate, adaptive and acquired)58. Since we have only used one MEK1/2 inhibitor (PD0325901) in our studies, it will be necessary to evaluate other classes of inhibitors in combination with ERK5 inhibitors. Importantly, while treatment with either the MEK1/2 or ERK5 inhibitor suppressed tumour growth in murine Apc−/− organoids, only the latter was able to inhibit the proliferation of Apc−/−;KRASG12V organoids (Fig. 6), which are more representative of human CRC. In line with this, suppression of ERK5 expression by forced expression of miR-143/145 inhibited intestinal adenoma formation in the ApcMin/+ model59, and activated MEK5 correlated with more invasive CRC in human60. ERK5 has been previously reported to mediate resistance to cytotoxic chemotherapy-induced apoptosis61. The highly specific and bioavailable ERK5 inhibitor, XMD8-92, has shown antitumour effects in multiple preclinical cancer models by inhibiting tumour angiogenesis, metastasis and chemo-resistance62. Furthermore, ERK5 inhibition does not induce feedback activation of upstream or parallel signalling pathways62. In conclusion, the ERK1/2 and ERK5 MAPK modules display a high degree of signalling plasticity in the intestinal epithelium, which has implications for targeted treatment of colorectal cancer.

 

Researchers Reveal Role of Transcription Factor Isoforms in Colon Diseases

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/researchers-reveal-role-of-transcription-factor-isoforms-in-colon-diseases/81252735/


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balance between the two isoforms, P1 and P2, of nuclear receptor HNF4a in the colonic crypt influences susceptibility to colitis and colon cancer. P1 is seen here in green. P2 is seen in red. [Poonamjot Deol, Sladek lab, UC Riverside]

Scientists at the University of California, Riverside have determined the distribution of the P1 and P2 isoforms of hepatocyte nuclear factor 4α (HNF4α) in the colons of mice. They report (“Opposing Roles of Nuclear Receptor HNF4α Isoforms in Colitis and Colitis-Associated Colon Cancer”) in eLife that maintaining a balance of P1 and P2 is crucial for reducing risk of contracting colon cancer and colitis.

What is already known in the field of cell biology is that the HNF4α transcription factor plays a key role in both diseases. HNF4α comes in two major isoforms, P1-HNF4α and P2-HNF4α (P1 and P2), but just how each isoform is involved in colitis and colon cancer is not understood.

“P1 and P2 have been conserved between mice and humans for 70 million years,” said Frances M. Sladek, Ph.D., professor of cell biology, who led the research project. “Both isoforms are important and we want to keep an appropriate balance between them in our gut by avoiding foods that would disrupt this balance and consuming foods that help preserve it. What these foods are is our next focus in the lab.”

The intestine is the only adult tissue in the body that expresses both P1 and P2. Dr. Sladek and her team have shown for the first time that these isoforms perform nonredundant functions in the intestine and are relevant to colitis and colitis-associated colon cancer.

“Our study also suggests that finding a drug to stabilize one isoform should be more effective than targeting both isoforms for treating colitis and colon cancer,” said Karthikeyani Chellappa, Ph.D., the first author of the research paper and a former postdoctoral researcher in Sladek’s lab.

Dr. Sladek explained that the colonic epithelial surface has finger-like invaginations (into the colonic wall) called colonic crypts that house stem cells at their base. These stem cells help regenerate new epithelial cells that continuously migrate up toward the surface, thus ensuring complete renewal of the intestinal lining every 3–5 days.

The researchers observed that the P1-positive cells were found in the surface lining and the top portion of the crypt (green in the accompanying image) whereas P2-positive cells were mostly in the proliferative compartment in the lower half of the crypt (the proliferation marker is red in the image.) Furthermore, when transgenic mice genetically engineered to have only either P1 or P2 were subjected to a carcinogen and, subsequently, to an irritant to stress the epithelial lining of the colon, the researchers found that the P1 mice showed fewer tumors than wild-type control mice. When treated with irritant alone, these mice were resistant to colitis. In sharp contrast, mice with only P2 showed more tumors and were much more susceptible to colitis.

The researchers explain these findings by invoking the “barrier function,”  a mucosal barrier generated by the colon’s epithelial cells that prevents bacteria in the gut from entering the body. In the case of P1 mice, this barrier function was enhanced. The P2 mice, on the other hand, showed a compromised barrier function, presumably allowing bacteria to pass through.

Next, the researchers examined genes expressed in the P1 and P2 mice. They found that resistin-like molecule (RELM)-beta, a cytokine (a signaling molecule of the immune system) expressed in the gastrointestinal tract and implicated in colitis, was expressed far more in the P2 mice than the P1 mice.

“This makes sense since a reduced barrier function means bacteria can go across the barrier, which activates RELM-beta,” Dr. Sladek said. “We also found that the P2 protein transcribes RELM-beta more effectively than the P1 protein.”

Next, Poonamjot Deol, Ph.D.,  an assistant project scientist in Dr. Slaked’s lab and the second author of the eLife study, will lead a project aimed at understanding how diet affects the distribution of P1 and P2 in the gut. She and others in the lab also plan to investigate how obesity and colitis may be linked. (Diet studies performed in Dr. Sladek’s lab in the past illustrated soybean oil’s adverse effect on obesity.)

“In the case of colitis, could soybean oil be playing a part in allowing bacteria to get across the barrier function?” Dr. Deol said. “We do not know. We know its detrimental effect on obesity. But more research needs to be done where colitis is concerned.”

Opposing roles of nuclear receptor HNF4α isoforms in colitis and colitis-associated colon cancer

 Karthikeyani Chellappa, 

HNF4α has been implicated in colitis and colon cancer in humans but the role of the different HNF4α isoforms expressed from the two different promoters (P1 and P2) active in the colon is not clear. Here, we show that P1-HNF4α is expressed primarily in the differentiated compartment of the mouse colonic crypt and P2-HNF4α in the proliferative compartment. Exon swap mice that express only P1- or only P2-HNF4α have different colonic gene expression profiles, interacting proteins, cellular migration, ion transport and epithelial barrier function. The mice also exhibit altered susceptibilities to experimental colitis (DSS) and colitis-associated colon cancer (AOM+DSS). When P2-HNF4α-only mice (which have elevated levels of the cytokine resistin-like β, RELMβ, and are extremely sensitive to DSS) are crossed with Retnlb-/- mice, they are rescued from mortality. Furthermore, P2-HNF4α binds and preferentially activates the RELMβ promoter. In summary, HNF4α isoforms perform non-redundant functions in the colon under conditions of stress, underscoring the importance of tracking them both in colitis and colon cancer.

 

Read Full Post »


Cholesterol metabolism in pancreatic cancer

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

 

New Pancreatic Treatment Shows Promise

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/new-pancreatic-treatment-shows-promise/81252686/

Study demonstrates how controlling cholesterol metabolism in pancreatic cancer cells reduces metastasis. [NIH].   http://www.genengnews.com/Media/images/GENHighlight/thumb_May4_2016_NIH_PancreaticCancerCells8616346835.jpg

Scientists say they have shown how controlling cholesterol metabolism in pancreatic cancer cells reduces metastasis, pointing to a potential new treatment using drugs previously developed for atherosclerosis.

“We show for the first time that if you control the cholesterol metabolism you could reduce pancreatic cancer spread to other organs,” said Ji-Xin Cheng, Ph.D., a professor in Purdue University’s Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Chemistry. “We chose pancreatic cancer to test this approach because it is the most aggressive disease of all the cancers.”

Dr. Cheng had previously led a team of researchers discovering a link between prostate cancer’s aggressiveness and the accumulation of a compound produced when cholesterol is metabolized in cells, findings that could bring new diagnostic and treatment methods. The new study involved researchers at the Purdue Center for Cancer Research and School of Biomedical Engineering, the Indiana University Simon Cancer Center and School of Medicine, and Purdue’s Department of Biological Sciences, Department of Comparative Pathobiology, and Department of Biochemistry.

The findings, detailed in a paper (“Abrogating Cholesterol Esterification Suppresses Growth and Metastasis of Pancreatic Cancer”) just published in Oncogene, suggest that a class of drugs previously developed to treat atherosclerosis could be repurposed for treatment of pancreatic cancer and other forms of cancer. Atherosclerosis is the buildup of fats, cholesterol, and other substances in arteries, restricting blood flow.

The researchers found accumulations of the compound cholesteryl ester in human pancreatic cancer specimens and cell lines, demonstrating a link between cholesterol esterification and metastasis. Excess quantities of cholesterol result in cholesteryl ester being stored in lipid droplets within cancer cells.

“The results of this study demonstrate a new strategy for treating metastatic pancreatic cancer by inhibiting cholesterol esterification,” said Jingwu Xie, Ph.D., the Jonathan and Jennifer Simmons Professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine and a researcher at the Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center.

The paper’s lead author is Purdue postdoctoral fellow Junjie Li, Ph.D. Purdue researchers have developed an analytical tool, Raman spectromicroscopy, that allows compositional analysis of single lipid droplets in living cells.

“We identified an aberrant accumulation of cholesteryl ester in human pancreatic cancer specimens and cell lines,” Dr. Li said. “Depletion of cholesterol esterification significantly reduced pancreatic tumor growth and metastasis in mice.”

Findings show that drugs like avasimibe, previously developed for treatment of atherosclerosis, reduced the accumulation of cholesteryl ester. Pancreatic cancer usually kills within a few months of diagnosis. It is hoped the potential new treatment might extend life of these patients for a year, Cheng said.

The accumulation of cholesteryl ester is controlled by an enzyme called acyl-coenzyme A acyltransferase-1 (ACAT-1), and findings have correlated a higher expression of the enzyme with a poor survival rate for patients. The researchers analyzed tissue samples from pancreatic cancer patients and then tested the drug treatment in a type of laboratory mice referred to as an orthotopic mouse model, developed at the IU School of Medicine. Specimens of human pancreatic tissues were obtained from the Simon Cancer Center Solid Tissue Bank.

Imaging showed a decrease of the number of lipid droplets, and Raman spectral analysis verified a significant reduction of cholesteryl ester in the lipid droplets, suggesting that avasimibe acted by blocking cholesterol esterification. The drug did not induce weight loss, and there was no apparent organ toxicity in the liver, kidney, lung and spleen, Dr. Cheng said.

Findings also showed that blocking storage of cholesteryl ester causes cancer cells to die, specifically due to damage to the endoplasmic reticulum, a workhorse of protein and lipid synthesis.

“By using avasimibe, a potent inhibitor of ACAT-1, we found that pancreatic cancer cells were much more sensitive to ACAT-1 inhibition than normal cells,” added Dr. Cheng.

Additional research confirmed that the anticancer effect of avasimibe is specific to ACAT-1 inhibition. The researchers performed various biochemical assays and “genetic ablation” to confirm the drug’s anticancer effect.

“The results showed that avasimibe treatment for four weeks remarkably suppressed tumor size and largely reduced tumor growth rate,” said paper co-author Timothy Ratliff, the Robert Wallace Miller Director of Purdue’s Center for Cancer Research. “Metastatic lesions in lymph nodes and distant organs also were assessed at the end of the study. A much higher number of metastatic lesions in lymph nodes were detected in the control group than the avasimibe-treated group.”

Each mouse in the control group showed at least one metastatic lesion in the liver. In contrast, only three mice in the avasimibe-treated group showed single lesion in liver.

 

Abrogating cholesterol esterification suppresses growth and metastasis of pancreatic cancer

J Li1, D Gu2, S S-Y Lee1, B Song1, S Bandyopadhyay3, S Chen4, S F Konieczny3,5, T L Ratliff5,6, X Liu5,7, J Xie2 and J-X Cheng1,5
O
ncogene 2 May 2016;                                         http://dx.doi.org:/10.1038/onc.2016.168

Cancer cells are known to execute reprogramed metabolism of glucose, amino acids and lipids. Here, we report a significant role of cholesterol metabolism in cancer metastasis. By using label-free Raman spectromicroscopy, we found an aberrant accumulation of cholesteryl ester in human pancreatic cancer specimens and cell lines, mediated by acyl-CoA cholesterol acyltransferase-1 (ACAT-1) enzyme. Expression of ACAT-1 showed a correlation with poor patient survival. Abrogation of cholesterol esterification, either by an ACAT-1 inhibitor or by shRNA knockdown, significantly suppressed tumor growth and metastasis in an orthotopic mouse model of pancreatic cancer. Mechanically, ACAT-1 inhibition increased intracellular free cholesterol level, which was associated with elevated endoplasmic reticulum stress and caused apoptosis. Collectively, our results demonstrate a new strategy for treating metastatic pancreatic cancer by inhibiting cholesterol esterification.

Metastasis is the major cause of cancer-related mortality. Though localized tumors can often be treated by surgery or other therapies, treatment options for metastatic diseases are limited. Cancer metastasis has been revealed to be a multiple step process, including cancer cell migration, local invasion, intravasation, circulation through blood and lymph vessels, extravasation, survival and colonization in distant organs.1, 2, 3Mediators identified in these processes have provided the basis for the development of therapies to target metastasis. Current therapeutic strategies for treating metastatic tumors mainly focus on targeting the adhesive molecules and extracellular proteases.4However, these therapeutics have not been proven to be effective in clinical trials, partially owing to the various escape mechanisms used by the metastatic cancer cells.2, 5, 6 Thus, an unmet need exists to develop new therapeutic strategies for treating metastatic cancers.

Recent advances in cancer metabolism have unveiled many potential therapeutic targets for cancer treatment. Metabolic reprogramming, a strategy used by cancer cells to adapt to the rapid proliferation, is being recognized as a new hallmark of cancer.7 Substantial studies have found increased glycolysis, glutaminolysis, nucleotide and lipid synthesis in cancer cells.7, 8, 9,10 Considering that altered metabolic pathways only happen in cancer cells but not in normal cells, targeting these pathways may provide cancer-specific treatments. A number of inhibitors of metabolic enzymes, such as glycolysis inhibitors, are under clinical trials as targeted cancer therapeutics.11

Of various metabolic pathways, lipid metabolism has been suggested to have an important role in cancer cell migration, invasion and metastasis.12 A recent study reported that surrounding adipocytes provide energy source for ovarian cancer cells to promote its rapid growth and metastasis.13 Blocking lipidde novo synthesis pathway has been shown to suppress tumor regrowth and metastasis after anti-angiogenesis treatment withdrawal.14 In parallel, lipolysis by the enzyme monoacylglycerol lipase was shown to regulate the fatty acid network, which promotes cancer cell migration, invasion and growth.15

Cholesterol, a critical component of the plasma membrane, is also implied to be correlated to cancer metastasis.16 It has been shown that prostate cancer bone metastases contain a high level of cholesterol.17 Modulation of cholesterol level in plasma membrane was shown to regulate the capability of cell migration.18, 19Moreover, cholesterol-enriched lipid rafts were shown to have an essential role in cancer cell adhesion and migration.20 Mammalian cells obtain cholesterol either from de novo synthesis or from the uptake of low-density lipoprotein (LDL).21 Inside cells, excess free cholesterol is esterified and stored as cholesteryl ester (CE) in lipid droplets (LDs), which is mediated by acyl-CoA cholesterol acyltransferase (ACAT).22 Increased CE level has been reported in breast cancer,23 leukemia,24 glioma25 and prostate cancer.26Despite these advances, the role of cholesterol esterification in cancer progression, especially in cancer metastasis, is not well understood.

In this article, we report a link between cholesterol esterification and metastasis in pancreatic cancer. Using stimulated Raman scattering (SRS) microscopy and Raman spectroscopy to map LDs stored inside single cells and analyze the composition of individual LDs, we identified an aberrant accumulation of CE in human pancreatic cancer specimens and cell lines. Abrogation of cholesterol esterification, either by inhibiting ACAT-1 enzyme activity or by shRNA knockdown of ACAT-1 expression, significantly reduced pancreatic tumor growth and metastasis in an orthotopic mouse model. Mechanistically, inhibition of cholesterol esterification disturbed cholesterol homeostasis by increasing intracellular free cholesterol level, which was associated with elevated endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress and eventually led to apoptosis.

In this study, we revealed a link between CE accumulation and pancreatic cancer metastasis. Accumulation of CE via ACAT-1 provides a mechanism to keep high metabolic activity and avoid toxicity from excess free cholesterol. Previously, CE has been reported in breast cancer,23 leukemia,24 glioma25 and prostate cancer.26 Inhibition of cholesterol esterification was shown to suppress tumor growth or cancer cell proliferation.24, 25, 26 Here, we demonstrate that inhibition of cholesterol esterification can be used to treat metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Cholesterol is an essential lipid having important roles in membrane construction, hormone production and signaling.21Aberrant cholesterol metabolism is known to be associated with cardiovascular diseases and cancers.35, 36 Statins, inhibitors of HMG-CoA reductase, have been explored as potential therapies for pancreatic cancer.37 However, statins were not associated with a reduced risk of pancreatic cancer in clinical trials.38 One possible reason is that HMG-CoA reductase is also required for downstream protein prenylation, a critical process for protein activation.39Thus, the effect of statin is not just inhibiting cholesterol synthesis, but also other pathways which may render toxicity to normal cells. This non-specific toxicity is a possible reason for the limited anti-cancer outcome of statin in clinical trials.

Our study identified cholesterol esterification as a novel target for suppression of pancreatic cancer proliferation and metastasis. Inhibitors of ACAT-1 are expected to have great value as cancer-targeting therapeutics, as CE accumulation only occurs in cancer tissues or cell lines. Our animal studies with avasimibe treatment showed no adverse effect to the animals at a dosage of 15mg/kg. More importantly, modulation of cholesterol esterification suppressed not only tumor growth but also tumor metastasis. These results are expected to stimulate further biological studies to fully appreciate the role of cholesterol metabolism in cancer initiation and progression. As CE accumulation happens in several types of aggressive cancer, blocking cholesterol esterification could be pursued as a therapeutic strategy for other types of cancers. By combining with existing chemotherapies, such as gemcitabine, we believe this metabolic treatment possesses high possibilities to extend patients’ survival time by retarding cancer progression and metastasis.

The molecular mechanism that links CE accumulation to cancer aggressiveness needs further studies. One possible mechanism is that cholesterol esterification keeps signaling pathways active by maintaining a low free cholesterol environment. One of the possible targets is the caveolin-1 signaling pathway. Caveolin-1, a regulator of cellular cholesterol homeostasis, is considered as a marker for pancreatic cancer progression.11 Particularly, a promoting role of caveolin-1 in pancreatic cancer metastasis has been reported.40 Our preliminary studies showed ACAT-1 inhibition reduced the expression level of SREBP1, caveolin-1 and phosphorylated ERK1/2 (unpublished data). The effect on caveolin-1 is probably mediated by SREBP1, which senses the intracellular cholesterol homeostasis.41 Meanwhile, caveolin-1 may have an important role in mediating the action of SREBP1 on MAPK pathways,42, 43 which are known to have essential roles in cancer cell metastasis.44 Therefore, it is possible that increased free cholesterol level induced by ACAT-1 inhibition inactivates SREBP1, leading to downregulation of caveolin-1/MAPK pathway, which contributes to the reduced cancer aggressiveness.

Besides the caveolin-1/MAPK signaling, other possibilities include the potential alteration of the membrane composition, such as lipid rafts, by ACAT-1 inhibition. Lipid rafts are known to provide platforms for multiple cellular signaling pathways.20 Thus, modulation of cholesterol metabolism is likely to have more profound effects via other signaling pathways. Future studies are needed to fully elucidate the molecular mechanism.

 

Read Full Post »


Microbe meets cancer

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

Microbes Meet Cancer

Understanding cancer’s relationship with the human microbiome could transform immune-modulating therapies.

By Kate Yandell | April 1, 2016  http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/45616/title/Microbes-Meet-Cancer

 © ISTOCK.COM/KATEJA_FN; © ISTOCK.COM/FRANK RAMSPOTT  http://www.the-scientist.com/images/April2016/feature1.jpg

In 2013, two independent teams of scientists, one in Maryland and one in France, made a surprising observation: both germ-free mice and mice treated with a heavy dose of antibiotics responded poorly to a variety of cancer therapies typically effective in rodents. The Maryland team, led by Romina Goldszmidand Giorgio Trinchieri of the National Cancer Institute, showed that both an investigational immunotherapy and an approved platinum chemotherapy shrank a variety of implanted tumor types and improved survival to a far greater extent in mice with intact microbiomes.1 The French group, led by INSERM’s Laurence Zitvogel, got similar results when testing the long-standing chemotherapeutic agent cyclophosphamide in cancer-implanted mice, as well as in mice genetically engineered to develop tumors of the lung.2

The findings incited a flurry of research and speculation about how gut microbes contribute to cancer cell death, even in tumors far from the gastrointestinal tract. The most logical link between the microbiome and cancer is the immune system. Resident microbes can either dial up inflammation or tamp it down, and can modulate immune cells’ vigilance for invaders. Not only does the immune system appear to be at the root of how the microbiome interacts with cancer therapies, it also appears to mediate how our bacteria, fungi, and viruses influence cancer development in the first place.

“We clearly see shifts in the [microbial] community that precede development of tumors,” says microbiologist and immunologist Patrick Schloss, who studies the influence of the microbiome on colon cancer at the University of Michigan.

But the relationship between the microbiome and cancer is complex: while some microbes promote cell proliferation, others appear to protect us against cancerous growth. And in some cases, the conditions that spur one cancer may have the opposite effect in another. “It’s become pretty obvious that the commensal microbiota affect inflammation and, through that or through other mechanisms, affect carcinogenesis,” says Trinchieri. “What we really need is to have a much better understanding of which species, which type of bug, is doing what and try to change the balance.”

Gut feeling

In the late 1970s, pathologist J. Robin Warren of Royal Perth Hospital in Western Australia began to notice that curved bacteria often appeared in stomach tissue biopsies taken from patients with chronic gastritis, an inflammation of the stomach lining that often precedes the development of stomach cancer. He and Barry J. Marshall, a trainee in internal medicine at the hospital, speculated that the bacterium, now called Helicobacter pylori, was somehow causing the gastritis.3 So committed was Marshall to demonstrating the microbe’s causal relationship to the inflammatory condition that he had his own stomach biopsied to show that it contained no H. pylori, then infected himself with the bacterium and documented his subsequent experience of gastritis.4 Scientists now accept that H. pylori, a common gut microbe that is present in about 50 percent of the world’s population, is responsible for many cases of gastritis and most stomach ulcers, and is a strong risk factor for stomach cancer.5 Marshall and Warren earned the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work.

H. pylori may be the most clear-cut example of a gut bacterium that influences cancer development, but it is likely not the only one. Researchers who study cancer in mice have long had anecdotal evidence that shifts in the microbiome influence the development of diverse tumor types. “You have a mouse model of carcinogenesis. It works beautifully,” says Trinchieri. “You move to another institution. It works completely differently,” likely because the animals’ microbiomes vary with environment.

IMMUNE INFLUENCE: In recent years, research has demonstrated that microbes living in and on the mammalian body can affect cancer risk, as well as responses to cancer treatment. Although the details of this microbe-cancer link remain unclear, investigators suspect that the microbiome’s ability to modulate inflammation and train immune cells to react to tumors is to blame.
See full infographic: WEB | PDF
© AL GRANBERG

Around the turn of the 21st century, cancer researchers began to systematically experiment with the rodent microbiome, and soon had several lines of evidence linking certain gut microbes with a mouse’s risk of colon cancer. In 2001, for example, Shoichi Kado of the Yakult Central Institute for Microbiological Research in Japan and colleagues found that a strain of immunocompromised mice rapidly developed colon tumors, but that germ-free versions of these mice did not.6 That same year, an MIT-based group led by the late David Schauer demonstrated that infecting mice with the bacterium Citrobacter rodentium spurred colon tumor development.7 And in 2003, MIT’s Susan Erdman and her colleagues found that they could induce colon cancer in immunocompromised mice by infecting them with Helicobacter hepaticus, a relative of? H. pylori that commonly exists within the murine gut microbiome.8

More recent work has documented a similar link between colon cancer and the gut microbiome in humans. In 2014, a team led by Schloss sequenced 16S rRNA genes isolated from the stool of 90 people, some with colon cancer, some with precancerous adenomas, and still others with no disease.9 The researchers found that the feces of people with cancer tended to have an altered composition of bacteria, with an excess of the common mouth microbes Fusobacterium or Porphyromonas. A few months later, Peer Bork of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples from 156 people with or without colorectal cancer. Bork and his colleagues found they could predict the presence or absence of cancer using the relative abundance of 22 bacterial species, including Porphyromonas andFusobacterium.10 They could also use the method to predict colorectal cancer with about the same accuracy as a blood test, correctly identifying about 50 percent of cancers while yielding false positives less than 10 percent of the time. When the two tests were combined, they caught more than 70 percent of cancers.

Whether changes in the microbiota in colon cancer patients are harbingers of the disease or a consequence of tumor development remained unclear. “What comes first, the change in the microbiome or tumor development?” asks Schloss. To investigate this question, he and his colleagues treated mice with microbiome-altering antibiotics before administering a carcinogen and an inflammatory agent, then compared the outcomes in those animals and in mice that had received only the carcinogenic and inflammatory treatments, no antibiotics. The antibiotic-treated animals had significantly fewer and smaller colon tumors than the animals with an undisturbed microbiome, suggesting that resident bacteria were in some way promoting cancer development. And when the researchers transferred microbiota from healthy mice to antibiotic-treated or germ-free mice, the animals developed more tumors following carcinogen exposure. Sterile mice that received microbiota from mice already bearing malignancies developed the most tumors of all.11

Most recently, Schloss and his colleagues showed that treating mice with seven unique combinations of antibiotics prior to exposing them to carcinogens yielded variable but predictable levels of tumor formation. The researchers determined that the number of tumors corresponded to the unique ways that each antibiotic cocktail modulated the microbiome.12

“We’ve kind of proven to ourselves, at least, that the microbiome is involved in colon cancer,” says Schloss, who hypothesizes that gut bacteria–driven inflammation is to blame for creating an environment that is hospitable to tumor development and growth. Gain or loss of certain components of the resident bacterial community could lead to the release of reactive oxygen species, damaging cells and their genetic material. Inflammation also involves increased release of growth factors and blood vessel proliferation, potentially supporting the growth of tumors. (See illustration above.)

Recent research has also yielded evidence that the gut microbiota impact the development of cancer in sites far removed from the intestinal tract, likely through similar immune-modulating mechanisms.

Systemic effects

In the mid-2000s, MIT’s Erdman began infecting a strain of mice predisposed to intestinal tumors withH. hepaticus and observing the subsequent development of colon cancer in some of the animals. To her surprise, one of the mice developed a mammary tumor. Then, more of the mice went on to develop mammary tumors. “This told us that something really interesting was going on,” Erdman recalls. Sure enough, she and her colleagues found that mice infected with H. hepaticus were more likely to develop mammary tumors than mice not exposed to the bacterium.13The researchers showed that systemic immune activation and inflammation could contribute to mammary tumors in other, less cancer-prone mouse models, as well as to the development of prostate cancer.

MICROBIAL STOWAWAYS: Bacteria of the human gut microbiome are intimately involved in cancer development and progression, thanks to their interactions with the immune system. Some microbes, such as Helicobacter pylori, increase the risk of cancer in their immediate vicinity (stomach), while others, such as some Bacteroides species, help protect against tumors by boosting T-cell infiltration.© EYE OF SCIENCE/SCIENCE SOURCE
http://www.the-scientist.com/images/April2016/immune_2.jpg

 

 

© DR. GARY GAUGLER/SCIENCE SOURCE  http://www.the-scientist.com/images/April2016/immune3.jpg

At the University of Chicago, Thomas Gajewski and his colleagues have taken a slightly different approach to studying the role of the microbiome in cancer development. By comparing Black 6 mice coming from different vendors—Taconic Biosciences (formerly Taconic Farms) and the Jackson Laboratory—Gajewski takes advantage of the fact that the animals’ different origins result in different gut microbiomes. “We deliberately stayed away from antibiotics, because we had a desire to model how intersubject heterogeneity [in cancer development] might be impacted by the commensals they happen to be colonized with,” says Gajewski in an email to The Scientist.

Last year, the researchers published the results of a study comparing the progression of melanoma tumors implanted under the mice’s skin, finding that tumors in the Taconic mice grew more aggressively than those in the Jackson mice. When the researchers housed the different types of mice together before their tumors were implanted, however, these differences disappeared. And transferring fecal material from the Jackson mice into the Taconic mice altered the latter’s tumor progression.14

Instead of promoting cancer, in these experiments the gut microbiome appeared to slow tumor growth. Specifically, the reduced tumor growth in the Jackson mice correlated with the presence of Bifidobacterium, which led to the greater buildup of T?cells in the Jackson mice’s tumors. Bifidobacteriaactivate dendritic cells, which present antigens from bacteria or cancer cells to T?cells, training them to hunt down and kill these invaders. Feeding Taconic mice bifidobacteria improved their response to the implanted melanoma cells.

“One hypothesis going into the experiments was that we might identify immune-suppressive bacteria, or commensals that shift the immune response towards a character that was unfavorable for tumor control,” says Gajewski.  “But in fact, we found that even a single type of bacteria could boost the antitumor immune response.”

http://www.the-scientist.com/images/April2016/immune4.jpg

 

Drug interactions

Ideally, the immune system should recognize cancer as invasive and nip tumor growth in the bud. But cancer cells display “self” molecules that can inhibit immune attack. A new type of immunotherapy, dubbed checkpoint inhibition or blockade, spurs the immune system to attack cancer by blocking either the tumor cells’ surface molecules or the receptors on T?cells that bind to them.

CANCER THERAPY AND THE MICROBIOME

In addition to influencing the development and progression of cancer by regulating inflammation and other immune pathways, resident gut bacteria appear to influence the effectiveness of many cancer therapies that are intended to work in concert with host immunity to eliminate tumors.

  • Some cancer drugs, such as oxaliplatin chemotherapy and CpG-oligonucleotide immunotherapy, work by boosting inflammation. If the microbiome is altered in such a way that inflammation is reduced, these therapeutic agents are less effective.
  • Cancer-cell surface proteins bind to receptors on T cells to prevent them from killing cancer cells. Checkpoint inhibitors that block this binding of activated T cells to cancer cells are influenced by members of the microbiota that mediate these same cell interactions.
  • Cyclophosphamide chemotherapy disrupts the gut epithelial barrier, causing the gut to leak certain bacteria. Bacteria gather in lymphoid tissue just outside the gut and spur generation of T helper 1 and T helper 17 cells that migrate to the tumor and kill it.

As part of their comparison of Jackson and Taconic mice, Gajewski and his colleagues decided to test a type of investigational checkpoint inhibitor that targets PD-L1, a ligand found in high quantities on the surface of multiple types of cancer cells. Monoclonal antibodies that bind to PD-L1 block the PD-1 receptors on T?cells from doing so, allowing an immune response to proceed against the tumor cells. While treating Taconic mice with PD-L1–targeting antibodies did improve their tumor responses, they did even better when that treatment was combined with fecal transfers from Jackson mice, indicating that the microbiome and the immunotherapy can work together to take down cancer. And when the researchers combined the anti-PD-L1 therapy with a bifidobacteria-enriched diet, the mice’s tumors virtually disappeared.14

Gajewski’s group is now surveying the gut microbiota in humans undergoing therapy with checkpoint inhibitors to better understand which bacterial species are linked to positive outcomes. The researchers are also devising a clinical trial in which they will give Bifidobacterium supplements to cancer patients being treated with the approved anti-PD-1 therapy pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which targets the immune receptor PD-1 on T?cells, instead of the cancer-cell ligand PD-L1.

Meanwhile, Zitvogel’s group at INSERM is investigating interactions between the microbiome and another class of checkpoint inhibitors called CTLA-4 inhibitors, which includes the breakthrough melanoma treatment ipilimumab (Yervoy). The researchers found that tumors in antibiotic-treated and germ-free mice had poorer responses to a CTLA-4–targeting antibody compared with mice harboring unaltered microbiomes.15 Particular Bacteroides species were associated with T-cell infiltration of tumors, and feedingBacteroides fragilis to antibiotic-treated or germ-free mice improved the animals’ responses to the immunotherapy. As an added bonus, treatment with these “immunogenic” Bacteroides species decreased signs of colitis, an intestinal inflammatory condition that is a dangerous side effect in patients using checkpoint inhibitors. Moreover, Zitvogel and her colleagues showed that human metastatic melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab tended to have elevated levels of B. fragilis in their microbiomes. Mice transplanted with feces from patients who showed particularly strong B. fragilis gains did better on anti-CTLA-4 treatment than did mice transplanted with feces from patients with normal levels of B. fragilis.

“There are bugs that allow the therapy to work, and at the same time, they protect against colitis,” says Trinchieri. “That is very exciting, because not only [can] we do something to improve the therapy, but we can also, at the same time, try to reduce the side effect.”

And these checkpoint inhibitors aren’t the only cancer therapies whose effects are modulated by the microbiome. Trinchieri has also found that an immunotherapy that combines antibodies against interleukin-10 receptors with CpG oligonucleotides is more effective in mice with unaltered microbiomes.1He and his NCI colleague Goldszmid further found that the platinum chemotherapy oxaliplatin (Eloxatin) was more effective in mice with intact microbiomes, and Zitvogel’s group has shown that the chemotherapeutic agent cyclophosphamide is dependent on the microbiota for its proper function.

Although the mechanisms by which the microbiome influences the effectiveness of such therapies remains incompletely understood, researchers once again speculate that the immune system is the key link. Cyclophosphamide, for example, spurs the body to generate two types of T?helper cells, T?helper 1 cells and a subtype of T?helper 17 cells referred to as “pathogenic,” both of which destroy tumor cells. Zitvogel and her colleagues found that, in mice with unaltered microbiomes, treatment with cyclophosphamide works by disrupting the intestinal mucosa, allowing bacteria to escape into the lymphoid tissues just outside the gut. There, the bacteria spur the body to generate T?helper 1 and T?helper 17 cells, which translocate to the tumor. When the researchers transferred the “pathogenic” T?helper 17 cells into antibiotic-treated mice, the mice’s response to chemotherapy was partly restored.

Microbiome modification

As the link between the microbiome and cancer becomes clearer, researchers are thinking about how they can manipulate a patient’s resident microbial communities to improve their prognosis and treatment outcomes. “Once you figure out exactly what is happening at the molecular level, if there is something promising there, I would be shocked if people don’t then go in and try to modulate the microbiome, either by using pharmaceuticals or using probiotics,” says Michael Burns, a postdoc in the lab of University of Minnesota genomicist Ran Blekhman.

Even if researchers succeed in identifying specific, beneficial alterations to the microbiome, however, molding the microbiome is not simple. “It’s a messy, complicated system that we don’t understand,” says Schloss.

So far, studies of the gut microbiome and colon cancer have turned up few consistent differences between cancer patients and healthy controls. And the few bacterial groups that have repeatedly shown up are not present in every cancer patient. “We should move away from saying, ‘This is a causal species of bacteria,’” says Blekhman. “It’s more the function of a community instead of just a single bacterium.”

But the study of the microbiome in cancer is young. If simply adding one type of microbe into a person’s gut is not enough, researchers may learn how to dose people with patient-specific combinations of microbes or antibiotics. In February 2016, a team based in Finland and China showed that a probiotic mixture dubbed Prohep could reduce liver tumor size by 40 percent in mice, likely by promoting an anti-inflammatory environment in the gut.16

“If it is true that, in humans, we can alter the course of the disease by modulating the composition of the microbiota,” says José Conejo-Garcia of the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, “that’s going to be very impactful.”

Kate Yandell has been a freelance writer living Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In February she became an associate editor at Cancer Today.

GENETIC CONNECTION

The microbiome doesn’t act in isolation; a patient’s genetic background can also greatly influence response to therapy. Last year, for example, the Wistar Institute’s José Garcia-Conejo and Melanie Rutkowski, now an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, showed that a dominant polymorphism of the gene for the innate immune protein toll-like receptor 5 (TLR5) influences clinical outcomes in cancer patients by changing how the patients’ immune cells interact with their gut microbes (Cancer Cell, 27:27-40, 2015).

More than 7 percent of people carry a specific mutation in TLR5 that prevents them from mounting a full immune response when exposed to bacterial flagellin. Analyzing both genetic and survival data from the Cancer Genome Atlas, Conejo-Garcia, Rutkowski, and their colleagues found that estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer patients who carry the TLR5 mutation, called the R392X polymorphism, have worse outcomes than patients without the mutation. Among patients with ovarian cancer, on the other hand, those with the TLR5 mutation were more likely to live at least six years after diagnosis than patients who don’t carry the mutation.

Investigating the mutation’s contradictory effects, the researchers found that mice with normal TLR5produce higher levels of the cytokine interleukin 6 (IL-6) than those carrying the mutant version, which have higher levels of a different cytokine called interleukin 17 (IL-17). But when the researchers knocked out the animals’ microbiomes, these differences in cytokine production disappeared, as did the differences in cancer progression between mutant and wild-type animals.

“The effectiveness of depleting specific populations or modulating the composition of the microbiome is going to affect very differently people who are TLR5-positive or TLR5-negative,” says Conejo-Garcia. And Rutkowski speculates that many more polymorphisms linked to cancer prognosis may act via microbiome–immune system interactions. “I think that our paper is just the tip of the iceberg.”

References

  1. N. Iida et al., “Commensal bacteria control cancer response to therapy by modulating the tumor microenvironment,” Science, 342:967-70, 2013.
  2. S. Viaud et al., “The intestinal microbiota modulates the anticancer immune effects of cyclophosphamide,” Science, 342:971-76, 2013.
  3. J.R. Warren, B. Marshall, “Unidentified curved bacilli on gastric epithelium in active chronic gastritis,”Lancet, 321:1273-75, 1983.
  4. B.J. Marshall et al., “Attempt to fulfil Koch’s postulates for pyloric Campylobacter,” Med J Aust, 142:436-39, 1985.
  5. J. Parsonnet et al., “Helicobacter pylori infection and the risk of gastric carcinoma,” N Engl J Med, 325:1127-31, 1991.
  6. S. Kado et al., “Intestinal microflora are necessary for development of spontaneous adenocarcinoma of the large intestine in T-cell receptor β chain and p53 double-knockout mice,” Cancer Res, 61:2395-98, 2001.
  7. J.V. Newman et al., “Bacterial infection promotes colon tumorigenesis in ApcMin/+ mice,” J Infect Dis, 184:227-30, 2001.
  8. S.E. Erdman et al., “CD4+ CD25+ regulatory T lymphocytes inhibit microbially induced colon cancer in Rag2-deficient mice,” Am J Pathol, 162:691-702, 2003.
  9. J.P. Zackular et al., “The human gut microbiome as a screening tool for colorectal cancer,” Cancer Prev Res, 7:1112-21, 2014.
  10. G. Zeller et al., “Potential of fecal microbiota for early-stage detection of colorectal cancer,” Mol Syst Biol, 10:766, 2014.
  11. J.P. Zackular et al., “The gut microbiome modulates colon tumorigenesis,” mBio, 4:e00692-13, 2013.
  12. J.P. Zackular et al., “Manipulation of the gut microbiota reveals role in colon tumorigenesis,”mSphere, doi:10.1128/mSphere.00001-15, 2015.
  13. V.P. Rao et al., “Innate immune inflammatory response against enteric bacteria Helicobacter hepaticus induces mammary adenocarcinoma in mice,” Cancer Res, 66:7395, 2006.
  14. A. Sivan et al., “Commensal Bifidobacterium promotes antitumor immunity and facilitates anti-PD-L1 efficacy,” Science, 350:1084-89, 2015.
  15. M. Vétizou et al., “Anticancer immunotherapy by CTLA-4 blockade relies on the gut microbiota,”Science, 350:1079-84, 2015.

……..

 

Microbially Driven TLR5-Dependent Signaling Governs Distal Malignant Progression through Tumor-Promoting Inflammation

Melanie R. Rutkowski, Tom L. Stephen, Nikolaos Svoronos, …., Julia Tchou,  Gabriel A. Rabinovich, Jose R. Conejo-Garcia
Cancer cell    12 Jan 2015; Volume 27, Issue 1, p27–40  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2014.11.009
Figure thumbnail fx1
  • TLR5-dependent IL-6 mobilizes MDSCs that drive galectin-1 production by γδ T cells
  • IL-17 drives malignant progression in IL-6-unresponsive tumors
  • TLR5-dependent differences in tumor growth are abrogated upon microbiota depletion
  • A common dominant TLR5 polymorphism influences the outcome of human cancers

The dominant TLR5R392X polymorphism abrogates flagellin responses in >7% of humans. We report that TLR5-dependent commensal bacteria drive malignant progression at extramucosal locations by increasing systemic IL-6, which drives mobilization of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs). Mechanistically, expanded granulocytic MDSCs cause γδ lymphocytes in TLR5-responsive tumors to secrete galectin-1, dampening antitumor immunity and accelerating malignant progression. In contrast, IL-17 is consistently upregulated in TLR5-unresponsive tumor-bearing mice but only accelerates malignant progression in IL-6-unresponsive tumors. Importantly, depletion of commensal bacteria abrogates TLR5-dependent differences in tumor growth. Contrasting differences in inflammatory cytokines and malignant evolution are recapitulated in TLR5-responsive/unresponsive ovarian and breast cancer patients. Therefore, inflammation, antitumor immunity, and the clinical outcome of cancer patients are influenced by a common TLR5 polymorphism.

see also… Immune Influence

In recent years, research has demonstrated that microbes living in and on the mammalian body can affect cancer risk, as well as responses to cancer treatment.

By Kate Yandell | April 1, 2016

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/45644/title/Immune-Influence

Although the details of this microbe-cancer link remain unclear, investigators suspect that the microbiome’s ability to modulate inflammation and train immune cells to react to tumors is to blame. Here are some of the hypotheses that have come out of recent research in rodents for how gut bacteria shape immunity and influence cancer.

HOW THE MICROBIOME PROMOTES CANCER

Gut bacteria can dial up inflammation locally in the colon, as well as in other parts of the body, leading to the release of reactive oxygen species, which damage cells and DNA, and of growth factors that spur tumor growth and blood vessel formation.

http://www.the-scientist.com/images/April2016/ImmuneInfluence1_640px.jpg

http://www.the-scientist.com/images/April2016/ImmuneInfluence2_310px1.jpg

Helicobacter pylori can cause inflammation and high cell turnover in the stomach wall, which may lead to cancerous growth.

HOW THE MICROBIOME STEMS CANCER

Gut bacteria can also produce factors that lower inflammation and slow tumor growth. Some gut bacteria (e.g., Bifidobacterium)
appear to activate dendritic cells,
which present cancer-cell antigens to T cells that in turn kill the cancer cells.

http://www.the-scientist.com/images/April2016/ImmuneInfluence3_310px1.jpg

http://www.the-scientist.com/images/April2016/ImmuneInfluence4_310px1.jpg

Read the full story.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »