Rheumatoid arthritis update
Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator
LPBI
Innovation update: Advancing the standard of care in rheumatoid arthritis
By
Nicole Gray |
November 19, 2015
This year’s American College of Rheumatology (ACR) meeting, which took place in San Francisco from November 6 to 11, reflected an unprecedented level of innovation, including numerous advances in the area of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
BioPharma Dive spoke with executives from Pfizer and Eli Lilly to discuss the new treatment landscape and ongoing innovation in this therapeutic space.
Old innovation makes way for new innovation
Twenty years ago, the standard of care for RA was some combination of basic NSAIDS, along with methotrexate. Caregivers focused on symptom relief, and it was widely understood that many patients would fail to achieve remission. As the disease developed, patients would eventually develop severely life-limiting disabilities as their disease progressed.
During this period, researchers presenting at conferences grew excited about data on a new class of drugs known as anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antibodies. In an article published in Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica in 1995, two physician-researchers wrote the following:
“Primary results have recently been published on the use of anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies. In a controlled trial these antibodies were able to significantly influence a number of disease-activity variables in RA. An important observation was that the clinical effect lasted from weeks to, in some cases, months. Although the potential of these agents for clinical use is still uncertain, these observations suggest that interfering with certain targets of the immune-inflammatory process is possible, effective and so far without side effects.”
About four years after Drs. Van de Putte and Van Riel extolled the virtues of disease-modifying biologics in clinical trials, the first anti-TNF antibody, Remicade (infliximab) was approved in 1999. At that point, the standard of care for RA improved significantly, forever changing the treatment paradigm for patients with RA.
The expanding class of JAK inhibitors
At this year’s ACR meeting, researchers focused on anti-inflammatory antibodies and a relatively new class of oral drugs known as janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Interest in JAK inhibitors has spiked since the approval of Pfizer’s oral medication Xeljanz (tofacitinib) —the first, and currently the only, JAK inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe RA.JAK inhibitors have garnered interest because of the role they can play in expanding a treatment area dominated by synthetic and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Could JAK inhibitors provide the breakthrough in RA that the anti-TNF antibodies provided almost 20 years ago?
Currently, Eli Lilly and Incyte are in late-stage development of baricitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor for treatment of RA. Until last December, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Astellas were working jointly on another JAK inhibitor, known as ASPO15K, but J&J exercised its opt-out option and left the partnership. Astellas vowed to go it alone or look for a new partner, but there have not been many updates on ASPO15K within the last year.
Innovation means understanding and responding to unmet needs
Like many other therapeutic areas, RA treatments are often used in combination. For some patients, the combination of methotrexate and a powerful biologic, such as Remicade (infliximab), will help a patient achieve remission Yet others will either not respond to methotrexate and Remicade, or will have a negative reaction. Understanding how to help nonresponders achieve relief has become a key area of research in RA.
According to Terence Rooney, MD, Medical Director at Lilly Bio-Medicines, “A substantial proportion of patients treated with methotrexate – commonly used across the disease continuum for 25 years – do not achieve satisfactory disease control, signaling a need for more effective RA treatment options. In addition, studies have shown that some patients who initially respond to biologics lose response over time, and approximately 40 percent of patients with high disease activity never respond adequately to TNF antagonist biologics.”
Innovative clinical trial design
As Lilly and Incyte approach the end of the development process for baricitinib, they have been collecting results from clinical trials designed to both establish basic efficacy and safety in placebo-controlled and comparator trials, and to obtain data on targeted patient populations.
According to Rooney, “The baricitinib phase three program investigated the benefit of baricitinib across the spectrum of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, including newly diagnosed patients, patients who had failed to respond to conventional DMARDs, and patients who had failed multiple injectable biologic DMARD therapies.”
“In addition, the phase 3 program included two 52-week studies that incorporated either methotrexate or adalimumab as active comparators to provide useful information for therapeutic positioning of baricitinib. In these studies, baricitinib was statistically superior to methotrexate and to adalimumab in improving signs and symptoms, physical function, and important patient-reported outcomes including pain, fatigue and stiffness.”
Rooney also pointed out that there is additional data establishing baricitinib as a DMARD that significantly inhibits progressive radiographic joint damage.
Experience plus evidence equals more innovation
As has become the norm, companies at ACR often highlight new data confirming the efficacy and safety of already approved drugs in larger patient populations and in real-world settings..
Lilly currently has data on more than 40,000 patients worldwide, reflecting its global ambitions. Assuming that baricitinib is approved next year (the goal is to file at the end of the year), Lilly will continue to present data at ACR in the coming years highlighting the results of its long-term extension study, RA-BEYOND.
Pfizer’s up-to-date Xeljanz data presentation at ACR
Although Xeljanz has been on the market for three years in more than 40 countries, Pfizer continues to focus on collecting new data and using it to expand use of Xeljanz. In fact, Pfizer had 20 abstracts focused solely on Xeljanz at ACR 2015.
According to Rory O’Connor, MD, Senior Vice President and Head of Global Medical Affairs, Global Innovative Pharmaceuticals Business, Pfizer, “Ongoing clinical trials and long-term extension studies provide important information about the safety and efficacy of Xeljanz in RA. We are focused on continuing to build on our knowledge of the clinical application of Xeljanz in real-world settings.”
Pfizer was also able to highlight new data that supports their recent NDA for Xeljanz XR, a once-daily formulation of Xeljanz, which is currently approved as a twice-daily dosing formulation.
JAK inhibition beyond RA
One of the most exciting things about the progress with JAK inhibitors is the possibility to innovate treatments beyond RA. Lilly has been exploring the role of JAK-dependent cytokines in the pathogenesis of numerous inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The company also plans to meet with regulatory authorities to develop a pediatric program for juvenile RA and idiopathic arthritis.
Meanwhile, Pfizer has developed a broad portfolio of various JAK inhibitors and therapies with new modes of action. Already, Pfizer researchers have completed two phase three studies in ulcerative colitis and the top-line results have been positive.
Medical meetings are exciting, because they provide a forum for discussing breakthroughs and portending a future in which the standard of care improves. For companies like Lilly, Incyte, and Pfizer, continual development of more novel approaches to serious diseasesis like a call-response echo chamber in which innovation drives more innovation, resulting in better long-term outcomes for patients.
The JAK/STAT signaling pathway
Jason S. Rawlings, Kristin M. Rosler, Douglas A. Harrison
http://d1dvw62tmnyoft.cloudfront.net/content/joces/117/8/1281/F1.large.jpg
In addition to the principal components of the pathway, other effector proteins have been identified that contribute to at least a subset of JAK/STAT signaling events. STAMs (signal-transducing adapter molecules) are adapter molecules with conserved VHS and SH3 domains (Lohi and Lehto, 2001). STAM1 and STAM2A can be phosphorylated by JAK1-JAK3 in a manner that is dependent on a third domain present in some STAMs, the ITAM (inducible tyrosine-based activation motif). Through a poorly understood mechanism, the STAMs facilitate the transcriptional activation of specific target genes, including MYC. A second adapter that facilitates JAK/STAT pathway activation is StIP (stat-interacting protein), a WD40 protein. StIPs can associate with both JAKs and unphosphorylated STATs, perhaps serving as a scaffold to facilitate the phosphorylation of STATs by JAKs. A third class of adapter with function in JAK/STAT signaling is the SH2B/Lnk/APS family. These proteins contain both pleckstrin homology and SH2 domains and are also substrates for JAK phosphorylation. Both SH2-Bβ and APS associate with JAKs, but the former facilitates JAK/STAT signaling while the latter inhibits it. The degree to which each of these adapter families contributes to JAK/STAT signaling is not yet well understood, but it is clear that various proteins outside the basic pathway machinery influence JAK/STAT signaling.
In addition to JAK/STAT pathway effectors, there are three major classes of negative regulator: SOCS (suppressors of cytokine signaling), PIAS (protein inhibitors of activated stats) and PTPs (protein tyrosine phosphatases) (reviewed by Greenhalgh and Hilton, 2001). Perhaps the simplest are the tyrosine phosphatases, which reverse the activity of the JAKs. The best characterized of these is SHP-1, the product of the mouse motheaten gene. SHP-1 contains two SH2 domains and can bind to either phosphorylated JAKs or phosphorylated receptors to facilitate dephosphorylation of these activated signaling molecules. Other tyrosine phosphatases, such as CD45, appear to have a role in regulating JAK/STAT signaling through a subset of receptors.
SOCS proteins are a family of at least eight members containing an SH2 domain and a SOCS box at the C-terminus (reviewed by Alexander, 2002). In addition, a small kinase inhibitory region located N-terminal to the SH2 domain has been identified for SOCS1 and SOCS3. The SOCS complete a simple negative feedback loop in the JAK/STAT circuitry: activated STATs stimulate transcription of the SOCS genes and the resulting SOCS proteins bind phosphorylated JAKs and their receptors to turn off the pathway. The SOCS can affect their negative regulation by three means. First, by binding phosphotyrosines on the receptors, SOCS physically block the recruitment of signal transducers, such as STATs, to the receptor. Second, SOCS proteins can bind directly to JAKs or to the receptors to specifically inhibit JAK kinase activity. Third, SOCS interact with the elongin BC complex and cullin 2, facilitating the ubiquitination of JAKs and, presumably, the receptors. Ubiquitination of these targets decreases their stability by targeting them for proteasomal degradation.
The third class of negative regulator is the PIAS proteins: PIAS1, PIAS3, PIASx and PIASy. These proteins have a Zn-binding RING-finger domain in the central portion, a well-conserved SAP (SAF-A/Acinus/PIAS) domain at the N-terminus, and a less-well-conserved carboxyl domain. The latter domains are involved in target protein binding. The PIAS proteins bind to activated STAT dimers and prevent them from binding DNA. The mechanism by which PIAS proteins act remains unclear. However, PIAS proteins have recently been demonstrated to associate with the E2 conjugase Ubc9 and to have E3 conjugase activity for sumoylation that is mediated by the RING finger domain (reviewed by Jackson, 2001). Although there is evidence that STATs can be modified by sumoylation (Rogers et al., 2003), the function of that modification in negative regulation is not yet known.
Although the mechanism of JAK/STAT signaling is relatively simple in theory, the biological consequences of pathway activation are complicated by interactions with other signaling pathways (reviewed by Heinrich et al., 2003; Rane and Reddy, 2000; Shuai, 2000). An understanding of this cross-talk is only beginning to emerge, but the best characterized interactions of the JAK/STAT pathway are with the receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK)/Ras/MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) pathway. The relationship between these cascades is complex and their paths cross at multiple levels, each enhancing activation of the other. First, activated JAKs can phosphorylate tyrosines on their associated receptors that can serve as docking sites for SH2-containing adapter proteins from other signaling pathways. These include SHP-2 and Shc, which recruit the GRB2 adapter and stimulate the Ras cascade. The same mechanism stimulates other cascades, such as the recruitment and JAK phosphorylation of insulin receptor substrate (IRS) and p85, which results in the activation of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway [for more on PI3K signaling, see Foster et al. (Foster et al., 2003)]. JAK/STAT signaling also indirectly promotes Ras signaling through the transcriptional activation of SOCS3. SOCS3 binds RasGAP, a negative regulator of Ras signaling, and reduces its activity, thereby promoting activation of the Ras pathway. Reciprocally, RTK pathway activity promotes JAK/STAT signaling by at least two mechanisms. First, the activation of some RTKs, including EGFR and PDGFR, results in the JAK-independent tyrosine phosphorylation of STATs, probably by the Src kinase. Second, RTK/Ras pathway stimulation causes the downstream activation of MAPK. MAPK specifically phosphorylates a serine near the C-terminus of most STATs. While not absolutely necessary for STAT activity, this serine phosphorylation dramatically enhances transcriptional activation by STAT. In addition to RTK and PI3K interactions with JAK/STAT signaling, multiple levels of cross-talk with the TGF-β signaling pathway have been recently reported [for a review of TGF-β, see (Moustakas, 2002)]. Furthermore, the functions of activated STATs can be altered through association with other transcription factors and cofactors that are regulated by other signaling pathways. Thus the integration of input from many signaling pathways must be considered if we are to understand the biological consequences of cytokine stimulation.
References
- ↵
Aaronson, D. S. and Horvath, C. M. (2002). A road map for those who know JAK-STAT. Science 296, 1653-1655.
- ↵
Agaisse, H., Petersen, U. M., Boutros, M., Mathey-Prevot, B. and Perrimon, N. (2003). Signaling role of hemocytes in Drosophila JAK/STAT-dependent response to septic injury. Dev. Cell 5, 441-450.
- ↵
Alexander, W. S. (2002). Suppressors of cytokine signalling (SOCS) in the immune system. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2,410-416.
- ↵
Dearolf, C. R. (1999). JAKs and STATs in invertebrate model organisms. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 55, 1578-1584.
- ↵
Foster, F. M., Traer, C. J., Abraham, S. M. and Fry, M. J. (2003). The phosphoinositide (PI) 3-kinase family. J. Cell Sci.116, 3037-3040.
…..
https://youtu.be/9JHBHSHaBeI
Published on 27 Feb 2014
The JAK/STAT secondary messenger signaliing pathway..
Presented by: Joseph Farahany, M.D
Jak/Stat Signaling Pathway
Jaks and Stats are critical components of many cytokine receptor systems; regulating growth, survival, differentiation, and pathogen resistance. An example of these pathways is shown for the IL-6 (or gp130) family of receptors, which coregulate B cell differentiation, plasmacytogenesis, and the acute phase reaction. Cytokine binding induces receptor dimerization, activating the associated Jaks, which phosphorylate themselves and the receptor. The phosphorylated sites on the receptor and Jaks serve as docking sites for the SH2-containing Stats, such as Stat3, and for SH2-containing proteins and adaptors that link the receptor to MAP kinase, PI3K/Akt, and other cellular pathways.
Phosphorylated Stats dimerize and translocate into the nucleus to regulate target gene transcription. Members of the suppressor of cytokine signaling (SOCS) family dampen receptor signaling via homologous or heterologous feedback regulation. Jaks or Stats can also participate in signaling through other receptor classes, as outlined in the Jak/Stat Utilization Table. Researchers have found Stat3 and Stat5 to be constitutively activated by tyrosine kinases other than Jaks in several solid tumors
The Jak/Stat pathway mediates the effects of cytokines, like erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, and G-CSF, which are protein drugs for the treatment of anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia, respectively. The pathway also mediates signaling by interferons, which are used as antiviral and antiproliferative agents. Researchers have found that dysregulated cytokine signaling contributes to cancer. Aberrant IL-6 signaling contributes to the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases, inflammation, and cancers such as prostate cancer and multiple myeloma. Jak inhibitors currently are being tested in models of multiple myeloma. Stat3 can act as an oncogene and is constitutively active in many tumors. Crosstalk between cytokine signaling and EGFR family members is seen in some cancer cells. Research has shown that in glioblastoma cells overexpressing EGFR, resistance to EGFR kinase inhibitors is induced by Jak2 binding to EGFR via the FERM domain of the former [Sci. Signal. (2013) 6, ra55].
Activating Jak mutations are major molecular events in human hematological malignancies. Researchers have found a unique somatic mutation in the Jak2 pseudokinase domain (V617F) that commonly occurs in polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and idiopathic myelofibrosis. This mutation results in the pathologic activation Jak2, associated with receptors for erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, and G-CSF, which control erythroid, megakaryocytic, and granulocytic proliferation and differentiation. Researchers have also shown that somatic acquired gain-of-function mutations of Jak1 are found in adult T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Somatic activating mutations in Jak1, Jak2, and Jak3 have also been identified in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Furthermore, Jak2 mutations have been detected around pseudokinase domain R683 (R683G or DIREED) in Down syndrome childhood B-ALL and pediatric B-ALL.
Selected Reviews:
- Beekman R, Touw IP (2010) G-CSF and its receptor in myeloid malignancy. Blood 115(25), 5131–6.
- Neurath MF, Finotto S (2011) IL-6 signaling in autoimmunity, chronic inflammation and inflammation-associated cancer. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 22(2), 83–9.
- Sansone P, Bromberg J (2012) Targeting the interleukin-6/Jak/stat pathway in human malignancies. J. Clin. Oncol. 30(9), 1005–14.
- Vainchenker W, Constantinescu SN (2013) JAK/STAT signaling in hematological malignancies. Oncogene 32(21), 2601–13.
- Yu H, Pardoll D, Jove R (2009) STATs in cancer inflammation and immunity: a leading role for STAT3. Nat. Rev. Cancer 9(11), 798–809.
– See more at: http://www.cellsignal.com/contents/science-pathway-research-immunology-and-inflammation/jak-stat-signaling-pathway/pathways-il6#sthash.8SVwSWXw.dpuf
The JAK-STAT Signaling Pathway: Input and Output Integration1
- Peter J. Murray
The Journal of Immunology Mar 1, 2007; 178(5): 2623-2629 http://dx.doi.org:/10.4049/jimmunol.178.5.2623
Universal and essential to cytokine receptor signaling, the JAK-STAT pathway is one of the best understood signal transduction cascades. Almost 40 cytokine receptors signal through combinations of four JAK and seven STAT family members, suggesting commonality across the JAK-STAT signaling system. Despite intense study, there remain substantial gaps in understanding how the cascades are activated and regulated. Using the examples of the IL-6 and IL-10 receptors, I will discuss how diverse outcomes in gene expression result from regulatory events that effect the JAK1-STAT3 pathway, common to both receptors. I also consider receptor preferences by different STATs and interpretive problems in the use of STAT-deficient cells and mice. Finally, I consider how the suppressor of cytokine signaling (SOCS) proteins regulate the quality and quantity of STAT signals from cytokine receptors. New data suggests that SOCS proteins introduce additional diversity into the JAK-STAT pathway by adjusting the output of activated STATs that alters downstream gene activation.
The mammalian JAK and STAT family members have been extensively, and seemingly exhaustively, analyzed in the mouse and human systems. All four JAK and seven STAT family members have been deleted in the mouse, in addition to the creation of conditional alleles for genes whose loss of function leads to embryonic or perinatal lethality (Stat3, combined deficiency of Stat5a and Stat5b, and Jak2). In humans, detailed genetic studies have been performed in people bearing mutant Jak or Stat genes. Specific Abs to phospho-forms of each protein are used to study how the JAK-STAT cascade is activated by cytokine receptors. Crystallographic studies have illuminated structural information for multiple STAT family members in different forms. Pharmacological inhibitors have been developed for clinical use where JAK-STAT signaling is implicated in disease pathology and progression. Finally, in most cases, a specific JAK-STAT combination has been paired with each cytokine receptor, and this information translated into cell-type specific patterns of cytokine responsiveness and gene expression.
Major questions remain concerning how the JAK-STAT cascade functions to control specific gene expression patterns, and how the cascades are regulated. I will describe three elements of JAK-STAT signaling that require experimental investigation. First, I will address an unexpected experimental complication that arises from the analysis of mice and cells that lack one or more STAT family member. Second, I will use JAK1-STAT3 signaling from the IL-10R and IL-6R systems to illustrate that we lack detailed understanding of how specificity in gene expression is generated by receptors that use identical JAK-STAT members. Third, we have yet to explain how STAT activation is negatively regulated. Although the suppressor of cytokine signaling (SOCS)3 proteins are the best understood negative regulators of the JAK-STAT pathway, the biochemical mechanism of SOCS-mediated inhibition is unexplained. Moreover, additional inhibitory pathways have also been proposed to block the production of activated STATs. Collectively, I will argue that our understanding of the pathway from cytokine receptor to gene expression profile is in its infancy, but remains one of the best opportunities to dissect signal transduction.
Overview of the proximal JAK-STAT activation mechanism
The current model of JAK-STAT signaling holds that cytokine receptor engagement activates the associated JAK combination, which in turn phosphorylates the receptor cytoplasmic domain to allow recruitment of a STAT, which in turn is phosphorylated, dimerizes and moves to the nucleus to bind specific sequences in the genome and activate gene expression. Cytoplasmic domains of cytokine receptors associate with JAKs via JAK binding sites located close to the membrane (1). The postulated role of JAKs in trafficking or chaperoning the receptors to the cell surface is debated (2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Regardless of the when and where cytokine receptors and JAKs associate, their close apposition at the membrane is required to stimulate the kinase activity of the JAK following cytokine binding. At this stage in the activation of the pathway, we understand next to nothing about the structural basis of the JAK-receptor interaction, how receptor intracellular domains reorient upon cytokine binding and physically contact the JAK to receive the phosphorylation modification.
JAK-mediated phosphorylation of the receptor creates binding sites for the Src homology 2 (SH2) domains of the STATs. STAT recruitment is followed by tyrosine, and in some cases, serine phosphorylation on key residues (by the JAKs and other closely associated kinases) that leads to transit into the nucleus. This brief summary of the activation of the JAK-STAT pathway omits numerous unresolved details: the STAT monomer to dimer transition has been questioned, as has the role of phosphorylation in dimerization and nuclear transit (7). Furthermore, it is unclear how many configurations of STAT homo- and heterocomplexes are present in cells before, during, and after cytokine stimulation (8, 9,10). We do not understand the detailed structural basis for the preference of one SH2 domain for a given receptor, and we have little knowledge of how other non-JAK kinases are recruited to the receptors and phosphorylate the STATs.
Many receptors signal through a small number of JAKs
Cytokine receptors signal through two types of pathways: the JAK-STAT pathway and other pathways that usually involve the activation of the MAP kinase cascade. Although the latter will not be discussed here, it is worth noting that elegant genetic studies have demonstrated the importance of these pathways in various pathological systems (11, 12,13, 14). There are now ∼36 cytokine receptor combinations that respond to ∼38 cytokines (counting the type I IFNs as one because they all signal through the IFN-αβR). Different cells and tissues express distinct receptor combinations that respond to cytokine combinations unique to the microenvironment or systemic response of the organism. Hence, at any given time, a single cell may integrate signals from multiple cytokine receptors. Genetic studies have established that the cytokine receptor system is restrictive in that different classes of receptors preferentially use one JAK or JAK combination (7): receptors required for hemopoietic cell development and proliferation use JAK2, common γ-chain receptors use JAK1 and JAK3 whereas other receptors use only JAK1 (Fig. 1⇓). Unexplained is the selective use of these combinations: why the IFN-γR rigidly uses the JAK1, JAK2 combination is unknown as is the restricted use of TYK2. Compared with JAK1–3, TYK2 is unusual in that loss of function mutations in the mouse have shown obligate, but not absolute, requirements in IFN-αβR and IL-12R signaling (15, 16). In contrast, human TYK2 seems to be essential for signaling through a broader range of cytokine receptors (17).
FIGURE 1.
The majority of cytokine receptors use three JAK combinations. Shown are well-studied cases where JAK usage by each cytokine receptor has been established by genetic and biochemical studies. Exceptions shown are the G-CSFR (∗) where it is currently unclear whether both JAK1 and JAK2 are required together. Additionally, the IL-12R (†) and IL-23R (†) require TYK2 but the requirement for JAK2 has not been definitively determined. Receptors that use JAK2 and JAK3, JAK3 alone, TYK2 alone, or JAK3 and TYK2 have not been described.
The preferential association of JAKs to certain receptor classes raises several issues. First, how did the JAK-receptor combinations evolve? Because the number of receptors is relatively large, why has the number of JAKs remained small? Why have the combinations of JAK pairs also remained small given that there are 10 possible combinations that can be used (Fig. 1⇑)? Second, how flexible is the cytokine receptor-JAK pair? That is, can receptors be engineered for interchangeable JAK use, or is a given JAK combination fixed for a specific receptor class? For example, can JAK1, JAK3, or TYK2 activate erythropoietin receptor (EpoR) signaling (if so engineered) or is JAK2 obligatory for signaling? These questions allude to a fundamental issue that concerns the function of the JAK in cytokine receptor activation: if the only function of the JAKs is to phosphorylate tyrosine resides on the cytoplasmic domain of the receptors, then it should be possible to trade JAK-receptor pairs. If these receptors retain identical downstream gene expression profiles, then the signal generated by the JAK is generic and functions primarily to activate the receptor (6). Conversely, it is also possible that each receptor-JAK combination retains crucial specificity functions and swapping, for example, JAK1 for JAK2 on the EpoR will modify or destroy a specific function in erythrogenesis. These questions can be addressed experimentally by replacing one preferred JAK binding site for another in genes encoding different receptors. The EpoR is a good test example because the activity of the receptor and its signaling pathway is essential for life and erythropoiesis is readily assayed.
Core versus cell-type specific STAT signaling
Microarray experiments designed to monitor changes in gene expression induced by JAK-STAT signaling have revealed that both cell-type specific transcription and core, or stereotypic, mRNA profiles are induced by activated cytokine receptors in different cell types (Fig. 2⇓). For example, IFN-γ, via STAT1, induces the expression of a similar cohort of genes regardless of the cell type tested (18). These genes are often termed the “IFN signature” and overlap with the gene expression pattern induced by IFN-αβ signaling that also involves STAT1, in cooperation with STAT2 and IRF9. The IFN signature is readily observed in microarray experiments and is indicative of STAT1 activity. The STAT6 pathway activated by IL-4 or IL-13 provides an example of a cell-type specific response. IL-4-regulated genes in T cells have a distinct signature compared with IL-4/IL-13 signaling in macrophages or other non-lymphocytes (19, 20, 21, 22). In the latter, genes such as Arg1(encoding arginase 1) are often induced >100-fold but are silent in T cells (23, 24, 25, 26,27). Collectively these data argue that STATs activate defined gene sets, depending on their genomic accessibility, and possibly on cofactors that further refine gene expression profiles. STAT3 signaling illustrates a more complex system and will be discussed below to illustrate the distinctions between IL-6 and IL-10 signaling.
FIGURE 2.
Core signaling by STATs. Representative examples of gene expression induced by STAT signaling in different tissues. The examples were extracted and edited from numerous microarray and empirical studies.
Interpreting experiments using STAT loss-of-function systems
Experiments with the different STAT knockout mice, and cells derived from these animals, have been critical for understanding specific requirements of individual STATs in gene expression following cytokine receptor signaling. The interpretation of these experiments is generally straightforward. For example, STAT5a and STAT5b are essential for the expression of genes that promote hemopoietic survival (28, 29, 30) whereas STAT1 is required for the expression of IFN-regulated genes that are involved in the protection against pathogens (18). However, by EMSA and immunoblotting experiments, most cytokines have been shown to activate multiple STATs, prompting experiments to determine transcriptional responses that can be activated in the absence of a given STAT. An initial example of this type of approach was performed by Schreiber and colleagues who interrogated gene expression profiles induced by IFN-γ signaling in the absence of STAT1 (31, 32). In these experiments, IFN-γ was used to stimulate STAT1-deficient bone marrow-derived macrophages and fibroblasts. Numerous genes were induced by IFN-γ in the absence of STAT1, leading to the conclusion that the IFN-γR activates a STAT1-independent gene expression program. However, inspection of the genes induced by IFN-γ signaling in STAT1-deficient cells shows many to be STAT3-regulated genes such asSocs3, Gadd45, and Cebpb. STAT3 phosphorylation is normally induced by IFN-γ in wild-type cells but in the absence of STAT1, STAT3 signaling is dominant. What is the mechanism of this effect? We now know from experiments using STAT-deficient cells that receptor occupancy, or lack of occupancy by the dominant STAT that binds the receptor, causes a switch from one activated STAT to another (33). A converse example is the conversion of IL-6R signaling to a dominant STAT1 activation in STAT3-deficient cells (34). This switch causes the downstream induction of the IFN gene expression pathway just as IFN-γ would cause in wild-type cells.
A related example is observed when IL-6 signaling is tested in the absence of SOCS3. SOCS3 is induced by STAT signaling from different cytokine receptors and functions as a feedback inhibitor of the IL-6R (and the G-CSFR, LIFR, and leptinR) by binding to phosphorylated Y757 on the gp130 cytoplasmic domain (see below). However in the absence of SOCS3, STAT3 phosphorylation is greatly increased (35, 36, 37). At the same time however, STAT1 phosphorylation is also induced, leading to a dominant IFN-like gene expression signature (35, 36). Thus SOCS3 regulates both the quantity and type of STAT signal generated from the IL-6R. Although the mechanism of the SOCS3 effect is unclear, the promiscuity of different receptors for different STATs argues that loss-of-function experiments must be carefully examined for the activation of other STAT molecules that fill the “hole” created by the loss of one STAT. These data also suggest that different cytokine receptors have evolved selectivity for different classes of STATs. Although STAT1 and STAT3 can apparently interchangeably bind the IL-6R or IFN-γR when either molecule is missing, signaling in wild-type cells shows a strong preference for one STAT over the other. Likewise, other receptors may have evolved to bind only one STAT, and in the absence of the key STAT, the other STATs cannot bind and/or be activated by the receptor.
The above examples primarily describe experiments using STAT1–STAT3-activating receptors but these are not isolated cases. In T cells stimulated by IL-12, STAT4 is activated and drives IFN-γ production. This pathway is a central regulatory event in the development of the Th1 type T cell responses. IFN-αβ, via the IFN-αβR, also activates STAT4 (in addition to STAT1 and STAT2 that forms a complex with IRF-9 to mediate anti-viral gene expression) but cannot activate strong IFN-γ production and therefore cannot drive Th1 development (38). However, in the absence of STAT1, IFN-αβ causes a large increase in IFN-γ production, especially in vivo during viral infection (39, 40). These data were originally interpreted to mean that STAT1 normally suppressed IFN-γ production. However, the data can just as easily be resolved when we consider that STAT4 activation from the IFN-αβR is increased in the absence of STAT1. Recent data confirm this interpretation but also show that STAT4 activation by the IFN-αβR, although increased, cannot sustain IFN-γ production from T cells when compared with IL-12 (38). This is probably because of the stronger differential activity of SOCS1 on the IFN-αβR versus the IL-12R (discussed below). I would predict that an IFN-αβR that is refractory to SOCS1 (or active in a Socs1−/− background) would behave identically to the IL-12R in the absence of STAT1.
Although loss of gene expression may be observed in a given STAT knockout, a corresponding increase in the ectopic activation of another STAT pathway may confound the interpretation of results in both in vitro and in vivo systems. Because specific Abs are available for each tyrosine-phosphorylated STAT molecule, a simple solution is to first measure which other STATs are activated by a given receptor in the absence of the STAT of interest. Experiments using STAT knockout systems should also be supported by additional data that uses complimentary mutations in the receptor that ablate STAT recruitment, or complete loss of the receptor. Finally, it is worth noting that the loss of a STAT pathway from a receptor signaling system can cause additional loss of key negative regulatory systems including feedback loops such as SOCS induction as presently debated for G-CSFR signaling and receptor systems discussed below (41, 42, 43, 44, 45).
- Negative regulation of the JAK-STAT signal
- Is there functional equivalence in signaling from receptors using the same JAK-STAT combination in the same cell?
- Future directions
FIGURE 3.
Proposed differential STAT activation by IL-10 or IL-6. Shown are three classes of genes activated by STAT3 where Socs3 is a representative “common” gene induced by both receptors. In the absence of SOCS3, the IL-6R can activate the anti-inflammatory genes in the same way as the IL-10R. The mechanism of this effect remains to be established.
JAK/STAT Activation Inhibitors
The JAK/STAT pathway plays an important role in cytokine receptor-mediated signal transduction via activation of downstream signal transducers and activators of transcription (STAT), phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K), and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways.
These inhibitors are useful tools for exploring the contribution of JAK/STAT-mediated signaling.
JAK/STAT Activation Inhibitors
Methotrexate Is a JAK/STAT Pathway Inhibitor
Sally Thomas, Katherine H. Fisher, John A. Snowden, Sarah J. Danson, Stephen Brown, Martin P. Zeidler
Background
The JAK/STAT pathway transduces signals from multiple cytokines and controls haematopoiesis, immunity and inflammation. In addition, pathological activation is seen in multiple malignancies including the myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). Given this, drug development efforts have targeted the pathway with JAK inhibitors such as ruxolitinib. Although effective, high costs and side effects have limited its adoption. Thus, a need for effective low cost treatments remains.
Methods & Findings
We used the low-complexity Drosophila melanogaster pathway to screen for small molecules that modulate JAK/STAT signalling. This screen identified methotrexate and the closely related aminopterin as potent suppressors of STAT activation. We show that methotrexate suppresses human JAK/STAT signalling without affecting other phosphorylation-dependent pathways. Furthermore, methotrexate significantly reduces STAT5 phosphorylation in cells expressing JAK2 V617F, a mutation associated with most human MPNs. Methotrexate acts independently of dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) and is comparable to the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib. However, cells treated with methotrexate still retain their ability to respond to physiological levels of the ligand erythropoietin.
Conclusions
Aminopterin and methotrexate represent the first chemotherapy agents developed and act as competitive inhibitors of DHFR. Methotrexate is also widely used at low doses to treat inflammatory and immune-mediated conditions including rheumatoid arthritis. In this low-dose regime, folate supplements are given to mitigate side effects by bypassing the biochemical requirement for DHFR. Although independent of DHFR, the mechanism-of-action underlying the low-dose effects of methotrexate is unknown. Given that multiple pro-inflammatory cytokines signal through the pathway, we suggest that suppression of the JAK/STAT pathway is likely to be the principal anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive mechanism-of-action of low-dose methotrexate. In addition, we suggest that patients with JAK/STAT-associated haematological malignancies may benefit from low-dose methotrexate treatments. While the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is effective, a £43,200 annual cost precludes widespread adoption. With an annual methotrexate cost of around £32, our findings represent an important development with significant future potential.
Citation: Thomas S, Fisher KH, Snowden JA, Danson SJ, Brown S, Zeidler MP (2015) Methotrexate Is a JAK/STAT Pathway Inhibitor. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0130078. http://dx.doi.org:/10.1371/journal.pone.0130078
Read Full Post »
By: Taha A. Kass-Hout, M.D., M.S. and Elaine Johanson
Taha A. Kass-Hout, M.D., M.S., is FDA’s Chief Health Informatics Officer and Director of FDA’s Office of Health Informatics. Elaine Johanson is the precisionFDA Project Manager.
Published: July 1, 2015
2012pharmaceutical
sjwilliamspa
