Ursolic acid impairs cellular lipid homeostasis and lysosomal membrane integrity in breast carcinoma cells

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cells11244079/s1, Figure S1: UA kills MCF7 cells partly through apoptosis; Figure S2: UA causes LC3 puncta formation in MCF7 and HCT15 cells; Figure S3: UA causes LMP prior to MOMP and alters lysosomal localization in HeLa cells; Figure S4: Additional lipidomics data; Table S1: List of resources; Table S2: Internal lipid and drug standards; Table S3: Precursor ion, fragment ion, and neutral loss for lipid identification; Table S4: All experiments.Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, thus the search for new cancer therapies is of utmost importance. Ursolic acid is a naturally occurring pentacyclic triterpene with a wide range of pharmacological activities including anti-inflammatory and anti-neoplastic effects. The latter has been assigned to its ability to promote apoptosis and inhibit cancer cell proliferation by poorly defined mechanisms. In this report, we identify lysosomes as the essential targets of the anti-cancer activity of ursolic acid. The treatment of MCF7 breast cancer cells with ursolic acid elevates lysosomal pH, alters the cellular lipid profile, and causes lysosomal membrane permeabilization and leakage of lysosomal enzymes into the cytosol. Lysosomal membrane permeabilization precedes the essential hallmarks of apoptosis placing it as an initial event in the cascade of effects induced by ursolic acid. The disruption of the lysosomal function impairs the autophagic pathway and likely partakes in the mechanism by which ursolic acid kills cancer cells. Furthermore, we find that combining treatment with ursolic acid and cationic amphiphilic drugs can significantly enhance the degree of lysosomal membrane permeabilization and cell death in breast cancer cells.This work was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF125), European Research Council (AdG340751), Danish Cancer Society (R167-A11061) and, Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF19OC0054296), to M.J., K.M. was supported by the Independent Research Fund Denmark (6108–00542B) and Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF17OC0029432).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Depletion of Kinesin 5B Affects Lysosomal Distribution and Stability and Induces Peri-Nuclear Accumulation of Autophagosomes in Cancer Cells

Background: Enhanced lysosomal trafficking is associated with metastatic cancer. In an attempt to discover cancer relevant lysosomal motor proteins, we compared the lysosomal proteomes from parental MCF-7 breast cancer cells with those from highly invasive MCF-7 cells that express an active form of the ErbB2 (DN-ErbB2). Methodology/Principal Findings: Mass spectrometry analysis identified kinesin heavy chain protein KIF5B as the only microtubule motor associated with the lysosomes in MCF-7 cells, and ectopic DN-ErbB2 enhanced its lysosomal association. KIF5B associated with lysosomes also in HeLa cervix carcinoma cells as analyzed by subcellular fractionation. The depletion of KIF5B triggered peripheral aggregations of lysosomes followed by lysosomal destabilization, and cell death in HeLa cells. Lysosomal exocytosis in response to plasma membrane damage as well as fluid phase endocytosis functioned, however, normally in these cells. Both HeLa and MCF-7 cells appeared to express similar levels of the KIF5B isoform but the death phenotype was weaker in KIF5B-depleted MCF-7 cells. Surprisingly, KIF5B depletion inhibited the rapamycin-induced accumulation of autophagosomes in MCF-7 cells. In KIF5B-depleted cells the autophagosomes formed and accumulated in the close proximity to the Golgi apparatus, whereas in the control cells they appeared uniformly distributed in the cytoplasm. Conclusions/Significance: Our data identify KIF5B as a cancer relevant lysosomal motor protein with additional functions in autophagosome formatio

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field