Intrinsically disordered chromatin protein NUPR1 binds to the enzyme PADI4

The nuclear protein 1 (NUPR1) is an intrinsically disordered protein involved in stress-mediated cellular conditions. Its paralogue nuclear protein 1-like (NUPR1L) is p53-regulated, and its expression down-regulates that of the NUPR1 gene. Peptidyl-arginine deiminase 4 (PADI4) is an isoform of a family of enzymes catalyzing arginine to citrulline conversion; it is also involved in stress-mediated cellular conditions. We characterized the interaction between NUPR1 and PADI4 in vitro, in silico, and in cellulo. The interaction of NUPR1 and PADI4 occurred with a dissociation constant of 18 ± 6 μM. The binding region of NUPR1, mapped by NMR, was a hydrophobic polypeptide patch surrounding the key residue Ala33, as pinpointed by: (i) computational results; and, (ii) site-directed mutagenesis of residues of NUPR1. The association between PADI4 and wild-type NUPR1 was also assessed in cellulo by using proximity ligation assays (PLAs) and immunofluorescence (IF), and it occurred mainly in the nucleus. Moreover, binding between NUPR1L and PADI4 also occurred in vitro with an affinity similar to that of NUPR1. Molecular modelling provided information on the binding hot spot for PADI4. This is an example of a disordered partner of PADI4, whereas its other known interacting proteins are well-folded. Altogether, our results suggest that the NUPR1/PADI4 complex could have crucial functions in modulating DNA-repair, favoring metastasis, or facilitating citrullination of other proteins

Targeting the Stress-Induced Protein NUPR1 to Treat Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Cancer cells activate stress-response mechanisms to adapt themselves to a variety of stressful conditions. Among these protective mechanisms, those controlled by the stress-induced nuclear protein 1 (NUPR1 ) belong to the most conserved ones. NUPR1 is an 82-residue-long, monomeric, basic and intrinsically disordered protein (IDP), which was found to be invariably overexpressed in some, if not all, cancer tissues. Remarkably, we and others have previously showed that genetic inactivation of the Nupr1 gene antagonizes the growth of pancreatic cancer as well as several other tumors. With the use of a multidisciplinary strategy by combining biophysical, biochemical, bioinformatic, and biological approaches, a trifluoperazine-derived compound, named ZZW-115, has been identified as an inhibitor of the NUPR1 functions. The anticancer activity of the ZZW-115 was first validated on a large panel of cancer cells. Furthermore, ZZW-115 produced a dose-dependent tumor regression of the tumor size in xenografted mice. Mechanistically, we have demonstrated that NUPR1 binds to several importins. Because ZZW-115 binds NUPR1 through the region around the amino acid Thr68, which is located into the nuclear location signal (NLS) region of the protein, we demonstrated that treatment with ZZW-115 inhibits completely the translocation of NUPR1 from the cytoplasm to the nucleus by competing with importins

ZZW-115-dependent inhibition of NUPR1 nuclear translocation sensitizes cancer cells to genotoxic agents

Establishing the interactome of the cancer-associated stress protein Nuclear Protein 1 (NUPR1), we found that it binds to several hundreds of proteins, including proteins involved in nuclear translocation, DNA repair, and key factors of the SUMO pathway. We demonstrated that the NUPR1 inhibitor ZZW-115, an organic synthetic molecule, competes with importins for the binding to the NLS region of NUPR1, thereby inhibiting its nuclear translocation. We hypothesized, and then proved, that inhibition of NUPR1 by ZZW-115 sensitizes cancer cells to DNA damage induced by several genotoxic agents. Strikingly, we found that treatment with ZZW-115 reduced SUMOylation of several proteins involved in DNA damage response (DDR). We further report that the presence of recombinant NUPR1 improved the SUMOylation in a cell-free system, indicating that NUPR1 directly stimulates the SUMOylation machinery. We propose that ZZW-115 sensitizes cancer cells to genotoxic agents by inhibiting the nuclear translocation of NUPR1 and thereby decreasing the SUMOylation-dependent functions of key proteins involved in the DDR

New strategies and designs in pancreatic cancer research: consensus guidelines report from a European expert panel

Although the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a huge challenge, it is entering a new era with the development of new strategies and trial designs. Because there is an increasing number of novel therapeutic agents and potential combinations available to test in patients with PDAC, the identification of robust prognostic and predictive markers and of new targets and relevant pathways is a top priority as well as the design of adequate trials incorporating molecular-driven hypothesis. We presently report a consensus strategy for research in pancreatic cancer that was developed by a multidisciplinary panel of experts from different European institutions and collaborative groups involved in pancreatic cancer. The expert panel embraces the concept of exploratory early proof of concept studies, based on the prediction of response to novel agents and combinations, and randomised phase II studies permitting the selection of the best therapeutic approach to go forward into phase III, where the recommended primary end point remains overall survival. Trials should contain as many translational components as possible, relying on standardised tissue and blood processing and robust biobanking, and including dynamic imaging. Attention should not only be paid to the pancreatic cancer cells but also to microenvironmental factors and stem/stellate cell

Upregulation of the stress-associated gene p8 in mouse models of demyelination and in multiple sclerosis tissues

Cuprizone-induced demyelination is a mouse model of multiple sclerosis (MS) as cuprizone-fed mice exhibit neuroin-flammation and demyelination in the brain. Upon removal of cuprizone from the diet, inflammation is resolved and reparative remyelination occurs. In an Affymetrix Gene-Chip analysis, the stress-associated gene p8 was strongly upregulated (>10×) during cuprizone-induced demyelination but not remyelination. We verified this upregulation (>15×) of p8 in the CNS during demyelination by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This upregulation is brain-specific, as p8 is not elevated in the liver, lung, kidney, spleen, and heart of cuprizone-treated mice. We also localized the cellular source of p8 during cuprizone treatment, and further found elevated expression during embryogenesis but not in normal adult brain. Compared with wild-type controls, the death of oligodendrocytes in p8−/− mice is delayed, as is microglial recruitment to areas of demyelination. The corpus callosum of p8−/− mice demyelinates at a slower rate than wild-type mice, suggesting that p8 exacerbates CNS inflammation and demyelination. Enhanced expression of p8 is also observed in the spinal cords of mice with acute experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) induced by PLP139–151 peptide (10×). Increased expression is detected during disease onset and expression wanes during the remission phase. Finally, p8 is found upregulated (8×) in post-mortem tissue from MS patients and is higher in the plaque tissue compared with adjacent normal-appearing white and gray matter. Thus, p8 is an excellent candidate as a novel biomarker of demyelination

Inactivation of TIF1γ Cooperates with KrasG12D to Induce Cystic Tumors of the Pancreas

Inactivation of the Transforming Growth Factor Beta (TGFβ) tumor suppressor pathway contributes to the progression of Pancreatic Ductal AdenoCarcinoma (PDAC) since it is inactivated in virtually all cases of this malignancy. Genetic lesions inactivating this pathway contribute to pancreatic tumor progression in mouse models. Transcriptional Intermediary Factor 1 gamma (TIF1γ) has recently been proposed to be involved in TGFβ signaling, functioning as either a positive or negative regulator of the pathway. Here, we addressed the role of TIF1γ in pancreatic carcinogenesis. Using conditional Tif1γ knockout mice (Tif1γlox/lox), we selectively abrogated Tif1γ expression in the pancreas of Pdx1-Cre;Tif1γlox/lox mice. We also generated Pdx1-Cre;LSL-KrasG12D;Tif1γlox/lox mice to address the effect of Tif1γ loss-of-function in precancerous lesions induced by oncogenic KrasG12D. Finally, we analyzed TIF1γ expression in human pancreatic tumors. In our mouse model, we showed that Tif1γ was dispensable for normal pancreatic development but cooperated with Kras activation to induce pancreatic tumors reminiscent of human Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms (IPMNs). Interestingly, these cystic lesions resemble those observed in Pdx1-Cre;LSL-KrasG12D;Smad4lox/lox mice described by others. However, distinctive characteristics, such as the systematic presence of endocrine pseudo-islets within the papillary projections, suggest that SMAD4 and TIF1γ don't have strictly redundant functions. Finally, we report that TIF1γ expression is markedly down-regulated in human pancreatic tumors by quantitative RT–PCR and immunohistochemistry supporting the relevance of these findings to human malignancy. This study suggests that TIF1γ is critical for tumor suppression in the pancreas, brings new insight into the genetics of pancreatic cancer, and constitutes a promising model to decipher the respective roles of SMAD4 and TIF1γ in the multifaceted functions of TGFβ in carcinogenesis and development

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