HNF1α inhibition triggers epithelial-mesenchymal transition in human liver cancer cell lines

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hepatocyte Nuclear Factor 1α (HNF1α) is an atypical homeodomain-containing transcription factor that transactivates liver-specific genes including albumin, α-1-antitrypsin and α- and β-fibrinogen. Biallelic inactivating mutations of <it>HNF1A </it>have been frequently identified in hepatocellular adenomas (HCA), rare benign liver tumors usually developed in women under oral contraceptives, and in rare cases of hepatocellular carcinomas developed in non-cirrhotic liver. HNF1α-mutated HCA (H-HCA) are characterized by a marked steatosis and show activation of glycolysis, lipogenesis, translational machinery and mTOR pathway. We studied the consequences of HNF1α silencing in hepatic cell lines, HepG2 and Hep3B and we reproduced most of the deregulations identified in H-HCA.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We transfected hepatoma cell lines HepG2 and Hep3B with siRNA targeting HNF1α and obtained a strong inhibition of HNF1α expression. We then looked at the phenotypic changes by microscopy and studied changes in gene expression using qRT-PCR and Western Blot.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Hepatocytes transfected with HNF1α siRNA underwent severe phenotypic changes with loss of cell-cell contacts and development of migration structures. In HNF1α-inhibited cells, hepatocyte and epithelial markers were diminished and mesenchymal markers were over-expressed. This epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) was related to the up regulation of several EMT transcription factors, in particular <it>SNAIL </it>and <it>SLUG</it>. We also found an overexpression of TGFβ1, an EMT initiator, in both cells transfected with HNF1α siRNA and H-HCA. Moreover, TGFβ1 expression is strongly correlated to HNF1α expression in cell models, suggesting regulation of TGFβ1 expression by HNF1α.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results suggest that HNF1α is not only important for hepatocyte differentiation, but has also a role in the maintenance of epithelial phenotype in hepatocytes.</p

Epistasis of Transcriptomes Reveals Synergism between Transcriptional Activators Hnf1α and Hnf4α

The transcription of individual genes is determined by combinatorial interactions between DNA–binding transcription factors. The current challenge is to understand how such combinatorial interactions regulate broad genetic programs that underlie cellular functions and disease. The transcription factors Hnf1α and Hnf4α control pancreatic islet β-cell function and growth, and mutations in their genes cause closely related forms of diabetes. We have now exploited genetic epistasis to examine how Hnf1α and Hnf4α functionally interact in pancreatic islets. Expression profiling in islets from either Hnf1a+/− or pancreas-specific Hnf4a mutant mice showed that the two transcription factors regulate a strikingly similar set of genes. We integrated expression and genomic binding studies and show that the shared transcriptional phenotype of these two mutant models is linked to common direct targets, rather than to known effects of Hnf1α on Hnf4a gene transcription. Epistasis analysis with transcriptomes of single- and double-mutant islets revealed that Hnf1α and Hnf4α regulate common targets synergistically. Hnf1α binding in Hnf4a-deficient islets was decreased in selected targets, but remained unaltered in others, thus suggesting that the mechanisms for synergistic regulation are gene-specific. These findings provide an in vivo strategy to study combinatorial gene regulation and reveal how Hnf1α and Hnf4α control a common islet-cell regulatory program that is defective in human monogenic diabetes

Genetic deficiency of NOD2 confers resistance to invasive aspergillosis

Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is a severe infection that can occur in severely immunocompromised patients. Efficient immune recognition of Aspergillus is crucial to protect against infection, and previous studies suggested a role for NOD2 in this process. However, thorough investigation of the impact of NOD2 on susceptibility to aspergillosis is lacking. Common genetic variations in NOD2 has been associated with Crohn's disease and here we investigated the influence of these  genetic variations on the anti-Aspergillus host response. A NOD2 polymorphism reduced the risk of IA after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Mechanistically, absence of NOD2 in monocytes and macrophages increases phagocytosis leading to enhanced fungal killing, conversely, NOD2 activation reduces the antifungal potential of these cells. Crucially, Nod2 deficiency results in resistance to Aspergillus infection in an in vivo model of pulmonary aspergillosis. Collectively, our data demonstrate that genetic deficiency of NOD2 plays a protective role during Aspergillus infection.We thank C. Wertz and M. Fanton D'Andon for providing Nod2-deficient mice, M. Schlotter for organizing patient inclusion, B. Rosler for assistance with flowcytometry. We also thank the NOD2-deficient patients for contributing to our study by providing blood samples. M.S.G. was supported by the Erasmus lifelong learning program. F.L.v.d.V. was supported by the E-rare project EURO-CMC. M.O. was supported by the NWO, 016.176.006). A.C. and C.C. were supported by the Northern Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the Portugal 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000013), and the Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT) (IF/00735/2014 to A.C. and SFRH/BPD/96176/2013 to C. C.)

TFEB regulates murine liver cell fate during development and regeneration

It is well established that pluripotent stem cells in fetal and postnatal liver (LPCs) can differentiate into both hepatocytes and cholangiocytes. However, the signaling pathways implicated in the differentiation of LPCs are still incompletely understood. Transcription Factor EB (TFEB), a master regulator of lysosomal biogenesis and autophagy, is known to be involved in osteoblast and myeloid differentiation, but its role in lineage commitment in the liver has not been investigated. Here we show that during development and upon regeneration TFEB drives the differentiation status of murine LPCs into the progenitor/cholangiocyte lineage while inhibiting hepatocyte differentiation. Genetic interaction studies show that Sox9, a marker of precursor and biliary cells, is a direct transcriptional target of TFEB and a primary mediator of its effects on liver cell fate. In summary, our findings identify an unexplored pathway that controls liver cell lineage commitment and whose dysregulation may play a role in biliary cancer

Transforming Growth Factor-β1 Suppresses Hepatitis B Virus Replication by the Reduction of Hepatocyte Nuclear Factor-4α Expression

Several studies have demonstrated that cytokine-mediated noncytopathic suppression of hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication may provide an alternative therapeutic strategy for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection. In our previous study, we showed that transforming growth factor-beta1 (TGF-β1) could effectively suppress HBV replication at physiological concentrations. Here, we provide more evidence that TGF-β1 specifically diminishes HBV core promoter activity, which subsequently results in a reduction in the level of viral pregenomic RNA (pgRNA), core protein (HBc), nucleocapsid, and consequently suppresses HBV replication. The hepatocyte nuclear factor 4alpha (HNF-4α) binding element(s) within the HBV core promoter region was characterized to be responsive for the inhibitory effect of TGF-β1 on HBV regulation. Furthermore, we found that TGF-β1 treatment significantly repressed HNF-4α expression at both mRNA and protein levels. We demonstrated that RNAi-mediated depletion of HNF-4α was sufficient to reduce HBc synthesis as TGF-β1 did. Prevention of HNF-4α degradation by treating with proteasome inhibitor MG132 also prevented the inhibitory effect of TGF-β1. Finally, we confirmed that HBV replication could be rescued by ectopic expression of HNF-4α in TGF-β1-treated cells. Our data clarify the mechanism by which TGF-β1 suppresses HBV replication, primarily through modulating the expression of HNF-4α gene

Study of FoxA Pioneer Factor at Silent Genes Reveals Rfx-Repressed Enhancer at Cdx2 and a Potential Indicator of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Development

Understanding how silent genes can be competent for activation provides insight into development as well as cellular reprogramming and pathogenesis. We performed genomic location analysis of the pioneer transcription factor FoxA in the adult mouse liver and found that about one-third of the FoxA bound sites are near silent genes, including genes without detectable RNA polymerase II. Virtually all of the FoxA-bound silent sites are within conserved sequences, suggesting possible function. Such sites are enriched in motifs for transcriptional repressors, including for Rfx1 and type II nuclear hormone receptors. We found one such target site at a cryptic “shadow” enhancer 7 kilobases (kb) downstream of the Cdx2 gene, where Rfx1 restricts transcriptional activation by FoxA. The Cdx2 shadow enhancer exhibits a subset of regulatory properties of the upstream Cdx2 promoter region. While Cdx2 is ectopically induced in the early metaplastic condition of Barrett's esophagus, its expression is not necessarily present in progressive Barrett's with dysplasia or adenocarcinoma. By contrast, we find that Rfx1 expression in the esophageal epithelium becomes gradually extinguished during progression to cancer, i.e, expression of Rfx1 decreased markedly in dysplasia and adenocarcinoma. We propose that this decreased expression of Rfx1 could be an indicator of progression from Barrett's esophagus to adenocarcinoma and that similar analyses of other transcription factors bound to silent genes can reveal unanticipated regulatory insights into oncogenic progression and cellular reprogramming

Host genetic signatures of susceptibility to fungal disease

Our relative inability to predict the development of fungal disease and its clinical outcome raises fundamental questions about its actual pathogenesis. Several clinical risk factors are described to predispose to fungal disease, particularly in immunocompromised and severely ill patients. However, these alone do not entirely explain why, under comparable clinical conditions, only some patients develop infection. Recent clinical and epidemiological studies have reported an expanding number of monogenic defects and common polymorphisms associated with fungal disease. By directly implicating genetic variation in the functional regulation of immune mediators and interacting pathways, these studies have provided critical insights into the human immunobiology of fungal disease. Most of the common genetic defects reported were described or suggested to impair fungal recognition by the innate immune system. Here, we review common genetic variation in pattern recognition receptors and its impact on the immune response against the two major fungal pathogens Candida albicans and Aspergillus fumigatus. In addition, we discuss potential strategies and opportunities for the clinical translation of genetic information in the field of medical mycology. These approaches are expected to transfigure current clinical practice by unleashing an unprecedented ability to personalize prophylaxis, therapy and monitoring for fungal disease.This work was supported by the Northern Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the Portugal 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000013), the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) (IF/00735/2014 to AC, and SFRH/BPD/96176/2013 to CC), the Institut Mérieux (Mérieux Research Grant 2017 to CC), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID Research Grant 2017 to AC)

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

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field