Real-Time Imaging of HIF-1α Stabilization and Degradation

HIF-1α is overexpressed in many human cancers compared to normal tissues due to the interaction of a multiplicity of factors and pathways that reflect specific genetic alterations and extracellular stimuli. We developed two HIF-1α chimeric reporter systems, HIF-1α/FLuc and HIF-1α(ΔODDD)/FLuc, to investigate the tightly controlled level of HIF-1α protein in normal (NIH3T3 and HEK293) and glioma (U87) cells. These reporter systems provided an opportunity to investigate the degradation of HIF-1α in different cell lines, both in culture and in xenografts. Using immunofluorescence microscopy, we observed different patterns of subcellular localization of HIF-1α/FLuc fusion protein between normal cells and cancer cells; similar differences were observed for HIF-1α in non-transduced, wild-type cells. A dynamic cytoplasmic-nuclear exchange of the fusion protein and HIF-1α was observed in NIH3T3 and HEK293 cells under different conditions (normoxia, CoCl2 treatment and hypoxia). In contrast, U87 cells showed a more persistent nuclear localization pattern that was less affected by different growing conditions. Employing a kinetic model for protein degradation, we were able to distinguish two components of HIF-1α/FLuc protein degradation and quantify the half-life of HIF-1α fusion proteins. The rapid clearance component (t1/2 ∼4–6 min) was abolished by the hypoxia-mimetic CoCl2, MG132 treatment and deletion of ODD domain, and reflects the oxygen/VHL-dependent degradation pathway. The slow clearance component (t1/2 ∼200 min) is consistent with other unidentified non-oxygen/VHL-dependent degradation pathways. Overall, the continuous bioluminescence readout of HIF-1α/FLuc stabilization in vitro and in vivo will facilitate the development and validation of therapeutics that affect the stability and accumulation of HIF-1α

Adaptation to HIF-1 deficiency by upregulation of the AMP/ATP ratio and phosphofructokinase activation in hepatomas

Background HIF-1 deficiency has marked effects on tumour glycolysis and growth. We therefore investigated the consequences of HIF-1 deficiency in mice, using the well established Hepa-1 wild-type (WT) and HIF-1β-deficient (c4) model. These mechanisms could be clinically relevant, since HIF-1 is now a therapeutic target. Methods Hepa-1 WT and c4 tumours grown in vivo were analysed by 18FDG-PET and 19FDG Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy for glucose uptake; by HPLC for adenine nucleotides; by immunohistochemistry for GLUTs; by immunoblotting and by DIGE followed by tandem mass spectrometry for protein expression; and by classical enzymatic methods for enzyme activity. Results HIF-1β deficient Hepa-1 c4 tumours grew significantly more slowly than WT tumours, and (as expected) showed significantly lower expression of many glycolytic enzymes. However, HIF-1β deficiency caused no significant change in the rate of glucose uptake in c4 tumours compared to WT when assessed in vivo by measuring fluoro-deoxyglucose (FDG) uptake. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated less GLUT-1 in c4 tumours, whereas GLUT-2 (liver type) was similar to WT. Factors that might upregulate glucose uptake independently of HIF-1 (phospho-Akt, c-Myc) were shown to have either lower or similar expression in c4 compared to WT tumours. However the AMP/ATP ratio was 4.5 fold higher (p < 0.01) in c4 tumours, and phosphofructokinase-1 (PFK-1) activity, measured at prevailing cellular ATP and AMP concentrations, was up to two-fold higher in homogenates of the deficient c4 cells and tumours compared to WT (p < 0.001), suggesting that allosteric PFK activation could explain their normal level of glycolysis. Phospho AMP-Kinase was also higher in the c4 tumours. Conclusions Despite their defective HIF-1 and consequent down-regulation of glycolytic enzyme expression, Hepa-1 c4 tumours maintain glucose uptake and glycolysis because the resulting low [ATP] high [AMP] allosterically activate PFK-1. This mechanism of resistance would keep glycolysis functioning and also result in activation of AMP-Kinase and growth inhibition; it may have major implications for the therapeutic activity of HIF inhibitors in vivo. Interestingly, this control mechanism does not involve transcriptional control or proteomics, but rather the classical activation and inhibition mechanisms of glycolytic enzymes