Caractérisation de la SERPINA1, une antiprotéase différentiellement exprimée dans le cancer épithélial de l’ovaire

Le cancer épithélial de l’ovaire est le cancer gynécologique le plus létal. La survie à 5 ans est de 30-40% chez les patientes atteintes d’une tumeur invasive (TOV), comparativement à 95% chez les patientes diagnostiquées pour une tumeur à faible potentiel de malignité ou borderline (LMP). Au laboratoire, l’analyse de l’expression des gènes de la micropuce à ADN U133 d’Affymetrix a révélé que la SERPINA1 est un gène dont l’expression varie entre les tumeurs LMP et TOV. La validation par Q-PCR nous a confirmé que cette antiprotéase est majoritairement surexprimée dans les tumeurs LMP, par rapport aux tumeurs bénignes (BOV) et aux tumeurs TOV. Nous avons donc surexprimé la SERPINA1 dans les lignées cellulaires invasives TOV 112D et TOV 1946 du cancer de l’ovaire et dérivé des clones stables. Les résultats obtenus nous indiquent que la surexpression de la SERPINA1 a un effet sur la capacité d’invasion et de migration cellulaire et non au niveau de la croissance cellulaire et la formation de structures tridimensionnelles. Les résultats issus de l’étude in vivo dans les souris SCID nous permettront de déterminer si la surexpression de la SERPINA1 a un effet sur la tumorigénèse ovarienne. Ainsi, la SERPINA1 demeure à notre avis un candidat d’intérêt pour tenter de mieux comprendre les différences biologiques entre les tumeurs LMP et TOV, ainsi que le rôle des protéases et de leurs inhibiteurs dans la progression tumorale du cancer de l’ovaire.Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic cancer with a five-year survival rate of 30-40% in patients diagnosed with high-grade invasive disease (TOV). This is in stark contrast to the 95% five-year survival in patients diagnosed with low malignant potential (LMP) disease. It is therefore important to understand the biological differences between LMP and TOV. We have previously identified differential expression of SERPINA1 between serous LMP and TOV tumors through gene expression analysis using Affymetrix U133 DNA microarrays. Expression of this protease inhibitor in the majority of LMP tumors was confirmed and validated by Q-PCR. To study the effects of its overexpression on the invasive potential of ovarian cancer cell lines, SERPINA1 was cloned in the pcDNA3.1+ plasmid and stable clones were derived from two invasive ovarian cancer cell lines, TOV 112D and TOV 1946. Comparisons between clones and controls have shown no SERPINA1-dependent difference in cellular growth or spheroid formation. However, effects on cellular migration and invasion are observed in cells overexpressing SERPINA1. Results from an in vivo xenograft study in SCID mice will allow us to determine if SERPINA1 overexpression affects ovarian tumorigenesis. SERPINA1 remains an interesting candidate gene whose further characterization may lead to insights into its role, and the role of proteases and their inhibitors, in ovarian cancer disease progression

Genetic enhancers of partial PLK1 inhibition reveal hypersensitivity to kinetochore perturbations.

Polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) is a serine/threonine kinase required for mitosis and cytokinesis. As cancer cells are often hypersensitive to partial PLK1 inactivation, chemical inhibitors of PLK1 have been developed and tested in clinical trials. However, these small molecule inhibitors alone are not completely effective. PLK1 promotes numerous molecular and cellular events in the cell division cycle and it is unclear which of these events most crucially depend on PLK1 activity. We used a CRISPR-based genome-wide screening strategy to identify genes whose inactivation enhances cell proliferation defects upon partial chemical inhibition of PLK1. Genes identified encode proteins that are functionally linked to PLK1 in multiple ways, most notably factors that promote centromere and kinetochore function. Loss of the kinesin KIF18A or the outer kinetochore protein SKA1 in PLK1-compromised cells resulted in mitotic defects, activation of the spindle assembly checkpoint and nuclear reassembly defects. We also show that PLK1-dependent CENP-A loading at centromeres is extremely sensitive to partial PLK1 inhibition. Our results suggest that partial inhibition of PLK1 compromises the integrity and function of the centromere/kinetochore complex, rendering cells hypersensitive to different kinetochore perturbations. We propose that KIF18A is a promising target for combinatorial therapies with PLK1 inhibitors

Immunohistochemical profiling of benign, low malignant potential and low grade serous epithelial ovarian tumors

Abstract Background Serous epithelial ovarian tumors can be subdivided into benign (BOV), low malignant potential (LMP) or borderline and invasive (TOV) tumors. Although the molecular characteristics of serous BOV, LMP and low grade (LG) TOV tumors has been initiated, definitive immunohistochemical markers to distinguish between these tumor types have not been defined. Methods In the present study, we used a tissue array composed of 27 BOVs, 78 LMPs and 23 LG TOVs to evaluate the protein expression of a subset of selected candidates identified in our previous studies (Ape1, Set, Ran, Ccne1 and Trail) or known to be implicated in epithelial ovarian cancer disease (p21, Ccnb1, Ckd1). Results Statistically significant difference in protein expression was observed for Ccnb1 when BOV tumors were compared to LMP tumors (p = 0.003). When BOV were compared to LG TOV tumors, Trail was significantly expressed at a higher level in malignant tumors (p = 0.01). Expression of p21 was significantly lower in LG tumors when compared with either BOVs (p = 0.03) or LMPs (p = 0.001). We also observed that expression of p21 was higher in LMP tumors with no (p = 0.02) or non-invasive (p = 0.01) implants compared to the LMP associated with invasive implants. Conclusion This study represents an extensive analyse of the benign and highly differentiated ovarian disease from an immunohistochemical perspective.</p

Integrating accompanying patients into clinical oncology teams: limiting and facilitating factors

Abstract Objectives Since 2018, four establishments in Quebec have been instrumental in implementing the PAROLE-Onco program, which introduced accompanying patients (APs) into healthcare teams to improve cancer patients’ experience. APs are patient advisors who have acquired specific experiential knowledge related to living with cancer, using services, and interacting with healthcare professionals. They are therefore in a unique and reliable position to be able to provide emotional, informational, cognitive and navigational support to patients who are dealing with cancer. We aimed to explore APs’ perspectives regarding the limiting and facilitating factors in terms of how they are integrated into the clinical oncology teams. Methods A qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews and focus groups was conducted with 20 APs at the beginning of their intervention (T1) and, two years later, during a second data collection (T2). Limiting and facilitating factors of APs’ integration into clinical teams were analyzed in terms of governance, culture, resources and tools. Results The limited factors raised by APs to be integrated into clinical teams include the following: confusion about the specific roles played by APs, lifting the egos of certain professionals who feel they are already doing what APs typically do, lack of identification of patient needs, absence of APs in project governance organizational boundaries, and team members' availability. Various communication challenges were also raised, resulting in the program being inadequately promoted among patients. Also mentioned as limiting factors were the lack of time, space and compensation. Creating opportunities for team members to meet with APs, building trust and teaching team members how APs’ activities complement theirs were enhancing factors. Other facilitators include APs being involved in decision-making committees, being leaders in promoting the PAROLE-Onco program to patients and clinical team members and creating opportunities to communicate with team members to help enhance their work and provide feedback to improve patient services. Awareness of APs’ added value for the team and patients is also a key facilitator. Regarding tools, offering accompanying services by telephone allows both patients and APs to benefit from the flexibility they need. Conclusion Over time, APs were able to identify optimal factors for successful implementation. Recommendations include APs and professionals working in co-construction on organization, leadership, resources and status factors. This could help catalyze a change in culture within health establishments and allow people dealing with cancer to benefit from the experiential knowledge of other patients within their clinical team