Loss of the SxxSS Motif in a Human T-Cell Factor-4 Isoform Confers Hypoxia Resistance to Liver Cancer: An Oncogenic Switch in Wnt Signaling

PURPOSE: Aberrantly activated Wnt/β-catenin signaling is important in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development. Downstream gene expressions involving the Wnt/β-catenin cascade occur through T-cell factor (TCF) proteins. Here, we show the oncogenic potential of human TCF-4 isoforms based on the expression of a single conserved SxxSS motif. METHODS: We investigated the TCF-4J and K isoform pair characterized by the presence (K) or absence (J) of the SxxSS motif. The mRNA expression profiles were examined in 47 pairs of human HCCs and adjacent non-cancerous liver tissues by RT-PCR. Proliferation, sphere assays and immunoblot analysis were performed under normoxia and hypoxia conditions. The ability of HCC cells overexpressing TCF-4J (J cells) and K (K cells) to grow as solid tumors in nude mice was explored. RESULTS: TCF-4J expression was significantly upregulated in HCC tumors compared to corresponding peritumor and normal liver and was preferentially expressed in poorly differentiated HCCs. In contrast, TCF-4K was downregulated in those same HCC tumors. TCF-4J-overexpressing HCC cells (J cells) revealed a survival advantage under hypoxic conditions, high proliferation rate and formation of aggregates/spheres compared to overexpression of TCF-4K (K cells). The hypoxic J cells had high expression levels of HIF-2α and EGFR as possible mechanisms to promote tumorigenesis. Increased stability of HIF-2α under hypoxia in J cells was associated with a decreased level of von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) protein, a known E3 ligase for HIF-αs. In a xenograft model, the J cells rapidly developed tumors compared to K cells. Tumor tissues derived from J cells exhibited high expression levels of HIF-2α and EGFR compared to the slow developing and small K cell derived tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the specific TCF-4J isoform, which lacks a regulatory SxxSS motif, has robust tumor-initiating potential under hypoxic conditions

New Insights into the Mechanisms of Embryonic Stem Cell Self-Renewal under Hypoxia: A Multifactorial Analysis Approach

Previous reports have shown that culturing mouse embryonic stem (mES) cells at different oxygen tensions originated different cell proliferation patterns and commitment stages depending on which signaling pathways are activated or inhibited to support the pluripotency state. Herein we provide new insights into the mechanisms by which oxygen is influencing mES cell self-renewal and pluripotency. A multifactorial approach was developed to rationally evaluate the singular and interactive control of MEK/ERK pathway, GSK-3 inhibition, and LIF/STAT3 signaling at physiological and non-physiological oxygen tensions. Collectively, our methodology revealed a significant role of GSK-3-mediated signaling towards maintenance of mES cell pluripotency at lower O2 tensions. Given the central role of this signaling pathway, future studies will need to focus on the downstream mechanisms involved in ES cell self-renewal under such conditions, and ultimately how these findings impact human models of pluripotency

Meta-analysis of archived DNA microarrays identifies genes regulated by hypoxia and involved in a metastatic phenotype in cancer cells

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Metastasis is a major cancer-related cause of death. Recent studies have described metastasis pathways. However, the exact contribution of each pathway remains unclear. Another key feature of a tumor is the presence of hypoxic areas caused by a lack of oxygen at the center of the tumor. Hypoxia leads to the expression of pro-metastatic genes as well as the repression of anti-metastatic genes. As many Affymetrix datasets about metastasis and hypoxia are publicly available and not fully exploited, this study proposes to re-analyze these datasets to extract new information about the metastatic phenotype induced by hypoxia in different cancer cell lines.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Affymetrix datasets about metastasis and/or hypoxia were downloaded from GEO and ArrayExpress. AffyProbeMiner and GCRMA packages were used for pre-processing and the Window Welch <it>t </it>test was used for processing. Three approaches of meta-analysis were eventually used for the selection of genes of interest.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Three complementary approaches were used, that eventually selected 183 genes of interest. Out of these 183 genes, 99, among which the well known <it>JUNB</it>, <it>FOS </it>and <it>TP63</it>, have already been described in the literature to be involved in cancer. Moreover, 39 genes of those, such as <it>SERPINE1 </it>and <it>MMP7</it>, are known to regulate metastasis. Twenty-one genes including <it>VEGFA </it>and <it>ID2 </it>have also been described to be involved in the response to hypoxia. Lastly, DAVID classified those 183 genes in 24 different pathways, among which 8 are directly related to cancer while 5 others are related to proliferation and cell motility. A negative control composed of 183 random genes failed to provide such results. Interestingly, 6 pathways retrieved by DAVID with the 183 genes of interest concern pathogen recognition and phagocytosis.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The proposed methodology was able to find genes actually known to be involved in cancer, metastasis and hypoxia and, thus, we propose that the other genes selected based on the same methodology are of prime interest in the metastatic phenotype induced by hypoxia.</p

miR-210: fine-tuning the hypoxic response

Hypoxia is a central component of the tumor microenvironment and represents a major source of therapeutic failure in cancer therapy. Recent work has provided a wealth of evidence that noncoding RNAs and, in particular, microRNAs, are significant members of the adaptive response to low oxygen in tumors. All published studies agree that miR-210 specifically is a robust target of hypoxia-inducible factors, and the induction of miR-210 is a consistent characteristic of the hypoxic response in normal and transformed cells. Overexpression of miR-210 is detected in most solid tumors and has been linked to adverse prognosis in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma, breast, head and neck, and pancreatic cancer. A wide variety of miR-210 targets have been identified, pointing to roles in the cell cycle, mitochondrial oxidative metabolism, angiogenesis, DNA damage response, and cell survival. Additional microRNAs seem to be modulated by low oxygen in a more tissue-specific fashion, adding another layer of complexity to the vast array of protein-coding genes regulated by hypoxia

Loregic: A Method to Characterize the Cooperative Logic of Regulatory Factors

The topology of the gene-regulatory network has been extensively analyzed. Now, given the large amount of available functional genomic data, it is possible to go beyond this and systematically study regulatory circuits in terms of logic elements. To this end, we present Loregic, a computational method integrating gene expression and regulatory network data, to characterize the cooperativity of regulatory factors. Loregic uses all 16 possible twoinput- one-output logic gates (e.g. AND or XOR) to describe triplets of two factors regulating a common target. We attempt to find the gate that best matches each triplet’s observed gene expression pattern across many conditions. We make Loregic available as a generalpurpose tool (github.com/gersteinlab/loregic). We validate it with known yeast transcriptionfactor knockout experiments. Next, using human ENCODE ChIP-Seq and TCGA RNA-Seq data, we are able to demonstrate how Loregic characterizes complex circuits involving both proximally and distally regulating transcription factors (TFs) and also miRNAs. Furthermore, we show that MYC, a well-known oncogenic driving TF, can be modeled as acting independently from other TFs (e.g., using OR gates) but antagonistically with repressing miRNAs. Finally, we inter-relate Loregic’s gate logic with other aspects of regulation, such as indirect binding via protein-protein interactions, feed-forward loop motifs and global regulatory hierarchy

In vitro downregulated hypoxia transcriptome is associated with poor prognosis in breast cancer

© The Author(s), 2017. Background Hypoxia is a characteristic of breast tumours indicating poor prognosis. Based on the assumption that those genes which are up-regulated under hypoxia in cell-lines are expected to be predictors of poor prognosis in clinical data, many signatures of poor prognosis were identified. However, it was observed that cell line data do not always concur with clinical data, and therefore conclusions from cell line analysis should be considered with caution. As many transcriptomic cell-line datasets from hypoxia related contexts are available, integrative approaches which investigate these datasets collectively, while not ignoring clinical data, are required. Results We analyse sixteen heterogeneous breast cancer cell-line transcriptomic datasets in hypoxia-related conditions collectively by employing the unique capabilities of the method, UNCLES, which integrates clustering results from multiple datasets and can address questions that cannot be answered by existing methods. This has been demonstrated by comparison with the state-of-the-art iCluster method. From this collection of genome-wide datasets include 15,588 genes, UNCLES identified a relatively high number of genes (>1000 overall) which are consistently co-regulated over all of the datasets, and some of which are still poorly understood and represent new potential HIF targets, such as RSBN1 and KIAA0195. Two main, anti-correlated, clusters were identified; the first is enriched with MYC targets participating in growth and proliferation, while the other is enriched with HIF targets directly participating in the hypoxia response. Surprisingly, in six clinical datasets, some sub-clusters of growth genes are found consistently positively correlated with hypoxia response genes, unlike the observation in cell lines. Moreover, the ability to predict bad prognosis by a combined signature of one sub-cluster of growth genes and one sub-cluster of hypoxia-induced genes appears to be comparable and perhaps greater than that of known hypoxia signatures. Conclusions We present a clustering approach suitable to integrate data from diverse experimental set-ups. Its application to breast cancer cell line datasets reveals new hypoxia-regulated signatures of genes which behave differently when in vitro (cell-line) data is compared with in vivo (clinical) data, and are of a prognostic value comparable or exceeding the state-of-the-art hypoxia signatures.Dr. Abu-Jamous would like to acknowledge the financial assistance from Brunel University London. Professors Buffa and Harris acknowledge support from Cancer Research UK, EU framework 7, and the Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Professor Harris acknowledges support from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Professor Nandi would like to acknowledge that this work was partly supported by the National Science Foundation of China grant number 61520106006 and the National Science Foundation of Shanghai grant number 16JC1401300. The funding bodies have no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript

NIST Interlaboratory Study on Glycosylation Analysis of Monoclonal Antibodies: Comparison of Results from Diverse Analytical Methods

Glycosylation is a topic of intense current interest in the development of biopharmaceuticals because it is related to drug safety and efficacy. This work describes results of an interlaboratory study on the glycosylation of the Primary Sample (PS) of NISTmAb, a monoclonal antibody reference material. Seventy-six laboratories from industry, university, research, government, and hospital sectors in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia submit- Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993; 22Glycoscience Research Laboratory, Genos, Borongajska cesta 83h, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; 23Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, A. Kovacˇ ic´ a 1, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; 24Department of Chemistry, Georgia State University, 100 Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; 25glyXera GmbH, Brenneckestrasse 20 * ZENIT / 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; 26Health Products and Foods Branch, Health Canada, AL 2201E, 251 Sir Frederick Banting Driveway, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K9 Canada; 27Graduate School of Advanced Sciences of Matter, Hiroshima University, 1-3-1 Kagamiyama Higashi-Hiroshima 739–8530 Japan; 28ImmunoGen, 830 Winter Street, Waltham, Massachusetts 02451; 29Department of Medical Physiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, ul. Michalowskiego 12, 31–126 Krakow, Poland; 30Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, 400 N. Broadway Street Baltimore, Maryland 21287; 31Mass Spec Core Facility, KBI Biopharma, 1101 Hamlin Road Durham, North Carolina 27704; 32Division of Mass Spectrometry, Korea Basic Science Institute, 162 YeonGuDanji-Ro, Ochang-eup, Cheongwon-gu, Cheongju Chungbuk, 363–883 Korea (South); 33Advanced Therapy Products Research Division, Korea National Institute of Food and Drug Safety, 187 Osongsaengmyeong 2-ro Osong-eup, Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, 363–700, Korea (South); 34Center for Proteomics and Metabolomics, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands; 35Ludger Limited, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3EB, United Kingdom; 36Biomolecular Discovery and Design Research Centre and ARC Centre of Excellence for Nanoscale BioPhotonics (CNBP), Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia; 37Proteomics, Central European Institute for Technology, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, A26, 625 00 BRNO, Czech Republic; 38Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems, Sandtorstrasse 1, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany; 39Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, 14424 Potsdam, Germany; 40AstraZeneca, Granta Park, Cambridgeshire, CB21 6GH United Kingdom; 41Merck, 2015 Galloping Hill Rd, Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033; 42Analytical R&D, MilliporeSigma, 2909 Laclede Ave. St. Louis, Missouri 63103; 43MS Bioworks, LLC, 3950 Varsity Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108; 44MSD, Molenstraat 110, 5342 CC Oss, The Netherlands; 45Exploratory Research Center on Life and Living Systems (ExCELLS), National Institutes of Natural Sciences, 5–1 Higashiyama, Myodaiji, Okazaki 444–8787 Japan; 46Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nagoya City University, 3–1 Tanabe-dori, Mizuhoku, Nagoya 467–8603 Japan; 47Medical & Biological Laboratories Co., Ltd, 2-22-8 Chikusa, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464–0858 Japan; 48National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Blanche Lane, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG United Kingdom; 49Division of Biological Chemistry & Biologicals, National Institute of Health Sciences, 1-18-1 Kamiyoga, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 158–8501 Japan; 50New England Biolabs, Inc., 240 County Road, Ipswich, Massachusetts 01938; 51New York University, 100 Washington Square East New York City, New York 10003; 52Target Discovery Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7FZ, United Kingdom; 53GlycoScience Group, The National Institute for Bioprocessing Research and Training, Fosters Avenue, Mount Merrion, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland; 54Department of Chemistry, North Carolina State University, 2620 Yarborough Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27695; 55Pantheon, 201 College Road East Princeton, New Jersey 08540; 56Pfizer Inc., 1 Burtt Road Andover, Massachusetts 01810; 57Proteodynamics, ZI La Varenne 20–22 rue Henri et Gilberte Goudier 63200 RIOM, France; 58ProZyme, Inc., 3832 Bay Center Place Hayward, California 94545; 59Koichi Tanaka Mass Spectrometry Research Laboratory, Shimadzu Corporation, 1 Nishinokyo Kuwabara-cho Nakagyo-ku, Kyoto, 604 8511 Japan; 60Children’s GMP LLC, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place Memphis, Tennessee 38105; 61Sumitomo Bakelite Co., Ltd., 1–5 Muromati 1-Chome, Nishiku, Kobe, 651–2241 Japan; 62Synthon Biopharmaceuticals, Microweg 22 P.O. Box 7071, 6503 GN Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 63Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., 40 Landsdowne Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139; 64Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Texas Tech University, 2500 Broadway, Lubbock, Texas 79409; 65Thermo Fisher Scientific, 1214 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, California 94085; 66United States Pharmacopeia India Pvt. Ltd. IKP Knowledge Park, Genome Valley, Shamirpet, Turkapally Village, Medchal District, Hyderabad 500 101 Telangana, India; 67Alberta Glycomics Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G2 Canada; 68Department of Chemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G2 Canada; 69Department of Chemistry, University of California, One Shields Ave, Davis, California 95616; 70Horva´ th Csaba Memorial Laboratory for Bioseparation Sciences, Research Center for Molecular Medicine, Doctoral School of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Egyetem ter 1, Hungary; 71Translational Glycomics Research Group, Research Institute of Biomolecular and Chemical Engineering, University of Pannonia, Veszprem, Egyetem ut 10, Hungary; 72Delaware Biotechnology Institute, University of Delaware, 15 Innovation Way Newark, Delaware 19711; 73Proteomics Core Facility, University of Gothenburg, Medicinaregatan 1G SE 41390 Gothenburg, Sweden; 74Department of Medical Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University of Gothenburg, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Medicinaregatan 9A, Box 440, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden; 75Department of Clinical Chemistry and Transfusion Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Bruna Straket 16, 41345 Gothenburg, Sweden; 76Department of Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Martin Luther King Pl. 6 20146 Hamburg, Germany; 77Department of Chemistry, University of Manitoba, 144 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2; 78Laboratory of Mass Spectrometry of Interactions and Systems, University of Strasbourg, UMR Unistra-CNRS 7140, France; 79Natural and Medical Sciences Institute, University of Tu¨ bingen, Markwiesenstrae 55, 72770 Reutlingen, Germany; 80Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research and Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands; 81Division of Bioanalytical Chemistry, Amsterdam Institute for Molecules, Medicines and Systems, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 82Department of Chemistry, Waters Corporation, 34 Maple Street Milford, Massachusetts 01757; 83Zoetis, 333 Portage St. Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Author’s Choice—Final version open access under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY license. Received July 24, 2019, and in revised form, August 26, 2019 Published, MCP Papers in Press, October 7, 2019, DOI 10.1074/mcp.RA119.001677 ER: NISTmAb Glycosylation Interlaboratory Study 12 Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 19.1 Downloaded from https://www.mcponline.org by guest on January 20, 2020 ted a total of 103 reports on glycan distributions. The principal objective of this study was to report and compare results for the full range of analytical methods presently used in the glycosylation analysis of mAbs. Therefore, participation was unrestricted, with laboratories choosing their own measurement techniques. Protein glycosylation was determined in various ways, including at the level of intact mAb, protein fragments, glycopeptides, or released glycans, using a wide variety of methods for derivatization, separation, identification, and quantification. Consequently, the diversity of results was enormous, with the number of glycan compositions identified by each laboratory ranging from 4 to 48. In total, one hundred sixteen glycan compositions were reported, of which 57 compositions could be assigned consensus abundance values. These consensus medians provide communityderived values for NISTmAb PS. Agreement with the consensus medians did not depend on the specific method or laboratory type. The study provides a view of the current state-of-the-art for biologic glycosylation measurement and suggests a clear need for harmonization of glycosylation analysis methods. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 19: 11–30, 2020. DOI: 10.1074/mcp.RA119.001677.L