Intestinal GUCY2C prevents TGF-β secretion coordinating desmoplasia and hyperproliferation in colorectal cancer.

Tumorigenesis is a multistep process that reflects intimate reciprocal interactions between epithelia and underlying stroma. However, tumor-initiating mechanisms coordinating transformation of both epithelial and stromal components are not defined. In humans and mice, initiation of colorectal cancer is universally associated with loss of guanylin and uroguanylin, the endogenous ligands for the tumor suppressor guanylyl cyclase C (GUCY2C), disrupting a network of homeostatic mechanisms along the crypt-surface axis. Here, we reveal that silencing GUCY2C in human colon cancer cells increases Akt-dependent TGF-β secretion, activating fibroblasts through TGF-β type I receptors and Smad3 phosphorylation. In turn, activating TGF-β signaling induces fibroblasts to secrete hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), reciprocally driving colon cancer cell proliferation through cMET-dependent signaling. Elimination of GUCY2C signaling in mice (Gucy2c(-/-)) produces intestinal desmoplasia, with increased reactive myofibroblasts, which is suppressed by anti-TGF-β antibodies or genetic silencing of Akt. Thus, GUCY2C coordinates intestinal epithelial-mesenchymal homeostasis through reciprocal paracrine circuits mediated by TGF-β and HGF. In that context, GUCY2C signaling constitutes a direct link between the initiation of colorectal cancer and the induction of its associated desmoplastic stromal niche. The recent regulatory approval of oral GUCY2C ligands to treat chronic gastrointestinal disorders underscores the potential therapeutic opportunity for oral GUCY2C hormone replacement to prevent remodeling of the microenvironment essential for colorectal tumorigenesis

GUCY2C Opposes Systemic Genotoxic Tumorigenesis by Regulating AKT-Dependent Intestinal Barrier Integrity

The barrier separating mucosal and systemic compartments comprises epithelial cells, annealed by tight junctions, limiting permeability. GUCY2C recently emerged as an intestinal tumor suppressor coordinating AKT1-dependent crypt-villus homeostasis. Here, the contribution of GUCY2C to barrier integrity opposing colitis and systemic tumorigenesis is defined. Mice deficient in GUCY2C (Gucy2c−/−) exhibited barrier hyperpermeability associated with reduced junctional proteins. Conversely, activation of GUCY2C in mice reduced barrier permeability associated with increased junctional proteins. Further, silencing GUCY2C exacerbated, while activation reduced, chemical barrier disruption and colitis. Moreover, eliminating GUCY2C amplified, while activation reduced, systemic oxidative DNA damage. This genotoxicity was associated with increased spontaneous and carcinogen-induced systemic tumorigenesis in Gucy2c−/− mice. GUCY2C regulated barrier integrity by repressing AKT1, associated with increased junction proteins occludin and claudin 4 in mice and Caco2 cells in vitro. Thus, GUCY2C defends the intestinal barrier, opposing colitis and systemic genotoxicity and tumorigenesis. The therapeutic potential of this observation is underscored by the emerging clinical development of oral GUCY2C ligands, which can be used for chemoprophylaxis in inflammatory bowel disease and cancer

IMPRoving Outcomes for children exposed to domestic ViolencE (IMPROVE): an evidence synthesis

BackgroundExposure to domestic violence and abuse (DVA) during childhood and adolescence increases the risk of negative outcomes across the lifespan.ObjectivesTo synthesise evidence on the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of interventions for children exposed to DVA, with the aim of making recommendations for further research.Design(1) A systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; (2) a systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; (3) a network meta-analysis (NMA) of controlled trials and cost-effectiveness analysis; (4) an overview of current UK provision of interventions; and (5) consultations with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.SettingsNorth America (11), the Netherlands (1) and Israel (1) for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; the USA (4) and the UK (1) for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; and the UK for the overview of current UK provision of interventions and consultations with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.ParticipantsA total of 1345 children for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; 100 children, 202 parents and 39 professionals for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; and 16 young people, six parents and 20 service providers and commissioners for the consultation with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.InterventionsPsychotherapeutic, advocacy, parenting skills and advocacy, psychoeducation, psychoeducation and advocacy, guided self-help.Main outcome measuresInternalising symptoms and externalising behaviour, mood, depression symptoms and diagnosis, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and self-esteem for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions and NMA; views about and experience of interventions for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions and consultations.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Citation Index, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Services Abstracts, Social Care Online, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, World Health Organization trials portal and clinicaltrials.gov.Review methodsA narrative review; a NMA and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis; and a qualitative synthesis.ResultsThe evidence base on targeted interventions was small, with limited settings and types of interventions; children were mostly &lt; 14 years of age, and there was an absence of comparative studies. The interventions evaluated in trials were mostly psychotherapeutic and psychoeducational interventions delivered to the non-abusive parent and child, usually based on the child’s exposure to DVA (not specific clinical or broader social needs). Qualitative studies largely focused on psychoeducational interventions, some of which included the abusive parent. The evidence for clinical effectiveness was as follows: 11 trials reported improvements in behavioural or mental health outcomes, with modest effect sizes but significant heterogeneity and high or unclear risk of bias. Psychoeducational group-based interventions delivered to the child were found to be more effective for improving mental health outcomes than other types of intervention. Interventions delivered to (non-abusive) parents and to children were most likely to be effective for improving behavioural outcomes. However, there is a large degree of uncertainty around comparisons, particularly with regard to mental health outcomes. In terms of evidence of cost-effectiveness, there were no economic studies of interventions. Cost-effectiveness was modelled on the basis of the NMA, estimating differences between types of interventions. The outcomes measured in trials were largely confined to children’s mental health and behavioural symptoms and disorders, although stakeholders’ concepts of success were broader, suggesting that a broader range of outcomes should be measured in trials. Group-based psychoeducational interventions delivered to children and non-abusive parents in parallel were largely acceptable to all stakeholders. There is limited evidence for the acceptability of other types of intervention. In terms of the UK evidence base and service delivery landscape, there were no UK-based trials, few qualitative studies and little widespread service evaluation. Most programmes are group-based psychoeducational interventions. However, the funding crisis in the DVA sector is significantly undermining programme delivery.ConclusionsThe evidence base regarding the acceptability, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for children exposed to DVA is underdeveloped. There is an urgent need for more high-quality studies, particularly trials, that are designed to produce actionable, generalisable findings that can be implemented in real-world settings and that can inform decisions about which interventions to commission and scale. We suggest that there is a need to pause the development of new interventions and to focus on the systematic evaluation of existing programmes. With regard to the UK, we have identified three types of programme that could be justifiably prioritised for further study: psycho-education delivered to mothers and children, or children alone; parent skills training in combination with advocacy: and interventions involving the abusive parent/caregiver. We also suggest that there is need for key stakeholders to come together to explicitly identify and address the structural, practical and cultural barriers that may have hampered the development of the UK evidence base to date.Future work recommendationsThere is a need for well-designed, well-conducted and well-reported UK-based randomised controlled trials with cost-effectiveness analyses and nested qualitative studies. Development of consensus in the field about core outcome data sets is required. There is a need for further exploration of the acceptability and effectiveness of interventions for specific groups of children and young people (i.e. based on ethnicity, age, trauma exposure and clinical profile). There is also a need for an investigation of the context in which interventions are delivered, including organisational setting and the broader community context, and the evaluation of qualities, qualifications and disciplines of personnel delivering interventions. We recommend prioritisation of psychoeducational interventions and parent skills training delivered in combination with advocacy in the next phase of trials, and exploratory trials of interventions that engage both the abusive and the non-abusive parent.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004348 and PROSPERO CRD420130043489.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.</jats:sec

A Conserved Tissue-Specific Homeodomain-Less Isoform of MEIS1 Is Downregulated in Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers in developed nations and is the result of both environmental and genetic factors. Many of the genetic lesions observed in colorectal cancer alter expression of homeobox genes, which encode homeodomain transcription factors. The MEIS1 homeobox gene is known to be involved in several hematological malignancies and solid tumors and recent evidence suggests that expression of the MEIS1 transcript is altered in colorectal cancer. Despite this potential connection, little is known about the role of the gene in the intestines. We probed murine gastrointestinal tissue samples with an N-terminal Meis1 antibody, revealing expression of two previously described isoforms, as well as two novel Meis1 products. A 32 kD Meis1 product was expressed in the nuclei of non-epithelial cells in the stomach and colon, while a 27 kD product was expressed in the cytoplasm of epithelial cells in the proximal colon. Our data suggest that the 27 kD and 32 kD Meis1 proteins are both forms of the Meis1d protein, a homeodomain-less isoform whose transcript was previously identified in cDNA screens. Both the MEIS1D transcript and protein were expressed in human colon mucosa. Expression of the MEIS1D protein was downregulated in 83 % (10/12) of primary colorectal cancer samples compared to matched normal mucosa, indicating that MEIS1D is a biomarker of colorectal tumorigenesis. The decreased expression of MEIS1D in colon tumors also suggests that this conserved homeodomain-less isoform may act as

The Meis1d protein is present in the murine colon.

<p>A) Western blot analysis of B6 proximal and distal colon lysates with the Meis1-N and Meis1d-C antibodies. The positions of Meis1, Meis1b, and the two novel Meis1 products are labeled. B) and C) Lysates from a panel of B6 organs were probed with the Meis1d-C antibody. Gapdh was used as a loading control.</p

MEIS1D₂₇ is downregulated in human colorectal cancers.

<p>A) RT-PCR amplification of <i>MEIS1D</i> transcript from human colon cDNA. B) Western blot analysis of lysates from human colorectal tumors (T) and matched normal mucosa (N) using the Meis1-N antibody. GAPDH was used as a loading control. Samples represent all four sections of the human colon: ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid.</p

Posttranslational modification of Meis1d correlates with subcellular localization.

<p>A) B6 proximal colon samples were separated into nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions and probed with the Meis1-N antibody. Histone H1 was used to confirm the subcellular fractionation. B) Western blot analysis of B6 proximal colon and Hct116 cells expressing the Meis1d ORF using the Meis1-N antibody. C) Hct116 cells were retrovirally infected with the Meis1d ORF or an empty MSCV vector. Cells were taken 72 hours post-infection, fractionated, and probed with the Meis1-N antibody. The positions of Meis1a, nuclear Meis1d (Meis1d₃₂), and cytoplasmic Meis1d (Meis1d₂₇) are labeled where applicable.</p

Meis1d₂₇ and Meis1d₃₂ are expressed in different cellular populations.

<p>A) B6 proximal and distal colon samples were separated into epithelial and non-epithelial fractions. The non-epithelial fractions consist of the lamina propria and muscle layers of the colon. The fractions and whole cell lysates from both colon segments were probed with the Meis1-N antibody. Cos-1 cells expressing Meis1d were used to compare the <i>in vitro</i> and <i>in vivo</i> molecular weights of Meis1d₃₂. B) B6 proximal and distal colon samples were stained with Meis1-N antibody. Staining was visualized at 20× magnification.</p

GUCY2C-deficiency increases susceptibility to DSS-induced colitis.

<p><i>Gucy2c^+/+</i> and <i>Gucy2c^−/−</i> male mice were administered 3% DSS in drinking water for 7 d to disrupt the epithelial barrier and induce colitis. Severity of colitis was analyzed by (<b>A</b>) body weight (n = 11) and (<b>B</b>) survival (n≥11). (<b>C</b>) Colon length was measured from the colocecal junction to the anal verge on day 12 (5 d post-DSS exposure) to quantify chronic inflammation. (<b>D</b>) Histological sections obtained from jejunum and distal colon on day 12 were stained with H&E and scored for epithelial and mesenchymal inflammation. Each point represents one mouse. (<b>E</b>) Representative H&E colon sections (20×). Data are mean ± SD (in C) and SEM (in D) obtained from one of three independent experiments. **, p<0.01, ***, p<0.001.</p