X Zhuang1, J M J Herbert2, P Lodhia3, J Bradford4, A M Turner5, P M Newby3, D Thickett6, U Naidu5, D Blakey4, S Barry4, D A E Cross4, R Bicknell1. 1. 1] School of Immunity and Infection, Institute for Biomedical Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK [2] School of Cancer Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. 2. 1] School of Immunity and Infection, Institute for Biomedical Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK [2] Technology Hub Sequencing and Bioinformatics, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, Birmingham B15, UK. 3. School of Immunity and Infection, Institute for Biomedical Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. 4. AstraZeneca, Mereside, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4TG, UK. 5. 1] School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Birmingham, QEHB Research Laboratories, Mindelsohn Way, Birmingham B15 2WB, UK [2] Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Bordesley Green, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK. 6. School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Birmingham, QEHB Research Laboratories, Mindelsohn Way, Birmingham B15 2WB, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death, largely owing to the lack of effective treatments. A tumour vascular targeting strategy presents an attractive alternative; however, the molecular signature of the vasculature in lung cancer is poorly explored. This work aimed to identify novel tumour vascular targets in lung cancer. METHODS: Enzymatic digestion of fresh tissue followed by endothelial capture with Ulex lectin-coated magnetic beads was used to isolate the endothelium from fresh tumour specimens of lung cancer patients. Endothelial isolates from the healthy and tumour lung tissue were subjected to whole human genome expression profiling using microarray technology. RESULTS: Bioinformatics analysis identified tumour endothelial expression of angiogenic factors, matrix metalloproteases and cell-surface transmembrane proteins. Predicted novel tumour vascular targets were verified by RNA-seq, quantitative real-time PCR analysis and immunohistochemistry. Further detailed expression profiling of STEAP1 on 82 lung cancer patients confirmed STEAP1 as a novel target in the tumour vasculature. Functional analysis of STEAP1 using siRNA silencing implicates a role in endothelial cell migration and tube formation. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of cell-surface tumour endothelial markers in lung is of interest in therapeutic antibody and vaccine development.
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death, largely owing to the lack of effective treatments. A tumour vascular targeting strategy presents an attractive alternative; however, the molecular signature of the vasculature in lung cancer is poorly explored. This work aimed to identify novel tumour vascular targets in lung cancer. METHODS: Enzymatic digestion of fresh tissue followed by endothelial capture with Ulex lectin-coated magnetic beads was used to isolate the endothelium from fresh tumour specimens of lung cancer patients. Endothelial isolates from the healthy and tumour lung tissue were subjected to whole human genome expression profiling using microarray technology. RESULTS: Bioinformatics analysis identified tumour endothelial expression of angiogenic factors, matrix metalloproteases and cell-surface transmembrane proteins. Predicted novel tumour vascular targets were verified by RNA-seq, quantitative real-time PCR analysis and immunohistochemistry. Further detailed expression profiling of STEAP1 on 82 lung cancer patients confirmed STEAP1 as a novel target in the tumour vasculature. Functional analysis of STEAP1 using siRNA silencing implicates a role in endothelial cell migration and tube formation. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of cell-surface tumour endothelial markers in lung is of interest in therapeutic antibody and vaccine development.
Lung cancer is now the leading cause of cancer mortality in the UK, accounting for
24% of cancer deaths in men and 21% in women (Office
for National Statistics, 2011). Worldwide rates vary markedly; overall lung
cancer accounted for 18% of all cancer deaths in 2008 (Ferlay ). Rates have been impacted little by the
advances in diagnosis and treatment to date, and in some groups, such as British women
(Office for National Statistics, 2011), they continue
to rise. Lung cancer is divided into two broad categories – non-small cell (NSCLC)
and small cell. More than 80% of lung cancers are NSCLC, which is comprised
mostly of squamous cancers and adenocarcinomas. Key changes over the past 10 years in
NSCLC include the reclassification of tumour types (Nair ), use of biological markers to guide certain therapies,
use of adjuvant therapy after selected complete resections and advances in selection and
planning for surgery and radiotherapy – concepts that have been reviewed
comprehensively elsewhere (Goldstraw ). The most promise has been shown by CT-based screening, though concerns
have been raised about the potential for multiple invasive tests and cost-effectiveness
of the strategy (Bach ). Since many
patients present with advanced disease surgery is often impossible, hence there is a
great need for novel therapeutic agents. This is particularly important as current first
line regimes add little >2 months to the average survival (Goldstraw ). In addition, many therapies are less
beneficial (or indeed more harmful) in squamous tumours, such as the antifolate agent
pemetrexed (Scagliotti ),
anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody bevacuzimab (Johnson ) and tyrosine kinase inhibitor
(TKI) gefitinib (Wang ). Selection
for the latter drug usually also involves testing for EGFR mutation (Wang ), meaning that the pool of patients
in whom each drug works is increasingly small. Therefore, the identification of novel
biomarkers or therapeutic targets is a priority for lung cancer.A functional vasculature contributes to tumour progression and malignant cell
metastasis. Endothelial cells lining the tumour vasculature are exposed to molecular
factors and mechanical forces that are absent in healthy tissue. For example, the
vasculature in solid tumours is often in a hypoxic environment (Dachs and Chaplin, 1998) and is exposed to elevated the levels of
hypoxically induced angiogenic factors such as VEGF (Relf ). Tumour vessels may also be leaky, tortuous, sometimes
blind ended and have poor vascular smooth muscle and pericyte coverage (Baluk ). As a result, the tumour endothelial
transcriptome is markedly different from that in healthy tissue and provides a unique
source for cancer target identification. In the last decade, attempts to identify tumour
endothelial markers (TEMs) have included construction of SAGE libraries from freshly
isolated endothelium (ST Croix ), use
of microarray platforms (Ho ),
proteomic analysis of freshly isolated endothelial cell membranes (Ho ; Oh ) as well as bioinformatics data mining (Huminiecki and Bicknell, 2000; Herbert ). These efforts identified several targets including the EDB
domain of fibronectin, a series of numbered TEMs, annexin A and recently CLEC14A
reviewed in Meyer, 2010.Recent studies have shown that TEMs are often tissue dependent, and that endothelial
transcriptomes have been documented for colon (Van Beijnum ), breast (Bhati ; Jones ) and
ovarian cancer (Sasaroli ). Known
TEMs are often weakly expressed in lung tumours (Mura ) and this prompted us to investigate TEMs in the lung. For
successful expression profiling it is essential to obtain a pure endothelial population.
We demonstrate in this study that rapid tissue digestion followed by magnetic bead
isolation yields pure endothelial isolates. Following expression profiling of
endothelial isolates from NSCLC patient samples, novel cell-surface targets of lung
tumour vasculature were identified, presenting attractive potential for developing
targeted therapies for lung cancer.
Materials and methods
Ulex-bead isolation
Healthy and tumour lung tissue was obtained immediately following surgery with
full patient consent and ethics approval (Heartlands Hospital, REC.
07/MRE08/42). Minced tissue was digested in DMEM containing
2 mg ml−1 collagenase type V (Sigma, Gillingham,
UK), 7.4 mg ml−1 of actinomycin (Sigma) and
30 kU ml−1 of DNAse I (Qiagen, Crawley, UK) at
37oC. Endothelial cells were isolated from the digested cell
suspension by positive selection using Ulex europaeus lectin-coated
magnetic beads (Invitrogen, Paisley, UK).
Microarray
RNA extracted from Ulex-bead isolated samples was converted to cRNA, then
subjected to amplification and labelling. Labelled cRNA samples were then
hybridised to an Agilent 4 x 44k whole human gene expression microarray (Agilent,
Wokingham, UK). The Bioconductor packages preprocess Core and Limma were used to
subtract background and quantile-normalise probe signal intensities prior to
performing differential gene expression analyses. Principle component analysis
(PCA) was performed in R.
RNA-seq
Seventy-nine and 84 million paired end reads (50 bp+35 bp) were
sequenced on the SOLiD4 2nd generation sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City,
CA, USA) for endothelium from fresh tumour and healthy tissue, respectively. Reads
were mapped to the Human genome (University California Santa Cruz, version hg19)
with Tophat 1.3.3 (Trapnell ).
Default parameters for colour space mapping were used with the exception of the
following: 1 g/—max-multihits was set to 1 to identify the single best
mapped read; 2 library-type was set to fr-secondstrand to reflect the sequencing
library preparation; 3 G provided Tophat with a model set of gene annotation
genome positions from the Refseq hg19 transcriptome. The Tophat output bam files
were sorted using samtools (Version: 0.1.8, (Li )), and 'HTSeq-count' version 0.4.7p4
(Anders, 2010) was used, in conjunction with the
Human transcriptome GTF Refseq version 19, to assign gene counts and produce a tab
delimited file of transcript/gene counts. Differential gene expression
analysis and P-value generation on the count data was carried out using
the R Bioconductor package DESeq v1.5 (Anders and Huber,
2010).
Quantitative real-time PCR
RNA extraction, complementary DNA preparation and quantitative real-time PCR
(qPCR) were performed using LightCycler real-time quantitative PCR (Roche, Burgess
Hill, UK) by following previously described methods (Armstrong
). The Primer sequences are provided in
Supplementary Table 1. The double delta Ct
method was used to compare the expression levels in tumour relative to healthy
endothelial isolates.
Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemistry of placental tissue or lung tumour sections were
immunostained with antisera to the targets (all antisera from Abcam, Cambridge,
UK). The sections were then visualised using ImmPRESS universal antibody kit and
NovaRed chromagen (Vector labs, Burlingame, CA, USA). Finally, the sections were
counterstained with Mayers hematoxylin, dehydrated and mounted in
distyrene–plasticizer–xylene resin.
Functional assay with siRNA knockdown
Transfection with siRNA and functional assays were performed as previously
described (Armstrong ). STEAP1
siRNA duplexes were:D1: sense: 5′-CUAUAUUCAGAGCAAGCUATT-3′ anti-sense:
5′-UAGCUUGCUCUGAAUAUAGTG-3′D2: sense: 5′-GAAUAAGUGGAUAGAUAUATT-3′ anti-sense:
5′-UAUAUCUAUCCACUUAUUCCA-3′ (Ambion, Chipping
Norton, UK). The open area of the wound was quantified using a cell intelligence
quotient analyzer or Image J software (Image J website, rsbweb.nih.gov). The effect of
STEAP1 knockdown on Matrigel assays was analysed by Angiogenesis Analyzer for
ImageJ. All images were acquired using a Leica DM IL microscope (Leica, Milton
Keynes, UK) and USB 2.0 2M Xli camera (XL Imaging LLC, Carrollton, TX, USA).
Results
Isolation of lung endothelium from fresh tissue
Previous studies have shown that a high purity of endothelial isolates can be
achieved using Ulex-conjugated beads (Jackson ) but has not yet been applied to human lung tissue.
Ulex agglutinin I is a lectin that specifically binds to L-fucose
residues present in glycoproteins on the human endothelial surface (Holthofer ). Here we examine this
approach for the isolation of endothelium from fresh lung specimens. Fresh healthy
or tumour lung tissue samples (1–3 g) were processed within
3 h post surgery. The tumour tissue was resected from the viable region of
the tumour core and the patient-matched healthy tissue was
resected>10 cm away from the tumour core. Endothelial cells were
positively isolated using magnetic beads coupled to Ulex lectin (workflow
illustrated in Figure 1A). To verify endothelial
enrichment, expression of the universal endothelial marker CD31 was examined by
qPCR in the endothelial isolates and compared with that in the bulk tissue. A
15-fold enrichment of endothelium was achieved in the bead isolated samples when
compared with whole tumour extracts. Afour-fold enrichment was seen in endothelial
cells isolated from healthy lung (Figure 1B). The
differing fold increase in CD31 seen in healthy and tumour samples is likely owing
to the proportion of endothelial cells being higher in healthy lung (30%)
than in tumours (3%–5%). RNA integrity analysis of a typical
RNA isolate is shown in Figure 1C. The data confirm
that the Ulex-bead isolation approach can effectively isolate the
endothelial population from lung.
Figure 1
A (A) The workflow of the main
steps in Ulex-bead isolation of endothelial cells from healthy/tumor
lung tissue. (B) Confirmation of endothelial enrichment using the
Ulex-beads approach. Real-time PCR using a primer set for the
endothelial marker CD31 was performed on the bead isolated endothelial cells and
bulk tissue. Expression of CD31 in the bead isolated sample was normalised to that
in the bulk tissue (n=3). (C) Good quality RNA (RIN>7)
was obtained from Ulex-bead isolated endothelial cells from healthy and
tumour lung tissue. ECs=Endothelial cells.
Microarray of endothelial isolates from lung cancer patients
For expression profiling, a microarray analysis was performed on four pairs of
NSCLC patient-matched healthy and tumour lung endothelial isolates. Clinical and
pathologic data was obtained from Birmingham Heartlands Hospital (Table 1, patients 1–4). A PCA plot shows
variation in both tumour and healthy lung samples and between the samples of each
group. This was to be expected as samples were collected and extracted from
different patients and statistically significant genes are those that are
consistent across replicate samples. Despite this the tumour and healthy isolates
fall into two discrete groups (Figure 2).
Table 1
Clinical-pathological data of lung cancer patients used in the genomic
analysis
ID
Age
Gender
Pack years smoked
Histology of tumour
Tumour stage
Application
1
65
M
15
Squamous
T1N0M0
Microarray
2
71
M
40
Squamous
T1N0M0
Microarray
3
63
F
17
Squamous
T1N1M0
Microarray
4
67
M
50
Squamous
T3N0M0
Microarray
5
73
F
25
Adeno
T2N0M0
RNA-Seq
6
83
M
35
Adeno
T2N1M0
RNA-Seq
7
52
M
25
Adeno
T2N1M0
RNA-Seq
Figure 2
Principle component analysis plot of microarray of the four pairs of healthy
and tumour lung endothelial isolates. A PCA plot showing that the
endothelial transcriptomes of healthy and tumour lung show a clear difference. The
separation between healthy and tumour lung endothelium was highlighted by dotted
lines.
To better understand the role of known angiogenesis-associated genes in NSCLC, a
differential expression analysis was performed using the programme Limma. The
analysis revealed a panel of known angiogenesis-associated genes including COL1A1,
VEGF-A, TEM7, TNC, EPHB2, IL8, FGF1, ANGPTL2 and TEM8 to be elevated in lung
tumour endothelium (Table 2). As tumour angiogenesis
proceeds by proteolysis of the extracellular matrix (Sottile,
2004), elevated matrix metalloprotease (MMP) activity is associated
with active angiogenesis and tumour progression. The analysis also identified a
number of MMPs that are upregulated in lung tumour compared with healthy lung
endothelium (Table 3).
Table 2
Upregulated angiogenesis-associated genes in lung cancer
Gene ID
Gene symbol
GenBank accession no.
LogFC
P-value
Collagen, type I, alpha 1
COL1A1
NM_000088
5.11
0.00
Vascular endothelial growth factor A
VEGF-A
NM_001025366
2.59
0.00
Plexin domain containing 1
PLXDC1(TEM7)
NM_020405
2.04
0.01
Tenascin C
TNC
NM_002160
1.95
0.01
Eph receptor B2
EPHB2
NM_004442
1.76
0.00
Interleukin 8
IL8
ENST00000401931
1.34
0.16
Fibroblast growth factor 1 (Acidic)
FGF1
NM_000800
0.82
0.08
Angiopoietin-like 2
ANGPTL2
NM_012098
0.69
0.40
Anthrax toxin receptor 1
ANTXR1(TEM8)
NM_032208
0.65
0.15
Abbreviation: LogFC=log2 fold change; TEM=tumour endothelial
marker. Differential expression analysis of microarray data for the
identification of elevated known angiogenesis-associated genes. Listed genes
were ranked by LogFC in descending order.
Table 3
Upregulated matrix metallopeptidases in lung cancer
Gene ID
Gene Symbol
GenBank accession no.
LogFC
P-value
Matrix metallopeptidase 11
MMP11
NM_005940
4.10
0.00
Matrix metallopeptidase 9
MMP9
NM_004994
4.00
0.00
Matrix metallopeptidase 12
MMP12
NM_002426
3.80
0.00
Matrix metallopeptidase 7
MMP7
NM_002423
3.29
0.17
Matrix metallopeptidase 1
MMP1
NM_002421
2.49
0.05
Matrix metallopeptidase 3
MMP3
NM_002422
1.81
0.02
Matrix metallopeptidase 10
MMP10
NM_002425
1.74
0.12
Matrix metallopeptidase 14
MMP14
NM_004995
1.55
0.00
Matrix metallopeptidase 13
MMP13
NM_002427
1.21
0.04
Matrix metallopeptidase 2
MMP2
NM_004530
1.03
0.12
Abbreviations: Log FC=log fold change; MMP=matrix
metalloprotease. Differential expression analysis of microarray data for the
identification of elevated matrix metallopeptidases. Listed genes were
ranked by logFC in descending order.
Identification and validation of putative tumour vascular targets in
NSCLC
For target identification, differentially expressed genes from the microarray data
were filtered through several selection criteria: Log2 fold change magnitude>1,
a P-value<0.5 and containing a transmembrane or signal peptide domain,
which generated a list comprised of 584 genes. Twelve target candidates were
chosen for further validation based on additional criteria including the level of
association with endothelial cells, previously published work, sites of expression
and relation to known genes with interesting functional properties (Table 4). To validate putative targets, a qPCR was
performed on the four pairs of endothelial isolates used in the microarray.
Figure 3 shows that all candidates had elevated
expression in tumour compared with that in healthy endothelium ranging from a 3-to
35-fold increase in expression.
Table 4
Putative vascular targets in lung cancer
Gene ID
Gene Symbol
GenBank accession no.
LogFC
P-value
TM
Six transmembrane epithelial antigen of the prostate 1
STEAP1
NM_012449
4.19
0.00
6
Synaptotagmin Xii
SYT12
NM_177963
4.16
0.00
1
Gap junction protein, β 2, 26Kda
GJB2
NM_004004
4.13
0.00
4
Solute Carrier organic anion transporter family, member 1B3
SLCO1B3
NM_019844
3.65
0.00
11
Baculoviral Iap Repeat containing 5
BIRC5
NM_001012271
3.45
0.00
0
Protocadherin 7
PCDH7
NM_002589
2.29
0.00
1
Prominin 2
PROM2
NM_001165978
2.05
0.00
6
Plexin Domain Containing 1
PLXDC1(TEM7)
NM_020405
2.04
0.01
1
Bmp and activin membrane-bound inhibitor homologue
BAMBI
NM_012342
1.99
0.00
1
Lemur tyrosine kinase 3
LMTK3
NM_001080434
1.94
0.07
2
Trophoblast glycoprotein
TPBG
NM_006670
1.48
0.03
1
C-Ros oncogene 1 , receptor tyrosine kinase
ROS1
ENST00000403284
1.39
0.22
1
Abbreviations: Log FC, log fold change; TEM, tumour endothelial marker.
Differential expression analysis of microarray data for the identification
of putative vascular targets for lung cancer. Listed genes were ranked by
logFC in descending order.
Figure 3
Validation of putative lung vascular targets by qPCR. Quantitative
real-time PCR validation of tumour vascular target candidates in the endothelial
cells isolated from the healthy and tumour lung tissue. Flotillin 2 was used as
the house keeping gene to which the data was normalised. The double delta Ct
method was used to compare the expression levels in tumour relative to healthy
endothelial isolates.
Expression profiling of lung endothelial isolates by RNA-seq
RNA-seq using deep sequencing technology provides an in-depth resolution of RNA
snapshots by generating millions of reads that can be assembled and mapped to a
known transcriptome, allowing the measurement of differential gene expression.
RNA-seq has the advantage of querying novel transcripts and does not rely on prior
knowledge and annotation. Here we used RNA-seq to verify the genes that had been
identified through the microarray analysis. We note that a lower yield of RNA was
obtained from healthy lung tissue compared with that from tumour. This was
possibly owing to the endothelial cells in healthy lung tissue being in a
quiescent state compared with the active endothelium in tumours. For this reason,
endothelial RNA isolated from three healthy lung samples (pooled; Table 1, patients 5–7) and one tumour lung
tissue (Table 1, patient 6) were sequenced as
one healthy and one tumour sample on a SOLiD4 sequencer. The differential gene
expression analysis of the RNA-seq data was performed using the DESeq v1.5 package
(Anders and Huber, 2010). The analysis confirmed
most of the unregulated angiogenesis-associated genes, MMPs and putative targets
identified through the microarray analysis (Figure 4).
Analysis of the RNA-seq data alone generated a list of 477 genes with the same
criterion used in the microarray analysis for target identification. The
intersection of the microarray and RNA-seq gene pools comprises a list of 122
genes, which provides a rich source for target identification (Supplementary Table 2). The discrepancy between the two
analyses is likely owing to the cancer type (squamous vs. adeno) and the
individual patient variability.
Figure 4
Confirmation of upregulated angiogenesis-associated genes, MMP and putative
vascular targets in lung cancer by RNA-seq. Differential gene expression
analysis of RNA-seq data confirmed a panel of elevated angiogenesis-associated
genes, MMP genes and lung cancer vascular target candidates identified through
microarray analysis.
Expression of TEM candidates in angiogenic tissue and lung cancer
To further validate the candidate targets, we investigated protein expression by
immunohistochemistry. We have previously shown that placental vasculature is a
rich source of endothelial gene expression. Thus, immunohistochemical staining was
performed first on the human placental tissue using antibodies to the lung TEM
targets. Amongst the twelve targets, six genes: ROS1, PCDH7, BIRC5, STEAP1, GJB2
and PROM2 showed expression in human placental vessels (Supplementary Figure 1). The tumour and healthy lung tissue was
then immunostained and these six candidates are indeed overexpressed in the lung
tumour vessels, whereas absent or at a low level in the healthy lung tissue
(Figure 5). Some of the targets were not restricted
to the tumour endothelium; for example, ROS1 and STEAP1 also showed positive
expression on some tumour cells or macrophages and this may be beneficial for
developing drugs targeting the tumour and its vasculature simultaneously. It is
also worth mentioning that other target candidates should not be completely
eliminated for further investigation simply owing to the lack of antibody
reactivity in immunochemistry.
Figure 5
Validation of putative lung vascular targets by immunohistochemistry.
Identified putative lung TEMs were validated by immunohistochemistry.
Representative immunohistochemistry for lung vascular target candidates on the
healthy and tumour lung tissue.
Expression of STEAP1 in lung cancer
We then focused on the top-ranked target STEAP1. To confirm whether STEAP1 is
differentially expressed in the endothelium within the healthy and tumour lung
tissue, an expression profiling was carried out on human lung cancer tissues by
immunohistochemistry. Eighty-two patients were examined (Table
5). The intensity of the signal was classified as absent, low, medium
or high. Representative images of STEAP1 staining in lung cancer are shown in
Figure 6A. From the 82 cases examined, a clear
overexpression of STEAP1 in tumour vessels was observed; for example 45% of
the vessels highly expressed STEAP1 in lung cancer vs only 5% in
matching healthy lung. The proportion of vessels that are ‘low' and
‘no expression' of STEAP1 was 77% in healthy lung, but only
14% in lung tumours (Figure 6B). These data
confirm that STEAP1 is differentially expressed between the tumour and healthy
lung vasculature and presents a possible vascular target for lung cancers.
Table 5
Clinical characteristics of lung cancer patients for STEAP1 profiling
Patients (n)
%
Age
63.8±9.5
Sex
Male
64
78%
Female
18
22%
Histology
Squamous cell carcinoma
47
57.3%
Adenocarcinomas
19
23.2%
Large cell carcinoma
5
6.1%
Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma
7
8.5%
Carcinosarcoma
2
2.4%
Clinical stage
I
34
41.5%
II
35
42.7%
III
13
15.8%
Figure 6
Expression profiling of STEAP1 expression in clinical lung cancer samples.
(A) Representative images of STEAP1 in healthy (i–ii) and tumour
(iii–vi) lung tissue; expression level classified as no expression (i), low
(ii–iii), medium (iv) and high (v–vi). Images were acquired using an
optical microscope at a magnification of × 20. (B) Expression
profiling of STEAP1 in clinical samples by immunohistochemistry
(n=82).
Function of STEAP1 in endothelial cells
We next used siRNA knockdown to seek a function of STEAP1 in the endothelial
cells. STEAP1 protein expression was efficiently knocked down by two independent
siRNA duplexes (Figure 7A). Migration of HUVEC after
STEAP1 knockdown was compared with that of mock and negative siRNA-transfected
controls in a scratch-wound assay. At 24 h, control wounds showed
60% closure, whereas in STEAP1 knockdown cells the wound had only closed by
35%–40% (Figure 7B and C). STEAP1
knockdown also compromised tube formation on Matrigel. Tubes showed a significant
decrease in mesh size compared with controls (Figure 7D and
E).
Figure 7
Functional analysis of STEAP1 in endothelial cells. (A) Western blot
showing that two independent siRNA duplexes efficiently knock down the STEAP1
protein in HUVEC. Tubulin was used as a loading control. STEAP1 appears as two
bands, the 65-kDa glycosylated mature protein and the 30-kDa unglycosylated
precursor. (B–C) Scratch-wound assay and
(D–E) Matrigel tube forming assay in HUVEC transfected with
mock, negative control or STEAP1 siRNA duplexes (± s.e.m.).
Discussion
The ineffectiveness of current treatments for NSCLC prompted the search for
alternatives. Although TKIs of EGFR initially showed promising outcomes in several
trials, resistance developed in all the patients (Lovly and
Carbone, 2011). Antiangiogenic/anti-tumour vascular therapy remains
a viable alternative (Vasudev and Reynolds, 2014).
VEGF (receptor) blockers have been used to treat NSCLC patients in early clinical
trials; however, concerns have arisen from the limited efficacy in achieving tumour
regression and the tendency to develop resistance (Pallis and
Syrigos, 2013). In addition, the lack of effective biomarkers for
patient pre-treated selection, emphasises the need for novel targets and biomarkers.
Our study describes the first molecular profiling of endothelium from NSCLC patient
tissue.A major obstacle that hinders the expression profiling of in vivo
endothelium is the challenge to obtain pure endothelial isolates. Favre et
al described attempts for mouse lung endothelial isolates, using the
unpurified sample as the control, aimed at identifying endothelial specific genes
(Favre ). An effort to isolate
mouse endothelium from a Lewis lung carcinoma tumour model was reported by Allport and Weissleder, (2003); however, the isolated
endothelial cells were subjected to in vitro culture and only the
characterised angiogenesis genes were investigated (Allport and
Weissleder, 2003). In this study, we demonstrate that the
Ulex-bead isolation approach has proven to be an effective approach to
obtain a pure endothelial population from the human lung. The purity of the
endothelial isolates allows for the first time to precisely document the
transcriptome of the lung vasculature using microarray analysis and deep sequencing
platforms.Our microarray analysis of endothelial isolates from cancer patients identified a
panel of angiogenesis-associated genes and MMPs elevated in tumour endothelium, which
have potential to be biomarkers for NSCLC. The elevated MMP2 expression is in
agreement with a reported increased MMP2 level in serum that was shown to be a
predictor of metastasis in NSCLC patients (Guo ). MMP2 and MMP9 have also been reported to associate with tumour
grade in various solid tumours (John and Tuszynski,
2001). The expression of MMP7 and MMP9 were previously found to be
significantly upregulated in NSCLC compared with that of healthy lung and benign lung
tumours (Safranek ). Although
clinical trials investigating inhibitors targeting multiple MMPs yielded limited
efficacy (Heath ; Goffin ), possibilities remain to design
drugs that are more specific to those highly expressed MMPs in NSCLC.RNA-seq using deep sequencing technology has been intensively applied to molecular
profiling of many tissue types and cell populations from different species (Guduric-Fuchs ; Voellenkle ). This work is the first description of
RNA-seq for profiling the endothelium from human lung cancer. Further, cross
referencing the microarray data identified 122 genes as lung vascular target
candidates. Immunohistochemical analysis confirmed PCHD7, STEAP1, ROS1, BIRC5, GJB2
and RPOM2 to be novel tumour vascular targets in NSCLC.STEAP1 was the first member of a family of metalloreductases described as a
cell-surface antigen in prostate tissue (Hubert ; Yang ). High
STEAP1 expression has been found in prostate, breast, bladder, colon and ovarian
carcinomas and in Ewing's sarcoma, (Gomes ) whereas low or absent in healthy human tissues, suggesting that
STEAP1 may be a wide ranging tumour antigen (Hubert ). Alves showed that STEAP1 peptides can be used to stimulate
CD8+ T cells, suggesting that STEAP1 may be a useful target for
cancer immunotherapy. Indeed, Maria de la Luz and colleagues also showed the efficacy
of a vaccine against STEAP1 in prophylactic and therapeutic tumour models (Garcia-Hernandez Mde ). To date,
expression of STEAP1 in endothelium has not been described. Our data have shown for
the first time that STEAP1 expression is upregulated in endothelial cells in the
vessels of human lung tumours.PCDH7 belongs to the protocadherin gene family and encodes a single-pass
transmembrane protein. First reported in 1998, study of PCDH7 has concentrated on
neuronal function (Yoshida ;
Kim ; Blevins ), and a role in endothelium or lung cancer
has not been explored. An exception was a genome-wide genotyping of the frozen tumour
tissue from NSCLC patients that identified five nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)
located in PCDH7 that are prognostic for the overall survival in early-stage NSCLC
(Huang ). ROS1 is a
proto-oncogene and highly expressed in a variety of tumour cell lines (Birchmeier ; Sharma
). ROS1 belongs to the sevenless subfamily of
tyrosine kinase receptors and remains an orphan receptor. Recently, chromosomal
rearrangement of ROS1 was detected in a subpopulation of NSCLC patients (Bergethon ; Janne
and Meyerson, 2012). Despite intensive study of ROS1 in lung cancer,
there has been no previous report of its expression in the tumour endothelium. BIRC5
or survivin, belongs to a family of inhibitors of apoptosis. BIRC5 inhibits the
caspase activation regulating apoptosis. Disruption of the BIRC5 signalling pathway
leads to tumour cell apoptosis and growth delay. BIRC5 protein is often present in
tumour cells and fetal tissues but has rarely been described in the healthy tissue
(Sah ). GJB2 is a transmembrane
protein that belongs to the connexin family. Connexins have a role in many
physiological processes and embryonic development including the microvasculature.
Defects in GJB2 lead to the most common form of congenital deafness (Apps ). Thus, most GJB2 studies have
centred on this pathology. Nevertheless, a recent study reported the expression of
GJB2 in lymphatic endothelium in the mouse embryo, and that the deletion of GJB2 in
mice disrupted the development of lymphatic vessels and was embryonic lethal
(Dicke ). PROM2 is a multi-pass
membrane protein and belongs to the prominin family of pentaspan membrane
glycoproteins. PROM2 is at present comparatively uncharacterised.Low shear stress and turbulent flow are mechanical factors that regulate endothelial
gene expression (Wasserman and Topper, 2004). Around
600 genes are regulated by shear stress in the endothelial cell (Ando and Yamamoto, 2009; Mura ). Like the previously described TEMs CLEC14A and Robo4, STEAP1,
PCDH7 and BIRC5 are all upregulated in the endothelium exposed to reduced shear
stress (Bicknell et al, unpublished data). Reduced blood flow and shear stress may
account for their expression on tumour vessels.To conclude, our work not only enhances our knowledge of proteins that are
differentially expressed on the lung tumour endothelium but has also identified
several promising biomarkers/targets for future investigation. Cell-surface
expression of some of these targets, for example STEAP1, will facilitate the
pre-clinical validation with antibodies. Further work is needed to characterise their
functions and their roles in the endothelial biology and angiogenesis in the
lung.
Authors: Peter Goldstraw; David Ball; James R Jett; Thierry Le Chevalier; Eric Lim; Andrew G Nicholson; Frances A Shepherd Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kristin Bergethon; Alice T Shaw; Sai-Hong Ignatius Ou; Ryohei Katayama; Christine M Lovly; Nerina T McDonald; Pierre P Massion; Christina Siwak-Tapp; Adriana Gonzalez; Rong Fang; Eugene J Mark; Julie M Batten; Haiquan Chen; Keith D Wilner; Eunice L Kwak; Jeffrey W Clark; David P Carbone; Hongbin Ji; Jeffrey A Engelman; Mari Mino-Kenudson; William Pao; A John Iafrate Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John R Goffin; Ian C Anderson; Jeffrey G Supko; Joseph Paul Eder; Geoffrey I Shapiro; Thomas J Lynch; Margaret Shipp; Bruce E Johnson; Arthur T Skarin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Nikolai Dicke; Nicole Pielensticker; Joachim Degen; Julia Hecker; Oliver Tress; Tobias Bald; Alexandra Gellhaus; Elke Winterhager; Klaus Willecke Journal: J Cell Sci Date: 2011-08-15 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: M Mura; R K Swain; X Zhuang; H Vorschmitt; G Reynolds; S Durant; J F J Beesley; J M J Herbert; H Sheldon; M Andre; S Sanderson; K Glen; N-T Luu; H M McGettrick; P Antczak; F Falciani; G B Nash; Z S Nagy; R Bicknell Journal: Oncogene Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Matthew J Atherton; Kyle B Stephenson; Fanny Tzelepis; David Bakhshinyan; Jake K Nikota; Hwan Hee Son; Anna Jirovec; Charles Lefebvre; Anna Dvorkin-Gheva; Ali A Ashkar; Yonghong Wan; David F Stojdl; Eric C Belanger; Rodney H Breau; John C Bell; Fred Saad; Sheila K Singh; Jean-Simone Diallo; Brian D Lichty Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 8.110
Authors: Joseph W Wragg; Jonathan P Finnity; Jane A Anderson; Henry J M Ferguson; Emilio Porfiri; Rupesh I Bhatt; Paul G Murray; Victoria L Heath; Roy Bicknell Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Linda Zuurbier; Arman Rahman; Martijn Cordes; Jennifer Scheick; Tse J Wong; François Rustenburg; Jesu Christopher Joseph; Peter Dynoodt; Rory Casey; Paul Drillenburg; Michael Gerhards; Ana Barat; Rut Klinger; Bozena Fender; Darran P O'Connor; Johannes Betge; Matthias P Ebert; Timo Gaiser; Jochen H M Prehn; Arjan W Griffioen; Nicole C T van Grieken; Bauke Ylstra; Annette T Byrne; Laurens G van der Flier; William M Gallagher; Ruben Postel Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-06-27