ABT-199, a potent and selective small-molecule antagonist of BCL-2, is being clinically vetted as pharmacotherapy for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, given that prolonged monotherapy tends to beget resistance, we sought to investigate the means by which resistance to ABT-199 might arise in AML and the extent to which those mechanisms might be preempted. Here we used a pathway-activating genetic screen to nominate MCL-1 and BCL-XL as potential nodes of resistance. We then characterized a panel of ABT-199-resistant myeloid leukemia cell lines derived through chronic exposure to ABT-199 and found that acquired drug resistance is indeed driven by the upregulation of MCL-1 and BCL-XL. By targeting MCL-1 and BCL-XL, resistant AML cell lines could be resensitized to ABT-199. Further, preemptively targeting MCL-1 and/or BCL-XL alongside administration of ABT-199 was capable of delaying or forestalling the acquisition of drug resistance. Collectively, these data suggest that in AML, (1) the selection of initial therapy dynamically templates the landscape of acquired resistance via modulation of MCL-1/BCL-XL and (2) appropriate selection of initial therapy may delay or altogether forestall the acquisition of resistance to ABT-199.
ABT-199, a potent and selective small-molecule antagonist of BCL-2, is being clinically vetted as pharmacotherapy for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, given that prolonged monotherapy tends to beget resistance, we sought to investigate the means by which resistance to ABT-199 might arise in AML and the extent to which those mechanisms might be preempted. Here we used a pathway-activating genetic screen to nominate MCL-1 and BCL-XL as potential nodes of resistance. We then characterized a panel of ABT-199-resistant myeloid leukemia cell lines derived through chronic exposure to ABT-199 and found that acquired drug resistance is indeed driven by the upregulation of MCL-1 and BCL-XL. By targeting MCL-1 and BCL-XL, resistant AML cell lines could be resensitized to ABT-199. Further, preemptively targeting MCL-1 and/or BCL-XL alongside administration of ABT-199 was capable of delaying or forestalling the acquisition of drug resistance. Collectively, these data suggest that in AML, (1) the selection of initial therapy dynamically templates the landscape of acquired resistance via modulation of MCL-1/BCL-XL and (2) appropriate selection of initial therapy may delay or altogether forestall the acquisition of resistance to ABT-199.
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a hematopoietic malignancy defined by clonal expansion of
myeloid precursors. Among the molecular characteristics that typify this cancer, several
studies have highlighted the dependence of AML cells on the anti-apoptotic protein BCL-2
and subsequently established how that specific dependency can be exploited for
therapeutic effect using BH3 mimetics12, a class of compounds that
affords direct inhibition of anti-apoptotic BCL-2 family members3. Of
these agents, ABT-737, a BH3 mimetic that antagonizes BCL-2, BCL-XL, and
BCL-w, demonstrated remarkable single-agent efficacy against AML in preclinical
studies2. However, the clinical translatability of its orally
available counterpart, ABT-263, has been limited due to dose-dependent thrombocytopenia
secondary to BCL-XL antagonism4. A second agent, ABT-199,
sidesteps this limitation through specific inhibition of BCL-215; it
recently completed phase II clinical trials for the treatment of relapsed/refractory AML
with promising results6. Given their clinical potential, many groups have
reported mechanisms of resistance to ABT-737 and ABT-199 in myeloid and lymphoid
malignancies2789. Nevertheless, it remains unknown how focused
antagonism of BCL-2 by ABT-199 will shape the landscape of acquired resistance in AML.
In this study, we characterize ABT-199-resistant cell lines generated through chronic
drug exposure to implicate BCL-XL and MCL-1 as the main mediators of
resistance to ABT-199 in AML and demonstrate that combinatorial inhibition of
BCL-2/BCL-XL/MCL-1 can be used to delay or altogether forestall the
acquisition of cell-autonomous drug resistance.
Results
Pathway-Activating Screen Nominates MCL-1 and BCL-XL as
Mediators of Resistance to ABT-199
In order to identify signaling pathways whose activation is sufficient to impart
resistance to ABT-199, we infected discrete populations of OCI-AML2 and MOLM-13
cells with constructs from a published lentiviral cDNA library encoding
constitutive activators of 17 major oncogenic growth and survival pathways (Supplementary Table S1)10. These two cell lines were chosen for their sensitivity to
ABT-199, with IC50 values previously reported to be below
10 nM1. The relative sensitivity of each of these
isogenic cell line derivatives to ABT-199 was successively evaluated using an
eight-point GI50 assay (Figs 1A and S1). Remarkably, activating the vast
majority of the surveyed pathways conferred little to no resistance to ABT-199
or produced differing results across the two cell lines screened. However,
stable overexpression of MCL-1 and BCL-XL (Fig.
1B) yielded GI50 values greater than 10- and 20- fold
higher than control, respectively, in both OCI-AML2 and MOLM-13 cell lines.
Figure 1
Pathway-Activating Screen Nominates MCL-1 and BCL-XL as Mediators
of Resistance to ABT-199.
(A) Discrete populations of MOLM-13 cells were individually transduced
with 37 pathway-activating cDNA constructs (Table S1). Drug sensitivity of each
population was evaluated with a GI50 assay; data shown are mean
GI50 (μM) ± SEM. Screen data
from OCI-AML2 cells can be found in supplemental data (Fig. S1). (B) Western blot analysis
of OCI-AML2 and MOLM13 lines overexpressing BCL-XL and mMCL-1.
hMCL-1 refers to overexpression of human MCL-1 (40 kDa) while mMCL-1
denotes overexpression of a murine MCL-1 (35 kDa) construct with
mutated ubiquitination sites to enable overexpression. mMCL-1 was used in
the screen due to concerns about rapid hMCL-1 degradation. HcRed is a
negative control construct. Immunoblots shown are representative of three
independent experiments. (C) ABT-199 dose-response curves for
parental OCI-AML2 cells, derivatives resulting from overexpression (O/E) of
BCL-XL or MCL-1, or derivatives resulting from selection in
the presence of chronic drug exposure (Resistant 1–3). Viability
data is expressed as a percentage of DMSO-treated cells. SEM is of three
independent experiments and indicated by error bars.
Acute Myeloid Leukemia Cell Lines Acquire Resistance to ABT-199 Following
Chronic Exposure
To determine whether AML cells would naturally acquire resistance to ABT-199
through modulation of MCL-1 and BCL-XL, we established a panel of
resistant cell lines by exposing six AML cell lines to increasing doses of
ABT-199 over several months. The following AML cell lines were selected and
represent a range of baseline sensitivities to ABT-199, in order of decreasing
sensitivity: HL-60, MOLM-13, OCI-AML2, THP-1, NOMO-1, and OCI-AML3; OCI-AML3 was
known to be intrinsically resistant to ABT-199, with a baseline GI50
above 1 μM. Drug doses were initiated at each cell
line’s GI50 to ABT-199 and increased upon stabilization of
cell viability, up to a final dose of at least 2.50 μM ABT-199.
In side-by-side comparisons of dose response curves to ABT-199, resistant
derivatives were shown to have GI50 values up to 100-fold higher than matched
parental lines (Fig. 1C). Complementary measurements of
drug-induced apoptosis with flow cytometry using FITC-conjugated Annexin V in
parental and resistant OCI-AML2 and THP-1 cells indicated significantly higher
induction of apoptosis in parental cell lines in response to 48-hour incubation
with ABT-199 (Fig. S2).
BH3 Profiling Reveals an Acquired Dependence on MCL-1 and
BCL-XL in ABT-199-Resistant Cells
We credentialed each of the parental and resistant cell lines using BH3
profiling. Briefly, this assay involves permeabilization of the cell membrane
followed by staining with a mitochondrial potential-sensitive dye, and
acquaintance of exposed mitochondria with peptides representing the functional
BH3 domains of BH3-only proteins1112. Known binding affinities
between pro- and anti- apoptotic BCL-2 family members are used to infer the
relative dependencies of parental and resistant cell lines on different
anti-apoptotic proteins. Across all cell lines tested, mitochondria from
parental lines and their resistant derivatives were found to be equivalently
primed for apoptosis, as evidenced by comparable depolarization induced by the
PUMA peptide (Figs 2A and S3). However, in each parental-resistant pair
we observed substantially more mitochondrial depolarization in resistant lines
upon exposure to peptides from HRK (which preferentially binds
BCL-XL) and/or NOXA (which preferentially binds MCL-1), indicating a
corresponding shift in dependency (Figs 2A and S3). Similar shifts were also
observed in OCI-AML2 cells overexpressing BCL-XL or MCL-1 (Fig. S4). While no proapoptotic
activator singly binds BCL-2, we can approximate the contribution of BCL-2 by
subtracting the HRK signal from the BAD signal. Using this approximation, we
observed, in the resistant cell lines, a departure from BCL-2 dependence
concomitant to their newly formed dependence on BCL-XL/MCL-1. This
idea is further evidenced by decreased depolarization induced by direct
application of ABT-199 in resistant versus parental cells (Fig.
2A). Note that the concentrations of ABT-199 used in this assay are
substantially lower than their relevant concentrations in culture; this is
because the profiling assay involves membrane permeabilization and therefore
permits direct interaction between drug and mitochondria.
Figure 2
BH3 Profiling Reveals an Acquired Dependence on MCL-1 and BCL-XL
in ABT-199-Resistant Cells.
(A) BH3 profiling of parental and evolved-resistant OCI-AML2 cells
reveals increased mitochondrial depolarization in resistant OCI-AML2 lines
in response to NOXA and HRK peptides (indicated in red). Percent
depolarization shown here is calculated as the area under the curve
normalized to carbonyl cyanide p-trifluoromethoxyphenylhydrazone (FCCP), the
positive depolarization control. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) is a negative
control. Unless otherwise indicated, the peptide concentration used was
100 μM. ABT-199 was applied as a molecular probe at the
concentrations indicated. Data shown represent the
mean ± SD of three independent experiments per
peptide. (B) ABT-199 dose-response curves for parental and
differentially resistant THP-1 cell lines. Viability data is expressed as a
percentage of DMSO-treated cells. SEM is of three independent experiments
and indicated by error bars. (C) BH3 profiling of parental and
differentially resistant THP-1 cell lines, performed as described above.
While evolving THP-1 cells to resistance, we intentionally preserved a
“low resistance” line by maintaining a population at a
sub-maximal dose (1.5 μM ABT-199) while scaling up the dose (to
2.5 μM ABT-199) of a separate population to produce a
“high resistance” line. Characterization of the parental and
differentially resistant THP-1 lines suggests that (1) the degree of drug
resistance acquired is proportional to the background dose of drug (Fig. 2B) and that (2) the relative antiapoptotic dependence,
as measured by BH3 profiling, of resistant lines shifts away from BCL-2 and
toward BCL-XL/MCL-1 as they become more resistant (Fig. 2C).
Upregulation of MCL-1/BCL-XL Accompanies Acquired Resistance to
ABT-199
Subsequently, we examined whether the shift in anti-apoptotic dependencies
suggested by BH3 profiling could be substantiated by changes in BCL-2 family
protein expression. Western blot analysis revealed increases in MCL-1 and/or
BCL-XL in resistant versus parental lines (Fig.
3A). In some lines, this shift was accompanied by downregulation of
BCL-2. These findings comport with our functional BH3 profiling data and
indicate a collective shift in the cellular anti-apoptotic balance away from
BCL-2 and toward MCL-1/BCL-XL.
Figure 3
Upregulation of MCL-1/BCL-XL Accompanies Acquired Resistance to
ABT-199.
(A) Western blot analysis of paired parental (P) and evolved resistant
(R) cell lines immunoblotted as shown. R1, R2, and R3 refer to discrete
populations of OCI-AML2 cells separately evolved to resistance. Blots are
representative of three replicate experiments. (B) Parental and
“high resistance” THP-1 lines were treated with
20 μg/mL cycloheximide (CHX) or DMSO for specified time
intervals. After treatment, whole-cell lysates were made and analyzed by
immunoblot. Blots shown are representative of three independent experiments.
(C) qRT-PCR analysis of MCL-1 and BCL-XL in parental
(black bars) versus resistant derivatives (red bars) of OCI-AML2, THP-1, and
NOMO-1 cell lines. Data are means ± SD from three
experiments. *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001,
****p < 0.0001 by Student’s t-test for THP-1 and
NOMO-1, by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test for OCI-AML2
derivatives relative to parental line.
Next, we investigated protein stability and transcriptional upregulation as
potential causes of increased MCL-1 and BCL-XL. We treated sensitive
and resistant THP-1 cells with cycloheximide, harvested treated cells at
1 hour time points, and analyzed for MCL-1 quantity by western blot.
Under cycloheximide treatment, we observed substantial maintenance of MCL-1
through three hours in the resistant line while the MCL-1 signal was lost by one
hour in the parental line (Fig. 3B). Parallel
investigations regarding BCL-XL were unsuccessful due to a half-life
greater than 24 s. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction
(qRT-PCR) revealed a modest 1.4–1.6 fold increase in MCL-1 transcript
levels in resistant THP-1 and NOMO-1 lines relative to parental (Fig. 3C). We observed greater-than 15-fold increases in MCL-1
transcript abundance in each of three resistant OCI-AML2 lines, likely inflated
by low parental MCL-1 levels (Fig. 3A). In each of THP-1,
NOMO-1, and OCI-AML2, we observed 1.2–1.6 fold increases in
BCL-XL transcript levels relative to parental.We then sought to determine whether the increased dependence on
BCL-XL/MCL-1 is induced acutely upon exposure to ABT-199 or gradually
selected for as resistance is acquired. We exposed parental OCI-AML2 and THP-1
cells to a fixed concentration of 1 μM ABT-199 and collected
samples at interval time points through 48 hours. Western blot analysis
shows an acute and sustained increase of MCL-1 within two hours of drug
treatment, while protein levels of the other BH3 family members remain unchanged
through 48 hours (Fig. S5).
We observed no acute changes in MCL-1 transcript levels (data not shown),
implying that the acute increase in MCL-1 by 2 hours may be due to
increased protein stabilization.
Targeting BCL-XL/MCL-1 Resensitizes ABT-199-Resistant AML Cells
and Delays Onset of Acquired Resistance to ABT-199
We have established that upregulation of MCL-1 and/or BCL-XL is
coincident with the acquisition of resistance to ABT-199 in AML cells. Using a
combination of WEHI-539, which specifically targets BCL-XL13, and shRNA knockdown of MCL-1, we were able to completely
resensitize ABT-199-resistant OCI-AML2 and THP-1 cell lines to ABT-199 (Figs 4A,B and S6), implicating the dynamic upregulation of MCL-1 and BCL-XL
as the driving force behind evolved resistance. Given their shift in
anti-apoptotic dependence from BCL-2 to BCL-XL and MCL-1, we reasoned
that the evolved ABT-199-resistant cells should also be more susceptible to
singular inhibition of BCL-XL or MCL-1. To test this,
ABT-199-resistant OCI-AML2 cells were subject to single treatment with WEHI-539
(Fig. 4C) or a short hairpin targeting MCL-1 (Fig. 4D), revealing an increased sensitivity to
singly-targeted treatment compared to the paired parental line.
Figure 4
Targeting BCL-XL/MCL-1 Resensitizes ABT-199-Resistant AML Cells or
Delays Onset of Acquired Resistance to ABT-199.
(A) ABT-199 dose-response curves for an evolved ABT-199-resistant
OCI-AML2 line and subsequent resensitization of that line using the
BCL-XL inhibitor WEHI-539 and/or either of two independent
hairpins targeting MCL-1 (Table 1). Viability data
is expressed as a percentage of DMSO-treated cells. SEM is of three
independent experiments and indicated by error bars. (B) Immunoblot
demonstrating hairpin knockdown of MCL-1 in evolved ABT-199-resistant
OCI-AML2. Blots are representative of three replicate experiments.
(C) WEHI-539 dose-response curves for parental and ABT-199-resistant
OCI-AML2 cell lines. The resistant OCI-AML2 derivative used here corresponds
to the “R2” derivative referenced elsewhere. Viability data
is expressed as a percentage of DMSO-treated cells. SEM is of three
independent experiments and indicated by error bars. (D) Relative
viability of parental or ABT-199-resistant OCI-AML2 cell lines transduced
with a short hairpin targeting MCL-1 (MCL1-hp3, shown in panel B) at
three viral doses. The resistant OCI-AML2 derivative used here corresponds
to the “R2” derivative referenced elsewhere. Viability is
shown relative to respective parental and resistant OCI-AML2 cell lines
transduced with shGFP. Data are means ± SD from
three experiments. ***p < 0.001 by Student’s
t-test. (E) Time-to-resistance model of parental THP-1 cells treated
with all possible one, two, and three-body combinations of
DMSO/ABT-199/WEHI-539/shMCL-1. Lines are color-coded by the number of
anti-apoptotic proteins targeted: black (zero), yellow (one), blue (two),
red (three). One million cells were seeded at week zero and counted weekly
for eight weeks. Cell counts in excess of one million were tabulated but a
maximum of one million cells was replated each week. A running sum of all
viable cells was estimated by extrapolating the weekly growth rate to a
virtual cell count. The final three-target combination was run in replicate
(red lines). All other conditions were single experiments. (F)
Immunoblot showing MCL-1 levels immediately after hairpin knockdown of MCL-1
in THP-1 and following emergence of a resistant clone. Blots are
representative of three replicate experiments. “shMCL1-3”
sample was collected three days after puromycin selection. “shMCL1-3
+ 199 + 539 reemergence” sample was collected at week eight from the
resistant three-target combination cell population (red circle).
Table 1
shRNA Constructs Used to Knockdown MCL-1.
Construct
TRC ID
Sequence
shMCL-1 (1)
TRCN0000005517
GCTAAACACTTGAAGACCATA
shMCL-1 (2)
TRCN0000197024
GAGCTGGTTTGGCATATCTAA
shMCL-1 (3)
TRCN0000196390
GCCTAGTTTATCACCAATAAT
TRC; The RNAi Consortium.
Lastly, we posited that simultaneous inhibition of multiple anti-apoptotic
proteins at treatment outset might undermine the cells’ ability to
acquire resistance to ABT-199 altogether. To test this idea, we used a
long-term, time-to-resistance model in which parental THP-1 cells are treated
with combinations of ABT-199, WEHI-539, and shRNA-based MCL-1 knockdown and
tracked over the course of eight weeks (Figs 4E and S7)14. Targeting
either BCL-XL or MCL-1 in conjunction with ABT-199 treatment delayed
the acquisition of drug resistance by 2–4 weeks. Targeting both
BCL-XL and MCL-1 pushed back the onset of resistance to a total
of at least 7 weeks. Interestingly, in the three-target combination, western
blot analysis of the resistant population indicated close to parental levels of
MCL-1 (Fig. 4F), suggesting that the observed resistance
may be merely the result of incomplete MCL-1 knockdown in a subset of cells that
subsequently grew out over the course of several weeks. This idea is
corroborated by the observation that a replicate line subject to the same
hairpin and drug treatment failed to reemerge through 8 weeks of culture. In
sum, we found no evidence that resistance to ABT-199 can be generated in the
presence of combined BCL-XL and MCL-1 inhibition.
Discussion
The appeal of targeted therapies lies in the promise that, by exploiting a specific
molecular weakness, a rationally designed therapy can kill cancer cells potently and
selectively. Yet, in order for rational therapies to yield durable clinical
responses, they must be paired with additional drugs capable of suppressing the
cellular escape mechanisms that permit the acquisition of drug resistance. In most
cases, these mechanisms are poorly defined, making acquired resistance difficult to
plan for. Here, we sought to understand how AML cells acquire resistance to the
selective BCL-2 inhibitor ABT-199. Prior studies have already demonstrated that
ABT-199 treatment is capable of inducing apoptosis in AML cell lines, both in
primary AML cells and in murine xenograft models of AML1. The work
presented here is directed at understanding how AML cells might acquire resistance
to the BH3 mimetic ABT-199 and how knowledge of those resistance mechanisms might be
leveraged to design strategies to counteract drug resistance or preclude the
development of resistance altogether.Using ABT-199-resistant AML cell lines derived through chronic drug exposure as a
model for acquired resistance, we identified MCL-1 and BCL-XL as key
mediators of resistance, substantiating earlier findings from our pathway-activating
genetic screen. Western blot analysis of multiple evolved resistant cell lines
revealed consistent upregulation of MCL-1 and/or BCL-XL relative to their
parental counterparts. Notably, this was even observed in the intrinsically
resistant OCI-AML3 cell line, which expresses substantial levels of MCL-1 at
baseline2, yet further increased its expression to drive
resistance following chronic drug exposure. These observations suggest that the
ability to upregulate MCL-1 and/or BCL-XL in response to inhibition of
BCL-2 is shared amongst AML cells, irrespective of their levels of baseline
sensitivity to ABT-199. While the specific mechanisms mediating this upregulation
remain unclear, our data indicate that the changes in overall MCL-1 and
BCL-XL protein levels are at least partially driven by stable
upregulation of MCL-1 and BCL-XL transcript levels and, in the case of
MCL-1, by an increase in protein stability. These findings were made in cells
cultured to drug resistance over the course of weeks. Acutely, we observed no change
in BCL-XL over a 48 hour drug exposure but did note a rapid
increase in total MCL-1 protein content within two hours. However, similar to
previous reports in chronic lymphocytic leukemia15, we were unable to
detect a concomitant increase in MCL-1 transcript level within that time frame,
potentially implicating increased protein stability. Importantly, these data suggest
that the aggregate shift in cellular anti-apoptotic dependency from BCL-2 to MCL-1
and/or BCL-XL that we report is likely comprised of acute and chronic
components. Abrupt stabilization of MCL-1 in the near term may be followed by
sustained transcriptional upregulation of MCL-1 and BCL-XL, or by gradual
selection of high expressers through the process of acquiring resistance.The coordinated upregulation of MCL-1 and/or BCL-XL across many cell lines
in response to chronic drug exposure implied a causal role in the acquisition of
resistance to ABT-199. However, it remained possible that those changes were merely
correlative and not directly related to the resistance phenotype. We addressed this
possibility by BH3 profiling parental and ABT-199-resistant AML cells, which
provided a functional readout of apoptotic disposition. BH3 profiling revealed a
consistent increase in mitochondrial depolarization induced in the resistant cells
by NOXA and HRK, suggesting a newfound reliance on their cognate anti-apoptotic
binding partners MCL-1 and BCL-XL, respectively. These data demonstrate
that the observed resistance to ABT-199 is driven by changes at the level of the
mitochondria and is the direct result of increased anti-apoptotic reserve.While our data points to upregulation of MCL-1 and BCL-XL as the clear
driving force behind acquired resistance to ABT-199, differential regulation of
other BCL-2 family proteins could also play a role in mediating this resistance. For
instance, our screens demonstrated that overexpression of BCL-2 is sufficient to
confer resistance to ABT-199, likely by increasing the concentration of ABT-199
needed to fully inhibit BCL-2. However, BCL-2 was not observed to be upregulated in
our resistant cell lines and indeed appeared to be downregulated in multiple
resistant derivatives, making it an unlikely cause of acquired resistance. Finally,
although the anti-apoptotic proteins BCL-w and BFL-1 were not queried here, our
ability to fully resensitize resistant cells to ABT-199 by targeting MCL-1 and
BCL-XL suggests a negligible contribution.Our data also implicates the presence of separate, incompletely understood processes
that may underlie the upregulation of MCL-1 and BCL-XL. For instance,
while we noted no change in expression of the pro-apoptotic protein BID and the
pro-death effector protein BAX between parental and resistant cell lines, we did
notice a modest decrease in BIM and a relative increase in BAK (Fig. S8). This observation, in light of
BAK’s preference for BID over BIM16, may explain the
increased depolarization induced by BID1 in resistant versus parental cells (Figs 2A,C and S3).
However, upregulation of BAK, a terminal pro-apoptotic protein that is upregulated
at both the mRNA (Fig. S9) and protein
levels in ABT-199-resistant cells, is counterintuitive and suggests a paradoxical
role for BAK in resistance to ABT-199. Consistent with this potential role in
resistance, BAK knockdown partially resensitizes ABT-199-resistant THP-1 cells to
ABT-199 (Fig. S10), suggesting a nonzero
contribution to acquired resistance. Together, these findings suggest that while
MCL-1 and BCL-XL play dominant roles in driving the resistant state,
pro-apoptotic proteins like BAK may also contribute in counterintuitive ways that
merit further study.Rational combination therapies are designed to preempt the anticipated mechanisms of
resistance to the drug, often by preventing reactivation/downstream activation of
the primary pathway or through proactive inhibition of a parallel pathway. For
instance, reactivation of the MAPK pathway through multiple mechanisms drives
resistance to BRAF inhibition and can be partially prevented with simultaneous
inhibition of its downstream target MEK17181920. Similarly,
certain PIK3CA/KRAS-mutant cancers, when treated with a MEK inhibitor,
can activate collateral signaling through the PI3K pathway, which can be overcome by
simultaneously administering a PI3K inhibitor2122. Ideally,
resistance could be targeted by focusing therapeutic attention on common, terminal
nodes of resistance. Accordingly, it is worth underscoring that in each of our
independently-evolved ABT-199-resistant AML lines, acquired resistance was
accompanied by upregulation of MCL-1 and/or BCL-XL—anti-apoptotic
BCL-2 family proteins not targeted by ABT-199. Because ABT-199 induces cell death by
inhibiting a terminal negative regulator of apoptosis, perhaps it is not surprising
that the mechanisms of acquired resistance also converge on terminal negative
regulators of apoptosis. Moreover, this paradigm could be translationally important
because it suggests that, despite the varied upstream pathways that may be
responsible for dictating expression of anti-apoptotic BCL-2 family proteins,
resistance to ABT-199 can always be overcome or preempted by targeting these key
nodes at the level of the mitochondria. To that effect, we showed that acquired
resistance to ABT-199 in AML cell lines can be reversed or entirely forestalled by
simultaneously targeting BCL-2, MCL-1, and BCL-XL.In sum, our data indicate that acquired resistance to ABT-199 in AML stems directly
from a shift in cellular anti-apoptotic dependencies away from BCL-2 and toward
MCL-1 and/or BCL-XL, as the cell struggles to maintain anti-apoptotic
equipoise in the face of BCL-2 inhibition. Prior studies have identified in lymphoid
malignancies a similar paradigm of resistance to ABT-1999, and in AML
attendant mechanisms of resistance to the related compound ABT-737223. What had not been demonstrated until now was how AML cells adapt their
anti-apoptotic profile to mitigate the effects of selective BCL-2 antagonism by
ABT-199 and how that understanding might be exploited to reverse or proactively
prevent drug resistance. Our findings are particularly notable in light of (1)
promising new clinical trials data suggesting that ABT-199 is poised to have
clinical impact for treatment of AML and (2) the ongoing development of selective,
orally bioavailable inhibitors of BCL-XL24 and MCL-125. Furthermore, recent work suggests that priming of
BCL-XL-dependent cancer cells may provide a therapeutic window sufficient
for on-target inhibition in cancer cells without affecting normal cells, allaying
concerns about dose-dependent thrombocytopenia secondary to BCL-XL
inhibition26. It is also plausible that a full therapeutic effect
could be achieved by creatively scheduling the administration of individual agents
rather than delivering the full combination all at once. Clinically, combinatorial
inhibition of anti-apoptotic BCL-2 family proteins may represent a viable strategy
for resensitization of ABT-199-resistant neoplasms, offering recourse for patients
that relapse on ABT-199 monotherapy. Alternatively, preemptive combination therapy
could be administered as induction therapy, potentially enabling more durable
initial remission by precluding the development of acquired resistance.
Methods
Cell lines and reagents
All cell lines were cultured at 37 °C in 5% CO2 and
grown in RPMI 1640 with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1%
penicillin/streptomycin. OCI-AML2, NOMO-1, and OCI-AML3 cell lines were
generously gifted by Anthony Letai (Dana Farber Cancer Institute). THP-1 and
HL-60 cell lines were purchased from Duke University Cell Culture Facility
(CCF). ABT-199-resistant and control cells were grown in media described above
supplemented with [0.5 μM to 2.5 μM] ABT-199 or
DMSO, respectively. Drugs were purchased from Selleck chemicals and were used at
the following doses: 3 μM and 5 μM for ABT-199
(apoptosis assays), 1 μM for WEHI-539 (background dose for
GI50 assay).
In vitro adaptation of ABT-199-resistant AML cell lines
Cell lines resistant to ABT-199 were generated through chronic drug exposure as
previously described10. In short, 4E6 parental cells were plated
in a 15 cm dish and treated with a starting dose of ABT-199 equivalent
to the GI50 of the cell line. A second plate of parental cells was
simultaneously plated with an equivalent quantity of DMSO as a paired control.
Cells in both dishes were subsequently observed and counted weekly in parallel.
For cells cultured in drug, ABT-199 doses were increased in increments of
500 nM as soon as the cell population stabilized. Cell lines were
considered fully resistant when they could maintain their population in media
containing 2.5 μM ABT-199.
Preparation of lentivirus for pathway activating screen and shRNA MCL-1
knockdown
Lentivirus particles were produced through transient transfection of
293 T cells using a three-plasmid system: expression clone + VSVG +
δVPR as previously described10.
Pathway-activating screen
We infected discrete populations of OCI-AML2 and MOLM13 cells with lentivirus
encoding the expression of each of 39 individual constitutive activator
constructs, each driven by a moderate PGK promoter, from a previously described
cDNA library10. Lentiviruses were produced and applied as above.
Infected cells were subject to three days of puromycin selection prior to
seeding into 96-well plates for GI50 assay, described below.
Candidate genes/pathways that shifted the GI50 of both respective
cell lines to at least 1 μM were selected as candidates for
followup.Pathway activating constructs were previously cloned and sequence verified by
members of our lab10; all constructs used were also publically
available (Addgene plasmid #64602-64649). pMSCV-puro-mMcl-1 was a gift from
Joseph Opferman (Addgene plasmid #32980). Human MCL-1 ORF was purchased at
GeneCopoeia (product ID: Y4182).
BH3 profiling
OCI-AML2, THP-1, NOMO-1, OCI-AML3 cells were BH3-profiled as previously
described27. All peptides were used at a concentration of
100 μM, unless otherwise indicated.
GI50 assay
Cells were seeded in 96-well plates at 5000 cells per well. After
24 hours, cells were treated, by row, with a 10-fold serial dilution of
indicated drug in DMSO to yield final drug concentrations of 20, 2, 0.2, 0.02,
0.002, 0.0002, 0.00002, and 0.000002 μM. A final well was
treated with only DMSO. CellTiter-Glo luminescent viability assay (Promega) was
used to measure cell viability 72 hours after addition of drug. Each
treatment condition was represented by three individual experiments. Relative
viability was calculated by normalizing raw luminescence counts to DMSO-treated
wells. For experiments involving two drugs, a second background drug was kept at
a constant concentration across all wells except for the DMSO control. Viability
in two-drug experiments was normalized to luminescence of secondary drug-only
well. For pathway-activating screen, GI50 values were calculated by
fitting each individual experiment to a 4-parameter logistic curve using
GraphPad/Prism 6 software and selecting the dose at which cell viability equals
50% of DMSO-treated viability.
Apoptosis assay
250,000 cells were seeded into each well of a six-well plate and treated with
indicated quantity of drug or DMSO. Cells were incubated for 48 hours,
washed twice with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and resuspended in Annexin V
binding buffer (10 mM Hepes, 140 mM NaCl, 2.5 mM
CaCl2; BD Biosciences). Phosphatidylserine externalization was
measured using APC (allophycocyanin)-conjugated Annexin V (BD Biosciences).
7-AAD (BD Biosciences) was used as the viability probe. Experiments were
analyzed at 20,000 counts per sample using BD FACSVantage SE. Gating strategy
was defined using stained/unstained cells.
Quantitative Reverse Transcription PCR
RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis and quantitative real-time PCR was performed as
previously described10. The following primers were used: human
GAPDH, 5′-CCCACTCCTCCACCTTTGAC-3′ (forward) and
5′-ACCCTGTTGCTGTAGCCAAA-3′ (reverse); human MCL-1,
5′-GGACAAAACGGGACTGGCTA-3′ (forward) and
5′-CAGCAGCACATTCCTGATGC-3′ (reverse); human BCL-XL,
5′-TGACCACCTAGAGCCTTGGA-3′ (forward) and
5′-CAGTCATGCCCGTCAGGAAC-3′ (reverse). Average cycle thresholds
(Ct) were calculated for each gene normalized to the reference
gene GAPDH. Relative gene expression was determined using the
ΔΔCt method.qRT-PCR data was compiled as means and standard deviations. For OCI-AML2,
differences in MCL-1 and BCL-XL expression between parental and all
three derivatives were detected using one-way ANOVA. Subsequently,
Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test was applied to evaluate significant
differences in expression for each resistant derivative relative to parental
control. For NOMO-1 and THP-1, differences between means of MCL-1 or
BCL-XL expression in resistant relative to parental cell lines
was examined using Student’s t-test.
Western blotting and antibodies
Immunoblotting was performed as previously described10. Membranes
were probed with primary antibodies recognizing MCL-1, BCL-XL, Bcl-2,
BIM, BID, BAX, BAK, BAD p-S112, BAD p-S136, total BAD at a 1:1000 dilution and
β-actin at 1:5000. Secondary goat anti-rabbit IgG-HRP was applied at
1:5000. All primary antibodies were purchased from Cell Signaling Technology;
secondary antibodies were purchased from Santa Cruz Biotechnology.
shRNA constructs
TRC shRNA clones were acquired from the Duke RNAi Facility as glycerol stocks.
Constructs were prepared as lentivirus and used for viral transduction as
described above.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Lin, K. H. et al. Targeting
MCL-1/BCL-XL Forestalls the Acquisition of Resistance to ABT-199 in
Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Sci. Rep.
6, 27696; doi: 10.1038/srep27696 (2016).
Authors: Marina Konopleva; Rooha Contractor; Twee Tsao; Ismael Samudio; Peter P Ruvolo; Shinichi Kitada; Xingming Deng; Dayong Zhai; Yue-Xi Shi; Thomas Sneed; Monique Verhaegen; Maria Soengas; Vivian R Ruvolo; Teresa McQueen; Wendy D Schober; Julie C Watt; Tilahun Jiffar; Xiaoyang Ling; Frank C Marini; David Harris; Martin Dietrich; Zeev Estrov; James McCubrey; W Stratford May; John C Reed; Michael Andreeff Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Georgina V Long; Daniil Stroyakovskiy; Helen Gogas; Evgeny Levchenko; Filippo de Braud; James Larkin; Claus Garbe; Thomas Jouary; Axel Hauschild; Jean Jacques Grob; Vanna Chiarion Sileni; Celeste Lebbe; Mario Mandalà; Michael Millward; Ana Arance; Igor Bondarenko; John B A G Haanen; Johan Hansson; Jochen Utikal; Virginia Ferraresi; Nadezhda Kovalenko; Peter Mohr; Volodymyr Probachai; Dirk Schadendorf; Paul Nathan; Caroline Robert; Antoni Ribas; Douglas J DeMarini; Jhangir G Irani; Michelle Casey; Daniele Ouellet; Anne-Marie Martin; Ngocdiep Le; Kiran Patel; Keith Flaherty Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joel D Leverson; Darren C Phillips; Michael J Mitten; Erwin R Boghaert; Dolores Diaz; Stephen K Tahir; Lisa D Belmont; Paul Nimmer; Yu Xiao; Xiaoju Max Ma; Kym N Lowes; Peter Kovar; Jun Chen; Sha Jin; Morey Smith; John Xue; Haichao Zhang; Anatol Oleksijew; Terrance J Magoc; Kedar S Vaidya; Daniel H Albert; Jacqueline M Tarrant; Nghi La; Le Wang; Zhi-Fu Tao; Michael D Wendt; Deepak Sampath; Saul H Rosenberg; Chris Tse; David C S Huang; Wayne J Fairbrother; Steven W Elmore; Andrew J Souers Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Andrew J Souers; Joel D Leverson; Erwin R Boghaert; Scott L Ackler; Nathaniel D Catron; Jun Chen; Brian D Dayton; Hong Ding; Sari H Enschede; Wayne J Fairbrother; David C S Huang; Sarah G Hymowitz; Sha Jin; Seong Lin Khaw; Peter J Kovar; Lloyd T Lam; Jackie Lee; Heather L Maecker; Kennan C Marsh; Kylie D Mason; Michael J Mitten; Paul M Nimmer; Anatol Oleksijew; Chang H Park; Cheol-Min Park; Darren C Phillips; Andrew W Roberts; Deepak Sampath; John F Seymour; Morey L Smith; Gerard M Sullivan; Stephen K Tahir; Chris Tse; Michael D Wendt; Yu Xiao; John C Xue; Haichao Zhang; Rod A Humerickhouse; Saul H Rosenberg; Steven W Elmore Journal: Nat Med Date: 2013-01-06 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Kristopher A Sarosiek; Xiaoke Chi; John A Bachman; Joshua J Sims; Joan Montero; Luv Patel; Annabelle Flanagan; David W Andrews; Peter Sorger; Anthony Letai Journal: Mol Cell Date: 2013-09-26 Impact factor: 17.970
Authors: Peter S Winter; Kristopher A Sarosiek; Kevin H Lin; Manja Meggendorfer; Susanne Schnittger; Anthony Letai; Kris C Wood Journal: Sci Signal Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 8.192
Authors: Sandra Misale; Ivana Bozic; Jingshan Tong; Ashley Peraza-Penton; Alice Lallo; Federica Baldi; Kevin H Lin; Mauro Truini; Livio Trusolino; Andrea Bertotti; Federica Di Nicolantonio; Martin A Nowak; Lin Zhang; Kris C Wood; Alberto Bardelli Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: G S Choudhary; S Al-Harbi; S Mazumder; B T Hill; M R Smith; J Bodo; E D Hsi; A Almasan Journal: Cell Death Dis Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 8.469
Authors: J D Leverson; H Zhang; J Chen; S K Tahir; D C Phillips; J Xue; P Nimmer; S Jin; M Smith; Y Xiao; P Kovar; A Tanaka; M Bruncko; G S Sheppard; L Wang; S Gierke; L Kategaya; D J Anderson; C Wong; J Eastham-Anderson; M J C Ludlam; D Sampath; W J Fairbrother; I Wertz; S H Rosenberg; C Tse; S W Elmore; A J Souers Journal: Cell Death Dis Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 8.469
Authors: Kevin H Lin; Abigail Xie; Justine C Rutter; Yeong-Ran Ahn; Julia M Lloyd-Cowden; Amanda G Nichols; Ryan S Soderquist; Timothy R Koves; Deborah M Muoio; Nancie J MacIver; Jatinder K Lamba; Timothy S Pardee; Chad M McCall; David A Rizzieri; Kris C Wood Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Tamilla Nechiporuk; Stephen E Kurtz; Olga Nikolova; Tingting Liu; Courtney L Jones; Angelo D'Alessandro; Rachel Culp-Hill; Amanda d'Almeida; Sunil K Joshi; Mara Rosenberg; Cristina E Tognon; Alexey V Danilov; Brian J Druker; Bill H Chang; Shannon K McWeeney; Jeffrey W Tyner Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: T-C Teh; N-Y Nguyen; D M Moujalled; D Segal; G Pomilio; S Rijal; A Jabbour; K Cummins; K Lackovic; P Blombery; E Thompson; P G Ekert; G Lessene; S P Glaser; D C S Huang; A W Roberts; M A Guthridge; A H Wei Journal: Leukemia Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: M Abraham; S Klein; B Bulvik; H Wald; I D Weiss; D Olam; L Weiss; K Beider; O Eizenberg; O Wald; E Galun; A Avigdor; O Benjamini; A Nagler; Y Pereg; S Tavor; A Peled Journal: Leukemia Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Xiangmeng Wang; Po Yee Mak; Hong Mu; Wenjing Tao; Arvind Rao; Ravikumar Visweswaran; Vivian Ruvolo; Jonathan A Pachter; David T Weaver; Michael Andreeff; Bing Xu; Bing Z Carter Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Romain Guièze; Vivian M Liu; Daniel Rosebrock; Alexis A Jourdain; María Hernández-Sánchez; Aina Martinez Zurita; Jing Sun; Elisa Ten Hacken; Kaitlyn Baranowski; Philip A Thompson; Jin-Mi Heo; Zachary Cartun; Ozan Aygün; J Bryan Iorgulescu; Wandi Zhang; Giulia Notarangelo; Dimitri Livitz; Shuqiang Li; Matthew S Davids; Anat Biran; Stacey M Fernandes; Jennifer R Brown; Ana Lako; Zoe B Ciantra; Matthew A Lawlor; Derin B Keskin; Namrata D Udeshi; William G Wierda; Kenneth J Livak; Anthony G Letai; Donna Neuberg; J Wade Harper; Steven A Carr; Federica Piccioni; Christopher J Ott; Ignaty Leshchiner; Cory M Johannessen; John Doench; Vamsi K Mootha; Gad Getz; Catherine J Wu Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Melissa A Fischer; Sharon Y Friedlander; Maria P Arrate; Hua Chang; Agnieszka E Gorska; Londa D Fuller; Haley E Ramsey; Trinayan Kashyap; Christian Argueta; Sophie Debler; Michael Byrne; Matthew T Villaume; Aaron C Shaver; William Senapedis; Yosef Landesman; Erkan Baloglu; Sharon Shacham; Michael R Savona Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-02-11
Authors: Haley E Ramsey; Melissa A Fischer; Taekyu Lee; Agnieszka E Gorska; Maria Pia Arrate; Londa Fuller; Kelli L Boyd; Stephen A Strickland; John Sensintaffar; Leah J Hogdal; Gregory D Ayers; Edward T Olejniczak; Stephen W Fesik; Michael R Savona Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 39.397