Pedro Casado1, Edmund H Wilkes1, Farideh Miraki-Moud2, Marym Mohammad Hadi1, Ana Rio-Machin3, Vinothini Rajeeve1, Rebecca Pike4, Sameena Iqbal5, Santiago Marfa1, Nicholas Lea6, Steven Best6, John Gribben2, Jude Fitzgibbon3, Pedro R Cutillas7. 1. Cell Signalling & Proteomics Group, Centre for Haemato-Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 2. Cancer Immunology Group, Centre for Haemato-Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 3. Precision Medicine Group, Centre for Haemato-Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 4. Flow Cytometry Core Facility, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 5. Tissue Bank, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 6. Department of Haematological Medicine, King's College London School of Medicine, London, UK. 7. Cell Signalling & Proteomics Group, Centre for Haemato-Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. p.cutillas@qmul.ac.uk.
Kinase inhibitors are efficient in reducing cancer cell viability in cases where malignant cells present a dependency or addiction to the targeted kinase [1]. Genetic alterations can cause constitutive activation of pro-survival and proliferative pathways and often determine the extent by which cancer cells respond to targeted drugs [2, 3]. However, other biochemical events, not directly linked to genetic mutations may also contribute to the modulation of oncogenic kinase activity and thus influence responses to kinase targeted drugs [4, 5]. Here, we integrated drug sensitivity, proteomic, phosphoproteomic, immunophenotypic, and genomic analyses of primary AML to rationalize responses and identify determinants of sensitivity of AML cells to targeted compounds of clinical and preclinical interest in this disease.We investigated the effects on cell viability of inhibitors for the kinases FLT3/PKC (midostaurin), PAK (PF-3758309), CK2 (silmitasertib), MEK (trametinib), and P38 (TAK-715). Hereafter named as FLT3/PKCi, PAKi, CK2i, MEKi, and P38i, respectively. Dose–response curves for cells obtained from 36 AML patients (Data File S1) showed heterogeneous responses to all compounds (Figure S1). However, samples of the M4 FAB subtype were on average more sensitive than M1 samples to MEKi (Fig. 1a).
Fig. 1
Association of differentiation, kinase activity, and sensitivity to kinase inhibitors in primary AML. a Sensitivity to MEKi as a function of FAB group. b CD expression across 30 cases and estimation of individual kinase activities in CDs+ and CDs− groups. c Sensitivity to kinase inhibitors as a function of CD pattern expression. Significance was assessed by Mann–Whitney test in a, c and with a z-test in b
Association of differentiation, kinase activity, and sensitivity to kinase inhibitors in primary AML. a Sensitivity to MEKi as a function of FAB group. b CD expression across 30 cases and estimation of individual kinase activities in CDs+ and CDs− groups. c Sensitivity to kinase inhibitors as a function of CD pattern expression. Significance was assessed by Mann–Whitney test in a, c and with a z-test in bBased on the surface expression of a set of co-expressed CD markers (Figure S2a), mass cytometry data subdivided our patient samples into two groups (Fig. 1b (heatmap)). These analyses could be performed in 30 cases with sufficient number of cells and produced two main groups, which we termed CDs+ and CDs−, consisting of 12 and 18 patients, respectively. Untargeted mass spectrometry proteomics (Data File S2) uncovered greater expression in the CDs+ group relative to CDs− of a set of proteins linked to differentiation, several kinases, and other signal-transduction regulators (Figure S2b, c). Global phosphoproteomics by mass spectrometry showed that CDs+ cells had an increase in protein phosphorylation relative to the CDs− cases (Figure S2d, Data File S3) and activated kinases downstream growth factor signaling, as illustrated by kinase substrate enrichment analysis [6] (Fig. 1b (bar plot)). In addition, individual phosphorylation markers [7] on ERK1/2 (MAPK3/1), PAK1/2, MEK1 (MAP2K1), and PKCδ (PRKCD) were highly phosphorylated in the CDs+ group (Figure S2d) and correlated with the surface expression of individual CD markers linked to differentiation (Figure S3a and S3b).Since CDs+ cases activated kinase survival pathways to a greater extent than CDs− cases, we reasoned that cells from these groups would respond differently to kinase inhibitors. Consistently with this hypothesis, cell viability analysis as a function of treatment with kinase inhibitors showed that CDs+ cases were more sensitive than CDs− to MEKi (at 10, 100, and 1000 nM), FLT3/PKCi (1 and 10 μM), and PAKi (1 μM) (Fig. 1c). These concentrations are physiologically relevant for MEKi and FLT3/PKCi [8, 9]. Together, our results suggest that CDs+ cells had higher expression of proteins associated with myelomonocytic differentiation and kinase signaling relative to negative cells, and consequently showed high phosphorylation and activation of pro-survival kinases, which was translated into an increased sensitivity to treatments with PAKi, midostaurin, and trametinib.In order to rationalize drug responses with greater detail, we sequenced 25 genes frequently mutated in AML in 27 cases of our cohort (Data File S4, sequencing failed in three samples). We found that genes involved in kinase signaling (NRAS, BRAF, and FLT3), were more frequently mutated in CDs+ cases (Figure S4, p = 0.008 by hypergeometric test). We performed an integrative and systematic analysis of mutational profiles with the mass spectrometry and cytometry data. Cells positive for NRAS mutations, high MAPK1 phosphorylation, or the CDs+ phenotype were more sensitive to MEKi than negative cells (Fig. 2a (i–iv)). Cells with the NRAS/BRAF/FLT3-ITD genotypes were not more sensitive to MEKi than cells with just either NRAS or BRAF mutations (Fig. 2a (v)). In contrast, cases positive for NRAS, BRAF mutations or the CDs+ phenotype (NRAS/BRAF/CDs+) were on average more sensitive to MEKi than cells without this molecular signature (Fig. 2a (vi–ix)). The p value assessment for the comparisons showed that the NRAS/BRAF/CDs+ signature produced the most significant difference followed by the NRAS/BRAF/p-MAPK1hi/CDs+ signature (Fig. 2 (bar plot)). Our results suggest that, in addition to NRAS/BRAF activating mutations, the RAS/MEK/ERK pathway may be activated by other means in cells with high expression of CD markers. Thus, MEKi treatment was more likely to reduce AML cell viability in cases positive for at least one of these markers (NRAS/BRAF mutations or specific CD pattern expression).
Fig. 2
Integration of genomic, phosphoproteomics, and mass cytometry data to rationalize kinase inhibitors sensitivity. a Viability of AML cells within the indicated genotype/phenotype groups after treatment with MEKi. b Sensitivity of NRAS/BRAF/CDs+ positive cells to MEKi as a function of the indicated factors. c FLT3/PKCi sensitivity of AML cells with the indicated phenotype/genotype. Phosphorylations are denoted as (hi) and (lo) based on a greater or lower phosphorylation than the median across all cases. Significance was assessed by Mann–Whitney test
Integration of genomic, phosphoproteomics, and mass cytometry data to rationalize kinase inhibitors sensitivity. a Viability of AML cells within the indicated genotype/phenotype groups after treatment with MEKi. b Sensitivity of NRAS/BRAF/CDs+ positive cells to MEKi as a function of the indicated factors. c FLT3/PKCi sensitivity of AML cells with the indicated phenotype/genotype. Phosphorylations are denoted as (hi) and (lo) based on a greater or lower phosphorylation than the median across all cases. Significance was assessed by Mann–Whitney testAlthough 15 cases with the NRAS/BRAF/CDs+ signature were on average more sensitive to MEKi than negative cases, 8 of such cases were resistant (viability >50%) to treatment (Fig. 2a (viii)). Within these 15 cases positive for NRAS/BRAF/CDs+, cells with FLT3-ITD mutations were significantly more resistant to MEKi than cells without this mutation (p = 0.012, Fig. 2b). Several phosphorylation markers were also found to be associated with responses to MEKi within the NRAS/BRAF/CDs+ cases, including STAT5AS780, STAT5AS128, TOP2AS1213, KDM5CS317, and CAMKK1S458 (Fig. 2b). When the whole cohort of 27 patients was considered, samples positive for NRAS/BRAF/CDs+ and negative for FLT3-ITD or low pSTAT5A or pKDM5C were more sensitive to MEKi than the other cells (Fig. 2d, Figure S5a). This higher sensitivity of NRAS/BRAF/CDs+ cases that were FLT3-ITD negative or pKDM5CS317 low was consistent across several MEKi concentrations (Figure S5a).Our results suggest two distinct mechanisms of intrinsic resistance to MEK inhibition. One occurs in cells that are not addicted to the pro-survival actions of MEK because these have low RAS/MEK/ERK pathway activity. The other occurs in cells which, albeit having a highly active RAS/MEK/ERK, bypass MEK inhibition using the FLT3/STAT5 axis; a pathway known to sustain AML viability and proliferation by acting in parallel to RAS/MEK/ERK signaling [10, 11]. Pemovska et al. [12] also observed a high response to trametinib in a subgroup of AML primary cells. NRAS is frequently mutated in AML and in a recent clinical trial ~20% of AML patients positive for NRAS or KRAS mutations responded to trametinib [13]. Our results suggest that selection of patients for therapy based not only on NRAS/KRAS mutations but also on direct markers of MEK activity, and STAT5 and KDM5A phosphorylation may increase the proportion of patients that will respond to this treatment.We also noted that FLT3-ITD status was not associated with the responses of cells to FLT3/PKCi (Fig. 2c, Figure S5b), an inhibitor recently approved to treat FLT3 mutant AML [14]. In contrast, CD expression and phosphorylation markers on PKCδ and on its substrate GSK3A [15] were increased in FLT3/PKCi-sensitive cells at 10 μM and 1 μM (Fig. 2c, Figure S5b). Our results suggest that the mode of action of midostaurin may involve the inhibition of PKCδ (a known target of this drug), which we found activated in primary AML (Fig. 1b, Figure S4a).In conclusion, we found that AML cells remodel their kinase-signaling network during differentiation, resulting in a marked increase in the activity of pro-survival pathways regulated by MEK and PKC. Specific combinations of target and parallel kinase-pathway activation (caused by genetic and non-genetic events) determined the extent by which AML cells respond to treatments with trametinib or midostaurin.Supplementary informationData Set 1Data Set 2Data Set 3Data Set 4
Authors: Elli Papaemmanuil; Moritz Gerstung; Hartmut Döhner; Peter J Campbell; Lars Bullinger; Verena I Gaidzik; Peter Paschka; Nicola D Roberts; Nicola E Potter; Michael Heuser; Felicitas Thol; Niccolo Bolli; Gunes Gundem; Peter Van Loo; Inigo Martincorena; Peter Ganly; Laura Mudie; Stuart McLaren; Sarah O'Meara; Keiran Raine; David R Jones; Jon W Teague; Adam P Butler; Mel F Greaves; Arnold Ganser; Konstanze Döhner; Richard F Schlenk Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Xianjun Fang; Shuangxing Yu; Janos L Tanyi; Yiling Lu; James R Woodgett; Gordon B Mills Journal: Mol Cell Biol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 4.272
Authors: Tea Pemovska; Mika Kontro; Bhagwan Yadav; Henrik Edgren; Samuli Eldfors; Agnieszka Szwajda; Henrikki Almusa; Maxim M Bespalov; Pekka Ellonen; Erkki Elonen; Bjørn T Gjertsen; Riikka Karjalainen; Evgeny Kulesskiy; Sonja Lagström; Anna Lehto; Maija Lepistö; Tuija Lundán; Muntasir Mamun Majumder; Jesus M Lopez Marti; Pirkko Mattila; Astrid Murumägi; Satu Mustjoki; Aino Palva; Alun Parsons; Tero Pirttinen; Maria E Rämet; Minna Suvela; Laura Turunen; Imre Västrik; Maija Wolf; Jonathan Knowles; Tero Aittokallio; Caroline A Heckman; Kimmo Porkka; Olli Kallioniemi; Krister Wennerberg Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Richard M Stone; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Ben L Sanford; Kristina Laumann; Susan Geyer; Clara D Bloomfield; Christian Thiede; Thomas W Prior; Konstanze Döhner; Guido Marcucci; Francesco Lo-Coco; Rebecca B Klisovic; Andrew Wei; Jorge Sierra; Miguel A Sanz; Joseph M Brandwein; Theo de Witte; Dietger Niederwieser; Frederick R Appelbaum; Bruno C Medeiros; Martin S Tallman; Jürgen Krauter; Richard F Schlenk; Arnold Ganser; Hubert Serve; Gerhard Ehninger; Sergio Amadori; Richard A Larson; Hartmut Döhner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Timothy J Ley; Christopher Miller; Li Ding; Benjamin J Raphael; Andrew J Mungall; A Gordon Robertson; Katherine Hoadley; Timothy J Triche; Peter W Laird; Jack D Baty; Lucinda L Fulton; Robert Fulton; Sharon E Heath; Joelle Kalicki-Veizer; Cyriac Kandoth; Jeffery M Klco; Daniel C Koboldt; Krishna-Latha Kanchi; Shashikant Kulkarni; Tamara L Lamprecht; David E Larson; Ling Lin; Charles Lu; Michael D McLellan; Joshua F McMichael; Jacqueline Payton; Heather Schmidt; David H Spencer; Michael H Tomasson; John W Wallis; Lukas D Wartman; Mark A Watson; John Welch; Michael C Wendl; Adrian Ally; Miruna Balasundaram; Inanc Birol; Yaron Butterfield; Readman Chiu; Andy Chu; Eric Chuah; Hye-Jung Chun; Richard Corbett; Noreen Dhalla; Ranabir Guin; An He; Carrie Hirst; Martin Hirst; Robert A Holt; Steven Jones; Aly Karsan; Darlene Lee; Haiyan I Li; Marco A Marra; Michael Mayo; Richard A Moore; Karen Mungall; Jeremy Parker; Erin Pleasance; Patrick Plettner; Jacquie Schein; Dominik Stoll; Lucas Swanson; Angela Tam; Nina Thiessen; Richard Varhol; Natasja Wye; Yongjun Zhao; Stacey Gabriel; Gad Getz; Carrie Sougnez; Lihua Zou; Mark D M Leiserson; Fabio Vandin; Hsin-Ta Wu; Frederick Applebaum; Stephen B Baylin; Rehan Akbani; Bradley M Broom; Ken Chen; Thomas C Motter; Khanh Nguyen; John N Weinstein; Nianziang Zhang; Martin L Ferguson; Christopher Adams; Aaron Black; Jay Bowen; Julie Gastier-Foster; Thomas Grossman; Tara Lichtenberg; Lisa Wise; Tanja Davidsen; John A Demchok; Kenna R Mills Shaw; Margi Sheth; Heidi J Sofia; Liming Yang; James R Downing; Greg Eley Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ravid Straussman; Teppei Morikawa; Kevin Shee; Michal Barzily-Rokni; Zhi Rong Qian; Jinyan Du; Ashli Davis; Margaret M Mongare; Joshua Gould; Dennie T Frederick; Zachary A Cooper; Paul B Chapman; David B Solit; Antoni Ribas; Roger S Lo; Keith T Flaherty; Shuji Ogino; Jennifer A Wargo; Todd R Golub Journal: Nature Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Pedro Casado; Juan-Carlos Rodriguez-Prados; Sabina C Cosulich; Sylvie Guichard; Bart Vanhaesebroeck; Simon Joel; Pedro R Cutillas Journal: Sci Signal Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 8.192
Authors: Yu-Hsiu T Lin; Gregory P Way; Benjamin G Barwick; Margarette C Mariano; Makeba Marcoulis; Ian D Ferguson; Christoph Driessen; Lawrence H Boise; Casey S Greene; Arun P Wiita Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2019-11-12
Authors: Sachi Horibata; Gege Gui; Justin Lack; Christin B DeStefano; Michael M Gottesman; Christopher S Hourigan Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Kathryn Davidson; Paul Grevitt; Maria F Contreras-Gerenas; Katherine S Bridge; Miguel Hermida; Kunal M Shah; Faraz K Mardakheh; Mark Stubbs; Rosemary Burke; Pedro Casado; Pedro R Cutillas; Sarah A Martin; Tyson V Sharp Journal: Cell Death Dis Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 8.469
Authors: Valentina Cordo'; Mariska T Meijer; Rico Hagelaar; Richard R de Goeij-de Haas; Vera M Poort; Alex A Henneman; Sander R Piersma; Thang V Pham; Koichi Oshima; Adolfo A Ferrando; Guido J R Zaman; Connie R Jimenez; Jules P P Meijerink Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 17.694
Authors: Angelica Gualtieri; Nikolina Kyprianou; Louise C Gregory; Maria Lillina Vignola; Mehul T Dattani; Carles Gaston-Massuet; James G Nicholson; Rachael Tan; Shin-Ichi Inoue; Valeria Scagliotti; Pedro Casado; James Blackburn; Fernando Abollo-Jimenez; Eugenia Marinelli; Rachael E J Besser; Wolfgang Högler; I Karen Temple; Justin H Davies; Andrey Gagunashvili; Iain C A F Robinson; Sally A Camper; Shannon W Davis; Pedro R Cutillas; Evelien F Gevers; Yoko Aoki Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 17.694