| Literature DB >> 29963228 |
Jacinth Rajendra1,2, Keshava K Datta3, Sheikh Burhan Ud Din Farooqee4,2, Rahul Thorat5, Kiran Kumar3, Nilesh Gardi6, Ekjot Kaur1,2, Jyothi Nair1,2, Sameer Salunkhe1,2, Ketaki Patkar1, Sanket Desai6,2, Jayant Sastri Goda7, Aliasgar Moiyadi8, Amit Dutt6,2, Prasanna Venkatraman4,2, Harsha Gowda3, Shilpee Dutt1,2.
Abstract
Therapy resistance and recurrence in Glioblastoma is due to the presence of residual radiation resistant cells. However, because of their inaccessibility from patient biopsies, the molecular mechanisms driving their survival remain unexplored. Residual Radiation Resistant (RR) and Relapse (R) cells were captured using cellular radiation resistant model generated from patient derived primary cultures and cell lines. iTRAQ based quantitative proteomics was performed to identify pathways unique to RR cells followed by in vitro and in vivo experiments showing their role in radio-resistance. 2720 proteins were identified across Parent (P), RR and R population with 824 and 874 differential proteins in RR and R cells. Unsupervised clustering showed proteasome pathway as the most significantly deregulated pathway in RR cells. Concordantly, the RR cells displayed enhanced expression and activity of proteasome subunits, which triggered NFkB signalling. Pharmacological inhibition of proteasome activity led to impeded NFkB transcriptional activity, radio-sensitization of RR cells in vitro, and significantly reduced capacity to form orthotopic tumours in vivo. We demonstrate that combination of proteasome inhibitor with radio-therapy abolish the inaccessible residual resistant cells thereby preventing GBM recurrence. Furthermore, we identified first proteomic signature of RR cells that can be exploited for GBM therapeutics.Entities:
Keywords: glioblastoma; proteasomes; proteomic analysis; radio-resistant cells; recurrence
Year: 2018 PMID: 29963228 PMCID: PMC6021241 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.25351
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1In vitro radiation resistant model
(A) The illustration depicts the clinical scenario in patient’s pre and post treatment in which post-surgery there is a significant regression or complete abolishment of the tumor observed. However, in >90% cases tumor recurs. This clinical scenario was recapitulated in an in vitro model. The images represent the SF268 Parent, innate Radiation Resistant (RR) enriched with multinucleated giant cells (MNGCs) and Relapse (R) population. (B) Graph represents the growth kinetics of SF268 and Patient Sample post lethal dose of radiation. (C) A schematic representation of the proteomics workflow. (D) Graphical representation of the number of differential proteins identified in the RR and R w.r.t P and R w.r.t RR by the proteomic analysis. Results in each bar graph are the composite data from three independent experiments performed in triplicate (mean ± SEM)
Figure 2Proteomic analysis of the parent, radiation resistant and relapse population
(A) Western blots showing the expression of HRas, EGFR, YBX3 in Parent (P), Radiation Resistant (RR) and Relapse (R) population of SF268 cell line. β-actin was used as loading control. (B) Bar plot of the relative peptide intensity values of the mentioned proteins in RR/P and R/P as determined by iTRAQ. (C) Heat map representation of unsupervised hierarchical clustering of the proteins based on their relative peptide intensities in R w.r.t RR, RR w.r.t P and R w.r.t P. Red- Up-regulation >1.5, Green- Down-regulation <0.5. Heat map is divided into clusters with a dotted plot representing the expression pattern of proteins in each cluster. (D) Pathway analysis of the Genes in cluster 2 and cluster were collapsed into pathways using ClueGo and CluePedia plugin of Cytoscape with KEGG and REACTOME pathway databases. Each coloured circle represents a pathway enriched with upregulated and downregulated protein in the RR cells but non-differential in the R cells. (E) Venn diagram for the overlap of pathways between cluster 2 and cluster 3
Figure 3Deregulation of proteasome pathway in the radiation resistant population
(A) Pathway analysis of deregulated genes in Radiation Resistant (RR) vs. Parent (P) Genes deregulated in RR w.r.t P were collapsed into pathways using ClueGo and CluePedia plugin of Cytoscape with KEGG and REACTOME pathway databases. The colour gradient shows the number of genes of each group associated with the pathway. Equal proportions of the two clusters are represented in white. (B) KEGG pathways enriched with upregulated proteins according to their k/K ratio. k–Number of genes identified from the pathway, K–Total number of genes curated in the KEGG database for a pathway. (C) Western blot showing the expression of PSME1, PSMA7 and PSMB4 parent (P), Radiation Resistant (RR) and Relapse (R) cells of SF268. β-actin was used as loading control. (D) Band intensity plot for the proteins validated by western blot using IMAGE J software. (E) Shows the relative peptide intensity values of the three proteins from iTRAQ analysis.
Represents the list of differential proteins identified in the proteasome pathway
| REPLICATE 1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gene Symbol | Protein Description | Σ# Unique Peptides | Σ# PSMs | Fold Change in RR/P |
| PSME1 | proteasome activator complex subunit 1 isoform 1 [Homo sapiens] | 4 | 4 | 2.085 |
| PSMD7 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 7 [Homo sapiens] | 3 | 6 | 1.977 |
| PSMA1 | proteasome subunit alpha type-1 isoform 3 [Homo sapiens] | 1 | 2 | 1.634 |
| PSMD2 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 2 [Homo sapiens] | 9 | 12 | 1.632 |
| PSMA7 | proteasome subunit alpha type-7 [Homo sapiens] | 4 | 13 | 1.568 |
| PSMB4 | proteasome subunit beta type-4 [Homo sapiens] | 2 | 4 | 1.550 |
| PSMC1 | 26S protease regulatory subunit 4 [Homo sapiens] | 6 | 10 | 1.518 |
| PSMA3 | proteasome subunit alpha type-3 isoform 2 [Homo sapiens] | 2 | 4 | 0.656 |
| PSMD14 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 14 [Homo sapiens] | 3 | 4 | 0.593 |
| REPLICATE 2 | ||||
| PSMD9 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 9 isoform 1 | 4 | 6 | 1.88 |
| PSMD10 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 10 isoform 1 | 6 | 9 | 1.523 |
| PSMC1 | 26S protease regulatory subunit 4 | 19 | 57 | 1.381 |
| PSMC6 | 26S protease regulatory subunit 10B | 16 | 48 | 1.356 |
| PSMD8 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 8 | 10 | 21 | 1.356 |
| PSMA4 | proteasome subunit alpha type-4 isoform 1 | 10 | 35 | 1.294 |
| PSME2 | proteasome activator complex subunit 2 | 12 | 30 | 1.281 |
| PSMD13 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 13 isoform 1 | 19 | 47 | 1.243 |
| PSMD7 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 7 | 10 | 19 | 1.227 |
| PSMD12 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 12 isoform 1 | 22 | 44 | 1.207 |
| REPLICATE 3 | ||||
| PSMD9 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 9 isoform 1 | 5 | 7 | 3.587 |
| PSMC5 | 26S protease regulatory subunit 8 isoform 1 | 21 | 54 | 1.525 |
| PSMB10 | proteasome subunit beta type-10 precursor | 1 | 1 | 1.445 |
| PSME2 | proteasome activator complex subunit 2 | 9 | 29 | 1.41 |
| PSMD6 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 6 isoform 2 | 19 | 30 | 1.382 |
| PSMD4 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 4 | 12 | 27 | 1.362 |
| PSMA3 | proteasome subunit alpha type-3 isoform 1 | 9 | 25 | 1.326 |
| PSMD8 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 8 | 9 | 19 | 1.321 |
| PSMC6 | 26S protease regulatory subunit 10B | 18 | 52 | 1.318 |
| PSMD13 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 13 isoform 1 | 17 | 43 | 1.302 |
| PSMB7 | proteasome subunit beta type-7 precursor | 5 | 17 | 1.278 |
| PSMD2 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 2 isoform 1 | 31 | 74 | 1.257 |
| PSMD14 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 14 | 13 | 23 | 1.222 |
| PSMC4 | 26S protease regulatory subunit 6B isoform 1 | 17 | 49 | 1.217 |
| REPLICATE 4 | ||||
| PSMD9 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 9 isoform 1 | 6 | 10 | 1.95 |
| PSME2 | proteasome activator complex subunit 2 | 9 | 35 | 1.77 |
| PSMD8 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 8 | 11 | 22 | 1.579 |
| PSMD4 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 4 | 12 | 26 | 1.489 |
| PSMD7 | 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 7 | 11 | 23 | 1.411 |
| PSMC4 | 26S protease regulatory subunit 6B isoform 1 | 23 | 70 | 1.382 |
Columns from the right represent the gene symbol, protein description, #- number of unique peptides identified, number of peptide score matches (PSMs) and the fold change of the proteins in RR w.r.t P.
Figure 4RR cells display enhanced proteasome activity and survival dependency on proteasomes in vitro
(A) Data represents the chymotrypsin like proteasome activity measured using Succ-LLVY AMC florigenic substrate in the P and RR population of SF268, U87MG, PS1 and PS2. (B) The graph depicts the RPL19 normalised mRNA levels of classical and Immunoproteasome proteasome beta catalytic subunits respectively in the RR population of SF268, U87MG, PS1, and PS2 compared to the parent population. (C) Proteasome activity inhibition and % cell viability at different concentrations of proteasome inhibitor–Bortezomib in SF268. (D) Graph shows percentage of cells of SF268 and PS1 surviving at different doses of γ radiation with and without 10 nM Bortezomib in a clonogenic assay. (D) Bar graph represents the percentage of viable cells (at 72 hrs) as assessed by MTT assay at different concentrations of Bortezomib. Cells were treated with Bortezomib for 12 hrs. Results in each bar graph are the composite data from three independent experiments performed in triplicate (mean ± SEM); ***P = 0.001c)
Figure 5Proteasomes indirectly regulate RR cell survival via the NFkB activation
(A and B) Bar graph shows proteasome activity in parent and RR cells of SF268 and U87 at different concentrations of the Bortezomib as mentioned. (C) Bar graph represents the percentage of viable cells (at 72 hrs) as assessed by MTT assay at different concentrations of Bortezomib. Cells were treated with Bortezomib for 12 hrs. Results in each bar graph are the composite data from three independent experiments performed in triplicate ((mean ± SEM); ***P = 0.001) (D) Western blot represents the expression of phosphor- p65 in the P (Parent) and RR (Radiation resistant) cells of SF268, and U87MG, PS1 and PS2. Total (T) total- p65 levels were used as loading controls. (E) Heat map representation of gene expression values NFkB target genes by qPCR in the RR population of SF268, U87, PS1 and PS2 compared to the parent population. GAPDH was used as internal control. Results are the composite data from three independent experiments performed in triplicate (mean ± SEM); *P = 0.05, **P = 0.01 and ***P = 0.001 (F) Bortezomib treatment repressed the transcriptional activity of NFkB promoter luciferase constructs. The NFkB firefly luciferase construct was transfected into Parent and RR cells and then treated with Bortezomib as indicated. As a control Con A control plasmid was transfected with Renilla luciferase construct. The pTRIPZ IkB-alpha construct was used as NFkB suppressor. Luciferase values subsequent to normalization were plotted.
Figure 6Proteasome inhibition reduces the tumorigenic potential of the cells in vivo
(A) Left panel - Representative bioluminescence images after orthotopic injection of U87MG-Luciferase labelled Parent (P) and Radiation Resistant (RR) cells. Right Panel - Bioluminescent images after orthotopic injection of U87MG-Luciferase labelled Parent (P) and Radiation Resistant (RR) cells treated with Vehicle Control (VC) and Bortezomib. (B) Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining of mice brain slices. Brain slices of the brain tissue from mice injected with Parent Vehicle control, RR Vehicle Control, Parent + Bortezomib, RR + Bortezomib cells were formalin fixed and paraffin embedded. Sections stained with H&E show regions infiltrated with tumour cells. All photomicrographs are shown with the same magnification. Bar = 100 μm. (C) Graph represents bioluminescence signal at different days post injection in mice injected with P and RR cells. (D) Graph represents bioluminescence intensity at different days post injection of mice injected with P and RR cells pretreated with bortezomib as compared to P and RR cells treated with vehicle control. ‘n’ represents number of mice per group. (E) Kaplein Meier Curve for the overall survival of the mice in the pretreated study. (F) Schematic representation for studying the effect of intraperitoneal injections of bortezomib along with radiation treatment of mice intracranially injected with parent GBM cells. IR–Radiation; BTZ–Bortezomib. (G) Representative bioluminescence images of tumor formation in the mice treated with IR and BTZ compared to the mice which were administered with Vehicle Control (VC), only BTZ and only IR. (H) Graphical representation of bioluminescence intensity recorded for mice treated with IR and BTZ compared to the mice which were administered only saline as Vehicle Control (VC), only BTZ, only IR. (I) Kaplein Meier Curve for % tumor free animals in the radiation and intraperitoneally administered BTZ study.
Figure 7Proposed model for the study