| Literature DB >> 30241319 |
Joseph A Caruso1, Nicholas J Carruthers2, Bryan Thibodeau3, Timothy J Geddes4, Alan A Dombkowski5, Paul M Stemmer6.
Abstract
Intracellular signaling is controlled to a large extent by the phosphorylation status of proteins. To determine how human breast cells can be reprogrammed during tumorigenic progression, we profiled cell lines in the MCF10A lineage by phosphoproteomic analyses. A large cluster of proteins involved in RNA splicing were hypophosphorylated as cells progressed to a hyperplastic state, and then hyperphosphorylated after progression to a fully metastatic phenotype. A comprehensive transcriptomic approach was used to determine whether alterations in splicing factor phosphorylation status would be reflected in changes in mRNA splicing. Results indicated that the degree of mRNA splicing trended with the degree of tumorigenicity of the 4 cell lines tested. That is, highly metastatic cell cultures had the greatest number of genes with splice variants, and these genes had greater fluctuations in expression intensities. Genes with high splicing indices were mapped against gene ontology terms to determine whether they have known roles in cancer. This group showed highly significant associations for angiogenesis, cytokine-mediated signaling, cell migration, programmed cell death and epithelial cell differentiation. In summary, data from global profiling of a human model of breast cancer development suggest that therapeutics should be developed which target signaling pathways that regulate RNA splicing.Entities:
Keywords: MCF10A; alternative splicing; breast cancer; phosphoproteomics
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30241319 PMCID: PMC6213538 DOI: 10.3390/ijms19102847
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Spectral count profiling of phosphoproteins in the MCF10A lineage.
| Protein Name | Uniprot Accession Number | 10A | AT | TG3B | CA1a | Grouping |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chromodomain-helicase-DNA-binding protein 3* | CHD3_HUMAN | 13 | 2 | 8 | 0 | Chromatin |
| Histone H1.3 | H13_HUMAN | 18 | 8 | 10 | 0 | Chromatin |
| Histone H1.5 | H15_HUMAN | 46 | 55 | 49 | 0 | Chromatin |
| Epidermal growth factor receptor | EGFR_HUMAN | 0 | 12 | 1 | 13 | EGFR signaling |
| Integrin beta-4 | ITB4_HUMAN | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | EGFR signaling |
| SH3 domain-containing kinase-binding protein 1 | SH3K1_HUMAN | 0 | 5 | 1 | 11 | EGFR signaling |
| Ras-assoc. & pleckstrin homology domains-containing prot. 1 | RAPH1_HUMAN | 0 | 2 | 0 | 10 | EGFR signaling |
| Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase regulatory subunit beta | P85B_HUMAN | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | EGFR signaling |
| Mitogen-activated protein kinase 3 | MK03_HUMAN | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 | EGFR signaling |
| Protein diaphanous homolog 1 | DIAP1_HUMAN | 0 | 2 | 3 | 8 | EGFR signaling |
| Epiplakin | EPIPL_HUMAN | 1 | 7 | 6 | 27 | keratinization |
| Keratin, type II cytoskeletal 6A | K2C6A_HUMAN | 4 | 19 | 7 | 81 | keratinization |
| Keratin, type II cytoskeletal 8 | K2C8_HUMAN | 0 | 0 | 1 | 52 | keratinization |
| Keratin, type I cytoskeletal 15 | K1C15_HUMAN | 0 | 2 | 20 | 129 | keratinization |
| Keratin, type I cytoskeletal 17 | K1C17_HUMAN | 0 | 11 | 0 | 35 | keratinization |
| Acetyl-coenzyme A synthetase, cytoplasmic | ACSA_HUMAN | 3 | 6 | 2 | 92 | lipid metabolism |
| ATP-citrate synthase | ACLY_HUMAN | 0 | 0 | 0 | 60 | lipid metabolism |
| Fatty acid synthase | FAS_HUMAN | 10 | 6 | 9 | 87 | lipid metabolism |
| Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA synthase, cytoplasmic | HMCS1_HUMAN | 41 | 51 | 31 | 290 | lipid metabolism |
| E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase rififylin | RFFL_HUMAN | 2 | 3 | 2 | 21 | protein degradation |
| LIM domain only protein 7 | LMO7_HUMAN | 1 | 0 | 0 | 20 | protein degradation |
| Proteasome subunit alpha type-5 | PSA5_HUMAN | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | protein degradation |
| C-Jun-amino-terminal kinase-interacting protein 4 | JIP4_HUMAN | 2 | 2 | 0 | 15 | signaling |
| Ephrin type-A receptor 2 | EPHA2_HUMAN | 0 | 1 | 1 | 33 | signaling |
| Interleukin-1 alpha | IL1A_HUMAN | 0 | 2 | 0 | 13 | signaling |
| Major vault protein | MVP_HUMAN | 0 | 0 | 2 | 34 | signaling |
| PDZ and LIM domain protein 4 | PDLI4_HUMAN | 66 | 39 | 50 | 0 | signaling |
| Proline-rich AKT1 substrate 1 | AKTS1_HUMAN | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | signaling |
| Protein phosphatase 1 regulatory subunit 1B | PPR1B_HUMAN | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | signaling |
| Protein phosphatase 1 regulatory subunit 14B | PP14B_HUMAN | 0 | 3 | 1 | 10 | signaling |
| Rho GTPase-activating protein 29 | RHG29_HUMAN | 0 | 0 | 2 | 83 | signaling |
| Rho GTPase-activating protein 32 | RHG32_HUMAN | 0 | 0 | 1 | 12 | signaling |
| ADP-ribosylation factor-like protein 6-interacting protein 4 | AR6P4_HUMAN | 12 | 2 | 5 | 0 | mRNA splicing |
| BUD13 homolog | BUD13_HUMAN | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | mRNA splicing |
| Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoproteins C1/C2 | HNRPC_HUMAN | 10 | 4 | 7 | 0 | mRNA splicing |
| Protein PRRC2A | PRC2A_HUMAN | 0 | 4 | 2 | 12 | mRNA splicing |
| Putative RNA-binding protein 15 | RBM15_HUMAN | 1 | 1 | 0 | 9 | mRNA splicing |
| Serine/arginine-rich splicing factor 11 | SRS11_HUMAN | 0 | 1 | 1 | 18 | mRNA splicing |
| YTH domain-containing protein 1 | YTDC1_HUMAN | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | mRNA splicing |
* Proteins with increased and decreased phosphorylation during tumorigenic progression are shown in black and red fonts, respectively.
Figure 1Pathway analysis of phosphoproteins involved in tumorigenic progression of the MCF10A lineage. Proteins with phosphosite differences of 3-fold or greater by spectral counting were analyzed by protein:protein interaction networking. Proteins are shown as nodes and interactions between proteins as edges. Protein names can be found in Table S3. Proteins are color-coded according to a network clustering algorithm. The most relevant gene ontology (GO) biological process terms for each cluster are listed, along with the keynode proteins (listed as gene names).
Phosphorylation profiling of protein:protein interaction clusters.
| Cluster | GO Term: Biological Process | 10A→AT | AT→TG3B | AT→CA1a | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | b | c | a | b | c | a | b | c | ||
| 1 | Signal Transduction | −9 | −0.17 | 51.9 | 2 | 0.04 | 38.9 | 45 | 0.83 | 75.9 |
| 2 | Regulation of Metabolic Process | −7 | −0.16 | 44.4 | 2 | 0.04 | 37.8 | 18 | 0.40 | 68.9 |
| 3 | RNA Splicing | −10 | −0.36 | 35.7 | 4 | 0.14 | 25.0 | 14 | 0.50 | 75.0 |
| 4 | Programmed Cell Death | 9 | 0.32 | 42.9 | −12 | −0.43 | 50.0 | 13 | 0.46 | 75.0 |
| 5 | Cell Cycle | −9 | −0.36 | 52.0 | −2 | −0.08 | 48.0 | 8 | 0.32 | 72.0 |
| 6 | RNA Metabolic Process | −2 | −0.12 | 55.6 | −2 | −0.12 | 33.3 | 2 | 0.11 | 61.1 |
| 7 | Ubiquitin-Dep. Protein Catabolic Process | 1 | 0.09 | 36.4 | −1 | −0.09 | 27.3 | 11 | 1.00 | 81.8 |
| 8 | Cytoskeleton Organization | 2 | 0.22 | 44.4 | −4 | −0.44 | 66.7 | 3 | 0.33 | 66.7 |
| 9 | Regulation of mRNA Processing | −2 | −0.50 | 50.0 | −1 | −0.33 | 25.0 | −1 | −0.25 | 50.0 |
| 10 | Nucleosome Assembly | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.33 | 33.3 | 0 | 0 | 66.7 |
a = Sum of phosphosite changes; b = Phosphosite changes per node; c = % of nodes in cluster with phosphosite changes.
Figure 2Phosphorylation status profiling of proteins involved in RNA splicing. Proteins (cluster #3 of Figure 1; labeled by gene name) were color-coded according to site-specific phosphorylation or dephosphorylation: nodes with net hypophosphorylation are colored red; nodes with no net change are white; and hyperphosphorylated nodes are in green. For example, SRRM2 protein in the CA1a/AT comparison had 6 phosphosites with ≥3-fold change in spectral counts, 4 of which increased in CA1a and 2 of which decreased for a net change of +2 and a dark green color-code.
Figure 3Keynode analysis of phosphoproteins with changes in phosphorylation status. Proteins with phosphosite differences of 3-fold or greater by spectral counting were mapped by protein:protein interaction networking. Keynodes (pink) were determined as proteins with the highest number of interactions among nodes with net phosphorylation status of ≤−1 or ≥+1. Primary keynodes have partners shaded in blue, secondary with partners shaded in green, and tertiary with partners shaded in orange. Proteins with connections to multiple keynodes are in yellow. Proteins are listed by gene name.
Pairwise comparison of mRNA expression changes for different levels of alternative splicing in the 10A model of tumorigenic progression.
| Exon SD Range | Average Fold Gene Expression (% of Total) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| AT/10A | TG3B/AT | CA1a/AT | |
| 0–1 | 0.2 ± 1.3 (98.81) | 0.1 ± 1.4 (97.88) | 0.2 ± 1.5 (95.83) |
| 1–2 | 1.8 ± 5.0 (1.13) | −2.6 ± 8.1 (1.98) | 0.1 ± 8.2 (3.65) |
| ≥2 | 5.5 ± 19.6 (0.06) | −11.7 ± 15.7 (0.14) | −137.1 ± 993.6 (0.53) |
|
| |||
| Proportion of Genes with Exon SD ≥ 1 | 67% * | 87% * | 98% * |
| Average Fold Gene Expression (±SD) | 5.9 ± 13.2 | −13.0 ± 17.1 | −149.9 ± 1037.1 |
* Significant enrichment of genes with SD > 1, p < 2.2 × 10−16.
Figure 4Estimate of mRNA splice variation between cell lines of the MCF10A lineage. (A) To calculate exon probe standard deviation (SD), microarray probe log2 intensities of cell line A were subtracted from cell line B for each exon within a gene (for coding genes with ≥3 exons). The SD was then calculated for each gene’s exon group as an estimate of mRNA splice variation. Genes with SD ≥ 1 are shown. (B) Comparison of exon SD ≥ 1 with alternate measures of alternative splicing: cassette exon (1 exon is spliced out along with its flanking introns); alternative splice site (an alternative 5′ donor or 3′ acceptor site is used); and intron retention.
Figure 5Tumorigenic progression of CA1a cells leads to specific patterns of mRNA splice variation. (A) Relative probe intensities for 3 representative genes: filamin A (FLNA), insulin-like growth factor binding protein 6 (IGFBP) and transforming growth factor beta 2 (TGFB2). Individual exon probes, shown as points along the gene, are ordered from 5′ of the mRNA on the left to 3′ on the right (x-axis). Probe intensities (log2 expression level) are on the y-axis. 3 independent replicates are shown for each cell line. Individual cell lines are either colored green or red as indicated in the figure. (B) Probe intensities were averaged for the top 10 genes with the highest exon SD values within the CA1a/AT comparison. The first point along the gene on the left represents the average probe intensities of the 5’-most probes, the last point on the right are the 3′-most probes, and the rest of the probes were grouped into thirds and averaged. Error bars represent standard deviation. Probe intensities’ distributions were different across the length of the gene (ANOVA, p = 0.0019).
Figure 6Gene ontology (GO) mapping of genes showing exon expression variation. For the three cell line comparisons, groups of genes with exon SD of ≥1 were compared against GO biological process groups for enrichment. Processes associated with tumorigenesis are indicated (GO search term numbers are in brackets). Genes above the column represent proteins found within the grouping that have been reported to be associated with breast cancer. *, p ≤ 0.05; **, p ≤ 0.001.
Figure 7Keynode analysis for genes with high mRNA expression differences but little exon expression variation. For the CA1a/AT comparison, a gene was included in the grouping if (i) the fold difference in mRNA expression was at least 2-fold up or down, and (ii) the exon SD was between 0 and 1. Genes which met these thresholds were mapped to protein:protein interaction networks, and then the data was filtered to show the keynode (pink) and its putative interacting partners (blue).