| Literature DB >> 30297650 |
Félice A Janser1,2, Olivia Adams3,4, Vanessa Bütler5, Anna M Schläfli6, Bastian Dislich7, Christian A Seiler8, Dino Kröll9, Rupert Langer10, Mario P Tschan11,12.
Abstract
Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is a highly lethal cancer type with an overall poor survival rate. Twenty to thirty percent of EAC overexpress the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2), a transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinase promoting cell growth and proliferation. Patients with Her2 overexpressing breast and gastroesophageal cancer may benefit from Her2 inhibitors. Therapy resistance, however, is well documented. Since autophagy, a lysosome-dependent catabolic process, is implicated in cancer resistance mechanisms, we tested whether autophagy modulation influences Her2 inhibitor sensitivity in EAC. Her2-positive OE19 EAC cells showed an induction in autophagic flux upon treatment with the small molecule Her2 inhibitor Lapatinib. Newly generated Lapatinib-resistant OE19 (OE19 LR) cells showed increased basal autophagic flux compared to parental OE19 (OE19 P) cells. Based on these results, we tested if combining Lapatinib with autophagy inhibitors might be beneficial. OE19 P showed significantly reduced cell viability upon double treatment, while OE19 LR were already sensitive to autophagy inhibition alone. Additionally, Her2 status and autophagy marker expression (LC3B and p62) were investigated in a treatment-naïve EAC patient cohort (n = 112) using immunohistochemistry. Here, no significant correlation between Her2 status and expression of LC3B and p62 was found. Our data show that resistance to Her2-directed therapy is associated with a higher basal autophagy level, which is not per se associated with Her2 status. Therefore, we propose that autophagy may contribute to acquired resistance to Her2-targeted therapy in EAC, and that combining Her2 and autophagy inhibition might be beneficial for EAC patients.Entities:
Keywords: Her2; Her2 inhibitor; LC3B; Lapatinib; OE19; autophagy; esophageal adenocarcinoma; p62; resistance
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30297650 PMCID: PMC6213363 DOI: 10.3390/ijms19103069
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Induction of autophagic flux in OE19 upon Lapatinib treatment. (a) LC3B flux was assessed comparing control and BafilomycinA (BafA)-treated (200 nM, 2 h) OE19 upon Lapatinib treatment (120 nM, 24 h). LC3 band intensities were quantified using ImageJ software. Total protein was used as a loading control, and Phospho-Her2 for Lapatinib treatment (n = 3). (b) LC3B flux was calculated from data in (a) as follows: BafA+-BafA− values for each condition. (c) FACS analysis of mCherry-EGFP-LC3B-expressing OE19 cells upon induction or blockade of autophagy with indication of the chosen cut-off value for high respectively low autophagic flux. (d) Quantification of the FACS analysis showing % of cells with high autophagic flux (n = 3). Cells were treated as in (a). The error bars represent SD, statistical significance was determined by Mann–Whitney U test: * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01.
Figure 2Comparison of the autophagic flux induction in parental (OE19 P) and Lapatinib-resistant (OE19 LR) OE19 cells. (a) Relative cell viability assessed by alamarBlue® assay of OE19 P and OE19 LR cells, treated with dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) alone or 120nM of Lapatinib (n = 3). (b) Quantification of FACS analysis comparing OE19 P and OE19 LR transduced with a mCherry-EGFP-LC3B construct (same treatment as in a). As a control, autophagy blocked conditions (addition of 5µM VPS34-IN1) were included, (n = 4). The error bars represent SD, statistical significance was determined by Mann–Whitney U test: * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01.
Figure 3Combined Her2 and autophagy inhibitor treatment (a) Relative cell viability of OE19 cells treated with Lapatinib (120 nM) and/or autophagy inhibition either VPS34 inhibitor (VPS34-IN1) (5 µM) or chloroquine (CQ) (25 µM) at days 0 and 3 of the alamarBlue® experiment (n ≥ 3). (b) Cell counts of OE19 P and OE19 LR cells treated as in (a) but for 48 h. Values were normalized to DMSO control treated cells (n = 7) (c) Colony numbers after treatment as described in (b), reseeded (2500 cells/well) in six-well plates and incubation for 14 days without treatment (n = 5). The error bars represent SD, statistical significance was determined by Mann–Whitney U test: ns = non significant p > 0.05, * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001, **** p ≤ 0.0001.
Figure 4Examples of morphology, autophagy markers and Her2 immunohistological stainings of esophageal adenocarcinomas: (a) Hematoxylin-Eosin stain; (b) Example of strong Her2-positive staining; (c) Example of LC3B high dot-like staining; (d) Example of p62 high cytoplasmic/dot like staining, (40× magnification each).
Results of the LC3B scoring in correlation with the Her2 status.
| LC3B | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | |||
| 50 | 44 | 94 | ||
| 8 | 10 | 18 | ||
| total | 58 | 54 | 112 | |
Results of the p62 scoring in correlation with the Her2 status.
| p62 | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | |||
| 21 | 73 | 94 | ||
| 3 | 15 | 18 | ||
| total | 24 | 88 | 112 | |