Antony H Prabhu1, Shiva Kant1, Pravin Kesarwani1, Kamran Ahmed2, Peter Forsyth3, Ichiro Nakano4, Prakash Chinnaiyan4,5. 1. Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan. 2. Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. 3. Neuro-oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. 4. Neurosurgery, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama. 5. Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although considerable progress has been made in understanding molecular alterations driving gliomagenesis, the diverse metabolic programs contributing to the aggressive phenotype of glioblastoma remain unclear. The aim of this study was to define and provide molecular context to metabolic reprogramming driving gliomagenesis. METHODS: Integrative cross-platform analyses coupling global metabolomic profiling with genomics in patient-derived glioma (low-grade astrocytoma [LGA; n = 28] and glioblastoma [n = 80]) were performed. Identified programs were then metabolomically, genomically, and functionally evaluated in preclinical models. RESULTS: Clear metabolic programs were identified differentiating LGA from glioblastoma, with aberrant lipid, peptide, and amino acid metabolism representing dominant metabolic nodes associated with malignant transformation. Although the metabolomic profiles of glioblastoma and LGA appeared mutually exclusive, considerable metabolic heterogeneity was observed in glioblastoma. Surprisingly, integrative analyses demonstrated that O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase methylation and isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation status were equally distributed among glioblastoma metabolic profiles. Transcriptional subtypes, on the other hand, tightly clustered by their metabolomic signature, with proneural and mesenchymal tumor profiles being mutually exclusive. Integrating these metabolic phenotypes with gene expression analyses uncovered tightly orchestrated and highly redundant transcriptional programs designed to support the observed metabolic programs by actively importing these biochemical substrates from the microenvironment, contributing to a state of enhanced metabolic heterotrophy. These findings were metabolomically, genomically, and functionally recapitulated in preclinical models. CONCLUSION: Despite disparate molecular pathways driving the progression of glioblastoma, metabolic programs designed to maintain its aggressive phenotype remain conserved. This contributes to a state of enhanced metabolic heterotrophy supporting survival in diverse microenvironments implicit in this malignancy.
BACKGROUND: Although considerable progress has been made in understanding molecular alterations driving gliomagenesis, the diverse metabolic programs contributing to the aggressive phenotype of glioblastoma remain unclear. The aim of this study was to define and provide molecular context to metabolic reprogramming driving gliomagenesis. METHODS: Integrative cross-platform analyses coupling global metabolomic profiling with genomics in patient-derived glioma (low-grade astrocytoma [LGA; n = 28] and glioblastoma [n = 80]) were performed. Identified programs were then metabolomically, genomically, and functionally evaluated in preclinical models. RESULTS: Clear metabolic programs were identified differentiating LGA from glioblastoma, with aberrant lipid, peptide, and amino acid metabolism representing dominant metabolic nodes associated with malignant transformation. Although the metabolomic profiles of glioblastoma and LGA appeared mutually exclusive, considerable metabolic heterogeneity was observed in glioblastoma. Surprisingly, integrative analyses demonstrated that O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase methylation and isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation status were equally distributed among glioblastoma metabolic profiles. Transcriptional subtypes, on the other hand, tightly clustered by their metabolomic signature, with proneural and mesenchymal tumor profiles being mutually exclusive. Integrating these metabolic phenotypes with gene expression analyses uncovered tightly orchestrated and highly redundant transcriptional programs designed to support the observed metabolic programs by actively importing these biochemical substrates from the microenvironment, contributing to a state of enhanced metabolic heterotrophy. These findings were metabolomically, genomically, and functionally recapitulated in preclinical models. CONCLUSION: Despite disparate molecular pathways driving the progression of glioblastoma, metabolic programs designed to maintain its aggressive phenotype remain conserved. This contributes to a state of enhanced metabolic heterotrophy supporting survival in diverse microenvironments implicit in this malignancy.
Authors: Martje Tönjes; Sebastian Barbus; Yoon Jung Park; Wei Wang; Magdalena Schlotter; Anders M Lindroth; Sabrina V Pleier; Alfa H C Bai; Daniela Karra; Rosario M Piro; Jörg Felsberg; Adele Addington; Dieter Lemke; Irene Weibrecht; Volker Hovestadt; Claudio G Rolli; Benito Campos; Sevin Turcan; Dominik Sturm; Hendrik Witt; Timothy A Chan; Christel Herold-Mende; Ralf Kemkemer; Rainer König; Kathrin Schmidt; William-Edmund Hull; Stefan M Pfister; Manfred Jugold; Susan M Hutson; Christoph Plass; Jürgen G Okun; Guido Reifenberger; Peter Lichter; Bernhard Radlwimmer Journal: Nat Med Date: 2013-06-23 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Ralph B Puchalski; Nameeta Shah; Jeremy Miller; Rachel Dalley; Steve R Nomura; Jae-Guen Yoon; Kimberly A Smith; Michael Lankerovich; Darren Bertagnolli; Kris Bickley; Andrew F Boe; Krissy Brouner; Stephanie Butler; Shiella Caldejon; Mike Chapin; Suvro Datta; Nick Dee; Tsega Desta; Tim Dolbeare; Nadezhda Dotson; Amanda Ebbert; David Feng; Xu Feng; Michael Fisher; Garrett Gee; Jeff Goldy; Lindsey Gourley; Benjamin W Gregor; Guangyu Gu; Nika Hejazinia; John Hohmann; Parvinder Hothi; Robert Howard; Kevin Joines; Ali Kriedberg; Leonard Kuan; Chris Lau; Felix Lee; Hwahyung Lee; Tracy Lemon; Fuhui Long; Naveed Mastan; Erika Mott; Chantal Murthy; Kiet Ngo; Eric Olson; Melissa Reding; Zack Riley; David Rosen; David Sandman; Nadiya Shapovalova; Clifford R Slaughterbeck; Andrew Sodt; Graham Stockdale; Aaron Szafer; Wayne Wakeman; Paul E Wohnoutka; Steven J White; Don Marsh; Robert C Rostomily; Lydia Ng; Chinh Dang; Allan Jones; Bart Keogh; Haley R Gittleman; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Patrick J Cimino; Megha S Uppin; C Dirk Keene; Farrokh R Farrokhi; Justin D Lathia; Michael E Berens; Antonio Iavarone; Amy Bernard; Ed Lein; John W Phillips; Steven W Rostad; Charles Cobbs; Michael J Hawrylycz; Greg D Foltz Journal: Science Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Hai Yan; D Williams Parsons; Genglin Jin; Roger McLendon; B Ahmed Rasheed; Weishi Yuan; Ivan Kos; Ines Batinic-Haberle; Siân Jones; Gregory J Riggins; Henry Friedman; Allan Friedman; David Reardon; James Herndon; Kenneth W Kinzler; Victor E Velculescu; Bert Vogelstein; Darell D Bigner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-02-19 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Shiva Kant; Pravin Kesarwani; Anthony R Guastella; Praveen Kumar; Stewart F Graham; Katie L Buelow; Ichiro Nakano; Prakash Chinnaiyan Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Magdalena M Sawicka; Karol Sawicki; Tomasz Łysoń; Barbara Polityńska; Wojciech Miltyk Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-17 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Kelly J McKelvey; Erica B Wilson; Susan Short; Alan A Melcher; Michael Biggs; Connie I Diakos; Viive M Howell Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Benny Björkblom; Carl Wibom; Maria Eriksson; A Tommy Bergenheim; Rickard L Sjöberg; Pär Jonsson; Thomas Brännström; Henrik Antti; Maria Sandström; Beatrice Melin Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 13.029
Authors: Yasaman Barekatain; Jeffrey J Ackroyd; Victoria C Yan; Sunada Khadka; Lin Wang; Ko-Chien Chen; Anton H Poral; Theresa Tran; Dimitra K Georgiou; Kenisha Arthur; Yu-Hsi Lin; Nikunj Satani; Elliot S Ballato; Eliot I Behr; Ana C deCarvalho; Roel G W Verhaak; John de Groot; Jason T Huse; John M Asara; Raghu Kalluri; Florian L Muller Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 17.694