Aberrant activation of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in carcinoma cells contributes to increased migration and invasion, metastasis, drug resistance, and tumor-initiating capacity. EMT is not always a binary process; rather, cells may exhibit a hybrid epithelial/mesenchymal (E/M) phenotype. ZEB1-a key transcription factor driving EMT-can both induce and maintain a mesenchymal phenotype. Recent studies have identified two novel autocrine feedback loops utilizing epithelial splicing regulatory protein 1 (ESRP1), hyaluronic acid synthase 2 (HAS2), and CD44 which maintain high levels of ZEB1. However, how the crosstalk between these feedback loops alters the dynamics of epithelial-hybrid-mesenchymal transition remains elusive. Here, using an integrated theoretical-experimental framework, we identify that these feedback loops can enable cells to stably maintain a hybrid E/M phenotype. Moreover, computational analysis identifies the regulation of ESRP1 as a crucial node, a prediction that is validated by experiments showing that knockdown of ESRP1 in stable hybrid E/M H1975 cells drives EMT. Finally, in multiple breast cancer datasets, high levels of ESRP1, ESRP1/HAS2, and ESRP1/ZEB1 correlate with poor prognosis, supporting the relevance of ZEB1/ESRP1 and ZEB1/HAS2 axes in tumor progression. Together, our results unravel how these interconnected feedback loops act in concert to regulate ZEB1 levels and to drive the dynamics of epithelial-hybrid-mesenchymal transition.
Aberrant activation of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in carcinoma cells contributes to increased migration and invasion, metastasis, drug resistance, and tumor-initiating capacity. EMT is not always a binary process; rather, cells may exhibit a hybrid epithelial/mesenchymal (E/M) phenotype. ZEB1-a key transcription factor driving EMT-can both induce and maintain a mesenchymal phenotype. Recent studies have identified two novel autocrine feedback loops utilizing epithelial splicing regulatory protein 1 (ESRP1), hyaluronic acid synthase 2 (HAS2), and CD44 which maintain high levels of ZEB1. However, how the crosstalk between these feedback loops alters the dynamics of epithelial-hybrid-mesenchymal transition remains elusive. Here, using an integrated theoretical-experimental framework, we identify that these feedback loops can enable cells to stably maintain a hybrid E/M phenotype. Moreover, computational analysis identifies the regulation of ESRP1 as a crucial node, a prediction that is validated by experiments showing that knockdown of ESRP1 in stable hybrid E/M H1975 cells drives EMT. Finally, in multiple breast cancer datasets, high levels of ESRP1, ESRP1/HAS2, and ESRP1/ZEB1 correlate with poor prognosis, supporting the relevance of ZEB1/ESRP1 and ZEB1/HAS2 axes in tumor progression. Together, our results unravel how these interconnected feedback loops act in concert to regulate ZEB1 levels and to drive the dynamics of epithelial-hybrid-mesenchymal transition.
Recent studies have elucidated the significance of dynamic reciprocal relationships
among tumor cells and the extracellular matrix (ECM). The complex nonlinear behavior emerging from
interconnected mechanical and chemical multi-scale regulatory feedback loops can
modulate many parameters of aggressive cancer behavior such as metastasis, drug
resistance, and tumor relapse. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a
latent embryonic program that may become aberrantly activated during tumor
progression and can regulate metastasis, drug resistance, evasion of the immune system, and tumor-initiation and relapse. EMT is characterized by its effects on one or
more of these traits—decreased cell-cell adhesion, rearranged cytoskeleton,
disrupted apico-basal polarity, and increased migration and invasion. EMT can be induced by multiple
micro-environmental conditions such as ECM stiffness and hypoxia which can
activate one or more of EMT-driving transcription factors (EMT-TFs) such as ZEB
(ZEB1/2), Snail (SNAI1/2), and Twist. In turn, EMT-TFs such as ZEB1 can crosslink collagen in
the ECM, altering mechanical stiffness of the ECM. Thus, EMT acts as a hub in mediating the
mechanochemical response of the tumor microenvironment (TME).Here, we focus on ZEB1—a key driver of EMT—which can confer
tumor-initiating (stemness) and chemoresistance properties to cancer cells, and its expression
correlates with poor prognosis.
ZEB1 mainly acts as a transcriptional repressor for genes involved in cell-cell
adhesion and cell polarity and
for microRNAs that promote an epithelial phenotype such as the miR-200 family. The miR-200 family also
represses ZEB1 translation, thereby forming a mutually inhibitory feedback
loop, referred to as
the “motor of cellular plasticity.” The miR-200 family can also directly target multiple
ECM proteins, hence affecting
TME mechanics.Recent in vitro, in vivo, and patient data have
revealed that EMT is rarely an “all-or-none” process; instead, cells
can stably display one or more hybrid epithelial/mesenchymal (E/M)
phenotype(s). Computational modeling efforts have
suggested that the dynamics of the miR-200/ZEB1 loop can allow cells to attain not
only an epithelial (high miR-200 and low ZEB) and a mesenchymal (low miR-200 and
high ZEB) phenotype but
also a hybrid E/M state—(medium miR-200 and medium ZEB). Indeed, active nuclear ZEB1 was
observed in H1975lung cancer cells that maintain a stable hybrid E/M state at a single-cell
level over many passages.
Furthermore, ZEB1 was expressed in pancreatic cancer cells stably maintaining a
hybrid E/M state for six months.
These earlier models presumed a self-activation of ZEB1, based on ZEB1-mediated
stabilization of SMAD complexes
[Fig. 1(a)]. More recently, exact molecular
mechanisms mediating a ZEB1 self-activation have been elucidated.
FIG. 1.
Bifurcation diagrams of simplified and extended EMT regulatory circuits. (a)
Simplified EMT regulatory circuit—mutually inhibitory feedback loop
between ZEB1 and miR-200, driven by SNAIL. In this earlier modeling attempt,
self-activation of ZEB1 is considered to be direct, to incorporate the
stabilization of SMADs by ZEB1. (b) Extended EMT regulatory circuit with
explicit mechanistic details of ZEB1 self-activation, as identified in
recent studies. Solid black lines show transcriptional regulation, dotted
black lines show microRNA-mediated regulation, and green arrows indicate
regulation whose modes are either non-transcriptional or yet have to be
identified. (c) Bifurcation diagram of the miR-200/ZEB1 (simplified) circuit
shown in (a), driven by SNAIL. Solid blue curves show stable states
(cellular phenotypes), and red dotted curves show unstable states. Low
levels of ZEB1 denote an epithelial (E) phenotype, high levels of ZEB1
denote a mesenchymal (M) phenotype, and intermediate levels of ZEB1 denote a
hybrid E/M phenotype, as shown by cartoons drawn alongside. Different
colored regions show different phases—the cyan region depicts the {E}
phase, the green region depicts the {E, M} phase, the brown region depicts
the {E, E/M, M} phase, the pink region depicts the {E/M, M} phase, and the
yellow region depicts the {M} phase. (d) Bifurcation diagram for the
extended, i.e., miR-200/ZEB1/ESRP1/HAS2/CD44, circuit as shown in (b).
Bifurcation diagrams of simplified and extended EMT regulatory circuits. (a)
Simplified EMT regulatory circuit—mutually inhibitory feedback loop
between ZEB1 and miR-200, driven by SNAIL. In this earlier modeling attempt,
self-activation of ZEB1 is considered to be direct, to incorporate the
stabilization of SMADs by ZEB1. (b) Extended EMT regulatory circuit with
explicit mechanistic details of ZEB1 self-activation, as identified in
recent studies. Solid black lines show transcriptional regulation, dotted
black lines show microRNA-mediated regulation, and green arrows indicate
regulation whose modes are either non-transcriptional or yet have to be
identified. (c) Bifurcation diagram of the miR-200/ZEB1 (simplified) circuit
shown in (a), driven by SNAIL. Solid blue curves show stable states
(cellular phenotypes), and red dotted curves show unstable states. Low
levels of ZEB1 denote an epithelial (E) phenotype, high levels of ZEB1
denote a mesenchymal (M) phenotype, and intermediate levels of ZEB1 denote a
hybrid E/M phenotype, as shown by cartoons drawn alongside. Different
colored regions show different phases—the cyan region depicts the {E}
phase, the green region depicts the {E, M} phase, the brown region depicts
the {E, E/M, M} phase, the pink region depicts the {E/M, M} phase, and the
yellow region depicts the {M} phase. (d) Bifurcation diagram for the
extended, i.e., miR-200/ZEB1/ESRP1/HAS2/CD44, circuit as shown in (b).Particularly, ZEB1 can self-activate through two interconnected feedback loops.
First, ZEB1 represses epithelial splicing regulatory protein 1 (ESRP1) that controls alternative
splicing of the cell surface receptor CD44 which is differentially regulated during
EMT. Decreased ESRP1 leads
to enhanced levels of the CD44s (CD44 standard; devoid of all variable exons)
isoform and depleted levels of variable-exon containing CD44v (CD44 variant)
isoforms. Overexpression of CD44s, in turn, activates ZEB1, whereas an increase in
CD44v isoforms inhibits ZEB1
[Fig. 1(b)]. Second, ZEB1 activates hyaluronic
acid synthase 2 (HAS2) that synthesizes hyaluronic acid (HA)—a key
proteoglycan in the ECM that, in turn, elevates the levels of ZEB1 [Fig. 1(b)]. These two feedback loops are connected due to
interactions of HA with its receptor CD44. CD44s was reported to be essential for
the effect of HA on ZEB1, suggesting that HA binding to its receptor CD44s affects
EMT. CD44s-HA interactions
have been proposed to protect cells undergoing EMT against anoikis, a trait commonly associated with
EMT, thereby reinforcing the
role of CD44s-HA interactions in this process. CD44s overexpression together with
excess of HA leads to even higher levels of ZEB1 as compared to CD44s overexpression
alone. Hence, CD44s may be
able to activate ZEB1 through both HA-dependent and HA-independent pathways.
However, how these complex interconnections among these feedback loops regulating
ZEB1 drive the emergent dynamics of epithelial-hybrid-mesenchymal transitions
remains elusive.Here, using an integrated theoretical-experimental approach, we elucidated the
dynamics of the interconnected feedback loops among ZEB1, ESRP1, HAS2, and CD44 in
mediating epithelial-hybrid-mesenchymal transitions. First, we constructed a
mathematical model denoting the known interactions among these players. The model
predicted that these feedback loops can enable the existence of a stable hybrid E/M
phenotype, besides epithelial and mesenchymal phenotypes. Sensitivity analyses on
model parameters identify ESRP1 as a key mediator of EMT and its reverse
mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET). Moreover, ESRP1 negatively correlated with
both ZEB1 and the extent of EMT across multiple datasets corresponding to in
vitro experiments and primary tumor samples. Consistently, knockdown of
ESRP1 in stable hybrid E/M cells—H1975—drove the cells towards a full
EMT. Finally, higher levels of ESRP1, ESRP1/HAS2, and ESRP1/ZEB1 correlate with poor
patient survival, indicating the functional relevance of these feedback loops during
tumor progression.
RESULTS
Mathematical modeling suggests how the miR-200/ZEB1/ESRP1/HAS2/CD44 circuit
drives epithelial-hybrid-mesenchymal transition
As a first step towards elucidating the characteristics of
epithelial-hybrid-mesenchymal transition as driven by ZEB1/ESRP1/HAS2/CD44
feedback loops, we construct a mathematical model representing the
experimentally known regulatory interactions among these players (Sec. SI in the
supplementary material). Next, we plot the
levels of ZEB1 as a function of an EMT-inducing signal (here, represented by
SNAIL), as predicted by the model. We also compared these transitions as
mediated by the miR-200/ZEB1/ESRP1/HAS2/CD44 circuit, with the control case,
i.e., when ZEB1 self-activation is not included through these detailed pathways
but instead as in earlier modeling attempts (miR-200/ZEB1 circuit).The response of the different circuits—miR-200/ZEB1 (hereafter referred to
as the “simplified circuit”) and miR-200/ZEB1/ESRP1/HAS2/CD44
(hereafter referred to as the “extended circuit”)—to
varying levels of SNAIL (mimicking an induction of EMT) is presented as
bifurcation diagrams of ZEB1 messenger RNA (mRNA) levels [Figs. 1(c) and 1(d)]. Lower levels of ZEB1 mRNA (<150 molecules) denote an
epithelial (E) phenotype, higher values (>600 molecules) represent a
mesenchymal (M) phenotype, and intermediate values (∼200–500
molecules) denote a hybrid E/M phenotype [solid blue lines in Figs. 1(c) and 1(d)].The bifurcation diagrams of these two circuits look remarkably similar. For low
SNAIL levels, cells maintain an E phenotype. An increase in SNAIL levels drives
cells toward a hybrid E/M phenotype, and a further increase induces a complete
EMT, causing cells to attain an M state [black dotted upward arrows in Figs.
1(c) and 1(d)]. Moreover, for certain SNAIL levels, cells can exhibit more
than one phenotype and thus can spontaneously interconvert among one another,
for instance, among E and M states in the {E, M} phase [green shaded region in
Figs. 1(c) and 1(d)], among E, hybrid E/M, and M states in the {E, E/M, M}
phase [brown shaded region in Figs. 1(c)
and 1(d)], and among hybrid E/M and M
states in the {E/M, M} phase [pink shaded region in Figs. 1(c) and 1(d)]. These
results suggest that ZEB1 self-activation mediated by ESRP1/CD44 and
HAS2/HA/CD44 axes should be considered integral to the dynamics of
epithelial-hybrid-mesenchymal transition.
Sensitivity analysis identifies ESRP1 as a key mediator of
epithelial-hybrid-mesenchymal transitions
To evaluate the robustness of the model predictions mentioned above, we performed
a sensitivity analysis to parameter perturbation. Our sensitivity analysis for
the simplified circuit (i.e., miR-200/ZEB1 circuit without HAS2, CD44, and
ESRP1) identified ZEB1 self-activation as a crucial link. Modulating the
strength of self-activation significantly affected the range of SNAIL levels for
which cells could acquire a stable hybrid E/M phenotype, consistent with observations for such
feedback loops enabling three states.To further assess which link(s) in the extended circuit
(miR-200/ZEB1/ESRP1/HAS2/CD44) has (have) a significant impact on the stability
of the hybrid E/M phenotype, we varied every parameter in the model for this
circuit by ±10%, one at a time, and calculated its effect on the
range of SNAIL levels for which cells can acquire a hybrid E/M phenotype
[highlighted by a black rectangle in Fig. 2(a)]. While the model is largely robust to the parameter variation,
in a few cases, we noticed a relatively larger change in the region
corresponding to a stable hybrid E/M phenotype [highlighted by arrows in Fig.
2(b)]. Particularly, when the strength
of inhibition of ESRP1 by ZEB1 is increased, the range of SNAIL levels for the
existence of hybrid E/M decreased (Table S1). Conversely, this range increased
when the inhibition of ESRP1 by ZEB1 was decreased or when the biosynthesis
rates of ZEB1 were altered (Sec. S1). These results are in conceptual agreement
with the sensitivity analysis for the simplified circuit. Thus, the strength of the EB1-ESRP1
interaction is likely to play a key role in controlling the stability of a
hybrid E/M phenotype and the dynamics of EMT and MET.
FIG. 2.
Sensitivity analysis identifies the ZEB1-ESRP1 link as a key regulator
for EMT. (a) Bifurcation diagram shown in Fig. 1(d), highlighting the region for the existence of a
hybrid E/M phenotype, either alone or in combination with other
phenotypes. (b) Sensitivity analysis for the
miR-200/ZEB1/ESRP1/HAS2/CD44 circuit [Fig. 1(b)], where the change in the width of the area highlighted
in (a) is plotted for ±10% of every parameter, one at a
time. Parameters are grouped based on their role in the circuit; green
dotted lines denote different groups as mentioned below each group. Red
dotted lines marks over ±20% change in the width of the
area highlighted in (a). The model predictions are most sensitive to
parameters that modulate the strength of the ZEB1-ESRP1 link (marked by
arrows) (c) Solutions from an ensemble of 10 000 × 3
(n = 3) mathematical models, each with a distinct
set of parameters, for two conditions—with the ZEB1 to ESRP1 node
intact (control) and with ZEB1 to ESRP1 node deleted (ZEB1-ESRP1 KO).
**p < 0.01 using Student's paired t-test
with a two-tailed distribution. For solutions for every set of
10 000 models, the frequency of attaining E, M, or hybrid E/M
state is plotted. Both plots (above and below) compare the frequency of
attaining E, M, and hybrid E/M states in 10 000 control cases vs.
10 000 ZEB1-ESRP1 KO cases. They represent the same set of
solutions generated from RACIPE but compared in two different ways.
Sensitivity analysis identifies the ZEB1-ESRP1 link as a key regulator
for EMT. (a) Bifurcation diagram shown in Fig. 1(d), highlighting the region for the existence of a
hybrid E/M phenotype, either alone or in combination with other
phenotypes. (b) Sensitivity analysis for the
miR-200/ZEB1/ESRP1/HAS2/CD44 circuit [Fig. 1(b)], where the change in the width of the area highlighted
in (a) is plotted for ±10% of every parameter, one at a
time. Parameters are grouped based on their role in the circuit; green
dotted lines denote different groups as mentioned below each group. Red
dotted lines marks over ±20% change in the width of the
area highlighted in (a). The model predictions are most sensitive to
parameters that modulate the strength of the ZEB1-ESRP1 link (marked by
arrows) (c) Solutions from an ensemble of 10 000 × 3
(n = 3) mathematical models, each with a distinct
set of parameters, for two conditions—with the ZEB1 to ESRP1 node
intact (control) and with ZEB1 to ESRP1 node deleted (ZEB1-ESRP1 KO).
**p < 0.01 using Student's paired t-test
with a two-tailed distribution. For solutions for every set of
10 000 models, the frequency of attaining E, M, or hybrid E/M
state is plotted. Both plots (above and below) compare the frequency of
attaining E, M, and hybrid E/M states in 10 000 control cases vs.
10 000 ZEB1-ESRP1 KO cases. They represent the same set of
solutions generated from RACIPE but compared in two different ways.To further characterize the role of inhibition of ESRP1 by ZEB1 in mediating
EMT/MET, we applied our recently developed computational analysis
method—Random Circuit Perturbation (RACIPE)—to the miR-200/ZEB/ESRP1/CD44
circuit. For a given circuit topology, RACIPE generates an ensemble of
mathematical models with randomly chosen kinetic parameters. It identifies the
robust dynamical features of regulatory networks and consequently robust gene
expression patterns and phenotypes that can be expected from a particular
network topology. Here, we used RACIPE to generate 10 000 models for the
circuit with an intact ZEB1-ESRP1 link (control case) and without this link
(ZEB1-ESRP1 KO) [Figs. S1(a) and S1(b)]. The principal component analysis (PCA)
of stable steady-state solutions of this ensemble of models highlights the
existence of epithelial, mesenchymal, and hybrid E/M states [Fig. S2(a)].
Comparing the solutions of this ensemble of models from both these scenarios,
attenuated inhibition of ESRP1 by ZEB1, i.e., effectively higher ESRP1 levels,
led to a decreased propensity to attain a mesenchymal phenotype and an increased
propensity to adopt a hybrid E/M state, suggesting that ESRP1 overexpression may
halt or reverse EMT [Figs. 2(c), S1(a), and
S1(b)]. In general, ESRP1 mediates its effects on EMT by modulating the levels
of CD44s that can activate ZEB1. Thus, we also generated 10 000 models
for the circuit without the link from ESRP1 to CD44s (ESRP1-CD44s KO) or without
that from CD44s to ZEB1 (CD44s-ZEB1 KO). Consistently, the knockout of either
link also reduced the frequency of solutions corresponding to a mesenchymal
phenotype and increased that corresponding to an epithelial phenotype [Fig. S2].
Put together, the results indicate that a robust prediction of our model is that
ZEB1 and ESRP1 regulate epithelial-mesenchymal plasticity in diametrically
opposite ways.
ZEB1-ESRP1 axis modulates epithelial-mesenchymal plasticity in multiple
cancers
To investigate the predicted role of the ZEB1-ESRP1 axis in regulating cellular
plasticity, we analyzed gene expression data from different publicly available
transcriptomic datasets, using our statistical model that predicts the
positioning of a given gene expression profile along the “EMT
axis.” This model
uses the expression of several key EMT regulators to calculate an “EMT
metric” or “EMT score” on a scale of 0 (fully epithelial)
to 2 (fully mesenchymal).We first compared the levels of ZEB1 and ESRP1 in in vitro
datasets. Breast cancer cells MCF7 and epithelial subclones from immortalized human
mammary epithelial cells HMLE—that had low EMT scores—expressed high levels of ESRP1 and low
levels of ZEB1, whereas MCF7 cells transfected with EMT-TF SNAIL and mesenchymal
subclones from HMLE exhibited a reverse trend [Fig. 3(a), i–ii; GSE58252 and GSE28681] and had higher EMT
scores. This reverse trend was also observed in another study where primary
tumor cells were isolated from KPC mice (a well-studied pancreatic cancermouse
model driven by Pdx1-Cre-mediated activation of mutant Kras and p53) and KPCZ
mice (KPC mice with ZEB1 knockout) [Fig. 3(a), iii;
GSE87472]. Tumor cells from KPC mice were highly heterogeneous, leading to
establishing distinct epithelial and mesenchymal cell lines from these cells.
Consistent with experimental data, epithelial cells expressed high ESRP1 and low
ZEB1, while mesenchymal cells expressed high ZEB1 and low ESRP1. Treatment of
epithelial cells with TGFβ (transforming growth factor beta) drove the
cells towards a more mesenchymal phenotype with increased ZEB1 levels, although
the observed decrease in ESRP1 levels was not statistically significant.
However, cell lines derived from KPCZ (KPC mice with ZEB1-knockdown) mice were
very epithelial; their EMT scores and thus ZEB1/ESRP1 ratio did not increase
remarkably upon TGFβ treatment [Fig. 3(a), iii], consistent with the experimental observations. Similar trends were observed
in pan-cancer cell line cohort NCI-60 and CCLE (Cancer Cell Line
Encyclopedia). In
the NCI-60 panel, cell lines with a higher EMT score tended to have higher ZEB1
levels and correspondingly lower ESRP1 levels [Fig. 3(b), top]. In the CCLE cell line cohort, EMT metric
correlated positively with ZEB1 expression levels and negatively with ESRP1
expression levels [Fig. 3(b), bottom],
suggesting that the ZEB1-ESRP1 axis may regulate EMT across cancer types.
Finally, multiple TCGA
datasets in lung adenocarcinoma, colon adeno-carcinoma, and renal cell
carcinoma—accessed from R2: Genomics Analysis and
Visualization Platform (http://r2.amc.nl)—exhibited
similar correlations between EMT metric and the expression levels of ZEB1 and
ESRP1 [Fig. 3(c)], thus indicating the
clinical relevance of the ZEB1/ESRP1 axis.
FIG. 3.
EMT metric analysis highlights the role of the ZEB1-ESRP1 axis mediating
EMT. (a) Comparing the levels of ZEB1 and ESRP1 in (i) MCF7 cells with
and without SNAIL transfection (n = 3 each); (ii)
epithelial (24hi) (n = 2) and mesenchymal (Msp)
clones established from HMLE (n = 6); and (iii)
epithelial (E) (n = 8), mesenchymal (M)
(n = 6), and TGFβ treated epithelial (TGFB)
subpopulations from KPC mice (n = 4) and cells from
KPCZ mice before (ZEBKO) (n = 14) or after
TGFβ treatment (ZEBKO-TGFB) (n = 4).
Lower-case roman numerals (resp. letters) indicate the pairwise
statistical significance between ZEB1 (resp. ESRP1), using a one-way
unbalanced ANOVA (analysis of variance). Error bars denote the standard
deviation. (b) (top) Scatter plot of ESRP1 and ZEB1 vs. EMT metric in
NCI-60 (n = 59). Dotted lines show the average
levels of ZEB1 and ESRP1. (bottom) Correlation of ESRP1 and ZEB1 with
EMT metric in the CCLE (n = 1037) cell line cohort.
(c) Correlation of ESRP1 and ZEB1 with EMT metric in colon
adenocarcinoma (top, n = 286), lung adenocarcinoma
(middle, n = 515), and renal cell carcinoma
(bottom, n = 533) TCGA datasets.
EMT metric analysis highlights the role of the ZEB1-ESRP1 axis mediating
EMT. (a) Comparing the levels of ZEB1 and ESRP1 in (i) MCF7 cells with
and without SNAIL transfection (n = 3 each); (ii)
epithelial (24hi) (n = 2) and mesenchymal (Msp)
clones established from HMLE (n = 6); and (iii)
epithelial (E) (n = 8), mesenchymal (M)
(n = 6), and TGFβ treated epithelial (TGFB)
subpopulations from KPC mice (n = 4) and cells from
KPCZ mice before (ZEBKO) (n = 14) or after
TGFβ treatment (ZEBKO-TGFB) (n = 4).
Lower-case roman numerals (resp. letters) indicate the pairwise
statistical significance between ZEB1 (resp. ESRP1), using a one-way
unbalanced ANOVA (analysis of variance). Error bars denote the standard
deviation. (b) (top) Scatter plot of ESRP1 and ZEB1 vs. EMT metric in
NCI-60 (n = 59). Dotted lines show the average
levels of ZEB1 and ESRP1. (bottom) Correlation of ESRP1 and ZEB1 with
EMT metric in the CCLE (n = 1037) cell line cohort.
(c) Correlation of ESRP1 and ZEB1 with EMT metric in colon
adenocarcinoma (top, n = 286), lung adenocarcinoma
(middle, n = 515), and renal cell carcinoma
(bottom, n = 533) TCGA datasets.
ESRP1 knockdown destabilizes a hybrid epithelial/mesenchymal (E/M)
phenotype
We have already discussed how increased ESRP1 levels can increase the range of
systems that might exhibit a stable hybrid E/M state. Similarly, in our previous
work, we have identified several “phenotypic stability factors”
(PSFs) such as OVOL2 and GRHL2 that can stabilize a hybrid E/M phenotype.
Deleting these PSFs has been shown to drive “cells that have gained
partial plasticity” (i.e., in a hybrid E/M phenotype) towards a complete
mesenchymal phenotype in vitro and in
vivo, thus
validating the predictions from mathematical modeling about their function as a
PSF. Each of these PSFs
forms a mutually inhibitory loop with ZEB1. From this perspective, we note that ESRP1 also
forms an effective mutually inhibitory loop with ZEB1 by regulating the
alternative splicing of CD44. Thus, we can make the further prediction that
complete knockdown of ESRP1 may destabilize a hybrid E/M phenotype.To investigate this hypothesis, we knocked down ESRP1 via two independent siRNAs
in H1975—lung cancer cells that display a hybrid E/M phenotype stably
over multiple passages in vitro under normal culturing
conditions. Untreated
H1975 cells co-expressed E-cadherin (CDH1) and Vimentin (VIM) and showed nuclear
localization of ZEB1 at a single-cell level (Fig. 4, left 2 columns). Knockdown of ESRP1 substantially increased
nuclear levels of ZEB1 and disrupted the membranous localization of E-cadherin
[Fig. 4(a), right 2 columns], thus
indicating a transition towards a more mesenchymal phenotype. Even though the
levels of E-cadherin did not change significantly [Fig. 4(b)], its membranous delocalization is considered as a
hallmark of EMT.
These observations go along with an increase in vimentin and ZEB1 on protein and
RNA levels [Figs. 4(b) and S3] and an
increased spindle-shape morphology [Figs. 4(c) and S3] in ESRP1 knockdown cells, further supporting a shift
towards a mesenchymal state.
FIG. 4.
Knockdown of ESRP1 induces EMT in H1975 cells. (a) Immunofluorescence
images for hybrid E/M H1975 cells—mock (leftmost column), treated
with control siRNA (2nd column from the left), and treated with two
independent siRNAs targeting ESRP1 (3rd and 4th columns from the left).
(b) Western blot showing changes in ESRP1, CDH1, VIM, and ZEB1 levels.
(c) Bright-field microscopy images of mock (top) and si-ESRP1 #2 treated
H1975 cells (bottom).
Knockdown of ESRP1 induces EMT in H1975 cells. (a) Immunofluorescence
images for hybrid E/M H1975 cells—mock (leftmost column), treated
with control siRNA (2nd column from the left), and treated with two
independent siRNAs targeting ESRP1 (3rd and 4th columns from the left).
(b) Western blot showing changes in ESRP1, CDH1, VIM, and ZEB1 levels.
(c) Bright-field microscopy images of mock (top) and si-ESRP1 #2 treated
H1975 cells (bottom).Next, to explore the effects of overexpressing ESRP1 in cells in a mesenchymal
state, we treated MCF10A cells with TGFβ for 21 days. Previous
work has shown this treatment to be necessary and sufficient to induce the
various molecular and morphological changes associated with EMT. We then overexpressed ESRP1
in these cells. Overexpression of ESRP1 drove the cells towards a
cobblestone-shaped morphology and a loss of ZEB1 largely (Fig. S4).
ESRP1 expression correlates with prognosis of breast cancer patients
PSFs such as GRHL2 associate with poor prognosis in breast cancer, motivating us to
investigate the correlation of ESRP1 with patient survival rates. Higher levels
of ESRP1, and a higher ratio of ESRP1/HAS2 and ESRP1/ZEB1, correlate with poor
relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in multiple independent
breast cancer datasets [Figs. 5(a)–5(c) and S5]. In all these cases, the hazard ratio is
greater than 1 (HR > 1), and the difference among the two
groups is statistically significant (p < 0.05). HR > 1 implies
that the patient samples with higher levels of ESRP1, ESRP1/HAS2, or ESRP1/ZEB1
tend to have relatively poor RFS or OS as compared to those with lower levels of
the same. These results suggest that the ZEB1/ESRP1/HAS2/CD44 axis may play
important functional roles in breast cancer progression.
FIG. 5.
Correlation of ESRP1, ESRP1/HAS2, and ESRP1/ZEB1 with patient prognosis.
Kaplan-Meier curves for relapse-free survival for (a) GSE 17705, (b) GSE
42568, and (c) GSE 1456. HR stands for the hazard ratio, i.e., the ratio
of likelihood of relapse-free survival of patients with low ESRP1 as
compared with those with high ESRP1. The first column is for ESRP1, the
middle column is for the ESRP1/HAS2 ratio, and the right column is for
the ESRP1/ZEB1 ratio. The red curve shows patients with high ESRP1
levels and green curves patients with low ESRP1 levels (separated by
median).
Correlation of ESRP1, ESRP1/HAS2, and ESRP1/ZEB1 with patient prognosis.
Kaplan-Meier curves for relapse-free survival for (a) GSE 17705, (b) GSE
42568, and (c) GSE 1456. HR stands for the hazard ratio, i.e., the ratio
of likelihood of relapse-free survival of patients with low ESRP1 as
compared with those with high ESRP1. The first column is for ESRP1, the
middle column is for the ESRP1/HAS2 ratio, and the right column is for
the ESRP1/ZEB1 ratio. The red curve shows patients with high ESRP1
levels and green curves patients with low ESRP1 levels (separated by
median).
DISCUSSION
EMT, a key developmental program that plays crucial roles in many pathological
conditions, is affected by
multiple cross-wired cell-intrinsic and cell-extrinsic signals, including mechanical
regulation through factors such as matrix stiffness. Hyaluronan—also known as
hyaluronic acid (HA)—is a proteoglycan that forms a scaffold for the assembly
of the extracellular matrix (ECM). It mediates its metastasis-promoting effects
largely by interacting with various isoforms of the cell surface receptor CD44. The relative abundance of these
isoforms is regulated by an alternative splicing regulatory ESRP1 that is altered during EMT
in multiple cancer types.
HA-CD44 interactions can activate ZEB1—a key transcription factor driving
EMT—which, in turn, not only inhibits ESRP1 but also upregulates HAS2 that
synthesizes HA. ZEB1
correlates negatively with ESRP1 and positively with HAS2 in NCI-60 and CCLE cell
line cohorts and in lung, breast, and pancreatic tumors, indicating that feedback loops operating
among ZEB1, ESRP1, and HAS2 may modulate cancer cell plasticity across subtypes. Put
together, this set of feedback loops and complex interactions give rise to a highly
nonlinear dynamic regulation of epithelial-hybrid-mesenchymal phenotypic transition
that we characterized here through an integrated theoretical-experimental
approach.Our mathematical model predicts that the nonlinear dynamics emerging from these
inter-connected feedback loops can enable three phenotypes—epithelial (low
ZEB1), mesenchymal (high ZEB1), and hybrid E/M (intermediate ZEB1)—that can
potentially co-exist in clonal populations and interconvert spontaneously. Multiple
recent studies have identified a hybrid E/M phenotype at a single-cell level in cell
lines, primary tumors, circulating tumor cells (CTCs), and metastatic tumors, across
cancer types.
Cells in a hybrid E/M phenotype, in contrast to those in solely epithelial or
mesenchymal states, are more likely to exhibit enhanced plasticity and
tumor-initiation potential, drug resistance, and anoikis resistance in
vitro and in vivo. Moreover, many CTC
clusters—the primary harbingers of metastasis—can exhibit a hybrid E/M signature. These observations drive
attention toward mechanisms maintaining a hybrid E/M phenotype. Furthermore,
subpopulations displaying different phenotypes (E, M, and hybrid E/M) were observed
to spontaneously interconvert, and these transitions may even mediate interconversion
among cancer stem cells (CSCs) and non-CSCs. Therefore, the different ratios of these
subpopulations may vary dynamically in a given cell line. Single-cell and
time-course investigation into clonal populations, using reliable live-cell reporter
systems, is better suited to
highlight such non-genetic heterogeneity.Our experimental observations that ESRP1 knockdown can drive a full EMT in H1975
cells propose ESRP1 as a potential factor that can stabilize a hybrid E/M phenotype.
This idea is strengthened by our computational analysis using RACIPE which shows an
enrichment of the hybrid E/M phenotype when the inhibition of ESRP1 by ZEB1 is
deleted (i.e., increased ESRP1 levels effectively). Finally, similar to the
prognostic ability of GRHL2, OVOL, and ΔNP63α—factors that can stabilize a
hybrid E/M phenotype—higher levels of ESRP1 have been
associated with (a) poor OS in breast cancer, (b) poor 5-year progression-free
survival (PFS) and OS in epithelial ovarian cancer samples, (c) poor prognosis of distant metastasis
in breast cancer samples, and
(d) enhanced metastasis in colorectal cancer progression. Put together, these observations support a case
for ESRP1 to be referred to as the “phenotypic stability factor”
(PSF). However, including ESRP1 and its interconnections with the miR-200/ZEB
circuit did not change the bifurcation diagram of the circuit, as was observed for
other PSFs such as GRHL2, OVOL2, and ΔNP63α.Higher levels of ESRP1, as well as higher ratios of ESRP1/ZEB1 and/or ESRP1/HAS2, can
predict poor survival in multiple breast cancer datasets. This observation may
appear counter-intuitive prima facie, given the role of ESRP1 in
inhibiting EMT. However, recent studies have suggested caution against long-held
universality of EMT associating with poor prognosis by arguing that EMT is not always a binary
process. Thus, higher levels of ESRP1 observed in these datasets may correspond to a
hybrid E/M phenotype, which, as per the emerging notion, may be more aggressive than cells
at either end of the “EMT axis.” Besides breast cancer, ZEB1 has been
shown to directly repress ESRP1 in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), explaining the negative
correlation between them in 22 NSCLC cell lines. Our results showing that ESRP1 knockdown alters ZEB1
levels in H1975—a hybrid E/M NSCLC cell line—suggest that this mutual
inhibition between ESRP1 and ZEB1 may be functionally active in NSCLC.Increased ESRP1 can enrich for CD44v; thus, consistent with the prognostic ability of
ESRP1, higher levels of CD44v, but not high CD44s or total CD44 levels, are
prognostic markers for distant metastases in lung and breast cancer. CD44v can contribute to
metastasis in multiple ways, e.g., by controlling the stability of cysteine
transporter xCT which enables defense against enhanced oxidative stress. Another example would be the
production of an adhesive matrix—likely via anchoring to hyaluronan—to
which tumor cells can attach during metastasis. Contrarily, CD44s can also accelerate metastasis by
increasing ZEB1 levels through HA-dependent and/or HA-independent pathways. Therefore, a fine-tuned
balance of CD44s and CD44v isoforms may provide additional metastatic advantages.
This balance is likely to correspond to a hybrid E/M phenotype. Future studies would
need sophisticated experimental models to understand spatiotemporal expression and
function of CD44 isoforms during cancer progression.In conclusion, our results demonstrate how two interconnected feedback loops of ZEB1
including ESRP1, HAS2, and CD44 govern the dynamics of EMT/MET and enable the
existence of a stable hybrid E/M phenotype. ZEB1 can not only enforce its own
expression through these loops but also alter its microenvironment, thus enhancing
non-cell autonomous effects of EMT. Similar non-cell autonomous effects can lead to
a cooperative behavior between epithelial and mesenchymal cells in establishing
metastases. Moreover, these non-cell autonomous effects of
EMT mediated by ZEB1 may help offer a plausible explanation why metastasis can be
blunted largely by knockout of ZEB1 but not necessarily by that of SNAIL or TWIST.
METHODS
Cell culture
Cell line MCF10A was purchased from American Type Culture Collection
(ATCC). Cells were
cultured in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium (DMEM)/F12
(Invitrogen, Karlsruhe, Germany, 31331) containing 5% horse serum (Life
Technologies, Darmstadt, Germany, 16050122), 20 ng/ml epidermal growth
factor (EGF) (R&D Systems, Wiesbaden, Germany, 236EG200),
0.5 mg/ml hydrocortisone (Sigma, Taufkirchen, Germany, H0888#1G),
0.1 mg/ml cholera toxin (Sigma, Taufkirchen, Germany, C-8052), and
10 mg/ml insulin (Invitrogen, Karlsruhe, Germany, 12585‐014).
Induction of EMT by TGFb1 (PeproTech, Hamburg, Germany, 100‐21) in MCF10A
cells was performed by adding daily 5 ng/ml TGFb1 to the medium of MCF10A
cultures for 21 days. The medium was replaced every second day. After
21 days, MCF10A ESRP1 cells were generated by lentiviral infection with
an ESRP1 overexpression and control construct
(pCDH-CMV-(ESRP1)-MCS-EF1-copGFP).H1975 cells were cultured in RPMI 1640 medium containing 10% fetal bovine
serum and 1% penicillin/streptomycin cocktail (Thermo Fisher Scientific,
Waltham, MA). Cells were transfected at a final concentration of 50 nM
siRNA using Lipofectamine RNAiMAX (Thermo Fisher Scientific) according to the
manufacturer's instructions using the following siRNAs: siControl
(Silencer Select Negative Control No. 1, Thermo Fisher Scientific), siESRP1 #1
(SASI_Hs01_00062865, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO), and siESRP1 #2
(SASI_Hs02_00308155, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO).
Western blotting analysis and immunofluorescence
MCF10A cCells were rinsed once in phosphate buffer saline (PBS) and lysed in TLB.
30 μg of protein was separated by SDS-PAGE
(sodium dodecyl sulfate–polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis) (10%)
for 1 h, 150 V and transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane by wet
blotting in transfer buffer for 2 h, 300 mA at 4 °C.
Membranes were immersed in antigen pretreatment solution (SuperSignal Western
Blot Enhancer, Thermo Scientific) for 10 min and blocked in 5%
skim milk/TBST for 30 min at room temperature. Primary antibody
incubation was carried out using a primary antibody diluent (SuperSignal Western
Blot Enhancer, Thermo, 46641) overnight at 4 °C. After washing
with TBST (a mixture of tris-buffered saline and polysorbate 20), the membrane
was incubated with the HRP-conjugated secondary antibody in 5% skim
milk/TBST for 1 h at RT. Detection was carried out using a SuperSignal West
Femto Maximum Sensitivity Substrate (Thermo, 34094) or an ECL Prime Western Blot
Detection Reagent (Amersham, RPN2232) and a ChemiDoc imaging system (BioRad).
Quantification was performed where appropriate using ImageJ and presented
normalized to β-Actin levels.H1975 cells were lysed in RIPA lysis assay buffer (Pierce) supplemented with
protease and a phosphatase inhibitor. The samples were separated on a
4%–15% SDS-polyacrylamide gel (Biorad). After transfer to
the PVDF (Polyvinylidene diflouride) membrane, probing was carried out with
primary antibodies and subsequent secondary antibodies. Primary antibodies were
purchased from the following commercial sources: anti-CDH1 (1:1000; Cell
Signaling Technology), anti-vimentin (1:1000; Cell Signaling Technology),
anti-ESRP1 (0.4 μg/ml; Sigma), anti-ZEB1 (1:200;
Abcam), and anti-GAPDH (Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase)
(1:10 000; Abcam). Membranes were exposed using the ECL method (GE
Healthcare) according to the manufacturer's instructions. For
immunofluorescence, cells were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde,
permeabilized in 0.2% Triton X-100, and then stained with anti-CDH1
(1:100; Abcam), anti-vimentin (1:100; Cell Signaling Technology), and anti-ZEB1
(1:200; Abcam). The primary antibodies were then detected with Alexa conjugated
secondary antibodies (Life technologies). Nuclei were visualized by co-staining
with DAPI (4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole).
Transfection of plasmid DNA
Plasmid DNA transfection was done by using the FugeneHD transfection reagent
(Promega, E2311) according to the manufacturer's instructions and
harvested 72 h afterwards for protein analysis.
Antibodies
The following antibodies and dilutions were used for Western blotting: mouse
anti-β-actin (Sigma, A5441; 1:5000), rabbit anti-ZEB1 (Sigma, HPA027524;
1:5000), HRP-coupled goat anti-rabbit IgG (Dianova, 111‐035-003;
1:2 50 000), goat anti-mouse IgG (Dianova, 115‐035-003;
1:25 000), and mouse anti-ESRP1 (Abnova, Heidelberg, Germany, ab140671;
1:500).
Total RNA was isolated following manufacturer's instructions using the
RNeasy kit (Qiagen). cDNA (complementary DNA) was prepared using the iScript
gDNA clear cDNA synthesis kit (Bio-Rad). A TaqMan PCR assay was performed with a
7500 Fast Real-Time PCR System using TaqMan PCR master mix, commercially
available primers, FAM™-labeled probes for CDH1, VIM, ZEB1, and ESRP1,
and VIC™-labeled probes for 18S, according to the manufacturer's
instructions (Life Technologies). Each sample was run in triplicate. Ct values
for each gene were calculated and normalized to Ct values for 18S (ΔCt).
The ΔΔCt values were then calculated by normalization to the
ΔCt value for control.
Mathematical model
Section S1 contains all details of mathematical model development, analysis, and
parameter estimates.
EMT metric analysis
The EMT Metric, as previously described, was applied to various Gene Expression Omnibus
(GEO) datasets. A collection of EMT-relevant predictor transcripts and a set of
cross-platform normalizer transcripts were extracted for each dataset and used
to probabilistically categorize samples into an element of {E, E/M, M}. To each
sample i, there corresponds an ordered triple Si
= (PE, PE/M, PM) that characterizes the
probability of group membership. Categorization was assigned based on the
maximal value of this ordered triple. Si was then projected onto
[0,2] by the use of EMT metric. The metric places epithelial (resp. mesenchymal)
samples close to 0 (resp. 2), while maximally hybrid E/M samples are assigned
values close to 1.
Ethics approval statement
No such approval is needed for this study.See supplementary material for modeling
details, parameter estimation, sensitivity analysis, and other additional
analysis.
Authors: Christina Scheel; Elinor Ng Eaton; Sophia Hsin-Jung Li; Christine L Chaffer; Ferenc Reinhardt; Kong-Jie Kah; George Bell; Wenjun Guo; Jeffrey Rubin; Andrea L Richardson; Robert A Weinberg Journal: Cell Date: 2011-06-10 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Robert M Gemmill; Joëlle Roche; Vincent A Potiron; Patrick Nasarre; Michael Mitas; Chris D Coldren; Barbara A Helfrich; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Paul A Bunn; Harry A Drabkin Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: Cameron P Bracken; Philip A Gregory; Natasha Kolesnikoff; Andrew G Bert; Jun Wang; M Frances Shannon; Gregory J Goodall Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Megan E Martin; Denise K Reaves; Breanna Jeffcoat; Jeffrey R Enders; Lindsey M Costantini; Susan T Yeyeodu; Diane Botta; Terrance J Kavanagh; Jodie M Fleming Journal: Nanomedicine Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 5.307
Authors: Karina E Gomez; FangLong Wu; Stephen B Keysar; J Jason Morton; Bettina Miller; Tugs-Saikhan Chimed; Phuong N Le; Cera Nieto; Farshad N Chowdhury; Anit Tyagi; Traci R Lyons; Christian D Young; Hongmei Zhou; Hilary L Somerset; Xiao-Jing Wang; Antonio Jimeno Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 12.701