| Literature DB >> 31430931 |
Sugandha Bhatia1,2,3, James Monkman4,5,6, Tony Blick4,5,6, Pascal Hg Duijf4,6,7, Shivashankar H Nagaraj4,5,6, Erik W Thompson8,9,10.
Abstract
Epithelial-mesenchymal plasticity (EMP), encompassing epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), are considered critical events for cancer metastasis. We investigated chromosomal heterogeneity and chromosomal instability (CIN) profiles of two sister PMC42 breast cancer (BC) cell lines to assess the relationship between their karyotypes and EMP phenotypic plasticity. Karyotyping by GTG banding and exome sequencing were aligned with SWATH quantitative proteomics and existing RNA-sequencing data from the two PMC42 cell lines; the mesenchymal, parental PMC42-ET cell line and the spontaneously epithelially shifted PMC42-LA daughter cell line. These morphologically distinct PMC42 cell lines were also compared with five other BC cell lines (MDA-MB-231, SUM-159, T47D, MCF-7 and MDA-MB-468) for their expression of EMP and cell surface markers, and stemness and metabolic profiles. The findings suggest that the epithelially shifted cell line has a significantly altered ploidy of chromosomes 3 and 13, which is reflected in their transcriptomic and proteomic expression profiles. Loss of the TGFβR2 gene from chromosome 3 in the epithelial daughter cell line inhibits its EMT induction by TGF-β stimulus. Thus, integrative 'omics' characterization established that the PMC42 system is a relevant MET model and provides insights into the regulation of phenotypic plasticity in breast cancer.Entities:
Keywords: RNA-sequencing; copy number variations (CNV); epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT); karyotyping; mesenchymal–epithelial transition (MET); metabolism; proteomics; seahorse extracellular flux analyser; whole exome sequencing
Year: 2019 PMID: 31430931 PMCID: PMC6723942 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8081253
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Gene expression heatmaps of selected breast cancer cell lines. (A) The normalized mRNA expression values of the breast cancer cell lines obtained against the overall mean expression of all measured genes were subjected to unsupervised hierarchical clustering using Morpheus (Gene-E tool). In the average-linkage cluster algorithm, Pearson correlation was used to measure dissimilarity. (B) Unsupervised cluster analysis of the relative expression values of breast cancer cell lines with respect to PMC42-ET.
Figure 2Assessment of stemness and other EMP markers. (A) Proportions of the subpopulations defined by the combination of the stem cell markers CD44 and CD24 in PMC42 cell lines and a panel of breast cancer cell lines. (B) The relative expression of the stem cell markers CD44 and CD24 in a panel of breast cancer cell lines representative of different molecular subtypes by flow cytometry. Mean ± SD of three independent experiments is shown. (C) Immunofluorescence microscopy analysis of EMT marker proteins. Cell lines were stained with antibodies against the epithelial marker EpCAM and against the mesenchymal markers EGFR, vimentin and fibronectin. Scale bar, 100 μm.
Figure 3Comparative analysis of transcriptomic and proteomic data from PMC42 cell lines. (A) Results from representative enrichment plots from Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) (p < 0.05) are shown from comparative transcriptome analysis. These data revealed a significant negative enrichment for gene sets involved in EMT in PMC42-LA. (B) Quantitative proteome analysis of PMC42-LA in comparison to PMC42-ET reflected in volcano plot shows that 73 proteins were significantly upregulated, and 61 proteins were significantly downregulated.
Figure 4Chromosomal ploidy distribution of PMC42 cell lines. (A) Heatmap for copy number distribution of chromosomes deciphered from 50 karyotypes from each of the PMC42-ET and PMC42-LA cell lines (UNC: Unidentified Chromosome). (B) Distribution of chromosome numbers of PMC42-ET and PMC42-LA cell lines. (C) Chromosome numbers analysed from PMC42-ET and PMC42-LA for a total of 50 cells were compared for each cell line. Significance was determined by an unpaired t test with Welch’s correction, with **** p < 0.0001. (D) CIN70 enrichment plot following Gene Set Enrichment Analysis.
Ploidy alterations of 50 single cells from PMC42-ET and PMC42-LA were compared using t-test.
| Chromosome No. | |
|---|---|
| 22 | 5.28847 × 10−45 |
| 5 | 1.50398 × 10−28 |
| 13 | 7.71473 × 10−23 |
| 11 | 9.42164 × 10−20 |
| 3 | 3.33503 × 10−18 |
| 7 | 8.49205 × 10−14 |
| 8 | 3.73987 × 10−8 |
| 9 | 1.08547 × 10−6 |
| 10 | 0.012162341 |
| X | 0.0151172 |
| 14 | 0.022502942 |
| 18 | 0.083804992 |
| 12 | 0.260603283 |
| 1 | 0.278286015 |
| 15 | 0.531258862 |
| 2 | 0.678929758 |
| 6 | 0.717332498 |
| 16 | 0.748135128 |
| 4 | 0.75812698 |
| 17 | 0.771687988 |
| 20 | 0.814301536 |
| 21 | 0.823855275 |
| 19 | 0.928168854 |
Figure 5Karyotypic analysis of PMC42 cell lines. (A) A representative G-banded karyotype of the near-triploid cell line PMC42-ET, showing structural and numerical changes. (B) A representative G-banded karyotype of the cell line PMC42-LA. Arrows point to main chromosomal alterations. Mar marker chromosome (C) Ploidy distribution of each chromosome is presented for PMC42-ET and PMC42-LA from 50 karyotyped cells. P-values are indicated (as described in Table 1 using Student's t-test), and data presented in box (median, first and third quartiles) and whisker (extreme value) plots (UNC: Unidentified Chromosome).
Figure 6Assessment of whole-exome sequencing (WES) from PMC42 cell lines. Chromosome-specific distribution of non-silent, missense, and inactivating mutations are displayed on Circos plots for PMC42-ET (A) and the derivative PMC42-LA (B) cell lines, respectively. Representation of shared and unique (C) SNVs and (D) indels discovered by WES for PMC42-ET and PMC42-LA. (E) CHASM score was computed and (F) the top 10 potential driver mutations for PMC42-ET and PMC42-LA were determined. The top 5 potential driver mutations for PMC42-ET and PMC42-LA were annotated for their presence within protein sequences (indicated on the top of each gene) and compared for somatic mutations identified in TCGA dataset (indicated on the bottom of each gene) for the same protein sequences, using the software CRAVAT [68].
Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) for genes with deleterious mutations (SNV and Indels) identified in PMC42-ET.
| Cytokines and Growth Factors (CGF) | Transcription Factor (TF) | Homeodomain Proteins (HP) | Cell Differentiation Markers (CM) | Protein Kinases (PK) | Translocated Cancer Genes (TCG) | Oncogenes | Tumour Suppressors | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4* |
|
| 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 10& | |
|
| 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8* | ||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17# | |||
|
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 8! | ||||
|
| 0 | 4 | 4@ | |||||
|
| 0 | 28$ | ||||||
|
| 6^ |
Note: (4* tumour suppressor genes are ATM (PK), NF2, TP53 (TF), TSC2 8* translocated cancer genes/oncogenes are ARNT (TF), EML4, NTRK3 (PK), PER1 (TF), TAL1 (TF), TCL1A (TF), TLX1, TTL and 2& additional oncogenes are GNAS, IL6ST (CM and CGF) 17 are ANKK1, ATM, AURKB, CSNK1G2, FRK, LRRK2, MAP3K9, MAST4, MERTK, NRBP2, NTRK3, PASK, PKMYT1, PRKDC, ROCK2, SLK, TTN 8 are CR1, CR2, FCGR3A, IGLL1, IL6ST, LILRB5, MSR1, SEMA7A 4 are HOMEZ, IRX3, TLX1, ZEB2 28 are ARNT, CEBPZ, CHD4, E2F1, ESR1, EYA3, FOXI1, HOMEZ, IRX3, MED21, NEUROD4, NR1I2, PER1, PRDM2, RFX5, RREB1, RRN3, SP1, SRA1, SUPT5H, TAL1, TFDP3, TLX1, TP53, UHRF1, ZEB2, ZNF160, ZNF91 6^ cytokines and growth factors are C5, CMTM2, CYR61, IL6ST, SEMA6D, SEMA7A) (Green colour denotes mutations unique to this cell line).
Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) for genes with deleterious mutation (SNV and Indels) identified in PMC42-LA.
| Cytokines and Growth Factors | Transcription Factor | Homeodomain Proteins | Cell Differentiation Markers | Protein Kinases | Translocated Cancer Genes | Oncogenes | Tumour Suppressors | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3* |
|
| 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8& | |
|
| 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7* | ||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15# | |||
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 6! | ||||
|
| 0 | 3 | 3@ | |||||
|
| 0 | 24$ | ||||||
|
| 5^ |
Note: (3* tumour suppressor genes are NF2, TP53 (TF), TSC2 7* translocated cancer genes/oncogenes are ARNT (TF), EML4, NTRK3 (PK), PER1 (TF), TCL1A (TF), TLX1, TTL and 1& additional oncogene is GNAS, 15 are ANKK1, AURKB, CSNK1G2, FRK, MAP3K9, MAST4, MERTK, NRBP2, NTRK3, PASK, PKMYT1, RIPK2, ROCK2, RPS6KA5, STK16 6 are CR1, CR2, FCGR3A, IGLL1, LILRB5, SEMA7A 3 are HOMEZ, TLX1, ZEB2 24 are ARNT, CEBPZ, CHD4, E2F1, ESR1, FOXI1, HOMEZ, MED21, NEUROD4, NR1I2, PER1, PRDM2, RFX5, RREB1, RRN3, SP1, SRA1, SUPT5H, TLX1, TP53, UHRF1, ZEB2, ZNF160, ZNF318 5^ cytokines and growth factors are C5, CMTM2, CYR61, SEMA6D, SEMA7A (Green color denotes mutations unique to this cell line).
Figure 7Visualization of Control-FREEC v 6.0 output from PMC42 cell lines exome sequencing data (Illumina HiSeq 2000). Copy number profiles for all chromosomes are shown of PMC42-ET in comparison to PMC42-LA, normal copy number status is shown in green, copy number gains are reflected in red and copy number losses are shown in blue.
Figure 8TGFBR2 ablation and influence on EMT induction in PMC42-LA. (A) Cell surface expression levels of TGFβR2 in a panel of breast cancer cell lines representative of distinct molecular subtypes. (B) PMC42-ET and PMC42-LA cells were treated for 5 days with 10 ng/mL EGF, 10 ng/mL TGF-β and combined 10 ng/mL of EGF and TGF-β. qPCR analysis of epithelial and mesenchymal markers were tested after EMT induction for 6 days with growth factor treatments. dCt values normalized against L32 and as an average from triplicates are shown. Statistical method applied is a two-way ANOVA with * indicating a p-value < 0.1, ** p-value < 0.01, *** p-value < 0.001 and **** p-value < 0.0001. (C) p-values calculated using 2-way ANOVA against each gene expression are tabulated.
Figure 9Inter-data relationships from CNV, RNA-seq and proteome studies in PMC42 cell lines. (A) Log2 fold change of mRNA and protein expression levels of 244 significantly differential expressed proteins for PMC42-LA vs PMC42 ET were computed. Spearman’s correlation coefficient (r with p-value) between log2 fold change of protein and mRNA expression is indicated at the bottom right. Dotted horizontal bars indicate 2-fold upregulation and downregulation on the log2 scale for mRNA expression. (B) Log2 fold change of 244 significantly differential expressed proteins were linked to the genomic copy number and spearman’s correlation coefficient (r with p-value) is indicated at the bottom right. (C) Correlation between relative peptide and transcriptome abundance in PMC42-ET vs. PMC42-LA per genomic coordinate. Correlation analysis was performed in GraphPad Prism with R2 value of 0.7361 (p < 0.0001).
Figure 10Metabolic profile of PMC42-ET, PMC42-LA and a panel of breast cancer cell lines representative of distinct molecular subtypes. (A) Extracellular acidification rate (ECAR) and (B) Basal oxygen consumption rate (OCR) measurements. (C) OCR: ECAR quadrant showing the bioenergetics phenotype of cell lines using Seahorse analyser (data presented as mean ± s.d., n = 3).
Figure 11Graphical abstract reflecting the multiple outcomes from the comprehensive and integrative—omics characterization and karyotyping of the PMC42 model system.