Cavan P Bailey1,2,3, Mary Figueroa1,2,3, Achintyan Gangadharan1,2, Yanwen Yang1, Megan M Romero4, Bridget A Kennis1, Sridevi Yadavilli5, Verlene Henry1, Tiara Collier6, Michelle Monje7, Dean A Lee8, Linghua Wang9, Javad Nazarian5, Vidya Gopalakrishnan10,3, Wafik Zaky1, Oren J Becher4, Joya Chandra1,2,3. 1. Department of Pediatrics , Research, The MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, The MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Center for Cancer Epigenetics, The MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Center for Genetic Medicine Research, Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC. 6. Brain Tumor Center, The MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 7. Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 8. Department of Pediatrics, Nationwide Children's and the Ohio State Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio. 9. Department of Genomic Medicine, The MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 10. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diffuse midline gliomas (DMG), including brainstem diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG), are incurable pediatric high-grade gliomas (pHGG). Mutations in the H3 histone tail (H3.1/3.3-K27M) are a feature of DIPG, rendering them therapeutically sensitive to small-molecule inhibition of chromatin modifiers. Pharmacological inhibition of lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) is clinically relevant but has not been carefully investigated in pHGG or DIPG. METHODS: Patient-derived DIPG cell lines, orthotopic mouse models, and pHGG datasets were used to evaluate effects of LSD1 inhibitors on cytotoxicity and immune gene expression. Immune cell cytotoxicity was assessed in DIPG cells pretreated with LSD1 inhibitors, and informatics platforms were used to determine immune infiltration of pHGG. RESULTS: Selective cytotoxicity and an immunogenic gene signature were established in DIPG cell lines using clinically relevant LSD1 inhibitors. Pediatric HGG patient sequencing data demonstrated survival benefit of this LSD1-dependent gene signature. Pretreatment of DIPG with these inhibitors increased lysis by natural killer (NK) cells. Catalytic LSD1 inhibitors induced tumor regression and augmented NK cell infusion in vivo to reduce tumor burden. CIBERSORT analysis of patient data confirmed NK infiltration is beneficial to patient survival, while CD8 T cells are negatively prognostic. Catalytic LSD1 inhibitors are nonperturbing to NK cells, while scaffolding LSD1 inhibitors are toxic to NK cells and do not induce the gene signature in DIPG cells. CONCLUSIONS: LSD1 inhibition using catalytic inhibitors is selectively cytotoxic and promotes an immune gene signature that increases NK cell killing in vitro and in vivo, representing a therapeutic opportunity for pHGG. KEY POINTS: 1. LSD1 inhibition using several clinically relevant compounds is selectively cytotoxic in DIPG and shows in vivo efficacy as a single agent.2. An LSD1-controlled gene signature predicts survival in pHGG patients and is seen in neural tissue from LSD1 inhibitor-treated mice.3. LSD1 inhibition enhances NK cell cytotoxicity against DIPG in vivo and in vitro with correlative genetic biomarkers.
BACKGROUND: Diffuse midline gliomas (DMG), including brainstem diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG), are incurable pediatric high-grade gliomas (pHGG). Mutations in the H3 histone tail (H3.1/3.3-K27M) are a feature of DIPG, rendering them therapeutically sensitive to small-molecule inhibition of chromatin modifiers. Pharmacological inhibition of lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) is clinically relevant but has not been carefully investigated in pHGG or DIPG. METHODS:Patient-derived DIPG cell lines, orthotopic mouse models, and pHGG datasets were used to evaluate effects of LSD1 inhibitors on cytotoxicity and immune gene expression. Immune cell cytotoxicity was assessed in DIPG cells pretreated with LSD1 inhibitors, and informatics platforms were used to determine immune infiltration of pHGG. RESULTS: Selective cytotoxicity and an immunogenic gene signature were established in DIPG cell lines using clinically relevant LSD1 inhibitors. Pediatric HGG patient sequencing data demonstrated survival benefit of this LSD1-dependent gene signature. Pretreatment of DIPG with these inhibitors increased lysis by natural killer (NK) cells. Catalytic LSD1 inhibitors induced tumor regression and augmented NK cell infusion in vivo to reduce tumor burden. CIBERSORT analysis of patient data confirmed NK infiltration is beneficial to patient survival, while CD8 T cells are negatively prognostic. Catalytic LSD1 inhibitors are nonperturbing to NK cells, while scaffolding LSD1 inhibitors are toxic to NK cells and do not induce the gene signature in DIPG cells. CONCLUSIONS:LSD1 inhibition using catalytic inhibitors is selectively cytotoxic and promotes an immune gene signature that increases NK cell killing in vitro and in vivo, representing a therapeutic opportunity for pHGG. KEY POINTS: 1. LSD1 inhibition using several clinically relevant compounds is selectively cytotoxic in DIPG and shows in vivo efficacy as a single agent.2. An LSD1-controlled gene signature predicts survival in pHGG patients and is seen in neural tissue from LSD1 inhibitor-treated mice.3. LSD1 inhibition enhances NK cell cytotoxicity against DIPG in vivo and in vitro with correlative genetic biomarkers.
Authors: Tobias Weiss; Michael Weller; Matthias Guckenberger; Charles L Sentman; Patrick Roth Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Yangjin Kim; Ji Young Yoo; Tae Jin Lee; Joseph Liu; Jianhua Yu; Michael A Caligiuri; Balveen Kaur; Avner Friedman Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Tamara Maes; Cristina Mascaró; Iñigo Tirapu; Angels Estiarte; Filippo Ciceri; Serena Lunardi; Nathalie Guibourt; Alvaro Perdones; Michele M P Lufino; Tim C P Somervaille; Dan H Wiseman; Cihangir Duy; Ari Melnick; Christophe Willekens; Alberto Ortega; Marc Martinell; Nuria Valls; Guido Kurz; Matthew Fyfe; Julio Cesar Castro-Palomino; Carlos Buesa Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Wanqiang Sheng; Martin W LaFleur; Thao H Nguyen; Sujun Chen; Ankur Chakravarthy; Jake Ryan Conway; Ying Li; Hao Chen; Henry Yang; Pang-Hung Hsu; Eliezer M Van Allen; Gordon J Freeman; Daniel D De Carvalho; Housheng Hansen He; Arlene H Sharpe; Yang Shi Journal: Cell Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Alba Maiques-Diaz; Gary J Spencer; James T Lynch; Filippo Ciceri; Emma L Williams; Fabio M R Amaral; Daniel H Wiseman; William J Harris; Yaoyong Li; Sudhakar Sahoo; James R Hitchin; Daniel P Mould; Emma E Fairweather; Bohdan Waszkowycz; Allan M Jordan; Duncan L Smith; Tim C P Somervaille Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Carter M Suryadevara; Rupen Desai; Melissa L Abel; Katherine A Riccione; Kristen A Batich; Steven H Shen; Pakawat Chongsathidkiet; Patrick C Gedeon; Aladine A Elsamadicy; David J Snyder; James E Herndon; Patrick Healy; Gary E Archer; Bryan D Choi; Peter E Fecci; John H Sampson; Luis Sanchez-Perez Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 8.110
Authors: Kathrine S Rallis; Alan Mathew George; Anna Maria Wozniak; Carola Maria Bigogno; Barbara Chow; John Gerrard Hanrahan; Michail Sideris Journal: Cancer Genomics Proteomics Date: 2022 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.395
Authors: Elisha Hayden; Holly Holliday; Rebecca Lehmann; Aaminah Khan; Maria Tsoli; Benjamin S Rayner; David S Ziegler Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 6.639