Liver fibrosis progression in chronic liver disease leads to cirrhosis, liver failure, or hepatocellular carcinoma and often ends in liver transplantation. Even with an increased understanding of liver fibrogenesis and many attempts to generate therapeutics specifically targeting fibrosis, there is no approved treatment for liver fibrosis. To further understand and characterize the driving mechanisms of liver fibrosis, we developed a high-throughput genome-wide CRISPR/Cas9 screening platform to identify hepatic stellate cell (HSC)-derived mediators of transforming growth factor (TGF)-β-induced liver fibrosis. The functional genomics phenotypic screening platform described here revealed the novel biology of TGF-β-induced fibrogenesis and potential drug targets for liver fibrosis.
Liver fibrosis progression in chronic liver disease leads to cirrhosis, liver failure, or hepatocellular carcinoma and often ends in liver transplantation. Even with an increased understanding of liver fibrogenesis and many attempts to generate therapeutics specifically targeting fibrosis, there is no approved treatment for liver fibrosis. To further understand and characterize the driving mechanisms of liver fibrosis, we developed a high-throughput genome-wide CRISPR/Cas9 screening platform to identify hepatic stellate cell (HSC)-derived mediators of transforming growth factor (TGF)-β-induced liver fibrosis. The functional genomics phenotypic screening platform described here revealed the novel biology of TGF-β-induced fibrogenesis and potential drug targets for liver fibrosis.
Liver fibrosis, one
of the advanced stages of chronic liver disease,
is a major burden to global health care together with other chronic
liver diseases, and the total estimated national hospitalization costs
in these patients reached $81.1 billion from 2012 to 2016.[1] Liver fibrosis is characterized by progressive
accumulation of extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins, which distort
the physiological architecture of the liver. Currently, there is no
approved antifibrotic therapy for reducing the burden of hepatic fibrosis,[2] as the current standard of care is mainly to
target the causative factor. If left untreated, liver fibrosis can
develop into hepatocellular carcinoma or result in end-stage liver
disease.[3]From a pathogenesis perspective,
chronic hepatitis B virus/hepatitis
C virus infection, rare liver diseases, alcohol abuse, and non-alcoholic
steatohepatitis (NASH) can all result in damaged hepatocytes and infiltration
of immune cells to the liver, which then activate trans-differentiation
of hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) into collagen-producing myofibroblasts.
This process can be balanced by counteracting antifibrotic mechanisms,
such as HSC inactivation and apoptosis of myofibroblasts or increased
fibrinolysis, which lead to scar resolution.[4] However, if the inflammatory balance is not well controlled and
HSCs are continuously activated due to chronic injuries, the myofibroblasts
may produce excess quantities of ECM, which destroys the physiological
architecture of the liver.[5]On a
molecular basis, transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β),
a master profibrogenic cytokine, is synthesized in the form of a latent
precursor by non-parenchymal liver cells, such as HSCs, liver sinusoidal
endothelial cells, Kupffer cells, dendritic cells, and natural killer
T cells. TGF-β is required to be cleaved by furin-like proteases
to become mature but remains biologically inactive due to its association
with a protein complex until activated by thrombospondin 1 or some
proteases.[6,7] TGF-β induces HSC activation and trans-differentiation
into myofibroblasts, which are associated with loss of intracellular
vitamin A droplets, adaptation of fibroblast pathologies, and development
of a contractile and migratory phenotype through expression of alpha-smooth
muscle actin (α-SMA or ACTA2).[8] With an increasingly clear role in fibrogenesis, TGF-β
represents a promising target for the treatment of liver fibrosis,
and several therapeutics have been developed to directly target TGF-β.[5] However, due to its broad physiological functions,
TGF-β inhibition induces undesirable toxicities, which may override
its therapeutic benefits.[9,10] Thus, understanding
the pleiotropic effects of TGF-β and its upstream and downstream
regulatory mechanisms in HSCs may help reveal druggable nodes in this
signaling pathway that are less susceptible to on-target toxicity.CRISPR/Cas9 has become a popular genetic editing tool due to its
ease of use and fewer off-target effects compared to other gene-modulating
tools, for example, siRNA technologies.[11] CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screens, conducted in both pooled and arrayed
formats, have been widely adapted for target identification and mechanistic
characterization.[12] While pooled CRISPR/Cas9
screening is typically cheaper and less time-consuming, arrayed CRISPR/Cas9
screening provides more technical flexibility in the types of endpoint
functional assays. Moreover, the genotype–phenotype correlation
of arrayed CRISPR/Cas9 screening is typically more straightforward
and requires less data deconvolution compared to pooled CRISPR approaches.[13] To understand the pleiotropic effects of TGF-β
in HSC-mediated liver fibrogenesis and explore new drug targets for
this disease, we performed an arrayed genome-wide CRISPR/Cas9 screen
in primary human HSCs using ACTA2 protein expression
as a surrogate readout for HSC activation. We identified an extensive
list of regulators with diverse modes of actions, including novel
and previously known mechanisms, involved in HSC fibrogenesis. Through
a multipronged parallel approach employing differential orthogonal
assays, we were able to validate the biological functions of these
genetic hits and their relevance in liver fibrogenesis. We demonstrate
that the CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screening platform described here has
prognostic uses for the identification of biological regulators of
HSC activation and potential drug targets for liver fibrosis.
Materials and Methods
Human HSC Culture
Human HSCs were purchased from either
Lonza (Cat #: HUCLS1) or Sciencell (Cat #: 5300) and were cultured
according to manufacturers’ instructions. Briefly, for cryopreserved
HSCs from Lonza, vials of HSCs were taken out of liquid nitrogen storage
and were thawed in a water bath. The cells were gently transferred
to a conical tube with 5 mL MCST250 medium (Lonza Cat #: MSCT250)
under sterile conditions. The cell pellet was collected by centrifuging
at 250g for 5 min. The cells were then resuspended
in MCST250 medium and seeded at a density of 4000 cells/cm2 on collagen I coated plates for passage-1 or 8000–10,000
cells/cm2 for passage-0. The medium was changed next day
to remove any residual DMSO or unattached cells. For cryopreserved
HSCs from Sciencell, vials of HSCs were thawed in a water bath and
directly seeded into a poly-l-lysine (Cat #: 0413, Sciencell)-coated
culture vessel (2 μg/cm2). The culture medium was
refreshed the next day to remove residual DMSO and unattached cells.
All cells were cultured in a 37 °C incubator with 5% CO2. To maintain the HSC culture, we used a complete medium kit (Cat
#: 5301, Sciencell). The medium was changed every three days, until
the culture was approximately 70% confluent. We did not let cells
go beyond 75% confluent because we found overly confluent cells were
not able to be trypsinized properly to become single cell suspension
resulting in low cell yield. To passage the cells, DPBS was used to
wash the cells and then TrypLE express enzyme (Cat #: 12605036, Thermo
Fisher Scientific) was added to cover the bottom of culture vessel.
The cells were placed into a 37 °C incubator with 5% CO2 for 3–4 min to allow the cells to detach. When cells were
taken out of the incubator, the vessel was tapped on the side to dislodge
the cells from the surface, followed by adding complete culture medium.
The cell pellet was collected by centrifugation at 160g for 4 min with a breaker set at 5. We seeded cells at 5000 cells/cm2 for normal maintenance or passage. A large number of passage-0
cells were obtained from ScienCell and passaged on a large scale and
frozen at passage-3 to be used as a screening stock. Before each screen,
an appropriate number of cells were thawed and recovered by culturing
in tissue culture flasks before being used in CRISPR screen. The number
of cell population doublings was critical for these cells because
isolated HSCs can be activated spontaneously in primary culture on
plastic. Together with other experiments described in this article,
the cells between passage-3–6 were used for experiments. 16
h before TGF-β stimulation, culture medium was refreshed with
complete medium without FBS. Recombinant human TGF-β 1 protein
was purchased from R&D Systems (Cat #: 240-B-010) and prepared
according to manufacturer’s instructions.For small-molecule
treatment studies, the cells were seeded on a 384-well plate and cultured
overnight to allow them to adhere to the plate. The medium was then
replaced with the serum-free medium on the second day to serum starve
the cells for 16 h. The compounds were then added to the cells. After
2 h compound treatment, 10 ng/mL TGF-β was added to stimulate
the cells for 48 h.
crRNA/tracrRNA/Cas9 Protein Complex Transfection
by Electroporation
Briefly, crRNAs (Cat #s can be found on
Horizon website by searching
the gene names) and tracrRNA (Cat #: U-002005, Horizon) were prepared
in Tris–EDTA buffer according to manufacturer’s recommendation.
For assay development, 10 or 40 μM crRNA was mixed together
with 40 μM tracrRNA for 20 min to allow crRNA and tracrRNA to
anneal. 40 μM sNLS-SpCas9-sNLS nuclease (Cat #: 9212, Aldelvron)
was then added to the crRNA/tracrRNA mix. The added volume for each
reagent was described in each individual experiment. The mixture was
centrifuged at 500g for 1 min to ensure all solution
was collected together, followed by shaking for 30 s to mix. The mixture
was then incubated for 15 min to form an RNP complex. During this
incubation period, a concentrated single-cell HSC suspension (12,500–50,000
cells/20 μL) was prepared using either the P3 primary cell 4D-Nucleofector
X Kit (Cat #: V4XP-3032, Lonza) or P2 primary cell 4D-Nucleofector
X Kit S (Cat #: V4XP-2032, Lonza) according to manufacturer’s
instructions. Cells were then added to the RNP complex and electroporated
using a Lonza 4D-Nucleofector X Unit (Cat #: AAF-1003X). The electroporation
programs used were described in each figure description. After 10
min postelectroporation, complete culture medium without antibiotic
was then added into each well and gently pipetted up and down. An
appropriate amount of mixture was then transferred to a cell culture
plate with prewarmed complete medium.
CRISPR Screen Assay Setup
and Data Analysis
An appropriate
amount of 15 μM tracrRNA (Cat #: U-002005, Horizon) was prepared
in an entire plate of an Abgene 384-well polypropylene storage plate
(Cat # AB0781, Thermo Fisher Scientific). 2 μL/well of 15 μM
tracrRNA was added using a Bravo automated liquid handling system
(Cat #: G5563AA, Agilent) to a 384-well electroporation plate (part
of P3 primary cell 384-well Nucleofector Kit, Cat #: V5SP-3010), followed
by adding 4 μL/well of 7.5 μM crRNA from a library source
plate. The human genome Edit-R crRNA library was purchased from Horizon
(Cat #: GP-005005-E2-025). The electroporation plate was then centrifuged
briefly at 500g for 1 min to collect the solutions
to the bottom. The plate was shaken on a microplate shaker for 30
s to mix. The mixture was then incubated for 20 min to anneal. 2 μL/well
of 15 μM sNLS-SpCas9-sNLS nuclease was transferred using a Bravo
automated liquid handling system to the electroporation plate. The
plate was then centrifuged and mixed to form a RNP complex. During
the incubation, 12,500 cells/well HSC single-cell suspension was prepared
in 20 μL P3 buffer in a master mix according to manufacturer’s
instruction. The cells were then added into RNP complex using an integra
384-well handler and pipetted up and down gently three times to mix.
The mixture of cells and the RNP complex in an electroporation plate
was then delivered to a 384-well Nucleofector System (Catalog #: AAU-1001)
for electroporation using program CA-137. 10 min postelectroporation,
32 μL of complete culture medium without antibiotic was then
added into each well and gently pipetted up and down to mix. 3,000
cells/14.4 μL from the mixture were then transferred to a cell
culture plate (Cat #: 3770, Corning) with 20 μL prewarmed complete
medium.For the screening data analysis, we used ActivityBase
from IDBS. A template used for calculation was generated to allow
calculating the percent inhibition of each genetic knockout treatment.
The formula to calculate percent inhibition isThis formula yields neg ctrl (non-targeting crRNA)-treated samples
having 0% inhibition, while pos ctrl (ACTA2 gRNA)-treated
samples having 100% inhibition.For hit confirmation and validation,
the pooled crRNAs for targeting
each gene were cherry-picked and reordered from Horizon’s human
genome Edit-R crRNA library. The crRNAs targeting each gene were tested
in a pooled format.
Statistics and Calculations
For
all experiments, excluding
those from the HemoShear platform, statistical analysis was conducted
using the t-test or one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s
post hoc test on Graphpad Prism software with significance of *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, and ****p < 0.0001. The
results are presented as means ± SD or means ± SEM, which
is specified in the figure descriptions.Additional materials
and methods are provided in the Supporting Information.
Results and Discussion
Results
Primary Human Hepatic Stellate
Cell CRISPR/Cas9 Screening Assay
Development
To develop a robust primary human HSC CRISPR
screening platform, we first tested the TGF-β response in primary
human HSCs from two different commercial sources (Lonza and ScienCell)
by quantifying intracellular ACTA2 protein expression
as measured by immunofluorescence staining and high content imaging. ACTA2 expression was significantly upregulated in human
primary HSCs by 10 ng/mL TGF-β treatment (Supporting Information, Figure S1). HSCs from ScienCell demonstrated
a more robust response to TGF-β compared to HSCs obtained from
Lonza (Supporting Information, Figure S1). Therefore, we further optimized our screening assay using the
HSCs from ScienCell. To enable CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in HSCs, we
tested multiple electroporation programs in two types of electroporation
buffers to deliver ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes into HSCs in
a high-throughput 384-well screenable format. The results showed that
buffer P3 with CA-137 and CM-138 electroporation programs yielded
the highest editing efficiency of the PPIB control
gene (Supporting Information, Figure S2A). To identify positive control CRISPR RNAs (crRNAs) for high-throughput
screening, we employed the CRISPR screening process described (Figure B) and tested multiple
crRNAs for genes that were previously identified to affect the TGF-β
signaling pathway.[14,15] As expected, knocking out ACTA2 had the most significant effect on the ACTA2 expression level by reducing its level by 89% (Supporting Information, Figure S2B). Therefore, we chose ACTA2 crRNAs (a pool of four crRNAs) as the positive control for our functional
genomics screen. To further optimize the CRISPR assay, we tested multiple
combinatorial conditions, including crRNA and trans-activating crRNA
(tracrRNA) concentrations and electroporation cell numbers. We found
no significant difference in the efficiency of all four conditions
in combination with either cell concentration (Supporting Information, Figure S2C). We moved forward with condition
#4 using 25,000 cell/well for electroporation, which uses the least
amount of reagents. Next, we determined that 3000 cells/well yielded
the best assay window among all three densities (Supporting Information, Figure S2D). Finally, we determined whether there
is any significant difference in performance using two high content
imaging systems and their associated software; namely the molecular
devices ImageXpress confocal and the PerkinElmer Operetta CLS, but
we did not see any significant difference in the assay window (Supporting
Information, Figure S3). Therefore, we
carried out the genome-wide screen on the ImageXpress Confocal platform
with robotic assistance.
Figure 1
Arrayed CRISPR screen experimental setup using
primary human HSCs.
(A) Primary human HSCs were plated in a 384-well plate with 3000 cells/well.
After 16 h serum starvation, the cells were treated with or without
10 ng/mL TGF-β for 48 h before being fixed and stained with
the ACTA2 antibody, followed by a secondary antibody
conjugated with Alexa592. Cell images were captured using the ImageXpress
Confocal imager, the images were processed by MetaXpress software
to show ACTA2-stained raw images (first column),
and detected all objects (second column) and objects with intensity
above the average intensity in the ACTA2 channel
of the vehicle group (third column). (B) CRISPR screen workflow begins
with annealing crRNAs with tracrRNA, followed by adding Cas9 protein
to form RNPs. The RNPs were electroporated into human HSCs with Lonza
HT nucleofector in duplicate. The cells were then transferred into
black clear bottom assay plates in duplicate. Thus, each CRISPR library
plate is tested in quadruplicate. The cells were then incubated in
37 °C for 48 h to allow CRISPR editing. The cells were serum-starved
for 16 h, followed by 10 ng/mL TGF-β stimulation simulation
for 48 h. The cells were then fixed and stained with the ACTA2 primary antibody and a secondary antibody, followed by imaging.
Upon primary screening completion, the gene hits were tested in a
follow-up confirmation screen using the same primary screening assay
and a counter screen using the cell viability assay. The confirmed
hits were then further filtered through other orthogonal validation
assays.
Arrayed CRISPR screen experimental setup using
primary human HSCs.
(A) Primary human HSCs were plated in a 384-well plate with 3000 cells/well.
After 16 h serum starvation, the cells were treated with or without
10 ng/mL TGF-β for 48 h before being fixed and stained with
the ACTA2 antibody, followed by a secondary antibody
conjugated with Alexa592. Cell images were captured using the ImageXpress
Confocal imager, the images were processed by MetaXpress software
to show ACTA2-stained raw images (first column),
and detected all objects (second column) and objects with intensity
above the average intensity in the ACTA2 channel
of the vehicle group (third column). (B) CRISPR screen workflow begins
with annealing crRNAs with tracrRNA, followed by adding Cas9 protein
to form RNPs. The RNPs were electroporated into human HSCs with Lonza
HT nucleofector in duplicate. The cells were then transferred into
black clear bottom assay plates in duplicate. Thus, each CRISPR library
plate is tested in quadruplicate. The cells were then incubated in
37 °C for 48 h to allow CRISPR editing. The cells were serum-starved
for 16 h, followed by 10 ng/mL TGF-β stimulation simulation
for 48 h. The cells were then fixed and stained with the ACTA2 primary antibody and a secondary antibody, followed by imaging.
Upon primary screening completion, the gene hits were tested in a
follow-up confirmation screen using the same primary screening assay
and a counter screen using the cell viability assay. The confirmed
hits were then further filtered through other orthogonal validation
assays.
High-Throughput CRISPR
Screen
With the optimized CRISPR
assay workflow in place (Figure B), the crRNA targeting each gene of the entire annotated
genome was tested in duplicate in the electroporation step and further
duplicated in the assay plates, which are compatible with the downstream
high-content imaging analysis. We screened the entire annotated genome
covering 19,027 genes with a commercial crRNA library in a 384-well
format (Supporting Information, Figure S4A). The crRNAs, tracrRNA, and Cas9 complexes were delivered using
a high-throughput 384-well nucleofection system. The optimized electroporation
program was able to effectively deliver RNPs into the HSCs to edit
the control ACTA2 gene without affecting cell viability
(Supporting Information, Figure S4B). For
the high-throughput screen, ACTA2 crRNA and non-target
crRNA were included in every assay plate as positive and negative
controls, respectively (Supporting Information, Figure S4C and Figure B). The assay results were analyzed after each batch with
specific quality control (QC) and hit picking criteria. The batch-to-batch
variability of ACTA2 expression was gauged by the
difference between the positive (ACTA2 crRNA treatment)
and negative (non-targeting crRNA treatment) controls included in
each batch. If the ratio of the average of negative ctrl to positive
ctrl of the ACTA2 expression level was less than
4, suggesting a small assay window, we would move the plate back to
the screening queue and not use it for hit picking. This warranted
a decent assay window to ensure the reduction of the ACTA2 level by the testing crRNA was a real signal (Supporting Information, Figure S4D). ACTA2-integrated
intensity was normalized to the positive and negative controls on
each plate, and the percent inhibition of ACTA2 expression
was calculated. Using a threshold of ACTA2 downregulation
of 75% and a significance score (p value) of 0.05,
the primary screen identified 372 genes as hits (Figure A). Among the hits, there were
some genes that were previously known to be involved in TGF-β
signaling, including TGFBR1, SMAD3, and SMAD4 (Figure A), suggesting our CRISPR/Cas9 screening platform was
able to identify biologically relevant genes. We further confirmed
the effect of these phenotypes in an ACTA2 downregulation
assay and performed cell viability assays to detect any toxicities
associated with gene knockdown. Through these triaging efforts, we
were able to confirm 52 genes, which yielded greater than 50% ACTA2 downregulation and greater than 70% cell viability
(Figure C and Supporting
Information, Figure S5). We further categorized
these genes based on their mechanisms of action to bin them according
to protein class (Figure D).
Figure 2
Primary screen and hit confirmation assay results. (A) Volcano
plot showed the primary screen results of the percent inhibition of ACTA2 integrated intensity. Each dot represents a gene knockout
treatment. Using a cutoff of 75% ACTA2 inhibition
and 0.05 P value, the upper right quadrant showed
the 372 gene hits, which were identified from the primary screen.
(B) Statistics of ACTA2-integrated intensity percent
inhibition of positive (ACTA2 crRNA) and negative
(non-targeting crRNA) controls of each screened library plate. Error
bar represents standard deviation of the results of positive or negative
controls on four assay plates. (C) ACTA2 expression
confirmation and the cell viability results of the CRISPR gene knockout
treatments. The cells were treated with CRISPR knockout targeting
individual gene as described as Figure B. The cell viability was normalized to non-targeting
ctrl treated with TGF-β, which was set as 100%. For ACTA2 percent inhibition results, n = 14–23.
For cell viability results, n = 10–18. The
error bar represents the standard deviation of each treatment result.
(D) Confirmed gene list was further categorized depending on their
potential mode of action. Validation of the fibrogenesis effect of
CRISPR hits.
Primary screen and hit confirmation assay results. (A) Volcano
plot showed the primary screen results of the percent inhibition of ACTA2 integrated intensity. Each dot represents a gene knockout
treatment. Using a cutoff of 75% ACTA2 inhibition
and 0.05 P value, the upper right quadrant showed
the 372 gene hits, which were identified from the primary screen.
(B) Statistics of ACTA2-integrated intensity percent
inhibition of positive (ACTA2 crRNA) and negative
(non-targeting crRNA) controls of each screened library plate. Error
bar represents standard deviation of the results of positive or negative
controls on four assay plates. (C) ACTA2 expression
confirmation and the cell viability results of the CRISPR gene knockout
treatments. The cells were treated with CRISPR knockout targeting
individual gene as described as Figure B. The cell viability was normalized to non-targeting
ctrl treated with TGF-β, which was set as 100%. For ACTA2 percent inhibition results, n = 14–23.
For cell viability results, n = 10–18. The
error bar represents the standard deviation of each treatment result.
(D) Confirmed gene list was further categorized depending on their
potential mode of action. Validation of the fibrogenesis effect of
CRISPR hits.A number of hits identified from
the CRISPR screen demonstrated
druggable-like properties. These genes encoded for proteins, which
have been predicted to be modulated using conventional pharmacological
interventions, such as small molecules and antibodies. We picked these
genes to further characterize their effects in ameliorating HSC fibrogenesis.
We knocked out these genes individually in HSCs and evaluated how
loss of these genes impacted a TGF-β-induced transcriptional
profile of a panel of 14 biomarkers previously reported to be associated
with liver fibrosis[16−23] (Figure ). The TGF-β
biomarker panel included canonical ECM proteins, enzymes involved
in fibrogenesis, as well as TGF-β signaling mediators. Furthermore,
we included two small molecules, galunisertib and obeticholic acid
(OCA), as positive controls. Galunisertib is a TGF-β receptor
type I inhibitor and OCA is a FXR agonist, and both small molecules
have been investigated experimentally or clinically for treatment
of liver fibrosis and other chronic liver diseases (clinical trial
for galunisertib: NCT02240433, NCT02178358, and NCT01246986; clinical
trial for OCA: NCT03633227 and NCT00570765).[24−26] The results
of these studies showed that galunisertib treatment reduced expression
of all 14 biomarkers induced by TGF-β in a dose-dependent manner
compared to the vehicle control. OCA did not have any effect on these
biomarkers, suggesting OCA might alleviate liver fibrosis through
other mechanisms independent of TGF-β signaling, or through
a different cell type, such as hepatocytes or Kupffer cells. As our
primary screening readout was ACTA2 intracellular
protein expression, using CRISPR to knockout these hit genes individually
also significantly impaired ACTA2 mRNA expression.
However, the effects of different CRISPR knockouts on the mRNA expression
of other ECM proteins, enzymes, and signaling mediators largely varied
(Figure ). To evaluate
each gene‘s effect on HSC fibrosis, we marked and scored biomarkers
by knocking out each of these genes (Supporting Information, Table S1).
Figure 3
Fibrosis biomarker expression heatmap
profile of small-molecule
or gene knockout treatment. Human HSCs were either treated with small
molecules (500 or 5000 nM galunisertib, 500 or 5000 nM OCA or 10 or
100 nM ixazomib) or genetically knocked out of various genes by CRISPR
in combination with or without 10 ng/mL TGF-β. The cell lysates
were collected for Nanostring nCounter gene expression panel analysis.
The gene expression level of small-molecule treatments was normalized
to a small-molecule vehicle with TGF-β treatment, while the
gene expression level of CRISPR KO treatments was normalized to non-targeting
control with TGF-β treatment with N = 3; error
bars represent standard deviation.
Fibrosis biomarker expression heatmap
profile of small-molecule
or gene knockout treatment. Human HSCs were either treated with small
molecules (500 or 5000 nM galunisertib, 500 or 5000 nM OCA or 10 or
100 nM ixazomib) or genetically knocked out of various genes by CRISPR
in combination with or without 10 ng/mL TGF-β. The cell lysates
were collected for Nanostring nCounter gene expression panel analysis.
The gene expression level of small-molecule treatments was normalized
to a small-molecule vehicle with TGF-β treatment, while the
gene expression level of CRISPR KO treatments was normalized to non-targeting
control with TGF-β treatment with N = 3; error
bars represent standard deviation.In order to understand how the hit genes are regulated in a physiologically
relevant liver environment, we interrogated the transcriptome profile
of the confirmed hit genes in a complex coculture system pioneered
by HemoShear Therapeutics as previously described.[27] In this system, we applied liver sinusoidal hemodynamics
and interstitial fluid transport parameters to mimic mature, differentiated,
and in vivo hepatocyte phenotypes and functions.[27] Specifically, primary human non-parenchymal cells (NPCs)
including HSCs and macrophages were cocultured with primary human
hepatocytes together in an organotypic liver model (Figure A). Different conditioned media
were used to generate healthy, NASH, and fibrosis liver models as
detailed in the Materials and Methods Section. We assessed how hit genes were regulated in this coculture system
by RNA-seq transcriptomics. In the NPCs, MDM2, TGFBR1, TMED10, and TPM1 were significantly elevated in the NASH liver model compared to
a healthy liver model. PSMC2, TMED10, and TPM1 were significantly increased in the fibrosis
model (the NASH model stimulated with TGF-β) compared to the
unstimulated NASH group (Figure B). These results suggest that hit genes expressed
in the NPCs might play a role in the pathogenesis of NASH and its
progression into fibrosis. To understand how the expression levels
of these hit genes are changed specifically in the HSC compartment,
we analyzed publicly available transcriptomic datasets published in
the GEO Profiles database (Supporting Information, Table S2). In two microarray studies GSE68000[28] and GSE67664,[28] quiescent HSCs
(qHSCs) were passaged multiple times to obtain an activated HSC (aHSC)
phenotype, while in the RNA-seq study GSE68108, the qHSCs were serum-starved
for 48 h before stimulating with TGF-β for 16 h to activate
the cells. The fold change of each hit gene in aHSCs from the public
transcriptomic studies was provided if the genes were significantly
differentially expressed (see methods for microarrays and RNA-Seq
data analysis). Indeed, TPM1 and TGFBR1 levels were upregulated more than 1.5-fold in aHSCs in these studies
(Supporting Information, Table S2), further
supporting the potential regulatory effects of our hit genes in HSCs
during the pathogenesis of liver fibrosis.
Figure 4
Gene expression level
of confirmed hits in an in vitro human liver
system of cocultured human hepatocytes and NPCs exposed to hemodynamics
under NASH conditions. (A) Using a cone-and-plate viscometer, liver
sinusoidal hemodynamics were applied to a transwell multiculture model
of primary human NPCs containing stellate cells and macrophages (top
of transwell) and primary human hepatocytes (bottom of the transwell).
Shear stress is imparted onto the transwell by rotation of the cone
(orange triangle). Medium is continually perfused through the inflow
and outflow ports to recapitulate interstitial flow. Cells on the
device were exposed to media containing a physiological level of factors
in healthy or NASH conditions with or without 0.5 ng/mL TGF-β
and then collected at the termination of the experiment and analyzed
for gene expression via RNA sequencing. Gene expression for NPCs is
represented as relative abundance—each gene is normalized to
the NASH treatment. Percent changes refer to changes in the across-experiment
geometric means; and contrast p-values were derived
from a linear mixed effect model including treatment as a fixed effect
and experiment as a random effect; *p-value <0.5,
**p-value <0.1; boxes represent the 95% CI of
estimated geometric mean across experiments. Five different experiments
are represented and N = 4–5 for each.
Gene expression level
of confirmed hits in an in vitro human liver
system of cocultured human hepatocytes and NPCs exposed to hemodynamics
under NASH conditions. (A) Using a cone-and-plate viscometer, liver
sinusoidal hemodynamics were applied to a transwell multiculture model
of primary human NPCs containing stellate cells and macrophages (top
of transwell) and primary human hepatocytes (bottom of the transwell).
Shear stress is imparted onto the transwell by rotation of the cone
(orange triangle). Medium is continually perfused through the inflow
and outflow ports to recapitulate interstitial flow. Cells on the
device were exposed to media containing a physiological level of factors
in healthy or NASH conditions with or without 0.5 ng/mL TGF-β
and then collected at the termination of the experiment and analyzed
for gene expression via RNA sequencing. Gene expression for NPCs is
represented as relative abundance—each gene is normalized to
the NASH treatment. Percent changes refer to changes in the across-experiment
geometric means; and contrast p-values were derived
from a linear mixed effect model including treatment as a fixed effect
and experiment as a random effect; *p-value <0.5,
**p-value <0.1; boxes represent the 95% CI of
estimated geometric mean across experiments. Five different experiments
are represented and N = 4–5 for each.Among the confirmed hit genes, we were intrigued
by the suppression
effect of multiple fibrosis biomarkers in human HSCs through the disruption
of the PSMC2 gene, which encodes 26S protease regulatory
subunit 7, a proteasome subunit. As Takeda has developed a series
of proteasome inhibitors for treating cancers, Velcade (bortezomib)
and Ninlaro (ixazomib), we next tested whether suppressing proteasome
activity by proteasome inhibitor drugs alleviates the fibrosis phenotype
in human HSCs. We treated human HSCs with three small-molecule analogs,
including bortezomib, ixazomib, and ML557 (Figure B). After 48 h of TGF-β stimulation,
cells were either fixed for ACTA2 immunostaining
or lysed for caspase activity or cell viability assessment (Figure A). We observed that
HSCs treated with all three analogues reduced the ACTA2 protein expression level as measured by immunofluorescent imaging.
However, ACTA2 reduction by bortezomib and ixazomib
was also accompanied by reduced cell viability decreased and increased
caspase. Interestingly, ML557 was able to significantly reduce the ACTA2 protein level in a dose-dependent manner without increasing
caspase activity or causing cell death (Figure B,C). These data suggest that inhibiting
proteasome activity with small molecules may resolve TGF-β-induced
HSC activation.
Figure 5
Proteasome subunit target validation with small-molecule
tool compounds.
(A) Experimental schematic diagram showing compound treatment of human
HSCs. 3,000 cells/well were seeded on day 1 in a 384-well plate. The
cell culture medium was changed into serum-free medium on the second
day 16 h before adding compounds. TGF-β was added to the cells
1 h post small-molecule treatment. After 2 days, the cells were either
fixed for ACTA2 immunofluorescence staining or subjected
to either CellTiter Glo assay for cell viability or caspase 3/7 Glo
assay for caspase activity. (B) Chemical structures and the results
of three proteasome inhibitors that were tested in CellTiter Glo,
caspase 3/7 activity, and ACTA2 expression inhibition
assays. Each assay result was normalized to the vehicle control group
with N = 3; error bars represent standard deviation.
(C) Immunofluorescence images of HSCs that were treated with various
doses of ML557 with or without 10 ng/mL TGF-β.
Proteasome subunit target validation with small-molecule
tool compounds.
(A) Experimental schematic diagram showing compound treatment of human
HSCs. 3,000 cells/well were seeded on day 1 in a 384-well plate. The
cell culture medium was changed into serum-free medium on the second
day 16 h before adding compounds. TGF-β was added to the cells
1 h post small-molecule treatment. After 2 days, the cells were either
fixed for ACTA2 immunofluorescence staining or subjected
to either CellTiter Glo assay for cell viability or caspase 3/7 Glo
assay for caspase activity. (B) Chemical structures and the results
of three proteasome inhibitors that were tested in CellTiter Glo,
caspase 3/7 activity, and ACTA2 expression inhibition
assays. Each assay result was normalized to the vehicle control group
with N = 3; error bars represent standard deviation.
(C) Immunofluorescence images of HSCs that were treated with various
doses of ML557 with or without 10 ng/mL TGF-β.In order to develop specific targeting strategies and understand
the potential on-target off-tissue side-effects of these target genes,
we evaluated the cell type-specific expression pattern of these genes
by curating our internal mouse liver bacterial artificial chromosome
translating ribosome affinity purification (bacTRAP) dataset. BacTRAP
is an in vivo methodology that readily and reproducibly identifies
translated mRNAs in any cell type of interest. This technique involves
expression of an EGFP-L10a fusion protein in bacTRAP transgenic mice,
which enables tagging of polyribosomes for immunoaffinity purification
of mRNAs in specific cell types of interest.[29] In our bacTRAP study, we used an ACTA2 promoter-driven
bacTRAP mouse line to specifically profile their translating mRNAs
in HSCs. We treated these mice with either a vehicle control or carbon
tetrachloride (CCl4) to induce liver fibrosis, then collected
mouse liver samples and conducted TRAP experiments to profile the
translating mRNAs in the HSCs at the moment of sample collection.
The RNA expression levels in the HSCs (immunoprecipitated or IP) were
compared to those in the total liver tissue to understand whether
hit genes were expressed more specifically within the HSC compartment.
In particular, Mdm2, Myh9, Tgfbr1, Tnnt2, and Tpm1 mRNA levels were significantly higher in the HSCs compared to the
whole liver in the vehicle-treated group; while Myh9, Siah1a, Tgfbr1, Tnnt2, and Tpm1 mRNA levels were significantly higher
in HSCs compared to the whole liver in the CCl4-treated
group (Supporting Information, Figure S6). These results indicate that these hit genes were enriched specifically
in HSCs under normal or CCl4-induced liver fibrosis condition.To understand whether genetic variation in these genes was associated
with biomarkers of liver disease in humans, we performed genome-wide
association of the AST to platelet ratio index (APRI) and the NAFLD
fibrosis score (NFS) in the UK Biobank. To assess gene-level association,
we used multimarker analysis of GenoMic annotation (MAGMA) (PMID:
25885710) and identified genome-wide significant gene-level associations
(P < 2.8 × 10–6) with TPM1, METAP1, PSMB7, PSMD2, TNPO1, and BCL2L1 with APRI; and TPM1, HMGCR, PSMD2, and BCL2L1 with NFS (Table ). These results indicate that
genetic variation in these genes may impact biomarkers of NASH and
liver fibrosis.
Table 1
Association of the Confirmed Hit Genes
with AST to the Platelet Ratio Index (APRI) and Liver Fibrosis Phenotypea
gene name
APRI MAGMA
fibrosis
score MAGMA
PSMC2
2.25 × 10–3
2.07 × 10–2
TGFBR1
2.09 × 10–1
5.09 × 10–1
SFPQ
2.27 × 10–1
4.70 × 10–1
PSMD7
4.64 × 10–2
4.93 × 10–1
CHD2
2.37 × 10–2
5.54 × 10–1
MRGBP
1.81 × 10–1
4.15 × 10–1
VCP
1.50 × 10–3
5.50 × 10–1
PSMA4
1.39 × 10–1
3.41 × 10–3
GSPT1
2.00 × 10–1
4.63 × 10–3
TPM1
1.44×10–17
1.13×10–14
PSMC5
2.31 × 10–2
1.75 × 10–1
UBA2
5.35 × 10–1
6.24 × 10–2
TADA3
1.81 × 10–1
5.23 × 10–1
METAP1
7.86×10–15
1.78 × 10–4
TRAPPC11
2.21 × 10–1
1.70 × 10–1
PSMB7
2.74×10–7
6.87 × 10–2
NARS
5.01 × 10–3
7.05 × 10–1
HMGCR
1.07 × 10–3
1.86×10–12
PABPN1
7.00 × 10–2
3.58 × 10–1
TNNT2
3.70 × 10–2
1.48 × 10–1
ATP6V0D1
3.46 × 10–4
4.81 × 10–1
DNAJA2
1.01 × 10–1
2.01 × 10–3
PSMD2
2.06×10–11
4.20×10–14
PAFAH1B1
1.01 × 10–2
7.70 × 10–4
ADNP
8.52 × 10–1
5.04 × 10–2
MDM2
2.88 × 10–1
6.67 × 10–1
SF3B1
1.38 × 10–2
1.02 × 10–5
TNPO1
9.14×10–12
1.81 × 10–5
SMAD4
9.64 × 10–1
7.12 × 10–2
NAA15
4.49 × 10–1
2.45 × 10–1
TMED10
1.31 × 10–1
2.85 × 10–1
SCFD1
1.13 × 10–1
6.85 × 10–1
SIAH1
1.14 × 10–1
1.92 × 10–1
BCL2L1
2.87×10–14
8.52×10–22
CHD4
2.97 × 10–1
7.17 × 10–1
SRF
5.70 × 10–1
7.10 × 10–1
SMU1
2.98 × 10–4
1.57 × 10–2
The MAGMA
package was used to identify
genes with a significant effect (P value < 2.818
× 10–6, bolded numbers) on APRI and NAFLD fibrosis
scores in the UK Biobank. APRI, used to estimate prevalence of cirrhosis,
was calculated as (AST/33)/platelet count X 100. The NAFLD fibrosis
score was calculated from a linear model based on age, BMI, AST/ALT,
albumin, platelet count, and the presence of diabetes.
The MAGMA
package was used to identify
genes with a significant effect (P value < 2.818
× 10–6, bolded numbers) on APRI and NAFLD fibrosis
scores in the UK Biobank. APRI, used to estimate prevalence of cirrhosis,
was calculated as (AST/33)/platelet count X 100. The NAFLD fibrosis
score was calculated from a linear model based on age, BMI, AST/ALT,
albumin, platelet count, and the presence of diabetes.Finally, we consolidated all the
accumulated data for these targets
to rank them according to their relative importance in the pathogenesis
of HSC-mediated liver fibrosis. In summary, we performed experiments
to knockout potential target genes using CRISPR/Cas9 and evaluated
the intracellular ACTA2 protein level (Figure C), cell viability (Figure C), and liver fibrosis
biomarkers (Figure ). We analyzed the RNA differential expression levels in human HSCs
in both published transcriptome datasets (Supporting Information, Table S2) and the HemoShear organotypic coculture
platform (Figure ).
For further disease relevance, we evaluated HSC cell type-specific
expression in a mouse liver fibrosis bacTRAP experiment (Supporting
Information, Figure S6). To associate any
genetic variants with traits linked to liver fibrosis, we also performed
MAGMA analyses on the UK Biobank database (Table ). We summarized the results of these studies
and scored each target gene depending on whether the individual experimental
results supported the hypothesis that the gene could be a potential
drug target for liver fibrosis. A higher score suggested more evidence
from validation studies supported a gene could be a potential target
for liver fibrosis (Table ). In summary, we have demonstrated the value of CRISPR/Cas9
high-content screening for identifying potential genetic targets in
HSCs for liver fibrosis and described a parallel workflow of validation
experiments that can be employed to triage and rank potential targets
for preclinical drug discovery efforts.
Table 2
Summary
Table of Hit Confirmation
and Validation Test Resultsa
CRISPR KO
RNA differential
expression
cell type specific expression
human
genetics
gene
ACTA2 expression
(Figure 2C)
cell viability
(Figure 2C)
biomarker
expression (Figure 3)
public transcriptome
profile (sup Table S2)
HemoShear
(Figure 4)
BacTRAP (Sup Figure S6)
U.K. BioBank
(Table 1)
total number
of *
TPM1
***
***
*
***
***
**
***
18
PSMC2
***
***
***
*
**
*
*
14
VCP
***
***
***
*
*
*
*
13
METAP1
***
***
**
*
*
*
**
13
HMGCR
**
**
***
**
*
*
**
13
SCFD1
**
**
***
**
*
*
*
12
TRAPPC11
***
**
***
*
*
*
*
12
TMED10
**
**
**
*
***
*
*
12
MDM2
**
**
*
**
**
*
*
11
ATP6V0D1
**
**
**
*
*
*
*
10
*Data do not support hypothesis;
**some data might support hypothesis; and ***strong data support hypothesis.
The result of each assay was evaluated depending on whether strong
data supported the hypothesis (***), some data might support hypothesis
(**), or no data supported the hypothesis (*).
*Data do not support hypothesis;
**some data might support hypothesis; and ***strong data support hypothesis.
The result of each assay was evaluated depending on whether strong
data supported the hypothesis (***), some data might support hypothesis
(**), or no data supported the hypothesis (*).
Discussion
Chronic
liver diseases are a major global
health burden and account for approximately 2 million deaths per year
worldwide. In the liver, development of fibrosis has a significant
impact on prognosis as well as quality of life.[30,31] The medical burden associated with liver fibrosis has significantly
increased over the years, as exemplified by the rapidly increasing
inpatient health care utilization. The total estimated U.S. national
hospitalization costs in patients with chronic liver disease from
2012 to 2016 reached $81.8 billion.[1] The
development of liver fibrosis is known to be associated with numerous
secondary complications, including ascites, hepatic encephalopathy,
hepatorenal syndrome, portal hypertension, and variceal bleeding.
When liver fibrosis is left untreated, the disease develops into a
more advanced stage such as hepatocellular carcinoma, which has an
even lower transplant-free survival rate.[32] With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the presence of chronic
inflammatory diseases, such as liver fibrosis, results in an even
poorer outcome in COVID-19 patients, including increased risk for
mechanical ventilation, development of acute kidney injury, and higher
mortality rates.[33,34] Although therapeutic targets
and remedies have been extensively explored, currently there are no
approved therapies for treating liver fibrosis. Here, we present a
genome-wide approach to interrogate potential therapeutic targets
for liver fibrosis using the CRISPR technology on a high-throughput
scale.From a drug discovery perspective, compared to small-molecule
phenotypic screen, using CRISPR/Cas9 to ablate individual genes to
study their biological functions under specific disease conditions
is desirable because it provides direct information regarding potential
genes involved in disease biology. Alternatively, small-molecule phenotypic
screens typically require extensive target deconvolution to discriminate
compound activities and efficacies. Herein, we showed that the CRISPR/Cas9
high-throughput screening approach can identify both key regulators
of liver fibrosis as reported in the literature (e.g., TGFBR1, SMAD3, and SMAD4) and novel genes
that demonstrate yet-to-be-reported functions. That being said, to
be pursued as a drug target many properties of a gene/protein need
to be assessed, including but not limited to its genomic association
with disease, functions in regulating disease, safety concerns, and
druggability. A genetic hit list identified in a CRISPR/Cas9 genome-wide
screen yields a pragmatic starting point for target identification
and validation studies. In the genomic screening project described
here, we followed up the primary high-throughput screen with a series
of orthogonal assays designed to validate the biological functions
of hit targets both in vitro and in vivo. In order to corroborate
the clinical translatability of lead targets, we also interrogated
their potential association with NASH and liver fibrosis by curating
clinical human data (UK Biobank). Considering the preponderance of
known liver fibrosis-modifying genes that were scored in our screen,
we demonstrated that such functional genomics approaches are able
to yield clinically relevant genetic targets.Among the top
targets that we identified, quite a few have literature-based
evidence of their roles in the pathogenesis of hepatic fibrosis. For
example, tropomyosin-1 (encoded by TPM1), as one
of the hits, was reported to be correlated with increased levels of
α-SMA during liver injury in animal models as well as human
cirrhotic livers.[35] It was associated with
cell mobility and contractility and was used as a biomarker for HSC
activation and liver tissue ECM remodeling.[36,37] 3-Hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase (encoded by HMGCR), the target of statins, a class of drugs that were used for treating
high cholesterol-induced metabolic diseases, was also identified in
our screen as one of the top targets. Although statins are not approved
by the FDA for treating liver fibrosis, numerous literature reported
the role of HMGCR in the regulation of liver inflammation
and hepatic portal hypertension, which are the key components that
contribute to the hepatic fibrosis progression.[38] The use of statins was associated with the lower prevalence
of advanced liver fibrosis in patients with type 2 diabetes.[39] This evidence suggests the potential of statins
as a class of drugs and HMGCR as a target for therapeutic
development for patients with liver fibrosis.Importantly, some
therapeutic targets that have been reported in
the literature to contribute to liver fibrosis were not identified
as hits in our CRISPR screen. Some potential non-technical reasons
for this observation could be (1) these genes are involved in essential
biological functions, and complete loss-of-function of these genes
resulted in cytotoxicity or (2) our assay setup and readout using ACTA2 could be limited in identifying other classes of targets
outside of TGF-β signaling, which affect liver fibrosis. For
example, platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFRs) have been
described in regulating HSC activation and hepatic fibrosis.[40] However, the pathways of PDGFRs do not converge
with TGF-β signaling, and knocking out genes that encode PDGFR
proteins did not reduce TGF-β-induced HSC activation. To address
these potential screening biases, multiple readouts or an unbiased
readout, such as cell painting morphological profiling,[41] instead of a single biomarker, could be used
in future studies to identify a broader range of targets with more
diverse modes of action.To triage hits from the primary CRISPR
screen, we used multiple
orthogonal assays to validate their antifibrosis functions and constructed
a method to rank them and enable additional downstream prioritization
and confirmation studies. Myriad target ranking systems have been
reported for various diseases,[42−45] where each ranking system incorporates different
experimental elements for its analysis pipeline. The most common elements
of these systems include biological function, genetics, safety, and
druggability, which we evaluated in our target prioritization analyses.
Depending on the sets of data to be included in the analysis and type
of analytical method to be used, the target ranking could potentially
be changed. Further studies on the validation and preclinical drug
development of the targets described here are therefore warranted.
Significance
In summary, we have developed a new cell-based
phenotypic screening
method that invokes primary human HSC culture to create a physiologically
relevant model system of liver fibrosis. This screening and validation
pipeline allowed us to interrogate the role of the entire annotated
genome in HSC activation and liver fibrosis. The target list yielded
from this liver fibrosis industrial drug discovery platform may provide
further insights and opportunities for developing next-generation
therapies for liver fibrosis.
Authors: Hai Fang; Hans De Wolf; Bogdan Knezevic; Katie L Burnham; Julie Osgood; Anna Sanniti; Alicia Lledó Lara; Silva Kasela; Stephane De Cesco; Jörg K Wegner; Lahiru Handunnetthi; Fiona E McCann; Liye Chen; Takuya Sekine; Paul E Brennan; Brian D Marsden; David Damerell; Chris A O'Callaghan; Chas Bountra; Paul Bowness; Yvonne Sundström; Lili Milani; Louise Berg; Hinrich W Göhlmann; Pieter J Peeters; Benjamin P Fairfax; Michael Sundström; Julian C Knight Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Inge Mannaerts; Ben Schroyen; Stefaan Verhulst; Leentje Van Lommel; Frans Schuit; Marc Nyssen; Leo A van Grunsven Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 3.240