| Literature DB >> 35978012 |
Jin-Kyoung Shim1, Seung Hoon Lim1,2, Ji Hye Jeong3, Ran Joo Choi1, Yoojung Oh1, Junseong Park1,4, Sunghee Choi3, Junpyo Hong1, Seo Jin Kim1, Ju Hyung Moon1, Eui Hyun Kim1, Wan-Yee Teo5,6, Bong Jin Park2, Jong Hee Chang1, Jae-Ha Ryu7, Seok-Gu Kang8,9.
Abstract
Forkhead Box M1 (FOXM1) is known to regulate cell proliferation, apoptosis and tumorigenesis. The lignan, (-)-(2R,3R)-1,4-O-diferuloylsecoisolariciresinol (DFS), from Alnus japonica has shown anti-cancer effects against colon cancer cells by suppressing FOXM1. The present study hypothesized that DFS can have anti-cancer effects against glioblastoma (GBM) tumorspheres (TSs). Immunoprecipitation and luciferase reporter assays were performed to evaluate the ability of DFS to suppress nuclear translocation of β-catenin through β-catenin/FOXM1 binding. DFS-pretreated GBM TSs were evaluated to assess the ability of DFS to inhibit GBM TSs and their transcriptional profiles. The in vivo efficacy was examined in orthotopic xenograft models of GBM. Expression of FOXM1 was higher in GBM than in normal tissues. DFS-induced FOXM1 protein degradation blocked β-catenin translocation into the nucleus and consequently suppressed downstream target genes of FOXM1 pathways. DFS inhibited cell viability and ATP levels, while increasing apoptosis, and it reduced tumorsphere formation and the invasiveness of GBM TSs. And DFS reduced the activities of transcription factors related to tumorigenesis, stemness, and invasiveness. DFS significantly inhibited tumor growth and prolonged the survival rate of mice in orthotopic xenograft models of GBM. It suggests that DFS inhibits the proliferation of GBM TSs by suppressing FOXM1. DFS may be a potential therapeutic agent to treat GBM.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35978012 PMCID: PMC9385634 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-18185-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Expression of FOXM1 and β-catenin mRNAs and proteins in GBM tissues and inhibitory effects of DFS on cell survival. (A,B) Levels of expression of (A) FOXM1 and (B) β-catenin (CTNNB1) mRNAs and comparison with public datasets. 865 GBM tissues and 723 normal brain tissues in the dataset of Oncopression, while 228 GBM tissues and 28 normal brain tissues in the dataset of REMBRANDT. (C) Cell viability and (D) ATP levels measured after 72 h of treatment with the indicated concentrations of DFS. Results are expressed as the means ± SD (n = 5). (E,F) GBM TSs were treated with DFS for 72 h, and (E) cell cycle fractions and (F) apoptotic cell populations analyzed by FACS. (G) Expression of apoptosis-associated proteins measured by western blotting after treatment with DFS for 72 h. Differences among groups were compared by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test for multiple comparisons; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 2Inhibitory effects of DFS on stemness and invasiveness of GBM TSs. (A) Stemness was determined by Sphere formation assay. Cells were treated with DFS for 3 weeks and the percentages of sphere-positive wells and sphere radii were calculated. (B) GBM TSs were treated with DFS for 72 h and stemness-associated protein levels were determined by western blotting. (C) GBM TSs were cultured on matrigel/collagen matrix with DFS for 72 h, and invasiveness was quantified by measuring areas of migration. (D) Western blotting assays of the expression of EMT-related proteins. All Images are × 10 original magnification (scale bar = 200 μm). Differences among groups were compared by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test; means ± SD; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, between indicated groups or compared with controls.
Figure 3Inhibition of FOXM1/ β-catenin interaction by DFS. (A) GBM TSs were treated with DFS for 72 h and the protein levels of FOXM1, active-β-catenin and total β-catenin were determined by western blotting. (B) DFS-treated GBM TSs were immunoprecipitated with anti-FOXM1 and β-catenin antibody, and endogenous expression of FOXM1 and β-catenin proteins were determined by western blotting to determine interactions between them. (C) GST pull-down assay to confirm whether FOXM1 and β-catenin interactions are direct or indirect. (D) Immunofluorescence to determine whether DFS affects the nuclear translocation of β-catenin (magnification × 20). (E) Levels of FOXM1 and β-catenin proteins in the cytosolic and nuclear fractions of GBM TSs determined by western blotting. The cytosolic and nuclear fractions are denoted by C and N, respectively. Cytosolic marker: β-tubulin; nuclear marker: PARP. (F) Measurements of β-catenin/TCF signaling activity in GBM TSs transfected with TOPflash or FOPflash luciferase vector. (G) Expression of proteins encoded by β-catenin downstream genes (cyclin D1, cMYC) measured by western blotting. Differences among groups were compared by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test; means ± SD; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, between indicated groups or compared with controls.
Figure 4Effects of DFS on transcriptional profile, as determined by RNA-sequencing. (A) Oncogenic and tumor suppressor transcription factors measured by single gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA). (B) Expression of target genes of FOXM1 evaluated by RNA-sequencing. (C) Expression of Wnt signaling genes and β-catenin/TCF complex related genes evaluated by RNA-sequencing. (D) Heat map showing levels of expression of stemness- and invasiveness-associated genes. (E) Set of genes downregulated after treatment with DFS for 72 h. (F) Heat map showing levels of expression of cell cycle-related genes.
Figure 5Therapeutic effects of DFS in orthotopic xenograft models. (A,B) Tumor volumes of orthotopic xenograft models measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). (C) Kaplan–Meier analysis of survival probability of each group of mice, with comparisons by log-rank tests (P < 0.05) with Bonferroni adjustment. (D,E) To identify invading cells, section of the brains of killed mice were immunostained for Zeb1. From 10 photos captured for each mouse, the number of infiltrating Zeb+ cells (outside the red line in (D)) was tallied for each group (means ± SEM; *P < 0.01 compared with control). (F) Schematic summary of the study.