| Literature DB >> 36035755 |
Minjeong Kang1, Raisa Kharbash1, Ja Min Byun2,3,4, Jaemin Jeon1, Ahsan Ausaf Ali1, Doyeong Ku1, Jimin Yoon1, Yongsuk Ku1, Jooyeon Sohn5, Seung-Jae V Lee5, Dong-Yeop Shin2,3,4, Youngil Koh2,3,4, Sung-Soo Yoon2,3,4, Junshik Hong2,3,4, Yoosik Kim1,6,7,8.
Abstract
Hypomethylating agents (HMAs), such as azacitidine and decitabine, induce cancer cell death by demethylating DNAs to promote the expression of tumor-suppressor genes. HMAs also reactivate the transcription of endogenous double-stranded RNAs (dsRNAs) that trigger the innate immune response and subsequent apoptosis via viral mimicry. However, the expression patterns of endogenous dsRNAs and their relevance in the efficacy of HMAs remain largely uninvestigated. Here, we employ amidine-conjugated spiropyran (Am-SP) to examine the dynamic expression pattern of total dsRNAs regulated by HMAs. By analyzing the bone-marrow aspirates of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia patients who received the HMAs, we find a dramatic increase in total dsRNA levels upon treatment only in patients who later benefited from the therapy. We further apply our approach in solid tumor cell lines and show that the degree of dsRNA induction correlates with the effectiveness of decitabine in most cases. Notably, when dsRNA induction is accompanied by increased expression of nc886 RNA, decitabine becomes ineffective. Collectively, our study establishes the potential application of monitoring the total dsRNA levels by a small molecule as an analytical method and a dynamic marker to predict the clinical outcome of the HMA therapy.Entities:
Keywords: MT: Noncoding RNAs; PKR; double-stranded RNAs; dynamic biomarker; hypomethylating agents; innate immune response; nc886; spiropyran
Year: 2022 PMID: 36035755 PMCID: PMC9385881 DOI: 10.1016/j.omtn.2022.07.014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Ther Nucleic Acids ISSN: 2162-2531 Impact factor: 10.183
Figure 1Interaction of the Am-MC with dsRNAs
(A) Schematic illustration of Am-SP, Am-MC, and Am-MCH+ used in this study. Interaction between Am-MC and dsRNA stabilizes Am-MCH+, resulting in decreased absorbance at 515 nm. (B, C) The absorbance spectra change of Am-MC by different concentrations of 20-bp poly AU (B) or poly GC (C) dsRNAs. (D) Quantification of the absorbance change at 515 nm by 20-bp poly AU or poly GC dsRNAs. (E) The absorbance spectra of Am-MC when poly AU dsRNAs with different lengths were added; 14 μM 100-bp poly AU, 70 μM 20-bp poly AU, and 140 μM 10-bp poly AU dsRNAs were used.
Figure 2Detection of total dsRNA from HCT116 cells
(A) The absorbance spectra of Am-MC when mock-treated (HCT116), RNase T1-treated (RNase T1), or RNase A-treated (RNase A) HCT116 total RNA was added. Quantified percentage change at 515-nm peak is shown on the right. (B) Recovery of the indicated amount of EGFP dsRNAs spiked in to 4 μg of total RNA from HCT116 cells. The absorbance spectra of Am-MC for one set of experiment is shown on the left. The middle shows quantified absorbance change for three biological replicates with linear fitting; 400 ng of RNase T1-treated samples were used for the analysis. The right shows the dot blot using a J2 antibody for one set of experiments and the quantified intensity of the biological triplicates; 1 μg of RNase T1-treated RNA was used for the analysis. (C) Selected ERV RNA expression in total RNAs extracted from HCT116 cells after treating them with DAC for the indicated number of days. (D) Dot-blot assay to detect elevated dsRNA expression after DAC treatment; 1 μg of total RNA from HCT116 cells 5 days after the DMSO (DAC−) or DAC treatment was used for the analysis. (E) Western blotting of the PKR signaling pathway on HCT116 cell lysates 5 days after the DMSO (DAC−) or DAC treatment. TUBB was used as a loading control. (F) The absorbance spectra (left) and quantified 515-nm peak (right) of 2 μg of RNase T1-treated total RNAs from HCT116 cells after DAC treatment for the indicated duration. (G) The absorbance spectra of Am-MC when RNAs from DAC-treated HCT116 cells (5 days after the treatment) were digested with RNase III; 2 μg of RNase III digested RNA was used. In all plots, an average of three biological replicates are shown with error bars indicating SD. A Student’s t test was used for pairwise comparison, and one-way ANOVA was also used to analyze the data in (F). ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Figure 3dsRNA induction as a dynamic marker for the HMA therapy
(A) Schematic of the process for analyzing dsRNA expression in patient bone-marrow aspirates. (B) The total dsRNA expression in bone-marrow aspirates measured by the absorbance change at 515 nm of Am-MC. A total of 10 paired patient (five non-responders and five responders) samples were analyzed. (C) Expression of eight selected ERV RNAs in bone-marrow aspirates from patients prior to receiving HMAs. Each ERV expression was normalized by the median. (D) The induction of eight selected ERV genes after receiving HMAs was analyzed by RT-qPCR. All ERV RNA expressions were normalized to that of GAPDH mRNA. A paired Student’s t test was used to compare Am-MC spectral change before and after the therapy. A non-paired Student’s t test was used to compare the Am-MC spectral change between responder and non-responder groups. ∗∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001.
Figure 4Analysis of dsRNA induction by DAC in solid tumor cell lines
(A) Heatmap of cell viability of different cancer cell lines 4 days after the DAC treatment. (B) Percentage absorbance change of 515-nm peak of Am-MC after incubating with 2 μg of RNase T1-treated RNAs from indicated cells. The average of three biological replicates is shown with error bars indicating SD. (C) Expression change of eight selected ERV RNAs measured by RT-qPCR. All ERV RNA expressions were normalized to that of GAPDH mRNA. The average of three biological replicates were shown with error bars denoting SD. (D) The correlation between cell viability and the absorbance change of Am-MC from day 0 to day 5. (E) The correlation between cell viability and the basal Am-MC absorbance at 515 nm.
Figure 5Optimizing DAC treatment condition using Am-MC
(A) Absorbance change of Am-MC upon addition of 2 μg of RNase T1-treated RNAs extracted from CAOV3 (left) or A375 (right) cells treated with DAC (1 μM for CAOV3 and 5 μM for A375). The average of three biological replicates is shown with error bars indicating SD. (B) Expression of eight selected ERV RNAs quantified by RT-qPCR. The average of three biological replicates is shown with error bars indicating SD. (C) The correlation between the cell viability and the absorbance change of Am-MC for two different treatment conditions. Vertical error bars (n = 4) and horizontal error bars (n = 3) were expressed as SD.
Figure 6Effect of nc886 in preventing DAC-mediated cell death
(A) Expression of nc886 RNA quantified by RT-qPCR in DAC-treated MCF-7 cells. nc886 RNA expressions were normalized to that of vtRNA1-1. (B) The downregulation of nc886 expression after transfecting cells with siRNAs against nc886. (C) The effect of knockdown of nc886 on cell viability with or without DAC treatment. MCF-7 cells 4 days after DMSO (DAC−) or DAC treatment were used. (D) Western blotting of the PKR signaling pathway when nc886 was knocked down with or without DAC treatment. MCF-7 cells 5 days after DMSO (DAC−) or DAC treatment were used for the analysis. siLuc was used as a transfection control (sinc886−), and TUBB was used as a loading control. Quantified data for biological triplicates is shown below. In all plots, the average of three biological replicates is shown with error bars indicating SD. ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001.