Imaging of glucose metabolism by 13C-MRI distinguishes pancreatic cancer subtypes in mice

  1. Shun Kishimoto
  2. Jeffrey R Brender  Is a corresponding author
  3. Daniel R Crooks
  4. Shingo Matsumoto
  5. Tomohiro Seki
  6. Nobu Oshima
  7. Hellmut Merkle
  8. Penghui Lin
  9. Galen Reed
  10. Albert P Chen
  11. Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen
  12. Jeeva Munasinghe
  13. Keita Saito
  14. Kazutoshi Yamamoto
  15. Peter L Choyke
  16. James Mitchell
  17. Andrew N Lane
  18. Teresa Fan
  19. W Marston Linehan
  20. Murali C Krishna  Is a corresponding author
  1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, United States
  2. Hokkaido University, Japan
  3. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, United States
  4. University of Kentucky, United States
  5. GE Healthcare, Canada

Abstract

Metabolic differences among and within tumors can be an important determinant in cancer treatment outcome. However, methods for determining these differences non-invasively in vivo is lacking. Using pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma as a model, we demonstrate that tumor xenografts with a similar genetic background can be distinguished by their differing rates of the metabolism of 13C labeled glucose tracers, which can be imaged without hyperpolarization using newly developed techniques for noise suppression. Using this method, cancer subtypes that appeared to have similar metabolic profiles based on steady state metabolic measurement can be distinguished from each other. The metabolic maps from 13C-glucose imaging localized lactate production and overall glucose metabolism to different regions of some tumors. Such tumor heterogeneity was not detectable in FDG-PET.

Data availability

Glucose imaging data and related files have been deposited to Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/XU9XH9

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Shun Kishimoto

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Jeffrey R Brender

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    cherukum@mail.nih.gov
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7487-6169
  3. Daniel R Crooks

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Shingo Matsumoto

    Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Division of Bioengineering and Bioinformatics, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Tomohiro Seki

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Nobu Oshima

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Hellmut Merkle

    National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Penghui Lin

    Department of Toxicology and Cancer Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Galen Reed

    Research Circle Technology, GE Healthcare, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    Galen Reed, is affiliated with GE HealthCare. The author has no other competing interests to declare..
  10. Albert P Chen

    Research Circle Technology, GE Healthcare, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    Albert P Chen, is affiliated with GE HealthCare. The author has no other competing interests to declare..
  11. Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen

    Research Circle Technology, GE Healthcare, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen, is affiliated with GE HealthCare. The author has no other competing interests to declare..
  12. Jeeva Munasinghe

    In Vivo NMR Center, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Keita Saito

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Kazutoshi Yamamoto

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Peter L Choyke

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. James Mitchell

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Andrew N Lane

    Department of Toxicology and Cancer Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Teresa Fan

    Department of Toxicology and Cancer Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. W Marston Linehan

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Murali C Krishna

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    murali@helix.nih.gov
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Funding

National Cancer Institute (1ZIASC006321-39)

  • James Mitchell

National Cancer Institute (Intramural Research Program)

  • Murali C Krishna

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ralph DeBerardinis, UT Southwestern Medical Center, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: The animal experiments were conducted according to a protocol approved by the Animal Research Advisory Committee of the NIH (RBB-159-2SA) in accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Animal Research.

Version history

  1. Received: February 23, 2019
  2. Accepted: August 8, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 13, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 22, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 3,389
    views
  • 417
    downloads
  • 20
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Shun Kishimoto
  2. Jeffrey R Brender
  3. Daniel R Crooks
  4. Shingo Matsumoto
  5. Tomohiro Seki
  6. Nobu Oshima
  7. Hellmut Merkle
  8. Penghui Lin
  9. Galen Reed
  10. Albert P Chen
  11. Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen
  12. Jeeva Munasinghe
  13. Keita Saito
  14. Kazutoshi Yamamoto
  15. Peter L Choyke
  16. James Mitchell
  17. Andrew N Lane
  18. Teresa Fan
  19. W Marston Linehan
  20. Murali C Krishna
(2019)
Imaging of glucose metabolism by 13C-MRI distinguishes pancreatic cancer subtypes in mice
eLife 8:e46312.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46312

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46312

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    Célia Guérin, David Tulasne
    Review Article

    Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) directed against MET have been recently approved to treat advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring activating MET mutations. This success is the consequence of a long characterization of MET mutations in cancers, which we propose to outline in this review. MET, a receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK), displays in a broad panel of cancers many deregulations liable to promote tumour progression. The first MET mutation was discovered in 1997, in hereditary papillary renal cancer (HPRC), providing the first direct link between MET mutations and cancer development. As in other RTKs, these mutations are located in the kinase domain, leading in most cases to ligand-independent MET activation. In 2014, novel MET mutations were identified in several advanced cancers, including lung cancers. These mutations alter splice sites of exon 14, causing in-frame exon 14 skipping and deletion of a regulatory domain. Because these mutations are not located in the kinase domain, they are original and their mode of action has yet to be fully elucidated. Less than five years after the discovery of such mutations, the efficacy of a MET TKI was evidenced in NSCLC patients displaying MET exon 14 skipping. Yet its use led to a resistance mechanism involving acquisition of novel and already characterized MET mutations. Furthermore, novel somatic MET mutations are constantly being discovered. The challenge is no longer to identify them but to characterize them in order to predict their transforming activity and their sensitivity or resistance to MET TKIs, in order to adapt treatment.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Kevin Nuno, Armon Azizi ... Ravindra Majeti
    Research Article

    Relapse of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is highly aggressive and often treatment refractory. We analyzed previously published AML relapse cohorts and found that 40% of relapses occur without changes in driver mutations, suggesting that non-genetic mechanisms drive relapse in a large proportion of cases. We therefore characterized epigenetic patterns of AML relapse using 26 matched diagnosis-relapse samples with ATAC-seq. This analysis identified a relapse-specific chromatin accessibility signature for mutationally stable AML, suggesting that AML undergoes epigenetic evolution at relapse independent of mutational changes. Analysis of leukemia stem cell (LSC) chromatin changes at relapse indicated that this leukemic compartment underwent significantly less epigenetic evolution than non-LSCs, while epigenetic changes in non-LSCs reflected overall evolution of the bulk leukemia. Finally, we used single-cell ATAC-seq paired with mitochondrial sequencing (mtscATAC) to map clones from diagnosis into relapse along with their epigenetic features. We found that distinct mitochondrially-defined clones exhibit more similar chromatin accessibility at relapse relative to diagnosis, demonstrating convergent epigenetic evolution in relapsed AML. These results demonstrate that epigenetic evolution is a feature of relapsed AML and that convergent epigenetic evolution can occur following treatment with induction chemotherapy.