Tumor microenvironment derived exosomes pleiotropically modulate cancer cell metabolism

  1. Hongyun Zhao
  2. Lifeng Yang
  3. Joelle Baddour
  4. Abhinav Achreja
  5. Vincent Bernard
  6. Tyler Moss
  7. Juan Marini
  8. Thavisha Tudawe
  9. Elena G Seviour
  10. F Anthony San Lucas
  11. Hector Alvarez
  12. Sonal Gupta
  13. Sourindra N Maiti
  14. Laurence Cooper
  15. Donna Peehl
  16. Prahlad T Ram
  17. Anirban Maitra
  18. Deepak Nagrath  Is a corresponding author
  1. Rice University, United States
  2. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States
  3. University of Texas, MD Anderson, United States
  4. Baylor College of Medicine, United States
  5. Departments of Pathology and Translational Molecular Pathology, Ahmad Center for Pancreatic Cancer Research, United States
  6. Stanford University, United States

Abstract

Cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are a major cellular component of tumor microenvironment in most solid cancers. Altered cellular metabolism is a hallmark of cancer, and much of the published literature has focused on neoplastic cell-autonomous processes for these adaptations. We demonstrate that exosomes secreted by patient-derived CAFs can strikingly reprogram the metabolic machinery following their uptake by cancer cells. We find that CAF-derived exosomes (CDEs) inhibit mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, thereby increasing glycolysis and glutamine-dependent reductive carboxylation in cancer cells. Through 13C-labeled isotope labeling experiments we elucidate that exosomes supply amino acids to nutrient-deprived cancer cells in a mechanism similar to macropinocytosis, albeit without the previously described dependence on oncogenic-Kras signaling. Using intra-exosomal metabolomics, we provide compelling evidence that CDEs contain intact metabolites, including amino acids, lipids, and TCA-cycle intermediates that are avidly utilized by cancer cells for central carbon metabolism and promoting tumor growth under nutrient deprivation or nutrient stressed conditions.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hongyun Zhao

    Laboratory for Systems Biology of Human Diseases, Rice University, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Lifeng Yang

    Laboratory for Systems Biology of Human Diseases, Rice University, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Joelle Baddour

    Laboratory for Systems Biology of Human Diseases, Rice University, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Abhinav Achreja

    Laboratory for Systems Biology of Human Diseases, Rice University, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Vincent Bernard

    Departments of Pathology and Translational Molecular Pathology, Ahmad Center for Pancreatic Cancer Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Tyler Moss

    Department of Systems Biology, University of Texas, MD Anderson, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Juan Marini

    Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Thavisha Tudawe

    Department of Chemical and Biomolecular engineering, Rice University, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Elena G Seviour

    Department of Systems Biology, University of Texas, MD Anderson, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. F Anthony San Lucas

    Departments of Pathology and Translational Molecular Pathology, Ahmad Center for Pancreatic Cancer Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Hector Alvarez

    Departments of Pathology and Translational Molecular Pathology, Departments of Pathology and Translational Molecular Pathology, Ahmad Center for Pancreatic Cancer Research, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Sonal Gupta

    Departments of Pathology and Translational Molecular Pathology, Ahmad Center for Pancreatic Cancer Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Sourindra N Maiti

    Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Laurence Cooper

    Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Donna Peehl

    Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Prahlad T Ram

    Department of Systems Biology, University of Texas, MD Anderson, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Anirban Maitra

    Departments of Pathology and Translational Molecular Pathology, Ahmad Center for Pancreatic Cancer Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Deepak Nagrath

    Laboratory for Systems Biology of Human Diseases, Rice University, Houston, United States
    For correspondence
    dn7@rice.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2016, Zhao et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 19,516
    views
  • 6,296
    downloads
  • 751
    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. Hongyun Zhao
  2. Lifeng Yang
  3. Joelle Baddour
  4. Abhinav Achreja
  5. Vincent Bernard
  6. Tyler Moss
  7. Juan Marini
  8. Thavisha Tudawe
  9. Elena G Seviour
  10. F Anthony San Lucas
  11. Hector Alvarez
  12. Sonal Gupta
  13. Sourindra N Maiti
  14. Laurence Cooper
  15. Donna Peehl
  16. Prahlad T Ram
  17. Anirban Maitra
  18. Deepak Nagrath
(2016)
Tumor microenvironment derived exosomes pleiotropically modulate cancer cell metabolism
eLife 5:e10250.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10250

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10250

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Physics of Living Systems
    Deb Sankar Banerjee, Shiladitya Banerjee
    Research Article

    Accurate regulation of centrosome size is essential for ensuring error-free cell division, and dysregulation of centrosome size has been linked to various pathologies, including developmental defects and cancer. While a universally accepted model for centrosome size regulation is lacking, prior theoretical and experimental works suggest a centrosome growth model involving autocatalytic assembly of the pericentriolar material. Here, we show that the autocatalytic assembly model fails to explain the attainment of equal centrosome sizes, which is crucial for error-free cell division. Incorporating latest experimental findings into the molecular mechanisms governing centrosome assembly, we introduce a new quantitative theory for centrosome growth involving catalytic assembly within a shared pool of enzymes. Our model successfully achieves robust size equality between maturing centrosome pairs, mirroring cooperative growth dynamics observed in experiments. To validate our theoretical predictions, we compare them with available experimental data and demonstrate the broad applicability of the catalytic growth model across different organisms, which exhibit distinct growth dynamics and size scaling characteristics.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bhumil Patel, Maryke Grobler ... Needhi Bhalla
    Research Article

    Meiotic crossover recombination is essential for both accurate chromosome segregation and the generation of new haplotypes for natural selection to act upon. This requirement is known as crossover assurance and is one example of crossover control. While the conserved role of the ATPase, PCH-2, during meiotic prophase has been enigmatic, a universal phenotype when pch-2 or its orthologs are mutated is a change in the number and distribution of meiotic crossovers. Here, we show that PCH-2 controls the number and distribution of crossovers by antagonizing their formation. This antagonism produces different effects at different stages of meiotic prophase: early in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 prevents double-strand breaks from becoming crossover-eligible intermediates, limiting crossover formation at sites of initial double-strand break formation and homolog interactions. Later in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 winnows the number of crossover-eligible intermediates, contributing to the designation of crossovers and ultimately, crossover assurance. We also demonstrate that PCH-2 accomplishes this regulation through the meiotic HORMAD, HIM-3. Our data strongly support a model in which PCH-2’s conserved role is to remodel meiotic HORMADs throughout meiotic prophase to destabilize crossover-eligible precursors and coordinate meiotic recombination with synapsis, ensuring the progressive implementation of meiotic recombination and explaining its function in the pachytene checkpoint and crossover control.