1. Cancer Biology

KRAS-dependent sorting of miRNA to exosomes

  1. Diana J Cha
  2. Jeffrey L Franklin
  3. Yongchao Dou
  4. Qi Liu
  5. James N Higginbotham
  6. Michelle Demory Beckler
  7. Alissa M Weaver
  8. Kasey Vickers
  9. Nirpesh Prasad
  10. Shawn Levy
  11. Bing Zhang
  12. Robert J Coffey
  13. James G Patton  Is a corresponding author
  1. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States
  2. HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, United States
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07197
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Diana J Cha
  2. Jeffrey L Franklin
  3. Yongchao Dou
  4. Qi Liu
  5. James N Higginbotham
  6. Michelle Demory Beckler
  7. Alissa M Weaver
  8. Kasey Vickers
  9. Nirpesh Prasad
  10. Shawn Levy
  11. Bing Zhang
  12. Robert J Coffey
  13. James G Patton
(2015)
KRAS-dependent sorting of miRNA to exosomes
eLife 4:e07197.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07197
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

Abstract

Mutant KRAS colorectal cancer (CRC) cells release protein-laden exosomes that can alter the tumor microenvironment. To test whether exosomal RNAs also contribute to changes in gene expression in recipient cells, and whether mutant KRAS might regulate the composition of secreted miRNAs, we compared small RNAs of cells and matched exosomes from isogenic CRC cell lines differing only in KRAS status. We show that exosomal profiles are distinct from cellular profiles, and mutant exosomes cluster separately from wild type KRAS exosomes. miR-10b was selectively increased in wild type exosomes while miR-100 was increased in mutant exosomes. Neutral sphingomyelinase inhibition caused accumulation of miR-100 only in mutant cells, suggesting KRAS-dependent miRNA export. In Transwell co-culture experiments, mutant donor cells conferred miR-100-mediated target repression in wild type recipient cells. These findings suggest extracellular miRNAs can function in target cells and uncover a potential new mode of action for mutant KRAS in CRC.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Diana J Cha

    Department of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  2. Jeffrey L Franklin

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  3. Yongchao Dou

    Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  4. Qi Liu

    Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. James N Higginbotham

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  6. Michelle Demory Beckler

    Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  7. Alissa M Weaver

    Department of Cancer Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  8. Kasey Vickers

    Department of Cardiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  9. Nirpesh Prasad

    HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  10. Shawn Levy

    HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  11. Bing Zhang

    Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  12. Robert J Coffey

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  13. James G Patton

    Department of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
    For correspondence
    james.g.patton@vanderbilt.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Phillip D Zamore, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, United States

Version history

  1. Received: February 26, 2015
  2. Accepted: June 29, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 1, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 22, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Cha 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

  • 6,799
    views
  • 1,748
    downloads
  • 278
    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. Diana J Cha
  2. Jeffrey L Franklin
  3. Yongchao Dou
  4. Qi Liu
  5. James N Higginbotham
  6. Michelle Demory Beckler
  7. Alissa M Weaver
  8. Kasey Vickers
  9. Nirpesh Prasad
  10. Shawn Levy
  11. Bing Zhang
  12. Robert J Coffey
  13. James G Patton
(2015)
KRAS-dependent sorting of miRNA to exosomes
eLife 4:e07197.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07197

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07197

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology

    Recording and classifying MET receptor mutations in cancers

    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

    Convergent epigenetic evolution drives relapse in acute myeloid leukemia

    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.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology

    Early recovery of proteasome activity in cells pulse-treated with proteasome inhibitors is independent of DDI2

    Ibtisam Ibtisam, Alexei F Kisselev
    Short Report

    Rapid recovery of proteasome activity may contribute to intrinsic and acquired resistance to FDA-approved proteasome inhibitors. Previous studies have demonstrated that the expression of proteasome genes in cells treated with sub-lethal concentrations of proteasome inhibitors is upregulated by the transcription factor Nrf1 (NFE2L1), which is activated by a DDI2 protease. Here, we demonstrate that the recovery of proteasome activity is DDI2-independent and occurs before transcription of proteasomal genes is upregulated but requires protein translation. Thus, mammalian cells possess an additional DDI2 and transcription-independent pathway for the rapid recovery of proteasome activity after proteasome inhibition.