Glutaminase 2 is a novel negative regulator of small GTPase Rac1 and mediates p53 function in suppressing metastasis

Abstract

Glutaminase (GLS) isoenzymes GLS1 and GLS2 are key enzymes for glutamine metabolism. Interestingly, GLS1 and GLS2 display contrasting functions in tumorigenesis with elusive mechanism; GLS1 promotes tumorigenesis, whereas GLS2 exhibits a tumor suppressive function. In this study, we found that GLS2 but not GLS1 binds to small GTPase Rac1 and inhibits its interaction with Rac1 activators guanine-nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs), which in turn inhibits Rac1 to suppress cancer metastasis. This function of GLS2 is independent of GLS2 glutaminase activity. Furthermore, decreased GLS2 expression is associated with enhanced metastasis in human cancer. As a p53 target, GLS2 mediates p53's function in metastasis suppression through inhibiting Rac1. In summary, our results reveal that GLS2 is a novel negative regulator of Rac1, and uncover a novel function and mechanism whereby GLS2 suppresses metastasis. Our results also elucidate a novel mechanism that contributes to the contrasting functions of GLS1 and GLS2 in tumorigenesis.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Cen Zhang

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Juan Liu

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Yuhan Zhao

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Xuetian Yue

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Yu Zhu

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Xiaolong Wang

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Hao Wu

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Felix Blanco

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Shaohua Li

    Department of Surgery, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Gyan Bhanot

    Department of Molecular Biology, Biochemistry and Physics, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Bruce G Haffty

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Wenwei Hu

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Zhaohui Feng

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    For correspondence
    fengzh@cinj.rutgers.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Michael R Green, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocol (I12-002)of Rutgers, State University of New Jersey.

Version history

  1. Received: August 7, 2015
  2. Accepted: December 6, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 11, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 28, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Zhang 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

  • 2,645
    views
  • 642
    downloads
  • 79
    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. Cen Zhang
  2. Juan Liu
  3. Yuhan Zhao
  4. Xuetian Yue
  5. Yu Zhu
  6. Xiaolong Wang
  7. Hao Wu
  8. Felix Blanco
  9. Shaohua Li
  10. Gyan Bhanot
  11. Bruce G Haffty
  12. Wenwei Hu
  13. Zhaohui Feng
(2016)
Glutaminase 2 is a novel negative regulator of small GTPase Rac1 and mediates p53 function in suppressing metastasis
eLife 5:e10727.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10727

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10727

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Allison Coté, Aoife O'Farrell ... Arjun Raj
    Research Article

    Splicing is the stepwise molecular process by which introns are removed from pre-mRNA and exons are joined together to form mature mRNA sequences. The ordering and spatial distribution of these steps remain controversial, with opposing models suggesting splicing occurs either during or after transcription. We used single-molecule RNA FISH, expansion microscopy, and live-cell imaging to reveal the spatiotemporal distribution of nascent transcripts in mammalian cells. At super-resolution levels, we found that pre-mRNA formed clouds around the transcription site. These clouds indicate the existence of a transcription-site-proximal zone through which RNA move more slowly than in the nucleoplasm. Full-length pre-mRNA undergo continuous splicing as they move through this zone following transcription, suggesting a model in which splicing can occur post-transcriptionally but still within the proximity of the transcription site, thus seeming co-transcriptional by most assays. These results may unify conflicting reports of co-transcriptional versus post-transcriptional splicing.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Maria L Adelus, Jiacheng Ding ... Casey E Romanoski
    Research Article

    Heterogeneity in endothelial cell (EC) sub-phenotypes is becoming increasingly appreciated in atherosclerosis progression. Still, studies quantifying EC heterogeneity across whole transcriptomes and epigenomes in both in vitro and in vivo models are lacking. Multiomic profiling concurrently measuring transcriptomes and accessible chromatin in the same single cells was performed on six distinct primary cultures of human aortic ECs (HAECs) exposed to activating environments characteristic of the atherosclerotic microenvironment in vitro. Meta-analysis of single-cell transcriptomes across 17 human ex vivo arterial specimens was performed and two computational approaches quantitatively evaluated the similarity in molecular profiles between heterogeneous in vitro and ex vivo cell profiles. HAEC cultures were reproducibly populated by four major clusters with distinct pathway enrichment profiles and modest heterogeneous responses: EC1-angiogenic, EC2-proliferative, EC3-activated/mesenchymal-like, and EC4-mesenchymal. Quantitative comparisons between in vitro and ex vivo transcriptomes confirmed EC1 and EC2 as most canonically EC-like, and EC4 as most mesenchymal with minimal effects elicited by siERG and IL1B. Lastly, accessible chromatin regions unique to EC2 and EC4 were most enriched for coronary artery disease (CAD)-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms from Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), suggesting that these cell phenotypes harbor CAD-modulating mechanisms. Primary EC cultures contain markedly heterogeneous cell subtypes defined by their molecular profiles. Surprisingly, the perturbations used here only modestly shifted cells between subpopulations, suggesting relatively stable molecular phenotypes in culture. Identifying consistently heterogeneous EC subpopulations between in vitro and ex vivo models should pave the way for improving in vitro systems while enabling the mechanisms governing heterogeneous cell state decisions.