Increasing evidence highlights the important roles of microRNAs in mediating p53’s tumor suppression functions. Here, we report miR-139-5p as another new p53 microRNA target. p53 induced the transcription of miR-139-5p, which in turn suppressed the protein levels of phosphodiesterase 4D (PDE4D), an oncogenic protein involved in multiple tumor promoting processes. Knockdown of p53 reversed these effects. Also, overexpression of miR-139-5p decreased PDE4D levels and increased cellular cAMP levels, leading to BIM-mediated cell growth arrest. Furthermore, our analysis of human colorectal tumor specimens revealed significant inverse correlation between the expression of miR-139-5p and that of PDE4D. Finally, overexpression of miR-139-5p suppressed the growth of xenograft tumors, accompanied by decrease in PDE4D and increase in BIM. These results demonstrate that p53 inactivates oncogenic PDE4D by inducing the expression of miR-139-5p.https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15978.001
The human body is kept mostly free from tumors by the actions of so-called tumor suppressor genes. One such gene encodes a protein called p53, which prevents tumors from growing by regulating the activity of many other genes that either inhibit cell growth or cause cells to die. For example, p53 regulates genes that encode short molecules called microRNAs, which in turn suppress the activity of other target genes.
Although a number of microRNAs have been reported as p53-regulated genes, there are still more to find. Discovering these genes would in turn help researchers to better understand exactly how p53 acts to suppress the growth of tumors, and to treat cancers caused by mutations in this tumor suppressor gene.
Cao, Wang et al. now discover a new microRNA – called miR-139-5p – as one that is activated by p53 in human cells. Colon tumors produce much lower levels of this microRNA than normal tissues, while the cancer cells with a higher level of miR-139-5p grow slower than do the cancer cells with less miR-139-5p. Further experiments showed that this is because miR-139-5p can suppress the production of a protein called PDE4D, which is often highly expressed in human cancers. The suppression of PDE4D by this microRNA results in an increase in the levels of a protein that can cause cancer cells to die.
Cao, Wang et al. suggest that miR-139-5p and PDE4D form part of a signaling pathway that plays an important role in suppressing the growth of colon cancer cells. Since microRNAs often have more than one target, future studies could explore if miR-139-5p regulates the production of other cancer-related proteins as well.https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15978.002
microRNAs (miRNAs) represent a class of cellular short non-coding RNAs responsible for modulating the expression of their target genes at the post-transcriptional level. Abnormal regulation of miRNAs is associated with human cancer development and staging (Lu et al., 2005). Over the past decade, increasing attention has been drawn to the role of miRNAs in p53 signaling network, and a number of miRNAs have been identified as p53 target genes (Liao et al., 2014a). These miRNAs are involved in multiple biological processes, including cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, glycolysis and so on. Also, they often connect p53 with other signaling pathways (Christoffersen et al., 2010; Sachdeva et al., 2009; Liang et al., 2013). Although miRNAs have been appreciated as important mediators of p53’s tumor suppression functions, a lot still remain unexplored to better understand the fine-tuning of p53 signaling and crosstalk with other pathways by these RNAs. In this study, we identified miR-139-5p as a novel p53 target gene and demonstrated a new pathway connecting p53 and miR-139-5p with an oncogenic protein PDE4D as a new target of this miRNA and its downstream cAMP signaling.
In order to identify potential p53 target microRNAs, we used colon cancer cell lines, HCT116 p53+/+ and HCT116 p53-/-, the latter of which were genetically engineered to lose the expression of wild type (WT) p53 (Bunz et al., 1998). Both cells were treated with 4 μM Inauhzin-C (INZ-C), which is a p53 activating compound discovered in our lab (Zhang et al., 2012). After confirmation of p53 and its targets induction through Western blot (Figure 1A) and quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) (Figure 1B), the total RNA was extracted and sent to ArrayStar for miRNA-sequencing analysis. The results revealed that in addition to known p53 target microRNAs, such as miR-34a, miR-1246 and miR-143 (Liao et al., 2014a; Suzuki et al., 2009), miR-139 was also significantly induced in HCT116 p53+/+, but not HCT116 p53-/-, cells, suggesting miR-139 as a potential p53 target (Figure 1C). We independently confirmed this observation by detecting miR-139-5p expression after treating HCT116 p53+/+/HCT116 p53-/- and H460 (WT p53)/H1299 (p53 null) cells with DMSO or 4 μM INZ-C. miR-139-5p was significantly induced only in p53 positive, but not in p53 null, cells (Figure 1D). In contrast, p53 knockdown decreased miR-139-5p expression by more than 50% in H460 and U2OS cells (Figure 1E). These data indicate that miR-139-5p is a possible p53 target gene.
After carefully analyzing the genomic sequence of the miR-139 gene using p53MH algorism (Hoh et al., 2002), we found a highly conserved putative p53 responsive element (RE) located at the 5’ flanking region (Figure 2A). To test if endogenous p53 binds to this p53RE sequence, we conducted a chromatin-associated immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assay after treating H460 or HCT116 p53+/+ cells with 0.5 μM Doxorubicin for p53 induction. In both cell lines, the binding of p53 with the p53RE was dramatically increased upon Doxorubicin treatment as compared to non-treatment control, indicated by p53RE sequence pulled down with p53 specific antibody DO-1, but not non-specific immunoglobulin G (Figure 2B). Also, we assessed luciferase expression driven by either a wild type or a mutant-p53RE-motif-containing miR-139 sequence (Figure 2C) in H1299 cells. GFP-p53 markedly induced luciferase activity in a dose-dependent manner when wild type miR-139 p53RE, but not the mutant p53RE, was used (Figure 2D). These results clearly show that p53 binds to the miR-139 promoter region and thus regulates the transcription of miR-139.
By using the online microRNA target prediction tool (Maragkakis et al., 2009), we searched for potential RNA targets of miR-139-5p. After screening several candidates, PDE4D turned out to be an ideal target as its 3’-untranslated region (3’-UTR) contains miR-139-5p targeting sequence (Figure 3A). Overexpression of miR-139-5p mimic markedly reduced the expression of PDE4D in H460 and A549 cells (Figure 3B). The type-I insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF-IR), a previously reported miR-139-5p target (Shen et al., 2012), was also decreased by miR-139-5p mimic, indicating the activity of miR-139-5p used here (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). PDE4D belongs to the family of phosphodiesterases and is a cyclic AMP (cAMP) specific phosphodiesterase with several splice variants (Omori and Kotera, 2007). It is an oncogenic protein that regulates cancer cell proliferation, angiogenesis and apoptosis (Lin et al., 2013; Ogawa et al., 2002; Pullamsetti et al., 2013; Rahrmann et al., 2009). To further test whether the downregulation of PDE4D by miR-139-5p is through direct regulation on its mRNA, we constructed the WT or mutant predicted miR-139-5p target sites into the pMIR-Report system that contains the luciferase reporter gene subjected to regulation mimicking the microRNA target (Figure 3C). When co-transfecting H1299 cells with miR-139-5p, only the pMIR-PDE4D-WT, but not the pMIR-PDE4D-mutant, displayed suppressed expression (Figure 3D), suggesting that miR-139-5p regulates PDE4D expression by directly binding to the target sequence at 3’-UTR of PDE4D mRNA.
In line with the above results, activation of p53 by doxorubicin in H460 and A549 cells significantly reduced the protein levels of PDE4D (Figure 3E, left panel). Notably, the PDE4D variants with smaller molecular weight have been reported to possess stronger oncogenic activities due to the lack of functional inhibitory domains as compared to the longer forms (Lin et al., 2013). Nevertheless, miR-139-5p transfection and doxorubicin treatment led to similar expression inhibition of both the long and the short variants of PDE4D, indicating that this newly identified pathway has broader inhibition on PDE4D. In contrast, knocking down p53 elevated PDE4D expression in these two cell lines (Figure 3E, right panel). We then assessed the effect of miR-139-5p on PDE4D in PC-3, a p53 null cell line, and found similar reduction of PDE4D by miR-139-5p mimic (Figure 3—figure supplement 2). To further validate the regulatory role of p53 on PDE4D, we also treated HCT116 p53+/+ and HCT116 p53-/- cells with 10 μM Nutlin-3 (Nut), which disrupts MDM2-p53 interaction and therefore activates p53 (Vassilev et al., 2004), and 5 nM Actinomycin D (ActD), which causes ribosomal stress-mediated p53 activation (Iapalucci-Espinoza and Franze-Fernández, 1979), and found PDE4D was reduced by both of these two drugs only in p53 positive, but not p53 negative, cells (Figure 3—figure supplement 3). These results suggest that this suppression of PDE4D is p53 dependent in response to various stresses.
Furthermore, doxorubicin inhibited pMIR-PDE4D activity, but introduction of miR-139-5p inhibitor reversed this inhibition (Figure 3F). Consistently, the suppression of PDE4D protein by doxorubicin was also compromised in the presence of miR-139-5p inhibitor (Figure 3G). Collectively, these findings demonstrate that activation of p53 can induce the expression of miR-139-5p that in turn suppresses the expression of oncogenic protein PDE4D.
Since PDE4D is a cAMP specific phosphodiesterase, ectopic expression of miR-139-5p in A549 cells led to significant increase of cellular cAMP levels (Figure 4A). Also, consistent with our results shown in Figure 3F and Figure 3G, doxorubicin treatment increased cellular cAMP levels in A549 cells, which were alleviated by the miR-139-5p inhibitor (Figure 4—figure supplement 1). In addition, Nutlin-3, a more specific p53-activating reagent, showed similar effect on cAMP level, which was also reversed in the presence of miR-139-5p inhibitor (Figure 4B). In contrast, in H1299 cells, which are p53-null and express non-detectable PDE4D, neither doxorubicin nor miR-139-5p affected cellular cAMP level (Figure 4—figure supplement 2). Notably, the rescue effect of miR-139-5p on A549 cell growth inhibition by Nutlin-3 was correlated with the change of cAMP levels (Figure 4—figure supplement 3). These data indicate that p53 activation could modulate cAMP levels through miR-139-5p.
Depletion of PDE4D was previously reported to induce BIM-mediated apoptosis through activation of the cAMP pathway (Lin et al., 2013; Zambon et al., 2011). We found that introduction of miR-139-5p into H460 and A549 cells dramatically increased BIM protein expression (Figure 4C). As expected, treatment with 10 μM Nutlin-3 also induced BIM expression in HCT116 p53+/+, but not HCT116 p53-/-, cells (Figure 4—figure supplement 4), supporting that BIM induction is p53-dependent. Consequently, A549 cell growth was significantly inhibited by miR-139-5p or Nutlin-3, both of which were attenuated by knocking down BIM using siRNA (Figure 4D, Figure 4—figure supplement 5). Inversely, introduction of miR-139-5p inhibitor into A549 cells significantly alleviated cell growth inhibition by several p53 activating drugs, including INZ-C, Actinomycin D and Nutlin-3 (Figure 4—figure supplements 3 and 6). These results demonstrate that in response to p53 activation, increased miR-139-5p induces BIM-mediated cell growth arrest via the PDE4D/cAMP pathway.
In order to determine the clinical relevance of miR-139-5p regulation of PDE4D, we obtained 50 paired human colon tumor specimens and their adjacent normal tissues and conducted qRT-PCR analysis on these specimens. miR-139-5p expression was significantly lower while PDE4D was higher in these tumor specimens than that in their normal tissues (Figure 5A). Pearson’s correlation analysis of the expression results from the tumor specimens and normal tissues revealed that miR-139-5p is inversely correlated with PDE4D expression (Figure 5A, bottom panel). These results provide clinical evidence supporting miR-139-5p as a negative regulator of PDE4D, consistent with our above results.
To validate this clinical correlation, we established a xenograft model using SW480 cells stably expressing either scramble oligos (Control) or miR-139-5p. As expected, miR-139-5p expressing tumors grew significantly slowly as compared to control tumors starting at day 16 after inoculation (Figure 5B). The difference of miR-139-5p expression in these two groups of tumors was comparable to that observed in human specimens (Figure 5C vs Figure 5A). Immunohistochemistry analysis revealed that in the miR-139-5p overexpressing tumors, PDE4D expression was markedly repressed, while tumor cell proliferation was significantly inhibited as reflected by Ki67 staining (Figure 5D and Figure 5—figure supplement 1). Consistent with our in vitro observation, BIM expression was also elevated in miR-139-5p tumors (Figure 5E). These findings suggest that the tumor suppressor role of miR-139-5p is likely attributed to its regulation of the PDE4D/BIM pathway.
In summary, this study for the first time demonstrates that p53 can induce the expression of miR-139-5p (Figure 1 and Figure 2), which in turn suppresses the expression of an oncogenic protein PDE4D (Figure 3) and leads to cAMP/BIM-mediated cell growth arrest (Figure 4). Significantly, miR-139-5p expression is negatively correlated with PDE4D in human colorectal tumor and normal tissues, and overexpression of miR-139-5p is associated with slower tumor growth in the xenograft model, which is accompanied with PDE4D suppression, BIM induction and cell proliferation inhibition (Figure 5). As a potential tumor suppressor, miR-139 was previously shown to be downregulated in human hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal cancer with characterized targets including Rho-kinase 2, IGF-IR and RAP1B (Guo et al., 2012; Shen et al., 2012; Wong et al., 2011). Here, we identified PDE4D, an oncogenic protein that is upregulated in various human cancers (Lin et al., 2013), as another novel target of this miRNA. Inhibition or depletion of PDE4D significantly induces apoptosis and inhibits proliferation of cancer cells (Lin et al., 2013; Ogawa et al., 2002; Rahrmann et al., 2009). Notably, the oncogenic property of PDE4D involves the cAMP/BIM pathway (Lin et al., 2013; Zambon et al., 2011). cAMP is an important secondary messenger mediating diverse cellular processes with protein kinase A as its main effector (Taskén and Aandahl, 2004). In particular, lower cAMP levels favor cancer cell survival and proliferation, which can be reversed by inhibition of PDE4D, the cAMP specific phopsphodiesterase (Goldhoff et al., 2008; Lin et al., 2013; Murata et al., 2000; Ogawa et al., 2002). The tumor suppressor role of p53 has been extensively documented over the last two decades, and is highly attributable to its regulation of target genes involved in cell cycle arrest, apoptosis and senescence (Bieging et al., 2014; Levine, 2011). More recent discoveries revealed that p53 is also a critical mediator of metabolic pathways that are important for tumor survival (Bieging et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2015; Wang and Gu, 2014). Based on our findings, we propose a p53-miR-139-5p-PDE4D-cAMP-BIM pathway as a novel pathway that can mediate p53’s tumor suppression function to modulate cellular cAMP levels by inhibiting PDE4D expression via miR-139-5p, and deregulation of this pathway would be highly associated with tumorigenesis (Figure 5F).
Human HCT116 p53+/+ (RRID: CVCL_0291) and HCT116 p53-/- (RRID: CVCL_S744) cells were generous gifts from Dr. Bert Vogelstein at the John Hopkins Medical Institutes. A549 (RRID: CVCL_0023), HepG2 (RRID: CVCL_0027), U2OS (RRID: CVCL_0042), H460 (RRID: CVCL_0459) and H1299 (RRID: CVCL_0060) cells were purchased from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). All cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) and PC3 (RRID: CVCL_0035) cells (also from ATCC) in RPMI 1640 medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 50 U/ml penicillin and 0.1 mg/ml streptomycin at 37°C in 5% CO2. STR profiling was performed to ensure cell identity. No mycoplasma contamination was found.
The pGL3-miR-139 luciferase reporter plasmid was constructed from the miR-139 promoter with primers as listed in Supplementary file 1. The fragment was inserted into pGL3 at the MluI and XhoI sites. The pGL3-miR-139-mut was generated by site-directed mutagenesis with primers listed in Supplementary file 1 using pGL3-miR-139 as template. The pMIR-PDE4D and pMIR-PDE4D mutant plasmids were constructed by inserting the miR-139-5p-targeted PDE4D mRNA-coding sequence or its mutant into the pMIR vector (Ambion) at the SpeI and HindIII sites. The pSIF-H1-miR-139-5p was constructed by inserting annealed oligos as listed in Supplementary file 1 into the pSIF-H1 vector at BamHI and EcoRI sites, as per manufacturer’s instruction. The anti-p21 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, RRID: AB_10986834), anti-p53 (DO-1, Santa Cruz, Dallas, TX, RRID: AB_628082), anti-PDE4D (Aviva Systems Biology, San Diego, CA, RRID: AB_10879817), and anti-BIM (Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA, RRID: AB_10692515) antibodies used here were commercially purchased. The anti-MDM2 (2A10 and 4B11) antibodies were described previously (Jin et al., 2002).
Inauhzin-C (INZ-C) was reported previously (Zhang et al., 2012). Doxorubicin (Dox) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich.
qRT-PCR for mature microRNAs was carried out by using the methods as described previously (Tang et al., 2006). qRT-PCR for other genes were conducted using the protocol as described before (Sun et al., 2008). Relative gene expression was calculated using the ΔΔCT method. All reactions were carried out in triplicate.
As described previously (Jin et al., 2008), briefly, cells were transfected with plasmids as indicated in each figure by using TurboFect (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA) and following the company’s manuals. Cells were harvested and lysed in lysis buffer 48 hr post transfection. The total protein concentrations were determined using a BioRad protein assay kit and equal amounts of total proteins (50 μg, otherwise indicated specifically) were then subjected to SDS-PAGE, followed by WB with antibodies as indicated in each figure.
Hsa-mir-139-5p mimic and Negative control were purchased from Gene Pharma (Shanghai, China). Anti-miR miRNA Inhibitor and Anti-miR miRNA Inhibitors—Negative Control were purchased from Ambion. p53 siRNA was purchased from Santa Cruz. Two BIM siRNA (siBIM-1, ID: 19,474 and siBIM-2, ID: 195012) were purchased from Ambion. Transfection of miRNA inhibitors was performed using the same method as that for normal siRNA as described previously (Sun et al., 2008).
Cells were transfected with pCMV-β-galactoside and indicated plasmids (total plasmid DNA 1 μg/well) as indicated in figures. Luciferase activity was determined and normalized by a factor of β-gal activity in the same assay as described previously (Jin et al., 2006).
ChIP analysis was performed as described previously using p53 (DO-1) antibodies for endogenous p53 (Liao and Lu, 2013; Liao et al., 2014b). Immunoprecipitated DNA fragments were analyzed by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) amplification using primers for miR-139 gene. The primers are listed in Supplementary file 1 online.
cAMP-GloTM Assay (Promega, Madison, WI) was performed to measure the cellular cAMP concentration as per manufacturer’s instructions.
Fifty paired colorectal tumors and adjacent non-tumor tissues were collected and histopathologically diagnosed at the Departments of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Pathology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University. Patient consent and Institutional Research Ethics Committee approval were obtained prior to the use of these clinical materials for research purposes.
SW480 cells (1 × 107) stably expressing pEZX-scramble control sequence (Vector) or pEZX-miR-139-5p were inoculated subcutaneously into the right flank of female BALB/c nude mouse (four weeks old, n = 6 per group). The tumor volume was measured every three days and calculated as 0.524 × length × width2 (Gleave et al., 1992). At the conclusion of the experiments, tumors were removed and fixed in 10% formalin for paraffin embedding and histological analysis, or flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen for Western blot and qRT-PCR analysis. All experimental procedures were approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China). H & E staining and immunohistochemistry were described previously (Cao et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2013). Quantitative analysis of IHC staining was achieved by categorizing the staining intensity to low, medium and high as determined by ImageJ software (NIH).
The Student’s two-tailed t test was used to compare the mean differences between treatment and control groups, unless otherwise indicated. Data are presented as Mean ± SD (standard deviation). p<0.05 was determined as statistically significant.
Unravelling mechanisms of p53-mediated tumour suppressionNature Reviews Cancer 14:359–370.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3711
20(S)-protopanaxadiol-aglycone downregulation of the full-length and splice variants of androgen receptorInternational Journal of Cancer 132:1277–1287.https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.27754
p53-independent upregulation of miR-34a during oncogene-induced senescence represses MYCCell Death and Differentiation 17:236–245.https://doi.org/10.1038/cdd.2009.109
Serum prostate specific antigen levels in mice bearing human prostate LNCaP tumors are determined by tumor volume and endocrine and growth factorsCancer Research 52:1598–1605.
Targeted inhibition of cyclic AMP phosphodiesterase-4 promotes brain tumor regressionClinical Cancer Research 14:7717–7725.https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0827
Regulation of RAP1B by miR-139 suppresses human colorectal carcinoma cell proliferationThe International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology 44:1465–1472.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocel.2012.05.015
MDM2 inhibits PCAF (p300/CREB-binding protein-associated factor)-mediated p53 acetylationJournal of Biological Chemistry 277:30838–30843.https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M204078200
MDMX promotes proteasomal turnover of p21 at G1 and early S phases independently of, but in cooperation with, MDM2Molecular and Cellular Biology 28:1218–1229.https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.01198-07
Transcriptional cooperation between p53 and NF-κB p65 regulates microRNA-224 transcription in mouse ovarian granulosa cellsMolecular and Cellular Endocrinology 370:119–129.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2013.02.014
ChIP for identification of p53 responsive DNA promotersMethods in Molecular Biology 962:201–210.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-236-0_17
New insights into p53 functions through its target microRNAsJournal of Molecular Cell Biology 6:206–213.https://doi.org/10.1093/jmcb/mju018
DIANA-microT web server: elucidating microRNA functions through target predictionNucleic Acids Research 37:W273–276.https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp292
Cyclic AMP specific phosphodiesterase activity and colon cancer cell motilityClinical & Experimental Metastasis 18:599–604.
Overview of PDEs and their regulationCirculation Research 100:309–327.https://doi.org/10.1161/01.RES.0000256354.95791.f1
Mycophenolic acid activation of p53 requires ribosomal proteins L5 and L11Journal of Biological Chemistry 283:12387–12392.https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M801387200
MicroRNA expression profiling of single whole embryonic stem cellsNucleic Acids Research 34:e9.https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gnj009
Localized effects of cAMP mediated by distinct routes of protein kinase APhysiological Reviews 84:137–167.https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00021.2003
To be, or not to be: functional dilemma of p53 metabolic regulationCurrent Opinion in Oncology 26:78–85.https://doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0000000000000024
Increased expression of the pro-apoptotic protein BIM, a mechanism for cAMP/protein kinase A (PKA)-induced apoptosis of immature T cellsJournal of Biological Chemistry 286:33260–33267.https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.268979
Kevin StruhlReviewing Editor; Harvard Medical School, United States
In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.
[Editors’ note: a previous version of this study was rejected after two rounds of review, but the authors submitted for reconsideration. The first decision letter after peer review is shown below.]
Thank you for sending your work entitled "Inactivation of Oncogenic cAMP-specific Phosphodiesterase 4D by miR-139-5p in Response to p53 Activation" for consideration at eLife. Your article has been evaluated by a Senior editor and three reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors. The reviewers found the work potentially quite interesting, but raised a large number of concerns, all of which would need to be addressed successfully to make the paper suitable, after re-review, for eLife.
The Reviewing editor and the other reviewers discussed their comments before we reached this decision, and the Reviewing editor has assembled the following comments to help you prepare a revised submission.
The authors performed a differential expression analysis to look at p53 regulated micro RNAs in HCT116 cells that were treated with Inauhzin-C (INZ-C) and identified miR-139-5p as a new micro RNA p53 target. Their data show quite convincingly that this is a real p53 target since it is induced by Doxorubicin and INZ-C in a p53-dependent manner, that the miR-139-5p gene contains a p53 binding site to which Dox-induced p53 binds (by ChIP analysis) and that this sequence can serve as a p53 response element in a luciferase reporter assay. The authors go further and use computational analysis to identify a target of miR-139-5p as cAMP-specific phosphodiesterase4D (PDE4D) and in Figure 3 show that a mimic of miR-139-5p leads reduces expression of PDE4D while and inhibitor of miR-139-5p increased the levels of PDE4D. PDE4D is known to increase conversion of cAMP to AMP and in Figure 4 the authors show increased levels of cAMP upon introduction of the miR-139-5p mimic, and corresponding increased levels of Bim, shown previously to be downstream of cAMP mediated cell death. Finally, they show results from a clinical colon cancer patient dataset indicating a reciprocal relationship between miR-139-5p and PDE4D levels.
Identifying novel target of p53 is an important area of study, especially when these targets provide new insights into the mechanism of action of p53. Thus, the focus of this study could be appropriate for eLife if the authors were to provide more information as outlined in the comments below. The problem with this study, however, is that the authors do not have enough information as to whether, how or when the induction of miR-139-5p by p53 actually plays a role in any p53 outcomes in cells, in animals or in human cancer. There is no evidence for this newly described process in a physiological or pathological setting in vivo. For publication in a journal, such as eLife, some demonstration of the importance of this process in vivo needs to be provided. The authors would need to produce extensive and convincing data to allay the above concerns as well as the following more specific comments:
1) Figure 3. What is the relative concentration of the mature endogenous miR-139-5p when induced by p53 compared to the concentration of the miR-139-5p mimic? This is important because it is not clear whether p53 induction of endogenous miR-139-5p is sufficient to cause enough of a drop in PDE4D to have any impact on cAMP.
2) Figure 3G shows that there is a massive increase in the levels of PDE4D when the miR-139-5p inhibitor in introduced into cells even without Dox treatment. One would therefore expect that the levels of cAMP would be reduced. But in Figure 4B this is not the case. They only see an impact of the inhibitor on the levels that are increased by Dox treatment. Why is this?
3) Figure 4D: the authors show data indicating a modest but apparently convincing drop in cell viability upon introduction of the miR-139-5p mimic into cells. If BIM is the reason for this, then one would assume that knockdown of BIM would increase cell viability. But there does not appear to be any rescue by BIM knockdown in cells treated with the mimic and so their claim that the impact of miR-139-5p mimic is attenuated by BIM is not substantiated by the data. Understanding the biological consequences of this pathway is central to establishing this microRNA as an important target for p53. Knockdown of BIM is an important experimental approach. Multiple targeting sequences should be used for this knockdown to lessen the possibility of off-target effects. The authors also need to show that knockdown of BIM blocks some cellular outcome due to p53, presumably proliferation inhibition.
4) If p53 works via miR-139-5p to increase levels of cAMP after doxorubicin as the authors propose, they need to show this. Similarly, they need to show that the increase in BIM is p53 dependent. This is central to their conclusion.
5) While the authors show in Figure 4E an inverse correlation between miR-139-5p and PDE4D, is there a positive correlation between wild-type p53 and miR-139-5p in tumors?
6) Many of the differences shown, especially, the impact of mir-139-p on cell death and the impact of BIM knockdown on this cell death (Figure 4D) are very small. This questions the importance of this newly described process.
7) It is unclear whether the authors examined the p53 status in the clinical samples. Given the focus of the manuscript on p53 regulation, one would expect that p53 loss of mutation would be associated with higher levels of PDE4D. If this is not the case, the authors should comment on this.
8) The authors also need to address whether p53 is sufficient for these effects or do they only occur with DNA damage.
9) Along these lines as well, it should be tested whether the miR-139-5p inhibitor blocks this p53-dependent cellular outcome.
10) Although the authors cite examples from the published literature, it remains to be shown what is the nature of inhibition of proliferation that is seen. Use of additional assays beyond that of MTT would be informative in this regard.
11) The biological significance of the two bands for PDE4D that are seen should be discussed.
[Editors’ note: The second decision letter after peer review is shown below.]
Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled "Inactivation of Oncogenic cAMP-specific Phosphodiesterase 4D by miR-139-5p in Response to p53 Activation" for further consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by two peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Reviewing Editor and a Senior Editor. We regret to inform you that your work will not be considered further for publication in eLife.
While the referees indicate that your revised paper is of potential interest for eLife, the remaining issues are substantial, and both referees were concerned that you did not respond adequately to the previous critiques. If you can provide convincing data to address their concerns, your paper can be reconsidered for eLife. Alternately, as more experimentation would be required, you might want to submit your study to a more specialized journal.
In this revised paper the authors have responded to the most serious criticism that came from Reviewers 1 and 3, who made it clear that it did not go far enough to show physiological significance of the p53 target. The authors provide xenograft data, which are for the most part convincing and strengthen the paper. However, some of the previous concerns remain. If the authors can respond to these comments and provide better data where indicated this paper would be suitable for eLife. However, it should be noted that these are not new concerns, but rather points that the authors failed to properly address.
1) Most importantly, there was a concern about the biological relevance of the findings. The authors have now included a xenograft study. While this extends observations to an in vivo setting, they still have not shown that cellular outcomes are dependent upon this pathway. They state that there is Bim-mediated cell-cycle arrest and yet data was presented to argue that the outcome may in fact be apoptosis. It is not clear how BIM would induce a cell-cycle effect and the authors have not clearly stated which outcome they think is occurring in response to miR-139-5p regulation by p53. They note that BIM siRNA causes effects on cell viability and on the percent of cells with a hypodipold DNA content and yet the model in Figure 5F shows BIM causes a cell cycle effect. This is confusing.
2) As pointed out by reviewers 1 and 3 there are some cases (for example Figure 3D and Figure 4D) where effects were very modest and even if statistically significant. It is difficult to reconcile such modest effects with meaningful physiological outcomes.
3) Responses to the reviewers' comments were in some cases not really satisfactory. In one case (their point 3) they combine comments by two referees and respond to them as if they were one referee's comment. To this melded comment they provide data for the reviewers' eyes that 2 different siRNAs vs BIM have the same effect on Doxorubicin suppression of H460 cell proliferation. First, the "rescue" by BIM knockdown was very modest in the H460 cells. Second, the cells they use to show this are not the same that were in the paper in Figure 4D, where they used A549 cells. It does not seem very relevant to present data on a different assay in another cell line to make their point.
4) In another case their response to the comment "If p53 works via miR-139-5p to increase levels of cAMP as the authors propose, they need to show this". It was noted that cAMP levels do not track with outcomes. The authors' response was one of speculation rather than providing additional insights through experimental data.
5) Similarly, they need to show that the increase in BIM is p53 dependent. What they show is not very convincing. First, in Figure 4 doxorubicin is not really appropriate to use as a demonstration of p53-specific response because this drug has other p53-independent effects on cells, so Nutlin would be a better control. Second, in Figure 4—figure supplement 2, it is not appropriate to compare two cell lung cancer lines that differ in p53 status as a way to prove that BIM is induced in a p53-specific manner. They use wild-type p53 expressing H460 cells and compare these to p53-null H1299 cells. Yet these two cell lines differ in many more ways besides p53 status. An isogenically matched set of cells is needed to make this important point that the increase in BIM needs p53 under these conditions. Also the extent of induction is really very modest in the H460 cells. Either use the HCT116 pair of cells or knockdown p53 in the H460 cells.
This revised study by Cao et al. has identified a miR139-5p as a gene that is transactivated by p53 in Figures 1 and 2. In Figure 3 they provide evidence that PDE4D is a target of miR139-5p. They show in Figure 4 that levels of cAMP a known target of PDE4D, are up in miR139-5p mimic-containing cells or in Doxorubicin-treated cells. Also BIM, previously shown to be upregulated by cAMP, is increased by the miR-139 mimic. Finally in new data in Figure 5, they provide data from mouse xenograft studies and show that SW480 cells harboring a construct expression miR-139-5p produce smaller tumors than cells with a control vector and a representative sample shows lower PDE4D and Ki67 staining.
In this revised paper they have responded to the most serious criticisms that came from Reviewers 1 and 3 who made it clear that it did not go far enough to show physiological significance of the p53 target. The new xenograft data are for the most part convincing and strengthen the paper. However, some of the previous concerns remain. If the authors can respond to these comments and provide better data where indicated this paper would be suitable for eLife.
1) As pointed out by reviewers 1 and 3 there are some cases (for example Figure 3D and Figure 4D) where effects are very modest and even if statistically significant. It is difficult to reconcile such modest effects with meaningful physiological outcomes.
2) Their responses to the comments are in some cases not really satisfactory. In one case (their point 3) they combine comments by two referees and respond to them as if they were one referee's comment. To this melded comment they provide data for the reviewers' eyes that 2 different siRNAs vs BIM have the same effect on Doxorubicin suppression of H460 cell proliferation. First, the "rescue" by BIM knockdown is very modest in the H460 cells. Second, the cells they use to show this are not the same that were in the paper in Figure 4D where they used A549 cells. It does not seem very relevant to present data on a different assay in another cell line to make their point.
3) In another case their response to the comment "If p53 works via miR-139-5p to increase levels of cAMP as the authors propose, they need to show this. Similarly, they need to show that the increase in BIM is p53 dependent". Is not very convincing. First, in Figure 4B. Doxorubicin is not really appropriate to use as a demonstration of p53-specific response because this drug has other p53-independent effects on cells, so Nutlin would be a better control. Second, in Figure 4—figure supplement 2 it is not appropriate to compare two cell lung cancer lines that differ in p53 status as a way to prove that BIM is induced in a p53-specific manner. Also the extent of induction is really very modest in the H460 cells. Either use the HCT116 pair of cells or knockdown p53 in the H460 cells.
This is a revision of a previous submitted manuscript which attempts to argue that miR-139-5p is a novel p53 target and its mechanism of action is to increase cAMP levels via downregulation of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4D) and resulting Bim-mediated cell growth arrest. While the authors have addressed many of the concerns of the previous review, there remain several notable issues. If these can be addressed, the manuscript would be acceptable for publication. However, it should be noted that these are not new concerns, but rather points that the authors failed to properly address.
First, and most importantly, there was a concern about the biological relevance of the findings. The authors have now included a xenograft study. While this extends observations to an in vivo setting, they still have not shown that cellular outcomes are dependent upon this pathway. They state that there is Bim-mediated cell cycle arrest and yet data is presented to argue that the outcome may in fact be apoptosis. It is not clear how BIM would induce a cell cycle effect and the authors have not clearly stated which outcome they think is occurring in response to miR-139-5p regulation by p53. They note that BIM siRNA causes effects on cell viability and on the percent of cells with a hypodipold DNA content and yet the model in Figure 5F shows BIM causes a cell cycle effect. This is confusing.
Second, it was noted that cAMP levels do not track with outcomes. The authors' response is one of speculation rather than providing additional insights through experimental data.
Third, the p53-dependence of the BIM increase remains an issue. They use wild-type p53 expressing H460 cells and compare these to p53-null H1299 cells. Yet these two cell lines differ in many more ways besides p53 status. An isogenically matched set of cells is needed to make this important point that the increase in BIM needs p53 under these conditions.https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15978.024
- Wen Li
- Wen Li
- Hua Lu
- Hua Lu
- Hua Lu
- Hua Lu
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Hua Lu was supported in part by NIH-NCI grants R01CA095441, R01CA172468, R01CA127724, and R21 CA190775 as well as the Reynolds and Ryan Families Chair fund. Wen Li was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81172337, 30973395).
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) protocols (#4257R) of Tulane University. All surgery was performed under sodium pentobarbital anesthesia, and every effort was made to minimize suffering.
- Kevin Struhl, Reviewing Editor, Harvard Medical School, United States
© 2016, Cao et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.