Prosurvival long noncoding RNA PINCR regulates a subset of p53 targets in human colorectal cancer cells by binding to Matrin 3

  1. Ritu Chaudhary
  2. Berkley Gryder
  3. Wendy S Woods
  4. Murugan Subramanian
  5. Matthew F Jones
  6. Xiao Ling Li
  7. Lisa M Jenkins
  8. Svetlana A Shabalina
  9. Min Mo
  10. Mary Dasso
  11. Yuan Yang
  12. Lalage M Wakefield
  13. Yuelin Zhu
  14. Susan M Frier
  15. Branden S Moriarity
  16. Kannanganattu V Prasanth
  17. Pablo Perez-Pinera
  18. Ashish Lal  Is a corresponding author
  1. National Institutes of Health, United States
  2. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, United States
  3. Ionis Pharmaceuticals, United States
  4. University of Minnesota, United States
  5. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States

Abstract

Thousands of long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been discovered, yet the function of the vast majority remains unclear. Here, we show that a p53-regulated lncRNA which we named PINCR (p53-induced noncoding RNA), is induced ~100-fold after DNA damage and exerts a prosurvival function in human colorectal cancer cells (CRC) in vitro and tumor growth in vivo. Targeted deletion of PINCR in CRC cells significantly impaired G1 arrest and induced hypersensitivity to chemotherapeutic drugs. PINCR regulates the induction of a subset of p53 targets involved in G1 arrest and apoptosis, including BTG2, RRM2B and GPX1. Using a novel RNA pulldown approach that utilized endogenous S1-tagged PINCR, we show that PINCR associates with the enhancer region of these genes by binding to RNA-binding protein Matrin 3 that, in turn, associates with p53. Our findings uncover a critical prosurvival function of a p53/PINCR/Matrin 3 axis in response to DNA damage in CRC cells.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ritu Chaudhary

    Regulatory RNAs and Cancer Section, Genetics Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Berkley Gryder

    Oncogenomics Section, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Gaithersburg, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Wendy S Woods

    Department of Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Murugan Subramanian

    Regulatory RNAs and Cancer Section, Genetics Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Matthew F Jones

    Regulatory RNAs and Cancer Section, Genetics Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Xiao Ling Li

    Regulatory RNAs and Cancer Section, Genetics Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Lisa M Jenkins

    Laboratory of Cell Biology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Svetlana A Shabalina

    National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Min Mo

    Laboratory of Gene Regulation and Development, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Mary Dasso

    Laboratory of Gene Regulation and Development, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Yuan Yang

    Laboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Lalage M Wakefield

    Laboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Yuelin Zhu

    Molecular Genetics Section, Genetics Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Susan M Frier

    Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Carlsbad, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Branden S Moriarity

    Department of Pediatrics, Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Kannanganattu V Prasanth

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Pablo Perez-Pinera

    Department of Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Ashish Lal

    Regulatory RNAs and Cancer Section, Genetics Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    ashish.lal@nih.gov
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4299-8177

Funding

National Cancer Institute (NIH IRP)

  • Ashish Lal

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

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 animal studies were conducted under protocol LC-070 approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the National Cancer Institute, The Frederick National Laboratory and the Center for Cancer Research are accredited by AALAC International and follow the Public Health Service Policy for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

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

  • 3,415
    views
  • 620
    downloads
  • 72
    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. Ritu Chaudhary
  2. Berkley Gryder
  3. Wendy S Woods
  4. Murugan Subramanian
  5. Matthew F Jones
  6. Xiao Ling Li
  7. Lisa M Jenkins
  8. Svetlana A Shabalina
  9. Min Mo
  10. Mary Dasso
  11. Yuan Yang
  12. Lalage M Wakefield
  13. Yuelin Zhu
  14. Susan M Frier
  15. Branden S Moriarity
  16. Kannanganattu V Prasanth
  17. Pablo Perez-Pinera
  18. Ashish Lal
(2017)
Prosurvival long noncoding RNA PINCR regulates a subset of p53 targets in human colorectal cancer cells by binding to Matrin 3
eLife 6:e23244.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23244

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23244

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Sofia V Krasik, Ekaterina A Bryushkova ... Ekaterina O Serebrovskaya
    Research Article

    The current understanding of humoral immune response in cancer patients suggests that tumors may be infiltrated with diffuse B cells of extra-tumoral origin or may develop organized lymphoid structures, where somatic hypermutation and antigen-driven selection occur locally. These processes are believed to be significantly influenced by the tumor microenvironment through secretory factors and biased cell-cell interactions. To explore the manifestation of this influence, we used deep unbiased immunoglobulin profiling and systematically characterized the relationships between B cells in circulation, draining lymph nodes (draining LNs), and tumors in 14 patients with three human cancers. We demonstrated that draining LNs are differentially involved in the interaction with the tumor site, and that significant heterogeneity exists even between different parts of a single lymph node (LN). Next, we confirmed and elaborated upon previous observations regarding intratumoral immunoglobulin heterogeneity. We identified B cell receptor (BCR) clonotypes that were expanded in tumors relative to draining LNs and blood and observed that these tumor-expanded clonotypes were less hypermutated than non-expanded (ubiquitous) clonotypes. Furthermore, we observed a shift in the properties of complementarity-determining region 3 of the BCR heavy chain (CDR-H3) towards less mature and less specific BCR repertoire in tumor-infiltrating B-cells compared to circulating B-cells, which may indicate less stringent control for antibody-producing B cell development in tumor microenvironment (TME). In addition, we found repertoire-level evidence that B-cells may be selected according to their CDR-H3 physicochemical properties before they activate somatic hypermutation (SHM). Altogether, our work outlines a broad picture of the differences in the tumor BCR repertoire relative to non-tumor tissues and points to the unexpected features of the SHM process.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Rosalyn W Sayaman, Masaru Miyano ... Mark A LaBarge
    Research Article Updated

    Effects from aging in single cells are heterogenous, whereas at the organ- and tissue-levels aging phenotypes tend to appear as stereotypical changes. The mammary epithelium is a bilayer of two major phenotypically and functionally distinct cell lineages: luminal epithelial and myoepithelial cells. Mammary luminal epithelia exhibit substantial stereotypical changes with age that merit attention because these cells are the putative cells-of-origin for breast cancers. We hypothesize that effects from aging that impinge upon maintenance of lineage fidelity increase susceptibility to cancer initiation. We generated and analyzed transcriptomes from primary luminal epithelial and myoepithelial cells from younger <30 (y)ears old and older >55 y women. In addition to age-dependent directional changes in gene expression, we observed increased transcriptional variance with age that contributed to genome-wide loss of lineage fidelity. Age-dependent variant responses were common to both lineages, whereas directional changes were almost exclusively detected in luminal epithelia and involved altered regulation of chromatin and genome organizers such as SATB1. Epithelial expression variance of gap junction protein GJB6 increased with age, and modulation of GJB6 expression in heterochronous co-cultures revealed that it provided a communication conduit from myoepithelial cells that drove directional change in luminal cells. Age-dependent luminal transcriptomes comprised a prominent signal that could be detected in bulk tissue during aging and transition into cancers. A machine learning classifier based on luminal-specific aging distinguished normal from cancer tissue and was highly predictive of breast cancer subtype. We speculate that luminal epithelia are the ultimate site of integration of the variant responses to aging in their surrounding tissue, and that their emergent phenotype both endows cells with the ability to become cancer-cells-of-origin and represents a biosensor that presages cancer susceptibility.