1. Cancer Biology
Download icon

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
Research Article
  • Cited 33
  • Views 2,751
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2017;6:e23244 doi: 10.7554/eLife.23244

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.

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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Joaquín M Espinosa, University of Colorado School of Medicine, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: November 12, 2016
  2. Accepted: May 20, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 5, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 14, 2017 (version 2)

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

  • 2,751
    Page views
  • 548
    Downloads
  • 33
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology

    Supervised mutational signatures for obesity and other tissue-specific etiological factors in cancer

    Bahman Afsari et al.
    Research Article

    Determining the etiologic basis of the mutations that are responsible for cancer is one of the fundamental challenges in modern cancer research. Different mutational processes induce different types of DNA mutations, providing 'mutational signatures' that have led to key insights into cancer etiology. The most widely used signatures for assessing genomic data are based on unsupervised patterns that are then retrospectively correlated with certain features of cancer. We show here that supervised machine-learning techniques can identify signatures, called SuperSigs, that are more predictive than those currently available. Surprisingly, we found that aging yields different SuperSigs in different tissues, and the same is true for environmental exposures. We were able to discover SuperSigs associated with obesity, the most important lifestyle factor contributing to cancer in Western populations.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology

    Ral GTPases promote breast cancer metastasis by controlling biogenesis and organ targeting of exosomes

    Shima Ghoroghi et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Cancer extracellular vesicles (EVs) shuttle at distance and fertilize pre-metastatic niches facilitating subsequent seeding by tumor cells. However, the link between EV secretion mechanisms and their capacity to form pre-metastatic niches remains obscure. Using mouse models, we show that GTPases of the Ral family control, through the phospholipase D1, multi-vesicular bodies homeostasis and tune the biogenesis and secretion of pro-metastatic EVs. Importantly, EVs from RalA or RalB depleted cells have limited organotropic capacities in vivoand are less efficient in promoting metastasis. RalA and RalB reduce the EV levels of the adhesion molecule MCAM/CD146, which favors EV-mediated metastasis by allowing EVs targeting to the lungs. Finally, RalA, RalB, and MCAM/CD146, are factors of poor prognosis in breast cancer patients. Altogether, our study identifies RalGTPases as central molecules linking the mechanisms of EVs secretion and cargo loading to their capacity to disseminate and induce pre-metastatic niches in a CD146-dependent manner.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cancer Biology

    Identification of PARP-7 substrates reveals a role for MARylation in microtubule control in ovarian cancer cells

    Lavanya H Palavalli Parsons et al.
    Research Article

    PARP-7 (TiPARP) is a mono(ADP-ribosyl) transferase whose proteins substrates and biological activities are poorly understood. We observed that PARP7 mRNA levels are lower in ovarian cancer patient samples compared to non-cancerous tissue, but PARP-7 protein nonetheless contributes to several cancer-related biological endpoints in ovarian cancer cells (e.g., growth, migration). Global gene expression analyses in ovarian cancer cells subjected to PARP-7 depletion indicate biological roles for PARP-7 in cell-cell adhesion and gene regulation. To identify the MARylated substrates of PARP-7 in ovarian cancer cells, we developed an NAD+ analog-sensitive approach, which we coupled with mass spectrometry to identify the PARP-7 ADP-ribosylated proteome in ovarian cancer cells, including cell-cell adhesion and cytoskeletal proteins. Specifically, we found that PARP-7 MARylates α-tubulin to promote microtubule instability, which may regulate ovarian cancer cell growth and motility. In sum, we identified an extensive PARP-7 ADP-ribosylated proteome with important roles in cancer-related cellular phenotypes.