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

  • 3,408
    views
  • 616
    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. Evolutionary Biology
    Susanne Tilk, Judith Frydman ... Dmitri A Petrov
    Research Article

    In asexual populations that don’t undergo recombination, such as cancer, deleterious mutations are expected to accrue readily due to genome-wide linkage between mutations. Despite this mutational load of often thousands of deleterious mutations, many tumors thrive. How tumors survive the damaging consequences of this mutational load is not well understood. Here, we investigate the functional consequences of mutational load in 10,295 human tumors by quantifying their phenotypic response through changes in gene expression. Using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), we find that high mutational load tumors up-regulate proteostasis machinery related to the mitigation and prevention of protein misfolding. We replicate these expression responses in cancer cell lines and show that the viability in high mutational load cancer cells is strongly dependent on complexes that degrade and refold proteins. This indicates that the upregulation of proteostasis machinery is causally important for high mutational burden tumors and uncovers new therapeutic vulnerabilities.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Kourosh Hayatigolkhatmi, Chiara Soriani ... Simona Rodighiero
    Tools and Resources

    Understanding the cell cycle at the single-cell level is crucial for cellular biology and cancer research. While current methods using fluorescent markers have improved the study of adherent cells, non-adherent cells remain challenging. In this study, we addressed this gap by combining a specialized surface to enhance cell attachment, the FUCCI(CA)2 sensor, an automated image analysis pipeline, and a custom machine learning algorithm. This approach enabled precise measurement of cell cycle phase durations in non-adherent cells. This method was validated in acute myeloid leukemia cell lines NB4 and Kasumi-1, which have unique cell cycle characteristics, and we tested the impact of cell cycle-modulating drugs on NB4 cells. Our cell cycle analysis system, which is also compatible with adherent cells, is fully automated and freely available, providing detailed insights from hundreds of cells under various conditions. This report presents a valuable tool for advancing cancer research and drug development by enabling comprehensive, automated cell cycle analysis in both adherent and non-adherent cells.