1. Cancer Biology
Download icon

Synergistic interactions with PI3K inhibition that induce apoptosis

  1. Yaara Zwang
  2. Oliver Jonas
  3. Casandra Chen
  4. Mikael L Rinne
  5. John G Doench
  6. Federica Piccioni
  7. Li Tan
  8. Hai-Tsang Huang
  9. Jinhua Wang
  10. Young Jin Ham
  11. Joyce O'Connell
  12. Patrick Bhola
  13. Mihir Doshi
  14. Matthew Whitman
  15. Michael Cima
  16. Anthony Letai
  17. David E Root
  18. Robert S Langer
  19. Nathanael S Gray
  20. William C Hahn  Is a corresponding author
  1. Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, United States
  2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
  3. Dana Farber Cancer Institute, United States
  4. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 9
  • Views 2,271
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2017;6:e24523 doi: 10.7554/eLife.24523
Voice your concerns about research culture and research communication: Have your say in our 7th annual survey.

Abstract

Activating mutations involving the PI3K pathway occur frequently in human cancers. However, PI3K inhibitors primarily induce cell cycle arrest, leaving a significant reservoir of tumor cells that may acquire or exhibit resistance. We searched for genes that are required for the survival of PI3K mutant cancer cells in the presence of PI3K inhibition by conducting a genome scale shRNA-based apoptosis screen in a PIK3CA mutant human breast cancer cell. We identified 5 genes (PIM2, ZAK, TACC1, ZFR, ZNF565) whose suppression induced cell death upon PI3K inhibition. We showed that small molecule inhibitors of the PIM2 and ZAK kinases synergize with PI3K inhibition. In addition, using a microscale implementable device to deliver either siRNAs or small molecule inhibitors in vivo, we showed that suppressing these 5 genes with PI3K inhibition induced tumor regression. These observations identify targets whose inhibition synergizes with PI3K inhibitors and nominate potential combination therapies involving PI3K inhibition.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Yaara Zwang

    Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Oliver Jonas

    The David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Casandra Chen

    Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Mikael L Rinne

    Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. John G Doench

    Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Federica Piccioni

    Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Li Tan

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Hai-Tsang Huang

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Jinhua Wang

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Young Jin Ham

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Joyce O'Connell

    Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Patrick Bhola

    Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Mihir Doshi

    Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Matthew Whitman

    The David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Michael Cima

    The David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Anthony Letai

    Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. David E Root

    Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Robert S Langer

    The David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Nathanael S Gray

    Department of Cancer Biology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5354-7403
  20. William C Hahn

    Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, United States
    For correspondence
    william_hahn@dfci.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    William C Hahn, Consultant for Novartis.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2840-9791

Funding

Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (W81XWH-12-1-0115)

  • Yaara Zwang

National Institutes of Health (U01 CA176058)

  • William C Hahn

National Cancer Institute (R21-CA177391)

  • Oliver Jonas

National Institutes of Health (R01 CA130988)

  • William C Hahn

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animals were maintained under conditions approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (IACUC protocol #04-101) and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (IACUC protocol #0412-038-15).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Chi Van Dang, University of Pennsylvania, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: December 21, 2016
  2. Accepted: May 30, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 31, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 21, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2017, Zwang 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

  • 2,271
    Page views
  • 466
    Downloads
  • 9
    Citations

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

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)

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    Asieh Naderi et al.
    Short Report

    Epidemiological evidence suggests that social interactions and especially bonding between couples influence tumorigenesis, yet whether this is due to lifestyle changes, homogamy (likelihood of individuals to marry people of similar health), or directly associated with host-induced effects in tumors remains debatable. In the present study, we explored if tumorigenesis is associated with the bonding experience in monogamous rodents at which disruption of pair bonds is linked to anxiety and stress. Comparison of lung cancer cell spheroids that formed in the presence of sera from bonded and bond-disrupted deer mice showed that in monogamous Peromyscus polionotus and Peromyscus californicus, but not in polygamous Peromyscus maniculatus, the disruption of pair bonds altered the size and morphology of spheroids in a manner that is consistent with the acquisition of increased oncogenic potential. In vivo, consecutive transplantation of human lung cancer cells between P. californicus, differing in bonding experiences (n = 9 for bonded and n = 7 for bond-disrupted), and nude mice showed that bonding suppressed tumorigenicity in nude mice (p<0.05), suggesting that the protective effects of pair bonds persisted even after bonding ceased. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering indicated that the transcriptomes of lung cancer cells clustered according to the serum donors’ bonding history while differential gene expression analysis pointed to changes in cell adhesion and migration. The results highlight the pro-oncogenic effects of pair-bond disruption, point to the acquisition of expression signatures in cancer cells that are relevant to the bonding experiences of serum donors, and question the ability of conventional mouse models to capture the whole spectrum of the impact of the host in tumorigenesis.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Rediet Zewdu et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Cancer cells undergo lineage switching during natural progression and in response to therapy. NKX2-1 loss in human and murine lung adenocarcinoma leads to invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (IMA), a lung cancer subtype that exhibits gastric differentiation and harbors a distinct spectrum of driver oncogenes. In murine BRAFV600E-driven lung adenocarcinoma, NKX2-1 is required for early tumorigenesis, but dispensable for established tumor growth. NKX2-1-deficient, BRAFV600E-driven tumors resemble human IMA and exhibit a distinct response to BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Whereas BRAF/MEK inhibitors drive NKX2-1-positive tumor cells into quiescence, NKX2-1-negative cells fail to exit the cell cycle after the same therapy. BRAF/MEK inhibitors induce cell identity switching in NKX2-1-negative lung tumors within the gastric lineage, which is driven in part by WNT signaling and FoxA1/2. These data elucidate a complex, reciprocal relationship between lineage specifiers and oncogenic signaling pathways in the regulation of lung adenocarcinoma identity that is likely to impact lineage-specific therapeutic strategies.