Synthetic lethality between the cohesin subunits STAG1 and STAG2 in diverse cancer contexts

  1. Petra van der Lelij
  2. Simone Lieb
  3. Julian Jude
  4. Gordana Wutz
  5. Catarina P Santos
  6. Katrina Falkenberg
  7. Andreas Schlattl
  8. Jozef Ban
  9. Raphaela Schwentner
  10. Thomas Hoffmann
  11. Heinrich Kovar
  12. Francisco X Real
  13. Todd Waldman
  14. Mark A Pearson
  15. Norbert Kraut
  16. Jan-Michael Peters
  17. Johannes Zuber
  18. Mark Petronczki  Is a corresponding author
  1. Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, Austria
  2. Boehringer Ingelheim RCV, Austria
  3. Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, Austria
  4. Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Spain
  5. Children's Cancer Research Institute, Austria
  6. Georgetown University School of Medicine, United States

Abstract

Recent genome analyses have identified recurrent mutations in the cohesin complex in a wide range of human cancers. Here we demonstrate that the most frequently mutated subunit of the cohesin complex, STAG2, displays a strong synthetic lethal interaction with its paralog STAG1. Mechanistically, STAG1 loss abrogates sister chromatid cohesion in STAG2 mutated but not in wild-type cells leading to mitotic catastrophe, defective cell division and apoptosis. STAG1 inactivation inhibits the proliferation of STAG2 mutated but not wild-type bladder cancer and Ewing sarcoma cell lines. Restoration of STAG2 expression in a mutated bladder cancer model alleviates the dependency on STAG1. Thus, STAG1 and STAG2 support sister chromatid cohesion to redundantly ensure cell survival. STAG1 represents a vulnerability of cancer cells carrying mutations in the major emerging tumor suppressor STAG2 across different cancer contexts. Exploiting synthetic lethal interactions to target recurrent cohesin mutations in cancer, e.g. by inhibiting STAG1, holds the promise for the development of selective therapeutics.

Data availability

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Petra van der Lelij

    Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Simone Lieb

    Boehringer Ingelheim RCV, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    Simone Lieb, Simone Lieb is a full-time employee of Boehringer Ingelheim RCV..
  3. Julian Jude

    Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9091-9867
  4. Gordana Wutz

    Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Catarina P Santos

    Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Katrina Falkenberg

    Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Andreas Schlattl

    Boehringer Ingelheim RCV, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    Andreas Schlattl, Andreas Schlattl is a full-time employee of Boehringer Ingelheim RCV..
  8. Jozef Ban

    Children's Cancer Research Institute, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Raphaela Schwentner

    Children's Cancer Research Institute, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6839-0322
  10. Thomas Hoffmann

    Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Heinrich Kovar

    Children's Cancer Research Institute, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Francisco X Real

    Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Todd Waldman

    Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Mark A Pearson

    Boehringer Ingelheim RCV, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    Mark A Pearson, Mark Pearson is a full-time employee of Boehringer Ingelheim RCV..
  15. Norbert Kraut

    Boehringer Ingelheim RCV, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    Norbert Kraut, Norbert Kraut is a full-time employee of Boehringer Ingelheim RCV..
  16. Jan-Michael Peters

    Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Johannes Zuber

    Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8810-6835
  18. Mark Petronczki

    Boehringer Ingelheim RCV, Vienna, Austria
    For correspondence
    mark_paul.petronczki@boehringer-ingelheim.com
    Competing interests
    Mark Petronczki, Full-time employee of Boehringer Ingelheim RCV.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0139-5692

Funding

Austrian Science Fund (SFB-F34)

  • Jan-Michael Peters

National Institutes of Health (R01CA169345)

  • Todd Waldman

Innovation Grant from Alex's Lemonade Stand

  • Todd Waldman

Boehringer Ingelheim RCV

  • Simone Lieb
  • Andreas Schlattl
  • Mark A Pearson
  • Norbert Kraut
  • Mark Petronczki

Austrian Science Fund (Wittgenstein award Z196-B20)

  • Jan-Michael Peters

Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG-834223)

  • Jan-Michael Peters

Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG-852936)

  • Jan-Michael Peters

Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG-840283)

  • Jan-Michael Peters

European Research Council (ERC no. 336860)

  • Johannes Zuber

Austrian Science Fund (SFB grant F4710)

  • Johannes Zuber

Austrian Science Fund (ERA-Net grant I 1225-B19)

  • Heinrich Kovar

Fundación Científica Asociación Española Contra el Cancer

  • Francisco X Real

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Andrea Musacchio, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Germany

Version history

  1. Received: March 19, 2017
  2. Accepted: July 3, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 10, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: July 13, 2017 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: July 27, 2017 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2017, van der Lelij 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

  • 6,723
    views
  • 1,143
    downloads
  • 91
    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. Petra van der Lelij
  2. Simone Lieb
  3. Julian Jude
  4. Gordana Wutz
  5. Catarina P Santos
  6. Katrina Falkenberg
  7. Andreas Schlattl
  8. Jozef Ban
  9. Raphaela Schwentner
  10. Thomas Hoffmann
  11. Heinrich Kovar
  12. Francisco X Real
  13. Todd Waldman
  14. Mark A Pearson
  15. Norbert Kraut
  16. Jan-Michael Peters
  17. Johannes Zuber
  18. Mark Petronczki
(2017)
Synthetic lethality between the cohesin subunits STAG1 and STAG2 in diverse cancer contexts
eLife 6:e26980.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26980

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26980

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Camille Dantzer, Justine Vaché ... Violaine Moreau
    Research Article

    Immune checkpoint inhibitors have produced encouraging results in cancer patients. However, the majority of ß-catenin-mutated tumors have been described as lacking immune infiltrates and resistant to immunotherapy. The mechanisms by which oncogenic ß-catenin affects immune surveillance remain unclear. Herein, we highlighted the involvement of ß-catenin in the regulation of the exosomal pathway and, by extension, in immune/cancer cell communication in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We showed that mutated ß-catenin represses expression of SDC4 and RAB27A, two main actors in exosome biogenesis, in both liver cancer cell lines and HCC patient samples. Using nanoparticle tracking analysis and live-cell imaging, we further demonstrated that activated ß-catenin represses exosome release. Then, we demonstrated in 3D spheroid models that activation of β-catenin promotes a decrease in immune cell infiltration through a defect in exosome secretion. Taken together, our results provide the first evidence that oncogenic ß-catenin plays a key role in exosome biogenesis. Our study gives new insight into the impact of ß-catenin mutations on tumor microenvironment remodeling, which could lead to the development of new strategies to enhance immunotherapeutic response.

    1. Cancer Biology
    Fang Huang, Zhenwei Dai ... Yang Wang
    Research Article

    Aberrant alternative splicing is well-known to be closely associated with tumorigenesis of various cancers. However, the intricate mechanisms underlying breast cancer metastasis driven by deregulated splicing events remain largely unexplored. Here, we unveiled that RBM7 is decreased in lymph node and distant organ metastases of breast cancer as compared to primary lesions and low expression of RBM7 is correlated with the reduced disease-free survival of breast cancer patients. Breast cancer cells with RBM7 depletion exhibited an increased potential for lung metastasis compared to scramble control cells. The absence of RBM7 stimulated breast cancer cell migration, invasion, and angiogenesis. Mechanistically, RBM7 controlled the splicing switch of MFGE8, favoring the production of the predominant isoform of MFGE8, MFGE8-L. This resulted in the attenuation of STAT1 phosphorylation and alterations in cell adhesion molecules. MFGE8-L exerted an inhibitory effect on the migratory and invasive capability of breast cancer cells, while the truncated isoform MFGE8-S, which lack the second F5/8 type C domain had the opposite effect. In addition, RBM7 negatively regulates the NF-κB cascade and an NF-κB inhibitor could obstruct the increase in HUVEC tube formation caused by RBM7 silencing. Clinically, we noticed a positive correlation between RBM7 expression and MFGE8 exon7 inclusion in breast cancer tissues, providing new mechanistic insights for molecular-targeted therapy in combating breast cancer.