Abstract

The biological properties of pancreatic cancer stem cells (PCSCs) remain incompletely defined and the central regulators are unknown. By bioinformatic analysis of a human PCSC-enriched gene signature, we identified the transcription factor HNF1A as a putative central regulator of PCSC function. Levels of HNF1A and its target genes were found to be elevated in PCSCs and tumorspheres, and depletion of HNF1A resulted in growth inhibition, apoptosis, impaired tumorsphere formation, decreased PCSC marker expression, and downregulation of POU5F1/OCT4 expression. Conversely, HNF1A overexpression increased PCSC marker expression and tumorsphere formation in pancreatic cancer cells and drove PDA cell growth. Importantly, depletion of HNF1A in xenografts impaired tumor growth and depleted PCSC marker-positive cells in vivo. Finally, we established an HNF1A-dependent gene signature in PDA cells that significantly correlated with reduced survivability in patients. These findings identify HNF1A as a central transcriptional regulator of PCSC properties and novel oncogene in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Data availability

All data from this study is available without limitations (GSE108151).

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used
    1. Cancer Genome Atlas
    (2017) Cancer Genome Atlas
    No restrictions; all data available without limitations.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ethan V Abel

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2922-617X
  2. Masashi Goto

    Translational Oncology Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Brian Magnuson

    Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Saji Abraham

    Translational Oncology Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Nikita Ramanathan

    Translational Oncology Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Emily Hotaling

    Translational Oncology Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Anthony A Alaniz

    Translational Oncology Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Chandan Kumar-Sinha

    Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Michele L Dziubinski

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Sumithra Urs

    Translational Oncology Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Lidong Wang

    Department of Surgery, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Jiaqi Shi

    Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Meghna Waghray

    Translational Oncology Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Mats Ljungman

    Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Howard C Crawford

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Diane M Simeone

    Department of Surgery, New York University, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    diane.simeone@nyumc.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5142-3087

Funding

Gershenson Pancreatic Cancer Fund

  • Diane M Simeone

SKY Foundation

  • Howard C Crawford
  • Diane M Simeone

American Cancer Society (127662-PF-15-033-01-DDC)

  • Ethan V Abel

Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (16-70-25-ABEL)

  • Ethan V Abel

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal protocols were approved by University Committee for the Use and Care of Animals (UCUCA) at The University of Michigan. The animal welfare assurance number for this study is A3114-01. Every effort was made throughout this study to minimize stress to and suffering of animal subjects.

Human subjects: Patient samples were collected under a protocol approved by the IRB at the The University of Michigan. All patients gave informed consent. The human assurance number for this study is FWA00004969.

Copyright

© 2018, Abel 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

  • 4,486
    views
  • 659
    downloads
  • 56
    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. Ethan V Abel
  2. Masashi Goto
  3. Brian Magnuson
  4. Saji Abraham
  5. Nikita Ramanathan
  6. Emily Hotaling
  7. Anthony A Alaniz
  8. Chandan Kumar-Sinha
  9. Michele L Dziubinski
  10. Sumithra Urs
  11. Lidong Wang
  12. Jiaqi Shi
  13. Meghna Waghray
  14. Mats Ljungman
  15. Howard C Crawford
  16. Diane M Simeone
(2018)
HNF1A is a novel oncogene that regulates human pancreatic cancer stem cell properties
eLife 7:e33947.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33947

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33947

Further reading

    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.

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

    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 >55y 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 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.