1. Cancer Biology
  2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
Download icon

Stem Cell Tumors: Cherub versus brat

  1. Jennifer A Malin  Is a corresponding author
  2. Claude Desplan  Is a corresponding author
  1. New York University, United States
Insight
  • Cited 1
  • Views 1,383
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e36030 doi: 10.7554/eLife.36030

Abstract

A long non-coding RNA molecule called cherub is a driver of tumor development.

Main text

How healthy cells become tumors is a question that has interested scientists for decades. Many tumors exhibit genomic instability – that is, increased numbers of DNA mutations and chromosomal rearrangements. However, some tumors – including most childhood cancers – have few mutations and are thought to be driven by mechanisms other than genomic instability (Lee et al., 2012).

Important cancer research in flies has been carried out using neural stem cells called neuroblasts. Normally, a type of neuroblast called a Type II neuroblast divides asymmetrically to form a new neuroblast and a slightly more specialized cell type called an intermediate neural progenitor cell (INP); the new neuroblast is able to repeat this process several times. In parallel, the INP continues to divide to produce a new INP and a neuronal precursor cell in each round (Bello et al., 2008; Boone and Doe, 2008; Bowman et al., 2008, Figure 1A). The neuronal precursor then divides to generate mature neurons. When a tumor suppressor gene called brat is blocked, INPs transform back into tumor neuroblasts that divide indefinitely (Lee et al., 2006). So far, the mechanisms involved have remained unclear.

Misregulation of cherub RNA causes tumor growth.

Neurons develop from neural stem cells called neuroblasts and specialized cells called intermediate neural progenitor (INP) cells. Landskron et al. found that a long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) named cherub has a role in the development of brain tumors. (A) In healthy flies, the protein Staufen (yellow half circle) anchors cherub (red half circle) to the basal part of the neuroblast cell membrane. After the neuroblast divides, cherub is inherited in the INP cell and spreads within it. As neuroblasts mature, they start to produce the protein Syncrip (Syp: green), which reduces the levels of a protein called Imp (blue). (B) In flies that lack the tumor suppressor gene brat, cherub remains at the cell membrane of the INP cells. When Syp is expressed as the neuroblast ages, it also remains anchored to cell membrane of the neuroblast by cherub and Staufen. This prevents Syp from repressing Imp, and some of the INP cells develop into tumor neuroblasts. (C) In flies that lack brat and cherub, cherub can no longer tether Syp; this allows Syp to inhibit Imp, and the neuroblasts are able to mature.

Now, in eLife, Jürgen Knoblich and colleagues at the IMBA in Vienna and the University of Basel – including Lisa Landskron as first author – report that genomic instability is not a driver of neuroblast tumors (Landskron et al., 2018). Landskron et al. compared healthy flies and flies in which the brat gene had been mutated and showed that both groups of flies had the same number of chromosomes. Moreover, they found no additional DNA mutations responsible for tumor development.

However, further analyzes revealed that the tumor cells had increased levels of a previously uncharacterized long non-coding RNA: this is a molecule that is transcribed from DNA but is not usually translated into protein. Landskron et al. found that this specific long non-coding RNA, which they named cherub, was not required for normal development, as mutant flies lacking cherub were healthy and fertile. However, flies with a defect in both the brat gene and the cherub gene had smaller tumors, which suggests that cherub is required for tumor progression.

While other long non-coding RNAs have been implicated in tumor growth, cherub is the first to be discovered that is not uniformly distributed throughout the cell. Rather, cherub is located at the basal end of the neuroblast cell membrane. When healthy neuroblasts divide, cherub is distributed into the INP, which forms on the basal side of the neuroblast, and then diffuses throughout the cell. Thus, with each round of division, cherub levels slowly decrease in the INP (Figure 1A). In brat mutants, however, cherub remains at the cell membrane in both the neuroblast and in the INP. This faulty localization prevents the dilution of cherub and causes the INP to transform back into a tumor neuroblast (Figure 1B).

Why does the incorrect localization of cherub cause tumor growth? In fly neuroblasts, the proteins Imp and Syncrip regulate neuroblast aging (Ren et al., 2017). Normally, these two proteins inhibit each other: Syncrip levels increase as the neuroblasts age, while Imp levels decrease. Both the expression of Syncrip and the absence of Imp are required for neuroblasts to stop dividing (Yang et al., 2017, Figure 1A).

Landskron et al. showed that in flies lacking brat, Syncrip and cherub are inappropriately localized at the tumor neuroblast cell membrane. Moreover, Syncrip and Imp are both expressed. This is presumably because newly-produced Syncrip remains tethered to cherub at the cell membrane, where it is unable to reduce Imp levels (Figure 1B). Thus, the tumors continually produce Imp and do not age. When cherub is not present, Syncrip remains distributed throughout the cell. This reduces the levels of Imp which, in turn, slows the growth of any tumor and improves the life expectancy of brat mutant flies (Figure 1C). How does cherub localize to the cell membrane? The experiments revealed that cherub binds to another protein called Staufen, which attaches to the asymmetric cell division machinery, and thus tethers both cherub and Syncrip to the cell membrane.

This work reinforces the notion that changes to the proteins that regulate asymmetric cell division and cell fate can drive tumor formation. Previous research has shown that Imp levels are also dependent on another protein called Chinmo, and that overexpression of Chinmo causes tumor growth by maintaining inappropriately high Imp levels during the window when Imp is normally expressed (Narbonne-Reveau et al., 2016). Thus, preventing stem cells from maturing and aging appears to fuel tumor development.

This study also highlights the importance of long non-coding RNAs in stem cell development and in tumor formation. While it has been shown that other long non-coding RNAs are involved in stem cell development, this may be one of the first examples where changing the localization of such molecules prevents stem cells from aging, thus driving tumor growth (Guttman et al., 2011). It will be interesting to see whether other long non-coding RNAs use the same mechanisms to drive tumorigenesis.

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jennifer A Malin

    Jennifer A Malin is in the Department of Biology, New York University, New York, United States

    For correspondence
    jmalin319@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8632-9792
  2. Claude Desplan

    Claude Desplan is in the Department of Biology, New York University, New York, United States

    For correspondence
    cd38@nyu.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6914-1413

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: March 27, 2018 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2018, Malin et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,383
    Page views
  • 109
    Downloads
  • 1
    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
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Gökçe Senger et al.
    Research Article

    Aneuploidy, a state of chromosome imbalance, is a hallmark of human tumors, but its role in cancer still remains to be fully elucidated. To understand the consequences of whole-chromosome-level aneuploidies on the proteome, we integrated aneuploidy, transcriptomic and proteomic data from hundreds of TCGA/CPTAC tumor samples. We found a surprisingly large number of expression changes happened on other, non-aneuploid chromosomes. Moreover, we identified an association between those changes and co-complex members of proteins from aneuploid chromosomes. This co-abundance association is tightly regulated for aggregation-prone aneuploid proteins and those involved in a smaller number of complexes. On the other hand, we observe that complexes of the cellular core machinery are under functional selection to maintain their stoichiometric balance in aneuploid tumors. Ultimately, we provide evidence that those compensatory and functional maintenance mechanisms are established through post-translational control and that the degree of success of a tumor to deal with aneuploidy-induced stoichiometric imbalance impacts the activation of cellular protein degradation programs and patient survival.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cancer Biology
    David J Hosfield et al.
    Research Article

    Chemical manipulation of estrogen receptor alpha ligand binding domain structural mobility tunes receptor lifetime and influences breast cancer therapeutic activities. Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) extend ERα cellular lifetime/accumulation. They are antagonists in the breast but agonists in the uterine epithelium and/or in bone. Selective estrogen receptor degraders/downregulators (SERDs) reduce ERα cellular lifetime/accumulation and are pure antagonists. Activating somatic ESR1 mutations Y537S and D538G enable resistance to first-line endocrine therapies. SERDs have shown significant activities in ESR1 mutant setting while few SERMs have been studied. To understand whether chemical manipulation of ERα cellular lifetime and accumulation influences antagonistic activity, we studied a series of methylpyrollidine lasofoxifene derivatives that maintained the drug's antagonistic activities while uniquely tuning ERα cellular accumulation. These molecules were examined alongside a panel of antiestrogens in live cell assays of ERα cellular accumulation, lifetime, SUMOylation, and transcriptional antagonism. High-resolution x-ray crystal structures of WT and Y537S ERα ligand binding domain in complex with the methylated lasofoxifene derivatives or representative SERMs and SERDs show that molecules that favor a highly buried helix 12 antagonist conformation achieve the greatest transcriptional suppression activities in breast cancer cells harboring WT/Y537S ESR1. Together these results show that chemical reduction of ERα cellular lifetime is not necessarily the most crucial parameter for transcriptional antagonism in ESR1 mutated breast cancer cells. Importantly, our studies show how small chemical differences within a scaffold series can provide compounds with similar antagonistic activities, but with greatly different effects of the cellular lifetime of the ERα, which is crucial for achieving desired SERM or SERD profiles.