Stem Cell Tumors: Cherub versus brat

A long non-coding RNA molecule called cherub is a driver of tumor development.
  1. Jennifer A Malin  Is a corresponding author
  2. Claude Desplan  Is a corresponding author
  1. New York University, United States

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

  • 1,408
    Page views
  • 115
    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)

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. Jennifer A Malin
  2. Claude Desplan
(2018)
Stem Cell Tumors: Cherub versus brat
eLife 7:e36030.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36030

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    Gary KL Chan, Samantha Maisel ... John D Gordan
    Research Article

    Genetic alterations that activate protein kinase A (PKA) are found in many tumor types. Yet, their downstream oncogenic signaling mechanisms are poorly understood. We used global phosphoproteomics and kinase activity profiling to map conserved signaling outputs driven by a range of genetic changes that activate PKA in human cancer. Two signaling networks were identified downstream of PKA: RAS/MAPK components, and an Aurora Kinase A (AURKA) /glycogen synthase kinase (GSK3) sub-network with activity toward MYC oncoproteins. Findings were validated in two PKA-dependent cancer models: a novel, patient-derived fibrolamellar liver cancer (FLC) line that expresses a DNAJ-PKAc fusion, and a PKA-addicted melanoma model with a mutant Type I PKA regulatory subunit. We identify PKA signals that can influence both de novo translation and stability of the proto-oncogene c-MYC. However, the primary mechanism of PKA effects on MYC in our cell models was translation and could be blocked with the eIF4A inhibitor zotatifin. This compound dramatically reduced c-MYC expression and inhibited FLC cell line growth in vitro. Thus, targeting PKA effects on translation is a potential treatment strategy for FLC and other PKA-driven cancers.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Changkun Hu, Taylor Bugbee ... Nicholas Wallace
    Research Article

    Double strand breaks (DSBs) are one of the most lethal DNA lesions in cells. The E6 protein of beta-human papillomavirus (HPV8 E6) impairs two critical DSB repair pathways; homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ). However, HPV8 E6 only delays DSB repair. How DSBs are repaired in cells with HPV8 E6 remains to be studied. We hypothesize that HPV8 E6 promotes a less commonly used DSB repair pathway, alternative end-joining (Alt-EJ). Using CAS9 based Alt-EJ reporters, we show that HPV8 E6 promotes Alt-EJ. Further, using small molecule inhibitors, CRISPR/CAS9 gene knockout, and HPV8 E6 mutant, we find that HPV8 E6 promotes Alt-EJ by binding p300, an acetyltransferase that facilitates DSB repair by HR and NHEJ. At least some of this repair occurs through a subset of Alt-EJ known as polymerase theta dependent end joining. Finally, whole genome sequencing analysis showed HPV8 E6 caused an increased frequency of deletions bearing the microhomology signatures of Alt-EJ. This study fills the knowledge gap of how DSB is repaired in cells with HPV8 E6 and the mutagenic consequences of HPV8 E6 mediated p300 destabilization. Broadly, this study supports the hypothesis that beta-HPV promotes cancer formation by increasing genomic instability.