Different genetic mechanisms mediate spontaneous versus UVR-induced malignant melanoma

  1. Blake Ferguson
  2. Herlina Y Handoko
  3. Pamela Mukhopadhyay
  4. Arash Chitsazan
  5. Lois Balmer
  6. Grant Morahan
  7. Graeme J Walker  Is a corresponding author
  1. QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Australia
  2. Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Australia

Abstract

Genetic variation conferring resistance and susceptibility to carcinogen-induced tumorigenesis is frequently studied in mice. We have now turned this to melanoma using the collaborative cross (CC), a resource of mouse strains designed to discover genes for complex diseases. We studied melanoma-prone transgenic progeny across seventy CC genetic backgrounds. We mapped a strong quantitative trait locus for rapid onset spontaneous melanoma onset to Prkdc, a gene involved in detection and repair of DNA damage. In contrast, rapid onset UVR-induced melanoma was linked to the ribosomal subunit gene Rrp15. Ribosome biogenesis was upregulated in skin shortly after UVR exposure. Mechanistically, variation in the 'usual suspects' by which UVR may exacerbate melanoma, defective DNA repair, melanocyte proliferation, or inflammatory cell infiltration, did not explain melanoma susceptibility or resistance across the CC. Instead, events occurring soon after exposure, such as dysregulation of ribosome function, which alters many aspects of cellular metabolism, may be important.

Data availability

All data generated in this manuscript are provided in the manuscript and supporting files.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Blake Ferguson

    QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Herlina Y Handoko

    QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Pamela Mukhopadhyay

    QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Arash Chitsazan

    QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Lois Balmer

    Centre for Diabetes Research, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Perth, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Grant Morahan

    Centre for Diabetes Research, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Perth, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Graeme J Walker

    QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia
    For correspondence
    Graeme.Walker@qimr.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9392-8769

Funding

Melanoma Research Alliance (Investigator Grant Award Number: 346859 2015-2018)

  • Graeme J Walker

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations Australian code of Practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes.. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee of the Queensland Institute of Medical research. The protocol was approved by the Committee (A98004M). No surgery was performed. Animals were sacrificed when tumours reached 10mm in diameter, or animals were otherwise distressed.

Copyright

© 2019, Ferguson 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

  • 1,590
    views
  • 278
    downloads
  • 21
    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. Blake Ferguson
  2. Herlina Y Handoko
  3. Pamela Mukhopadhyay
  4. Arash Chitsazan
  5. Lois Balmer
  6. Grant Morahan
  7. Graeme J Walker
(2019)
Different genetic mechanisms mediate spontaneous versus UVR-induced malignant melanoma
eLife 8:e42424.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.42424

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.42424

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Susanne Tilk, Judith Frydman ... Dmitri A Petrov
    Research Article

    In asexual populations that don’t undergo recombination, such as cancer, deleterious mutations are expected to accrue readily due to genome-wide linkage between mutations. Despite this mutational load of often thousands of deleterious mutations, many tumors thrive. How tumors survive the damaging consequences of this mutational load is not well understood. Here, we investigate the functional consequences of mutational load in 10,295 human tumors by quantifying their phenotypic response through changes in gene expression. Using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), we find that high mutational load tumors up-regulate proteostasis machinery related to the mitigation and prevention of protein misfolding. We replicate these expression responses in cancer cell lines and show that the viability in high mutational load cancer cells is strongly dependent on complexes that degrade and refold proteins. This indicates that the upregulation of proteostasis machinery is causally important for high mutational burden tumors and uncovers new therapeutic vulnerabilities.

    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.