Imaging of glucose metabolism by 13C-MRI distinguishes pancreatic cancer subtypes in mice

  1. Shun Kishimoto
  2. Jeffrey R Brender  Is a corresponding author
  3. Daniel R Crooks
  4. Shingo Matsumoto
  5. Tomohiro Seki
  6. Nobu Oshima
  7. Hellmut Merkle
  8. Penghui Lin
  9. Galen Reed
  10. Albert P Chen
  11. Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen
  12. Jeeva Munasinghe
  13. Keita Saito
  14. Kazutoshi Yamamoto
  15. Peter L Choyke
  16. James Mitchell
  17. Andrew N Lane
  18. Teresa Fan
  19. W Marston Linehan
  20. Murali C Krishna  Is a corresponding author
  1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, United States
  2. Hokkaido University, Japan
  3. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, United States
  4. University of Kentucky, United States
  5. GE Healthcare, Canada

Abstract

Metabolic differences among and within tumors can be an important determinant in cancer treatment outcome. However, methods for determining these differences non-invasively in vivo is lacking. Using pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma as a model, we demonstrate that tumor xenografts with a similar genetic background can be distinguished by their differing rates of the metabolism of 13C labeled glucose tracers, which can be imaged without hyperpolarization using newly developed techniques for noise suppression. Using this method, cancer subtypes that appeared to have similar metabolic profiles based on steady state metabolic measurement can be distinguished from each other. The metabolic maps from 13C-glucose imaging localized lactate production and overall glucose metabolism to different regions of some tumors. Such tumor heterogeneity was not detectable in FDG-PET.

Data availability

Glucose imaging data and related files have been deposited to Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/XU9XH9

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Shun Kishimoto

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Jeffrey R Brender

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    cherukum@mail.nih.gov
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7487-6169
  3. Daniel R Crooks

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Shingo Matsumoto

    Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Division of Bioengineering and Bioinformatics, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Tomohiro Seki

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Nobu Oshima

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Hellmut Merkle

    National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Penghui Lin

    Department of Toxicology and Cancer Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Galen Reed

    Research Circle Technology, GE Healthcare, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    Galen Reed, is affiliated with GE HealthCare. The author has no other competing interests to declare..
  10. Albert P Chen

    Research Circle Technology, GE Healthcare, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    Albert P Chen, is affiliated with GE HealthCare. The author has no other competing interests to declare..
  11. Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen

    Research Circle Technology, GE Healthcare, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen, is affiliated with GE HealthCare. The author has no other competing interests to declare..
  12. Jeeva Munasinghe

    In Vivo NMR Center, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Keita Saito

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Kazutoshi Yamamoto

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Peter L Choyke

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. James Mitchell

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Andrew N Lane

    Department of Toxicology and Cancer Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Teresa Fan

    Department of Toxicology and Cancer Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. W Marston Linehan

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Murali C Krishna

    Radiation Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    murali@helix.nih.gov
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Funding

National Cancer Institute (1ZIASC006321-39)

  • James Mitchell

National Cancer Institute (Intramural Research Program)

  • Murali C Krishna

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: The animal experiments were conducted according to a protocol approved by the Animal Research Advisory Committee of the NIH (RBB-159-2SA) in accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Animal Research.

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 3,458
    views
  • 424
    downloads
  • 22
    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. Shun Kishimoto
  2. Jeffrey R Brender
  3. Daniel R Crooks
  4. Shingo Matsumoto
  5. Tomohiro Seki
  6. Nobu Oshima
  7. Hellmut Merkle
  8. Penghui Lin
  9. Galen Reed
  10. Albert P Chen
  11. Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen
  12. Jeeva Munasinghe
  13. Keita Saito
  14. Kazutoshi Yamamoto
  15. Peter L Choyke
  16. James Mitchell
  17. Andrew N Lane
  18. Teresa Fan
  19. W Marston Linehan
  20. Murali C Krishna
(2019)
Imaging of glucose metabolism by 13C-MRI distinguishes pancreatic cancer subtypes in mice
eLife 8:e46312.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46312

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46312

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Aurélie Anne-Gaëlle Gabriel, Julien Racle ... David Gfeller
    Research Advance

    Assay for Transposase-Accessible Chromatin sequencing (ATAC-Seq) is a widely used technique to explore gene regulatory mechanisms. For most ATAC-Seq data from healthy and diseased tissues such as tumors, chromatin accessibility measurement represents a mixed signal from multiple cell types. In this work, we derive reliable chromatin accessibility marker peaks and reference profiles for most non-malignant cell types frequently observed in the microenvironment of human tumors. We then integrate these data into the EPIC deconvolution framework (Racle et al., 2017) to quantify cell-type heterogeneity in bulk ATAC-Seq data. Our EPIC-ATAC tool accurately predicts non-malignant and malignant cell fractions in tumor samples. When applied to a human breast cancer cohort, EPIC-ATAC accurately infers the immune contexture of the main breast cancer subtypes.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Akashdip Singh, Alberto Miranda Bedate ... Linde Meyaard
    Research Article

    Despite major successes with inhibitory receptor blockade in cancer, the identification of novel inhibitory receptors as putative drug targets is needed due to lack of durable responses, therapy resistance, and side effects. Most inhibitory receptors signal via immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motifs (ITIMs) and previous studies estimated that our genome contains over 1600 ITIM-bearing transmembrane proteins. However, testing and development of these candidates requires increased understanding of their expression patterns and likelihood to function as inhibitory receptor. Therefore, we designed a novel bioinformatics pipeline integrating machine learning-guided structural predictions and sequence-based likelihood models to identify putative inhibitory receptors. Using transcriptomics data of immune cells, we determined the expression of these novel inhibitory receptors, and classified them into previously proposed functional categories. Known and putative inhibitory receptors were expressed across different immune cell subsets with cell type-specific expression patterns. Furthermore, putative immune inhibitory receptors were differentially expressed in subsets of tumour infiltrating T cells. In conclusion, we present an inhibitory receptor pipeline that identifies 51 known and 390 novel human inhibitory receptors. This pipeline will support future drug target selection across diseases where therapeutic targeting of immune inhibitory receptors is warranted.