GPIHBP1 expression in gliomas promotes utilization of lipoprotein-derived nutrients

Abstract

GPIHBP1, a GPI-anchored protein of capillary endothelial cells, binds lipoprotein lipase (LPL) within the subendothelial spaces and shuttles it to the capillary lumen. The GPIHBP1-bound LPL is essential for the margination of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs) along capillaries, allowing the lipolytic processing of TRLs to proceed. In peripheral tissues, the intravascular processing of TRLs by the GPIHBP1–LPL complex is crucial for generating lipid nutrients for adjacent parenchymal cells. GPIHBP1 is absent in capillaries of the brain, which uses glucose for fuel; however, GPIHBP1 is expressed in capillaries of mouse and human gliomas. Importantly, the GPIHBP1 in glioma capillaries captures locally produced LPL. We document, by NanoSIMS imaging, that TRLs marginate along glioma capillaries and that there is uptake of TRL-derived lipid nutrients by surrounding glioma cells. Thus, GPIHBP1 expression in gliomas facilitates TRL processing and provides a source of lipid nutrients for glioma cells.

Data availability

All data generated during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Xuchen Hu

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Ken Matsumoto

    Vascular Patterning Lab, VIB-KU Leuven Center for Cancer Biology (CCB), Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Rachel S Jung

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Thomas A Weston

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Patrick J Heizer

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Cuiwen He

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Norma P Sandoval

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Christopher M Allan

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Yiping Tu

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Harry V Vinters

    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Linda M Liau

    Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Rochelle M Ellison

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Jazmin E Morales

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Lynn J Baufeld

    Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Nicholas A Bayley

    Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Liqun He

    Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Christer Betsholtz

    Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Anne P Beigneux

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. David A Nathanson

    Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Holger Gerhardt

    Integrative Vascular Biology, Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    Holger Gerhardt, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3030-0384
  21. Stephen G Young

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    For correspondence
    sgyoung@mednet.ucla.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7270-3176
  22. Loren G Fong

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    For correspondence
    lfong@mednet.ucla.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4465-5290
  23. Haibo Jiang

    Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    For correspondence
    haibo.jiang@uwa.edu.au
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Funding

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL090553)

  • Stephen G Young

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL087228)

  • Stephen G Young

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL125335)

  • Stephen G Young

Foundation Leduq (12CVD04)

  • Stephen G Young

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (T32HL69766)

  • Xuchen Hu

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM008042)

  • Xuchen Hu

NCI Brain Tumor SPORE (P50-CA211015)

  • Linda M Liau

Stichting Tegen Kanker (2012‐181)

  • Holger Gerhardt

Stichting Tegen Kanker (2018-074)

  • Holger Gerhardt

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Arun Radhakrishnan, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animal housing and experimental protocols were approved by UCLA's Animal Research Committee (ARC; 2004-125-51, 2016-005) and the Institutional Animal Care and Research Advisory Committee of the KU Leuven (085/2016). The animals were housed in an AAALAC (Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International)-approved facility and cared for according to guidelines established by UCLA's Animal Research Committee.

Human subjects: All tissue samples from patients were obtained after informed consent and with approval from the UCLA Institutional Review Board (IRB; protocol 10-000655).

Version history

  1. Received: March 27, 2019
  2. Accepted: June 5, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 6, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 26, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Hu 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

  • 1,555
    views
  • 242
    downloads
  • 8
    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. Xuchen Hu
  2. Ken Matsumoto
  3. Rachel S Jung
  4. Thomas A Weston
  5. Patrick J Heizer
  6. Cuiwen He
  7. Norma P Sandoval
  8. Christopher M Allan
  9. Yiping Tu
  10. Harry V Vinters
  11. Linda M Liau
  12. Rochelle M Ellison
  13. Jazmin E Morales
  14. Lynn J Baufeld
  15. Nicholas A Bayley
  16. Liqun He
  17. Christer Betsholtz
  18. Anne P Beigneux
  19. David A Nathanson
  20. Holger Gerhardt
  21. Stephen G Young
  22. Loren G Fong
  23. Haibo Jiang
(2019)
GPIHBP1 expression in gliomas promotes utilization of lipoprotein-derived nutrients
eLife 8:e47178.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47178

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47178

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Natalia Dolgova, Eva-Maria E Uhlemann ... Oleg Y Dmitriev
    Research Article

    Mediator of ERBB2-driven Cell Motility 1 (MEMO1) is an evolutionary conserved protein implicated in many biological processes; however, its primary molecular function remains unknown. Importantly, MEMO1 is overexpressed in many types of cancer and was shown to modulate breast cancer metastasis through altered cell motility. To better understand the function of MEMO1 in cancer cells, we analyzed genetic interactions of MEMO1 using gene essentiality data from 1028 cancer cell lines and found multiple iron-related genes exhibiting genetic relationships with MEMO1. We experimentally confirmed several interactions between MEMO1 and iron-related proteins in living cells, most notably, transferrin receptor 2 (TFR2), mitoferrin-2 (SLC25A28), and the global iron response regulator IRP1 (ACO1). These interactions indicate that cells with high MEMO1 expression levels are hypersensitive to the disruptions in iron distribution. Our data also indicate that MEMO1 is involved in ferroptosis and is linked to iron supply to mitochondria. We have found that purified MEMO1 binds iron with high affinity under redox conditions mimicking intracellular environment and solved MEMO1 structures in complex with iron and copper. Our work reveals that the iron coordination mode in MEMO1 is very similar to that of iron-containing extradiol dioxygenases, which also display a similar structural fold. We conclude that MEMO1 is an iron-binding protein that modulates iron homeostasis in cancer cells.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Isabelle Petit-Hartlein, Annelise Vermot ... Franck Fieschi
    Research Article

    NADPH oxidases (NOX) are transmembrane proteins, widely spread in eukaryotes and prokaryotes, that produce reactive oxygen species (ROS). Eukaryotes use the ROS products for innate immune defense and signaling in critical (patho)physiological processes. Despite the recent structures of human NOX isoforms, the activation of electron transfer remains incompletely understood. SpNOX, a homolog from Streptococcus pneumoniae, can serves as a robust model for exploring electron transfers in the NOX family thanks to its constitutive activity. Crystal structures of SpNOX full-length and dehydrogenase (DH) domain constructs are revealed here. The isolated DH domain acts as a flavin reductase, and both constructs use either NADPH or NADH as substrate. Our findings suggest that hydride transfer from NAD(P)H to FAD is the rate-limiting step in electron transfer. We identify significance of F397 in nicotinamide access to flavin isoalloxazine and confirm flavin binding contributions from both DH and Transmembrane (TM) domains. Comparison with related enzymes suggests that distal access to heme may influence the final electron acceptor, while the relative position of DH and TM does not necessarily correlate with activity, contrary to previous suggestions. It rather suggests requirement of an internal rearrangement, within the DH domain, to switch from a resting to an active state. Thus, SpNOX appears to be a good model of active NOX2, which allows us to propose an explanation for NOX2’s requirement for activation.