Re-expression of SMARCA4/BRG1 in Small Cell Carcinoma of Ovary, Hypercalcemic Type (SCCOHT) promotes an epithelial-like gene signature through an AP-1-dependent mechanism

  1. Krystal Ann Orlando
  2. Amber K Douglas
  3. Aierken Abudu
  4. Yemin Wang
  5. Basile Tessier-Cloutier
  6. Weiping Su
  7. Alec Peters
  8. Larry S Sherman
  9. Rayvon Moore
  10. Vinh Nguyen
  11. Gian Luca Negri
  12. Shane Colborne
  13. Gregg B Morin
  14. Friedrich Kommoss
  15. Jessica D Lang
  16. William PD Hendricks
  17. Elizabeth A Raupach
  18. Patrick Pirrotte
  19. David G Huntsman
  20. Jeffrey M Trent
  21. Joel S Parker
  22. Jesse R Raab  Is a corresponding author
  23. Bernard E Weissman  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States
  2. Michigan State University, United States
  3. University of British Columnia, Canada
  4. Oregon Health & Science University, United States
  5. British Columbia Cancer Agency, Canada
  6. Synlab MVZ Pathologie, Germany
  7. Translational Genomics Research Institute, United States
  8. British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Canada

Abstract

Small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type (SCCOHT) is a rare and aggressive form of ovarian cancer. SCCOHT tumors have inactivating mutations in SMARCA4 (BRG1), one of the two mutually exclusive ATPases of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex. To address the role that BRG1 loss plays in SCCOHT tumorigenesis, we performed integrative multi-omic analyses in SCCOHT cell lines +/- BRG1 re-expression. BRG1 re-expression induced a gene and protein signature similar to an epithelial cell and gained chromatin accessibility sites correlated with other epithelial originating TCGA tumors. Gained chromatin accessibility and BRG1 recruited sites were strongly enriched for transcription factor binding motifs of AP-1 family members. Furthermore, AP-1 motifs were enriched at the promoters of highly upregulated epithelial genes. Using a dominant negative AP-1 cell line, we found that both AP-1 DNA binding activity and BRG1 re-expression are necessary for the gene and protein expression of epithelial genes. Our study demonstrates that BRG1 re-expression drives an epithelial-like gene and protein signature in SCCOHT cells that depends upon by AP-1 activity.

Data availability

Raw fastq files and processed data have been deposited in Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database with the accession number: GSE151026. Proteomics data was deposited in PRIDE database (accession #PXD014134).

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Krystal Ann Orlando

    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Amber K Douglas

    Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Aierken Abudu

    Department of Mirobiology and Molecular Genetics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Yemin Wang

    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columnia, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Basile Tessier-Cloutier

    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columnia, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Weiping Su

    Cell, Developmental, and Cancer Biology, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Alec Peters

    Cell, Developmental, and Cancer Biology, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Larry S Sherman

    Division of Neuroscience, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Rayvon Moore

    Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Vinh Nguyen

    Curriculum in Toxicology and Environmental Medicine; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Gian Luca Negri

    Michael Smith Genome Science Centre, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7722-8888
  12. Shane Colborne

    Michael Smith Genome Science Centre, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Gregg B Morin

    Genome Sciences, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Friedrich Kommoss

    Institute of Pathology, Synlab MVZ Pathologie, Mannheim, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Jessica D Lang

    Division of Integrated Cancer Genomics, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9700-4785
  16. William PD Hendricks

    Division of Integrated Cancer Genomics, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Elizabeth A Raupach

    Division of Integrated Cancer Genomics, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Patrick Pirrotte

    Collaborative Center for Translational Mass Spectrometry, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. David G Huntsman

    British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Jeffrey M Trent

    Division of Integrated Cancer Genomics, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Joel S Parker

    Department of Genetics; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Jesse R Raab

    Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    For correspondence
    jesse_raab@med.unc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6387-8994
  23. Bernard E Weissman

    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
    For correspondence
    weissman@med.unc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1827-2309

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01CA195670)

  • David G Huntsman
  • Jeffrey M Trent
  • Bernard E Weissman

National Institutes of Health (P30CA016086)

  • Joel S Parker

National Institutes of Health (T32ES007126)

  • Vinh Nguyen

Department of Defense (W81XWH-19-1-0423)

  • Jesse R Raab

National Institutes of Health (P51 OD 011092)

  • Larry S Sherman

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Maureen E Murphy, The Wistar Institute, United States

Version history

  1. Received: May 19, 2020
  2. Accepted: December 22, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 23, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 18, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Orlando 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

  • 3,740
    views
  • 307
    downloads
  • 15
    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. Krystal Ann Orlando
  2. Amber K Douglas
  3. Aierken Abudu
  4. Yemin Wang
  5. Basile Tessier-Cloutier
  6. Weiping Su
  7. Alec Peters
  8. Larry S Sherman
  9. Rayvon Moore
  10. Vinh Nguyen
  11. Gian Luca Negri
  12. Shane Colborne
  13. Gregg B Morin
  14. Friedrich Kommoss
  15. Jessica D Lang
  16. William PD Hendricks
  17. Elizabeth A Raupach
  18. Patrick Pirrotte
  19. David G Huntsman
  20. Jeffrey M Trent
  21. Joel S Parker
  22. Jesse R Raab
  23. Bernard E Weissman
(2020)
Re-expression of SMARCA4/BRG1 in Small Cell Carcinoma of Ovary, Hypercalcemic Type (SCCOHT) promotes an epithelial-like gene signature through an AP-1-dependent mechanism
eLife 9:e59073.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59073

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59073

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Julian J A Hoving, Elizabeth Harford-Wright ... Alison C Lloyd
    Research Article

    Collective cell migration is fundamental for the development of organisms and in the adult, for tissue regeneration and in pathological conditions such as cancer. Migration as a coherent group requires the maintenance of cell-cell interactions, while contact inhibition of locomotion (CIL), a local repulsive force, can propel the group forward. Here we show that the cell-cell interaction molecule, N-cadherin, regulates both adhesion and repulsion processes during rat Schwann cell (SC) collective migration, which is required for peripheral nerve regeneration. However, distinct from its role in cell-cell adhesion, the repulsion process is independent of N-cadherin trans-homodimerisation and the associated adherens junction complex. Rather, the extracellular domain of N-cadherin is required to present the repulsive Slit2/Slit3 signal at the cell-surface. Inhibiting Slit2/Slit3 signalling inhibits CIL and subsequently collective Schwann cell migration, resulting in adherent, nonmigratory cell clusters. Moreover, analysis of ex vivo explants from mice following sciatic nerve injury showed that inhibition of Slit2 decreased Schwann cell collective migration and increased clustering of Schwann cells within the nerve bridge. These findings provide insight into how opposing signals can mediate collective cell migration and how CIL pathways are promising targets for inhibiting pathological cell migration.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Johannes Paladini, Annalena Maier ... Stephan Grzesiek
    Research Article

    Abelson tyrosine kinase (Abl) is regulated by the arrangement of its regulatory core, consisting sequentially of the SH3, SH2, and kinase (KD) domains, where an assembled or disassembled core corresponds to low or high kinase activity, respectively. It was recently established that binding of type II ATP site inhibitors, such as imatinib, generates a force from the KD N-lobe onto the SH3 domain and in consequence disassembles the core. Here, we demonstrate that the C-terminal αI-helix exerts an additional force toward the SH2 domain, which correlates both with kinase activity and type II inhibitor-induced disassembly. The αI-helix mutation E528K, which is responsible for the ABL1 malformation syndrome, strongly activates Abl by breaking a salt bridge with the KD C-lobe and thereby increasing the force onto the SH2 domain. In contrast, the allosteric inhibitor asciminib strongly reduces Abl’s activity by fixating the αI-helix and reducing the force onto the SH2 domain. These observations are explained by a simple mechanical model of Abl activation involving forces from the KD N-lobe and the αI-helix onto the KD/SH2SH3 interface.