1. Cancer Biology
Download icon

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
Research Article
  • Cited 3
  • Views 1,623
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2020;9:e59073 doi: 10.7554/eLife.59073

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

Publication 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

  • 1,623
    Page views
  • 150
    Downloads
  • 3
    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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Lauren K Williams et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The abscission checkpoint regulates the ESCRT membrane fission machinery and thereby delays cytokinetic abscission to protect genomic integrity in response to residual mitotic errors. The checkpoint is maintained by Aurora B kinase, which phosphorylates multiple targets, including CHMP4C, a regulatory ESCRT-III subunit necessary for this checkpoint. We now report the discovery that cytoplasmic abscission checkpoint bodies (ACBs) containing phospho-Aurora B and tri-phospho-CHMP4C develop during an active checkpoint. ACBs are derived from mitotic interchromatin granules, transient mitotic structures whose components are housed in splicing-related nuclear speckles during interphase. ACB formation requires CHMP4C, and the ESCRT factor ALIX also contributes. ACB formation is conserved across cell types and under multiple circumstances that activate the checkpoint. Finally, ACBs retain a population of ALIX, and their presence correlates with delayed abscission and delayed recruitment of ALIX to the midbody where it would normally promote abscission. Thus, a cytoplasmic mechanism helps regulate midbody machinery to delay abscission.

    1. Cancer Biology
    Luca Tirinato et al.
    Research Article

    Although much progress has been made in cancer treatment, the molecular mechanisms underlying cancer radioresistance (RR) as well as the biological signatures of radioresistant cancer cells still need to be clarified. In this regard, we discovered that breast, bladder, lung, neuroglioma and prostate 6 Gy X-ray resistant cancer cells were characterized by an increase of Lipid Droplet (LD) number and that the cells containing highest LDs showed the highest clonogenic potential after irradiation. Moreover, we observed that LD content was tightly connected with the iron metabolism and in particular with the presence of the ferritin heavy chain (FTH1). In fact, breast and lung cancer cells silenced for the FTH1 gene showed a reduction in the LD numbers and, by consequence, became radiosensitive. FTH1 overexpression as well as iron-chelating treatment by Deferoxamine were able to restore the LD amount and RR. Overall, these results provide evidence of a novel mechanism behind RR in which LDs and FTH1 are tightly connected to each other, a synergistic effect which might be worth deeply investigating in order to make cancer cells more radiosensitive and improve the efficacy of radiation treatments.