Characterization of the mechanism by which the RB/E2F pathway controls expression of the cancer genomic DNA deaminase APOBEC3B

  1. Pieter A Roelofs
  2. Chai Yeen Goh
  3. Boon Haow Chua
  4. Matthew C Jarvis
  5. Teneale A Stewart
  6. Jennifer L McCann
  7. Rebecca M McDougle
  8. Michael A Carpenter
  9. John WM Martens
  10. Paul N Span
  11. Dennis Kappei
  12. Reuben S Harris  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Minnesota, United States
  2. National University of Singapore, Singapore
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Minnesota, United States
  4. Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Netherlands
  5. Radboud University Medical Center, Netherlands [NL]

Abstract

APOBEC3B (A3B)-catalyzed DNA cytosine deamination contributes to the overall mutational landscape in breast cancer. Molecular mechanisms responsible for A3B upregulation in cancer are poorly understood. Here, we show that a single E2F cis-element mediates repression in normal cells and that expression is activated by its mutational disruption in a reporter construct or the endogenous A3B gene. The same E2F site is required for A3B induction by polyomavirus T antigen indicating a shared molecular mechanism. Proteomic and biochemical experiments demonstrate binding of wildtype but not mutant E2F promoters by repressive PRC1.6/E2F6 and DREAM/E2F4 complexes. Knockdown and overexpression studies confirm involvement of these repressive complexes in regulating A3B expression. Altogether, these studies demonstrate that A3B expression is suppressed in normal cells by repressive E2F complexes and that viral or mutational disruption of this regulatory network triggers overexpression in breast cancer and provides fuel for tumor evolution.

Data availability

Raw mass spectrometry data will be accessible through the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE (Vizcaino et al., 2016) partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD020473. Additional data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Pieter A Roelofs

    Biochemistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Chai Yeen Goh

    Translational Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Boon Haow Chua

    Translational Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Matthew C Jarvis

    Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Teneale A Stewart

    Biochemistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Jennifer L McCann

    Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0458-1335
  7. Rebecca M McDougle

    Biochemistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Michael A Carpenter

    Biochemistry, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. John WM Martens

    Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Paul N Span

    Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands [NL]
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1930-6638
  11. Dennis Kappei

    Translational Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3582-2253
  12. Reuben S Harris

    Biochemistry, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    For correspondence
    rsh@umn.edu
    Competing interests
    Reuben S Harris, RSH is a co-founder, shareholder, and consultant of ApoGen Biotechnologies Inc..
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9034-9112

Funding

National Cancer Institute (P01-CA234228)

  • Reuben S Harris

KWF Kankerbestrijding (KWF10270)

  • John WM Martens
  • Paul N Span
  • Reuben S Harris

National Research Foundation Singapore (NMRC/OFYIRG/055/2017)

  • Dennis Kappei

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 5, 2020
  2. Accepted: September 25, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 28, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 13, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Roelofs 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

  • 2,787
    views
  • 322
    downloads
  • 26
    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. Pieter A Roelofs
  2. Chai Yeen Goh
  3. Boon Haow Chua
  4. Matthew C Jarvis
  5. Teneale A Stewart
  6. Jennifer L McCann
  7. Rebecca M McDougle
  8. Michael A Carpenter
  9. John WM Martens
  10. Paul N Span
  11. Dennis Kappei
  12. Reuben S Harris
(2020)
Characterization of the mechanism by which the RB/E2F pathway controls expression of the cancer genomic DNA deaminase APOBEC3B
eLife 9:e61287.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61287

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61287

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Dongyue Jiao, Huiru Sun ... Kun Gao
    Research Article

    Enhanced protein synthesis is a crucial molecular mechanism that allows cancer cells to survive, proliferate, metastasize, and develop resistance to anti-cancer treatments, and often arises as a consequence of increased signaling flux channeled to mRNA-bearing eukaryotic initiation factor 4F (eIF4F). However, the post-translational regulation of eIF4A1, an ATP-dependent RNA helicase and subunit of the eIF4F complex, is still poorly understood. Here, we demonstrate that IBTK, a substrate-binding adaptor of the Cullin 3-RING ubiquitin ligase (CRL3) complex, interacts with eIF4A1. The non-degradative ubiquitination of eIF4A1 catalyzed by the CRL3IBTK complex promotes cap-dependent translational initiation, nascent protein synthesis, oncogene expression, and cervical tumor cell growth both in vivo and in vitro. Moreover, we show that mTORC1 and S6K1, two key regulators of protein synthesis, directly phosphorylate IBTK to augment eIF4A1 ubiquitination and sustained oncogenic translation. This link between the CRL3IBTK complex and the mTORC1/S6K1 signaling pathway, which is frequently dysregulated in cancer, represents a promising target for anti-cancer therapies.

    1. Cancer Biology
    Samuel Pawel, Rachel Heyard ... Leonhard Held
    Research Article

    In several large-scale replication projects, statistically non-significant results in both the original and the replication study have been interpreted as a ‘replication success.’ Here, we discuss the logical problems with this approach: Non-significance in both studies does not ensure that the studies provide evidence for the absence of an effect and ‘replication success’ can virtually always be achieved if the sample sizes are small enough. In addition, the relevant error rates are not controlled. We show how methods, such as equivalence testing and Bayes factors, can be used to adequately quantify the evidence for the absence of an effect and how they can be applied in the replication setting. Using data from the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, the Experimental Philosophy Replicability Project, and the Reproducibility Project: Psychology we illustrate that many original and replication studies with ‘null results’ are in fact inconclusive. We conclude that it is important to also replicate studies with statistically non-significant results, but that they should be designed, analyzed, and interpreted appropriately.