1. Cancer Biology
Download icon

Single-cell chromatin accessibility profiling of glioblastoma identifies an Invasive cancer stem cell population associated with lower survival

Research Article
  • Cited 1
  • Views 2,774
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2021;10:e64090 doi: 10.7554/eLife.64090

Abstract

Chromatin accessibility discriminates stem from mature cell populations, enabling the identification of primitive stem-like cells in primary tumors, such as Glioblastoma (GBM) where self-renewing cells driving cancer progression and recurrence are prime targets for therapeutic intervention. We show, using single-cell chromatin accessibility, that primary human GBMs harbor a heterogeneous self-renewing population whose diversity is captured in patient-derived glioblastoma stem cells (GSCs). In depth characterization of chromatin accessibility in GSCs identifies three GSC states: Reactive, Constructive, and Invasive, each governed by uniquely essential transcription factors and present within GBMs in varying proportions. Orthotopic xenografts reveal that GSC states associate with survival, and identify an invasive GSC signature predictive of low patient survival, in line with the higher invasive properties of Invasive state GSCs compared to Reactive and Constructive GSCs as shown by in vitro and in vivo assays. Our chromatin-driven characterization of GSC states improves prognostic precision and identifies dependencies to guide combination therapies.

Data availability

The GSCs are available upon reasonable request from PBD and SW. The GSC ATAC-seq and DNA methylation data have been deposited at GEO (GSE109399). The scATAC-seq data has been deposited at GEO (GSE139136). RNA-seq data are available at EGA (EGAS00001003070).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Paul Guilhamon

    Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8276-5987
  2. Charles Chesnelong

    Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Michelle M Kushida

    Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ana Nikolic

    Arnie Charbonneau Cancer Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Divya Singhal

    Arnie Charbonneau Cancer Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Graham MacLeod

    Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6401-9307
  7. Seyed Ali Madani Tonekaboni

    Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Florence MG Cavalli

    Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Christopher Arlidge

    Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Nishani Rajakulendran

    Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Naghmeh Rastegar

    Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Xiaoguang Hao

    Arnie Charbonneau Cancer Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2695-0111
  13. Rozina Hassam

    Arnie Charbonneau Cancer Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Laura J Smith

    Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Heather Whetstone

    Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Fiona J Coutinho

    Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Bettina Nadorp

    Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Katrina I Ellestad

    Arnie Charbonneau Cancer Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Artee H Luchman

    Arnie Charbonneau Cancer Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Jennifer Ai-wen Chan

    Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Molly S Shoichet

    Chemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1830-3475
  22. Michael D Taylor

    Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Benjamin Haibe-Kains

    Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Sam Weiss

    Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Stephane Angers

    Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7241-9044
  26. Marco Gallo

    Arnie Charbonneau Cancer Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Peter B Dirks

    Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
    For correspondence
    peter.dirks@sickkids.ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Mathieu Lupien

    Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
    For correspondence
    mlupien@uhnres.utoronto.ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0929-9478

Funding

CIHR (TGH-158221)

  • Stephane Angers
  • Peter B Dirks
  • Mathieu Lupien

SU2C canada (SU2C-AACR-DT-19-15)

  • Michael D Taylor
  • Sam Weiss
  • Peter B Dirks
  • Mathieu Lupien

CIHR (MFE 338954)

  • Paul Guilhamon

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal procedures were performed according to and approved by the Animal Care Committee of the Hospital for Sick Children or the University of Calgary. All attempts are made to minimize the handling time during surgery and treatment so as not to unduly stress the animals. Animals are observed daily after surgery to ensure there are no unexpected complications

Human subjects: All tissue samples were obtained following informed consent from patients, and all experimental procedures were performed in accordance with the Research Ethics Board at The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, Canada), the University of Calgary Ethics Review Board, and the Health Research Ethics Board of Alberta - Cancer Committee (HREBA). Approval to pathological data was obtained from the respective institutional review boards.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Lynne-Marie Postovit, University of Alberta, Canada

Publication history

  1. Received: October 17, 2020
  2. Accepted: January 8, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 11, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 29, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Guilhamon 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

  • 2,774
    Page views
  • 446
    Downloads
  • 1
    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
    Ali Ekrem Yesilkanal et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Metastasis suppression by high-dose, multi-drug targeting is unsuccessful due to network heterogeneity and compensatory network activation. Here, we show that targeting driver network signaling capacity by limited inhibition of core pathways is a more effective anti-metastatic strategy. This principle underlies the action of a physiological metastasis suppressor, Raf Kinase Inhibitory Protein (RKIP), that moderately decreases stress-regulated MAP kinase network activity, reducing output to transcription factors such as pro-metastastic BACH1 and motility-related target genes. We developed a low-dose four-drug mimic that blocks metastatic colonization in mouse breast cancer models and increases survival. Experiments and network flow modeling show limited inhibition of multiple pathways is required to overcome variation in MAPK network topology and suppress signaling output across heterogeneous tumor cells. Restricting inhibition of individual kinases dissipates surplus signal, preventing threshold activation of compensatory kinase networks. This low-dose multi-drug approach to decrease signaling capacity of driver networks represents a transformative, clinically relevant strategy for anti-metastatic treatment.

    1. Cancer Biology
    Siqi Li, Christopher M Counter
    Research Article

    RAS genes are commonly mutated in human cancer. Despite many possible mutations, individual cancer types often have a ‘tropism’ towards a specific subset of RAS mutations. As driver mutations, these patterns ostensibly originate from normal cells. High oncogenic RAS activity causes oncogenic stress and different oncogenic mutations can impart different levels of activity, suggesting a relationship between oncoprotein activity and RAS mutation tropism. Here, we show that changing rare codons to common in the murine Kras gene to increase protein expression shifts tumors induced by the carcinogen urethane from arising from canonical Q61 to biochemically less active G12 Kras driver mutations, despite the carcinogen still being biased towards generating Q61 mutations. Conversely, inactivating the tumor suppressor p53 to blunt oncogenic stress partially reversed this effect, restoring Q61 mutations. One interpretation of these findings is that the RAS mutation tropism of urethane arises from selection in normal cells for specific mutations that impart a narrow window of signaling that promotes proliferation without causing oncogenic stress.