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

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.

Reviewing Editor

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

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.

Version 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

  • 7,923
    Page views
  • 973
    Downloads
  • 38
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

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. Paul Guilhamon
  2. Charles Chesnelong
  3. Michelle M Kushida
  4. Ana Nikolic
  5. Divya Singhal
  6. Graham MacLeod
  7. Seyed Ali Madani Tonekaboni
  8. Florence MG Cavalli
  9. Christopher Arlidge
  10. Nishani Rajakulendran
  11. Naghmeh Rastegar
  12. Xiaoguang Hao
  13. Rozina Hassam
  14. Laura J Smith
  15. Heather Whetstone
  16. Fiona J Coutinho
  17. Bettina Nadorp
  18. Katrina I Ellestad
  19. Artee H Luchman
  20. Jennifer Ai-wen Chan
  21. Molly S Shoichet
  22. Michael D Taylor
  23. Benjamin Haibe-Kains
  24. Sam Weiss
  25. Stephane Angers
  26. Marco Gallo
  27. Peter B Dirks
  28. Mathieu Lupien
(2021)
Single-cell chromatin accessibility profiling of glioblastoma identifies an Invasive cancer stem cell population associated with lower survival
eLife 10:e64090.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64090

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64090

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    Wanyoung Lim, Inwoo Hwang ... Sungsu Park
    Research Article

    Chemoresistance is a major cause of treatment failure in many cancers. However, the life cycle of cancer cells as they respond to and survive environmental and therapeutic stress is understudied. In this study, we utilized a microfluidic device to induce the development of doxorubicin-resistant (DOXR) cells from triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells within 11 days by generating gradients of DOX and medium. In vivo chemoresistant xenograft models, an unbiased genome-wide transcriptome analysis, and a patient data/tissue analysis all showed that chemoresistance arose from failed epigenetic control of the nuclear protein-1 (NUPR1)/histone deacetylase 11 (HDAC11) axis, and high NUPR1 expression correlated with poor clinical outcomes. These results suggest that the chip can rapidly induce resistant cells that increase tumor heterogeneity and chemoresistance, highlighting the need for further studies on the epigenetic control of the NUPR1/HDAC11 axis in TNBC.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Bingrui Li, Fernanda G Kugeratski, Raghu Kalluri
    Research Article

    Non-invasive early cancer diagnosis remains challenging due to the low sensitivity and specificity of current diagnostic approaches. Exosomes are membrane-bound nanovesicles secreted by all cells that contain DNA, RNA, and proteins that are representative of the parent cells. This property, along with the abundance of exosomes in biological fluids makes them compelling candidates as biomarkers. However, a rapid and flexible exosome-based diagnostic method to distinguish human cancers across cancer types in diverse biological fluids is yet to be defined. Here, we describe a novel machine learning-based computational method to distinguish cancers using a panel of proteins associated with exosomes. Employing datasets of exosome proteins from human cell lines, tissue, plasma, serum, and urine samples from a variety of cancers, we identify Clathrin Heavy Chain (CLTC), Ezrin, (EZR), Talin-1 (TLN1), Adenylyl cyclase-associated protein 1 (CAP1), and Moesin (MSN) as highly abundant universal biomarkers for exosomes and define three panels of pan-cancer exosome proteins that distinguish cancer exosomes from other exosomes and aid in classifying cancer subtypes employing random forest models. All the models using proteins from plasma, serum, or urine-derived exosomes yield AUROC scores higher than 0.91 and demonstrate superior performance compared to Support Vector Machine, K Nearest Neighbor Classifier and Gaussian Naive Bayes. This study provides a reliable protein biomarker signature associated with cancer exosomes with scalable machine learning capability for a sensitive and specific non-invasive method of cancer diagnosis.