Oncogenic PKA signaling increases c-MYC protein expression through multiple targetable mechanisms

Abstract

Genetic alterations that activate protein kinase A (PKA) are found in many tumor types. Yet, their downstream oncogenic signaling mechanisms are poorly understood. We used global phosphoproteomics and kinase activity profiling to map conserved signaling outputs driven by a range of genetic changes that activate PKA in human cancer. Two signaling networks were identified downstream of PKA: RAS/MAPK components, and an Aurora Kinase A (AURKA) /glycogen synthase kinase (GSK3) sub-network with activity toward MYC oncoproteins. Findings were validated in two PKA-dependent cancer models: a novel, patient-derived fibrolamellar liver cancer (FLC) line that expresses a DNAJ-PKAc fusion, and a PKA-addicted melanoma model with a mutant Type I PKA regulatory subunit. We identify PKA signals that can influence both de novo translation and stability of the proto-oncogene c-MYC. However, the primary mechanism of PKA effects on MYC in our cell models was translation and could be blocked with the eIF4A inhibitor zotatifin. This compound dramatically reduced c-MYC expression and inhibited FLC cell line growth in vitro. Thus, targeting PKA effects on translation is a potential treatment strategy for FLC and other PKA-driven cancers.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Mass spectrometry RAW mass spectrum files have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD025508.

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Gary KL Chan

    Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Samantha Maisel

    Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Yeonjoo C Hwang

    Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Bryan C Pascual

    Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Rebecca RB Wolber

    Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Phuong Vu

    Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Krushna C Patra

    Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Mehdi Bouhaddou

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Heidi L Kenerson

    Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Huat C Lim

    Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Donald Long

    Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Raymond S Yeung

    Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Praveen Sethupathy

    Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Danielle L Swaney

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6119-6084
  15. Nevan J Krogan

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Rigney E Turnham

    Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Kimberly J Riehle

    Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. John D Scott

    Department of Pharmacology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0367-8146
  19. Nabeel Bardeesy

    Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. John D Gordan

    Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    John.Gordan@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8997-5725

Funding

Fibrolamellar Cancer Foundation (N/A)

  • John D Gordan

Burroughs Wellcome Fund Career Award (N/A)

  • John D Gordan

Fibrolamellar Cancer Foundation (N/A)

  • Nabeel Bardeesy

Fibrolamellar Cancer Foundation (N/A)

  • John D Scott

National Institutes of Health (DK119192)

  • John D Scott

DOD Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program (12715138)

  • Raymond S Yeung

National Institutes of Health (F32CA239333)

  • Mehdi Bouhaddou

National Institutes of Health (U54 CA209891)

  • Nevan J Krogan

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

Ethics

Human subjects: Human FLCs and paired normal livers were obtained from the University of Washington Medical Center and Seattle Children's Hospital after institutional review board approval (SCH IRB #15277). For prospective fresh tissue collections, informed consent was obtained from the subject and/or parent prior to resection.

Copyright

© 2023, Chan 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

  • 2,325
    views
  • 369
    downloads
  • 19
    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. Gary KL Chan
  2. Samantha Maisel
  3. Yeonjoo C Hwang
  4. Bryan C Pascual
  5. Rebecca RB Wolber
  6. Phuong Vu
  7. Krushna C Patra
  8. Mehdi Bouhaddou
  9. Heidi L Kenerson
  10. Huat C Lim
  11. Donald Long
  12. Raymond S Yeung
  13. Praveen Sethupathy
  14. Danielle L Swaney
  15. Nevan J Krogan
  16. Rigney E Turnham
  17. Kimberly J Riehle
  18. John D Scott
  19. Nabeel Bardeesy
  20. John D Gordan
(2023)
Oncogenic PKA signaling increases c-MYC protein expression through multiple targetable mechanisms
eLife 12:e69521.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69521

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69521

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Medicine
    Patrick Brandt, Dawayne Whittington ... Rebekah L Layton
    Research Article

    A doctoral-level internship program was developed at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with the intent to create customizable experiential learning opportunities for biomedical trainees to support career exploration, preparation, and transition into their postgraduate professional roles. We report the outcomes of this program over a 5-year period. During that 5-year period, 123 internships took place at over 70 partner sites, representing at least 20 academic, for-profit, and non-profit career paths in the life sciences. A major goal of the program was to enhance trainees’ skill development and expertise in careers of interest. The benefits of the internship program for interns, host/employer, and supervisor/principal investigator were assessed using a mixed-methods approach, including surveys with closed- and open-ended responses as well as focus group interviews. Balancing stakeholder interests is key to creating a sustainable program with widespread support; hence, the level of support from internship hosts and faculty members were the key metrics analyzed throughout. We hypothesized that once a successful internship program was implemented, faculty culture might shift to be more accepting of internships; indeed, the data quantifying faculty attitudes support this. Furthermore, host motivation and performance expectations of interns were compared with results achieved, and this data revealed both expected and surprising benefits to hosts. Data suggests a myriad of benefits for each stakeholder group, and themes are cataloged and discussed. Program outcomes, evaluation data, policies, resources, and best practices developed through the implementation of this program are shared to provide resources that facilitate the creation of similar internship programs at other institutions. Program development was initially spurred by National Institutes of Health pilot funding, thereafter, successfully transitioning from a grant-supported model, to an institutionally supported funding model to achieve long-term programmatic sustainability.

    1. Cancer Biology
    Ke Ning, Yuanyuan Xie ... Ling Yu
    Research Article

    For traditional laboratory microscopy observation, the multi-dimensional, real-time, in situ observation of three-dimensional (3D) tumor spheroids has always been the pain point in cell spheroid observation. In this study, we designed a side-view observation petri dish/device that reflects light, enabling in situ observation of the 3D morphology of cell spheroids using conventional inverted laboratory microscopes. We used a 3D-printed handle and frame to support a first-surface mirror, positioning the device within a cell culture petri dish to image cell spheroid samples. The imaging conditions, such as the distance between the mirror and the 3D spheroids, the light source, and the impact of the culture medium, were systematically studied to validate the in situ side-view observation. The results proved that placing the surface mirror adjacent to the spheroids enables non-destructive in situ real-time tracking of tumor spheroid formation, migration, and fusion dynamics. The correlation between spheroid thickness and dark core appearance under light microscopy and the therapeutic effects of chemotherapy doxorubicin and natural killer cells on spheroids’ 3D structure was investigated.