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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ivan Topisirovic, Jewish General Hospital, Canada

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.

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: April 16, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: April 17, 2021
  3. Accepted: January 22, 2023
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: January 24, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: February 13, 2023 (version 2)
  6. Version of Record updated: September 8, 2023 (version 3)

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

  • 2,042
    views
  • 341
    downloads
  • 13
    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. Cell Biology
    Camille Dantzer, Justine Vaché ... Violaine Moreau
    Research Article

    Immune checkpoint inhibitors have produced encouraging results in cancer patients. However, the majority of ß-catenin-mutated tumors have been described as lacking immune infiltrates and resistant to immunotherapy. The mechanisms by which oncogenic ß-catenin affects immune surveillance remain unclear. Herein, we highlighted the involvement of ß-catenin in the regulation of the exosomal pathway and, by extension, in immune/cancer cell communication in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We showed that mutated ß-catenin represses expression of SDC4 and RAB27A, two main actors in exosome biogenesis, in both liver cancer cell lines and HCC patient samples. Using nanoparticle tracking analysis and live-cell imaging, we further demonstrated that activated ß-catenin represses exosome release. Then, we demonstrated in 3D spheroid models that activation of β-catenin promotes a decrease in immune cell infiltration through a defect in exosome secretion. Taken together, our results provide the first evidence that oncogenic ß-catenin plays a key role in exosome biogenesis. Our study gives new insight into the impact of ß-catenin mutations on tumor microenvironment remodeling, which could lead to the development of new strategies to enhance immunotherapeutic response.

    1. Cancer Biology
    Fang Huang, Zhenwei Dai ... Yang Wang
    Research Article

    Aberrant alternative splicing is well-known to be closely associated with tumorigenesis of various cancers. However, the intricate mechanisms underlying breast cancer metastasis driven by deregulated splicing events remain largely unexplored. Here, we unveiled that RBM7 is decreased in lymph node and distant organ metastases of breast cancer as compared to primary lesions and low expression of RBM7 is correlated with the reduced disease-free survival of breast cancer patients. Breast cancer cells with RBM7 depletion exhibited an increased potential for lung metastasis compared to scramble control cells. The absence of RBM7 stimulated breast cancer cell migration, invasion, and angiogenesis. Mechanistically, RBM7 controlled the splicing switch of MFGE8, favoring the production of the predominant isoform of MFGE8, MFGE8-L. This resulted in the attenuation of STAT1 phosphorylation and alterations in cell adhesion molecules. MFGE8-L exerted an inhibitory effect on the migratory and invasive capability of breast cancer cells, while the truncated isoform MFGE8-S, which lack the second F5/8 type C domain had the opposite effect. In addition, RBM7 negatively regulates the NF-κB cascade and an NF-κB inhibitor could obstruct the increase in HUVEC tube formation caused by RBM7 silencing. Clinically, we noticed a positive correlation between RBM7 expression and MFGE8 exon7 inclusion in breast cancer tissues, providing new mechanistic insights for molecular-targeted therapy in combating breast cancer.