Abstract

Bariatric surgery is becoming more prevalent as a sustainable weight loss approach, with vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) being the first line of surgical intervention. We and others have shown that obesity exacerbates tumor growth while diet-induced weight loss impairs obesity-driven progression. It remains unknown how bariatric surgery-induced weight loss impacts cancer progression or alters responses to therapy. Using a pre-clinical model of diet induced obesity followed by VSG or diet-induced weight loss, breast cancer progression and immune checkpoint blockade therapy was investigated. Weight loss by bariatric surgery or weight matched dietary intervention before tumor engraftment protected against obesity-exacerbated tumor progression. However, VSG was not as effective as dietary intervention in reducing tumor burden despite achieving a similar extent of weight and adiposity loss. Circulating leptin did not associate with changes in tumor burden, however circulating IL-6 was elevated in mice after VSG. Uniquely, tumors in mice that received VSG displayed elevated inflammation and immune checkpoint ligand PD-L1+ myeloid and non-immune cells. Further, mice that received VSG had reduced tumor T lymphocytes and markers of cytolysis suggesting an ineffective anti-tumor microenvironment. VSG-associated elevation of PD-L1 prompted us to next investigate the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade in lean, obese, and formerly obese mice that lost weight by VSG or weight matched controls. While obese mice were resistant to immune checkpoint blockade, anti-PD-L1 potently impaired tumor progression after VSG through improved anti-tumor immunity. Thus, in formerly obese mice, surgical weight loss followed by immunotherapy reduced breast cancer burden. Last, we compared transcriptomic changes in adipose tissue after bariatric surgery from both patients and mouse models that revealed a conserved bariatric surgery associated weight loss signature (BSAS). Importantly, BSAS significantly associated with decreased tumor volume. Our findings demonstrate conserved impacts of obesity and bariatric surgery-induced weight loss pathways associated with breast cancer progression.

Data availability

The data generated in this study are available within the source data file stored in Dryad Digital Repository, doi:10.5061/dryad.w0vt4b8tq.The RNA-seq data generated in this study are publicly available in NCBI GEO GSE174760 of tumor RNA-seq and NCBI GEO GSE174761 of mammary fat pad RNA-seq.

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Laura M Sipe

    Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Mehdi Chaib

    Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Emily B Korba

    Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7422-9084
  4. Heejoon Jo

    Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Mary Camille Lovely

    Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Brittany R Counts

    Integrative Muscle Biology Laboratory, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ubaid Tanveer

    Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jeremiah R Holt

    Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jared C Clements

    Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Neena A John

    Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Deidre Daria

    Office of Vice Chancellor for Research, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Tony N Marion

    Office of Vice Chancellor for Research, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Margaret S Bohm

    Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Biochemistry, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Radhika Sekhri

    Department of Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Ajeeth K Pingili

    Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Bin Teng

    Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. James A Carson

    Integrative Muscle Biology Laboratory, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. D Neil Hayes

    Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Matthew J Davis

    Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Katherine L Cook

    Department of Surgery, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Joseph F Pierre

    Department of Microbiology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Liza Makowski

    Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
    For correspondence
    liza.makowski@uthsc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5337-8037

Funding

National Cancer Institute (R01CA253329)

  • Matthew J Davis
  • Joseph F Pierre
  • Liza Makowski

National Cancer Institute (R37CA226969)

  • D Neil Hayes
  • Liza Makowski

National Cancer Institute (F32 CA250192)

  • Laura M Sipe

National Cancer Institute (R25CA203650)

  • Laura M Sipe

Mary Kay Foundation

  • Liza Makowski

V Foundation for Cancer Research

  • D Neil Hayes

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK127209)

  • Joseph F Pierre

American Association for Cancer Research (Triple Negative Breast Cancer Foundation Research Fellowship)

  • Laura M Sipe

National Cancer Institute (F30CA265224)

  • Jeremiah R Holt

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animal studies were performed with approval and in accordance with the guidelines of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center (Animal Welfare Assurance Number A3325-01) and in accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals . The protocol was approved under the protocol identifier 21.0224.

Copyright

© 2022, Sipe 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

  • 1,229
    views
  • 259
    downloads
  • 15
    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. Laura M Sipe
  2. Mehdi Chaib
  3. Emily B Korba
  4. Heejoon Jo
  5. Mary Camille Lovely
  6. Brittany R Counts
  7. Ubaid Tanveer
  8. Jeremiah R Holt
  9. Jared C Clements
  10. Neena A John
  11. Deidre Daria
  12. Tony N Marion
  13. Margaret S Bohm
  14. Radhika Sekhri
  15. Ajeeth K Pingili
  16. Bin Teng
  17. James A Carson
  18. D Neil Hayes
  19. Matthew J Davis
  20. Katherine L Cook
  21. Joseph F Pierre
  22. Liza Makowski
(2022)
Response to immune checkpoint blockade improved in pre-clinical model of breast cancer after bariatric surgery
eLife 11:e79143.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79143

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79143

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    Rui Vasco Simoes, Rafael Neto Henriques ... Noam Shemesh
    Research Article

    Glioblastomas are aggressive brain tumors with dismal prognosis. One of the main bottlenecks for developing more effective therapies for glioblastoma stems from their histologic and molecular heterogeneity, leading to distinct tumor microenvironments and disease phenotypes. Effectively characterizing these features would improve the clinical management of glioblastoma. Glucose flux rates through glycolysis and mitochondrial oxidation have been recently shown to quantitatively depict glioblastoma proliferation in mouse models (GL261 and CT2A tumors) using dynamic glucose-enhanced (DGE) deuterium spectroscopy. However, the spatial features of tumor microenvironment phenotypes remain hitherto unresolved. Here, we develop a DGE Deuterium Metabolic Imaging (DMI) approach for profiling tumor microenvironments through glucose conversion kinetics. Using a multimodal combination of tumor mouse models, novel strategies for spectroscopic imaging and noise attenuation, and histopathological correlations, we show that tumor lactate turnover mirrors phenotype differences between GL261 and CT2A mouse glioblastoma, whereas recycling of the peritumoral glutamate-glutamine pool is a potential marker of invasion capacity in pooled cohorts, linked to secondary brain lesions. These findings were validated by histopathological characterization of each tumor, including cell density and proliferation, peritumoral invasion and distant migration, and immune cell infiltration. Our study bodes well for precision neuro-oncology, highlighting the importance of mapping glucose flux rates to better understand the metabolic heterogeneity of glioblastoma and its links to disease phenotypes.

    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.