The context-dependent epigenetic and organogenesis programs determine 3D vs. 2D cellular fitness of MYC-driven murine liver cancer cells

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this report, the authors made use of a murine cell life derived from a MYC-driven liver cancer to investigate the gene expression changes that accompany the switch from normoxic to hypoxia conditions during 2D growth and the switch from 2D monolayer to 3D organoid growth under normoxic conditions. They find a significant (ca. 40-50%) overlap among the genes that are dysregulated in response to hypoxia in 2D cultures and in response to spheroid formation. Unsurprisingly, hypoxia-related genes were among the most prominently deregulated under both sets of conditions. Many other pathways pertaining to metabolism, splicing, mitochondrial electron transport chain structure and function, DNA damage recognition/repair, and lipid biosynthesis were also identified.

Major comments:

(1) Lines 239-240: The authors state that genes involved in DNA repair were identified as being necessary to maintain survival of both 2D and 3D cultures (Figure S6A). Hypoxia is a strong inducer of ROS. Thus, the ROS-specific DNA damage/recognition/repair pathways might be particularly important. The authors should look more carefully at the various subgroups of the many genes that are involved in DNA repair. They should also obtain at least a qualitative assessment of ROS and ROS-mediated DNA damage by staining for total and mitochondrial-specific ROS using dyes such as CM-H2-DCFDA and MitoSox. Actual direct oxidative damage could be assessed by immunostaining for 8-oxo-dG and related to the sub-types of DNA damage-repair genes that are induced. The centrality of DNA damage genes also raises the question as to whether the previously noted prominence of the TP53 pathway (see point 5 below) might represent a response to ROS-induced DNA damage.

(2) Because most of the pathway differences that distinguish the various cell states from one another are described only in terms of their transcriptome variations, it is not always possible to understand what the functional consequences of these changes actually are. For example, the authors report that hypoxia alters the expression of genes involved in PDH regulation but this is quite vague and not backed up with any functional or empirical analyses. PDH activity is complex and regulated primarily via phosphorylation/dephosphorylation (usually mediated by PDK1 and PDP2, respectively), which in turn are regulated by prevailing levels of ATP and ADP. Functionally, one might expect that hypoxia would lead to the down-regulation of PDH activity (i.e. increased PDH-pSer392) as respiration changes from oxidative to non-oxidative. This would not be appreciated simply by looking at PDH transcript levels. This notion could be tested by looking at total and phospho-PDH by western blotting and/or by measuring actual PDH activity as it converts pyruvate to AcCoA.

(3) Line 439: Related to the above point: the authors state: "It is likely that blockade of acetyl-CoA production by PDH knockout may force cells to use alternative energy sources under hypoxic and 3D conditions, averting the Warburg effect and promoting cell survival under limited oxygen and nutrient availability in 3D spheroids." This could easily be tested by determining whether exogenous fatty acids are more readily oxidized by hypoxic 2D cultures or spheroids than occurs in normoxic 2D cultures.

(4) Line 472: "Hypoxia induces high expression of Acaca and Fasn in NEJF10 cells indicating that hypoxia promotes saturated fatty acid synthesis...The beneficial effect of Fasn and Acaca KO to NEJF10 under hypoxia is probably due to reduction of saturated fatty acid synthesis, and this hypothesis needs to be tested in the future.". As with the preceding comment, this supposition could readily be supported directly by, for example, performing westerns blots for these enzymes and by showing that incubation of hypoxic 2D cells or spheroids converted more AcCoA into lipid.

(5) In Supplementary Figure 2B&C, the central hub of the 2D normoxic cultures is Myc (as it should well be) whereas, in the normoxic 3D, the central hub is TP53 and Myc is not even present. The authors should comment on this. One would assume that Myc levels should still be quite high given that Myc is driven by an exogenous promoter. Does the centrality of TP53 indicate that the cells within the spheroids are growth-arrested, being subjected to DNA damage and/or undergoing apoptosis?

(6) In the Materials and Methods section (lines 711-720), the description of how spheroid formation was achieved is unclear. Why were the cells first plated into non-adherent 96 well plates and then into non-adherent T75 flasks? Did the authors actually utilize and expand the cells from 144 T75 flasks and did the cells continue to proliferate after forming spheroids? Many cancer cell types will initially form monolayers when plated onto non-adherent surfaces such as plastic Petri dishes and will form spheroid-like structures only after several days. Other cells will only aggregate on the "non-adherent" surface and form spheroid-like structures but will not actually detach from the plate's surface. Have the authors actually documented the formation of true, non-adherent spheroids at 2 days and did they retain uniform size and shape throughout the collection period? The single photo in Supplementary Figure 1 does not explain when this was taken. The authors include a schematic in Figure 2A of the various conditions that were studied. A similar cartoon should be included to better explain precisely how the spheroids were generated and clarify the rationale for 96 well plating. Overall, a clearer and more concise description of how spheroids were actually generated and their appearance at different stages of formation needs to be provided.

(7) The authors maintained 2D cultures in either normoxic or hypoxic (1% O2) states during the course of their experiments. On the other hand, 3D cultures were maintained under normoxic conditions, with the assumption that the interiors of the spheroids resemble the hypoxic interiors of tumors. However, the actual documentation of intra-spheroid hypoxia is never presented. It would be a good idea for the authors to compare the degree of hypoxia achieved by 2D (1% O2) and 3D cultures by staining with a hypoxia-detecting dye such as Image-iT Green. Comparing the fluorescence intensities in 2D cultures at various O2 concentrations might even allow for the construction of a "standard curve" that could serve to approximate the actual internal O2 concentration of spheroids. This would allow the authors to correlate the relative levels of hypoxia between 2D and 3D cultures.

(8) Related to the previous 2 points, the authors performed RNAseq on spheroids only 48 hours after initiating 3D growth. I am concerned that this might not have been a sufficiently long enough time for the cells to respond fully to their hypoxic state, especially given my concerns in Point 6. Might the results have been even more robust had the authors waited longer to perform RNA seq? Why was this short time used?

(9) What happens to the gene expression pattern if spheroids are re-plated into standard tissue culture plates after having been maintained as spheroids? Do they resume 2D growth and does the gene expression pattern change back?

(10) Overall, the paper is quite descriptive in that it lists many gene sets that are altered in response to hypoxia and the formation of spheroids without really delving into the actual functional implications and/or prioritizing the sets. Some of these genes are shown by CRISPR screening to be essential for maintaining viability although in very few cases are these findings ever translated into functional studies (for example, see points 1-4 above). The list of genes and gene pathways could benefit from a better explanation and prioritization of which gene sets the authors believe to be most important for survival in response to hypoxia and for spheroid formation.

(11) The authors used a single MYC-driven tumor cell line for their studies. However, in their original paper (Fang, et al. Nat Commun 2023, 14: 4003.) numerous independent cell lines were described. It would help to know whether RNAseq studies performed on several other similar cell lines gave similar results in terms of up & down-regulated transcripts (i.e. representative of the other cell lines are NEJF10 cells).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Fang et al., provides a tour-de-force study uncovering cancer cell's varied dependencies on several gene programs for their survival under different biological contexts. The authors addressed genomic differences in 2D vs 3D cultures and how hypoxia affects gene expression. They used a Myc-driven murine liver cancer model grown in 2D monolayer culture in normoxia and hypoxia as well as cells grown as 3D spheroids and performed CRISPR-based genome-wide KO screen to identify genes that play important roles in cell fitness. Some context-specific gene effects were further validated by in-vitro and in-vivo gene KO experiments.

Strengths:

The key findings in this manuscript are:

(1) Close to 50% of differentially expressed genes were common between 2D Hypoxia and 3D spheroids conditions but they had differences in chromatin accessibility.
(2) VHL-HIF1a pathway had differential cell fitness outcomes under 2D normoxia vs 2D hypoxia and 3D spheroids.
(3) Individual components of the mitochondrial respiratory chain complex had contrasting effects on cell fitness under hypoxia.
(4) Knockout of organogenesis or developmental pathway genes led to better cell growth specifically in the context of 3D spheroids and knockout of epigenetic modifiers had varied effects between 2D and 3D conditions.
(5) Another key program that leads to cells fitness outcomes in normoxia vs hypoxia is the lipid and fatty acid metabolism.
(6) Prmt5 is a key essential gene under all growth conditions, but in the context of 3D spheroids even partial loss of Prmt5 has a synthetic lethal effect with Mtap deletion and Mtap is epigenetically silenced specifically in the 3D spheroids.

Issues to address:

(1) The authors should clarify the link between the findings of the enrichment of TGFb-SMAD signaling REACTOME pathway to the findings that knocking out TGFb-SMAD pathway leads to better cell fitness outcomes for cells in the 3D growth conditions.

(2) Supplementary Figure 4C has been cited in the text but doesn't exist in the supplementary figures section.

(3) A small figure explaining this ABC-Myc driven liver cancer model in Supplementary Figure 1 would be helpful to provide context.

(4) The method for spheroids formation is not found in the method section.

(5) In Supplementary Figure 1b, the comparisons should be stated the opposite way - 3D vs 2D normoxia and 2D-Hypoxia vs 2D-Normoxia.

(6) There are typos in the legend for Supplementary Figure 10.

(7) Consider putting Supplementary Figure 1b into the main Figure 1.

(8) Please explain only one timepoint (endpoint) for 3D spheroids was performed for the CRISPR KO screen experiment, while several timepoints were done for 2D conditions? Was this for technical convenience?

(9) In line 372, it is indicated that Bcor KO (Fig 5e) had growth advantage - this was observed in only one of the gRNA -- same with Kmt2d KO in the same figure where there was an opposite effect. Please justify the use of only one gRNA.

(10) Why was CRISPR based KO strategy not used for the PRMT5 gene but rather than the use of shRNA.? Note that one of the shRNA for PRMT5 had almost no KO (PRMT5-shRNA2 Figure 7B) but still showed phenotype (Figure 7D) - please explain.

(11) In Figure 7D, which samples (which shRNA group) were being compared to do the t-test?

(12) In line 240, it is stated that oxphos gene set is essential for NEJF10 cell survival in both normoxia and hypoxia conditions. But shouldn't oxphos be non-essential in hypoxia as cells move away from oxphos and become glycolytic?

(13) In line 485 it is mentioned that Pmvk and Mvd genes which are involved in cholesterol synthesis when knocked out had a positive effect on cell growth in 3D conditions and since cholesterol synthesis is essential for cell growth how does this not matter much in the context of 3D - please explain.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Fang et al. systematically investigate the effects of culture conditions on gene expression, genome architecture, and gene dependency. To do this, they cultivate the murine HCC line NEJF10 under standard culture conditions (2D), then under similar conditions but under hypoxia (1% oxygen, 2D hypoxia) and under normoxia as spheroids (3D). NEJF10 was isolated from a marine HCC model that relies exclusively on MYC as a driver oncogene. In principle, (1) RNA-seq, (2) ATAC-seq and (3) genetic screens were then performed in this isogenic system and the results were systematically compared in the three cultivation methods. In particular, genome-wide screens with the CRISPR library Brie were performed very carefully. For example, in the 2D conditions, many different time points were harvested to control the selection process kinetically. The authors note differential dependencies for metabolic processes (not surprisingly, hypoxia signaling is affected) such as the regulation and activity of mitochondria, but also organogenesis signaling and epigenetic regulation.

Strengths:

The topic is interesting and relevant and the experimental set-up is carefully chosen and meaningful. The paper is well written. While the study does not reveal any major surprises, the results represent an important resource for the scientific community.

Weaknesses:

However, this presupposes that the statistical analysis and processing are carried out very carefully, and this is where my main suggestions for revision begin. Firstly, I cannot find any information on the number of replicates in RNA- and ATAC-seq. This should be clearly stated in the results section and figure legends and cut-offs, statistical procedures, p-values, etc. should be mentioned as well. In principle, all NGS experiments (here ATAC- and RNA-seq) should be performed in replicates (at least duplicates, better triplicates) or the results should be validated by RT-PCR in independent biological triplicates. Secondly, the quantification of the analyses shown in the figures and especially in the legends is not sufficiently careful. Units are often not mentioned. Example Figure 4a: The legend says: 'gRNA reads' but how can the read count be -1? I would guess these are FC, log2FC, or Z-values. All figure legends need careful revision.

Furthermore, I would find a comparison of the sgRNA abundances at the earliest harvesting time with the distribution in the library interesting, to see whether and to what extent selection has already taken place before the three culture conditions were established (minor point).