A positive feedback loop between ZEB2 and ACSL4 regulates lipid metabolism to promote breast cancer metastasis

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study, Jiamin Lin et al. investigated the potential positive feedback loop between ZEB2 and ACSL4, which regulates lipid metabolism and breast cancer metastasis. They reported a correlation between high expression of ZEB2 and ACSL4 and poor survival of breast cancer patients, and showed that depletion of ZEB2 or ACSL4 significantly reduced lipid droplets abundance and cell migration in vitro. The authors also claimed that ZEB2 activated ACSL4 expression by directly binding to its promoter, while ACSL4 in turn stabilized ZEB2 by blocking its ubiquitination. While the topic is interesting, there are several major concerns with the study and its conclusions are not convincing.

1. Figure 1A, the clinical relevance or biological significance of drug-resistant luminal breast cancer cell lines with metastatic cancer is questionable. Additionally, the RNA-seq analysis lacked multiple test correction for differential gene expression analysis, and no fold-change cut-off was used, leading to incorrect thresholds and wrongly identified significant signals.

2. Figure 1D-E, the clinical associations between ACSL4 and ZEB2 overexpression and poor patient survival are not justified. The authors used an old web tool, the Kaplan-Meier plotter database, based on microarray data, to perform the analysis. The reviewer repeated the analysis and found that multiple microarray probes for ZEB2 were available, leading to opposite results when different probes were selected. The reviewer also repeated the analysis using more reliable TCGA RNA-seq data and found no correlation between ASCL4 or ZEB2 expression and post-progression survival.

3. Figure 1I relied on IHC to support the negative correlation between ACSL4 and Erα expression, but the small sample size limits the power to establish the relationship and the results are not definitive without further replication or biological investigation. The authors should provide more detailed and comprehensive analysis, including appropriate statistical tests, to ensure the findings are robust and reliable.

4. Figure 3B-C lacks justification of the differences by showing only one field without any internal control for exposure. The reviewer suggests to show additional fields where cells with both efficiently and inefficiently knocked-down are present, to justify the robustness of the results. This can also be achieved by mixing control and knockdown cells.

5. Figure 4A-D, oleate-induced cell migration is a well-documented feature across different cancer types. To make it more relevant to the current study, the authors should examine multiple cell lines with high and low ZEB2/ACSL4 expression to determine the underlying relevance.

6. Figure 4E, it is difficulty to conclude that cancer cells utilize stored lipids during migration to fuel metastasis based on current data. Do you see any evidence of lipid signal decreasing in the leading edge of the scratch wound-healing migration assay? The authors should also compare signals between unmigrated and migrated cells in the transwell assay.

7. Figure 6 warrants a genome-wide ChIP-seq to justify direct regulation of ASCL4 promoter by ZEB2. The reviewer's analysis of publicly available ZEB2 ChIP-seq in multiple cell types detected no ZEB2 binding signaling within {plus minus} 5 kb of ASCL4 promoter.

8. Figure 7 presents a series of self-contradictory results. Figure 7C, why no significant change in ZEB2-MYC expression was observed in the presence of ACSL4 and/or HA-Ubi? In Figure 7 E&G, why robust ACSL4 expression is present in the control group in (E) but not in (G)? Additionally, why there is no degradation in ZEB2 baseline level over time in the shACSL4 group in (E)? These raise severe concerns about the data quality.

9. Figure 7D, the IP result of ACSL4 is not justified as there is no enrichment of ACSL4 in the IP compared to input. With the current data, it is hard to justify that there is any direct interaction. Moreover, based on IF data in Figure 3B-C, ACSL4 is exclusively localized in the cytoplasm, while ZEB2 is exclusively localized in the nucleus. It is hard to believe there is any direct interaction and mutual regulation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors validated a positive feedback loop between ZEB2 and ACSL4 in breast cancer, which regulates lipid metabolism to promote metastasis.

Overall, the study is original, well structured, and easy to read. Despite the reliability of the data discussed in this article, there are still some deficiencies that need to be addressed through further explanation.

Major issues:

1. The authors demonstrated that ACSL4 regulates ZEB2 not only via a post-transcriptional mechanism but also via a transcriptional mechanism. The authors have not provided a comprehensive explanation of the specific mechanism in this paper. Therefore, it is recommended that the author delve into the potential mechanisms in the discussion section. For example, related mechanisms affecting ZEB2 ubiquitination degradation, as well as factors affecting ZEB2 upstream transcriptional regulation, etc.

2. To further clarify the interaction of ZEB2 and ACSL4, it is best to perform in vitro glutathione-S-transferase (GST) pulldown assay and immunofluorescence assay.

3. In Figure 7B, the protein level of ZEB2 seems not to be altered in BT549 BCSC cell line after the depletion of ACSL4.

4. EMT is characterized by changes in cell morphology, so the staining of cytoskeletons with Phalloidin is needed.

5. Additional breast cancer cases or cohorts (such as TMA) should be used to validate the positive correlation between ACSL4 and ZEB2 expression through IHC analysis.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Lin et al. reveals a novel positive regulatory loop between ZEB2 and ACSL4, which promotes lipid droplets storage to meet the energy needs of breast cancer metastasis. It is of interest, however, some concerns should be addressed to strengthen the finding.

Major concerns:

1. The effect of ZEB2 overexpression is not fully demonstrated in the whole study. This point should be addressed.

2. Does the addition of oleate restore the ability of migration or invasion in ACSL4 knockdown cells?

3. Which cellular compartment does ACSL4 localize in and interact with ZEB2 to stabilize ZEB2?

4. The ubiquitination assay and Co-IP assay are just performed in HEK293T cells. This result should be confirmed in MDA-MB-231 cells or Taxol-resistant MCF-7 cells.

5. How does ACSL4 regulate ZEB2 at the mRNA level？Please verify.

6. In Fig. 2F, the silencing efficiency for ACSL4 and ZEB2 should be shown. In addition, the protein level of ZEB2 or ACSL4 in shZEB2 and shZEB2+ACSL4 groups should also be addressed.

7. What is the survival status of patients with both high expression of ACSL4 and ZEB2 in TCGA. In addition, more survival data from databases especially patients with both high expression of ACSL4 and ZEB2 are needed to analyze to support the finding.