Enhanced Preprints

The PRC2.1 Subcomplex Opposes G1 Progression through Regulation of CCND1 and CCND2

  1. Adam D. Longhurst
  2. Kyle Wang
  3. Harsha Garadi Suresh
  4. Mythili Ketavarapu
  5. Henry N. Ward
  6. Ian R. Jones
  7. Vivek Narayan
  8. Frances V. Hundley
  9. Arshia Zernab Hassan
  10. Charles Boone
  11. Chad L. Myers
  12. Yin Shen
  13. Vijay Ramani
  14. Brenda J. Andrews
  15. David P. Toczyski author has email address
  1. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
  2. Tetrad Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
  3. Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, 160 College Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E1, Canada
  4. The Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
  5. Gladstone Institute for Data Science and Biotechnology, J. David Gladstone Institutes, San Francisco, CA, USA
  6. Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
  7. Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Graduate Program, University of Minnesota – Twin Cities Minneapolis MN USA
  8. Institute for Human Genetics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
  9. Pharmaceutical Sciences and Pharmacogenomics Graduate Program, University of California
  10. Department of Cell Biology, Blavatnik Institute of Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
  11. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota – Twin Cities Minneapolis MN USA
  12. Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
  13. Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Peer review process

Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, public reviews, and a response from the authors (if available).

Read more about eLife’s peer review process.

Editors

  • Reviewing Editor
    Silke Hauf
    Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, United States of America
  • Senior Editor
    Yamini Dalal
    National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, United States of America

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The study by Longhurst et al. investigates the mechanisms of chemoresistance and chemosensitivity towards three compounds that inhibit cell cycle progression: camptothecin, colchicine, and palbociclib. Genome-wide genetic screens were conducted using the HAP1 Cas9 cell line, revealing compound-specific and shared pathways of resistance and sensitivity. The researchers then focused on novel mechanisms that confer resistance to palbociclib, identifying PRC2.1. Genetic and pharmacological disruption of PRC2.1 function, but not related PRC2.2, leads to resistance to palbociclib. The researchers then show that disruption of PRC2.1 function (for example, by MTF2 deletion), results in locus-specific changes in H3K27 methylation and increases in D-type cyclin expression. It is suggested that increased expression of D-type cyclins results in palbociclib resistance.

Strengths:

The results of this study are interesting and contribute insights into the molecular mechanisms of CDK4/6 inhibitors. Importantly, while CDK4/6 inhibitors are effective in the clinic, tumour recurrence is very high due to acquired resistance.

Weaknesses:

A key resistance mechanism is Rb loss, so it is important to understand if resistance conferred by PRC2.1 loss is mediated by Rb, and whether restoration of PRC2.1 function in Rb-deplete cells results in renewed palbociclib sensitivity. It is also important to understand the clinical implications of the results presented. The inclusion of these data would significantly improve the paper. However, besides some presentation issues and typos as described below, it is my opinion that the results are robust and of broad interest.

Major questions:

(1) Is the resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition conferred by mutation of MTF2 mediated by Rb?

(2) Are mutations in PRC2.1 found in genetic analyses of tumour samples in patients with acquired resistance?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Longhurst et al. assessed cell cycle regulators using a chemogenetic CRISPR-Cas9 screen in haploid human cell line HAP1. Besides known cell cycle regulators they identified the PRC2.1 subcomplex to be specifically involved in G1 progression, given that the absence of members of the complex makes the cells resistant to Palbociclib. They further showed that in HAP1 cells the PRC2.1, but not the PRC2.2 complex is important to repress the cyclins CCND1 and CCND2. This can explain the enhanced resistance to Palbociclib, a CDK4/6-Inhibitor, after PRC2.1 deletion.

Strengths:

The initial CRISPR screen is very interesting because it uses three distinct chemicals that disturb the cell cycle at various stages. This screen mostly identified known cell cycle regulators, which demonstrates the validity of the approach. The results can be used as a resource for future research.

The most interesting outcome of the experiment is the finding that knockouts of the PRC2.1 complex make the cell resistant to Palbociclib. In a further experiment, the authors focused on MTF2 and JARID2 as the main components of PRC2.1 and PRC2.2, respectively. Via extensive analyses, including genome-wide experiments, they confirmed that MTF2 is particularly important to repress the cyclins CCND1 and CCND2. The absence of MTF2 therefore leads to increased expression of these genes, sufficient to make the cell resistant to palociclib. This result will likely be of wide interest to the community.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of the manuscript is that the experiments were performed in only one cell line. To draw more general conclusions, it would be essential to confirm some of the results in other cell lines.
In addition, some of the findings, such as the results from the CRISPR screen as well as the stronger impact of the MTF2 KO on H3K27me3 and gene expression (compared to JARID2 KO), are not unexpected, given that similar results were already obtained before by other labs.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study begins with a chemogenetic screen to discover previously unrecognized regulators of the cell cycle. Using a CRISPR-Cas9 library in HAP1 cells and an assay that scores cell fitness, the authors identify genes that sensitize or desensitize cells to the presence of palbociclib, colchicine, and camptothecin. These three drugs inhibit proliferation through different mechanisms, and with each treatment, expected and unexpected pathways were found to affect drug sensitivity. The authors focus the rest of the experiments and analysis on the polycomb complex PRC2, as the deletion of several of its subunits in the screen conferred palbociclib resistance. The authors find that PRC2, specifically a complex dependent on the MTF2 subunit, methylates histone 3 lysine 27 (H3K27) in promoters of genes associated with various processes including cell-cycle control. Further experiments demonstrate that Cyclin D expression increases upon loss of PRC2 subunits, providing a potential mechanism for palbociclib resistance.

The strengths of the paper are the design and execution of the chemogenetic screen, which provides a wealth of potentially useful information. The data convincingly demonstrate in the HAP1 cell line that the MTF2-PRC2 complex sustains the effects of palbociclib (Figure 4), methylates H3K27 in CpG-rich promoters (Figure 5), and represses Cyclin D expression (Figure 6). These results could be of great interest to those studying cell-cycle control, resistance mechanisms to therapeutic cell-cycle inhibitors, and chromatin regulation and gene expression.

There are several weaknesses that limit the overall quality and potential impact of the study. First, none of the results from the colchicine and camptothecin screens (Figures 1 and 2) are experimentally validated, which lessens the rigor of those data and conclusions. Second, all experiments validating and further exploring results from the palbociclib screen are restricted to the Hap1 cell line, so the reproducibility and generality of the results are not established. While it is reasonable to perform the initial screen to generate hypotheses in the Hap1 line, other cancer and non-transformed lines should be used to test further the validity of conclusions from data in Figures 4-6. Third, conclusions drawn from data in Figures 3D and 4D are not fully supported by the experimental design or results. Finally, there have been other similar chemogenetic screens performed with palbociclib, most notably the study described by Chaikovsky et al. (PMID: 33854239). Results here should be compared and contrasted to other similar studies.

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  4. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation