REGULATION OF HGF EXPRESSION BY ΔEGFR-MEDIATED C-MET ACTIVATION IN GLIOBLASTOMA CELLS

Overexpression of the hepatocyte growth factor receptor (c-Met) and its ligand, the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and a constitutively active mutant of the epidermal growth factor receptor (∆EGFR/EGFRvIII), occur frequently in glioblastoma. c-Met is activated in a ligand-dependent manner by HGF or in a ligand-independent manner by ∆EGFR. Dysregulated c-Met signaling contributes to the aggressive phenotype of glioblastoma, yet the mechanisms underlying the production of HGF in glioblastoma are poorly understood. We found a positive correlation between HGF and c-Met expression in glioblastoma, suggesting that they are coregulated. This is supported by the finding that in a c-Met/HGF axis-dependent glioblastoma cell line, shRNA-mediated silencing of c-Met, or treatment with the c-Met inhibitor SU11274, attenuated HGF expression. Biologically, c-Met knockdown decreased anchorage-independent colony formation and the tumorigenicity of intracranial xenografts. Building on prior findings that ∆EGFR enhanced c-Met activation, we found that ∆EGFR also led to increased HGF expression, which was reversed upon ∆EGFR inhibition with AG1478. ∆EGFR required c-Met to maintain elevated HGF expression, colony formation of glioblastoma cells, and the tumorigenicity of orthotopic xenografts. An unbiased mass spectrometry-based approach identified phosphotyrosine-related signaling changes that occurred with c-Met knockdown in a glioblastoma cell line expressing ΔEGFR and in parental cells. Notably, phosphorylation of STAT3, a master regulator of the mesenchymal GBM subtype and a known target of ∆EGFR, also decreased when c-Met was silenced in these cells, suggesting that the signals from these receptors converge on STAT3. Using a STAT3 inhibitor, WP1193, we showed that STAT3 inhibition decreased HGF mRNA expression in ΔEGFR-expressing glioblastoma cells. Consistent with these findings, constitutively active STAT3 partially restored HGF expression and anchorage-independent growth of c-Met knockdown glioblastoma cells that overexpressed ΔEGFR. We found that higher levels of HGF and c-Met expression associated with the mesenchymal GBM subtype. Taken together, these results suggest that the activity of c-Met regulates the expression of HGF in glioblastoma cells, that ∆EGFR feeds positively into this autocrine loop, that signaling of the two receptors together modulate HGF expression via STAT3, and that the HGF/c-Met axis may therefore be a good additional target for therapy of mesenchymal GBM tumors.

Immunologic characteristics of immunogenic variants generated by {\it in vitro\/} treatment of a methylcholanthrene-induced murine fibrosarcoma MCA-F with 1 methyl-3-nitro-1-nitrosoguanidine, 5 -aza-2$\sp\prime$-deoxycytidine, or ultraviolet radiation

This study addresses the questions of whether the frequency of generation and in vivo cross-reactivity of highly immunogenic tumor clones induced in a single parental murine fibrosarcoma cell line MCA-F is more closely related to the agent used to induce the Imm$\sp{+}$ clone or whether these characteristics are independent of the agents used. These questions were addressed by treating the parental tumor cell line MCA-F with UV-B radiation (UV-B), 1-methyl-3-nitro-1-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG), or 5-aza-2$\sp\prime$-deoxycytidine (5-azaCdR). The frequency of Imm$\sp{+}$ variant generation was similarly high for the three different agents, suggesting that the frequency of Imm$\sp{+}$ generation was related more closely to the cell line than to the inducing agent used. Cross-reactivity was tested with two Imm$\sp{+}$ clones from each treatment group in a modified immunoprotection assay that selectively engendered antivariant, but not antiparental immunity. Under these conditions each clone, except one, immunized against itself. The MNNG-induced clones engendered stronger antivariant immunity but a weaker variant cross-reactive immunity could also be detected.^ This study also characterized the lymphocyte populations responsible for antivariant and antiparental immunity in vivo. Using the local adoptive transfer assay (LATA) and antibody plus complement depletion of T-cell subsets, we showed that immunity induced by the Imm$\sp{+}$ variants against the parent MCA-F was transferred by the Thy1.2$\sp{+}$, L3T4a$\sp{+}$, Lyt2.1$\sp{-}$ (CD4$\sp{+}$) population, without an apparent contribution by Thy1.2$\sp{+}$, L3T4a$\sp{-}$, Lyt2.1$\sp{+}$ (CD8$\sp{+}$) cells. A role for Lyt2.1$\sp{+}$T lymphocytes in antivariant, but not antiparent immunity was supported by the results of LATA and CTL assays. Immunization with low numbers of viable Imm$\sp{+}$ cells, or with high numbers of non viable Imm$\sp{+}$ cells engendered only antivariant immunity without parental cross-protection. The associative recognition of parental antigens and variant neoantigens resulting in strong antiparent immunity was investigated using somatic cells hybrids of Imm$\sp{+}$ variants of MCA-F and an antigenically distinct tumor MCA-D. An unexpected result of these latter experiments was the expression of a unique tumor-specific antigen by the hybrid cells. These studies demonstrate that the parental tumor-specific antigen and the variant neoantigen must be coexpressed on the cell surface to engender parental cross-protective immunity. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.) ^

Transcriptional repression of serum amyloid A1 by AP -2 contributes to its liver -specific expression

Studies on the transcriptional regulation of serum amyloid A1 (SAA1) gene, a liver specific acute-phase gene, identified a regulatory element in its promoter that functioned to repress (SAA1) gene transcription in nonliver cells. This silencer element interacts with a nuclear protein that is detectable in HeLa cells, fibroblasts and placental tissues but not in liver or liver-derived cells. As the expression pattern of this repressor is consistent with its potential regulatory role in repressing SAA1 expression, and that many other liver gene promoters also contain this repressor binding site, we sought to investigate whether this repressor may have a broader functional role in repressing liver genes. ^ We have utilized protein purification, cell culture, transient and stable gene transfection, and molecular biology approaches to identify this protein and investigate its possible function in the regulation of (SAA1) and other liver genes. Analyses of amino acid sequence of the purified nuclear protein, and western blot and gel shift studies identified the repressor as transcription factor AP-2 or AP-2-like protein. Using transient transfection of DNA into cultured cells, we demonstrate that AP-2 can indeed function as a repressor to inhibit transcription of SAA1 gene promoter. This conclusion is supported by the following experimental results: (1) overexpression of AP-2 in hepatoma cells inhibits conditioned medium (CM)-induced expression of SAA1 promoter; (2) binding of AP-2 to the SAA1 promoter is required for AP-2 repression function; (3) one mechanism by which AP-2 inhibits SAA1 may be by antagonizing the activation function of the strong transactivator NFκB; (4) mutation of AP-2 binding sites results in derepression of SAM promoter in HeLa cells; and (5) inhibition of endogenous AP-2 activity by a dominant-negative mutant abolishes AP-2's inhibitory effect on SAM promoter in HeLa cells. In addition to the SAM promoter, AP-2 also can bind to the promoter regions of six other liver genes tested, suggesting that it may have a broad functional role in restricting the expression of many liver genes in nonliver cells. Consistent with this notion, ectopic expression of AP-2 also represses CM-mediated activation of human third component of complement 3 promoter. Finally, in AP-2-expressing stable hepatoma cell lines, AP-2 inhibits not only the expression of endogenous SAA, but also the expression of several other endogenous liver genes including albumin, α-fetoprotein. ^ Our findings that AP-2 has the ability to repress the expression of liver genes in nonliver cells opens a new avenue of investigation of negative regulation of gene transcription, and should improve our understanding of tissue-specific expression of liver genes. In summary, our data provide evidence suggesting a novel role of AP-2 as a repressor, inhibiting the expression of liver genes in nonliver cells. Thus, the tissue-specific expression of AP-2 may constitute an important mechanism contributing to the liver-specific expression of liver genes. ^