The critical role and regulation of transcription factor FoxM1 in gastric cancer development and progression

The mammalian Forkhead Box (Fox) transcription factor (FoxM1) is implicated in tumorgenesis. However, the role and regulation of FoxM1 in gastric cancer remain unknown.^ I examined FoxM1 expression in 86 cases of primary gastric cancer and 57 normal gastric tissue specimens. I found weak expression of FoxM1 protein in normal gastric mucosa, whereas I observed strong staining for FoxM1 in tumor-cell nuclei in various gastric tumors and lymph node metastases. The aberrant FoxM1 expression is associated with VEGF expression and increased angiogenesis in human gastric cancer. A Cox proportional hazards model revealed that FoxM1 expression was an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis. Furthermore, overexpression of FoxM1 by gene transfer significantly promoted the growth and metastasis of gastric cancer cells in orthotopic mouse models, whereas knockdown of FoxM1 expression by small interfering RNA did the opposite. Next, I observed that alteration of tumor growth and metastasis by elevated FoxM1 expression was directly correlated with alteration of VEGF expression and angiogenesis. In addition, promotion of gastric tumorigenesis by FoxM1 directly and significantly correlated with transactivation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression and elevation of angiogenesis. ^ To further investigate the underlying mechanisms that result in FoxM1 overexpression in gastric cancer, I investigated FoxM1 and Krüppel-like factor 4 (KLF4) expressions in primary gastric cancer and normal gastric tissue specimens. Concomitance of increased expression of FoxM1 protein and decreased expression of KLF4 protein was evident in human gastric cancer. Enforced KLF4 expression suppressed FoxM1 protein expression. Moreover, a region within the proximal FoxM1 promoter was identified to have KLF4-binding sites. Finally, I found an increased FoxM1 expression in gastric mucosa of villin-Cre -directed tissue specific Klf4-null mice.^ In summary, I offered both clinical and mechanistic evidence that dysregulated expression of FoxM1 play an important role in gastric cancer development and progression, while KLF4 mediates negative regulation of FoxM1 expression and its loss significantly contributes to FoxM1 dysregulation. ^

Integrative genomic profiling reveals conserved genetic mechanisms for tumorigenesis in common entities of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

Recent developments in genomic technologies have resulted in increased understanding of pathogenic mechanisms and emphasized the importance of central survival pathways. Here, we use a novel bioinformatic based integrative genomic profiling approach to elucidate conserved mechanisms of lymphomagenesis in the three commonest non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) entities: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, and B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. By integrating genome-wide DNA copy number analysis and transcriptome profiling of tumor cohorts, we identified genetic lesions present in each entity and highlighted their likely target genes. This revealed a significant enrichment of components of both the apoptosis pathway and the mitogen activated protein kinase pathway, including amplification of the MAP3K12 locus in all three entities, within the set of genes targeted by genetic alterations in these diseases. Furthermore, amplification of 12p13.33 was identified in all three entities and found to target the FOXM1 oncogene. Amplification of FOXM1 was subsequently found to be associated with an increased MYC oncogenic signaling signature, and siRNA-mediated knock-down of FOXM1 resulted in decreased MYC expression and induced G2 arrest. Together, these findings underscore genetic alteration of the MAPK and apoptosis pathways, and genetic amplification of FOXM1 as conserved mechanisms of lymphomagenesis in common NHL entities. Integrative genomic profiling identifies common central survival mechanisms and highlights them as attractive targets for directed therapy.

Cyclin A/CDK2 regulates multiple G2 phase pathways

The cell cycle is a carefully choreographed series of phases that when executed successfully will allow the complete replication of the genome and the equal division of the genome and other cellular content into two independent daughter cells. The inability of the cell to execute cell division successfully can result in either checkpoint activation to allow repair and/or apoptosis and/or mutations/errors that may or may not lead to tumourgenesis. Cyclin A/CDK2 is the primary cyclin/CDK regulating G2 phase progression of the cell cycle. Cyclin A/CDK2 activity peaks in G2 phase and its inhibition causes a G2 phase delay that we have termed 'the cyclin A/CDK2 dependent G2 delay'. Understanding the key pathways that are involved in the cyclin A/CDK2 dependent G2 delay has been the primary focus of this study. Characterising the cyclin A/CDK2 dependent G2 delay revealed accumulated levels of the inactive form of the mitotic regulator, cyclin B/CDK1. Surprisingly, there was also increased microtubule nucleation at the centrosomes, and the centrosomes stained for markers of cyclin B/CDK1 activity. Both microtubule nucleation at the centrosomes and phosphoprotein markers were lost with short-term treatment of CDK1/2 inhibition. Cyclin A/CDK2 localised at the centrosomes in late G2 phase after separation of the centrosomes but before the start of prophase. Thus G2 phase cyclin A/CDK2 controls the timing of entry into mitosis by controlling the subsequent activation of cyclin B/CDK1, but also has an unexpected role in coordinating the activation of cyclin B/CDK1 at the centrosome and in the nucleus. In addition to regulating the timing of cyclin B/CDK1 activation and entry into mitosis in the unperturbed cell cycle, cyclin A/CDK2 also was shown to have a role in G2 phase checkpoint recovery. Known G2 phase regulators were investigated to determine whether they had a role in imposing the cyclin A/ CDK2 dependent G2 delay. Examination of the critical G2 checkpoint arrest protein, Chk1, which also has a role during unperturbed G2/M phases revealed the presence of activated Chk1 in G2 phase, in a range of cell lines. Activated Chk1 levels were shown to accumulate in cyclin A/CDK2 depleted/inhibited cells. Further investigations revealed that Chk1, but not Chk2, depletion could reverse the cyclin A/CDK2 dependent G2 delay. It was confirmed that the accumulative activation of Chk1 was not a consequence of DNA damage induced by cyclin A depletion. The potential of cyclin A/CDK2 to regulate Chk1 revealed that the inhibitory phosphorylations, Ser286 and Ser301, were not directly catalysed by cyclin A/CDK2 in G2 phase to regulate mitotic entry. It appeared that the ability of cyclin A/CDK2 to regulate cyclin B/CDK1 activation impacted cyclin B/CDK1s phosphorylation of Chk1 on Ser286 and Ser301, thereby contributing to the delay in G2/M phase progression. Chk1 inhibition/depletion partially abrogated the cyclin A/CDK2 dependent G2 delay, and was less effective in abrogating G2 phase checkpoint suggesting that other cyclin A/CDK2 dependent mechanisms contributed to these roles of cyclin A/CDK2. In an attempt to identify these other contributing factors another G2/M phase regulator known to be regulated by cyclin A/CDK2, Cdh1 and its substrates Plk1 and Claspin were examined. Cdh1 levels were reduced in cyclin A/CDK2 depleted/inhibited cells although this had little effect on Plk1, a known Cdh1 substrate. However, the level of another substrate, Claspin, was increased. Cdh1 depletion mimicked the effect of cyclin A depletion but to a weaker extent and was sufficient at increasing Claspin levels similar to the increase caused by cyclin A depletion. Co-depletion of cyclin A and Claspin blocked the accumulation of activated Chk1 normally seen with cyclin A depletion alone. However Claspin depletion alone did not reduce the cyclin A/CDK2 dependent G2 delay but this is likely to be a result of inhibition of S phase roles of Claspin. Together, these data suggest that cyclin A/CDK2 regulates a number of different mechanisms that contribute to G2/M phase progression. Here it has been demonstrated that in normal G2/M progression and possibly to a lesser extent in G2 phase checkpoint recovery, cyclin A/CDK2 regulates the level of Cdh1 which in turn affects at least one of its substrates, Claspin, and consequently results in the increased level of activated Chk1 observed. However, the involvement of Cdh1 and Claspin alone does not explain the G2 phase delay observed with cyclin A/CDK2 depletion/inhibition. It is likely that other mechanisms, possibly including cyclin A/CDK2 regulation of Wee1 and FoxM1, as reported by others, combine with the mechanism described here to regulate normal G2/M phase progression and G2 phase checkpoint recovery. These findings support the critical role for cyclin A/CDK2 in regulating progression into mitosis and suggest that upstream regulators of cyclin A/CDK2 activation will also be critical controllers of this cell cycle transition. The pathways that work to co-ordinate cell cycle progression are very intricate and deciphering these pathways, required for normal cell cycle progression, is key to understanding tumour development. By understanding cell cycle regulatory pathways it will allow the identification of the pathway/s and their mechanism/s that become affected in tumourgenesis. This will lead to the development of better targeted therapies, inferring better efficacy with fewer side effects than commonly seen with the use of traditional therapies, such as chemotherapy. Furthermore, this has the potential to positively impact the development of personalised medicines and the customisation of healthcare.

Étude de CHES1/FOXN3, un facteur de transcription de la famille des forkheads, dans la régulation du cycle cellulaire et de la sénescence

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.

Rôles des facteurs de croissance dans la prolifération de la cellule β-pancréatique en réponse à un excès de nutriments : étude du facteur de croissance HB-EGF et du récepteur à l’EGF

Le diabète de type 2 (DT2) résulte d’une résistance à l’insuline par les tissus périphériques et par un défaut de sécrétion de l’insuline par les cellules β-pancréatiques. Au fil du temps, la compensation des îlots de cellules β pour la résistance à l’insuline échoue et entraine par conséquent une baisse progressive de la fonction des cellules β. Plusieurs facteurs peuvent contribuer à la compensation de la cellule β. Toutefois, la compréhension des mécanismes cellulaires et moléculaires sous-jacents à la compensation de la masse de la cellule β reste à ce jour inconnue. Le but de ce mémoire était d’identifier précisément quel mécanisme pouvait amener à la compensation de la cellule β en réponse à un excès de nutriments et plus précisément à l’augmentation de sa prolifération et de sa masse. Ainsi, avec l’augmentation de la résistance à l’insuline et des facteurs circulants chez les rats de six mois perfusés avec du glucose et de l’intralipide, l’hypothèse a été émise et confirmée lors de notre étude que le facteur de croissance HB-EGF active le récepteur de l’EGF et des voies de signalisations subséquentes telles que mTOR et FoxM1 impliquées dans la prolifération de la cellule β-pancréatique. Collectivement, ces résultats nous permettent de mieux comprendre les mécanismes moléculaires impliqués dans la compensation de la masse de la cellule β dans un état de résistance à l’insuline et peuvent servir de nouvelles approches thérapeutiques pour prévenir ou ralentir le développement du DT2.

Forkhead (FOX) transcription factors and the cell cycle: measurement of DNA binding by FoxO and FoxM transcription factors

Certain forkhead (FOX) transcription factors have been shown to play an intrinsic role in controlling cell cycle progression. In particular, the FoxO subclass has been shown to regulate cell cycle entry and exit, whereas the expression and activity of FoxM1 is important for the correct coupling of DNA synthesis to mitosis. In this chapter, I describe a method for measuring FoxO and FoxM1 transcription factor DNA binding in nuclear extracts from mammalian cells.

Molekulare Mechanismen der Kontaktinhibition: Identifizierung neuer Tumorsuppressorgene

Die Zellen eines Organismus unterliegen ständig den Einflüssen wachstumsfördernder und –hemmender Signale. Die korrekte Verarbeitung dieser Signale ist essentiell für die Aufrechterhaltung der Gewebehomöostase. Wachstumsfördernde Signale sind z. B. Wachstumsfaktoren und –hormone. Diese Substanzen sowie ihre Rezeptoren und Signalwege sind relativ gut erforscht. Dagegen ist über die wachstumshemmenden Signalwege vergleichsweise wenig bekannt. Wichtige wachstumshemmende Signale werden einerseits über lösliche Faktoren, wie z. B. TGF-β, und andererseits über Zell-Zell-Kontakte vermittelt. Den Zell-Zell-Kontakt vermittelten Wachstumsstopp bezeichnet man auch als Kontaktinhibition. Die Kontaktinhibition ist ein wichtiges Merkmal nicht-transformierter Zellen. Im Gegensatz dazu zeichnen sich transformierte Zellen durch den Verlust der Kontaktinhibition aus, der einhergeht mit unkontrolliertem Wachstum der Zellen und Tumorbildung. Genauere Kenntnisse der molekularen Ursachen der Kontaktinhibition bzw. ihres Verlustes während der Tumorentstehung werden neue Ansatzpunkte für die Krebstherapie liefern. Diese können bei der Entwicklung neuer, nebenwirkungsärmerer Krebsmedikamente und einer verbesserten Diagnostik helfen. In der vorliegenden Arbeit sollten daher die molekularen Mechanismen der Kontaktinhibition in Fibroblasten aus der Maus näher untersucht werden. Dazu wurden differentielle Genexpressionsanalysen mittels genomweiter Microarrays durchgeführt. Weiterhin wurde der Einfluss der Kontaktinhibition auf die Regulation der Signalkaskaden der MAP-Kinasen ERK und p38 untersucht. Durch die Genexpressionsanalyse konnte gezeigt werden, dass viele Schlüsselgene des Zellzyklus und der DNA-Synthese in der Kontaktinhibition eine Rolle spielen, so zum Beispiel Skp2, Foxm1 und einige Komponenten des MCM-Komplexes. Weiterhin haben wir gezeigt, dass durch Kontaktinhibition selektiv die EGF-induzierte Signalkaskade über die MAP-Kinasen gehemmt wird.

FoxM1B transcriptionally regulates vascular endothelial growth factor expression and promotes the angiogenesis and growth of glioma cells.

We previously found that FoxM1B is overexpressed in human glioblastomas and that forced FoxM1B expression in anaplastic astrocytoma cells leads to the formation of highly angiogenic glioblastoma in nude mice. However, the molecular mechanisms by which FoxM1B enhances glioma angiogenesis are currently unknown. In this study, we found that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a direct transcriptional target of FoxM1B. FoxM1B overexpression increased VEGF expression, whereas blockade of FoxM1 expression suppressed VEGF expression in glioma cells. Transfection of FoxM1 into glioma cells directly activated the VEGF promoter, and inhibition of FoxM1 expression by FoxM1 siRNA suppressed VEGF promoter activation. We identified two FoxM1-binding sites in the VEGF promoter that specifically bound to the FoxM1 protein. Mutation of these FoxM1-binding sites significantly attenuated VEGF promoter activity. Furthermore, FoxM1 overexpression increased and inhibition of FoxM1 expression suppressed the angiogenic ability of glioma cells. Finally, an immunohistochemical analysis of 59 human glioblastoma specimens also showed a significant correlation between FoxM1 overexpression and elevated VEGF expression. Our findings provide both clinical and mechanistic evidence that FoxM1 contributes to glioma progression by enhancing VEGF gene transcription and thus tumor angiogenesis.