669 publications from this institution
Abstract Metastasis involves critical interactions between cancer and stromal cells. Intratumoral hypoxia promotes metastasis through activation of hypoxia-inducible factors (HIFs). We have demonstrated that HIFs mediate paracrine signaling between breast cancer cells (BCCs) and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) that facilitate metastasis. In an orthotopic implantation model, MSCs were recruited to primary breast tumors and promoted BCC metastasis to lymph nodes and lungs in a HIF-dependent manner. In vitro gene analysis of co-culture of MSCs with BCCs showed induced expression of the chemokine CXCL10 in MSCs and its cognate receptor CXCR3 in BCCs, which was augmented by hypoxia. Further we showed that CXCR3 expression was blocked in co-cultures treated with neutralizing antibody against CXCL10. Conversely, CXCL10 expression was blocked in MSCs co-cultured with BCCs that did not express CXCR3 or HIFs. MSC co-culture did not enhance the metastasis of CXCR3-deficient or HIF-deficient BCCs. Co-culture of MSCs with BCCs augmented HIF activity in BCCs. BCCs and MSCs expressed placental growth factor (PGF) and its cognate receptor VEGF1, respectively, in a HIF-dependent manner. The expression of CXCL10 by MSCs was dependent on PGF expression by BCCs. PGF promoted metastasis of BCCs and also facilitated homing of MSCs to tumors. Thus, HIFs mediate complex and bidirectional paracrine signaling between BCCs and MSCs that stimulates breast cancer metastasis. Citation Format: Pallavi Chaturvedi, Daniele Gilkes, Gregg Semenza. Hypoxia inducible factor-dependent breast cancer-mesenchymal stem cell bidirectional signaling promotes metastasis. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 104th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2013 Apr 6-10; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2013;73(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 505. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2013-505
Abstract Although it is impossible to discuss the cis-acting DNA sequence elements without reference to the trans-acting factors that bind to these sequences, this chapter will primarily focus on defining the different types of positive and negative cis-acting transcriptional regulatory elements. The trans-acting factors will be described in considerable detail in Chapter 3. All the cis-acting elements that affect transcription are defined on the basis of functional criteria. Therefore, none of these elements can be definitively identified solely by the examination of nucleotide sequence data. In general cis-acting elements are DNA sequences containing binding sites for several different transcription factors that are required en bloc for the element to function fully. The first defining criterion is whether the putative element has a positive or negative effect on transcription. In general, positive cis-acting elements contain binding sites for positive trans-acting factors (transcriptional activators) and negative cis-acting elements contain binding sites for negative trans-acting factors (transcriptional repressors). Examples of positive cis-regulatory elements include promoters and enhancers, whereas silencers and transcription-arrest sites represent examples of negative regulatory elements.
Increased glucose uptake and metabolism is a universal characteristic of advanced solid cancers. There are two well‐established mechanisms underlying the reprogramming of tumor metabolism. First, intratumoral hypoxia induces the activity of the transcriptional activator hypoxia‐inducible factor 1 (HIF‐1) by inhibiting the O 2 ‐dependent prolyl and asparaginyl hydroxylases that inhibit HIF‐1α stability and transactivation, respectively. Second, genetic alterations increase the activity of HIF‐1. In either case, HIF‐1 increases the expression of glucose transporters (GLUT1, GLUT3), glycolytic enzymes (ALDOA, ENO1, HK2, LDHA, PKM2), pH regulators (CAR9, NHE1, MCT4), and proteins that inhibit mitochondrial metabolism (BNIP3, PDK1). We have identified a novel feed‐forward mechanism by which PKM2 expression leads to increased HIF‐1 transcriptional activity. This pathway may be designed to increase HIF‐1 activity under non‐hypoxic conditions and may be of importance in cancers where genetic alterations increase HIF‐1α expression in an O 2 ‐independent manner. We have also demonstrated that daily administration of digoxin, acriflavine, or low‐dose doxorubicin blocks tumor growth and inhibits HIF‐1 activity by blocking HIF‐1α synthesis, HIF‐1α:HIF‐1β dimerization, and HIF‐1 DNA binding, respectively.