LSD1 engages a corepressor complex for the activation of the estrogen receptor α by estrogen and cAMP

Lysine-Specific Demethylase 1A as a Promising Target in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogeneous hematopoietic malignancy characterized by the accumulation of incompletely differentiated progenitor cells (blasts) in the bone marrow and blood, and by suppression of normal hematopoiesis. It has recently become apparent that the AML genome is characterized by recurrent mutations and dysregulations in epigenetic regulators. These mutations frequently occur before the onset of full blown leukemia, at the pre-leukemic phase, and persist in residual disease that remains after therapeutic intervention, thus suggesting that targeting the AML epigenome may help to eradicate minimal residual disease and prevent relapse. Within the AML epigenome, lysine-specific demethylase 1 A (LSD1) is a histone demethylase that is found frequently overexpressed, albeit not mutated, in AML. LSD1 is a required constituent of critical transcription repressor complexes like CoREST and nucleosome remodeling and deacetylase (NuRD), and abrogation of LSD1 expression results in impaired self-renewal and proliferation, and increased differentiation and apoptosis in AML models and primary cells, particularly in AMLs with MLL- and AML1-rearrangements, or erythroid and megakaryoblastic differentiation block. On this basis, a number of LSD1 inhibitors have been developed in the past decade, and few of them are currently being tested in clinical trials for patients with AML, along with other malignancies. To date, the most promising application of this therapeutic strategy appears to be combination therapy of LSD1 inhibitors with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) to reactivate myeloid differentiation in cells that are not spontaneously susceptible to ATRA treatment. In this review, we provide an overview of LSD1 function in normal hematopoiesis and leukemia, and of the current clinical application of LSD1 inhibitors for the treatment of patients with AML.

ERα activity depends on interaction and target site corecruitment with phosphorylated CREB1

The two transcription factors estrogen receptor α (ERα) and cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP)-responsive element binding protein 1 (CREB1) mediate different signals, bind different response elements, and control different transcriptional programs. And yet, results obtained with transfected reporter genes suggested that their activities may intersect. We demonstrate here that CREB1 stimulates and is necessary for ERα activity on a transfected reporter gene and several endogenous targets both in response to its cognate ligand estrogen and to ligand-independent activation by cAMP. The stimulatory activity of CREB1 requires its DNA binding and activation by phosphorylation, and affects the chromatin recruitment of ERα. CREB1 and ERα are biochemically associated and share hundreds to thousands of chromatin binding sites upon stimulation by estrogen and cAMP, respectively. These shared regulatory activities may underlie the anti-apoptotic effects of estrogen and cAMP signaling in ERα-positive breast cancer cells. Moreover, high levels of CREB1 are associated with good prognosis in ERα-positive breast cancer patients, which may be because of its ability to promote ERα functions, thereby maintaining it as a successful therapeutic target.

A genetic polymorphism repurposes the G-protein coupled and membrane-associated estrogen receptor GPER to a transcription factor-like molecule promoting paracrine signaling between stroma and breast carcinoma cells

GPER is a membrane-associated estrogen receptor of the family of G-protein coupled receptors. For breast cancer, the contribution of GPER to promoting the proliferation and migration of both carcinoma cells and cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) in response to estrogen and other agonists has extensively been investigated. Intriguingly, GPER was previously found to be localized to the nucleus in one isolate of breast CAFs. Moreover, this nuclear GPER was shown to bind regulatory sequences of cancer-relevant target genes and to induce their expression. We decided to find out what induces the nuclear localization of GPER, how general this phenomenon is, and what its functional significance is. We discovered that interfering with N-linked glycosylation of GPER, either by mutation of the predicted glycosylation sites or pharmacologically with tunicamycin, drives GPER into the nucleus. Surveying a small set of CAFs from breast cancer biopsies, we found that a relatively common single nucleotide polymorphism, which results in the expression of a GPER variant with the amino acid substitution P16L, is associated with the nuclear localization of GPER. GPER with P16L fails to be glycosylated, presumably because of a conformational effect on the nearby glycosylation sites. GPER P16L is defective for membrane-associated signaling, but instead acts like an estrogen-stimulated transcription factor. In CAFs, it induces the secretion of paracrine factors that promote the migration of carcinoma cells. This raises the possibility that the GPER P16L polymorphism could be a risk factor for breast cancer.

Stress-induced phosphoprotein 1 acts as a scaffold protein for glycogen synthase kinase-3 beta-mediated phosphorylation of lysine-specific demethylase 1

Stress-induced phosphoprotein 1 (STIP1)-a co-chaperone of heat shock proteins-promotes cell proliferation and may act as an oncogenic factor. Similarly, glycogen synthase kinase-3 beta (GSK3β)-mediated phosphorylation of lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1)-an epigenetic regulator-can contribute to the development of an aggressive cell phenotype. Owing to their ability to tether different molecules into functional complexes, scaffold proteins have a key role in the regulation of different signaling pathways in tumorigenesis. Here, we show that STIP1 acts as a scaffold promoting the interaction between LSD1 and GSK3β. Specifically, the TPR1 and TPR2B domains of STIP1 are capable of binding with the AOL domain of LSD1, whereas the TPR2A and TPR2B domains of STIP1 interact with the kinase domain of GSK3β. We also demonstrate that STIP1 is required for GSK3β-mediated LSD1 phosphorylation, which promoted LSD1 stability and enhanced cell proliferation. After transfection of cancer cells with double-mutant (S707A/S711A) LSD1, subcellular localization analysis revealed that LSD1 was translocated from the nucleus to the cytoplasm. In vitro experiments also showed that the LSD1 inhibitor SP2509 and the GSK3β inhibitor LY2090314 acted synergistically to induce cancer cell death. Finally, the immunohistochemical expression of STIP1 and LSD1 showed a positively correlation in human cancer specimens. In summary, our data provide mechanistic insights into the role of STIP1 in human tumorigenesis by showing that it serves as a scaffold for GSK3β-mediated LSD1 phosphorylation. The combination of LSD1 and GSK3β inhibitors may exert synergistic antitumor effects and deserves further scrutiny in preclinical studies.

Chromatin Immunoprecipitation (ChIP) of Heat Shock Protein 90 (Hsp90)

Chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing (ChIP-seq) is a widely used technique for genome-wide mapping of protein-DNA interactions and epigenetic marks in vivo. Recent studies have suggested an important role of heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) at chromatin. This molecular chaperone assists other proteins to acquire their mature and functional conformation and helps in the assembly of many complexes. In this chapter, we provide specific details on how to perform Hsp90 ChIP-seq from Drosophila Schneider (S2) cells. Briefly, the cells are simultaneously lyzed and reversibly cross-linked to stabilize protein-DNA interactions. Chromatin is prepared from isolated nuclei and sheared by sonication. Hsp90-bound loci are immunoprecipitated and the corresponding DNA fragments are purified and sequenced. The described approach revealed that Hsp90 binds close to the transcriptional start site of around one-third of all Drosophila coding genes and characterized the role of the chaperone at chromatin.

Glucocorticoid-induced phosphorylation by CDK9 modulates the coactivator functions of transcriptional cofactor GRIP1 in macrophages

The glucocorticoid (GC) receptor (GR) suppresses inflammation by activating anti-inflammatory and repressing pro-inflammatory genes. GR-interacting protein-1 (GRIP1) is a GR corepressor in macrophages, however, whether GRIP1 mediates GR-activated transcription, and what dictates its coactivator versus corepressor properties is unknown. Here we report that GRIP1 loss in macrophages attenuates glucocorticoid induction of several anti-inflammatory targets, and that GC treatment of quiescent macrophages globally directs GRIP1 toward GR binding sites dominated by palindromic GC response elements (GRE), suggesting a non-redundant GRIP1 function as a GR coactivator. Interestingly, GRIP1 is phosphorylated at an N-terminal serine cluster by cyclin-dependent kinase-9 (CDK9), which is recruited into GC-induced GR:GRIP1:CDK9 hetero-complexes, producing distinct GRE-specific GRIP1 phospho-isoforms. Phosphorylation potentiates GRIP1 coactivator but, remarkably, not its corepressor properties. Consistently, phospho-GRIP1 and CDK9 are not detected at GR transrepression sites near pro-inflammatory genes. Thus, GR restricts actions of its own coregulator via CDK9-mediated phosphorylation to a subset of anti-inflammatory genes.

Glucocorticoid reduces inflammation by both inducing anti-inflammatory genes and suppressing pro-inflammatory genes, but how these two functions are dictated is unclear. Here the authors show that phosphorylated glucocorticoid receptor-interacting protein 1 (GRIP1) serves as a coactivator for this response in macrophage.

Cytosolic Hsp90α and its mitochondrial isoform Trap1 are differentially required in a breast cancer model

The Hsp90 family of molecular chaperones includes the cytosolic isoforms Hsp90a and Hsp90β and the mitochondrial isoform Trap1. Hsp90a/βsupport a large number of client proteins in the cytoplasm and the nucleus whereas Trap1 regulates oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondria. Many of the associated proteins and cellular processes are relevant to cancer, and there is ample pharmacological and genetic evidence to support the idea that Hsp90a/βand Trap1 are required for tumorigenesis. However, a direct and comparative genetic test in a mouse cancer model has not been done. Here we report the effects of deleting the Hsp90a or Trap1 genes in a mouse model of breast cancer. Neither Hsp90a nor Trap1 are absolutely required for mammary tumor initiation, growth and metastasis induced by the polyoma middle T-antigen as oncogene. However, they do modulate growth and lung metastasis in vivo and cell proliferation, migration and invasion of isolated primary carcinoma cells in vitro. Without Hsp90a, tumor burden and metastasis are reduced, correlating with impaired proliferation, migration and invasion of cells in culture. Without Trap1, the appearance of tumors is initially delayed, and isolated cells are affected similarly to those without Hsp90a. Analysis of expression data of human breast cancers supports the conclusion that this is a valid mouse model highlighting the importance of these molecular chaperones.

Advances toward LSD1 inhibitors for cancer therapy

LSD1 has become an important biologically validated epigenetic target for cancer therapy since its identification in 2004. LSD1 mediates many cellular signaling pathways and is involved in the initiation and development of cancers. Aberrant overexpression of LSD1 has been observed in different types of cancers, and inactivation by small molecules suppresses cancer cell differentiation, proliferation, invasion and migration. To date, a large number of LSD1 inhibitors have been reported, RG6016, GSK-2879552, INCB059872, IMG-7289 and CC-90011 are currently undergoing clinical assessment for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia, small-cell lung cancer, etc. In this review, we briefly highlight recent advances of LSD1 inhibitors mainly covering the literatures from 2015 to 2017 and tentatively propose our perspectives on the design of new LSD1 inhibitors for cancer therapy.

Upregulation of CD11b and CD86 through LSD1 inhibition promotes myeloid differentiation and suppresses cell proliferation in human monocytic leukemia cells

LSD1 (Lysine Specific Demethylase1)/KDM1A (Lysine Demethylase 1A), a flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD)-dependent histone H3K4/K9 demethylase, sustains oncogenic potential of leukemia stem cells in primary human leukemia cells. However, the pro-differentiation and anti-proliferation effects of LSD1 inhibition in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are not yet fully understood. Here, we report that small hairpin RNA (shRNA) mediated LSD1 inhibition causes a remarkable transcriptional activation of myeloid lineage marker genes (CD11b/ITGAM and CD86), reduction of cell proliferation and decrease of clonogenic ability of human AML cells. Cell surface expression of CD11b and CD86 is significantly and dynamically increased in human AML cells upon sustained LSD1 inhibition. Chromatin immunoprecipitation and quantitative PCR (ChIP-qPCR) analyses of histone marks revealed that there is a specific increase of H3K4me2 modification and an accompanied increase of H3K4me3 modification at the respective CD11b and CD86 promoter region, whereas the global H3K4me2 level remains constant. Consistently, inhibition of LSD1 in vivo significantly blocks tumor growth and induces a prominent increase of CD11b and CD86. Taken together, our results demonstrate the anti-tumor properties of LSD1 inhibition on human AML cell line and mouse xenograft model. Our findings provide mechanistic insights into the LSD1 functions in controlling both differentiation and proliferation in AML.

LSD1 sustains estrogen-driven endometrial carcinoma cell proliferation through the PI3K/AKT pathway via di-demethylating H3K9 of cyclin D1

A recent study reported that histone lysine specific demethylase 1 (LSD1, KDM1A) is overexpressed in endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (EEC) and associated with tumor progression as well as poor prognosis. However, the physiological function and mechanism of LSD1 in endometrial cancer (EC) remains largely unknown. In this study, we demonstrate that β-estradiol (E2) treatment increased LSD1 expression via the GPR30/PI3K/AKT pathway in endometrial cancer cells. Both siGPR30 and the PI3K inhibitor LY294002 block this effect. RNAi-mediated silencing of LSD1 abolished estrogen-driven endometrial cancer cell (ECC) proliferation, and induced G1 cell arrest and apoptosis. Mechanistically, we find that LSD1 silencing results in PI3K/AKT signal inactivation, but without the elevation of PTEN expression as expected. This is because the inhibition of LSD1 induces dimethylation of lysine 9 on histone H3 (H3K9m2) accumulation at the promoter region of cyclin D1. Interfering with cyclin D1 leads to PI3K/AKT signal suppression. Re-overexpression of cyclin D1 in LSD1-knockdown ECCs reverses the LSD1 inhibitory action. Our finding connects estrogen signaling with epigenetic regulation in EEC and provides novel experimental support for LSD1 as a potential target for endometrial cancer therapeutics.

Cellular analysis of the action of epigenetic drugs and probes

Small molecule drugs and probes are important tools in drug discovery, pharmacology, and cell biology. This is of course also true for epigenetic inhibitors. Important examples for the use of established epigenetic inhibitors are the study of the mechanistic role of a certain target in a cellular setting or the modulation of a certain phenotype in an approach that aims toward therapeutic application. Alternatively, cellular testing may aim at the validation of a new epigenetic inhibitor in drug discovery approaches. Cellular and eventually animal models provide powerful tools for these different approaches but certain caveats have to be recognized and taken into account. This involves both the selectivity of the pharmacological tool as well as the specificity and the robustness of the cellular system. In this article, we present an overview of different methods that are used to profile and screen for epigenetic agents and comment on their limitations. We describe not only diverse successful case studies of screening approaches using different assay formats, but also some problematic cases, critically discussing selected applications of these systems.