1
|
Li Y, Qiu X, Wang X, Liu H, Geck RC, Tewari AK, Xiao T, Font-Tello A, Lim K, Jones KL, Morrow M, Vadhi R, Kao PL, Jaber A, Yerrum S, Xie Y, Chow KH, Cejas P, Nguyen QD, Long HW, Liu XS, Toker A, Brown M. FGFR-inhibitor-mediated dismissal of SWI/SNF complexes from YAP-dependent enhancers induces adaptive therapeutic resistance. Nat Cell Biol 2021; 23:1187-1198. [PMID: 34737445 DOI: 10.1038/s41556-021-00781-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2021] [Accepted: 09/26/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
How cancer cells adapt to evade the therapeutic effects of drugs targeting oncogenic drivers is poorly understood. Here we report an epigenetic mechanism leading to the adaptive resistance of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) to fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors. Prolonged FGFR inhibition suppresses the function of BRG1-dependent chromatin remodelling, leading to an epigenetic state that derepresses YAP-associated enhancers. These chromatin changes induce the expression of several amino acid transporters, resulting in increased intracellular levels of specific amino acids that reactivate mTORC1. Consistent with this mechanism, addition of mTORC1 or YAP inhibitors to FGFR blockade synergistically attenuated the growth of TNBC patient-derived xenograft models. Collectively, these findings reveal a feedback loop involving an epigenetic state transition and metabolic reprogramming that leads to adaptive therapeutic resistance and provides potential therapeutic strategies to overcome this mechanism of resistance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yihao Li
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Xintao Qiu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Xiaoqing Wang
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Hui Liu
- Department of Pathology, and Cancer Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Renee C Geck
- Department of Pathology, and Cancer Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Alok K Tewari
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Tengfei Xiao
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Alba Font-Tello
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Klothilda Lim
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Kristen L Jones
- Lurie Family Imaging Center, Center for Biomedical Imaging in Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Murry Morrow
- Lurie Family Imaging Center, Center for Biomedical Imaging in Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Raga Vadhi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Pei-Lun Kao
- Department of Oncologic Pathology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Patient Derived Models, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Aliya Jaber
- Department of Oncologic Pathology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Patient Derived Models, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Smitha Yerrum
- Department of Oncologic Pathology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Patient Derived Models, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Yingtian Xie
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Kin-Hoe Chow
- Department of Oncologic Pathology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Patient Derived Models, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Paloma Cejas
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Quang-Dé Nguyen
- Lurie Family Imaging Center, Center for Biomedical Imaging in Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Henry W Long
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - X Shirley Liu
- Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Alex Toker
- Department of Pathology, and Cancer Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Ludwig Center at Harvard, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Myles Brown
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. .,Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. .,Ludwig Center at Harvard, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Protti A, Jones KL, Bonal DM, Qin L, Politi LS, Kravets S, Nguyen QD, Van den Abbeele AD. Development and validation of a new MRI simulation technique that can reliably estimate optimal in vivo scanning parameters in a glioblastoma murine model. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0200611. [PMID: 30036367 PMCID: PMC6056046 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200611] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2017] [Accepted: 06/29/2018] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) relies on optimal scanning parameters to achieve maximal signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and high contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between tissues resulting in high quality images. The optimization of such parameters is often laborious, time consuming, and user-dependent, making harmonization of imaging parameters a difficult task. In this report, we aim to develop and validate a computer simulation technique that can reliably provide "optimal in vivo scanning parameters" ready to be used for in vivo evaluation of disease models. METHODS A glioblastoma murine model was investigated using several MRI imaging methods. Such MRI methods underwent a simulated and an in vivo scanning parameter optimization in pre- and post-contrast conditions that involved the investigation of tumor, brain parenchyma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) CNR values in addition to the time relaxation values of the related tissues. The CNR tissues information were analyzed and the derived scanning parameters compared in order to validate the simulated methodology as a reliable technique for "optimal in vivo scanning parameters" estimation. RESULTS The CNRs and the related scanning parameters were better correlated when spin-echo-based sequences were used rather than the gradient-echo-based sequences due to augmented inhomogeneity artifacts affecting the latter methods. "Optimal in vivo scanning parameters" were generated successfully by the simulations after initial scanning parameter adjustments that conformed to some of the parameters derived from the in vivo experiment. CONCLUSION Scanning parameter optimization using the computer simulation was shown to be a valid surrogate to the in vivo approach in a glioblastoma murine model yielding in a better delineation and differentiation of the tumor from the contralateral hemisphere. In addition to drastically reducing the time invested in choosing optimal scanning parameters when compared to an in vivo approach, this simulation program could also be used to harmonize MRI acquisition parameters across scanners from different vendors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Protti
- Department of Imaging, Lurie Family Imaging Center, Center for Biomedical Imaging in Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| | - Kristen L. Jones
- Department of Imaging, Lurie Family Imaging Center, Center for Biomedical Imaging in Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Dennis M. Bonal
- Department of Imaging, Lurie Family Imaging Center, Center for Biomedical Imaging in Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Lei Qin
- Department of Imaging, Lurie Family Imaging Center, Center for Biomedical Imaging in Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Letterio S. Politi
- Neuroimaging Research, Radiology Department, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Radiology Department, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States of America
- University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, MA, United States of America
| | - Sasha Kravets
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Quang-Dé Nguyen
- Department of Imaging, Lurie Family Imaging Center, Center for Biomedical Imaging in Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Annick D. Van den Abbeele
- Department of Imaging, Lurie Family Imaging Center, Center for Biomedical Imaging in Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
Imaging of hard and soft tissue of the oral cavity is important for dentistry. However, medical computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), nor MRI enables soft and hard tissue imaging simultaneously. Some MRI sequences were shown to provide fast soft and hard tissue imaging of hydrogen, which increased the interest in dental MRI. Recently, MRI allowed direct visualization of cancellous bone, intraoral mucosa, and dental pulp despite that cortical bone and dental roots are indirectly visualized. MRI seems to be adequate for many indications that CBCT is currently used for: implant treatment and inflammatory diseases of the tooth.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Husniye Demirturk Kocasarac
- Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
| | - Hassem Geha
- Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA
| | - Laurence R Gaalaas
- Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Division of Oral Medicine, Diagnosis and Radiology, Department of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, 7-536 Moos Tower, 515 Delaware Street Southeast, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
| | - Donald R Nixdorf
- Division of TMD and Orofacial Pain, Department of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, 6-320 Moos Tower, 515 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
There is now a wide choice of medical imaging to show both focal and diffuse pathologies in various organs. Conventional radiology with plain films, fluoroscopy and contrast medium have many advantages, being readily available with low-cost apparatus and a familiarity that almost leads to contempt. The use of plain films in chest disease and in trauma does not need emphasizing, yet there are still too many occasions when the answer obtainable from a plain radiograph has not been available. The film may have been mislaid, or the examination was not requested, or the radiograph had been misinterpreted. The converse is also quite common. Examinations are performed that add nothing to patient management, such as skull films when CT will in any case be requested or views of the internal auditory meatus and heal pad thickness in acromegaly, to quote some examples. Other issues are more complicated. Should the patient who clinically has gall-bladder disease have more than a plain film that shows gall-stones? If the answer is yes, then why request a plain film if sonography will in any case be required to 'exclude' other pathologies especially of the liver or pancreas? But then should cholecystography, CT or scintigraphy be added for confirmation? Quite clearly there will be individual circumstances to indicate further imaging after sonography but in the vast majority of patients little or no extra information will be added. Statistics on accuracy and specificity will, in the case of gall-bladder pathology, vary widely if adenomyomatosis is considered by some to be a cause of symptoms or if sonographic examinations 'after fatty meals' are performed. The arguments for or against routine contrast urography rather than sonography are similar but the possibility of contrast reactions and the need to limit ionizing radiation must be borne in mind. These diagnostic strategies are also being influenced by their cost and availability; purely pragmatic considerations are not infrequently the overriding factor. Non-invasive methods will be preferred, particularly sonography as it is far more acceptable by not being claustrophobic and totally free of any known untoward effects. There is another quite different but unrelated aspect. The imaging methods, apart from limited exceptions, cannot characterize tissues as benign or malignant, granulomatous or neoplastic; cytology or histology usually provides the answer. Sonography is most commonly used to locate the needle tip correctly for percutaneous sampling of tissues. Frequently sonography with fine needle aspiration cytology or biopsy is the least expensive, safest and most direct route to a definitive diagnosis. Abscesses can be similarly diagnosed but with needles or catheters through which the pus can be drained. The versatility and mobility of sonography has spawned other uses, particularly for the very ill and immobile, for the intensive therapy units and for the operating theatre, as well in endosonography. The appointment of more skilled sonographers to the National Health Service could make a substantial contribution to cost-effective management of hospital services. Just when contrast agents and angiography have become safe and are performed rapidly, they are being supplanted by scanning methods. They are now mainly used for interventional procedures or of pre-operative 'road maps' and may be required even less in the future as MRI angiography and Doppler techniques progress. MRI will almost certainly extent its role beyond the central nervous system (CNS) should the equipment become more freely available, especially to orthopaedics. Until then plain films, sonography or CT will have to suffice. Even in the CNS there are conditions where CT is more diagnostic, as in showing calculations in cerebral cysticercosis. Then, too, in most cases CT produces results comparable to MRI apart from areas close to bone, structures at the base of the brain, in the posterior fossa and in the spinal cord. Scintigraphy for pulmonary infarcts and bone metastases and in renal disease in children plays a prominent role and its scope has increased with new equipment and radionuclides. Radio-immunoscintigraphy in particular is likely to expand greatly not only in tumour diagnosis but also in metabolic and infective conditions. Whether the therapeutic implications will be realized is more problematic. The value of MRS and NM for metabolic studies in clinical practice is equally problematical, although the data from cerebral activity are extremely interesting. While scanning has replaced many radiographic examinations, endoscopy has had a similar effect on barium meals and to a lesser extent on barium enemas. The combined visual/sonographic endoscope is likely to accelerate this process. There is no doubt that over the last 2 decades medical imaging has changed the diagnostic process, but its influence on the outcome of disease other than infections is less certain and probably indefinable. Data concerning the comparative efficacy in terms of patient outcome for each of the imaging techniques would be of considerable interest and a great help in determining diagnostic strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Kreel
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong
| |
Collapse
|