Quantitative interactome analysis reveals a chemoresistant edgotype

Nature Communications

Volumn 6, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Chavez, Juan D ^a   Schweppe, Devin K ^a   Eng, Jimmy K ^a   Zheng, Chunxiang ^a   Taipale, Alex ^a   Zhang, Yiyi ^a   Takara, Kohji ^b   Bruce, James E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences Himeji Dokkoyo University   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYTOKERATIN; DNA TOPOISOMERASE; HISTONE; TOPOISOMERASE 2 ALPHA; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; DNA BINDING PROTEIN; DNA TOPOISOMERASE (ATP HYDROLYSING); DNA TOPOISOMERASE II ALPHA; KERATIN; TUMOR ANTIGEN;

CANCER; CELL ORGANELLE; ENZYME ACTIVITY; NUMERICAL MODEL; PEPTIDE; PHENOTYPE; PROTEIN; PROTEOMICS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; TUMOR;

ARTICLE; CARCINOMA CELL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS LINKING; DNA REPAIR; DRUG RESISTANCE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; IN VIVO STUDY; MASS SPECTROMETRY; PHENOTYPE; PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN PROCESSING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; CARCINOMA; FLUORESCENCE MICROSCOPY; HELA CELL LINE; HISTONE CODE; IMMUNOPRECIPITATION; LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; METABOLISM; MULTIDRUG RESISTANCE; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; WESTERN BLOTTING;

ANTIGENS, NEOPLASM; BLOTTING, WESTERN; CARCINOMA; CHROMATOGRAPHY, LIQUID; DNA REPAIR; DNA TOPOISOMERASES, TYPE II; DNA-BINDING PROTEINS; DRUG RESISTANCE, MULTIPLE; DRUG RESISTANCE, NEOPLASM; FEMALE; HELA CELLS; HISTONE CODE; HISTONES; HUMANS; IMMUNOPRECIPITATION; KERATINS; MASS SPECTROMETRY; MICROSCOPY, FLUORESCENCE; PHENOTYPE; PROTEIN INTERACTION MAPS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84938516297     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20411723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8928     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Holohan, C., Van Schaeybroeck, S., Longley, D. B. & Johnston, P. G. Cancer drug resistance: an evolving paradigm. Nat. Rev. Cancer 13, 714-726 (2013).
2. Gillet, J. P. & Gottesman, M. M. Mechanisms of multidrug resistance in cancer. Methods Mol. Biol. 596, 47-76 (2010).
3. Takara, K. et al. Molecular changes to HeLa cells on continuous exposure to SN-38, an active metabolite of irinotecan hydrochloride. Cancer Lett. 278, 88-96 (2009).
4. Pommier, Y. Topoisomerase I inhibitors: camptothecins and beyond. Nat. Rev. Cancer 6, 789-802 (2006).
5. Norris, M. D. et al. Expression of multidrug transporter MRP4/ABCC4 is a marker of poor prognosis in neuroblastoma and confers resistance to irinotecan in vitro. Mol. Cancer Ther. 4, 547-553 (2005).
6. Maliepaard, M. et al. Circumvention of breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP)-mediated resistance to camptothecins in vitro using non-substrate drugs or the BCRP inhibitor GF120918. Clin. Cancer Res. 7, 935-941 (2001).
7. Sugimoto, Y., Tsukahara, S., Oh-hara, T., Isoe, T. & Tsuruo, T. Decreased expression of DNA topoisomerase I in camptothecin-resistant tumor cell lines as determined by a monoclonal antibody. Cancer Res. 50, 6925-6930 (1990).
8. Tsurutani, J. et al. Point mutations in the topoisomerase I gene in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with irinotecan. Lung Cancer 35, 299-304 (2002).
9. Chrencik, J. E. et al. Mechanisms of camptothecin resistance by human topoisomerase I mutations. J. Mol. Biol. 339, 773-784 (2004).
10. Xu, Y. & Villalona-Calero, M. A. Irinotecan: mechanisms of tumor resistance and novel strategies for modulating its activity. Ann. Oncol. 13, 1841-1851 (2002).
11. West, K. A., Castillo, S. S. & Dennis, P. A. Activation of the PI3K/Akt pathway and chemotherapeutic resistance. Drug Resist. Updat. 5, 234-248 (2002).
12. Venkatesan, K. et al. An empirical framework for binary interactome mapping. Nat. Methods 6, 83-90 (2009).
13. Vidal, M., Cusick, M. E. & Barabasi, A. L. Interactome networks and human disease. Cell 144, 986-998 (2011).
14. Sahni, N. et al. Edgotype: a fundamental link between genotype and phenotype. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 23, 649-657 (2013).
15. Sinz, A. Chemical cross-linking and mass spectrometry to map threedimensional protein structures and protein-protein interactions. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 25, 663-682 (2006).
16. Walzthoeni, T., Leitner, A., Stengel, F. & Aebersold, R. Mass spectrometry supported determination of protein complex structure. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 23, 252-260 (2013).
17. Bruce, J. E. In vivo protein complex topologies: sights through a cross-linking lens. Proteomics 12, 1565-1575 (2012).
18. Chavez, J. D. et al. Cross-linking measurements of the Potato leafroll virus reveal protein interaction topologies required for virion stability, aphid transmission, and virus-plant interactions. J. Proteome Res. 11, 2968-2981 (2012).
19. Weisbrod, C. R. et al. In vivo protein interaction network identified with a novel real-time cross-linked peptide identification strategy. J. Proteome Res. 12, 1569-1579 (2013).
20. Zheng, C. et al. Cross-linking measurements of in vivo protein complex topologies. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 10, M110 006841 (2011).
21. Chavez, J. D., Weisbrod, C. R., Zheng, C., Eng, J. K. & Bruce, J. E. Protein interactions, post-translational modifications and topologies in human cells. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 12, 1451-1467 (2013).
22. Chavez, J. D., Liu, N. L. & Bruce, J. E. Quantification of protein-protein interactions with chemical cross-linking and mass spectrometry. J. Proteome Res. 10, 1528-1537 (2011).
23. Schmidt, C. & Robinson, C. V. A comparative cross-linking strategy to probe conformational changes in protein complexes. Nat. Protoc. 9, 2224-2236 (2014).
24. Tang, X. & Bruce, J. E. A new cross-linking strategy: protein interaction reporter (PIR) technology for protein-protein interaction studies. Mol. Biosyst. 6, 939-947 (2010).
25. Tang, X., Munske, G. R., Siems, W. F. & Bruce, J. E. Mass spectrometry identifiable cross-linking strategy for studying protein-protein interactions. Anal. Chem. 77, 311-318 (2005).
26. Ong, S. E. et al. Stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture, SILAC, as a simple and accurate approach to expression proteomics. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 1, 376-386 (2002).
27. Navare, A. T. et al. Probing the protein interaction network of Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells by chemical cross-linking mass spectrometry. Structure 23, 762-773 (2015).
28. Kaake, R. M. et al. A new in vivo cross-linking mass spectrometry platform to define protein-protein interactions in living cells. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 13, 3533-3543 (2014).
29. Zheng, C. et al. XLink-DB: database and software tools for storing and visualizing protein interaction topology data. J. Proteome Res. 12, 1989-1995 (2013).
30. Pommier, Y., Pourquier, P., Urasaki, Y., Wu, J. & Laco, G. S. Topoisomerase I inhibitors: selectivity and cellular resistance. Drug Resist. Updat. 2, 307-318 (1999).
31. Pandita, T. K. & Richardson, C. Chromatin remodeling finds its place in the DNA double-strand break response. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, 1363-1377 (2009).
32. Wilting, R. H. & Dannenberg, J. H. Epigenetic mechanisms in tumorigenesis, tumor cell heterogeneity and drug resistance. Drug Resist. Updat. 15, 21-38 (2012).
33. Esteller, M. Cancer epigenomics: DNA methylomes and histone-modification maps. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 286-298 (2007).
34. Jones, C. & Baker, S. J. Unique genetic and epigenetic mechanisms driving paediatric diffuse high-grade glioma. Nat. Rev. Cancer 14, 651-661 (2014).
35. Chen, M. C. et al. The HDAC inhibitor, MPT0E028, enhances erlotinibinduced cell death in EGFR-TKI-resistant NSCLC cells. Cell Death Dis. 4, e810 (2013).
36. Maiso, P. et al. The histone deacetylase inhibitor LBH589 is a potent antimyeloma agent that overcomes drug resistance. Cancer Res. 66, 5781-5789 (2006).
37. Lane, A. A. & Chabner, B. A. Histone deacetylase inhibitors in cancer therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 5459-5468 (2009).
38. Turner, B. M. Reading signals on the nucleosome with a new nomenclature for modified histones. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 12, 110-112 (2005).
39. Wang, Z. et al. Combinatorial patterns of histone acetylations and methylations in the human genome. Nat. Genet. 40, 897-903 (2008).
40. Fnu, S. et al. Methylation of histone H3 lysine 36 enhances DNA repair by nonhomologous end-joining. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 540-545 (2011).
41. Pai, C. C. et al. A histone H3K36 chromatin switch coordinates DNA doublestrand break repair pathway choice. Nat. Commun. 5, 4091 (2014).
42. Sugimoto, Y., Tsukahara, S., Oh-hara, T., Liu, L. F. & Tsuruo, T. Elevated expression of DNA topoisomerase II in camptothecin-resistant human tumor cell lines. Cancer Res. 50, 7962-7965 (1990).
43. Dong, K. C. & Berger, J. M. Structural basis for gate-DNA recognition and bending by type IIA topoisomerases. Nature 450, 1201-1205 (2007).
44. Chen, T., Sun, Y., Ji, P., Kopetz, S. & Zhang, W. Topoisomerase IIalpha in chromosome instability and personalized cancer therapy. Oncogene doi:10. 1038/onc. 2014. 332 (2014).
45. Chikamori, K. et al. Phosphorylation of serine 1106 in the catalytic domain of topoisomerase II alpha regulates enzymatic activity and drug sensitivity. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 12696-12702 (2003).
46. Rasheed, Z. A. & Rubin, E. H. Mechanisms of resistance to topoisomerase I-targeting drugs. Oncogene 22, 7296-7304 (2003).
47. Vos, S. M., Tretter, E. M., Schmidt, B. H. & Berger, J. M. All tangled up: how cells direct, manage and exploit topoisomerase function. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 12, 827-841 (2011).
48. Garcia, H. et al. Facilitates chromatin transcription complex is an 'accelerator' of tumor transformation and potential marker and target of aggressive cancers. Cell Rep. 4, 159-173 (2013).
49. Yarnell, A. T., Oh, S., Reinberg, D. & Lippard, S. J. Interaction of FACT, SSRP1, and the high mobility group (HMG) domain of SSRP1 with DNA damaged by the anticancer drug cisplatin. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 25736-25741 (2001).
50. Kumari, A., Mazina, O. M., Shinde, U., Mazin, A. V. & Lu, H. A role for SSRP1 in recombination-mediated DNA damage response. J. Cell Biochem. 108, 508-518 (2009).
51. Gasparian, A. V. et al. Curaxins: anticancer compounds that simultaneously suppress NF-kappaB and activate p53 by targeting FACT. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 95ra74 (2011).
52. Cress, A. E. & Dalton, W. S. Multiple drug resistance and intermediate filaments. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 15, 499-506 (1996).
53. Karantza, V. Keratins in health and cancer: more than mere epithelial cell markers. Oncogene 30, 127-138 (2011).
54. Schweizer, J. et al. New consensus nomenclature for mammalian keratins. J. Cell Biol. 174, 169-174 (2006).
55. Liu, F. et al. Co-expression of cytokeratin 8 and breast cancer resistant protein indicates a multifactorial drug-resistant phenotype in human breast cancer cell line. Life Sci. 83, 496-501 (2008).
56. Hammer, E. et al. Proteomic analysis of doxorubicin-induced changes in the proteome of HepG2cells combining 2-D DIGE and LC-MS/MS approaches. Proteomics 10, 99-114 (2010).
57. Bichat, F., Mouawad, R., Solis-Recendez, G., Khayat, D. & Bastian, G. Cytoskeleton alteration in MCF7R cells, a multidrug resistant human breast cancer cell line. Anticancer Res. 17, 3393-3401 (1997).
58. Bauman, P. A., Dalton, W. S., Anderson, J. M. & Cress, A. E. Expression of cytokeratin confers multiple drug resistance. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 91, 5311-5314 (1994).
59. Oshima, R. G. Apoptosis and keratin intermediate filaments. Cell Death Differ. 9, 486-492 (2002).
60. Anderson, J. M. et al. Cytokeratin expression results in a drug-resistant phenotype to six different chemotherapeutic agents. Clin. Cancer Res. 2, 97-105 (1996).
61. Goldman, R. D., Cleland, M. M., Murthy, S. N., Mahammad, S. & Kuczmarski, E. R. Inroads into the structure and function of intermediate filament networks. J. Struct. Biol. 177, 14-23 (2012).
62. Snider, N. T. & Omary, M. B. Post-translational modifications of intermediate filament proteins: mechanisms and functions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 163-177 (2014).
63. Parry, D. A., Strelkov, S. V., Burkhard, P., Aebi, U. & Herrmann, H. Towards a molecular description of intermediate filament structure and assembly. Exp. Cell Res. 313, 2204-2216 (2007).
64. Caulin, C., Salvesen, G. S. & Oshima, R. G. Caspase cleavage of keratin 18 and reorganization of intermediate filaments during epithelial cell apoptosis. J. Cell Biol. 138, 1379-1394 (1997).
65. de Haas, E. C. et al. Clinical evaluation of M30 and M65 ELISA cell death assays as circulating biomarkers in a drug-sensitive tumor, testicular cancer. Neoplasia 10, 1041-1048 (2008).
66. Stoetzer, O. J. et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients by circulating apoptotic biomarkers nucleosomes, DNAse, cytokeratin-18 fragments and survivin. Cancer Lett. 336, 140-148 (2013).
67. Olofsson, M. H. et al. Cytokeratin-18 is a useful serum biomarker for early determination of response of breast carcinomas to chemotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 13, 3198-3206 (2007).
68. Weisbrod, C. R. et al. Performance evaluation of a dual linear ion trap-Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometer for proteomics research. J. Proteomics 88, 109-119 (2013).
69. Chavez, J. D., Hoopmann, M. R., Weisbrod, C. R., Takara, K. & Bruce, J. E. Quantitative proteomic and interaction network analysis of cisplatin resistance in HeLa cells. PLoS One 6, e19892 (2011).
70. Valot, B., Langella, O., Nano, E. & Zivy, M. MassChroQ: a versatile tool for mass spectrometry quantification. Proteomics 11, 3572-3577 (2011).