Koenig, Amanda

The Hedgehog-regulated transcription factors GLI1 and GLI2 play overlapping roles in development and disease; however, the mechanisms underlying their interplay remain elusive. We report for the first time that GLI1 and GLI2 physically and functionally interact in cancer cells. GLI1 and GLI2 were shown to co-immunoprecipitate in PANC1 pancreatic cancer cells and RMS13 rhabdomyosarcoma cells. Mapping analysis demonstrated that the zinc finger domains of both proteins are required for their heteromerization. RNAi knockdown of either GLI1 or GLI2 inhibited expression of many well-characterized GLI target genes (BCL2, MYCN, PTCH2, IL7 and CCND1) in PANC1 cells, whereas PTCH1 expression was only inhibited by GLI1 depletion. qPCR screening of a large set of putative canonical and non-canonical Hedgehog/GLI targets identified further genes (e.g. E2F1, BMP1, CDK2) strongly down-regulated by GLI1 and/or GLI2 depletion in PANC1 cells, and demonstrated that ANO1, AQP1 and SOCS1 are up-regulated by knockdown of either GLI1 or GLI2. Chromatin immunoprecipitation showed that GLI1 and GLI2 occupied the same regions at the BCL2, MYCN and CCND1 promoters. Furthermore, depletion of GLI1 inhibited GLI2 occupancy at these promoters, suggesting that GLI1/GLI2 interaction is required for the recruitment of GLI2 to these sites. Together, these findings indicate that GLI1 and GLI2 co-ordinately regulate the transcription of some genes, and provide mechanistic insight into the roles of GLI proteins in carcinogenesis.

3101 Background: PDO is a promising translational tool that recapitulates the biology and drug response of donor cancer patient. However, an unmet need is to have PDO drug-screening data available for treatment decision making in clinic. We conducted a pilot study to determine whether PDO testing results will be available at critical treatment decision points in metastatic GI cancer patients. Methods: Metastatic GI cancer patients undergoing core-needle biopsy were eligible. Tumor cells isolated from ≤4 fresh biopsy tissues were grown in a Matrigel-based culture. PDO response to anti-cancer drugs were evaluated; and when available, correlated with donors’ clinical response to the same agent(s). PDO response was defined as IC50 < 0.1 × published Cmax of the drug clinically; stable as IC50 between 0.1 to 10 × Cmax. Radiographic response was per RECIST criteria. Results: We enrolled 27 refractory metastatic GI cancer patients (9 colorectal [CRC], 9 pancreas, and 9 biliary tract). Median lines of therapy were 4, 2, and 2; the success rate of organoid establishment was 89%, 44%, and 55%, respectively. The median time from biopsy to availability of drug-testing data was 64 days (range: 24 to 93 days). The median time from biopsy to next CT re-staging in donors was 64 days. The established PDOs shared histological and genomic features with donor clinical tissue. PDO and clinical responses to the same agent(s) were correlated in 2 CRC donors including (1) BRAFV600E-mutated PDO responded to vemurafenib + panitumumab, as did the donor who had partial response (PDO drug-testing data were available 55 days post-biopsy, 23 days prior to restaging scan); (2) KRAS/FGF-dual amplified PDO had stable disease status to regorafenib, as did the biopsied lesion from the donor (73 days post-biopsy, 5 days post-scan). Conclusions: We showed the feasibility of completing PDO drug sensitivity testing in metastatic GI cancer patients within a short time that could impact clinical decision making, particularly in CRC. PDO drug response showed correlation with clinical response. With further refinement, PDO can be a powerful tool for personalizing cancer therapy in metastatic GI cancer patients.