Rosenfeld, Steven S.

Abstract Glioblastoma remains a deadly cancer driven in part by invasion of tumor cells into the brain. Transcriptomic analyses have identified distinct molecular subtypes, but mechanistic differences that account for clinical differences are not clear. Here, we show that, as predicted by the motor-clutch model of cell migration, mesenchymal glioma cells are more spread, generate larger traction forces, and migrate faster in brain tissue compared to proneural cells. Despite their rapid migration and comparable proliferation rates in vitro, mice with mesenchymal tumors survive longer than those with proneural tumors. This improved survival correlated with an immune response in the mesenchymal tumors, including T cell-mediated. Consistently, inducing mesenchymal tumors in immunodeficient mice resulted in shorter survival supporting a protective immune role in mesenchymal tumors. Thus, mesenchymal tumors have aggressive migration, but are immunologically ‘hot’ which suppresses net proliferation. These two features counteract each other and may explain the lack of a strong survival difference between subtypes clinically, while also opening up new opportunities for subtype-specific therapies. Significant Statement This study highlights new mechanical and immunological insights into glioblastoma molecular subtypes using an integrated modeling-genome engineering strategy, which can potentially facilitate glioblastoma subtype-specific therapeutic strategies.

Abstract In Glioblastoma (GBM), tumor spreading is driven by tumor cells’ ability to infiltrate healthy brain parenchyma, which prevents complete surgical resection and contributes to tumor recurrence. GBM molecular subtypes, classical, proneural and mesenchymal, were shown to strongly correlate with specific genetic alterations (Mesenchymal: NF1; Classical: EGFRVIII; Proneural: PDGFRA). Here we tested the hypothesis that a key mechanistic difference between GBM molecular subtypes is that proneural cells are slow migrating and mesenchymal cells are fast migrating. Using Sleeping Beauty transposon system, immune-competent murine brain tumors were induced by SV40-LgT antigen in combination with either NRASG12V (NRAS) or PDGFB (PDGF) overexpression. Cross-species transcriptomic analysis revealed NRAS and PDGF-driven tumors correlate with human mesenchymal and proneural GBM, respectively. Similar to human GBM, CD44 expression was higher in NRAS tumors and, consistent with migration simulations of varying CD44 levels, ex vivo brain slice live imaging showed NRAS tumors cells migrate faster than PDGF tumors cells (random motility coefficient = 30µm2/hr vs. 2.5µm2/hr, p < 0.001). Consistent with CD44 function as an adhesion molecule, migration phenotype was independent of the tumor microenvironment. NRAS and human PDX/MES tumor cells were found to migrate faster and have larger cell spread area than PDGF and human PDX/PN tumors cells, respectively, in healthy mouse brain slices. Furthermore, traction force microscopy revealed NRAS tumor cells generate larger traction forces than PDGF tumors cells which further supports our theoretical mechanism driving glioma migration. Despite increased migration, NRAS cohort had better survival than PDGF which was attributed to enhanced antitumoral immune response in NRAS tumors, consistent with increased immune cell infiltration found in human mesenchymal GBM. Overall our work identified a potentially actionable difference in migration mechanics between GBM subtypes and establishes an integrated biophysical modeling and experimental approach to mechanically parameterize and simulate distinct molecular subtypes in preclinical models of cancer.

Subcellular compartmentalisation is necessary for eukaryotic cell function. Spatial and temporal regulation of kinesin activity is essential for building these local environments via control of intracellular cargo distribution. Kinesin-binding protein (KBP) interacts with a subset of kinesins via their motor domains, inhibits their microtubule (MT) attachment, and blocks their cellular function. However, its mechanisms of inhibition and selectivity have been unclear. Here we use cryo-electron microscopy to reveal the structure of KBP and of a KBP–kinesin motor domain complex. KBP is a tetratricopeptide repeat-containing, right-handed α-solenoid that sequesters the kinesin motor domain’s tubulin-binding surface, structurally distorting the motor domain and sterically blocking its MT attachment. KBP uses its α-solenoid concave face and edge loops to bind the kinesin motor domain, and selected structure-guided mutations disrupt KBP inhibition of kinesin transport in cells. The KBP-interacting motor domain surface contains motifs exclusively conserved in KBP-interacting kinesins, suggesting a basis for kinesin selectivity.

Kinesin-5 motors organize mitotic spindles by sliding apart microtubules. They are homotetramers with dimeric motor and tail domains at both ends of a bipolar minifilament. Here, we describe a regulatory mechanism involving direct binding between tail and motor domains and its fundamental role in microtubule sliding. Kinesin-5 tails decrease microtubule-stimulated ATP-hydrolysis by specifically engaging motor domains in the nucleotide-free or ADP states. Cryo-EM reveals that tail binding stabilizes an open motor domain ATP-active site. Full-length motors undergo slow motility and cluster together along microtubules, while tail-deleted motors exhibit rapid motility without clustering. The tail is critical for motors to zipper together two microtubules by generating substantial sliding forces. The tail is essential for mitotic spindle localization, which becomes severely reduced in tail-deleted motors. Our studies suggest a revised microtubule-sliding model, in which kinesin-5 tails stabilize motor domains in the microtubule-bound state by slowing ATP-binding, resulting in high-force production at both homotetramer ends.

Abstract In glioblastoma (GBM), invasion and proliferation are reciprocally related—e.g., targeting one stimulates the other. Thus, effective therapy for GBM requires finding targets that drive both invasion and proliferation and which are druggable, ideally with FDA approved therapeutics. We find that the atypical protein kinase C isoform, PKCi meets these criteria. Using a human GBM tissue microarray, we find that PKCi protein expression fits a bimodal distribution, with >35% of GBMs showing high levels of PKCi expression. Genetic deletion of Prkci, the gene encoding mouse PKCi, impairs tumor invasion and proliferation both in vitro and in vivo, and significantly prolongs survival in an immunocompetent PDGF-driven orthotopic mouse model of GBM. PKCi can be selectively targeted with Auranofin, a small molecule PKCi inhibitor that has been FDA approved for treatment of inflammatory diseases. Like genetic deletion of Prkci Auranofin treatment significantly prolongs survival in our murine GBM model, and does so to a similar degree. Interestingly, analysis of a panel of human and murine GBM cells reveals that sensitivity to Auranofin inhibition of transformed growth directly correlates with expression of PKCi, indicating that PKCi expression profiling could serve as a predictive biomarker for responsiveness to Auranofin. However, genetically deleting or pharmacologically inactivating PKCi does not permanently arrest tumor growth, implying that GBM cells acquire mechanisms that allow them to compensate for the loss of this important signaling molecule. We are currently examining potential “escape” mechanisms through ‘omics-based approaches, which may enable us to enhance the therapeutic potential of Auranofin. Taken together, our results demonstrate that PKCi is a compelling therapeutic target for treatment of GBM that deserves further investigation.

Abstract OBJECTIVE Our goal is to identify new pathways perturbed in and which may lead to GRS. METHODS We collected brain transcriptome levels from healthy controls (n=5), patients with GRS (n=9), glioma without seizures (non-GRS, n=8), and idiopathic temporal lobe epilepsy (iTLE, n=7) using Illumina-based poly-A capture high-throughput RNA sequencing approach. Differential gene expression analysis was conducted to ascertain expression differences between the four groups. We identified molecular pathways enriched for differentially expressed genes (DEG) using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis. DEGs were defined as those with log2 fold change ≥ 2 and q-value < 0.01 when compared to GRS. RESULTS Principal component analysis revealed that diagnostic grouping was the main determinant of the transcriptome variance. We identified 212 DEGs in the GRS vs. non-GRS analysis. Among these, 108 genes were up-regulated and 104 genes were down-regulated. Among the genes that were down‐regulated, there was significant enrichment for those involved in acute phase response signaling and immune cell trafficking (e.g. H19, BMP5, CXCL8). Compared to iTLE samples, there were 1015 DEGs in the GRS samples. Among these 877 genes were up-regulated and 138 genes were down-regulated. There was significant enrichment for genes involved in cell-to-cell signaling among those that were either uniquely up‐regulated (e.g. NRK, RGS10, SLC4A4, and SELPLG) or down‐regulated in the GRS samples (e.g. SLC9A3 –Na+/H+ exchanger; SLC5A5-sodium-glucose co-transporter family). Further, two of the most down-regulated genes in samples with GRS, SCLC17A6- vesicular glutamate transporter 2 and FOSB, have previously been shown to be involved in glutamatergic transmission. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that inflammation-related processes and alterations in cell-to cell signaling may underlie the pathogenesis of GRS. Our results also provide support for perturbations in glutamatergic transmission in GRS. Our findings require replication in larger human cohorts and functional experiments to explore the function of the genes perturbed in GRS.

Abstract Glioblastoma, the most common and lethal of brain tumors, is both highly invasive and proliferative. This allows tumor cells to infiltrate into regions of the brain with an intact blood brain barrier and be protected from effective therapeutics. Thus, an ideal glioblastoma therapy needs to target cellular components that drive both invasion and proliferation, with inhibitors that penetrate the blood brain barrier. The mitotic kinesin KIF11 meets these criteria and it can be targeted with ispinesib, a highly specific small molecule inhibitor. However, to be effective, ispinesib needs to cross the blood brain barrier and be retained within brain long enough to target glioblastoma cells when they are vulnerable, during mitosis.. We have examined the factors that affect distribution of ispinesib to both brain and glioblastoma. We find that delivery of ispinesib is limited by P-gp and Bcrp-mediated drug efflux at the blood brain barrier. Consequently, ispinesib levels are significantly lower in the infiltrative tumor margin relative to the tumor core, where the blood brain barrier is defective. We also show that elacridar—an inhibitor of the P-gp and Brcp efflux transporters—enhances delivery of ispinesib, and that co-administration of ispinesib with elacridar markedly slows tumor proliferation and prolongs survival in a mouse model of this disease. These results demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of combining a potentially ideal therapeutic with a compound that enhances brain retention of this therapeutic, and provides support for utilizing this approach in clinical investigations of KIF11 inhibitors in GBM.

Significance Glioblastoma, the most common and lethal of primary brain tumors, can diffusely infiltrate brain. Because the components of the cytoskeleton that drive tumor invasion are nonredundant, they have been attractive targets for blocking glioblastoma dispersion. However, we find that while targeting one of these—the molecular motor myosin IIA—effectively blocks glioblastoma invasion, it enhances tumor proliferation and lethality. In this study, we have found that myosin IIA functions as a tumor suppressor by reducing signaling of two oncogenes—ERK1/2 and NF-κB—in a manner regulated by the mechanics of the tumor and surrounding brain. Our results also argue that effective treatment of glioblastoma will require inhibiting targets that drive both invasion and proliferation.