Perturbation of the heparin/heparin-sulfate interactome of human breast cancer cells modulates pro-tumourigenic effects associated with PI3K/Akt and MAPK/ERK signalling

Summary

Heparansulfate-proteoglycans (HSPGs) interact via their polyanionic heparansulfate (HS) side chains with a variety of proteins on the cell surface or within the extracellular matrix membrane. The large number of heparin/HS binding proteins form a highly interconnected functional network, which has been termed as the heparin/HS interactome and is functionally linked to physiological and pathological processes. The aim of this study was to investigate the global effect of these protein-HSPG interactions on the tumourigenicity of two breast cancer cell lines (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231). Cancer cells were cultured in serum-free medium and treated with a concentration of heparin which was capable of modulating HS/ligand interaction. Microarray analysis of MCF-7 cells cultured under these conditions showed that expression of 105 of 1,357 genes potentially related to the pathogenesis of breast neoplasm was significantly altered by heparin treatment. The changes in gene expression correlated with a less tumourigenic phenotype, including reduction of cell adhesive, invasive and migratory properties. These effects were associated with an inhibition of the PI3K/Akt and Raf/MEK/ERK signalling pathways. The modulatory effect of heparin on HS-associated activity was confirmed with one example of heparin/HS interactomes, transforming growth factor β (TGFβ). The innate TGFβ activity of MCF-7 cells was reduced by heparin treatment, with specific interruption of the TGFβ–Smad signalling pathway. The pro-tumourigenic contribution of the heparin/HS interactomes was verified in cells in which HSPG synthesis was blocked using β-xyloside. In conclusion, the interaction between cell surface HPSGs and innate heparin/HS interactomes makes a significant contribution to the tumourigenicity.

Keywords

Heparin/heparan sulfate interactomes - breast cancer cell - tumourigenicity

• References

• 1 Sasisekharan R, Shriver Z, Venkataraman G. et al. Roles of heparan-sulfate gly-cosaminoglycans in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2002; 02: 521-8.
• 2 Capila I, Linhardt RJ. Heparin-protein interactions. Angew Chem Int Ed 2002; 41: 390-412.
• 3 Ori A, Wilkinson MC, Fernig DG. A systems biology approach for the investigation of the heparin/heparan sulfate interactome. J Biol Chem 2011; 286: 19892-19904.
• 4 Handel TM, Johnson Z, Crown SE. et al. Regulation of protein function by gly-cosaminoglycans- as exemplified by chemokines. Ann Rev Biochem 2005; 74: 385-410.
• 5 Liu D, Shriver Z, Venkataraman G. et al. Tumour cell surface heparan sulfate as cryptic promoters or inhibitors of tumour growth and metastasis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002; 99: 568-573.
• 6 Raman K, Ninomiya M, Nguyen TK. et al. Novel glycosaminoglycan biosynthetic inhibitors affect tumour-associated angiogenesis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2011; 404: 86-89.
• 7 Osborne CK, Arteaga CL. Autocrine and paracrine growth regulation of breast cancer: clinical implications. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1990; 15: 3-11.
• 8 Dreyfuss JL, Regatieri CV, Jarrouge TR. et al. Heparan sulfate proteoglycans: structure, protein interactions and cell signalling. An Acad Bras Cienc 2009; 81: 409-429.
• 9 Iozzo RV, Sanderson RD. Proteoglycans in cancer biology, tumour microen-vironment and angiogenesis. J Cell Mol Med 2011; 15: 1013-1031.
• 10 Chen Y, Leask A, Abraham DJ. et al. Heparan sulfate-dependent ERK activation contributes to the overexpression of fibrotic proteins and enhanced contraction by scleroderma fibroblasts. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58: 577-585.
• 11 Chen Y, Shi-Wen X, van Beek. et al. Matrix contraction by dermal fibroblasts requires transforming growth factor-beta/activin-linked kinase 5, heparan sulfate-containing proteoglycans, and MEK/ERK: insights into pathological scarring in chronic fibrotic disease. Am J Pathol 2005; 167: 1699-1711.
• 12 Hamati HF, Britton EL, Carey DJ. Inhibition of proteoglycan synthesis alters extracellular matrix deposition, proliferation, and cytoskeletal organisation of rat aortic smooth muscle cells in culture. J Cell Biol 1989; 108: 2495-2505.
• 13 Haggerty JG, Bretton RH, Milstone LM. Response of stratified cultures of human keratinocytes to disruption of proteoglycan synthesis by p-nitrophenyl-β-D-xylopyranoside. J Cell Physiol 1994; 158: 39-46.
• 14 Abe M, Harpel JG, Metz CN. et al. An assay for transforming growth factor-beta using cells transfected with a plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 promoter-luciferase construct. Anal Biochem 1994; 216: 276-284.
• 15 Simstein R, Burow M, Parker A. et al. Apoptosis, chemoresistance, and breast cancer: insights from the MCF-7 cell model system. Exp Biol Med 2002; 228: 995-1003.
• 16 Mackay A, Tamber N, Fenwick K. et al. A high-resolution integrated analysis of genetic and expression profiles of breast cancer cell lines. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 118: 481-498.
• 17 Furue MK, Na J, Jackson JP. et al. Heparin promotes the growth of human embryonic stem cells in a defined serum-free medium. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105: 13409-13414.
• 18 Flint N, Cove FL, Evans GS. Heparin stimulates the proliferation of imtestinal epithelial cells in primary culture. J Cell Science 1994; 107: 401-411.
• 19 Hochart H, Jenkins PV, Preston RJ. et al. Concentration-dependent roles for heparin in modifying lipopolysaccharide-induced activation of mononuclear cells in whole blood. Thromb Haemost 2008; 99: 570-575.
• 20 Li HL, Ye KH, Zhang HW. et al. Effect of heparin on apoptosis in human nasopharyngeal carcinoma CNE2 cells. Cell Res 2001; 11: 311-315.
• 21 Ishikawa Y, Kitamura M. Inhibition of glomerular cell apoptosis by heparin. Kidney Int 1999; 56: 954-963.
• 22 Yu MK, Lee DY, Kim YS. et al. Antiangiogenic and apoptotic properties of a novel amphiphilic folate-heparin-lithocholate derivative having cellular internality for cancer therapy. Pharm Res 2007; 24: 705-714.
• 23 Cochran S, Li CP, Ferro V. A surface plasmon resonance-based solution affinity assay for heparan sulfate-binding proteins. Glycoconj J 2009; 26: 577-587.
• 24 O’Brien N, O’Donovan N, Foley D. et al. Use of a panel of novel genes for differentiating breast cancer from non-breast tissues. Tumour Biol 2007; 28: 312-317.
• 25 Shehata M, Weidenhofer J, Thamotharampillai K. et al. Tumour protein D52 overexpression and gene amplification in cancers from a mosaic of microarrays. Crit Rev Oncog 2008; 14: 33-55.
• 26 Ummanni R, Teller S, Junker H. et al. Altered expression of tumour protein D52 regulates apoptosis and migration of prostate cancer cells. Febs J 2008; 275: 5703-5713.
• 27 Gumireddy K, Li A, Gimotty PA. et al. KLF17 is a negative regulator of epithe-lial-mesenchymal transition and metastasis in breast cancer. Nat Cell Biol 2009; 11: 1297-1304.
• 28 van Agthoven T, Veldscholte J, Smid M. et al. Functional identification of genes causing estrogen independence of human breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 114: 23-30.
• 29 Yde CW, Gyrd-Hansen M, Lykkesfeldt AE. et al. Breast cancer cells with acquired antiestrogen resistance are sensitized to cisplatin-induced cell death. Mol Cancer Ther 2007; 06: 1869-1876.
• 30 Carey DJ. Syndecans: multifunctional cell-surface co-receptors. Biochem J 1997; 327: 1-16.
• 31 McCubrey JA, Steelman LS, Abrams SL. et al. Roles of the RAF/MEK/ERK and PI3K/PTEN/AKT pathways in malignant transformation and drug resistance. Adv Enzyme Regul 2006; 46: 249-279.
• 32 Platet N, Prévostel C, Derocq D. et al. Breast cancer cell invasiveness: correlation with protein kinase C activity and differential regulation by phorbol ester in estrogen receptor-positive and -negative cells. Int J Cancer 1998; 75: 750-756.
• 33 Tan AR, Alexe G, Reiss M. Transforming growth factor-beta signalling: emerging stem cell target in metastatic breast cancer?. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 115: 453-495.
• 34 Mulder KM. Role of Ras and Mapks in TGFb signalling. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2000; 11: 23-35.
• 35 Kakkar AK, Levine MN, Kadziola Z. et al. Low molecular weight heparin, therapy with dalteparin, and survival in advanced cancer: the fragmin advanced malignancy outcome study (FAMOUS). J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 1944-1948.
• 36 Klerk CP, Smorenburg SM, Otten HM. et al. The effect of low molecular weight heparin on survival in patients with advanced malignancy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 2130-2135.
• 37 Cunningham MS, Preston RJ, O’Donnell JS. Does antithrombotic therapy improve survival in cancer patients?. Blood Rev 2009; 23: 129-135.
• 38 von Tempelhoff GF, Harenberg J, Niemann F. et al. Effect of low molecular weight heparin (Certoparin) versus unfractionated heparin on cancer survival following breast and pelvic cancer surgery: A prospective randomized double-blind trial. Int J Oncol 2000; 16: 815-824.
• 39 Lee AY. Thrombosis in cancer: an update on prevention, treatment, and survival benefits of anticoagulants. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2010; 2010: 144-149.
• 40 Collen A, Smorenburg SM, Peters E. et al. Unfractionated and low molecular weight heparin affect fibrin structure and angiogenesis in vitro. Cancer Res 2000; 60: 6196-6200.
• 41 Lazo-Langner A, Goss GD, Spaans JN. et al. The effect of low-molecular-weight heparin on cancer survival A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Thromb Haemost 2007; 05: 729-737.
• 42 Mousa SA, Petersen LJ. Anti-cancer properties of low-molecular-weight hepa-rin: preclinical evidence. Thromb Haemost 2009; 102: 258-267.
• 43 Niers TM, Klerk CP, DiNisio M. et al. Mechanisms of heparin induced anti-cancer activity in experimental cancer models. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2007; 61: 195-207.
• 44 Castelli R, Porro F, Tarsia P. The heparins and cancer: review of clinical trials and biological properties. Vasc Med 2004; 09: 205-213.