Background
The
HOX genes are a family of transcription factors characterized by highly conserved DNA- and co-factor binding domains. This conservation has been driven by their roles in some of the most fundamental patterning events that underlie early development [
1]. Most notable of these is the patterning of the anterior to posterior axis, for which a precise spatial and temporal order in the expression of
HOX genes is required. This is achieved in part through a chromosomal arrangement whereby
HOX genes are present in closely linked clusters allowing the sharing of common enhancer regions. In mammals there are four such clusters (A–D), containing a total of 39
HOX genes [
1]. The relative position of each
HOX gene 3′ to 5′ within the cluster is reflected in a number of key attributes, including the spatial and temporal order of expression, whereby the 3′ most genes are expressed earlier than their 5′ neighbors. The nomenclature of the
HOX genes reflects this precise chromosomal ordering, with members of each cluster being numbered with respect to the 3′ end, thus for example, the 3′ most member of cluster B is
HOXB1 [
2].
The 3′ to 5′ order of
HOX genes is reflected not only in their expression patterns but also in their DNA binding specificities and co-factor interactions. For example, the products of the 3′
HOX genes (1 to 9) bind to another transcription factor, PBX, which modifies their binding specificity to DNA [
3], influences their nucleocytoplasmic distribution [
3], and also determines whether a HOX protein will activate of repress transcription of downstream target genes [
4]. This interaction with PBX is mediated through a highly conserved hexapeptide region on HOX proteins 1–9 that binds to a cleft in PBX [
3,
5]. Once PBX has bound it can recruit other specific co-factors, including MEIS, which can then further modify HOX activity [
6].
Although
HOX genes were initially characterized as key developmental genes, they also function in adult stem cells to promote proliferation [
7], and subsequently in their progeny to confer lineage-specific identities [
8]. Furthermore,
HOX genes are strongly dys-regulated in cancer, and generally exhibit greatly increased expression. This differential change in expression in cancer may reflect the apparent ability of some
HOX genes to function as tumor suppressors and some as oncogenes. Thus for example,
HOXA5 acts as a tumor suppressor in breast cancer by stabilizing P53 [
9], whilst forced expression of
HOXB6 can immortalize fibroblast cells [
10]. Further examples of this phenomenon are listed in Table
1.
Table 1
HOX genes with potential oncogenic or tumor suppressor functions
HOXA1
| O | Transforms non-malignant mammary epithelial cells | |
HOXA9
| O | Key oncogene in leukemia | |
HOXB3
| O | Pro-survival and proliferation gene in leukemia | |
HOXB4
| O | Pro-survival and proliferation gene in leukemia | |
HOXB5
| O | Transfection can immortalize fibroblast cells | |
HOXB6
| O | Transfection can immortalize myelomonocytic cells | |
HOXB9
| O | Promotes tumorogenesis in breast cancer | |
HOXC4
| O | High expression in malignant prostate cells | |
HOXA4
| S | Blocks spread of ovarian cancer cells | |
HOXA5
| S | Identified as a tumor suppressor gene in breast ca | |
HOXC8
| S | Expression inversely related to progression | |
HOXC12
| S | Promotes cell differentiation in follicular lymphoma | |
HOXD12
| S | Silenced in melanoma cells | |
The dys-regulation of
HOX genes has been demonstrated in a range of cancers, and in some it has been shown to be a potential therapeutic target through the use of a peptide, HXR9. HXR9 prevents PBX binding to HOX and triggers apoptosis in malignant cells, whilst sparing normal adult cells [
11‐
17]. Although these studies include non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [
16], they do not encompass mesothelioma, a malignancy of the mesothelium cells which is most frequently found in the lung and is associated with long term exposure to asbestos [
18]. Mesothelioma has limited treatment options and generally a very poor prognosis [
18], and therefore finding novel therapeutic approaches in this disease is an important goal. In this study we show that
HOX dys-regulation is present in cell lines derived from mesothelioma, and in primary tumors, usually with a significant increase in the expression of those
HOX genes that behave as oncogenes. Furthermore, antagonism of the HOX / PBX interaction in these cell lines triggers apoptosis, with malignant cells generally being considerably more sensitive to HXR9 than cells derived from non-malignant mesothelium cells.
Methods
Cell lines and culture
The cell lines used in this study are listed in Table
2. They were obtained from the ATCC through LGC Standards Ltd (UK), and were cultured according to the instructions on the LGC Standards website.
Table 2
Mesothelioma-derived cell lines used in this study
Met-5a | Normal mesothelium cells from pleural fluid | 98 | |
NCI-H28 | Pleural effusion | 18 | ATCC |
MSTO-211H | Biphasic mesothelioma (fibroblast morphology) | 28 | |
NCI-H2052 | Pleural effusion (epithelial morphology) | 45 | ATCC |
NCI-H226 | Squamous carcinoma; mesothelioma (epithelial morphology). This cell line was derived from non-small cell lung cancer, although it was subsequently found to have a number of mesothelioma-related properties, including the expression of mesothelin. | 107 | |
Synthesis of HXR9 and CXR9 peptides
HXR9 is an 18 amino acid peptide consisting of the previously identified hexapeptide sequence that can bind to PBX and nine C-terminal arginine residues (R9) that facilitate cell entry. The N-terminal and C-terminal amino bonds are in the D-isomer conformation, which has previously been shown to extend the half-life of the peptide to 12 h in human serum [
14]. CXR9 is a control peptide that lacks a functional hexapeptide sequence but which includes the R9 sequence. The sequences of these peptides have been published previously [
13]. All peptides were synthesized using conventional column based chemistry and purified to at least 80 % (Biosynthesis Inc., USA).
Imaging of cell cultures
Cells were plated in 6-well plates using 2 ml of medium and allowed to recover for at least 24 h. When approximately 60 % confluent, cells were treated with the active peptide HXR9 (60 μM) or the control peptide CXR9 (60 μM) for 3 h.
Immunohistochemistry for HOXA4, HOXA9, and HOXB4
Expression of HOXA4, HOXA9, and HOXB4 in mesothelioma and normal mesothelium tissue was investigated using 3 μm-thick, formalin fixed, paraffin embedded tissue array sections (MS081, US Biomax, Rockville, MD, USA). Immunohistochemical analysis was performed using a monoclonal rabbit anti-HOXB4 antibody (ab676093, 1:100 dilution, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), a polyclonal rabbit anti-HOXA4 antibody (ab131049, 1:500 dilution, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), and a polyclonal rabbit anti-HOXA9 antibody (ab191178, 1:75 dilution, Abcam, Cambridge, UK). The ABC detection method with peroxidase block (DakoCytomation) was used for all of these primary antibodies. Antigen retrieval was performed using pH 9.0 Tris/EDTA buffer (DakoCytomation) and heating in a microwave for 23 min.
Analysis of cell death and apoptosis
Cells were treated with HXR9 or CXR9 as described above. Cell viability was assessed using the MTS assay (Promega) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Cells were harvested by incubating in trypsin-EDTA (Sigma) at 37 °C until detached and dissociated. Apoptotic cells were identified using flow cytometry (Beckman Coulter Epics XL Flow) and the Annexin V-PE apoptosis detection kit (BD Pharmingen) as described by the manufacturer’s protocol. Caspase-3 activity was measured using the EnzCheck Caspase-3 Assay Kit (Molecular Probes), using the protocol defined by the manufacturer.
RNA purification and reverse transcription
Total RNA was isolated from cells using the RNeasy Plus Mini Kit (Qiagen) by following the manufacturer’s protocol. The RNA was denatured by heating to 65 °C for 5 min. cDNA was synthesized from RNA using the Cloned AMV First Strand Synthesis Kit (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Quantitative PCR
Quantitative PCR was performed using the Stratagene MX3005P real-time PCR machine and the Brilliant SYBR Green QPCR Master Mix (Stratagene). The following primers were designed to facilitate the unique amplification of β-actin, c-Fos, and each HOX gene:
HsBeta-ActinF: 5′ ATGTACCCTGGCATTGCCGAC 3′
HsBeta-ActinR: 5′ GACTCGTCATACTCCTGCTTG 3′
HscFos1F: 5′ CCAACCTGCTGAAGGAGAAG 3′
HscFos1R: 5′ GCTGCTGATGCTCTTGACAG 3′
HsHOXA1F: 5′ CTGGCCCTGGCTACGTATAA 3′
HsHOXA1R: 5′ TCCAACTTTCCCTGTTTTGG 3′
HsHOXA4F: 5′ CCCTGGATGAAGAAGATCCA 3′
HsHOXA4R: 5′ AATTGGAGGATCGCATCTTG 3′
HsHOXA5F: 5′ CCGGAGAATGAAGTGGAAAA 3′
HsHOXA5R: 5′ ACGAGAACAGGGCTTCTTCA 3′
HsHOXA9F: 5′ AATAACCCAGCAGCCAACTG 3′
HsHOXA9R: 5′ ATTTTCATCCTGCGGTTCTG 3′
HsHOXB3F: 5′ TATGGCCTCAACCACCTTTC 3′
HsHOXB3R: 5′ AAGCCTGGGTACCACCTTCT 3′
HsHOXB4F: 5′ TCTTGGAGCTGGAGAAGGAA 3′
HsHOXB4R: 5′ GTTGGGCAACTTGTGGTCTT 3′
HsHOXB5F: 5′ AAGGCCTGGTCTGGGAGTAT 3′
HsHOXB5R: 5′ GCATCCACTCGCTCACTACA 3′
HsHOXB6F: 5′ ATTTCCTTCTGGCCCTCACT 3′
HsHOXB6R: 5′ GGAAGGTGGAGTTCACGAAA 3′
HsHOXB9F: 5′ TAATCAAAGACCCGGCTACG 3′
HsHOXB9R: 5′ CTACGGTCCCTGGTGAGGTA 3′
HsHOXC4F: 5′ CGCTCGAGGACAGCCTATAC 3′
HsHOXC4R: 5′ GCTCTGGGAGTGGTCTTCAG 3′
HsHOXC8F: 5′ CTCAGGCTACCAGCAGAACC 3′
HsHOXC8R: 5′ TTGGCGGAGGATTTACAGTC 3′
Mice and in vivo trial
All animal experiments were conducted in accordance with the United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research guidelines for the Welfare of Animals in Experimental Neoplasia and were approved by the University of Surrey Research Ethics Committee. The mice were kept in positive pressure isolators in 12 h light / dark cycles and food and water were available ad libitum.
Athymic nude mice were inoculated subcutaneously with a suspension of 2.5 × 10
6 MSTO-211H cells in culture media (100 μl). Once tumors reached volumes of approximately 100 mm
3, mice were injected IP with PBS or 25 mg/Kg HXR9 in PBS (injection volume 100 μl), every 4 days. The mice were sacrificed after 36 days and the tumors were excised for RNA extraction, as previously described [
12]. Each treatment group contained ten mice. The mice were monitored carefully for signs of distress, including behavioral changes and weight loss.
Patient characteristics
Primary mesothelioma samples were obtained from 16 male and five female patients. The median patient age at diagnosis was 63.9 years (range, 38.2–79.53 years) and median survival was 9.04 months (range, 0.23–81.85 months). Recruitment was via a specialized multidisciplinary thoracic oncology clinic, involving thoracic surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. Histopathology and imaging review was undertaken for all patients. Patients underwent tumor resection at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. Tumor samples were confirmed as mesothelioma by pathological examination and categorized as a sarcomatoid, biphasic, or epithelial type using an antibody panel that included BerEP4, CEA, TTF1, Calretinin, WT1, CK5, MNF116, and EMA. Pseudoanonymised tissues and data were collected by the KHP Cancer Biobank, and subsequently released for this study in accordance with NHS REC approval number 07/H0804/91. Written informed consent was obtained from patients when they agreed to their tissue samples being included in the Biobank, it was not required for the specific use of these tissues in this project.
Statistical analysis
All values are given as the mean of three independent experiments and error bars show the standard error of the mean. Categorical variables were compared using Student’s t-test or a one-way ANOVA. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. A p value < 0.05 was considered to be significant.
Discussion
The dys-regulation of
HOX genes in cancer is now well established, and in many cases a putative function for individual
HOX genes has been established [
20]. Despite a high degree of sequence and regulatory conservation between
HOX genes, there is apparently a wide range of cancer specific functions which include both oncogenic and tumor suppressing activities. Thus for example the fifth gene of the
HOXA complex,
HOXA5, acts primarily as a tumor suppressor in breast cancer through stabilizing p53 [
9], whilst its closely related counterpart in the
HOXB cluster,
HOXB5, can be defined as an oncogene as it can immortalize fibroblast cells upon transfection [
21].
None of these studies have as yet addressed whether
HOX genes are dys-regulated in mesothelioma, but here we show that cell lines derived from mesothelioma as well as primary mesothelioma cells have distinctly different
HOX expression patterns from the Met-5a cell line that is derived from normal mesothelium. One of the most striking differences is the expression of
HOXC12 and
HOXD12 by Met-5a but not by any of the mesothelioma cell lines.
HOXC12 is repressed in follicular lymphoma through hypermethylation of its promoter, and has also been implicated in the differentiation of follicle cells [
22], both of which suggest a possible function in tumor suppression. Likewise, the function of
HOXD12 has not been defined, but it has been shown to be silenced in melanoma cells through the methylation of its promoter [
23].
Another oncogenic
HOX gene that we found to be up-regulated in primary mesothelioma tumors was
HOXB4. High
HOXB4 expression levels were associated with shorter OS, suggesting that
HOXB4 expression is a potential prognostic factor in this malignancy. We also found that there was a positive, linear relationship between
HOXB4 expression and tumor growth in a mouse model of human mesothelioma. Given the functional redundancy amongst HOX proteins, this finding that
HOXB4 was the only
HOX gene among the 39-strong family to have any prognostic significance seems unexpected. However, there are a number of other cancers for which a single
HOX gene alone acts as a prognostic marker, and the identity of the
HOX gene in each case varies from one malignancy to another. Examples include
HOXC6 in gastric cancer,
HOXB8 in ovarian cancer, and
HOXD3 in breast cancer [
24]. This might reflect the embryonic origins of different cancer types, as
HOX gene expression in adult cells tends to reflect their developmental origin [
25]. From a practical view point, there are currently no reliable markers of OS in mesothelioma [
26], and the use of
HOXB4 as a prognostic marker in this context therefore justifies further evaluation.
In this study we have found that the ratio of expression between
HOX genes with a putative oncogenic function and those that have tumor suppressor activity (‘O/S ratio’) predicts which mesothelioma cell lines are most sensitive to HXR9, a peptide that prevents HOX proteins binding to PBX and has been shown to cause apoptosis in other malignancies [
11‐
17]. The O/S ratio may indicate the degree to which malignant cells are dependent on the activity of oncogenic
HOX genes for their proliferation and survival, a concept similar to the idea of ‘oncogene addiction’ [
27], which would explain their sensitivity to HXR9. The extent to which this is true is yet to be determined, but at a more practical level the O/S ratio might act as a biomarker for the sensitivity of mesothelioma cells to HXR9, and could ultimately be used to select patients that might benefit from this therapeutic approach.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests
Authors’ contributions
RM designed and oversaw the study and wrote the manuscript draft. GS conducted the in vivo study. SG conducted the cell culture experiments and assays. CG oversaw the collection of tumour samples and helped analyse the data. ZT advised on the design and interpretation of the cell culture studies. JS oversaw the collection of tumour samples and helped analyse the data. KJH helped design the study and write the manuscript. HSP helped design the study, write the manuscript, and analyse the data. All of the authors have and approved the final version of the manuscript.