Mutation of geminin is non-predominant in human cancers
To explore comprehensively the genetic abnormalities affecting geminin, diverse public databases were analyzed, including The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Human Protein Atlas (see Uniform Resource Locators, URLs). We found that the RNA expression level of geminin is approximately even in all 17 cancer types (Fig. 1a), indicating that geminin expression has no tissue or cell specificity. This is consistent with the properties of geminin as a regulator protein, which is expressed selectively during the proliferative phase of the cell cycle.
In TCGA whole-genome sequencing results, only 57 mutations throughout GMNN gene were identified in 13 cancer types. These mutations belonged to 51 variants, and many of the them distributed discretely, indicating that mutation of GMNN gene is an occasional event in human cancers. Of note, the vast majority of 57 mutations was located at the exon region, while only one mutation was located at 5' UTR region (T>G at the position of chromosome 24777229), and 8 mutations were located at 3'UTR region (Fig. 1b). Moreover, there were only missense or synonymous mutation at N terminus of the gene, while deletion mutation, nonsense mutation and splicing mutation were also found at C terminus (Fig. 1c-d). Significantly, the 54th amino acid Arginine was more susceptible to mutate to Glutamine, and the mutation frequency was higher than other amino acids (Fig. 1c). These data reveal that mutations or deletions of the geminin gene is not predominant in human cancers. In the early tumour progression, cells normally adopt a strategy to manipulate levels of replication factors to conquer replicative stress, and mutations in replication factors are rare in this progress.
Depletion of geminin induces DNA re-replication in gastric cancer cells but not in normal gastric epithelial cells
SiRNA targeted against GMNN (siGEM)-induced DNA re-replication was previously shown in colorectal carcinoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs) and breast cancer[19, 41]. However, the sensitivity of cancer cells to geminin depletion was highly cell type dependent. Immortalized cells derived from normal tissues and some cell lines derived from cancers (such as cervix adenocarcinoma cells HeLa, skin melanoma calls A375 and WM-266-4) are resistant to DNA re-replication induced by geminin depletion[19]. To determine the effect of geminin depletion in gastric cancer, the responses of siGEM mediated geminin depletion of three gastric cell lines (MKN45, BGC-803 and GES-1) were observed. In gastric cancer cell lines, geminin expression level was reduced obviously by siGEM transfection (Fig. 2c and f). We found the proportion of cells in S+G2/M-phase increased after 2 days of siGEM transfection (Fig. 2a and d) compared with groups treated with siGL control, and the number of giant nuclei visualized by Laser scanning confocal microscope increased significantly (Fig. 2b and e).
To identify whether siGEM had the same effect on normal gastric epithelial cells, we performed the same assay using GES-1 cells. As expected, siGEM reduced geminin expression level in GES-1 cells obviously (Fig. 2i). However, no changes were detected either in the proportion of cells in S+G2/M-phase, or in the fraction of cells with giant nuclei (Fig. 2g-h).
Taken together, our results indicate that depletion of geminin induces DNA re-replication in gastric cancer cells but not in normal gastric epithelial cells.
LPA selectively triggers the up-regulation of geminin in gastric cancer cells
GPCR agonists LPA mediates multiple downstream signal pathways to activate biological behaviors, such as cell proliferation[25], migration[42] and invasion[43], etc. If abnormalities occur in the processes of LPA signal transduction, it may induce certain diseases and even contribute to the occurrence, development and metastasis of cancer[23]. In contrast, little is known about the influence or molecular mechanism of LPA in DNA replication. To investigate the role of LPA elevation in the properties of gastric cancer cells, we performed an LPA gradient treatment, followed by detecting geminin protein level using western blot analysis. In response to LPA stimulation, the protein level of geminin was increased transiently in early S phase in MKN45 (Fig. 3a) and BGC-803 (Fig. 3d) cells, with a peak of expression at approximate 0.5-1 hour. Whereas, this phenomenon was not detected in GES-1 cells, a normal gastric epithelial cell line (Fig. 3g). These data indicate that LPA selectively promotes up-regulation of geminin protein level in gastric cancer cells.
Before the gradient treatment of gastric cells with LPA, cells were serum starved and kept in a quiescent state, and 1% bovine serum albumin (BSA) was added to the medium to maintain the biological activity of LPA. To exclude the effect of BSA on geminin expression, the changes of protein level of geminin stimulated for 0.5 h in the presence or absence of 1% BSA was observed. As expected, BSA did not affect the protein level of geminin in gastric cancer cells (Fig. 3c and f).
Geminin is a DNA replication factor, which shuttle among the nucleus, nucleoplasm and cytoplasm[44]. In normal human gastric tissue, geminin was found to locate in cytoplasm and cytoplasmic membrane of all tissue, and it was distributed in nucleus only in 67% tissue via IHC staining. Whereas in tumor patient tissues, geminin protein can be detected in the nucleus of 81.8% of the samples, and 72.73% of them were only present in the nucleus via IHC staining (data were obtained from HPA, Fig. S1a). These results indicate that compared with normal cells, geminin has a translocation tendency from cytoplasm to nucleus in cancer cells. This is indicating that selective expression of geminin during the DNA replication phase and its nuclear specificity increase its potential to be used as a diagnostic marker of proliferation in cancer patients.
To investigate whether LPA can affect the cytoplasmic-nuclear trafficking of geminin in gastric cancer cells, the localization of geminin after LPA time gradient treatment was observed. geminin was mainly detected in cytoplasm without LPA treatment in quiescent cells, while the proportion of geminin localized in nucleus increased with prolonged LPA treatment. It reveals that LPA stimulation promotes nucleus transfer of geminin (Fig. S1b).
LPA stimulates EGFR transactivation via a metalloprotease-dependent pathway in gastric cancer
According to the previous reports[30, 45], LPA induce an intracellular transactivated mechanism by which it could indirectly play its cellular function through a GPCR-regulated transmembrane MMPs at the cell surface, allowing EGFR transactivation in a classic autocrine manner. To address whether LPA was involved in EGFR transactivation in gastric cancer, we first examined the changes of EGFR phosphotyrosine content to LPA (10 μM) stimulation. In two gastric cancer cell lines we tested, LPA stimulation resulted in tyrosine phosphorylation of EGFR obviously. In comparison with LPA stimulation, the vehicle DMSO showed little effect, whereas EGF-induced EGFR autophosphorylation was more pronounced (Fig. 4a). The above results implicate that the cross-talk linking GPCR with EGFR signal pathway are installed in gastric cancer.
Because metalloproteases (MMPs) have been implicated in the cross-talk linking GPCR and EGFR in HEK-293[45] and HNSCC[25] cells, we analyzed whether a MMPs-dependent mechanism is also involved in LPA-induced EGFR transactivation in gastric cancer. In MKN45 and BGC-803 cells, we analyzed the LPA-induced EGFR transactivation in the absence or presence of batimastat (BB94), a potent inhibitor of MMPs. In gastric cancer, BB94 (10 μM) completely blocked the EGFR transactivation signal by LPA stimulation, whereas EGF-induced EGFR autophosphorylation was not interfered (Fig. 4b). In addition, BB94 also affected the basic EGFR autophosphorylation in gastric cancer, perhaps by influencing the activity of basic EGFR ligand (Fig.. 4b).
Taken together, these results support our hypothesis that a MMPs-dependent mechanism is involved in LPA-induced EGFR transactivation in gastric cancer.
LPA potentiates geminin stability through LPAR3/MMPs/EGFR/PI3K/mTOR signaling axis and de-ubiquitinating enzyme DUB3
As described above, we demonstrated that LPA could upregulate geminin protein level in early S phase of gastric cancer cells. However, the signaling pathway of how LPA regulates geminin protein level in gastric cancer is uncovered. It is possible that LPA up-regulates the gene transcriptional level of GMNN, or LPA regulates the protein translation or the post-translational modification to potentiate the stability of geminin protein. To further investigate the underlying mechanism, the mRNA level of geminin under the gradient treatment of LPA was evaluated by RT-qPCR analyses. Unlike the effect of LPA gradient treatment on geminin protein level in gastric cancer cells, the mRNA level of geminin did not respond obviously to LPA treatment (Fig.. 5a and Fig. S2a). These RT-qPCR analyses suggest that LPA stimulation could not affect GMNN gene expression.
APC/C is known to control geminin degradation, recent study showed that de-ubiquitinating enzymes DUB3 is also identified as a factor to regulate geminin protein stability[8]. To investigate the relationship between LPA-meditated geminin upregulation pathway and the de-ubiquitinating degradation ability of DUB3, the change of DUB3 protein content after LPA stimulation was observed. In MKN45 and BGC-803 cells, the time course western blot analyses revealed an up-regulation of DUB3 protein, with a peak of expression at approximate 10 min after LPA stimulation (Fig. 5b and Fig. S2b). Owning to the rapid kinetic of DUB3, geminin protein level reached the maximum within 1 h after LPA stimulation (Fig. 3). These results indicate that LPA potentiates geminin stability by upregulating de-ubiquitinating enzyme DUB3 in gastric cancer.
LPA receptors (LPARs) include six different types and the best known receptors are LPAR1, LPAR2 and LPAR3. To test which LPAR was involved in LPA-induced EGFR transactivation in gastric cancer, the mRNA level of diverse LPARs was detected. RT-qPCR analyses indicated that LPAR3 expression was significantly higher than other LPARs (Fig. 5c and Fig. S2c). To explore the role of LPAR3 in LPA-meditated geminin upregulation, we assessed the response of geminin protein level to Ki16425, a specific LPAR1/3 inhibitor. The time course western blot analyses indicated that Ki16425 (10 μM) completely abrogated the up-regulation of geminin protein upon LPA stimulation whereas the vehicle DMSO had no effect in gastric cancer cells MKN45 (Fig. 5e-g) and BGC-803 (Fig. S2d and i). To further test the precise effect of LPAR3, short interfering RNA targeted against the human LPAR3 gene was transfected into MKN45 cells. When interfering the expression of LPAR3, a significant decrease in geminin protein content was observed after LPA treatment (Fig. 5d and f). These findings suggest that LPA regulates geminin stability through LPAR3.
To explore the relationship between LPA-meditated geminin stability enhancement and LPA-induced EGFR transactivation, we screened the changes of geminin protein content with DMSO (vehicle, 0.1%), BB94 (10 μM), EGFR inhibitor AG1478 (250 nM). Gastric cancer cells were synchronized with serum-free medium for 24 h, pretreated with vehicle or inhibitors as described above for 30 minutes, and treated with LPA (10 μM) in a time gradient. The time course western blot analyses indicated that all inhibitors completely abrogated the up-regulation of geminin protein upon LPA stimulation whereas the vehicle DMSO had no effect in gastric cancer cells MKN45 (Fig. 5d, h and i) and BGC-803 (Fig. S2e, f and i). These results suggest that LPA regulates geminin stability through EGFR transactivation signal pathway.
GPCR-induced EGFR transactivation was shown previously to relay signals to the Ras-MAPK pathway in some cell lines such as GT1-7, COS-7, and HEK-293 cells[46]. However, inhibition of MAPK pathway using MEK or ERK inhibitors could not attenuate LPA induced geminin upregulation (data not shown). Next, we investigated which downstream factor of EGFR was involved in LPA-mediated geminin stability. In time course experiments, LY294002 (10 μM, the specific inhibitor of PI3K) and Rapamycin (100 nM, the specific inhibitor of mTOR) notably eliminated the up-regulation of geminin protein upon LPA stimulation whereas the vehicle DMSO had no effect in gastric cancer cells MKN45 (Fig. 5e, j and k ) and BGC-803 (Fig. S2g-i).
Taken together, these results suggest that LPA potentiates geminin stability through LPAR3/MMPs/EGFR/PI3K/mTOR signaling axis and de-ubiquitinating enzyme DUB3 activity in gastric cancer.
LPA mediates S-phase cell-cycle progression through the LPAR3/MMPs/EGFR/PI3K/mTOR signaling axis
Because we have observed that LPA potentiated geminin stability through LPAR3/MMPs/EGFR/PI3K/mTOR signaling axis and DUB3 activity in gastric cancer, we next examined whether this signaling pathway affected DNA synthesis and cell-cycle progression of gastric cancer. Gastric cancer cells were synchronized with serum-free medium for 24 h. G1/S-arrested gastric cancer cells were pretreated with vehicle or inhibitors as described above for 30 min and stimulated with LPA (10 μM) in a time gradient. After the time gradient treatment, cells were harvested and stained with propidium iodide (PI) to quantify DNA content by FACS analysis. In both MKN45 and BGC-803 cells, time course experiment analyses indicated that all groups with inhibitor treatment did not show significantly increase in the percentage of cells in S and G2/M phases, compared with the vehicle DMSO group (Fig. 6 and Fig. S3). These results indicate that LPA could promote S-phase cell-cycle progression in gastric cancer cells through LPAR3/MMPs/EGFR/PI3K/mTOR signaling axis.
Metalloprotease-dependent transactivation of the EGFR is critical for LPA-induced efficient DNA synthesis and cell proliferation in gastric cancer
In order to quantification the efficiency of DNA synthesis in response to LPA stimulation, we measured the rate of DNA synthesis by measuring BrdU incorporation using ELISA assay. In both MKN45 and BGC-803 cells, BB94 and AG1478 notably abrogated DNA synthesis upon LPA stimulation (Fig. 7a-b). Furthermore, AG1478 notably eliminated DNA synthesis upon exogenous EGF stimulation (Fig. 7a-b). It is surprised to observe that BB94 also reduced DNA synthesis induced by exogenous EGF in gastric cancer cells, this suggested that exogenous EGF stimulation may result in enhanced shedding of endogenous EGFR ligands in gastric cancer as observed in HNSCCs[25, 47]. This result indicated that cross-talk between GPCRs signal pathways and the EGFR signal pathways were relevant for DNA synthesis in gastric cancer. Taken together, these data strongly indicate that LPA-induced efficient DNA synthesis is dependent on metalloprotease function in gastric cancer.
Besides DNA synthesis and S-phase cell-cycle progression, cell proliferation is another critical parameter in cancer pathobiology. To investigate whether metalloprotease or EGFR inhibition influences LPA-induced efficient cell proliferation in gastric cancer cells cultured in serum-free medium, we assessed cell proliferation using CCK-8 assay. As shown in Fig. 7c-d, we firstly confirmed the influence of LPA and EGF on cell proliferation. LPA notably induced efficient cell proliferation in both MKN45 and BGC-803 cells, so did EGF. As shown in Fig. 7e-f, Ki16425 notably blocked LPA-induced cell proliferation. Similarly, both BB94 and AG1478 notably eliminated LPA-induced cell proliferation in MKN45 and BGC-803 cells (Fig. 7g-j). Moreover, BB94 notably abrogated LPA-induced cell proliferation whereas it had no effect in EGF-induced cell proliferation (Fig. 7g-h). Based on the above results, we demonstrate that LPAR3, metalloprotease and EGFR activities are required for LPA-induced efficient cell proliferation in gastric cancer.