| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Cell, Tumor, and Stem Cell Biology |
in Ovarian Cancer
1 Department of Biochemistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia and Departments of 2 Molecular Therapeutics, 3 Gynecological Oncology, and 4 Experimental Therapeutics, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
Requests for reprints: Xianjun Fang, Department of Biochemistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, PO Box 980614, Richmond, VA 23298. Phone: 804-828-0787; Fax: 804-828-1473; E-mail: xfang{at}vcu.edu.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
(GRO
), a member of the chemokine superfamily, is commonly expressed in transformed cells and contributes to angiogenesis and tumorigenesis. Here, we report that increased GRO
levels are detected in the plasma and ascites of ovarian cancer patients. Ovarian cancer cell lines in culture express and secrete GRO
. However, when they are starved in serum-free medium, ovarian cancer cells ceased producing GRO
, suggesting that GRO
is not constitutively expressed but rather is produced in response to exogenous growth factors in ovarian cancer cells. The prototype peptide growth factors present in serum such as platelet-derived growth factor, insulin-like growth factor I, and insulin do not stimulate GRO
production by ovarian cancer cells. In contrast, lysophosphatidic acid (LPA), a glycerol backbone phospholipid mediator present in serum and ascites of ovarian cancer patients, is a potent inducer of GRO
expression in ovarian cancer cell lines. Treatment of ovarian cancer cells with LPA leads to transcriptional activation of the GRO
gene promoter and robust accumulation of GRO
protein in culture supernatants. The action of LPA on GRO
expression is mediated by LPA receptors, particularly the LPA2 receptor in that ectopic expression of these receptors restores the LPA-dependent GRO
production in nonresponsive cells. Down-regulation of LPA2 expression by small interfering RNA (siRNA) in ovarian cancer cells desensitizes GRO
production in response to LPA. The effect of serum on GRO
production is also significantly decreased by siRNA inhibition of LPA2 expression. These studies identify LPA as a primary regulator of GRO
expression in ovarian cancer. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(5): 2740-8) | Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
(GRO
), are neutrophil-activating chemokines and serve as potent angiogenic factors (1, 2). GRO
was originally identified by its constitutive overexpression in transformed Chinese hamster fibroblasts (3). Exogenously applied GRO
exhibits growth-promoting activity toward melanoma cells and therefore GRO
is also called melanoma growth-stimulatory activity (4, 5). Ectopic expression of GRO
converts immortalized melanocytes, melanoma precursor cells, to a tumorigenic phenotype, suggesting that GRO
may possess transforming activity in certain types of cells (6, 7).
GRO
may also contribute to tumorigenesis through its proangiogenic effect (7). The chemokine exerts its biological actions through the G proteincoupled receptor CXCR2 present in granulocytes, endothelial cells, and other cell lineages (8). Interestingly, the Kaposi sarcomaassociated herpesvirus G proteincoupled receptor (vGPCR) is a viral homologue of the human CXCR2 (9). Recent studies of oncogenic mechanisms for the Kaposi sarcoma virus indicate that the vGPCR is sufficient to initiate Kaposi sarcomalike tumors when targeted to the vascular endothelium of mice (10), highlighting the importance of GRO
/CXCR2 signaling in tumor angiogenesis and neoplasia.
Increased GRO
expression is frequently detected in melanoma (4, 11), squamous cell carcinoma (12, 13), colon cancer (14), diffuse type of gastric carcinoma (15), and oral cancer (16). However, the mechanism for the deregulated expression GRO
in malignant cells is poorly understood. In the current study, we assess the expression and regulation of GRO
in ovarian cancer wherein GRO has not been previously studied. Our results showed that many ovarian cancer patients have elevated plasma levels of GRO
, which are accompanied by even higher concentrations of GRO
in ascites. These results suggest that GRO
is generated in ascites, likely by ovarian cancer cells, and migrates to the peripheral circulation. In culture, ovarian cancer cells elaborated GRO
. Under serum-free conditions, however, these cells stopped producing GRO
, suggesting that the chemokine is not constitutively expressed by ovarian cancer cells but is rather responsive to growth factors in serum. We showed that lysophosphatidic acid (LPA), which is present in serum and ascites of ovarian cancer patients (17), strongly stimulated GRO
production in ovarian cancer cells through LPA receptors of the endothelial differentiation gene family (17), particularly the LPA2 receptor. Down-regulation of LPA2 expression by small interfering RNA (siRNA) in ovarian cancer cells reduced the responsiveness to LPA and to serum. These results identify the serum lipid constituent LPA as a major regulator of GRO
expression in ovarian cancer cells. In light of the widespread distribution of LPA and its receptors, LPA induction of GRO
likely represents a general mechanism for GRO
deregulation in neoplasia.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Clinical samples. Plasma and ascitic fluids of ovarian cancer patients were kindly provided for this study by the Basic Biology of Ovarian Cancer PPG Tissue Bank (University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA). The patients were diagnosed with ovarian carcinomas at stage III or IV. Ten of the 13 patients were classified as the most common serous type of epithelial ovarian carcinomas, whereas the other three had mixed or undifferentiated ovarian carcinomas. The plasma specimens of normal controls were also provided by the Basic Biology of Ovarian Cancer PPG Tissue Bank. These were healthy female volunteers attending outpatient clinics for routine physical examination.
Cells. The source and maintenance of ovarian cancer cell lines, including OVCAR-3, SKOV-3, Dov-13, and Caov-3, have been described previously (18). The human breast carcinoma cell line MCF-7 was obtained from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Manassas, VA). MDA-MB-468 and SKBr-3 were provided by Dr. Y. Yu (M.D. Anderson Cancer Center). Breast cancer cell lines were cultured in RPMI plus 10% FBS. All cell lines were frozen at early passages and used for <10 weeks in continuous culture. Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) were obtained from Cambrex BioScience, Inc. (Walkersville, MD), and cultured with the EGM-2 complete medium as recommended by the supplier.
Measurement of GRO
production by ELISA. Culture supernatants of cell lines treated without or with LPA or other stimuli were collected and analyzed for measuring GRO
concentrations by ELISA using the human GRO
Quantikine ELISA kit (R&D Systems). Concentrations and quantities of GRO
in culture supernatants and clinical samples were calculated by comparing the absorbance of samples to standard curves.
Western blot. Cells were lysed in SDS sample buffer or in ice-cold X-100 lysis buffer [1% Triton X-100, 50 mmol/L HEPES (pH 7.4), 150 mmol/L NaCl, 1.5 mmol/L MgCl2, 1 mmol/L EGTA, 10% glycerol, 100 mmol/L NaF, 10 mmol/L Na PPi, and protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche)]. Total cellular protein was resolved by SDS-PAGE, transferred to immobilon [poly(vinylidene difluoride)], and immunoblotted with antibodies following the protocols provided by the manufacturers. Immunocomplexes were visualized with an enhanced chemiluminescence detection kit (Amersham, Piscataway, NJ) using horseradish peroxidaseconjugated secondary antibodies (Cell Signaling).
Northern blot analysis. Total cellular RNA was extracted from cell lines using the TRIzol reagent, following the instruction of the supplier (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). RNA samples were size-fractionated by formaldehyde/agarose gel electrophoresis, stained with ethidium bromide, and transferred to N+ hybrid nylon. RNA was immobilized by UV cross-linking, and then prehybridized and hybridized to 32P-labeled cDNA probes as described previously (19). The human LPA1, LPA2, and LPA3 cDNAs were isolated from their expression vectors pcDNA3-Flag-LPA1, pcDNA3-Flag-LPA2, and pcDNA3-Flag-LPA3 (18). The cDNA clone for the human GRO
gene was obtained from ATCC. Quality of RNA samples was confirmed by rehybridization to the human glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) cDNA or to the DNA of 18S rRNA (ATCC).
Luciferase assay. The human GRO
promoter sequences (304 to +9, 150 to +9, 84 to +9, and 56 to +9; ref. 11, 20) were cloned from the genomic DNA of OVCAR-3 cells by PCR amplification, verified by automatic sequencing, and inserted into the pGL2-Basic vector (Promega). For luciferase assays, ovarian cancer cell lines were transfected with pGL2-GRO
-Luc using Fugene 6 according to the instructions of the manufacturer (Roche). About 48 to 60 hours after transfection, the cells were starved for 24 to 48 hours before stimulation with LPA or vehicle for 6 hours. Cell extracts were prepared and assayed for luciferase activity using the luciferase assay kit from Promega. The luciferase activity was normalized on the basis of the activity of cotransfected ß-galactosidase reporter driven by the cytomegalovirus promoter (pCMVß-gal).
Restoration of LPA-induced GRO
production in SKBr-3. To determine whether enforced expression of LPA receptors can restore cytokine production in response to LPA, the nonresponsive cell line SKBr-3 was transfected with each LPA receptor expression vector with LipofectAMINE 2000 according to the protocol of the supplier (Invitrogen). Approximately 60 hours after transfection, the cells were starved in serum-free medium for 36 hours before stimulation with LPA for 24 hours. The conditioned medium was harvested for ELISA quantification of GRO
.
siRNA. The human LPA2 SMARTpool siRNA and the control nontargeting siRNA were obtained from Dharmacon (Lafayette, CO). OVCAR-3 cells were plated in 24-well plates at 1.25 x 105 cells per well in complete medium without antibiotics the day before transfection. The cells were transfected overnight with control or LPA2-specific siRNA (50 pmol) with LipofectAMINE 2000 (2.5 µL) resuspended in 500 µL of Opti-MEM (Invitrogen). After transfection, the cells were incubated with fresh complete medium for 36 hours for recovery and starved in serum-free medium for 10 hours before stimulation with FBS, LPA, or vehicle. The culture supernatants were collected for ELISA analysis of GRO
.
Chemotaxis assay. The migration of HUVEC was measured with modified Boyden chambers as described previously (21). In brief, polycarbonate filters (Neuro Probe, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD) were coated with 10 µg/mL fibronectin (Invitrogen). Conditioned culture medium of ovarian cancer cell lines treated with or without LPA was added to the bottom chambers. Cells (4 x 104 in 100 µL) were loaded into the upper chambers and incubated at 37°C for 4 hours to allow migration. The cells migrated to the bottom side of the filter were fixed, stained, and counted under microscope (21).
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
in plasma and ascites of ovarian cancer patients. The expression of GRO
has been investigated in melanoma (4, 5, 11), squamous cell carcinoma (12, 13), colon cancer (14), prostate cancer (22), and gastric cancer (15). To explore the role of GRO
in ovarian cancer, we set out to determine GRO
in ovarian cancer patient samples by ELISA analysis. As shown in Fig. 1A, normal controls displayed consistently low levels of GRO
(<160 pg/mL) in their plasma samples. However, the concentrations of GRO
in ovarian cancer patients varied remarkably. Approximately 40% of patients with ovarian cancer showed dramatically increased GRO
concentrations in the plasma with the remaining patients having GRO
levels similar to those of normal individuals. To track the origin of the increased GRO
in ovarian cancer patients, we compared GRO
levels in the plasma and matched ascites samples from ovarian cancer patients. As shown in Fig. 1B, GRO
levels in ascites were consistently higher than the matched plasma concentrations. For example, the plasma GRO
concentration of patient 2 was slightly over 1,000 pg/mL whereas the GRO
level in her ascites reached 3,000 pg/mL. These observations are compatible with GRO
being produced in ascites, likely by ovarian cancer cells, and migrating from the peritoneal cavity to the circulation as occurs with other tumor markers, such as CA125 (23).
|
in ovarian cancer cells in culture. To study the ability of ovarian cancer cells to elaborate GRO
, we measured the levels of GRO
in conditioned medium of various ovarian cancer cell lines, including OVCAR-3, Caov-3, SKOV-3 and Dov-13. These cells were maintained with complete medium containing 5% FBS. As shown in Fig. 2A, ELISA analysis detected high levels of GRO
in the conditioned medium from each of the ovarian cancer cell lines examined. It is apparent that GRO
present in the supernatants was secreted from cultured ovarian cancer cells rather than a contaminant of FBS as the culture medium supplemented with 5% FBS contained extremely low background levels of GRO
protein.
|
expression and secretion by ovarian cancer cells, we quantified GRO
production in different culture conditions. OVCAR-3 and Caov-3 cells were cultured in complete medium containing 5% FBS for 20 hours (time 0) and then switched to serum-free medium for 40 hours with conditioned medium collected at 20-hour intervals for ELISA analysis (Fig. 2B). Interestingly, GRO
concentrations in conditioned medium decreased immediately and rapidly when the cells were starved in serum-free medium. By 20 hours in serum-free conditions, GRO
levels in the medium were reduced to <20% of the original values at time 0. Ovarian cancer cell lines are generally resistant to serum deprivationinduced cell death as we described previously (17). Both OVCAR-3 and Caov-3 lines remained healthy after 40 hours of incubation in serum-free medium. These cell lines continued to grow albeit slowly in serum-free conditions as determined by quantification of cell numbers (data not shown). Hence, the observed decrease in GRO
generation was apparently not due to loss of cells. These results indicate that GRO
is not constitutively expressed. Instead, its expression or release by ovarian cancer cells is induced by serum.
Induction of GRO
expression by LPA but not serum peptide growth factors. To identify the factor(s) in serum that was responsible for inducing GRO
expression in ovarian cancer cells, we assessed the effects of a number of serum-borne peptide growth factors, PDGF, IGF-I, and insulin. None of these peptide growth factors induced significant GRO
production in OVCAR-3 or Caov-3 cells as determined by ELISA analysis of culture supernatants (Fig. 3A). We next examined the presence of the corresponding receptors for these peptide growth factors. Most ovarian cancer cell lines, including OVCAR-3, Caov-3, and SKOV-3, do not seem to express functional levels of PDGF receptors. As reflected in Fig. 3B, treatment of OVCAR-3 or Caov-3 with PDGF did not provoke phosphorylation of Erk or Akt, indicating the lack of functional PDGF receptors in these cells. OVCAR-3 cells also lacked signaling responses to IGF-I whereas Caov-3 cells showed prominent phosphorylation of Akt upon stimulation with IGF-I (Fig. 3B). The insulin receptor is present and functional in both OVCAR-3 and Caov-3 cells as insulin stimulated rapid phosphorylation of Erk and Akt. However, only minimally stimulant effect of insulin on GRO
generation was observed in OVCAR-3 or Caov-3 cells, suggesting that insulin is not a potent inducer of GRO
expression in these cells.
|
as ovarian cancer cells generally express EGF receptors. EGF stimulated Erk and/or Akt phosphorylation in OVCAR-3, Caov-3 (Fig. 3B), and SKOV-3 cells (data not shown), confirming the expression of functional EGF receptors in these cells. EGF induced modest increase in GRO
production in OVCAR-3 (from 88.2 to 234.2 pg/mL; Fig. 3A) or in SKOV-3 (data not shown), but strongly induced GRO
production in Caov-3 (from 219.2 to 1,491 pg/mL; Fig. 3A). The variability of the effect of EGF on GRO
production may reflect variable expression levels of EGF receptor or differential EGF signaling effects across the different cell lines. Nevertheless, the results indicate that EGF is not a general inducer of GRO
production in ovarian cancer cells.
We next examined the effect of LPA and S1P, the two lysophospholipid growth factors present in serum (17, 24), on GRO
production. Both LPA and S1P act via G proteincoupled receptors that belong to the endothelial differentiation gene subfamily (24). As described previously, ovarian cancer cells frequently express more than one subtype of LPA and S1P receptors (17, 18, 25).
In OVCAR-3 and Caov-3 cells, LPA strongly stimulated GRO
production and accumulation in culture supernatants (Fig. 3A and C). GRO
concentrations in supernatants were increased from 219.2 to 1,538 pg/mL by LPA (10 µmol/L) treatment of Caov-3 cells. Similar increases in GRO
production (from 88.2 to 991.6 pg/mL) were observed in OVCAR-3 cells treated with 10 µmol/L LPA. S1P (5 µmol/L) induced increases in GRO
levels from 219.2 to 598 pg/mL in Caov-3 cells and from 88.2 to 353.2 pg/mL in OVCAR-3 cells (Fig. 3A). When assessed on multiple ovarian cancer cell lines, including SKOV-3 and Dov-13, LPA was consistently more effective than S1P or any peptide growth factors in inducing GRO
production, suggesting that LPA is a potent and general regulator of GRO
in ovarian cancer cells. Due to the much stronger effect of LPA than EGF, it is unlikely that LPA stimulates GRO
production through transactivation of EGF receptor as proposed as mechanisms for other biological actions of LPA (26).
The striking effect of LPA on GRO
production in ovarian cancer cells is of particular interest because LPA is present at high levels in ascites of ovarian cancer patients (1-80 µmol/L; refs. 17, 27). As shown in Fig. 3C, LPA induced a dose-dependent stimulation of GRO
production. The half-maximum concentrations in the ovarian cancer cell lines examined were <1 µmol/L, suggesting that physiologically relevant levels of LPA are sufficient to trigger GRO
production. We next examined whether LPA-mediated GRO
production in ovarian cancer cells might have a chemotactic effect on endothelial cells, which may contribute to tumor angiogenesis. As shown in Fig. 3D, the conditioned medium from Caov-3 cells treated with LPA had an increased ability to induce directional migration of HUVEC compared with the medium collected from vehicle-treated cells. The chemotactic activity was at least partially attributed to GRO
present in conditioned medium as incubation of HUVEC with a neutralizing antibody against GRO
receptor CXCR2 strongly attenuated the migratory activity.
Transcriptional activation of GRO
expression by LPA. To determine whether LPA-enhanced GRO
generation in ovarian cancer cells resulted from an increase in GRO
mRNA levels, we examined the steady-state levels of GRO
transcripts in cells treated with or without LPA by Northern blot analysis. Incubation of OVCAR-3 cells with LPA led to time- and dose-dependent increase in GRO
mRNA (Fig. 4A). Peak mRNA levels were observed around 6 hours after addition of LPA (Fig. 4A). We also observed a similar pattern of GRO
mRNA accumulation in Caov-3 and Dov-13 cells stimulated with LPA (data not shown). We next examined whether the up-regulation of GRO
mRNA by LPA was due to an increase in mRNA stability. We took advantage of Dov-13 cells that showed low expression of GRO
mRNA in the absence of exogenous LPA, making it possible to compare the stability of GRO
mRNA in cells treated with or without LPA (Fig. 4B). Following addition of actinomycin D (5 µg/mL) to block new RNA synthesis, GRO
transcripts were rapidly degraded in both control and LPA-treated cells (Fig. 4B), indicating that the effect of LPA on GRO
transcript levels was not caused by changes in the stability of GRO
transcripts. Thus, LPA likely increases GRO
mRNA levels via transcriptional activation of the GRO
promoter. To test this, we transfected ovarian cancer cell lines with pGL2-GRO
-Luc, a luciferase reporter construct containing the GRO
promoter (304 to +9; refs. 11, 20). A 6-hour incubation with LPA markedly induced luciferase activity in transfected OVCAR-3 and Caov-3 cells (Fig. 4C). Together, the data indicates that LPA induces GRO
production, at least in part, through transcriptional activation of the GRO
promoter. Deletion analysis revealed that a shorter promoter fragment (150 to +9) was sufficient to support a full response to LPA (Fig. 4D). The 159 bp fragment contains binding sites for Sp1 and nuclear factor-
B, a transcription factor commonly involved in transcriptional activation of cytokines (18). Further deletion of the sequence from the 150 to 84 of the GRO
promoter led to >70% loss of the response to LPA (Fig. 4D). Thus, the 150 to 84 fragment harbors regulatory element(s) required for LPA-mediated transcription although the exact transcription factors involved are yet to be determined.
|
. To gain insight into the intracellular signaling pathways, we examined the effect of pertussis toxin, a selective inhibitor of Gi proteins, on LPA-mediated GRO
production. Preincubation of Caov-3 cells with pertussis toxin dose-dependently inhibited LPA-induced GRO
production (Fig. 5). The maximal inhibition observed with 5 to 25 ng/mL pertussis toxin was around 50% (Fig. 5). We observed similar inhibition of LPA-induced GRO
production by pertussis toxin in OVCAR-3 cells (data not shown), indicating the involvement of both Gi-dependent and Gi-independent mechanisms in LPA activation of GRO
expression.
|
. We next examined whether the effect of LPA on GRO
production is mediated by LPA receptors. The ability of LPA to induce GRO
production is not restricted to ovarian cancer cells. LPA also induced GRO
generation in the breast cancer cell lines MCF-7 and MDA-MB-468. The induction of GRO
by LPA in these breast cancer cell lines was not as efficient as in ovarian cancer cells mainly due to the heavy basal levels of GRO
in unstimulated MCF-7 and MDA-MB-468 cells (data not shown). MDA-MB-468 expresses one or more isotypes of LPA receptors as others and we described previously (18, 28). In contrast to these responsive breast cancer cell lines, LPA did not induce GRO
production in SKBr-3 cells (Fig. 6B), which do not express detectable levels of LPA1, LPA2, or LPA3 receptor mRNA as assessed by Northern blot analysis (Fig. 6A). The lack of functional LPA receptors in SKBr-3 cells has been described previously (18, 28).
|
production in response to LPA, SKBr-3 cells were transiently transfected with LPA receptors, LPA1, LPA2 and LPA3, each tagged with the Flag M2 at the NH2 terminus for detection of expression (18). Expression of each LPA receptor in SKBr-3 cells dramatically increased LPA-induced GRO
production (Fig. 6C) although transient transfection efficiency in SKBr-3 cells was generally below 20% as we described previously (18). Interestingly, transfection of the LPA2 receptor consistently led to GRO
production to levels greater than transfection of the LPA1 or LPA3 receptor. The obviously stronger effect of LPA2 on LPA-induced GRO
production suggests that LPA2 may function as a primary LPA receptor accounting for GRO
production although other LPA receptors, when overexpressed, also have the ability to mediate GRO
generation. We have shown previously that LPA2 is overexpressed in primary ovarian cancers and its expression is detectable in most ovarian cancer cell lines (17, 18), potentially contributing to the elevated levels of GRO
observed in ovarian cancer patients.
Certain species of LPA, such as 14:0 LPA, show a selective ability to activate the LPA2 receptor over other receptor subtypes (29). If the LPA2 receptor is indeed physiologically more critical than LPA1 and LPA3 in connection to GRO
production, challenging cells with the LPA2-selective agonist 14:0 LPA might lead to more effective induction of GRO
than the pan-receptor agonist 18:1 LPA. To examine this hypothesis, we compared the ability of 14:0 and 18:1 LPA to induce GRO
production in OVCAR-3 cells that endogenously express all three LPA receptors (Fig. 6A). Dose-response curves show that 14:0 LPA was indeed more effective than 18:1 LPA in inducing GRO
production (Fig. 7), further highlighting the importance of the LPA2 receptor in activation of GRO
expression.
|
production by down-regulating the LPA2 receptor and by the LPA receptor antagonist Ki16425. The observation that the LPA2 receptor was more effective than LPA1 and LPA3 in reconstituting LPA-dependent GRO
production prompted us to analyze whether endogenous expression of LPA2 is necessary for LPA-triggered GRO
production in ovarian cancer cells. To this end, we used LPA2-specific siRNA to suppress LPA2 expression in OVCAR-3 cells. The efficient inhibition of LPA2 expression was verified by real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) analysis of the cells transfected with LPA2-specific siRNA and those transfected with nontarget control siRNA. As shown in Fig. 8A, transfection with LPA2-specific siRNA led to >80% decrease in LPA2 mRNA levels. This down-regulation of LPA2 expression was accompanied by >70% inhibition in LPA-induced GRO
production, indicating a major input from the LPA2 receptor in mediation of GRO
production by LPA (Fig. 8A). Interestingly, siRNA down-regulation of LPA2 also significantly diminished FBS-afforded GRO
production by
40% (Fig. 8A). Although the inhibition of FBS-mediated GRO
production by LPA2 siRNA was not as dramatic as seen with the effect of LPA, the results suggest that FBS drives GRO
production at least partially through its bioactive constituent LPA interacting with the LPA2 receptor.
|
generation in OVCAR-3 cells that express LPA1-3 receptors (Fig. 6A). Ki16425 is a relatively broad inhibitor for each of the three LPA receptor subtypes with the potency order of LPA1 > LPA3 >> LPA2 (30). Indeed, LPA-induced GRO
production was sensitive to Ki16425 in OVCAR-3 cells (Fig. 8B). Interestingly, the curve of Ki16425 inhibition of LPA-induced GRO
production was compatible with the involvement of two types of LPA receptors of different sensitivity to Ki16425 (Fig. 8B). The first, likely representing LPA1 and/or LPA3, was blocked by
5 µmol/L Ki16425 and the other, likely LPA2, was affected only by 10 to 20 µmol/L Ki16425. Approximately 20% of LPA stimulatory activity remained when 20 µmol/L of Ki16425 was present, consistent with the requirement of high concentrations of Ki16425 for antagonizing LPA2. | Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
is associated with tumor growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis of a variety of human cancers (1116, 22), the regulatory mechanism behind the deregulated expression of the GRO
gene in transformed cells is poorly understood. In the present study, we showed that LPA, acting primarily on the LPA2 receptor, promotes GRO
production in ovarian cancer cells through a transcriptional mechanism. This likely contributes to the elevated levels of GRO
in the plasma and to the concentration gradient formed between ascites and plasma of ovarian cancer patients. Our finding is of particular interest as LPA has been identified as an important growth factor for ovarian cancer (17, 31). Its concentration is markedly and consistently elevated in the ascites of ovarian cancer patients, ranging from 1 to 80 µmol/L (17, 27, 31), providing an LPA-rich microenvironment for ovarian tumor cells. Thus, it is conceivable that GRO
production in ovarian cancer patients is an outcome of LPA interaction with ovarian tumor cells in ascites.
LPA, as an extracellular mediator, stimulates growth, survival, and motility of ovarian cancer cells (17, 31). Recent studies from our group and from other laboratories indicate that LPA may mediate oncogenesis through regulation of gene expression. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF; ref. 32), urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA; refs. 33, 34), interleukin (IL)-6 (18), IL-8 (18, 35), and Cox-2 (36) have been identified as LPA-regulated genes. LPA may contribute to cancer development or progression at least partially through up-regulation of a suite of oncoproteins. Our current study identifies GRO
as a novel target gene of LPA in ovarian cancer cells. Previous studies of GRO
in other human malignancies indicate that GRO
may play a role in multiple carcinogenic processes. In squamous cell carcinoma and oral cancer, continuous expression of GRO
correlates with tumor microvessel density (12, 13, 16), consistent with GRO
functioning as chemokine angiogenic factor. In these models, the expression of GRO
is also associated with leukocyte infiltration and increased lymph node metastasis in a host CXCR2-dependent fashion (13, 16). In the present study, we also showed that GRO
accumulated in conditioned medium of ovarian cancer cells treated with LPA could trigger chemotactic response in human endothelial cells. In addition to this paracrine mechanism, GRO
acts as an autocrine growth factor and stimulates proliferation and invasiveness of melanoma cells and colon carcinoma cells that express the CXCR2 receptor for GRO
(48, 14).
We previously showed that primary ovarian cancers and established ovarian cancer cell lines overexpress the LPA2 receptor (17, 18), which is consistent with a critical role for this receptor in GRO
production in ovarian cancer cells. In addition to ovarian cancer, the LPA2 receptor is also overexpressed in colon cancer and colorectal cancer (37, 38), differentiated thyroid cancer (39), and invasive ductal carcinomas (40). Therefore, amplification of LPA signaling through overexpression of specific LPA receptors could contribute to the pathogenesis of many types of human malignancies. During the current study, we have also observed that LPA induced GRO
production by breast cancer cell lines. Because of the widespread expression of LPA receptors and the presence of LPA in serum and other biological fluids, LPA induction of GRO
expression likely represents a general mechanism for deregulated expression of this cytokine in various human malignancies.
In addition to the role in the regulation of GRO
expression, we previously showed that LPA2 was the most intimately involved in LPA-dependent IL-6 and IL-8 production in ovarian and breast cancer cells although other LPA receptors could also mediate the response when heterologously overexpressed (18). Similarly, Hu et al. (32) described the correlation of the LPA2 receptor, rather than LPA1 or LPA3, with the ability of LPA to induce VEGF expression in ovarian cancer cells. The importance of LPA2 in modulation of gene expression is further highlighted by the observation that transgenic expression of LPA2 driven by an ovary-selective promoter led to the production of higher levels of VEGF and uPA mRNA and proteins in the ovaries of transgenic mice (41). These studies together suggest that LPA2, an LPA receptor subtype frequently overexpressed in multiple types of human cancers, plays a critical role in LPA regulation of expression of cytokines and angiogenic, invasive or metastatic factors.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
We thank the Basic Biology of Ovarian Cancer PPG Tissue Bank for providing the clinical samples and Dr. Robert F. Diegelmann for sharing tissue culture facilities.
| Footnotes |
|---|
Received 8/17/05. Revised 10/26/05. Accepted 12/16/05.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
on melanocyte transformation. Oncogene 1991;6:111524.[Medline]
B signal pathway. Cancer Res 2001;61:4797808.
expression by murine squamous cell carcinoma promotes tumor growth, metastasis, leukocyte infiltration and angiogenesis by a host CXC receptor-2 dependent mechanism. Oncogene 2000;19:347786.[CrossRef][Medline]
B-like transcription factor mediates IL-1/TNF-
induction of gro in human fibroblasts. J Immunol 1991;147:5207.[Abstract]
RI triggering is required for normal mast cell degranulation and chemotaxis. J Exp Med 2004;199:95970.This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
X. Ye Lysophospholipid signaling in the function and pathology of the reproductive system Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2008; 14(5): 519 - 536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Spadaro, C. Ramoni, D. Mezzanzanica, S. Miotti, P. Alberti, S. Cecchetti, E. Iorio, V. Dolo, S. Canevari, and F. Podo Phosphatidylcholine-Specific Phospholipase C Activation in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Cells Cancer Res., August 15, 2008; 68(16): 6541 - 6549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Shida, X. Fang, T. Kordula, K. Takabe, S. Lepine, S. E. Alvarez, S. Milstien, and S. Spiegel Cross-talk between LPA1 and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptors Mediates Up-regulation of Sphingosine Kinase 1 to Promote Gastric Cancer Cell Motility and Invasion Cancer Res., August 15, 2008; 68(16): 6569 - 6577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. A. Oyesanya, Z. P. Lee, J. Wu, J. Chen, Y. Song, A. Mukherjee, P. Dent, T. Kordula, H. Zhou, and X. Fang Transcriptional and post-transcriptional mechanisms for lysophosphatidic acid-induced cyclooxygenase-2 expression in ovarian cancer cells FASEB J, August 1, 2008; 22(8): 2639 - 2651. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Murph, T. Tanaka, S. Liu, and G. B. Mills Of Spiders and Crabs: The Emergence of Lysophospholipids and Their Metabolic Pathways as Targets for Therapy in Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res., November 15, 2006; 12(22): 6598 - 6602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F.-q. Wang, Y. Smicun, N. Calluzzo, and D. A. Fishman Inhibition of Matrilysin Expression by Antisense or RNA Interference Decreases Lysophosphatidic Acid-Induced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Invasion |