Reciprocal antagonism of PIN1-APC/CCDH1 governs mitotic protein stability and cell cycle entry.

Induced oncoproteins degradation provides an attractive anti-cancer modality. Activation of anaphase-promoting complex (APC/CCDH1) prevents cell-cycle entry by targeting crucial mitotic proteins for degradation. Phosphorylation of its co-activator CDH1 modulates the E3 ligase activity, but little is known about its regulation after phosphorylation and how to effectively harness APC/CCDH1 activity to treat cancer. Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase NIMA-interacting 1 (PIN1)-catalyzed phosphorylation-dependent cis-trans prolyl isomerization drives tumor malignancy. However, the mechanisms controlling its protein turnover remain elusive. Through proteomic screens and structural characterizations, we identify a reciprocal antagonism of PIN1-APC/CCDH1 mediated by domain-oriented phosphorylation-dependent dual interactions as a fundamental mechanism governing mitotic protein stability and cell-cycle entry. Remarkably, combined PIN1 and cyclin-dependent protein kinases (CDKs) inhibition creates a positive feedback loop of PIN1 inhibition and APC/CCDH1 activation to irreversibly degrade PIN1 and other crucial mitotic proteins, which force permanent cell-cycle exit and trigger anti-tumor immunity, translating into synergistic efficacy against triple-negative breast cancer.

Reciprocal inhibition of PIN1 and APC/CCDH1 controls timely G1/S transition and creates therapeutic vulnerability.

Cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) mediated phosphorylation inactivates the anaphase-promoting complex (APC/CCDH1), an E3 ubiquitin ligase that contains the co-activator CDH1, to promote G1/S transition. PIN1 is a phosphorylation-directed proline isomerase and a master cancer signaling regulator. However, little are known about APC/CCDH1 regulation after phosphorylation and about PIN1 ubiquitin ligases. Here we uncover a domain-oriented reciprocal inhibition that controls the timely G1/S transition: The non-phosphorylated APC/CCDH1 E3 ligase targets PIN1 for degradation in G1 phase, restraining G1/S transition; APC/CCDH1 itself, after phosphorylation by CDKs, is inactivated by PIN1-catalyzed isomerization, promoting G1/S transition. In cancer, PIN1 overexpression and APC/CCDH1 inactivation reinforce each other to promote uncontrolled proliferation and tumorigenesis. Importantly, combined PIN1- and CDK4/6-inhibition reactivates APC/CCDH1 resulting in PIN1 degradation and an insurmountable G1 arrest that translates into synergistic anti-tumor activity against triple-negative breast cancer in vivo. Reciprocal inhibition of PIN1 and APC/CCDH1 is a novel mechanism to control timely G1/S transition that can be harnessed for synergistic anti-cancer therapy.

PARP-inhibition reprograms macrophages toward an anti-tumor phenotype.

Poly(ADP)ribosylation inhibitors (PARPis) are toxic to cancer cells with homologous recombination (HR) deficiency but not to HR-proficient cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME), including tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). As TAMs can promote or inhibit tumor growth, we set out to examine the effects of PARP inhibition on TAMs in BRCA1-related breast cancer (BC). The PARPi olaparib causes reprogramming of TAMs toward higher cytotoxicity and phagocytosis. A PARPi-related surge in NAD+ increases glycolysis, blunts oxidative phosphorylation, and induces reverse mitochondrial electron transport (RET) with an increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) and transcriptional reprogramming. This reprogramming occurs in the absence or presence of PARP1 or PARP2 and is partially recapitulated by addition of NAD derivative methyl-nicotinamide (MNA). In vivo and ex vivo, the effect of olaparib on TAMs contributes to the anti-tumor efficacy of the PARPi. In vivo blockade of the "don't-eat-me signal" with CD47 antibodies in combination with olaparib improves outcomes in a BRCA1-related BC model.

Inhibition of CK1ε potentiates the therapeutic efficacy of CDK4/6 inhibitor in breast cancer.

Although inhibitors targeting CDK4/6 kinases (CDK4/6i) have shown promising clinical prospect in treating ER+/HER2- breast cancers, acquired drug resistance is frequently observed and mechanistic knowledge is needed to harness their full clinical potential. Here, we report that inhibition of CDK4/6 promotes ßTrCP1-mediated ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation of RB1, and facilitates SP1-mediated CDK6 transcriptional activation. Intriguingly, suppression of CK1ε not only efficiently prevents RB1 from degradation, but also prevents CDK4/6i-induced CDK6 upregulation by modulating SP1 protein stability, thereby enhancing CDK4/6i efficacy and overcoming resistance to CDK4/6i in vitro. Using xenograft and PDX models, we further demonstrate that combined inhibition of CK1ε and CDK4/6 results in marked suppression of tumor growth in vivo. Altogether, these results uncover the molecular mechanisms by which CDK4/6i treatment alters RB1 and CDK6 protein abundance, thereby driving the acquisition of CDK4/6i resistance. Importantly, we identify CK1ε as an effective target for potentiating the therapeutic efficacy of CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Targeting Pin1 renders pancreatic cancer eradicable by synergizing with immunochemotherapy.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is characterized by notorious resistance to current therapies attributed to inherent tumor heterogeneity and highly desmoplastic and immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). Unique proline isomerase Pin1 regulates multiple cancer pathways, but its role in the TME and cancer immunotherapy is unknown. Here, we find that Pin1 is overexpressed both in cancer cells and cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and correlates with poor survival in PDAC patients. Targeting Pin1 using clinically available drugs induces complete elimination or sustained remissions of aggressive PDAC by synergizing with anti-PD-1 and gemcitabine in diverse model systems. Mechanistically, Pin1 drives the desmoplastic and immunosuppressive TME by acting on CAFs and induces lysosomal degradation of the PD-1 ligand PD-L1 and the gemcitabine transporter ENT1 in cancer cells, besides activating multiple cancer pathways. Thus, Pin1 inhibition simultaneously blocks multiple cancer pathways, disrupts the desmoplastic and immunosuppressive TME, and upregulates PD-L1 and ENT1, rendering PDAC eradicable by immunochemotherapy.

Erythrocytosis in hepatocellular carcinoma portends poor prognosis by respiratory dysfunction secondary to mitochondrial DNA mutations.

Erythrocytosis is a common paraneoplastic syndrome associated with hepatocellular carcinoma. Although increased erythropoietin (EPO) is found in these patients, the clinical significance and molecular mechanisms underlying this observation are unclear. We demonstrate an inverse relationship between EPO production and overall prognosis in our cohort of 664 patients as well as in data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. In the subset of hepatocellular carcinoma patients with erythrocytosis, we identified somatic mutations of mitochondrial DNA, resulting in impairment of respiratory metabolism, which sequentially led to depletion of α-ketoglutarate, stabilization of hypoxia inducible factor-α, and expression of target genes such as EPO. Cell lines and patient-derived xenograft models were used to demonstrate that EPO promoted cancer stem cell self-renewal and expansion in an autocrine/paracrine manner through enhanced Janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription signaling both in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, to explore the therapeutic targeting of EPO-induced tumor changes, we found that blocking EPO signaling with soluble EPO receptor extracellular domain Fc fusion protein could inhibit tumor growth both in vitro and in vivo. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest clinical and therapeutic implications for erythrocytosis in hepatocellular carcinoma. There is an underlying link between mitochondrial function and hypoxia inducible factor alpha signaling, revealing a mechanism of erythrocytosis in a subset of hepatocellular carcinoma patients who may benefit from treatment involving EPO signaling interference. (Hepatology 2017;65:134-151).