Coral red beads and arthritis.

We report a patient presenting with cutaneous papulonodular lesions associated with painful stiff joints. Histopathological examination showed positivity for CD68 and CD45. There was no atypia.

Differential expression of phosphorylated MEK and ERK correlates with aggressive BCC subtypes.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is associated with aberrant Hedgehog (HH) signalling through mutational inactivation of PTCH1; however, there is conflicting data regarding MEK/ERK signalling in BCC and the signalling pathway interactions in these carcinomas. To address this, expression of active phospho (p) MEK and ERK was examined in a panel of 15 non-aggressive and 14 aggressive BCCs. Although not uniformly expressed, both phospho-proteins were detected in the nuclei and/or cytoplasm of normal and tumour-associated epidermal cells however, whereas phospho-MEK (pMEK) was present in all non-aggressive BCCs (14/14), phospho-ERK (pERK) was rarely expressed (2/14). In contrast pERK expression was more prevalent in aggressive tumours (11/14). Interestingly, pMEK was only localized to the tumour mass whereas pERK was expressed in tumours and stroma of aggressive BCCs. Similarly, pERK (but not pMEK) was absent in mouse BCC-like tumours derived from X-ray irradiated Ptch1+/- mice with stromal pERK observed in myofibroblasts of the aggressive variant as well as in the tumour mass. RNA sequencing analysis of tumour epithelium and stroma of aggressive and non-aggressive BCC revealed the upregulation of epidermal growth factor receptor- and ERK-related pathways. Angiogenesis and immune response pathways were also upregulated in the stroma compared with the tumour. PTCH1 suppressed NEB1 immortalized keratinocytes (shPTCH1) display upregulated pERK that can be independent of MEK expression. Furthermore, epidermal growth factor pathway inhibitors affect the HH pathway by suppressing GLI1. These studies reveal differential expression of pERK between human BCC subtypes that maybe active by a pathway independent of MEK.

A Novel Mechanism for Activation of GLI1 by Nuclear SMO That Escapes Anti-SMO Inhibitors.

Small-molecule inhibitors of the Hedgehog (HH) pathway receptor Smoothened (SMO) have been effective in treating some patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC), where the HH pathway is often activated, but many patients respond poorly. In this study, we report the results of investigations on PTCH1 signaling in the HH pathway that suggest why most patients with BCC respond poorly to SMO inhibitors. In immortalized human keratinocytes, PTCH1 silencing led to the generation of a compact, holoclone-like morphology with increased expression of SMO and the downstream HH pathway transcription factor GLI1. Notably, although siRNA silencing of SMO in PTCH1-silenced cells was sufficient to suppress GLI1 activity, this effect was not phenocopied by pharmacologic inhibition of SMO, suggesting the presence of a second undefined pathway through which SMO can induce GLI1. Consistent with this possibility, we observed increased nuclear localization of SMO in PTCH1-silenced cells as mediated by a putative SMO nuclear/nucleolar localization signal [N(o)LS]. Mutational inactivation of the N(o)LS ablated this increase and suppressed GLI1 induction. Immunohistologic analysis of human and mouse BCC confirmed evidence of nuclear SMO, although the pattern was heterogeneous between tumors. In PTCH1-silenced cells, >80% of the genes found to be differentially expressed were unaffected by SMO inhibitors, including the putative BCC driver gene CXCL11. Our results demonstrate how PTCH1 loss results in aberrant regulation of SMO-independent mechanisms important for BCC biology and highlights a novel nuclear mechanism of SMO-GLI1 signaling that is unresponsive to SMO inhibitors.Significance: This study describes novel noncanonical Hedgehog signaling, where SMO enters the nucleus to activate GLI1, a mode that is unaffected by SMO inhibitors, thus prompting re-evaluation of current BCC treatment as well as new potential therapies targeting nuclear SMO. Cancer Res; 78(10); 2577-88. ©2018 AACR.