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.

Cytoplasm or Supernatant: Where Is the Treasury of the Bioactive Antiaging Factor from Mesenchymal Stem Cells?

Cell-free compounds of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) could be a safer and cheaper substitution for MSC transplantation and have gained substantial research interest for antiaging skin treatments. However, whether those bioactive components should be obtained from the cytoplasm or supernatant is yet to be determined. In this study, we examined the ingredients of the MSC cytoplasm extract (MSC-ex) and MSC supernatant (MSC-s) and evaluated their effect in a photoaging model. Although MSC-ex has a richer protein composition than MSC-s, the latter has a proteome associated with wound healing and blood vessel development. Over 85% of the proteins in MSC-s were also found in MSC-ex, including extracellular matrix protein and various growth factors. The results of real-time PCR and western blot also demonstrate that both MSC-s and MSC-ex can upregulate collagen, transforming growth factor ß (TGF-ß), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and downregulate IL-1ß and matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1), which were considered critical for antiphotoaging. This supports our observations in the Hematoxylin and Eosin (HE) and Masson staining assay that they have a comparable effect as MSCs in terms of enhancing dermal thickness, and stimulating collagen regeneration. Although MSC-s and MSC-ex showed a weaker immunosuppression effect than MSCs, moisture measurement showed that they repair damage more rapidly than MSCs. Furthermore, the histological results showed that MSC-s maintains a super effect on immunosuppression, epidermal repair, and angiogenesis. That may be associated with the higher content of laminin, TGF-ß, and VEGF in MSC-s, as well as its super cytokine transcriptional regulation ability. Thus, both MSC-s and MSC-ex can safely and effectively promote the repair of skin light injury, similar to MSCs. Our findings can broaden the range of active factors available in cell-free treatment, determine the difference between MSC-s and MSC-ex, and provide a reference for the development of similar products in regenerative medicine.