Deciphering Endothelial and Mesenchymal Organ Specification in Vascularized Lung and Intestinal Organoids.

To investigate the co-development of vasculature, mesenchyme, and epithelium crucial for organogenesis and the acquisition of organ-specific characteristics, we constructed a human pluripotent stem cell-derived organoid system comprising lung or intestinal epithelium surrounded by organotypic mesenchyme and vasculature. We demonstrated the pivotal role of co-differentiating mesoderm and endoderm via precise BMP regulation in generating multilineage organoids and gut tube patterning. Single-cell RNA-seq analysis revealed organ specificity in endothelium and mesenchyme, and uncovered key ligands driving endothelial specification in the lung (e.g., WNT2B and Semaphorins) or intestine (e.g., GDF15). Upon transplantation under the kidney capsule in mice, these organoids further matured and developed perfusable human-specific sub-epithelial capillaries. Additionally, our model recapitulated the abnormal endothelial-epithelial crosstalk in patients with FOXF1 deletion or mutations. Multilineage organoids provide a unique platform to study developmental cues guiding endothelial and mesenchymal cell fate determination, and investigate intricate cell-cell communications in human organogenesis and disease. Highlights: BMP signaling fine-tunes the co-differentiation of mesoderm and endoderm.The cellular composition in multilineage organoids resembles that of human fetal organs.Mesenchyme and endothelium co-developed within the organoids adopt organ-specific characteristics.Multilineage organoids recapitulate abnormal endothelial-epithelial crosstalk in FOXF1-associated disorders.

Breathing-induced forces influence lung cell fate.

Respiration exerts a mechanical strain on the lungs, which has an unclear effect on epithelial cell fate. Now in Cell, Shiraishi et al.1 reveal the crucial role of mechanotransduction in maintaining lung epithelial cell fate, representing a significant milestone in understanding how mechanical factors regulate differentiation.

The Role of Sfp1 in Candida albicans Cell Wall Maintenance.

The cell wall is the first interface for Candida albicans interaction with the surrounding environment and the host cells. Therefore, maintenance of cell wall integrity (CWI) is crucial for C. albicans survival and host-pathogen interaction. In response to environmental stresses, C. albicans undergoes cell wall remodeling controlled by multiple signaling pathways and transcription regulators. Here, we explored the role of the transcription factor Sfp1 in CWI. A deletion of the SFP1 gene not only caused changes in cell wall properties, cell wall composition and structure but also modulated expression of cell wall biosynthesis and remodeling genes. In addition, Cas5 is a known transcription regulator for C. albicans CWI and cell wall stress response. Interestingly, our results indicated that Sfp1 negatively controls the CAS5 gene expression by binding to its promoter element. Together, this study provides new insights into the regulation of C. albicans CWI and stress response.

LncRNA NORAD is repressed by the YAP pathway and suppresses lung and breast cancer metastasis by sequestering S100P.

Metastasis is responsible for most cancer mortality, but its molecular mechanism has not been completely understood. In addition to coding genes and miRNAs, the contribution of long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) to tumor metastatic dissemination and the mechanisms controlling their expression are areas of intensive investigation. Here, we show that lncRNA NORAD is downregulated in lung and breast cancers, and that NORAD low expression in these cancer types is associated with lymph node metastasis and poor prognosis. NORAD is transcriptionally repressed by the Hippo pathway transducer YAP/TAZ-TEAD complex in conjunction with the action of NuRD complex. Functionally, NORAD elicits potent inhibitory effects on migration and invasion of multiple lung and breast cancer cell lines, and repression of NORAD expression participates in the migration- and invasion-stimulatory effects of the YAP pathway. Mechanistically, NORAD exploits its multiple repeated sequences to function as a multivalent platform for binding and sequestering S100P, thereby suppressing S100P-elicited pro-metastatic signaling network. Using cell and mouse models, we show that the S100P decoy function of NORAD suppresses lung and breast cancer migration, invasion, and metastasis. Together, our study identifies NORAD as a novel metastasis suppressor, elucidates its regulatory and functional mechanisms, and highlights its prognostic value.

P53 enhances apoptosis induced by doxorubicin only under conditions of severe DNA damage.

We previously demonstrated that Bim is the main BH3-only protein replacing Bak/Bax from Bcl-xl to activate apoptosis in a p53-independent manner in response to doxorubicin in prostate cancer. However, the comparison of doxorubicin treatment between LNCaP cells carrying p53-wild type and PC3 cells carrying p53-null suggested that p53 might be essential for maximizing apoptosis. Inhibition of ATM did not affect doxorubicin-induced apoptosis. Overexpression of p53 did not affect ABT-263-induced apoptosis and nevertheless, the combination of doxorubicin with ABT-263 induced higher apoptotic responses than did doxorubicin or ABT-263 alone. These results advocated that doxorubicin-induced DNA damage controls p53 function for intensifying apoptosis. Indeed, overexpression of p53 only enhanced apoptosis under conditions of severe DNA damage induced by high concentrations of doxorubicin in LNCaP cells. Immunofluorescence staining showed vague γH2AX foci and enlarged nuclei in LNCaP cells in response to high concentrations of doxorubicin, en route to apoptosis. In addition, our results revealed that the apoptosis in response to DNA replication stress induced by CFS-1686, a catalytic inhibitor of topoisomerase, is p53-independent. Interestingly, the combination of doxorubicin with CFS-1686 generated DNA damage and replication stress simultaneously, resulting in a synergistic apoptotic effect in prostate cancer cells. Thus, we concluded that p53 is a sensor for enhanced apoptosis in response to DNA damage stress, not DNA replication stress, at least in prostate cancer.

Bim directly antagonizes Bcl-xl in doxorubicin-induced prostate cancer cell apoptosis independently of p53.

Doxorubicin and other anthracycline compounds exert their anti-cancer effects by causing DNA damage and initiating cell cycle arrest in cancer cells, followed by apoptosis. DNA damage generally activates a p53-mediated pathway to initiate apoptosis by increasing the level of the BH3-only protein, Puma. However, p53-mediated apoptosis in response to DNA damage has not yet been validated in prostate cancers. In the current study, we used LNCaP and PC3 prostate cancer cells, representing wild type p53 and a p53-null model, to determine if DNA damage activates p53-mediated apoptosis in prostate cancers. Our results revealed that PC3 cells were 4 to 8-fold less sensitive than LNCaP cells to doxorubicin-inuced apoptosis. We proved that the differential response of LNCaP and PC3 to doxorubicin was p53-independent by introducing wild-type or dominant negative p53 into PC3 or LNCaP cells, respectively. By comparing several apoptosis-related proteins in both cell lines, we found that Bcl-xl proteins were much more abundant in PC3 cells than in LNCaP cells. We further demonstrated that Bcl-xl protects LNCaP and PC3 cells from doxorubicin-induced apoptosis by using ABT-263, an inhibitor of Bcl-xl, as a single agent or in combination with doxorubicin to treat LNCaP or PC3 cells. Bcl-xl rather than p53, likely contributes to the differential response of LNCaP and PC3 to doxorubicin in apoptosis. Finally, co-immunoprecipitation and siRNA analysis revealed that a BH3-only protein, Bim, is involved in doxorubicin-induced apoptosis by directly counteracting Bcl-xl.

Combining paclitaxel with ABT-263 has a synergistic effect on paclitaxel resistant prostate cancer cells.

We assessed the capability of paclitaxel, one of the taxanes, to induce death in two prostate cancer lines, LNCaP and PC3. Paclitaxel drove an apoptotic pathway in LNCaP, but not in PC3 cells, in response to G2/M arrest. An examination of the levels of anti-apoptotic proteins revealed that Bcl-xl was much higher in PC3 cells than in LNCaP cells and Bcl2 could be detected only in PC3 cells, not in LNCaP cells. Knocking down Bcl-xl enhanced paclitaxel-induced apoptosis in LNCaP cells, while we were unable to knock down Bcl-xl efficiently in PC3 cells. Significantly, a comparison of ABT-263, a specific inhibitor of Bcl2 and Bcl-xl, with ABT-199, a Bcl2 selective inhibitor, disclosed that only ABT-263, not ABT-199, could induce apoptosis in LNCaP and PC3 cells. The results indicate that Bcl-xl has a protective role against paclitaxel-induced apoptosis in LNCaP and PC3 cells, and its overexpression causes the paclitaxel resistance seen in PC3 cells. Interestingly, combined paclitaxel with ABT-263 to treat LNCaP and PC3 cells demonstrated synergistic apoptosis activation, indicating that ABT-263 could enhance paclitaxel-induced apoptosis in LNCaP cells and overcome Bcl-xl overexpression to trigger paclitaxel-induced apoptosis in PC3 cells. We also observed that the activation of apoptosis in LNCaP cells was more efficient than in PC3 cells in response to paclitaxel plus ABT-263 or to ABT-263 alone, suggesting that the apoptosis pathway in PC3 cells might have further differences from that in LNCaP cells even after Bcl-xl overexpression is accounted for.

CFS-1686 causes cell cycle arrest at intra-S phase by interference of interaction of topoisomerase 1 with DNA.

CFS-1686 (chemical name (E)-N-(2-(diethylamino)ethyl)-4-(2-(2-(5-nitrofuran-2-yl)vinyl)quinolin-4-ylamino)benzamide) inhibits cell proliferation and triggers late apoptosis in prostate cancer cell lines. Comparing the effect of CFS-1686 on cell cycle progression with the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor camptothecin revealed that CFS-1686 and camptothecin reduced DNA synthesis in S-phase, resulting in cell cycle arrest at the intra-S phase and G1-S boundary, respectively. The DNA damage in CFS-1686 and camptothecin treated cells was evaluated by the level of ATM phosphorylation, γH2AX, and γH2AX foci, showing that camptothecin was more effective than CFS-1686. However, despite its lower DNA damage capacity, CFS-1686 demonstrated 4-fold higher inhibition of topoisomerase 1 than camptothecin in a DNA relaxation assay. Unlike camptothecin, CFS-1686 demonstrated no activity on topoisomerase 1 in a DNA cleavage assay, but nevertheless it reduced the camptothecin-induced DNA cleavage of topoisomerase 1 in a dose-dependent manner. Our results indicate that CFS-1686 might bind to topoisomerase 1 to inhibit this enzyme from interacting with DNA relaxation activity, unlike campothecin's induction of a topoisomerase 1-DNA cleavage complex. Finally, we used a computer docking strategy to localize the potential binding site of CFS-1686 to topoisomerase 1, further indicating that CFS-1686 might inhibit the binding of Top1 to DNA.