EMT, Stemness, and Drug Resistance in Biological Context: A 3D Tumor Tissue/In Silico Platform for Analysis of Combinatorial Treatment in NSCLC with Aggressive KRAS-Biomarker Signatures.

Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is discussed to be centrally involved in invasion, stemness, and drug resistance. Experimental models to evaluate this process in its biological complexity are limited. To shed light on EMT impact and test drug response more reliably, we use a lung tumor test system based on a decellularized intestinal matrix showing more in vivo-like proliferation levels and enhanced expression of clinical markers and carcinogenesis-related genes. In our models, we found evidence for a correlation of EMT with drug resistance in primary and secondary resistant cells harboring KRASG12C or EGFR mutations, which was simulated in silico based on an optimized signaling network topology. Notably, drug resistance did not correlate with EMT status in KRAS-mutated patient-derived xenograft (PDX) cell lines, and drug efficacy was not affected by EMT induction via TGF-ß. To investigate further determinants of drug response, we tested several drugs in combination with a KRASG12C inhibitor in KRASG12C mutant HCC44 models, which, besides EMT, display mutations in P53, LKB1, KEAP1, and high c-MYC expression. We identified an aurora-kinase A (AURKA) inhibitor as the most promising candidate. In our network, AURKA is a centrally linked hub to EMT, proliferation, apoptosis, LKB1, and c-MYC. This exemplifies our systemic analysis approach for clinical translation of biomarker signatures.

Unraveling the Connection between Fibroblast Growth Factor and Bone Morphogenetic Protein Signaling.

Ontogeny of higher organisms as well the regulation of tissue homeostasis in adult individuals requires a fine-balanced interplay of regulating factors that individually trigger the fate of particular cells to either stay undifferentiated or to differentiate towards distinct tissue specific lineages. In some cases, these factors act synergistically to promote certain cellular responses, whereas in other tissues the same factors antagonize each other. However, the molecular basis of this obvious dual signaling activity is still only poorly understood. Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) and fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) are two major signal protein families that have a lot in common: They are both highly preserved between different species, involved in essential cellular functions, and their ligands vastly outnumber their receptors, making extensive signal regulation necessary. In this review we discuss where and how BMP and FGF signaling cross paths. The compiled data reflect that both factors synchronously act in many tissues, and that antagonism and synergism both exist in a context-dependent manner. Therefore, by challenging a generalization of the connection between these two pathways a new chapter in BMP FGF signaling research will be introduced.

GDF-5 can act as a context-dependent BMP-2 antagonist.

BACKGROUND: Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)-2 and growth and differentiation factor (GDF)-5 are two related transforming growth factor (TGF)-ß family members with important functions in embryonic development and tissue homeostasis. BMP-2 is best known for its osteoinductive properties whereas GDF-5-as evident from its alternative name, cartilage derived morphogenetic protein 1-plays an important role in the formation of cartilage. In spite of these differences both factors signal by binding to the same subset of BMP receptors, raising the question how these different functionalities are generated. The largest difference in receptor binding is observed in the interaction with the type I receptor BMPR-IA. GDF-5, in contrast to BMP-2, shows preferential binding to the isoform BMPR-IB, which is abrogated by a single amino acid (A57R) substitution. The resulting variant, GDF-5 R57A, represents a "BMP-2 mimic" with respect to BMP receptor binding. In this study we thus wanted to analyze whether the two growth factors can induce distinct signals via an identically composed receptor. RESULTS: Unexpectedly and dependent on the cellular context, GDF-5 R57A showed clear differences in its activity compared to BMP-2. In ATDC-5 cells, both ligands induced alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression with similar potency. But in C2C12 cells, the BMP-2 mimic GDF-5 R57A (and also wild-type GDF-5) clearly antagonized BMP-2-mediated ALP expression, despite signaling in both cell lines occurring solely via BMPR-IA. The BMP-2- antagonizing properties of GDF-5 and GDF-5 R57A could also be observed in vivo when implanting BMP-2 and either one of the two GDF-5 ligands simultaneously at heterotopic sites. CONCLUSIONS: Although comparison of the crystal structures of the GDF-5 R57A:BMPR-IAEC- and BMP-2:BMPR-IAEC complex revealed small ligand-specific differences, these cannot account for the different signaling characteristics because the complexes seem identical in both differently reacting cell lines. We thus predict an additional component, most likely a not yet identified GDF-5-specific co-receptor, which alters the output of the signaling complexes. Hence the presence or absence of this component then switches GDF-5's signaling capabilities to act either similar to BMP-2 or as a BMP-2 antagonist. These findings might shed new light on the role of GDF-5, e.g., in cartilage maintenance and/or limb development in that it might act as an inhibitor of signaling events initiated by other BMPs.