Volume 18, Issue 13, Pages (March 2017)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 19, Issue 5, Pages (May 2017)
Advertisements

Volume 4, Issue 6, Pages e4 (June 2017)
M. Fu, G. Huang, Z. Zhang, J. Liu, Z. Zhang, Z. Huang, B. Yu, F. Meng 
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages (December 2017)
Volume 2, Issue 3, Pages (March 2016)
Posttranslational regulation of self-renewal capacity: insights from proteome and phosphoproteome analyses of stem cell leukemia by Matthias Trost, Martin.
Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages (July 2014)
Volume 21, Issue 13, Pages (December 2017)
Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages (February 2014)
Phosphoproteomic Analyses of NRAS(G12) and NRAS(Q61) Mutant Melanocytes Reveal Increased CK2α Kinase Levels in NRAS(Q61) Mutant Cells  Christian Posch,
JNK1 Phosphorylation of Cdt1 Inhibits Recruitment of HBO1 Histone Acetylase and Blocks Replication Licensing in Response to Stress  Benoit Miotto, Kevin.
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages (September 2016)
Volume 5, Issue 6, Pages (December 2013)
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages (August 2006)
Volume 31, Issue 3, Pages (August 2008)
Volume 4, Issue 6, Pages e4 (June 2017)
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages (April 2018)
The Translational Landscape of the Mammalian Cell Cycle
Volume 13, Issue 8, Pages (November 2015)
Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages (August 2013)
PIAS1 Promotes Lymphomagenesis through MYC Upregulation
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages (October 2017)
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages (January 2017)
Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages (February 2013)
Volume 44, Issue 2, Pages (October 2011)
SUMO Signaling by Hypoxic Inactivation of SUMO-Specific Isopeptidases
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages (December 2017)
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages e5 (September 2018)
SUMO-2 Orchestrates Chromatin Modifiers in Response to DNA Damage
Volume 8, Issue 6, Pages (September 2014)
Volume 24, Issue 9, Pages e4 (August 2018)
Volume 19, Issue 11, Pages (June 2017)
Evgenij Fiskin, Tihana Bionda, Ivan Dikic, Christian Behrends 
Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages (February 2012)
Molecular Therapy - Nucleic Acids
Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages (October 2016)
A Genetic Screen Identifies TCF3/E2A and TRIAP1 as Pathway-Specific Regulators of the Cellular Response to p53 Activation  Zdenek Andrysik, Jihye Kim,
Volume 9, Pages (November 2018)
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages (January 2018)
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages (April 2018)
SUMO-2 Orchestrates Chromatin Modifiers in Response to DNA Damage
The Actin-Bundling Protein Palladin Is an Akt1-Specific Substrate that Regulates Breast Cancer Cell Migration  Y. Rebecca Chin, Alex Toker  Molecular.
Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages (May 2018)
Volume 21, Issue 9, Pages (November 2017)
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages (November 2014)
Volume 19, Issue 5, Pages (May 2017)
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages (August 2017)
Volume 17, Issue 6, Pages (November 2016)
Volume 17, Issue 6, Pages (June 2013)
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages (October 2017)
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages (February 2015)
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages (November 2014)
Volume 51, Issue 6, Pages (September 2013)
Yuanli Zhen, Yajie Zhang, Yonghao Yu  Cell Reports 
Volume 22, Issue 10, Pages (March 2018)
Volume 15, Issue 12, Pages (June 2016)
MELK Promotes Melanoma Growth by Stimulating the NF-κB Pathway
Brandon Ho, Anastasia Baryshnikova, Grant W. Brown  Cell Systems 
Maria S. Robles, Sean J. Humphrey, Matthias Mann  Cell Metabolism 
Volume 8, Issue 6, Pages (September 2014)
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages (April 2016)
Marijn T.M. van Jaarsveld, Difan Deng, Erik A.C. Wiemer, Zhike Zi 
Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages (February 2013)
Volume 2, Issue 3, Pages (March 2016)
Evidence for Insertional RNA Editing in Humans
Paracrine Apoptotic Effect of p53 Mediated by Tumor Suppressor Par-4
Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages (July 2014)
Volume 28, Issue 8, Pages e4 (August 2019)
Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages e7 (July 2019)
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages (April 2016)
Presentation transcript:

Volume 18, Issue 13, Pages 3242-3256 (March 2017) Phosphoproteomics of Primary Cells Reveals Druggable Kinase Signatures in Ovarian Cancer  Chiara Francavilla, Michela Lupia, Kalliopi Tsafou, Alessandra Villa, Katarzyna Kowalczyk, Rosa Rakownikow Jersie-Christensen, Giovanni Bertalot, Stefano Confalonieri, Søren Brunak, Lars J. Jensen, Ugo Cavallaro, Jesper V. Olsen  Cell Reports  Volume 18, Issue 13, Pages 3242-3256 (March 2017) DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.015 Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

Cell Reports 2017 18, 3242-3256DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.015) Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Proteomics of Patient-Derived Epithelial Cells Reveals Good Coverage of Phosphorylated Sites (A) Workflow of the proteomics analysis of epithelial cells derived from FTE, OSE, and EOC (see also Figure S1, Table S1, and Supplemental Experimental Procedures). (B) Numbers of identified proteins (blue) and phosphorylated sites (pink) in the 13 samples analyzed in this study. Data are presented as mean ± SD. (C) Unsupervised clustering of the phosphoproteome dataset shows separation between tumor and healthy samples. (D) Heatmap of the Pearson’s correlation (R2) of the phosphoproteome data shows good overall reproducibility among samples deriving from the same tissue (highlighted by black boxes). Numbers and letters indicate individual samples or technical replicates, respectively, according to Table S1. See also Figures S1 and S2 and Tables S1, S2, and S3. Cell Reports 2017 18, 3242-3256DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.015) Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Proteomic Analysis Discloses Differentially Expressed Proteins (A) 3D-PCA of all the proteins quantified in independent samples for each tissue. Missing values have not been considered. (B) Hierarchical clustering of the proteins differentially expressed in four independent samples derived from each of the three cell types. The identified clusters 1–4 are highlighted on the right and separated by a black line. Protein intensity is presented on the logarithmic scale with intensity below and above the mean color-coded in blue and red, respectively. The proteins highlighted in the different clusters were selected for further validation. (C) Lysates from three independent samples derived from each tissue (see Table S1) were subjected to WB analysis with the indicated antibodies. Vinculin was used as loading control. The experiment was repeated twice with analogous results. (D) The two histograms show the intensity of the staining for PHGDH (top) and KCTD12 (bottom) in normal OSE, FTE, serous adenocarcinomas, and metastasis (number of samples: 15 OSE, 18 fimbriae, 84 serous adenocarcinomas, and 34 metastases). Data are presented as mean ± SD. ∗p < 0.001 compared to OSE (Wilcoxon test). See also Table S2. Cell Reports 2017 18, 3242-3256DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.015) Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 The Phosphoproteomes of EOC and Healthy Tissues Are Different (A) 3D-PCA of all the phosphorylated sites of independent samples for each tissue. Missing values have not been considered. (B and C) KEGG pathways analysis (B) and biological processes (GO terms BP) (C) enriched in EOC samples. The analysis included 1,026 sites. (D) Network of the phosphorylated sites of EOC samples belonging to the enriched pathways shown in (B), based on STRING and visualized in Cytoscape. The Cytoscape plug-in MCODE revealed enriched networks of phosphorylated proteins of the spliceosome and actin cytoskeleton. See also Table S3. Cell Reports 2017 18, 3242-3256DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.015) Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 The EOC Phosphoproteome Is Enriched in Proteins Belonging to Spliceosome (A) Hierarchical clustering of the 792 phosphorylated sites differentially expressed in four independent samples derived from each of the three cell types. The three clusters termed A–C are highlighted on the right and separated by a black line. The intensity of phosphorylated sites is presented on the logarithmic scale with intensity below and above the mean color-coded in blue and red, respectively. (B) Biological Processes (GO term) enriched in each of the three clusters. (C) Sequence motif analysis of the ± six-amino-acid residues flanking the regulated phosphorylation site identified in cluster C compared to cluster A. (D) Kinases substrate motif enriched in cluster C. (E) Network of proteins belonging to the GO term spliceosome (cluster C; Table S4) based on STRING and visualized in Cytoscape. Proteins whose phosphorylated sites were found in the PCA analysis (Figure 3A) are represented with a pink border; transcription factors and kinases are color-coded in light blue and pink, respectively. The light blue and pink clouds surrounding two distinct groups of proteins are based on the comparison of this dataset with the analysis of splicing components shown in Papasaikas et al. (2015). The color of the text is based on the sequence motif analysis shown in (F). (F) Sequence motif analysis of the ± six-amino-acid residues flanking the 100 phosphorylation sites belonging to the GO term spliceosome enriched in cluster C. See also Figures S3 and S4 and Tables S4 and S5. Cell Reports 2017 18, 3242-3256DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.015) Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Phosphoproteomics Identifies CDK7-Associated Proteins (A) Lysates from three independent samples derived from each tissue (see Table S1) were subjected to immunoblotting with the indicated antibodies. Tubulin was used as loading control. The experiment was repeated three times with analogous results. (B) OVCAR3 cells treated with DMSO (control), the CDK7 inhibitor THZ1, or the MEK inhibitor U0126 were subjected to immunoblotting with the indicated antibodies. THZ1, but not U0126, inhibits POLR2A phosphorylation. Tubulin was used as loading control. Lanes 1–3 represent independent biological replicates. (C) Hierarchical clustering of proteins differentially phosphorylated upon treatment with the CDK7 or MEK inhibitor. The four identified clusters are highlighted on the left and separated by a black line. Protein intensity is presented on the logarithmic scale with treated/control intensity below and above the mean colored-coded in red and blue, respectively. (D) Sequence motif analysis of the ± six-amino-acid residues flanking the phosphorylated site identified among the CDK7-associated (top) or MEK-associated (bottom) proteins. (E) GO term biological processes enriched in the CDK7 or MEK cluster. (F) List of the phosphorylated sites of POLR2A identified in OVCAR3 that are CDK7 regulated and/or found in patient-derived cells. CTD, C-terminal domain of POLR2A. S2 and S5 refer to the position of the phosphorylated serine in the repetitive stretch of amino acids found in the CTD of POLR2A. (G) Network based on STRING and visualized in Cytoscape of the CDK7-associated proteins (from C). Only the proteins also found in patient-derived cells are shown on the left. For a complete list, see Figure S6 and Table S6. CDK7-associated proteins enriched in the POLR2A cluster are shown on the right. See also Figures S5 and S6 and Table S6. Cell Reports 2017 18, 3242-3256DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.015) Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 CDK7 Inhibition Affects the Proliferation of Ovarian Cancer Cells (A) Lysates from different ovarian cancer cell lines, either untreated or treated with DMSO, the PI3K inhibitor LY294002, or the CDK7 inhibitor THZ1 for 4 hr were subjected to immunoblotting with the indicated antibodies. Vinculin was used as loading control. The experiment was repeated three times with analogous results. (B) Cell proliferation of ovarian cancer cells treated for 72 hr with the indicated inhibitors. Data represent the mean ± SEM of three experiments. ∗p value < 0.05 compared to untreated cells or cells treated with DMSO. Black line represents untreated cells at time 0. (C) Cell proliferation of cancer cells of different origin treated for 72 hr with THZ1 or DMSO as indicated. Data represent the mean ± SEM of three experiments. Black line represents untreated cells at time 0. (D) Lysates from OVCAR3, COV318, or COV362 cells, either not transfected or transfected with two different siRNA sequences against CDK7 or with a control siRNA, were subjected to immunoblotting with the indicated antibodies. (E) Cell proliferation of EOC cell lines treated as in (D) for 72 hr. Data represent the mean ± SEM of three experiments. ∗p < 0.05 compared to untreated cells or cells treated with control siRNA. Black line represents untreated cells at time 0. Cell Reports 2017 18, 3242-3256DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.015) Copyright © 2017 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions