. 2014 Apr 24;157(3):580-94.

doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.030. Epub 2014 Apr 10.

Reconstructing and reprogramming the tumor-propagating potential of glioblastoma stem-like cells

Mario L Suvà¹, Esther Rheinbay², Shawn M Gillespie², Anoop P Patel³, Hiroaki Wakimoto⁴, Samuel D Rabkin⁴, Nicolo Riggi⁵, Andrew S Chi⁶, Daniel P Cahill⁴, Brian V Nahed⁴, William T Curry⁴, Robert L Martuza⁴, Miguel N Rivera⁵, Nikki Rossetti⁵, Simon Kasif⁷, Samantha Beik⁸, Sabah Kadri⁸, Itay Tirosh⁸, Ivo Wortman⁸, Alex K Shalek⁹, Orit Rozenblatt-Rosen⁸, Aviv Regev¹⁰, David N Louis¹¹, Bradley E Bernstein¹²

Affiliations

¹ Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, USA; Department of Pathology and Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA. Electronic address: suva.mario@mgh.harvard.edu.
² Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, USA; Department of Pathology and Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
³ Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
⁴ Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
⁵ Department of Pathology and Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
⁶ Divisions of Neuro-Oncology and Hematology/Oncology and Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
⁷ Bioinformatics Program, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
⁸ Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
⁹ Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
¹⁰ Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, USA; Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA; Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02140, USA.
¹¹ Department of Pathology and Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
¹² Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, USA; Department of Pathology and Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA. Electronic address: bernstein.bradley@mgh.harvard.edu.

PMID: 24726434
PMCID: PMC4004670
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.030

Reconstructing and reprogramming the tumor-propagating potential of glioblastoma stem-like cells

Mario L Suvà et al. Cell. 2014.

. 2014 Apr 24;157(3):580-94.

doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.030. Epub 2014 Apr 10.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, USA; Department of Pathology and Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA. Electronic address: suva.mario@mgh.harvard.edu.
² Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, USA; Department of Pathology and Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
³ Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
⁴ Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
⁵ Department of Pathology and Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
⁶ Divisions of Neuro-Oncology and Hematology/Oncology and Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
⁷ Bioinformatics Program, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
⁸ Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
⁹ Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
¹⁰ Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, USA; Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA; Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02140, USA.
¹¹ Department of Pathology and Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
¹² Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, USA; Department of Pathology and Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA. Electronic address: bernstein.bradley@mgh.harvard.edu.

PMID: 24726434
PMCID: PMC4004670
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.030

Abstract

Developmental fate decisions are dictated by master transcription factors (TFs) that interact with cis-regulatory elements to direct transcriptional programs. Certain malignant tumors may also depend on cellular hierarchies reminiscent of normal development but superimposed on underlying genetic aberrations. In glioblastoma (GBM), a subset of stem-like tumor-propagating cells (TPCs) appears to drive tumor progression and underlie therapeutic resistance yet remain poorly understood. Here, we identify a core set of neurodevelopmental TFs (POU3F2, SOX2, SALL2, and OLIG2) essential for GBM propagation. These TFs coordinately bind and activate TPC-specific regulatory elements and are sufficient to fully reprogram differentiated GBM cells to "induced" TPCs, recapitulating the epigenetic landscape and phenotype of native TPCs. We reconstruct a network model that highlights critical interactions and identifies candidate therapeutic targets for eliminating TPCs. Our study establishes the epigenetic basis of a developmental hierarchy in GBM, provides detailed insight into underlying gene regulatory programs, and suggests attendant therapeutic strategies. PAPERCLIP:

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

**Figure 1. Epigenetic landscapes distinguish functionally distinct GBM models**
**(A)** GBM cells (MGG8) grown as gliomaspheres in serum-free conditions propagate tumor *in vivo* while serum-differentiated cells fail to do so. **(B)** Flow cytometry of MGG8 TPCs shows positivity for the GBM stemlike markers SSEA-1 and CD133, while serum-differentiated cells do not. **(C)** Cells grow in serum as adherent monolayers and express the differentiation markers GFAP (astroglial), beta III tubulin (neuronal), MAP-2 (neuronal) and GalC (oligodendroglial). **(D)** Xenografted tumors from MGG8 TPCs (left) are invasive, crossing the corpus callosum (boxed region), infiltrating along white matter tracks (arrowhead). At high magnification, the cells are atypical and mitotic figures are evident (arrow). Xenografted tumors from MGG4 TPCs (right) are more circumscribed but also infiltrate adjacent parenchyma (boxed region, arrowhead). At high magnification areas of necrosis (*) and mitotic figures (arrow) are readily identified. LV: lateral ventricle. **(E)** TPC-specific, DGC-specific and shared regulatory elements. Shared elements tend to be located proximal to promoters, while the vast majority of TPC- and DGC-specific elements are distal. Motif analyses predict binding sites for TF families within each set of sites. See also Supplemental FigureS1.

**Figure 2. Candidate regulators for the specification of alternate epigenetic states in GBM**
**(A)** A set of 19 TPC-specific TFs is identified based on RNA-Seq expression and promoter H3K27ac signals in TPCs and DGCs. TF family is indicated at right. **(B)** Western blots confirm exclusive protein expression in TPCs for selected TFs. Lower panel indicates tubulin loading control. **(C)** ChIP-Seq tracks show H3K27ac signals for loci encoding TPC-specific TFs OLIG1, OLIG2 and SOX2, or (D) the differentiation factor BMP4 in the respective GBM models. TPC-specific TF loci are enriched for TPC-specific regulatory elements.

**Figure 3. A core TF network for tumor-propagating GBM cells**
**(A)** Data points indicate percentage of single-cell DGCs capable of forming spheres in serum-free conditions. Each of the 19 TFs in Figure 2A was tested alone (first column, ‘single TF’), in combination with POU3F2 (second column) or in combination with POU3F2 and SOX2 (third column). HLH family TFs were also tested in combination with POU3F2, SOX2 and SALL2 (fourth column), based on an enrichment of HLH motifs in regulatory elements that failed to activate in 3TF-induced DGCs. TF combinations that enhanced *in vitro* spherogenicity (blue) were selected for *in vivo* testing. **(B)** Flow cytometry profiles show expression of the stem cell marker CD133 for DGCs induced by the single, double, triple and quadruple TF combinations with the highest *in vitro* sphere-forming potential. **(C)** For TF combinations with *in vitro* spherogenic potential (blue in panel 3A), 100,000 cells were injected in the brain parenchyma (n=4 mice per TF combination). Survival curve is shown for this *in vivo* tumor-propagation assay. Only the quadruple TF combination POU3F2+SOX2+SALL2+OLIG2 initiated tumors in mice. (D) Tumor histopathology shows characteristic features of glioblastoma, including necrotic areas (*) and crossing of corpus callosum (boxed area). At high magnification cells show atypical features and mitotic figures are evident (arrows). LV: lateral ventricle. **(E)** Secondary TPC sphere cultures (“iTPC”) derived from xenotransplant tumors express the stem-cell marker CD133. (F) Contrast field image of iTPC spheres. (G) Left: bar graph shows iTPC and TPC proliferation rates measure by BrdU incorporation. Right: data points indicate percentage of single cells capable of serial sphere formation in three consecutive passages in serum-free conditions. Self-renewal properties and proliferation of iTPCs are comparable to corresponding TPCs. **(H)** Orthotopic serial xenotransplantation in limiting dilution shows that as few as 50 MGG8 iTPC are sufficient to initiate tumors. **(I)** Data points indicate *in vitro* sphere formation of MGG4 TPCs infected with lentivirus containing shRNA for POU3F2, OLIG2 or SALL2, compared to control (two hairpins per TF). **(J)** Survival curve depicts *in vivo* tumor propagating potential of MGG4 TPCs infected with POU3F2 shRNA, SALL2 shRNA, OLIG2 shRNA or control shRNA. See also Supplemental FiguresS2–S4.

**Figure 4. Core TFs reprogram the epigenetic landscape of DGCs**
**(A)** Left: heatmap depicts H3K27ac signals for TPC-specific, DGC-specific or shared regulatory elements defined in Figure 1E. Relative to control vector infected DGCs, iTPCs gain H3K27ac over TPC-specific elements and lose H3K27ac over DGC-specific elements, consistent with genome-wide reprogramming of the epigenetic landscape. Right: pie charts show fraction of regulatory elements (dark cyan) in each set with H3K27ac in iTPC. **(B)** RNA-Seq expression and promoter H3K27ac levels at promoter are shown for TPC-specific TFs defined in Figure 2A (NES: Nestin). **(C)** Hierarchical clustering of MGG8 DGCs, TPCs and replicate iTPCs (iTPC1/2) by H3K27ac ChIP-Seq signal. **(D)** RNA-Seq tracks show that core TF mRNAs in iTPCs include 3′UTRs (shaded in gray). This indicates the endogenous loci are reactivated in iTPCs as the exogenous vectors lack 3′UTRs. **(E)** H3K27ac signal tracks for loci encoding core TFs show that endogenous regulatory elements (highlighted with grey shading) are reactivated in iTPCs. **(F)** Serum-induced differentiation leads iTPCs to convert to an adherent phenotype, up-regulate differentiation markers GFAP, beta III tubulin, MAP-2, GalC and **(G)** to lose CD133 expression. **(H)** Western blots confirm serum-induced differentiation of iTPCs leads to down-regulation of core TFs. Lower panels: tubulin loading control. These data indicate that the core TFs can reprogram DGCs into stem-like GBM cells, which have an epigenetic landscape similar to TPCs that is sustained by endogenous regulatory programs. See also Supplemental Figures S2.

**Figure 5. All four core TFs are coordinately expressed in a subset of primary GBM cells with stem-like markers**
**(A)** Quadruple immunofluorescence for core TFs in three human GBM samples shows co-expression in a subset of cells; shown at right are the fractions of SOX2+ cells that express each other individual TF or all four TFs in each tumor. (B) Flow cytometry analysis from acutely resected GBM tumors. A majority of cells positive for the four core TFs express the stem-cell marker CD133. Enrichment is significantly greater than for SOX2-expressing cells. (C) Heatmap shows H3K27ac signal from three freshly resected GBM tumors for regulatory elements defined in Figure 1E. Right: pie-charts show fraction of regulatory elements (dark cyan) in each set with H3K27ac. TPC-specific elements show significant enrichment, consistent with a TPC-like regulatory program in a subset of cells.

**Figure 6. TF network reconstruction and targeting**
(A) ChIP-Seq signal for core TFs profiled in TPCs (MGG8) shows preferential binding at TPC-specific regulatory elements. (B) Pie charts indicate proportion of TF binding sites that coincide with the indicated sets of regulatory elements. (C) Sequence motifs identified in TF ChIP-Seq peaks. With the exception of SALL2 (see text and Figure S5), motifs correspond to the expected class of TFs, further validating ChIP-Seq experiments. (D) Model for core TF regulatory interactions reconstructed from binding profiles and expression data (see text and methods). Other TFs defined in figure 2A (green) and chromatin regulators (red) are highlighted. (E) Signal tracks depict core TF binding over TPC-specific regulatory elements within loci containing the corresponding TF genes. See also Supplemental Figure S5.

**Figure 7. The LSD1-RCOR2 chromatin complex is essential for GBM TPCs**
(A) Plots depict LSD1 and RCOR2 RNA-Seq expression values for TPCs and DGCs. (B) Western blot for RCOR2 (MGG8 TPC and DGC lysates) confirms exclusive expression in TPC. (C) Western blot for LSD1 on RCOR2 immunoprecipitate indicates co-association between the two proteins in TPCs. (D) Signal tracks depict TF binding and H3K27ac enrichment in the RCOR2 locus. OLIG2 binds a TPC-specific regulatory element in the locus. (E) Survival curve of mice injected with DGCs induced with the combination of POU3F2+SOX2+SALL2+RCOR2 indicates that RCOR2 can substitute for OLIG2 in the cocktail. (F) Coronal section of a xenografted GBM tumor (dashed line) established from iTPCs reprogrammed with the POU3F2+SOX2+SALL2+RCOR2 combination. (G) Representative images of TPCs and DGCs infected with LSD1 shRNA show reduced viability specifically in the TPCs. (H) Bar graphs depict percent viability for MGG4 TPCs or DGCs infected with control shRNA or two different LSD1 shRNAs. LSD1-depletion causes decreased viability in TPCs and has effect on DGCs. (I) Data points indicate *in vitro* sphere formation of MGG4 TPCs infected with lentivirus shRNA for LSD1 (two hairpins), compared to control in three serial passages. (J) Graph depicts percent viability for TPCs and DGCs (MGG4 and MGG8) and primary astrocytes (NHA) exposed to increasing doses of the synthetic LSD1 inhibitor S2101. A representative image of TPCs exposed to 20uM S2101 for 96 hours is shown below. (K) Survival curve depicts *in vivo* tumor propagating potential of MGG4 TPCs infected with LSD1 shRNA (two hairpins) or control shRNA. These data suggest that the RCOR2/LSD1 complex is essential for stem-like TPCs, and thus represents a candidate therapeutic target for eliminating this aggressive GBM sub-population. See also Supplemental Figure S4.

See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Connect four with glioblastoma stem cell factors.
Gronych J, Pfister SM, Jones DT. Gronych J, et al. Cell. 2014 Apr 24;157(3):525-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.04.001. Cell. 2014. PMID: 24766799
Cancer stem cells on demand.
Nawy T. Nawy T. Nat Methods. 2014 Jul;11(7):715. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3021. Nat Methods. 2014. PMID: 25110783 No abstract available.

Cited by

Understanding the immunosuppressive microenvironment of glioma: mechanistic insights and clinical perspectives.
Lin H, Liu C, Hu A, Zhang D, Yang H, Mao Y. Lin H, et al. J Hematol Oncol. 2024 May 8;17(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s13045-024-01544-7. J Hematol Oncol. 2024. PMID: 38720342 Free PMC article. Review.
Single-nucleus and spatial landscape of the sub-ventricular zone in human glioblastoma.
Licón-Muñoz Y, Avalos V, Subramanian S, Granger B, Martinez F, Varela S, Moore D, Perkins E, Kogan M, Berto S, Chohan MO, Bowers CA, Piccirillo SGM. Licón-Muñoz Y, et al. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2024 Apr 27:2024.04.24.590852. doi: 10.1101/2024.04.24.590852. bioRxiv. 2024. PMID: 38712234 Free PMC article. Preprint.
Plasticity and resistance of cancer stem cells as a challenge for innovative anticancer therapies - do we know enough to overcome this?
Knopik-Skrocka A, Sempowicz A, Piwocka O. Knopik-Skrocka A, et al. EXCLI J. 2024 Feb 29;23:335-355. doi: 10.17179/excli2024-6972. eCollection 2024. EXCLI J. 2024. PMID: 38655094 Free PMC article. Review.
Molecular diversity in isocitrate dehydrogenase-wild-type glioblastoma.
Fares J, Wan Y, Mair R, Price SJ. Fares J, et al. Brain Commun. 2024 Mar 27;6(2):fcae108. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcae108. eCollection 2024. Brain Commun. 2024. PMID: 38646145 Free PMC article. Review.
Single-nucleus expression characterization of non-enhancing region of recurrent high-grade glioma.
Patel KS, Tessema KK, Kawaguchi R, Dudley L, Alvarado AG, Muthukrishnan SD, Perryman T, Hagiwara A, Swarup V, Liau LM, Wang AC, Yong W, Geschwind DH, Nakano I, Goldman SA, Everson RG, Ellingson BM, Kornblum HI. Patel KS, et al. Neurooncol Adv. 2024 Jan 25;6(1):vdae005. doi: 10.1093/noajnl/vdae005. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec. Neurooncol Adv. 2024. PMID: 38616896 Free PMC article.

See all "Cited by" articles

References

1. Anido J, Saez-Borderias A, Gonzalez-Junca A, Rodon L, Folch G, Carmona MA, Prieto-Sanchez RM, Barba I, Martinez-Saez E, Prudkin L, et al. TGF-beta Receptor Inhibitors Target the CD44(high)/Id1(high) Glioma-Initiating Cell Population in Human Glioblastoma. Cancer cell. 2010;18:655–668. - PubMed
1. Bao S, Wu Q, McLendon RE, Hao Y, Shi Q, Hjelmeland AB, Dewhirst MW, Bigner DD, Rich JN. Glioma stem cells promote radioresistance by preferential activation of the DNA damage response. Nature. 2006;444:756–760. - PubMed
1. Barrett LE, Granot Z, Coker C, Iavarone A, Hambardzumyan D, Holland EC, Nam HS, Benezra R. Self-renewal does not predict tumor growth potential in mouse models of high-grade glioma. Cancer cell. 2012;21:11–24. - PubMed
1. Binda E, Visioli A, Giani F, Lamorte G, Copetti M, Pitter KL, Huse JT, Cajola L, Zanetti N, DiMeco F, et al. The EphA2 receptor drives self-renewal and tumorigenicity in stem-like tumor-propagating cells from human glioblastomas. Cancer cell. 2012;22:765–780. - PMC - PubMed
1. Bulger M, Groudine M. Functional and mechanistic diversity of distal transcription enhancers. Cell. 2011;144:327–339. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Actions
Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

Substances

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

Associated data

Actions
- Search in PubMed
- Search in GEO

Grants and funding

P50 CA165962/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
- Genetic Alliance
- MedlinePlus Health Information
Molecular Biology Databases
Research Materials
- Cellosaurus - a cell line knowledge resource

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Reconstructing and reprogramming the tumor-propagating potential of glioblastoma stem-like cells

Affiliations

Reconstructing and reprogramming the tumor-propagating potential of glioblastoma stem-like cells

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Figures

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Associated data

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Other Literature Sources

Medical

Molecular Biology Databases

Research Materials

Abstract

Figures

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Associated data

Related information

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Other Literature Sources

Medical

Molecular Biology Databases

Research Materials