Glioblastoma Relapses Show Increased Markers of Vulnerability to Ferroptosis.

cell death ferroptosis glioblastoma glioma immunohistochemistry protein expression relapse therapy resistance

Journal

Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 22 12 2021
accepted: 22 03 2022
entrez: 9 5 2022
pubmed: 10 5 2022
medline: 10 5 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Despite the availability of various therapy options and being a widely focused research area, the prognosis of glioblastoma (GBM) still remains very poor due to therapy resistance, genetic heterogeneity and a diffuse infiltration pattern. The recently described non-apoptotic form of cell death ferroptosis may, however, offer novel opportunities for targeted therapies. Hence, the aim of this study was to investigate the potential role of ferroptosis in GBM, including the impact of treatment on the expression of the two ferroptosis-associated players glutathione-peroxidase 4 (GPX4) and acyl-CoA-synthetase long-chain family number 4 (ACSL4). Furthermore, the change in expression of the recently identified ferroptosis suppressor protein 1 (FSP1) and aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) 1A3 was investigated. Immunohistochemistry was performed on sample pairs of primary and relapse GBM of 24 patients who had received standard adjuvant treatment with radiochemotherapy. To identify cell types generally prone to undergo ferroptosis, co-stainings of ferroptosis susceptibility genes in combination with cell-type specific markers including glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) for tumor cells and astrocytes, as well as the ionized calcium-binding adapter molecule 1 (Iba1) for microglial cells were performed, supplemented by double stains combining GPX4 and ACSL4. While the expression of GPX4 decreased significantly during tumor relapse, ACSL4 showed a significant increase. These results were confirmed by analyses of data sets of the Cancer Genome Atlas. These profound changes indicate an increased susceptibility of relapsed tumors towards oxidative stress and associated ferroptosis, a cell death modality characterized by unrestrained lipid peroxidation. Moreover, ALDH1A3 and FSP1 expression also increased in the relapses with significant results for ALDH1A3, whereas for FSP1, statistical significance was not reached. Results obtained from double staining imply that ferroptosis occurs more likely in GBM tumor cells than in microglial cells. Our study implies that ferroptosis takes place in GBM tumor cells. Moreover, we show that recurrent tumors have a higher vulnerability to ferroptosis. These results affirm that utilizing ferroptosis processes might be a possible novel therapy option, especially in the situation of recurrent GBM.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Despite the availability of various therapy options and being a widely focused research area, the prognosis of glioblastoma (GBM) still remains very poor due to therapy resistance, genetic heterogeneity and a diffuse infiltration pattern. The recently described non-apoptotic form of cell death ferroptosis may, however, offer novel opportunities for targeted therapies. Hence, the aim of this study was to investigate the potential role of ferroptosis in GBM, including the impact of treatment on the expression of the two ferroptosis-associated players glutathione-peroxidase 4 (GPX4) and acyl-CoA-synthetase long-chain family number 4 (ACSL4). Furthermore, the change in expression of the recently identified ferroptosis suppressor protein 1 (FSP1) and aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) 1A3 was investigated.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Immunohistochemistry was performed on sample pairs of primary and relapse GBM of 24 patients who had received standard adjuvant treatment with radiochemotherapy. To identify cell types generally prone to undergo ferroptosis, co-stainings of ferroptosis susceptibility genes in combination with cell-type specific markers including glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) for tumor cells and astrocytes, as well as the ionized calcium-binding adapter molecule 1 (Iba1) for microglial cells were performed, supplemented by double stains combining GPX4 and ACSL4.
Results UNASSIGNED
While the expression of GPX4 decreased significantly during tumor relapse, ACSL4 showed a significant increase. These results were confirmed by analyses of data sets of the Cancer Genome Atlas. These profound changes indicate an increased susceptibility of relapsed tumors towards oxidative stress and associated ferroptosis, a cell death modality characterized by unrestrained lipid peroxidation. Moreover, ALDH1A3 and FSP1 expression also increased in the relapses with significant results for ALDH1A3, whereas for FSP1, statistical significance was not reached. Results obtained from double staining imply that ferroptosis occurs more likely in GBM tumor cells than in microglial cells.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Our study implies that ferroptosis takes place in GBM tumor cells. Moreover, we show that recurrent tumors have a higher vulnerability to ferroptosis. These results affirm that utilizing ferroptosis processes might be a possible novel therapy option, especially in the situation of recurrent GBM.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35530303
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.841418
pmc: PMC9071304
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

841418

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Kram, Prokop, Haller, Gempt, Wu, Schmidt-Graf, Schlegel, Conrad and Liesche-Starnecker.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Oct;23(10):1985-96
pubmed: 25053711
Mol Cell Oncol. 2015 May 26;2(4):e1054549
pubmed: 27308510
Nat Chem Biol. 2017 Jan;13(1):91-98
pubmed: 27842070
Redox Biol. 2017 Apr;11:254-262
pubmed: 28012440
Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2013;2013:931251
pubmed: 24369491
Cell. 2014 Jan 16;156(1-2):317-331
pubmed: 24439385
J Cell Mol Med. 2017 Apr;21(4):648-657
pubmed: 27860262
Neuro Oncol. 2014 Jul;16(7):896-913
pubmed: 24842956
Nat Chem Biol. 2017 Jan;13(1):81-90
pubmed: 27842066
N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 10;352(10):987-96
pubmed: 15758009
Nature. 2006 Dec 7;444(7120):756-60
pubmed: 17051156
Trends Mol Med. 2021 Feb;27(2):113-122
pubmed: 32958404
ACS Chem Biol. 2020 Feb 21;15(2):469-484
pubmed: 31899616
Cancer Lett. 2018 Mar 28;417:112-123
pubmed: 29306018
Transl Oncol. 2020 Mar;13(3):100748
pubmed: 32087559
Nature. 2012 Aug 23;488(7412):522-6
pubmed: 22854781
Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020 Jul 09;8:538
pubmed: 32733879
Commun Biol. 2018 Nov 28;1:210
pubmed: 30511023
J Biol Chem. 2010 Dec 24;285(52):40461-71
pubmed: 20880848
Nature. 2019 Nov;575(7784):693-698
pubmed: 31634899
Cell Res. 2020 Feb;30(2):146-162
pubmed: 31949285
J Cancer. 2019 Jul 10;10(18):4256-4263
pubmed: 31413744
Oncotarget. 2017 Dec 6;8(68):113090-113104
pubmed: 29348889
Nat Commun. 2020 Oct 27;11(1):5424
pubmed: 33110073
Front Pharmacol. 2018 Nov 22;9:1371
pubmed: 30524291
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2021 Apr;22(4):266-282
pubmed: 33495651
Nature. 2017 Nov 9;551(7679):247-250
pubmed: 29088702
EBioMedicine. 2021 Sep;71:103560
pubmed: 34482070
J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2015 Oct-Dec;6(4):499-503
pubmed: 26752892
Lab Invest. 2008 Dec;88(12):1367-75
pubmed: 18936738
Oncotarget. 2016 Nov 15;7(46):74630-74647
pubmed: 27612422
Cell Death Dis. 2018 Aug 6;9(8):841
pubmed: 30082680
Free Radic Biol Med. 2012 Jan 15;52(2):377-91
pubmed: 22094224
Nat Rev Cancer. 2019 Jul;19(7):405-414
pubmed: 31101865
Cell Death Dis. 2018 Dec 11;9(12):1190
pubmed: 30538217
Oncol Rep. 2015 Mar;33(3):1465-74
pubmed: 25585997
Nature. 2019 Nov;575(7784):688-692
pubmed: 31634900
Cancers (Basel). 2016 Jan 13;8(1):
pubmed: 26771644
Stem Cell Res Ther. 2021 Mar 24;12(1):206
pubmed: 33762015
Clin Cancer Res. 2015 May 1;21(9):2057-64
pubmed: 25655102
Neuro Oncol. 2010 Oct;12(10):1024-33
pubmed: 20627895
Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 26;8(1):5155
pubmed: 29581451
Cell Death Differ. 2018 Mar;25(3):486-541
pubmed: 29362479
Acta Neuropathol. 2016 Jun;131(6):803-20
pubmed: 27157931
Pathologe. 1987 May;8(3):138-40
pubmed: 3303008
Cell. 2012 May 25;149(5):1060-72
pubmed: 22632970

Auteurs

Helena Kram (H)

Department of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Georg Prokop (G)

Department of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Bernhard Haller (B)

Institute of AI and Informatics in Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Jens Gempt (J)

Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Yang Wu (Y)

Department of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Friederike Schmidt-Graf (F)

Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Jürgen Schlegel (J)

Department of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Marcus Conrad (M)

Institute of Metabolism and Cell Death, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany.
Laboratory of Experimental Oncology, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia.

Friederike Liesche-Starnecker (F)

Department of Neuropathology, Institute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Classifications MeSH