Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Mol Cancer Res. 2010 Oct 14;8(12):1633–1642. doi: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-10-0362

Context-dependent bidirectional regulation of the mutS homolog 2 by transforming growth factor β contributes to chemoresistance in breast cancer cells

Yang Yu 1,3,†, Yujun Wang 3,†, Xiubao Ren 2, Akihiro Tsuyada 3, Arthur Li 4, James Liu 3, Shizhen Emily Wang 3,5,#
PMCID: PMC3059495  NIHMSID: NIHMS246543  PMID: 21047769

Abstract

The transforming growth factor β (TGF-β), a tumor suppressive cytokine in normal cells, is abused in cancer to promote the malignancy. In this study we reported that TGF-β downregulated the mutS homolog 2 (MSH2), a central component of the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) system, in HER2-transformed MCF10A mammary epithelial cells and in breast cancer (BC) cells. This was mediated by a TGF-β-induced microRNA (miRNA), miR-21, which targeted the 3’ untranslated region (UTR) of MSH2 mRNA and downregulated its expression. A negative correlation between the expression of TGF-β1 and MSH2 was also detected in primary breast tumors. In contrast, TGF-β upregulated MSH2 in non-transformed cells through Smad-mediated, p53-dependent promoter activation, which was absent in BC cells with impaired p53 function. Although this upregulating mechanism also existed in MCF10A/HER2 and p53-proficient BC cells, both basal and TGF-β-induced MSH2 promoter activities were significantly lower than those in MCF10A. Moreover, the basal and TGF-β-induced miR-21 levels were markedly higher in transformed cells, suggesting that the pre-set levels of miR-21 and MSH2 promoter activity, which is affected by the p53 status, determine the outputs of the bidirectional regulation of MSH2 by TGF-β in a certain cellular context. We further found that by downregulating MSH2, TGF-β contributed to resistance to DNA-damaging chemotherapy agents in cancer cells. Our results indicated a regulatory antagonism between promoter activation and miRNA-mediated post-transcriptional inhibition underlying a dual effect of TGF-β on the DNA repair machinery, which may influence the genomic stability in a context-dependent manner and contribute to chemoresistance in cancer.

Keywords: TGF-β, MSH2, DNA mismatch repair, breast cancer, chemoresistance

Introduction

A number of cell signaling pathways partaking in the maintenance of tissue homeostasis, such as the TGF-β-initiated cascade, are abused in cancer. TGF-βs are a family of multitasking cytokines that play important roles in proliferation, apoptosis, lineage determination, extracellular matrix (ECM) production, and modulation of immune function (1). The ligands signal through binding to heteromeric complexes of transmembrane receptors and activating their serine/threonine kinase activity, which subsequently phosphorylates the transcription factors Smad2 and Smad3. Smad2/3 then associate with a common mediator Smad, Smad4, and translocate to the nucleus where they regulate gene transcription (2). It is recently discovered that Smad2/3 also mediate microRNA (miRNA) maturation through interacting with the DROSHA miRNA processing complex, an event induced by TGF-β (3).

The versatile nature of TGF-β is accompanied with highly contextual cell response to this cytokine, dependent on the type of tissue and stage during development. Similarly, a transformed (cancerous) cellular context may direct a TGF-β response different from a normal context. Indeed, although TGF-β plays a tumor suppressive role in normal epithelia by potently inhibiting cell proliferation and inducing apoptosis, it accelerates progression of established cancer by multiple autocrine and paracrine mechanisms (4-6). In one hand, some cancers lose or attenuate TGF-β-mediated anti-mitogenic action by mutational inactivation of TGF-β receptors, Smads or cofactors required for Smad-mediated transcriptional regulation (7-12). In the other, TGF-β may gain cancer-promoting functions by synergizing with transforming oncogenes. Activation of TGF-β signaling in the mammary gland of transgenic mice expressing mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV)/ErbB2 accelerates metastases from ErbB2-induced mammary tumors (13-15). At the cellular level, TGF-β confers enhanced survival, motility and invasiveness to HER2 (ErbB2)-transformed MCF10A mammary epithelial cells (MCF10A/HER2) and BC cells that overexpress HER2, through inducing ligands that activate HER2-containing receptor complexes (16-17). In a previous study, we determined the proteome-wide TGF-β response in MCF10A/HER2 cells using two-dimensional multi-variable difference gel electrophoresis (2D DIGE) coupled with mass spectrometry (MS). Over 60 protein species exhibit significant changes in abundance or charge-altering post-translational modification in response to TGF-β (18). Among them, MSH2 was discovered as a novel TGF-β target, and was investigated in-depth in this study.

MSH2 is a major component of the highly conserved MMR system, and plays a central role in the recognition and repair of DNA replication errors, contributing to genomic integrity. In cancer cells, MSH2 recognizes DNA adducts caused by many chemotherapy drugs, which triggers further MMR-mediated processing at the damaged sites, resulting in cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. The inability of MMR-deficient cells to recognize chemotherapy-induced DNA damages results in a damage-tolerant phenotype and drug resistance, leading to the selection of MMR-deficient cancer cells during therapy (19). We hereby demonstrated a context-dependent, bidirectional regulation of MSH2 by TGF-β. Although TGF-β activated MSH2 promoter in a p53-dependent manner in non-transformed cells, it downregulated MSH2 expression through an miRNA-mediated mechanism in transformed cells, resulting in resistance to DNA-damaging agents. The differential regulation of the same target gene by TGF-β in different cellular context provides a model through which cancer hijacks a tumor suppressive pathway and makes it favorable to cancer malignancy.

Materials and Methods

Cell lines, plasmids and viruses

Human BC cell lines MDA-MB-231 (MDA231), MCF7 and HCC1954, MCF10A mammary epithelial cells and 293 embryonic kidney cells were obtained from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC; Manassas, VA) and cultured in the recommended media in a humidified 5% CO2 incubator at 37 °C. MCF10A cells stably overexpressing HER2 (MCF10A/HER2) or vector (MCF10A/vec) and primary human mammary epithelial cells (HMEC) were generated and cultured as previously described (20-21). Recombinant human TGF-β1 was purchased from R&D Systems (Minneapolis, MN). The type I/II TGF-β receptor inhibitor LY2109761 was provided by Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN). The HER2/EGFR small molecule inhibitor lapatinib ditosylate was purchased from LC Laboratories (Woburn, MA). The MDM2 antagonist nutlin-3 was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO). The expression construct of MSH2 was kindly provided by Dr. Jeremy Stark (City of Hope).

To construct the 3’UTR reporter plasmids, annealed oligonucleotides 5’-tcgataatggaatgaaggtaatattgataagctattgtctg-3’ and 5’-ggcccagacaatagcttatcaatattaccttcattccatta-3’ containing nt 11~47 of MSH2 3’UTR sequence (encompassing the putative miR-21 binding site), 5’-tcgataatggaatgaaggtaatattgatccgctattgtctg-3’ and 5’-ggcccagacaatagcggatcaatattaccttcattccatta-3’ containing the mutated MSH2 3’UTR sequence (MSH2 3’UTRmut; mutated nucleotides in the miR-21 binding site underlined), or 5’-tcgaagttatttgctatatattattttcaacatgagttttt-3’ and 5’-ggccaaaaactcatgttgaaaataatatatagcaaataact-3’ containing a scrambled sequence, were inserted into the XhoI/NotI sites of psiCHECKTM-2 vector (Promega, Madison, WI), downstream of the luciferase encoding region. A 224-bp promoter region (-201~+24) of human MSH2 gene (hMSH2) was cloned by PCR using the upstream primer 5’-atatatgctagcaggatgcgcgtctgcgggtttcc-3’ (for SBE wt) or 5’-atatatgctagcaggatgcgcgatcgcgggtttcc-3’ (for SBE mt) and the downstream primer 5’-gcgcgcaagcttacacccactaagctgtttcc-3’, and inserted into the NheI/HindIII sites of pGL3-Basic vector (Promega), upstream of the luciferase reporter gene, to generate the hMSH2 promoter reporters. The small hairpin (sh) RNA targeting the MSH2 mRNA sequence 5’-gggctggtgacagtcaattga-3’ was first constructed by inserting annealed oligonucleotides 5’-gatcgggctggtgacagtcaattgatttgtgtagtcaattgactgtcaccagcccttttttgcatg-3’ and 5’-cccgaccactgtcagttaactaaacacatcagttaactgacagtggtcgggaaaaaac-3’ into the BglII/SphI sites of pU6tetO vector (22) (kindly provided by Dr. John J. Rossi, City of Hope), downstream of a doxycycline (Dox) inducible U6 promoter. The efficiency of gene knockdown by this construct as well as other two constructs targeting different MSH2 sequences was examined in transiently transfected MDA231 cells, where this construct most efficiently reduced MSH2 expression as detected by Western blot (data not shown). The entire U6tetO-MSH2 shRNA region was then subcloned into the NotI/SphI sites of lentiviral vector pTIG (pHIV7-TetR-IRES-GFP) (22) (kindly provided by Dr. Rossi), to generate pTIG-MSH2 shRNA. Viruses expressing MSH2 shRNA or empty vector were produced by co-transfecting 293 cells with the construct and packaging plasmids pCHGP-2, pCMV-Rev and pCMV-G, as previously described (23), and used to infect MDA231 cells, followed by GFP selection.

RNA extraction, reverse transcription (RT) and real time quantitative PCR (qPCR)

RNA was isolated using the TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and subjected to RT using the miScript Reverse Transcription Kit (Qiagen; Valencia, CA), following the manufacturers’ protocols. Gene expression was quantified by qPCR using the miScript SYBR Green PCR Kit (Qiagen) and 25 ng of cDNA per reaction. For miR-21 detection, qPCR was carried out using the miScript Primer Assay for miR-21 or the U6 non-coding small nuclear RNA (snRNA) (as a control) and the miScript Universal Primer (Qiagen). Primers used for detection of MSH2 mRNA and in ChIP assay (for an hMSH2 coding region) are 5’-tcatggctgaaatgttggaa-3’ and 5’-ttggccaaggcagtaagttc-3’, and for GAPDH mRNA 5’-accacagtccatgccatcac-3’ and 5’-tccaccaccctgttgctgta-3’. Primers used for detection of the SBE-p53 region in hMSH2 promoter in the ChIP assay are 5’-atatatgctagcaggatgcgcgtctgcgggtttcc-3’ and 5’-gcgcgcaagcttacacccactaagctgtttcc-3’. An annealing temperature of 55 °C was used for all the primers. PCR reactions were performed in a standard 96-well plate format with the iQTM5 multicolor real time PCR detection system (BioRad; Hercules, CA). For the data analysis of qRT-PCR, raw Ct was first normalized to U6 (for miRNA) or GAPDH (for mRNA) for each sample to obtain dCt. The normalized dCt was then calibrated to control cell samples to obtain ddCt. For the data analysis of qChIP-PCR, raw data was calibrated to the corresponding input DNA sample, which was purified from one-twentieth of the cell lysate used in ChIP but without the IP procedure.

Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assay and Western blot analysis

Preparation of cell lysates, ChIP and Western blot were carried out as described previously (21, 24). Smad2/4, p53, MSH2, and GAPDH antibodies were purchased from Cell Signaling (Danvers, MA).

Cell transfection and RNA interference (RNAi) studies

DNA transfection was performed using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen) following the manufacturer's protocol, as described previously (20). The miRIDIAN miRNA hairpin inhibitor and mimic of miR-21 and the negative controls were purchased from Dharmacon (Lafayette, CO). Silencer siRNA against p53 target sequence 5’-aaggaaatttgcgtgtggagt-3’ and the AllStars negative control siRNA were purchased from Qiagen. MiRNA inhibitors/mimics and siRNAs were transfected into cell lines using DharmaFECT Duo Transfection Reagent (Dharmacon) according to the manufacturer's procedures. In 6-well plate format, a final concentration of 25 nM miRNA inhibitors/mimics or 100 nM siRNAs and 6 μL of DharmaFECT Duo Transfection Reagent mixed in 2 mL of serum-free medium were used for each transfection. In the co-transfection with psiCHECK reporter plasmids, 25 nM miRNA mimics/inhibitors and 500 ng reporter plasmid DNA were added.

Luciferase reporter assay

Firefly and Renilla reniformis (as internal controls) luciferase activities were measured at 48 h after cell transfection using the dual luciferase assay system (Promega) as reported previously (21).

MTT (thiazolyl blue tetrazolium bromide) cell viability assay

Cells were seeded in quadruplicate at 5,000 cells per well in 96-well plates, before drugs were added at the indicated concentrations after 24 h. At 72 h after drug treatment, MTT/PBS solution was added to the medium to a final concentration of 0.5 mg/ml. After 4 h incubation at 37 °C, MTT-containing medium was removed and 150 μL of 0.04 N HCl/isopropanol was added to each well. The absorbance at 570 nm (test) and 630 nm (reference) was measured on an ELISA plate reader to obtain sample signal (OD570-OD630), which was then compared to the signal of untreated control wells.

Statistical correlation analysis

The linear dependence between microarray-determined expression levels of TGFB1 and MSH2 was evaluated by the Pearson correlation coefficient. The gene expression data and associated clinical data were extracted from a published 295 BC dataset (25-26).

Results

TGF-β downregulated MSH2 in transformed cells and negatively correlated with MSH2 in primary breast tumors

We identified MSH2 as a downstream target of TGF-β in a previous study using 2D DIGE to quantitatively measure the proteomic changes in TGF-β-treated MCF10A/HER2 cells (18). The MSH2 protein is reduced by >60% at 24 h and 40 h after TGF-β treatment (Fig. 1A). A significant downregulation of MSH2 at both mRNA and protein levels was also observed in BC cell lines MDA231, MCF7 and HCC1954 (Fig. 1B&1C). Consistently, inhibition of TGF-β signaling with LY2109761, an inhibitor of the TGF-β receptors, elevated MSH2 protein level in MDA231 cells (Fig. 1C). To explore if there is a correlation between TGF-β1 and MSH2 in primary cancer tissue, we analyzed the expression levels of the two genes in a previously reported 295 BC dataset (25-26). A strong negative correlation (p<0.001) was observed between the microarray-determined TGF-β1 and MSH2 expression levels in the whole dataset. When stratifying patients by grade, the linear association is significant among patients with grade 1 (p=0.001) and grade 2 (p=0.002) tumors. When stratifying patients by stage, the correlation is only significant among patients with stage 1 (p=0.001) and stage 2a (p=0.001) tumors (Table 1), suggesting the downregulation of MSH2 by TGF-β may occur during early cancer development.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

TGF-β downregulated MSH2 in transformed cells and negatively correlated with MSH2 in primary breast tumors. A. Identification of MSH2 as a target of TGF-β by 2D-DIGE and MS. Data was adapted from (18). DIGE was carried out as previously described using the protein extracts of MCF10A/HER2 cells treated with 2 ng/ml of TGF-β for indicated time (18). Left: a representative Cy2-labeled gel image illustrating proteins resolved in the pH 4~7 range and the position of MSH2 (position #4). Horizontal axis: pH gradient (4~7); vertical axis: molecular mass range. Right: the average ratio of MSH2 abundance (compared to 0 h) and T-test value. B. BC cell lines were treated with TGF-β or vehicle for 24 h. Quantitative RT-PCR was carried out to determine the MSH2 mRNA level. GAPDH was used as an internal control. In each cell line, data was normalized to control cells treated with vehicle. *P<0.005. C. Cells treated with TGF-β, LY2109761 or vehicle for 24 h were lysed and total proteins subjected to Western blot.

Table 1.

Linear correlation between TGFB1 and MSH2 in primary human BCs by stage and grade

Group N (%) Ra p
All 295 (100) -0.25 < 0.001
 
Grade 1 75 (25.4) -0.36 0.001
2 101 (34.2) -0.31 0.002
3 119 (40.3) -0.17 0.06
 
Stage 1 82 (27.8) -0.35 0.001
2a 142 (48.1) -0.27 0.001
2b 41 (13.9) 0.05 0.76
3-4 30 (10.2) -0.33 0.07
a

Pearson correlation coefficient.

TGF-β downregulated MSH2 in transformed cells through inducing miR-21

One mechanism to downregulate gene expression at post-transcriptional level is through miRNAs, which are frequently dysregulated in human cancers (27-28). These naturally-occurring non-coding small RNA molecules play crucial functions in cells by base pairing to the 3’UTR of target mRNAs, resulting in mRNA degradation or translation inhibition. To determine if the downregulation of MSH2 involved miRNA-mediated post-transcriptional control, we interrogated the 3’UTR sequence of human MSH2 (hMSH2) gene transcript using TargetScanHuman 5.1 (www.targetscan.org) and miRDB (www.mirdb.org). Both programs predicted a potential miR-21 targeting site at position 33~39, which was highly conserved among various species (Fig. 2A, top panel). We then cloned this putative miR-21 binding region as well as a mutated version downstream to a luciferase reporter gene in psiCHECK vector, and transfected 293 cells with these constructs or a control vector containing a scrambled sequence. Co-transfection with a miR-21 mimic, but not a control miRNA, efficiently suppressed expression of the luciferase reporter followed by the wild-type MSH2 3’UTR sequence, but not the mutated or scrambled sequences (Fig. 2A, middle panel). Transfection of a miR-21 hairpin inhibitor increased MSH2 protein levels in various cell lines (Fig. 2C), consistent with the suppressive function of miR-21 on MSH2 expression. TGF-β has been reported to induce the maturation of miR-21 through Smad2/3, which bind to the primary transcript of miR-21 by interacting with the DROSHA miRNA processing complex and facilitate its function (3). We thereby speculated that TGF-β downregulated MSH2 by inducing miR-21-mediated post-transcriptional repression. Quantitative RT-PCR indicated that the level of miR-21 was indeed increased by TGF-β in various cell lines tested (Fig. 2B). In BC cells, treatment with TGF-β suppressed both MSH2 expression (Fig. 2C) and expression of luciferase reporter containing the miR-21 binding site in MSH2 3’UTR (Fig. 2A, bottom panel). These effects were impaired by transfection of the miR-21 inhibitor (Fig. 2C&2A). However, in non-transformed MCF10A cells, TGF-β increased MSH2 protein level, although it was able to induce miR-21 in these cells (Fig. 2B&2C). Compared to MCF10A/HER2 and BC cells, MCF10A cells expressed a lower level of miR-21 and a relatively high level of MSH2 (Fig. 2D).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

TGF-β downregulated MSH2 in transformed cells through inducing miR-21. A. Top: The predicted miR-21 targeting site in the 3’UTR of MSH2 mRNA and the sequence conservation among various species. Middle: MDA231 cells were cotransfected with psiCHECK reporters containing the miR-21 targeting site in MSH2 3’UTR, a mutated miR-21 site (MSH2 3’UTRmut) as indicated, or a scrambled sequence, together with the miR-21 mimic (or control). Bottom: MDA231 cells were cotransfected with psiCHECK reporters and miR-21 hairpin inhibitor (or control) as indicated. Luciferase activity was analyzed at 48 h after transfection. *P<0.005. B. Total RNA was isolated from cells treated with TGF-β as indicated and subjected to qRT-PCR. Data was normalized to the level of U6. *P<0.005 (compared to 0 h). C. Cells transfected with miR-21 hairpin inhibitor (or control) and treated with TGF-β (or vehicle) were subjected to Western blot. D. Relative levels of MSH2 and miR-21 in transformed and non-transformed cells. The qRT-PCR data of MSH2 and miR-21 were first normalized to GAPDH and U6 in each sample, respectively, and then compared to the expression levels in MCF10A/vec cells. *P<0.005.

TGF-β upregulated MSH2 in normal cells through Smad-mediated, p53-dependent transcriptional activation

It was intriguing that in sharp contrast to the downregulation of MSH2 in BC cells, TGF-β upregulated both MSH2 mRNA and protein levels in non-transformed MCF10A cells and primary HMEC (Fig. 3A). This effect was absent in MCF10A/HER2 cells but could be partially restored by HER2 inhibition using lapatinib, a small molecule inhibitor of HER2 kinase (Fig. 3A). Searching of the upstream promoter sequence of hMSH2 indicated a potential Smad binding element (SBE) located 14 bps upstream of a reported p53 binding site at -154~-174 bps (Fig. 3B, top panel). We previously reported that TGF-β/Smad and p53 synergize to activate the expression of tumor suppressor gene maspin, which requires both the p53 sites and adjacent SBEs in maspin promoter (21). P53 can interact with Smad2 (29), providing physical evidence for a functional synergy between Smads and p53. We thereby cloned the hMSH2 promoter region containing both SBE and p53 site to construct an hMSH2-luciferase reporter. Transfection assays in MCF10A cells indicated that TGF-β, or expression of Smad2/4 or p53, activated wild-type (w.t.) hMSH2 promoter activity, whereas the promoter reporter containing mutated SBE exhibited an impaired response to TGF-β and Smad2/4, but not to p53 (Fig. 3B).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

TGF-β upregulated MSH2 in normal cells through Smad-mediated, p53-dependent transcriptional activation. A. HMEC, MCF10A/vec and MCF10A/HER2 cells grown in the presence or absence of lapatinib (0.5 μM) for 24 h were treated with TGF-β or vehicle. Top: qRT-PCR was carried out to determine the MSH2 mRNA levels upon TGF-β treatment. Data was normalized to untreated MCF10A/vec cells. *P<0.005 (compared to 0 h). Bottom: Western blot of cells treated with TGF-β or vehicle for 24 h. B. Top: A schematic representative of the hMSH2 promoter reporter indicating the positions of SBE and p53 binding site. Bottom: 293 cells were transiently co-transfected with hMSH2 promoter luciferase reporters containing mutated or w.t. SBE and expression plasmids of Smad2, Smad4, p53 or vector control, and 8 h later treated with TGF-β or vehicle. Twenty-four h after the addition of TGF-β, the cells were harvested and tested for luciferase expression as indicated in Materials and Methods. Each bar represents the mean normalized luciferase activity ± S.D. calculated from 3 wells. C. Left: MCF10A/vec and MCF10A/HER2 cells were transiently co-transfected with the hMSH2 promoter reporter (SBE wt) and siRNA targeting p53 (or control siRNA). Eight h post-transfection, cells were treated with TGF-β, nutlin-3 (5 μM) or vehicle as indicated; 24 h later, the cells were harvested and tested in a luciferase reporter assay. Fold change was calculated based on the luciferase activity in untreated MCF10A/vec cells which was set at 1. Right: MDA231 cells were transiently co-transfected with the hMSH2 promoter luciferase reporter (SBE wt) and the p53 expression plasmid or vector control, and treated with TGF-β or vehicle for 24 h prior to luciferase activity assay. *P<0.005. D. ChIP assay was carried out in MCF10A cells treated with TGF-β (3.5 ng/ml) or vehicle for 24 h, using antibodies against Smad2/4, p53 or IgG (as a negative control). Quantitative PCR of the SBE-p53 region in the hMSH2 prompter and an hMSH2 coding region were performed using primers described in Materials and Methods. Data was compared to the input DNA control (prior to IP) in each sample. *P<0.005.

We also observed that the basal activity of transfected w.t. hMSH2 promoter was significantly lower in MCF10A/HER2 cells than that in MCF10A cells (Fig. 3C, left panel). This suggested a lower activity of endogenous hMSH2 promoter in HER2-transformed cells, and was consistent with the lower MSH2 mRNA and protein levels observed in these cells (Fig. 3A). Because HER2 overexpression was reported to induce downregulation of p53 in mammary epithelial cells (30), we examined if modulation of p53 expression/activity in transfected cells influenced MSH2 expression. Knockdown of p53 in MCF10A cells using small interfering (si)RNA markedly decreased basal hMSH2 promoter activity and abolished the induction by TGF-β. Consistently, restoration of p53 in MCF10A/HER2 cells using nutlin-3, a small molecule that induces p53 stabilization by inhibiting MDM2-dependent p53 degradation (31), elevated hMSH2 promoter activity and restored TGF-β's effect (Fig. 3C, left panel). MDA231 cells harbor a point mutation in codon 280 (G/A) of the p53 gene. TGF-β failed to induce hMSH2 promoter activity in transfected MDA231 cells, but this functional deficiency was rescued by cotransfection with a w.t. p53 plasmid (Fig. 3C, right panel). ChIP assay further confirmed the binding of Smads and p53 to the promoter region, but not a coding region of MSH2 in MCF10A cells. This binding was significantly induced by TGF-β (Fig. 3D). Thus, the Smad-mediated MSH2 promoter activation by TGF-β is dependent on an intact p53 function, and is paralyzed in some cancer cells due to p53 inactivation.

The TGF-β/miR-21/MSH2 axis regulated cancer cell response to DNA-damaging agents

MSH2 deficiency has been implicated in the tolerance to DNA damages and chemoresistance. To determine if TGF-β contributes to resistance to DNA-damaging drugs by suppressing MSH2 in cancer cells, we tested the response of MDA231 to cisplatin, methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) and doxorubicin in the presence and absence of TGF-β. Exposure to TGF-β for 24 h increased cell viability upon treatment with these DNA-damaging agents (Fig. 4A). In contrast, transfection of the miR-21 hairpin inhibitor further enhanced the inhibitory effect of cisplatin in MDA231 cells (Fig. 4B). Using a MDA231-derived cell line stably expressing shRNA against MSH2 under the control of a doxycycline-regulated promoter, knock down of MSH2 induced resistance to both cisplatin and doxorubicin, but not docetaxel, a chemotherapy drug targeting the microtubule (Fig. 4C).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

The TGF-β/miR-21/MSH2 axis regulates cancer cell response to DNA-damaging agents. A. MDA231 cells were treated with TGF-β (or vehicle) for 24 h before seeded in a 96-well plate and exposed to cisplatin (CDDP), MMS or doxorubicin in the presence or absence of TGF-β. Cell viability was assessed by MTT assay on day 3 and compared to day 0. B. MDA231 cells were transfected with miR-21 inhibitor (or control) for 24 h before CDDP was added. MTT assay was carried out on day 3. C. MDA231/(pTIG-MSH2 shRNA) cells were treated with 1 μg/ml of doxycycline (or vehicle) for 24 h before exposed to CDDP, doxorubicin or docetaxel in the presence or absence of doxycycline. MTT assay was carried out on day 3. *P<0.005.

Discussion

TGF-β is both a tumor suppressor and a tumor promoter; its signaling output is highly dependent on the cellular context. Here we reported a bidirectional regulatory strategy of MSH2 by TGF-β that involves both Smads and p53-dependent promoter activation and miR-21-mediated post-transcriptional inhibition. Thus, in a normal cellular context with an intact p53 function and a lower level of miR-21, TGF-β predominantly upregulates MSH2 expression through promoter activation, which may contribute to a competent DNA repair function required for genomic stability. In contrast, in a cancerous context that often involves p53 inactivation and miR-21 overexpression, TGF-β fails to activate hMSH2 promoter and downregulates MSH2 expression by further inducing miR-21, which may result in genomic instability and resistance to DNA-damaging chemotherapy agents (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Bidirectional regulation of MSH2 by TGF-β. At the transcriptional level, TGF-β activates hMSH2 promoter through a Smad and p53 dependent mechanism, whereas at the post-transcriptional level, miR-21 induced by TGF-β targets MSH2 transcript and suppresses its expression. Thereby, in a normal cellular context with an intact p53 function and a lower level of miR-21, TGF-β predominantly upregulates MSH2 expression through promoter activation, contributing to a competent DNA repair function and the maintenance of genomic stability. In contrast, in a cancerous context that often involves p53 inactivation and miR-21 overexpression, TGF-β fails to activate hMSH2 promoter and downregulates MSH2 expression by further inducing miR-21, resulting in genomic instability and resistance to DNA-damaging chemotherapy agents.

The intrinsic DNA binding activity of Smads is relatively low and unspecific. Thereby, the contextual function of Smads relies on interactions with other transcriptional factors with more potent and specific DNA binding capacity. We have previously reported that TGF-β activates the promoter of tumor suppressor maspin by inducing binding of Smads and p53 to an adjoint SBE-p53 site (21). A number of genes are synergistically regulated by Smads and p53, and many of them are tumor suppressors. A common feature of the promoter regions of these genes is the presence of adjoint or adjacent p53 binding sites and SBEs, usually within a 100-bp segment (29). This pattern was also observed in the hMSH2 promoter (Fig. 3B). Because the efficient regulation of these genes by TGF-β and Smads requires an intact p53 signaling, this TGF-β function is abolished in a context with deficient p53 function, which is frequently observed in cancer. Mutations or deletions of the p53 gene are observed in 60~70% of human cancers; many cancers with a wild-type p53 lose normal p53 function, suggesting additional factors are involved in p53 inactivation. Overexpression of HER2 has been reported to decrease p53 level via activating PI3K pathway and inducing MDM2 nuclear translocation (30). Our study also indicated that HER2 overexpression impaired p53-dependent transcriptional regulation of MSH2 by TGF-β, which could be restored by nutlin-3 (Fig. 3C). Therefore, the functional status of p53 may serve as a determinant in many cancers for their response to TGF-β-mediated gene regulation. In addition, promoter methylation is frequently observed in cancer and is another important mechanism resulting in silenced expression of tumor suppressor genes. This also results in the abolishment of TGF-β function, as in the case of maspin. Although the methylation status of hMSH2 was not determined in this study, its hypermethylation has been documented in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancers (32).

MiR-21 is overexpressed in many types of cancer and is known as an onco-miRNA. It is reported that TGF-β promotes the processing of primary transcripts of miR-21 (pri-miR-21) into precursor miR-21 (pre-miR-21) through the interaction of Smads and Drosha microprocessor complex, resulting in an increase of mature miR-21 (3). In primary BCs, high miR-21 expression is positively correlated with TGF-β1, and is associated with features of aggressive disease (33). Here we showed that TGF-β upregulated miR-21 in both non-transformed (MCF10A) and transformed (MCF10A/HER2, MDA231, MCF7) cells (Fig. 2B). This suggests that the Smads and Drosha-mediated miR-21 upregulation is likely to be a general mechanism. However, both the basal and induced levels of miR-21 are significantly higher in transformed cells (Fig. 2B&2D), consistent with the increased abundance of this onco-miRNA in primary cancers. Although the mechanism underlying this is not yet fully understood, it may involve oncogenic signaling, such as HER2, which may influence the biogenesis of miR-21. As a result, the post-transcriptional regulation of MSH2 by this miRNA, which is a fine-tuning mechanism usually weaker than transcriptional regulation (as such in non-transformed MCF10A cells), becomes a dominant regulatory mechanism in cancer. The abolished p53-dependent promoter activation and/or the promoter methylation in cancer cells also affect the equilibrium between the two mechanisms. The ultimate effect of TGF-β on MSH2 expression thereby reflects the result of the antagonism between the two regulatory pathways, both determined by factors pre-set in the cellular context.

The majority of chemotherapy drugs produce a cytotoxic effect by causing damage in the DNA of cancer cells, resulting in cell death or growth arrest. DNA-damaging agents are also the first drugs developed for the treatment of cancer, and include several families which cause different types of DNA damage, such as the alkylating agents, the platinum-based drugs, and the antitumor antibiotics, etc. (34). Chemotherapy drugs are often given in combination to optimize clinical outcomes. However, a durable response is only achieved in a fraction of cancer patients. Several mechanisms of drug resistance have been proposed, including gene mutations, upregulation of drug transporters, and the involvement of cancer stem cells (35-36). A recent work with 47 BC patients received doxorubicin (a DNA intercalating agent) or docetaxel (a microtubule-targeting agent) treatment indicates that genes related to TGF-β signaling are upregulated in doxorubicin-resistant, but not docetaxel-resistant tumors, compared to drug sensitive tumors (37). Our study herein further suggests that downregulation of MSH2 may induce resistance to DNA-damaging agents (cisplatin and doxorubicin), but not docetaxel (Fig. 4C). These results may suggest differential functions of the TGF-β/MSH2 axis in cancer response to different chemotherapy agents, and may provide clinical implications in the selection of effective chemotherapy regimens. Nonetheless, a direct association between TGF-β level/activity and drug resistance in BCs remains to be explored and will be one of our future directions, in order to precisely evaluate the therapeutic value of TGF-β interventions, especially when combined with conventional DNA-damaging agents.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by NCI R00 CA125892 (SEW) and CBCRP 16IB-0081 (SEW). We thank Dr. John J. Rossi and Dr. Jeremy Stark for kindly providing reagents, Dr. Shiuan Chen and Dr. Susan Kane for valuable comments, and colleagues in the Division of Tumor Cell Biology for enthusiastic support and discussion.

Financial Support: NCI R00 CA125892 (SEW); CBCRP 16IB-0081 (SEW)

Footnotes

The authors do not have a potential conflict of interest to disclose.

References

  • 1.Massague J. TGF-beta signal transduction. Annu Rev Biochem. 1998;67:753–91. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.67.1.753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Massague J, Blain SW, Lo RS. TGFbeta signaling in growth control, cancer, and heritable disorders. Cell. 2000;103(2):295–309. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)00121-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Davis BN, Hilyard AC, Lagna G, Hata A. SMAD proteins control DROSHA-mediated microRNA maturation. Nature. 2008;454(7200):56–61. doi: 10.1038/nature07086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Derynck R, Akhurst RJ, Balmain A. TGF-beta signaling in tumor suppression and cancer progression. Nat Genet. 2001;29(2):117–29. doi: 10.1038/ng1001-117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ewan KB, Shyamala G, Ravani SA, et al. Latent transforming growth factor-beta activation in mammary gland: regulation by ovarian hormones affects ductal and alveolar proliferation. Am J Pathol. 2002;160(6):2081–93. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9440(10)61158-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dumont N, Arteaga CL. Targeting the TGF beta signaling network in human neoplasia. Cancer Cell. 2003;3(6):531–6. doi: 10.1016/s1535-6108(03)00135-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Markowitz S, Wang J, Myeroff L, et al. Inactivation of the type II TGF-beta receptor in colon cancer cells with microsatellite instability. Science. 1995;268(5215):1336–8. doi: 10.1126/science.7761852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wang J, Sun L, Myeroff L, et al. Demonstration that mutation of the type II transforming growth factor beta receptor inactivates its tumor suppressor activity in replication error-positive colon carcinoma cells. J Biol Chem. 1995;270(37):22044–9. doi: 10.1074/jbc.270.37.22044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hahn SA, Schutte M, Hoque AT, et al. DPC4, a candidate tumor suppressor gene at human chromosome 18q21.1. Science. 1996;271(5247):350–3. doi: 10.1126/science.271.5247.350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Goggins M, Shekher M, Turnacioglu K, Yeo CJ, Hruban RH, Kern SE. Genetic alterations of the transforming growth factor beta receptor genes in pancreatic and biliary adenocarcinomas. Cancer Res. 1998;58(23):5329–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gobbi H, Dupont WD, Simpson JF, et al. Transforming growth factor-beta and breast cancer risk in women with mammary epithelial hyperplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(24):2096–101. doi: 10.1093/jnci/91.24.2096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wang D, Kanuma T, Mizunuma H, et al. Analysis of specific gene mutations in the transforming growth factor- beta signal transduction pathway in human ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 2000;60(16):4507–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Siegel PM, Shu W, Cardiff RD, Muller WJ, Massague J. Transforming growth factor beta signaling impairs Neu-induced mammary tumorigenesis while promoting pulmonary metastasis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(14):8430–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0932636100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Muraoka RS, Koh Y, Roebuck LR, et al. Increased malignancy of Neu-induced mammary tumors overexpressing active transforming growth factor beta1. Mol Cell Biol. 2003;23(23):8691–703. doi: 10.1128/MCB.23.23.8691-8703.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Muraoka-Cook RS, Dumont N, Arteaga CL. Dual role of transforming growth factor beta in mammary tumorigenesis and metastatic progression. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(2 Pt 2):937s–43s. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ueda Y, Wang S, Dumont N, Yi JY, Koh Y, Arteaga CL. Overexpression of HER2 (erbB2) in human breast epithelial cells unmasks transforming growth factor beta-induced cell motility. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(23):24505–13. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M400081200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wang SE, Xiang B, Guix M, et al. Transforming growth factor beta engages TACE and ErbB3 to activate phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase/Akt in ErbB2-overexpressing breast cancer and desensitizes cells to trastuzumab. Mol Cell Biol. 2008;28(18):5605–20. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00787-08. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Friedman DB, Wang SE, Whitwell CW, Caprioli RM, Arteaga CL. Multivariable difference gel electrophoresis and mass spectrometry: a case study on transforming growth factor-beta and ERBB2 signaling. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2007;6(1):150–69. doi: 10.1074/mcp.D600001-MCP200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Seifert M, Reichrath J. The role of the human DNA mismatch repair gene hMSH2 in DNA repair, cell cycle control and apoptosis: implications for pathogenesis, progression and therapy of cancer. J Mol Histol. 2006;37(5-7):301–7. doi: 10.1007/s10735-006-9062-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wang SE, Narasanna A, Perez-Torres M, et al. HER2 kinase domain mutation results in constitutive phosphorylation and activation of HER2 and EGFR and resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Cancer Cell. 2006;10(1):25–38. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.05.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wang SE, Narasanna A, Whitell CW, Wu FY, Friedman DB, Arteaga CL. Convergence of p53 and transforming growth factor beta (TGFbeta) signaling on activating expression of the tumor suppressor gene maspin in mammary epithelial cells. J Biol Chem. 2007;282(8):5661–9. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M608499200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Aagaard L, Amarzguioui M, Sun G, et al. A facile lentiviral vector system for expression of doxycycline-inducible shRNAs: knockdown of the pre-miRNA processing enzyme Drosha. Mol Ther. 2007;15(5):938–45. doi: 10.1038/sj.mt.6300118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Li M, Rossi JJ. Lentiviral vector delivery of siRNA and shRNA encoding genes into cultured and primary hematopoietic cells. Methods Mol Biol. 2005;309:261–72. doi: 10.1385/1-59259-935-4:261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wang SE, Wu FY, Shin I, Qu S, Arteaga CL. Transforming growth factor {beta} (TGF-{beta})-Smad target gene protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor type kappa is required for TGF-{beta} function. Mol Cell Biol. 2005;25(11):4703–15. doi: 10.1128/MCB.25.11.4703-4715.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van't Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(25):1999–2009. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa021967. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chang HY, Nuyten DS, Sneddon JB, et al. Robustness, scalability, and integration of a wound-response gene expression signature in predicting breast cancer survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(10):3738–43. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0409462102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Calin GA, Croce CM. MicroRNA signatures in human cancers. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6(11):857–66. doi: 10.1038/nrc1997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Iorio MV, Ferracin M, Liu CG, et al. MicroRNA gene expression deregulation in human breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2005;65(16):7065–70. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-1783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cordenonsi M, Dupont S, Maretto S, Insinga A, Imbriano C, Piccolo S. Links between tumor suppressors: p53 is required for TGF-beta gene responses by cooperating with Smads. Cell. 2003;113(3):301–14. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00308-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zheng L, Ren JQ, Li H, Kong ZL, Zhu HG. Downregulation of wild-type p53 protein by HER-2/neu mediated PI3K pathway activation in human breast cancer cells: its effect on cell proliferation and implication for therapy. Cell Res. 2004;14(6):497–506. doi: 10.1038/sj.cr.7290253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Vassilev LT, Vu BT, Graves B, et al. In vivo activation of the p53 pathway by small-molecule antagonists of MDM2. Science. 2004;303(5659):844–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1092472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nagasaka T, Rhees J, Kloor M, et al. Somatic hypermethylation of MSH2 is a frequent event in Lynch Syndrome colorectal cancers. Cancer Res. 2010;70(8):3098–108. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-3290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Qian B, Katsaros D, Lu L, et al. High miR-21 expression in breast cancer associated with poor disease-free survival in early stage disease and high TGF-beta1. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;117(1):131–40. doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-0219-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hirsch J. An anniversary for cancer chemotherapy. JAMA. 2006;296(12):1518–20. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.12.1518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Borst P, Jonkers J, Rottenberg S. What makes tumors multidrug resistant? Cell Cycle. 2007;6(22):2782–7. doi: 10.4161/cc.6.22.4936. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rottenberg S, Nygren AO, Pajic M, et al. Selective induction of chemotherapy resistance of mammary tumors in a conditional mouse model for hereditary breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(29):12117–22. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702955104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lee SC, Xu X, Lim YW, et al. Chemotherapy-induced tumor gene expression changes in human breast cancers. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2009;19(3):181–92. doi: 10.1097/FPC.0b013e32831ebb5d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES