Tumour Formation and Development Flashcards
(82 cards)
What is some correlational evidence for neural involvement in cancer progression?
- Many cancers are highly innervated (pancreatic, breast, prostate, lung) and is correlated with poor prognosis
- Correlation between more nervous invasion by cancer (e.g. into Vagus nerve) with worse prognosis in pancreatic cancer
What are the difficulties associated with modelling neural invovlement in cancer in mice?
Mouse models (e.g. Kras/p53 mutants) show different manifestation BUT:
* No neuritis (nerve inflammation) seen - will effect immune response which is known to be important
* Epineural rather than neural association (unless cancer cells directly injected in, which is artificial)
* Little neural re-modelling seen
Give some summary points that nerves can promote cancer progression and some example mechanisms
- NA from nerves promotes growth through CREB activation
- Deletion of β2 receptors induces cancer dormancy (Zahalka et al 2017) in prostate cancer
- Evidence that NA induces T-cell exhaustion by inducing PD-1 expression (Globig et al) pancreatic cancer
- Mechanical sympathectomy and beta-blockade prolonged survival in PDAC (Renz et al)
- Beta-adrenergic receptors required for tumour formation while PSNS required for invasion and metastasis in prostate (Magnon et al)
- Induces angiogenesis creating +ve feedback (axonogenic-angiogenic cycle) (Gysler and Drapkin 2021)
Detail the evidence that NA from nerves may directly stimulate tumour cell reproduction
- NA binds to β-adrenergic receptor on cancer cells (receptor almost ubiquitous)
- β-adrenergic receptor activates PKA and inturn STAT3 and CREB pathways
- Stimulating proliferation, migration and metastasis
Detail the evidence that NA from nerves may directly stimulate tumour cell reproduction
- NA binds to β-adrenergic receptor on cancer cells (receptor almost ubiquitous)
- β-adrenergic receptor activates PKA and inturn STAT3 and CREB pathways
- Stimulating proliferation, migration and metastasis
Discuss the evidence for a causal link between beta-2 receptors and cancer progression
Zahalka et al 2017
* Deletion of β2 receptors in endothelial cells induces prostate cancer dormancy
Necessity of receptor:
* Deletion of receptor induces change from usual aerobic glycolysis to oxidative phosphorylation
* Inhibits angiogenesis which is the major driver of dormancy (by starving cancer cells)
Sufficiency:
* Deletion of cox10 (necessary for oxidative phosphorylation) in addition to receptor.
* Forced a return to glycolysis
* ‘Rescued cancer progression’
Considerations:
* Done in mice (known to have significant differences in nerve involvement)
Discuss the evidence that nerves can induce T-cell exhaustion
(Name author)
NA signalling induces PD-1 expression on T-cells (Reduces active population of T-cells in area)
* Response perpetuated since T-cells tend to cluster around nerve junctions, therefore are receive a high concentration of NA
Globig et al 2013:
* Activation of β1 receptors induces exhaustion.
* Ablation of receptor limits progression of T-cells to exhaustion
* Ablation improves effector function in combination with immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma
What is the axonogenic-angiogenic cycle?
Proposed by Placantonakis and Scheinberg in 2014
There is a synergistic relationship between neural and blood vessel growth
* Neurotransmitters stimulate a microenvironment for growth, including angiogenesis
* Angiogenesis provides nutrients and signals for tumour cell growth (and neural growth)
* Tumour cells release neurotrophic signals (NGF, T3, T4) as well as angiogeneic factors
Give evidence that tumour innervation accelerates tumour progression
- Killing SNS cells (using 6-OHDA to dysregulate ROS) surrounding pancreatic cancer causes significant reduction in tumour size, density and metastasis (even though blocking of sympathetic nerves increases CD163+ macrophages (which correlate with worse outcomes))
- Consider that ROS dysregulation may damage more than nerve cells (which may contribute to decrease in tumour size). Chemogenetics would be better since more targeted ablation.
- β-adrenergic receptor activation releases pro-tumourigenic cytokines and MMPs which encourage invasion in melanoma
How can tumour innervation be both protective and pro-metastatic?
Depends on the type of nerve (e.g. difference in secretions produced from SNS (adrenaline) or PNS (=NA) nerve):
* NA signalling in PDAC is progessive (induces PD-1 expression in T-cells) but Sympathectomy is protective (reduces number of 163+ macrophages)
Depends on stage of cancer
* Β adrenergic receptors required for tumour development in prostate cancer while PSNS signalling (ACh) required for invasion and metastasis
Depends on microenvironment (tumour type)
* SNS protective in PDAC (Guillot et al) but progressive in prostate cancer
Detail an example of innervation being protective against tumour growth
Guillot et al 2022 - SNS is protective in PDAC
- Sympathectomy (using 6-OHDA) shown to accelerate pancreatic (PDAC) tumour growth
- DUe to increase in number of CD163+ macrophages (TAM) which correlate to worse outcomes.
- Deletion of TAMs rescued effects of sympathectomy
How could neural involvement be targeted in treatment? Give an example.
- Target nerve directly (e.g. surgery)
- Target neurotransmitter release
- Target receptors (e.g. deletion/inhibition of CD163+ TAMs which are suppressed by nerves as a protective pathway (in prostate cancer)).
Detail some major changes during malignant EMT transition:
Combination of epithelial state repression and mesenchymal state induction
- Loss of tight gap junctions (cadherin switch)
- BM becomes disorganised, allowing epithelial cells to break through
- Collagen manipulation
- ECM digestion and re-modelling
- Increase in hydrostatic pressure
- +ve feedback signalling loops accelerate process
Is there a difference between wound healing and Cancerous EMT?
EMT is a natural state seen in healthy tissues. The changes promote growth and repair.
* These changes promote cancer growth in parallel and are hijacked by cancer cells
* EMT becomes extreme due to exaggerated induction, so it no longer reversible and promotes the progression of cancer invasion and metastasis.
Detail the direct and indirect effects of cadherin switching
Gene expression changes (upregulation of SLUG and SNAIL) leads to E-cadherin downregulation and N-cadherin upregulation
Direct effects:
* N-cadherin has weaker associations, loosening tight gap junctions
* N-cadherin also associates less strongly with β-catenin and p120, allowing it to translocate to the nucleus and act as a transcription factor.
Indirect effects:
* Increases activation of PI3K pathway involved in cell survival and migration.
* Pathway stabilises FGF receptor, increasing CAF activity, increasing release of TGF-β
* Causes +ve feedback loop since TGF-β induces E→N cadherin
Evidence that TGF-β is a master driver of the EMT switch
- Activates CAFs hich have many downstream effects (including the release of TGF-β, amplifying signal (+ve feedback) – blocking TGF-β inhibits fibroblasts
- TGF-β induces gene expression changes to mesenchymal state. These cells can produce their own TGF-β but revert to E state after several days (Weinburg)
- Changes include E to N cadherin switch, increase in MMPs
Provide evidence that TGF-β and the physical properties of tissue matrix drive the EMT switch:
Each individually drive EMT
TGF-β activated CAFs which stiffen matrix
* TGF-β inhibition halts EMT - including via CAF suppression
* CAFs produce TGF-β (+ve feedback cycle)
* Blocking TGF-β inhibits fibroblasts
What is the EMT?
An epigenetic rather than mutationally driven change.
Process of epithelial cells breaking through BM and becoming mesechymal in nature (mobile). Occurs due to a combination of physical, chemical and gene expression changes.
What are the changes to collagen structure by CAFs? Evidence CAFs are responsible.
- Stiffening of ECM makes invasion easier
- Collagen is laid down perpendicular to the invasive front (rather than parallel) - promotes invasion (cells can crawl along and reduced barrier)
- Collagen IV becomes deficient: (IV is usual in BM) is degraded and collagen I, II, V, VI are preferentially deposited. Significant since collagen forms a network like structure, rather than stringy fibrils for tensile strength. This dramatically changes the physical propoerties of the BM.
CAFs suggested to be essential in this process by Attieh et al 2017 in comparison to Non-CAFs (NAFs) in colon cancer patients.
How are MMPs stimulated and what effect do they have?
Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)
- Released by CAFs
- Digest collagen (particularly MMP2&9)
- Pro-enzymes release can be activated through cleavage by MT1-MMPs.
- MT1-MMPs are clustered around invadopodia, allowing effective clearing for exploration (invasion)
- MT1-MMPs catalytic domain is activated by Ca2+, which is released on cell damage/death, therefore damage encourages more digestion.
Outline the effect of CAFs (evidence they are a major driver of tumours)
Signalling: promote immunosuppression and wound healing
* Stimulated by TGF-β and produces TGF-β, creating amplification loop
* TGF-β has downstream effects (e.g. E to N cadherin switch)
*May physically ‘pull’ tumour cells encouraging invasion (Labernardie et al 2017)
Remodelling of ECM:
* Collagen degradation through production of MMPs
* Altering composition of collagen by deposition of collagen I, II, V, VI rather than IV needed for BM
* Changing direction of collagen to be perpendicular to invasive front.
*Increases hydrostatic pressure
Stimulating Growth:
* Produces angiogenic factors (VEGF, FGF)
* Produces axonogenic factors (NGF)
Resistance to treatment:
* Signal to retain cancer stem cells
What evidence is there for CAFs physically manipulating cancer cell movement?
Labernardie et al 2017
Used traction force microscopy to show that CAFs exert a pull force on cancer cells encouraging invasion
Outline the effect of TAMs
Can be both pro- and anti-tumour depending on phenotype.
M1 = anti-tumour (pro-inflammatory)
* Stimulate other immune cells through TNF-α, IL-1β, CXCLs, MHC-II presentation
M2 = pro-tumour (anti-inflammatory)
* Stimulate angiogenesis (VEGF-A, EGF)
* Cytokine release (TGF-β, IL-6, IL-10)
* Suppression of immune cells (PD-L1 expression)
* Upregulation of cancer immune cells (CAFs, more M2s)
* Encurage invasion (MMPs, CXCL signalling gradient)
Provide evidence TAMs are major drivers of tumour progression.
Correlation: High levels of TAMs strongly correlated with poor prognosis.
Causation:
* Guillot et al: when investigating neural invovlement, found SNS signalling limits CD163+ (TAM) numbers. Deletion of CD163+ rescues the effect of sympathectomy (i.e. is protective against tumour progression) (PDAC).
* TAMs are stimulated by colony stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1). Deletion of CSF-1 reduced TAM number, reducing circuiting tumour cell numbers (highly correlated with poor prognosis and metastasis).