So, S. S. | bioRxiv Science

bioRxiv2024

ΔNp63-restricted viral mimicry response impedes cancer cell viability and remodels tumor microenvironment in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Tumor protein p63 isoform {Delta}Np63 plays roles in the squamous epithelium and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), including esophageal SCC (ESCC). By integrating data from cell lines and our latest patient-derived organoid cultures, derived xenograft models, and clinical sample transcriptomic analyses, we identified a novel and robust oncogenic role of {Delta}Np63 in ESCC. We showed that {Delta}Np63 maintains the repression of cancer cell endogenous retrotransposon expression and cellular double-stranded RNA sensing. These subsequently lead to a restricted cancer cell viral mimicry response and suppressed induction of tumor-suppressive type I interferon (IFN-I) signaling through the regulations of Signal transducer and activator of transcription 1, Interferon regulatory factor 1, and cGAS-STING pathway. The cancer cell {Delta}Np63-IFN-I signaling axis affects both the cancer cell and tumor-infiltrating immune cell (TIIC) compartments. In cancer cells, depletion of {Delta}Np63 resulted in reduced cell viability. {Delta}Np63 expression is negatively associated with the anticancer responses to viral mimicry booster treatments targeting cancer cells. In the tumor microenvironment, cancer cell TP63 expression negatively correlates with multiple TIIC signatures in ESCC clinical samples. {Delta}Np63 depletion leads to increased cancer cell antigen presentation molecule expression and enhanced recruitment and reprogramming of tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells. Similar IFN-I signaling and TIIC signature association with {Delta}Np63 were also observed in lung SCC. These results support the potential application of {Delta}Np63 as a therapeutic target and a biomarker to guide candidate anticancer treatments exploring viral mimicry responses.

cancer biology↗

bioRxiv2020

Orphan G protein-coupled receptor, GPR37L1: pharmacological toolbox empty once again

Orphan G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are largely intractable therapeutic targets, owing to the lack of chemical tools for exploring their pharmacology. The discovery of such tools, however, is hampered by a number of unknowns, such as effector coupling and appropriate positive controls. In our 2017 Nature Chemical Biology paper1, we developed a computational chemical tool discovery approach called GPCR Contact-Informed Neighboring Pocket (GPCR-CoINPocket). This method predicted pharmacological similarity of GPCRs in a ligand- and structure-independent manner, to enable the discovery of off-target activities of known compounds at orphan GPCRs and hence the identification of so-called surrogate ligands. Our orphan GPCR target for prospective surrogate ligand discovery efforts was GPR37L1, a brain-specific receptor linked to cerebellar development2 and seizures3. We had previously demonstrated that GPR37L1 constitutively coupled to Gs and generated ligand-independent increases in intracellular cAMP4[§]. Thus, the inverse agonist activities of computationally predicted surrogates were tested in the cAMP response element luciferase (CRE-luc) reporter gene assay in human embryonic kidney (HEK293) cells expressing either vector control or what we thought was untagged GPR37L1 in pcDNA3.1. However, we recently discovered that the GPR37L1 construct used in that study was incorrect: instead of pcDNA3.1, it carried the receptor inserted backwards into a yeast p426GPD vector (hereafter referred to as p426-r37L1). Here, we correct the cloning error and describe our subsequent unsuccessful efforts to re-test the computationally predicted GPR37L1 ligands (triggering an author-initiated retraction of1). NoteWe, the authors, are working with the Nature Chemical Biology Editors to retract our 2017 paper Orphan receptor ligand discovery by pickpocketing pharmacological neighbors1. The present manuscript is under review at Nature Chemical Biology as a Matters Arising accompaniment to the anticipated author-initiated retraction. We initiated the steps towards the retraction upon discovering a regrettable cloning error that put into question the in vitro findings reported in1. This action was unanimously agreed upon by all authors. The computational aspects of the original manuscript1 are unaffected by this error.

pharmacology and toxicology↗