Cysteine dioxygenase 1 is a metabolic liability for non-small cell lung cancer

  1. Yun Pyo Kang
  2. Laura Torrente
  3. Aimee Falzone
  4. Cody M Elkins
  5. Min Liu
  6. John M Asara
  7. Christian C Dibble
  8. Gina DeNicola  Is a corresponding author
  1. H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, United States
  2. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, United States

Abstract

NRF2 is emerging as a major regulator of cellular metabolism. However, most studies have been performed in cancer cells, where co-occurring mutations and tumor selective pressures complicate the influence of NRF2 on metabolism. Here we use genetically engineered, non-transformed primary murine cells to isolate the most immediate effects of NRF2 on cellular metabolism. We find that NRF2 promotes the accumulation of intracellular cysteine and engages the cysteine homeostatic control mechanism mediated by cysteine dioxygenase 1 (CDO1), which catalyzes the irreversible metabolism of cysteine to cysteine sulfinic acid (CSA). Notably, CDO1 is preferentially silenced by promoter methylation in human non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) harboring mutations in KEAP1, the negative regulator of NRF2. CDO1 silencing promotes proliferation of NSCLC by limiting the futile metabolism of cysteine to the wasteful and toxic byproducts CSA and sulfite (SO32-), and depletion of cellular NADPH. Thus, CDO1 is a metabolic liability for NSCLC cells with high intracellular cysteine, particularly NRF2/KEAP1 mutant cells.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 1c and Supplemental Figure 1a.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Yun Pyo Kang

    Department of Cancer Physiology, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Laura Torrente

    Department of Cancer Physiology, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Aimee Falzone

    Department of Cancer Physiology, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Cody M Elkins

    Department of Cancer Physiology, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Min Liu

    Proteomics and Metabolomics Core Facility, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. John M Asara

    Division of Signal Transduction, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Christian C Dibble

    Department of Pathology and Cancer Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Gina DeNicola

    Department of Cancer Physiology, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
    For correspondence
    gina.denicola@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6611-6696

Funding

National Cancer Institute (R37-CA230042)

  • Gina DeNicola

American Lung Association (LCDA-498544)

  • Gina DeNicola

Moffitt Cancer Center (Milestone Award)

  • Gina DeNicola

American Cancer Society (Institutional Research Grant)

  • Gina DeNicola

National Cancer Institute (R00-CA194314)

  • Christian C Dibble

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Mice were housed and bred in accordance with the ethical regulations and approval of the IACUC (protocol # R IS00003893). Lung tumor formation was induced by intranasal installation of 2.5 x 107 PFU adenoviral-Cre (University of Iowa) as described previously (Jackson et al., 2001). Viral infections were performed under isofluorane anesthesia, and every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Copyright

© 2019, Kang et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 6,280
    views
  • 901
    downloads
  • 77
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Yun Pyo Kang
  2. Laura Torrente
  3. Aimee Falzone
  4. Cody M Elkins
  5. Min Liu
  6. John M Asara
  7. Christian C Dibble
  8. Gina DeNicola
(2019)
Cysteine dioxygenase 1 is a metabolic liability for non-small cell lung cancer
eLife 8:e45572.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45572

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45572

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
    Alejandro J Brenes, Eva Griesser ... Angus I Lamond
    Research Article

    Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) have great potential to be used as alternatives to embryonic stem cells (hESCs) in regenerative medicine and disease modelling. In this study, we characterise the proteomes of multiple hiPSC and hESC lines derived from independent donors and find that while they express a near-identical set of proteins, they show consistent quantitative differences in the abundance of a subset of proteins. hiPSCs have increased total protein content, while maintaining a comparable cell cycle profile to hESCs, with increased abundance of cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins required to sustain high growth rates, including nutrient transporters and metabolic proteins. Prominent changes detected in proteins involved in mitochondrial metabolism correlated with enhanced mitochondrial potential, shown using high-resolution respirometry. hiPSCs also produced higher levels of secreted proteins, including growth factors and proteins involved in the inhibition of the immune system. The data indicate that reprogramming of fibroblasts to hiPSCs produces important differences in cytoplasmic and mitochondrial proteins compared to hESCs, with consequences affecting growth and metabolism. This study improves our understanding of the molecular differences between hiPSCs and hESCs, with implications for potential risks and benefits for their use in future disease modelling and therapeutic applications.