Chromatin topology defines estradiol-primed progesterone receptor and PAX2 binding in endometrial cancer cells

  1. Alejandro La Greca
  2. Nicolás Bellora
  3. François Le Dily
  4. Rodrigo Jara
  5. Ana Silvina Nacht
  6. Javier Quilez Oliete
  7. José Luis Villanueva
  8. Enrique Vidal
  9. Gabriela Merino
  10. Cristóbal Fresno
  11. Inti Tarifa Reischle
  12. Griselda Vallejo
  13. Guillermo Pablo Vicent
  14. Elmer Fernández
  15. Miguel Beato
  16. Patricia Saragüeta  Is a corresponding author
  1. Biology and Experimental Medicine Institute, Argentina
  2. Institute of Nuclear Technologies for Health, Argentina
  3. Centre for Genomic Regulation, Spain
  4. Córdoba University, Argentina

Abstract

Estrogen (E2) and Progesterone (Pg), via their specific receptors (ERalpha and PR), are major determinants in the development and progression of endometrial carcinomas, However, their precise mechanism of action and the role of other transcription factors involved are not entirely clear. Using Ishikawa endometrial cancer cells, we report that E2 treatment exposes a set of progestin-dependent PR binding sites which include both E2 and progestin target genes. ChIP-seq results from hormone-treated cells revealed a non-random distribution of PAX2 binding in the vicinity of these estrogen-promoted PR sites. Altered expression of hormone regulated genes in PAX2 knockdown cells suggests a role for PAX2 in fine-tuning ERalpha and PR interplay in transcriptional regulation. Analysis of long-range interactions by Hi-C coupled with ATAC-seq data showed that these regions, that we call 'progestin control regions' (PgCRs), exhibited an open chromatin state even before hormone exposure and were non-randomly associated with regulated genes. Nearly 20% of genes potentially influenced by PgCRs were found to be altered during progression of endometrial cancer. Our findings suggest that endometrial response to progestins in differentiated endometrial tumor cells results in part from binding of PR together with PAX2 to accessible chromatin regions. What maintains these regions open remains to be studied.

Data availability

All raw and processed sequencing data generated in this study have been submitted to the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus under accession number GSE139398 (reviewer access: ergbqgaebbmjrmt).Source data file has been provided for Figure 6.T47D ChIPseq data is available under GEO accession number GSE41466 (Ballare et al, 2013) and Hi-C data in GEO accession GSE53463 (Le-Dily et al, 2014). RNAseq datasets from proliferative (GSM3890623, GSM3890624, GSM3890625 and GSM3890626) and mid-secretory (GSM3890627, GSM3890628, GSM3890629, GSM3890630 and GSM3890631) human endometrium were obtained from GEO accession GSE132711 (SuperSeries GSE132713) (Chi et al, 2020). ChIPseq coverage data of proliferative and secretory normal endometrium were downloaded from GEO accession GSE132712 (SuperSeries GSE132713) (Chi et al, 2020). Human endometrial cancer RNAseq samples (n=575) were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), project TCGA-UCEC. Additional normal and endometrial cancer samples (n=109) were accessed through CPTAC program in the National Cancer Institute using cptac platform installed with python (Dou et al, 2020).

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Alejandro La Greca

    Biology and Experimental Medicine Institute, Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0309-7683
  2. Nicolás Bellora

    National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Institute of Nuclear Technologies for Health, Bariloche, Argentina
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6637-3465
  3. François Le Dily

    Gene Regulation, Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Rodrigo Jara

    Biology and Experimental Medicine Institute, Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Ana Silvina Nacht

    Gene Regulation, Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Javier Quilez Oliete

    Gene Regulation, Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. José Luis Villanueva

    Gene Regulation, Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Enrique Vidal

    Gene Regulation, Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Gabriela Merino

    Bioscience Data Mining Group, Córdoba University, Córdoba, Argentina
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Cristóbal Fresno

    Bioscience Data Mining Group, Córdoba University, Córdoba, Argentina
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Inti Tarifa Reischle

    Biology and Experimental Medicine Institute, Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Griselda Vallejo

    Biology and Experimental Medicine Institute, Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Guillermo Pablo Vicent

    Gene Regulation, Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Elmer Fernández

    Bioscience Data Mining Group, Córdoba University, Córdoba, Argentina
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Miguel Beato

    Gene Regulation, Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Patricia Saragüeta

    Biology and Experimental Medicine Institute, Buenos Aires, Argentina
    For correspondence
    patriciasaragueta2@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8222-9690

Funding

Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (PIP 2015-682)

  • Patricia Saragüeta

Fondo para la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (PICT 2015-3426)

  • Patricia Saragüeta

H2020 European Research Council (FP7/2007-2013 grant agreement 609989)

  • Miguel Beato

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

Copyright

© 2022, La Greca 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

  • 1,848
    views
  • 285
    downloads
  • 17
    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. Alejandro La Greca
  2. Nicolás Bellora
  3. François Le Dily
  4. Rodrigo Jara
  5. Ana Silvina Nacht
  6. Javier Quilez Oliete
  7. José Luis Villanueva
  8. Enrique Vidal
  9. Gabriela Merino
  10. Cristóbal Fresno
  11. Inti Tarifa Reischle
  12. Griselda Vallejo
  13. Guillermo Pablo Vicent
  14. Elmer Fernández
  15. Miguel Beato
  16. Patricia Saragüeta
(2022)
Chromatin topology defines estradiol-primed progesterone receptor and PAX2 binding in endometrial cancer cells
eLife 11:e66034.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66034

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66034

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Zijing Wang, Bihan Xia ... Jilin Yang
    Research Article

    Bestrophin isoform 4 (BEST4) is a newly identified subtype of the calcium-activated chloride channel family. Analysis of colonic epithelial cell diversity by single-cell RNA-sequencing has revealed the existence of a cluster of BEST4+ mature colonocytes in humans. However, if the role of BEST4 is involved in regulating tumour progression remains largely unknown. In this study, we demonstrate that BEST4 overexpression attenuates cell proliferation, colony formation, and mobility in colorectal cancer (CRC) in vitro, and impedes the tumour growth and the liver metastasis in vivo. BEST4 is co-expressed with hairy/enhancer of split 4 (HES4) in the nucleus of cells, and HES4 signals BEST4 by interacting with the upstream region of the BEST4 promoter. BEST4 is epistatic to HES4 and downregulates TWIST1, thereby inhibiting epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in CRC. Conversely, knockout of BEST4 using CRISPR/Cas9 in CRC cells revitalises tumour growth and induces EMT. Furthermore, the low level of the BEST4 mRNA is correlated with advanced and the worse prognosis, suggesting its potential role involving CRC progression.

    1. Cancer Biology
    Bruno Bockorny, Lakshmi Muthuswamy ... Senthil K Muthuswamy
    Tools and Resources

    Pancreatic cancer has the worst prognosis of all common tumors. Earlier cancer diagnosis could increase survival rates and better assessment of metastatic disease could improve patient care. As such, there is an urgent need to develop biomarkers to diagnose this deadly malignancy. Analyzing circulating extracellular vesicles (cEVs) using ‘liquid biopsies’ offers an attractive approach to diagnose and monitor disease status. However, it is important to differentiate EV-associated proteins enriched in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from those with benign pancreatic diseases such as chronic pancreatitis and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). To meet this need, we combined the novel EVtrap method for highly efficient isolation of EVs from plasma and conducted proteomics analysis of samples from 124 individuals, including patients with PDAC, benign pancreatic diseases and controls. On average, 912 EV proteins were identified per 100 µL of plasma. EVs containing high levels of PDCD6IP, SERPINA12, and RUVBL2 were associated with PDAC compared to the benign diseases in both discovery and validation cohorts. EVs with PSMB4, RUVBL2, and ANKAR were associated with metastasis, and those with CRP, RALB, and CD55 correlated with poor clinical prognosis. Finally, we validated a seven EV protein PDAC signature against a background of benign pancreatic diseases that yielded an 89% prediction accuracy for the diagnosis of PDAC. To our knowledge, our study represents the largest proteomics profiling of circulating EVs ever conducted in pancreatic cancer and provides a valuable open-source atlas to the scientific community with a comprehensive catalogue of novel cEVs that may assist in the development of biomarkers and improve the outcomes of patients with PDAC.