VGLL2 and TEAD1 fusion proteins drive YAP/TAZ-independent transcription and tumorigenesis by engaging p300

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Guo, Hue et al. focused on understanding the epigenetic activity and functional dependencies for two different fusions found in infantile rhabdomyosarcoma, VGLL2::NCOA2, and TEAD1::NCOA2. They use a variety of models and methods; specifically, ectopic expression of the fusions in human 293T cells to perform RNAseq (both fusions), CUT&RUN (VGLL2::NCOA2), and BioID mass spec (both fusions). These data identify that the VGLL2::NCOA2 fusion has peaks that are enriched for TEAD motifs. Further, CPB/p300 CUT&RUN support an enrichment of binding sites and three TEAD targets in VGLL2::NCOA2 and TEAD1::NCOA2 expressing cells. They also functionally evaluated genetic and chemical dependencies (TEAD inhibition), and found this was only effective for the VGLL2::NCOA2 fusion, and not for TEAD1::NCOA2. Using complementary biochemical approaches they suggest (with other supporting data) that the fusions regulate TEAD transcriptional outputs via a YAP/TAZ independent mechanism. Further, they expand into a C2C12 myoblast model and show that TEAD1::NCOA2 is transforming in colony formation assays and in mouse allografts. This is consistent with previously published strategies using VGLL2::NCOA2. Importantly, they show that a CBP/p300 (a binding partner found in their BioID mass spec) small molecule inhibitor suppresses tumor formation using this mouse allograft model, that the tumors are less proliferative, and have a reduction in transcriptional of three TEAD target genes. Generally, the data is interesting and suggests new biology for these fusion-oncogenes. However, the choice of 293T for the majority of the transcriptional, epigenetic, and proteomic studies makes the findings difficult to interpret in the context of the human disease, and the rationale for the choice of an epithelial-like kidney cell line is not discussed. Further, details are missing from the figures, figure legends, and methods that make the data difficult to interpret, and should be added to improve the reader's understanding. Overall, the breadth of methods used in this study, and the comparison of the two fusion-oncogene's biology is of interest to the fusion-oncogene, pediatric sarcoma, and epigenetic therapeutic targeting fields.

Strengths:

(1) Multiple experimental approaches were used to understand the biology of the fusion-oncogenes, including genomic, proteomic, chemical, and genetic inhibition. These approaches identify potential new mechanisms of convergent fusion-oncogene activity, around TEAD transcriptional targeting (that is YAP/TAZ independent) and reveal CBP/p300 as a functional dependency.

(2) Complementary models were used, including cell-based assays and mouse allograft models to show the dependency on CBP/P300.

(3) Co-IPs were clear and convincing and showed direct interaction of the fusion-oncogene with ectopic and endogenous TEAD1/pan-TEAD, but not YAP/TAZ.

(4) Potential to follow-up on additional targets/mechanisms of tumorigenesis. For example, in the BioID proteomics screen, a unique VGLL2::NCOA2 and TEAD::NCOA2 interactor is P53, which also is an enriched pathway in Figure 4C in the p300 CUT&RUN peaks in the VGLL2::NCOA2 and TEAD1::NCOA2 expressing cells - is this indicative of the toxicity of the fusion-oncogenes or do you think this informs potential mechanisms for transformation.

Weaknesses:

(1) The rationale for performing genomics, transcriptional, and proteomics work in 293T cells is not discussed. Further, there are no functional readouts mentioned in the 293T cells with expression of the fusion-oncogenes. Did these cells have any phenotypes associated with fusion-oncogene expression (proliferation differences, morphological changes, colony formation capacity)? Further, how similar are the gene expression signatures from RNA-seq to rhabdomyosarcoma? This would help the reader interpret how similar these cell models are to human disease.

(2) TEAD1::NCOA2 fusion-oncogene model was not credentialed past H&E, and expression of Desmin. Is the transcriptional signature in C2C12 or 293T similar to a rhabdomyosarcoma gene signature?

(3) For the fusion-oncogenes, did the HA, FLAG, or V5 tag impact fusion-oncogene activity? Was the tag on the 3' or 5' of the fusion? This was not discussed in the methods.

(4) Generally, the lack of details in the figures, figure legends, and methods make the data difficult to interpret. A few examples are below:

a. Individual data points are not shown for figure bar plots (how many technical or biological replicates are present and how many times was the experiment repeated?).
b. What exons were included in the fusion-oncogenes from VGLL2 and NCOA2 or TEAD1 and NCOA2?
c. For how long were the colony formation experiments performed? Two weeks?
d. In Figure 2D, what concentration of CP1 was used and for how long?
e. How was A485 resuspended for cell culture and mouse experiments, what is the percentage of DMSO?
f. How many replicates were done for RNA-seq, CUT&RUN, and ATACseq experiments?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In the manuscript entitled "VGLL2 and TEAD1 fusion proteins drive YAP/TAZ-independent transcription and tumorigenesis by engaging p300", Gu et al. studied two Hippo pathway-related gene fusion events (i.e., VGLL2-NCOA2, TEAD1-NCOA2) in spindle cell rhabdomyosarcoma (scRMS) and showed that their fusion proteins can activate Hippo downstream gene transcription independent of YAP/TAZ. Using the BioID-based mass spectrometry analysis, the authors revealed histone acetyltransferase CBP/p300 as specific binding proteins for VGLL2-NCOA2 and TEAD1-NCOA2 fusion proteins. Pharmacologically targeting p300 inhibited the fusion proteins-induced Hippo downstream gene transcription and tumorigenic events.

Overall, this study provides mechanistic insights into the scRMS-associated gene fusions in tumorigenesis and reveals potential therapeutic targets for cancer treatment. The manuscript is well-written and easy to follow.

Here, several suggestions are made for the authors to improve their study.

Main points

(1) The authors majorly focused on the Hippo downstream gene transcription in this study, while a significant portion of genes regulated by the VGLL2-NCOA2 and TEAD1-NCOA2 fusion proteins are non-Hippo downstream genes (Figure 3). The authors should investigate whether the altered Hippo pathway transcription is essential for VGLL2-NCOA2 and TEAD1-NCOA2-induced cell transformation and tumorigenesis. Specifically, they should test if treatment with the TEAD inhibitor can reverse the cell transformation and tumorigenesis caused by VGLL2-NCOA2 but not TEAD1-NCOA2. In addition, it is important to examine whether YAP-5SA expression can rescue the inhibitory effects of A485 on VGLL2-NCOA2 and TEAD1-NCOA2-induced colony formation and tumor growth. This will help clarify whether Hippo downstream gene transcription is important for the oncogenic activities of these two fusion proteins.

(2) Rationale for selecting CBP/p300 for functional studies needs to be provided. The BioID-MS experiment identified many interacting proteins for VGLL2-NCOA2 and TEAD1-NCOA2 fusion proteins (Table S4). The authors should explain the scoring system used to identify the high-interacting proteins for VGLL2-NCOA2 and TEAD1-NCOA2 fusion proteins. Was CEP/p300 the top candidates on the list? Providing this information will help justify the focus on CBP/p300 and validate their importance in this study.

(3) p300 was revealed as a key driver for the VGLL2-NCOA2 and TEAD1-NCOA2 fusion proteins-induced transcriptome alteration and tumorigenesis. To strengthen the point, the authors should identify the p300 binding region on VGLL2-NCOA2 and TEAD1-NCOA2 fusion proteins. Mutants with defects in p300 binding/recruitment should be generated and included as a control in the related q-PCR and tumorigenic studies. This work will help confirm the crucial role of p300 in mediating the oncogenic effects of these two fusion proteins.

(4) Another major issue is the overexpression system extensively used in this study. It is important to determine whether the VGLL2-NCOA2 and TEAD1-NCOA2 fusion genes are also amplified in cancer. If not, the expression levels of the VGLL2-NCOA2 and TEAD1-NCOA2 fusion proteins should be adjusted to endogenous levels to assess their oncogenic effects on gene transcription and tumorigenesis. This approach would make the study more relevant to the pathological conditions observed in scRMS cancer patients.