Partitioning of cancer therapeutics in nuclear condensates - PubMed (original) (raw)

. 2020 Jun 19;368(6497):1386-1392.

doi: 10.1126/science.aaz4427.

Ann Boija # 1, Lena K Afeyan 1 3, Susana Wilson Hawken 1 3, Mengyang Fan 4 5, Alessandra Dall'Agnese 1, Ozgur Oksuz 1, Jonathan E Henninger 1, Krishna Shrinivas 6 7, Benjamin R Sabari 1, Ido Sagi 1, Victoria E Clark 1 8, Jesse M Platt 1 9, Mrityunjoy Kar 10, Patrick M McCall 10 11 12, Alicia V Zamudio 1 3, John C Manteiga 1 3, Eliot L Coffey 1 3, Charles H Li 1 3, Nancy M Hannett 1, Yang Eric Guo 1, Tim-Michael Decker 13, Tong Ihn Lee 1, Tinghu Zhang 4 5, Jing-Ke Weng 1 3, Dylan J Taatjes 13, Arup Chakraborty 6 7 14 15 16 17 18, Phillip A Sharp 3 18, Young Tae Chang 19, Anthony A Hyman 11 20, Nathanael S Gray 4 5, Richard A Young 21

Affiliations

Partitioning of cancer therapeutics in nuclear condensates

Isaac A Klein et al. Science. 2020.

Abstract

The nucleus contains diverse phase-separated condensates that compartmentalize and concentrate biomolecules with distinct physicochemical properties. Here, we investigated whether condensates concentrate small-molecule cancer therapeutics such that their pharmacodynamic properties are altered. We found that antineoplastic drugs become concentrated in specific protein condensates in vitro and that this occurs through physicochemical properties independent of the drug target. This behavior was also observed in tumor cells, where drug partitioning influenced drug activity. Altering the properties of the condensate was found to affect the concentration and activity of drugs. These results suggest that selective partitioning and concentration of small molecules within condensates contributes to drug pharmacodynamics and that further understanding of this phenomenon may facilitate advances in disease therapy.

Copyright © 2020 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Nuclear condensates in human tissue and in vitro. (A) Model illustrating potential behaviors of small molecules in nuclear condensates. (B–C) Immunofluorescence of scaffold proteins of various nuclear condensates in tissue biopsies from benign and malignant human breast (B), and benign and malignant colon tissue (C), in nuclei stained with Hoechst, imaged at 100× on a fluorescent confocal microscope (see also Figures S1, S2). (D) Schematic of in vitro droplet formation assay to measure small molecule partitioning into nuclear condensates. (E) In vitro droplet assay showing the behavior of fluorescein dye in the presence of six protein condensates formed in 125mM NaCl and 10% PEG, with 10_μ_M protein and 5_μ_M fluorescein, imaged at 150× on a confocal fluorescent microscope (see also Figures S3–S6). Quantification of enrichment of the drug is shown to the right, error bars represent SEM.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

The partitioning behavior of small molecule drugs in nuclear condensates in a droplet assay. Six nuclear condensates formed in 125mM NaCl and 10% PEG, with 10_μ_M protein treated with either (A) 5_μ_M Cisplatin-TMR, (B) 50 _μ_M Mitoxantrone, (C) 100_μ_M FLTX1, (D) 5_μ_M THZ1-TMR, or (D) 1_μ_M JQ1-ROX imaged at 150× on a confocal fluorescent microscope (see also Figures S7–S11). Quantification of enrichment of the drug within droplets is shown to the right of each panel, error bars represent SEM (see also S12–S14).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Small molecule concentration within condensates influences drug activity. (A) In vitro droplet assay of MED1 and HP1α condensates formed in 125mM NaCl and 10% PEG, 5nM of 450bp DNA, 10_μ_M MED1, and 5_μ_M cisplatin-TR, imaged at 150× on a confocal fluorescent microscope (see also Figure S15). (B) Bioanalyzer tracings of DNA contained within either MED1 or HP1α droplets exposed to the indicated concentration of cisplatin. (C) (Top) Schematic of an assay to determine the location of platinated DNA relative to various nuclear condensates. (Bottom) Co-immunofluorescence of platinated DNA and the indicated protein in HCT116 cells treated with 50_μ_M cisplatin for 6 hours. Imaged at 100× on a confocal fluorescent microscope. Quantification of overlap shown to the right. (D) (Top) Schematic of a live cell condensate dissolution assay. (Bottom) HCT116 cells bearing endogenously mEGFP-tagged MED1, HP1α, or FIB1 treated with 50_μ_M cisplatin for 12 hours. Quantification of MED1, HP1α, or FIB1 condensate score is shown to the right. (E) MED1 ChIP-seq in HCT116 cells treated with vehicle or 50_μ_M cisplatin for 6 hours. (Left) Plotted are mean read density of MED1 at super-enhancers and typical-enhancers (error bars show min and max) and (Right) gene tracks of MED1 ChIP-Seq at the MYC super-enhancer and AQPEP typical-enhancer. (F) Metaplot of cisplatin-DNA-Seq in cisplatin treated Hela cells comparing super-enhancers and typical enhancers (41) (see also Figures S16–S21).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Tamoxifen action and resistance in MED1 condensates. (A) Schematic showing tamoxifen resistance by ER mutation and MED1 overexpression in breast cancer. (B) In vitro droplets assay of the indicated form of GFP-tagged ER in the presence of estrogen, +/− 100_μ_M tamoxifen. Droplets are formed in 125mM NaCl and 10% PEG with 10_μ_M each protein and 100_μ_M estrogen. (C) (Left) Immunofluorescence of MED1 in tamoxifen sensitive (MCF7) and resistant (TAMR7) ER+ breast cancer cell lines imaged at 100× on a confocal fluorescent microscope. (Top right) Quantification of MED1 condensate size in breast cancer cells. (Bottom right) Relative quantities of MED1 in the indicated breast cancer cell line by western blot, error bars show SEM. (D) In vitro droplets assays of ER in the presence of 100_μ_M estrogen, +/− 100_μ_M tamoxifen with either 5_μ_M (Low) or 20_μ_M (High) MED1. Droplets are formed with 5_μ_M ER in 125mM NaCl and 10% PEG, imaged at 150× on a confocal fluorescent microscope, error bars are SEM. (E) In vitro droplet assay with either 5_μ_M (Low) or 20_μ_M (High) MED1 with 100_μ_M FLTX1 in 125mM NaCl and 10% PEG, error bars are SD. (F) Models for tamoxifen resistance due to altered drug affinity (via ER mutation) or concentration (via MED1 overexpression) (see also Figures S22–S30).

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Shin Y, Brangwynne CP, Liquid phase condensation in cell physiology and disease. Science (80-.) 357, eaaf4382 (2017). - PubMed
    1. Banani SF, Lee HO, Hyman AA, Rosen MK, Biomolecular condensates: organizers of cellular biochemistry. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol 18, 285–298 (2017). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hyman AA, Weber CA, Jülicher F, Liquid-Liquid Phase Separation in Biology. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol 30, 39–58 (2014). - PubMed
    1. Ries RJ, Zaccara S, Klein P, Olarerin-George A, Namkoong S, Pickering BF, Patil DP, Kwak H, Lee JH, Jaffrey SR, m6A enhances the phase separation potential of mRNA. Nature. 571, 424–428 (2019). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Langdon EM, Gladfelter AS, A New Lens for RNA Localization: Liquid-Liquid Phase Separation. Annu. Rev. Microbiol 72, 255–271 (2018). - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources