Search

Activin and TGFβ share SMAD signaling and colon cancers can inactivate either pathway alone or simultaneously. The differential effects of activin and TGFβ signaling in colon cancer have not been previously dissected. A key downstream target of TGFβ signaling is the cdk2 inhibitor p21 (p21cip1/waf1). Here, we evaluate activin-specific effects on p21 regulation and resulting functions. We find that TGFβ is a more potent inducer of growth suppression, while activin is a more potent inducer of apoptosis. Further, growth suppression and apoptosis by both ligands are dependent on SMAD4. However, activin downregulates p21 protein in a SMAD4-independent fashion in conjunction with increased ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation to enhance migration, while TGFβ upregulates p21 in a SMAD4-dependent fashion to affect growth arrest. Activin-induced growth suppression and cell death are dependent on p21, while activin-induced migration is counteracted by p21. Further, primary colon cancers show differential p21 expression consistent with their ACVR2/TGFβR2 receptor status. In summary, we report p21 as a differentially affected activin/TGFβ target and mediator of ligand-specific functions in colon cancer, which may be exploited for future risk stratification and therapeutic intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Activin receptor 2 (ACVR2) is commonly mutated in microsatellite unstable (MSI) colon cancers, leading to protein loss, signaling disruption, and larger tumors. Here, we examined activin signaling disruption in microsatellite stable (MSS) colon cancers. Methods: Fifty-one population-based MSS colon cancers were assessed for ACVR1, ACVR2 and pSMAD2 protein. Consensus mutation-prone portions of ACVR2 were sequenced in primary cancers and all exons in colon cancer cell lines. Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) was evaluated for ACVR2 and ACVR1, and ACVR2 promoter methylation by methylation-specific PCR and bisulfite sequencing and chromosomal instability (CIN) phenotype via fluorescent LOH analysis of 3 duplicate markers. ACVR2 promoter methylation and ACVR2 expression were assessed in colon cancer cell lines via qPCR and IP-Western blots. Re-expression of ACVR2 after demethylation with 5-aza-29-deoxycytidine (5-Aza) was determined. An additional 26 MSS colon cancers were assessed for ACVR2 loss and its mechanism, and ACVR2 loss in all tested cancers correlated with clinicopathological criteria. Results: Of 51 MSS colon tumors, 7(14%) lost ACVR2, 2 (4%) ACVR1, and 5(10%) pSMAD2 expression. No somatic ACVR2 mutations were detected. Loss of ACVR2 expression was associated with LOH at ACVR2 (p,0.001) and ACVR2 promoter hypermethylation (p,0.05). ACVR2 LOH, but not promoter hypermethylation, correlated with CIN status. In colon cancer cell lines with fully methylated ACVR2 promoter, loss of ACVR2 mRNA and protein expression was restored with 5-Aza treatment. Loss of ACVR2 was associated with an increase in primary colon cancer volume (p,0.05). Conclusions: Only a small percentage of MSS colon cancers lose expression of activin signaling members. ACVR2 loss occurs through LOH and ACVR2 promoter hypermethylation, revealing distinct mechanisms for ACVR2 inactivation in both MSI and MSS subtypes of colon cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) are members of the transforming growth factor-β superfamily, which utilize BMP receptors and intracellular SMADs to transduce their signals to regulate cell differentiation, proliferation, and apoptosis. Because mutations in BMP receptor type IA (BMPRIA) and SMAD4 are found in the germline of patients with the colon cancer predisposition syndrome juvenile polyposis, and because the contribution of BMP in colon cancers is largely unknown, we examined colon cancer cells and tissues for evidence of BMP signaling and determined its growth effects. We determined the presence and functionality of BMPR1A by examining BMP-induced phosphorylation and nuclear translocation of SMAD1; transcriptional activity via a BMP-specific luciferase reporter; and growth characteristics by cell cycle analysis, cell growth, and 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide metabolic assays. These assays were also performed after transfection with a dominant negative (DN) BMPR1A construct. In SMAD4-null SW480 cells, we examined BMP effects on cellular wound assays as well as BMP-induced transcription in the presence of transfected SMAD4. We also determined the expression of BMPR1A, BMP ligands, and phospho-SMAD1 in primary human colon cancer specimens. We found intact BMP signaling and modest growth suppression in HCT116 and two derivative cell lines and, surprisingly, growth suppression in SMAD4-null SW480 cells. BMP-induced SMAD signaling and BMPR1A-mediated growth suppression were reversed with DN BMPR1A transfection. BMP2 slowed wound closure, and transfection of SMAD4 into SW480 cells did not change BMP-specific transcriptional activity over controls due to receptor stimulation by endogenously produced ligand. We found no cell cycle alterations with BMP treatment in the HCT116 and derivative cell lines, but there was an increased G1 fraction in SW480 cells that was not due to increased p21 transcription. In human colon cancer specimens, BMP2 and BMP7 ligands, BMPRIA, and phospho-SMADI were expressed. In conclusion, BMP signaling is intact and growth suppressive in human colon cancer cells. In addition to SMADs, BMP may utilize SMAD4-independent pathways for growth suppression in colon cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]