Tumor Biology

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 5385–5395 | Cite as

STAT3:FOXM1 and MCT1 drive uterine cervix carcinoma fitness to a lactate-rich microenvironment

  • Lidia Santos Silva
  • Luis Gafeira Goncalves
  • Fernanda Silva
  • Germana Domingues
  • Valdemar Maximo
  • Joana Ferreira
  • Eric W.-F. Lam
  • Sergio Dias
  • Ana Felix
  • Jacinta Serpa
Original Article
  • 408 Downloads

Abstract

Uterine cervix cancer is the second most common malignancy in women worldwide with human papillomavirus (HPV) as the etiologic factor. The two main histological variants, squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) and adenocarcinomas (AC), resemble the cell morphology of exocervix and endocervix, respectively. Cancer metabolism is a cancer hallmark conditioned by the microenvironment. As uterine cervix homeostasis is dependent on lactate, we hypothesized lactate plays a role in uterine cervix cancer progression. Using in vitro (SiHa-SCC and HeLa-AC) and BALB-c/SCID models, we demonstrated that lactate metabolism is linked to histological types, with SCC predominantly consuming and AC producing lactate. MCT1 is a key factor, allowing lactate consumption and being regulated in vitro by lactate through the FOXM1:STAT3 pathway. In vivo models showed that SCC (SiHa) expresses MCT1 and is dependent on lactate to grow, whereas AC (HeLa) expresses MCT1 and MCT4, with higher growth capacities. Immunohistochemical analysis of tissue microarrays (TMA) from human cervical tumors showed that MCT1 expression associates with the SCC type and metastatic behavior of AC, whereas MCT4 expression concomitantly increases from in situ SCC to invasive SCC and is significantly associated with the AC type. Consistently, FOXM1 expression is statistically associated with MCT1 positivity in SCC, whereas the expression of FOXO3a, a FOXM1 functional antagonist, is linked to MCT1 negativity in AC. Our study reinforces the role of the microenvironment in the metabolic adaptation of cancer cells, showing that cells that retain metabolic features of their normal counterparts are positively selected by the organ’s microenvironment and will survive. In particular, MCT1 was shown to be a key element in uterine cervix cancer development; however, further studies are needed to validate MCT1 as a suitable therapeutic target in uterine cervix cancer.

Keywords

Uterine cervix cancer MCT1 Metabolic symbiosis STAT3-FOXM1 New therapeutic target 

Supplementary material

13277_2015_4385_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary Table 1(DOCX 16 kb)
13277_2015_4385_MOESM2_ESM.docx (183 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1(DOCX 182 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    González MA. Molecular biology of cervical cancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 2007;9:347–54.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan DW, Yu SYM, Chiu PM, Yao KM, Liu VWS, Cheung ANY, et al. Over-expression of FOXM1 transcription factor is associated with cervical cancer progression and pathogenesis. J Pathol. 2008;215:245–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan PG, Sung H-Y, Sawaya GF. Changes in cervical cancer incidence after three decades of screening US women less than 30 years old. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:765–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith HO, Tiffany MF, Qualls CR, Key CR. The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States—a 24-year population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78:97–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta S. A comprehensive textbook of obstetrics and gynecology. First. India: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers Ltd; 2011. p. 628.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Redondo-Lopez V, Cook RL, Sobel JD. Emerging role of lactobacilli in the control and maintenance of the vaginal bacterial microflora. Rev Infect Dis. 1990;12:856–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ravel J, Gajer P, Abdo Z, Schneider GM, Koenig SSK, McCulle SL, et al. Vaginal microbiome of reproductive-age women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:4680–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vásquez A, Jakobsson T, Ahrné S, Forsum U, Molin G. Vaginal Lactobacillus flora of healthy Swedish women. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:2746–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yarbrough VL, Winkle S, Herbst-Kralovetz MM. Antimicrobial peptides in the female reproductive tract: a critical component of the mucosal immune barrier with physiological and clinical implications. Human reproduction update [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 Feb 23];0:1–25. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25547201.
  10. 10.
    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. Elsevier Inc.; 2011;144:646–74.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hsu PP, Sabatini DM. Cancer cell metabolism: Warburg and beyond. Cell. 2008;134:703–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Serpa J, Caiado F, Carvalho T, Torre C, Gonçalves LG, Casalou C, et al. Butyrate-rich colonic microenvironment is a relevant selection factor for metabolically adapted tumor cells. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:39211–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feron O. Pyruvate into lactate and back: from the Warburg effect to symbiotic energy fuel exchange in cancer cells. Radiotherapy and oncology. Elsevier Ireland Ltd; 2009;92:329–33.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sonveaux P, Végran F, Schroeder T, Wergin MC, Verrax J, Rabbani ZN, et al. Targeting lactate-fueled respiration selectively kills hypoxic tumor cells in mice. J Clin Invest. 2008;118:3930–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Porporato PE, Dhup S, Dadhich RK, Copetti T, Sonveaux P. Anticancer targets in the glycolytic metabolism of tumors: a comprehensive review. Front Pharmacol. 2011;2:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walenta S, Mueller-Klieser WF. Lactate: mirror and motor of tumor malignancy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2004;14:267–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewis BC, Prescott JE, Campbell SE, Shim H, Orlowski RZ, Dang CV. Tumor induction by the c-Myc target genes rcl and lactate dehydrogenase A. Cancer Res. 2000;60:6178–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shim H, Dolde C, Lewis BC, Wu CS, Dang G, Jungmann RA, et al. c-Myc transactivation of LDH-A: implications for tumor metabolism and growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94:6658–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kinoshita T, Nohata N, Yoshino H, Hanazawa T, Kikkawa N, Fujimura L, et al. Tumor suppressive microRNA-375 regulates lactate dehydrogenase B in maxillary sinus squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Oncol. 2012;40:185–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tian Q, Li Y, Wang F, Li Y, Xu J, Shen Y, et al. MicroRNA detection in cervical exfoliated cells as a triage for human papillomavirus-positive women. J Natl Cancer Inst [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 Feb 23];106. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4188123&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.
  21. 21.
    Halestrap AP. The SLC16 gene family—structure, role and regulation in health and disease. Mol Asp Med. 2013;34:337–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pinheiro C, Longatto-Filho A, Ferreira L, Pereira SMM, Etlinger D, Moreira MAR, et al. Increasing expression of monocarboxylate transporters 1 and 4 along progression to invasive cervical carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2008;27:568–74.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu H, Southam AD, Hines A, Viant MR. High-throughput tissue extraction protocol for NMR- and MS-based metabolomics. Anal Biochem. 2008;372:204–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Turkson J, Jove R. STAT proteins: novel molecular targets for cancer drug discovery. Oncogene. 2000;19:6613–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zha X, Wang F, Wang Y, He S, Jing Y, Wu X, et al. Lactate dehydrogenase B is critical for hyperactive mTOR-mediated tumorigenesis. Cancer Res. 2011;71:13–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhou Y, Li M, Wei Y, Feng D, Peng C, Weng H, et al. Down-regulation of GRIM-19 expression is associated with hyperactivation of STAT3-induced gene expression and tumor growth in human cervical cancers. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 2009;29:695–703.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mencalha AL, Binato R, Ferreira GM, Du Rocher B, Abdelhay E. Forkhead box M1 (FoxM1) gene is a new STAT3 transcriptional factor target and is essential for proliferation, survival and DNA repair of K562 cell line. PLoS One. 2012;7.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kennedy KM, Scarbrough PM, Ribeiro A, Richardson R, Yuan H, Sonveaux P, et al. Catabolism of exogenous lactate reveals it as a legitimate metabolic substrate in breast cancer. PLoS One. 2013;8, e75154.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen J, Lee H-J, Wu X, Huo L, Kim S-J, Xu L, et al. Gain of glucose-independent growth upon metastasis of breast cancer cells to the brain. Cancer research [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Jan 2];75:554–65. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25511375.
  30. 30.
    Hussien R, Brooks GA. Mitochondrial and plasma membrane lactate transporter and lactate dehydrogenase isoform expression in breast cancer cell lines. Physiol Genomics. 2011;43:255–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dimmer K-SS, Friedrich B, Florian L, Deitmer JW, Stefan B, Lang F, et al. The low-affinity monocarboxylate transporter MCT4 is adapted to the export of lactate in highly glycolytic cells. Biochem J. 2000;350(Pt 1):219–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fu Z, Malureanu L, Huang J, Wang W. Plk1-dependent phosphorylation of FoxM1 regulates a transcriptional programme required for mitotic progression. Nat Cell Biol. 2008;10:1076–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    O’Hanlon DE, Moench TR, Cone RA. In vaginal fluid, bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis can be suppressed with lactic acid but not hydrogen peroxide. BMC Infect Dis. BioMed Central Ltd; 2011;11:200.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pinheiro C, Longatto-Filho A, Pereira SMM, Etlinger D, Moreira MAR, Jubé LF, et al. Monocarboxylate transporters 1 and 4 are associated with CD147 in cervical carcinoma. Dis Markers. 2009;26:97–103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sengupta A, Kalinichenko VV, Yutzey KE. FoxO and FoxM1 transcription factors have antagonistic functions in neonatal cardiomyocyte cell cycle withdrawal and IGF1 gene regulation. Circ Res. 2014;112:267–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhao F, Lam EW-F. Role of the forkhead transcription factor FOXO-FOXM1 axis in cancer and drug resistance. Frontiers of medicine [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 Aug 27];6:376–80. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23124885.
  37. 37.
    McGovern UB, Francis RE, Peck B, Guest SK, Wang J, Myatt SS, et al. Gefitinib (Iressa) represses FOXM1 expression via FOXO3a in breast cancer. Molecular cancer therapeutics [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2015 Sep 10];8:582–91. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19276163.
  38. 38.
    Ristow M. Oxidative metabolism in cancer growth. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2006;9:339–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lidia Santos Silva
    • 1
    • 2
  • Luis Gafeira Goncalves
    • 3
  • Fernanda Silva
    • 1
    • 2
  • Germana Domingues
    • 1
    • 2
  • Valdemar Maximo
    • 4
    • 5
  • Joana Ferreira
    • 2
  • Eric W.-F. Lam
    • 6
  • Sergio Dias
    • 7
  • Ana Felix
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jacinta Serpa
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro de Estudos de Doenças Crónicas (CEDOC), NOVA Medical School/Faculdade de Ciências MédicasUniversidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil (IPOLFG)LisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Instituto de Tecnologia Quimica e Biológica (ITQB) António XavierUniversidade NOVAOeirasPortugal
  4. 4.Medical FacultyUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  5. 5.Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of the University of Porto (IPATIMUP)PortoPortugal
  6. 6.Department of Surgery and CancerImperial College LondonLondonUK
  7. 7.Instituto de Medicina Molecular da Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations