How the NOTCH Pathway Contributes to the Ability of Osteosarcoma Cells to Metastasize

  • Dennis P. M. HughesEmail author
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 152)


Controlling metastasis is the key to improving outcomes for osteosarcoma patients; yet our knowledge of the mechanisms regulating the metastatic process is incomplete. Clearly Fas and Ezrin are important, but other genes must play a role in promoting tumor spread. Early developmental pathways are often recapitulated in malignant tissues, and these genes are likely to be important in regulating the primitive behaviors of tumor cells, including invasion and metastasis. The Notch pathway is a highly conserved regulatory signaling network involved in many developmental processes and several cancers, at times serving as an oncogene and at others, behaving as a tumor suppressor. In normal limb development, Notch signaling maintains the apical ectodermal ridge in the developing limb bud and regulated size of bone and muscles. Here, we examine the role of Notch signaling in promoting metastasis of osteosarcoma, and the underlying regulatory processes that control Notch pathway expression and activity in the disease.

We have shown that, compared to normal human osteoblasts and non-metastatic osteosarcoma cell lines, osteosarcoma cell lines with the ability to metastasize have higher levels of Notch 1, Notch 2, the Notch ligand DLL1 and the Notch-induced gene Hes1. When invasive osteosarcoma cells are treated with small molecule inhibitors of γ-secretase, which blocks Notch activation, invasiveness is abrogated. Direct retroviral expression has shown that Hes1 expression was necessary for osteosarcoma invasiveness and accounted for the observations. In a novel orthotopic murine xenograft model of osteosarcoma pulmonary metastasis, blockade of Hes1 expression and Notch signaling eliminated spread of disease from the tibial primary tumor. In a sample of archival human osteosarcoma tumor specimens, expression of Hes1 mRNA was inversely correlated with survival (n=16 samples, p=0.04). Expression of the microRNA 34 cluster, which is known to downregulate DLL1, Notch 1 and Notch 2, was inversely correlated with invasiveness in a small panel of osteosarcoma tumors, suggesting that this family of microRNAs may be responsible for regulating Notch expression in at least some tumors. Further, exposure to valproic acid at therapeutic concentrations induced expression of Notch genes and caused a 250-fold increase in invasiveness for non-invasive cell lines, but had no discernible effect on those lines that expressed high levels of Notch without valproic acid treatment, suggesting a role for HDAC in regulating Notch pathway expression in osteosarcoma. These findings show that the Notch pathway is important in regulating osteosarcoma metastasis and may be useful as a therapeutic target. Better understanding of Notch’s role and its regulation will be essential in planning therapies with other agents, especially the use of valproic acid and other HDAC inhibitors.


Notch Signaling Osteosarcoma Cell Notch Pathway Notch Pathway Signaling Notch Target Gene 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Artavanis-Tsakonas S, Rand MD, Lake RJ. Notch signaling: cell fate control and signal integration in development. Science. 1999;284(5415):770-776.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greenwald I. LIN-12/Notch signaling: lessons from worms and flies. Genes & Dev. 1998;12(12):1751-1762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gridley T. Notch signaling and inherited disease syndromes. Hum Mol Genet. 2003;12(Suppl_1):R9-R13. %R 10.1093/hmg/ddg052.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hartmann D, et al. The disintegrin/metalloprotease ADAM 10 is essential for Notch signalling but not for {alpha}-secretase activity in fibroblasts. Hum Mol Genet. 2002;11(21):2615-2624. %R 10.1093/hmg/11.21.2615.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fortini M. Gamma-secretase-mediated proteolysis in cell-surface-receptor signalling. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2002;3(9):673-684.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schnabel M, et al. Differential expression of Notch genes in human osteoblastic cells. Int J Mol Med. 2002;9(3):229-232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sciaudone M, et al. Notch 1 impairs osteoblastic cell differentiation. Endocrinology. 2003;144(12):5631-5639.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tezuka K, et al. Stimulation of osteoblastic cell differentiation by Notch. J Bone Miner Res. 2002;17(2):231-239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yamada T, et al. Regulation of osteoclast development by Notch signaling directed to osteoclast precursors and through stromal cells. Blood. 2003;101(6):2227-2234.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bai S, et al. Notch1 regulates osteoclastogenesis directly in osteoclast precursors and indirectly via osteoblast lineage cells. J Biol Chem. 2007;M707000200 ( %R 10.1074/jbc.M707000200).
  11. 11.
    Dallas DJ, et al. Localization of ADAM10 and Notch receptors in bone. Bone. 1999;25(1):9-15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crowe R, Zikherman J, Niswander L. Delta-1 negatively regulates the transition from prehypertrophic to hypertrophic chondrocytes during cartilage formation. Development. 1999;126(5):987-998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Francis JC, Radtke F, Logan MP. Notch1 signals through Jagged2 to regulate apoptosis in the apical ectodermal ridge of the developing limb bud. Dev Dyn. 2005;234(4):1006-1015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Irvine KD, Vogt TF. Dorsal-ventral signaling in limb development. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 1997;9(6):867-876.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schuster-Gossler K, Cordes R, Gossler A. Premature myogenic differentiation and depletion of progenitor cells cause severe muscle hypotrophy in Delta1 mutants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104(2):537-542. %R 10.1073/pnas.0608281104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dunwoodie SL, et al. Axial skeletal defects caused by mutation in the spondylocostal dysplasia/pudgy gene Dll3 are associated with disruption of the segmentation clock within the presomitic mesoderm. Development. 2002;129(7):1795-1806.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kusumi K, et al. The mouse pudgy mutation disrupts Delta homologue Dll3 and initiation of early somite boundaries. Nat Genet. 1998;19(3):274-278.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kusumi K, et al. Dll3 pudgy mutation differentially disrupts dynamic expression of somite genes. Genesis. 2004;39(2):115-121.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sidow A, et al. Serrate2 is disrupted in the mouse limb-development mutant syndactylism. Nature. 1997;389(6652):722-725.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bulman MP, et al. Mutations in the human delta homologue, DLL3, cause axial skeletal defects in spondylocostal dysostosis. Nat Genet. 2000;24(4):438-441.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ponio JB-D, et al. Biological function of mutant forms of JAGGED1 proteins in Alagille syndrome: inhibitory effect on Notch signaling. Hum Mol Genet. 2007;16(22):2683-2692. %R 10.1093/hmg/ddm222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yuan ZR, et al. Mutational analysis of the Jagged 1 gene in Alagille syndrome families. Hum Mol Genet. 1998;7(9):1363-1369. %R 10.1093/hmg/7.9.1363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li L, et al. Alagille syndrome is caused by mutations in human Jagged1, which encodes a ligand for Notch1. Nat Genet. 1997;16(3):243-251.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Turnpenny PD, et al. Abnormal vertebral segmentation and the Notch signaling pathway in man. Dev Dyn. 2007;236(6):1456-1474.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Allenspach E, et al. Notch signaling in cancer. Cancer Biol Ther. 2002;1(5):466-476.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ellisen L, et al. TAN-1, the human homolog of the Drosophila notch gene, is broken by chromosomal translocations in T lymphoblastic neoplasms. Cell. 1991;66(4):649-661.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pear W, et al. Exclusive development of T cell neoplasms in mice transplanted with bone marrow expressing activated Notch alleles. J Exp Med. 1996;183(5):2283-2291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reizis B, Leder P. Direct induction of T lymphocyte-specific gene expression by the mammalian Notch signaling pathway. Genes & Dev. 2002;16(3):295-300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zweidler-McKay PA, et al. Notch signaling is a potent inducer of growth arrest and apoptosis in a wide range of B-cell malignancies. Blood. 2005;106(12):3898-3906.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sutphin RM, et al. Notch agonists: emerging as a feasible therapeutic approach in AML. Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts) 2006; 108(11): 1419.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Collins B, Kleeberger W, Ball D. Notch in lung development and lung cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2004;14(5):357-364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nickoloff B, Osborne B, Miele L. Notch signaling as a therapeutic target in cancer: a new approach to the development of cell fate modifying agents. Oncogene. 2003;22(42):6598-6608.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Radtke F, Raj K. The role of Notch in tumorigenesis: oncogene or tumour suppressor? Nat Rev Cancer. 2003;3(10):756-767.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shou J, et al. Dynamics of Notch expression during murine prostate development and tumorigenesis. Cancer Res. 2001;61(19):7291-7297.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bailey JM, Singh PK, Hollingsworth MA. Cancer metastasis facilitated by developmental pathways: sonic hedgehog, Notch, and bone morphogenic proteins. J Cell Biochem. 2007;102(4):829-839.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shih I-M, Wang T-L. Notch signaling, {gamma}-secretase inhibitors, and cancer therapy. Cancer Res. 2007;67(5):1879-1882. %R 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-3958.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dominguez M. Interplay between Notch signaling and epigenetic silencers in cancer. Cancer Res. 2006;66(18):8931-8934. %R 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1858.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Proweller A, et al. Impaired Notch signaling promotes de novo squamous cell carcinoma formation. Cancer Res. 2006;66(15):7438-7444. %R 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0793.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kunnimalaiyaan M, Chen H. Tumor suppressor role of Notch-1 signaling in neuroendocrine tumors. Oncologist. 2007;12(5):535-542. %R 10.1634/theoncologist.12-5-535.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhang P, et al. Critical role of Notch signaling in osteosarcoma invasion and metastasis. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(10):2962-2969. %R 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1992.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hughes DPM, et al. Cell surface expression of epidermal growth factor receptor and her-2 with nuclear expression of her-4 in primary osteosarcoma. Cancer Res. 2004;64(6):2047-2053.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hughes DPM, et al. Essential erbB family phosphorylation in osteosarcoma as a target for CI-1033 Inhibition. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2006;46(5):614-623.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jia S, et al. Eradication of osteosarcoma lung metastases following intranasal interleukin-12 gene therapy using a nonviral polyethylenimine vector. Cancer Gene Ther. 2002;9(3):260-266.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jia S, et al. Eradication of osteosarcoma lung metastasis using intranasal gemcitabine. Anticancer Drugs. 2002;13(2):155-161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pollack S, Lewis H. Secretase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease: challenges of a promiscuous protease. Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2005;6(1):35-47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vidal GA, et al. Presenilin-dependent {gamma}-secretase processing regulates multiple ERBB4/HER4 activities. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(20):19777-19783. 10.1074/jbc.M412457200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Berlin O, et al. Development of a novel spontaneous metastasis model of human osteosarcoma transplanted orthotopically into bone of athymic mice. Cancer Research. 1993;53(20):4890-4895.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bali P, et al. Activity of suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid against human breast cancer cells with amplification of her-2. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(17):6382-6389. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0344.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Phiel CJ, et al. Histone deacetylase is a direct target of valproic acid, a potent anticonvulsant, mood stabilizer, and teratogen. J Biol Chem. 2001;276(39):36734-36741. %R 10.1074/jbc.M101287200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gurvich N, et al. Histone deacetylase is a target of valproic acid-mediated cellular differentiation. Cancer Res. 2004;64(3):1079-1086. %R 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-0799.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Li X-N, et al. Valproic acid induces growth arrest, apoptosis, and senescence in medulloblastomas by increasing histone hyperacetylation and regulating expression of p21Cip1, CDK4, and CMYC. Mol Cancer Ther. 2005;4(12):1912-1922. %R 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-05-0184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zaskodova D, et al. Effect of valproic acid, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, on cell death and molecular changes caused by low-dose irradiation. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1091(1):385-398. %R 10.1196/annals.1378.082.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Greenblatt DY, et al. Valproic acid activates Notch-1 signaling and regulates the neuroendocrine phenotype in carcinoid cancer cells. Oncologist. 2007;12(8):942-951. %R 10.1634/theoncologist.12-8-942.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Catalano MG, et al. Valproic acid, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, enhances sensitivity to doxorubicin in anaplastic thyroid cancer cells. J Endocrinol. 2006;191(2):465-472. %R 10.1677/joe.1.06970.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kempf-Bielack B, et al. Osteosarcoma relapse after combined modality therapy: an analysis of unselected patients in the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS). J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(3):559-568. 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bacci G, et al. Treatment and outcome of recurrent osteosarcoma: experience at Rizzoli in 235 patients initially treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Acta Oncol. 2005;44(7):748-755.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Children’s Cancer Hospital, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations