Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Published OnlineFirst May 14, 2015; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672 Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Cancer Biology and Signal Transduction Aromatase Inhibitor–Mediated Downregulation of INrf2 (Keap1) Leads to Increased Nrf2 and Resistance in Breast Cancer Raju Khatri1, Preeti Shah1, Rupa Guha1, Feyruz V. Rassool1, Alan E. Tomkinson2, Angela Brodie1, and Anil K. Jaiswal1 Abstract Aromatase inhibitors are effective drugs that reduce or eliminate hormone-sensitive breast cancer. However, despite their efficacy, resistance to these drugs can occur in some patients. The INrf2 (Keap1):Nrf2 complex serves as a sensor of drug/radiationinduced oxidative/electrophilic stress. INrf2 constitutively suppresses Nrf2 by functioning as an adapter protein for the Cul3/ Rbx1-mediated ubiquitination/degradation of Nrf2. Upon stress, Nrf2 dissociates from INrf2, is stabilized, translocates to the nucleus, and coordinately induces a battery of cytoprotective gene expression. Current studies investigated the role of Nrf2 in aromatase inhibitor resistance. RT-PCR and immunoblot assays showed that aromatase inhibitor–resistant breast cancer LTLTCa and AnaR cells express lower INrf2 and higher Nrf2 protein levels, as compared with drug-sensitive MCF-7Ca and AC1 cells, respectively. The increase in Nrf2 was due to lower ubiquitination/ degradation of Nrf2 in aromatase inhibitor–resistant cells. Higher Nrf2-mediated levels of biotransformation enzymes, drug transporters, and antiapoptotic proteins contributed to reduced efficacy of drugs and aversion to apoptosis that led to drug resistance. shRNA inhibition of Nrf2 in LTLTCa (LTLTCa-Nrf2KD) cells reduced resistance and sensitized cells to aromatase inhibitor exemestane. Interestingly, LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells also showed reduced levels of aldehyde dehydrogenase, a marker of tumorinitiating cells and significantly decreased mammosphere formation, as compared with LTLTCa-Vector control cells. The results together suggest that persistent aromatase inhibitor treatment downregulated INrf2 leading to higher expression of Nrf2 and Nrf2-regulated cytoprotective proteins that resulted in increased aromatase inhibitor drug resistance. These findings provide a rationale for the development of Nrf2 inhibitors to overcome resistance and increase efficacy of aromatase inhibitors. Mol Cancer Introduction biosynthesis; the aromatization of androgens to estrogens (8, 9). Breast cancer tissues have been shown to express aromatase and produce higher levels of estrogens than noncancerous cells (7). Estrogens stimulate breast cancer cell growth and proliferation. Aromatase inhibitors became the choice of treatment for breast cancer in postmenopausal women because they block the synthesis of estrogens required by cancer cells to grow (10). Currently, there are three aromatase inhibitors approved by the FDA, letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane (Supplementary Fig. S1). These are approved for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer in both the adjuvant and metastatic setting. Letrozole is more potent than other aromatase inhibitors in reducing plasma estrogen levels (11). While aromatase inhibitors are a very effective treatment, their benefit is often limited by the emergence of resistance that occurs in a significant number of patients in the adjuvant setting and is inevitable in the metastatic setting. The INrf2 (Keap1):Nrf2 complex acts as a cellular sensor of xenobiotics, drugs, and radiation-induced ROS/electrophilic stress (12). Nuclear factor Nrf2 controls the expression and coordinated induction of a battery of genes encoding detoxifying enzymes [quinone oxidoreductases (NQO1 and NQO2), glutathione S-transferases, heme oxygenase 1 (HO-1)], glutathione and related proteins [glutathione, thioredoxins, g-glutamyl cysteinyl synthetase (g-GCS)], ubiquitination enzymes and proteasomes (12, 13), drug transporters (MRP; refs. 14, 15), and antiapoptotic proteins (16). Nrf2 is retained in the cytoplasm by an inhibitor INrf2 or Keap1 (17, 18). INrf2 functions as an adapter Drug resistance is the major obstacle to the successful treatment of many cancers (1). The factors that contribute to the development of drug resistance include alterations in drug intake, efflux, metabolism, and excretion. Deregulation of cell death by evasion of apoptosis, necrosis, mitotic catastrophe, or senescence also contributes to drug resistance (1–3). In addition, the differential expression of membrane proteins such as solute carriers, channels, and ATP-binding cassette transporters have all been demonstrated to play important role in drug resistance (4, 5). Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women (6). Aromatase inhibitors are an effective first line of treatment for ERa-positive breast cancer that constitutes three-fourth of all types of breast cancers (7). Aromatase (cytochrome P450 CYP19A1) catalyzes the rate-limiting and final step of estrogen 1 Department of Pharmacology and Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2 Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Online (http://mct.aacrjournals.org/). Corresponding Author: Anil K. Jaiswal, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 655 West Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. Phone: 410-7062285; Fax: 410-706-5692; E-mail: [email protected]. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672 2015 American Association for Cancer Research. Ther; 14(7); 1728–37. 2015 AACR. 1728 Mol Cancer Ther; 14(7) July 2015 Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on May 2, 2017. © 2015 American Association for Cancer Research. Published OnlineFirst May 14, 2015; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672 Nrf2 and Aromatase Inhibitor Drug Resistance for Cul3/Rbx1-mediated degradation of Nrf2 (12). In response to chemical/drug/radiation including antioxidant tert-butyl hydroquinone (t-BHQ)-induced oxidative/electrophilic stress, Nrf2 is switched on (separation from INrf2 and stabilization of Nrf2) and then off (ubiquitination and degradation of Nrf2) by distinct early and delayed mechanisms (12). Oxidative/electrophilic modifications of INrf2 cysteine151 and/or PKC phosphorylation of Nrf2 serine40 result in the escape or release of Nrf2 from INrf2 (12). Nrf2 is stabilized and translocates to the nucleus, forms heterodimers with small Maf or Jun proteins, and binds antioxidant response elements resulting in coordinated activation of gene expression (12). Indeed, in vivo evidence has demonstrated the importance of Nrf2 in protecting cells from the toxic and carcinogenic effects of many environmental insults. Nrf2-knockout mice were susceptible to acute damages induced by acetaminophen, ovalbumin, cigarette smoke, and pentachlorophenol and had increased tumor formation when exposed to carcinogens such as benzo[a]pyrene, diesel exhaust, and N-nitrosobutyl (4hydroxybutyl) amine (19–22). Therefore, Nrf2 appears to play a significant role in cytoprotection and cell survival (12). In addition, Nrf2 plays significant role in prevention of cancer metastasis (23–25). Studies have also described the detrimental effects of Nrf2 (26– 30). Persistent stabilization and nuclear accumulation of Nrf2 is suggested to play a role in survival of cancer cells and drug resistance. Increase in Nrf2 due to inactivating mutations in INrf2 has been reported in lung cancer (26, 27). Although Nrf2 is thought to contribute to drug resistance by inducing cytoprotective proteins (28, 29), its role in resistance of breast cancer to aromatase inhibitors remains unknown. The studies in this report showed that aromatase inhibitor– resistant breast cancer cells contain lower INrf2 and higher Nrf2 levels, as compared with drug-sensitive cells. Studies also revealed that higher Nrf2 was due to decreased INrf2, lower ubiquitination, and slower degradation of Nrf2 in aromatase inhibitor–resistant cells. Higher Nrf2-mediated increase in biotransformation enzymes, drug transporters, and antiapoptotic proteins contributed to reduced efficacy of drugs and prevention of apoptosis that led to drug resistance. Interestingly, LTLT Ca cells deficient in Nrf2 (LTLTCa-Nrf2KD) showed reduced levels of aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH), a marker of tumor-initiating cells (TIC), significantly decreased mammosphere formation and increased sensitivity to exemestane and doxorubicin, as compared with parental LTLTCa cells expressing higher levels of Nrf2. These results collectively suggest that persistent aromatase inhibitor treatment downregulated INrf2 leading to higher Nrf2 and downstream cytoprotective proteins that resulted in increased aromatase inhibitor drug resistance. (cat. no. 3473) for mammospheres was obtained from Corning. DCFDA Cellular ROS Detection Assay Kit (cat. no. ab113851) and g-glutamylcysteine synthetase (GCLC, ab40929) antibody were obtained from Abcam. Anti-LDH (cat. no. 3558) from Cell Signaling Technology, anti-MRP4 (cat. no.ALX-801-038) from Enzo Life Sciences, anti-BCRP (cat. no. OP191-200UL), Ku80 (cat. no. NA54), and proteasome inhibitor MG-132 (cat. no. 474790) from Millipore were purchased for Western blotting. Aldefluor assay kit was obtained from Stem Cell Technologies. Aromatase inhibitors (letrozole and anastrozole) were provided by Dr. Brodie's laboratory. Cells and cell culture conditions Aromatase inhibitor–sensitive cells (MCF-7Ca and AC1) and aromatase inhibitor–resistant cells (LTLTCa and AnaR) have been described previously (31–33). Briefly, human breast cancer MCF7 cells were stably transfected with the human aromatase gene to generate MCF-7Ca cells (32). Letrozole-resistant LTLTCa cells were isolated from MCF-7Ca mouse xenograft tumors treated with letrozole for 56 weeks. The lower expression of ERa in aromatase inhibitor–resistant cells (LTLTCa and AnaR) as compared with aromatase inhibitor–sensitive cells was previously described (34). However, we did observe as is already published (31) that LTLTCa cells express significantly less ERa than MCF7Ca cells. Similar to MCF-7Ca and LTLTCa cells, AC1 cells were generated from the MCF-7 cells by stable transfection with human aromatase gene. AnaR cells were anastrozole-resistant cells isolated form AC1 mouse xenograft tumors treated with anastrozole for 14 weeks (31). MCF-7Ca cells were grown in DMEM containing 700 mg/mL G418 sulfate and 5% FBS. DMEM with 700 mg/mL G418 sulfate and 10% FBS were used to culture AC1 cells. LTLTCa cells were maintained in phenol red–free modified Improved Minimum Essential Medium (IMEM) containing 700 mg/mL G418 sulfate, 1 mmol/L letrozole and 5% charcoal-stripped FBS. AnaR cells were grown in modified IMEM with 700 mg/mL G418 sulfate, 20 mmol/L anastrozole, and 10% charcoal-stripped FBS. The LTLTCa-Nrf2 knock down (LTLTCa-Nrf2KD) cells were cultured in modified IMEM medium supplemented with 700 mg/mL G418 and 5% charcoal-stripped FBS. MCF-7Ca, LTLTCa, AC1, and AnaR cells were grown in monolayer in medium containing 1% penicillin/streptomycin in an incubator at 37 C with 95% air and 5% CO2. Generation of stable LTLTCa cells expressing Nrf2 shRNA LTLTCa cells were transduced with Nrf2 shRNA or control shRNA lentiviral particles and cells stably expressing Nrf2 shRNA or control shRNA were selected in the presence of 10 mg/mL puromycin and designated as LTLTCa-Nrf2 knockdown (LTLTCaNrf2KD) and LTLTCa-Vector control (LTLTCa-V), respectively. Materials and Methods Chemicals and reagents Puromycin dihydrochloride (sc-108071), control shRNA lentiviral particles-A (sc-108080), Nrf2 shRNA (sc-37030-V), antiNrf2 (sc-13032), anti-Keap1 (sc-15246), anti-HO-1 (sc-10789), anti-NQO1 (sc-32793), anti-Bcl-2 (sc-492), anti-Bcl-xL (sc-8392), anti-Mcl-1 (sc-819), anti-Lamin B (sc-6217), anti-Mdr-1 (sc8318), anti-MRP1 (sc-13960), anti-HER2 (sc-284), anti-Ub (sc8017), anti-Ku70 (sc-17789) antibodies were from Santa Cruz Biotechnology. Glutathione assay kit (item No. 703002) was from Cayman Chemical. Ultra-low attachment of 24-well plate www.aacrjournals.org Western blotting Cells were untreated or treated with proteasome inhibitors MG132 or epoxomicin or DMSO vehicle control. The cells were washed with cold PBS and lysed in radioimmunoprecipitation assay (RIPA) buffer (50 mmol/L Tris, pH 8.0, 150 mmol/L NaCl, 0.2 mmol/L EDTA, 1% Nonidet P-40, 0.5% sodium deoxycholate) supplemented with 1 protease inhibitor (Roche Applied Science). Subcellular fractionation of the cells was performed according to manufacturer's protocol (Active Motif). Proteins were quantified using Bio-Rad protein assay. The cell lysates Mol Cancer Ther; 14(7) July 2015 Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on May 2, 2017. © 2015 American Association for Cancer Research. 1729 Published OnlineFirst May 14, 2015; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672 Khatri et al. (30–50 mg) were separated on SDS-PAGE and transferred to nitrocellulose membranes. The membranes after blocking in 5% nonfat milk solution in Tris buffered Saline Tween-20 (TBST) were incubated with the primary antibodies overnight at 4 C and washed four times with TBST. This was followed by incubation with secondary antibody at room temperature for 1 hour and washed four times with TBST. The protein bands were visualized using chemiluminescence (ECL) system (Thermo Scientific, product no. 32209). ImageJ software (NIH, Bethesda, MD) was used to quantify the intensity of proteins bands. The protein bands were normalized against loading controls. Degradation assay Cells were treated with 25 mg/mL cycloheximide for the indicated time points, washed twice with ice-cold 1 PBS, and lysed in RIPA buffer with protease inhibitors. Thirty micrograms of total cell lysate was loaded per well of 10% SDS-PAGE gel, transferred, and immunoblotted with Nrf2 and b-actin antibodies. Nrf2 band intensity was quantified and normalized to b-actin. The relative levels of Nrf2 from sample with zero (0) minute was considered as initial level. The graphs represent the natural logarithm of the relative levels of the Nrf2 protein as a function of the cycloheximide chase time. The half-life of protein was determined in the linear range of the degradation curve. Immunoprecipitation and ubiquitination assay For ubiquitination assay, cells were treated with 2 mmol/L of MG-132 for 16 hours and lysed in RIPA buffer. One milligram of whole-cell lysate was immunoprecipitated with 1 mg of rabbit IgG or Nrf2 antibody by incubating the reaction mixture overnight in RIPA buffer supplemented with 0.1% SDS at 4 C. After adding 20 mL of washed protein A/G plus beads (Santa Cruz Biotechnology), the mixture was incubated for 2 hours at 4 C and centrifuged at 4,000 rpm for 1 minute. The beads were washed twice with RIPA buffer. Thirty microliters of SDS sample dye was added to each tube and boiled for 5 minutes and immunoprecipitated Nrf2 was separated by 8% SDS-PAGE and immunoblotted with anti-ubiquitin antibody and the same blot was reprobed for Nrf2. Cell survival assay MCF-7Ca, LTLTCa, and LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells were seeded at the density of 10,000; 20,000 and 20,000 cells per well, respectively, in 24-well plates. After 24-hour incubation, cells were treated with different concentrations of exemestane (viz. 0, 5, 10, 20, and 30 mmol/L) for 72 hours. The cells were incubated with freshly prepared MTT dye (200 mL/well of 5 mg/mL MTT dye in PBS) for 2 hours. MTT dye is reduced by mitochondria aldehyde dehydrogenase to form insoluble formazan crystals. The amount of formazan produced is proportional to viable cells. After dissolving formazan crystals in DMSO, absorbance was recorded spectrophotometrically at 570 nm. Cell viability was calculated from absorbance and normalized to the value of the corresponding vehicle control cells. Each data point represents a mean SD from three independent experiments. Aldefluor staining ALDEFLUOR assay (Stem Cell Technologies) was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions. MCF-7Ca and LTLTCa cells and LTLTCa-V and LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells expressing 1730 Mol Cancer Ther; 14(7) July 2015 ALDH were stained with Aldefluor reagent and identified by comparing the same sample with and without the ALDH inhibitor diethylaminobenzaldehyde (DEAB). Cells were acquired using FACSCanto and analyzed using FlowJo software (BD Biosciences). Dead cells were excluded on the basis of light scatter characteristics and using viability dye (propidium iodide) gating parameters. Isolation of TICs using Aldefluor staining Aldefluor assay/Aldehyde dehydrogenase assay (Stem Cell Technologies) was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions. Briefly, LTLTCa cells were stained with Adlefluor reagent along with the inhibitor of ALDH, DEAB, and sorted using FACS ARIA (BD Biosciences). All cells showing differential ALDHstaining pattern were sorted and designated as ALDH-high and ALDH-low cells based on highest and lowest expression of ALDH enzyme, respectively. Mammosphere assay Mammosphere assay was performed using reagents from Stem Cell Technologies, as per manufacturer's instructions. Briefly, LTLTCa-V and LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells were suspended in complete Mammocult media and 10,000 cells per well were plated in ultralow attachment 24-well plates. Mammospheres were counted after 3 weeks. Stabilized spheres with a colony count of at least 50 cells were considered as mammospheres (34). Gene expression analysis Total RNA was isolated from the untreated cells and cells treated with DMSO or t-BHQ for the indicated time periods using RNeasy mini kit, following manufacturer's protocol. cDNA was synthesized from 1 mg of total RNA as template and the cDNA was used to determine the target gene expression by quantitative real-time PCR using TaqMan gene expression assays. ROS detection DCFDA Cellular ROS detection assay kit was used to measure the cellular levels of ROS. Cells were trypsinized and washed with PBS. The cells were suspended in 20 ,70 -dichlorofluorescein diacetate (DCFDA) and incubated at 37 C for 30 minutes in the dark and washed with 1 buffer. A total of 106 DCFDA-stained cells were suspended in 1 mL of 1 supplemented buffer and 105 cells in 100 mL of the cell suspension were added to each well of 96-well black plate. A total of 50 mmol/L of t-butyl hydroperoxide was added and the cells were incubated at 37 C for 3 hours to generate ROS as positive control. Using TECAN Infinite M1000 PRO plate reader, ROS-mediated fluorescence intensity was recorded with excitation wavelength at 485 nm and emission wavelength at 535 nm. Glutathione quantification Total glutathione content was determined spectrophotometrically using Cayman's glutathione assay kit following the manufacturer's protocol. Briefly, the cells were seeded on 6-well plates on day 1 and harvested on day 3 and lysed in 1 buffer supplied in Glutathione detection kit and oxidized and reduced form of glutathione was quantified following the kit protocol using TECAN plate reader (405 nm). Glutathione content is expressed as mmol/L/mg protein. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on May 2, 2017. © 2015 American Association for Cancer Research. Published OnlineFirst May 14, 2015; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672 Nrf2 and Aromatase Inhibitor Drug Resistance 0 0 1.0 0.9 LDH 1 1.2 2.1 5.2 BCRP 2.9 1 0.8 β-Actin 6.2 β-Actin 1 2.0 1 0.9 β-Actin 1 F 2.7 Bcl-xL 1 1 1 Mcl-1 1 HO-1 E 1 MRP4 1 1 1.1 0 0 1.8 LTLTCa 0.2 β-Actin 0 *,P ≤ 0.003 LTLTCa Lamin B 1 1.6 1.0 2.4 2.5 INrf2 1 β-Actin Nrf2 1 1 MRP1 GCLC MCF-7Ca 4.8 3.2 MCF-7Ca Nrf2 LTLTCa * LTLTCa MCF-7Ca LTLTCa MCF-7Ca Fluorescence intensity (×1,000) 6.4 Nuclear LTLTCa D Cytosol MCF-7Ca C 1 AnaR B MCF-7Ca A AC1 Aromatase inhibitor–resistant cells contain higher ROS, lower INrf2, and higher Nrf2 protein levels, as compared with sensitive cells Letrozole-sensitive MCF-7Ca and -resistant LTLTCa cells were analyzed for ROS and immunoblotted for Nrf2, INrf2, Nrf2regulated proteins, and actin (Fig. 1). The results demonstrated that drug-resistant LTLTCa cells contain higher ROS, lower INrf2, and higher Nrf2 levels, as compared with drug-sensitive MCF-7Ca cells (Fig. 1A and B). Subcellular fractionation followed by immunoblotting analysis revealed that nuclear Nrf2 was significantly higher in LTLTCa cells, as compared with MCF-7Ca cells (Fig. 1C). In the same experiment, the cytosolic fraction did not show Nrf2 in either LTLTCa or MCF-7Ca cells (Fig. 1C). The resistant LTLTCa cells also demonstrated significantly increased Nrf2-regulated GCLC (catalytic subunit of glutathione synthesizing enzyme g-GCS), heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), drug transporters LTLTCa Results MCF-7Ca (MRP-1, MRP-4, and BCRP), and antiapoptotic (Bcl-xL and Mcl1) proteins, as compared with sensitive MCF-7Ca cells (Fig. 1D). Further analysis of letrozole-sensitive and -resistant cells demonstrated an increase in total and reduced glutathione in resistant LTLTCa cells, as compared with sensitive MCF-7Ca cells (Fig. 1E). In similar experiments, a second cell line AnaR that is resistant to another aromatase inhibitor anastrozole, also showed lower INrf2, higher Nrf2, and GCLC levels, as compared with drugsensitive AC1 cells (Fig. 1F). In addition, the AnaR cells showed increased expression of Nrf2 downstream genes encoding detoxifying enzymes (GCLC, HO-1), as compared with drug-sensitive AC1 cells (Fig. 1F). Together, these results indicate that persistent treatment of cells with aromatase inhibitors increase ROS, decreases INrf2, increases nuclear Nrf2, increases expression of Nrf2-regulated genes and levels of reduced glutathione, and suggest that Nrf2 and Nrf2-regulated genes play a role in aromatase inhibitor resistance. Interestingly, both letrozole-resistant LTLTCa and anastrozole-resistant AnaR cells containing higher levels of Nrf2 showed downregulation of the Nrf2 downstream gene NQO1, as compared with sensitive cells (Supplementary Fig. S2). The reasons for downregulation of NQO1 gene expression in aromatase inhibitor–resistant cells remain unknown. It is noteworthy that the lack of induction of NQO1 gene in letrozoletreated Hepa 1c1c7 cells was observed earlier (35). Statistical analyses Data from cell survival, cell death assay, and real-time PCR were analyzed using a two-tailed Student test. Data were presented as the mean SD. Two datasets with P < 0.05 were considered as statistically significant. 1 5.0 1 0.2 1 1.3 1 3.3 1 1.1 Nrf2 Glutathione (μmol/L/μg protein) 3.00 P ≤ 0.01 MCF-7Ca P ≤ 0.003 INrf2 2.50 LTLTCa 2.00 GCLC 1.50 1.00 HO-1 0.50 0.00 β-Actin Reduced GSH (μmol/L) GSSG (μmol/L) Total GSH (μmol/L) Figure 1. Aromatase inhibitor–resistant cells generated increased levels of ROS and expressed lower levels of INrf2, higher levels of Nrf2, and Nrf2 downstream gene expression. A, cellular ROS-mediated fluorescence in letrozole-sensitive (MCF-7Ca) and letrozole-resistant (LTLTCa) cells. Cells were incubated with DCFDA and cellular ROS–mediated fluorescence intensity was recorded using microplate reader. B, D, and F, MCF-7Ca and LTLTCa cells were lysed and analyzed by Western blot analysis. C, cytosolic and nuclear fractions from MCF-7Ca and LTLTCa cells were immunobloted. E, total and reduced glutathione in MCF-7CA and LTLTCa cells was determined spectrophotometrically at 570 nm. F, Western blot analysis of the relative levels of Nrf2, INrf2 (Keap1), and Nrf2 target genes anastrozole-sensitive AC1 and anastrozole-resistant AnaR cells. www.aacrjournals.org Mol Cancer Ther; 14(7) July 2015 Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on May 2, 2017. © 2015 American Association for Cancer Research. 1731 Published OnlineFirst May 14, 2015; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672 Khatri et al. cells (Fig. 2C). Furthermore, the Nrf2 levels in LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells were similar to MCF-7Ca cells (Fig. 2A) and their sensitivities to exemestane were not significantly different (Fig. 2C; P > 0.7758). In other words, knockdown of Nrf2 in LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells sensitized cells to exemestane to a similar extent as observed with MCF-7Ca cells. Interestingly, LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells also showed increased sensitivity to genotoxic antitumor drugs doxorubicin and etoposide as compared with LTLTCa cells (Supplementary Fig. S3). Together, these results suggested a role for Nrf2 in aromatase inhibitor drug resistance. It is noteworthy that LTLTCa cells contained significantly lower ERa, as compared with MCF-7Ca cells and shRNA inhibition of Nrf2 in LTLTCa cells had more or less no effect on ERa level in LTLTCa cells (Supplementary Fig. S4), indicating that Nrf2 does not regulate ERa expression in resistant cells. Letrozole-resistant LTLTCa cells show lower Nrf2 ubiquitination levels and a decreased rate of Nrf2 degradation when compared with sensitive MCF-7Ca cells LTLTCa cells demonstrated decreased Nrf2 ubiquitination and degradation, as compared with MCF-7Ca cells (Fig. 3A). In related experiments, the rate of degradation of Nrf2 was significantly lower in LTLTCa cells, compared with MCF-7Ca cells (Fig. 3B). These results collectively suggested that higher levels of Nrf2 in LTLTCa cells are due to decreased ubiquitination and degradation of Nrf2. Notably INrf2, which functions as an adaptor protein for Cul3-Rbx1–mediated ubiquitination and degradation of Nrf2, is downregulated in aromatase inhibitor–resistant LTLTCa cells (Figs. 1B and 3C). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that lower INrf2 levels were responsible for the reduced ubiquitination and degradation of Nrf2 in LTLTCa cells. We also determined whether downregulation of INrf2 in LTLTCa cells is due to degradation and/or decreased transcript levels of the INrf2 gene, as compared with MCF-7Ca cells (Fig. 3C–E). The treatment of C LTLTCaNrf2KD A LTLTCa-V MCF-7Ca shRNA inhibition of Nrf2 in LTLTCa cells decreased Nrf2 downstream gene expression and increased sensitivity to exemestane LTLTCa cells were transduced with either lentiviral vector (control) or Nrf2shRNA viral particles and positive clones selected in puromycin. MCF-7Ca, LTLTCa-V (vector control), and LTLTCaNrf2KD (Nrf2 knockdown) cells were immunoblotted for Nrf2 and INrf2; detoxifying proteins GCLC and NQO1; membrane transporters MRP1, MRP4, and BCRP; and antiapoptotic proteins Mcl-1, Bcl-xL, and actin (Fig. 2A and B). shRNA silencing of Nrf2 significantly reduced the levels of Nrf2, GCLC, NQO1, MRP4, BclxL, and Mcl-1 (Fig 2A and B). Nrf2KD cells also showed downregulation of MRP1 but the change was insignificant. This is presumably due to relatively lower contribution of Nrf2, as compared with other factors including NF-kB and c-Jun that regulate expression of MRP1 in LTLTCa cells (15). Previous studies have suggested the option of using steroidal aromatase inhibitor exemestane to treat HER2-negative, hormonal receptor– positive, postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer patients with resistance to nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (reviewed in ref. 36). Therefore, one of the aims of the experiment was to evaluate exemestane sensitivity of aromatase inhibitor–resistant LTLTCa cells. The MCF-7Ca, LTLTCa, and LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells were compared for exemestane sensitivity (Fig. 2C). Interestingly, the treatment of LTLTCa cells (expressing higher Nrf2 compared with MCF-7Ca cells) with exemestane showed some degree of sensitivity that increased with increasing concentration of exemestane (Fig. 2C). However, MCF-7Ca cells containing lower Nrf2 showed significant sensitivity to 20 and 30 mmol/L exemestane, as compared with LTLTCa cells containing higher Nrf2 (Fig. 2C). Intriguingly, shRNA inhibition of Nrf2 significantly sensitized LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells to exemestane (Fig. 2C). The 20 and 30 mmol/L exemestane concentrations significantly decreased cell survival in LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells as compared with LTLTCa MCF-7Ca Nrf2 1 2.5 1.1 140 LTLTCa 1 0.4 0.4 120 LTLTCa-Nrf2KD 1 3.6 2.8 100 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 INrf2 % Cell survival GCLC NQO1 1 1.7 0.8 LTLT-CaNrf2KD LTLTCa-V 2 1.9 MRP-1 MCF-7Ca 1 LTLT-CaNrf2KD LTLTCa-V B MCF-7Ca Actin Mcl-1 MRP-4 1.5 0.7 BCRP 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 20 Exemestane (μmol/L) Bcl-xL 1 80 1 1.9 1.3 1 1 1.1 30 Figure 2. LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells were more sensitive to exemestane. A and B, Western blot analysis of Nrf2, INrf2, and Nrf2 downstream proteins in MCF-7Ca, LTLTCa, and LTLTCaNrf2KD cells. C, comparative sensitivities of MCF7Ca, LTLTCa, and LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells to exemestane. The cells were exposed to 10% ethanol in PBS (vehicle control represented by 0 exemestane) and varying concentrations of exemestane (1, 2.5, 5.0. 10, 20, and 30 mmol/L) for 72 hours and analyzed for cell survival by MTT assay. Cell survival obtained at 1 and 2.5 mmol/L has been excluded from the graph as the results were similar to those obtained from 5 mmol/L. Each data point represents a mean SD from three independent experiments. Actin 1 4.2 2.1 1732 Mol Cancer Ther; 14(7) July 2015 Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on May 2, 2017. © 2015 American Association for Cancer Research. Published OnlineFirst May 14, 2015; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672 Nrf2 and Aromatase Inhibitor Drug Resistance Input B CHX(min) 0 30 60 Ln [Relative Nrf2] 0.3 0.5 IP: Nrf2 0.7 0.2 WB:Nrf2 Nrf2 β-Actin IgG 2 12 Nrf2 Epoxomicin DMSO (100 nmol/L/12 h) LTLTCa MCF-7Ca 1 D 1 1 8 8 Nrf2 11 INrf2 INrf2 1 0.6 0.6 0.3 Actin 60 90 1 0.9 0.7 1 1 30 60 90 Half-life of Nrf2 MCF-7Ca 28.9 min LTLTCa52.1 min −0.6 −1.2 MCF-7Ca LTLT-Ca −1.8 MCF-7Ca LTLTCa MG132 (2 μmol/L/16 h) MCF-7Ca DMSO 1 LTLTCa 0.9 MCF-7Ca 0.8 LTLTCa 1 30 0.0 Ubiquitin 1 1 0 0.7 E 1.2 MCF-7Ca LTLTCa 1 Relative quantification of mRNA of INr2 (Keap1) 3.2 INrf2 0 Time (min) WB: 2. 2.3 90 Actin IP: Nrf2 1 LTLTCa Nrf2 Nrf2 C MCF-7Ca LTLTCa MCF-7Ca LTLTCa MCF-7Ca MG132 DMSO 2 μmol/L/16 h IgG LTLTCa LTLTCa MCF-7Ca DMSO IP MG132 2 μmol/L/16 h MCF-7Ca A 0.8 P ≤ 0.003 0.6 0.4 0.2 Actin 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 3. LTLTCa cells showed decreased ubiquitination and degradation of Nrf2 compared with MCF-7Ca cells. A, 1 mg of total cell lysate from MG-132–treated cells was immunoprecipitated with 1 mg of rabbit IgG or Nrf2 antibody. The immunoprecipitated Nrf2 was immunoblotted for ubiquitin and Nrf2. B, cells were treated with 25 mg/mL cycloheximide (CHX) for the indicated time points and 30 mg of total cells lysate was immunoblotted with Nrf2 and b-actin antibodies. The graphs represent the natural logarithm of the relative levels of the Nrf2 protein versus the cycloheximide chase time and the half-life of Nrf2 was determined using the linear part of the degradation curve. LTLTCa cells showed no difference in rate of INrf2 protein degradation but demonstrated lower levels of INrf2 transcripts, as compared with MCF-7Ca cells. Cells treated with MG-132 (C) and with epoxomicin (D) were lysed and immunoblotted. E, total RNA was isolated from the cells and cDNA was synthesized from 1 mg of total RNA and the cDNA was used to quantify the INrf2 gene transcripts at basal level. LTLTCa cells with proteasome inhibitors MG132 (Fig. 3C) or epoxomicin (Fig. 3D) failed to stabilize INrf2 indicating that the lower INrf2 level in LTLTCa cells is not due to degradation of INrf2. We also performed experiments to investigate whether epigenetic and/or autophagy mechanisms contribute to lower levels of INrf2 in LTLTCa cells. Epigenetic regulation of INrf2 (Keap1) was investigated by treating LTLTCa cells with an inhibitor of DNA methyltransferase and inhibitors of histone deacetylase. Treatment with those epigenetic modulators failed to restore the levels of INrf2. We also utilized inhibitors of autophagy to examine the possibility of INrf2 degradation by autophagy (37). Even though we observed higher level of autophagy in LTLTCa cells as compared with MCF-7Ca cells, the inhibition of autophagy did not increase the levels of INrf2. It is noteworthy that negative data on epigenetic and autophagy regulation of INrf2 are not included. Interestingly, RT-PCR analysis of INrf2 RNA demonstrated significantly lower INrf2 RNA transcripts in aromatase inhibitor–resistant LTLTCa cells, as compared with drug-sensitive MCF-7Ca cells (Fig. 3E). This result suggested that www.aacrjournals.org INrf2 gene expression is downregulated in aromatase inhibitor– resistant cells. RT-PCR analysis also showed a marginal increase in Nrf2 gene expression in LTLTCa cells, as compared with sensitive MCF-7Ca cells that might also have contributed to higher Nrf2 in resistant cells (Supplementary Fig. S3). In TICs from LTLTCa cells, lower INrf2 and higher Nrf2 expression levels lead to expression of Nrf2 targets, GCLC, DNA repair proteins, and HER2 Recent studies have implicated mammary TICs in resistance to chemotherapy and radiation (38, 39). TICs are immature, poorly differentiated, and highly tumorigenic (40–42). TICs have a decreased ability to undergo apoptosis and a higher ability for DNA repair, making them more resistant to cancer therapy, compared with differentiated counterparts (43, 44). We isolated TICs expressing ALDH from LTLTCa cell culture. It has been reported that chemoresistant cancer stem cells have high ALDH activity (45) and ALDH is considered as a marker of normal and malignant human mammary stem cells (46). MCF-7Ca, LTLTCa, Mol Cancer Ther; 14(7) July 2015 Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on May 2, 2017. © 2015 American Association for Cancer Research. 1733 Published OnlineFirst May 14, 2015; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672 LTLTCa-low ALDH LTLTCa-high ALDH Khatri et al. 1.0 4.8 6.8 8.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.5 1.0 2.1 2.4 2.9 LTLTCa-V MCF-7Ca * HER-2 Nrf2 Actin INrf2 GCLC Ku80 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.9 1.0 0.7 1.8 2.3 Ku70 Actin 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 Figure 4. TICs isolated from LTLTCa cells expressed lower levels of INrf2 and higher levels of Nrf2. LTLTCa cells were subjected to Aldefluor staining (Aldefluor Staining Kit, Stem Cell Technologies) and the cells expressing ALDH were further gated into ALDH-high and ALDH-low cells. Cells were sorted as ALDHhigh (TIC) and ALDH-low (non-TIC) fractions. MCF-7Ca and LTLTCa cells also received the same treatment as LTLTCa-low ALDH and LTLTCa-high ALDH cells. MCF-7Ca and LTLTCa cells were used as control cells. The cells were lysed and total cell lysate was immumoblotted with indicated antibodies. , Control live cells were sorted by propidium iodide exclusion. LTLTCa-low ALDH, and LTLTCa-high ALDH cells were lysed and immunoblotted for Nrf2, INrf2, GCLC, DNA repair proteins, and HER2 (Fig. 4). Results revealed that TICs expressed lower levels of INrf2 and higher levels of Nrf2 and Nrf2 downstream GCLC gene expression. TICs also expressed higher levels of HER2. Intriguingly, TICs with high ALDH levels (stem cells) expressed significantly higher levels of nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) DNA repair proteins Ku80 and Ku70, as compared with MCF7Ca and LTLT-Ca cells. This observation has high significance as TICs are believed to contribute to drug resistance. shRNA inhibition of Nrf2 in LTLTCa cells significantly decreases TICs and mammosphere formation MCF-7Ca and LTLTCa cells were immunoblotted for Nrf2 (Fig. 5A) and in separate experiments were stained to assess the expression of stem cell marker ALDH in the absence and presence of ALDH inhibitor DEAB (Fig. 5B). As expected, the levels of Nrf2 and ALDH were significantly higher in LTLTCa cells compared with MCF-7Ca cells (Fig. 5A and B). This indicated the presence of an increased stem cell-like population in LTLTCa cells containing higher levels of Nrf2, as compared with MCF-7Ca cells with lower Nrf2 protein. In related experiments, LTLTCa-V (vector control), 1734 Mol Cancer Ther; 14(7) July 2015 LTLTCa-Nrf2KD clone #2 and clone #1 cells were immunoblotted for Nrf2 and actin (Fig. 5C). The results demonstrated that LTLTCa-V cells showed highest expression of Nrf2, which was followed by clone #2 and clone #1 cells LTLTCa-V and the two clones of LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells were stained for assessing the expression of stem cell marker ALDH in the absence and presence of ALDH inhibitor DEAB (Fig. 5D). Results demonstrated a direct correlation between Nrf2 expression levels and the magnitude of ALDH expression. LTLTCa-V cells expressing the highest levels of Nrf2 led the highest percentage of cells in a gated region R3 that stained positive for ALDH. Moreover, clone #2, containing lower expression levels of Nrf2 demonstrated significantly decreased ALDH. Notably, shRNA downregulation of Nrf2 in LTLTCa (clone #1) containing lowest level of Nrf2 also showed the least staining for ALDH. These results showed that shRNA inhibition of Nrf2 led to an Nrf2-dependent decrease in ALDH-positive TICs. It is noteworthy that ALDH is an Nrf2 downstream gene and its expression is regulated by Nrf2 (47–49). Therefore, our observation of a relationship between Nrf2 and ALDH is strengthened by previous reports (47–49). In related experiments, LTLTCa and both clones of LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells were also analyzed for mammosphere formation (Fig. 6). The results (compare Figs. 5C and 6) revealed a direct correlation between Nrf2 and mammosphere formation. shRNA inhibition of Nrf2 in LTLTCa cells led to Nrf2 concentration–dependent decrease in mammosphere formation. Together, the results suggest a direct correlation between Nrf2, ALDH-positive TICs and mammosphere formation with implications in aromatase inhibitor drug resistance that warrant further studies. Discussion This is the first report demonstrating a role for Nrf2 in aromatase inhibitor resistance in breast cancer. Letrozole-resistant LTLTCa cells generated significantly higher ROS levels, as compared with letrozole-sensitive MCF-7Ca cells. This increase in ROS was more significant considering that reduced glutathione that scavenges ROS was also increased. We believe that long-term treatment of letrozole could result in continuous generation of ROS, which is known to activate Nrf2. However, Nrf2-mediated antioxidant gene expression might not be sufficient to lower the levels of ROS leading to higher levels of ROS in drug-resistant LTLTCa cells, as compared with drug-sensitive MCF-7Ca cells. LTLTCa cells also showed lower INrf2 and higher expression levels of Nrf2, as compared with MCF-7Ca cells. Similar results were also observed in anastrozole-resistant AnaR cells. The increase in ROS and decrease in INrf2 led to decreased ubiquitination and degradation of Nrf2 leading to the stabilization and nuclear translocation of Nrf2. High levels of Nrf2 in the nucleus led to coordinated induction of Nrf2 downstream cytoprotective proteins including detoxifying enzymes, membrane transporters, and antiapoptotic proteins. On the basis of the documented role of Nrf2-activated cytoprotective proteins in drug resistance in other systems (28), our results strongly suggest that Nrf2 plays a role in aromatase inhibitor resistance. This was further supported by studies showing that inhibition of Nrf2-sensitized LTLTCa cells to the aromatase inhibitor exemestane. Our studies also revealed that lower levels of INrf2 in drugresistant LTLTCa cells is not due to instability of INrf2 protein as inhibitors of proteasomes failed to increase the level of INrf2. Furthermore, the lower levels of INrf2 in LTLTCa cells are also not Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on May 2, 2017. © 2015 American Association for Cancer Research. Published OnlineFirst May 14, 2015; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672 Nrf2 and Aromatase Inhibitor Drug Resistance LTLTCa 1.0 2.4 LTLTCa 0.3% 5.19% 0.01% 0.45% ALDH Actin LTLTCa-Nrf2KD # 1 C LTLTCa-Nrf2KD # 2 DEAB D 1 0.5 0.3 LTLTCa-V LTLTCa-Nrf2KD # 2 LTLTCa-Nrf2KD #1 2.27% 1.58% 0.05% 0.33% 0.23% 0.01% ALDH Nrf2 DEAB Actin due to epigenetic modulation or autophagy as inhibitors of DNAmethyl transferase, histone deacetylation, and autophagy all failed to increase INrf2 levels in aromatase inhibitor–resistant LTLTCa cells. Additional studies demonstrated that downregulation of INrf2 in letrozole-resistant LTLTCa cells is due to a significant decrease in INrf2 transcripts. This raises an intriguing question regarding the mechanism of aromatase inhibitor–mediated downregulation of INrf2 gene expression and is a subject of future studies. Aromatase inhibitor–resistant cells showed higher population of TIC cells that are believed to contribute to resistance to chemotherapy and radiation (34, 39). The TICs showed lower INrf2 and higher Nrf2. TICs also showed higher expression of Nrf2 downstream cytoprotective proteins and higher levels of Ku70 and Ku80 proteins that participate in the NHEJ pathway that is known to be active in repairing DNA double-strand breaks, one of the most lethal forms of DNA damage. NHEJ is known to be active in G0–G1 phase of the cell cycle in which many "stem" cells reside (50). These observations suggested that higher Nrf2 in TICs contributed to aromatase inhibitor drug resistance. While a previous publication found Ku proteins to be reduced in LTLTCa cells (51), their high expression levels in TICs are significant. NHEJ may participate in drug resistance in "stem"-like TICs by increasing repair of DNA damage, leading to cell survival. This conclusion was further strengthened from following observations. First, shRNA inhibition of Nrf2 led to Nrf2 concentration–dependent reduced survival of TICs. In other words, Nrf2 enhances survival of TICs in the presence of drugs that contribute to resistance. It is noteworthy that a role of Nrf2 in cell survival by inhibiting apoptosis is well established in other systems (16). Second, in related experiments, inhibition of Nrf2 led to significant decrease in mammosphere formation. This signifies the importance of www.aacrjournals.org MCF-7Ca Nrf2 LTLTCa-V Figure 5. Increased Nrf2 in LTLTCa cells is directly associated with higher ALDH. A and B, LTLTCa cells containing higher Nrf2 showed increased ALDH. A, Western blot analysis. MCF-7Ca and LTLTCa cells were immunoblotted for Nrf2 and b-actin. B, ALDH measurement. MCF-7Ca and LTLTCa cells were stained with Aldefluor in absence and presence of ALDH inhibitor DEAB and the percentage of cells expressing ALDH was determined. C and D, Nrf2-knocked down LTLTCa cells expressed lower levels of ALDH. Two clones of LTLTCa cells expressing Nrf2shRNA were selected. A, LTLTCa-V and LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells were lysed and immunoblotted with Nrf2 to confirm reduced levels of Nrf2. B, all the cells were subjected to Aldefluor staining and the percentage of cells expressing ALDH was determined by comparing the same sample with and without the ALDH inhibitor DEAB. LTLTCa-Nrf2KD cells contained lower percentage of cells expressing ALDH. Data were acquired using FACScanto. B MCF-7Ca A Nrf2 in mammosphere development. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that higher Nrf2 levels in TICs contributed to aromatase inhibitor resistance. Collectively, the results led to the hypothesis (Supplementary Fig. S5) that aromatase inhibitor downregulates INrf2 transcripts that, combined with higher ROS, leads to increased Nrf2 and Nrf2 downstream cytoprotective proteins including detoxifying enzymes, antioxidants, and efflux pumps. In addition, higher Nrf2-mediated increased expression of antiapoptotic proteins that led to reduced apoptosis. Finally, higher Nrf2 increased TIC survival and mammosphere formation. Together, all these Nrf2-dependent processes contributed to aromatase inhibitor drug resistance. Previous studies have shown increased signaling through HER2 receptors and increased MAPK activity as probable causes of endocrine drug resistance (reviewed in refs. 7 and 52). In addition, breast cancer cells receiving long-term antiestrogen treatment appear to have increased ROS and disruption of reversible redox signaling that involves redox-sensitive factors including protein phosphatases, protein kinases such as ERK, and transcription factors AP-1 and NF-kB that contribute to drug resistance (reviewed in ref. 53). Furthermore, PI3K–Akt–mTOR pathway has also been implicated in endocrine drug resistance (54). The INrf2:Nrf2 system identified in the current report is a novel mechanism of aromatase inhibitor drug resistance but is also related to the abovementioned mechanisms. This is because Nrf2 is a transcription factor that controls redox homeostasis (reviewed in ref. 12). In addition, Nrf2 itself is regulated by PI3K–Akt– mTOR, MAPKs, and redox-sensitive factors including AP1 (reviewed in ref. 12). Further studies are required to explore the exact relationship between these factors and pathways leading to aromatase inhibitor drug resistance and possible therapeutic intervention. Mol Cancer Ther; 14(7) July 2015 Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on May 2, 2017. © 2015 American Association for Cancer Research. 1735 Published OnlineFirst May 14, 2015; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672 Khatri et al. LTLTCa-Nrf2KD # 2 LTLTCa(CTRL) LTLTCa-Nrf2KD #1 Mammosphere numbers 175 150 P ≤ 0.02 125 P ≤ 0.001 100 Figure 6. Nrf2-knocked down LTLTCa cells form fewer 4 mammospheres. A total of 10 LTLTCa-V and LTLT-Nrf2KD cells were seeded in complete Mammocult media per well in ultra-low attachment 24-well plates. Mammospheres were counted after 3 weeks and photographed. 75 50 25 0 LTLTCa LTLTCa-Nrf2KD #2 LTLTCa-Nrf2KD #1 Recent studies have shown some benefit in using steroidal aromatase inhibitor exemestane in treating HER2-negative, hormonal receptor–positive, and postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer patients with resistance to nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (36). The studies in this report suggest that it might be possible to increase the efficacy of exemestane in the patients with endocrine drug resistance by inhibiting Nrf2. This assumption is based on observation that shRNA inhibition of Nrf2 in letrozole-resistant cells significantly increased the sensitivity to exemestane. In conclusion, the current studies present strong evidence for a role of INrf2:Nrf2 in aromatase inhibitor drug resistance in breast cancer. The mechanism(s) involving Nrf2 to combat drug resistance is especially interesting as it is estrogen independent. The studies also suggest that Nrf2 inhibitors from natural sources could be explored for use as adjuvants with aromatase inhibitor drugs to treat aromatase inhibitor–resistant breast cancer. Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. Development of methodology: P. Shah, A. Brodie Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): P. Shah, R. Guha, A. Brodie Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): R. Khatri, R. Guha, A. Brodie, A.K. Jaiswal Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: R. Khatri, P. Shah, R. Guha, F.V. Rassool, A.E. Tomkinson, A. Brodie, A.K. Jaiswal Study supervision: A.K. Jaiswal Acknowledgments The authors thank their colleagues at the University of Maryland School of Medicine (Baltimore, MD) for helpful discussions. Grant Support This work was supported by NIH grant RO1 ES012265 (to A.K. Jaiswal), RO1 ES021483 (to A.K. Jaiswal), RO1 CA62483 (to A. Brodie), RO1 GM047466 (to A.K. Jaiswal), and a grant from V-Foundation and Endow Funds (to A.K. Jaiswal). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Authors' Contributions Conception and design: R. Khatri, R. Guha, A.E. Tomkinson, A. Brodie, A.K. Jaiswal Received August 7, 2014; revised April 1, 2015; accepted May 5, 2015; published OnlineFirst May 14, 2015. References 1. Raguz S, Yague E. Resistance to chemotherapy: new treatments and novel insights into an old problem. Br J Cancer 2008;99:387–91. 2. Mansilla S, Bataller M, Portugal J. Mitotic catastrophe as a consequence of chemotherapy. Anticancer Agents Med Chem 2006;6:589–602. 3. Dimri GP. What has senescence got to do with cancer? Cancer Cell 2005;7:505–12. 4. Huang Y, Anderle P, Bussey KJ, Barbacioru C, Shankavaram U, Dai Z, et al. Membrane transporters and channels: role of the transportome in cancer chemosensitivity and chemoresistance. Cancer Res 2004;64: 4294–4301. 5. Gottesman MM, Fojo T, Bates SE. Multidrug resistance in cancer: role of ATP-dependent transporters. Nat Rev Cancer 2002;2:48–58. 6. Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics 2000. CA Cancer J Clin 2000;50:7–33. 1736 Mol Cancer Ther; 14(7) July 2015 7. Chumsri S, Howes T, Bao T, Sabnis G, Brodie A. Aromatase, aromatase inhibitors, and breast cancer. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2011;125:13–22. 8. Chen SA, Besman MJ, Sparkes RS, Zollman S, Klisak I, Mohandas T, et al. Human aromatase: cDNA cloning, Southern blot analysis, and assignment of the gene to chromosome 15. DNA 1988;7:27–38. 9. Akhtar M, Wright JN, Lee-Robichaud P. A review of mechanistic studies on aromatase (CYP19) and 17alpha-hydroxylase-17,20-lyase (CYP17). J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2011;125:2–12. 10. Harada N. Aberrant expression of aromatase in breast cancer tissues. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 1997;61:175–84. 11. Geisler J, Haynes B, Anker G, Dowsett M, Lonning PE. Influence of letrozole and anastrozole on total body aromatization and plasma estrogen levels in postmenopausal breast cancer patients evaluated in a randomized, crossover study. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:751–57. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on May 2, 2017. © 2015 American Association for Cancer Research. Published OnlineFirst May 14, 2015; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672 Nrf2 and Aromatase Inhibitor Drug Resistance 12. Niture SK, Khatri R, Jaiswal AK. Regulation of Nrf2-an update. Free Radic Biol Med 2014;66:36–44. 13. Kwak MK, Cho JM, Huang B, Shin S, Kensler TW. Role of increased expression of the proteasome in the protective effects of sulforaphane against hydrogen peroxide-mediated cytotoxicity in murine neuroblastoma cells. Free Radic Biol Med 2007;43:809–17. 14. Maher JM, Dieter MZ, Aleksunes LM, Slitt AL, Guo G, Tanaka Y, et al. Oxidative and electrophilic stress induces multidrug resistance-associated protein transporters via the nuclear factor-E2-related factor-2 transcriptional pathway. Hepatology 2007;46:1597–610. 15. Hayashi A, Suzuki H, Itoh K, Yamamoto M, Sugiyama Y. Transcription factor Nrf2 is required for the constitutive and inducible expression of multidrug resistance-associatedprotein 1 in mouse embryo fibroblasts. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003;310:824–29. 16. Niture SK, Jaiswal AK. Nrf2 protein up-regulates antiapoptotic protein Bcl2 and prevents cellular apoptosis. J Biol Chem 287:9873–86. 17. Itoh K, Wakabayashi N, Katoh Y, Ishii T, Igarashi K, Engel JD, et al. Keap1 represses nuclear activation of antioxidant responsive elements by Nrf2 through binding to the amino-terminal Neh2 domain. Genes Dev 1999;13:76–86. 18. Dhakshinamoorthy S, Jaiswal AK. Functional characterization and role of INrf2 in antioxidant response element-mediated expression and antioxidant induction of NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase1 gene. Oncogene 2001;20:3906–17. 19. Chan K, Han XD, Kan YW. An important function of Nrf2 in combating oxidative stress: detoxification of acetaminophen. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:4611–16. 20. Hu X, Roberts JR, Apopa PL, Kan YW, Ma Q. Accelerated ovarian failure induced by 4-vinyl cyclohexene diepoxide in Nrf2 null mice. Mol Cell Biol 2006;26:940–54. 21. Iida K, Itoh K, Kumagai Y, Oyasu R, Hattori K, Kawai K, et al. Nrf2 is essential for the chemopreventive efficacy of oltipraz against urinary bladder carcinogenesis. Cancer Res 2004;64:6424–31. 22. Iizuka T, Ishii Y, Itoh K, Kiwamoto T, Kimura T, Matsuno Y, et al. Nrf2deficient mice are highly susceptible to cigarette smoke-induced emphysema. Genes Cell 2005;10:1113–25. 23. Shu LM, Cheung KL, Khor TO, Chen C, Kong AN. Phytochemicals: cancer chemoprevention and suppression of tumor onset and metastasis. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2010;29:483–502. 24. Satoh H, Moriguchi T, Taguchi K, Takai J, Maher JM, Suzuki T, et al. Nrf2deficiency creates a responsive microenvironment for metastasis to the lung. Carcinogenesis 2010;31:1833–43. 25. Rachakonda G, Sekhar KR, Jowhar D, Samson PC, Wikswo JP, Beauchamp RD, et al.Increased cell migration and plasticity in Nrf2-deficient cancer cell lines. Oncogene 2010;29:3703–14. 26. Padmanabhan B, Tong KI, Ohta T, Nakamura Y, Scharlock M, Ohtsuji M, et al.Structural basis for defects of Keap1 activity provoked by its point mutations in lung cancer. Mol cell 2006;21: 689–700. 27. Kweon MH, Adhami VM, Lee JS, Mukhtar H. Constitutive overexpression of Nrf2-dependent heme oxygenase-1 in A549 cells contributes to resistance to apoptosis induced by epigallocatechin 3-gallate. J Biol Chem 2006;281:33761–72. 28. Okawa H, Motohashi H, Kobayashi A, Aburatani H, Kensler TW, Yamamoto M. Hepatocyte-specific deletion of the keap1 gene activates Nrf2 and confers potent resistance against acute drug toxicity. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2006;339:79–88. 29. Goel A, Aggarwal BB. Curcumin, the golden spice from Indian saffron, is a chemosensitizer and radiosensitizer for tumors and chemoprotector and radioprotector for normal organs. Nutr Cancer 2010;62:919–30. 30. DeNicola GM, Karreth FA, Humpton TJ, Gopinathan A, Wei C, Frese K, et al. Oncogene-induced Nrf2 transcription promotes ROS detoxification and tumorigenesis. Nature 475:106–9. 31. Jelovac D, Sabnis G, Long BJ, Macedo L, Goloubeva OG, Brodie AM. Activation of mitogen-activated protein kinase in xenografts and cells during prolonged treatment with aromatase inhibitor letrozole. Cancer Res 2005;65:5380–89. 32. Zhou DJ, Pompon D, Chen SA. Stable expression of human aromatase complementary DNA in mammalian cells: a useful system for aromatase inhibitor screening. Cancer Res 1990;50:6949–54. www.aacrjournals.org 33. Macedo LF, Sabnis G, Brodie A. Aromatase inhibitors and breast cancer. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009;1155:162–73. 34. Gilani RA, Kazi AA, Shah P, Schech AJ, Chumsri S, Sabnis G, et al. The importance of HER2 signaling in the tumor-initiating cell population in aromatase inhibitor-resistant breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;135:681–92. 35. Liu H, Talalay P. Relevance of anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activities of exemestane and synergism with sulforaphane for disease prevention. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013;110:19065–70. 36. Gilabert M, Launay SG. Exemestane-everolimus in HER2-negative, hormonal receptor-positive, post-menopausal metastatic breastcancer with resistance to non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor: a new option. Bull Cancer 2014;101:325–333. 37. Taguchi K, Fujikawa N, Komatsu M, Ishii T, Unno M, Akaike T, et al. Keap1 degradation by autophagy for the maintenance of redox homeostasis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012;109:13561–66. 38. Gutierrez C, Schiff R. HER2: biology, detection, and clinical implications. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2011;135:55–62. 39. Chumsri S, Burger AM. Cancer stem cell targeted agents: therapeutic approaches and consequences. Curr Opin Mol Ther 2008;10:323–33. 40. Li X, Lewis MT, Huang J, Gutierrez C, Osborne CK, Wu MF, et al. Intrinsic resistance of tumorigenic breast cancer cells to chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:672–79. 41. Creighton CJ, Li XX, Landis M, Dixon JM, Neumeister VM, Sjolund A, et al. Residual breast cancers after conventional therapy display mesenchymal as well as tumor-initiating features. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009;106: 13820–25. 42. Decraene C, Benchaouir R, Dillies MA, Israeli D, Bortoli S, Rochon C, et al. Global transcriptional characterization of SP and MP cells from the myogenic C2C12 cell line: effect of FGF6. Physiol Genomics 2005;23:132–49. 43. Ma S, Lee TK, Zheng BJ, Chan KW, Guan XY. CD133þ HCC cancer stem cells confer chemoresistance by preferential expression of the Akt/PKB survival pathway. Oncogene 2008;27:1749–58. 44. Nicolini A, Ferrari P, Fini M, Borsari V, Fallahi P, Antonelli A, et al. Stem cells: their role in breast cancer development and resistance to treatment. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 2011;12:196–205. 45. Awad O, Yustein JT, Shah P, Gul N, Katuri V, O'Neill A, et al. High ALDH activity identifies chemotherapy-resistant Ewing's sarcoma stem cells that retain sensitivity to EWS-FLI1 inhibition. PLoS ONE 2010;5: e13943. 46. Ginestier C, Hur MH, Charafe-Jauffret E, Monville F, Dutcher J, Brown M, et al. ALDH1 is a marker of normal and malignant human mammary stem cells and a predictor of poor clinical outcome. Cell Stem Cell 2007;1:555–67. 47. Ushida Y, Talalay P. Sulforaphane accelerates acetaldehyde metabolism by inducing aldehyde dehydrogenase: relevance to ethanol intolerance. Alcohol Alcohol 2013;48:526–34. 48. Abdullah A, Kitteringham NR, Jenkins RE, Goldring C, HIggins L, Yamamoto M, et al. Analysis of the role of Nrf2 in the expression of liver proteins in mice using two-dimensional gel-based proteomics. Pharmacol Rep 2012;64:680–97. 49. Sreerama L, Sladek NE. Three different stable human breast adenocarcinoma sublines that overexpress ALDH3A1 and certain other enzymes, apparaently as a consequence of constitutively upregulated gene transcription mediated by transactivated EpREs (electrophile responsive elements) present in the 50 -upstream regions of these genes. Chem Biol Interact 2001;130-132:247–60. 50. Rassool FV, Tomkinson AE. Targeting abnormal DNA double strand break repair in cancer. Cell Mol Life Sci 2010;67:3699–710. 51. Tobin LA, Robert C, Nagaria P, Chumsri S, Twaddell W, Ioffe OB, et al. Targeting abnormal DNA repair in therapy-resistant breast cancers. Mol Cancer Res 2012;10:96–107. 52. Giuliano M, Schifp R, Osborne CK, Trivedi MV. Biological mechanisms and clinical implications of endocrine resistance in breast cancer. Breast 2011;3: S42–49. 53. Penney RB, Roy D. Thioredoxin-mediated redox regulation of resistance to endocrine therapy in breast cancer. Biochem Biophys Acta 2013;1836: 60–79. 54. Provenzano A, Kurian S, Abraham J. Overcoming endocrine resistance in breast cancer: role of the PI3K and the mTOR pathways. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2013;13:143–47. Mol Cancer Ther; 14(7) July 2015 Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on May 2, 2017. © 2015 American Association for Cancer Research. 1737 Published OnlineFirst May 14, 2015; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672 Aromatase Inhibitor−Mediated Downregulation of INrf2 (Keap1) Leads to Increased Nrf2 and Resistance in Breast Cancer Raju Khatri, Preeti Shah, Rupa Guha, et al. Mol Cancer Ther 2015;14:1728-1737. Published OnlineFirst May 14, 2015. Updated version Supplementary Material Access the most recent version of this article at: doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672 Access the most recent supplemental material at: http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/suppl/2015/05/15/1535-7163.MCT-14-0672.DC1 Cited articles This article cites 52 articles, 17 of which you can access for free at: http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/14/7/1728.full.html#ref-list-1 E-mail alerts Sign up to receive free email-alerts related to this article or journal. Reprints and Subscriptions Permissions To order reprints of this article or to subscribe to the journal, contact the AACR Publications Department at [email protected]. To request permission to re-use all or part of this article, contact the AACR Publications Department at [email protected]. Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on May 2, 2017. © 2015 American Association for Cancer Research.