Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Apr 29;19(4):e0289902. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289902

Inhibition of SRC-3 as a potential therapeutic strategy for aggressive mantle cell lymphoma

Imani Bijou 1, Yang Liu 2, Dong Lu 1, Jianwei Chen 1, Shelby Sloan 3, Lapo Alinari 3, David M Lonard 4,*, Bert W O’Malley 4,*, Michael Wang 2,*, Jin Wang 1,4,*
Editor: Francesco Bertolini5
PMCID: PMC11057735  PMID: 38683834

Abstract

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has a poor prognosis and high relapse rates despite current therapies, necessitating novel treatment regimens. Inhibition of SRC-3 show effectiveness in vivo and in vitro in other B cell lymphomas. Additionally, previous studies have shown that SRC-3 is highly expressed in the lymph nodes of B cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients, suggesting SRC-3 may play a role in the progression of B cell lymphoma. This study aimed to investigate novel SRC-3 inhibitors, SI-10 and SI-12, in mantle cell lymphoma. The cytotoxic effects of SI-10 and SI-12 were evaluated in vitro and demonstrated dose-dependent cytotoxicity in a panel of MCL cell lines. The in vivo efficacy of SI-10 was confirmed in two ibrutinib-resistant models: an immunocompetent disseminated A20 mouse model of B-cell lymphoma and a human PDX model of MCL. Notably, SI-10 treatment also resulted in a significant extension of survival in vivo with low toxicity in both ibrutinib-resistant murine models. We have investigated SI-10 as a novel anti-lymphoma compound via the inhibition of SRC-3 activity. These findings indicate that targeting SRC-3 should be investigated in combination with current clinical therapeutics as a novel strategy to expand the therapeutic index and to improve lymphoma outcomes.

Introduction

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is the most commonly occurring hematological malignancy containing a variety of subtypes. Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an aggressive and incurable subtype of B-cell-NHL, accounting for 4% of all lymphomas and resulting in a median survival of 8–12 years [1,2]. Most patients present with advanced-stage disease, and current therapies, which include anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, autologous stem-cell transplantation, immunochemotherapy, and targeted therapy, have been unable to eradicate MCL resulting in almost universal relapse [3]. Given the current efficacy of standard lymphoma treatment regimens, therapies have been investigated targeting B-cell receptor pathway signaling or apoptotic pathway signaling to treat relapsed/refractory disease [1]. The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib and some of its analogs have resulted in high overall response rates and FDA approval. However, resistance and relapse still occur resulting in treatment regimens combining other targeted therapies and necessitating approaches with differing mechanisms of action to those clinically approved [4–6].

The steroid receptor coactivator (SRC) family contains three members, SRC-1, SRC-2, and SRC-3 [7]. These transcriptional coactivators function through interactions with nuclear receptors which then recruit additional proteins to form multi-subunit transcriptional complexes that promote transcriptional activity. Additionally, SRCs have been shown to coactivate various non-nuclear receptor transcriptional factors such as NF-kB, AP-1, and E2F1, and interact with the CBP/p300 coactivators [4]. The dysregulation of epigenetic modulators is an initiator of carcinogenesis, and SRC-3 overexpression has been associated with malignancy in breast, lung, and prostate cancer [8–10]. SRC-3 has also been shown to promote tumor growth through involvement in pathways regulating cell cycle, apoptosis, drug resistance, migration, and invasion [11].

The role of SRC-3 in MCL yet to be well defined, but previous studies show that SRC-3 is highly expressed in B-cell NHL models. Pharmacological inhibition of SRC-3 with gambogic acid reduced tumor growth of diffuse large cell b cell lymphoma (DLBCL) models in vitro and in vivo through histone deacetylation and downregulation of multiple oncoproteins such as Bcl-2, cyclin D3, Bcl-6, and c-Myc [12]. Additionally, single-cell transcriptomic data suggest that SRC-3 is most highly expressed in B cells and plasma cells, suggesting a potential undiscovered role of SRC-3 in B cell receptor signaling [13].

In collaboration with Drs. O’Malley and Lonard’s groups, we identified SI-2 as a potent SRC-3 inhibitor capable of decreasing SRC-3 protein levels and inhibiting breast cancer cell proliferation in vitro and tumor growth in vivo [14]. More recently, SI-2 was optimized for more favorable pharmacokinetic properties by introducing of up to three fluorine atoms generating the analogs SI-10 and SI-12. These analogs have been shown to exert potent anti-cancer activity with minimal cardiotoxicity in breast cancer models [15]. In this study, we aim to investigate the anti-cancer effect of new SRC-3 inhibitors in vitro and in vivo for the treatment of MCL.

Results

Src-3 inhibitors reduce the proliferation of various MCL cell lines

Previous studies have shown SRC-3 overexpression to be pivotal in many solid tumors, but the significance of SRC-3 in blood cancer tumors was undetermined [8–10]. Recently, a study showed clinical SRC-3 overexpression in the lymph nodes of B-cell NHL patients [12]. To evaluate the in vitro anti-lymphoma activity of SI-10 and SI-12, four MCL lines and one murine lymphoma line were treated with either SRC-3 inhibitor SI-10 or SI-12 at concentrations ranging from 0–2 μM. Cell viability was assessed using the Alamar Blue assay after 48 hours. After treatment, both SI-10 and SI-12 significantly inhibited the growth of lymphoma in a dose-dependent manner. IC50 values were calculated at the low nanomolar level for both SI-10 and SI-12 (Fig 1A and 1B). Comparing the IC50 values of the two drugs, they both demonstrated similar efficacy in the human MCL cell lines. The murine A20 B cell lymphoma line showed the most resistance to SI-10 with an IC50 of 20 nM. Cell viability was also measured at different treatment times 12, 24, and 48 h at concentrations up to 2 μM. Viability also decreased in a time-dependent manner (Fig 1C and 1D).

Fig 1. MCL cell lines were treated with SRC-3 inhibitors.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

A) SI-10 or B) SI-12 at various concentrations for 48 h and cell viability was determined using the resazurin assay C) Mino D) Jeko-1 growth inhibition with SI-10 (0–1 mM) for 6,12,24, or 48h.

SRC-3 inhibitors overcome drug resistance in vitro

The first-line treatment of MCL includes chemotherapy and the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab, but given that so many patients relapse, targeted therapies are frequently offered as a second-line option. Current targeted therapy for MCL includes the FDA-approved BTK inhibitor ibrutinib and the Bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax currently in clinical trials. B–cell receptor (BCR) signaling is highly upregulated in B-cell malignancies, and inhibition of BTK leads to durable clinical responses in MCL [16]. Additionally, Bcl-2 regulates the intrinsic mitochondrial apoptotic pathway where its overexpression results in mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization through the interplay of pro- and anti-apoptotic Bcl-2 family proteins [17]. Despite the clinical efficacy of both drugs, resistance to venetoclax and ibrutinib is still of concern as most patients progress on both drugs [18,19].

High levels of SRC-3 have been associated with resistance to chemotherapy and targeted therapies in cancer. SRC-3 has been associated with resistance to chemotherapy and targeted therapies in cancer models. Targeting SRC-3 with bufalin resulted in reduced polarization of pro-tumorigenic M2 macrophages by decreasing MIF expression in chemo-resistant colon cancer models [20]. Additionally, siRNA downregulation of SRC-3 reverses tamoxifen resistance in endocrine-resistant, HER2-positive breast cancer cells [21]. We next investigated if SRC-3 inhibitors were effective in drug-resistant Jeko-1 and Mino cells given their efficacy in the parental cell lines. Venetoclax and ibrutinib-resistant mantle cell lymphoma lines were established in Dr. Michael Wang’s lab by exposing the cells to stepwise dose increases of the drug [22,23]. Compared to the parental cells, both venetoclax and ibrutinib-resistant cells showed reduced sensitivity when treated with their respective inhibitors (Fig 2A and 2B). The efficacy of both SRC-3 inhibitors, SI-10 and SI-12, was then evaluated in the resistant lines. The SRC-3 inhibitors maintained nanomolar IC50 in venetoclax-resistant Mino cells and ibrutinib-resistant Jeko-1 cells (Fig 2C and 2D). This suggests that SRC-3 inhibitors may be effective in drug-resistant models of MCL.

Fig 2. Mino parental and Mino venetoclax resistant cells were treated with various concentrations of venetoclax.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

B) Jeko-1 parental and Jeko-1 ibrutinib resistant cells were treated with ibrutinib at various concentrations. C) Mino parental and resistant cells were treated with SI-10 and SI-12. D) Jeko-1 parental and resistant cells were treated with SI-10 and SI-12.

SI-10 overcomes ibrutinib resistance in pdx mouse models

Most MCL patients eventually relapse; therefore it is critical to find drugs that are effective even after primary treatment. The MCL lines screened had varying sensitivities to ibrutinib, but all had low nanomolar IC50 for our SRC-3 inhibitors. To evaluate the efficacy of SI-10 against ibrutinib resistance, we established a PDX mouse model with ibrutinib resistance in 6-week-old NSG mice by subcutaneous injection of ibrutinib-resistant Jeko cells. Mice were treated for 7 weeks five times a week with either vehicle, ibrutinib (50 mg/kg), or SI-10 (50 mg/kg) via oral gavage. Here we see reduced tumor volume and tumor weight after treatment between SI-10 and vehicle, and we also see an improvement compared to ibrutinib treatment (Fig 3A and 3B). Additionally, no significant body weight changes were observed throughout the treatment course (Fig 3C). This suggests that SI-10 could be beneficial against ibrutinib-resistant MCL.

Fig 3. SRC-3 treatment decreased tumor growth in a Jeko-1 ibrutinib resistant mouse model.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

A) Volumes of tumors treated with SI-10 (50 mg/kg), ibrutinib (100mg/kg) or vehicle B) Weight of tumors treated with SI-10 (50 mg/kg), ibrutinib (100mg/kg) or vehicle before sacrificing C) The weight of each mouse was measured 3 times a week.

SI-10 inhibition extends survival in a syngeneic tumor model

We next investigated SI-10 in an A20 immunocompetent syngeneic mouse model of B cell lymphoma. With increasing knowledge of the tumor microenvironment, preclinical studies show that the TME plays a significant role in drug resistance to current therapies [24]. The A20 model exhibits clinical characteristics of MCL in vivo, including infiltration of the bone marrow and liver, and enlargement of the spleen [25]. This model has also been shown to exploit evasive immune mechanisms across tumor progression. Specifically, injection of A20 cells has been shown to induce an expansion of regulatory T cells [26]. Tumors generate an immunosuppressive environment to maintain optimal growth, and recent studies show SRC-3 may contribute to this suppressive environment. Inhibition of SRC-3 may act dually, reducing cancer cell growth and blocking the activity of suppressive immune cells like T regulatory cells (Tregs); this has been shown in vivo in breast cancer models [27,28]. We evaluated if SRC-3 inhibition would still be effective in an immunosuppressive environment. A20 cells were injected via the tail vein of Balb/c mice. A week later, mice were randomized into two groups (n = 7) to receive SI-10 at 1 mg/kg vehicle. Mice received daily intraperitoneal injections over 7 weeks with SI-10 or vehicle. During the treatment period, mice were evaluated for gross abnormalities associated with the model and sacrificed according to protocol. As shown, mice treated with 1 mg/kg of SI-10 have a median survival of 47 days, significantly extending survival compared to the vehicle-treated mice with a median survival of 33 days (Fig 4A). No noticeable side effects were observed during treatment and body weight was not significantly affected (Fig 4B).

Fig 4. SRC-3 treatment prolonged survival of A20-Balb/c mice.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

Balb/c mice were injected with 1 x 106 A20 cells intravenously. Treatment started on day 7. A) Kaplan-Meier survival plot reflecting time to lethal tumor burden. Based on the log-rank test, there are significant differences between the treated group and the control (P < 0.05). B) Body weight of all groups were measured 5 days a week.

Chronic treatment with SI-10 is well tolerated

To evaluate chronic toxicity, ICR mice were treated daily with 50 mg/kg or 100 mg/kg SI-10 for 4 weeks and serum chemistry analysis was performed. The highest dose is 2 times that used in the mouse xenograft model above. Throughout the treatment course, we see no significant body weight fluctuations (Fig 5A). Compared to literature reference values and the control, no obvious difference was observed in the levels of liver enzymes AST and ALT (Fig 5B). Only one mouse in the 100 mg/kg group had high AST levels. Regarding kidney function, BUN levels were observed to be comparable to that of the reference range, although a bit lower than the control.

Fig 5. SRC-3 inhibitor treatment in normal mice show little to no toxicity after treatment for 28 days.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

A) Body weight of all groups were measured 5 days a week. B) Blood serum levels of clinical markers related to kidney and liver failure. Dotted lines represent upper and lower limits based on reference values. Data outliers were removed using the identify outlier function in Graphpad Prism with the ROUT method (Q = 1%).

Discussion

Much research has been done exploring the role of SRC-3 in carcinogenesis through the regulation of oncoproteins and transcription factors in solid tumors, but the role of SRC-3 in blood cancers is less clear. SRC-3 is overexpressed in the lymph nodes of other B cell malignancies, but its role in MCL is not well characterized. MCL patients frequently undergo relapse to current therapies, necessitating novel treatment modalities to improve outcomes. This study demonstrates the therapeutic potential of SRC-3 inhibitor SI-10 as a treatment for in vitro and in vivo models of mantle cell lymphoma. SI-10 also exhibited inhibitory effects in drug-resistant models of MCL.

Previous data surrounding SRC-3 and B-cell malignancies is a bit conflicting regarding the possibility of SRC-3 as a tumor suppressor or oncogene. SRC-3 overexpression has been shown to contribute to other aggressive non-Hodgkin B cell lymphomas. Inhibition of SRC-3 in DLBCL with gambogic acid resulted in cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in B cell NHL lines. Treatment was also associated with the downregulation of DLBCL oncoproteins, including Bcl-2, Bcl-6, c-Myc, and NF-kB [12]. Unlike gambogic acid, SRC-3 has been confirmed to be a target of SI-10 [15]. Gambogic acid has been shown to target multiple cancer-related proteins in addition to SRC-3, including Bcl-2 family proteins, the proteasome, and topoisomerase IIa exhibiting polypharmacology [29–31]. Despite efficacy with pharmacological inhibition of SRC-3, complete amelioration of SRC-3 via knockout in vivo shows the specific induction of extreme lymphoproliferation of both T and B cells, eventually progressing into B-cell lymphoma with age. Interestingly, the in vivo studies showed no effect on cell proliferation and apoptosis in other tissue types in the SRC-3 knockout mice [32].

We demonstrate here that SI-10 is a potent anti-tumor small molecule for the treatment of MCL in vitro and in vivo. SI-10 exhibits low nanomolar efficacy in a panel of MCL cell lines. SRCs have been shown to regulate a multitude of pathways involved in cancer progression and metastasis, including known targets of MCL. Several signaling molecules have been implicated in MCL pathogenesis, including PI3K/AKT, NF-kB, and Bcl-2 [33]. SRC-3 has previously been shown to coactivate many of the targets important in MCL pathogenesis in other cancer types [10,34,35]. Many of these same pathways are also implicated in ibrutinib resistance. Ibrutinib-resistant cells activate BCR signaling through the PI3K/AKT pathway and NF-kB signaling, and maintain cell cycle progression through cyclin D1 to undergo primary resistance [19]. These findings suggest that SRC-3 signaling may be important for MCL cell survival and drug resistance through the possible coactivation of these targets.

In addition to its efficacy in vitro, SI-10 has demonstrated survival extension in an immunocompetent lymphoma model and a human PDX model both resistant to ibrutinib. The role of SRC-3 in cancer drug resistance is context-dependent, but previously SRC-3 overexpression has been shown to contribute to Herceptin resistance in ERBB2 overexpressing breast cancer cells [36]. Given the high rate of relapse against current MCL treatments, overcoming drug resistance is especially exciting and warrants further study. SI-10 also has a good safety profile. In the studies performed here, mice in both treated and control groups exhibited normal behavior and minimal body weight loss. SI-10 treatment was well tolerated even at 50 times the dose tested for survival extension.

In conclusion, SI-10 is a small molecule SRC-3 inhibitor that can inhibit MCL in vitro and in vivo and overcome ibrutinib resistance. With further studies, SI-10 may be a promising therapeutic candidate for ibrutinib-resistant MCL.

Methods

Cell culture

Cells were grown in RPMI-1640 supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1% penicillin-streptomycin (10000 U/mL) and cultured at 37°C in a humidified incubator at 5% CO2 for all experiments. Human MCL cell lines (JeKo-1, Mino, Maver-1, Z-138, Jeko-1-IbrR, Mino-VenR) were gifted from Dr. Michael Wang’s lab (MD Anderson). The murine-derived A20 cells are from ATCC and were maintained in RPMI-1640 supplemented with 0.05 mM 2-mercaptoethanol, 10% FBS, and 1% penicillin-streptomycin.

Cell viability assay

Cells were seeded in 96 well plates at a density of 5000–8000 cells per well. The next day cells were treated with serially diluted SRC-3 inhibitors for 48 h along with DMSO control. Cell viability was measured using the Alamar Blue assay. Resazurin was added at 10% of well volume and incubated with cells for 4 hours. Fluorescence was measured at excitation/emission 544/590 nm. Viability was calculated by plotting viability relative to control. The IC50 values for compounds were calculated based on the Hill-Slope equation and analyzed in GraphPad Prism 9 (GraphPad Software, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA).

In vivo experiments

Therapeutic efficacy of SI-10 in ibrutinib-resistant MCL PDX mice

To establish a xenograft model, 5 million cells were injected subcutaneously into NSG mice (6–8 weeks old). After the formation of palpable tumors, mice were treated orally 5 days per week with SI-10 50 mg/kg, ibrutinib 50 mg/kg, or vehicle (DMSO) (n = 5 for all groups) for 7 weeks. Tumor size and body weight were measured 3 times a week. Animals were monitored five times a week and tumor volume was measured using callipers every other 2–3 days in three dimensions. Mice were euthanized either when the tumor diameter reached the protocol limit of 1.5 cm or if the tumor showed signs of ulceration reaching 4mm.

Survival extension of SI-10 in A20 lymphoma mice

To evaluate the survival extension of SI-10 in vivo, immunocompetent tumor xenograft models were developed in female Balb/c mice (6–8 weeks old, Jackson Labs) via the tail vein injection of 1 x 106 B cell lymphoma cells.(A20). A week later, mice were randomized using Graphpad and treated with 1 mg/kg/day SI-10 (n = 9) or vehicle (DMSO) (n = 7) control via intraperitoneal injection for 8 weeks. Animals were monitored daily and sacrificed based on the experimental protocol.

In vivo toxicity

Female ICR mice (6–8 weeks old, CCM Vendor) were treated with 50 mg/kg/day SI-10 (n = 5) or 100 mg/kg/day SI-10 (n = 5) daily by oral gavage for 4 weeks. Control mice (n = 5) were treated with the vehicle (DMSO). After the treatment period, 200 μL of blood was collected from the mice via submandibular bleeding to isolate plasma for conducting a comprehensive panel of serum chemistry assays. Animals were monitored daily for signs of toxicity.

As per the experimental procedure approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at BCM and MD Anderson Cancer Center, mice were monitored at least every 3 days to ensure no more than a 10% decrease in body weight. Animal welfare considerations were taken to minimize suffering and distress. Daily monitoring was required if the 10% weight loss threshold was met or once tumor is over 1.0 cm in diameter. Additionally, any mice displaying signs of distress, including immobility, huddled posture, inability to eat, ruffled fur, self-mutilation, vocalization, wound dehiscence, hypothermia, or a weight loss greater than 20%, were humanely euthanized using isoflurane the same day following guidelines. No animals died before meeting the criteria for euthanasia. Imani Bijou completed training from the Center for Comparative Medicine (CCM) at BCM.

Statistical analysis

All statistical graphs are constructed using Prism 9 (GraphPad Software, Inc.). P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Supporting information

S1 File

(XLSX)

pone.0289902.s001.xlsx (209.3KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The research was supported in part by National Institute of Health (R01-CA207701 and R01-268518 to J.W., R01-CA250503 to J.W. and M.W.), Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT, RP170500 to B.W.O. and J.W.), and the Michael E. DeBakey, M.D., Professorship in Pharmacology (to J.W.). The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [DML, BWO], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

References

  • 1.Vose JM (2017) Mantle cell lymphoma: 2017 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and clinical management. American Journal of Hematology 92:806–813. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24797 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wu H, Wang J, Zhang X, et al. (2020) Survival Trends in Patients Under Age 65 Years With Mantle Cell Lymphoma, 1995–2016: A SEER-Based Analysis. Front Oncol 10:588314. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.588314 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kumar A, Sha F, Toure A, et al. (2019) Patterns of survival in patients with recurrent mantle cell lymphoma in the modern era: progressive shortening in response duration and survival after each relapse. Blood Cancer J 9:50. doi: 10.1038/s41408-019-0209-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rule S, Dreyling M, Goy A, et al. (2019) Ibrutinib for the treatment of relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma: extended 3.5-year follow up from a pooled analysis. Haematologica 104:e211–e214. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.205229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Song Y, Zhou K, Zou D, et al. (2022) Zanubrutinib in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma: long-term efficacy and safety results from a phase 2 study. Blood 139:3148–3158. doi: 10.1182/blood.2021014162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Witzig TE, Inwards D (2019) Acalabrutinib for mantle cell lymphoma. Blood 133:2570–2574. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019852368 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Labhart P, Karmakar S, Salicru EM, et al. (2005) Identification of target genes in breast cancer cells directly regulated by the SRC-3/AIB1 coactivator. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:1339–1344. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0409578102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dasgupta S, Rajapakshe K, Zhu B, et al. (2018) Metabolic enzyme PFKFB4 activates transcriptional coactivator SRC-3 to drive breast cancer. Nature 556:249–254. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0018-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Long W, Foulds CE, Qin J, et al. (2012) ERK3 signals through SRC-3 coactivator to promote human lung cancer cell invasion. J Clin Invest 122:1869–1880. doi: 10.1172/JCI61492 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zhou H-J, Yan J, Luo W, et al. (2005) SRC-3 Is Required for Prostate Cancer Cell Proliferation and Survival. Cancer Research 65:7976–7983. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-4076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dasgupta S, Lonard DM, O’Malley BW (2014) Nuclear Receptor Coactivators: Master Regulators of Human Health and Disease. Annual Review of Medicine 65:279–292. doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-051812-145316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zhao Z, Zhang X, Wen L, et al. (2016) Steroid receptor coactivator-3 is a pivotal target of gambogic acid in B-cell Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and an inducer of histone H3 deacetylation. European Journal of Pharmacology 789:46–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2016.06.048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Karlsson M, Zhang C, Méar L, et al. (2021) A single-cell type transcriptomics map of human tissues. Sci Adv 7:eabh2169. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abh2169 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Song X, Chen J, Zhao M, et al. (2016) Development of potent small-molecule inhibitors to drug the undruggable steroid receptor coactivator-3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:4970–4975. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1604274113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Qin L, Chen J, Lu D, et al. (2021) Development of improved SRC-3 inhibitors as breast cancer therapeutic agents. Endocrine-Related Cancer 28:657–670. doi: 10.1530/ERC-20-0402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Honigberg LA, Smith AM, Sirisawad M, et al. (2010) The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor PCI-32765 blocks B-cell activation and is efficacious in models of autoimmune disease and B-cell malignancy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:13075–13080. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1004594107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kale J, Osterlund EJ, Andrews DW (2018) BCL-2 family proteins: changing partners in the dance towards death. Cell Death Differ 25:65–80. doi: 10.1038/cdd.2017.186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Thus YJ, Eldering E, Kater AP, Spaargaren M (2022) Tipping the balance: toward rational combination therapies to overcome venetoclax resistance in mantle cell lymphoma. Leukemia 36:2165–2176. doi: 10.1038/s41375-022-01627-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hershkovitz-Rokah O, Pulver D, Lenz G, Shpilberg O (2018) Ibrutinib resistance in mantle cell lymphoma: clinical, molecular and treatment aspects. Br J Haematol 181:306–319. doi: 10.1111/bjh.15108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chen J, Wang H, Jia L, et al. (2021) Bufalin targets the SRC-3/MIF pathway in chemoresistant cells to regulate M2 macrophage polarization in colorectal cancer. Cancer Letters 513:63–74. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2021.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mc Ilroy M, Fleming FJ, Buggy Y, et al. (2006) Tamoxifen-induced ER-α–SRC-3 interaction in HER2 positive human breast cancer; a possible mechanism for ER isoform specific recurrence. Endocr Relat Cancer 13:1135–1145. doi: 10.1677/erc.1.01222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pham LV, Huang S, Zhang H, et al. (2018) Strategic Therapeutic Targeting to Overcome Venetoclax Resistance in Aggressive B-cell Lymphomas. Clinical Cancer Research 24:3967–3980. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-3004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Li L, Nie L, Jordan A, et al. (2022) Targeting glutaminase is therapeutically effective in ibrutinib-resistant mantle cell lymphoma. haematol. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2022.281538 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Saleh K, Cheminant M, Chiron D, et al. (2022) Tumor Microenvironment and Immunotherapy-Based Approaches in Mantle Cell Lymphoma. Cancers (Basel) 14:3229. doi: 10.3390/cancers14133229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Passineau MJ, Siegal GP, Everts M, et al. (2005) The natural history of a novel, systemic, disseminated model of syngeneic mouse B-cell lymphoma. Leukemia & Lymphoma 46:1627–1638. doi: 10.1080/10428190500221454x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Elpek KG, Lacelle C, Singh NP, et al. (2007) CD4+CD25+ T Regulatory Cells Dominate Multiple Immune Evasion Mechanisms in Early but Not Late Phases of Tumor Development in a B Cell Lymphoma Model. The Journal of Immunology 178:6840–6848. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.11.6840 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Han SJ, Sung N, Wang J, et al. (2022) Steroid receptor coactivator-3 inhibition generates breast cancer antitumor immune microenvironment. Breast Cancer Res 24:73. doi: 10.1186/s13058-022-01568-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nikolai BC, Jain P, Cardenas DL, et al. (2021) Steroid receptor coactivator 3 (SRC-3/AIB1) is enriched and functional in mouse and human Tregs. Sci Rep 11:3441. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82945-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhai D, Jin C, Shiau C-W, et al. (2008) Gambogic acid is an antagonist of antiapoptotic Bcl-2 family proteins. Mol Cancer Ther 7:1639–1646. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-07-2373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Li X, Liu S, Huang H, et al. (2013) Gambogic Acid Is a Tissue-Specific Proteasome Inhibitor In Vitro and In Vivo. Cell Reports 3:211–222. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2012.11.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Qin Y, Meng L, Hu C, et al. (2007) Gambogic acid inhibits the catalytic activity of human topoisomerase IIα by binding to its ATPase domain. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 6:2429–2440. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-07-0147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Coste A, Antal MC, Chan S, et al. (2006) Absence of the steroid receptor coactivator-3 induces B-cell lymphoma. EMBO J 25:2453–2464. doi: 10.1038/sj.emboj.7601106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Silkenstedt E, Dreyling M (2021) Mantle cell lymphoma-Advances in molecular biology, prognostication and treatment approaches. Hematol Oncol 39 Suppl 1:31–38. doi: 10.1002/hon.2860 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Li Y, Liang J, Dang H, et al. (2022) NCOA3 is a critical oncogene in thyroid cancer via the modulation of major signaling pathways. Endocrine 75:149–158. doi: 10.1007/s12020-021-02819-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kumar S, Das S, Rachagani S, et al. (2015) NCOA3-mediated upregulation of mucin expression via transcriptional and post-translational changes during the development of pancreatic cancer. Oncogene 34:4879–4889. doi: 10.1038/onc.2014.409 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lahusen T, Fereshteh M, Oh A, et al. (2007) Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Phosphorylation and Signaling Controlled by a Nuclear Receptor Coactivator, Amplified in Breast Cancer 1. Cancer Research 67:7256–7265. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-1013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Francesco Bertolini

15 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-23808

Inhibition of SRC-3 as a potential therapeutic strategy for aggressive mantle cell lymphoma

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 29 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Francesco Bertolini, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

   "The research was supported in part by National Institute of Health (R01-CA207701 to J.W., R01-CA250503 to J.W. and M.W.), Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT, RP170500 to B.W.O. and J.W.), and the Michael E. DeBakey, M.D., Professorship in Pharmacology (to J.W.)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

   "The research was supported in part by National Institute of Health (R01-CA207701 to J.W., R01-CA250503 to J.W. and M.W.), Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT, RP170500 to B.W.O. and J.W.), and the Michael E. DeBakey, M.D., Professorship in Pharmacology (to J.W.)."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "The research was supported in part by National Institute of Health (R01-CA207701 to J.W., R01-CA250503 to J.W. and M.W.), Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT, RP170500 to B.W.O. and J.W.), and the Michael E. DeBakey, M.D., Professorship in Pharmacology (to J.W.)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

   "J.W. is the co-founder of CoActigon Inc. and Chemical Biology Probes LLC. D.M.L. and B.W.O. are co-founders of CoRegen Inc. J.W. serves as a consultant for CoRegen Inc."    

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: CoActigon Inc. and Chemical Biology Probes,  CoRegen Inc.

a. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. 

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. 

b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

7. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

8. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. 

  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

9. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: MCL is malignant disease with poor clinical outcomes. In this study, the authors have shown inhibiting SRC-3 using SI-10 and SI-12 effectively inhibit MCL cells growth. Using in vivo approaches, the authors have shown inhibiting SRC-3 increase overall survival suggesting the potential of SRC-3 inhibitor in treating MCL. In this paper, proper approaches and statistical analysis have been applied.

Reviewer #2: Wang et al report preclinical data on an steroid receptor coactivator SRC inhibitor, named SI-10, in mantle cell lymphoma cell lines, especially in venetoclax or ibrutinib resistant cell lines and in a patient derived and syngeneic mouse model. +

A new drug for ibru or ven resistant mantle cell lymphoma is relevant application.

Question 1 cell model

The ibrutinib or venetoclex resistance is artificially produced. Do you know, or have hints if this resistance is similar to resistance seen in patients ? Did you test and/or find BTK mutations. ?

Question 2 long-term toxicty

Was there a concern for cardiotoxicity, as mentioned on page 2 ? You noted no weight changes in long-term treated mice.

Did you check for lab abnormalities troponin and pro-BNP, ?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Apr 29;19(4):e0289902. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289902.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

25 Feb 2024

Reviewers' comments:

Question 1 cell model

The ibrutinib or venetoclex resistance is artificially produced. Do you know, or have hints if this resistance is similar to resistance seen in patients ? Did you test and/or find BTK mutations. ?

We (The Michael Wang group) previously reported that the resistance mechanism in Mino-venetoclax-R cells is associated with increased AKT phosphorylation and decreased PTEN levels (Lan et al., Clinical Cancer Research, 24(16), 2018). Currently, we are in the process of delineating the resistance mechanism for JeKo-R. Our observations reveal an upregulated OXPHOS pathway in JeKo-R cells (unpublished data), aligning with the observed ibrutinib resistance mechanism in patient samples (Sci Transl Med. 2019 May 8;11(491):eaau1167). We have not compared the resistance of the cell line to patient samples.

BTK mutation is a common drug resistant mechanism in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). However, in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), BTK mutation is not a major resistant mechanism (Zhao et al. Unification of de novo and acquired ibrutinib resistance in mantle cell lymphoma. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14920.). Therefore, we did not test BTK mutations in this study. Based on DepMap.org database, Mino, Maver1, and Jeko1 have wild type BTK.

Question 2 long-term toxicty

Was there a concern for cardiotoxicity, as mentioned on page 2 ? You noted no weight changes in long-term treated mice.

Did you check for lab abnormalities troponin and pro-BNP, ?

We did not check troponin and pro-BNP. But we did look at the creatine kinase levels and did not observe statistical elevation of CK levels upon SI-10 treatments. The data has been added to the manuscript in Figure 5.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0289902.s002.docx (35KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Francesco Bertolini

10 Apr 2024

Inhibition of SRC-3 as a potential therapeutic strategy for aggressive mantle cell lymphoma

PONE-D-23-23808R1

Dear Dr. Wang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Francesco Bertolini, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (XLSX)

    pone.0289902.s001.xlsx (209.3KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0289902.s002.docx (35KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES