Abstract
We recently used RNAi to demonstrate that a negative correlation of L-asparaginase (L-ASP) chemotherapeutic activity with asparagine synthetase (ASNS) expression in the ovarian subset of the NCI-60 cell line panel is causal. To determine whether that relationship would be sustained in a larger, more diverse set of ovarian cell lines, we have now measured ASNS mRNA expression using microarrays and a branched-DNA RNA assay, ASNS protein expression using an electrochemiluminescent immunoassay, and L-ASP activity using an MTS assay on nineteen human ovarian cancer cell lines. Contrary to our previous findings, L-ASP activity was only weakly correlated with ASNS mRNA expression; Pearson’s correlation coefficients were r = −0.21 for microarray data and r = −0.39 for the branched-DNA RNA assay, with just the latter being marginally statistically significant (p = 0.047, one-tailed). ASNS protein expression measured by liquid phase immunoassay exhibited a much stronger correlation, r = −0.65 (p = 0.0014, one-tailed). We conclude that ASNS protein expression measured by immunoassay is a strong univariate predictor of L-ASP activity in ovarian cancer cell lines. These findings provide rationale for clinical evaluation of ASNS protein expression as a predictive biomarker of L-ASP activity in ovarian cancer.
Keywords: asparagine synthetase, asparaginase, ovarian cancer, biomarker, pharmacogenomics
INTRODUCTION
In 2008, there will be an estimated 21,650 new cases of ovarian cancer that will result in approximately 15,520 deaths, making ovarian cancer second among gynecologic cancers in incidence and the most lethal of the gynecologic malignancies (1). The five-year survival of patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer is greater than 80% when the disease is diagnosed at stage I or stage II. However, the majority of patients present at stage III and IV, when the malignancy has spread beyond the ovaries and the 5-year survival is less than 20%. There is significant room for improvement, and the era of personalized medicine promises to contribute.
One way personalized medicine will improve ovarian cancer outcome is through the identification of novel drug/gene relationships. We recently used molecular profiling and RNAi to show that asparagine synthetase (ASNS) is a causal biomarker of L-asparaginase (L-ASP) activity in ovarian lines of the NCI-60 panel (2). L-ASP is an FDA-approved enzyme drug for cancer and has been used in combination with traditional chemotherapy to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia since the early 1970s. In our previous study, siRNA-mediated silencing of ASNS in three ovarian lines caused 3- to over 500-fold potentiation of L-ASP activity, and the effect was independent of classical multi-drug resistance. Those findings suggested that L-ASP might be used to treat ovarian cancer by using ASNS expression as a predictive biomarker of L-ASP efficacy.
To determine the conditions under which ASNS predicts L-ASP activity in a larger sample set, we have now measured L-ASP activity, as well as ASNS mRNA and protein expression, in an expanded set of ovarian cancer cell lines. We report that baseline ASNS protein expression is a strong univariate predictor of L-ASP activity across those lines.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Compounds
E. coli L-asparaginase (L-ASP) was obtained from Sigma (St. Louis, MO).
Cell culture
222, A364, A547, A2780, AD10, CaOV3, CP70, IGROV1 (NCI), OVCAR-3 (NCI), OVCAR-3, OVCAR-4 (NCI), OVCAR420, OVCAR429, OVCAR432, OVCAR-8 (NCI), OVCAR-8/ADR (NCI), SK-OV-3 (NCI), SK-OV-3, UCI101, and UCI107 cell lines were maintained in RPMI-1640 (Lonza Inc., Allendale, NJ) containing 5% fetal bovine serum and 2 mM L-glutamine. All cell lines were tested for mycoplasma using the MycoAlert assay (Lonza Inc., Allendale, NJ) at the commencement of this study and found to be negative. In addition, DNA fingerprints were obtained for all cell lines (Supplemental Table 1) using the AmpF STR® Identifiler® PCR Amplification Kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Genomically heterogeneous cell lines were defined by the presence of more than two alleles at three or more of the 16 markers/loci and eliminated from the study. By that criterion, CP70 and UCI107 were eliminated from the study. Table 1 shows the final list of cell lines used in the study. Their sources and characteristics have been described previously (2–4).
Table 1.
Summary of L -ASP pharmacology experiments
| Cell Line | Mean EC50 (U/mL) | 95% Confidence Interval | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| 222 | 1.61 | 1.21 to 2.12 | endometrioid adenocarcinoma |
| A224 | 0.36 | 0.33 to 0.39 | papillary serous adenocarcinoma |
| A2780 | 0.22 | 0.20 to 0.24 | papillary serous adenocarcinoma |
| A364 | 0.25 | 0.22 to 0.29 | papillary serous adenocarcinoma |
| A547 | 0.19 | 0.11 to 0.34 | papillary serous adenocarcinoma |
| AD10 | 0.24 | 0.22 to 0.27 | papillary serous adenocarcinoma |
| CaOV3 | 5.04 | 3.77 to 6.74 | papillary serous adenocarcinoma |
| IGROV1 (NCI) | 1.10 | 0.45 to 2.67 | adenocarcinoma |
| OVCAR-3 (NCI) | 1.19 | 0.94 to 1.50 | adenocarcinoma |
| OVCAR-3 | 0.86 | 0.56 to 1.32 | papillary serous adenocarcinoma |
| OVCAR-4 (NCI) | 5.48 | 4.27 to 7.02 | adenocarcinoma |
| OVCAR420 | 0.30 | 0.21 to 0.42 | adenocarcinoma |
| OVCAR429 | 0.40 | 0.28 to 0.58 | serous cystadenocarcinoma |
| OVCAR432 | 0.29 | 0.23 to 0.36 | adenocarcinoma |
| OVCAR-8 (NCI) | 0.49 | 0.44 to 0.53 | adenocarcinoma |
| OVCAR-8/ADR (NCI) | 0.20 | 0.17 to 0.23 | adenocarcinoma |
| SKOV3 (NCI) | 0.18 | 0.10 to 0.31 | papillary serous adenocarcinoma |
| SKOV3 | 0.29 | 0.25 to 0.33 | papillary serous adenocarcinoma |
| UCI101 | 7.71 | 1 to 82 | papillary serous adenocarcinoma |
Detection of ASNS mRNA
Transcript levels were measured in the 13 non-NCI-60 cell lines listed in Table 1 using the Affymetrix HG-U133 Plus 2.0 array according to previously reported methods (5). The data were GCRMA-normalized using BRB Array Tools 3.5.0, developed by R. Simon and A.P. Lam (http://linus.nci.nih.gov/BRB-ArrayTools.html).
ASNS mRNA levels were additionally assayed in all 19 cell lines listed in Table 1 using the Quantigene Branched-DNA RNA Assay (probe set nts. 670–1321, which recognizes all three ASNS transcript variants) according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Panomics, Fremont, CA), as previously reported (2). ASNS levels were normalized to beta actin (ACTB; probe set nts. 48–780) levels within each sample.
MTS proliferation assay
Cell proliferation was assessed using CellTiter 96 AQueous One Solution (aka MTS; Promega, Madison, WI), and the L-ASP EC50 for each cell line was calculated using GraphPad Prism 5.01 (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, CA) as previously described (2).
Detection of ASNS protein
ASNS protein levels were determined using an electrochemiluminescent immunoassay (Gunsior et al; manuscript in preparation) developed for the SECTOR Imager 2400 (Meso Scale Discovery, Gaithersburg, MD). Briefly, cells were lysed with CellLytic M Lysis Reagent containing protease inhibitor cocktail (Sigma, St. Louis, MO). Total protein was quantitated using the BCA Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, Rockford, IL), and 5 μg of each lysate was loaded into an avidin-coated plate, where ASNS was captured using a biotinylated anti-ASNS antibody and quantitated using a SULFO-TAG™-labeled anti-ASNS antibody. Purified, recombinant human ASNS protein was used to generate standard curves, to which 1/y2 weighting was applied to determine absolute ASNS protein level for each sample.
Correlative analysis
Pearson’s correlation coefficients were computed for the relationship between −log10(L-ASP EC50) and log2(ASNS expression) using GraphPad Prism 5.01, including p-values for the one-tailed test of significance, since we expected the correlation to be negative based on previous results (2, 6, 7).
RESULTS
DNA fingerprinting of the cell lines
All of the cell lines were microsatellite-fingerprinted using the AmpF STR® Identifiler® PCR Amplification Kit. The results in Supplemental Table 1 show similar (though not identical) fingerprints for the two versions of OVCAR-3 included in the study, and the same for the two versions of SK-OV-3. Technical repeats of the fingerprinting process indicated an assay variability of about one four-base-pair-repeat. A difference greater than one repeat was observed for just one of the 32 tested markers in OVCAR-3 and at five of the 32 tested markers in SK-OV-3. The data in Supplemental Table 1 therefore indicate that the two versions of each line represent the same cell line, although we cannot rule out some degree of divergence during passage. The profiles in Supplemental Table 1 for all cell lines used are available for future reference and standardization.
L-ASP exhibits a wide range of activity in ovarian cancer cell lines
We used the MTS assay to measure L-ASP activity in nineteen ovarian cancer cell lines, including six NCI-60 and thirteen non-NCI-60 lines. The resulting L-ASP EC50 values spanned a 43-fold range from 0.18 to 7.71 U/mL (Fig. 1 and Table 1). EC50 values for the NCI-60 and non-NCI versions of the OVCAR-3 cell line were roughly the same (1.2 and 0.9 U/mL), and this was also the case for the SK-OV-3 cell line (0.2 and 0.3 U/mL).
Figure 1.
L-ASP concentration-activity curves determined by MTS assay in ovarian cancer cell lines. Nineteen indicated cell lines were seeded in 96-well plates and incubated for 48 h, then treated with a range of L-ASP concentrations for 48 h, and finally assayed with MTS. Note that the axis scales differ from cell line to cell line.
L-ASP activity is weakly correlated with ASNS mRNA expression
We previously reported a correlation between L-ASP activity and ASNS gene expression in the ovarian cancer cell lines that comprise the NCI-60 ovarian subpanel, and ASNS RNAi demonstrated that the relationship is causal (1). In the current study, however, microarray analysis of 13 non-NCI ovarian cell lines yielded a weak, statistically non-significant L-ASP/ASNS Pearson’s correlation of r = −0.21 (Fig. 2A), and branched-DNA RNA analysis corroborated that finding, also yielding r = −0.21 (the 13 data points are represented in Fig. 2B). The branched-DNA assay exhibited a much larger dynamic range than the microarray, but both data sets were strongly correlated with each other (r = +0.74; p = 0.0037; Fig. S1). Inclusion of data from six NCI-60 ovarian cell lines (19 total cell lines) significantly improved the branched-DNA correlation to r = −0.39 (p = 0.047) (Fig. 2B).
Figure 2.
Correlation of L-ASP activity with ASNS expression. ASNS mRNA expression was determined using Affymetrix U133 Plus 2.0 microarrays (A) and a branched-DNA RNA assay (B). ASNS protein expression was determined using a Meso Scale Discovery electrochemiluminescent immunoassay (C).
L-ASP activity is strongly correlated with ASNS protein expression
ASNS protein levels for the 19 ovarian cell lines were determined by immunoassay and were strongly correlated with L-ASP activity (r = −0.65, p = 0.0014) (Fig. 2C). Protein expression data from the 13 non-NCI cell lines alone yielded a Pearson’s correlation of r = −0.49 (p = 0.045; the 13 data points are represented in Fig. 2C). Analyses of the relationship between protein and mRNA expression of ASNS (i.e., immunoassay vs. microarray and immunoassay vs. b-DNA) yielded strong Pearson’s correlations of +0.65 (p = 0.016) and +0.75 (p = 0.0002), respectively (Figs. S2 and S3). Although mRNA and protein were strongly correlated, ASNS protein expression measured by immunoassay was the strongest predictor of L-ASP activity in ovarian cancer cell lines.
DISCUSSION
Based on strong negative correlation of L-ASP activity with baseline ASNS gene expression in ovarian cancer cell lines of the NCI-60 (6, 7), we previously used RNAi to demonstrate that L-ASP activity is causally related to ASNS expression (2). Here, we describe studies in an expanded set of ovarian cell lines that exhibited a wide range of sensitivity to L-ASP (Fig. 1 and Table 1). The shallow Hill Slopes observed in the 222, IGROV1, and UCI101 cell lines (Fig. 1) suggested that additional factors may be involved in the response to L-ASP, but we nevertheless sought to determine whether ASNS expression alone could serve as a biomarker of L-ASP activity in this diverse collection of ovarian cancer cell lines.
We used three different assays to assess ASNS expression—microarray, branched-DNA RNA assay, and electrochemiluminescent immunoassay. Contrary to some observations (2, 7–9) but consistent with others (10), microarray and branched-DNA analyses resulted in weak L-ASP/ASNS mRNA correlations in the 19 cell lines studied (Figs. 2A – B). Since our previous studies indicated a strong negative L-ASP/ASNS mRNA correlation in the NCI-60 ovarian subset using multiple microarray platforms, the absence of strong correlations here is attributable to the non-NCI-60 lines. One sufficient explanation is that the previously observed correlation was statistical coincidence in the first place. It was based on seven lines, one of which (OVCAR-8/ADR) was a drug-resistant version of another (OVCAR-8). Hence, there were only six independent lines. As previously stated, the negative correlation represented a trend, but it was not statistically significant after Bonferroni correction for the multiple tissue of origin subsets in the NCI-60 panel.
Another possible explanation for the difference in correlation between the NCI-60 and non-NCI-60 cell lines is passage number, which was as high as 170 for non-NCI-60 cell lines but less than 30 for the NCI-60 lines. Since the L-ASP/ASNS correlation is stronger for NCI-60 lines, which may somewhat more closely reflect the tumors from which they were derived, it is tempting to speculate that even stronger L-ASP/ASNS correlations would be obtained from primary ovarian cancer cells. Studies of primary acute lymphoblastic leukemias, however, have shown poor L-ASP/ASNS correlations (8, 11), yet L-ASP is an approved chemotherapy for ALL. Taken together, the cumulative evidence suggests that ASNS mRNA is not a robust biomarker of L-ASP activity. The shapes of the L-ASP vs. ASNS expression plots, nevertheless, suggest a stronger trend than the Pearson correlations indicate. Figs. 2A and 2B indicate a strong “7” shape, implying that 1) an upper limit of ASNS detection has been reached, 2) above some threshold level, ASNS expression is no longer the limiting factor that determines sensitivity to L-ASP (i.e., other factors are involved), and/or 3) certain cell types are outliers. To refute the first hypothesis, in other studies using the same branched-DNA RNA assay we have measured ASNS mRNA levels 6.5-fold greater than the highest value measured in this study, suggesting that the data presented here are indeed below the threshold of the assay. The second hypothesis, on the other hand, is supported by the observation that high-ASNS cell lines (i.e., data points on the vertical arm of the “7”) do not necessarily express high ASNS protein levels (Figs. S2 and S3). That is, above a threshold ASNS mRNA level, ASNS protein expression may be the limiting factor that determines sensitivity to L-ASP, as suggested by Fig. 2C. There may also be additional limiting factors that have not yet been determined. The third hypothesis may also be true—certain cell types may indeed be outliers.
We next determined the L-ASP/ASNS correlation at the protein level. Since ASNS protein is responsible for the synthesis of asparagine, one would expect ASNS protein expression to be more directly related to L-ASP activity than is ASNS mRNA expression. We therefore expected the protein level L-ASP/ASNS correlation to be stronger than the mRNA level correlation, and that was indeed the case. ASNS determination by immunoassay yielded an L-ASP/ASNS Pearson correlation of r = −0.65 (one-tailed p = 0.0014) (Fig. 2C). Because the L-ASP/ASNS correlation was already the focus of attention based on our prior results, no multiple comparisons correction was necessary. Hence, cells that express low ASNS protein levels are more sensitive to L-ASP treatment, probably because they produce less asparagine and are therefore more dependent upon extracellular asparagine to meet metabolic demands. It is worth noting that L-ASP activity was measured using an MTS assay, which reflects cellular metabolic activity and, for L-ASP, does reflect cell death as measured by trypan blue exclusion (data not shown). Also note that a strong correlation suggests predictive ability, not causality. We previously demonstrated causality using siRNA targeted to ASNS (2).
Given that in vivo correlations are likely to be weaker than those observed in vitro, it is reasonable to ask whether the r = −0.65 correlation is strong enough to warrant further research on ASNS as a biomarker for therapy of ovarian cancers with L-ASP. Consider the list of currently FDA-approved, clinical biomarkers (http://www.fda.gov/cder/genomics/genomic_biomarkers_table.htm). As one example, EGFR is a valid biomarker of erlotinib (NSC 718781) activity in lung cancer (12, 13), yet mining of the NCI-60 microarray data from the Affymetrix U133 platform yielded an erlotinib/EGFR Pearson’s correlation of r = +0.58 in six of the lung cancer cell lines from the NCI-60 (unpublished data). EGFR is also a valid biomarker of gefitinib (NSC 715055) activity in lung and colorectal cancers, and we computed gefitinib/EGFR correlations of +0.57 and +0.37 in the lung and colon NCI-60 subsets, respectively (unpublished data). Bearing in mind that the L-ASP/ASNS mRNA correlation in the ovarian subset is r = −0.86 (2) and that we found the L-ASP/ASNS protein correlation to be r = −0.65, we believe this report provides rationale for clinical evaluation of ASNS protein expression as a predictive biomarker of L-ASP activity.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that ASNS protein expression measured by immunoassay strongly predicts L-ASP activity in ovarian cancer cell lines. These findings provide rationale for clinical evaluation of ASNS protein as a predictive biomarker of L-ASP activity in ovarian cancer.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
We thank Gabriel Eichler for valuable discussions. We also thank Merideth M. Brown, Talisa Creavalle, and Tabassum Bandey of the NCI Core Genotyping Facility Production Team for running the Identifiler assay and analyzing the data. We are also grateful to Jay Ji for providing gefitinib NCI-60 screen data. PLL is supported by a Pharmacology Research Associate Fellowship from NIGMS, NIH. This research was also supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, and in part under contract N01-CO-12400.
Abbreviations
- L-ASP
L-asparaginase
- ASNS
asparagine synthetase
- DTP
Developmental Therapeutics Program
- NCI
National Cancer Institute
- RNAi
RNA interference
- siRNA
small interfering RNA
- MTS
3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium, inner salt
Footnotes
Competing Interests Statement: The authors declare no competing interests.
References
- 1.Cancer Facts and Figures 2008. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Lorenzi PL, Reinhold WC, Rudelius M, et al. Asparagine synthetase as a causal, predictive biomarker for L-asparaginase activity in ovarian cancer cells. Mol Cancer Ther. 2006 Nov;5(11):2613–23. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Manzano RG, Montuenga LM, Dayton M, et al. CL100 expression is down-regulated in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer and its re-expression decreases its malignant potential. Oncogene. 2002 Jun 27;21(28):4435–47. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1205542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Schilder RJ, Hall L, Monks A, et al. Metallothionein gene expression and resistance to cisplatin in human ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer. 1990 Mar 15;45(3):416–22. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910450306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Donninger H, Bonome T, Radonovich M, et al. Whole genome expression profiling of advance stage papillary serous ovarian cancer reveals activated pathways. Oncogene. 2004 Oct 21;23(49):8065–77. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1207959. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bussey KJ, Chin K, Lababidi S, et al. Integrating data on DNA copy number with gene expression levels and drug sensitivities in the NCI-60 cell line panel. Mol Cancer Ther. 2006 Apr;5(4):853–67. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-05-0155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Scherf U, Ross DT, Waltham M, et al. A gene expression database for the molecular pharmacology of cancer. Nat Genet. 2000 Mar;24(3):236–44. doi: 10.1038/73439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Fine BM, Kaspers GJ, Ho M, Loonen AH, Boxer LM. A genome-wide view of the in vitro response to l-asparaginase in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer Res. 2005 Jan 1;65(1):291–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hutson RG, Kitoh T, Moraga Amador DA, Cosic S, Schuster SM, Kilberg MS. Amino acid control of asparagine synthetase: relation to asparaginase resistance in human leukemia cells. Am J Physiol. 1997 May;272(5 Pt 1):C1691–9. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.1997.272.5.C1691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Su N, Pan YX, Zhou M, Harvey RC, Hunger SP, Kilberg MS. Correlation between asparaginase sensitivity and asparagine synthetase protein content, but not mRNA, in acute lymphoblastic leukemia cell lines. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007 May 18; doi: 10.1002/pbc.21213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Stams WA, den Boer ML, Beverloo HB, et al. Sensitivity to L-asparaginase is not associated with expression levels of asparagine synthetase in t(12;21)+ pediatric ALL. Blood. 2003 Apr 1;101(7):2743–7. doi: 10.1182/blood-2002-08-2446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Reddy GK. Relevance of epidermal growth factor receptor genomic gain in predicting clinical response to kinase inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2005 Nov;7(3):163–5. doi: 10.1016/S1525-7304(11)70404-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Rosell R, Ichinose Y, Taron M, et al. Mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the EGFR gene associated with gefitinib response in non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2005 Oct;50(1):25–33. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2005.05.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.