Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jun 18;15(6):e0234708. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234708

PD173074 blocks G1/S transition via CUL3-mediated ubiquitin protease in HepG2 and Hep3B cells

Chuchu Qiao 1, Hongyan Qian 2, Jue Wang 1, Tingting Zhao 1, Pengyu Ma 1, Sicen Wang 1, Tao Zhang 1,*, Xinshe Liu 2,*
Editor: Yu-Jia Chang3
PMCID: PMC7302471  PMID: 32555680

Abstract

Fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFRs) are frequently altered in a variety of human cancer cells and are overexpressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Several literatures have proven that they are efficacious for HCC therapy, however, the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Here, we found FGFR4 was overexpressed in HCC cell lines HepG2 and Hep3B and we used PD173074, an FGFR4 inhibitor, to explore the role of FGFR4 and its underlying mechanism in these cell lines. The results showed that PD173074 significantly arrested HepG2 and Hep3B cells in G1 phase and inhibited cell proliferation. Furthermore, Western blot analysis revealed that PD173074 decreased the levels of P-FRS2α, P-ERK, CDK2, cyclin E and NF-κB (p65) in the nucleus while it increased the levels of ubiquitin and CUL3, an E3 ubiquitin ligase which involves in cyclin E degradation. Meanwhile, the data from RT-qPCR showed that PD173074 also decreased miR-141 level. In conclusion, these results suggest that FGFR4 is involved in HCC by ERK/CUL3/cyclin E signaling pathway, and the finding may provide a potential theoretical basis for treatment by targeting FGFR4 in HCC.

Introduction

The fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFRs) belong to the family of receptor tyrosine kinases and the activation of these receptors by their high-affinity ligand FGF can activate their substrate-FGFR substrate 2 (FRS2) and, in turn, activate mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway [1]. Although the FGFR pathway plays a fundamental role in the organogenesis of the nervous system, tissue repair and inflammation, 7.1% of all tumor types have genetic alterations in the FGF-FGFR axis [2]. FGFR4 in the tumor tissues is significantly higher than that in normal liver tissues, and it is strongly associated with a higher TNM stage (T: tumor, N: lymph nodes, M: metastasis). In other words, higher FGFR4 expression results in worse prognosis and its inhibition reduces hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) aggressiveness [3,4]. Aberrant FGF19 signaling through FGFR4 has been identified as an oncogenic driver in a subset of patients with HCC [5,6]. Work to date provides strong evidence that overexpressed FGFRs affect the cell cycle machinery via cyclin D and blocking these receptors is efficacious for breast cancer therapy [7]. However, how FGFR4 promotes tumorigenesis of HCC remains unclear.

The cell cycle is a fundamental and irreversible process of growth and development of life, and a critically and tightly regulated step is the transition from G1 to S in which lots of regulators are involved [8]. As one key regulator in G1/S transition, cyclin E, a G1 cyclins, binds to CDK2 and then forms the cyclin E/CDK2 complex which phosphorylates a wide array of substrates to drive G1/S phase transition [9]. Further studies suggest that cyclin E activation is dependent upon the activation of the MAPK pathway following mitogenic stimulation [10,11], and lots of researchers have found that, compared with normal tissue, cyclin E is highly expressed in most liver cancers [12].

The ubiquitin-dependent proteolytic pathway is the major cellular proteolysis pathway and is responsible for the degradation of proteins which are involved in the cell cycle regulation. This complex pathway consists of three major enzymes: E1 (or ubiquitin-activating enzyme), E2 (or ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme) and E3 (or ubiquitin ligase) [13]. Current studies have proven that mammalian CUL1 (cullin 1) and CUL3, members of the E3 ligase family, are implicated in cyclin E degradation [14,15]. Furthermore, an in vitro study shows that CUL3 ubiquitinates cyclin E in a transient transfection system and another in vivo research demonstrates that knockout of the CUL3 gene in mice causes the increase of cyclin E protein [16,17]. Taken together, CUL3 is involved in the degradation of cyclin E. However, whether FGFR involves in the regulation of CUL3 in HCC proliferation is still not clear.

miRNAs are small, noncoding RNA molecules and they can inhibit the expression of the target genes by triggering mRNA degradation or translational repression through complementary binding to the 3′ untranslated regions of target mRNAs [18]. A recent study shows that miR-141 downregulates the CUL3 level in Hirschsprung’s disease (HSCR) [18], and some studies demonstrate that miR-141 is also highly associated with malignancies such as gastric cancer, colon cancer, nasopharyngeal carcinoma and pancreatic cancer [19,20]. Furthermore, both in vitro and in vivo studies show that transcription factor negatively regulates the promoter activity of miR-141 [19]. Transcription factor NF-κB (p65) is a key regulator of gene expression in inflammatory-related malignant tumors [21], and a previous paper reports that NF-κB (p65) modulates miRNA transcriptional activation [22]. However, whether and how NF-κB (p65) regulates miR-141 in HCC is unclear.

In this study, we used PD173074, an inhibitor of FGFR4, to explore the role of FGFR4 and the underlying mechanism in HepG2 and Hep3B cell lines, and our results suggest that FGFR4 is involved in the proliferation of HCC via ERK/CUL3/cyclin E axis and this finding provides potential therapeutic targets for HCC.

Materials and methods

Materials

PD173074 (S1264), U0126-EtOH (S1102), roscovitine (S1153) and MG132 (S2619) were purchased from Selleck Chemicals (Houston, USA). Epidermal growth factor (EGF) (10605-HNAE) and human FGF19 (10012226-HNAE) were purchased from Sino Biological (Beijing, China). MTT was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, USA). FGFR4 (#2894), P-FRS2α (Tyr196) (#3864), P-ERK (#4370), ERK (#4695), CDK2 (#2546) and Histone H3 (#4499) antibodies were purchased from Cell Signaling Technology (Boston, USA), and FGFR1 (ab824), ubiquitin (ab7780), CUL3 (ab108407), cyclin E (ab2094) and NF-κB (p65) (ab7970) antibodies were purchased from Abcam (Cambridge, UK). Protein A/G PLUS-agarose immunoprecipitation reagent (sc-2003) was purchased from Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Dallas, USA).

Cell culture

The human hepatoma cell lines HepG2, Hep3B or the human normal liver cell line HL7702 were purchased from the Cell Bank of Shanghai Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). Cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA) with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA), 100 U/mL penicillin and 100 μg/mL streptomycin (Hat Biotechnology, Xi’an, China) at 37°C in 5% CO2. Cells were starved for 12 h with 2% FBS before treatment with various compounds.

MTT assay

HepG2, Hep3B or HL7702 cells were seeded into 96-well plate at 5000 cells/well. After adherence, the cells were treated with different concentrations of PD173074 (0.5, 1, 10, 20 and 50 μM) and, 48 h later, the cells were incubated with MTT solution (500 μg/mL) for 4 h at 37°C. The formazan was solubilized with DMSO and relative cell viability was measured at 490 nm with a microplate reader (BioTek, Winooski, USA). Growth inhibition in response to various concentrations of PD173074 was calculated using GraphPad Prism 7.0 (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA).

Colony survival assay

Colony survival assay was carried out according to previously published protocol with some modifications [23]. In briefly, HepG2 or Hep3B cells were seeded into 12-well plate at 800 cells/well. Then the cells were treated with different concentrations of PD173074. After forming colonies in the complete DMEM without PD173074 for another 10–14 days. The colonies were clearly visible and countable and, then, they were fixed and stained with crystal violet. Colonies comprising more than 50 cells were enumerated and images were captured with an inverted fluorescence microscope (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan).

EdU (5-Ethynyl-2’- deoxyuridine) incorporation assay

HepG2 or HL7702 cells were seeded into 96-well plate at 5000 cells/well. Cell proliferation was determined using the Cell-Light EdU Apollo®567 In Vitro Imaging Kit (RiboBio Co. Ltd., Guangzhou, China) according to the manufacturer's instruction. In brief, after PD173074 treatment for 48 h, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and then were permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100. After blocking with 2 mg/mL glycine, the cells were washed with PBS and then were incubated with Apollo reaction buffer B at room temperature. 30 min later, the cells were washed and incubated with Hoechst reaction buffer for 10 min at room temperature. Finally, the cells were washed again and then observed under inverted fluorescence microscope.

Cell cycle analysis

HepG2, Hep3B or HL7702 cells were seeded into a 6-well plate at 2×105 cells/well. The cells were treated with different concentrations of PD173074 (0.5, 1, 10 μM). 48 h later, the cells were collected, washed and then fixed with cold ethanol (70% v/v) for 2 h at 4°C. After fixation, the cells were treated with 50 μg/mL propidium iodide (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) and 100 μL RNase A (100 μg/mL) for 30 min in the dark at 4°C. Finally, the cell cycle was detected by flow cytometry (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, USA).

Western blot

Western blot was performed according to standard protocol. In brief, total proteins were extracted with RIPA buffer (HEART, Xi’an, China). 30 μg of samples were loaded for electrophoresis and then transferred onto PVDF membrane (Millipore, Billerica, USA). After transferring, the membrane was blocked with 5% skimmed milk and, then, incubated with primary antibody overnight at 4°C. The next day, the membrane was washed with TBST and then incubated with HRP-conjugated secondary antibody at 37°C. 1 h later, the membrane was washed again and imaged using Immobilon western chemiluminescent HRP substrate (Millipore, Billerica, USA).

RT-qPCR

Total RNA was isolated using RNAfast200 reagent (Xifeng Biotechnology, Xi’an, China) and then was reverse-transcripted using PrimeScript RT reagent kit with gDNA Eraser (Takara, Shiga, Japan) or Mir-X miRNA first-strand synthesis kit (Takara, Shiga, Japan) for miR-141 (including an internal control: U6). Finally, RT-qPCR was performed using SYBR Green real-time PCR master mix (Toyobo, Osaka, Japan) and the relative expression was assessed using the 2−ΔΔCt method. The sequences for all primers are as follows:

  • cyclin E-F: 5′-GCCATTCTCATCGGGTCCTC-3′,

  • cyclin E-R: 5′-TCGGTACCACAGGGTCACCA-3′;

  • CUL3-F: 5′-GGAAGGAAAACAGGGAAGGTG-3′,

  • CUL3-R: 5′-ACATAGGAAAGGCACACAAAGGA-3′;

  • GAPDH-F: 5′-GCACCGTCAAGGCTGAGAAC-3′,

  • GAPDH-R: 5′-TGGTGAAGACGCCAGTGGA-3′;

  • hsa-miRNA-141-3p: 5′-AACACTGTCTGGTAAAGATGG-3′.

Co-ImmunoPrecipitation (Co-IP)

HepG2 or Hep3B cells were seeded into 10 cm dish and then were treated with 2 μM PD173074. 24 h later, total proteins were lysed with RIPA buffer (HEART, Xi’an, China). 30 min later, the lysis was spun down and the supernatant was collected. Then, the primary antibody was added into the supernatant and the mixture was incubated on rotator at 4°C. 24 h later, protein A/G PLUS-Agarose beads (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Dallas, USA) were added and the mixture was incubated at 4°C. 4 h later, the mixture was pelleted and washed 4 times with RIPA buffer. Finally, the pellet was eluted using electrophoresis sample buffer and the target protein was detected using corresponding primary antibodies by Western blot.

siRNA silencing

All siRNAs were purchased from GenePharma (Shanghai, China) and were transfected using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen) according to standard protocol.

The sequences for all siRNAs are as follows:

  • 1-CUL3-(sense): 5′-GCUUGGAAUGAUCAUCAAATT-3′,

  • 1-CUL3-(antisense): 5′-UUUGAUGAUCAUUCCAAGCTT-3′;

  • 2-CUL3-(sense): 5′-CCAAGCACAUGAAGACUAUTT-3′,

  • 2-CUL3-(antisense): 5′-AUAGUCUUCCAUGUGCUUGGTT-3′;

  • 1-NF-κB (p65)-(sense): 5′-GCUAUUCUCCCUACCAGCUTT-3′,

  • 1-NF-κB (p65)-(antisense): 5′-AGCUGGUAGGGAGAAUAGCTT-3′;

  • 2-NF-κB (p65)-(sense): 5′-GCUGCCCUAUGAUGACUGUTT-3′,

  • 2-NF-κB (p65) (antisense): 5′-ACAGUCAUCAUAGGGCAGCTT-3′.

Transfection

miRNA inhibitor was synthesized and purified by GenePharma (Shanghai, China). Transfection was performed with lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). miR-141 inhibitor was transfected at 200 nM.

Nuclear/cytoplasmic fractionation

The cytoplasmic/nuclear protein extraction kit (Beyotime Biotechnology, Wuhan, China) was used to isolate cytoplasmic/nucleus protein. In brief, first, the cells were pelleted, washed and then dissolved in reagent A. After 5 s vortex, the tubes were incubated for 12 min on ice. Next, reagent B was added and the tubes were vortex for 5 s again and then incubated on ice. 1 min later, the samples were immediately centrifuged for 5 min at 14,000×g at 4°C and the supernatant was transferred into another new tube and frozen for further analysis (Cytoplasmic fraction). Then, the remaining supernatant was decanted and the pellet was resuspended in reagent C (nuclear protein extraction). After another vortex for 30 min, the tubes were centrifuged for 10 min at 14,000×g, and the supernatant was transferred to a new tube for further analysis (Nuclear fraction). Finally, the cytoplasmic/nuclear fractions were used to perform Western blot for the detection of NF-κB (p65) level.

Statistical analysis

The data represent the mean±standard deviations (SD) and were analyzed using GraphPad Prism 7.0. An unpaired Student′s t-test was used for comparison between two groups. For multiple comparisons, data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s post hoc test. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

PD173074 induces G1 accumulation and suppresses proliferation in HCC cells

We first detected the effect of PD173074 on the viability of HepG2, Hep3B and HL7702 cells by MTT assay. The results showed that it suppressed the viability of all cell lines, and HepG2 and Hep3B were more sensitive to PD173074 compared with HL7702 (Fig 1A). The colony formation of HepG2 and Hep3B cells was significantly suppressed and the number of the colonies was declined (Fig 1B). We then performed an EdU-incorporation assay and found that PD173074 significantly decreased the number of EdU+ cells in HepG2 cells compared with HL7702 cells (Fig 1C). To further explore the effect of PD173074 on cell cycle, we performed flow cytometry and the results showed that, with the increase of the concentration, PD173074 treatment resulted in the gradual accumulation of G1 phase in both HepG2 and Hep3B cells (Fig 1D and 1E). However, we did not observe any changes in HL7702 cells (Fig 1F).

Fig 1. PD blocks G1/S transition and suppresses the proliferation in HCC cells.

Fig 1

(A) Cell viability was measured by MTT assay in HepG2, Hep3B and HL7702 cells, and (B) cell proliferation was determined by colony formation assay in HepG2 and Hep3B cells after treating with PD (n = 5). (C) The EdU proliferation assay was performed after PD treatment in HepG2 or HL7702 cells. The red fluorescent cells were those in the S phase of mitosis, and the blue fluorescent cells represented all of the cells (n = 5). After PD treatment, cell cycles of (D) HepG2, (E) Hep3B and (F) HL7702 were analyzed by flow cytometry. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.001, #P < 0.05, ####P < 0.001. PD: PD173074.

PD173074 blocks FGFRs-mediated FRS2α-ERK pathway in HCC cells

PD173074 is known to be a selective inhibitor of FGFR1 [24], but can block breast cancer cell proliferation via the FGFR4 signaling pathway [25]. There was no detectable FGFR1 in HepG2, Hep3B and HL7702 cells (S1A Fig). However, FGFR4 was overexpressed in HepG2 and Hep3B cells, and there was little detectable FGFR4 in HL7702 cells (S1A Fig). FGFRs activation upregulates a series of downstream signaling molecules, including P-FRS2α which can activate the MAPK pathway and finally enhances cell proliferation [26]. We treated the cells with different concentrations of PD173074 and found that P-FRS2α and P-ERK levels were markedly decreased in HepG2 cells while a slight decrease in HL7702 cells (Fig 2A). We then treated these cells with 2 μM of PD173074 with different time incubation and the data showed that, compared with control (0 h), PD173074 significantly decreased P-FRS2α and P-ERK level at the timepoints of 8, 16 and 24 h in HepG2 cells while no obvious changes were observed in HL7702 cells (Fig 2B). To further confirm these data, we treated these cells with FGF19, a fibroblast growth factor that interacts with FGFR and activates FGFR activity, and found that FGF19 increased the levels of P-FRS2α and P-ERK and PD173074 significantly attenuated its effect in HepG2 cells (Fig 2C). In addition, similar as ERK inhibitor U0126, PD173074 also attenuated the phosphorylation of ERK in HepG2 cells (S1B Fig). Meanwhile, EGF alone remarkably increased the level of P-ERK and PD173074 blocked this effect in HepG2 cells (S1B Fig).

Fig 2. PD downregulates FGFR4-mediated MAPK signaling, cyclin E and CDK2 proteins in HepG2 cells.

Fig 2

HepG2 and HL7702 cells were treated with (A) different concentrations of PD for 24 h or (B) 2 μM of PD with different time incubation indicated times, and P-FRS2α, P-ERK, cyclin E and CDK2 protein levels were analyzed by Western blot (n = 3). (C) HepG2 cells were treated with FGF19 (100 ng/mL, 16 h) and/or PD (2μM, 24 h) and then P-FRS2α, P-ERK, cyclin E and CDK2 protein levels were analyzed by Western blot (n = 3). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Ctrl: control, PD: PD173074.

PD173074 decreases cyclin E and CDK2 levels in HCC cells

Cyclin E and CDK2 are important regulators of the G1/S checkpoint during cell cycle progression and our data above showed that PD173074 treatment led to a marked increase in G1-accumulated HCC cells (Fig 1D and 1E). So we also detected the protein levels of cyclin E and CDK2 and the results revealed that, compared with HL7702 cells, their levels were apparently attenuated after treating with different concentrations of PD173074 (Fig 2A) or with different time incubation (Fig 2B). We also treated these cells with FGF19 and found FGF19 treatment led to the upregulation of cyclin E and CDK2 protein levels and PD173074 blocked its effect (Fig 2C). To convince these findings, we utilized, the CDK2 inhibitor, roscovitine to explore the protein levels of cyclin E and CDK2 and, expectedly, either PD173074 or roscovitine attenuated their levels (S1C Fig).

Upregulation of CUL3 mRNA and protein stimulates cyclin E ubiquitination following PD173074 treatment in HCC cells

We detected the mRNA level of cyclin E following PD173074 treatment in HepG2 and Hep3B cells, but no changes were found (S2A Fig). However, PD173074 induced ubiquitination in HepG2 and Hep3B cells (Fig 3A) and MG132, an inhibitor of proteasome-mediated proteolysis, caused the accumulation of cyclin E in HepG2 and Hep3B cells (Fig 3B). These results suggest that the degradation of cyclin E is regulated by ubiquitin-dependent proteolytic pathway. Furthermore, Co-IP results showed that PD173074 induced the formation of CUL3/cyclin E complex (Fig 3C). Western blot and RT-qPCR results revealed that PD173074 significantly upregulated the mRNA (Fig 3D) and protein (Fig 3E) levels of CUL3. Besides, CUL3 knockdown by siRNA increased the cyclin E protein levels in both HepG2 cells (Fig 3F) and Hep3B cells (Fig 3H), and slightly decreased their G1 phase respectively. Importantly, PD173074 rescued the effect of CUL3 knockdown on the cell cycle program in HepG2 (Fig 3G) and Hep3B (Fig 3I).

Fig 3. PD stimulates cyclin E ubiquitination by upregulating CUL3 mRNA and protein levels.

Fig 3

(A) Ubiquitin and (B) cyclin E protein were determined by Western blot after treating with MG132 (2 μM, 2 h) and/or PD (2 μM, 24 h) in HepG2 and Hep3B (n = 3). (C) Co-IP was performed using lysates from HepG2 (n = 3). CUL3 (D) mRNA and (E) protein levels were detected by RT-qPCR and Western blot respectively (n = 5). The effect of CUL3 knockdown on the protein levels of cyclin E and CUL3, and the cell cycle distribution in (F, G) HepG2 and (H, I) Hep3B cells were determined by Western blot and flow cytometry respectively (n = 3). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, PD: PD173074. Ctrl: control, MG: MG132.

PD173074 upregulates CUL3 via miR-141 in HCC cells

Tang et al. reported that miR-141 negatively regulated CUL3 level in Hirschsprung's disease [18] and the transcription factor NF-κB (p65) was involved in miRNA transcriptional activation in lung cancer [22]. In accordance with the Tang's results, miR-141 inhibitor transfection resulted in a significant increase in CUL3 mRNA levels (Fig 4A). Moreover, PD173074 decreased miR-141 level in both HepG2 and Hep3B cells (Fig 4B). These data suggest that miR-141 also negatively regulates CUL3 levels in HepG2 and Hep3B cells. Furthermore, we performed bioinformatical analysis (Ensembl genome browser: http://grch37.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Transcript/Exons?db=core;g=ENSG00000207708;r=12:7073260-7073354;t=ENST00000384975; The JASPAR database: http://jaspar.binf.ku.dk/cgi-bin/jaspar_db.pl) and found that miR-141 harbors NF-κB-binding sites located from −87- to −97-bp upstream of the miR-141 initiating site (Fig 4C). Then, we detected the cytoplasmic and nuclear protein levels of NF-κB (p65) and found PD173074 decreased the nuclear NF-κB (p65) while no obvious changes were found in cytoplasmic fraction (Fig 4D). To convince these findings, we transfected HepG2 (Fig 4E) and Hep3B cells (Fig 4H) with siRNA targeting NF-κB and found significant decreases in miR-141 level (Fig 4F and 4I) and inhibited cell viability (Fig 4G and 4J). Furthermore, PD173074 treatment after NF-κB knockdown revealed stronger inhibitory effects on miR-141 expression (Fig 4F and 4I) and the cell viability (Fig 4G and 4J) in HepG2 and Hep3B cells. Besides, EGF induced ERK phosphorylation and led to the increase in NF-κB (p65) and U0126 decreased ERK phosphorylation and NF-κB (p65) level (S2B Fig).

Fig 4. PD decreases miR-141 levels and the ERK/NF-κB (p65) signaling pathway.

Fig 4

(A) HepG2 and Hep3B cells were transfected with miR-141 inhibitor and then RT-qPCR was used to determine CUL3 mRNA level (n = 5). (B) Effects of PD (2 μM) for 24 h on miR-141 level were also detected by RT-qPCR (n = 5). (C) Possible NF-κB (p65) target sites in the miR-141 coding region was predicted based on the JASPAR database. (D) Effects of PD on cytoplasmic/nuclear NF-κB (p65) protein level were determined by Western blot. Effects of NF-κB knockdown on NF-κB (p65) protein level were determined by Western blot respectively in (E) HepG2 and (H) Hep3B cells. Effects of NF-κB knockdown alone or combination with PD treatment on miR-141 level (F, I) and cell viability (G, J) were measured by RT-qPCR and MTT assay respectively in HepG2 (F, G) and Hep3B (I, J) (n = 5). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. PD: PD173074, Ctrl: control.

Discussion

Although the FGFR signaling pathway plays a fundamental role in the organogenesis of the nervous system, tissue repair and inflammation, 7.1% of all tumor types have genetic alterations in the FGF-FGFR axis [27]. Highly expressed FGFR4 in the carcinoma tissues is correlated with HCC progression [36] and FGFR4 overexpression has been identified as an oncogenic driver in a subset of patients with HCC. However, the underlying mechanism remains unclear. So, in this study, we aimed to explore the role of FGFR4 and the underlying mechanism in HCC.

In vivo studies showed that PD173074 treatment significantly decreased tumor volume [28,29]. Although PD173074 is always used as FGFR1 inhibitor [30], it can also block cancer cell proliferation via the FGFR4 signaling pathway [25]. Our results revealed that there was no detectable FGFR1 while FGFR4 was overexpressed in HepG2 and Hep3B cells. Inhibitor-mediated inactivation of FGFR4 has a stronger inhibitory effect on cell proliferation and G1 phase arrest in HCC cells. Therefore, PD173074, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, may function in HepG2 and Hep3B by targeting FGFR4 and our data demonstrate that PD173074 affects G1/S checkpoint and inhibits cell proliferation largely via repressing FGFR4 activity in these HCC cells.

Compared with surrounding normal tissue, cyclin E is highly expressed in the majority of liver cancers [12]. Cyclin E is an important regulator in G1/S checkpoint and a series of evidence shows that cyclin E is involved in HCC progression [31,32]. PD173074 has a strong inhibitory effect on cyclin E protein level in HCC cells, suggesting that the inhibitory effect of PD173074 on G1 phase and S phase is due to the downregulation of cyclin E protein. However, PD173074 does not affect the mRNA level of cyclin E in HepG2 and Hep3B cells. We also observed PD173074 induced ubiquitination and this suggests ubiquitin proteasome system is implicated in cyclin E protein degradation. CUL3 is an E3 ligase which is strongly involved in DNA synthesis and the formation of micronuclei, and loss of CUL3 in hepatocytes can result in upregulation of cyclin E although this phenomenon is also showed in a large series of human liver cancers [16,17]. In this study, PD173074 caused the upregulation of CUL3 mRNA and protein levels and induced the direct binding of CUL3 to cyclin E, which promoted cyclin E turnover. Furthermore, CUL3 knockdown facilitated the G1/S phase transition and PD173074 rescued this effect. In vitro and in vivo studies have proven that CUL3 is involved in free cyclin E degradation [16,33]. Taken together, FGFR4 overexpression may promote cell proliferation by upregulating cyclin E protein level and inducing cyclin E/CDK2 complex formation which finally stimulates G1/S transition.

An interesting issue is to determine how the inhibitory activity of FGFR4 caused the increase in CUL3 mRNA and protein levels. Tang et al. report that miR-141 can target CUL3 and result in its downregulation in HSCR [18]. Here, PD173074 inhibited miR-141 and miR-141 inhibitor transfection increased CUL3 mRNA in HCC cells, suggesting that miR-141 also participates in regulating CUL3 expression in HCC cells. miRNA genes are regulated in a similar way as that of coding genes and nuclear transcriptional regulatory factors can regulate the promoter activity of miR-141 [3437]. NF-κB (p65), a transcription factor, plays an important role in the regulation of normal cell proliferation and is aberrantly expressed in many human cancers, and recent studies suggest NF-κB (p65) is involved in the expression of miRNA [37,38]. From bioinformatical analysis, miR-141 is the target of NF-κB (p65). Therefore, we further explored the effect of PD173074 on miR-141 and NF-κB (p65) and possible mechanism. The data showed that PD173074 decreased NF-κB (p65) level in the nucleus which regulates gene transcription directly. Furthermore, NF-κB (p65) knockdown led to the decrease of miR-141 level and cell viability and PD173074 enhanced this effect. Besides, ERK phosphorylation upregulated NF-κB (p65) protein level, and ERK dephosphorylation downregulated NF-κB (p65) level, indicating PD173074 may decrease nuclear NF-κB (p65) level via the MAPK pathway. Taken together, these results suggest that NF-κB (p65) may involve in the proliferation regulation of HCC by targeting miR-141 which targets CUL3, and the activation of the FGFR4 signaling pathway induces nuclear NF-κB (p65) expression via ERK-mediated signaling transduction in HCC.

In conclusion, FGFR4 is involved in the proliferation of HCC cells by ERK/CUL3/cyclin E signaling pathway and these findings may provide a potential theoretical basis for treatment by targeting FGFR4 in HCC (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Schematic of PD173074-mediated G1 phase arrest of in HepG2 cells.

Fig 5

Blockage of FGFR4 activity by PD173074 results in the downregulation of downstream signaling molecules, including P-FRS2α, P-ERK, NF-κB (p65) and miR-141 level, and the upregulation of CUL3 mRNA and protein levels. The binding of CUL3 to cyclin E leads to cyclin E protein ubiquitination and finally blocks G1/S transition.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

(A) Expression of FGFR1 and FGFR4 in HepG2, Hep3B and HL7702 were determined by Western blot analysis with specific antibodies (n = 3). (B) HepG2 cells were treated with U0126 (2 μM, 4 h), EGF (20 ng/mL, 2 h) or PD (2 μM, 24 h), and ERK phosphorylation was measured by Western blot (n = 3). (C) HepG2 cells were treated with Rosc (4 μM) or PD (2 μM) for 24 h, and cyclin E and CDK2 protein levels were measured by Western blot (n = 3). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Ctrl: control, PD: PD173074, Rosc: roscovitine.

(TIF)

S2 Fig

(A) HepG2 and Hep3B cells were treated with PD (2 μM) for 24 h, and RT-qPCR was performed to analyze cyclin E mRNA level. Data were normalized by GAPDH level (n = 5). (B) Western blot analysis of NF-κB (p65) levels in ctrl, EGF- or U0126-treated cells after 2 h and 4 h of treatment, respectively. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. PD: PD173074, Ctrl: control, NC: Negative Control.

(TIF)

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Ying Guo for critical reading of the manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81471818, 81430048, 81202495, 81230079) and the Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province (No. 2017JM8098). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Turner N, Grose R. Fibroblast growth factor signalling: from development to cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010; 10(2):116–129. 10.1038/nrc2780 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Porta R, Borea R, Coelho A, Khan S, Araujo A, Reclusa P, et al. FGFR a promising druggable target in cancer: molecular biology and new drugs. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2017; 113:256–267. 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.02.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chen Z, Bao X, Zhu Q, Xia Q, Jiang S, Cao R, et al. FGFR4 and TGF-β1 Expression in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Correlation with Clinicopathological Features and Prognosis. Int J Med Sci. 2013; 10(13):1868–1875. 10.7150/ijms.6868 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ho HK, Pok S, Streit S, Ruhe JE, Hart S, Lim KS, et al. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 4 regulates proliferation, anti-apoptosis and alpha-fetoprotein secretion during hepatocellular carcinoma progression and represents a potential target for therapeutic intervention. J Hepatol. 2009; 50(1):118–127. 10.1016/j.jhep.2008.08.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Vainikka S, Joukov V, Wennstrom S, Bergman M, Pelicci PG, Alitalo K. Signal transduction by fibroblast growth factor receptor-4 (FGFR-4). Comparison with FGFR-1. J Biol Chem. 1994; 269(28):18320–18326. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wu AL, Coulter S, Liddle C, Wong A, Eastham-Anderson J, French DM, et al. FGF19 regulates cell proliferation, glucose and bile acid metabolism via FGFR4-dependent and independent pathways. PLoS One. 2011; 6(3):e17868 10.1371/journal.pone.0017868 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Koziczak M, Holbro T, Hynes NE. Blocking of FGFR signaling inhibits breast cancer cell proliferation through downregulation of D-type cyclins. Oncogene. 2004; 23(20):3501–3508. 10.1038/sj.onc.1207331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Icard P, Fournel L, Wu Z, Alifano M, Lincet H. Interconnection between Metabolism and Cell Cycle in Cancer. Trends Biochem Sci. 2019; 44(6):490–501. 10.1016/j.tibs.2018.12.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Poon RY, Hunter T. Dephosphorylation of Cdk2 Thr160 by the cyclin-dependent kinase-interacting phosphatase KAP in the absence of cyclin. Science. 1995; 270(5233):90–93. 10.1126/science.270.5233.90 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Keenan SM, Bellone C, Baldassare JJ. Cyclin-dependent kinase 2 nucleocytoplasmic translocation is regulated by extracellular regulated kinase. J Biol Chem. 2001; 276(25):22404–22409. 10.1074/jbc.M100409200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Desai D, Wessling HC, Fisher RP, Morgan DO. Effects of phosphorylation by CAK on cyclin binding by CDC2 and CDK2. Mol Cell Biol. 1995; 15(1):345–350. 10.1128/mcb.15.1.345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Masaki T, Shiratori Y, Rengifo W, Igarashi K, Yamagata M, Kurokohchi K, et al. Cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinases: comparative study of hepatocellular carcinoma versus cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2003; 37(3):534–543. 10.1053/jhep.2003.50112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Scheffner M, Smith S, Jentsch S. The Ubiquitin-Conjugation System: Springer US; 1998; 179–207p. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Porter PL, Malone KE, Heagerty PJ, Alexander GM, Gatti LA, Firpo EJ, et al. Expression of cell-cycle regulators p27Kip1 and cyclin E, alone and in combination, correlate with survival in young breast cancer patients. Nat Med. 1997; 3(2):222–225. 10.1038/nm0297-222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Strohmaier H, Spruck CH, Kaiser P, Won KA, Sangfelt O, Reed SI. Human F-box protein hCdc4 targets cyclin E for proteolysis and is mutated in a breast cancer cell line. 2001; 413(6853):316–322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.McEvoy JD, Kossatz U, Malek N, Singer JD. Constitutive turnover of cyclin E by Cul3 maintains quiescence. Mol Cell Biol. 2007; 27(10):3651–3666. 10.1128/MCB.00720-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Singer JD, Gurian-West M, Clurman B, Roberts JM. Cullin-3 targets cyclin E for ubiquitination and controls S phase in mammalian cells. Genes Dev. 1999; 13(18):2375–2387. 10.1101/gad.13.18.2375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tang W, Qin J, Tang J, Zhang H, Zhou Z, Li B, et al. Aberrant reduction of MiR-141 increased CD47/CUL3 in Hirschsprung's disease. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2013; 32(6):1655–1667. 10.1159/000356601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liu Y, Zhao R, Wang H, Luo Y, Wang X, Niu W, et al. miR-141 is involved in BRD7-mediated cell proliferation and tumor formation through suppression of the PTEN/AKT pathway in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cell Death Dis. 2016; 7:e2156 10.1038/cddis.2016.64 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.van Jaarsveld MT, Helleman J, Boersma AW, van Kuijk PF, van Ijcken WF, Despierre E, et al. miR-141 regulates KEAP1 and modulates cisplatin sensitivity in ovarian cancer cells. Oncogene. 2013; 32(36):4284–4293. 10.1038/onc.2012.433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Naugler WE, Karin M. NF-kappaB and cancer-identifying targets and mechanisms. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2008; 18(1):19–26. 10.1016/j.gde.2008.01.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Jeon YJ, Middleton J, Kim T, Laganà A, Piovan C, Secchiero P, et al. A set of NF-κB-regulated microRNAs induces acquired TRAIL resistance in lung cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015; 112(26):E3355 10.1073/pnas.1504630112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shi X, Zhu M, Gong Z, Yang T, Yu R, Wang J, et al. Homoharringtonine suppresses LoVo cell growth by inhibiting EphB4 and the PI3K/AKT and MAPK/EKR1/2 signaling pathways. Food Chem Toxicol. 2019; 136:110960 10.1016/j.fct.2019.110960 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nguyen PT, Tsunematsu T, Yanagisawa S, Kudo Y, Miyauchi M, Kamata N, et al. The FGFR1 inhibitor PD173074 induces mesenchymal-epithelial transition through the transcription factor AP-1. Br J Cancer. 2013; 109(8):2248–2258. 10.1038/bjc.2013.550 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Koziczak M, Hynes NE. Cooperation between fibroblast growth factor receptor-4 and ErbB2 in regulation of cyclin D1 translation. J Biol Chem. 2004; 279(48):50004–50011. 10.1074/jbc.M404252200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Persaud A, Alberts P, Hayes M, Guettler S, Clarke I, Sicheri F, et al. Nedd4-1 binds and ubiquitylates activated FGFR1 to control its endocytosis and function. EMBO J. 2011; 30(16):3259–3273. 10.1038/emboj.2011.234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Helsten T, Elkin S, Arthur E, Tomson BN, Carter J, Kurzrock R. The FGFR Landscape in Cancer: Analysis of 4,853 Tumors by Next-Generation Sequencing. Clin Cancer Res. 2016; 22(1):259–267. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-3212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ezzat S, Huang P, Dackiw A, Asa SL. Dual inhibition of RET and FGFR4 restrains medullary thyroid cancer cell growth. Clin Cancer Res. 2005; 11(3):1336–1341. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Okimoto T, Takechi M, Isobe T, Kim J, Kim HS, Shim JJ, et al. Critical role of the fibroblast growth factor signalling pathway in Ewing's sarcoma octamer-binding transcription factor 4-mediated cell proliferation and tumorigenesis. Respir Res. 2019; 286(22): 4443–4472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bae JM, Wen X, Kim T-S, Kwak Y, Cho N-Y, Lee HS, et al. Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 1 (FGFR1) Amplification Detected by Droplet Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction (ddPCR) Is a Prognostic Factor in Colorectal Cancers. Cancer Res Treat. 2019; 52(1):74–84. 10.4143/crt.2019.062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Knoblich JA, Sauer K, Jones L, Richardson H, Saint R, Lehner CF, et al. Cyclin E controls S phase progression and its down-regulation during Drosophila embryogenesis is required for the arrest of cell proliferation. Cell. 1994; 77(1):107–120. 10.1016/0092-8674(94)90239-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ito Y, Matsuura N, Sakon M, Miyoshi E, Noda K, Takeda T, et al. Expression and prognostic roles of the G1-S modulators in hepatocellular carcinoma: p27 independently predicts the recurrence. Hepatology. 1999; 30(1):90–99. 10.1002/hep.510300114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Clurman BE, Sheaff RJ, Thress K, Groudine M, Roberts JM. Turnover of cyclin E by the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway is regulated by cdk2 binding and cyclin phosphorylation. Genes Dev. 1996; 10(16):1979–1990. 10.1101/gad.10.16.1979 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Vo N, Klein ME, Varlamova O, Keller DM, Yamamoto T, Goodman RH, et al. A cAMP-response element binding protein-induced microRNA regulates neuronal morphogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005; 102(45):16426–16431. 10.1073/pnas.0508448102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hermeking H. p53 enters the microRNA world. Cancer Cell. 2007; 12(5):414–418. 10.1016/j.ccr.2007.10.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.O'Donnell KA, Wentzel EA, Zeller KI, Dang CV, Mendell JT. c-Myc-regulated microRNAs modulate E2F1 expression. Nature. 2005; 435(7043): 435: 839–843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Jayeeta G, Mithun S, Eashita D, Nihar RJ, Nitai PB. Regulation of miR-146a by RelA/NFkB and p53 in STHdh(Q111)/Hdh(Q111) cells, a cell model of Huntington's disease. PLoS One. 2011; 6(8):e23837 10.1371/journal.pone.0023837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Taganov KD, Boldin MP, Chang KJ, Baltimore D. NF-kappaB-dependent induction of microRNA miR-146, an inhibitor targeted to signaling proteins of innate immune responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006; 103(33): 12481–12486. 10.1073/pnas.0605298103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yu-Jia Chang

10 Mar 2020

PONE-D-20-03351

PD173074 blocks G1/S transition via CUL3-mediated ubiquitin protease in HepG2 and Hep3B cells

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chuchu Qiao,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: This article is aimed to study the role PD173074, a FGFR inhibitor, in HCC. This article is interesting and contained novelty. However, there are some major concerns for this article. Those points should be clarified.   

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 24 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yu-Jia Chang

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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "No"

a)    Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  

b)    Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. 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."

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

3. 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.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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: PD173074 blocks G1/S transition via CUL3-mediated ubiquitin protease in HepG2 and Hep3B cells

Limitations:

(a) This study lacks clinical relevance to assess the significance of molecules in the FGFR4 mediated ERK/CUL3/cyclin E signaling pathways.

(b) PD173074 is a pan-FGFR inhibitor, not a specific FGFR inhibitor. It has been reported that BLU9931, a potent and irreversible small-molecule inhibitor of FGFR4. The authors do not compare the cytotoxicity efficiency of PD173074 with any other well-known FGFR inhibitor. In this study, these HCC cell lines only express FGFR4. It’s unknown whether specific FGFR4-mediated ERK/CUL3/cyclin E axis that leads to cell proliferation.

Strengths:

(a) In this study, the authors used PD173074, an inhibitor of FGFRs, to explore the underlying mechanism of FGFRs in HCC cells, and the data indicated that FGFR4 may be involved in the proliferation of HCC via ERK/CUL3/cyclin E axis.

Major comments:

1. Previous reports showed that FGFR1 and FGFR2 were shown to be elevated in the majority of HCC cells. Aberrant FGF19 signaling through FGFR4 has been identified as an oncogenic driver for a subset of patients with HCC. FGF19 and its receptor FGFR4 have been shown to be involved in EMT in HCC cells through modulating the GSK3β/β-catenin signaling cascade. The authors can provide the clinical outcome association of specific FGFR expression (FGFR4) in HCC via public microarray dataset analysis. Otherwise, the rationale is weak if no data showed poor outcome of FGFR4 overexpression in HCC progression. For example, it needs to clarify whether the expression levels of FGFR4 are correlated with HCC progression (eg. tumor size, metastasis, and angiogenesis etc.). Additionally, in this study it also can’t reveal the clinical correlation of FGFR4 with downstream targets including cyclin E, CUL3 or miR-141 expression in HCC progression.

2. In the Figure 1, the author examined the effect of PD173074 on the viability of HepG2, Hep3B and normal liver cell line HL7702 cells. Actually, high concentration of (>20 uM) PD173074 can induce most cell death in these cells. 0.5-10 uM PD173074 can lead to significant HCC cell death. However, it is unknown the cytotoxicity efficiency of PD173074 compared with another FGFR inhibitor. Also, the action of PD173074 has not been characterized in this study.

3. Previous study showed that FGFR1 and FGFR2 expression can be examined in HCC SK-Hep-1 and SNU449 cells. (Mol Cancer Ther. 2015;14(11):2613-2622. PMID: 26351320). In the Figure S1A, there is no detectable level of FGFR1 in HepG2, Hep3B and HL7702 cells. However, FGFR4 is overexpressed in HepG2 and Hep3B cells compared with normal control. It’s unknown whether the specific FGFR4 may lead to liver cancer cell proliferation via ERK/CUL3/cyclin E axis dependent on different cell context.

4. The study demonstrates that FGFR4 is involved in the proliferation of HCC via ERK/CUL3/cyclin E axis. The authors would like to provide a potential theoretical basis for treatment by targeting FGFR4 in HCC. PD173074 seems to be a pan-FGFR inhibitor and whether another pan-inhibitor (eg. AZD4547) or selective inhibitors (eg. BLU9931) have similar effect in ERK/CUL3/cyclin E axis. Actually, a number of FGFR inhibitors are currently in clinical trials to treat cancers with FGFR. What the efficacy of potential FGFR inhibitors has been examined for HCC therapy in recent clinical trials?

Minor:

In the page 17, line 229-230, misspell of “detectible”.

In the Figure 2B, the concentration of PD173074 should be noted in the experiment.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript investigates whether PD173074, an FGFR inhibitor can be used as an HCC anti-cancer agent. The authors used HCC cell lines HepG2, Hep3B and one normal liver cells demonstrated PD173074 inhibiting FRS2α, ERK and downstream signals, as well as cyclin E regulation. This is a very interesting and well-design study. Some minor typos or mistakes are given to improve the quality of this study.

1: This manuscript is strongly suggested to do English professional editing. Several grammatical mistakes are consistently found through the context.

For example:

little change was found in HL7702 cells-236

The meanwhile-273

2: Typos: Detectible-229, 230

3: What is UPS: No definition is shown whole the context.-267, 268

4: Since the authors used p-FRS2α in this study, the phosph-FRS2α should be clearly identified in this manuscript, for example: line 233, 235, 239….. And the total FRS2α detection should be also included in figure 2.

Reviewer #3: This paper by a group of researchers from China sheds light onto the potential therapeutic strategy of FGFR inhibitor, PD173074, in hepatoma. Recently, alterations of FGFR have been reported to be important for progression and development of several cancers, including lung cancer and breast cancer. Authors tried to figure out the puzzle of the molecular signaling pathway regulated by FGFR/PD173074. However, there’s still lots of missing pieces in this entire picture.

The vast part of the data in this manuscript is to understand the therapeutic effect of PD173074 in FGFR-overexpressed hepatoma cell lines, but no in vivo-related data to prove the crucial role of FGFR in hepatoma. Authors may provide some evidence to reveal the effects of PD173074 in in vivo study (animal model or clinical evidence).

PD173074 is known to be a selective inhibitor of FGFR1 (doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.550). However, there’s undetectable endogenous FGFR1 in HepG2 and Hep3B hepatoma cell lines. And authors did not provide the data of FGFR2 and 3 in the cell lines. How could we exclude the compensation effects from FGFR2 and 2 in this study?

The threaraprutic window is unsatisfied in low concentration of PD173074 (1 µM) in Figure 1. Previous studies \\used to use low concentration to st\\dy the effects of PD173074 in anti-cancer experiments. Nguyen et al., used 15 nM PD for 1h (doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.550), and Pardo et al., used 10nM PD for 1h (doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-1576). Could authors discuss the differences between this?

Signal transduction is very fast and the phospho-protein will go back to the basal level after stimulation, unless the constitutive activation mutantion is present.

The response time of signal transduction protein and cell cycle regulator to extracellular ligand stimulation are totally different. Authors did not clearly point out the suitable time point to observe the activation status of signal transduction protein and cell cycle regulator, respectively.

Minor point:

The use of the English is not always appropriate, and the manascript would be benefit from some careful revision with respect to syntax, grammar and typos.

Could author provide the proliferation rate of the three cell lines used in this study? According to Figure 1, the population doubling time of hepatoma cell lines and normal liver cell line seems the same?

Please label the exact time point and PD173074 concentration in different concentration experiment and time course experiment, respectively.

There are some typos in the article, please check it.

1. In P. 29, the year of reference 5, please check it

2. Is the cell line named Hep3B or Hep3b? Please check it.

3. In row 217, there are two “blocks”.

4. In Figure 1B, the concentration in colony formation are 0.5, 1 and 10 µM or 1, 10 and 50 µM?

**********

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: Yes: Chia-Hwa Lee

Reviewer #3: 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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 18;15(6):e0234708. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234708.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Apr 2020

Dear reviewers,

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “PD173074 blocks G1/S transition via CUL3-mediated ubiquitin protease pathway in HepG2 and Hep3B cells”. These comments are very valuable and helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have carefully revised the manuscript and all responds to all comments are as follows:

PONE-D-20-03351

PD173074 blocks G1/S transition via CUL3-mediated ubiquitin protease in HepG2 and Hep3B cells

PLOS ONE

Reviewer #1: PD173074 blocks G1/S transition via CUL3-mediated ubiquitin protease in HepG2 and Hep3B cells

Limitations:

(a) This study lacks clinical relevance to assess the significance of molecules in the FGFR4 mediated ERK/CUL3/cyclin E signaling pathways.

(b) PD173074 is a pan-FGFR inhibitor, not a specific FGFR inhibitor. It has been reported that BLU9931, a potent and irreversible small-molecule inhibitor of FGFR4. The authors do not compare the cytotoxicity efficiency of PD173074 with any other well-known FGFR inhibitor. In this study, these HCC cell lines only express FGFR4. It’s unknown whether specific FGFR4-mediated ERK/CUL3/cyclin E axis that leads to cell proliferation.

Strengths:

(a) In this study, the authors used PD173074, an inhibitor of FGFRs, to explore the underlying mechanism of FGFRs in HCC cells, and the data indicated that FGFR4 may be involved in the proliferation of HCC via ERK/CUL3/cyclin E axis.

Major comments:

Question (Q) 1. Previous reports showed that FGFR1 and FGFR2 were shown to be elevated in the majority of HCC cells. Aberrant FGF19 signaling through FGFR4 has been identified as an oncogenic driver for a subset of patients with HCC. FGF19 and its receptor FGFR4 have been shown to be involved in EMT in HCC cells through modulating the GSK3β/β-catenin signaling cascade. The authors can provide the clinical outcome association of specific FGFR expression (FGFR4) in HCC via public microarray dataset analysis. Otherwise, the rationale is weak if no data showed poor outcome of FGFR4 overexpression in HCC progression. For example, it needs to clarify whether the expression levels of FGFR4 are correlated with HCC progression (eg. tumor size, metastasis, and angiogenesis etc.). Additionally, in this study it also can’t reveal the clinical correlation of FGFR4 with downstream targets including cyclin E, CUL3 or miR-141 expression in HCC progression.

Answer (A) 1: Thanks for your suggestion, we have supplemented the clinical outcome association with FGFR4 in HCC in the Introduction section. Pai et al. showed that decreased FGFR4 results in cyclin D1 arrest by beta-Catenin signaling (PMID: 18593907). And the literature from O'Leary et al. showed that cyclin D1/CDK4/6, together with cyclin E/CDK2 directly or indirectly, drives G1-S-phase transition (PMID: 27030077) which plays an important role in tumor formation, indicating FGFR4 may also affect cyclin E/CDK2 pathway. Together with our data, these evidence showed that FGFR4 is involved in HCC by ERK/CUL3/cyclin E signaling pathway. Present study aimed to undercover new relationship between FGFR4 and cyclin E regulated G1 phase transition under drug candidate PD1730474. It will provide some experimental evidence in HCC therapy target on FGFR4. Although no clinical evidence was found between FGFR4 and downstream targets, it provides some basal clues for further clinical research in HCC.

Q2. In the Figure 1, the author examined the effect of PD173074 on the viability of HepG2, Hep3B and normal liver cell line HL7702 cells. Actually, high concentration of (>20 uM) PD173074 can induce most cell death in these cells. 0.5-10 uM PD173074 can lead to significant HCC cell death. However, it is unknown the cytotoxicity efficiency of PD173074 compared with another FGFR inhibitor. Also, the action of PD173074 has not been characterized in this study.

A2: Thank you for your suggestion. Because we are not sure the effective concentration of PD173074 in HepG2, Hep3B and HL7702 cell lines, and, based on several literatures on PD173074 targeting FGFR4 (PMID: 28718374; 26662569; 22648271), we treated all three cell lines with different concentration of PD173074 (0-50 μM) to preliminarily examine the inhibitory effect on the cells. We found that high concentration of (>20 uM) PD173074 induced all types of cell lines dead and we, therefore, selected the concentration range of 0-10 μM to perform next experiments (Fig. 1B-D) to avoid or reduce the cytotoxicity. Based on these data and the IC50 information, we finally chose 2 uM of PD173074 to perform further experiments. In other hand, almost all studies targeting FGFR4 used uM of PD173074 (PMID: 24126887; 28718374; 26662569; 22648271; 19008009; 16857743; 15709206) and incubated longer time (at most 72h) to block FGFR4. So, 2 uM should be a suitable concentration in our study. In this study, we found PD173074 blocked the G1 phase and led to the inhibition of the proliferation in FGFR4 highly expressed cells (HepG2 & Hep3B). We assumed that FGFR4 might involve in the regulation of the G1 phase in these HCC cells. Further studies showed that PD173074 treatment resulted in the downregulation of the cyclin E protein, which involves in the regulation of G1 phase via ubiquitin proteasome pathway. Thus, our research focuses on the FGFR4 mediated G1 phase arrest via cyclin E ubiquitin proteasome pathway under PD173074 treatment. So, we took this main line in this study.

Q3. Previous study showed that FGFR1 and FGFR2 expression can be examined in HCC SK-Hep-1 and SNU449 cells. (Mol Cancer Ther. 2015;14(11):2613-2622. PMID: 26351320). In the Figure S1A, there is no detectable level of FGFR1 in HepG2, Hep3B and HL7702 cells. However, FGFR4 is overexpressed in HepG2 and Hep3B cells compared with normal control. It’s unknown whether the specific FGFR4 may lead to liver cancer cell proliferation via ERK/CUL3/cyclin E axis dependent on different cell context.

A3: Thanks for your suggestion. In this study, we chose FGFR1 non-detectable, but FGFR4 highly expressed cell lines (HepG2, Hep3B) to explore the role of FGFR4 in HCC and the underlying mechanism and our data demonstrate that FGFR4 is involved in HCC via ERK/CUL3/cyclin E axis and PD173074 could inhibit this procedure in HepG2 and Hep3B cell lines. We also looked up lots of literatures and found ERK phosphorylation is involved in FGFR4-mediated proliferation in various cancers (Hepatocellular carcinoma, gastric cancer, ovarian cancer and rhabdomyosarcoma; PMID: 29490293; 24126887; 28718374; 22648271) although no evidence between CUL3/cyclin E and FGFR4 was found. So, we can’t conclude FGFR4/ ERK/CUL3/cyclin E is a universal pathway in HCC or other tumors so for. However, our results, at least, provide a direction for future research.

Q4. The study demonstrates that FGFR4 is involved in the proliferation of HCC via ERK/CUL3/cyclin E axis. The authors would like to provide a potential theoretical basis for treatment by targeting FGFR4 in HCC. PD173074 seems to be a pan-FGFR inhibitor and whether another pan-inhibitor (eg. AZD4547) or selective inhibitors (eg. BLU9931) have similar effect in ERK/CUL3/cyclin E axis. Actually, a number of FGFR inhibitors are currently in clinical trials to treat cancers with FGFR. What the efficacy of potential FGFR inhibitors has been examined for HCC therapy in recent clinical trials?

A4: Thanks for your suggestion. The paper from Zhao et al. found that AZD4547 decreased the level of P-ERK in vitro and in vivo (PMID: 28900173) while the study from another group showed that BLU9931 decreased P-ERK’s level in HCC cells (PMID: 32161315). However, no evidence for association between AZD4547/BLU9931 and CUL3 or cyclin E was found so far. So, we can conclude that AZD4547 or BLU9931 have similar effect in ERK phosphorylation, but not CUL3 and cyclin E. However, our study provides a clue for further research on signaling pathway in HCC. In recent years, several FGFRs inhibitors have been tested for tumor therapy, including liver cancer. PRN1371 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02608125) and ASP5878 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02038673) are in phase I of development and clinical trials, and no results were posted yet. The rate of confirmed response to erdafitinib (Phase II; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02365597) was 40%, however this treatment could result in serious adverse effect (grade 3 or higher in 46% of the patients) although no deaths were reported (PMID: 31340094). The clinic trial study on BGJ398 (Phase II; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02150967) showed that the disease control rate was 75.4% (83.3% FGFR2 fusions only) and the adverse effect of grade 3 or 4 was 41% (PMID: 29182496), and this may be the most likely candidate so far.

Minor:

Q5: In the page 17, line 229-230, misspell of “detectible”.

A5: Thanks for your suggestion and we have revised the manuscript (line 246-247).

Q6: In the Figure 2B, the concentration of PD173074 should be noted in the experiment.

A6: Thank you and we have noted the concentration of PD173074 in Figure 2 caption.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript investigates whether PD173074, an FGFR inhibitor can be used as an HCC anti-cancer agent. The authors used HCC cell lines HepG2, Hep3B and one normal liver cells demonstrated PD173074 inhibiting FRS2α, ERK and downstream signals, as well as cyclin E regulation. This is a very interesting and well-design study. Some minor typos or mistakes are given to improve the quality of this study.

Q7: This manuscript is strongly suggested to do English professional editing. Several grammatical mistakes are consistently found through the context.

For example:

little change was found in HL7702 cells-236

The meanwhile-273

A7: Thanks for your suggestions. The whole manuscript has been revised by a native English speaker (line 255, 293).

Q8: Typos: Detectible-229, 230

A8: Thank you and we have carefully revised all spelling mistakes in the manuscript (line 246-247).

Q9: What is UPS: No definition is shown whole the context.-267, 268

A9: UPS means ubiquitin proteasome system and we have revised it (line 290).

Q10: Since the authors used p-FRS2α in this study, the phosph-FRS2α should be clearly identified in this manuscript, for example: line 233, 235, 239….. And the total FRS2α detection should be also included in figure 2.

A10: We are appreciated for the comments. We have revised the manuscript carefully (line 249, 251, 254, 258). As the substrate of FGFRs, FRS2α can be phosphorylated on several sites and phosphorylated FRS2α (P-FRS2α) then activates downstream signaling molecules, such as MAPK (PMID: 30070748). So we detected the level of P-FRS2α. These papers also only detect the level of total P-FRS2α following PD173074 treatment in cancer cells (PMID: 27893433; 24445144; 23409720). In other hand, the total FRS2α is easily affected by different factors (PMID: 29540482). Therefore, we only detected the level of P-FRS2α, but not FRS2α, and then normalized it using GAPDH.

Reviewer #3: This paper by a group of researchers from China sheds light onto the potential therapeutic strategy of FGFR inhibitor, PD173074, in hepatoma. Recently, alterations of FGFR have been reported to be important for progression and development of several cancers, including lung cancer and breast cancer. Authors tried to figure out the puzzle of the molecular signaling pathway regulated by FGFR/PD173074. However, there’s still lots of missing pieces in this entire picture.

Q11: The vast part of the data in this manuscript is to understand the therapeutic effect of PD173074 in FGFR-overexpressed hepatoma cell lines, but no in vivo-related data to prove the crucial role of FGFR in hepatoma. Authors may provide some evidence to reveal the effects of PD173074 in vivo study (animal model or clinical evidence).

A11: Thank you for your suggestion. We looked up lots of literatures and found several in vivo studies showed that PD173074 treatment significantly decreased tumor volume (PMID: 15709206 & 31155838), and we have already added these evidence into Introduction of this manuscript.

Q12: PD173074 is known to be a selective inhibitor of FGFR1 (doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.550). However, there’s undetectable endogenous FGFR1 in HepG2 and Hep3B hepatoma cell lines. And authors did not provide the data of FGFR2 and 3 in the cell lines. How could we exclude the compensation effects from FGFR2 and 3 in this study?

A12: Thanks for the comments about the compensation effects from FGFR2/3. Actually, the report from French et al. (Fig. S2B PMID: 22615798) showed that the expression levels of FGFR2/3 in HepG2 and Hep3B are much lower compared with FGFR4. Follow the evidence, we chose HepG2 and Hep3B cell lines to avoid compensation effects from FGFR2/3.

Q13: The threaraprutic window is unsatisfied in low concentration of PD173074 (1 µM) in Figure 1. Previous studies\\used to use low concentration to study the effects of PD173074 in anti-cancer experiments. Nguyen et al., used 15 nM PD for 1h (doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.550), and Pardo et al., used 10nM PD for 1h (doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-1576). Could authors discuss the differences between this?

A13: The target of PD173074 in literatures above is FGFR1, but not FGFR4, and, actually, most studies used nM of PD173074 to explore its inhibitory effect on FGFR1 although PD173074 is a pan-FGFR inhibitor. However, almost all studies targeting FGFR4 used uM of PD173074 (PMID: 24126887; 28718374; 26662569; 22648271; 19008009; 16857743; 15709206) and incubated longer time (at most 72h) to block FGFR4 and the main reason should be, compared with FGFR4, PD173074 has much higher affinity to FGFR1. In present study, we mainly focus on new relationship between FGFR4 and Cyclin E in ubiquitin style.

Q14: Signal transduction is very fast and the phospho-protein will go back to the basal level after stimulation, unless the constitutive activation mutantion is present.

The response time of signal transduction protein and cell cycle regulator to extracellular ligand stimulation are totally different. Authors did not clearly point out the suitable time point to observe the activation status of signal transduction protein and cell cycle regulator, respectively.

A14: The reviewer gives a common sense about the signal transduction variation under stimulation. During that time point each regulator could be fluxing on (phosphorylated) and off (dephosphorylated) at different rates although the underlying mechanism remains unclear (PMID: 29587141). Furthermore, some researchers also found the phosphorylation of these signal transduction regulators were changed 24h/48h after PD173074 treatment in other cell lines (PMID: 27893433 & 26183471). In this study, we first optimized the dose and time point of PD173074 treatment following previous studies (PMID: 26662569 & 28718374), and finally chose the time point of 24 h to perform further experiment and our data suggest that 24h is a suitable time point.

Minor point:

Q15: The use of the English is not always appropriate, and the manascript would be benefit from some careful revision with respect to syntax, grammar and typos.

A15: Thanks for your suggestion, we have carefully revised the manuscript.

Q16: Could author provide the proliferation rate of the three cell lines used in this study? According to Figure 1, the population doubling time of hepatoma cell lines and normal liver cell line seems the same?

A16: Thanks for your concern on the proliferation characteristics for the cells used in study. The HL7702 cell was purchased from the Cell Bank of Shanghai Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai. All the culture conditions strictly followed the instructions from supplier. The HL7702 growth rate is almost same as the others. However, we want to declare that the proliferation assays in Figure 1 were conducted when the confluence reached 80-90%. And the inhibitory rate is based on vehicle treatment cells.

Q17: Please label the exact time point and PD173074 concentration in different concentration experiment and time course experiment, respectively.

A17: Thank you and we have labeled the exact time point and PD173074 concentration in the manuscript.

Q18: There are some typos in the article, please check it.

1. In P. 29, the year of reference 5, please check it

2. Is the cell line named Hep3B or Hep3b? Please check it.

3. In row 217, there are two “blocks”.

4. In Figure 1B, the concentration in colony formation are 0.5, 1 and 10 µM or 1, 10 and 50 µM?

A18: Thanks for your suggestion. We have carefully revised the manuscript.

1. line 430

2. Fig. 4B

3. line 234

4. In Figure 1B

Your sincerely

Chuchu Qiao

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Yu-Jia Chang

11 May 2020

PONE-D-20-03351R1

PD173074 blocks G1/S transition via CUL3-mediated ubiquitin protease in HepG2 and Hep3B cells

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Qiao_Chuchu,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: The authors have been improved the quality of the manuscript. However, there are some minor concerns for the revised manuscript.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 25 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yu-Jia Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The authors have been improved the manuscript. However, there are some minor concerns. Please add scale bars into each figure panel and size markers to each western blot. I also strongly encourage you to upload your original data to an appropriate figure/data repository such as Mendeley Data or Dryad, as access to original data can increase reader confidence in the findings.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. 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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. 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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. 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: Although there is no clinical evidence in this study, it revealed that FGFR4 may affect ERK/CUL3/cyclin E signaling pathway in HCC cells through basic study.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Please add scale bars into each figure panel and size markers to each western blot. I also strongly encourage you to upload your original data to an appropriate figure/data repository such as Mendeley Data or Dryad, as access to original data can increase reader confidence in the findings.

**********

7. 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: Yes: Sheng-Ming Wu

Reviewer #2: Yes: Chia-Hwa Lee

Reviewer #3: 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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 18;15(6):e0234708. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234708.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 May 2020

Dear reviewers,

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “PD173074 blocks G1/S transition via CUL3-mediated ubiquitin protease pathway in HepG2 and Hep3B cells”. These comments are very valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript. We have carefully revised the figures and all responds to all comments are as follows:

PONE-D-20-03351R1

PD173074 blocks G1/S transition via CUL3-mediated ubiquitin protease in HepG2 and Hep3B cells

PLOS ONE

Minor comments:

Question. Please add scale bars into each figure panel and size markers to each western blot. I also strongly encourage you to upload your original data to an appropriate figure/data repository such as Mendeley Data or Dryad, as access to original data can increase reader confidence in the findings.

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion, we have added scale bars into each figure panel (Fig. 1C) and size markers to each western blot (Fig 2, Fig 3, Fig 4, S1 Fig and S2 Fig). We also uploaded our original data to Mendeley Data (http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/pjryf3kt5d.1).

Your sincerely

Chuchu Qiao

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Yu-Jia Chang

2 Jun 2020

PD173074 blocks G1/S transition via CUL3-mediated ubiquitin protease in HepG2 and Hep3B cells

PONE-D-20-03351R2

Dear Dr. Qiao_Chuchu,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Yu-Jia Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Yu-Jia Chang

9 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-03351R2

PD173074 blocks G1/S transition via CUL3-mediated ubiquitin protease in HepG2 and Hep3B cells

Dear Dr. Qiao:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Yu-Jia Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    (A) Expression of FGFR1 and FGFR4 in HepG2, Hep3B and HL7702 were determined by Western blot analysis with specific antibodies (n = 3). (B) HepG2 cells were treated with U0126 (2 μM, 4 h), EGF (20 ng/mL, 2 h) or PD (2 μM, 24 h), and ERK phosphorylation was measured by Western blot (n = 3). (C) HepG2 cells were treated with Rosc (4 μM) or PD (2 μM) for 24 h, and cyclin E and CDK2 protein levels were measured by Western blot (n = 3). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Ctrl: control, PD: PD173074, Rosc: roscovitine.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig

    (A) HepG2 and Hep3B cells were treated with PD (2 μM) for 24 h, and RT-qPCR was performed to analyze cyclin E mRNA level. Data were normalized by GAPDH level (n = 5). (B) Western blot analysis of NF-κB (p65) levels in ctrl, EGF- or U0126-treated cells after 2 h and 4 h of treatment, respectively. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. PD: PD173074, Ctrl: control, NC: Negative Control.

    (TIF)

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES