Galactosyl- and glucosylsphingosine induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization and cell death in cancer cells

Kamilla Stahl-Meyer; Mesut Bilgin; Lya K K Holland; Jonathan Stahl-Meyer; Thomas Kirkegaard; Nikolaj Havnsøe Torp Petersen; Kenji Maeda; Marja Jäättelä

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277058

. 2022 Nov 21;17(11):e0277058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277058

Galactosyl- and glucosylsphingosine induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization and cell death in cancer cells

Kamilla Stahl-Meyer ^1,², Mesut Bilgin ¹, Lya K K Holland ¹, Jonathan Stahl-Meyer ¹, Thomas Kirkegaard ², Nikolaj Havnsøe Torp Petersen ², Kenji Maeda ^1,^*, Marja Jäättelä ^1,^3,^*

Editor: Vladimir Trajkovic⁴

PMCID: PMC9678304 PMID: 36409725

Abstract

Isomeric lysosphingolipids, galactosylsphingosine (GalSph) and glucosylsphingosine (GlcSph), are present in only minute levels in healthy cells. Due to defects in their lysosomal hydrolysis, they accumulate at high levels and cause cytotoxicity in patients with Krabbe and Gaucher diseases, respectively. Here, we show that GalSph and GlcSph induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization, a hallmark of lysosome-dependent cell death, in human breast cancer cells (MCF7) and primary fibroblasts. Supporting lysosomal leakage as a causative event in lysosphingolipid-induced cytotoxicity, treatment of MCF7 cells with lysosome-stabilizing cholesterol prevented GalSph- and GlcSph-induced cell death almost completely. In line with this, fibroblasts from a patient with Niemann-Pick type C disease, which is caused by defective lysosomal cholesterol efflux, were significantly less sensitive to lysosphingolipid-induced lysosomal leakage and cell death. Prompted by the data showing that MCF7 cells with acquired resistance to lysosome-destabilizing cationic amphiphilic drugs (CADs) were partially resistant to the cell death induced by GalSph and GlcSph, we compared these cell death pathways with each other. Like CADs, GalSph and GlcSph activated the cyclic AMP (cAMP) signalling pathway, and cAMP-inducing forskolin sensitized cells to cell death induced by low concentrations of lysosphingolipids. Contrary to CADs, lysosphingolipid-induced cell death was independent of lysosomal Ca²⁺ efflux through P2X purinerigic receptor 4. These data reveal GalSph and GlcSph as lysosome-destabilizing lipids, whose putative use in cancer therapy should be further investigated. Furthermore, the data supports the development of lysosome stabilizing drugs for the treatment of Krabbe and Gaucher diseases and possibly other sphingolipidoses.

Introduction

Glucosylsphingosine (GlcSph) and galactosylsphingosine (GalSph, also known as psychosine) are isomeric cationic lysosphingolipids composed of a sphingosine backbone and a hexosyl headgroup [1, 2]. They exist at very low levels in healthy human cells and their normal functions are not known [3]. GlcSph and GalSph accumulate in the brain and other tissues of patients suffering from Gaucher and Krabbe diseases, respectively, and are thought as the primary causes of these pathologies [4]. Gaucher and Krabbe diseases are lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs), which include over 70 rare inherited monogenic diseases caused by mutations in genes encoding proteins essential for lysosomal function or transport [5, 6]. Gaucher disease is caused by biallelic mutations in the GBA1 gene that encodes a lysosomal hydrolase, β-glucocerebrosidase (also known as glucosylceramidase, GBA1) [7]. GBA1 hydrolyses glucosylceramide (also known as glucocerebroside, GlcCer) to glucose and ceramide [7]. In addition to the primary substrate GlcCer, GlcSph accumulates in Gaucher disease likely owing to acid ceramidase-mediated hydrolysis of the N-bound fatty acid of GlcCer [2]. Krabbe disease is caused by mutations in the GALC gene encoding galactosylceramidase (also known as galactocerebrosidase, GALC) that degrades galactosylceramide (GalCer) to galactose and ceramide [1, 8]. The level of GalSph increases in Krabbe disease cells while that of GalCer is unaffected or even decreased [1, 9, 10]. The specific accumulation of GalSph in the brains of Krabbe disease patients has given a rise to the “Psychosine hypothesis” suggesting that the lysosphingolipid GalSph is the primary cause of the Krabbe disease pathology and that also the pathology of other sphingolipidoses, including Gaucher disease, is caused by the accumulation of lysosphingolipids rather than the primary substrates of the defective enzymes [1, 4]. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying the cytotoxicity of lysosphingolipids are yet unclear.

The lysosome-dependent cell death pathway contributes to several pathophysiological conditions such as neurodegeneration and cellular aging [11–13]. It is initiated by lysosomal membrane permeabilization, which leads to the leakage of lysosomal contents, including cathepsin proteases, into the cytosol [14–16]. Lysosomal leakage can be induced by several stimuli, including classical apoptosis inducers such as tumor protein p53 and tumor necrosis factor, which can permeabilize lysosomes either to initiate or to amplify their respective cell death pathways [17, 18]. Additionally, lysosomotropic agents such as amines with hydrophobic side chains (e.g. imidazole) [19], cationic amphiphilic drugs (CADs, e.g. siramesine and ebastine) [20–23], and sphingosine [24] are potent inducers of lysosomal leakage. Due to cancer-associated changes in lysosomal composition and decrease in lysosomal membrane stability [25, 26], several commonly used CADs and other lysosome-destabilizing agents are emerging as potential anti-cancer drugs [27]. Accordingly, the interest in the molecular mechanism underlying lysosomal membrane permeabilization is increasing, and recent data has revealed that its CAD-induced induction in cancer cells depends on a rapid, lysosomal Ca²⁺ release through the P2X purinoreceptor 4 (P2RX4), subsequent synthesis of cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) by the Ca²⁺-dependent adenylyl cyclase 1 (ADCY1) and the effective inhibition of lysosomal acid sphingomyelinase [20, 28]. The consequences of lysosomal leakage depend on its extent. Whereas extensive lysosomal damage leads to uncontrolled necrosis and moderate one initiates either caspase-dependent apoptosis or caspase–independent apoptosis-like cell death [18, 24, 29], spatially and temporally tightly controlled lysosomal leakage serves important, non-lethal functions in mitotic chromosome segregation, cell motility and inflammation [30, 31].

Prompted by a recent study by Folts and colleagues showing that cell death induced by GalSph and GlcSph is preceded by an increased lysosomal pH [32], and the fact that these lysosphingolipids share their amphiphilic nature and amine group with CADs [1, 2, 20], we asked whether GalSph and GlcSph induced lysosome-dependent cell death in a manner similar to that of CADs. Our data confirm that the lysosphingolipids induce cell death in breast cancer cells, which follows lysosomal leakage and shares many characteristics with CAD-induced lysosome-dependent cell death.

Materials and methods

Reagents

Chemicals, reagents, siRNAs and antibodies used are listed in S1–S3 Tables. All drugs were dissolved in DMSO unless otherwise specified.

Cell cultures

All cells were cultured at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO₂, and regularly tested and found negative for mycoplasma using Venor®GeM Classic PCR kit.

MCF7 cells

The MCF7 cell line used in this study is a TNF-sensitive subclone (MCF7-S1) of the MCF7 human ductal breast carcinoma cell line [33]. The CAD-resistant MCF7 cell line was established and validated previously [28]. In short, MCF7 cells were cultured with increasing concentration of siramesine for 6 months. After thawing, CAD-resistant MCF7 cell were treated with 6 μM siramesine for 48 hours followed by 72 hours in the absence of the drug prior to experiments. The MCF7 galectin-3-eGFP cells were established and validated previously [34]. In short, prior to single cell sorting, MCF7 cells were transfected with galectin-3-eGFP plasmid using Lipofectamine LTX with PLUS reagent and selected with 600 μg/mL G418. All MCF7 cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) supplemented with 6% (v/v) heat-inactivated fetal calf serum (FCS) and 1X penicillin and streptomycin.

Fibroblasts

Skin fibroblasts derived from a healthy donor (GM00498) and a Niemann-Pick type C patient (GM18453) were purchased from the Coriell Institute. All fibroblasts were cultured in DMEM supplemented with 12% FCS, 1X non-essential amino acids, and 1X penicillin and streptomycin.

Treatments

All cells were seeded 24 hours prior to any treatments if not otherwise indicated. Forskolin was added to the cells after 6 hours of treatment with indicated concentrations of GalSph, GlcSph, siramesine, or ebastine. Z-VAD-FMK, necrostatin-1, and ferrostatin-1 were added to subconfluent cells 1 hour prior to addition of GalSph, GlcSph, or ebastine. Cholesterol dissolved in ethanol was diluted to 60 μM in the cell culture medium by shaking at 37°C for 1 hour, and added to the cells 24 hours before the addition of GalSph, GlcSph, or ebastine, which diluted the cholesterol concentration to 30 μM.

Cell death assays

Propidium iodine (PI) and Hoechst-33342 staining

Subconfluent cells were treated as indicated, and cell death was measured using Celigo® Imaging Cytometer (Nexcelom Bioscience) after 10 min treatment of the cells with 0.2 μg/mL PI and 2.5 μg/mL Hoechst-33342 at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO₂. In short, the instrument set the exposure time and focus for PI-staining, Hoechst-33342-staining, and the transmitted light channel. Then, images were taken of each selected well. For data analysis, masks of PI-positive cells and Hoechst-33342-positive cells were created based on the intensity and size of the stained cells. False-positive cells were eliminated by adjustments of these parameters, which were double-checked with the use of the transmitted light images. The count of the masks of Hoechst-33342-positive cells provides the numbers of total cells, and the count of the masks of PI-positive cells the numbers of dead cells.

Transfections

MCF7 cells were reverse transfected using 20 nM of siRNA (S3 Table) mixed with Lipofectamine^TM RNAiMAX and optiMEM following the manufacturer´s instruction. In short, siRNA, Lipofectamine^TM RNAiMAX, and optiMEM were mixed for 20 min and added to the MCF7 cells in suspension. Then, MCF7 cells were seeded on 96-well plate (6,000 cells per well) and the indicated treatments were initiated 24 hours later. Cell death was measured 72 hours after transfection.

Western blotting

Proteins were separated by gradient SDS-PAGE gels (4–15%) and transferred to nitrocellulose membranes. Proteins were detected using indicated primary antibodies and appropriate horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibodies following standard protocols (S2 Table). The blots were developed using Clarity^TM Western ECL (BioRad) and images of the membranes were acquired using the luminescent image analyser LAS-4000 mini (Fujifilm, GE healthcare).

Immunochemistry

The galectin puncta assay was used to visualize lysosomal membrane permeabilization as described previously [34, 35]. In short, cells grown in Greiner #655090 96-well plates were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde in DPBS for 10 min and washed with 0.2% (v/v) triton X-100 in DPBS for 15 min. Then, cells were treated with 50 mM ammonium chloride for 10 min to quench background staining, and cells were permeabilized with ice cold methanol for 10 min at -20°C. Next, cells were blocked for 30 min in Buffer 1 (1% (w/v) BSA, 0.3% (v/v) Triton X-100, 1 mM sodium azide, 5% (v/v) goat serum in DPBS) before staining with primary antibodies (S2 Table) diluted in Buffer 1 followed by appropriate AlexaFluor^TM488- or AlexaFluor^TM568-coupled secondary antibodies for 45 min. Lastly, DNA was labelled with 5 mg/mL Hoechst-33342 and cells were washed and left in DPBS. Images were acquired at the ImageXpress Micro Confocal system and analyzed using the MetaXpress analysis software according to the manufactory’s instructions. Live cell imaging was performed on a MCF7 cell line stably expressing eGFP tagged LGALS3 (MCF7 galectin-3-eGFP). Subconfluent cells were treated with 0.1 μM Nuclear Violet and 0.2 μM SiR-Tubulin 2 hours prior to measurement in order to stain the nucleus and cytoplasm, respectively. Images were acquired using ImageXpress in widefield mode using a 60X air objective. Image analysis was performed in the MetaXpress analysis software. Here, an image analysis pipeline was created in its custom module. Images were exposed to cell segmentation, where the nuclei and cytoplasm were masked based on fluorescent intensity and size of Nuclear Violet and SiR-Tubulin, respectively. Then, a cell was defined as being positive for both a nuclei and cytoplasm mask. Border objects were removed to analyse whole cells. Galectin puncta were counted by detecting “round objects” based on fluorescent intensity and pixel size inside a defined cell. A “top hat” module was added to detect true puncta and to exclude artefacts arising from fluorescent accumulation at the edge of the cells. The analysis output was the total cell number, cells positive for galectin puncta (defined as a cell with at least one galectin puncta), and the number of galectin puncta in each galectin puncta positive cell.

Measurement of lysosomal pH

A total of 45,000 MCF7 cells were seeded in an 8-well slide (Thermo Fisher Scientific #155361) and cultured for 8 hours. The cells were then treated for 16 hours with 1.25 mg/mL fluorescein (FITC)- and tetramethylrhodamine (TMR)-coupled dextran (Thermo Fisher Scientific) to allow them to enter lysosomes via endocytosis. The cells were then washed and fresh medium was added for a 1-hour chase period before being left untreated (DMSO) or treated with 10 nM concanamycin A (Santa Cruz, Dallas, TX, USA), 53 μM GalSph or 40 μM GlcSph for 1 or 5 hours. The medium was aspirated and cells washed once and fresh imaging solution was added (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The images were acquired immediately after on a LSM800 confocal microscope by acquiring FITC and TMR simultaneously using a plan-Apochromat 63×/1.40 Oil DIC M27 objective and Zen 2010 software (Carl Zeiss). Data was analyzed in ImageJ (Java 1.8.0_172 [64-bit]) and Excel (16.0.5332.1000), and illustrations made in Prism Software (8.0.2) and Adobe illustrator.

Sample preparation for lipidomics

Cells detached from cell culture dishes using TrypLE were washed three times with 1 mL ice-cold 155 mM ammonium bicarbonate by spinning them down at 500 g for 5 min at 4°C and re-suspended in 155 mM ammonium bicarbonate to 3,000 cells/μL. Lysosomes were purified using a method based on magnetic column chromatography of lysosomes loaded with iron dextran particles (FeDEX), as described previously [36]. In short, cells were cultured for 16 hours in a medium supplemented with in-house prepared iron dextran particles (FeDEX), and then chased in fresh medium without FeDEX for at least three hours. The following procedures were performed at 4°C. Harvested cells were lysed and the lysosomes were captured by loading the cell lysates on an MS column (Miltenyi Biotec, Germany) mounted on a magnetic separator. The lysosomes retained on the column were eluted using a plunger after the column was removed from the magnetic separator. The purified lysosomes were pelleted by centrifugation at 21,000 g for 30 min and re-suspended in 200 μL 155 mM ammonium bicarbonate.

Lipid extraction and shotgun lipidomics analyses

Lipid extraction and shotgun lipidomics analyses were performed as described previously [37]. Lipids were extracted from a suspension of 200,000 cells or from purified lysosomes suspended in 200 μL 155 mM ammonium bicarbonate using a modified Bligh and Dyer protocol [38, 39]. The samples in Eppendorf tubes were spiked with appropriate amounts of internal lipid standards (S4 Table), and lipids were extracted by adding 1.0 mL chloroform/methanol (2:1, v/v) and thoroughly shaking the mixtures for 20 min at 4°C. The mixtures were centrifuged at 1,200 g for 2 min at 4°C, and the lower phase containing the extracted lipids were transferred to new Eppendorf tubes. The lipid extracts were dried in a vacuum centrifuge for approximately 1 hour and re-dissolved in chloroform/methanol (1:2, v/v). Then, samples were mixed with positive or negative ionization solvents (13.3 mM ammonium bicarbonate in 2-propanol or 0.2% (v/v) tri-ethyl-amine in chloroform/methanol (1:5, v/v) and analyzed in positive and negative ion modes on quadrupole-Orbitrap mass spectrometer Q Exactive (Thermos Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) equipped with TriVersa NanoMate (Advion Biosciences, Ithaca, NY, USA) for automated and direct nanoelectrospray infusion [40, 41]. The acquired data were analyzed using the LipidXplorer software to identify lipids [42, 43]. Lipids were annotated with their sum composition and the classification of lipid classes was according to LIPIDMAPS [44] (S5 Table). The identified lipids were quantified using an in-house developed script LipidQ (https://github.com/ELELAB/lipidQ) [41].

Statistics

Data is presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) based on at least three independent experiments. The statistical analyses have been conducted using the Prism 8 software to test the null hypothesis, which is a hypothesis that proposes that there is no significant difference between two variables in the hypothesis. The significance level (alpha) was set to 0.05. Two-way ANOVA has been used in order to determine how the measurement (e.g. cell death) is affected by two factors. When the measurement has been compared between a treatment with different concentrations in two different cell lines, the two-way ANOVA followed by Sidak’s multiple comparisons test has been conducted to test the null hypothesis. When the measurement has been compared between the controls and different treatments in one cell line, the two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test has been conducted to test the null hypothesis. When one measurement is compared in one cell line between one control and different measurements, the one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test has been conducted to test the null hypothesis. In order to analyse the development of puncta with many time points (Fig 3), the null hypothesis of changes in the number of puncta over time are the same for the different treatments was tested. First, the area under the curve (AUC) was quantified, and then applied to an unpaired, since the measurements did not come from the same cell, two-tailed t-test with Welsh’s correction when the variances between the treatments were significantly different determined by the F-test. Lipidomics statistics were conducted using unpaired t-test with Welch’s correction for each lipid class. This was done in order to compare the mean of mol% between control and treatments in each lipid class, which are unmatched groups. Here, it is assumed that the values follow a normal distribution and with Welch’s multiple comparison test, the analysis does not assume the values to have the same standard deviation in between the treatments. P values are shown as P < 0.05 = *, P < 0.01 = **, P < 0.001 = *** and P < 0.0001 = ****.

Fig 3 — (A) Representative images of MCF7 galectin-3-eGFP cells treated with indicated concentration of GalSph, GlcSph, or ebastine for indicated times (hour:min) were acquired using the ImageXpress (*FITC* channel). Scale bars, 10 μm. (B) Percentage of galectin-3 puncta positive MCF7 galectin-3-eGFP cells treated as indicated with GalSph, GlcSph, or ebastine and visualized as in (A). (C) Average numbers of galectin-3 puncta in puncta-positive MCF7 galectin-3-eGFP cells treated as indicated with GalSph, GlcSph, or ebastine and visualized as in (A). (D) Death of MCF7 cells treated with GalSph, GlcSph, or ebastine for indicated times (n = 3). Connecting lines present the non-linear fit calculated by GraphPad Prism. Error bars, SD of three independent experiments with >100 randomly chosen cells analyzed *per* sample. **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001; ****, P < 0.0001 as analyzed by unpaired t-test of the area under the curve (AUC) values with Welsh’s correction.

Results

GalSph and GlcSph kill MCF7 cells independent of apoptosis, ferroptosis, and necroptosis

To study the mechanism of lysosphingolipid-induced cell death, we first defined the efficacy of GalSph and GlcSph to induce plasma membrane permeabilization in subconfluent MCF7 cells grown in complete growth medium and treated with the lipids for 48 hours. Akin to CADs, siramesine and ebastine, GalSph and GlcSph induced cell death in a dose-dependent manner with relatively steep dose response curves. The lethal concentration 50 (LC50) values of GalSph and GlcSph were 44 μM and 33 μM, respectively, i.e. significantly higher than those of siramesine (7 μM) and ebastine (15 μM) defined in parallel (Fig 1A).

Fig 1 — (A) Death of MCF7 cells treated for 48 hours with indicated concentrations of GalSph, GlcSph, ebastine or siramesine was determined by propidium iodine and Hoechst-33342 staining employing Celigo Imaging Cytometer. Connecting lines represent non-linear fit with R² > 0.99 for each treatment. (B, C) Death of MCF7 cells treated for 48 hours with indicated concentrations of GalSph (B) or GlcSph (C) after 1 hour pre-treatment with indicated concentrations of Z-VAD-FMK was determined as in (A). Staurosporine served as a positive control for apoptotic cell death. (D) Representative Western blots of PARP, caspase-7, and alpha tubulin (loading control) in lysates of MCF7 cells treated for indicated times with GalSph or GlcSph at concentrations corresponding to their LC90 values. Staurosporine served as a positive control for apoptotic cell death. (E-G) Death of MCF7 cells treated for 48 hours with indicated concentrations of GalSph (D), GlcSph (E), or ebastine (F) after 1 hour pre-treatment with indicated concentrations of necrostatin-1 or ferrostatin-1 was determined as in (A). Error bars, SD of three independent experiments. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001; ****, P < 0.0001 as analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s (B-C) or Sidak’s (E-G) multiple comparisons tests.

To define the role of apoptotic caspases in lysosphingolipid-induced cell death, we tested the ability of Z-VAD-FMK, a well-characterized pan-caspase inhibitor [15], to rescue the cells. Treatment of MCF7 cells with 10 or 20 μM Z-VAD-FMK had no effect on either GalSph- or GlcSph-induced cytotoxicity, while both concentrations effectively inhibited cell death induced by an apoptosis-inducing drug staurosporine (Fig 1B and 1C) [45]. In line with this, treatment of MCF7 cells with lysosphingolipids for up to 20 hours failed to activate effector caspases as defined by their inability to induce the cleavage of caspase-7, the main effector caspase in MCF7 cells, or its substrate poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) (Fig 1D) [15, 46, 47]. As expected, caspase-7 and PARP were effectively cleaved in staurosporine-treated MCF7 cells (Fig 1D). In addition to the inhibition of apoptosis by Z-VAD-FMK, lysosphingolipid-induced cell death was insensitive to necrostatin-1, an inhibitor of necroptosis-inducing receptor-interacting serine/threonine-protein kinase 1, and ferrostatin-1 that inhibits ferroptosis by trapping peroxyl radicals (Fig 1E–1G) [48, 49].

Taken together, these data suggest that GalSph and GlcSph activate a cell death pathway distinct from apoptosis, necroptosis, and ferroptosis in MCF7 cells.

GalSph and GlcSph induce lysosomal leakage prior to plasma membrane permeabilization

We have previously established a subline of MCF7 cells that is partially resistant to lysosome-dependent cell death induced by a variety of CADs [28]. Interestingly, these cells showed a similar partially resistant phenotype against cell death induced by GalSph and GlcSph (Fig 2A–2D).

Akin to CADs, GalSph and GlcSph effectively inhibited the growth of MCF7 cells even at sublethal concentrations (Fig 2E–2H). Contrary to cell death, CAD-resistant cells were as sensitive to the growth inhibitory effects of CADs and lysosphingolipids as parental cells (Fig 2E–2H). These data suggest that lysosphingolipids may induce a cell death similar to CAD-induced lysosome-dependent cell death.

The lysosome-dependent cell death is characterized by the occurrence of lysosomal membrane permeabilization prior to the loss of plasma membrane integrity [15]. To investigate whether lysosphingolipids destabilize lysosomes, we took advantage of MCF7 cells expressing galectin-3-eGFP, which forms lysosomal galectin-3-eGFP puncta upon lysosomal membrane rupture [34]. Untreated MCF7 galectin-3-eGFP cells had a diffuse cytosolic distribution of galectin-3-eGFP throughout the 13-hour follow-up (Fig 3A).

Treatment of these cells with lysosphingolipids at concentrations that killed 60–80% of the cells in 48 hours (50–53 μM GalSph; 38–40 μM GlcSph) resulted in a significant increase in the percentage of cells with galectin-3 puncta already 8–9 hours after the treatment, whereas significant increase in cell death was observed first after 20 hours (Fig 3A–3D). Lysosphingolipid-induced appearance of galectin-3 puncta was, however, clearly slower, and weaker than that induced by 12 or 16 μM ebastine (Fig 3A–3D). Unlike CADs [50], the lysosphingolipids did not induce notable elevation in the lysosomal pH in MCF7 cells after one or five hours of treatments and thus prior to lysosomal leakage, when assessed after loading lysosomes with dextran coupled with pH-sensitive fluorescein and pH-insensitive tetramethylrhodamine (S1 Fig). Taken together, these data indicate that GalSph and GlcSph induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization prior to the loss of plasma membrane integrity, which suggests that they activate lysosome-dependent cell death.

Exogenously supplied GalSph and GlcSph enter the lysosomes

Next, we investigated how much of the applied lysosphingolipids enters the cells and whether they accumulate in lysosomes. For this purpose, we used mass spectrometry-based shotgun lipidomics [41], which does not differentiate between the isomeric GalSph and GlcSph but detects both as hexosylsphingosines (HexSph). First, we treated MCF7 cells with 45 μM GalSph or 32 μM GlcSph and monitored HexSph levels in the cell culture medium and in cell lysates immediately after the treatment (1 min) and 1, 3, 6 and 24 hour later. Both lysosphingolipids were effectively taken up by the cells. The HexSph concentration in the cell culture medium decreased by over 40% after one hour of treatment and by over 60% after 24 hours (Fig 4A and 4B).

Fig 4 — (A, B) Quantitites of HexSph (GalSph and GlcSph) in cell lysates (cells) and cell culture medium (media) of MCF7 cells treated with 45 μM GalSph (A) or 32 μM GlcSph (B) for indicated times were analyzed by shotgun lipidomics. (C) The molar percentages (mol%) of HexSph in MCF7 cells treated with 45 μM GalSph or 32 μM GlcSph for indicated times were analyzed as in (A). (D-G) The molar percentages of HexSph (D), BMP/PG (E), CL (F), and PC (G) lipid classes in total cell lysates (cells) and in purified lysosomes of MCF7 cells treated as indicated for 3 hours were analyzed as in (A). Error bars, SD of three independent experiments. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001, ****; P < 0.0001 comparing the treated values to the first measurement at 0.02 hours (A, B) or to the control appropriate sample (D-G) and analyzed by unpaired t-test (A, B, E-G) or two-way ANOVA followed by Sidak’s multiple comparisons test (D). BMP, bis(monoacylglycero)phosphate; PG, phosphatidylglycerol; CL, cardiolipin; PC, phosphatidylcholine.

In parallel, the level of HexSph in the harvested cells increased rapidly during the first hour of treatments with GalSph or GlcSph and continued to increase for 24 hours (Fig 4A and 4B). The molar percentage (mol%) of HexSph of the total molar quantity of all monitored lipids (26 lipid classes, including the highly abundant cholesterol and phosphatidylcholine [51]) reached 5–10 mol% already after 1 hour and approximately 20% after 24 hours of treatment (Fig 4C).

To define how much of the exogenously supplied lysosphingolipids reached the lysosomes, we loaded the lysosomes of MCF7 cells with iron dextran (FeDex) particles prior to the indicated treatments, purified FeDex containing lysosomes using magnetic column chromatography [51], and quantified total cellular and lysosomal HexSph by shotgun lipidomics. As expected [3], lysates and lysosomal fractions of untreated MCF7 cells had barely detectable amounts of HexSph (Fig 4D). The treatment of cells with 50 μM GalSph or 40 μM GlcSph for 3 hours resulted in similar relative quantities of HexSph (approximately 30 mol%) in entire cells and lysosomes suggesting that the exogenously added lipids reached the lysosomes but did not specifically accumulate in them at this early time point (Fig 4D). Confirming the quality of the lysosomal purification, lysosomal lipidome (excluding HexSph) contained 7–10 mol% of lysosome-specific phospholipid, bis(monoacylglycero)phosphate (BMP) (isobaric to phosphatidylglycerol (PG); referred here to as BMP/PG), in comparison to below 0.5 mol% BMP/PG in the lipidome of whole cell lysates (Fig 4E). Accordingly, the relative amount of mitochondria-specific cardiolipin (CL) in lysosomal and cellular lysates was < 0.1 mol% and approximately 5 mol%, respectively (Fig 4F). In line with a reported ability of GlcSph to interfere with phosphatidylcholine (PC) metabolism by inhibiting its synthesis by cytidylyltransferase and by activating its degradation by phospholipase D [52], treatment of MCF7 cells with GlcSph or GalSph significantly reduced cellular PC levels (Fig 4G).

The lipidomics data presented above indicate that lysosphingolipids added to the culture medium of MCF7 cells enter the cells, reach lysosomes in high quantities, and alter cellular lipid metabolism.

GalSph and GlcSph activate cAMP signalling pathway required for CAD-induced lysosome-dependent cell death

CAD-induced lysosome-dependent cell death depends on the activation of the cyclic AMP (cAMP) signalling pathway [28]. Thus, we investigated the ability of GalSph and GlcSph to activate this pathway in MCF7 cells by analysing the phosphorylation status of serine-133 in the cAMP-responsive element-binding protein (CREB) [28]. Both lysosphingolipids induced a similar increase in phosphorylated CREB (P-CREB) as CADs, albeit with slower kinetics (Fig 5A).

Fig 5 — (A) Representative Western blots of P-CREB and histone H2B (loading control) in lysates of MCF7 cells treated as indicated (*three top panels*), and densitometric quantification of P-CREB/H2B ratios normalized to untreated control samples (*bottom*). (B-E) Death of MCF7 cells treated with indicated concentrations of GalSph (B), GlcSph (C), siramesine (D, positive control), or ebastine (E, positive control) for 48 hours was determined as in Fig 1A. When indicated, 2–10 μM forskolin was added 1 hour before the addition of lysosphingolipids or CADs. (F) Representative Western blots of P2RX4 and histone H2B (loading control) in lysates of MCF7 cells transfected with 20 nM non-targeting control (siControl) or 20 nM siP2RX4 siRNAs for 72 hours. (G-I) Death of MCF7 cells transfected as in (F) and treated with indicated concentrations of GalSph (G), GlcSph (H) or siramesine (I, positive control) for the last 48 hours was determined as in Fig 1A. Error bars, SD of three independent experiments. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001; ****, P < 0.0001 as analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s (A-E) or Sidak’s (G-I) multiple comparisons tests.

Whereas CAD-induced P-CREB reached maximal levels already 4 hours after the treatment, the lysosphingolipid-induced increase was evident first after 6 hours, whereafter it remained at high levels throughout the 12-hour follow-up (Fig 5A). Supporting the role of cAMP in GalSph and GlcSph cytotoxicity, further activation of cAMP synthesis by forskolin, a potent activator of adenylate cyclase, sensitized MCF7 cells to cell death induced by low concentrations of lysosphingolipids in a similar manner as it sensitized cells to CADs (Fig 5B–5E). Forskolin failed, however, to increase cell death of MCF7 cells in combination with higher concentrations of the lysosphingolipids (Fig 5B and 5C). This biphasic effect of forskolin in cells treated with GalSph or GlcSph suggests that lysosphingolipids may induce cell death through different pathways depending on their concentration.

CAD-induced increase in intracellular cAMP levels and lysosome-dependent cell death depends on lysosomal Ca²⁺ release through P2RX4 purinoreceptor [28]. The effective siRNA-mediated depletion of P2RX4 in MCF7 cells, which significantly reduced siramesine-induced cell death, had, however, no effect on the lysosphingolipid-induced cell death (Fig 5F–5I). Taken together, this indicates that even though lysosphingolipids and CADs induce a similar activation of the cAMP pathway, the early events in their respective cell death pathways are distinct.

Cholesterol protects against lysosphingolipid-induced cell death

Cholesterol has a stabilizing effect on membranes, and cholesterol overload is an effective means to inhibit lysosomal leakage [30, 53]. To investigate whether lysosphingolipid-induced cell death was dependent on lysosomal membrane permeabilization, we treated MCF7 cells with 60 μM cholesterol for 24 hours prior to the addition of 40–50 μM GalSph or 25–32 μM GlcSph and throughout the 48-hour incubation with lysosphingolipids. The exogenously added cholesterol protected MCF7 cells almost completely against lysosphingolipid-induced cell death, even at highest lysosphingolipid concentrations that killed approximately 80% of the cells in the absence of cholesterol (Fig 6A and 6B).

As expected, cholesterol conferred also significant, albeit partial, protection against ebastine-induced cell death (Fig 6C). Furthermore, the exogenously added cholesterol showed a clear trend of reduced percentage of galectin puncta positive cells upon GlcSph treatment (Fig 6D and 6E). To investigate whether the strong cholesterol-mediated protection against lysosphingolipids was associated with reduced cellular uptake of the lipids, we measured HexSph levels in the harvested cells and in the cell culture medium. Cholesterol treatment did, however, not affect significantly the cellular uptake of either GalSph or GlcSph (Fig 6F and 6G). In line with this, cholesterol had no effect on the decrease of HexSph levels in the culture medium during the first 6 hours after the addition of lysosphingolipids (S2A Fig). Vice versa, the treatment with the lysosphingolipids affected neither the cellular uptake of cholesterol (S2B Fig) nor the levels of cholesterol in the cell culture medium (S2C Fig).

Patients with Niemann-Pick type C disease carry mutations either in NPC intracellular cholesterol transporter 1 or 2 (NPC1or NPC2) gene, which together are responsible for lysosomal cholesterol efflux [54]. Because the accumulation of cholesterol upon pharmacological inhibition of NPC1 protein has been shown to protect cells from lysosome-dependent cell death [53], we next compared the sensitivity of skin fibroblasts derived from a Niemann-Pick type C patient to those derived from a healthy control. In line with the protective effect of exogenously added cholesterol, fibroblasts from a Niemann-Pick type C patient were significantly more resistant to the cell death induced by GalSph, GlcSph and ebastine than control fibroblasts (Fig 7A–7C).

Fig 7 — (A-C) Death of fibroblasts from healthy controls or patients with Niemann-Pick type C disease (NPC) treated with indicated concentrations of GalSph (A), GlcSph (B), or ebastine (C) for 48 hours was determined as in Fig 1A. (D-E) Percentage of galectin-3 puncta positive fibroblasts from healthy controls or from patients with Niemann-Pick type C disease after 6 hours (D) or 8 hours (E) of indicated treatments was visualized by immunocytochemistry. A minimum of hundred randomly chosen cells was analyzed *per* sample. (F) Representative images of fibroblasts from healthy controls or from patients with Niemann-Pick type C disease treated with indicated concentration of GalSph, or GlcSph, or ebastine for 6 hours were acquired using the ImageXpress (*DAPI*, *Cy5* and *FITC* channels). Scale bars, 10 μm. Error bars, SD of three independent experiments. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001; ****, P < 0.0001 as analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed Sidak’s multiple comparisons tests.

Notably, the NPC1-associated protection against lysosphingolipids was accompanied by a significant reduction in the treatment-induced lysosomal leakage as defined by the number of galectin-3 puncta-positive cells 6–8 hours after the treatment (Fig 7D–7F).

Taken together, these data strongly suggest that lysosphingolipid-induced lysosomal membrane permeabilization is as at least partially causative of the subsequent cell death.

Discussion

Here we use MCF7 breast cancer cells as the main model system and provide evidence suggesting that GalSph and GlcSph induce cell death with many similarities to CAD-induced lysosome-dependent cell death. This claim is based on data showing that both lysosphingolipids induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization clearly before the loss of plasma membrane integrity, and that the stabilization of lysosomal membranes with exogenously added cholesterol confers an almost complete protection against lysosphingolipid-induced lysosomal leakage and cell death. Similarities to lysosome-dependent cell death is further emphasized by the lack of caspase activation in cells treated with lethal concentrations of lysosphingolipids, and the inability of well-characterized inhibitors of apoptosis, necroptosis, and ferroptosis to confer protection against lysosphingolipids. Importantly, lysosphingolipids induced lysosomal membrane permeabilization and cell death also in primary fibroblasts, and both events were significantly reduced in Niemann-Pick type C fibroblasts, which are characterized by lysosomal cholesterol accumulation and increased lysosomal membrane stability [53, 54].

We obtained the majority of the presented data using the lysosphingolipids at concentrations of their LC50 values or LC20 and LC50 values. The applied concentrations slightly varied between experiments due to small variations in the potencies between batches of prepared stock solutions of lysosphingolipids. Previous data by Folts and co-workers showing that GalSph and GlcSph increase lysosomal pH and cathepsin activity as a part of their cytotoxicity suggest that GalSph and GlcSph induce a similar lysosomal cell death pathway as CADs [28, 32]. Supporting this idea, we show here that CAD-resistant MCF7 cells are also resistant to the lysosphingolipid-induced cytotoxicity. Additionally, lysosphingolipids activate the cAMP signalling pathway and induce lysosomal leakage as early events occurring prior to cell death, in a manner similar to that observed in CAD-treated cells [22, 28]. The role of cAMP in lysosphingolipid-induced cell death is supported by the ability of forskolin to enhance cell death induced by lysosphingolipids at concentrations below their respective IC50 values. On the contrary, forskolin failed to enhance cell death when combined with higher concentrations of lysosphingolipids at around their respective IC50 values, which were used here to demonstrate the phosphorylation of CREB. In addition, the early lysosphingolipid-induced signalling pathway leading to the cAMP accumulation and cell death in MCF7 cells appears different from the P2RX4- and Ca²⁺-dependent pathway induced by CADs because the depletion of P2RX4 in MCF7 cells had no effect on the lysosphingolipid-induced cytotoxicity. Thus, how lysosphingolipids activate the cAMP signalling pathway and whether it is involved in the cytotoxic mechanism of lysosphingolipids remain to be studied.

Encouraged by the many similarities to CAD-induced lysosome-dependent cell death, we attempted here to rescue MCF7 cells from lysosphingolipid-induced cell death through inhibition of cathepsins. Even though we previously demonstrated that a cathepsin inhibitor can partially rescue MCF7 cells from CAD-induced cell death [55], we were unable to demonstrate the same for lysosphingolipid-induced cell death. Lysosphingolipids induce leakage on a small numbers of lysosomes per cells in comparison to ebastine (Fig 3), and we still haven’t provided conclusive evidence for the lysosome leakage playing an essential role in the process of lysosphingolipid-induced cell death. Indeed, many other molecular mechanisms of cytotoxicity have been suggested for lysosphingolipids, especially in studies of Gaucher and Krabbe diseases [4, 52, 56–58].

When comparing the lysosphingolipid-induced changes in the lipid profiles of MCF7 cells with those induced by CADs, it is, however different lipid classes that are affected. While the major lysosphingolipid-induced change in the lipidome of MCF7 cells is the decrease in the PC class, treatment of these cells with CADs trigger an early increase in the levels of a broad range of lysoglycerophospholipids classes and a subsequent increase in sphingomyelin levels (Inger Ødum Nielsen, unpublished data) [22]. The degradation of the lysosphingolipids may produce sphingosine, a precursor for sphingolipid biosynthesis, or hexadecanal, which can be converted to palmitic acid [59]. However, the treatment with lysosphingolipids did not increase cellular levels of sphingolipid classes such as Cer, SM, or HexCer, or glycerophospholipid species with incorporated palmitic acid (S6 Table). These data, together with the high HexSph concentrations measured in the lysosphingolipid-treated MCF7 cells suggest that the lysosphingolipids are poorly metabolized within the MCF7 cells.

The present study shows that the treatment of MCF7 breast cancer cells with GalSph or GlcSph both inhibit the growth and induce cell death. We primarily used MCF7 cells here because this cell line has been extensively studied for the CAD-induced cell death. However, the data presented here encourage further studies in other cell lines and on the potential of lysosphingolipids in cancer therapies. Furthermore, our study revealing a novel mechanism of their cytotoxicity through induction of lysosomal leakage encourages possibilities of treating Krabbe and Gaucher diseases with lysosome stabilizing drugs.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. GalSph and GlcSph do not induce neutralization of lysosomal pH in MCF7 cells.

The graph indicates measured fluorescein (FITC) and pH-insensitive tetramethylrhodamine (TMR) intensity ratios of vesicles in MCF7 cells treated with vehicle, 10 nM concanamycin A, 53 μM GalSph, or 40 μM GlcSph for 1 or 5 hours. Small circles in light grey symbolizes all data points, large dark grey circles indicate technical replicates, and triangles specify biological replicates colorcoded as individual replicates. P-values calculated by unpaired student t-test are shown in the graph. Concanamycin A, a V-ATPase inhibitor, was used as a positive control for lysosomal neutralization.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(272.4KB, tif)}

S2 Fig. Quantities of cholesterol and HexSph in MCF7 cells.

(A) Quantities of HexSph in cell culture medium of MCF7 cells treated as indicated. (B-C) Quantities of cholesterol in lysates (B) and cell culture medium (C) of MCF7 cells treated as indicated at the time point 6 hours after the addition of GalSph or GlcSph. Error bars, SD of three independent experiments.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(277.9KB, tif)}

S1 Table. Table of reagents and chemicals.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(98.2KB, PDF)}

S2 Table. Table of antibodies.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(66KB, PDF)}

S3 Table. Table of siRNA.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(8.3KB, PDF)}

S4 Table. Internal lipid standards.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(49.2KB, PDF)}

S5 Table. Precursor ion, fragment ion and neutral loss for lipid identification.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(172KB, PDF)}

S6 Table. Quantities (mol%) of lipid species identified in GalSph- and GlcSph-treated MCF7 cells and their lysosomes.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(817.6KB, PDF)}

S1 File. Original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blots.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(19.6MB, pdf)}

Acknowledgments

We thank Atul Anand and Signe Diness Vindeløv for preparing the MCF7 CAD resistant cells, Tiina Naumanen Dietrich for outstanding help and introduction to the ImageXpress and MetaXpress analysis, and Dianna Skousborg Larsen and Louise Vanderfox for valuable technical assistance.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by grants from the Danish Cancer Society (R269-A15695), Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF125) and NovoNordisk Foundation (NNF19OC0054296) to M.J. and by the Independent Research Fund Denmark (6108–00542B) and Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF17OC0029432) to K.M., and and by Innovation Fund Denmark (7038-00062B) to K.SM., N.H.T.P., and T.K.

References

1.Miyatake T, Suzuki K. Globoid cell leukodystrophy: Additional deficiency of psychosine galactosidase. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 1972;48(3):538–43. doi: 10.1016/0006-291x(72)90381-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Yamaguchi Y, Sasagasako N, Goto I, Kobayashi T. The synthetic pathway for glucosylsphingosine in cultured fibroblasts. J Biochem. 1994;116(3):704–10. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jbchem.a124584 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Hikita T, Tadano-Aritomi K, Iida-Tanaka N, Levery SB, Ishizuka I, Hakomori S. Cationic Glycosphingolipids in Neuronal Tissues and Their Possible Biological Significance. Neurochemical research. 2002;27(7):575–81. doi: 10.1023/a:1020259630034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Suzuki K. Twenty Five Years of the “Psychosine Hypothesis”: A Personal Perspective of its History and Present Status. Neurochemical research. 1998;23(3):251–9. doi: 10.1023/a:1022436928925 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Platt FM. Emptying the stores: lysosomal diseases and therapeutic strategies. Nature reviews Drug discovery. 2018;17(2):133–50. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Ballabio A. The awesome lysosome. EMBO molecular medicine. 2016;8(2):73–6. doi: 10.15252/emmm.201505966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Rolfs A, Giese AK, Grittner U, Mascher D, Elstein D, Zimran A, et al. Glucosylsphingosine is a highly sensitive and specific biomarker for primary diagnostic and follow-up monitoring in Gaucher disease in a non-Jewish, Caucasian cohort of Gaucher disease patients. PLOS One. 2013;8(11):e79732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Suzuki K, Suzuki Y. Globoid cell leucodystrophy (Krabbe’s disease): deficiency of galactocerebroside beta-galactosidase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1970;66(2):302–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.66.2.302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Kobayashi T, Goto I, Yamanaka T, Suzuki Y, Nakano T, Suzuki K. Infantile and fetal globoid cell leukodystrophy: Analysis of galactosylceramide and galactosylsphingosine. Annals of neurology. 1988;24(4):517–22. doi: 10.1002/ana.410240407 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Svennerholm L, Vanier M, Månsson J. Krabbe disease: A galactosylsphingosine (Psychosine) lipidosis. Journal of lipid research. 1980;21:53–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Syntichaki P, Samara C, Tavernarakis N. The Vacuolar H+-ATPase Mediates Intracellular Acidification Required for Neurodegeneration in C. elegans. Current biology. 2005;15(13):1249–54. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.05.057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Dehay B, Bové J, Rodríguez-Muela N, Perier C, Recasens A, Boya P, et al. Pathogenic Lysosomal Depletion in Parkinson’s Disease. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2010;30(37):12535. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1920-10.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Loison F, Zhu H, Karatepe K, Kasorn A, Liu P, Ye K, et al. Proteinase 3-dependent caspase-3 cleavage modulates neutrophil death and inflammation. J Clin Invest. 2014;124(10):4445–58. doi: 10.1172/JCI76246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Aits S, Jäättelä M. Lysosomal cell death at a glance. Journal of Cell Science. 2013;126(9):1905–12. doi: 10.1242/jcs.091181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Galluzzi L, Vitale I, Aaronson SA, Abrams JM, Adam D, Agostinis P, et al. Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018. Cell Death & Differentiation. 2018;25(3):486–541. doi: 10.1038/s41418-017-0012-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Wang F, Gómez-Sintes R, Boya P. Lysosomal membrane permeabilization and cell death. Traffic. 2018;19(12):918–31. doi: 10.1111/tra.12613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Erdal H, Berndtsson M, Castro J, Brunk U, Shoshan MC, Linder S. Induction of lysosomal membrane permeabilization by compounds that activate p53-independent apoptosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(1):192–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0408592102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Gyrd-Hansen M, Farkas T, Fehrenbacher N, Bastholm L, Høyer-Hansen M, Elling F, et al. Apoptosome-independent activation of the lysosomal cell death pathway by caspase-9. Molecular and cellular biology. 2006;26(21):7880–91. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00716-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Firestone RA, Pisano JM, Bonney RJ. Lysosomotropic agents. 1. Synthesis and cytotoxic action of lysosomotropic detergents. Journal of medicinal chemistry. 1979;22(9):1130–3. doi: 10.1021/jm00195a026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Ellegaard A-M, Dehlendorff C, Vind AC, Anand A, Cederkvist L, Petersen NHT, et al. Repurposing Cationic Amphiphilic Antihistamines for Cancer Treatment. EBioMedicine. 2016;9:130–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Kornhuber J, Tripal P, Reichel M, Mühle C, Rhein C, Muehlbacher M, et al. Functional Inhibitors of Acid Sphingomyelinase (FIASMAs): A Novel Pharmacological Group of Drugs with Broad Clinical Applications. Cellular physiology and biochemistry. 2010;26(1):9–20. doi: 10.1159/000315101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Petersen Nikolaj HT, Olsen Ole D, Groth-Pedersen L, Ellegaard A-M, Bilgin M, Redmer S, et al. Transformation-Associated Changes in Sphingolipid Metabolism Sensitize Cells to Lysosomal Cell Death Induced by Inhibitors of Acid Sphingomyelinase. Cancer Cell. 2013;24(3):379–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Ostenfeld MS, Fehrenbacher N, Høyer-Hansen M, Thomsen C, Farkas T, Jäättelä M. Effective Tumor Cell Death by σ-2 Receptor Ligand Siramesine Involves Lysosomal Leakage and Oxidative Stress. Cancer research. 2005;65(19):8975–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Kågedal K, Johansson U, Öllinger K. The lysosomal protease cathepsin D mediates apoptosis induced by oxidative stress. The FASEB journal. 2001;15(9):1592–4. doi: 10.1096/fj.00-0708fje [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Fehrenbacher N, Bastholm L, Kirkegaard-Sørensen T, Rafn B, Bøttzauw T, Nielsen C, et al. Sensitization to the lysosomal cell death pathway by oncogene-induced down-regulation of lysosome-associated membrane proteins 1 and 2. Cancer research. 2008;68(16):6623–33. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-0463 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Kallunki T, Olsen OD, Jäättelä M. Cancer-associated lysosomal changes: friends or foes? Oncogene. 2013;32(16):1995–2004. doi: 10.1038/onc.2012.292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Ellegaard AM, Bach P, Jäättelä M. Targeting Cancer Lysosomes with Good Old Cationic Amphiphilic Drugs. Rev Physiol Biochem Pharmacol. 2021. doi: 10.1007/112_2020_56 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Anand A, Liu B, Dicroce Giacobini J, Maeda K, Rohde M, Jäättelä M. Cell Death Induced by Cationic Amphiphilic Drugs Depends on Lysosomal Ca(2+) Release and Cyclic AMP. Mol Cancer Ther. 2019;18(9):1602–14. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-18-1406 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Foghsgaard L, Wissing D, Mauch D, Lademann U, Bastholm L, Boes M, et al. Cathepsin B acts as a dominant execution protease in tumor cell apoptosis induced by tumor necrosis factor. J Cell Biol. 2001;153(5):999–1010. doi: 10.1083/jcb.153.5.999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Hämälistö S, Stahl JL, Favaro E, Yang Q, Liu B, Christoffersen L, et al. Spatially and temporally defined lysosomal leakage facilitates mitotic chromosome segregation. Nature communications. 2020;11(1):229-. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Stahl-Meyer J, Stahl-Meyer K, Jäättelä M. Control of mitosis, inflammation, and cell motility by limited leakage of lysosomes. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2021;71:29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2021.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Folts CJ, Scott-Hewitt N, Pröschel C, Mayer-Pröschel M, Noble M. Lysosomal Re-acidification Prevents Lysosphingolipid-Induced Lysosomal Impairment and Cellular Toxicity. PLoS biology. 2016;14(12):e1002583-e. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Jäättelä M, Benedict M, Tewari M, Shayman JA, Dixit VM. Bcl-x and Bcl-2 inhibit TNF and Fas-induced apoptosis and activation of phospholipase A2 in breast carcinoma cells. Oncogene. 1995;10(12):2297–305. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Aits S, Kricker J, Liu B, Ellegaard A-M, Hämälistö S, Tvingsholm S, et al. Sensitive detection of lysosomal membrane permeabilization by lysosomal galectin puncta assay. Autophagy. 2015;11(8):1408–24. doi: 10.1080/15548627.2015.1063871 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Aits S, Jäättelä M, Nylandsted J. Methods for the quantification of lysosomal membrane permeabilization: a hallmark of lysosomal cell death. Methods in cell biology. 2015;126:261–85. doi: 10.1016/bs.mcb.2014.10.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Bilgin M, Nylandsted J, Jäättelä M, Maeda K. Quantitative Profiling of Lysosomal Lipidome by Shotgun Lipidomics. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, NJ). 2017;1594:19–34. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6934-0_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Nielsen IØ, Groth-Pedersen L, Dicroce-Giacobini J, Jonassen ASH, Mortensen M, Bilgin M, et al. Cationic amphiphilic drugs induce elevation in lysoglycerophospholipid levels and cell death in leukemia cells. Metabolomics. 2020;16(9):91–. doi: 10.1007/s11306-020-01710-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Bligh EG, Dyer WJ. A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Can J Biochem Physiol. 1959;37(8):911–7. doi: 10.1139/o59-099 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Zech T, Ejsing CS, Gaus K, de Wet B, Shevchenko A, Simons K, et al. Accumulation of raft lipids in T-cell plasma membrane domains engaged in TCR signalling. The EMBO journal. 2009;28(5):466–76. doi: 10.1038/emboj.2009.6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Ejsing CS, Sampaio JL, Surendranath V, Duchoslav E, Ekroos K, Klemm RW, et al. Global analysis of the yeast lipidome by quantitative shotgun mass spectrometry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106(7):2136. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811700106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Nielsen IØ, Vidas Olsen A, Dicroce-Giacobini J, Papaleo E, Andersen KK, Jäättelä M, et al. Comprehensive Evaluation of a Quantitative Shotgun Lipidomics Platform for Mammalian Sample Analysis on a High-Resolution Mass Spectrometer. Journal of the american society for mass spectrometry. 2020;31(4):894–907. doi: 10.1021/jasms.9b00136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Herzog R, Schuhmann K, Schwudke D, Sampaio JL, Bornstein SR, Schroeder M, et al. LipidXplorer: A Software for Consensual Cross-Platform Lipidomics. PLOS ONE. 2012;7(1):e29851. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Herzog R, Schwudke D, Shevchenko A. LipidXplorer: Software for Quantitative Shotgun Lipidomics Compatible with Multiple Mass Spectrometry Platforms. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2013;43:14.2.1–.2.30. doi: 10.1002/0471250953.bi1412s43 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Sud M, Fahy E, Cotter D, Brown A, Dennis EA, Glass CK, et al. LMSD: LIPID MAPS structure database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(Database issue):D527–32. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkl838 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Mooney LM, Al-Sakkaf KA, Brown BL, Dobson PRM. Apoptotic mechanisms in T47D and MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. Br J Cancer. 2002;87(8):909–17. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Kaufmann SH, Desnoyers S, Ottaviano Y, Davidson NE, Poirier GG. Specific proteolytic cleavage of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase: an early marker of chemotherapy-induced apoptosis. Cancer research. 1993;53(17):3976–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Jänicke RU. MCF-7 breast carcinoma cells do not express caspase-3. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2009;117(1):219–21. doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-0217-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Degterev A, Hitomi J, Germscheid M, Ch’en IL, Korkina O, Teng X, et al. Identification of RIP1 kinase as a specific cellular target of necrostatins. Nat Chem Biol. 2008;4(5):313–21. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.83 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Skouta R, Dixon SJ, Wang J, Dunn DE, Orman M, Shimada K, et al. Ferrostatins Inhibit Oxidative Lipid Damage and Cell Death in Diverse Disease Models. Journal of the american chemical society. 2014;136(12):4551–6. doi: 10.1021/ja411006a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Ostenfeld MS, Høyer-Hansen M, Bastholm L, Fehrenbacher N, Olsen OD, Groth-Pedersen L, et al. Anti-cancer agent siramesine is a lysosomotropic detergent that induces cytoprotective autophagosome accumulation. Autophagy. 2008;4(4):487–99. doi: 10.4161/auto.5774 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Bilgin M, Nylandsted J, Jäättelä M, Maeda K. Quantitative Profiling of Lysosomal Lipidome by Shotgun Lipidomics. In: Öllinger K, Appelqvist H, editors. Lysosomes: Methods and Protocols. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2017. p. 19–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Schueler UH, Kolter T, Kaneski CR, Blusztajn JK, Herkenham M, Sandhoff K, et al. Toxicity of glucosylsphingosine (glucopsychosine) to cultured neuronal cells: a model system for assessing neuronal damage in Gaucher disease type 2 and 3. Neurobiology of Disease. 2003;14(3):595–601. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2003.08.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Appelqvist H, Nilsson C, Garner B, Brown AJ, Kågedal K, Ollinger K. Attenuation of the lysosomal death pathway by lysosomal cholesterol accumulation. Am J Pathol. 2011;178(2):629–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2010.10.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Vanier M, Millat G. Niemann–Pick disease type C. Clinical Genetics. 2003;64(4):269–81. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2003.00147.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Ostenfeld MS, Fehrenbacher N, Høyer-Hansen M, Thomsen C, Farkas T, Jäättelä M. Effective tumor cell death by sigma-2 receptor ligand siramesine involves lysosomal leakage and oxidative stress. Cancer research. 2005;65(19):8975–83. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-0269 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Haq E, Giri S, Singh I, Singh AK. Molecular mechanism of psychosine-induced cell death in human oligodendrocyte cell line. Journal of neurochemistry. 2003;86(6):1428–40. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2003.01941.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Srikanth MP, Jones JW, Kane M, Awad O, Park TS, Zambidis ET, et al. Elevated glucosylsphingosine in Gaucher disease induced pluripotent stem cell neurons deregulates lysosomal compartment through mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2021;10(7):1081–94. doi: 10.1002/sctm.20-0386 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Nair S, Boddupalli CS, Verma R, Liu J, Yang R, Pastores GM, et al. Type II NKT-TFH cells against Gaucher lipids regulate B-cell immunity and inflammation. Blood. 2015;125(8):1256–71. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-09-600270 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Proia RL, Hla T. Emerging biology of sphingosine-1-phosphate: its role in pathogenesis and therapy. J Clin Invest. 2015;125(4):1379–87. doi: 10.1172/JCI76369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277058.r001

Decision Letter 0

Vladimir Trajkovic

16 May 2022

PONE-D-22-09320Galactosyl- and glucosylsphingosine induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization and lysosome-dependent cell deathPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jäättelä,

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, which you can find below.

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

Reviewer 1

The manuscript “Galactosyl- and glucosylsphingosine induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization and lysosome-dependent cell death” by Stahl-Meyer et al is well written The presentation is structured and easy to read. The authors have exposed MCF-7 cells to galactosylsphingosine and glucosylsphingosine and identified lysosomal membrane permeabilization before cell death. The mechanism of action is compared to cationic amphiphilic drugs (CADs) which have an established pathway to cause LMP-dependent cell death through activation of cAMP. However the results do not support their conviction. The manuscript should be rewritten with more careful interpretation of the data.

Major comments:

1. The lysosphinolipids are added to cells at different concentrations, which on the one hand contribute to make the study transparent, but also make it very hard to compare results between different panels. For example glucosylsphingosine is used at the concentrations 25, 28, 30, 32, 35, 38, 40, 43, 45 and 50 µM in the presented experiments. From the results in Fig 5 the authors note that glucosylsphingosine may induce cell death through different mechanisms depending on if the concentration is 28 or 32 µM. The results are similar for galactosylsphingosine in a slightly higher concentrations span (different mechanism at 40 and 43 µM). With this very narrow concentration span in mind, it is challenging to interpret and compare the results. The authors need to address this in the discussion.

2. In Figure 3 lysosomal membrane permeabilization is estimated by galectin-3 positive puncta. How many lysosomes must be galectin positive to induce lysosomal dependent cell death? In samples exposed to Ebastine, the CAD that is used as a positive control, galectin-3 puncta are found in 80% of the cells and each cell presents approx. 7 positive puncta. The corresponding numbers for the lysosphinolipids are 45% cells with 2-3 positive puncta/cell. The cell death is, however, much higher in the lysosphinolipids; 80% of the cells has died after 48 h which means that a large proportion of the cells died without showing positive galectine-3 puncta. Considering that Ebastine, although showing high number of galectin puncta, only show 40% cell death after 48h indicates that the MCF-7 cells are not excessively sensitive to broken lysosomes. Thus, the correlation between galectin puncta and cell death is not convincing for lysosphinolipids and the impact of LMP overestimated in the cell death mechanism for the lysosphinolipids.

3. The authors have considered several alternative cell death mechanism with negative result. However, as lysosphinolipids are accumulated in other parts of the cell beside the lysosomes, could the toxicity be caused by mitochondrial damage. Could the toxicity be an effect of increased production of ROS? Would an antioxidant protect?

4. Figure 7: It is surprising that normal and NPC-negative fibroblasts are more sensitive to lysosphinolipids (concentration range 15-23 µM) than MCF-7 cells, while Ebastine toxicity is in the same range in all cell types. Can this be explained?

5. Figure 7. Include galectin puncta results for Ebastine as mentioned in the figure legend 7F.

Minor:

- Row 425 “…….reached maximal levels already after 2 hours….” According to the graph it should be 4 h.

- Figure 5A Coloring of the bars could be improved to increase the clarity (GalSph and Siramesine are both red and Control and GluSph both black)

Reviewer 2

Stahl-Meyer and coworkers show here that GalSph and GlcSph trigger lysosome membrane permeabilization (LMP) and cell death in MCF7 cells. LMP was associated to generation of cAMP and independent of lysosomal calcium release. Moreover, LMP was significantly prevented by cholesterol, a known membrane-stabilizing factor. In keeping with this, fibroblasts from a Niemann-Pick type C patient were protected against GalSph- and GlcSph-induced lysosomal death. The manuscript is interesting and well written. The data are abundant and of high quality; the experimental approach is effective and adequate to answer the biological questions the authors are facing with. Despite the overall appreciation deserved to the research and its results, I have found and listed below a few points that need attention by the Authors.

Major criticisms

1. In my opinion, the reason(s) for using breast cancer cell lines of the luminal A subtype as the main experimental model for this study is not so obvious and not adequately addressed in the manuscript. If the aim of the study is to prove the capability of the lysosphingolipids to specifically trigger kill breast cancer cells, the results should be compared with other generated using normal breast epithelial cells.

2. Page 19, line 308-312. GalSph and GlcSph have an LD50 of 44 and 33 µM, respectively. Fig S1 shows that the number of MCF7 cells is markedly reduced by GalSph and GlcSph already at 40 and 30 µM, and this effect is claimed to be produced by using a ‘sublethal’ concentration of sphingolipids. However, Fig. 1A shows that these concentrations already trigger cell death, which thus cannot be considered ‘sublethal’. In addition, the concepts of inhibition of cell growth and of induction of cell death are used as synonyms, which is not correct. The paragraph needs revision.

3. Page 21, lines 340-342. Although the data on LMP induction are clear and basically convincing, occurrence of lysosomal death should be further confirmed by the demonstration that cathepsin inhibitors or elevation of intracellular pH prevent cell death.

4. Page 25, about the effect of cholesterol on lysosphingolipid-induced cell death. Have the Authors verified whether cholesterol supplementation affects CAD- or lysosphingolipid-induced cAMP generation?

5. Page 29, lines 553-555. The data presented in the manuscript refer to MCF7 cells only, one among many models of the multiple breast cancer molecular subtypes. Thus, although in my opinion it is likely to be true, this sentence is not adequately supported by direct experimental evidences, thus should be modified, unless better validated in additional cancer models.

Minor criticisms

- Page 13, line 160. ‘Greisner…’ should be probably changed to ‘Greiner…’. Please check.

- Page 16, line 221. ‘+’ should be changed to ‘±’.

- Page 21, lines 351-353. The aim of this experimental dataset is to verify that both Gal- and GlcSph enter the cells. Thus, I would have expected a sentence stating this fact, not pointing out the decrease of HexSph in the medium (the complementary information) which, on the other hand, does not unambiguously proves their uptake by the cells. Although I understand that this comment refers to the one’s feeling and for this is basically questionable, should the Authors agree with this view the sentence could be updated to evidence the uptake and the intracellular accumulation of lysosphingolipids.

Reviewer 3

In the present study, Dr. Stahl-Meyer K et al. investigated the effects of lysosphingolipids, galactosylsphingosine (GalSph) and glucosylsphingosine (GlcSph), on lysosomes in comparison to lysosome-destabilizing cationic amphiphilic drugs (CADs). The authors showed that GalSph and GlcSph induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization and lysosome-dependent cell death in MCF-7 breast cancer cells and human fibroblasts. The authors also showed that the contribution of cAMP and Ca2+ pathways in inducing cell death was different in lysosphingolipids and CADs. Since GalSph and GlcSph are lysophospholipids that accumulate in the brains of patients with Krabbe disease and Gaucher disease, respectively, this study deals with an important theme and may be of interest to wide-readers. The data presented in this manuscript roughly support the authors’ conclusion, but the authors need to address the following comments to confirm their conclusions.

Specific comments:

1. Figure 3: The enhancement of lysosomal permeability by GalSph (50 or 53 µM) or GlcSph (38 or 40 µM) is weaker than that of ebastine (12 or 16 µM). On the other hand, the induction of cell death by GalSph or GlcSph is stronger than that of ebastine. Taken together, it is possible to consider the contribution of the enhancement of lysosomal permeability to the induction of cell death by GalSph and GlcSph is small. At least there should be some discussion about this contradiction.

2. Figure 5: It is desirable to analyze intracellular cAMP levels and Ca2+ efflux, as the authors did in a previous paper. In addition, it is considered that the involvement of cAMP can be clarified by using lysophospholipids in combination with a reagent that lowers cAMP rather than in combination with forskolin that raises cAMP. Similarly, it is desirable to analyze the lysosomal pH.

3. Figure 6F & G: Although the authors are measuring intracellular GalSph and GlcSph, it is desirable to measure GalSph and GlcSph in lysosomes, as is done in Figure 4.

4. Figure 1E-G: It is desirable to have positive controls for necrostatin-1 and ferrostatin-1.

5. P6L117: The authors describe fibroblasts from patients with Gaucher's disease in the Materials and Methods section but have not shown any results using these cells.

6. P19L456-462: The instructions in Figures 6D and 6E are reversed.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 30 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Trajkovic

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

[This work was supported by grants from the Danish Cancer Society (R269-A15695), Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF125) and NovoNordisk Foundation (NNF19OC0054296) to M.J., and by the Independent Research Fund Denmark (6108–00542B) and Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF17OC0029432) to K.M., and by Innovation Fund Denmark (7038-00062B) to K.SM., N.H.T.P., and T.K.]

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

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

[This work was supported by grants from the Danish Cancer Society (R269-A15695), Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF125) and NovoNordisk Foundation (NNF19OC0054296) to M.J. and by the Independent Research Fund Denmark (6108–00542B) and Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF17OC0029432) to K.M., and and by Innovation Fund Denmark (7038-00062B) to K.SM., N.H.T.P., and T.K.]

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.

4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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: Yes

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: The manuscript “Galactosyl- and glucosylsphingosine induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization and lysosome-dependent cell death” by Stahl-Meyer et al is well written The presentation is structured and easy to read. The authors have exposed MCF-7 cells to galactosylsphingosine and glucosylsphingosine and identified lysosomal membrane permeabilization before cell death. The mechanism of action is compared to cationic amphiphilic drugs (CADs) which have an established pathway to cause LMP-dependent cell death through activation of cAMP. However the results do not support their conviction. The manuscript should be rewritten with more careful interpretation of the data.

Major comments:

The lysosphinolipids are added to cells at different concentrations, which on the one hand contribute to make the study transparent, but also make it very hard to compare results between different panels.

For example glucosylsphingosine is used at the concentrations 25, 28, 30, 32, 35, 38, 40, 43, 45 and 50 µM in the presented experiments. From the results in Fig 5 the authors note that glucosylsphingosine may induce cell death through different mechanisms depending on if the concentration is 28 or 32 µM. The results are similar for galactosylsphingosine in a slightly higher concentrations span (different mechanism at 40 and 43 µM). With this very narrow concentration span in mind, it is challenging to interpret and compare the results. The authors need to address this in the discussion.

In Figure 3 lysosomal membrane permeabilization is estimated by galectin-3 positive puncta. How many lysosomes must be galectin positive to induce lysosomal dependent cell death? In samples exposed to Ebastine, the CAD that is used as a positive control, galectin-3 puncta are found in 80% of the cells and each cell presents approx. 7 positive puncta. The corresponding numbers for the lysosphinolipids are 45% cells with 2-3 positive puncta/cell. The cell death is, however, much higher in the lysosphinolipids; 80% of the cells has died after 48 h which means that a large proportion of the cells died without showing positive galectine-3 puncta. Considering that Ebastine, although showing high number of galectin puncta, only show 40% cell death after 48h indicates that the MCF-7 cells are not excessively sensitive to broken lysosomes. Thus, the correlation between galectin puncta and cell death is not convincing for lysosphinolipids and the impact of LMP overestimated in the cell death mechanism for the lysosphinolipids.

The authors have considered several alternative cell death mechanism with negative result. However, as lysosphinolipids are accumulated in other parts of the cell beside the lysosomes, could the toxicity be caused by mitochondrial damage. Could the toxicity be an effect of increased production of ROS? Would an antioxidant protect?

Figure 7: It is surprising that normal and NPC-negative fibroblasts are more sensitive to lysosphinolipids (concentration range 15-23 µM) than MCF-7 cells, while Ebastine toxicity is in the same range in all cell types. Can this be explained?

Figure 7. Include galectin puncta results for Ebastine as mentioned in the figure legend 7F.

Minor:

Row 425 “…….reached maximal levels already after 2 hours….” According to the graph it should be 4 h.

Figure 5A Coloring of the bars could be improved to increase the clarity (GalSph and Siramesine are both red and Control and GluSph both black)

Reviewer #2: Stahl-Meyer and coworkers show here that GalSph and GlcSph trigger lysosome membrane permeabilization (LMP) and cell death in MCF7 cells. LMP was associated to generation of cAMP and independent of lysosomal calcium release. Moreover, LMP was significantly prevented by cholesterol, a known membrane-stabilizing factor. In keeping with this, fibroblasts from a Niemann-Pick type C patient were protected against GalSph- and GlcSph-induced lysosomal death.

The manuscript is interesting and well written. The data are abundant and of high quality; the experimental approach is effective and adequate to answer the biological questions the authors are facing with. Despite the overall appreciation deserved to the research and its results, I have found and listed below a few points that need attention by the Authors.

Major criticisms

In my opinion, the reason(s) for using breast cancer cell lines of the luminal A subtype as the main experimental model for this study is not so obvious and not adequately addressed in the manuscript. If the aim of the study is to prove the capability of the lysosphingolipids to specifically trigger kill breast cancer cells, the results should be compared with other generated using normal breast epithelial cells.

Page 19, line 308-312. GalSph and GlcSph have an LD50 of 44 and 33 µM, respectively. Fig S1 shows that the number of MCF7 cells is markedly reduced by GalSph and GlcSph already at 40 and 30 µM, and this effect is claimed to be produced by using a ‘sublethal’ concentration of sphingolipids. However, Fig. 1A shows that these concentrations already trigger cell death, which thus cannot be considered ‘sublethal’. In addition, the concepts of inhibition of cell growth and of induction of cell death are used as synonyms, which is not correct. The paragraph needs revision.

Page 21, lines 340-342. Although the data on LMP induction are clear and basically convincing, occurrence of lysosomal death should be further confirmed by the demonstration that cathepsin inhibitors or elevation of intracellular pH prevent cell death.

Page 25, about the effect of cholesterol on lysosphingolipid-induced cell death. Have the Authors verified whether cholesterol supplementation affects CAD- or lysosphingolipid-induced cAMP generation?

Page 29, lines 553-555. The data presented in the manuscript refer to MCF7 cells only, one among many models of the multiple breast cancer molecular subtypes. Thus, although in my opinion it is likely to be true, this sentence is not adequately supported by direct experimental evidences, thus should be modified, unless better validated in additional cancer models.

Minor criticisms

Page 13, line 160. ‘Greisner…’ should be probably changed to ‘Greiner…’. Please check.

Page 16, line 221. ‘+’ should be changed to ‘±’.

Page 21, lines 351-353. The aim of this experimental dataset is to verify that both Gal- and GlcSph enter the cells. Thus, I would have expected a sentence stating this fact, not pointing out the decrease of HexSph in the medium (the complementary information) which, on the other hand, does not unambiguously proves their uptake by the cells. Although I understand that this comment refers to the one’s feeling and for this is basically questionable, should the Authors agree with this view the sentence could be updated to evidence the uptake and the intracellular accumulation of lysosphingolipids.

Reviewer #3: In the present study, Dr. Stahl-Meyer K et al. investigated the effects of lysosphingolipids, galactosylsphingosine (GalSph) and glucosylsphingosine (GlcSph), on lysosomes in comparison to lysosome-destabilizing cationic amphiphilic drugs (CADs). The authors showed that GalSph and GlcSph induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization and lysosome-dependent cell death in MCF-7 breast cancer cells and human fibroblasts. The authors also showed that the contribution of cAMP and Ca2+ pathways in inducing cell death was different in lysosphingolipids and CADs. Since GalSph and GlcSph are lysophospholipids that accumulate in the brains of patients with Krabbe disease and Gaucher disease, respectively, this study deals with an important theme and may be of interest to wide-readers. The data presented in this manuscript roughly support the authors’ conclusion, but the authors need to address the following comments to confirm their conclusions.

Specific comments:

3. Figure 6F & G: Although the authors are measuring intracellular GalSph and GlcSph, it is desirable to measure GalSph and GlcSph in lysosomes, as is done in Figure 4.

4. Figure 1E-G: It is desirable to have positive controls for necrostatin-1 and ferrostatin-1.

5. P6L117: The authors describe fibroblasts from patients with Gaucher's disease in the Materials and Methods section but have not shown any results using these cells.

6. P19L456-462: The instructions in Figures 6D and 6E are reversed.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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.]

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

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 21;17(11):e0277058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277058.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

29 Jun 2022

Reviewer 1

The manuscript “Galactosyl- and glucosylsphingosine induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization and lysosome-dependent cell death” by Stahl-Meyer et al is well written. The presentation is structured and easy to read. The authors have exposed MCF-7 cells to galactosylsphingosine and glucosylsphingosine and identified lysosomal membrane permeabilization before cell death. The mechanism of action is compared to cationic

amphiphilic drugs (CADs) which have an established pathway to cause LMP-dependent cell death through activation of cAMP. However the results do not support their conviction. The manuscript should be rewritten with more careful interpretation of the data.

Major comments:

We thank the reviewers for the comments. We essentially used the concentrations of LC50 and LC20 values for the comparisons of the effects of lysosphingolipids and cationic amphiphilic drugs (CADs). The values were different between the two lysosphingolipids, and also varied slightly

between some of the performed experiments, as we determined the LC50 and LC20 values for each batch of the lysosphingolipids we purchased and prepared.

We have clarified this issue in the discussion section of the revised manuscript. We inserted the following sentence in lines 563-566, page 24 in the revised manuscript with track changes; “We obtained the majority of the presented data using the lysosphingolipids at concentrations of their

LC50 values or LC20 and LC50 values. The applied concentrations slightly varied between experiments due to small variations in the potencies between batches of prepared stock solutions of lysosphingolipids.”

found in 80% of the cells and each cell presents approx. 7 positive puncta. The corresponding numbers for the lysosphinolipids are 45% cells with 2-3 positive puncta/cell. The cell death is, however, much higher in the lysosphinolipids; 80% of the cells has died after 48 h which means

that a large proportion of the cells died without showing positive galectine-3 puncta. Considering that Ebastine, although showing high number of galectin puncta, only show 40% cell death after 48h indicates that the MCF-7 cells are not excessively sensitive to broken

lysosomes. Thus, the correlation between galectin puncta and cell death is not convincing for lysosphingolipids and the impact of LMP overestimated in the cell death mechanism for the lysosphingolipids.

There is not necessarily a direct correlation between the number of leaky lysosomes and cell death. For example, treatment of cells with LLOMe can induce leakage of nearly all lysosomes without causing cell death. This discrepancy has been explained by data showing that lysosomal

membranes become first permeable to molecules with a mass < 10 kDa resulting in the loss of lysosomal acidity and inactivation of cathepsins before the “holes” in the membrane grow and allow the leakage of cathepsins and entrance of galectins (DOI: 10.1242/jcs.204529). It should

also be noted that both CADs and lipids used in this study don’t induce a complete rupture of lysosomes, but only a leakage of a small portion of their hydrolases. Thus, the number of galectin positive lysosomes does not necessarily correlate with the amount of released cathepsins.

Nevertheless, we agree that our data do not fully confirm the importance of the lysosomal leakage for the lysosphingolipid-induced cell death. We have added a short paragraph discussing this issue in lines 580-589, pages 24-25 of the discussion section of the revised manuscript with track changes; “Encouraged by the many similarities to CAD-induced lysosome-dependent cell death, we attempted here to rescue MCF7 cells from lysosphingolipid-induced cell death through inhibition of cathepsins. Even though we previously demonstrated that a cathepsin inhibitor can partially rescue MCF7 cells from CAD-induced cell death (55), we were unable to demonstrate the same for lysosphingolipid-induced cell death. Lysosphingolipids induce leakage on a small numbers of lysosomes per cells in comparison to ebastine (Fig 3), and we still haven’t provided conclusive evidence for the lysosome leakage playing an essential role in the process of lysosphingolipid induced cell death. Indeed, many other molecular mechanisms of cytotoxicity have been suggested for lysosphingolipids, especially in studies of Gaucher and Krabbe diseases (4, 52, 56-58).”

3. The authors have considered several alternative cell death mechanism with negative result. However, as lysosphingolipids are accumulated in other parts of the cell beside the lysosomes, could the toxicity be caused by mitochondrial damage. Could the toxicity be an effect of increased production of ROS? Would an antioxidant protect?

Our data do not exclude the possibility that these lysosphingolipids induce alternative signaling pathways of cell death in addition to those directly linked to their effects on lysosomes. Increased ROS production is indeed suggested as a possible molecular mechanism of Gaucher and Krabbe diseases and our lipidomics data also demonstrate that extracellularly supplied lysosphingolipids are not exclusively present in the lysosomes.

We do not have an explanation for this. However, CADs and lysosphingolipids are certainly different in both their manners of cell uptake and metabolism. CADs diffuse into cells, but lysosphingolipids with the large polar head group are more likely to enter the cells mainly via

endocytosis. Lysosphingolipids can also be metabolized and degraded by cellular enzymes such as (glucosylceramidase (GBA1) and galactosylceramidase (GALC). CADs are also degraded slowly in cancer cells (unpublished data) but most likely not by GBA1 or GALC. We speculate that these differences could be reasons that some cell lines can be more sensitive to lysosphingolipids without at the same time being more sensitive to CADs. And, despite many similarities in cell death induced by lysosphingolipids and CADs, we show that they use different signaling pathways to induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization.

5. Figure 7. Include galectin puncta results for Ebastine as mentioned in the figure legend 7F.

Thanks to pointing this out. In the originally submitted manuscript, we removed the images of puncta in ebastine-treated cells to allow more space for the images of lysosphingolipid-treated ones, but did not properly remove the figure legend. As suggested, we have included the suggested images and quantifications into the revised figure.

Minor:

- Row 425 “…….reached maximal levels already after 2 hours….” According to the graph it should be 4 h.

We agree and corrected the manuscript in line 451, page 19 in the revised manuscript with track changes.

- Figure 5A Coloring of the bars could be improved to increase the clarity (GalSph and Siramesine are both red and Control and GluSph both black)

We agree. We have changed the colors in the graph of Fig 5A as suggested.

Reviewer 2

Major criticisms

We thank the reviewer for the comments. Our intension with the present study was not to perform a comparison between cancer cells vs normal cells, but to demonstrate the effects of lysosphingolipids on the lysosomes and consequences of them. In that context, we intended to illuminate the effects of lysosphingolipids in comparison to those of cationic amphiphilic drugs (CADs), well studied for inducing lysosomal leakage and lysosome-dependent cell death. We have mainly used MCF7 cells in this study, since the effects of CADs are particularly well studied in MCF7

cells and because experimental tools, setups, and protocols are also best established for these cells. We have highlighted this in the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 603-604, page 25 with the following sentence; “We primarily used MCF7 cells here because this cell line has been extensively studied for the CAD-induced cell death.”

needs revision.

We agree that the concentrations of lysosphingolipids used in Fig S1 of the original manuscript to examine the growth inhibitory effects are inducing cell death and thus not sublethal, according to cell death assay shown in Fig 1A. The problem here is the small shift in the potencies of the lysosphingolipids between batches of prepared stock solutions and thus between some of the presented experiments. The data of growth inhibition presented in Fig 1S come from the same readouts/measurements as those of cell death in Fig 2A (Fig S1 counting total cell numbers and Fig 2A the numbers of dead cells/numbers of total cells). In this experiment (of Fig 2A and S1), performed three times independently, the LC50 values of parental MCF7 cells for Gal- and GlcSph were slightly higher at around 50-53 µM and 38-40 µM in comparison to 44 and 33 µM,

respectively, determined in the experimented presented in Fig 1A. To eliminate this confusing manner of data representation, we have merged Fig 2 with Fig S1 (to new Fig 2), so that the data on cell death and cell growth can be compared next to each other. Additionally, we have also added a short paragraph in the discussion section describing the issue of batch variation in the potency of lysosphingolipids in page 24, lines 564-566 in the revised manuscript with track changes; “The applied concentrations slightly varied between experiments due to small variations in the potencies between batches of prepared stock solutions of lysosphingolipids.”

We agree that the induction of lysosome-dependent cell death has only weakly been demonstrated in the originally submitted manuscript. As suggested, we have performed an additional experiment, in which we treated MCF7 cells with cathepsin inhibitors zFA-fmk or Ca-O74-Me, or

with a V-ATPase inhibitor concanamycin A (to inhibit the maturation of cathepsins and thereby reduce cellular cathepsin activity) together with lysosphingolipids. These pre-treatments resulted, however, increased cell death (see below). The known cytotoxicity of the inhibitors might have

exceeded their possible rescuing effects and concanamycin A might have interfered with the lysosomal degradation of lysosphingolipids.

As described in the cover letter, we have in the revised manuscript therefore soften our statement regarding the induction of lysosome-dependent cell death by the lysosphingolipids. We have inserted a small paragraph in 580-589, pages 24-25 of the revised manuscript with track changes, discussing the above described results; “Encouraged by the many similarities to CAD-induced lysosome-dependent cell death, we attempted here to rescue MCF7 cells from lysosphingolipid-induced cell death through inhibition of cathepsins. Even though we previously demonstrated that a cathepsin inhibitor can partially rescue MCF7 cells from CAD-induced cell death (55), we were unable to demonstrate the same for lysosphingolipid-induced cell death. Lysosphingolipids induce leakage on a small numbers of lysosomes per cells in comparison to ebastine (Fig 3), and we still haven’t provided conclusive evidence for the lysosome leakage playing an essential role in the process of lysosphingolipid-induced cell death. Indeed, many other molecular mechanisms of cytotoxicity have been suggested for lysosphingolipids, especially in studies of Gaucher and Krabbe diseases (4, 52, 56-58).”

No, we have not tried that yet in this study nor in any previous studies in our laboratory. Addressing this is beyond the scope of the manuscript due to time limitation, but we have currently an ongoing study in which we more thoroughly examine the role of cholesterol on lysosomal

stability and functioning.

evidences, thus should be modified, unless better validated in additional cancer models.

We agree. We modified the statement to: “However, the data presented here encourage further studies in other cell lines and on the potential of lysosphingolipids in cancer therapies” at lines 605-606, page 25 in the revised manuscript with track changes.

Minor criticisms

- Page 13, line 160. ‘Greisner…’ should be probably changed to ‘Greiner…’. Please check.

Yes. We have corrected this at line 162, page 7 in the revised manuscript with track changes.

- Page 16, line 221. ‘+’ should be changed to ‘±’.

Yes. We have corrected this at line 238, page 11 in the revised manuscript with track changes.

- Page 21, lines 351-353. The aim of this experimental dataset is to verify that both Gal- and

GlcSph enter the cells. Thus, I would have expected a sentence stating this fact, not pointing out the decrease of HexSph in the medium (the complementary information) which, on the other hand, does not unambiguously proves their uptake by the cells. Although I understand that this

comment refers to the one’s feeling and for this is basically questionable, should the Authors agree with this view the sentence could be updated to evidence the uptake and the intracellular accumulation of lysosphingolipids.

We have actually described this in the originally submitted manuscript, which now is in lines 397-398 in the revised manuscript with track changes; “In parallel, the level of HexSph in the harvested cells increased rapidly during the first hour of treatments with GalSph or GlcSph and continued to increase for 24 hours (Figs 4A and B).” Unfortunately, this sentence is, in the current format of the text, separated from the immediately preceding sentence describing the decrease of lysosphingolipid concentrations in the medium with a figure legend. This might be the reason that the sentence was missed.

Reviewer 3

lysosphingolipids and CADs. Since GalSph and GlcSph are lysophospholipids that accumulate in the brains of patients with Krabbe disease and Gaucher disease, respectively, this study deals with an important theme and may be of interest to wide-readers. The data presented in this

manuscript roughly support the authors’ conclusion, but the authors need to address the following comments to confirm their conclusions.

Specific comments:

consider the contribution of the enhancement of lysosomal permeability to the induction of cell death by GalSph and GlcSph is small. At least there should be some discussion about this contradiction.

We thank the reviewer for the comments. The extent of lysosomal leakage assessed with galectin puncta assay might not fully reflect the true extent of leakage of cytotoxic compounds from lysosomes, but we agree that we have not provided fully conclusive evidence for that the lysosomal leakage is an essential event leading to the lysosphingolipid-induced cell death. We have inserted a small paragraph in the discussion section, lines 580-589, pages 24-25 in the revised manuscript with track changes, discussing this issue and the results of the additionally performed experiments: Encouraged by the many similarities to CAD-induced lysosome-dependent cell death, we attempted here to rescue MCF7 cells from lysosphingolipid-induced cell death through inhibition of cathepsins. Even though we previously demonstrated that a cathepsin inhibitor can partially rescue MCF7 cells from CAD-induced cell death (55), we were unable to demonstrate the same for lysosphingolipid-induced cell death. Lysosphingolipids induce leakage on a small numbers of lysosomes per cells in comparison to ebastine (Fig 3), and we still haven’t provided conclusive evidence for the lysosome leakage playing an essential role in the process of lysosphingolipid-induced cell death. Indeed, many other molecular mechanisms of cytotoxicity have been suggested for lysosphingolipids, especially in studies of Gaucher and Krabbe diseases (4, 52, 56-58).”

than in combination with forskolin that raises cAMP. Similarly, it is desirable to analyze the lysosomal pH.

therefore believe that lysosphingolipids does not induce rapid Ca2+ release like CADs. Our data suggest that lysosphingolipids and CADs induce similar manners of cell death, but they don’t induce cell death or lysosomal membrane permeabilization through the exact same mechanisms.

We have performed pH measurements, as suggested, to examine whether lysosphingolipids also neutralize lysosomes similarly to CADs prior to lysosomal membrane permeabilization. The lysosphingolipids did not neutralize the lysosome pH after one or five hours of treatments, despite

the lysosphingolipids being weak bases like CADs. This new data is presented as a supplementary figure, S1 Fig and the results are described in lines 361-365, page 16: “Unlike CADs (50), the lysosphingolipids did not induce notable elevation in the lysosomal pH in MCF7 cells after one or

five hours of treatments and thus prior to lysosomal leakage, when assessed after loading lysosomes with dextran coupled with pH-sensitive fluorescein and pH-insensitive tetramethylrhodamine (S1 Fig).”

3. Figure 6F & G: Although the authors are measuring intracellular GalSph and GlcSph, it is desirable to measure GalSph and GlcSph in lysosomes, as is done in Figure 4.

We agree that the GalSph and GlcSph levels in the lysosomes are not necessarily fully reflected in the quantification in the cell lysates. We however are currently not able to purify lysosomes from the cholesterol-fed cells, due to the incompatibility of the purification method. We purify lysosomes by feeding cells with iron-dextran particles. These particles very easily aggregate in general to obscure the lysosome purification (as they stick to everything), and the presence of cholesterol in the medium enhances their aggregation.

4. Figure 1E-G: It is desirable to have positive controls for necrostatin-1 and ferrostatin-1.

We agree a positive control would have been ideal. We indeed here used an apoptosis inhibitor in combination with an inducer. We however chose to not use positive controls for necrosis and ferroptosis in part because of the challenge in inducing clear-cut necrosis or ferroptosis. MCF7 cells are previously demonstrated to be resistance to ferroptosis induced by a variety of inducers (DOI: 10.3390/antiox11020298), to make the use of a positive control in combination with the inhibitor a challenge (also makes it not so likely that they undergo ferroptosis). For necrostatin-1, we have previously demonstrated its inhibitory effect in MCF7 cells using starvation as an inducer of cell death (DOI:10.1074/jbc.M111.269134)

5. P6L117: The authors describe fibroblasts from patients with Gaucher's disease in the Materials and Methods section but have not shown any results using these cells.

This is correct and these lines are deleted from the Materials and Methods section of the revised

manuscript.

6. P19L456-462: The instructions in Figures 6D and 6E are reversed.

Yes. We have corrected this in the revised manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: RESPON~1.PDF

Click here for additional data file.^{(323.2KB, PDF)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277058.r003

Decision Letter 1

Vladimir Trajkovic

1 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-09320R1Galactosyl- and glucosylsphingosine induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization and cell death in cancer cellsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jäättelä,

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

Reviewer 3

In the revised version, the authors have done some additional experiments and added some explanations about them. However, the interpretation of some results is not convincing and one of the required experiments has not been done. Therefore, the authors' efforts to improve the manuscript are recognized, but not sufficient.

Specific comments:

[Original comment #2]

Figure 5: It is desirable to analyze intracellular cAMP levels and Ca2+ efflux, as the authors did in a previous paper. In addition, it is considered that the involvement of cAMP can be clarified by using lysophospholipids in combination with a reagent that lowers cAMP rather than in combination with forskolin that raises cAMP. Similarly, it is desirable to analyze the lysosomal pH.

[Authors’ response #2]

We have previously measured Ca2+ release after treatment with the lysosphingolipids, but the result has been inconclusive. We have also shown in the originally submitted manuscript that the knockdown of P2RX4 did not have any impact on the lysosphingolipid-induced cell death, and we therefore believe that lysosphingolipids does not induce rapid Ca2+ release like CADs. Our data suggest that lysosphingolipids and CADs induce similar manners of cell death, but they don’t induce cell death or lysosomal membrane permeabilization through the exact same mechanisms. Page 8 of 8 We have performed pH measurements, as suggested, to examine whether lysosphingolipids also neutralize lysosomes similarly to CADs prior to lysosomal membrane permeabilization. The lysosphingolipids did not neutralize the lysosome pH after one or five hours of treatments, despite the lysosphingolipids being weak bases like CADs. This new data is presented as a supplementary figure, S1 Fig and the results are described in lines 361-365, page 16: “Unlike CADs (50), the lysosphingolipids did not induce notable elevation in the lysosomal pH in MCF7 cells after one or five hours of treatments and thus prior to lysosomal leakage, when assessed after loading lysosomes with dextran coupled with pH-sensitive fluorescein and pH-insensitive tetramethylrhodamine (S1 Fig).”

[New comments on the authors' response #2]

In panel A, cAMP-dependent CREB phosphorylation was detected in 53 µM GalSph and 40 µM GlcSph, not analyzed in 40 µM GalSph and 28 µM GlcSph. On the other hand, in panel B, the effect of Forskolin on cell death was observed in 40 µM GalSph and 28 µM GlcSph, but not in 43-45 µM GalSph and 30-32 µM GlcSph. From this result, it is presumed that Forskolin does not enhance cell death even at 53 µM GalSph and 40 µM GlcSph. Therefore, from these results, it cannot be determined whether cAMP signaling is involved in the induction of cell death by GalSph or GlcSph. Again, it is thought that the involvement of cAMP can be clarified by using GalSph and GlcSph together with reagents that lower cAMP instead of Forskolin, which raises cAMP. This experiment is easy to try. Additionally, in panel C, the authors also performed P2RX4 knockdown experiments and showed that the induction of cell death by GalSph or GlcSph was not mediated by P2RX4. This experiment showed that the induction of cell death by GalSph or GlcSph was not dependent on the Ca2+ release through P2RX4, but not denied that the Ca2+ release through other channels was involved. Therefore, it is desirable to present the measurement of Ca2+ release as conclusive data. The authors need to explain in more detail, at least not to mislead the reader, even if they do not perform this experiment.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Trajkovic

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: In the revised version, the authors have done some additional experiments and added some explanations about them. However, the interpretation of some results is not convincing and one of the required experiments has not been done. Therefore, the authors' efforts to improve the manuscript are recognized, but not sufficient.

Specific comments:

[Original comment #2]

[Authors’ response #2]

[New comments on the authors' response #2]

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 21;17(11):e0277058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277058.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

8 Sep 2022

Comment from Reviewer 3

Specific comments:

[Original comment #2]

[Authors’ response #2]

[New comments on the authors' response #2]

Reply to reviewer’s comment (to ‘New comments on the authors’ response #2’)

We thank the reviewer for constructively commenting on our revised manuscript. We found the comment useful and fully agree. In the previous version of the manuscript, the discussion of presented data regarding the possible involvement of cAMP signalling pathway in the mechanism of cell death induced by lysosphingolipids indeed focused solely on the positive outcome achieved only under one of the tested conditions. We now have extended the discussion on the matter to also include the negative outcome, and most importantly, we write clearly that this matter still remains to be studied.

We have demonstrated in this manuscript that extracellularly supplied lysosphingolipids can destabilize the lysosomal membranes, similarly to cationic and amphiphilic drugs (CADs). At the same time, the lysosphingolipid-induced cell death is not dependent on Ca2+ release from P2RX4 unlike CADs, and the lysosphingolipids and CADs thus do not induce the same responses of signalling leading to the eventual cell death. We believe that properly revealing the signalling pathways induced by lysosphingolipids would be both challenging and labour-intensive, even though we agree with the reviewer that a few additional simple experiments might answer some of these questions e.g. involvement of cAMP. We therefore find it more suitable to further explore the signalling pathways of lysosphingolipids in other ongoing projects of the lab, and leave the questions not fully answered for the present manuscript.

We have expanded the discussion section with the following paragraph, in page 24, lines 557-570. Newly added sentences are marked with bold letters;

“Supporting this idea, we show here that CAD-resistant MCF7 cells are also resistant to the lysosphingolipid-induced cytotoxicity. Additionally, lysosphingolipids activate the cAMP signalling pathway and induce lysosomal leakage as early events occurring prior to cell death, in a manner similar to that observed in CAD-treated cells (22, 28). The role of cAMP in lysosphingolipid-induced cell death is supported by the ability of forskolin to enhance cell death induced by lysosphingolipids at concentrations below their respective IC50 values. On the contrary, forskolin failed to enhance cell death when combined with higher concentrations of lysosphingolipids at around their respective IC50 values, which were used here to demonstrate the phosphorylation of CREB. In addition, the early lysosphingolipid-induced signalling pathway leading to the cAMP accumulation and cell death in MCF7 cells appears different from the P2RX4- and Ca2+-dependent pathway induced by CADs because the depletion of P2RX4 in MCF7 cells had no effect on the lysosphingolipid-induced cytotoxicity. Thus, how lysosphingolipids activate the cAMP signalling pathway and whether it is involved in the cytotoxic mechanism of lysosphingolipids remain to be studied.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: RESPON~1.DOC

Click here for additional data file.^{(19KB, DOC)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277058.r005

Decision Letter 2

Vladimir Trajkovic

19 Oct 2022

Galactosyl- and glucosylsphingosine induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization and cell death in cancer cells

PONE-D-22-09320R2

Dear Dr. Jäättelä,

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

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

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Trajkovic

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277058.r006

Acceptance letter

Vladimir Trajkovic

8 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-09320R2

Galactosyl- and glucosylsphingosine induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization and cell death in cancer cells

Dear Dr. Jäättelä:

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

Prof. Vladimir Trajkovic

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. GalSph and GlcSph do not induce neutralization of lysosomal pH in MCF7 cells.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(272.4KB, tif)}

S2 Fig. Quantities of cholesterol and HexSph in MCF7 cells.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(277.9KB, tif)}

S1 Table. Table of reagents and chemicals.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(98.2KB, PDF)}

S2 Table. Table of antibodies.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(66KB, PDF)}

S3 Table. Table of siRNA.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(8.3KB, PDF)}

S4 Table. Internal lipid standards.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(49.2KB, PDF)}

S5 Table. Precursor ion, fragment ion and neutral loss for lipid identification.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(172KB, PDF)}

S6 Table. Quantities (mol%) of lipid species identified in GalSph- and GlcSph-treated MCF7 cells and their lysosomes.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(817.6KB, PDF)}

S1 File. Original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blots.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(19.6MB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: RESPON~1.PDF

Click here for additional data file.^{(323.2KB, PDF)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: RESPON~1.DOC

Click here for additional data file.^{(19KB, DOC)}

Data Availability Statement

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

[pone.0277058.ref001] 1.Miyatake T, Suzuki K. Globoid cell leukodystrophy: Additional deficiency of psychosine galactosidase. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 1972;48(3):538–43. doi: 10.1016/0006-291x(72)90381-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref002] 2.Yamaguchi Y, Sasagasako N, Goto I, Kobayashi T. The synthetic pathway for glucosylsphingosine in cultured fibroblasts. J Biochem. 1994;116(3):704–10. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jbchem.a124584 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref003] 3.Hikita T, Tadano-Aritomi K, Iida-Tanaka N, Levery SB, Ishizuka I, Hakomori S. Cationic Glycosphingolipids in Neuronal Tissues and Their Possible Biological Significance. Neurochemical research. 2002;27(7):575–81. doi: 10.1023/a:1020259630034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref004] 4.Suzuki K. Twenty Five Years of the “Psychosine Hypothesis”: A Personal Perspective of its History and Present Status. Neurochemical research. 1998;23(3):251–9. doi: 10.1023/a:1022436928925 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref005] 5.Platt FM. Emptying the stores: lysosomal diseases and therapeutic strategies. Nature reviews Drug discovery. 2018;17(2):133–50. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref006] 6.Ballabio A. The awesome lysosome. EMBO molecular medicine. 2016;8(2):73–6. doi: 10.15252/emmm.201505966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref007] 7.Rolfs A, Giese AK, Grittner U, Mascher D, Elstein D, Zimran A, et al. Glucosylsphingosine is a highly sensitive and specific biomarker for primary diagnostic and follow-up monitoring in Gaucher disease in a non-Jewish, Caucasian cohort of Gaucher disease patients. PLOS One. 2013;8(11):e79732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref008] 8.Suzuki K, Suzuki Y. Globoid cell leucodystrophy (Krabbe’s disease): deficiency of galactocerebroside beta-galactosidase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1970;66(2):302–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.66.2.302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref009] 9.Kobayashi T, Goto I, Yamanaka T, Suzuki Y, Nakano T, Suzuki K. Infantile and fetal globoid cell leukodystrophy: Analysis of galactosylceramide and galactosylsphingosine. Annals of neurology. 1988;24(4):517–22. doi: 10.1002/ana.410240407 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref010] 10.Svennerholm L, Vanier M, Månsson J. Krabbe disease: A galactosylsphingosine (Psychosine) lipidosis. Journal of lipid research. 1980;21:53–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref011] 11.Syntichaki P, Samara C, Tavernarakis N. The Vacuolar H+-ATPase Mediates Intracellular Acidification Required for Neurodegeneration in C. elegans. Current biology. 2005;15(13):1249–54. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.05.057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref012] 12.Dehay B, Bové J, Rodríguez-Muela N, Perier C, Recasens A, Boya P, et al. Pathogenic Lysosomal Depletion in Parkinson’s Disease. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2010;30(37):12535. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1920-10.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref013] 13.Loison F, Zhu H, Karatepe K, Kasorn A, Liu P, Ye K, et al. Proteinase 3-dependent caspase-3 cleavage modulates neutrophil death and inflammation. J Clin Invest. 2014;124(10):4445–58. doi: 10.1172/JCI76246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref014] 14.Aits S, Jäättelä M. Lysosomal cell death at a glance. Journal of Cell Science. 2013;126(9):1905–12. doi: 10.1242/jcs.091181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref015] 15.Galluzzi L, Vitale I, Aaronson SA, Abrams JM, Adam D, Agostinis P, et al. Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018. Cell Death & Differentiation. 2018;25(3):486–541. doi: 10.1038/s41418-017-0012-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref016] 16.Wang F, Gómez-Sintes R, Boya P. Lysosomal membrane permeabilization and cell death. Traffic. 2018;19(12):918–31. doi: 10.1111/tra.12613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref017] 17.Erdal H, Berndtsson M, Castro J, Brunk U, Shoshan MC, Linder S. Induction of lysosomal membrane permeabilization by compounds that activate p53-independent apoptosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(1):192–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0408592102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref018] 18.Gyrd-Hansen M, Farkas T, Fehrenbacher N, Bastholm L, Høyer-Hansen M, Elling F, et al. Apoptosome-independent activation of the lysosomal cell death pathway by caspase-9. Molecular and cellular biology. 2006;26(21):7880–91. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00716-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref019] 19.Firestone RA, Pisano JM, Bonney RJ. Lysosomotropic agents. 1. Synthesis and cytotoxic action of lysosomotropic detergents. Journal of medicinal chemistry. 1979;22(9):1130–3. doi: 10.1021/jm00195a026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref020] 20.Ellegaard A-M, Dehlendorff C, Vind AC, Anand A, Cederkvist L, Petersen NHT, et al. Repurposing Cationic Amphiphilic Antihistamines for Cancer Treatment. EBioMedicine. 2016;9:130–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref021] 21.Kornhuber J, Tripal P, Reichel M, Mühle C, Rhein C, Muehlbacher M, et al. Functional Inhibitors of Acid Sphingomyelinase (FIASMAs): A Novel Pharmacological Group of Drugs with Broad Clinical Applications. Cellular physiology and biochemistry. 2010;26(1):9–20. doi: 10.1159/000315101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref022] 22.Petersen Nikolaj HT, Olsen Ole D, Groth-Pedersen L, Ellegaard A-M, Bilgin M, Redmer S, et al. Transformation-Associated Changes in Sphingolipid Metabolism Sensitize Cells to Lysosomal Cell Death Induced by Inhibitors of Acid Sphingomyelinase. Cancer Cell. 2013;24(3):379–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref023] 23.Ostenfeld MS, Fehrenbacher N, Høyer-Hansen M, Thomsen C, Farkas T, Jäättelä M. Effective Tumor Cell Death by σ-2 Receptor Ligand Siramesine Involves Lysosomal Leakage and Oxidative Stress. Cancer research. 2005;65(19):8975–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref024] 24.Kågedal K, Johansson U, Öllinger K. The lysosomal protease cathepsin D mediates apoptosis induced by oxidative stress. The FASEB journal. 2001;15(9):1592–4. doi: 10.1096/fj.00-0708fje [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref025] 25.Fehrenbacher N, Bastholm L, Kirkegaard-Sørensen T, Rafn B, Bøttzauw T, Nielsen C, et al. Sensitization to the lysosomal cell death pathway by oncogene-induced down-regulation of lysosome-associated membrane proteins 1 and 2. Cancer research. 2008;68(16):6623–33. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-0463 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref026] 26.Kallunki T, Olsen OD, Jäättelä M. Cancer-associated lysosomal changes: friends or foes? Oncogene. 2013;32(16):1995–2004. doi: 10.1038/onc.2012.292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref027] 27.Ellegaard AM, Bach P, Jäättelä M. Targeting Cancer Lysosomes with Good Old Cationic Amphiphilic Drugs. Rev Physiol Biochem Pharmacol. 2021. doi: 10.1007/112_2020_56 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref028] 28.Anand A, Liu B, Dicroce Giacobini J, Maeda K, Rohde M, Jäättelä M. Cell Death Induced by Cationic Amphiphilic Drugs Depends on Lysosomal Ca(2+) Release and Cyclic AMP. Mol Cancer Ther. 2019;18(9):1602–14. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-18-1406 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref029] 29.Foghsgaard L, Wissing D, Mauch D, Lademann U, Bastholm L, Boes M, et al. Cathepsin B acts as a dominant execution protease in tumor cell apoptosis induced by tumor necrosis factor. J Cell Biol. 2001;153(5):999–1010. doi: 10.1083/jcb.153.5.999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref030] 30.Hämälistö S, Stahl JL, Favaro E, Yang Q, Liu B, Christoffersen L, et al. Spatially and temporally defined lysosomal leakage facilitates mitotic chromosome segregation. Nature communications. 2020;11(1):229-. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref031] 31.Stahl-Meyer J, Stahl-Meyer K, Jäättelä M. Control of mitosis, inflammation, and cell motility by limited leakage of lysosomes. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2021;71:29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2021.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref032] 32.Folts CJ, Scott-Hewitt N, Pröschel C, Mayer-Pröschel M, Noble M. Lysosomal Re-acidification Prevents Lysosphingolipid-Induced Lysosomal Impairment and Cellular Toxicity. PLoS biology. 2016;14(12):e1002583-e. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref033] 33.Jäättelä M, Benedict M, Tewari M, Shayman JA, Dixit VM. Bcl-x and Bcl-2 inhibit TNF and Fas-induced apoptosis and activation of phospholipase A2 in breast carcinoma cells. Oncogene. 1995;10(12):2297–305. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref034] 34.Aits S, Kricker J, Liu B, Ellegaard A-M, Hämälistö S, Tvingsholm S, et al. Sensitive detection of lysosomal membrane permeabilization by lysosomal galectin puncta assay. Autophagy. 2015;11(8):1408–24. doi: 10.1080/15548627.2015.1063871 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref035] 35.Aits S, Jäättelä M, Nylandsted J. Methods for the quantification of lysosomal membrane permeabilization: a hallmark of lysosomal cell death. Methods in cell biology. 2015;126:261–85. doi: 10.1016/bs.mcb.2014.10.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref036] 36.Bilgin M, Nylandsted J, Jäättelä M, Maeda K. Quantitative Profiling of Lysosomal Lipidome by Shotgun Lipidomics. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, NJ). 2017;1594:19–34. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6934-0_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref037] 37.Nielsen IØ, Groth-Pedersen L, Dicroce-Giacobini J, Jonassen ASH, Mortensen M, Bilgin M, et al. Cationic amphiphilic drugs induce elevation in lysoglycerophospholipid levels and cell death in leukemia cells. Metabolomics. 2020;16(9):91–. doi: 10.1007/s11306-020-01710-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref038] 38.Bligh EG, Dyer WJ. A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Can J Biochem Physiol. 1959;37(8):911–7. doi: 10.1139/o59-099 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref039] 39.Zech T, Ejsing CS, Gaus K, de Wet B, Shevchenko A, Simons K, et al. Accumulation of raft lipids in T-cell plasma membrane domains engaged in TCR signalling. The EMBO journal. 2009;28(5):466–76. doi: 10.1038/emboj.2009.6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref040] 40.Ejsing CS, Sampaio JL, Surendranath V, Duchoslav E, Ekroos K, Klemm RW, et al. Global analysis of the yeast lipidome by quantitative shotgun mass spectrometry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106(7):2136. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811700106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref041] 41.Nielsen IØ, Vidas Olsen A, Dicroce-Giacobini J, Papaleo E, Andersen KK, Jäättelä M, et al. Comprehensive Evaluation of a Quantitative Shotgun Lipidomics Platform for Mammalian Sample Analysis on a High-Resolution Mass Spectrometer. Journal of the american society for mass spectrometry. 2020;31(4):894–907. doi: 10.1021/jasms.9b00136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref042] 42.Herzog R, Schuhmann K, Schwudke D, Sampaio JL, Bornstein SR, Schroeder M, et al. LipidXplorer: A Software for Consensual Cross-Platform Lipidomics. PLOS ONE. 2012;7(1):e29851. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref043] 43.Herzog R, Schwudke D, Shevchenko A. LipidXplorer: Software for Quantitative Shotgun Lipidomics Compatible with Multiple Mass Spectrometry Platforms. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2013;43:14.2.1–.2.30. doi: 10.1002/0471250953.bi1412s43 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref044] 44.Sud M, Fahy E, Cotter D, Brown A, Dennis EA, Glass CK, et al. LMSD: LIPID MAPS structure database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(Database issue):D527–32. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkl838 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref045] 45.Mooney LM, Al-Sakkaf KA, Brown BL, Dobson PRM. Apoptotic mechanisms in T47D and MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. Br J Cancer. 2002;87(8):909–17. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref046] 46.Kaufmann SH, Desnoyers S, Ottaviano Y, Davidson NE, Poirier GG. Specific proteolytic cleavage of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase: an early marker of chemotherapy-induced apoptosis. Cancer research. 1993;53(17):3976–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref047] 47.Jänicke RU. MCF-7 breast carcinoma cells do not express caspase-3. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2009;117(1):219–21. doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-0217-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref048] 48.Degterev A, Hitomi J, Germscheid M, Ch’en IL, Korkina O, Teng X, et al. Identification of RIP1 kinase as a specific cellular target of necrostatins. Nat Chem Biol. 2008;4(5):313–21. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.83 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref049] 49.Skouta R, Dixon SJ, Wang J, Dunn DE, Orman M, Shimada K, et al. Ferrostatins Inhibit Oxidative Lipid Damage and Cell Death in Diverse Disease Models. Journal of the american chemical society. 2014;136(12):4551–6. doi: 10.1021/ja411006a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref050] 50.Ostenfeld MS, Høyer-Hansen M, Bastholm L, Fehrenbacher N, Olsen OD, Groth-Pedersen L, et al. Anti-cancer agent siramesine is a lysosomotropic detergent that induces cytoprotective autophagosome accumulation. Autophagy. 2008;4(4):487–99. doi: 10.4161/auto.5774 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref051] 51.Bilgin M, Nylandsted J, Jäättelä M, Maeda K. Quantitative Profiling of Lysosomal Lipidome by Shotgun Lipidomics. In: Öllinger K, Appelqvist H, editors. Lysosomes: Methods and Protocols. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2017. p. 19–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref052] 52.Schueler UH, Kolter T, Kaneski CR, Blusztajn JK, Herkenham M, Sandhoff K, et al. Toxicity of glucosylsphingosine (glucopsychosine) to cultured neuronal cells: a model system for assessing neuronal damage in Gaucher disease type 2 and 3. Neurobiology of Disease. 2003;14(3):595–601. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2003.08.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref053] 53.Appelqvist H, Nilsson C, Garner B, Brown AJ, Kågedal K, Ollinger K. Attenuation of the lysosomal death pathway by lysosomal cholesterol accumulation. Am J Pathol. 2011;178(2):629–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2010.10.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref054] 54.Vanier M, Millat G. Niemann–Pick disease type C. Clinical Genetics. 2003;64(4):269–81. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2003.00147.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref055] 55.Ostenfeld MS, Fehrenbacher N, Høyer-Hansen M, Thomsen C, Farkas T, Jäättelä M. Effective tumor cell death by sigma-2 receptor ligand siramesine involves lysosomal leakage and oxidative stress. Cancer research. 2005;65(19):8975–83. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-0269 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref056] 56.Haq E, Giri S, Singh I, Singh AK. Molecular mechanism of psychosine-induced cell death in human oligodendrocyte cell line. Journal of neurochemistry. 2003;86(6):1428–40. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2003.01941.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref057] 57.Srikanth MP, Jones JW, Kane M, Awad O, Park TS, Zambidis ET, et al. Elevated glucosylsphingosine in Gaucher disease induced pluripotent stem cell neurons deregulates lysosomal compartment through mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2021;10(7):1081–94. doi: 10.1002/sctm.20-0386 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref058] 58.Nair S, Boddupalli CS, Verma R, Liu J, Yang R, Pastores GM, et al. Type II NKT-TFH cells against Gaucher lipids regulate B-cell immunity and inflammation. Blood. 2015;125(8):1256–71. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-09-600270 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277058.ref059] 59.Proia RL, Hla T. Emerging biology of sphingosine-1-phosphate: its role in pathogenesis and therapy. J Clin Invest. 2015;125(4):1379–87. doi: 10.1172/JCI76369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Galactosyl- and glucosylsphingosine induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization and cell death in cancer cells

Kamilla Stahl-Meyer

Mesut Bilgin

Lya K K Holland

Jonathan Stahl-Meyer

Thomas Kirkegaard

Nikolaj Havnsøe Torp Petersen

Kenji Maeda

Marja Jäättelä

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Reagents

Cell cultures

MCF7 cells

Fibroblasts

Treatments

Cell death assays

Propidium iodine (PI) and Hoechst-33342 staining

Transfections

Western blotting

Immunochemistry

Measurement of lysosomal pH

Sample preparation for lipidomics

Lipid extraction and shotgun lipidomics analyses

Statistics

Fig 3. GalSph and GlcSph induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization in MCF7 galectin-3-eGFP cells.

Results

GalSph and GlcSph kill MCF7 cells independent of apoptosis, ferroptosis, and necroptosis

Fig 1. GalSph- and GlcSph-induced death of MCF7 cells is independent of apoptosis, necroptosis and ferroptosis.

GalSph and GlcSph induce lysosomal leakage prior to plasma membrane permeabilization

Fig 2. CAD-resistant MCF7 cells are resistant against GalSph- and GlcSph-induced cell death but not to growth inhibition.

Exogenously supplied GalSph and GlcSph enter the lysosomes

Fig 4. Extracellular GalSph and GlcSph enter the lysosomes of MCF7 cells.

GalSph and GlcSph activate cAMP signalling pathway required for CAD-induced lysosome-dependent cell death

Fig 5. GalSph and GlcSph increase cAMP levels in MCF7 cells.

Cholesterol protects against lysosphingolipid-induced cell death

Fig 6. Cholesterol inhibits cell death induced by GalSph and GlcSph in MCF7 cells.

Fig 7. Niemann-Pick type C fibroblasts are resistant against GalSph- and GlcSph-induced cell death.

Discussion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Vladimir Trajkovic

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Vladimir Trajkovic

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Vladimir Trajkovic

Roles

Acceptance letter

Vladimir Trajkovic

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases