Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 10;18(2):e0281069. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281069

An in vitro carcinogenesis model for cervical cancer harboring episomal form of HPV16

Weerayut Wongjampa 1,2, Tomomi Nakahara 3, Katsuyuki Tanaka 4, Takashi Yugawa 5, Tipaya Ekalaksananan 1,2, Pilaiwan Kleebkaow 2,6, Naoki Goshima 7, Tohru Kiyono 8,*, Chamsai Pientong 1,2,*
Editor: Kazunori Nagasaka9
PMCID: PMC9916646  PMID: 36763589

Abstract

Deregulated expression of viral E6 and E7 genes often caused by viral genome integration of high-risk human papillomaviruses (HR-HPVs) into host DNA and additional host genetic alterations are thought to be required for the development of cervical cancer. However, approximately 15% of invasive cervical cancer specimens contain only episomal HPV genomes. In this study, we investigated the tumorigenic potential of human cervical keratinocytes harboring only the episomal form of HPV16 (HCK1T/16epi). We found that the HPV16 episomal form is sufficient for promoting cell proliferation and colony formation of parental HCK1T cells. Ectopic expression of host oncogenes, MYC and PIK3CAE545K, enhanced clonogenic growth of both early- and late-passage HCK1T/16epi cells, but conferred tumor-initiating ability only to late-passage HCK1T/16epi cells. Interestingly, the expression levels of E6 and E7 were rather lower in late-passage than in early-passage cells. Moreover, additional introduction of a constitutively active MEK1 (MEK1DD) and/or KRASG12V into HCK1T/16epi cells resulted in generation of highly potent tumor-initiating cells. Thus an in vitro model for progression of cervical neoplasia with episomal HPV16 was established. In the model, constitutively active mutation of PIK3CA, PIK3CAE545K, and overexpression of MYC, in the cells with episomal HPV16 genome were not sufficient, but an additional event such as activation of the RAS-MEK pathway was required for progression to tumorigenicity.

Introduction

Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers among women worldwide. Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomaviruses (HR-HPVs) is a causal factor for cervical cancer development. Among all the HR-HPVs, HPV16 is the most prevalent, reaching 61% of cervical cancer [1,2]. HPVs are non-enveloped, small DNA viruses with genomes of approximately 8,000 bps of double-stranded circular DNA. These viruses infect squamous epithelia at various anatomical sites including the cervix. HPV infection can cause hyper-proliferative lesions which are spontaneously resolved in most cases but can occasionally progress to cancer. In the productive viral life cycle, the viral genomes are established, maintained and amplified as nuclear episomes within keratinocytes. On the other hand, integration of the viral genomes is a crucial event which subverts the productive life cycle of the virus and is a major step towards carcinogenesis [35]. Typical integrants accompany complete or partial disruption of the E2 open reading frame (ORF) of the viral genome [6]. E2 protein functions as a transcriptional repressor for the viral early promoter driving expression of viral oncogenes, E6 and E7, thus the loss of E2’s inhibitory function results in overexpression of E6 and E7. Furthermore, deregulation of the viral promoter by genetic or epigenetic changes and/or the formation of chimeric mRNA with cellular sequences are also hypothesized as the causes of E6 and E7 overexpression [7]. Up-regulation of the E6 and E7 oncogenes of HR-HPVs in basal epithelial cells promotes cervical carcinogenesis via their abilities to increase cell proliferation, allowing accumulation of chromosomal abnormalities. Thus, the integration of the HR-HPV genome into host DNA is regarded as a key, even prerequisite, step for the development of cervical cancer.

However, it is still debated whether integration is an early or late event in neoplastic progression of HPV-infected cells, since some invasive cervical cancer specimens contain only episomal genomes of HR-HPVs. For instance, various studies reported that only episomal genomes of HPV16 are detected in between 26% and 48% of cervical cancer specimens [8,9]. The analysis of HPV physical status in cervical samples using the amplification of papillomavirus oncogene transcripts (APOT) assay demonstrated HPV integration in 3% (5/172) of CIN 2 lesions, 17% (36/216) of CIN 3 lesions and 62% (95/153) of cervical carcinomas [10]. Therefore, HR-HPV genome integration can occur in early stages and increases during neoplastic progression [10]. However, in many cases of cervical cancer, HR-HPV genomes are present as episomes and often only as episomes without any integration. Interestingly, the frequency of integration may differ by HPV type. HPV16, HPV18 and HPV45 genomes were integrated in 55% (33/60), 92% (33/36) and 83% (20/24), respectively, of invasive cervical cancer samples. For HPV31 and HPV33 corresponding values were 14% (2/14) and 37% (7/19), respectively [10]. Integration of oncogenic HPV genomes in cervical lesions might be a consequence rather than the cause of chromosomal instability induced by deregulated high-risk E6-E7 oncogene expression. To further investigate the significance of HPV integration, an experimental model mimicking cervical cancer with only episomal HPV genomes is needed.

Because E6 and E7 genes are always expressed in HPV-positive cervical cancer cells and can inactivate tumor suppressors, p53 and pRB, respectively, they are believed to play key roles in cervical carcinogenesis [11]. Epidemiological and experimental studies indicate that expression of E6 and E7 is necessary, but not sufficient, to induce cervical cancer and that additional genetic and/or epigenetic events are required [12]. Mutations or alterations in the expression of human oncogenes, including MYC [13], PIK3CA [14] and RAS [15], have been reported in cervical cancer. In previous studies, Narisawa-Saito et al. demonstrated that exogenous expression of oncogenic MYC and HRASG12V together with HPV16 E6E7 is sufficient for tumorigenic transformation of normal human cervical keratinocytes (HCKs) [16]. However, the effect of host oncogenes in cervical cancer harboring the episomal form of HPVs has not been extensively examined. The proto-oncogene MYC encodes a transcription factor that regulates cell proliferation, growth and apoptosis [17,18]. Deregulated expression or function of MYC is one of the most common abnormalities in human malignancy including cervical cancer [13,19]. The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinases (PI3Ks) are lipid kinases that regulate signaling pathways important for neoplasia, including cell proliferation, adhesion, survival, and motility [20]. Amplification and/or somatic mutations within the alpha catalytic subunit of PI3K (PIK3CA) are present in many human cancers including cervical cancer [21]. In cervical cancer patients with PIK3CA mutations, approximately 60% contain the E545K substitution, a mutation associated with an enhanced migratory phenotype in cervical cancer cells [22]. Thus, mutation or alteration in the expression of MYC and PIK3CA is frequently associated with development of cervical cancer.

In this study, we aimed to investigate the tumorigenic transformation of HCK1T cells carrying episomal HPV16 genomes (HCK1T-HPV16). In previous studies, the tumor cell line, TC-1, was generated from primary epithelial cells of C57BL/6 mice. The cells were immortalized with HPV16 E6 and E7 and subsequently transformed with HPV16 E6 and E7 and human c-Ha-ras oncogenes [23]. In addition, we have previously demonstrated that activated RAS and MYC overexpression in combination with HPV16 E6E7 overexpression in primary cervical keratinocytes confers high tumorigenicity to the cells. Therefore, in this study we examined the tumorigenic potentials of HCK1T-HPV16 with ectopic expression of oncogenic MYC and PIK3CAE545K. Furthermore, we tested whether additional alteration, such as of the genes MEK1DD or KRASG12V, is required for tumorigenesis and/or further progression. To our knowledge, this is the first in vitro carcinogenesis model for cervical cancer harboring HPV16 episomes without any sign of integration. Our results indicate what might be the minimum requirement of specific oncogenes for the development of cervical cancer harboring episomal forms of HR-HPV. These findings provide a better understanding for the roles of cellular and viral oncogenes in cervical carcinogenesis with or without HPV16 integration.

Materials and methods

Cell culture

Establishment of HCK1T and HCK1T-HPV16 cells was described previously [24,25]. Briefly, HCK1T was co-transfected with pAd/HPV16/neo which encodes the complete HPV16 genome flanked by two loxP sites, and with pxCANCre vector expressing Cre recombinase followed by G418 selection to establish HCK1T-HPV16 cells. These cells were maintained in EpiLife medium (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) supplemented with G418, penicillin and streptomycin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). The cell line was authenticated by the existence of HPV16 genome and expression of viral genes, E6 and E7, by western blotting as indicated in the Figures of this paper.

HeLa and 293T cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and antibiotics, penicillin and streptomycin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). All cells were cultured at 37°C in a 5% CO2 incubator. Doxycycline (DOX) and 4-hydroxytamoxifen (4-OHT) were dissolved in 70% ethanol and stored as high-concentration stocks at 4°C until used at the indicated concentrations. The concentrations of the stock solutions were as follows: DOX (Clontech, Mountain View, CA, USA) at 1 mg/ml and 4-OHT (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) at 100 μM. The cervical cancer cell lines, HeLa (a gift from Dr. M. Inagaki, JCRB9004, ICRB Cell Bank in 1996) were authenticated by Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis, expression of HPV18 E7 was confirmed by immunoblotting in September 2012. 293T cells were just used for virus packaging and the high transfection efficiency was confirmed by EGFP expression in each transfection and expression of SV40 large T antigen was confirmed in September 2012.

Plasmid construction, cell transfection and transduction

Expression plasmids were constructed by using the Gateway system according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Invitrogen, Life Technologies, Saint Aubin, France). An entry vector encoding human PIK3CAL30M (clone FLJ75190AAAN, NITE Biological Resource Center, Japan) was subjected to site-directed mutagenesis to construct an entry vector encoding PIK3CAE545K, pENTR221-PIK3CAE545K. An N-terminal 3XFLAG tag was inserted by inverse PCR to PIK3CAE545K and then F2A peptide sequence was inserted at 5’ of 3XFLAG-PIK3CAE545K by in-fusion reaction (Clontech, Palo Alto, CA, USA) to generate pENTR221-F2A-3XFLAG-PIK3CAE545K. pENTR221-MYC-F2A1-3xFLAG-PIK3CAE545K was constructed by in-fusion reaction, inserting a MYC fragment from CSII-TRE-Tight-MYC-F2A1-HRASG12V [26] at 5’ of F2A and then recombined with an expression vector, PB-TAC-ERN (kindly provided by Knut Woltjen in CiRA) to generate PB-TAC-ERN-MYC-F2A1-3xFLAG-PIK3CAE545K by LR reaction. A lentivirus vector expressing HA-tagged MEK1DD or MYC with tetracycline-inducible system, CSII-TRE-Tight-HA-MEK1DD or CSII-TRE-Tight-MYC, respectively and a retrovirus vector pQCXIP-mERT2-KRASG12V were previously described [27]. PiggyBAC transposase gene was inserted into pCDH-EF-RfA-IRES-puro, derived from pCDH-EF1α-MCS-IRES-Puro (System Biosciences LLC, Palo Alto, CA) by LR reaction. Detailed methods for the construction of the plasmids are available upon request. The production of recombinant lenti- and retro-viruses has been described previously [28]. PB-TAC-ERN-MYC-F2A1-3xFLAG-PIK3CAE545K and pCDH-EF-transposase-IRES-puro were co-transfected at the molar ratio of 1:1 to HCK1T-HPV16 cells using FuGENE HD (FUGENT LLC, Madison, WI) followed by sequential drug selection, first puromycin (1 μg/ml) for 2 days and then G418 (50 μg/ml) for 7 days so as to generate HCK1T-HPV16-tetON-MYC-F2A-3xFLAG-PIK3CAE545K cells. As the expression levels of MYC in HCK1T-HPV16-tetON-MYC-F2A-3xFLAG-PIK3CAE545K cells was unexpectedly low possibly due to inefficient cleavage of F2A peptide, they were subjected to serial lentivirus-mediated gene transduction with CSII-TRE-Tight-MYC at MOI = 10. The resultant cells were further transduced with CSII-TRE-Tight-HA-MEK1DD at MOI = 10 without drug selection or pQCXIP-mERT-KRASG12V at MOI = 3 followed by selection with puromycin (1 μg/ml). All the cell lines were used as pooled population without cloning.

Viral copy number detection by quantitative PCR

Genomic DNA (gDNA) was isolated from monolayer cultures of cells and tumor tissues using Wizard SV Genomic DNA Purification System according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). The isolated gDNA was quantified by spectrophotometry. Fifty nanograms of the gDNA was subjected to quantitative PCR (qPCR) using StepOne plus (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) as previously described [24]. Serial dilutions of linearized HPV16 genome purified from pUC-HPV16 plasmid DNA digested with BamHI were used as standards to measure the amount of HPV16 DNA. The copy number of HPV16 per cell was estimated based on the assumption that total human genomic DNA is 6.6 pg/diploid cell. PCR primers were designed within the E6 and L2 ORFs of HPV16. All PCRs were run in triplicate. P-values were determined using Student’s t-test. The following primers were used. E6: Forward 5’-GAACTGCAATGTTTCAGGACCC-3’ and Reverse 5’-TGTATAGTTGTTTGCAGCTCTGTGC-3’, L2: Forward 5’-ACAGATACACTTGCTCCTGTAAGACC-3’ and Reverse 5’-GCAGGTGTGGTATCAGTTGAAGTAGT-3’.

RNA extraction and reverse transcription (RT)-qPCR

Total RNA was isolated using a RNeasy Plus Mini kit (Qiagen, Venlo, Netherlands) following the manufacturer’s instructions. One microgram of total RNA was subjected to 10 μl reverse transcription (RT) reaction using a PrimeScript RT reagent kit (TAKARA BIO INC, Shiga, Japan) and 1 μl of the RT products was used for real-time PCR reactions to measure the mRNAs of interest. The PCR mixtures were prepared using KAPA SYBR FAST qPCR kits (Kapa Biosystems, Wilmington, MA, USA) and the real-time PCR was performed with StepOnePlus (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). The relative levels of the target mRNAs were calculated by a ΔΔCT method using GAPDH mRNA as an internal control. All PCRs were run in triplicate. P-values were determined by Student’s t- test. The following primers were used. GAPDH: Forward 5’-TCATCAGCAATGCCTCCTGCA-3’ and Reverse 5’-TGGGTGGCAGTGATGGCA-3’, HPV16 E2: Forward 5’-GAACTGCAACTAACGTTAGA-3’ and Reverse 5’-TCCATCAAACTGCACTTCCA-3’, HPV16 E6: Forward 5’-GAACTGCAATGTTTCAGGACCC-3’ and Reverse 5’-TGTATAGTTGTTTGCAGCTCTGTGC-3’, HPV16 E7: Forward 5’-GGAGGAGGATGAAATAGATGGTC-3’ and Reverse 5’-AGTACGAATGTCTACGTGTGTGC-3’.

Clonogenic assay

The clonogenic assay was performed as previously described [29]. Briefly, cells were harvested from exponential phase cultures by trypsinization, counted and seeded at 500 cells per well into six-well plates (Falcon, Corning, NY, USA) containing 2 mL of EpiLife medium (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) supplemented with antibiotics, penicillin and streptomycin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). Thereafter, the plates were incubated in a 5% CO2 incubator at 37°C without refeeding for 2 weeks. After incubation, the medium was aspirated and cells were washed with PBS. Colonies were fixed with fixation solution (1:7 v/v acetic acid/methanol) at room temperature (RT) for 5 minutes, then stained with Giemsa’s dye at RT for 2 hours. Colonies were washed with tap water and counted under a microscope.

Western blot analysis

Whole-cell proteins were extracted in a lysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 250 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, 1% NP-40, 20% glycerol, 0.1% SDS, 1% Deoxycholate) supplemented with 5% (v/v) protease inhibitor cocktail (Nacalai Tesque, Kyoto, Japan) and phosphatase inhibitors (500 μM sodium orthovanadate, 100 mM sodium fluoride, 10 mM sodium pyrophosphate). SDS-polyacrylamide gels were loaded with 20 μg of total cell lysate per lane as described previously [25]. A monoclonal antibody to HPV16 E6 (clone 47A4) raised against the N-terminal 16 amino acids peptide of HPV16 E6 was used for detection of the E6 protein [30]. All other antibodies were purchased as follows: primary antibodies against HPV16 E7 (clone 8C9) (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA), p53 (clone Ab6) (Oncogene Science/EMD Millipore, Billerica, MA, USA), MYC (clone C33), KRAS (clone F234) (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA, USA), PIK3CAp110 (cat no. 4249), p-AKT (cat no. 9271), AKT (cat no. 9272), p-mTOR (cat no. 2971), mTOR (cat no. 2972), MEK1/2 (cat no. 8727), p-ERK (cat no. 9101), ERK (cat no. 9102) (Cell Signaling Technologies, Danvers, MA, USA) and vinculin (cat no. v9264) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). Horseradish peroxidase-conjugated anti-mouse or anti-rabbit (Jackson Immunoresearch Laboratories, West Grove, PA, USA) immunoglobulins were used as secondary antibodies. The LAS3000 CCD-Imaging System (Fujifilm Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) was employed for detection of proteins visualized by Lumi-light plus western blotting substrate (Roche Applied Science, Penzberg, Germany).

Mouse xenograft

All surgical procedures and care administered to the animals were in accordance with institutional guidelines of the National Cancer Center in Japan. Prior to implantation, cells were incubated with 1 μg/ml DOX and/or 100 nM 4-OHT to induce expression of designated oncogenes for 2 days. A 100 μL volume of cell suspension mixed with Matrigel (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA, USA) at 1:1 was subcutaneously injected into female BALB/c nude mice (Clea Japan Inc., Tokyo, Japan) at 1x106 cells per site, under isoflurane anesthesia (20% v/v isoflurane in propylene glycol) in the clean bench. DOX and 4-OHT were administered to mice via drinking water at concentrations of 1 mg/ml and 0.2 mg/ml, respectively. The mice were sacrificed by deep isoflurane anesthesia, then the tumors were collected.

Statistical analysis

The data are presented as the mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean) and were compared using Student’s t-test or one-way ANOVA tests, as appropriate, in the Statistical Program for Social Sciences 13.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Results were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. All graphs were drafted using GraphPad Prism version 5.00.286 (GraphPad Prism, San Diego, California, USA).

Results

Characterization of HCK1T cells harboring episomal form of HPV16 genome

We started to establish an HPV16 episome-mediated carcinogenesis model of cervical cancer with HCK1T-HPV16, HCK1T stably maintaining episomal HPV16 genomes which was experimentally generated in our laboratory [24,25]. In this study, we used the term HCK1T/16epi to emphasize episomal HPV16 genomes. As described previously, HCK1T/16epi cells contained only episomal HPV16 genomes with approximately 100 copies per cell [24,25] though subpopulation of the cells derived from the same origin harbored approximately 50–100 copies per cell compared to standard plasmid (S1 Fig). The viral copy numbers in HCK1T/16epi were consistent with the copy numbers reported in clinical samples. Morphology of HCK1T/16epi cells at early passage (p29, 9 passages after introduction of episomal HPV16 [24,25]) and late passage (p51, 31 passages after transduction of episomal HPV16 [24,25]) resembled that of parental HCK1T (Fig 1A). The copy numbers of episomal HPV16 genomes were consistent in the cells isolated from early and late passage (Fig 1B). Since HCK1T/16epi cells were passaged every 5–7 days, these results demonstrated that cell morphology and the viral copy numbers are stably maintained over at least 110 days or 50 population doublings. Transcription levels of viral early genes, E2, E6 and E7, in HCK1T/16epi were also compared between early- and late-passage cells. As shown in Fig 1C and 1D, E2, E6 and E7 mRNA levels were higher in early-passage cells than they were in late-passage cells. In collinear with mRNA levels, western blot analysis showed that the expression levels of E6 and E7 oncoproteins were higher in early-passage cells than that in late-passage cells (Fig 1E). Cell proliferation and clonogenic assays showed a significant increase in cell proliferation and colony formation of HCK1T/16epi compared with parental HCK1T. Interestingly, late-passage HCK1T/16epi showed significantly higher ability to form colonies compared with the early-passage cells, even though the expression levels of viral oncoproteins, E6 and E7, were lower (Fig 1F and 1G). Consistent with previous results, these cells failed to form tumors in nude mice without additional alterations [16,26]. Our results indicated that the presence of the HPV16 genome in episomal form can enhance proliferation and clonogenic potential of HCK1T cells but was insufficient to induce tumorigenic transformation.

Fig 1. Characterization of the HCK1T cells harboring episomal form of HPV16 genome.

Fig 1

(A) Cell morphology of HCK1T/HPV16epi at early and late passage was compared to parental HCK1T cells. Scale bars represent 50 μm. (B) The copy number of HPV16 was measured by quantitative PCR using specific primers to the E6 and L2 ORFs of HPV16. Relative expression levels of HPV16 E6 and E7 mRNA in HCK1T/16epi, showing levels overall (C) and per viral copy, calculated using the following formula: Mean relative mRNA expression/mean relative HPV16 copy number (D). (E) Expression of HPV16 E6 and E7 oncoproteins was detected by western blotting using specific anti-HPV16 E6 and E7 antibodies and the levels of E6 and E7 were compared between early- and late-passage HCK1T/16epi cells. Parental HCK1T cells were included as a negative control. Levels of p53 and MCM7 proteins were also determined to show that E6 and E7 from episomal HPV16 genomes are able to reduce p53 or increase MCM7, a robust indicator of E7 activity [31], respectively. Vinculin was included as a loading control. The ability of the episomal form of HPV16 to promote cell transformation in HCK1T/16epi cells relative to the parental HCK1T cell line was demonstrated by examining growth curves and clonogenic potential. (F) Growth curves of early- as well as late-passage HCK1T/16epi cells and parental HCK1T cells. (G) Clonogenic potential of HCK1T/16epi and parental HCK1T cells. Each bar represents the mean of triplicate values ± SEM. **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001.

Sequential transduction of oncogenes into HCK1T cells harboring episomal form of HPV16 genome

HCK1T/16epi cells at early and late passage were further transduced with MYC and PIK3CAE545K oncogenes using the Tet-On expression vector system as described in Materials and Methods. No overt change in morphology was detected when the expression of specific oncogenes was induced with DOX (Fig 2A). The expression of individual transgenes and their downstream target proteins was confirmed by western blotting. As shown in Fig 2B, MYC and PIK3CAp110 protein levels were increased in the presence of DOX. Increased phosphorylation of AKT, a downstream target of PIK3CA, indicated that the expression of exogenous PIK3CAE545K augments activation of AKT. E6 protein expression was detected at low levels when compared with E6 gene expression level in Fig 1C and the protein band is unclear. This problem might be effected from the antibody clone used. However, E6 gene expression can be confirmed by the level of mRNA detected in the cells, shown in Fig 1C. The tumor-promoting potential of early- and late-passage HCK1T/16epi expressing the MYC and PIK3CAE545K oncogenes was examined by generating mouse xenografts. In this experiment, two mice were entirely used and four injection sites were set per mouse. As shown in Fig 2C and 2D, overexpression of MYC and PIK3CAE545K was sufficient to confer tumorigenicity to late-passage but not early-passage HCK1T/16epi cells. The presence and copy number of episomal HPV16 DNA in tumors generated with the late-passage HCK1T/16epi expressing MYC and PIK3CAE545K was examined by qPCR with two independent set of primers targeting E6 ORF and L2 ORF because total genomic DNA recovered from the tumors was not sufficient for southern blot analysis (S2 Fig). Pathological features of squamous cell carcinoma which are poorly differentiated malignant cells were apparent by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining (Fig 2D). From these data, we conclude that expression of MYC and PIK3CAE545K can readily confer a tumorigenic phenotype to only late-passages HCK1T/16epi cells. We next searched for additional alterations that might promote full transformation of early-passage HCK1T/16epi cells. As we reported that expression of HPV16 E6E7 and KRASG12V was sufficient to induce tumorigenicity of primary HCK cells, and the major signaling pathways downstream of KRAS include the PIK3CA/AKT and the MEK/ERK pathways, we focused on these two pathways, Both early- and late-passage HCK1T/16epi cells expressing tet-inducible MYC and PIK3CAE545K were further transduced with DOX-inducible expression of constitutively active MEK1, MEK1DD, or mERT-KRASG12V (ER-KRAS). In these cells, expression of MYC, PIK3CAE545K and MEK1DD could be induced by addition of DOX, and function of ER-KRASG12V chimeric protein could be activated by addition of 4-OHT. No overt changes in morphology were observed in HCK1T/16epi cells when expression of these oncogenes was induced (Fig 3A and 3B). The episomal status and the copy numbers of HPV16 DNA were not significantly different between the presence and the absence of the drugs (DOX and 4-OHT) in both early- and late-passage cells (Figs 3C, 3D and S1). The expression of individual transgenes and their downstream target proteins was confirmed by western blotting. As shown in Fig 3E and 3F, the expression of MYC, PIK3CAp110, MEK and KRAS proteins increased in the present of DOX and/or 4-OHT. Increased phosphorylation of AKT and mTOR which are the downstream target of PIK3CAp100 and also ERK which is the downstream target of KRAS and MEK confirmed that induced transgenes are functionally active. The expression levels of E6 and E7 proteins were comparable among parental HCK1T/16epi. Interestingly, the expression levels of E7 were decreased in KRASG12V-transduced cells compared to other cells. In addition, the HCK1T/16epi cells at late passage transduced with oncogenes were examined for their clonogenic potential. As expected, ectopic expression of MYC/PIK3CAE545K irrespective of additional expression of MEK1DD or ER-KRASG12V enhanced clonogenic ability. However, additional expression of MEK1DD or activation of ER-KRASG12V did not further enhance clonogenicity (S3 Fig). Activation of ER-KRASG12V alone in HCK1T/16epi cells induced macropinocytic cell death as reported previously [27].

Fig 2. Establishment of an in vitro model for cervical cancer with cells harboring episomal form of HPV16 genome and expression of defined oncogenes.

Fig 2

HCK1T/16epi cells transduced with indicated oncogenes were incubated with or without 1 μg/ml doxycycline (DOX) for 4 days. (A) Cell morphology of HCK1T/16epi cells did not change after expression of the indicated oncogenes. Scale bars represent 50 μm. (B) The expression of individual transgenes including MYC and PIK3CAp110 and their downstream target proteins including AKT and p-AKT were detected by western blotting. The expression levels of HPV16 E6 and E7 proteins in HCK1T/16epi cells were also examined. Vinculin was included as a loading control. (C) Tumor-promoting potential of the MYC and PIK3CAE545K oncogenes were compared between early and late passage of HCK1T/16epi cells by mouse xenografts. 1x106 cells mixed with Matrigel were subcutaneously injected into nude mice. Mice were given 1 mg/ml DOX. The size of each tumor was measured at the indicated time points. (D) Mice were sacrificed after tumor formation then tumor mass was measured. H&E staining of representative tumors isolated from nude mice injected with HCK1T/16epi expressing MYC and PIK3CAE545K. Scale bars represent 50 μm.

Fig 3. Characterization of the HCK1T/16epi cells expressing human oncogenes.

Fig 3

HCK1T/16epi cells transduced with the indicated oncogenes were incubated with or without 1 μg/ml DOX and/or 100 nM 4-OHT for 4 days. Cell morphology of HCK1T/16epi cells from early passage (A) as well as late passage (B) did not change after expression of the indicated oncogenes. Scale bars represent 50 μm. The copy number of HPV16 genomes was determined by quantitative PCR using primers specific to the E6 and L2 ORFs of HPV16, at early passage (C) and at late passage (D). Each bar represents the mean of triplicate values ± SEM. The expression of individual transgenes including MYC, PIK3CAp110, MEK and KRAS, and their downstream target proteins including AKT; p-AKT, mTOR; p-mTOR and ERK; p-ERK were detected by western blotting, in the cells from early passage (E) and late passage (F). The expression levels of HPV16 E6 and E7 proteins in HCK1T/16epi cells were also examined. Vinculin was included as a loading control.

Tumorigenicity in nude mice

Early- and late-passage HCK1T/16epi cells transduced with additional oncogenes were pretreated with DOX and/or 4-OHT or vehicle for 2 days and then subcutaneously transplanted into female BALB/c nude mice. In this experiment, twelve mice were entirely used and four injection sites were set per mouse. After cells injection, mice were then given 1 mg/ml DOX and/or 0.2 mg/ml 4-OHT, or vehicle via drinking water. As shown in Fig 4A and 4B, HCK1T/16epi with expression of both MYC/PIK3CAE545K and MEK1DD resulted rapid tumor formation regardless of the early-passage or the late-passage; tumor volumes reached more than 600 mm3 in all mice (100%; 4 of 4 for each passage) within 4 weeks for early-passage and 3 weeks for late-passage cells. HCK1T/16epi with the expression of MYC/PIK3CAE545K and activation of ER-KRASG12V also formed tumors (100%; 4 of 4) within 6 weeks for early-passage and 5 weeks for late-passage cells. We noted that early-passage HCK1T/16epi cells overexpressing MYC and PIK3CAE545K give rise tumors in 2 out of 3 mice (Fig 4C) in this particular experiment, whereas late-passage cells gave rise to tumors in all of 3 mice (Fig 4D). The differences in results of early-passage cells may be due to the differences in the drinking behavior of the mice, resulting in different doses of DOX uptake and leading to different tumor formations. Consistent with earlier observations, HCK1T/16epi cells expressing only MYC/PIK3CAE545K formed tumors at a much slower rate (100%; 4 of 4; within 2.5 months for early-passage and 2 months for late-passage cells). In contrast, HCK1T/16epi cells without induction of oncogenes failed to form tumors in nude mice untreated with DOX and/or 4-OHT (Fig 4A and 4B). In addition, the tumor volumes decreased after discontinuation of DOX administration, indicating the dependence of the tumor growth on the expression of MYC and PIK3CAE545K (Fig 4B). The presence and copy number of episomal HPV16 DNA in tumors generated with the early- and late-passage cells were examined by qPCR with two independent set of primers targeting E6 ORF and L2 ORF. Interestingly, the viral copy number in early passage cells was decreased in oncogenes-transduced cells compared to late passage cells (S4 Fig). Pathological features typical of squamous cell carcinoma which are poorly differentiated malignant cells were confirmed by H&E staining of these tumors (Fig 5A and 5B). We conclude that introduction of MEK1DD or ER-KRASG12V in addition to expression of MYC and PIK3CAE545K confer tumor initiating ability to early-passage HCK1T/16epi cells.

Fig 4. The tumorigenicity of HCK1T/16epi cells expressing oncogenes in nude mice.

Fig 4

Tumor-promoting potentials of the MYC, PIK3CAE545K, MEK1DD and ER-KRASG12V oncogenes were investigated by mouse xenografts. 1x106 cells mixed with Matrigel were subcutaneously injected into nude mice. Mice were given 1 mg/ml DOX and/or 0.2 mg/ml 4-OHT, or vehicle. The size of each tumor was measured at the indicated time points. The results from early-passage (A) and late-passage cells (B) are shown. Transgenic mice were sacrificed after tumor formation then tumor mass was compared for early-passage (C) and late-passage (D) HCK1T/16epi cells. DOX was removed from drinking water for mice injected with late-passage HCK1T/HPV16epi cells with MYC and PIK3CAE545K after tumor size reached more than 400 mm3.

Fig 5. H&E staining of tumor tissues.

Fig 5

H&E staining of representative tumors isolated from nude mice injected with HCK1T/16epi expressing MYC/PIK3CAE545K alone or with MEK1DD and/or ER-KRASG12V, at early passage (A) and at late passage (B). Scale bars represent 50 μm.

Discussion

The molecular etiology of cervical cancer in which the episomal form of HR-HPV presented is poorly understood due to the lack of a well-defined model. Therefore, we aimed to establish an in vitro model to allow the reconstruction of events leading to HR-HPV episome-mediated carcinogenesis. In this model, we used HCK1T cells harboring episomal form of the HPV16 genome (HCK1T/16epi) of relatively early and late passage. Interestingly, late-passage HCK1T/16epi showed higher clonogenic ability than the early-passage of the same cells did. Similarly, Wechsler et al. have reported that HSIL-like lines of normal immortalized human keratinocytes (NIKS) containing HPV16 episomal genomes showed a higher growth rate than LSIL-like lines and the parental NIKS line [32]. In addition, we also showed that ectopic expression of host oncogenes, including MYC and PIK3CAE545K, could readily confer a tumorigenic phenotype to late-passage HCK1T/16epi but not to early-passage, suggesting that the late passage cells acquire susceptible traits for tumorigenic transformation. However, differences in biological behavior between early- and late-passage cells cannot be explained by expression levels of E6 and E7, since they are not elevated in late-passage HCK1T/16epi cells. These results were consistent with prior observations with a W12 cell line which contained only episomal HPV16 genomes established from a clinical specimen [33]. In the W12 model, subclones from a late passage exhibited increased ability to form colonies compared with the same clone from early passages, although expression levels of viral E2, E6 and E7 were somewhat higher in the cells at early passage. Further studies are needed to assess what alterations contribute to such phenotypic differences.

HR-HPV DNA integration into the host chromosome and subsequent loss of E2 protein inhibitory function on viral promoters might be the main cause of over-expression of E6 and E7 and a major step towards carcinogenesis [35]. While several studies have shown that integration occurs in most cancer samples [34,35] and cancer-derived cell lines [36], others have reported that some invasive cervical cancer specimens only contain episomal HPV genomes [8,9]. This implies that dysregulation of E6 and E7 expression can occur in the absence of integration. We have shown here that the HPV16 episomal genome can support cellular oncogene induced-tumorigenic transformation of HCK1T cells by enhancing proliferation and clonogenic potential. In our previous study, we found that diffuse strong p16INK4a staining was not correlated with HR-HPV integration. Episomal HR-HPV genomes were found in p16INK4a-positive squamous-cell carcinoma lesions [37]. In addition, no significant difference was seen in levels of E6 and E7 mRNA transcripts among cervical cancer samples whether they harbor only episomal HR-HPV or integrated HR-HPV [8,38]. This suggests that cancers containing episomal viral genomes may also have undergone transcriptional dysregulation to up-regulate E6/E7 mRNA expression, thus leading to disruption of the normal cell cycle, cell transformation and chromosomal instability.

Alterations of oncogenes such as PIK3CA and MYC are seen frequently in HPV-positive tumors, thus reflecting the close relationship between genetic aberrations and HPV infection [14,39]. Indeed, a recent piece of evidence indicated that the PIK3CAE545K mutation corresponds to the APOBEC signature [40] and that HPV infection induced activation of APOBEC [41,42]. MYC activation combined with HPV infection may be important for neuroendocrine cervical carcinogenesis [43]. MYC can cooperate with RAS to transform rodent cells [44], and we previously reported that the expression of MYC significantly enhances a tumor initiating property of HCKs expressing HPV16 E6E7 driven from heterologous promoters and HRASG12V [16]. Indeed, we found that significant co-occurrence of MYC amplification and PIK3CA alteration in TCGA of cervical cancer though the status of HPV genomes is not known. Consistently, ectopic expression of MYC and PIK3CAE545K with and without MEK1DD or ER-KRASG12V enhances clonogenic potential of the late-passage HCK1T/16epi cells and hence tumor-forming ability. Furthermore, combined expression of MYC/PIK3CAE545K and MEK1DD or ER-KRASG12V in not only late-passage but also early-passage HCK1T/16epi cells gave rise to highly potent tumor-initiating cells (S1 Table). These results suggest overexpression of MYC and somatic mutations in PIK3CA such as PIK3CAE545K may facilitate neoplastic progression of HR-HPV episome containing cells in early-passage cells in this study. However, additional epigenetic and/or genetic alteration might be required for full transformation. In case of late-passage cells, a few somatic alterations such as MYC overexpression and PIK3CA mutation may be sufficient to progress to tumors even without viral integration.

In summary, we have established a novel in vitro model for human cervical cancer harboring the episomal form of HPV16. Our results show that a few alterations of host oncogenes, such as MYC, PIK3CA, MEK1 and KRAS, in conjunction with the episomal form of HPV16, might be sufficient to drive development of cervical cancer. Future use of this model will improve understanding of the roles of the episomal form of HPV and of specific oncogenes that are altered in cervical carcinogenesis.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Southern blot hybridization for the HPV genome in HCK1T/16epi cells.

BamHI or EcoRV-digested total DNA isolated from HCK1T/16epi after transfection with PB-TAC-ERN-MYC-F2A1-3xFLAG-PIK3CAE545K and CSII-TRE-Tight-HA-MEK1DD plasmid are shown. Digestion with BamHI, which cuts the HPV16 genome once, produced results of the expected size for the HPV16 genome. Digestion with EcoRV, which does not cut the HPV16 genome, showed open circular and supercoiled plasmid of HPV16 genome. The BamHI-linearized HPV16 plasmid was used for length and copy number standards. #1: HCK1T/HPV16epi (p35); #2: HCK1T/HPV16epi/MYC-PIK3CAE454K/MEK1DD (p63); #3: HCK1T/HPV16epi/MYC-PIK3CAE454K/MEK1DD (p47); #4: HCK1T-HPV16epi/MYC-PIK3CAE454K (p67).

(TIF)

S2 Fig. The copy number of HPV16 genomes in tumors generated with the late-passage HCK1T/16epi expressing MYC and PIK3CAE545K was measured by qPCR using primers specific to the E6 and L2 ORFs of HPV16.

The bar represents the mean of triplicate values ± SEM.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Cell density-dependent growth of HCK1T/16epi late-passage cells expressing oncogenes were analyzed by clonogenic assays.

Each bar represents the mean of triplicate values ± SEM. **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001.

(TIF)

S4 Fig

The copy number of HPV16 genomes in tumor tissues of early-passage (A) and late-passage (B) cells were determined by qPCR using primers specific to the E6 and L2 ORFs of HPV16. Each bar represents the mean of triplicate values ± SEM.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Numbers of nude mice developing tumors after injection of 1x106 HCK1T/16epi cells (per site) expressing MYC, PIK3CAE545K, MEK1DD and ER-KRASG12V.

(DOCX)

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank T. Ishiyama, Y. Yoshimatsu, C. Kohno, K. Dendo, E. Kabasawa and Y. Gotoh for expert technical assistance; Prof. David Blair for editing the MS via Publication Clinic KKU, Thailand.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This study was supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research in the form of a grant to TK [22jk0210009], Khon Kaen University, Thailand in the form of a grant to PK [620008002], the Program Management Unit for Human Resources & Institutional Development, Research and Innovation in the form of a grant to TE [B05F630053], Research and Graduate Studies, Khon Kaen University in the form of a grant to CP [RP65-8-001], and by the Post-Doctoral Training Program from Khon Kaen University, Thailand to WW and CP [PD2562-12].

References

  • 1.de Sanjose S, Quint WG, Alemany L, Geraets DT, Klaustermeier JE, Lloveras B, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(11):1048–56. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70230-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet‐Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108. doi: 10.3322/caac.21262 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Biryukov J, Meyers C. Papillomavirus infectious pathways: a comparison of systems. Viruses. 2015;7(8):4303–25. doi: 10.3390/v7082823 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Groves IJ, Coleman N. Pathogenesis of human papillomavirus‐associated mucosal disease. J Pathol. 2015;235(4):527–38. doi: 10.1002/path.4496 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Network CGAR. Integrated genomic and molecular characterization of cervical cancer. Nature. 2017;543(7645):378. doi: 10.1038/nature21386 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Luft F, Klaes R, Nees M, Durst M, Heilmann V, Melsheimer P, et al. Detection of integrated papillomavirus sequences by ligation‐mediated PCR (DIPS‐PCR) and molecular characterization in cervical cancer cells. Int J Cancer. 2001;92(1):9–17. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Da Silva MLR, De Albuquerque BHDR, Allyrio TADMF, De Almeida VD, Cobucci RNDO, Bezerra FL, et al. The role of HPV‑induced epigenetic changes in cervical carcinogenesis. Biomed Rep. 2021;15(1):1–20. doi: 10.3892/br.2021.1436 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cheung JL, Cheung T-H, Mei YY, Chan PK. Virological characteristics of cervical cancers carrying pure episomal form of HPV16 genome. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131(2):374–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.08.026 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pirami L, Giache V, Becciolini A. Analysis of HPV16, 18, 31, and 35 DNA in pre-invasive and invasive lesions of the uterine cervix. J Clin Pathol. 1997;50(7):600–4. doi: 10.1136/jcp.50.7.600 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Vinokurova S, Wentzensen N, Kraus I, Klaes R, Driesch C, Melsheimer P, et al. Type-dependent integration frequency of human papillomavirus genomes in cervical lesions. Cancer Res. 2008;68(1):307–13. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-2754 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hebner CM, Laimins LA. Human papillomaviruses: basic mechanisms of pathogenesis and oncogenicity. Rev Med Virol. 2006;16(2):83–97. doi: 10.1002/rmv.488 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zur Hausen H. Papillomaviruses and cancer: from basic studies to clinical application. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2(5):342–50. doi: 10.1038/nrc798 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhang A, Maner S, Betz R, Angstrom T, Stendahl U, Bergman F, et al. Genetic alterations in cervical carcinomas: frequent low‐level amplifications of oncogenes are associated with human papillomavirus infection. Int J Cancer. 2002;101(5):427–33. doi: 10.1002/ijc.10627 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bertelsen BI, Steine SJ, Sandvei R, Molven A, Laerum OD. Molecular analysis of the PI3K‐AKT pathway in uterine cervical neoplasia: frequent PIK3CA amplification and AKT phosphorylation. Int J Cancer. 2006;118(8):1877–83. doi: 10.1002/ijc.21461 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Alonio LV, Picconi MA, Dalbert D, Mural J, Bartt O, Bazan G, et al. Ha-ras oncogene mutation associated to progression of papillomavirus induced lesions of uterine cervix. J Clin Virol. 2003;27(3):263–9. doi: 10.1016/s1386-6532(02)00181-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Narisawa-Saito M, Yoshimatsu Y, Ohno S-i, Yugawa T, Egawa N, Fujita M, et al. An in vitro multistep carcinogenesis model for human cervical cancer. Cancer Res. 2008;68(14):5699–705. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-6862 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cole MD, McMahon SB. The Myc oncoprotein: a critical evaluation of transactivation and target gene regulation. Oncogene. 1999;18(19):2916–24. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1202748 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Menssen A, Hermeking H. Characterization of the c-MYC-regulated transcriptome by SAGE: identification and analysis of c-MYC target genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99(9):6274–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.082005599 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Soh L, Heng D, Lee I, Ho T, Hui K. The relevance of oncogenes as prognostic markers in cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2002;12(5). doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1438.2002.01137.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vivanco I, Sawyers CL. The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase–AKT pathway in human cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2(7):489–501. doi: 10.1038/nrc839 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.McIntyre JB, Wu JS, Craighead PS, Phan T, Kobel M, Lees-Miller SP, et al. PIK3CA mutational status and overall survival in patients with cervical cancer treated with radical chemoradiotherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(3):409–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.12.019 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Arjumand W, Merry CD, Wang C, Saba E, McIntyre JB, Fang S, et al. Phosphatidyl inositol-3 kinase (PIK3CA) E545K mutation confers cisplatin resistance and a migratory phenotype in cervical cancer cells. Oncotarget. 2016;7(50):82424. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.10955 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lin K-Y, Guarnieri FG, Staveley-O’Carroll KF, Levitsky HI, August JT, Pardoll DM, et al. Treatment of established tumors with a novel vaccine that enhances major histocompatibility class II presentation of tumor antigen. Cancer Res. 1996;56(1):21–6. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nakahara T, Tanaka K, Ohno S-I, Egawa N, Yugawa T, Kiyono T. Activation of NF-κB by human papillomavirus 16 E1 limits E1-dependent viral replication through degradation of E1. J Virol. 2015;89(9):5040–59. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00389-15 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Narisawa-Saito M, Handa K, Yugawa T, Ohno S, Fujita M, Kiyono T. HPV16 E6-mediated stabilization of ErbB2 in neoplastic transformation of human cervical keratinocytes. Oncogene. 2007;26(21):2988–96. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1210118 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Narisawa-Saito M, Inagawa Y, Yoshimatsu Y, Haga K, Tanaka K, Egawa N, et al. A critical role of MYC for transformation of human cells by HPV16 E6E7 and oncogenic HRAS. Carcinogenesis. 2012;33(4):910–7. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgs104 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dendo K, Yugawa T, Nakahara T, Ohno S-I, Goshima N, Arakawa H, et al. Induction of non-apoptotic programmed cell death by oncogenic RAS in human epithelial cells and its suppression by MYC overexpression. Carcinogenesis. 2018;39(2):202–13. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgx124 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yugawa T, Handa K, Narisawa-Saito M, Ohno S-I, Fujita M, Kiyono T. Regulation of Notch1 gene expression by p53 in epithelial cells. Mol Cell Biol. 2007;27(10):3732–42. doi: 10.1128/MCB.02119-06 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yugawa T, Narisawa-Saito M, Yoshimatsu Y, Haga K, Ohno S-I, Egawa N, et al. ΔNp63α repression of the Notch1 gene supports the proliferative capacity of normal human keratinocytes and cervical cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2010;70(10):4034–44. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-4063 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yoshimatsu Y, Nakahara T, Tanaka K, Inagawa Y, Narisawa‐Saito M, Yugawa T, et al. Roles of the PDZ‐binding motif of HPV 16 E6 protein in oncogenic transformation of human cervical keratinocytes. Cancer Sci. 2017;108(7):1303–9. doi: 10.1111/cas.13264 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Brake T, Connor JP, Petereit DG, Lambert PF. Comparative analysis of cervical cancer in women and in a human papillomavirus-transgenic mouse model: identification of minichromosome maintenance protein 7 as an informative biomarker for human cervical cancer. Cancer Res. 2003;63(23):8173–80. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Isaacson Wechsler E, Wang Q, Roberts I, Pagliarulo E, Jackson D, Untersperger C, et al. Reconstruction of human papillomavirus type 16-mediated early-stage neoplasia implicates E6/E7 deregulation and the loss of contact inhibition in neoplastic progression. J Virol. 2012;86(11):6358–64. doi: 10.1128/JVI.07069-11 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gray E, Pett MR, Ward D, Winder DM, Stanley MA, Roberts I, et al. In vitro progression of human papillomavirus 16 episome-associated cervical neoplasia displays fundamental similarities to integrant-associated carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 2010;70(10):4081–91. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-3335 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Corden S, Sant-Cassia L, Easton A, Morris A. The integration of HPV-18 DNA in cervical carcinoma. Mol Pathol. 1999;52(5):275. doi: 10.1136/mp.52.5.275 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cullen AP, Reid R, Campion M, Lörincz A. Analysis of the physical state of different human papillomavirus DNAs in intraepithelial and invasive cervical neoplasm. J Virol. 1991;65(2):606–12. doi: 10.1128/JVI.65.2.606-612.1991 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Smotkin D, Wettstein FO. Transcription of human papillomavirus type 16 early genes in a cervical cancer and a cancer-derived cell line and identification of the E7 protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986;83(13):4680–4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.83.13.4680 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chaiwongkot A, Vinokurova S, Pientong C, Ekalaksananan T, Kongyingyoes B, Kleebkaow P, et al. Differential methylation of E2 binding sites in episomal and integrated HPV 16 genomes in preinvasive and invasive cervical lesions. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(9):2087–94. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27906 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hafner N, Driesch C, Gajda M, Jansen L, Kirchmayr R, Runnebaum I, et al. Integration of the HPV16 genome does not invariably result in high levels of viral oncogene transcripts. Oncogene. 2008;27(11):1610–7. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1210791 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Durst M, Croce CM, Gissmann L, Schwarz E, Huebner K. Papillomavirus sequences integrate near cellular oncogenes in some cervical carcinomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987;84(4):1070–4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.84.4.1070 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Henderson S, Chakravarthy A, Su X, Boshoff C, Fenton TR. APOBEC-mediated cytosine deamination links PIK3CA helical domain mutations to human papillomavirus-driven tumor development. Cell Rep. 2014;7(6):1833–41. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.05.012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Litwin TR, Clarke MA, Dean M, Wentzensen N. Somatic host cell alterations in HPV carcinogenesis. Viruses. 2017;9(8):206. doi: 10.3390/v9080206 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mirabello L, Yeager M, Yu K, Clifford GM, Xiao Y, Zhu B, et al. HPV16 E7 genetic conservation is critical to carcinogenesis. Cell. 2017;170(6):1164–74. e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.08.001 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Yuan H, Krawczyk E, Blancato J, Albanese C, Zhou D, Wang N, et al. HPV positive neuroendocrine cervical cancer cells are dependent on Myc but not E6/E7 viral oncogenes. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–11. doi: 10.1038/srep45617 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Land H, Parada LF, Weinberg RA. Tumorigenic conversion of primary embryo fibroblasts requires at least two cooperating oncogenes. Nature. 1983;304(5927):596–602. doi: 10.1038/304596a0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kazunori Nagasaka

5 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-22148An in vitro carcinogenesis model for cervical cancer harboring episomal form of HPV16PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. 

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

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript to Plos One.

Our expert reviewers have commented on the manuscript. Please revise it according to their comments.

We look forward to your revision.

Best regards,

Plos One editorial office

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 20 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,

Kazunori Nagasaka

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. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

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.

Additional Editor Comments :

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript to Plos One.

Our expert reviewers have commented on the manuscript. Please revise it according to their comments.

We look forward to your revision.

Best regards,

Plos One editorial office

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: In this study, the authors aim to investigate the question which additional factors are necessary to render cells tumorigenic that carry a purely episomal form of HPV16. They make use of a previously established cell system.

Major:

Especially the mouse experiments are not described in sufficient detail. How many mice per group were used? How many tumors were set per mouse? Do figures 2C and 4AB reflect the means of mice per group, or do they show single mice and show the mean of multiple tumors? There is also an inconsistency between the results text for Fig. 4, where 3 mice per group are mentioned for early passage MYC + PIK3CA/E545K mice, and Suppl. Table 4, where altogether 8 mice are stated for this treatment.

Most important: Throughout the Results section, the authors only describe part of the figures. However, the non-mentioned parts often contradict their claims. In order of importance:

1) Early passage cells with MYC and PIK3CA/E545K are not tumorigenic in Figure 2, and the authors continue to state that other factors are necessary. However, in Figure 4, the exact same cells are tumorigenic. Also the version of the cells with ER-KRAS but without the inducing agent are tumorigenic. It is thus not correct to conclude that additional factors are necessary, as the presented data show otherwise.

2) In Figure 1, the authors find that E6 and E7 levels are lower in late passage cells than in early passage cells. In Figure 2, it is the other way round, which is not discussed or even mentioned.

3) Figure 4 needs to be described much better. Why are there 2 groups with the same treatment in A – and why do they behave completely differently?

4) Figure 2, description of panels E and F: several proteins behave differently than in Fig. 2B.

The authors mention and describe “data not shown” in several parts of the manuscript. All described data should be shown. In the description of Figure 2 (lines 318ff) experiments are described that are not part of the figure.

The quality of some Western blot panels is not fit for publication (e.g. E6 in 2B). There obviously also is a loading issue in panels 2E and 2F, with clearly less protein in the last two or three slots, respectively.

The authors need to make sure to provide proper data, show and describe all data and methods, and adjust their conclusions so that they reflect the experimental results.

Minor:

Intro: The statements in line 64-66 should be supported by a reference.

Intro, line 93: Ref 11 could be replaced by a more well-known review of HPV biology.

Intro, line 133 ff: Not only the authors have shown previously that activated RAS is necessary to render E6E7-immortalized cells tumorigenic. This is actually well known in the field. The authors should cite the respective prior literature (e.g. the description of generation of the TC-1 cell line).

Methods, line 212: The methodology for the clonogenic assay seems rather short.

Statistics: The authors should double-check if standard error of the mean (SEM) is really the correct measure of variance for their data. Standard deviation (SD) seems more appropriate.

Results, lines 263 ff, referring to Fig. S1: It is not clear how copy number can be deducted from Fig. S1. The authors refer to subpopulations of cells with only 30 copy numbers, but no such populations are shown in the figure.

Results, line 297: MCM7 should be introduced. In the introduction, only Rb is mentioned as a E7 target protein. Furthermore, an increase is described, which cannot be seen in Fig 1.

Results, line 324: Also the upper panels of 2D should be mentioned, or otherwise removed. The histological pathological features for SCC should be enumerated, so that readers not used to histology can understand the shown staining (holds also true for Fig. 5).

Results, line 340: In the late passage cells, HPV copy numbers do go down markedly, contrary to the description.

Results, line 344: Describe more clearly which phosphorylated protein is a marker for functionality of which transgene. Early passage parental cells are not shown in Fig. 3E.

Results, line 365 and later: Nude mice are suddenly described as transgenic.

Results, lines 401-403: These data are not shown.

Discussion, line 464: When MYC and RAS are sufficient to transform rodent cells, the outhors should test if cells that have received both transgenes still need the HPV oncogene expression.

Discussion, lines 429 and 475: It is an overstatement that early passage HCK1T16epi cells resemble LSIL and late passage cells HSIL – no experiments to compare any biological features were done.

Editorial:

Results, lines 333/334: Make sure to stay with “DOX” – switching to “tet” without an explanation is confusing.

Results, Figure legend 3: The last sentence needs to be moved to the end of the description of panel C and D.

Discussion, first sentence: This sentence is incomplete.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Wongjampa et al. describes a novel cell culture system that recapitulates the tumorigenicity of HPV-induced cervical cancer, particularly one containing only the episomal form of HPV16. Starting from human cervical keratinocytes transduced with circular HPV16 genomes (HCK1T/16epi), the authors introduced various host oncogenes, MYC, PIK3CAE545K, MEK1DD, and KRASG12V, into the cells, and examined the tumor-forming ability of the resulting cells using mouse xenografts. Interestingly, forced expression of MYC and PIK3CAE545K conferred a tumorigenic phenotype to late passages of HCK1T/16epi, but not to their early passages. Moreover, additional introduction of MEK1DD or KRASG12V conferred tumorigenic potential also to the early passages of HCK1T/16epi.

Although the W12 cell line derived from HPV16-positive, CIN1 lesions has widely been used as a conventional system to analyze the life cycle and oncogenicity of HPV16, the cell culture system reported in this study not only provide a new in vitro model for only viral episome-containing cervical cancer, but also enable genetic manipulation of the HPV genome and cellular genes to define the roles of individual viral and host genes in cancer development, thus will contribute to a better understanding of HPV-induced carcinogenesis.

Major comments:

(1) To state that HPV integration is not always required for virus tumorigenicity, it is very important to show the presence of viral episomes during the course of cell culture. The data of virus southern blotting (Fig S1) should be presented with more time points and cell types.

(2) Line 272: “cell morphology and the viral copy numbers are stably maintained over at least 110 days or 50 population doublings.” It is interesting to see stable maintenance of HPV genomes for such a long period, but is it necessary to continuously add G418 to the culture medium? This should be clarified.

(3) Line 321: “The viral copy numbers measured by two independent primer sets were consistent” The data should be presented.

(4) Line 401: “In all tumors, HPV16 DNA was present mainly as an episomal form and the viral copy numbers were comparable with original 2D culture.” What does “mainly” mean? Is there any trace of an integration signal? Also, the data of viral copy numbers should be presented.

(5) The different behavior between early and late passages in inducing tumor growth in mouse is intriguing, but can this be fully reproduced with another batch of HCK1T/16epi cells? All experiments seem to be conducted with a pool of cells, but not a selected single clone?

(6) In Fig 3E and 3F, the expression levels of E7 seem to be lower in KRASG12V-transduced cells than other cells. “The expression levels of E6 and E7 proteins were comparable ~ ” (line 344-347) should be modified.

Minor comments:

(1) Caution should be taken regarding the paper by Hu et al. (ref. 10) because the integration frequency might be overestimated in that study due to unreliable identification of HPV integration reads by their bioinformatics analyses. Please see “Artifacts in the data of Hu et al” Nigel Dyer et al. Nat Genet. 2016 Jan;48(1):2-4.

(2) Line 423: “The molecular etiology of cervical cancer in which the episomal form of HR-HPV is poorly understood due to the lack of a well-defined model.” This sentence should be rephrased.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 10;18(2):e0281069. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281069.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


19 Oct 2022

Response to the Academic Editor:

Journal Requirements:

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

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

Reply: We thank the editor for the suggestion. We have checked the manuscript style according to PLOS ONE's style requirements. Please see the revised manuscript.

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

Reply: We thank the editor for the suggestion. We have already included the details of mice anesthesia and sacrifice methods in the materials and methods section of the revised manuscript with track changes. Please see the materials and methods section in line 259-262.

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.

Reply: We thank the editor for the comment and suggestion. We have already provided the raw blot images as a PDF file. Please see the supporting information file “S1_raw_images”.

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 Fig share 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.

Reply: We thank the editor for the information. We have already added the reference to support the data and removed the phrase that refers to the data are not a core part of the research being present in our study. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 262-265, 300-301 and 374.

Response to the Reviewer #1:

In this study, the authors aim to investigate the question which additional factors are necessary to render cells tumorigenic that carry a purely episomal form of HPV16. They make use of a previously established cell system.

Major comments:

1. Especially the mouse experiments are not described in sufficient detail. How many mice per group were used? How many tumors were set per mouse? Do figures 2C and 4AB reflect the means of mice per group, or do they show single mice and show the mean of multiple tumors? There is also an inconsistency between the results text for Fig. 4, where 3 mice per group are mentioned for early passage MYC+PIK3CA/E545K mice, and Suppl. Table 4, where altogether 8 mice are stated for this treatment.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment.

In Figure 2C, the study of tumor-promoting potential of the MYC and PIK3CAE545K oncogenes that were compared between early and late passage of HCK1T/16epi cells by mouse xenografts. In this study, two mice were entirely used and four injection sites were set per mouse. The 1st mouse was injected with early passage cells containing MYC and PIK3CAE545K genes, and the 2nd mouse was injected with late passage cells containing MYC and PIK3CAE545K genes.

We already added the description in the result section of the revised manuscript with track changes. Please see the result section in line 334-335.

In Figure 4, tumor-promoting potentials of MYC, PIK3CAE545K, MEK1DD and ER-KRASG12V oncogenes were investigated by mouse xenografts, a total of 12 mice were injected with early passage cells (6 mice) or late passage cells (6 mice) containing MYC, PIK3CAE545K, MEK1DD, and ER-KRASG12V genes, with DOX and 4-OHT activation and four injection site were set per mouse as shown in S1 Table.

We already added the description in the result section of the revised manuscript with track changes. Please see the result section in line 409-410.

For the graphs representing tumor volume, each line represents a mouse and the dots on the curve at each time point represent the mean of the four positions of tumor mass in one mouse.

In Figure 4A, the group injected with early passage cells containing MYC and PIK3CAE545K genes used a total of 3 mice, of which only 1 had tumors at all 4 sites, represented by numbers 4/4 as shown in S1 Table.

In S1 Table, () showed latency that was determined as the time (weeks) taken before a palpable mass could be detected as noted. Therefore, numbers (8) or (3) in S1 Table represent the number of weeks in which the size of the tumor can be measured after DOX stimulation in HCK1T16epi/MYC-PIK3CAE545K and HCK1T16epi/MYC-PIK3CAE545K-MEK1DD, respectively.

2. Most important: Throughout the Results section, the authors only describe part of the figures. However, the non-mentioned parts often contradict their claims. In order of importance:

2.1 Early passage cells with MYC and PIK3CA/E545K are not tumorigenic in Figure 2, and the authors continue to state that other factors are necessary. However, in Figure 4, the exact same cells are tumorigenic. Also the version of the cells with ER-KRAS but without the inducing agent are tumorigenic. It is thus not correct to conclude that additional factors are necessary, as the presented data show otherwise.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment.

In Figure 2, one mouse was injected with early passage cells containing MYC and PIK3CAE545K genes, and no tumor was observed in this mouse. This study confirms the previous result.

In Figure 4, a total of 3 mice were injected with early passage cells containing MYC and PIK3CAE545K genes. Two were DOX-stimulated via drinking water, but only one had tumors. In addition, the version of the early passage cells with MYC/PIK3CAE545K/ER-KRASG12V, a mouse was DOX-stimulated via drinking water to induce the expression of MYC and PIK3CA and this mouse also had tumors. The differences in these results may be due to the differences in the drinking behavior of the mice, resulting in different doses of DOX uptake and leading to different tumor formations.

We already added the description in the result section of the revised manuscript with track changes. Please see the result section in line 420-422.

From Figure 4C, the tumors occurring in these groups of mice were very small and It took longer to develop tumors compared to those with the MEK1DD or ER-KRAS genes. Therefore, we conclude that the addition of the MEK1DD or ER-KRAS genes to the early passage cells is a key factor in the formation of tumors.

2.2 In Figure 1, the authors find that E6 and E7 levels are lower in late passage cells than in early passage cells. In Figure 2, it is the other way round, which is not discussed or even mentioned.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. In Figure 1 shows the expression levels of E6 and E7 in HCK1T/16epi cells, which were found to have higher expression levels in the early passage compared to the late passage. Contrary to Figure 2 shows the expression levels of E6 and E7 observed in HCK1T/16epi cells with the addition of MYC and PIK3CAE545K genes, which induce proliferation and clonogenicity of the cells and might be resulting in increased expression of E7 in the late passage.

2.3 Figure 4 needs to be described much better. Why are there 2 groups with the same treatment in A and why do they behave completely differently?

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. In Figure 4A and 4C, a total of 3 mice were injected with early passage cells containing MYC and PIK3CAE545K genes. Two were DOX-stimulated via drinking water, but only one had tumors. The differences in results may be due to the differences in the drinking behavior of the mice, resulting in different doses of DOX uptake and leading to different tumor formations.

We already added the description in the result section of the revised manuscript with track changes. Please see the result section in line 420-422.

2.4 Figure 3, description of panels E and F: several proteins behave differently than in Fig. 2B.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment.

In Figures 3E and 3F, as the MEK1DD and ER-KRAS genes were added in addition to the MYC and PIK3CAE545K genes. Therefore, protein types associated with these genes were increased compared to Figure 2B.

As you can see in the Figures 3E and 3F, increased phosphorylation of AKT and mTOR which are the downstream target of PIK3CAp100 and also ERK which is the downstream target of KRAS and MEK confirmed that induced transgenes are functionally active.

We have made corrections, please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 363-365.

3. The authors mention and describe “data not shown” in several parts of the manuscript. All described data should be shown. In the description of Figure 2 (lines 318ff) experiments are described that are not part of the figure.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment and apologize for the mistake. We have already added the reference to support the data and removed the phrase that refers to the data are not a core part of the research being present in our study. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 262-265, 300-301 and 374.

For Figure 2, we have made corrections, please see the revised manuscript with track changes line 340-343 and included the figure in the supporting information: S2 Fig in S1 File.

4. The quality of some Western blot panels is not fit for publication (e.g. E6 in 2B). There obviously also is a loading issue in panels 2E and 2F, with clearly less protein in the last two or three slots, respectively.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. For Western blot, we are sure that there were no problems with protein loading, as observed with similar levels of the vinculin (control protein) across all wells. Because of the E6 protein has a very low expression. This makes the protein bar thin and unclear. However, decreased of p53 protein confirmed that E6 is expressed and functionally active.

5. The authors need to make sure to provide proper data, show and describe all data and methods, and adjust their conclusions so that they reflect the experimental results.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We make sure to provide accurate information, describe all data and methods such as in line 220-231 and also summarize the results in accordance with the experimental results. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes.

Minor comments:

1. Intro: The statements in line 64-66 should be supported by a reference.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have already added a reference according to the instructions. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 66 and reference no. 7.

2. Intro, line 93: Ref 11 could be replaced by a more well-known review of HPV biology.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have already changed the reference according to the instructions. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 96 and reference no. 11.

3. Intro, line 133 ff: Not only the authors have shown previously that activated RAS is necessary to renderE6E7-immortalized cells tumorigenic. This is actually well known in the field. The authors should cite the respective prior literature (e.g. the description of generation of the TC-1 cell line).

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have already added a reference according to the instructions. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 116-119 and reference no. 23.

4. Methods, line 212: The methodology for the clonogenic assay seems rather short.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have already added the details of clonogenic assay in the materials and methods section of the revised manuscript with track changes. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 220-231.

5. Statistics: The authors should double-check if standard error of the mean (SEM) is really the correct measure of variance for their data. Standard deviation (SD) seems more appropriate.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have checked and found that both methods are consistent. And in this experiment, we chose to use the standard error of the mean (SEM).

6. Results, lines 263 ff, referring to Fig. S1: It is not clear how copy number can be deducted from Fig. S1. The authors refer to subpopulations of cells with only 30 copy numbers, but no such populations are shown in the figure.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment and apologize for the mistake. We have made corrections, please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 280-283.

7. Results, line 297: MCM7 should be introduced. In the introduction, only Rb is mentioned as a E7 target protein. Furthermore, an increase is described, which cannot be seen in Fig 1.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have introduced the correlation between E7 and MCM7 in the results section of the revised manuscript with track changes. Please see the results section in line 315-316 and reference no. 31.

In Figure 1E, it is seen that the level of MCM7 protein in early passage cells was slightly increased compared to parental cells, while those in late passage cells showed the same level as parental cells. This may be due to the low expression of E7 protein in the late passage cells.

8. Results, line 324: Also the upper panels of 2D should be mentioned, or otherwise removed. The histological pathological features for SCC should be enumerated, so that readers not used to histology can understand the shown staining (holds also true for Fig. 5).

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have made corrections according to the instructions. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 340-344.

9. Results, line 340: In the late passage cells, HPV copy numbers do go down markedly, contrary to the description.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. In figures 3C and 3D, the copy number of HPV16 DNA in late passage cells was slightly decreased when compared with early passage cells but did not show significant differences between the presence and the absence of the drugs (DOX and 4-OHT) in the same type of cells.

10. Results, line 344: Describe more clearly which phosphorylated protein is a marker for functionality of which transgene. Early passage parental cells are not shown in Fig. 3E.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have made corrections according to the instructions. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 363-365.

In Figure 3E, we apologize for the imperfection of the western blot experiment which we did not include early passage parental cells. However, we think that the western blot result that we present is sufficient to confirm that the transgenes are functionally active.

11. Results, line 365 and later: Nude mice are suddenly described as transgenic.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have made corrections according to the instructions. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 387.

12. Results, lines 401-403: These data are not shown.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment and apologize for the mistake. We have made corrections, please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 428-433 and included the figure in the supporting information: S4 Fig in S1 File.

13. Discussion, line 464: When MYC and RAS are sufficient to transform rodent cells, the authors should test if cells that have received both transgenes still need the HPV oncogene expression.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We strongly agree with what you suggest.

14. Discussion, lines 429 and 475: It is an overstatement that early passage HCK1T16epi cells resemble LSIL and late passage cells HSIL – no experiments to compare any biological features were done.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment and apologize for the mistake. We have made corrections, please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 506-508.

Response to the Editorial:

1. Results, lines 333/334: Make sure to stay with “DOX” – switching to “tet” without an explanation is confusing.

Reply: We thank the editor for the suggestion. We have made corrections according to the instructions. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 353.

2. Results, Figure legend 3: The last sentence needs to be moved to the end of the description of panel C and D.

Reply: We thank the editor for the suggestion. We have made corrections according to the instructions. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 398 and 403-404.

3. Discussion, first sentence: This sentence is incomplete.

Reply: We thank the editor for the comment. We have made corrections according to the instructions. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 454-455.

Response to the Reviewer #2:

The manuscript by Wongjampa et al. describes a novel cell culture system that recapitulates the tumorigenicity of HPV-induced cervical cancer, particularly one containing only the episomal form of HPV16. Starting from human cervical keratinocytes transduced with circular HPV16genomes (HCK1T/16epi), the authors introduced various host oncogenes, MYC, PIK3CAE545K, MEK1DD, and KRASG12V, into the cells, and examined the tumor-forming ability of the resulting cells using mouse xenografts. Interestingly, forced expression of MYC and PIK3CAE545K conferred a tumorigenic phenotype to late passages of HCK1T/16epi, but not to their early passages. Moreover, additional introduction of MEK1DD or KRASG12V conferred tumorigenic potential also to the early passages of HCK1T/16epi.

Although the W12 cell line derived from HPV16-positive, CIN1 lesions has widely been used as a conventional system to analyze the life cycle and oncogenicity of HPV16, the cell culture system reported in this study not only provide a new in vitro model for only viral episome-containing cervical cancer, but also enable genetic manipulation of the HPV genome and cellular genes to define the roles of individual viral and host genes in cancer development, thus will contribute to a better understanding of HPV-induced carcinogenesis.

Major comments:

1. To state that HPV integration is not always required for virus tumorigenicity, it is very important to show the presence of viral episomes during the course of cell culture. The data of virus southern blotting (Fig S1) should be presented with more time points and cell types.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. In Figure S1, we examined the viral episomes in various passages to represent the cells used in the experiment. We actually tried to detect the viral episomes in tumors collected from mice, but the genomic DNA recovered from the tumors was not sufficient for southern blot analysis. However, we think that the information we provide is sufficient to confirm that the cells we use contain episomal HPV16 DNA.

2. Line 272: “cell morphology and the viral copy numbers are stably maintained over at least 110 days or 50 population doublings.” It is interesting to see stable maintenance of HPV genomes for such a long period, but is it necessary to continuously add G418 to the culture medium? This should be clarified.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have made corrections, please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 137-138.

3. Line 321: “The viral copy numbers measured by two independent primer sets were consistent” The data should be presented.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment and apologize for the mistake. We have made corrections, please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 340-343 and included the figure in the supporting information: S2 Fig in S1 File.

4. Line 401: “In all tumors, HPV16 DNA was present mainly as an episomal form and the viral copy numbers were comparable with original 2D culture.” What does “mainly” mean? Is there any trace of an integration signal? Also, the data of viral copy numbers should be presented.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment and apologize for the mistake. We have made corrections, please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 428-433 and included the figure in the supporting information: S4 Fig in S1 File.

5. The different behavior between early and late passages in inducing tumor growth in mouse is intriguing, but can this be fully reproduced with another batch of HCK1T/16epi cells? All experiments seem to be conducted with a pool of cells, but not a selected single clone?

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We are confident that the experiment can be repeated. This is because we have stocked the HCK1T16epi cells in the early passages so when we want to perform the experiment, we can use the same passage of cells with the previous study.

6. In Fig 3E and 3F, the expression levels of E7 seem to be lower in KRASG12V-transduced cells than other cells. “The expression levels of E6 and E7 proteins were comparable ~ ” (line 344-347) should be

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have made corrections according to the instructions. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 366-369.

Minor comments:

1. Caution should be taken regarding the paper by Hu et al. (ref. 10) because the integration frequency might be overestimated in that study due to unreliable identification of HPV integration reads by their bioinformatics analyses. Please see “Artifacts in the data of Hu et al” Nigel Dyer et al. Nat Genet. 2016 Jan;48(1):2-4.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have already changed the reference according to the instructions. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 75-89 and reference no. 10.

2. Line 423: “The molecular etiology of cervical cancer in which the episomal form of HR-HPV is poorly understood due to the lack of a well-defined model.” This sentence should be rephrased.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have made corrections according to the instructions. Please see the revised manuscript with track changes in line 454-455.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 4. Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Kazunori Nagasaka

28 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-22148R1An in vitro carcinogenesis model for cervical cancer harboring episomal form of HPV16PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pientong,

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

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR:  Please revise the experimental results and, if necessary, send us your rebuttal letter.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 12 2023 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,

Kazunori Nagasaka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for submitting your revised manuscript. Although most of the concerns have been corrected and the necessary experiments have been performed, please submit a rebuttal letter following the reviewers' comments.

Sincerely,

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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors replied to all points raised, but did not perform a single additional experiment.

Most importantly, their answers confirmed that, indeed, not groups of mice were used, but a single mouse per condition for figures 2 and 4! The error bars just stem from the fact that 4 tumors were set per mouse.

It is completely unacceptable to base any conclusions on experiments with a single animal per condition. It is now clear why there are such large differences between the exact same conditions between Figure 2 and Figure 4, or within Figure 4. As these are not groups of mice, but single animals, differences are to be expected. For example because single mice can have different drinking behaviours, and thus take in less DOX or 4-OHT. This is exactly the reason why there have to be several mice in a group.

A proper study should involve a biostatistician before the experiment is conducted, an estimation of the size of the effect to be tested (and the required statistical significance), and then a calculation of the necessary number of mice per experimental group.

The authors also did not get my point that groups (or single mice) that did not receive the transgene-inducing agent should behave like the groups without the transgene. They continue just to describe the findings that fit their hypothesis, and not the findings (shown in figures) that do not. E.g. in panels 3E and 3F.

I reiterate that the E6 blot in Figure 2B is not fit for publication, and that there is a loading problem in Figures 3E (last two lanes) and 3F (last three lanes), which can also be seen in the Vinculin staining. It is not sufficient just to state that there is no problem, the experiments should be repeated until proper blots can be shown.

Regarding the suggested experiment, to test if cells that contain activated MYC and RAS – described as sufficient to transform rodent cells in the discussion – still need HPV oncogenes at all, the authors just wrote “We strongly agree with what you suggest”. As they agree, they really need to perform this experiment!

Reviewer #3: The authors in this manuscript described the full transformation of HCK1T cell line, carrying episomal HPV16 genomes, following ectopic expression of MYC and PIK3CAE545K. Overall the manuscript is well written and study results well presented

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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. 2023 Feb 10;18(2):e0281069. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281069.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


10 Jan 2023

Response to the Reviewer #1:

Reviewer #1: The authors replied to all points raised, but did not perform a single additional experiment.

• Most importantly, their answers confirmed that, indeed, not groups of mice were used, but a single mouse per condition for figures 2 and 4! The error bars just stem from the fact that 4 tumors were set per mouse.

• It is completely unacceptable to base any conclusions on experiments with a single animal per condition. It is now clear why there are such large differences between the exact same conditions between Figure 2 and Figure 4, or within Figure 4. As these are not groups of mice, but single animals, differences are to be expected. For example because single mice can have different drinking behaviours, and thus take in less DOX or 4-OHT. This is exactly the reason why there have to be several mice in a group.

• A proper study should involve a biostatistician before the experiment is conducted, an estimation of the size of the effect to be tested (and the required statistical significance), and then a calculation of the necessary number of mice per experimental group.

Reply: Firstly, we would like to thank you for the comment, and regarding the number of mice that we used in this experiment; we would like to explain that our research plan to minimize the use of mice in order to comply with the research and achieve the objectives of the study. However, we are aware of important biological effects that can be lost if too few mice are used. We also looked at previous studies on the number of mice used in experiments similar to this study. It was found that one mouse per condition was used and four or six sites per mouse were also cells injected (Narisawa-Saito et. al., 2008, Narisawa-Saito et. al., 2012).

For the advantage of using one mouse per condition is that it minimizes the genetic variation and environmental effects that can be occurred if multiple mice are used. But the advantage of using multiple mice per condition, as you suggest, can reduce the impact that might have on experiments involving different animal behavior, such as different drinking habits.

However, even if there are factors related to animal behavior outside of the control as mentioned and affecting the experiment. In this experiment, we used mice as a suitable study and have followed the guidelines for the proper use of animals in scientific work.

We sincerely apologize for not being able to repeat the experiment or do more experiments as you suggest. Because our research group has changed its approach of studying and some members have changed jobs to a new organization. However, the research presented here is properly confirmed by our research group and considered to be suitable for publication and dissemination.

References

Narisawa-Saito M, Yoshimatsu Y, Ohno S-i, Yugawa T, Egawa N, Fujita M, et al. An in vitro multistep carcinogenesis model for human cervical cancer. Cancer research. 2008;68(14):5699-705.

Narisawa-Saito M, Inagawa Y, Yoshimatsu Y, Haga K, Tanaka K, Egawa N, et al. A critical role of MYC for transformation of human cells by HPV16 E6E7 and oncogenic HRAS. Carcinogenesis. 2012;33(4):910-7.

• The authors also did not get my point that groups (or single mice) that did not receive the transgene-inducing agent should behave like the groups without the transgene. They continue just to describe the findings that fit their hypothesis, and not the findings (shown in figures) that do not. E.g. in panels 3E and 3F.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment.

First of all, we would like to apologize for the previous answer that did not understand the point you wish to discuss. However, we agree with you on the point that mice without transgene inducers should have the same properties as mice without transgene. As shown in Figure 4, mice that were not received transgene inducers did not develop tumors. In addition, mice given the transgene inducer develop tumors early. But when the doping was stopped, the tumor size gradually decreased.

In figures 3E and 3F, protein expression was examined by western blot in HCK1T/16epi cells treated with transgene inducers to confirm the function of those transgenes in comparison with HCK1T parental cells. As you can see in Figures 3E and 3F, increased phosphorylation of AKT and mTOR which are the downstream target of PIK3CA, and also ERK which is the downstream target of KRAS and MEK confirmed that induced transgenes are functionally active.

However, from Figure 3F, it can be seen that in HCK1T/16epi with MYC-PIK3CAE545K-ER-KRASG12V cells that did not expose to transgene inducers had slightly higher expression levels of MEK and ERK proteins when compared with HCK1T parental cells. This result might be the effect from the leakage expression of transgenes that are commonly occurred in the constructed vectors and may affect on downstream target protein activation.

• I reiterate that the E6 blot in Figure 2B is not fit for publication, and that there is a loading problem in Figures 3E (last two lanes) and 3F (last three lanes), which can also be seen in the Vinculin staining. It is not sufficient just to state that there is no problem, the experiments should be repeated until proper blots can be shown.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment and suggestion.

First of all, we would like to apologize for not being able to repeat the experiments as you suggest and sincerely apologize for the previous comment regarding the problem to detect E6 protein expression by western blot. According to vinculin staining, we found that the E6 protein expression was detected at low levels when compared with E6 gene expression level in Figure1C and the protein band is unclear. This problem might be effected from protein loading and the antibody clone used. However, we try to make it more clear as shown in Figure 2B and E6 gene expression can be confirmed by the level of mRNA detected in the cells, shown in Figure 1C.

We already added the description in the result section of the revised manuscript with track changes. Please see the result section in line 319-322.

• Regarding the suggested experiment, to test if cells that contain activated MYC and RAS – described as sufficient to transform rodent cells in the discussion – still need HPV oncogenes at all, the authors just wrote “We strongly agree with what you suggest”. As they agree, they really need to perform this experiment!

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment and suggestion. We think that your hypothesis is an interesting point and it is necessary to explore further with many experiments. However, we sincerely apologize for not being able to do more experiments as you suggest. As we already tell you that our research group has changed its approach of studying and some members have changed jobs to a new organization. As a result, we were unable to perform this experiment.

Response to the Reviewer #3:

Reviewer #3: The authors in this manuscript described the full transformation of HCK1T cell line, carrying episomal HPV16 genomes, following ectopic expression of MYC and PIK3CAE545K. Overall the manuscript is well written and study results well presented

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Kazunori Nagasaka

16 Jan 2023

An in vitro carcinogenesis model for cervical cancer harboring episomal form of HPV16

PONE-D-22-22148R2

Dear Dr. Pientong,

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,

Kazunori Nagasaka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

The authors have researched thoroughly and sufficiently throughout, and the hypotheses have been adequately tested. The reviewers' questions are also answered.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Kazunori Nagasaka

2 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-22148R2

An in vitro carcinogenesis model for cervical cancer harboring episomal form of HPV16

Dear Dr. Pientong:

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

Professor Kazunori Nagasaka

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. Southern blot hybridization for the HPV genome in HCK1T/16epi cells.

    BamHI or EcoRV-digested total DNA isolated from HCK1T/16epi after transfection with PB-TAC-ERN-MYC-F2A1-3xFLAG-PIK3CAE545K and CSII-TRE-Tight-HA-MEK1DD plasmid are shown. Digestion with BamHI, which cuts the HPV16 genome once, produced results of the expected size for the HPV16 genome. Digestion with EcoRV, which does not cut the HPV16 genome, showed open circular and supercoiled plasmid of HPV16 genome. The BamHI-linearized HPV16 plasmid was used for length and copy number standards. #1: HCK1T/HPV16epi (p35); #2: HCK1T/HPV16epi/MYC-PIK3CAE454K/MEK1DD (p63); #3: HCK1T/HPV16epi/MYC-PIK3CAE454K/MEK1DD (p47); #4: HCK1T-HPV16epi/MYC-PIK3CAE454K (p67).

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. The copy number of HPV16 genomes in tumors generated with the late-passage HCK1T/16epi expressing MYC and PIK3CAE545K was measured by qPCR using primers specific to the E6 and L2 ORFs of HPV16.

    The bar represents the mean of triplicate values ± SEM.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Cell density-dependent growth of HCK1T/16epi late-passage cells expressing oncogenes were analyzed by clonogenic assays.

    Each bar represents the mean of triplicate values ± SEM. **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig

    The copy number of HPV16 genomes in tumor tissues of early-passage (A) and late-passage (B) cells were determined by qPCR using primers specific to the E6 and L2 ORFs of HPV16. Each bar represents the mean of triplicate values ± SEM.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Numbers of nude mice developing tumors after injection of 1x106 HCK1T/16epi cells (per site) expressing MYC, PIK3CAE545K, MEK1DD and ER-KRASG12V.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 4. Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES