Skip to main content
  • AACR Journals
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Focus on Radiation Oncology
      • Novel Combinations
      • Reviews
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Journals
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Focus on Radiation Oncology
      • Novel Combinations
      • Reviews
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Cancer Biology and Translational Studies

Mechanisms of Resistance to EGFR Inhibition Reveal Metabolic Vulnerabilities in Human GBM

Andrew McKinney, Olle R. Lindberg, Jane R. Engler, Katharine Y. Chen, Anupam Kumar, Henry Gong, Kan V. Lu, Erin F. Simonds, Timothy F. Cloughesy, Linda M. Liau, Michael Prados, Andrew W. Bollen, Mitchel S. Berger, Joseph T.C. Shieh, C. David James, Theodore P. Nicolaides, William H. Yong, Albert Lai, Monika E. Hegi, William A. Weiss and Joanna J. Phillips
Andrew McKinney
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olle R. Lindberg
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Olle R. Lindberg
Jane R. Engler
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Katharine Y. Chen
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anupam Kumar
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Henry Gong
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kan V. Lu
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erin F. Simonds
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
2Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Erin F. Simonds
Timothy F. Cloughesy
3UCLA Neuro-Oncology Program, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
4Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Linda M. Liau
3UCLA Neuro-Oncology Program, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
5Department of Neurosurgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Linda M. Liau
Michael Prados
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew W. Bollen
6Department of Pathology, Division of Neuropathology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mitchel S. Berger
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph T.C. Shieh
7Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
8Institute for Human Genetics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. David James
9Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Theodore P. Nicolaides
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
10Department of Pediatrics, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William H. Yong
11Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Albert Lai
3UCLA Neuro-Oncology Program, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
4Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Monika E. Hegi
12Neuroscience Research Center and Service of Neurosurgery, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Monika E. Hegi
William A. Weiss
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
2Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
10Department of Pediatrics, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joanna J. Phillips
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
6Department of Pathology, Division of Neuropathology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Joanna.phillips@ucsf.edu
DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-18-1330 Published September 2019
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Amplification of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) represents one of the most commonly observed genetic lesions in glioblastoma (GBM); however, therapies targeting this signaling pathway have failed clinically. Here, using human tumors, primary patient-derived xenografts (PDX), and a murine model for GBM, we demonstrate that EGFR inhibition leads to increased invasion of tumor cells. Further, EGFR inhibitor–treated GBM demonstrates altered oxidative stress, with increased lipid peroxidation, and generation of toxic lipid peroxidation products. A tumor cell subpopulation with elevated aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) levels was determined to comprise a significant proportion of the invasive cells observed in EGFR inhibitor–treated GBM. Our analysis of the ALDH1A1 protein in newly diagnosed GBM revealed detectable ALDH1A1 expression in 69% (35/51) of the cases, but in relatively low percentages of tumor cells. Analysis of paired human GBM before and after EGFR inhibitor therapy showed an increase in ALDH1A1 expression in EGFR-amplified tumors (P < 0.05, n = 13 tumor pairs), and in murine GBM ALDH1A1-high clones were more resistant to EGFR inhibition than ALDH1A1-low clones. Our data identify ALDH levels as a biomarker of GBM cells with high invasive potential, altered oxidative stress, and resistance to EGFR inhibition, and reveal a therapeutic target whose inhibition should limit GBM invasion.

This article is featured in Highlights of This Issue, p. 1473

Introduction

Glioblastoma (GBM), a malignant brain cancer, is characterized by diffuse invasion of tumor cells into the adjacent brain parenchyma and by the increased activity of receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) signaling pathways. The most commonly altered RTK, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), demonstrates gene amplification in up to 45% of patients (1) and expression of a constitutively active EGFR variant, EGFRvIII, in approximately 19% (2–4). Despite the high frequency of EGFR alterations in GBM and their demonstrated roles in oncogenesis (5, 6), chemotherapeutic modalities targeting EGFR signaling have had disappointing results in clinical trials, and have not increased the median survival for GBM patients, which remains at less than 2 years (7, 8).

Several factors contribute to therapeutic resistance to EGFR inhibition (9). Such factors include: some EGFR inhibitors are suboptimal in their receptor binding pocket occupancy (10); limited brain access of systemically administered drugs, especially to invading tumor cells outside of the enhancing tumor mass; tumor cell utilization of mechanisms that increase drug metabolism and detoxification, including expression of efflux pumps (11, 12); and the molecularly heterogeneous nature of GBM, whose aggressive biology is driven by the summation of multiple signaling inputs (13, 14). Thus, and despite effective on-target inhibition, tumor cells appear able to reestablish downstream PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway activity via suppression of key negative regulators and the activation of other RTKs (15–17), including MET or platelet-derived growth factor receptor β (18, 19). In general, both acquired and innate resistance mechanisms contribute to therapeutic resistance.

Sustained proliferation, as observed in malignant tumors such as GBM, requires changes in cellular metabolism that support rapid cell membrane turnover and the prevention of oxidative damage (20). EGFR signaling itself can increase the activity of such protective pathways, including de novo lipogenesis (21, 22) and protection against oxidative stress-induced apoptosis (23). In this study, we have investigated relationships between EGFR activity and tumor protective pathways, and how maintaining these protective pathways is associated with resistance to EGFR inhibitor therapy. In so doing we have identified potential points of therapeutic vulnerability that may be relevant to improving GBM treatment outcomes.

Materials and Methods

Cell culture conditions and reagents

EGFRvIII-expressing murine tumorspheres were isolated as previously described (24). GBM43 and GBM6 are primary cell cultures of patient-derived xenografts (PDX), established as previously described (25). All cell lines were analyzed before use and each subsequent year by short tandem repeat analysis to ensure the identity and validity of cells and confirmed to be negative by PCR for Mycoplasma contamination. Tumorspheres were cultured and passaged on low-attachment plates under standard neurosphere conditions as previously described (26). Doubling time was calculated using an online calculator (Roth V. 2006 Doubling Time Computing: http://www.doubling-time.com/compute.php). For Western blotting the following antibodies were used: phospho-EGFR Y1173 (Cell Signaling Technology; 4407), EGFR (Santa Cruz; sc-03), phospho-Akt S473 (Cell Signaling Technology; 4060), Akt (Cell Signaling Technology; 9272), phospho-p44/42 MAPK T202/Y204 (Cell Signaling Technology; 9101), p44/42 MAPK (Cell Signaling Technology; 9107), phospho-Src Family Y416 (Cell Signaling Technology; 2101), Src (Cell Signaling Technology; 2109), ALDH1A1 (Cell Signaling Technology; 12035), and GAPDH (Millipore MAB374).

Inhibitors

Erlotinib HCl (Selleckchem S1023), Mitomycin C (Santa Cruz sc-3514), dasatinib (LC Laboratories D3307), lapatinib (LC Laboratories L4804), DEAB (Sigma-Aldrich D86256), Tyrphostin AG1478 (Sigma-Aldrich T4182; ref. 27), and disulfiram (Sigma-Aldrich T1132) were used.

Cell viability assays: MTT assay

For MTT assay, dissociated cells were plated as 4 × 104 to 8 × 104 cells per well in a 6-well plate with and without appropriate drug treatments. Cells were incubated for 3 days and assayed by MTT (Promega) or DyLight 800 NHS Ester and flow cytometry.

Human GBM

We analyzed paired sets of surgical specimens from patients with GBM before and after treatment with an EGFR inhibitor from three different institutions—the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), the University of California, Los Angeles, and from a clinical trial cohort (15)—for which tissue samples were acquired before or under treatment, 5 days. Cases were selected based on the availability of paired tumor specimens from before and after EGFR inhibitor therapy and EGFR amplification. Unpaired human GBM from initial presentation were obtained through the Brain Tumor Research Center Biorepository at UCSF. All tumor specimens were obtained according to protocols approved by the respective institutional review boards.

In vivo transplantation

Tumor cells were transplanted orthotopically into the striatum of nude mice (Simonsen) as previously described (24). To assess invasion following EGFR inhibition, tumors were allowed to propagate for 7 days prior to 5 days of treatment with erlotinib (150 mg/kg per day via oral gavage). To assess tumor area in the clones, tumors were allowed to propagate for 2 days prior to 10 days of treatment daily with erlotinib or erlotinib plus disulfiram (100 mg/kg and 150 mg/kg, respectively, via intraperitoneal injection). In both experiments, brains were examined at 12 days after transplant or at humane disease endpoint, if sooner. Control vehicle–treated mice were included in each experiment. An image of each tumor was taken at a similar anterior–posterior position using a Zeiss Observer inverted microscope at 1.25× and 5× magnification. To assess invasion, results are maximum distance invaded, as measured by the longest line between 2 tumor foci, normalized to total tumor area, calculated using ImageJ software. Tumor area was determined by hand tracing total intracerebral tumor area blinded to tumor cell and treatment arm, calculated using ImageJ software. All animal procedures and care were performed according to institutional animal care and use policies (IACUC #AN169893-02).

Invasion assays

Two-dimensional invasion assays were performed as previously described (28). Six images of invaded cells per insert were taken at 200× magnification on a Zeiss Axioimager MI microscope. The total number of invaded cells at 16 hours per image were counted using ImageJ software and averaged for each insert. Cells were pretreated for 2.5 days in 1 μmol/L erlotinib and remained exposed to 1 μmol/L of erlotinib during the invasion assay. Data were normalized to control in each experiment. Three-dimensional invasion assays were performed as previously described (28). Images of each sphere were taken at 0, 16, and 24 hours using a Zeiss Observer inverted microscope at 25× magnification. The total area of each sphere was calculated using ImageJ software, and invaded area for each sphere was normalized to its center sphere area. Appropriate drug concentrations were added both to the underlying matrigel coat and to the sphere containing media.

IHC and immunofluorescence

Tumor-bearing mice were euthanized, perfused with 4% paraformaldehyde, and brains were fixed overnight in 4% PFA, rinsed in PBS and stored in 70% ethanol until further processing. Human GBM formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections and tissue microarrays were immunostained for ALDH1A1 (Abcam; ab52492). IHC was performed according to standard protocols on the Ventana Medical Systems Benchmark XT. Images were taken using an Olympus BX41 microscope and Olympus DP72 camera. Immunostaining was quantified using ImageJ software, and percentage of DAB positive for each tumor was averaged across 2 images per tumor. Histologic analysis was performed on hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections. For immunofluorescence, 2 × 103 cells were plated into each well of a Biocoat Poly-D-lysine 8 Well-Culture Slide (Corning 354688) for 3 days, followed by 2 hours with appropriate drug treatments. Cells were stained with 1:50 dilution of 4-hydroxynonenal antibody (Abcam; ab46545). Cells were then stained with 4 μg/mL goat anti-rabbit AlexaFluor 488 IgG (Gibco A11008) and nuclei labeled with DAPI. Images were taken using the Zeiss LSM780 Confocal Microscope. The total number of cells and number of 4HNE-positive cells per image were counted using ImageJ software and averaged across 3 pictures per well.

ALDEFLUOR assay

The ALDEFLUOR assay measures the conversion of the ALDEFLUOR substrate BODIPY aminoacetaldehyde (BAAA) to the negatively charged BODIPY aminoacetate (BAA-; ref. 29). The ALDEFLUOR kit (STEMCELL Technologies 01700) was used as described to measure proportions of ALDH+ cells. Cells were ALDEFLUOR stained at a concentration of 5 × 105 cells/mL for 45 minutes at 37°C, followed by DyLight 800 NHS Ester (Life Technologies, cat. #46421) staining for 15 minutes at room temperature as a live/dead marker. DEAB or disulfiram was added to samples in ALDEFLUOR buffer for 10 minutes at room temperature before ALDEFLUOR staining. Flow cytometry was performed on a BD FACSAria using FACSDiva software, followed by analysis with FlowJo. A minimum of 10,000 events were collected for each sample. In instances when cells were sorted, the top 10% (ALDH-High) and bottom 40% (ALDH-Low) were sorted into NBM supplemented with B-27 for use in invasion assays, or into RLT buffer for RNA extraction.

Image-IT lipid peroxidation

The Image-IT Lipid Peroxidation kit for live-cell analysis (Image-iT Lipid Peroxidation kit, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.) was used as described to measure the degree of lipid peroxidation. Results are displayed as a ratio of oxidized BODIPY C11 reagent (∼510 nm) over unoxidized BODIPY C11 reagent (∼591 nm), as per the manufacturer's instructions. Cells were plated at 1 × 104 cells/mL for 3 days, followed by appropriate treatment. Cells were centrifuged and then dissociated with Cell Dissociation Solution, Non-Enzymatic and replated in full media with 10 μmol/L Image-IT Lipid Peroxidation probe for 30 minutes at 37°C, followed by DyLight 800 NHS Ester (Life Technologies, cat. #46421) staining for 15 minutes at room temperature as a live/dead marker. Cumene hydroperoxide (100 μmol/L) induces lipid peroxidation and was added to cells for 2 hours at 37°C prior to staining as a positive control. Flow cytometry was performed on a BD FACSAria using FACSDiva software, followed by analysis with FlowJo. A minimum of 10,000 events were collected for each sample.

Reverse transcription and qPCR

Total RNA was collected from cells using an RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen; 74106). cDNA was synthesized using SuperScript III First-Strand Synthesis System for RT-PCR with Oligo(dT) primers (Invitrogen, cat. #18080-051). qPCR was performed with FastStart Universal SYBR Green Master (Rox; Roche, cat. # 049138500011) on the Applied Biosystems 7900HT Fast Real-Time PCR System. Ct values were normalized to GAPDH Ct values for each individual sample and then averaged across experiments.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 5.0 software. One-way ANOVA with Tukey test for multiple comparisons, Mann–Whitney, or the Student t test was used to determine differences between experimental groups as appropriate.

Results

Proinvasive phenotype stimulated by EGFR inhibition

To explore the mechanisms of EGFR inhibitor resistance in GBM, we utilized a murine model for GBM driven by constitutive activation of EGFR (EGFRvIII; Fig. 1A; refs. 24, 26). Tumor cells derived from orthotopic tumors that occur in these mice can be maintained in vitro as tumorspheres that, in turn, generate highly proliferative and invasive tumors upon orthotopic engraftment (Fig. 1B) with robust EGFR activation. We refer to these tumor-propagating cells as cancer stem cells (CSC). To study the emergence of EGFR inhibitor resistance, we cultured cells in the presence of the EGFR inhibitor erlotinib. Within 2 hours of EGFR inhibition, changes in tumorsphere morphology were evident. Ragged, irregular spheres became compact, round spheres with a smooth outer surface upon EGFR inhibition (Fig. 1C and D). Western blot analysis revealed decreased phosphorylation of Y1173 in treated cells, as well as decreased signaling downstream of EGFR, including decreased phosphorylation of AKT (S473) and Src (Y416; Fig. 1E). With respect to biological properties, acute EGFR inhibition increased tumor cell invasion in matrigel boyden chambers (Fig. 1F and G), and increased tumorsphere invasion in matrigel 3D assays (Fig. 1H and I). The proinvasive phenotype conferred by EGFR inhibition was not specific to erlotinib and was observed with 2 additional pharmacologic EGFR inhibitors: AG1478 (27) and lapatinib. As expected, EGFR inhibition also decreased tumor cell proliferation (Supplementary Fig. S1E). Although EGFR inhibition decreased downstream signaling pathway activity (Fig. 1E), inhibition of PI3K/AKT or Src signaling pathway alone was not sufficient to confer the proinvasive phenotype (Supplementary Fig. S1A–S1D).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

EGFR inhibition in murine CSCs drives increased tumor cell invasion in vitro and in vivo. Tumor-prone neural progenitor cells express high levels of phosphorylated EGFRvIII (A) and generate invasive, highly proliferative (arrows) tumors when transplanted orthotopically (B). C and D, Cultured CSCs grow as irregular, ragged spheres but become compact and round upon inhibition of EGFR, erlotinib (Erl) versus control (Ctrl). E, Representative Western blots demonstrating inhibition of activation of EGFR and several downstream effectors with Erl. Increased tumor cell invasion in 2D invasion assays (F and G) and (H and I) 3D spheroid invasion assays (H and I) with Erl, and with AG1478 and lapatinib in H. J and K, Increased invasive area in orthotopic tumors with EGFR inhibition as compared with control. Representative images and summary quantifications are shown. Scale bars, 30 μm in B; 100 μm in C–D, H; 50 μm in F. Shown, mean ± SEM from biological replicates or representative data from biological replicates, (G) n = 3, (I) n = 3 performed twice, (K) n = 5 per treatment. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.005; ***, P < 0.0005.

To determine the in vivo relevance of EGFR inhibitor–stimulated invasiveness, mice harboring orthotopic tumors were treated with erlotinib (150 mg/kg/d) for 5 days, and tumors were examined in the brain of euthanized mice at this time point. Inhibition of EGFR conferred a 1.9-fold increase in the area of the invasive tumor as compared with control-treated tumors (Fig. 1J and K).

Proinvasive phenotype associated with an ALDH-high subpopulation

A gene family often implicated in chemotherapeutic resistance encode aldehyde dehydrogenases that detoxify reactive aldehyde species. EGFR inhibition in CSCs resulted in a striking 11-fold increase in aldehyde dehydrogenase 1A1 (ALDH1A1) expression relative to control (Fig. 2A). The increase in ALDH1A1 expression conferred by erlotinib was also observed with AG1478 and lapatinib (Supplementary Fig. S1F). EGFR inhibition also resulted in increased expression of several genes implicated in cell adhesion and motility, including integrin beta chain beta 3 (ITGB3), CXCR4, S100A4, and TIMP3 (Fig. 2A; Supplementary Fig. S1G). EGFR inhibition resulted in increased ALDH activity (Fig. 2B and C) by ALDEFLUOR assay (29). Treatment of CSCs with the irreversible ALDH inhibitor disulfiram (DS; Fig. 2D and E) or a structurally distinct ALDH inhibitor N,N-diethylabenzaldehyde (DEAB; Supplementary Fig. S2A–S2B) blocked the proinvasive phenotype stimulated by EGFR inhibition.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Expansion of the invasive ALDH+ subpopulation in CSCs upon EGFR inhibition. A, Gene expression of ITGB1, ITGB3, and ALDH1A1 in CSCs resistant to EGFR inhibition relative to control-treated CSCs. B and C, Increased ALDEFLUOR staining in erlotinib-treated cells (left, bottom) relative to control (left, top) by flow cytometry. Baseline fluorescence established by inhibiting ALDH with disulfiram (DS) without (right, top) and with (right, bottom) erlotinib. D and E, DS inhibits erlotinib-induced invasion in spheroid invasion assay. F, Schematic demonstrating ALDEFLUOR sorting strategy. Erlotinib-treated cells (16 hours) prior to staining were sorted by FACs and denoted as ALDH-high, top 10% of ALDEFLUOR stained cells, or ALDH-low, bottom 40% of ALDEFLUOR stained cells. G, Increased erlotinib-induced invasion in sorted ALDH-high cells (left) versus ALDH-low cells (right). H, Quantification normalized to ALDH-low cells. I and J, ALDH-high and ALDH-low cells exhibit similar invasion in the absence of EGFR inhibition. Representative images and quantification over biological replicates; mean ± SEM (n = 3). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.005; ****, P < 0.0001. n.s., not significant.

To determine whether elevated ALDH activity was associated with invasive cells, we sorted bulk untreated tumor cells based on ALDH activity (Fig. 2F). With EGFR inhibition, sorted ALDH-high cells proved more invasive than ALDH-low cells in 3D matrigel invasion assays (Fig. 2G and H). Strikingly, this difference in invasion was dependent on EGFR inhibition (Fig. 2I and J). Thus, a highly proinvasive phenotype required both high ALDH activity and EGFR inhibition.

ALDH1A1-high CSCs show intrinsic EGFR inhibitor resistance

EGFR inhibition resulted in a rapid change in tumor invasive behavior dependent on ALDH activity. We hypothesized that heterogeneity in ALDH1A1 expression could be an intrinsic mechanism of resistance to EGFR inhibition. In untreated bulk tumor cell cultures, ALDH1A1 protein was not apparent by Western blotting (Fig. 3A; Supplementary Fig. S2C). Single-cell–derived clonal analysis of bulk tumor, however, revealed a range of ALDH1A1 expression levels across clones (Fig. 3A). Two clones with different ALDH1A1 protein expression, similar levels of EGFRvIII activation, and similar cell growth under control conditions, demonstrated a marked difference in sensitivity to EGFR inhibition (Fig. 3A–D). The ALDH1A1-high clone 2 had a distinct survival advantage over the ALDH1A1-low clone 1 upon EGFR inhibitor treatment (Fig. 3C and D). Moreover, EGFR inhibition conferred a proinvasive phenotype in the ALDH1A1-high clone 2 (Fig. 3F and G). Cell viability of clone 2 was markedly reduced by DS treatment (Fig. 3E).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

ALDH-high subpopulation exhibits increased resistance to erlotinib and increased sensitivity to ALDH inhibition. A, ALDH1A1 expression across clones derived from untreated bulk tumor cell cultures. GAPDH protein loading control. Note: ALDH1A1 (55 kDa) is distinct from higher-molecular-weight nonspecific band in mouse. B, Clones 1 and 2 have similar EGFRvIII phosphorylation levels under basal conditions and after erlotinib treatment. C and D, Increased viability of clone 2 relative to clone 1 only in the presence of erlotinib. E, Viability assay demonstrating selective vulnerability of clones to disulfiram (DS). F and G, Proinvasive phenotype in ALDH1A1-high clone 2 upon EGFR inhibition by erlotinib. Representative images and quantification of biological triplicates are shown; mean ± SEM. ****, P < 0.0001. n.s., not significant.

ALDH1A1-high CSCs are protected from drug-induced lipid peroxidation

Oncogenic activation of EGFR alters cellular metabolism and upregulates several prosurvival pathways (30). Inhibition of EGFR can decrease the activity of these pathways and lead to increased oxidative stress (31). Increased oxidative stress can promote lipid membrane peroxidation and the generation of toxic aldehyde species. To investigate changes in lipid membrane peroxidation, in association with EGFR inhibitor treatment, we examined the levels of these metabolites following EGFR inhibition of bulk tumor cells. Inhibition of EGFR nearly doubled the lipid membrane peroxidation levels as demonstrated by a shift in peak fluorescence emission upon oxidation of C11-BODIPY581/591 (ref. 32; Fig. 4A). In addition, the cellular accumulation of toxic protein adducts containing 4-HNE, a destructive aldehyde generated by lipid peroxidation, was readily observed upon EGFR inhibition (Fig. 4B and C).

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

ALDH-high CSCs exhibit reduced levels of erlotinib-induced lipid peroxidation, reduced sensitivity to toxic lipid peroxidation products, and increased resistance to EGFR inhibition in vivo. A, Increase in lipid peroxidation in bulk tumor cells with acute erlotinib treatment detected by FACs. B and C, Increased levels of the lipid peroxidation product 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE) in erlotinib-treated bulk tumor cells. D, Differential sensitivity of clones to exogenous 4-HNE. E, ALDH1A1-low clone 1 with increased levels of erlotinib-induced lipid peroxidation as compared with ALDH1A1-high clone 2. Normalized to respective vehicle control. F, Increased p-γH2AX in DNA damage in ALDH1A1-low clone 1 treated with erlotinib. Representative images and quantification; mean ± SEM from biological triplicate. G, ALDH-high clone 2 generated larger intracerebral tumors than ALDH-low clone 1 when EGFR was inhibited (Erl). Inhibition of ALDH by disulfiram (DS) in the context of EGFR inhibition abolished this effect (Erl + DS). H and I, Representative images of ALDH-high clone 2 treated with erlotinib (Erl; H) or erlotinib plus disulfiram (Erl + DS; I) as compared with ALDH-low clone 1. The circle denotes the same area for comparison. Scale bar, 300 μm. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.005.

Aldehyde dehydrogenases, including ALDH1A1, metabolize and remove harmful reactive aldehydes produced by lipid peroxidation, including 4-HNE (33, 34). To determine whether CSCs with elevated ALDH levels were more resistant to lipid peroxidation, we applied exogenous 4-HNE to clones 1 and 2, with results showing increased viability of ALDHA1-high clone 2 cells, relative to ALDHA1-low clone 1 cells (Fig. 4D). In relation to ALDHA1-low cells, ALDHA1-high clone 2 cells showed decreased levels of lipid peroxidation upon EGFR inhibition (Fig. 4E). High ALDH1A1 levels were also associated with greater protection from DNA damage induced by EGFR inhibition, as demonstrated by decreased phospho-γH2AX levels in these cells (Fig. 4F).

ALDH1A1-high CSCs show decreased sensitivity to EGFR inhibition in vivo

EGFR inhibitor treatment of orthotopic tumors demonstrated that ALDH1A1-high clone 2 cells were more resistant to therapy and developed larger tumors than ALDH1A1-low clone 1 cells. When ALDH1A1 was inhibited by DS, there was no difference in the tumor area in ALDH1A1-high and -low tumors (Fig. 4G). In the absence of any therapy, ALDH1A1-high and -low tumors were indistinguishable.

ALDH activity in human GBM PDX confers a proinvasive phenotype

To investigate potential functions for ALDH activity in human GBM, we analyzed PDXs. ALDH1A1 could be detected in 5 of 9 PDX lines, with variable levels of expression evident among the 5 positive lines (Fig. 5A). GBM6, with amplified and expressed EGFRvIII, expressed low-level ALDH1A1, and showed low ALDH activity (Fig. 5A and B). In ALDH1A1-low GBM6 inhibition of EGFR increased ALDH1A1 expression 2.3-fold (Fig. 5C) and increased tumor cell invasion (Fig. 5D and E). Erlotinib-induced invasion could be blocked by ALDH inhibition by DS. In contrast to GBM6, GBM43 had high endogenous levels of ALDH1A1 protein and high ALDH activity (Fig. 5A and B). Inhibition of ALDH by DS in GBM43 resulted in decreased cell viability relative to ALDH-low GBM6 and nearly abolished tumor cell invasion (Fig. 5F–H).

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Induction of ALDH1A1 expression and a proinvasive phenotype upon EGFR inhibition in an EGFR-activated patient-derived GBM xenograft. A, ALDH1A1 expression and EGFR expression and phosphorylation across a cohort of human GBM xenografts. GAPDH protein loading control. B, ALDEFLUOR activity (left) in GBM43 (top) and GBM6 (bottom) relative to baseline fluorescence established by inhibiting ALDH with DEAB (right). C, Erlotinib-induced increase in ALDH1A1 mRNA expression in GBM6. D and E, Erlotinib-induced and disulfiram-sensitive increase in invasion in GBM6. ALDH1A1-high GBM43 demonstrates increased sensitivity to disulfiram treatment than GBM6 (F), and GBM43 invasion is inhibited by disulfiram treatment (G and H). Representative images and quantification; mean ± SEM of biological triplicate. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.0005; ****, P < 0.0001. n.s., not significant.

ALDH1A1 expression in human GBM increases following EGFR inhibitor therapy

ALDH1A1 protein is expressed in the majority of human GBM (69%, 35 of 51 GBM at initial diagnosis); however, the fraction of positive tumor cells is relatively low with a mean immunopositivity of 8.0% ± 12.5% among positive tumors (Fig. 6A). ALDH1A1-positive tumor cells were observed in perivascular regions and as individual infiltrating cells (Fig. 6B–E). Although ALDH1A1-positive cells were frequently present at the infiltrative tumor edge, they were also present in central tumor regions. Given the elevated ALDH1A1 expression in our murine tumor cells upon EGFR inhibition, we assessed ALDH1A1 levels in paired human GBM from before and after EGFR inhibitor therapy (Fig. 6F). In tumors with EGFR amplification, there was a significant increase in ALDH1A1-positive tumor cells following EGFR inhibitor therapy (P < 0.05, n = 13 tumor pairs). In contrast, there was no increase in ALDH1A1 in tumors without EGFR amplification (n = 9 tumor pairs).

Figure 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 6.

ALDH1A1 expression in human GBM and in paired tumors before and after EGFR inhibitor therapy. A, The majority of treatment-naïve human GBM expresses ALDH1A1 protein, but the fraction of positive tumor cells is low as denoted by the frequency of tumors with IHC scores < 3 (having <25% positivity). Tumors with robust immunopositivity for ALDH1A1 often had prominent perivascular collections of ALDH1A1-positive tumor cells. B–E, Representative immunostaining for ALDH1A1, including (B) absent, score 0 (B); <5% tumor cells, score 1 (C); and >25% tumor cells positive, score 3 (D and E). F, ALDH1A1 protein levels in paired human GBM samples obtained before (pre-) and after (post-) EGFR inhibitor therapy with EGFR amplification. G, Schematic representation of EGFR inhibition and enrichment of an ALDH-high population of glioma cells. *, P < 0.05.

Discussion

Alterations in EGFR signaling are common in GBM, yet strategies to target EGFR-associated signaling abnormalities have had limited therapeutic efficacy. Here, we identify a subpopulation of tumor cells with elevated levels of the detoxifying enzyme ALDH that resist EGFR inhibition. We showed that ALDH expression was associated with protection from EGFR inhibitor–mediated lipid peroxidation and a proinvasive phenotype. Pharmacologic inhibition of ALDH selectively targeted the EGFR inhibitor–resistant subpopulation, and in so doing caused decreased viability and invasion of these cells. Our data suggest therapeutic strategies targeting ALDH-high tumor cell populations, which have greater resistance to oxidative stress, may be effective when used in combination with EGFR inhibition.

The molecular biology of GBM includes increased lipid peroxidation and generation of toxic end products, such as 4-HNE, that can lead to DNA damage and cell death (35–37). To offset this antitumor characteristic, GBM use several protective mechanisms. To decrease the production of peroxidized lipids, aggressive tumors often maintain relatively high levels of saturated fatty acids, which are less susceptible to lipid peroxidation. Indeed, oncogenic activation of RTKs, including EGFR, drives de novo lipogenesis and the generation of highly saturated phospholipids (22, 35). The inhibition of EGFR can suppress several of these protective mechanisms, including decreased de novo lipogenesis and increased oxidative phosphorylation (31, 38). Using a murine model for GBM, we demonstrate EGFR inhibition results in increased lipid peroxidation and increased production of toxic 4-HNE adducts.

Aldehyde dehydrogenases, a family of 19 enzymes, detoxify endogenous and exogenous aldehydes in a NAD(P)+-dependent manner, and have been implicated in EGFR inhibitor resistance in lung, breast, and gastric cancers (31, 39). Consistent with their role in the detoxification of lipid peroxidation products, we have shown that ALDH-high GBM cells exhibit decreased lipid peroxidation upon EGFR inhibition and increased resistance to 4-HNE–associated cell toxicity.

In murine CSCs, increased aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) activity following EGFR inhibition may be due, in part, to a selective survival of ALDH-high tumor cells (Fig. 6G). Elevated ALDH activity has previously been associated with increased tumor cell invasion, self-renewal, and cancer stem–like properties in several cancers, including GBM (29, 40–43). Our data suggest an association between high ALDH activity and increased invasive phenotype. It is not clear if increased invasive phenotype is due to increased ALDH activity or, rather, elevated ALDH is simply an associated, but not causative, molecular characteristic of invasive GBM cells. Interestingly, tumor metabolism and oxidative phosphorylation may differ in highly invasive versus less invasive regions of GBM (44). Increased ALDH1A1 may be one mechanism to manage high metabolic stress at the invasive edge. In nonneoplastic brain, astrocytes also exhibit metabolic heterogeneity as evidenced by an ALDH1A1-high subpopulation of astrocytes that reside in close proximity to blood vessels (45).

ALDH activity has also been used to define tumor cell populations with increased resistance to chemotherapy, including agents targeting EGFR (31, 39, 46–48). Given the importance of oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation in aggressive cancers, it is not surprising that ALDH-high tumor cell subpopulations may play important roles in resistance to several chemotherapeutics. In general, drug resistance is ascribed to a cell population with increased ALDH activity rather than the function of a single ALDH enzyme. Due to the large number of ALDH enzymes and increased expression of several ALDH enzymes in cancer, it has been difficult to assign causality to a specific ALDH (31). Our study indicates increased aldehyde dehydrogenase activity mediated by ALDH1A1 contributes to increased detoxification of reactive aldehydes downstream of lipid peroxidation and increased resistance to EGFR inhibition.

Both human (GBM43) and murine (CSC clone 2) GBM cells with elevated expression of ALDH1A1 were sensitive to the irreversible ALDH inhibitor DS. Based on data from several studies suggesting its cytotoxic effect on tumor cells (49, 50), DS is currently in clinical trials for the treatment of GBM (NCT03363659, NCT03151772, NCT02678975, and NCT02770378; clinicaltrials.gov). Our data confirm a cytotoxic effect of DS, but additionally suggest that combination therapy with both ALDH and EGFR inhibitors may be especially effective in treating a subset of GBM with abnormal and elevated EGFR activity.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

T.F. Cloughesy has ownership interest (including stock, patents, etc.) in Notable Labs; is a consultant/advisory board member for Odonate Therapeutics, Del Mar Pharmaceuticals, VBI Vaccines, Dicephera, VBL, Agios, Merck, Roche, Genocea, Celgene, Puma, Lilly, Pascal Biosciences, BMS, Cortice, Wellcome Trust, Novocure, Novogen, Boston Biomedical, Sunovion, Human Longevity, Insys, ProNai, Bayer Pfizer, Notable Labs, MedQia, Tocagen, Karyopharm, GW Pharma, Kiyatec, AbbVie, and Boehinger Ingelheim; and has provided expert testimony as Member of the Board for the Global Coalition for Adaptive Research 501c3 for U.S. Provisional Application No.: 62/819,322. L.M Liau reports receiving a commercial research grant from Northwest Biotherapeutics and is a consultant/advisory board member for Insightec, Inc. and Arbor Pharmaceuticals. M. Prados is a consultant/advisory board member for Nativis. A. Lai reports receiving a commercial research grant from Genentech/Roche, has received honoraria from the speakers bureau of AbbVie, and is a consultant/advisory board member for Merck. W.A. Weiss has ownership interest (including stock, patents, etc.) in StemSynergy Therapeutics. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: A. McKinney, J.J. Phillips

Development of methodology: A. McKinney, O.R. Lindberg, H. Gong, E.F. Simonds, J.J. Phillips

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): A. McKinney, O.R. Lindberg, J.R. Engler, K.Y. Chen, T.F. Cloughesy, L.M. Liau, M. Prados, A.W. Bollen, C.D. James, W.H. Yong, A. Lai, M.E. Hegi, J.J. Phillips

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): A. McKinney, O.R. Lindberg, K.Y. Chen, A. Kumar, H. Gong, M. Prados, J.T.C. Shieh, A. Lai, W.A. Weiss, J.J. Phillips

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: A. McKinney, K.Y. Chen, E.F. Simonds, T.F. Cloughesy, L.M. Liau, M. Prados, A.W. Bollen, M.S. Berger, J.T.C. Shieh, C.D. James, T.P. Nicolaides, W.H. Yong, A. Lai, M.E. Hegi, W.A. Weiss, J.J. Phillips

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): K.Y. Chen, K.V. Lu, T.P. Nicolaides, M.E. Hegi, J.J. Phillips

Study supervision: J.J. Phillips

Acknowledgments

We are grateful and acknowledge the UCSF Brain Tumor SPORE Tissue Core (P50CA097257) for providing histology services and the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Laboratory for Cell Analysis Shared Resource Facility (P30CA082103) for microscopy services. This study was funded by NIH/NINDS R01 NS081117 to J.J. Phillips, NIH/NCI U01 CA168878 to J.J. Phillips, NIH/NCI U01 CA229345 to J.J. Phillips, NIH/NCI P50CA221747 to C.D. James, the Oncosuisse (OCS-01680-02-2005 to M.E. Hegi), NIH/NCI R01 CA179071 to A. Lai, and NIH/NCI P50-CA211015 to A. Lai; and resources were provided by the UCSF Brain Tumor SPORE Biorepository NIH/NCI P50CA097257 to J.J. Phillips. We also acknowledge and thank the T.J. Martell Foundation, the Gerson and Barbara Bakar Philanthropic Fund, and the Sence Foundation for their support of this work. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Online (http://mct.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Mol Cancer Ther 2019;18:1565–76

  • Received December 1, 2018.
  • Revision received May 10, 2019.
  • Accepted June 28, 2019.
  • Published first July 3, 2019.
  • ©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways. Nature 2008;455:1061–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Brennan CW,
    2. Verhaak RGW,
    3. McKenna A,
    4. Campos B,
    5. Noushmehr H,
    6. Salama SR,
    7. et al.
    The somatic genomic landscape of glioblastoma. Cell 2013;155:462–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Wong AJ,
    2. Ruppert JM,
    3. Bigner SH,
    4. Grzeschik CH,
    5. Humphrey PA,
    6. Bigner DS,
    7. et al.
    Structural alterations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in human gliomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992;89:2965–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Ekstrand AJ,
    2. Sugawa N,
    3. James CD,
    4. Collins VP
    . Amplified and rearranged epidermal growth factor receptor genes in human glioblastomas reveal deletions of sequences encoding portions of the N- and/or C-terminal tails. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992;89:4309–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Boockvar JA,
    2. Kapitonov D,
    3. Kapoor G,
    4. Schouten J,
    5. Counelis GJ,
    6. Bogler O,
    7. et al.
    Constitutive EGFR signaling confers a motile phenotype to neural stem cells. Mol Cell Neurosci 2003;24:1116–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Bachoo RM,
    2. Maher EA,
    3. Ligon KL,
    4. Sharpless NE,
    5. Chan SS,
    6. You MJ,
    7. et al.
    Epidermal growth factor receptor and Ink4a/Arf: convergent mechanisms governing terminal differentiation and transformation along the neural stem cell to astrocyte axis. Cancer Cell 2002;1:269–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Brown PD,
    2. Krishnan S,
    3. Sarkaria JN,
    4. Wu W,
    5. Jaeckle KA,
    6. Uhm JH,
    7. et al.
    Phase I/II trial of erlotinib and temozolomide with radiation therapy in the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N0177. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5603–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. van den Bent MJ,
    2. Brandes AA,
    3. Rampling R,
    4. Kouwenhoven MC,
    5. Kros JM,
    6. Carpentier AF,
    7. et al.
    Randomized phase II trial of erlotinib versus temozolomide or carmustine in recurrent glioblastoma: EORTC brain tumor group study 26034. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1268–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Furnari FB,
    2. Cloughesy TF,
    3. Cavenee WK,
    4. Mischel PS
    . Heterogeneity of epidermal growth factor receptor signalling networks in glioblastoma. Nat Rev Cancer 2015;15:302–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Barkovich KJ,
    2. Hariono S,
    3. Garske AL,
    4. Zhang J,
    5. Blair JA,
    6. Fan QW,
    7. et al.
    Kinetics of inhibitor cycling underlie therapeutic disparities between EGFR-driven lung and brain cancers. Cancer Discov 2012;2:450–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Chen YJ,
    2. Huang WC,
    3. Wei YL,
    4. Hsu SC,
    5. Yuan P,
    6. Lin HY,
    7. et al.
    Elevated BCRP/ABCG2 expression confers acquired resistance to gefitinib in wild-type EGFR-expressing cells. PloS One 2011;6:e21428.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Pick A,
    2. Wiese M
    . Tyrosine kinase inhibitors influence ABCG2 expression in EGFR-positive MDCK BCRP cells via the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway. ChemMedChem 2012;7:650–62.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Nathanson DA,
    2. Gini B,
    3. Mottahedeh J,
    4. Visnyei K,
    5. Koga T,
    6. Gomez G,
    7. et al.
    Targeted therapy resistance mediated by dynamic regulation of extrachromosomal mutant EGFR DNA. Science 2014;343:72–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Snuderl M,
    2. Fazlollahi L,
    3. Le LP,
    4. Nitta M,
    5. Zhelyazkova BH,
    6. Davidson CJ,
    7. et al.
    Mosaic amplification of multiple receptor tyrosine kinase genes in glioblastoma. Cancer Cell 2011;20:810–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hegi ME,
    2. Diserens AC,
    3. Bady P,
    4. Kamoshima Y,
    5. Kouwenhoven MC,
    6. Delorenzi M,
    7. et al.
    Pathway analysis of glioblastoma tissue after preoperative treatment with the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib–a phase II trial. Mol Cancer Ther 2011;10:1102–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Mellinghoff IK,
    2. Wang MY,
    3. Vivanco I,
    4. Haas-Kogan DA,
    5. Zhu S,
    6. Dia EQ,
    7. et al.
    Molecular determinants of the response of glioblastomas to EGFR kinase inhibitors. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2012–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Fenton TR,
    2. Nathanson D,
    3. Ponte de Albuquerque C,
    4. Kuga D,
    5. Iwanami A,
    6. Dang J,
    7. et al.
    Resistance to EGF receptor inhibitors in glioblastoma mediated by phosphorylation of the PTEN tumor suppressor at tyrosine 240. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012;109:14164–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Jun HJ,
    2. Acquaviva J,
    3. Chi D,
    4. Lessard J,
    5. Zhu H,
    6. Woolfenden S,
    7. et al.
    Acquired MET expression confers resistance to EGFR inhibition in a mouse model of glioblastoma multiforme. Oncogene 2012;31:3039–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Akhavan D,
    2. Pourzia AL,
    3. Nourian AA,
    4. Williams KJ,
    5. Nathanson D,
    6. Babic I,
    7. et al.
    De-repression of PDGFRβ transcription promotes acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in glioblastoma patients. Cancer Discov 2013;3:534–47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Cairns RA,
    2. Harris IS,
    3. Mak TW
    . Regulation of cancer cell metabolism. Nat Rev Cancer 2011;11:85–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Guo D,
    2. Reinitz F,
    3. Youssef M,
    4. Hong C,
    5. Nathanson D,
    6. Akhavan D,
    7. et al.
    An LXR agonist promotes glioblastoma cell death through inhibition of an EGFR/AKT/SREBP-1/LDLR-dependent pathway. Cancer Discov 2011;1:442–56.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Guo D,
    2. Prins RM,
    3. Dang J,
    4. Kuga D,
    5. Iwanami A,
    6. Soto H,
    7. et al.
    EGFR signaling through an Akt-SREBP-1-dependent, rapamycin-resistant pathway sensitizes glioblastomas to antilipogenic therapy. Sci Signal 2009;2:ra82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Orcutt KP,
    2. Parsons AD,
    3. Sibenaller ZA,
    4. Scarbrough PM,
    5. Zhu Y,
    6. Sobhakumari A,
    7. et al.
    Erlotinib-mediated inhibition of EGFR signaling induces metabolic oxidative stress through NOX4. Cancer Res 2011;71:3932–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Phillips JJ,
    2. Huillard E,
    3. Robinson AE,
    4. Ward A,
    5. Lum DH,
    6. Polley MY,
    7. et al.
    Heparan sulfate sulfatase SULF2 regulates PDGFRα signaling and growth in human and mouse malignant glioma. J Clin Invest 2012;122:911–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Sarkaria JN,
    2. Carlson BL,
    3. Schroeder MA,
    4. Grogan P,
    5. Brown PD,
    6. Giannini C,
    7. et al.
    Use of an orthotopic xenograft model for assessing the effect of epidermal growth factor receptor amplification on glioblastoma radiation response. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:2264–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Lindberg OR,
    2. McKinney A,
    3. Engler JR,
    4. Koshkakaryan G,
    5. Gong H,
    6. Robinson AE,
    7. et al.
    GBM heterogeneity as a function of variable epidermal growth factor receptor variant III activity. Oncotarget 2016;19(Suppl 6):vi52.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Shi Z,
    2. Parmar S,
    3. Peng XX,
    4. Shen T,
    5. Robey RW,
    6. Bates SE,
    7. et al.
    The epidermal growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor AG1478 and erlotinib reverse ABCG2-mediated drug resistance. Oncol Rep 2009;21:483–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Wade A,
    2. Engler JR,
    3. Tran VM,
    4. Phillips JJ
    . Measuring sulfatase expression and invasion in glioblastoma. Methods Mol Biol Clifton NJ 2015;1229:507–16.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Ginestier C,
    2. Hur MH,
    3. Charafe-Jauffret E,
    4. Monville F,
    5. Dutcher J,
    6. Brown M,
    7. et al.
    ALDH1 is a marker of normal and malignant human mammary stem cells and a predictor of poor clinical outcome. Cell Stem Cell 2007;1:555–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Babic I,
    2. Anderson ES,
    3. Tanaka K,
    4. Guo D,
    5. Masui K,
    6. Li B,
    7. et al.
    EGFR mutation-induced alternative splicing of Max contributes to growth of glycolytic tumors in brain cancer. Cell Metab 2013;17:1000–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Raha D,
    2. Wilson TR,
    3. Peng J,
    4. Peterson D,
    5. Yue P,
    6. Evangelista M,
    7. et al.
    The cancer stem cell marker aldehyde dehydrogenase is required to maintain a drug-tolerant tumor cell subpopulation. Cancer Res 2014;74:3579–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Pap EH,
    2. Drummen GP,
    3. Winter VJ,
    4. Kooij TW,
    5. Rijken P,
    6. Wirtz KW,
    7. et al.
    Ratio-fluorescence microscopy of lipid oxidation in living cells using C11-BODIPY(581/591). FEBS Lett 1999;453:278–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Makia NL,
    2. Bojang P,
    3. Falkner KC,
    4. Conklin DJ,
    5. Prough RA
    . Murine hepatic aldehyde dehydrogenase 1a1 is a major contributor to oxidation of aldehydes formed by lipid peroxidation. Chem Biol Interact 2011;191:278–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Lassen N,
    2. Bateman JB,
    3. Estey T,
    4. Kuszak JR,
    5. Nees DW,
    6. Piatigorsky J,
    7. et al.
    Multiple and additive functions of ALDH3A1 and ALDH1A1: cataract phenotype and ocular oxidative damage in Aldh3a1(-/-)/Aldh1a1(-/-) knock-out mice. J Biol Chem 2007;282:25668–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Rysman E,
    2. Brusselmans K,
    3. Scheys K,
    4. Timmermans L,
    5. Derua R,
    6. Munck S,
    7. et al.
    De novo lipogenesis protects cancer cells from free radicals and chemotherapeutics by promoting membrane lipid saturation. Cancer Res 2010;70:8117–26.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Cheeseman KH,
    2. Burton GW,
    3. Ingold KU,
    4. Slater TF
    . Lipid peroxidation and lipid antioxidants in normal and tumor cells. Toxicol Pathol 1984;12:235–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Germain E,
    2. Chajès V,
    3. Cognault S,
    4. Lhuillery C,
    5. Bougnoux P
    . Enhancement of doxorubicin cytotoxicity by polyunsaturated fatty acids in the human breast tumor cell line MDA-MB-231: relationship to lipid peroxidation. Int J Cancer 1998;75:578–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Martin MJ,
    2. Eberlein C,
    3. Taylor M,
    4. Ashton S,
    5. Robinson D,
    6. Cross D
    . Inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation suppresses the development of osimertinib resistance in a preclinical model of EGFR-driven lung adenocarcinoma. Oncotarget 2016;7:86313–25.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    1. Corominas-Faja B,
    2. Oliveras-Ferraros C,
    3. Cuyàs E,
    4. Segura-Carretero A,
    5. Joven J,
    6. Martin-Castillo B,
    7. et al.
    Stem cell-like ALDH(bright) cellular states in EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer: a novel mechanism of acquired resistance to erlotinib targetable with the natural polyphenol silibinin. Cell Cycle Georget Tex 2013;12:3390–404.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    1. Rasper M,
    2. Schäfer A,
    3. Piontek G,
    4. Teufel J,
    5. Brockhoff G,
    6. Ringel F,
    7. et al.
    Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 positive glioblastoma cells show brain tumor stem cell capacity. Neuro-Oncol 2010;12:1024–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Marcato P,
    2. Dean CA,
    3. Giacomantonio CA,
    4. Lee PW
    . Aldehyde dehydrogenase: its role as a cancer stem cell marker comes down to the specific isoform. Cell Cycle Georget Tex 2011;10:1378–84.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    1. Charafe-Jauffret E,
    2. Ginestier C,
    3. Iovino F,
    4. Tarpin C,
    5. Diebel M,
    6. Esterni B,
    7. et al.
    Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1-positive cancer stem cells mediate metastasis and poor clinical outcome in inflammatory breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:45–55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Xu SL,
    2. Liu S,
    3. Cui W,
    4. Shi Y,
    5. Liu Q,
    6. Duan JJ,
    7. et al.
    Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1A1 circumscribes high invasive glioma cells and predicts poor prognosis. Am J Cancer Res 2015;5:1471–83.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    1. Santandreu FM,
    2. Brell M,
    3. Gene AH,
    4. Guevara R,
    5. Oliver J,
    6. Couce ME,
    7. et al.
    Differences in mitochondrial function and antioxidant systems between regions of human glioma. Cell Physiol Biochem 2008;22:757–68.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Adam SA,
    2. Schnell O,
    3. Pöschl J,
    4. Eigenbrod S,
    5. Kretzschmar HA,
    6. Tonn JC,
    7. et al.
    ALDH1A1 is a marker of astrocytic differentiation during brain development and correlates with better survival in glioblastoma patients. Brain Pathol Zurich Switz 2012;22:788–97.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    1. Seguin L,
    2. Kato S,
    3. Franovic A,
    4. Camargo MF,
    5. Lesperance J,
    6. Elliott KC,
    7. et al.
    An integrin β3-KRAS-RalB complex drives tumour stemness and resistance to EGFR inhibition. Nat Cell Biol 2014;16:457–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Tanei T,
    2. Morimoto K,
    3. Shimazu K,
    4. Kim SJ,
    5. Tanji Y,
    6. Taguchi T,
    7. et al.
    Association of breast cancer stem cells identified by aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 expression with resistance to sequential paclitaxel and epirubicin-based chemotherapy for breast cancers. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:4234–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Schäfer A,
    2. Teufel J,
    3. Ringel F,
    4. Bettstetter M,
    5. Hoepner I,
    6. Rasper M,
    7. et al.
    Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1A1–a new mediator of resistance to temozolomide in glioblastoma. Neuro-Oncol 2012;14:1452–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Liu P,
    2. Kumar IS,
    3. Brown S,
    4. Kannappan V,
    5. Tawari PE,
    6. Tang JZ,
    7. et al.
    Disulfiram targets cancer stem-like cells and reverses resistance and cross-resistance in acquired paclitaxel-resistant triple-negative breast cancer cells. Br J Cancer 2013;109:1876–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Hothi P,
    2. Martins TJ,
    3. Chen L,
    4. Deleyrolle L,
    5. Yoon JG,
    6. Reynolds B,
    7. et al.
    High-throughput chemical screens identify disulfiram as an inhibitor of human glioblastoma stem cells. Oncotarget 2012;3:1124–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics: 18 (9)
September 2019
Volume 18, Issue 9
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Editorial Board (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Molecular Cancer Therapeutics article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Mechanisms of Resistance to EGFR Inhibition Reveal Metabolic Vulnerabilities in Human GBM
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Mechanisms of Resistance to EGFR Inhibition Reveal Metabolic Vulnerabilities in Human GBM
Andrew McKinney, Olle R. Lindberg, Jane R. Engler, Katharine Y. Chen, Anupam Kumar, Henry Gong, Kan V. Lu, Erin F. Simonds, Timothy F. Cloughesy, Linda M. Liau, Michael Prados, Andrew W. Bollen, Mitchel S. Berger, Joseph T.C. Shieh, C. David James, Theodore P. Nicolaides, William H. Yong, Albert Lai, Monika E. Hegi, William A. Weiss and Joanna J. Phillips
Mol Cancer Ther September 1 2019 (18) (9) 1565-1576; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-18-1330

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Mechanisms of Resistance to EGFR Inhibition Reveal Metabolic Vulnerabilities in Human GBM
Andrew McKinney, Olle R. Lindberg, Jane R. Engler, Katharine Y. Chen, Anupam Kumar, Henry Gong, Kan V. Lu, Erin F. Simonds, Timothy F. Cloughesy, Linda M. Liau, Michael Prados, Andrew W. Bollen, Mitchel S. Berger, Joseph T.C. Shieh, C. David James, Theodore P. Nicolaides, William H. Yong, Albert Lai, Monika E. Hegi, William A. Weiss and Joanna J. Phillips
Mol Cancer Ther September 1 2019 (18) (9) 1565-1576; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-18-1330
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • CF33 Viroimmunotherapy Cross-Primes T Cells in Colon Cancer
  • Hsp90 Inhibition and PD-1 Blockade
  • IOX1 Inhibits Oncogenic Wnt Signaling through KDM3
Show more Cancer Biology and Translational Studies
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About MCT

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
eISSN: 1538-8514
ISSN: 1535-7163

Advertisement