Tumor–neuron interactions: A novel concept contributor to glioblastoma invasion

Dongling Pei, Zhenyu Zhang, Long Zhang
{"title":"Tumor–neuron interactions: A novel concept contributor to glioblastoma invasion","authors":"Dongling Pei,&nbsp;Zhenyu Zhang,&nbsp;Long Zhang","doi":"10.1002/mog2.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recently, a study published in <i>Cell</i> by Venkataramani et al.<span><sup>1</sup></span> demonstrated that neuronal (NEU), neural progenitor (NPC)-like, and nonmesenchymal (non-MES)-like glioblastoma cells (GBCs) could drive brain tumor cell invasion. Those astrocyte (AS)-unconnected, invasive GBCs (“unconnected<sup>TUM/AC</sup>”) transitioned over time and infiltrated into other regions, largely consisting of tumor cell and AS-connected, stable GBCs (“connected<sup>TUM/AC</sup>”). This work elegantly indicated that GBCs are not only connected with each other via gap junctions but are also connected with neurons. In addition, NEU activity drives glioma progression via glutamatergic neuron-to-brain tumor synaptic communication and nonsynaptic paracrine stimulation.<span><sup>2, 3</sup></span> However, how these tumors integrate into complex NEU circuits remains unclear.</p><p>Glioblastomas are the most frequently occurring malignant type of primary brain tumor, comprising 12%–15% of all intracranial tumors. However, even with current standard therapies, the majority of patients succumb to the disease within 2 years of diagnosis.<span><sup>4</sup></span> Due to the high heterogeneity and invasion of glioblastoma, gross total resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy with DNA-alkylaing agent (temozolomide) are largely ineffective.<span><sup>5</sup></span> Suvà and co-workers<span><sup>6</sup></span> demonstrated that GBCs exist in four cellular states: NPC-like, oligodendrocyte progenitor (OPC)-like, AS-like, and MES-like states. Despite different subtypes, no specific treatment works more effectively. Thus, research into malignant gliomas is complex and challenging.</p><p>Increasing evidence has been found to illustrate the functional and synaptic integration of glioma into the brain network, facilitating brain tumor progression. The NEU activities function through gap junctions, neurotransmitters, ion channels, synapses, tumor microtubes (TMs), and NEU molecules to establish communication with glioma. As reported, there have been several recent discoveries that have described how neurons may form synaptic connections with brain tumor cells. Among cell–cell communication, gap junctions consisted of connexin proteins, which form conductive pores in the plasma membranes among adjacent NEU cells, increasing glioma cell invasiveness and migration.<span><sup>7, 8</sup></span> γ-Aminobutyric acid and glutamate are the predominant neurotransmitters that impair glioma cell growth.<span><sup>3, 9</sup></span> We aimed to provide a simplified explanation of crosstalk on neuron-glioma, found by Venkataramani.</p><p>To understand the rapid spread of malignant glioma, patient-derived human GBC cells were injected into mice via intracranial stereolocalization and the GBCs were separated into two subtypes: unconnected<sup>TUM/AC</sup> GBCs and connected<sup>TUM/AC</sup> GBCs. Connected<sup>TUM/AC</sup> GBCs were found to be anatomically connected with other tumor cells, AS, or both via ultralong and thin-membrane protrusions and TMs. Unexpectedly, the authors demonstrated that unconnected<sup>TUM/AC</sup> GBCs were more invasive than connected<sup>TUM/AC</sup> GBCs. This discovery supported the previous theory that communication between neurons and brain tumor cells drives brain tumor progression and metastasis in high-grade pediatric,<span><sup>2</sup></span> as well as adult oligodendroglioma.<span><sup>3</sup></span></p><p>Furthermore, intravital two-photon microscopy (IV2PM) and single-cell transcriptomics (scRNA-seq) identified that unconnected<sup>TUM/AC</sup> GBCs (dynamic and invasive GBCs) were predominately enriched for analogous neural cells (OPC-like, NEU-like, and NPC-like cells), while connected<sup>TUM/AC</sup> GBCs (stationary and gap-junction-coupled GBCs) mainly consisted of non-NEU cells (GPM/MTC/PPR), AS-like, and MES-like cells. Combining IV2PM and scRNA-seq, the authors aimed to provide a conceptual framework that described how unconnected<sup>TUM/AC</sup> GBMs infiltrate the surrounding healthy brain (Figure 1C). The NEU cell state of unconnected<sup>TUM/AC</sup> GBMs was mostly located in the tumor rim (Figure 1C), was easily transferred to distant regions in the brain environment, and normally formed synapses with other GBCs and AS by increasing the TMs. The activation of NEU signaling in stem-like neoplastic cells may result from tumor–neuron interactions.<span><sup>10</sup></span></p><p>To explain why NEU cell features coincide with brain tumor invasion, the authors utilized quantitative morphometric analysis and deep-learning-enabled intravital subcellular time-lapse imaging (DeepISTI) to show that TMs mainly improved the volume and surface area of GBMs, which increased the probability of interaction with neurons in the brain. In addition, not all TMs contributed to the invasive process; blind-ending TMs (lacking connection with other TMs) predominately improved the invasiveness of GBCs. The movement of blind-ending TMs mainly relies on three mechanisms: extension, retraction, and TM branching generation, which are similar to the migration of immature neurons. DeepISTI results again proved the neuron-like behavior of GBCs infiltrating via branching migration, locomotion, and translocation, similar to that of immature neurons. Even though the behavior was similar to axonal growth cone pathfinding, the unconnected<sup>TUM/AC</sup> GBM cells responded to NEU input for axonal migration by resembling an interneuron movement. Therefore, it was concluded that TM invasion follows a search-efficient mechanism and increases the invasion speed of GBMs via NEU activity (Figure 1A).</p><p>When invasive unconnected<sup>TUM/AC</sup> GBCs find a favorable location in normal brain tissue, the pioneering GBCs change their molecular properties and become a stationary cell type to form a gap-junction-coupled tumor–AS network. Dr. Venkataramani<span><sup>1</sup></span> describes this behavior as being similar to the colonization of the New World, where individual settlers traveled great distances, made contact with the locals, and finally settled down in their new location.</p><p>To explore the intracellular downstream mechanism, in vivo and in vitro experiments revealed that calcium transient caused by synaptic NEU activity is critical for GBC invasion. Moreover, blockage of calcium transients by calcium chelators (BAPTA-AM) or a CREB inhibitor (666-15) inhibited glioma growth, supporting the growth-promoting role of NEU membrane depolarization and calcium signaling in gliomas (Figure 1B). Thus, NEU activity is not only important for glioma growth but also plays a significant role in driving the migration of these deadly tumors. Furthermore, the unconnected<sup>TUM/AC</sup> GBM cells on the tumor edge exhibit an AMPA-receptor phenotype that is different from that expressed in the core of adult gliomas and is normally restricted to neural progenitor cells, making them particularly sensitive to the proliferative effects of glutamate, supporting a key role of neurogliomal synapses in tumor invasion. More importantly, Food and Drug Administration-approved AMPAR inhibition was proven effective in reducing TM length and branching points.<span><sup>1, 3</sup></span></p><p>In summary, this study leverages cutting-edge techniques, including single-cell sequencing, intravital time-lapse imaging, intravital calcium imaging, patch-clamp electrophysiology, correlative light and electron microscopy, spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic currents, and in vivo optogenetics to explore the hijacking mechanism of NEU interactions in GBM progression. The distant colonization of GBCs now has been illustrated in the context of NEU activity and how it drives glioma initiation and growth (Figure 1C).</p><p>As discussed earlier in this article, we argued that the glutamatergic effects could be reduced by interfering with the AMPAR inhibitor, which slows the tumor progression in the brain. Thus, identifying and having a better understanding of these mechanisms could help in the development of future novel therapeutic strategies for currently incurable glioblastoma.</p><p><b>Dongling Pei</b>: Visualization (lead); writing – original draft (lead). <b>Zhenyu Zhang</b>: Conceptualization (equal); writing – review and editing (supporting). <b>Long Zhang</b>: Conceptualization (lead); writing – review and editing (lead). All authors have read and approved the article.</p><p>Long Zhang is an editorial board member of MedComm – Oncology, but was not involved in the review of the journal, or decisions related to this manuscript. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.</p><p>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":100902,"journal":{"name":"MedComm – Oncology","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mog2.17","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedComm – Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mog2.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recently, a study published in Cell by Venkataramani et al.1 demonstrated that neuronal (NEU), neural progenitor (NPC)-like, and nonmesenchymal (non-MES)-like glioblastoma cells (GBCs) could drive brain tumor cell invasion. Those astrocyte (AS)-unconnected, invasive GBCs (“unconnectedTUM/AC”) transitioned over time and infiltrated into other regions, largely consisting of tumor cell and AS-connected, stable GBCs (“connectedTUM/AC”). This work elegantly indicated that GBCs are not only connected with each other via gap junctions but are also connected with neurons. In addition, NEU activity drives glioma progression via glutamatergic neuron-to-brain tumor synaptic communication and nonsynaptic paracrine stimulation.2, 3 However, how these tumors integrate into complex NEU circuits remains unclear.

Glioblastomas are the most frequently occurring malignant type of primary brain tumor, comprising 12%–15% of all intracranial tumors. However, even with current standard therapies, the majority of patients succumb to the disease within 2 years of diagnosis.4 Due to the high heterogeneity and invasion of glioblastoma, gross total resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy with DNA-alkylaing agent (temozolomide) are largely ineffective.5 Suvà and co-workers6 demonstrated that GBCs exist in four cellular states: NPC-like, oligodendrocyte progenitor (OPC)-like, AS-like, and MES-like states. Despite different subtypes, no specific treatment works more effectively. Thus, research into malignant gliomas is complex and challenging.

Increasing evidence has been found to illustrate the functional and synaptic integration of glioma into the brain network, facilitating brain tumor progression. The NEU activities function through gap junctions, neurotransmitters, ion channels, synapses, tumor microtubes (TMs), and NEU molecules to establish communication with glioma. As reported, there have been several recent discoveries that have described how neurons may form synaptic connections with brain tumor cells. Among cell–cell communication, gap junctions consisted of connexin proteins, which form conductive pores in the plasma membranes among adjacent NEU cells, increasing glioma cell invasiveness and migration.7, 8 γ-Aminobutyric acid and glutamate are the predominant neurotransmitters that impair glioma cell growth.3, 9 We aimed to provide a simplified explanation of crosstalk on neuron-glioma, found by Venkataramani.

To understand the rapid spread of malignant glioma, patient-derived human GBC cells were injected into mice via intracranial stereolocalization and the GBCs were separated into two subtypes: unconnectedTUM/AC GBCs and connectedTUM/AC GBCs. ConnectedTUM/AC GBCs were found to be anatomically connected with other tumor cells, AS, or both via ultralong and thin-membrane protrusions and TMs. Unexpectedly, the authors demonstrated that unconnectedTUM/AC GBCs were more invasive than connectedTUM/AC GBCs. This discovery supported the previous theory that communication between neurons and brain tumor cells drives brain tumor progression and metastasis in high-grade pediatric,2 as well as adult oligodendroglioma.3

Furthermore, intravital two-photon microscopy (IV2PM) and single-cell transcriptomics (scRNA-seq) identified that unconnectedTUM/AC GBCs (dynamic and invasive GBCs) were predominately enriched for analogous neural cells (OPC-like, NEU-like, and NPC-like cells), while connectedTUM/AC GBCs (stationary and gap-junction-coupled GBCs) mainly consisted of non-NEU cells (GPM/MTC/PPR), AS-like, and MES-like cells. Combining IV2PM and scRNA-seq, the authors aimed to provide a conceptual framework that described how unconnectedTUM/AC GBMs infiltrate the surrounding healthy brain (Figure 1C). The NEU cell state of unconnectedTUM/AC GBMs was mostly located in the tumor rim (Figure 1C), was easily transferred to distant regions in the brain environment, and normally formed synapses with other GBCs and AS by increasing the TMs. The activation of NEU signaling in stem-like neoplastic cells may result from tumor–neuron interactions.10

To explain why NEU cell features coincide with brain tumor invasion, the authors utilized quantitative morphometric analysis and deep-learning-enabled intravital subcellular time-lapse imaging (DeepISTI) to show that TMs mainly improved the volume and surface area of GBMs, which increased the probability of interaction with neurons in the brain. In addition, not all TMs contributed to the invasive process; blind-ending TMs (lacking connection with other TMs) predominately improved the invasiveness of GBCs. The movement of blind-ending TMs mainly relies on three mechanisms: extension, retraction, and TM branching generation, which are similar to the migration of immature neurons. DeepISTI results again proved the neuron-like behavior of GBCs infiltrating via branching migration, locomotion, and translocation, similar to that of immature neurons. Even though the behavior was similar to axonal growth cone pathfinding, the unconnectedTUM/AC GBM cells responded to NEU input for axonal migration by resembling an interneuron movement. Therefore, it was concluded that TM invasion follows a search-efficient mechanism and increases the invasion speed of GBMs via NEU activity (Figure 1A).

When invasive unconnectedTUM/AC GBCs find a favorable location in normal brain tissue, the pioneering GBCs change their molecular properties and become a stationary cell type to form a gap-junction-coupled tumor–AS network. Dr. Venkataramani1 describes this behavior as being similar to the colonization of the New World, where individual settlers traveled great distances, made contact with the locals, and finally settled down in their new location.

To explore the intracellular downstream mechanism, in vivo and in vitro experiments revealed that calcium transient caused by synaptic NEU activity is critical for GBC invasion. Moreover, blockage of calcium transients by calcium chelators (BAPTA-AM) or a CREB inhibitor (666-15) inhibited glioma growth, supporting the growth-promoting role of NEU membrane depolarization and calcium signaling in gliomas (Figure 1B). Thus, NEU activity is not only important for glioma growth but also plays a significant role in driving the migration of these deadly tumors. Furthermore, the unconnectedTUM/AC GBM cells on the tumor edge exhibit an AMPA-receptor phenotype that is different from that expressed in the core of adult gliomas and is normally restricted to neural progenitor cells, making them particularly sensitive to the proliferative effects of glutamate, supporting a key role of neurogliomal synapses in tumor invasion. More importantly, Food and Drug Administration-approved AMPAR inhibition was proven effective in reducing TM length and branching points.1, 3

In summary, this study leverages cutting-edge techniques, including single-cell sequencing, intravital time-lapse imaging, intravital calcium imaging, patch-clamp electrophysiology, correlative light and electron microscopy, spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic currents, and in vivo optogenetics to explore the hijacking mechanism of NEU interactions in GBM progression. The distant colonization of GBCs now has been illustrated in the context of NEU activity and how it drives glioma initiation and growth (Figure 1C).

As discussed earlier in this article, we argued that the glutamatergic effects could be reduced by interfering with the AMPAR inhibitor, which slows the tumor progression in the brain. Thus, identifying and having a better understanding of these mechanisms could help in the development of future novel therapeutic strategies for currently incurable glioblastoma.

Dongling Pei: Visualization (lead); writing – original draft (lead). Zhenyu Zhang: Conceptualization (equal); writing – review and editing (supporting). Long Zhang: Conceptualization (lead); writing – review and editing (lead). All authors have read and approved the article.

Long Zhang is an editorial board member of MedComm – Oncology, but was not involved in the review of the journal, or decisions related to this manuscript. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Not applicable.

Abstract Image

肿瘤-神经元相互作用:胶质母细胞瘤侵袭的新概念
最近,Venkataramani等人在Cell上发表的一项研究表明,神经元(NEU)、神经祖细胞(NPC)样和非间充质(non-MES)样胶质母细胞瘤细胞(GBCs)可以驱动脑肿瘤细胞的侵袭。那些星形胶质细胞(AS)未连接的侵袭性GBCs (unconnectedTUM/AC)随着时间的推移而转移并浸润到其他区域,主要由肿瘤细胞和AS连接的稳定GBCs (connectedTUM/AC)组成。这项工作很好地表明,GBCs不仅通过间隙连接相互连接,而且还与神经元连接。此外,NEU活性通过谷氨酸能神经元到脑肿瘤的突触通讯和非突触旁分泌刺激驱动胶质瘤的进展。然而,这些肿瘤如何整合到复杂的NEU电路中仍不清楚。胶质母细胞瘤是原发性脑肿瘤中最常见的恶性类型,占所有颅内肿瘤的12%-15%。然而,即使采用目前的标准治疗方法,大多数患者在诊断后2年内死于疾病由于胶质母细胞瘤具有高度的异质性和侵袭性,总的全切除术、放疗和dna烷基化剂(替莫唑胺)化疗在很大程度上是无效的suvous和他的同事6证明了GBCs以四种细胞状态存在:npc样、少突胶质细胞祖细胞(OPC)样、as样和mes样状态。尽管有不同的亚型,但没有特定的治疗方法更有效。因此,对恶性胶质瘤的研究是复杂而具有挑战性的。越来越多的证据表明,神经胶质瘤的功能和突触整合到脑网络,促进脑肿瘤的进展。NEU活动通过间隙连接、神经递质、离子通道、突触、肿瘤微管(TMs)和NEU分子与胶质瘤建立联系。据报道,最近有几个发现描述了神经元如何与脑肿瘤细胞形成突触连接。在细胞间通讯中,间隙连接由连接蛋白组成,连接蛋白在相邻的NEU细胞之间的质膜上形成导电孔,增加胶质瘤细胞的侵袭性和迁移性。7,8 γ-氨基丁酸和谷氨酸是影响胶质瘤细胞生长的主要神经递质。3,9我们的目的是对Venkataramani发现的神经胶质瘤的串扰提供一个简化的解释。为了了解恶性胶质瘤的快速扩散,通过颅内立体定位将患者来源的人GBC细胞注射到小鼠体内,并将其分为两种亚型:unconnectedTUM/AC GBCs和connectedTUM/AC GBCs。ConnectedTUM/AC GBCs通过超长和薄膜突起和TMs与其他肿瘤细胞、AS或两者解剖连接。出乎意料的是,作者证明了unconnectedTUM/AC GBCs比connectedTUM/AC GBCs更具侵袭性。这一发现支持了先前的理论,即神经元和脑肿瘤细胞之间的交流驱动了高度儿童和成人少突胶质细胞瘤的脑肿瘤进展和转移。此外,活体双光子显微镜(IV2PM)和单细胞转录组学(scRNA-seq)发现,unconnectedTUM/AC GBCs(动态和侵袭性GBCs)主要富集于类似的神经细胞(opc样、neu样和npc样细胞),而connectedTUM/AC GBCs(固定和间隙连接偶联的GBCs)主要由非neu细胞(GPM/MTC/PPR)、as样和mes样细胞组成。结合IV2PM和scRNA-seq,作者旨在提供一个概念框架,描述未连接的tum /AC GBMs如何浸润周围的健康大脑(图1C)。unconnectedTUM/AC GBMs的NEU细胞状态主要位于肿瘤边缘(图1C),在脑环境中容易转移到远处区域,通常通过增加TMs与其他GBCs和AS形成突触。干细胞样肿瘤细胞中NEU信号的激活可能是由肿瘤-神经元相互作用引起的。为了解释为什么新脑细胞特征与脑肿瘤侵袭相吻合,作者利用定量形态计量学分析和深度学习支持的活体亚细胞延时成像(DeepISTI)表明,TMs主要改善了GBMs的体积和表面积,从而增加了与大脑神经元相互作用的可能性。此外,并非所有的TMs都参与了侵袭过程;盲终止TMs(缺乏与其他TMs的连接)主要改善了GBCs的侵袭性。盲尾TM的运动主要依赖于三种机制:伸展、收缩和TM分支的产生,类似于未成熟神经元的迁移。DeepISTI的结果再次证明了GBCs通过分支迁移、运动和易位浸润的神经元样行为与未成熟神经元相似。 尽管这种行为类似于轴突生长锥寻径,但未连接的tum /AC GBM细胞对轴突迁移的NEU输入的反应类似于神经元间的运动。因此,我们得出结论,TM的入侵遵循一种搜索效率机制,并通过NEU活性提高GBMs的入侵速度(图1A)。当侵袭性非连接tum /AC GBCs在正常脑组织中找到有利位置时,开拓性GBCs改变其分子特性,成为一种固定细胞类型,形成一个间隙-连接偶联的肿瘤- as网络。Venkataramani1博士将这种行为描述为类似于新大陆的殖民,在那里,个体定居者长途跋涉,与当地人接触,最终在他们的新地方定居下来。为了探索细胞内下游机制,体内和体外实验表明突触NEU活性引起的钙瞬变对GBC的侵袭至关重要。此外,钙螯合剂(BAPTA-AM)或CREB抑制剂(666-15)阻断钙瞬态可抑制胶质瘤生长,支持NEU膜去极化和钙信号在胶质瘤中的促生长作用(图1B)。因此,NEU活性不仅对胶质瘤的生长很重要,而且在驱动这些致命肿瘤的迁移中也起着重要作用。此外,肿瘤边缘未连接的tum /AC GBM细胞表现出不同于成人胶质瘤核心表达的ampa受体表型,通常仅限于神经祖细胞,使其对谷氨酸的增殖作用特别敏感,支持神经胶质瘤突触在肿瘤侵袭中的关键作用。更重要的是,美国食品和药物管理局批准的AMPAR抑制被证明在减少TM长度和分支点方面是有效的。综上所述,本研究利用单细胞测序、活体延时成像、活体钙成像、膜片钳电生理学、相关光学和电子显微镜、自发兴奋性突触后电流和体内光遗传学等尖端技术,探索NEU相互作用在GBM进展中的劫持机制。现在,在NEU活性的背景下,GBCs的远端定植已经被阐明,以及它如何驱动胶质瘤的发生和生长(图1C)。正如本文前面所讨论的,我们认为可以通过干扰AMPAR抑制剂来降低谷氨酸能的作用,从而减缓肿瘤在大脑中的进展。因此,识别和更好地理解这些机制可能有助于开发目前无法治愈的胶质母细胞瘤的未来新治疗策略。裴东玲:可视化(主持);写作——原稿(引子)。张振宇:概念化(平等);写作-审查和编辑(辅助)。张龙:概念化(导);写作-审查和编辑(主导)。所有作者都阅读并认可了文章。张龙是《MedComm - Oncology》的编辑委员会成员,但未参与该杂志的评审或与本文相关的决策。其余作者声明没有利益冲突。不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信