REPORTS

Restored Expression of Fragile Histidine Triad Protein and Tumorigenicity of Cervical Carcinoma Cells

Rong Wu, Denise C. Connolly, Rodney L. Dunn, Kathleen R. Cho

Affiliations of authors: R. Wu, D. C. Connolly, K. R. Cho, Departments of Pathology and Internal Medicine, The University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor; R. L. Dunn, Biostatistics Core, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor.

Correspondence to: Kathleen R. Cho, M.D., Department of Pathology, The University of Michigan Medical School, 4301 MSRBIII, 1150 W. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (e-mail: kathcho{at} umich.edu).


    ABSTRACT
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Notes
 References
 
BACKGROUND: Allelic losses in the short arm of chromosome 3 are common in cervical carcinomas. The fragile histidine triad (FHIT) gene at chromosome region 3p14.2 is a candidate tumor suppressor gene that may play a role in cervical tumorigenesis. We and others have identified aberrant FHIT transcripts and frequent loss of Fhit protein expression in primary cervical cancers and high-grade noninvasive lesions but not in normal cervical tissues. The altered expression of FHIT may be due to somatic mutations or integration of human papillomavirus DNA at the FHIT locus. The purpose of this study was to determine whether ectopic expression of Fhit can suppress the tumorigenic properties of cervical cancer cells. METHODS: We employed infection with recombinant retroviruses as well as transfection of plasmid DNA to restore Fhit protein expression in cervical cancer cell lines lacking full-length FHIT transcripts and endogenous Fhit protein. The effects of Fhit expression on tumor cell morphology, anchorage-independent growth, and tumorigenicity in nude mice were examined. RESULTS: Stable overexpression of Fhit had no discernible effect on the tumorigenic properties of two cervical carcinoma cell lines or on a lung carcinoma cell line previously reported by others to be suppressed for tumorigenicity by Fhit. CONCLUSIONS: Restoration of Fhit expression does not suppress anchorage-independent growth or tumorigenicity of cervical carcinoma cell lines. However, it remains possible that FHIT inactivation may be important early in cervical tumor progression or that FHIT may suppress tumorigenesis in ways distinct from those measured by the assays employed in this study.



    INTRODUCTION
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Notes
 References
 
Cervical carcinoma remains a major source of cancer-related morbidity and death for women in the United States and throughout the world. Infection with certain ("high-risk") types of human papillomaviruses (HPVs) is strongly associated with cervical cancer, probably due, in large part, to inactivation of the cellular tumor suppressor protein p53 and retinoblastoma protein (pRB) through interactions with the HPV E6 and E7 proteins, respectively (1). Recent studies suggest that, in addition to HPV infection, somatic mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes are likely to be critical for cervical cancer development and progression. Localization of tumor suppressor genes inactivated during cervical tumorigenesis may be aided by the identification of frequent allelic losses of specific chromosomal regions in primary tumors and associated precursor (intraepithelial) lesions. Several groups of investigators (2-8) have demonstrated frequent losses of heterozygosity on the short arm of chromosome 3 in cervical cancers and/or in preinvasive lesions. At least one commonly deleted region has been mapped to 3p14 (2-6).

In 1996, a candidate tumor suppressor gene named FHIT (fragile histidine triad) was identified at chromosome 3p14.2 (9). FHIT is a large gene, with at least 10 exons spanning approximately 1 megabase of genomic DNA. The coding region, beginning in exon 5 and ending in exon 9, encodes a protein with a predicted molecular mass of approximately 16.8 kd. Fhit protein has been shown to function as a dinucleoside 5',5'''-P1,P3-triphosphate (Ap3A) hydrolase, forming adenosine diphosphate and adenosine monophosphate from the Ap3A substrate (10). Several published reviews (11) have summarized observations supporting FHIT's candidacy as a tumor suppressor gene targeted by 3p14 allelic losses in cervical and several other types of human cancers. For example, the t(3;8) (p14.2;q24) translocation in a kindred with familial renal cell carcinoma occurs within the FHIT locus, and homozygous deletions within the FHIT gene, some of which include coding-region exons, have been identified in several primary tumors and cell lines. In addition, aberrant FHIT transcripts have been observed in many of the different tumor types that show frequent deletions of the 3p14.2 region. More recent studies (15) suggest a role for Fhit in the regulation of apoptosis and the cell cycle.

While these findings support FHIT's candidacy as a tumor suppressor gene, other findings question this view. The FHIT locus spans a large common fragile site/region, FRA3B, and it has been suggested that structural alterations within FHIT simply reflect genetic instability of FRA3B. Moreover, aberrant FHIT transcripts of the type seen in cancers have been observed in non-neoplastic tissues, point mutations within the FHIT coding region are extremely rare, and some homozygous deletions affect only FHIT introns and leave the exons intact. Functional studies assessing Fhit's ability to suppress the tumorigenic properties of cancer cells have also yielded conflicting results. Two groups (16,17) have reported that overexpression of Fhit suppresses the tumorigenicity of selected Fhit-negative lung carcinoma cell lines. Tumor suppression by Fhit has also been observed in gastric and renal carcinoma-derived cell lines (17). In contrast, Otterson et al. (18) reported that Fhit protein expression failed to suppress tumorigenicity of HeLa cervical carcinoma cells. This group of authors suggested that the contradictory results raise the possibility that FHIT exerts its tumor suppressive activity in a highly cell lineage-specific manner.

We have previously characterized FHIT expression in six cervical cancer cell lines, in 35 primary cervical carcinomas, and in various normal tissues, including normal cervix (19), and found aberrant FHIT transcripts and markedly reduced or absent Fhit protein expression in about 70% of primary cervical carcinomas. Others (20-23) have reported aberrant FHIT transcripts and/or loss of Fhit protein expression in 43%-61% of invasive cervical cancers and a third of high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions but only rarely in low-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions (22,23). Integration of HPV into the FRA3B/FHIT locus has also been observed in a primary cervical carcinoma (24). Collectively, the findings suggest that FHIT gene alterations may play an important role in cervical tumorigenesis. In this study, we sought to further define the role of FHIT in cervical cancer by restoring Fhit expression in selected cervical and other cancer cell lines.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Notes
 References
 
Cell lines. All human carcinoma cell lines were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA). The cervical carcinoma-derived cell lines HeLa, SiHa, C-33A, and C-4II were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium (DMEM)/10% (vol/vol) fetal bovine serum (FBS). ME-180 cervical carcinoma cells were cultured in McCoy's 5A medium containing 10% FBS. CaSki cervical carcinoma and H460 lung carcinoma cells were cultured in RPMI-1640 medium/10% FBS, and AGS gastric carcinoma cells were maintained in Ham's F12 nutrient medium/10% FBS. Media and FBS were obtained from Life Technologies, Inc. (GIBCO BRL), Gaithersburg, MD. Human primary foreskin keratinocytes were cultured from fresh neonatal foreskins and maintained in keratinocyte growth medium (Clonetics, Walkersville, MD), as previously described (25). Amphotropic Phoenix cells, which are highly transfectable 293T-derived human embryonic kidney cells stably expressing the MoLV retroviral gag, pol, and env genes, were used to package and amplify recombinant retroviruses [(26) and http://www.stanford.edu/group/nolan/NL-phoenix.html]. These cells were maintained in DMEM/10% FBS.

Vector construction. Full-length, wild-type FHIT complementary DNA (cDNA) was inserted into the EcoRI site of the pPGS-CMV-CITE- Neo(+) plasmid (provided by G. Nabel, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor), which contains the retroviral long terminal repeat and packaging signal for efficient expression. Chimeric transcripts encoding the gene of interest fused to the neomycin resistance gene are generated from this vector. An internal ribosomal entry site allows translation of both proteins from the chimeric transcript. The FHIT cDNA was also subcloned into the EcoRI site of pcDNA3.1/zeo+ vector (Invitrogen Corp., Omar, UT) to generate pcDNA3.1/zeo+/FHIT, in which FHIT expression was under the transcriptional control of a strong constitutive cytomegalovirus (CMV) promoter. The full-length FHIT inserts of both plasmids were verified by sequence analysis.

Retrovirus infection. To generate recombinant retroviruses, we transfected amphotropic Phoenix cells with the retroviral expression plasmids by use of the FuGene6TM nonliposomal transfection reagent (Boehringer Mannheim Biochemicals, Inc., Indianapolis, IN), as described by the manufacturer. Briefly, 2.5 x 106 Phoenix cells were seeded in 60-mm dishes 12 hours before transfection. Cells were then transfected with 6 µg of pPGS-CMV-CITE- Neo(+)/FHIT or pPGS-CMV-CITE-Neo(+) and 15 µg of FuGene6. Forty-eight hours after transfection, culture supernatants containing the retroviruses were added to the C-33A, C-4II, H460, and AGS cells seeded at a density of 2 x 106/25-cm2 flask the preceding day. Cells were initially selected in 1 mg/mL G418 (Geneticin; Life Technologies, Inc.) starting 48 hours after infection. G418 concentration was reduced to 0.7 mg/mL and then to 0.25 mg/mL 5 and 10 days after retroviral infection, respectively. Polyclonal populations of stably transduced cells were evaluated for Fhit protein expression approximately 2 weeks (two passages) following transduction and injected into nude mice three passages after transduction.

Stable transfection. Transfections were performed by use of Lipofectace transfection reagent (Life Technologies, Inc.) with 2 µg of pcDNA3.1/zeo+/FHIT or pcDNA3.1/zeo+. Plasmids were added to 25-cm2 flasks containing C-33A cells seeded at a density of 3 x 105 cells the preceding day. Clones were selected in the presence of 250 µg/mL zeocin (Invitrogen Corp.). Clonal sublines of C-33A transfectants were obtained by limiting dilution. Individual clones were initially evaluated for Fhit protein expression 3 months following transfection (passage 4) and again at passage 7. Cells were injected into nude mice at passage 7.

Western blot analysis. Lysates from cultured cells were prepared in lysis buffer composed of 5 mL 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)/10 mM Tris (pH 7.4) and one tablet CompleteTM protease inhibitor cocktail (Boehringer Mannheim Biochemicals). Xenograft tissues were homogenized in lysis buffer, and the supernatants were prepared by centrifugation at 13 000g for 30 minutes at 4 °C. Protein concentrations were measured by the bicinchoninic acid protein standard method (Pierce Chemical Co., Rockford, IL). Equivalent amounts (30-100 µg) of protein from each sample were loaded on 12% resolving polyacrylamide gels and then transferred to Immobilon-P membrane (Millipore Corp., Marlborough, MA). Fhit protein was detected with an anti-gst-Fhit rabbit polyclonal antibody (provided by K. Huebner) at a dilution of 1 : 2500 (27). Detection of antigen-antibody complexes was carried out with an enhanced chemiluminescence detection kit (Amersham Life Science Inc., Arlington Heights, IL) per the manufacturer's protocol.

Southern blot analysis. To determine the independence of C-33A clonal sublines transfected with pcDNA3.1/zeo+/FHIT or pcDNA3.1/zeo+, Southern blot analyses were performed. Genomic DNA was isolated from cultured cells by use of SDS/proteinase K digestion followed by phenol/chloroform extraction. Ten micrograms of each DNA sample was digested with 100 U of EcoRI at 37 °C overnight. The digested DNA samples were separated by agarose gel electrophoresis, then transferred to Zeta probe membrane (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules, CA). Hybridization to a 32P-labeled pcDNA3.1/FHIT probe was carried out in Rapid Hyb Solution (Amersham Life Science Inc.), as recommended by the manufacturer. The membranes were exposed to XAR5 autoradiography film (Kodak, Rochester, NY) for varying lengths of time at -80 °C. Several clones revealing unique band patterns were selected for further analysis.

Colony formation in soft agar. Dishes (35 mm) were precoated with 1 mL of 0.6% agar/1x complete medium (medium with FBS). Suspensions of 104 cells in 0.3% agar/1x complete medium were spread over precoated wells and fed twice per week by adding small amounts of growth medium. Each experiment was performed in duplicate. Cultures were incubated for 4 weeks, then fixed and stained with 1.5% glutaraldehyde/0.06% methylene blue (vol/wt) solution. The total number of colonies in each dish greater than 100 µm in diameter was counted with the aid of a microscope eyepiece containing a grid.

Tumorigenicity in nude mice. Polyclonal populations of C-33A, C-4II, and H460 cells transduced by use of recombinant retroviruses with and without the FHIT cDNA insert and several independent clones of C-33A cells stably transfected with pcDNA 3.1/zeo+/FHIT or pcDNA 3.1/zeo+ vector alone were evaluated for tumorigenicity in nude mice. Six-week-old female athymic nude (nu/nu) mice (Charles River Laboratories, Wilmington, MA) were given subcutaneous injections in the left and right flanks of 5 x 106 cells in 0.2-mL Hanks' balanced salt solution without phenol red (Life Technologies, Inc.). Cells transfected/transduced with each construct were injected into five mice, which were ear-tagged and followed individually throughout the study. Mice were examined two to three times per week for tumor formation at the sites of injection. In situ tumor measurements were taken at least once per week starting on day 7. Experiments were terminated 30 days (C-33A and C4II) or 2 weeks (H460) after injection. H460 xenografts were harvested earlier, since previous experiments with the parental cells showed that growth for longer periods of time resulted in significant tumor necrosis. Animals were killed with CO2, then examined for tumor growth at the injection sites and for tumor dissemination. Tumors were weighed and measured with linear calipers, then divided into several portions for further analyses. Representative samples of each tumor were fixed in 10% buffered formalin, routinely processed, and embedded in paraffin. Tissue sections (5 µm) from representative xenografts were cut and mounted on superfrost Plus slides (Fisher, Itasca, IL) and stained with hematoxylin-eosin for histopathologic evaluation or used for immunohistochemistry. Representative portions of xenograft tissues were also snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -80 °C until utilized as a source of protein for western blot analysis. All animal studies were conducted in accordance with a study protocol approved by the University of Michigan's Committee on Use and Care of Animals.

Immunofluorescent staining of Fhit protein. Approximately 105 cultured cells were seeded on 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane-treated slides (Digene Diagnostics, Inc., Beltsville, MD), grown for 2 days, fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde, then permeabilized in 1% goat serum/0.5% Triton X-100/phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). After washing with PBS, the slides were blocked with 20% goat serum for 30 minutes at room temperature. Samples were incubated with the rabbit polyclonal anti-Fhit antibody at 1 : 200 dilution for 1 hour at room temperature. Slides were washed three times in PBS, then incubated with Texas Red-conjugated goat anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G (Jackson ImmunoResearch Lab Inc., West Grove, PA) at a dilution of 1 : 150 for 30 minutes at room temperature. The stained cells were visualized under a fluorescence microscope (Olympus, Melville, NY).

Immunohistochemical staining of Fhit protein. Tissue sections (5 µm) were dewaxed in xylene, then rehydrated through graded alcohols. Antigen retrieval was performed by boiling slides in citrate buffer (pH 6.0; Biogenex, San Ramon, CA) in a microwave oven for 10 minutes. Endogenous peroxidase activity was blocked by incubation with 6% hydrogen peroxide in methanol. Slides were then incubated with primary antibody (polyclonal rabbit gst-Fhit antiserum) at a dilution of 1 : 4000 overnight at 4 °C. After washing in PBS, slides were incubated with a biotinylated goat anti-rabbit secondary antibody for 30 minutes at room temperature. Antigen-antibody complexes were detected with the avidin-biotin-peroxidase method by use of diaminobenzidine as a chromogenic substrate (Vectastain ABC-Immunostaining Kit; Vector Laboratories, Inc., Burlingame, CA), as recommended by the manufacturer. Tissue sections were lightly counterstained with hematoxylin, then evaluated by light microscopy. Xenograft tissues derived from C-33A parental cells were used as negative controls in each staining assay. We have demonstrated previously specificity of the polyclonal anti-Fhit antibody in immunohistochemical applications (19).

Statistical methods. For the experiments involving colony formation in soft agar, the number of colonies in each dish more than 100 µm were counted. Separate counts were recorded for colonies 100-200 µm, 201-300 µm, and greater than 300 µm. The remainder of the initial group of 104 cells were placed into the less than 100-µm category. Each experiment was performed in duplicate, and the data from both experiments were combined for the analysis. Two separate analyses were performed on these data. First, a Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test was used to test for differences in the linear relationship with the size of the colony between the FHIT group and the control group. Second, a general chi-squared test was used to test for differences in the proportion of colonies that were at least 100 µm between the FHIT and control groups. Each analysis was performed separately by cell line. For the experiments in which tumorigenicity in nude mice was studied, transfected cells were injected into the left and right flanks of five mice per cell line. The experiments were terminated at the specified time points, and the tumors were excised. Mixed models were used to test for differences in the tumor volume and weight between the FHIT and the control groups. This analysis adequately adjusted for the association inherent in the data because of multiple tumors being measured from the same mouse. Separate models were created for each cell line. For the C33A cells, a separate analysis was also performed that included the data from the clonal sublines. In the analysis, clones were treated identically to the polyclonal cell populations.


    RESULTS
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Notes
 References
 
C-33A, C-4II, AGS, and H460 Cells and Expression of Endogenous Fhit Protein

We evaluated several cervical carcinoma cell lines by immunoblot analysis and confirmed the absence of endogenous Fhit protein expression in two cell lines, C-33A and C-4II, previously shown to lack full-length FHIT transcripts (19). C-33A has a homozygous deletion within FHIT, including exon 5 (4), and C4I, a cell line derived from the same cancer specimen as C-4II, has also been reported to have a homozygous deletion within the FHIT locus (28). As expected, Fhit protein was not detected by western blot analysis in either C-33A or C-4II cervical carcinoma cells (Fig. 1,Go A). Fhit protein of the expected size was detected in HeLa, CaSki, SiHa, and ME180 cervical cancer cells, as well as in primary foreskin keratinocytes (Fig. 1,Go A). Our detection of full-length FHIT transcripts and Fhit protein in HeLa contrasts with other studies in which Fhit protein was reported to be undetectable (18). The different observations of Fhit expression in HeLa likely reflect the genetic variability of HeLa sublines that have been used by different laboratories (20,27). C-33A and C-4II cell lines are tumorigenic in nude mice, forming poorly differentiated squamous carcinomas on subcutaneous injection into the flank. H460 cells, derived from a large-cell carcinoma of the lung, also form poorly differentiated tumors in nude mice. Previous studies (17,29) have shown that H460 cells harbor homozygous deletion of FHIT (intron 5) and lack expression of endogenous Fhit protein. Western blot analysis confirmed lack of Fhit protein expression in H460 cells (Fig. 1,Go B) and AGS cells (data not shown). In our studies, the injection of up to 1 x 107 AGS gastric carcinoma cells failed to generate tumors in nude mice during a 9-week surveillance period. AGS cells were, therefore, excluded from further studies of Fhit's ability to suppress their tumorigenic growth in nude mice but included in our analysis of Fhit's effects on anchorage-independent growth.



View larger version (64K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Immunoblot analysis of fragile histidine triad (Fhit) protein expression in selected cancer cell lines. Panel A: Expression of endogenous Fhit protein in human primary foreskin keratinocytes (PFK) and in six human cervical carcinoma-derived cell lines (C-4II, CaSki, HeLa, ME180, SiHa, and C-33A) (100 µg total protein was loaded in each lane). Panel B: Expression of Fhit in polyclonal populations of C-33A and C-4II cervical carcinoma cells and H460 lung carcinoma cells generated by stable transduction with recombinant retroviruses (30 µg total protein loaded in each lane). Total protein was isolated from cells stably transduced by FHIT recombinant retroviruses (F) or retroviruses lacking the FHIT insert (V). Fhit expression in preinjection cells (C) and derivative tumor xenografts (X) is shown. Panel C: Fhit expression in polyclonal (P) and clonal (CL) C33A cell populations generated by stable transfection with pcDNA3.1/zeo+ (V) and pcDNA3.1/zeo+/FHIT (F) expression plasmids (amounts of total protein loaded are indicated). Fhit expression in preinjection cells from one control clone V(CL1) and three Fhit expressing clones F(CL1-3) is compared with Fhit expression in representative derivative xenografts F(CL2) and F(CL3).

 
Restoration of Fhit Expression in C-33A, C-4II, and H460 Cells

Recombinant retroviruses carrying the cloned FHIT cDNA as well as a G418 selectable marker were used to transduce C-33A, C-4II, and H460 cells. Fhit protein of the expected size was easily detected in polyclonal populations of cells infected with retrovirus carrying FHIT and in the derivative tumor xenografts (Fig. 1,Go B, lanes 1-6) but not in cells infected with a retrovirus lacking the FHIT cDNA insert (Fig. 1,Go B, lanes 7-9). Expression of Fhit protein was also verified in six of 14 zeocin-resistant clones of C-33A cells stably transfected with the pcDNA3.1/zeo+/FHIT expression plasmid—three representative clones [C-33A-F(CL1, CL2, and CL3)] shown in Fig. 1,Go C, lanes 4-6. Four of the six pcDNA clones, including the three shown in Fig. 1,Go C, were shown to be independent by Southern blot analysis (data not shown). Fhit protein expression was not detected in any of 12 C-33A clones transfected with the pcDNA3.1/zeo+ vector alone—representative clone [C-33A-V(CL-1)] shown in Fig. 1,Go C, lane 3. Expression of Fhit protein in C-33A, C-4II, and H460 cells transduced by recombinant retroviruses was also confirmed by immunofluorescence staining prior to further analysis (Fig. 2, A-C)Go. Some heterogeneity of Fhit expression was noted, with 30%-40% of stably transduced cells expressing very high protein levels and the remainder expressing lower, but detectable, amounts of Fhit protein. Fhit expression was not detected by immunofluorescence staining in control (empty vector) C-33A, C-4II, or H460 cells (data not shown). No obvious changes in cellular morphology or growth kinetics were noted in cells expressing Fhit protein.



View larger version (110K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Immunofluorescent and immunohistochemical staining of fragile histidine triad (Fhit) protein in cancer cell lines and xenografts. Immunofluorescent staining of Fhit protein in polyclonal populations of A) C-33A cervical carcinoma cells, B) C-4II cervical carcinoma cells, and C) H460 lung carcinoma cells stably transduced by FHIT recombinant retroviruses. Immunohistochemical staining of Fhit protein in tumor xenografts from cells transfected with the pcDNA3.1/zeo+/FHIT expression plasmid: D) C-33A clone 1 (original magnification x100); E) C-33A clone 1 (original magnification x400); from polyclonal populations of cells infected with FHIT recombinant retroviruses: F) C-33A (original magnification x100); G) C-33A (original magnification x400); H) C-4II (original magnification x400); I) H460 (original magnification x400); and from cells infected with retroviruses lacking the FHIT insert: J) C-33A (original magnification x400); K) C-4II (original magnification x400); and L) H460 (original magnification x400).

 
Restoration of Fhit Expression and Tumorigenicity of Cervical or H460 Lung Carcinoma Cells

The parental cell lines were subcutaneously injected into nude mice to confirm their tumorigenic growth properties. Injection of 5 x 106 cells from the C-33A and C-4II cervical cancer lines and the H460 lung cancer line resulted in formation of palpable tumors after 2 weeks. Stably selected polyclonal populations of each cell line infected with either recombinant FHIT or control retroviruses were injected into groups of five mice, so that each population of cells was evaluated at 10 injection sites. A total of six independent, stably transfected C-33A clones [three transfected with pcDNA 3.1/zeo+/FHIT (C-33A F1-3) and three transfected with vector alone (C-33A V1-3)] were also evaluated. Expression of Fhit failed to suppress tumor formation within the surveillance period in any of the polyclonal or clonal cell lines tested. The net weights and volumes of tumor tissues obtained immediately after excision from euthanized mice are shown in Fig. 3,Go A-D. There was no statistically significant difference in the weight or volume of tumors formed by polyclonal populations of retrovirally transduced C-33A, C-4II, or H460 cells expressing Fhit versus control (P>.05; mixed models; Fig. 3,Go A and B). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the weight or volume of tumors formed by clonal populations of C33A cells transfected with the pcDNA3.1/zeo+/FHIT plasmid versus vector control (P>.05; mixed models; Fig. 3,Go C and D). The tumors formed by parental and vector-only transduced C-4II cells were rather small, with in vivo regression observed starting 2 weeks after injection. Tumor formation by C-4II cells was documented by microscopic examination of xenograft tissues, and no differences were noted between Fhit-positive and the Fhit-negative cells. Tumor xenografts formed by Fhit-expressing C-33A, C-4II, and H460 cells were shown to retain strong Fhit protein expression by both immunoblot and immunohistochemical analyses. Fig. 1,Go B (lanes 2, 4, and 6), shows retention of Fhit expression in xenografts derived from polyclonal populations of cells transduced by recombinant retroviruses. Fig. 1,Go C (lanes 7 and 8), shows retention of Fhit expression in xenografts derived from clonal populations of C-33A cells stably transfected with the pcDNA3.1/zeo+/FHIT plasmid. Immunohistochemical detection of Fhit protein expression in representative tumor xenografts is shown in Fig. 2,Go D-L. Panels D and E show Fhit expression in a xenograft derived from a clonal population of C-33A cells (C-33A-F1) stably transfected with pcDNA3.1/zeo+/FHIT. Panels F and G show Fhit expression in a xenograft derived from polyclonal C-33A cells transduced with the pPGS-CMV- CITE-Neo(+)/FHIT recombinant retrovirus. Panels H and I show Fhit expression in retrovirally transduced C-4II and H460 cells, respectively. Roughly comparable heterogeneity of Fhit protein expression was noted in preinjection cells and xenografts, with the xenografts retaining a substantial number of cells strongly expressing Fhit. For comparison purposes, the absence of Fhit expression in representative xenografts formed by polyclonal populations of C-33A, C-4II, and H460 cells retrovirally transduced with vector alone is shown in panels J-L.



View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Weight and volume of tumor xenografts. Weight (A) and volume (B) volume of tumor xenografts from polyclonal populations of C-33A, C-4II, and H460 cells transduced by fragile histidine triad (FHIT) recombinant versus control retroviruses. Weight (C) and volume (D) volume of tumor xenografts derived from clonal populations of C-33A cells transfected with pcDNA3.1/zeo+/FHIT (C-33A F1-3) or pcDNA3.1/zeo+ vector alone (C-33A V1-3).

 
Restoration of Fhit Expression and Colony Formation in Soft Agar

As shown in Table 1,Go cells with and without Fhit expression were examined for alterations in anchorage-independent growth properties. C-4II and AGS cells showed no difference in the number or size of colonies formed by cells expressing Fhit versus vector control (P>.05). However, C-33A and H460 cells expressing Fhit formed more and larger colonies than cells transduced with vector alone (all P = .001). This result suggests that, under certain conditions, Fhit expression may actually increase the anchorage-independent growth properties of selected cancer cells. A similar observation was made by Siprashvili et al. (17), who noted that AGS and RC48 cells formed larger colonies compared with control cells.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Colony formation in soft agar: human cervical carcinoma (C-4II and C-33A), lung carcinoma (H460), and gastric carcinoma (AGS) cells transduced with fragile histidine triad (FHIT) recombinant versus control retroviruses*

 

    DISCUSSION
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Notes
 References
 
Tumor suppressor genes are perhaps most clearly distinguished by their biallelic inactivation in cancer as a result of deletions, point mutations, or epigenetic modifications such as promoter methylation. In cervical carcinomas, inactivation of tumor suppressor gene products can also occur through interactions between the HPV-transforming proteins E6 and E7 and the cellular proteins p53 and pRB, respectively. Tumor suppressor genes can also be defined functionally as genes whose protein products inhibit the tumorigenic or metastatic properties of cells. Because FHIT does not entirely conform to the classical functional and genetic criteria defining tumor suppressor genes, it has been difficult to definitively prove or exclude it as a bona fide tumor suppressor. Our studies demonstrate that restoration of Fhit expression fails to suppress anchorage-independent growth or tumorigenicity of two cervical carcinoma cell lines in a xenograft model. Otterson et al. (18) similarly found that Fhit is unable to suppress the tumorigenic properties of HeLa, another cervical cancer-derived cell line.

Studies of Fhit's ability to suppress tumorigenicity of cancer cells continue to yield conflicting results. Collectively, we and Otterson et al. have demonstrated Fhit's inability to suppress tumorigenicity of three different cervical carcinoma cell lines (HeLa, C-33A, and C4II). If, as Otterson et al. have suggested, Fhit exerts its tumor-suppressive effect in a cell lineage-specific manner (18), Fhit may well suppress tumorigenicity of cell lines derived from lung, kidney, or digestive tract cancers but not those derived from cervical cancers. However, this explanation cannot account for the different results obtained by three independent groups studying H460 lung carcinoma cells. Genetic heterogeneity of H460 sublines utilized in different laboratories may be, in part, responsible for the different outcomes because genetic variation at the FHIT locus has been described in other cancer cell sublines such as HeLa (27,30). The contradictory results may also reflect differences in the level and degree of heterogeneity of exogenous Fhit expression obtained in recipient cells (such as H460) by use of various gene delivery systems. In our hands, heterogeneous Fhit expression was observed when either retroviral or plasmid vectors were employed to express exogenous Fhit protein, even when clonal sublines of cells were isolated. Other investigators may have achieved more uniformly elevated levels of Fhit expression in the cells that they tested. However, if heterogeneity of Fhit expression is solely responsible for the different outcomes, one might expect a delay of tumor growth of Fhit-positive versus Fhit-negative control cells in addition to more uniform selection against Fhit-expressing cells in the xenografts. We made neither of these observations. Direct comparison of Fhit expression and function in cells generated by the different laboratories and with different constructs may well shed additional light on these problematic results. Notably, we found comparable levels of Fhit expression in clonal preinjection cells and their derivative xenografts, regardless of whether the cells initially expressed high [e.g., C-33A-F(CL2)] versus low [C-33A-F(CL3)] levels of Fhit protein (Fig. 1,Go C).

Although our study fails to provide additional functional evidence supporting FHIT as a tumor suppressor gene, we wish to emphasize that our analysis by no means excludes FHIT as a suppressor gene candidate. In light of the presence of frequent 3p14 deletions, FHIT somatic mutations, and alterations of FHIT expression in cervical cancer precursor lesions, it is possible that FHIT inactivation may be critical early in cervical cancer development or progression. However, restoration of Fhit expression in cervical cancer cells that have accumulated numerous other genetic alterations may not be sufficient for demonstrably affecting their growth or tumorigenic properties. Clearly, additional studies will be required to fully understand the role of FHIT in human cancer.


    NOTES
 
Supported by Public Health Service grants CA64466 and CA81587 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.

We thank Eric R. Fearon for his helpful discussions and review of this manuscript.


    REFERENCES
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Notes
 References
 

1 Alani RM, Munger K. Human papillomaviruses and associated malignancies. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:330-7.[Abstract]

2 Chu TY, Shen CY, Chiou YS, Lu JJ, Perng CL, Yu MS, et al. HPV-associated cervical cancers show frequent allelic loss at 3p14 but no apparent aberration of FHIT mRNA. Int J Cancer 1998;75:199-204.[Medline]

3 Kohno T, Takayama H, Hamaguchi M, Takano H, Yamaguchi N, Tsuda H, et al. Deletion mapping of chromosome 3p in human uterine cervical cancer. Oncogene 1993; 8:1825-32.[Medline]

4 Larson AA, Kern S, Curtiss S, Gordon R, Cavenee WK, Hampton GM. High resolution analysis of chromosome 3p alterations in cervical carcinoma. Cancer Res 1997;57:4082-90.[Abstract]

5 Wistuba II, Montellano FD, Milchgrub S, Virmani AK, Behrens C, Chen H, et al. Deletions of chromosome 3p are frequent and early events in the pathogenesis of uterine cervical carcinoma. Cancer Res 1997;57:3154-8.[Abstract]

6 Rader JS, Gerhard DS, O'Sullivan MJ, Li Y, Li L, Liapis H, et al. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III shows frequent allelic loss in 3p and 6p. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1998;22:57-65.[Medline]

7 Mitra AB, Murty VV, Li RG, Pratap M, Luthra UK, Chaganti RS. Allelotype analysis of cervical carcinoma. Cancer Res 1994;54:4481-7.[Abstract]

8 Yokota J, Tsukada Y, Nakajima T, Gotoh M, Shimosato Y, Mori N, et al. Loss of heterozygosity on the short arm of chromosome 3 in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Cancer Res 1989;49:3598-601.[Abstract]

9 Ohta M, Inoue H, Cotticelli MG, Kastury K, Baffa R, Palazzo J, et al. The FHIT gene, spanning the chromosome 3p14.2 fragile site and renal carcinoma-associated t(3;8) breakpoint, is abnormal in digestive tract cancers. Cell 1996;84:587-97.[Medline]

10 Barnes LD, Garrison PN, Siprashvili Z, Guranowski A, Robinson AK, Ingram SW, et al. Fhit, a putative tumor suppressor in humans, is a dinucleoside 5',5 ]P1,P3-triphosphate hydrolase. Biochemistry 1996;35:11529-35.[Medline]

11 Le Beau MM, Drabkin H, Glover TW, Gemmill R, Rassool FV, McKeithan TW, et al. An FHIT tumor suppressor gene? Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1998 ;21:281-9.[Medline]

12 Druck T, Berk L, Huebner K. FHITness and cancer. Oncol Res 1998;10:341-5.[Medline]

13 Mao L. Tumor suppressor genes: does FHIT fit? J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:412-4.[Free Full Text]

14 Huebner K, Garrison PN, Barnes LD, Croce CM. The role of the FHIT/FRA3B locus in cancer. Annu Rev Genet 1998;32:7-31.[Medline]

15 Sard L, Accornero P, Tornielli S, Delia D, Bunone G, Campiglio M, et al. The tumor-suppressor gene FHIT is involved in the regulation of apoptosis and in cell cycle control. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999;96:8489-92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

16 Ji L, Fang B, Yen N, Fong K, Minna JD, Roth JA. Induction of apoptosis and inhibition of tumorigenicity and tumor growth by adenovirus vector-mediated fragile histidine triad (FHIT) gene overexpression. Cancer Res 1999;59:3333-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

17 Siprashvili Z, Sozzi G, Barnes LD, McCue P, Robinson AK, Eryomin V, et al. Replacement of FHIT in cancer cells suppresses tumorigenicity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998;94:13771-6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

18 Otterson GA, Xiao GH, Geradts J, Jin F, Chen WD, Niklinska W, et al. Protein expression and functional analysis of the FHIT gene in human tumor cells. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:426-32.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

19 Greenspan DL, Connolly DC, Wu R, Lei RY, Vogelstein JT, Kim YT, et al. Loss of FHIT expression in cervical carcinoma cell lines and primary tumors. Cancer Res 1997;57:4692-8.[Abstract]

20 Muller CY, O'Boyle JD, Fong KM, Wistuba II, Biesterveld E, Ahmadian M, et al. Abnormalities of fragile histidine triad genomic and complementary DNAs in cervical cancer: association with human papillomavirus type. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:433-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

21 Yoshino K, Enomoto T, Nakamura T, Nakashima R, Wada H, Saitoh J, et al. Aberrant FHIT transcripts in squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Cancer 1998;76:176-81.[Medline]

22 Nakagawa S, Yoshikawa H, Kimura M, Kawana K, Matsumoto K, Onda T, et al. A possible involvement of aberrant expression of the FHIT gene in the carcinogenesis of squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Br J Cancer 1999;79:589-94.[Medline]

23 Birrer MJ, Hendricks D, Farley J, Sundborg MJ, Bonome T, Walts MJ, et al. Abnormal Fhit expression in malignant and premalignant lesions of the cervix. Cancer Res 1999; 59:5270-4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

24 Wilke CM, Hall BK, Hoge A, Paradee W, Smith DI, Glover TW. FRA3B extends over a broad region and contains a spontaneous HPV16 integration site; direct evidence for the coincidence of viral integration sites and fragile sites. Hum Genet 1996; 5:187-95.

25 Kessis TD, Slebos RJ, Nelson WG, Kastan MB, Plunkett BS, Han SM, et al. Human papillomavirus 16 E6 expression disrupts the p53-mediated cellular response to DNA damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1993;90:3988-92.[Abstract]

26 Kinsella TM, Nolan GP. Episomal vectors rapidly and stably produce high-titer recombinant retrovirus. Hum Gene Ther 1996;7:1405-13.[Medline]

27 Druck T, Hadaczek P, Fu TB, Ohta M, Siprashvili Z, Baffa R, et al. Structure and expression of the human FHIT gene in normal and tumor cells. Cancer Res 1997;57:504-12.[Abstract]

28 Boldog FL, Gemmill RM, West J, Robinson M, Robinson L, Li E, et al. Chromosome 3p14 homozygous deletions and sequence analysis of FRA3B. Hum Mol Genet 1997;6:193-203.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

29 Sozzi G, Tornielli S, Tagliabue E, Sard L, Pezzella F, Pastorino U, et al. Absence of Fhit protein in primary lung tumors and cell lines with FHIT gene abnormalities. Cancer Res 1997;57:5207-12.[Abstract]

30 Virgilio L, Shuster M, Gollin SM, Veronese ML, Ohta M, Huebner K, et al. FHIT gene alterations in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1996;93:9770-5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Manuscript received June 10, 1999; revised November 18, 1999; accepted December 6, 1999.


This article has been cited by other articles in HighWire Press-hosted journals:


             
Copyright © 2000 Oxford University Press (unless otherwise stated)
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement