Discrete signaling mechanisms of mTORC1 and mTORC2: Connected yet apart in cellular and molecular aspects

Accepted Manuscript Discrete signaling mechanisms of mTORC1 and mTORC2: Connected yet apart in cellular and molecular aspects Meena Jhanwar-Uniyal, Anubhav G. Amin, Jared B. Cooper, Kaushik Das, Meic Schmidt, Raj Murali PII:

S2212-4926(16)30069-0

DOI:

10.1016/j.jbior.2016.12.001

Reference:

JBIOR 168

To appear in:

Advances in Biological Regulation

Received Date: 21 December 2016 Revised Date:

23 December 2016

Accepted Date: 23 December 2016

Please cite this article as: Jhanwar-Uniyal M, Amin AG, Cooper JB, Das K, Schmidt M, Murali R, Discrete signaling mechanisms of mTORC1 and mTORC2: Connected yet apart in cellular and molecular aspects, Advances in Biological Regulation (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.jbior.2016.12.001. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

RI PT

Discrete signaling mechanisms of mTORC1 and mTORC2: Connected yet apart in Cellular and Molecular aspects.

SC

Meena Jhanwar-Uniyal, Anubhav G. Amin, Jared B. Cooper, Kaushik Das, Meic Schmidt, Raj Murali,

TE D

M AN U

Department of Neurosurgery, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY 10595.

EP

Running Title: mTOR complexes in cancer and stem cell regulation

AC C

Key Words: mTOR, mTORC1, mTORC2, Akt, stem cell,

Correspondence to: Meena Jhanwar-Uniyal Associate Professor Departments of Neurosurgery New York Medical College Valhalla, New York 10595 Tel: 914-594-3186 Fax: 914-594-4002 E-mail: [email protected]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract Activation of PI3K/Akt/mTOR (mechanistic target of rapamycin) signaling cascade has been shown in tumorigenesis of numerous malignancies including glioblastoma (GB). This signaling

RI PT

cascade is frequently upregulated due to loss of the tumor suppressor PTEN, a phosphatase that functions antagonistically to PI3K. mTOR regulates cell growth, motility, and metabolism by forming two multiprotein complexes, mTORC1 and mTORC2, which are composed of special binding partners. These complexes are sensitive to distinct stimuli. mTORC1 is sensitive to

SC

nutrients and mTORC2 is regulated via PI3K and growth factor signaling. mTORC1 regulates protein synthesis and cell growth through downstream molecules: 4E-BP1 (also called EIF4EBP1) and S6K. Also, mTORC2 is responsive to growth factor signaling by phosphorylating the

M AN U

C-terminal hydrophobic motif of some AGC kinases like Akt and SGK. mTORC2 plays a crucial role in maintenance of normal and cancer cells through its association with ribosomes, and is involved in cellular metabolic regulation. Both complexes control each other as Akt regulates PRAS40 phosphorylation, which disinhibits mTORC1 activity, while S6K regulates Sin1 to modulate mTORC2 activity. Allosteric inhibitors of mTOR, rapamycin and rapalogs, have essentially been ineffective in clinical trials of patients with GB due to their incomplete

TE D

inhibition of mTORC1 or unexpected activation of mTOR via the loss of negative feedback loops. Novel ATP binding inhibitors of mTORC1 and mTORC2 suppress mTORC1 activity completely by total dephosphorylation of its downstream substrate pS6KSer235/236, while effectively suppressing mTORC2 activity, as demonstrated by complete dephosphorylation of

EP

pAKTSer473. Another significant component of mTORC2 is Sin1, which is crucial for mTORC2 complex formation and function. Furthermore, proliferation and self-renewal of GB cancer stem

AC C

cells are effectively targetable by these novel mTORC1 and mTORC2 inhibitors. Therefore, the effectiveness of inhibitors of mTOR complexes can be estimated by their ability to suppress both mTORC1 and 2 and their ability to impede both cell proliferation and migration.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Introduction Mechanistic target of Rapamycin (mTOR; AKA Mammalian target of Rapamycin) is a 289kDA serine-threonine protein kinase, produced from of a single gene localized to chromosome 1p36.2.

RI PT

The target of rapamycin (TOR) was at first noticed in the budding yeast Saccharomyces Cerevisiae on Easter Island, as a target of the macrolide fungicide rapamycin (Heitman, Movva, & Hall, 1991). mTOR is a member of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase-related kinase (PI3K)

family with homologs in all eukaryotes (Laplante & Sabatini, 2012; Russell et al., 2011). The N-

SC

terminus of mTOR contains several huntingtin elongation factor 3 protein phosphatase 2A TOR1 (HEAT) repeats to mediate the majority of interactions with other proteins. The C- terminus contains a kinase domain that places it in the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) family. The

M AN U

PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling axis regulates diverse physiological functions including cell cycle progression, transcription, mRNA translation, differentiation, apoptosis, autophagy, motility, and metabolism (Guertin et al., 2009; Jacinto et al., 2004a; Laplante & Sabatini, 2012). Hyperactivation of mTOR activity results in an increase in cell growth, and can cause some cell types to enter the cell cycle (Laplante & Sabatini, 2012). Constitutive activation of mTOR via

al., 2010).

TE D

single point mutations has been shown in both adenocarcinoma and renal cell carcinoma (Sato et

The PI3K/Akt signaling cascade is deregulated in many human cancers, causing hyperactivation of the mTOR pathway, and contributes to both cancer pathogenesis and therapy resistance. Loss-

EP

of-function due to mutations in tumor suppressors, such as phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), tuberous sclerosis 1/2 (TSC1/2), neurofibromin 1/2 (NF1/2), or oncogenic mutations

AC C

in KRAS, PIK3CA, or AKT are the most common causes of mTOR signaling hyperactivity. In addition, constitutive activation of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling network is a common feature in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (Martelli et al., 2007). Aberrant mTOR pathway activity is also found in Glioblastoma (GB), leading to abnormalities in protein synthesis, metabolism and motility, thereby resulting in uncontrolled growth and dissemination (JhanwarUniyal et al., 2011). Furthermore, studies suggest that tumor suppressors including PTEN and p53 may regulate stem cell populations by controlling self-renewal of cancer stem cells. It is important to note that GB cells are generally PTEN as well as p53 deregulated (Ohgaki & Kleihues, 2009). Mutations of PTEN are found in approximately 70-90% of GB. As such, there

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

is up-regulation of the PI3K/Akt pathway (Hay & Sonenberg, 2004; Phillips et al., 2006). Akt appears to be involved in the process of gliomagenesis as demonstrated in animal models (Holland, 2001), and along with its downstream target mTOR, controls distinct cellular functions (Guertin et al., 2009). Rapamycin has been considered for the treatment of many cancers (under

agent. mTORC1 and mTORC2: apart yet connected.

RI PT

the trade name Sirolimus), as an FDA-approved immunosuppressant and chemotherapeutic

SC

Two functionally distinct mTOR complexes exist in mammalian cells: mTOR complex 1

(mTORC1), which contains mTOR, Rapamycin-sensitive adapter protein of mTOR (Raptor),

M AN U

and LST8; and mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2), which is comprised of Rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR (Rictor), LST8, and Sin1 along with other proteins (Loewith et al., 2002). mTORC1 regulates protein translation through activation of p70 S6 Kinase (p70 S6K), and inhibition of eukaryotic initiation factor 4E binding protein (4EBP1) (Sabatini, 2006), and enhances RNA translation via S6 ribosomal protein (Volarevic & Thomas, 2001). Activation of mTORC1 is achieved by nutrients, amino acid concentrations, and growth factors. mTORC2 has

TE D

been linked to cytoskeletal organization and cell survival through Akt (Jacinto et al., 2004a). Importantly, activating mutations in the FAT (FRAP-ATM-TTRAP) domain of mTOR leads to upregulation of both mTORC1 and mTORC2 in cancer (Ghosh et al., 2015).

EP

The mTORC1 complex is formed by regulatory associated protein of mTOR (Raptor), proline-rich AKT substrate 40 kDa (PRAS40), mammalian lethal with Sec-13 protein 8 (mLST8,

AC C

also known as GßL) and DEP domain TOR-binding protein (Deptor) (Laplante & Sabatini, 2012). Raptor is crucial for the kinase activity of mTORC1 in vitro and in vivo as it promotes formation of this complex, although it does not possess any enzymatic activity by itself (Guertin & Sabatini, 2007; Kim et al., 2002). PRAS40 has an inhibitory effect on mTORC1 in response to growth factor depletion. Also, PRAS40 contains an mTOR binding motif, and overexpression of PRAS40 is capable of competing with other mTORC1 targets for phosphorylation (Laplante & Sabatini, 2012; Wang et al., 2007). Another partner of mTOR, mLST8, as part of the TORC1 complex, is involved in its activation by amino acids, however it is considered dispensable for other mechanisms of mTORC1 activation. Deptor, which binds mTOR, is a recently described

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

inhibitor of mTOR that is capable of inhibiting both mTORC1 and mTORC2 activity, although the upstream regulators of Deptor remain unknown (Russell et al., 2011). These complexes are

Insert Figure 1 here

RI PT

presented in Figure 1.

The GTPase termed Ras homolog enriched in brain (Rheb) is found to activate mTORC1 via direct binding to mTOR (Reiling & Sabatini, 2006). Downstream of mTORC1, the kinase p70

SC

S6K1 is a key regulator of protein synthesis associated with a variety of mitogenic stimuli. It exists in two distinct S6 kinases, p90 S6K and p70/85 S6K. The latter kinase consists of two

M AN U

isoforms, one 70kD cytoplasmic isoform (p70 S6K) and an 85kD nuclear isoform (p85 S6K). Both isoforms appear to phosphorylate the S6 protein and mediate translation of polypyrimidine tract mRNA. p70 S6K directly phosphorylates multiple targets including the tumor suppressor S6K programmed cell death protein 4 (PDCD-4) (Dorrello et al., 2006). Notably, the mTORC1 substrate S6K1 also inhibits phosphorylation of insulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1), which exerts inhibitory control on PI3K and Akt (Harrington et al., 2004). It is important to note that

TE D

activation of Akt inhibits the Tuberculin Sclerosis 1/2 (TSC 1/2) heterodimer complex that allows Rheb to activate mTORC1 (Sabatini, 2006). Inhibition of Akt by activated mTOR, however, can occur via different mechanisms, since inhibition of Akt is in the presence of several growth factors and not exclusively in the presence of IGF-1 (Tamburini et al., 2008). It is

EP

also interesting to note that ATP-binding inhibitors suppress p70-S6K phosphorylation more so than rapamycin alone (Figure 2C; Neil et al., 2016). The induction of mRNA translation by

AC C

mTORC1 is mediated by the interaction of downstream S6K and the eukaryotic translation initiator factor 4E-BP1. S6K can inhibit Akt through a feedback loop via IRS-1(Sabatini, 2006), thus physiologically low levels of S6K are considered tumorigenic (Riemenschneider et al., 2006). However, the threshold level at which S6K becomes tumorigenic remains to be established. An important observation in a previous study was that combined inhibition of mTOR and PI3K resulted in a dramatic down-regulation of pS6K (Gulati et al., 2009). There may be alternative ways by which AKT is regulated by mTORC1 (Kubica et al., 2008).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In addition to its shared subunits with mTORC1, including mTOR, Deptor and mLST8, mTORC2 is uniquely comprised of Rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR (Rictor), stressactivated protein kinase-interacting protein 1 (Sin1) and protein-binding Rictor (Protor) (Gulati et al., 2009; Jacinto et al., 2004b; Sarbassov et al., 2004). Rictor is involved in mTORC2

RI PT

substrate recruitment, although these functions remain to be verified (Sarbassov et al., 2005). The Rictor-containing mTOR complex is neither bound by FKBP12-Rapamycin, nor affects S6K1, which is a well-defined substrate of mTORC1. The binding of Rictor and Raptor to

mTOR is mutually exclusive. Interestingly, studies have showed that mLST8 is necessary for

SC

maintaining the Rictor-mTOR interaction in the mTORC2 complex as well, implying that mLST8 might be important for both mTOR complexes and may regulate the dynamic

M AN U

equilibrium of these complexes in mammalian cells. Protor binds mTORC2 through Rictor, and its stability is dependent on the expression of other mTORC2 components. Protor, however, has by itself not been shown to be required for mTORC2 catalytic activity and additional studies are needed to uncover the molecular function of Protor within the mTORC2 complex. Studies have shown that Sin1 and Rictor form a tight complex, and are always localized together. Sin1 has been described to promote Rictor-mTOR binding and to regulate substrate specificity (Jacinto et

TE D

al., 2006), thus it is thought to be required for mTORC2 function. mTORC2 functionality is thought to be dependent on the mTOR kinase activity. Additionally, stability of mTORC2 is maintained by mTOR-mediated phosphorylation of Sin1, preventing its turnover by lysosomal

EP

degradation (Chen & Sarbassov, 2011).

Sin1 is an important component of mTORC2 as it recruits Akt and SGK in formation of the mTORC2 complex (Yang et al., 2006). The PH domain of Sin1 is involved in transporting

AC C

mTORC2 to the membrane. mTORC2 activation is in direct control by PI3K signaling pathways. It appears that Sin1 regulates mTORC2 activity in two opposing ways via its interaction with PIP3. Binding of the Sin1-PH domain to PtdIns(3,4,5)P3 happens by activation of PI3K, which leads to release of inhibition on the mTOR kinase while promoting mTORC2 translocation to the plasma membrane for phosphorylation of its physiological substrates (Liu et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2006). mTORC2 activation results in phosphorylation of Akt at the hydrophobic motif of Ser473, which allows AKT to further phosphorylate at Thr308 in the catalytic domain by 3-

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

phophoinositide-dependent protein kinase 1 (PDK1), for its complete activation (Sarbassov et al., 2005). Aktser473 is a documented substrate of mTORC2, which also modulates the phosphorylation of Protein Kinase C α (PKCα) and regulates the actin cytoskeleton (Gulati et al., 2009). It should be noted that Akt is a key signaling component downstream from PI3K (Brazil

RI PT

et al., 2004) and regulates a wide range of cellular activities including cell growth, metabolism, and survival. The phosphorylation of Akt at Ser473 is stimulated by PI3K activation, though the molecular mechanism of mTORC2 regulation is not yet defined. Another interaction of

mTORC2 is with the tumor suppressor Rb. Recent investigation has shown that Rb inhibits Akt

SC

activity by interfering with mTORC2-mediated phosphorylation of Akt at Ser-473. Also, loss of PTEN leads to a significant reduction in Rb interaction with Sin1 in cells, presumably because

M AN U

of an elevated generation of phosphatidylinositol (3,4,5)-trisphosphate (PI(3,4,5)P3) species (Song, et al., 2012). In fact, PI(3,4,5)P3 binds the PH domain of Sin1 to release Sin1-PH domainmediated inhibition on mTORC2 (P. Liu et al., 2015). Furthermore, hyper-phosphorylated Rb functions as a negative regulator of the mTORC2 kinase complex (Dick and Rubin, 2013). In addition, the Sin1 component of mTORC2 is a direct binding partner with the hyperphosphorylated form of Rb. It appears that hyper-phosphorylated Rb complexes with chromatin

TE D

and partly translocates to the cytoplasm to bind and suppress mTORC2, thereby altering the Akt oncogenic signaling pathways (Zhang et al., 2016). In contrast, mTORC2 does not phosphorylate S6K, a well-characterized mTORC1 substrate.

AC C

EP

Insert Figure 2 here

Cellular Localization of mTOR and its components mTOR may function via nucleo-cytoplasmic signaling (Bachmann et al.,2006). We have previously revealed that PDGF stimulates the cellular localization of mTOR (Jhanwar-Uniyal et al., 2013). Many components of the mTOR pathway are expressed in both nuclear as well as cytoplasmic compartments. Many of the mTOR pathway proteins are localized to the nucleus because the major role of mTORC1 is in ribosome biogenesis or transcription. PI3K has been shown to be nuclear, while PDK1, Akt and PTEN shuttle between the nucleus and cytoplasm.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

mTOR, mLST8, Rictor, and Sin1 are less abundant in the nucleus than in the cytoplasm. Despite high protein levels of Raptor expression in both cytoplasm and nucleus, studies showed that it is predominantly cytoplasmic. The role of Raptor in the nucleus remains to be seen since nuclear Raptor has less affinity for mTOR than cytoplasmic Raptor (Rosner & Hengstschlager, 2008).

RI PT

Studies with different approaches to immunoprecipitate cytoplasmic or nuclear mTOR, Rictor, and Sin1 showed that mTORC2 component assembly is abundant in both cell compartments (Kazyken et al., 2014). In fact, mTOR is the only protein that is seen in both nuclear as well as cytoplasmic fractions, while other interacting proteins of both complexes were expressed only in

SC

cytoplasm (Kazyken et al., 2014). In quiescent GB cells, PDGF induced mTOR localization to the nucleus, which was curtailed by pre-treatment with rapamycin. mTOR translocation to the

M AN U

nucleus upon growth factor induction appears to be rapid since it is documented within 30 minutes of treatment (Gulati et al., 2009). The role of mTOR in the nucleus is beginning to be understood as it has been shown that activated mTOR is localized to subnuclear structures that resemble polymorphonuclear (PML) bodies. The PML bodies are distinct, dynamic structures that regulate cell proliferation, apoptosis, cellular senescence, and are also linked with phosphorylation of Akt (Salomoni & Pandolfi, 2002). Moreover, a main substrate of mTORC1,

TE D

p70 S6K, which phosphorylates S6, appears to be dispersed throughout the cytoplasm and nucleus. Furthermore, the S6K protein is concentrated to the nucleoli and is almost absent from the nucleoplasm, which is expected as eukaryotic ribosomes are assembled in the nucleolus before being exported to the cytoplasm. One important role of p70 S6K is to block IRS-1.

EP

Therefore, it is important to realize that prolonged rapamycin treatment activates the

AC C

PDK1/Akt/RAS pathway by this negative feedback loop.

mTOR pathways in Cancer As mTOR has been shown to regulate protein translation, ribosome biogenesis, cell proliferation, autophagy, and survival (Sabatini, 2006), there has been great interest in mTOR inhibitors as a potential chemotherapeutic agent (Chappell et al., 2011; Guertin & Sabatini, 2009). There have been several early clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of mTOR analogues as monotherapy and in combination with typical chemotherapy agents in recent years for the management of GB that have been met with mixed results. The PI3K/Akt pathway is shown to

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

be involved in the pathophysiology of many solid tumors and is a major cause of resistance to chemotherapy (Follo et al., 2014). As PI3K is negatively regulated by the tumor suppressor gene, PTEN , in one trial (Cloughesy et al., 2008), 15 patients with PTEN-deficient recurrent GB received neoadjuvant

RI PT

oral rapamycin daily for 1 week prior to re-resection as well as post-operatively until tumor progression was found. Rapamycin was detected in 14 out of 14 tumor samples during re-

resection. Tumor cell proliferation, measured by Ki-67 level, was decreased in 7 of 14 patients and correlated with the degree of mTOR inhibition. Unexpectedly, rapamycin treatment also led

SC

to Akt activation in 7 of 14 patients, as evident by PRAS40 phosphorylation in tumor samples. This was likely secondary to inhibition of a negative feedback loop, and was correlated with a

M AN U

shorter progression-free survival in this subset of patients.

10 patients with recurrent GB received the mTOR inhibitor ridaforolimus in a phase 1 study. Ridaforolimus was administered perioperatively at a dose of 12.5 to 15mg daily intravenously for 4 days prior to re-resection and patients continued to receive the inhibitor postoperatively. In patients’ blood samples, mTOR downstream effector p4E-BP1 was reduced by >80% in comparison to baseline, while resected brain tumor specimens also showed reduced

TE D

levels of mTOR downstream effector pS6. The authors concluded that ridaforolimus can cross the blood-brain barrier and may inhibit mTOR activity based on their findings of decreased pS6 and p4E-BP1 levels (Reardon et al., 2012).

EP

In another study, the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus (CCI-779) was administered at a dose of 250mg intravenously weekly to 43 patients with recurrent GB. There were no grade 4/5

AC C

toxicities. The median time to progression was 9 weeks, and thus there was limited efficacy of using temsirolimus as monotherapy (Chang et al., 2005). In a larger phase II trial of temsirolimus administered to 65 patients with recurrent GB, the incidence of grade 3-5 toxicity was 51%. Median overall survival was 4.4 months. 36% of patients had improvement on MRI. Response was significantly correlated with baseline tumor levels of phosphorylated p70 S6 kinase. These responders had a significantly longer progression free survival (5.4 months) in comparison to non-responders (1.9 months) (Galanis et al., 2005).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

There have been several phase I and phase II trials utilizing mTOR inhibitors in addition to standard chemo-radiation. In a phase 1 trial, 18 patients with newly diagnosed GB received the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in combination with standard radiation and temozolomide therapy, followed by everolimus and temozolomide as adjuvant therapy. Over the 8.4 months of

RI PT

median follow-up, 9 patients developed grade 3/4 toxicities. Imaging revealed 14 patients had stable disease and 4 patients had a partial response (Sarkaria et al., 2011). A study involving 100 patients with newly diagnosed GB received everolimus 1 week prior to conventional

temozolomide-based chemoradiotherapy and continued until disease progression. Overall 1-year

SC

survival was 64% and median progression free survival was 6.4 months. Combining the mTOR inhibitor everolimus with conventional treatment did not result in an appreciable survival benefit

M AN U

in comparison to historical controls (Ma et al., 2015).

In a phase 1 dose-escalation trial, mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus was administered to 12 patients with GB in combination with temozolomide and radiation, and also as adjuvant therapy with temozolomide. Concomitant therapy was associated with 25% rate of grade 4/5 infections. The rate of infections was reduced in a second cohort of 13 patients by utilizing temsirolimus only during the initial radiation phase, and limiting the adjuvant therapy to temozolomide

TE D

monotherapy and by administering antibiotics prophylactically. However 2 of the 13 patients in the second cohort developed worsening of preexisting viral and fungal infections (Sarkaria et al., 2010).

EP

54 patients with high-grade glioma received voxtalisib, a PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, in combination with temozolomide with or without radiation therapy, in a phase 1 study. The most

AC C

frequent serious adverse events were lymphopenia (13%) and thrombocytopenia (9%). 68% of patients had stable disease during the study and 4% of patients had a partial response (Wen et al., 2015).

inhibitors of mTOR have also been utilized in combination with epidermal growth factor

receptor inhibitors (EGFR). mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in combination with the EGFR inhibitor erlotinib was used in patients with high-grade recurrent glioma, as they were posited to have a possible synergistic antitumor effects. Among 42 GB patients that were treated at the maximum tolerated dosage, only 13% had 6-month progression-free survival. The minimal

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

antitumor activity was likely due to insufficient drug levels and redundant signaling pathways (Wen et al., 2014). In a phase 1 trial, 22 patients with recurrent GB received mTOR inhibitor everolimus in combination with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor gefitinib. Only 1 patient was progression-free at 6 months. EGFR & PTEN status did not clearly predict a

RI PT

patient’s response to treatment (Kreisl et al., 2009). In another phase 1 study, 28 patients with recurrent glioma received EGFR inhibitors getifinib or erlotinib in combination with mTOR inhibitor sirolimus. 19% of patients had a partial response and the 6 month progression free

SC

survival was 25% (Doherty et al., 2006).

mTOR inhibitors have also been investigated in combination with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors. mTOR inhibitor everolimus was used in combination with

M AN U

VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab as part of first-line treatment in combination with standard chemoradiotherapy in 68 newly diagnosed GB patients. 61% of patients with measurable residual tumor after initial resection had an objective response. At a median follow up of 17 months, the median progression-free survival was 11.3 months, and overall survival was 13.9 months. This dual therapy as part of the first-line treatment was feasible and the progression-free survival compared favorably to historical controls (Hainsworth et al., 2012). In contrast, mTOR

TE D

inhibitor temsirolimus has been shown to have minimal effect when used in combination with bevacizumab. A trial of 13 patients with recurrent GB receiving the combination therapy terminated because no patients obtained partial remission. Median progression-free survival was

EP

8 weeks with overall survival of 15 weeks (Lassen et al., 2013). In another trial, 22 patients with recurrent GB received mTOR inhibitor sirolimus in

AC C

combination with vandetanib, which is an EGFR and VEGF inhibitor. The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be 200mg of vandetanib and 2mg of sirolimus daily via oral administration. Of the patients that tolerated the maximum dose, the 6-month progression free survival was 15.8% (Chheda et al., 2015). Despite significant therapeutic advances, GB remains incurable with these treatments, perhaps due to the activation of mitogenic pathways, and RAS/ERK1/2 activation via feedback loops (Albert et al., 2009). Several small molecules have been identified that directly inhibit mTOR by targeting the ATP binding site; these include PP242, PI-103, and NVPBEZ235. Two of these molecules, PP242 and PP30, are the first potent, selective, ATP-

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Regulation of Cancer Stem Cells by mTOR

SC

RI PT

competitive inhibitors of mTOR. Unlike Rapamycin these molecules inhibit both mTORC1 and mTORC2, and unlike the PI3K family inhibitors such as LY294002, these molecules inhibit mTOR with a high degree of selectivity relative to PI3Ks and protein kinases. It is important to mention that the combined mTORC1/2 inhibitor KU-0063794 was more effective than sole the PI3-K inhibitor, LY-294002, or the PI3-K/mTORC1 inhibitor, PI-103, in suppressing cell cycle and proliferation (Jhanwar-Uniyal et al., 2015). To distinguish these molecules from the allosteric mTORC1 inhibitor Rapamycin, they are generally called “TORKinibs”. The dual role of mTOR within the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway as both an upstream activator of Akt and the downstream effector of cell growth and proliferation has excited interest in active-site inhibitors of mTOR.

M AN U

Stem cells have a critical role in the generation and maintenance of multicellular organisms. Similar intrinsic properties are found in “tumor-initiating” cells that are involved in the development and growth of tumors, and are often termed “cancer stem cells” (CSC). CSCs are essential to cancer growth, and may be responsible for metastatic potential as well as chemoresistance. The evidence of CSCs was initially demonstrated in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (Lapidot et al., 1994). Following the discovery of AML-initiating cells, this concept was

TE D

hypothesized to be valid for various solid cancers (Singh et al., 2004; Stupp & Hegi, 2007). CSCs have been found in primary brain tumors such as GB and medulloblastoma (Galli et al., 2004; Hemmati et al., 2003; Singh et al., 2003). This has been achieved through antigenic markers and in vivo culture conditions developed for normal neural stem cells. CNS cells grown

EP

on non-adherent surfaces give rise to aggregates of cells which are free-floating neurospheres that have the capacity for self-renewal, and ability to differentiate into the various principle cell

AC C

types of the brain (i.e. neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes). Moreover, single cells derived from these neurospheres are capable of generating new neurospheres. In addition, normal neuronal stem cells express a cell surface protein that can be detected with an antibody against the AC133 epitope (CD133), a marker commonly found on stem cells and progenitor cells of various tissues. Application of these principles of neurosphere formation and purification of CD133+ cells from GB specimens has allowed for the growth and separation of tumor stem-cell populations (Ignatova et al., 2002). These cells possess sphere forming capacity, self-renewal, high proliferative potential, and multipotency (Singh et al., 2004). In addition, these CD133+ cells are capable of generating tumors of parental origin when grafted in NOD-

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

SCID (non-obese diabetic, severe combined immune-deficient) mouse brains. These xenograft tumors were identical in histopathological and genetic features to the original tumor (Singh et al., 2004). Tumorgenic CSC-enriched CD133+ cell populations display resistance to radiation (Bao et al., 2006) and chemotherapeutic agents in vitro and in vivo (Liu et al., 2009). These

RI PT

observations signify that GB CSCs are likely resistant to the typical chemoradiation therapy used in the clinical setting, similar to CSCs in leukemia (Reya et al., 2001).

Recently, CD133- cells were also shown to be tumorigenic in experimental model systems

SC

(Beier et al., 2007). Both CD133+ and CD133- brain tumor stem cells can form multipotent

spheres that display self-renewal (Kelly et al., 2009). In addition, as with CD133+ cells, CD133cells also possess tumor-initiating properties (Prestegarden et al., 2010). Notably, some GB cell

M AN U

lines retaining stem-cell like properties lack CD133 expression.

Aberrant signaling cascades are postulated to be responsible for CSCs. The role of mTOR signaling in the maintenance of CSCs has been recently highlighted (Jhanwar-Uniyal et al., 2011). mTOR hyperactivation in embryonic and adult stem cells causes differentiation and exhaustion of stem cells. Studies show mTOR signaling to be involved in regulation of the

TE D

balance between proliferation and differentiation of CSCs in Ras-dependent tumorigenesis, where transient inhibition of mTOR leads to an emergence of CD133+ subpopulations (Easley et al., 2010; Tee et al., 2005). Persistent activation of mTOR in normal epithelial stem cells, on the other hand, results in exhaustion of these stem cells (Castilho et al., 2009). Evidently, the mTOR

EP

pathway is also significantly important in the process of cellular senescence in multiple human and rodent cells (Demidenko et al., 2009; Korotchkina et al., 2010). In fact, CSCs stemness

AC C

involves numerous signaling pathways including mTOR, therefore simultaneously targeting multiple pathways involved in CSCs could prove effective in eradicating these cells (Fitzgerald et al., 2015). Several studies have demonstrated that cellular stress (such as hypoxia), cytokine levels (such as TGF-β), or activation of the mTOR pathway, alter the expression of CSC surface markers and phenotypes in certain bulk tumor cells, suggesting that cell-extrinsic environmental factors may reprogram conventional tumor cells into cells with stem cell-like properties (Matsumoto et al., 2009; Platet et al., 2007; You et al., 2010). In human glioma cells, the activation of HIF-1α, a positive downstream target of the mTOR signaling pathway (Hudson et al., 2002), enhances CD133+ glioma-derived CSC expansion by inducing self-renewal activity

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and inhibiting cell differentiation (Soeda et al., 2009). On the other hand, suppression of mTOR by Rapamycin enhances expression of CD133 and certain stemness genes (personal observation). Therefore, therapeutic design strategies that target mTOR inhibition may actually trigger CSC

RI PT

generation due to complex regulatory events. It is important to note that cellular stress, cytokines or activation of the mTOR pathway are able to increase the expression of CSC surface markers and phenotypes in certain bulk tumor cells signifying the contribution of cell-extrinsic environmental factors involved in in

SC

reprograming of conventional tumor cells to the cells with stem cell-like properties (Matsumoto et al., 2009; McCord et al., 2009; Platet et al., 2007; You et al., 2010). Furthermore, different environmental conditions, such as hypoxia, have been shown to affect the malignant potential of

M AN U

CSCs (Persano et al., 2013). In fact it has been shown that the activation of HIF-1α, a positive downstream target of mTOR (Hudson et al., 2002) enhances CD133+ glioma-derived CSC expansion by enhancing the self-renewal activity and constraining the cell differentiation (Soeda et al., 2009). Recurrence of GB is generally contributed to the regeneration of tumor from residual CSCs after initial treatments. Therefore, targeting CSCs is of utmost necessity for clinical management and treatment of GB. Recently, a proposed mechanism for targeting CSCs

TE D

is to stimulate their differentiation, thus making them amenable to other therapeutic agents. A recent study by Friedman et al. examined this approach by illustrating that mTOR inhibition alone and in combination with differentiating agent, all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA), can target

EP

CSCs (Friedman et al., 2013; Jhanwar-Uniyal et al., 2015). The results demonstrated that ATRA caused differentiation of CSCs, as evidenced by the loss of stem-cell marker nestin expression. Treatment of GB cells with mTORC1 inhibitor rapamycin leads to nuclear localization of nestin

AC C

(Friedman et al., 2013).

Summary

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

mTOR integrates extracellular growth signals and nutrients to regulate cell proliferation, migration, growth, autophagy, metabolism, and survival via its two distinct multiprotein complexes, mTORC1 and 2. mTOR is deregulated in multiple

RI PT

tumor types. Inhibition of this pathway carries a significant therapeutic value. Rapamycin and its derivatives, which inhibit via an allosteric mechanism, however are incomplete inhibitors of mTORC1, and a major activator of mitogenic pathways. Consequently, novel ATP-competitive compounds that inhibit

SC

mTORC1/2 at physiological and molecular levels would provide a selective inhibition of this activated pathway. The development of ATP-compititive

M AN U

inhibitors would prove to be more effective by their ability to dephosphorylate

AC C

EP

TE D

activated PRAS40, thereby reinstating its intrinsic inhibition of mTORC1.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References 1. Albert, L., Karsy, M., Murali, R., & Jhanwar-Uniyal, M. (2009). Inhibition of mTOR activates the MAPK pathway in glioblastoma multiforme. Cancer Genomics &

RI PT

Proteomics, 6(5), 255-261. doi:6/5/255 [pii] 2. Bachmann, R. A., Kim, J. H., Wu, A. L., Park, I. H., & Chen, J. (2006). A nuclear

transport signal in mammalian target of rapamycin is critical for its cytoplasmic signaling to S6 kinase 1. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 281(11), 7357-7363.

SC

doi:M512218200 [pii]

3. Bao, S., Wu, Q., McLendon, R. E., Hao, Y., Shi, Q., Hjelmeland, A. B., . . . Rich, J. N. (2006). Glioma stem cells promote radioresistance by preferential activation of the DNA

M AN U

damage response. Nature, 444(7120), 756-760. doi:nature05236 [pii]

4. Beier, D., Hau, P., Proescholdt, M., Lohmeier, A., Wischhusen, J., Oefner, P. J., . . . Beier, C. P. (2007). CD133(+) and CD133(-) glioblastoma-derived cancer stem cells show differential growth characteristics and molecular profiles. Cancer Research, 67(9), 4010-4015. doi:67/9/4010 [pii]

5. Brazil, D. P., Yang, Z. Z., & Hemmings, B. A. (2004). Advances in protein kinase B

TE D

signalling: AKTion on multiple fronts. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 29(5), 233-242. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2004.03.006 [doi]

6. Castilho, R. M., Squarize, C. H., Chodosh, L. A., Williams, B. O., & Gutkind, J. S.

EP

(2009). mTOR mediates wnt-induced epidermal stem cell exhaustion and aging. Cell Stem Cell, 5(3), 279-289. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2009.06.017 [doi] 7. Chang, S. M., Wen, P., Cloughesy, T., Greenberg, H., Schiff, D., Conrad, C., . . . North

AC C

American Brain Tumor Consortium and the National Cancer Institute. (2005). Phase II study of CCI-779 in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Investigational New

Drugs, 23(4), 357-361. doi:10.1007/s10637-005-1444-0 [doi]

8. Chappell, W. H., Steelman, L. S., Long, J. M., Kempf, R. C., Abrams, S. L., Franklin, R. A., . . . McCubrey, J. A. (2011). Ras/raf/MEK/ERK and PI3K/PTEN/akt/mTOR inhibitors: Rationale and importance to inhibiting these pathways in human health. Oncotarget, 2(3), 135-164. doi:240 [pii]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

9. Chen, C. H., & Sarbassov dos, D. (2011). The mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) kinase maintains integrity of mTOR complex 2. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 286(46), 40386-40394. doi:10.1074/jbc.M111.282590 [doi] 10. Chheda, M. G., Wen, P. Y., Hochberg, F. H., Chi, A. S., Drappatz, J., Eichler, A. F., . . .

RI PT

Batchelor, T. T. (2015). Vandetanib plus sirolimus in adults with recurrent glioblastoma: Results of a phase I and dose expansion cohort study. Journal of Neuro-Oncology, 121(3), 627-634. doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1680-2 [doi]

11. Cloughesy, T. F., Yoshimoto, K., Nghiemphu, P., Brown, K., Dang, J., Zhu, S., . . .

SC

Sawyers, C. L. (2008). Antitumor activity of rapamycin in a phase I trial for patients with recurrent PTEN-deficient glioblastoma. PLoS Medicine, 5(1), e8.

M AN U

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050008 [doi]

12. Demidenko, Z. N., Zubova, S. G., Bukreeva, E. I., Pospelov, V. A., Pospelova, T. V., & Blagosklonny, M. V. (2009). Rapamycin decelerates cellular senescence. Cell Cycle (Georgetown, Tex.), 8(12), 1888-1895. doi:8606 [pii]

13. Doherty, L., Gigas, D. C., Kesari, S., Drappatz, J., Kim, R., Zimmerman, J., . . . Wen, P. Y. (2006). Pilot study of the combination of EGFR and mTOR inhibitors in recurrent

TE D

malignant gliomas. Neurology, 67(1), 156-158. doi:67/1/156 [pii] 14. Dorrello, N. V., Peschiaroli, A., Guardavaccaro, D., Colburn, N. H., Sherman, N. E., & Pagano, M. (2006). S6K1- and betaTRCP-mediated degradation of PDCD4 promotes protein translation and cell growth. Science (New York, N.Y.), 314(5798), 467-471.

EP

doi:314/5798/467 [pii]

15. Easley, C. A.,4th, Ben-Yehudah, A., Redinger, C. J., Oliver, S. L., Varum, S. T.,

AC C

Eisinger, V. M., . . . Schatten, G. P. (2010). mTOR-mediated activation of p70 S6K induces differentiation of pluripotent human embryonic stem cells. Cellular Reprogramming, 12(3), 263-273. doi:10.1089/cell.2010.0011 [doi]

16. Fitzgerald, T.L., Lertpiriyapong, K., Cocco, L., Martelli, A.M., Libra, M., Candido, S., … McCubrey, J.A. (2015). Roles of EGFR and KRAS and their downstream signaling

pathways in pancreatic cancer and pancreatic cancer stem cells. Advances Biological Regulation, 59, 65-81. doi:10.1016/j.jbior.2015.06.003. [doi]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

17. Follo, M.Y., Manzoli, L., Poli, A., McCubrey, J.A., Cocco, L. (2015). PLC and PI3K/Akt/mTOR signalling in disease and cancer. Advances Biological Regulation, 57, 10-6. doi:10.1016/j.jbior.2014.10.004. [doi] 18. Friedman, M. D., Jeevan, D. S., Tobias, M., Murali, R., & Jhanwar-Uniyal, M. (2013).

RI PT

Targeting cancer stem cells in glioblastoma multiforme using mTOR inhibitors and the differentiating agent all-trans retinoic acid. Oncology Reports, 30(4), 1645-1650. doi:10.3892/or.2013.2625 [doi]

19. Galanis, E., Buckner, J. C., Maurer, M. J., Kreisberg, J. I., Ballman, K., Boni, J., . . .

SC

North Central Cancer Treatment Group. (2005). Phase II trial of temsirolimus (CCI-779) in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: A north central cancer treatment group study.

M AN U

Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 23(23), 5294-5304. doi:JCO.2005.23.622 [pii]

20. Galli, R., Binda, E., Orfanelli, U., Cipelletti, B., Gritti, A., De Vitis, S., . . . Vescovi, A. (2004). Isolation and characterization of tumorigenic, stem-like neural precursors from human glioblastoma. Cancer Research, 64(19), 7011-7021. doi:64/19/7011 [pii] 21. Ghosh, A. P., Marshall, C. B., Coric, T., Shim, E. H., Kirkman, R., Ballestas, M. E., . . .

TE D

Sudarshan, S. (2015). Point mutations of the mTOR-RHEB pathway in renal cell carcinoma. Oncotarget, 6(20), 17895-17910. doi:4963 [pii] 22. Guertin, D. A., & Sabatini, D. M. (2007). Defining the role of mTOR in cancer. Cancer Cell, 12(1), 9-22. doi:S1535-6108(07)00151-1 [pii]

EP

23. Guertin, D. A., & Sabatini, D. M. (2009). The pharmacology of mTOR inhibition. Science Signaling, 2(67), pe24. doi:10.1126/scisignal.267pe24 [doi]

AC C

24. Guertin, D. A., Stevens, D. M., Saitoh, M., Kinkel, S., Crosby, K., Sheen, J. H., . . . Sabatini, D. M. (2009). mTOR complex 2 is required for the development of prostate cancer induced by pten loss in mice. Cancer Cell, 15(2), 148-159.

doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2008.12.017 [doi]

25. Gulati, N., Karsy, M., Albert, L., Murali, R., & Jhanwar-Uniyal, M. (2009). Involvement of mTORC1 and mTORC2 in regulation of glioblastoma multiforme growth and motility. International Journal of Oncology, 35(4), 731-740. 26. Hainsworth, J. D., Shih, K. C., Shepard, G. C., Tillinghast, G. W., Brinker, B. T., & Spigel, D. R. (2012). Phase II study of concurrent radiation therapy, temozolomide, and

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab/everolimus as first-line treatment for patients with glioblastoma. Clinical Advances in Hematology & Oncology : H&O, 10(4), 240246. 27. Harrington, L. S., Findlay, G. M., Gray, A., Tolkacheva, T., Wigfield, S., Rebholz, H., . .

RI PT

. Lamb, R. F. (2004). The TSC1-2 tumor suppressor controls insulin-PI3K signaling via regulation of IRS proteins. The Journal of Cell Biology, 166(2), 213-223. doi:10.1083/jcb.200403069 [doi]

28. Hay, N., & Sonenberg, N. (2004). Upstream and downstream of mTOR. Genes &

SC

Development, 18(16), 1926-1945. doi:10.1101/gad.1212704 [doi]

29. Heitman, J., Movva, N. R., & Hall, M. N. (1991). Targets for cell cycle arrest by the

M AN U

immunosuppressant rapamycin in yeast. Science (New York, N.Y.), 253(5022), 905-909. 30. Hemmati, H. D., Nakano, I., Lazareff, J. A., Masterman-Smith, M., Geschwind, D. H., Bronner-Fraser, M., & Kornblum, H. I. (2003). Cancerous stem cells can arise from pediatric brain tumors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(25), 15178-15183. doi:10.1073/pnas.2036535100 [doi] 31. Holland, E. C. (2001). Gliomagenesis: Genetic alterations and mouse models. Nature

TE D

Reviews.Genetics, 2(2), 120-129. doi:10.1038/35052535 [doi] 32. Hudson, C. C., Liu, M., Chiang, G. G., Otterness, D. M., Loomis, D. C., Kaper, F., . . . Abraham, R. T. (2002). Regulation of hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha expression and function by the mammalian target of rapamycin. Molecular and Cellular Biology, 22(20),

EP

7004-7014.

33. Ignatova, T. N., Kukekov, V. G., Laywell, E. D., Suslov, O. N., Vrionis, F. D., &

AC C

Steindler, D. A. (2002). Human cortical glial tumors contain neural stem-like cells expressing astroglial and neuronal markers in vitro. Glia, 39(3), 193-206.

doi:10.1002/glia.10094 [doi]

34. Jacinto, E., Facchinetti, V., Liu, D., Soto, N., Wei, S., Jung, S. Y., . . . Su, B. (2006). SIN1/MIP1 maintains rictor-mTOR complex integrity and regulates akt phosphorylation and substrate specificity. Cell, 127(1), 125-137. doi:S0092-8674(06)01147-0 [pii] 35. Jacinto, E., Loewith, R., Schmidt, A., Lin, S., Ruegg, M. A., Hall, A., & Hall, M. N. (2004a). Mammalian TOR complex 2 controls the actin cytoskeleton and is rapamycin insensitive. Nature Cell Biology, 6(11), 1122-1128. doi:ncb1183 [pii]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

36. Jacinto, E., Loewith, R., Schmidt, A., Lin, S., Ruegg, M. A., Hall, A., & Hall, M. N. (2004b). Mammalian TOR complex 2 controls the actin cytoskeleton and is rapamycin insensitive. Nature Cell Biology, 6(11), 1122-1128. doi:ncb1183 [pii] 37. Jhanwar-Uniyal, M., Albert, L., McKenna, E., Karsy, M., Rajdev, P., Braun, A., &

RI PT

Murali, R. (2011). Deciphering the signaling pathways of cancer stem cells of

glioblastoma multiforme: Role of akt/mTOR and MAPK pathways. Advances in Enzyme Regulation, 51(1), 164-170. doi:10.1016/j.advenzreg.2010.09.017 [doi]

38. Jhanwar-Uniyal, M., Gillick, J.L., Nei,l J., Tobias, M., Thwing, Z.E., Murali, R. (2015).

SC

Distinct signaling mechanisms of mTORC1 and mTORC2 in glioblastoma multiforme: a tale of two complexes. Advances Biological Regulation, 57, 64-74.

M AN U

doi:10.1016/j.jbior.2014.09.004. [doi]

39. Jhanwar-Uniyal, M., Jeevan, D., Neil, J., Shannon, C., Albert, L., & Murali, R. (2013). Deconstructing mTOR complexes in regulation of glioblastoma multiforme and its stem cells. Advances in Biological Regulation, 53(2), 202-210. doi:10.1016/j.jbior.2012.10.001 [doi]

40. Jhanwar-Uniyal, M., Labagnara, M., Friedman, M., Kwasnicki, A., & Murali, R. (2015).

TE D

Glioblastoma: Molecular pathways, stem cells and therapeutic targets. Cancers, 7(2), 538-555. doi:10.3390/cancers7020538 [doi] 41. Kazyken, D., Kaz, Y., Kiyan, V., Zhylkibayev, A. A., Chen, C. H., Agarwal, N. K., Sarbassov, D.D. (2014). The nuclear import of ribosomal proteins is regulated by mTOR.

EP

Oncotarget, 5(20), 9577-9593. doi:2473 [pii] 42. Kelly, J. J., Stechishin, O., Chojnacki, A., Lun, X., Sun, B., Senger, D. L., . . . Weiss, S.

AC C

(2009). Proliferation of human glioblastoma stem cells occurs independently of exogenous mitogens. Stem Cells (Dayton, Ohio), 27(8), 1722-1733. doi:10.1002/stem.98 [doi]

43. Kim, D. H., Sarbassov, D. D., Ali, S. M., King, J. E., Latek, R. R., Erdjument-Bromage, H., . . . Sabatini, D. M. (2002). mTOR interacts with raptor to form a nutrient-sensitive complex that signals to the cell growth machinery. Cell, 110(2), 163-175. doi:S0092867402008085 [pii] 44. Korotchkina, L. G., Leontieva, O. V., Bukreeva, E. I., Demidenko, Z. N., Gudkov, A. V., & Blagosklonny, M. V. (2010). The choice between p53-induced senescence and

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

quiescence is determined in part by the mTOR pathway. Aging, 2(6), 344-352. doi:v2/n6/full/100160.html [pii] 45. Kreisl, T. N., Lassman, A. B., Mischel, P. S., Rosen, N., Scher, H. I., Teruya-Feldstein, J., . . . Abrey, L. E. (2009). A pilot study of everolimus and gefitinib in the treatment of

RI PT

recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). Journal of Neuro-Oncology, 92(1), 99-105. doi:10.1007/s11060-008-9741-z [doi]

46. Kubica, N., Crispino, J. L., Gallagher, J. W., Kimball, S. R., & Jefferson, L. S. (2008). Activation of the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 is both necessary and

SC

sufficient to stimulate eukaryotic initiation factor 2Bvarepsilon mRNA translation and protein synthesis. The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology, 40(11),

M AN U

2522-2533. doi:10.1016/j.biocel.2008.04.010 [doi]

47. Lapidot, T., Sirard, C., Vormoor, J., Murdoch, B., Hoang, T., Caceres-Cortes, J., . . . Dick, J. E. (1994). A cell initiating human acute myeloid leukaemia after transplantation into SCID mice. Nature, 367(6464), 645-648. doi:10.1038/367645a0 [doi] 48. Laplante, M., & Sabatini, D. M. (2012). mTOR signaling in growth control and disease. Cell, 149(2), 274-293. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.03.017 [doi]

TE D

49. Lassen, U., Sorensen, M., Gaziel, T. B., Hasselbalch, B., & Poulsen, H. S. (2013). Phase II study of bevacizumab and temsirolimus combination therapy for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Anticancer Research, 33(4), 1657-1660. doi:33/4/1657 [pii] 50. Liu, P., Gan, W., Chin, Y. R., Ogura, K., Guo, J., Zhang, J., . . . Wei, W. (2015).

EP

PtdIns(3,4,5)P3-dependent activation of the mTORC2 kinase complex. Cancer Discovery, 5(11), 1194-1209. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-0460 [doi]

AC C

51. Liu, Q., Nguyen, D. H., Dong, Q., Shitaku, P., Chung, K., Liu, O. Y., . . . Tso, C. L. (2009). Molecular properties of CD133+ glioblastoma stem cells derived from treatmentrefractory recurrent brain tumors. Journal of Neuro-Oncology, 94(1), 1-19. doi:10.1007/s11060-009-9919-z [doi]

52. Loewith, R., Jacinto, E., Wullschleger, S., Lorberg, A., Crespo, J. L., Bonenfant, D., . . . Hall, M. N. (2002). Two TOR complexes, only one of which is rapamycin sensitive, have distinct roles in cell growth control. Molecular Cell, 10(3), 457-468. doi:S1097276502006366 [pii]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

53. Ma, D. J., Galanis, E., Anderson, S. K., Schiff, D., Kaufmann, T. J., Peller, P. J., . . . Sarkaria, J. N. (2015). A phase II trial of everolimus, temozolomide, and radiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: NCCTG N057K. Neuro-Oncology, 17(9), 1261-1269. doi:10.1093/neuonc/nou328 [doi]

RI PT

54. Martelli, A. M., Tazzari, P. L., Evangelisti, C., Chiarini, F., Blalock, W. L., Billi, A. M., . . . Cocco, L. (2007). Targeting the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/akt/mammalian target of rapamycin module for acute myelogenous leukemia therapy: From bench to bedside.

SC

Current Medicinal Chemistry, 14(19), 2009-2023.

M AN U

55. Matsumoto, K., Arao, T., Tanaka, K., Kaneda, H., Kudo, K., Fujita, Y., . . . Nishio, K. (2009). mTOR signal and hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha regulate CD133 expression in cancer cells. Cancer Research, 69(18), 7160-7164. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-091289 [doi]

56. McCord, A. M., Jamal, M., Shankavaram, U. T., Lang, F. F., Camphausen, K., & Tofilon, P. J. (2009). Physiologic oxygen concentration enhances the stem-like properties

TE D

of CD133+ human glioblastoma cells in vitro. Molecular Cancer Research : MCR, 7(4), 489-497. doi:10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-08-0360 [doi] 57. Neil, J., Shannon, C., Mohan, A., Laurent, D., Murali, R., Jhanwar-Uniyal, M. (2016). ATP-site binding inhibitor effectively targets mTORC1 and mTORC2 complexes in

EP

glioblastoma. Int J Oncol, 48(3), 1045-1052. doi:10.3892/ijo.2015.3311 [doi] 58. Ohgaki, H., & Kleihues, P. (2009). Genetic alterations and signaling pathways in the

AC C

evolution of gliomas. Cancer Science, 100(12), 2235-2241. doi:10.1111/j.13497006.2009.01308.x [doi]

59. Persano, L., Rampazzo, E., Basso, G., & Viola, G. (2013). Glioblastoma cancer stem cells: Role of the microenvironment and therapeutic targeting. Biochemical Pharmacology, 85(5), 612-622. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2012.10.001 [doi]

60. Phillips, H. S., Kharbanda, S., Chen, R., Forrest, W. F., Soriano, R. H., Wu, T. D., . . . Aldape, K. (2006). Molecular subclasses of high-grade glioma predict prognosis, delineate a pattern of disease progression, and resemble stages in neurogenesis. Cancer Cell, 9(3), 157-173. doi:S1535-6108(06)00056-0 [pii]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

61. Platet, N., Liu, S. Y., Atifi, M. E., Oliver, L., Vallette, F. M., Berger, F., & Wion, D. (2007). Influence of oxygen tension on CD133 phenotype in human glioma cell cultures. Cancer Letters, 258(2), 286-290. doi:S0304-3835(07)00436-3 [pii] 62. Prestegarden, L., Svendsen, A., Wang, J., Sleire, L., Skaftnesmo, K. O., Bjerkvig, R., . . .

RI PT

Enger, P. O. (2010). Glioma cell populations grouped by different cell type markers drive brain tumor growth. Cancer Research, 70(11), 4274-4279. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN09-3904 [doi]

63. Reardon, D. A., Wen, P. Y., Alfred Yung, W. K., Berk, L., Narasimhan, N., Turner, C.

SC

D., . . . Vogelbaum, M. A. (2012). Ridaforolimus for patients with progressive or

recurrent malignant glioma: A perisurgical, sequential, ascending-dose trial. Cancer

M AN U

Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, 69(4), 849-860. doi:10.1007/s00280-011-1773-y [doi] 64. Reiling, J. H., & Sabatini, D. M. (2006). Stress and mTORture signaling. Oncogene, 25(48), 6373-6383. doi:1209889 [pii]

65. Reya, T., Morrison, S. J., Clarke, M. F., & Weissman, I. L. (2001). Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells. Nature, 414(6859), 105-111. doi:10.1038/35102167 [doi] 66. Riemenschneider, M. J., Betensky, R. A., Pasedag, S. M., & Louis, D. N. (2006). AKT

TE D

activation in human glioblastomas enhances proliferation via TSC2 and S6 kinase signaling. Cancer Research, 66(11), 5618-5623. doi:66/11/5618 [pii] 67. Rosner, M., & Hengstschlager, M. (2008). Cytoplasmic and nuclear distribution of the protein complexes mTORC1 and mTORC2: Rapamycin triggers dephosphorylation and

EP

delocalization of the mTORC2 components rictor and sin1. Human Molecular Genetics, 17(19), 2934-2948. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddn192 [doi]

AC C

68. Russell, R. C., Fang, C., & Guan, K. L. (2011). An emerging role for TOR signaling in mammalian tissue and stem cell physiology. Development (Cambridge, England), 138(16), 3343-3356. doi:10.1242/dev.058230 [doi]

69. Sabatini, D. M. (2006). mTOR and cancer: Insights into a complex relationship. Nature Reviews Cancer, 6(9), 729-734. doi:10.1038/nrc1974

70. Salomoni, P., & Pandolfi, P. P. (2002). The role of PML in tumor suppression. Cell, 108(2), 165-170. doi:S0092867402006268 [pii] 71. Sarbassov, D. D., Ali, S. M., Kim, D. H., Guertin, D. A., Latek, R. R., ErdjumentBromage, H., . . . Sabatini, D. M. (2004). Rictor, a novel binding partner of mTOR,

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

defines a rapamycin-insensitive and raptor-independent pathway that regulates the cytoskeleton. Current Biology : CB, 14(14), 1296-1302. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.06.054 [doi] 72. Sarbassov, D. D., Guertin, D. A., Ali, S. M., & Sabatini, D. M. (2005). Phosphorylation

307(5712), 1098-1101. doi:307/5712/1098 [pii]

RI PT

and regulation of akt/PKB by the rictor-mTOR complex. Science (New York, N.Y.),

73. Sarkaria, J. N., Galanis, E., Wu, W., Dietz, A. B., Kaufmann, T. J., Gustafson, M. P., . . . Buckner, J. C. (2010). Combination of temsirolimus (CCI-779) with chemoradiation in

SC

newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) (NCCTG trial N027D) is associated with increased infectious risks. Clinical Cancer Research : An Official Journal of the

0432.CCR-10-1453 [doi]

M AN U

American Association for Cancer Research, 16(22), 5573-5580. doi:10.1158/1078-

74. Sarkaria, J. N., Galanis, E., Wu, W., Peller, P. J., Giannini, C., Brown, P. D., . . . Buckner, J. C. (2011). North central cancer treatment group phase I trial N057K of everolimus (RAD001) and temozolomide in combination with radiation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme. International Journal of

TE D

Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 81(2), 468-475. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.05.064 [doi]

75. Sato, T., Nakashima, A., Guo, L., Coffman, K., & Tamanoi, F. (2010). Single amino-acid changes that confer constitutive activation of mTOR are discovered in human cancer.

EP

Oncogene, 29(18), 2746-2752. doi:10.1038/onc.2010.28 [doi] 76. Singh, S. K., Clarke, I. D., Hide, T., & Dirks, P. B. (2004). Cancer stem cells in nervous

AC C

system tumors. Oncogene, 23(43), 7267-7273. doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1207946 [doi] 77. Singh, S. K., Clarke, I. D., Terasaki, M., Bonn, V. E., Hawkins, C., Squire, J., & Dirks, P. B. (2003). Identification of a cancer stem cell in human brain tumors. Cancer Research,

63(18), 5821-5828.

78. Soeda, A., Park, M., Lee, D., Mintz, A., Androutsellis-Theotokis, A., McKay, R. D., . . . Park, D. M. (2009). Hypoxia promotes expansion of the CD133-positive glioma stem cells through activation of HIF-1alpha. Oncogene, 28(45), 3949-3959. doi:10.1038/onc.2009.252 [doi]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

79. Song, M. S., Salmena, L., & Pandolfi, P. P. (2012). The functions and regulation of the PTEN tumour suppressor. Nature Reviews.Molecular Cell Biology, 13(5), 283-296. doi:10.1038/nrm3330 [doi]

Biotechnology, 25(2), 193-194. doi:nbt0207-193 [pii]

RI PT

80. Stupp, R., & Hegi, M. E. (2007). Targeting brain-tumor stem cells. Nature

81. Tamburini, J., Chapuis, N., Bardet, V., Park, S., Sujobert, P., Willems, L., . . . Bouscary, D. (2008). Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition activates

phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/akt by up-regulating insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor

SC

signaling in acute myeloid leukemia: Rationale for therapeutic inhibition of both pathways. Blood, 111(1), 379-382. doi:blood-2007-03-080796 [pii]

M AN U

82. Tee, A. R., Blenis, J., & Proud, C. G. (2005). Analysis of mTOR signaling by the small G-proteins, rheb and RhebL1. FEBS Letters, 579(21), 4763-4768. doi:S00145793(05)00915-4 [pii]

83. Volarevic, S., & Thomas, G. (2001). Role of S6 phosphorylation and S6 kinase in cell growth. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology, 65, 101-127. 84. Wang, L., Harris, T. E., Roth, R. A., & Lawrence, J. C.,Jr. (2007). PRAS40 regulates

TE D

mTORC1 kinase activity by functioning as a direct inhibitor of substrate binding. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 282(27), 20036-20044. doi:M702376200 [pii] 85. Wen, P. Y., Chang, S. M., Lamborn, K. R., Kuhn, J. G., Norden, A. D., Cloughesy, T. F., . . . Ligon, K. L. (2014). Phase I/II study of erlotinib and temsirolimus for patients with

EP

recurrent malignant gliomas: North american brain tumor consortium trial 04-02. NeuroOncology, 16(4), 567-578. doi:10.1093/neuonc/not247 [doi]

AC C

86. Wen, P. Y., Omuro, A., Ahluwalia, M. S., Fathallah-Shaykh, H. M., Mohile, N., Lager, J. J., . . . Cloughesy, T. F. (2015). Phase I dose-escalation study of the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor voxtalisib (SAR245409, XL765) plus temozolomide with or without radiotherapy in patients with high-grade glioma. Neuro-Oncology, 17(9), 1275-1283.

doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov083 [doi]

87. Yang, Q., Inoki, K., Ikenoue, T., & Guan, K. L. (2006). Identification of Sin1 as an essential TORC2 component required for complex formation and kinase activity. Genes & Development, 20(20), 2820-2832. doi:20/20/2820 [pii]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

88. You, H., Ding, W., & Rountree, C. B. (2010). Epigenetic regulation of cancer stem cell marker CD133 by transforming growth factor-beta. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.), 51(5), 1635-1644. doi:10.1002/hep.23544 [doi] 89. Zhang, J., Xu, K., Liu, P., Geng, Y., Wang, B., Gan, W., … Wei, W. (2016). Inhibition of

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

929-942. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2016.04.023 [doi]

RI PT

rb phosphorylation leads to mTORC2-mediated activation of akt. Molecular Cell, 62(6),

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure Legends

RI PT

Figure 1. A schematic representation of two multiprotein complexes of mTOR, mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) and mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2).

PI3K, phosphoinositide 3-kinase; PIP2, phosphatidylinositol bisphosphate; PIP3,

SC

phosphatidylinositol (3,4,5)-trisphosphate; PTEN, phosphatase and tensin

homolog; mTOR, mechanistic target of rapamycin; Raptor, rapamycin-sensitive

M AN U

adapter protein of mTOR; Rictor, rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR; Rheb, Ras homolog enriched in brain; TSC 1/2, tuberous sclerosis 1/2; mLST8, mTOR associated protein, LST8 homolog or mammalian lethal with SEC13 protein 8; Pras40, proline-rich AKT substrate of 40KD; 4EBP1, Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E-binding protein 1; 70S6K, ribosomal protein S6

TE D

kinase beta-1; S6, ribosomal protein S6; Grb10, growth factor receptor-bound protein 10; ULK1, UNC51-like kinase 1; Protor-1, proline-rich protein 5 or protein observed with rictor 1; PKC, protein kinase C; mSin1, stress-activated map kinase interacting protein 1 or mitogen-activated protein kinase-associated protein 1;

EP

Deptor, DEP domain-containing mTOR-interacting protein; AKTSER473, protein kinase B phosphorylated at serine 473; Akt, protein kinase B; Rho GTPase, Rho

AC C

family of guanosine triphosphate hydrolysis enzyme; RTK, receptor tyrosine kinase.

Figure 2. Inhibition of mTORC1 and mTORC2 complexes by analogue or ATPbinding inhibitors.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(A) Western blot analysis exhibiting the time course of pS6KSer235/236 and pAKTSer473 following rapamycin (10nM) treatment. Phosphorylation of ribosomal protein pS6K declined over 24h following rapamycin treatment where a moderate

RI PT

decline was seen at 1 and 3h, which was followed by a substantial time-dependent decline in S6K activation between 6 to 24h, although complete suppression of phosphorylation of S6K was not achieved.

The same blot was stripped and

reprobed for total S6K expression showing constant expression across treatment.

SC

The bottom panel represents the ratio of pS6K vs. total S6K graphed against time, which demonstrated a time-dependent drop (1 to 12h) following rapamycin

M AN U

treatment.

(B) Western blot analysis illustrating the time course of pAKTSer473 following rapamycin (10nM) treatment. After an initial decline in pAKT levels from 1 to 3h, a consistent increase in AKT activation was evident at 6, 12 and 24h. The same

TE D

blot was stripped and reprobed for total AKT, which showed invariable expression. Densitometric analysis of the pAKT:total AKT ratio shows an initial drop followed by a persistent increase (A,B - taken from Gulati et al., 2009 with permission).

EP

(C) The ATP-competitive binding site inhibitor PP242, suppresses both mTORC1 and mTORC2 activity in comparison to rapamycin. Immunoblotting analysis

AC C

demonstrated that the ATP-competitive binding site inhibitor PP242 (1 or 2.2 µM) significantly suppressed the activation of p70 S6KThr389 and p85 S6KThr412, as shown by reduced expression of both subunits of this kinase (70 and 85). Analogue inhibitor of mTORC1, rapamycin (100 nM), also suppressed activation of p70 S6KThr389 and p85 S6KThr412, but to a lesser extent than PP242 (1 or 2.2 µM). In addition, insulin- or TPA-induced activation of p70 S6K was suppressed by pretreatment with PP242 (1 or 2.2 µM), and to a lesser extent by rapamycin (100 nM). Immunoblotting analysis showed PP242 caused significant inhibition in

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

pAKTSer473 expression at higher dose (2.2 µM). Low dose PP242 (1 µM) suppressed pAKTSer473 expression similar to rapamycin (100 nM). Insulin increased pAKTSer473, which remained activated in rapamycin pretreated cells. Pretreatment

RI PT

with PP242 partially reversed insulin-induced activation of pAKTSer473. TPA treatment had no effect on the expression of pAKTSer473, which remained unchanged following pretreatment with rapamycin (100 nM) or PP242 (1 or 2.2

SC

µM). GAPDH expression showed equal protein loading in all samples.

(D) The GBM cell proliferation was determined by MTT assay. GBM cell

M AN U

proliferation was suppressed in a dose-dependent manner by treatment with PP242 (2.2 µM and 1.1 µM). Rapamycin also suppressed cell viability. The chemotactic migration assay demonstrated that both PP242 (2.2 µM) and rapamycin (100 nM) suppressed cell migration after 24 h of treatment; however, PP242 (2.2 µM) was more effective than rapamycin (100 nM) (C, D – taken from Neil et al., 2016 with

AC C

EP

TE D

permission).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Acknowledgment

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Supported by funds from American Research Foundation.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT