Search

Five years ago, the Melanoma Research Foundation (MRF) conducted an assessment of the challenges and opportunities facing the melanoma research community and patients with melanoma. Since then, remarkable progress has been made on both the basic and clinical research fronts. However, the incidence, recurrence, and death rates for melanoma remain unacceptably high and significant challenges remain. Hence, the MRF Scientific Advisory Council and Breakthrough Consortium, a group that includes clinicians and scientists, reconvened to facilitate intensive discussions on thematic areas essential to melanoma researchers and patients alike, prevention, detection, diagnosis, metastatic dormancy and progression, response and resistance to targeted and immune-based therapy, and the clinical consequences of COVID-19 for patients with melanoma and providers. These extensive discussions helped to crystalize our understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the broader melanoma community today. In this report, we discuss the progress made since the last MRF assessment, comment on what remains to be overcome, and offer recommendations for the best path forward.

Uveal melanoma (UM) is the deadliest form of eye cancer in adults. Inactivating mutations and/or loss of expression of the gene encoding BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) in UM tumors are associated with an increased risk of metastasis. To investigate the mechanisms underlying this risk, we explored the functional consequences of BAP1 deficiency. UM cell lines expressing mutant BAP1 grew more slowly than those expressing wild-type BAP1 in culture and in vivo. The ability of BAP1 reconstitution to restore cell proliferation in BAP1-deficient cells required its deubiquitylase activity. Proteomic analysis showed that BAP1-deficient cells had decreased phosphorylation of ribosomal S6 and its upstream regulator, p70S6K1, compared with both wild-type and BAP1 reconstituted cells. In turn, expression of p70S6K1 increased S6 phosphorylation and proliferation of BAP1-deficient UM cells. Consistent with these findings, BAP1 mutant primary UM tumors expressed lower amounts of p70S6K1 target genes, and S6 phosphorylation was decreased in BAP1 mutant patient-derived xenografts (PDXs), which grew more slowly than wild-type PDXs in the liver (the main metastatic site of UM) in mice. BAP1-deficient UM cells were also more resistant to amino acid starvation, which was associated with diminished phosphorylation of S6. These studies demonstrate that BAP1 deficiency slows the proliferation of UM cells through regulation of S6 phosphorylation. These characteristics may be associated with metastasis by ensuring survival during amino acid starvation. Editor's summary: Deficiency in the protein BAP1 is associated with increased metastatic progression of uveal melanoma (UM), an intraocular tumor. Chua et al. explored this connection in UM cell lines and patient samples. Loss of BAP1 or its deubiquitylase function decreased proliferation and signaling mediated by the protein S6 in UM cells and tumors. This loss of S6 signaling correlated with increased cell survival during amino acid starvation. Because nutrient deficiency is a type of stress common to the metastatic process, these findings suggest that BAP1 deficiency may support the survival of UM cells during metastasis. —Leslie K. Ferrarelli [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms allowing residual multiple myeloma (MM) cells to persist after bortezomib (Bz) treatment remain unclear. We hypothesized that studying the biology of bortezomib-surviving cells may reveal markers to identify these cells and survival signals to target and kill residual MM cells. METHODS: We used H2B-GFP label retention, biochemical tools and in vitro and in vivo experiments to characterize growth arrest and the unfolded protein responses in quiescent Bz-surviving cells. We also tested the effect of a demethylating agent, 5-Azacytidine, on Bz-induced quiescence and whether inhibiting the chaperone GRP78/BiP (henceforth GRP78) with a specific toxin induced apoptosis in Bz-surviving cells. Finally, we used MM patient samples to test whether GRP78 levels might associate with disease progression. Statistical analysis employed t-test and Mann-Whitney tests at a 95% confidence. RESULTS: We report that Bz-surviving MM cells in vitro and in vivo enter quiescence characterized by p21(CIP1) upregulation. Bz-surviving MM cells also downregulated CDK6, Ki67 and P-Rb. H2B-GFP label retention showed that Bz-surviving MM cells are either slow-cycling or deeply quiescent. The Bz-induced quiescence was stabilized by low dose (500nM) of 5-azacytidine (Aza) pre-treatment, which also potentiated the initial Bz-induced apoptosis. We also found that expression of GRP78, an unfolded protein response (UPR) survival factor, persisted in MM quiescent cells. Importantly, GRP78 downregulation using a specific SubAB bacterial toxin killed Bz-surviving MM cells. Finally, quantification of Grp78(high)/CD138+ MM cells from patients suggested that high levels correlated with progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that Bz-surviving MM cells display a GRP78(HIGH)/p21(HIGH)/CDK6(LOW)/P-Rb(LOW) profile, and these markers may identify quiescent MM cells capable of fueling recurrences. We further conclude that Aza + Bz treatment of MM may represent a novel strategy to delay recurrences by enhancing Bz-induced apoptosis and quiescence stability.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.