Alternative cell sources, such as three‐dimensional organoids and induced pluripotent stem cell–derived cells, might provide a potentially effective approach for both drug development applications and clinical transplantation. For example, the development of cell sources for liver cell–based therapy has been increasingly needed, and liver transplantation is performed for the treatment for patients with severe end‐stage liver disease. Differentiated liver cells and three‐dimensional organoids are expected to provide new cell sources for tissue models and revolutionary clinical therapies. However, conventional experimental methods confirming the expression levels of liver‐specific lineage markers cannot provide complete information regarding the differentiation status or degree of similarity between liver and differentiated cell sources. Therefore, in this study, to overcome several issues associated with the assessment of differentiated liver cells and organoids, we developed a liver‐specific gene expression panel (LiGEP) algorithm that presents the degree of liver similarity as a “percentage.” We demonstrated that the percentage calculated using the LiGEP algorithm was correlated with the developmental stages of in vivo liver tissues in mice, suggesting that LiGEP can correctly predict developmental stages. Moreover, three‐dimensional cultured HepaRG cells and human pluripotent stem cell–derived hepatocyte‐like cells showed liver similarity scores of 59.14% and 32%, respectively, although general liver‐specific markers were detected. Conclusion: Our study describes a quantitative and predictive model for differentiated samples, particularly liver‐specific cells or organoids; and this model can be further expanded to various tissue‐specific organoids; our LiGEP can provide useful information and insights regarding the differentiation status of in vitro liver models. (Hepatology 2017;66:1662–1674).

Most patients with mutant B-Raf melanomas respond to inhibitors of oncogenic B-Raf but resistance eventually emerges. To better understand the mechanisms that determine the long-term responses of mutant B-Raf melanoma cells to B-Raf inhibitor, we used chronic selection to establish B-Raf (V600E) melanoma clones with acquired resistance to the new oncogenic B-Raf inhibitor UI-152. Whereas the parental A375P cells were highly sensitive to UI-152 (IC50<0.5 μM), the resistant sub-line (A375P/Mdr) displayed strong resistance to UI-152 (IC50>20 μM). Immunofluorescence analysis indicated the absence of an increase in the levels of P-glycoprotein multidrug resistance (MDR) transporter in A375P/Mdr cells, suggesting that resistance was not attributable to P-glycoprotein overexpression. In UI-152-sensitive A375P cells, the anti-proliferative activity of UI-152 appeared to be due to cell-cycle arrest at G0/G1 with the induction of apoptosis. However, we found that A375P/Mdr cells were resistant to the apoptosis induced by UI-152. Interestingly, UI-152 preferentially induced autophagy in A375P/Mdr cells but not in A375P cells, as determined by GFP-LC3 puncta/cell counts. Further, autophagy inhibition with 3-methyladenine (3-MA) partially augmented growth inhibition of A375P/Mdr cells by UI-152, which implies that a high level of autophagy may protect UI-152-treated cells from undergoing growth inhibition. Together, our data implicate high rates of autophagy as a key mechanism of acquired resistance to the oncogenic B-Raf inhibitor, in support of clinical studies in which combination therapy with autophagy targeted drugs is being designed to overcome resistance.

The clinical benefits of oncogenic BRAF inhibitor therapies are limited by the emergence of drug resistance. In this study, we investigated the role of a negative regulator of the MAPK pathway, Spry2, in acquired resistance using BRAF inhibitor-resistant derivatives of the BRAF-V600E melanoma (A375P/Mdr). Real-time RT-PCR analysis indicated that the expression of Spry2 was higher in A375P cells harboring the BRAF V600E mutation compared with wild-type BRAF-bearing cells (SK-MEL-2) that are resistant to BRAF inhibitors. This result suggests the ability of BRAF V600E to evade feedback suppression in cell lines with BRAF V600E mutations despite high Spry2 expression. Most interestingly, Spry2 exhibited strongly reduced expression in A375P/Mdr cells with acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors. Furthermore, the overexpression of Spry2 partially restored sensitivity to the BRAF inhibitor PLX4720 in two BRAF inhibitor-resistant cells, indicating a positive role for Spry2 in the growth inhibition induced by BRAF inhibitors. On the other hand, long-term treatment with PLX4720 induced pERK reactivation following BRAF inhibition in A375P cells, indicating that negative feedback including Spry2 may be bypassed in BRAF mutant melanoma cells. In addition, the siRNA-mediated knockdown of Raf-1 attenuated the rebound activation of ERK stimulated by PLX4720 in A375P cells, strongly suggesting the positive role of Raf-1 kinase in ERK activation in response to BRAF inhibition. Taken together, these data suggest that RAF signaling may be released from negative feedback inhibition through interacting with Spry2, leading to ERK rebound and, consequently, the induction of acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors.

Sprouty (Spry) proteins have previously been suggested as negative regulators of the MAPK pathway through interaction with Raf-1. However, the molecular basis of this inhibition has not been elucidated. In this study, we used cells expressing FLAGtagged Raf-1 with point mutations at known phosphorylation sites to reveal that activation of Raf-1 mutants does not correlate with their degree of interaction with Spry2. The association of Raf-1 with Spry2 in intact cells was further corroborated by immunofluorescence colocalization. Additionally, there was no significant change observed in the strength of interaction between Raf-1 mutants and Spry2 after paclitaxel treatment despite differences in the activation levels of these mutants. Thus, our study provides the evidence that Spry2 does not directly regulate Raf-1 kinase activity, but instead acts as a scaffolding protein that assists interactions between Raf-1 kinase and its direct regulators. [BMB reports 2010; 43(3): 205-211]

No abstract