Advertisement
JBC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M500562200 on April 26, 2005

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 280, Issue 25, 24053-24063, June 24, 2005
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
280/25/24053    most recent
M500562200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Han, C.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Han, C.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Cyclooxygenase-2-derived Prostaglandin E2 Promotes Human Cholangiocarcinoma Cell Growth and Invasion through EP1 Receptor-mediated Activation of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor and Akt*

Chang Han and Tong Wu{ddagger}

From the Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

Received for publication, January 18, 2005 , and in revised form, April 11, 2005.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)-mediated prostaglandin synthesis has recently been implicated in human cholangiocarcinogenesis. This study was designed to examine the mechanisms by which COX-2-derived prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) regulates cholangiocarcinoma cell growth and invasion. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed elevated expression of COX-2 and the epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor (EGFR) in human cholangiocarcinoma tissues. Overexpression of COX-2 in a human cholangiocarcinoma cell line (CCLP1) increased tumor cell growth and invasion in vitro and in severe combined immunodeficient mice. Overexpression of COX-2 or treatment with PGE2 or the EP1 receptor agonist ONO-DI-004 induced phosphorylation of EGFR and enhanced tumor cell proliferation and invasion, which were inhibited by the EP1 receptor small interfering RNA or antagonist ONO-8711. Treatment of CCLP1 cells with PGE2 or ONO-DI-004 enhanced binding of EGFR to the EP1 receptor and c-Src. Furthermore, PGE2 or ONO-DI-004 treatment also increased Akt phosphorylation, which was blocked by the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors AG 1478 and PD 153035. These findings reveal that the EP1 receptor transactivated EGFR, thus activating Akt. On the other hand, activation of EGFR by its cognate ligand (EGF) increased COX-2 expression and PGE2 production, whereas blocking PGE2 synthesis or the EP1 receptor inhibited EGF-induced EGFR phosphorylation. This study reveals a novel cross-talk between the EP1 receptor and EGFR signaling that synergistically promotes cancer cell growth and invasion.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Cholangiocarcinoma is a highly malignant epithelial neoplasm of the biliary tree with a high rate of mortality (1-3). Although it composes ~10-15% of hepatobiliary neoplasms, its incidence is increasing (1-4). The tumor often arises from background conditions that cause long-standing inflammation, injury, and reparative biliary epithelial cell proliferation, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis, liver fluke infestation (Opisthorchis viverrini and Clonorchis sinensis), hepatolithiasis, and complicated fibropolycystic diseases. Early diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma is difficult, and there is presently no effective treatment for patients with the advanced disease or any effective therapy for its chemoprevention. Although it is well known that the chronic inflammatory conditions involving the bile ducts predispose patients to the development of cholangiocarcinoma, the molecular mechanisms linking chronic inflammation to malignant transformation remain to be further defined.

Recent evidence suggests that cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)1-derived prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), a potent lipid inflammatory mediator, is involved in cholangiocarcinogenesis (1, 2). Overexpression of COX-2 is observed in human cholangiocarcinomas and precancerous bile duct lesions (5-7); elevated COX-2 expression is also observed in an animal model of cholangiocarcinoma (8, 9). Constitutive expression of ErbB2, a receptor tyrosine kinase of the epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor (EGFR) family, in gallbladder and biliary tree epithelia results in elevated COX-2 and development of gallbladder adenocarcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma in mice (10). Bile acids (including deoxycholic acid, a tumor promoter in cholangiocarcinogenesis) induce COX-2 expression through transactivation of EGFR in cultured non-neoplastic and neoplastic cholangiocytes (11). Furthermore, overexpression of COX-2 in cultured cholangiocarcinoma cells enhances PGE2 production and promotes tumor growth (12). Consistent with these findings, COX-2 inhibits Fas ligand-mediated apoptosis in cholangiocarcinoma cells (13), and treatment with exogenous PGE2 increases cholangiocarcinoma cell growth and prevents apoptosis (12-17). Moreover, prostaglandin signaling also mediates cholangiocarcinoma cell growth induced by hepatocyte growth factor and interleukin-6 (15) and subverts mito-inhibition induced by transforming growth factor-{beta} (18). Conversely, inhibitors of COX-2 prevent cholangiocarcinoma cell growth and induce apoptosis, even though their actions may involve both COX-2-dependent and COX-2-independent mechanisms (12, 14, 16, 17).

Whereas evidence for COX-2 and prostaglandin signaling in cholangiocarcinogenesis is compelling, the mechanism for their actions remains largely unknown. Prostanoids exert their biological actions primarily via their respective G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily of seven-transmembrane spanning G-proteins on the cell-surface membrane (19, 20). The most abundant prostaglandin in cholangiocarcinoma cells is PGE2 (15). There are four EP receptor subtypes that can bind to PGE2: EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4. The EP1 receptor is coupled with the Gq protein and thus signals through phospholipase C and intracellular Ca2+. The EP2 and EP4 receptors are coupled with the Gs protein, signaling through elevation of intracellular cAMP levels and activation of protein kinase A. The EP3 receptor is coupled with the Gi protein and signals through reduction of intracellular cAMP levels. The interaction between prostaglandins and the specific GPCRs depends on the differential expression of individual receptor subtypes in tissues and cells, their binding affinity for prostaglandins, and the differential activation of each receptor (19-23). To date, there is no information on EP receptor subtypes or their specific functions in cholangiocarcinoma cells.

In light of recent evidence showing activation of EGFR by GPCRs (24-26) and enhanced EGFR activation in cholangiocarcinoma cells (27, 28), this study was designed to evaluate our hypothesis that the G-protein-coupled EP receptor may transactivate EGFR and that this mechanism may be important in cholangiocarcinogenesis. Our data reveal that COX-2-derived PGE2 transactivates EGFR through the EP1 receptor in human cholangiocarcinoma cells and that this process involves the c-Src protein. Transactivation of EGFR subsequently induces Akt phosphorylation and enhances tumor cell proliferation and invasion. Furthermore, we show that activation of EGFR by EGF increases COX-2 expression, whereas blocking PGE2 synthesis or the EP1 receptor attenuates EGF-induced EGFR phosphorylation, suggesting that the COX-2/PGE2/EP1 receptor pathway also modulates activation of EGFR induced by its cognate ligand. Our findings reveal a novel interaction between COX-2-derived PGE2 and EGFR signaling that synergistically promotes cancer cell growth and invasion.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Materials—{alpha}-Minimal essential medium, Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium, RPMI 1640 medium, fetal bovine serum, glutamine, antibiotics, Lipofectamine PlusTM reagent, and LipofectamineTM 2000 reagent were purchased from Invitrogen. Human recombinant EGF was purchased from R&D Systems (Minneapolis, MN). The cytosolic phospholipase A2{alpha} inhibitor arachidonyltrifluoromethyl ketone (AACOCF3), the COX-2 inhibitor NS-398, the Src family tyrosine kinase inhibitor PP2 (4-amino-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-7-(t-butyl)pyrazol[3,4-d]pyrimidine), the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors AG 1478 and PD 153035, and the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor LY 294002 were purchased from Calbiochem. The EP1 receptor agonist ONO-DI-004, the EP1 receptor antagonist ONO-8711, and the EP3 receptor agonist ONO-AE-248 were provided by the Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Osaka, Japan). The EP2 receptor agonist butaprost and the EP4 receptor agonist PGE1 alcohol were purchased from Cayman Chemical Co., Inc. (Ann Arbor, MI). [3H]Thymidine was purchased from PerkinElmer Life Sciences. Antibodies against the human EGFR and phosphotyrosine (PY99) were purchased from Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc. (Santa Cruz, CA). Anti-Akt antibody and anti-phospho-Akt (Thr308) antibody were purchased from Cell Signaling (Beverly, MA). Antibodies against the EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4 receptors and COX-2 were purchased from Cayman Chemical Co., Inc. Anti-{beta}-actin antibody was purchased from Sigma. Horseradish peroxidase-linked streptavidin and chemiluminescence detection reagents were purchased from Amersham Biosciences. Severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mice (4-5 weeks of age) were purchased from the Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, ME).

Cell Culture and Transfections—Human cholangiocarcinoma cell lines, including CCLP1, SG231, and HuCCT1, were cultured according to our previously described methods (12, 15, 29). For transient transfection assays, the cultured cells were seeded at a concentration achieving 80% confluence in 6-well plates 18 h before transfection. The cells were transfected with the COX-2 expression plasmid (cloned into pcDNA) or the pcDNA control vector (1 µg of plasmid for each transfection) using Lipofectamine PlusTM reagent. The cells with optimal overexpression of COX-2 were confirmed by immunoblotting and subsequently used for further experiments.

Cell Invasion Assay—The cell invasion assay was performed in Matrigel-coated Transwell chambers (BD Biosciences). Cells (4 x 104) in 500 µl of serum-free medium were seeded in the upper chamber in the presence or absence of different inhibitors or EP1 receptor antagonist. Serum-free medium-containing vehicle, PGE2, or different EP receptor agonists were added to the lower chamber as chemoattractants. To determine the invasiveness of CCLP1 cells with antisense inhibition of EP receptors, the cells transfected with the antisense oligonucleotides for individual EP receptors or control cells were seeded in the upper chamber in serum-free medium, with the lower chamber containing vehicle or PGE2 in serum-free medium. After 24 h of incubation at 37 °C, the cells on the upper surface of the filter were mechanically removed with a cotton swab. The filter was fixed and stained using a Diff-Quik staining kit (Dade Behring Inc., Newark, DE) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The invading cells on the lower surface were counted under a microscope (magnification x50). Five fields were counted per filter, and 4 wells were used for each treatment.

Phosphorylation of EGFR—CCLP1 cells were transfected with the COX-2 expression plasmid or EP1 receptor small interfering RNA (siRNA) or treated with PGE2, EP1 receptor agonist/antagonist, or EGFR inhibitors, and cell lysates were obtained. Equal amounts of the cell lysates were preincubated with 5 µg/ml rabbit anti-human EGFR polyclonal antibody at 4 °C, followed by the addition of 20 µl of protein A/G-agarose (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.). The mixtures were incubated overnight at 4 °C. After three washes with the same hypotonic buffer, the pellet was used for immunoblotting with anti-phosphotyrosine monoclonal antibody PY99.

Binding of EGFR to the EP1 Receptor and c-Src—The binding complexes of EGFR and the EP1 receptor and c-Src in CCLP1 cells were determined by immunoprecipitation and Western blotting. Confluent CCLP1 cells were serum-starved for 24 h and then treated with ONO-DI-004 or PGE2 at 10 µM for 30 min. Cell lysates were subsequently prepared for immunoprecipitation with antibody against the EP1 receptor or c-Src, respectively. The immunoprecipitants were then subjected to SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting with anti-EGFR antibody.

RNA Interference (RNAi)—The sequence of EP1 receptor siRNA was selected as described previously (18). The targeted sequence that effectively mediates the silencing of EP1 receptor expression is 5'-AGCUUGUCGGUAUCAUGGUTT-3' (sense). The 21-nucleotide synthetic EP1 receptor siRNA duplex was prepared by Dharmacon, Inc. (Lafayette, CO). Cells were transfected with EP1 receptor siRNA or a 21-nucleotide irrelevant RNA duplex as a control using LipofectamineTM 2000. Depletion of the EP1 receptor was confirmed by immunoblotting.

Phosphorothioate-modified Antisense Oligonucleotides—Human EP receptor antisense and control phosphorothioate-modified DNA oligonucleotides were synthesized by Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (Coralville, IA). The specific sequences of EP receptor antisense oligonucleotides were designed as described previously (30, 31) with modification and were as follows: EP1,5'-GCAAGGGCTCATGTCAGG-3' (nucleotides 113-130); EP2, 5'-ACTGGGAGTCATTGG-3' (nucleotides 14-28); EP3, 5'-GTCTCCTTCATGTTGGC-3 (nucleotides 236-252); and EP4, 5'-AGGTGTGAGGCTGTG-3' (nucleotides 208-222). The CCLP1 cell cultures at 50% confluence were transfected with 5 µM EP receptor antisense or control phosphorothioate-modified oligonucleotide with LipofectamineTM 2000. After 24 h of incubation, the cells were harvested to analyze cell invasion in Matrigel-coated Transwell chambers as described above, and cell lysates were obtained for Western blotting to determine the protein levels of the corresponding EP receptors.

RNA Isolation and Reverse Transcription-PCR—Total RNA from the cultured cells was isolated using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer's instruction. The primers specific for each EP receptor were designed as described previously (31, 32) with modification and synthesized by Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. The sequences of the primers were as follows: EP1 (322 bp), 5'-CTTGTCGGTATCATGGTGGTGTC-3' (forward, nucleotides 1013-1035) and 5'-GGTTGTGCTTAGAAGTGGCTGAGG-3' (reverse, nucleotides 1312-1335); EP2 (654 bp), 5'-GCCACGATGCTCATGCTCTTCGCC-3' (forward, nucleotides 364-387) and 5'-CTTGTGTTCTTAATGAAATCCGAC-3' (reverse, nucleotides 995-1018); EP3 (382 bp), 5'-GCATAACTGGGGCAACCTTTTCTTCGCC-3' (forward, nucleotides 907-934) and 5'-CTTAACAGCAGGTAAACCCAAGGATCC-3' (reverse, nucleotides 1264-1290); and EP4 (435 bp), 5'-TGGTATGTGGGCTGGCTG-3' (forward, nucleotides 762-779) and 5'-GAGGACGGTGGCGAGAAT-3' (reverse, nucleotides 1178-1195). Amplification of each EP receptor with {beta}-actin as an internal control in each reaction was carried out with a TitaniumTM one-step reverse transcription-PCR kit (BD Biosciences) according to the standard protocol.

Gelatin Zymography—The matrix metalloprotease (MMP) proteolytic activity in the supernatants of the treated cells was analyzed for the level of MMP-2 by zymography. Briefly, an equal amount of serum-free medium from cells with different treatments was loaded onto 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gel containing 1 mg/ml gelatin (Invitrogen). After electrophoresis, SDS was removed from the gel by incubation in 2.5% Triton X-100 at room temperature for 30 min with gentle shaking. The gel was washed well with distilled water and incubated at 37 °C for 16-36 h in a developing buffer containing 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.6), 0.2 M NaCl, 5 mM CaCl2, and 0.02% Brij 35. The gel was then stained with a solution of 30% methanol, 10% glacial acetic acid, and 0.5% Coomassie Blue G-250 and then destained in the same solution without dye. Proteinase activity was detected as unstained bands on a blue background representing areas of gelatin digestion.

Immunohistochemical Analysis for COX-2 and EGFR—Eleven archival formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens of human cholangiocarcinoma and surrounding non-tumor liver tissue were obtained from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. The tissue specimens were utilized for immunohistochemical analysis for COX-2 and EGFR following the protocol recommended by the University of Pittsburgh. None of the cases used in this study had patient identifiers, and strict confidentiality was maintained. For immunohistochemical staining of COX-2 and EGFR using human cholangiocarcinoma tissue, 5-µm-thick tissue sections of formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded sections were deparaffinized and rehydrated, followed by microwave retrieval of antigen according to standard procedures. The slides were incubated overnight at 4 °C with 1:100 diluted anti-human COX-2 monoclonal antibody (obtained from Cayman Chemical Co., Inc.) and anti-EGFR antibody (obtained from Dako Corp.). Following repeated washings, the slides were incubated with biotin-conjugated secondary antibody (1: 200) for 30 min at room temperature. After probing, the avidin-peroxidase complex was added, and finally, 3,3'-diaminobenzidine substrate was utilized for color development. The slides were then counterstained with hematoxylin. The intensity of staining for COX-2 and EGFR was scored in each specimen on a scale of 0-3, in which 0 = negative staining, 1 = weakly positive staining, 2 = moderately positive staining, and 3 = strongly positive staining. For each sample, 10 random high power fields were scored. The immunoreactivity for COX-2 and EGFR in each sequential section was documented and compared.

Inoculation of CCLP1 Cells into SCID Mice—Cultured CCLP1 cells were transfected with the COX-2 expression plasmid or pcDNA3 control vector, and the stably transfected cells were selected using G418. Cells (5 x 106) suspended in phosphate-buffered saline were directly injected into the livers of SCID mice under anesthesia as described previously (33). After tumor cell implantation, the mice were kept under pathogen-free conditions, fed standard diet, and given free access to sterilized water. The mice were closely monitored for daily activity and killed 4 weeks after injection to document tumor growth. The tumor volume was calculated using the formula V = Lx Wx Dx {pi}/6, where L is length, W is width, and D is depth of the tumor in millimeters. The animal protocol used followed the recommendations of the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Expression of COX-2 and EGFR Is Increased in Human Cholangiocarcinoma Tissues—Immunohistochemical stains were utilized to determine expression of COX-2 and EGFR in sequential sections of human cholangiocarcinoma and non-neoplastic bile ducts. Eleven paired cholangiocarcinomas and their matched non-tumor liver tissues were analyzed. The average COX-2 staining intensity in cholangiocarcinoma (2.10 ± 0.54) was significantly higher than that in the non-neoplastic bile duct epithelium (0.64 ± 0.10; p < 0.01). The average EGFR staining intensity in cholangiocarcinoma (1.45 ± 0.92) was also significantly higher than that in the non-neoplastic bile duct epithelium (0.14 ± 0.10; p < 0.01). Sequential sections from individual tissue specimens revealed cytoplasmic staining of COX-2 and membrane staining of EGFR in the same tumor cells (Fig. 1).

COX-2-derived PGE2 Induces EGFR Phosphorylation in Cholangiocarcinoma Cells—Increased expression of COX-2 and EGFR in human cholangiocarcinoma cells suggests a possible interconnection between these two signaling pathways during cholangiocarcinogenesis. Given that COX-2-derived prostaglandins mediate effects primarily through specific plasma membrane receptors that are coupled with G-proteins and that certain GPCRs are known to activate EGFR (24-26), we postulated that COX-2 may promote tumor growth through activation of EGFR. To evaluate this hypothesis, we first examined the potential effect of COX-2 on phosphorylation of EGFR in cultured human cholangiocarcinoma cells. As shown in Fig. 2A, overexpression of COX-2 in CCLP1 cells enhanced EGFR phosphorylation. The COX-2-overexpressing cells exhibited increased PGE2 production compared with the control vector cells (430 versus 295 pg/ml). Consistent with this, treatment of CCLP1 cells with PGE2 induced rapid phosphorylation of EGFR (Fig. 2B). These findings indicate that COX-2-derived PGE2 enhances EGFR phosphorylation in human cholangiocarcinoma cells.



View larger version (81K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.
Expression of COX-2 and EGFR in human cholangiocarcinoma tissues. Representative immunohistochemical stains for COX-2 and EGFR in human cholangiocarcinoma tissues are shown. Note the cytoplasmic staining of COX-2 and the membrane staining of EGFR in sequential sections of the same tumor. No stain was seen when the primary antibody was substituted with non-immunized serum. NC, negative control.

 
The EP1 Receptor Plays a Key Role in PGE2-induced EGFR Phosphorylation—Selective EP receptor subtype analogs were next utilized to determine their effects on PGE2-induced EGFR phosphorylation. As shown in Fig. 2C, treatment with the EP1 receptor agonist ONO-DI-004 caused a significant increase in EGFR phosphorylation, an effect similar to that induced by PGE2. In addition, PGE2-induced EGFR phosphorylation was inhibited by the selective EP1 receptor antagonist ONO-8711 as well as by the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors AG 1478 and PD 153035. These findings provide pharmacological evidence for the involvement of the EP1 receptor in PGE2-induced EGFR phosphorylation. The observation that PP2 partially prevented PGE2-induced EGFR phosphorylation suggests the involvement of the Src protein in this process.

The role of the EP1 receptor in PGE2-induced EGFR phosphorylation was further examined by siRNA suppression of the EP1 receptor. In this approach, CCLP1 cells transfected with EP1 receptor siRNA or control RNA were treated with either PGE2 or ONO-DI-004 at 10 µM to determine EGFR phosphorylation. RNAi suppression of the EP1 receptor significantly inhibited phosphorylation of EGFR induced by PGE2 or the EP1 receptor agonist ONO-DI-004 (Fig. 2D). The efficacy of EP1 receptor depletion in this system was verified by Western blot analysis, showing successful reduction of EP1 protein in cells transfected with EP1 receptor siRNA (Fig. 2E).



View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.
PGE2 induces EGFR phosphorylation via the EP1 receptor in CCLP1 cells. A, effect of COX-2 overexpression on EGFR phosphorylation. CCLP1 cells were transfected with the COX-2 expression plasmid in serum-free medium for 24 h. EGFR phosphorylation was determined by immunoprecipitation with anti-EGFR antibody and immunoblotting with anti-phosphotyrosine antibody (first panel). Total EGFR in the immunoprecipitate was determined by reprobing the same blot with anti-EGFR antibody (second panel). An equal amount of the same cell lysate was used for Western blotting to detect COX-2 expression (third panel), which was reprobed with actin (fourth panel). B, effect of PGE2 on EGFR phosphorylation. CCLP1 cells cultured in serum-free medium for 24 h were treated with 10 µM PGE2 for the indicated times, and cell lysates were obtained. EGFR phosphorylation was determined by immunoprecipitation with anti-EGFR antibody, followed by immunoblotting with anti-phosphotyrosine antibody (upper panel). Total EGFR in the immunoprecipitates was determined by reprobing the same blot with anti-EGFR antibody (middle panel). Quantitative analysis of EGFR phosphorylation was performed by determining the ratio between the EGFR protein and phosphorylation levels from three different experiments (lower panel). *, p < 0.01 compared with the control. C, the EP1 receptor antagonist ONO-8711 blocks PGE2-induced EGFR phosphorylation. CCLP1 cells were serum-starved for 24 h before being treated with ONO-8711, AG 1478, PD 153035, or PP2 for 30 min. The cells were subsequently treated with 10 µM PGE2 for 30 min, and cell lysates were obtained. EGFR phosphorylation was determined by immunoprecipitation with anti-EGFR antibody, followed by immunoblotting with anti-phosphotyrosine antibody (upper panel). Total EGFR in the immunoprecipitates was determined by reprobing the same blot with anti-EGFR antibody (middle panel). Quantitative analysis of EGFR phosphorylation was performed by determining the ratio between the EGFR protein and phosphorylation levels from three different experiments (lower panel). Increased EGFR phosphorylation was observed after treatment with ONO-DI-004 or PGE2 at 10 µM (*, p < 0.01 compared with the control). PGE2-induced EGFR phosphorylation was significantly blocked by pretreatment with the EP1 receptor antagonist ONO-8711, the EGFR kinase inhibitor AG 1478 or PD 153035, or the c-Src inhibitor PP2 (**, p < 0.05 compared with PGE2 treatment). D, RNAi suppression of the EP1 receptor inhibits EGFR phosphorylation induced by PGE2 and the EP1 receptor agonist ONO-DI-004. CCLP1 cells were transfected overnight with EP1 receptor siRNA or control RNA in serum-free medium and then treated with PGE2 or ONO-DI-004 at 10 µM for 30 min. EGFR phosphorylation was determined by immunoprecipitation with anti-EGFR antibody and immunoblotting with anti-phosphotyrosine antibody (upper panel). Total EGFR in the immunoprecipitates was determined by reprobing the same blot with anti-EGFR antibody (middle panel). Quantitative analysis of EGFR phosphorylation was carried out by calculating the ratio between the EGFR protein and phosphorylation levels from three different experiments (lower panel). RNAi suppression of EP1 receptor expression significantly inhibited EGFR phosphorylation induced by either ONO-DI-004 (*, p < 0.05) or PGE2 (**, p < 0.01). E, representative Western blot showing the level of EP1 protein in CCLP1 cells transfected with EP1 receptor siRNA or control RNA and non-transfected cells.

 



View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.
PGE2 and the EP1 receptor agonist ONO-DI-004 enhance binding of EGFR to the EP1 receptor and c-Src. A, PGE2 and ONO-DI-004 enhance the association between the EP1 receptor and EGFR. Confluent CCLP1 cells were serum-starved for 24 h prior to treatment with ONO-DI-004 or PGE2 at 10 µM for 30 min. Cell lysates were then prepared and subjected to immunoprecipitation (IP) with anti-EP1 receptor antibody, followed by SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting (IB) with anti-EGFR antibody. Immunoprecipitated EGFR (180 kDa) is shown (upper panel). Equal amounts of the same cell lysates were used for regular Western blotting to detect the levels of EGFR (middle panel) and the EP1 protein (lower panel). B, PGE2 and ONO-DI-004 enhance binding of EGFR to c-Src. Confluent CCLP1 cells were serum-starved for 24 h and then treated with ONO-DI-004 or PGE2 at 10 µM for 30 min. Cell lysates were subsequently prepared and subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-c-Src antibody, followed by immunoblotting with anti-EGFR antibody. Immunoprecipitated EGFR (180 kDa) is shown (upper panel). Equal amounts of the same cell lysates were used for regular Western blotting to detect the levels of EGFR (middle panel) and c-Src (lower panel).

 
Detection of the EP1 Receptor-EGFR Complex in Human Cholangiocarcinoma Cells—To further examine the role of the EP1 receptor in PGE2-induced EGFR activation, immunoprecipitation and Western blot experiments were performed to determine whether the EP1 receptor associates with EGFR in cells. In these experiments, CCLP1 cells were treated with the EP1 receptor agonist ONO-DI-004 or PGE2 at 10 µM for 30 min, and cell lysates were then prepared and subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-EP1 receptor antibody, followed by immunoblotting with anti-EGFR antibody. Although a low level of the EP1 receptor-EGFR complex was detected in the control cells, treatment with PGE2 or ONO-DI-004 significantly enhanced the association between the EP1 receptor and EGFR (Fig. 3A). In addition, PGE2 or ONO-DI-004 also induced binding of EGFR to c-Src (Fig. 3B), suggesting the involvement of c-Src in EP1 receptor-induced EGFR activation. These findings further support the involvement of the EP1 receptor in EGFR phosphorylation.



View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.
Effect of PGE2, EP1 receptor agonist/antagonist, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Src family inhibitor on Akt phosphorylation in CCLP1 cells. CCLP1 cells cultured in serum-free medium for 24 h were pretreated with ONO-DI-004, ONO-8711, AG 1478, PD 153035, or PP2 for 30 min. The cells were then incubated with 10 µM PGE2 for 30 min, and cell lysates were obtained. Akt phosphorylation was determined by immunoblotting with anti-phospho-Akt (Thr308) antibody (upper panel). Total Akt was determined by reprobing the same blot with anti-Akt antibody (middle panel). Quantitative analysis of Akt phosphorylation was performed by determining the ratio between the Akt protein and phosphorylation levels from triplicate different experiments (mean ± S.D.) (lower panel). *, p < 0.01 compared with the control; **, p < 0.05 compared with PGE2 treatment.

 
EP1 Receptor-mediated EGFR Activation Phosphorylates Akt—Given that Akt is activated by EGFR in other cell types (34), we next examined whether PGE2 would induce Akt phosphorylation in CCLP1 cells. Increased Akt phosphorylation was observed in cells treated with either PGE2 or the EP1 receptor agonist ONO-DI-004 (Fig. 4). PGE2-induced Akt phosphorylation was blocked by the EP1 receptor antagonist ONO-8711, the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors AG 1478 and PD 153035, and the Src inhibitor PP2. These findings indicate that PGE2-induced Akt phosphorylation is mediated, at least in part, through activation of EGFR by the EP1 receptor and that this process may involve the Src protein family.

Involvement of the EP1 Receptor, EGFR, and Akt in COX-2- and PGE2-induced Cholangiocarcinoma Cell Growth and Invasion—To determine the direct effect of COX-2 on cholangiocarcinoma cell growth, cultured CCLP1 cells were transfected with the COX-2 expression plasmid or pcDNA3 control vector, and the stably transfected cells were selected using G418. The selected cells were then analyzed for tumor cell growth in vitro and in SCID mice. An ~26% increase in in vitro cell proliferation was observed in the COX-2-transfected cells compared with the control vector cells (p < 0.05). When these cells were inoculated into the livers of SCID mice for 4 weeks, the COX-2-transfected cells developed larger tumor volumes compared with the control vector cells (1170.3 ± 261.8 mm3 for the COX-2 group versus 272.1 ± 40.0 mm3 for the control vector group (n = 4); p < 0.01). The COX-2-transfected tumors also exhibited enhanced tumor invasiveness (invasion to the adjacent intestine, diaphragm, and abdominal wall) compared with the vector-transfected tumors (Fig. 5A). Consistent with these findings, PGE2 treatment of cultured CCLP1 cells significantly increased tumor invasion, MMP-2 activity, and cell proliferation in vitro (Fig. 5, B-D). Similarly, the EP1 receptor agonist ONO-DI-004 also enhanced tumor cell invasion and proliferation. In contrast, PGE2-induced cell invasion, MMP-2 activity, and proliferation were attenuated by the EP1 receptor antagonist ONO-8711. RNAi suppression of the EP1 receptor also significantly inhibited PGE2- and EP1 receptor agonist-induced cell invasion and proliferation (Fig. 6). Moreover, PGE2-induced cell invasion, MMP-2 activity, and proliferation were also inhibited by the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors AG 1478 and PD 153035, by the Src inhibitor PP2, and by inhibition of Akt with LY 294002 (Fig. 5, B-D).



View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.
COX-2 and PGE2 promote cholangiocarcinoma cell growth and invasion: effect of inhibiting EP1 receptor-mediated EGFR activation. A, overexpression of COX-2 in CCLP1 cells enhances tumor growth and invasion in SCID mice. CCLP1 cells were transfected with the COX-2 expression plasmid or pcDNA3 control vector. The stably transfected cells selected using G418 were inoculated into the livers of SCID mice to monitor tumor growth. The gross photos depict representative tumors 4 weeks after hepatic inoculation. Tumor size was measured using a micrometer caliper. The COX-2-transfected tumor exhibited increased size and invasiveness (invasion to the adjacent intestine, diaphragm, and abdominal wall) compared with the vector-transfected tumor. B, PGE2-induced tumor cell invasion is inhibited by the EP1 receptor antagonist ONO-8711, the Src family inhibitor PP2, the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor LY 294002, and the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors AG 1478 and PD 153035. CCLP1 cells (4 x 104) were seeded in the upper chamber in the presence or absence of ONO-8711, PP2, LY 294002, AG 1478, or PD 153035. Medium containing ONO-DI-004, PGE2, or vehicle was added to the lower chamber. After 24 h, the cells on the upper surface of the filter were removed, and the filter was fixed and stained. The cells on the lower surface were counted under a microscope (magnification x50). Five fields were counted per filter, and 4 wells were used for each treatment. The experiments were repeated three times. PGE2 or ONO-DI-004 significantly increased cell invasiveness (*, p < 0.01 compared with the control), and this effect was inhibited by ONO-8711, PP2, LY 294002, AG 1478, or PD 153035 (**, p < 0.05 compared with PGE2 treatment alone; ***, p < 0.01 compared with ONO-DI-004 treatment alone). C, MMP-2 activity in CCLP1 cells overexpressing COX-2 or treated with PGE2. CCLP1 cells were transfected with the COX-2 expression plasmid or treated with PGE2 in the presence or absence of inhibitors. The supernatants were collected for zymographic analysis as described under "Experimental Procedures." Panel a, overexpression of COX-2 increases MMP-2 activity; panel b, PGE2-induced MMP-2 activity is blocked by ONO-8711, AG 1478, PP2, and LY 294002. D, PGE2-induced cell proliferation is blocked by ONO-8711, AG 1478, and PD 153035. Serum-starved CCLP1 cells were cultured in the presence or absence of ONO-8711, AG 1478, or PD 153035 for 30 min prior to the addition of ONO-DI-004, PGE2, or vehicle. [3H]Thymidine incorporation was measured during the final 24 h of culture. The data were obtained from four individual experiments. *, p < 0.05 compared with the control; **, p < 0.01 compared with PGE2 treatment.

 



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 6.
RNAi suppression of the EP1 receptor inhibits PGE2- and ONO-DI-004-induced cholangiocarcinoma cell invasion and proliferation. CCLP1 cells transfected with EP1 receptor siRNA or control RNA for 24 h were treated with PGE2 or ONO-DI-004 at 10 µM to assess cell invasion (A) and proliferation (B). The data represent the average results from eight individual experiments. The EP1 protein levels in cells transfected with EP1 receptor siRNA or control RNA and in non-transfected cells are shown (C).

 
Effect of Other EP Receptor Subtypes on PGE2-induced Cholangiocarcinoma Cell Invasion—Because all four EP receptor subtypes (EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4) were detected in human cholangiocarcinoma cell lines CCLP1, HuCCT1, and SG231 as determined by reverse transcription-PCR (Fig. 7, A-C) and Western blotting (Fig. 7D), the potential involvement of these receptors in tumor cell invasion was determined using selective EP receptor subtype agonists and by antisense inhibition of individual EP receptors. As shown in Fig. 8A, the EP2 receptor agonist butaprost, the EP3 receptor agonist ONO-AE-248, and the EP4 receptor agonist PGE1 alcohol exhibited no effect on tumor cell invasion, whereas both PGE2 and the EP1 receptor agonist ONO-DI-004 increased tumor cell invasiveness under the same experimental conditions (*, p < 0.01 compared with the control).

For experiments with antisense inhibition of EP receptor subtypes, CCLP1 cells were transfected with the oligonucleotides specific for the EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4 receptors, and the transfected cells were then analyzed for PGE2-induced cell invasion. As shown in Fig. 8B, PGE2-induced cell invasion was blocked by antisense inhibition of the EP1 receptor, but not by antisense inhibition of the EP2, EP3, or EP4 receptor. Taken together, the data from the above pharmacological approaches with specific agonists and antagonists as well as molecular approaches with antisense and siRNA all support the involvement of the EP1 (but not EP2, EP3, or EP4) receptor in PGE2-induced cholangiocarcinoma cell invasion.

Activation of EGFR by EGF Increases COX-2 Expression and PGE2 Production—The data presented above indicate that COX-2-derived PGE2 activates EGFR/Akt through the G-protein-coupled EP1 receptor and that this process is involved in cholangiocarcinoma cell growth and invasion. In light of the elevated expression of EGFR and COX-2 in human cholangiocarcinoma tissues (as shown in Fig. 1) and the known effect of receptor tyrosine kinase on COX-2 expression (9), we postulated that EGFR may reciprocally influence COX-2 expression and regulate cholangiocarcinoma cell growth. To examine this hypothesis, cultured CCLP1 cells were treated with EGF for 24 h, and cell lysates were obtained for Western blotting to determine the level of COX-2. As shown in Fig. 9A, EGF treatment significantly increased COX-2 expression; this effect appeared at 6 h and peaked at 24-48 h. Consistent with this, EGF treatment enhanced the production of PGE2 (Fig. 9B). EGF-induced PGE2 release was blocked by the COX-2 inhibitor NS-398 as well as by the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors AG 1478 and PD 153035; a similar effect was also observed with AACOCF3 (Fig. 9B), a cytosolic phospholipase A2{alpha} inhibitor that reduces the availability of arachidonic acid substrate for COX-2. Moreover, EGF-induced phosphorylation of EGFR was partially inhibited by pretreatment with AACOCF3, NS-398, ONO-8711, AG 1478, or PD 153035 (Fig. 9C). These findings indicate that EGFR activation further induces COX-2 expression and PGE2 production and that this signaling is involved in activation of EGFR by its cognate ligand.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Several noteworthy findings are presented in this study. First, overexpression of COX-2 in human cholangiocarcinoma cells promoted tumor growth and invasion both in vitro and in a tumor xenograft model in SCID mice. Second, the expression and localization of COX-2 and EGFR in human cholangiocarcinoma cells was documented using immunohistochemical stains on sequential sections of human cholangiocarcinoma tissues. Third, this study provides the first evidence for transactivation of EGFR by COX-2 and PGE2 in human cholangiocarcinoma cells and the key role of the EP1 receptor in this process. Fourth, our findings demonstrate for the first time the key role of EP1 receptor-mediated EGFR transactivation in Akt activation. Finally and most important, this study reveals a novel cross-talk between the COX-2-derived PGE2 pathway and EGFR signaling for cancer cell growth and invasion, as illustrated in Fig. 10.

As PGE2 exerts its bioactivity through four different G-protein-coupled EP receptors (EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4), it was important to evaluate their expression in cholangiocarcinoma cells. Although the mRNAs for all four EP receptor subtypes were detected in all three human cholangiocarcinoma cell lines (CCLP1, HuCCT1 and SG231), the EP1 receptor mRNA is the most abundant form. Similarly, the EP1 protein is also highly expressed in all three cell lines. Our findings in this study provide the first evidence for the expression profiles of EP receptors in human cholangiocarcinoma cells and depict a pivotal role of the EP1 receptor in EGFR transactivation in human cancer cell proliferation and invasion. The latter conclusion is based on the following observations: 1) enhanced EGFR phosphorylation by COX-2 overexpression or PGE2 treatment; 2) induction of EGFR phosphorylation by the selective EP1 receptor agonist ONO-DI-004; 3) inhibition of PGE2-induced EGFR phosphorylation by the selective EP1 receptor antagonist ONO-8711; 4) attenuation of PGE2-induced EGFR phosphorylation by EP1 receptor siRNA; 5) increased binding of the EP1 receptor to EGFR in response to PGE2 or ONO-DI-004; 6) induction of Akt phosphorylation and cell invasion by ONO-DI-004, but not by the agonists for EP2, EP3 and EP4; 7) inhibition of PGE2-induced Akt phosphorylation, cell proliferation and invasion, and MMP-2 activity by ONO-8711 and the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors AG 1478 and PD 153035; and 8) inhibition of PGE2-induced cell invasion and proliferation by siRNA or antisense inhibition of the EP1 (but not EP2, EP3, or EP4) receptor.



View larger version (68K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 7.
mRNA and protein expression of the EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4 receptors. mRNA expression of the EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4 receptors in the human cholangiocarcinoma cell lines CCLP1 (A), HuCCT1 (B), and SG231 (C) was determined by reverse transcription-PCR. The protein levels of EP receptor subtypes in these cells were determined by Western blotting (D).

 



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 8.
Effect of activation or antisense inhibition of the EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4 receptors on cholangiocarcinoma cell invasion. A, effect of EP receptor subtype agonists. CCLP1 cells (4 x 104) were seeded in the upper chamber, and medium containing vehicle, PGE2, or EP1 receptor agonist ONO-PI-004, the EP2 receptor agonist butaprost, the EP3 receptor agonist ONO-AE-248, or the EP4 receptor agonist PGE1 alcohol was added to the lower chamber. After 24 h, the cells on the upper surface of the filter were removed, and the filter was fixed and stained. The cells on the lower surface were counted under a microscope (magnification x50). Five fields were counted per filter, and 4 wells were used for each treatment. The experiment was repeated three times. Whereas PGE2 or ONO-DI-004 enhanced tumor cell invasion (*, p < 0.01 compared with the control), agonists for the EP2, EP3, and EP4 receptors exhibited no effect. B, effect of antisense inhibition of EP receptor subtypes on PGE2-induced cholangiocarcinoma cell invasion. CCLP1 cells (4 x 104) transfected with antisense (As) oligonucleotides for the EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4 receptors were seeded in the upper chamber; medium containing PGE2 or vehicle was added to the lower chamber. After 24 h, the cells on the upper surface of the filter were removed, and the filter was fixed and stained. The cells on the lower surface were counted under a microscope. Five fields were counted per filter, and 4 wells were used for each treatment. The data represent the average results from three experiments. PGE2-induced CCLP1 cell invasion was blocked by antisense inhibition of the EP1 receptor, but not by antisense inhibition of the EP2, EP3, or EP4 receptor. *, p < 0.01 compared with the control; **, p < 0.05 compared with PGE2 treatment of cells transfected with the control oligonucleotide. C, Western blots showing successful depletion of the EP1, EP3, and EP4 receptors in CCLP1 cells transfected with the corresponding antisense oligonucleotides. Western blotting for the EP2 receptor was not performed in EP2 receptor antisense cells because of the low basal expression of the EP2 receptor in CCLP1 cells.

 
Cross-talk between different members of receptor families has become a well established concept in signal transduction. GPCRs as well as receptor tyrosine kinases constitute prominent families of cell-surface proteins regulating the responsiveness of cells to environmental signals (35, 36). Different classes of G-proteins have been shown to be involved in the transactivation of tyrosine kinase receptors, including the Gi, Gq, and G13 proteins, although, to date, there have been no data available implicating Gs-coupled receptors in EGFR signal transactivation (24, 26). Consistent with these observations, in this study, we demonstrated a predominant role of the Gq-coupled EP1 receptor (but not the Gs-coupled EP2 and EP4 receptors) in EGFR transactivation and cell proliferation/invasion. Given that the Gs-coupled EP2 and EP4 receptors mediate their effect via increasing intracellular cAMP levels and that activation of cAMP/protein kinase A signaling is known to enhance the proliferation and motility of cholangiocytes and cholangiocarcinoma cells, the lack of EP2 and EP4 receptor effect revealed in this study further underscores the importance of EP1 receptor-mediated EGFR transactivation in cholangiocarcinoma progression. It is of further interest that the experiments with the EP3 receptor agonist ONO-AE-248 and EP3 receptor siRNA also failed to show involvement of the Gi-coupled EP3 receptor, despite that fact that Gi is known to exert its effect through reduction of cAMP.

The ability of GPCRs to transactivate EGFR can occur through several mechanisms, including extracellular release of EGF and other EGF-like ligands or through intracellular molecules, including Src family tyrosine kinases, and the inhibitory effects of reactive oxide species on EGFR-specific phosphatases (24-26). Our data suggest that PGE2-induced EGFR transactivation in cholangiocarcinoma cells occurs through activation of c-Src. This interpretation is supported by the observations that PGE2 or the EP1 receptor agonist ONO-DI-004 enhanced formation of the Src-EGFR binding complex in CCLP1 cells and that inhibition of Src by PP2 prevented PGE2-induced Akt phosphorylation, tumor cell invasion, and MMP-2 activity. These findings are consistent with recent studies showing the involvement of Src in PGE2-induced transactivation of EGFR in colon cancer cells (37, 38).

The EGFR family consists of four receptor tyrosine kinases, EGFR (ErbB1), ErbB2, ErbB3, and ErbB4. EGFR controls a wide variety of biological responses, such as proliferation, migration, and modulation of apoptosis, and the effects are mediated through activation of downstream molecules, including the phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt pathway (34). Aberrant EGFR signaling due to overexpression, mutation, or autocrine signaling loops has been implicated in several other human cancers (for review, see Refs. 39-43). In this study, we showed that EGFR expression was increased in human cholangiocarcinoma tissue as determined by immunohistochemical analysis. Moreover, our data suggest the involvement of Akt in transducing the effects of EP1 receptor-induced EGFR activation in human cholangiocarcinoma cells. The latter assertion is based on the findings that Akt was activated within 30 min after PGE2 or EP1 receptor agonist treatment and that this effect was inhibited by two EGFR kinase inhibitors, AG 1478 and PD 153035. These observations are further corroborated by additional findings that the EGFR kinase inhibitors prevented PGE2-induced cholangiocarcinoma cell proliferation and invasion and MMP-2 activity.

Akt plays a key role in tumorigenesis and cancer progression by stimulating cell proliferation and invasion or by inhibiting apoptosis (44-46). Akt is composed of an N-terminal PH domain and a C-terminal kinase catalytic domain and is activated by a dual regulatory mechanism, including translocation to the plasma membrane and phosphorylation. The generation of phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-triphosphate on the inner layer of the plasma membrane following phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase activation recruits Akt by direct interaction with its PH domain. At the membrane, Akt is phosphorylated by 3-phosphoinositide-dependent protein kinase-1 and -2. Phosphorylated Akt dissociates from the membrane and enters the cytoplasm and nucleus, where it phosphorylates several key proteins mediating cellular effects, such as stimulation of cell cycle progress and invasiveness. Increased expression of phosphorylated Akt has recently been documented in human cholangiocarcinoma cells by immunohistochemical staining of human cholangiocarcinoma tissues (14). The latter observation and the findings that the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib inhibits Akt phosphorylation in cultured cholangiocarcinoma cells (14, 16, 17) suggest a possible involvement of Akt activation in COX-2-mediated cholangiocarcinoma cell growth, although a direct effect of COX-2-derived prostaglandin on Akt phosphorylation was not demonstrated prior to this study in light of the presence of COX-2-independent effects associated with celecoxib. Our present data establish a direct effect of PGE2 on Akt phosphorylation in human cholangiocarcinoma cells. To our knowledge, this is the first study detailing the role of EP receptor subtype in Akt phosphorylation and EGFR transactivation in human cancer cells.



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 9.
EGF treatment increases COX-2 expression and PGE2 production in CCLP1 cells. Blocking PGE2 signaling partially inhibited the phosphorylation of EGFR induced by EGF. A, EGF induces COX-2 expression. Cultured CCLP1 cells were serum-starved for 24 h and then treated with 20 ng/ml EGF for the indicated times. Cell lysates were obtained for Western blotting to determine the level of COX-2. EGF treatment increased COX-2 expression. This effect was observed at 6 h and peaked at 24-48 h. B, EGF increases PGE2 production. The effects of the cytosolic phospholipase A2{alpha} inhibitor AACOCF3, the COX-2 inhibitor NS-398, the c-Src family inhibitor PP2, and the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors AG 1478 and PD 153035 were determined. Serum-starved CCLP1 cells were pretreated with AACOCF3 or NS-398 for 2 h or with PP2, AG 1478, or PD 153035 for 30 min. The cells were then continuously treated with 20 ng/ml EGFR for 16 h, and the media were subsequently collected to measure PGE2 production using the PGE2 enzyme immunoassay system (Amersham Biosciences) according to the manufacturer's protocol. EGF treatment significantly increased PGE2 production (*, p < 0.01 compared with the control); this effect was attenuated by AACOCF3, NS-398, AG 1478, PD 153035, or PP2 (**, p < 0.05 compared with EGF treatment alone). The results are presented as the mean ± S.D. of four experiments. C, the cytosolic phospholipase A2{alpha} inhibitor AACOCF3, the COX-2 inhibitor NS-398, the EP1 receptor antagonist ONO-8711, and the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors AG 1478 and PD 153035 partially inhibit EGF-induced phosphorylation of EGFR. CCLP1 cells were serum-starved for 24 h and then pretreated with AACOCF3 or NS-398 for 2 h or with ONO-8711, AG 1478, or PD 153035 for 30 min. The cells were subsequently treated with 20 ng/ml EGFR for 30 min, and cell lysates were obtained to determine EGFR phosphorylation. EGFR phosphorylation induced by EGF was partially blocked by pretreatment with AACOCF3, NS-398, ONO-8711, AG 1478, or PD 153035. *, p < 0.01 compared with the control; **, p < 0.05 compared with EGF treatment; ***, p < 0.01 compared with EGF treatment.

 



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 10.
Proposed mechanisms for COX-2- and PGE2-mediated cholangiocarcinoma cell invasion and proliferation. Prostaglandin synthesis is controlled by coupled activation of cytosolic phospholipase A2{alpha} (cPLA2{alpha}) and COX-2 along the cell membrane. The produced prostaglandins are released to the extracellular space by the prostaglandin transporter. The major prostaglandin in biliary epithelial and cancer cells is PGE2. After PGE2 is released into the extracellular space, it binds to the membrane G-protein-coupled EP receptors on the same cell (autocrine) or on a neighboring cell (paracrine). Although there are four types of PGE2 receptors (EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4), our data show that the EP1 receptor plays a key role in COX-2- and PGE2-mediated cholangiocarcinoma cell invasion and proliferation and that this effect is mediated, at least in part, by activation of EGFR/Akt. On the other hand, activation of EGFR further enhances COX-2 expression and PGE2 production, which further amplify COX-2/EP1/EGFR/Akt signaling. The PGE2/EP1 receptor-induced transactivation of EGFR in cholangiocarcinoma cells is mediated, at least in part, through the c-Src-mediated intracellular mechanism; it remains unknown whether this process also involves extracellular release of endogenous EGFR ligand. AA, arachidonic acid.

 
In addition to EGFR transactivation by COX-2-derived PGE2, our data also show that treatment of human cholangiocarcinoma cells with EGF increased COX-2 expression and PGE2 synthesis, suggesting the involvement of EGFR in COX-2 expression. In this context, our result is consistent with that of Yoon et al. (11), who showed the involvement of EGFR in bile salt-induced COX-2 expression in cholangiocytes and cholangiocarcinoma cells. Collectively, these findings suggest that COX-2-derived PGE2 signaling may mediate the actions of EGFR in cholangiocarcinogenesis. This assertion is further supported by the observations that EGFR phosphorylation induced by its cognate ligand (EGF) was partially inhibited by blocking PGE2 synthesis with the cytosolic phospholipase A2{alpha} inhibitor AACOCF3 and the COX-2 inhibitor NS-398 or with the selective EP1 receptor antagonist ONO-8711.

In summary, this study has established a novel EP1 receptor-mediated transactivation of EGFR by COX-2-derived PGE2, which is crucial for COX-2- and PGE2-induced cholangiocarcinoma cell growth and invasion. Moreover, we have shown that activation of EGFR further up-regulates COX-2 expression and thus enhances EGFR signaling via activation of the EP1 receptor. The cross-talk between these two key signaling systems likely plays an important role in COX-2- and receptor tyrosine kinase-induced cholangiocarcinogenesis. Given the recently reported side effect associated with the currently available COX-2 inhibitors in patients (47, 48), our findings suggest that combinational utilization of agents targeting the EP1 receptor and EGFR may represent a promising cancer therapeutic strategy that deserves further investigation.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants R01 CA102325 and R01 CA106280 (to T. W.). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

{ddagger} To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, MUH E-740, 200 Lothrop St., Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Tel.: 412-647-9504; Fax: 412-647-5237; E-mail: wut{at}upmc.edu.

1 The abbreviations used are: COX-2, cyclooxygenase-2; PGE2, prostaglandin E2; EGF, epidermal growth factor; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; GPCR, G-protein-coupled receptor; AACOCF3, arachidonyltrifluoromethyl ketone; SCID, severe combined immunodeficient; siRNA, small interfering RNA; RNAi, RNA interference; MMP, matrix metalloprotease; PH, pleckstrin homology. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Dr. Timothy Hla (University of Connecticut Health Center) for providing the human COX-2 expression plasmid. The EP1 receptor agonist ONO-DI-004, the EP3 receptor agonist ONO-AE-248, and EP1 receptor antagonist ONO-8711 were kindly provided by Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. We thank Dr. Yang Liu for performing the SCID mice experiments.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Gores, G. J. (2003) Hepatology 37, 961-969[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Sirica, A. E. (2004) Hepatology 41, 5-15
  3. Berthiaume, E. P., and Wands, J. (2004) Semin. Liver Dis. 24, 127-137[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Shaib, Y., and El-Serag, H. B. (2004) Semin. Liver Dis. 24, 115-125[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Endo, K., Yoon, B. I., Pairojkul, C., Demetris, A. J., and Sirica, A. E. (2002) Hepatology 36, 439-450[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Hayashi, N., Yamamoto, H., Hiraoka, N., Dono, K., Ito, Y., Okami, J., Kondo, M., Nagano, H., Umeshita, K., Sakon, M., Matsuura, N., Nakamori, S., and Monden, M. (2001) Hepatology 34, 638-650[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Chariyalertsak, S., Sirikulchayanonta, V., Mayer, D., Kopp-Schneider, A., Furstenberger, G., Marks, F., and Muller-Decker, K. (2001) Gut 48, 80-86[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Sirica, A. E., Lai, G. H., and Zhang, Z. (2001) J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 16, 363-372[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Sirica, A. E., Lai, G. H., Endo, K., Zhang, Z., and Yoon, B. I. (2002) Semin. Liver Dis. 22, 303-313[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Kiguchi, K., Carbajal, S., Chan, K., Beltran, L., Ruffino, L., Shen, J., Matsumoto, T., Yoshimi, N., and DiGiovanni, J. (2001) Cancer Res. 61, 6971-6976[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Yoon, J. H., Higuchi, H., Werneburg, N. W., Kaufmann, S. H., and Gores, G. J. (2002) Gastroenterology 122, 985-993[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Han, C., Leng, J., Demetris, A. J., and Wu, T. (2004) Cancer Res. 64, 1369-1376[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Nzeako, U. C., Guicciardi, M. E., Yoon, J. H., Bronk, S. F., and Gores, G. J. (2002) Hepatology 35, 552-559[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Wu, T., Leng, J., Han, C., and Demetris, A. J. (2004) Mol. Cancer Ther. 3, 299-307[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Wu, T., Han, C., Lunz, J. G., III, Michalopoulos, G., Shelhamer, J. H., and Demetris, A. J. (2002) Hepatology 36, 363-373[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Zhang, Z., Lai, G. H., and Sirica, A. E. (2004) Hepatology 39, 1028-1037[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Lai, G. H., Zhang, Z., and Sirica, A. E. (2003) Mol. Cancer Ther. 2, 265-271[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Han, C., Demetris, A. J., Liu, Y., Shelhamer, J. H., and Wu, T. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 44344-44354[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Narumiya, S., and FitzGerald, G. A. (2001) J. Clin. Investig. 108, 25-30[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Breyer, R. M., Bagdassarian, C. K., Myers, S. A., and Breyer, M. D. (2001) Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 41, 661-690[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Belley, A., and Chadee, K. (1999) Gastroenterology 117, 1352-1362[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Takafuji, V., Cosme, R., Lublin, D., Lynch, K., and Roche, J. K. (2000) Prostaglandins Leukotrienes Essent. Fatty Acids 63, 223-235[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Stock, J. L., Shinjo, K., Burkhardt, J., Roach, M., Taniguchi, K., Ishikawa, T., Kim, H. S., Flannery, P. J., Coffman, T. M., McNeish, J. D., and Audoly, L. P. (2001) J. Clin. Investig. 107, 325-331[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Fischer, O. M., Hart, S., Gschwind, A., and Ullrich, A. (2003) Biochem. Soc. Trans. 31, 1203-1208[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Wetzker, R., and Bohmer, F. D. (2003) Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 4, 651-657[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Gschwind, A., Zwick, E., Prenzel, N., Leserer, M., and Ullrich, A. (2001) Oncogene 20, 1594-1600[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Tsubouchi, H. (2004) J. Hepatol. 41, 859-861[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Yoon, J. H., Gwak, G. Y., Lee, H. S., Bronk, S. F., Werneburg, N. W., and Gores, G. J. (2004) J. Hepatol. 41, 808-814[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Han, C., Demetris, A. J., Michalopoulos, G. K., Zhan, Q., Shelhamer, J. H., and Wu, T. (2003) Hepatology 38, 167-177[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Dohadwala, M., Batra, R. K., Luo, J., Lin, Y., Krysan, K., Pold, M., Sharma, S., and Dubinett, S. M. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 50828-50833[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Su, J. L., Shih, J. Y., Yen, M. L., Jeng, Y. M., Chang, C. C., Hsieh, C. Y., Wei, L. H., Yang, P. C., and Kuo, M. L. (2004) Cancer Res. 64, 554-564[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Anthony, T. L., Lindsey, J. D., Aihara, M., and Weinreb, R. N. (2001) Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 42, 3182-3186[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Yao, X., Hu, J. F., Daniels, M., Yien, H., Lu, H., Sharan, H., Zhou, X., Zeng, Z., Li, T., Yang, Y., and Hoffman, A. R. (2003) Clin. Cancer Res. 9, 2719-2726[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Bogdan, S., and Klambt, C. (2001) Curr. Biol. 11, R292-R295[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Fukuhara, S., Chikumi, H., and Gutkind, J. S. (2001) Oncogene 20, 1661-1668[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Schlessinger, J. (2000) Cell 103, 211-225[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Pai, R., Soreghan, B., Szabo, I. L., Pavelka, M., Baatar, D., and Tarnawski, A. S. (2002) Nat. Med. 8, 289-293[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Buchanan, F. G., Wang, D., Bargiacchi, F., and DuBois, R. N. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 35451-35457[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Barnes, C. J., and Kumar, R. (2004) Cancer Treat. Res. 119, 1-13[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Ranson, M. (2004) Br. J. Cancer 90, 2250-2255[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Sridhar, S. S., Seymour, L., and Shepherd, F. A. (2003) Lancet Oncol. 4, 397-406[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. El-Rayes, B. F., and LoRusso, P. M. (2004) Br. J. Cancer 91, 418-424[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Grunwald, V., and Hidalgo, M. (2003) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 95, 851-867[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Vivanco, I., and Sawyers, C. L. (2002) Nat. Rev. Cancer 2, 489-501[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Testa, J. R., and Bellacosa, A. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 10983-10985[Free Full Text]
  46. Lawlor, M. A., and Alessi, D. R. (2001) J. Cell Sci. 114, 2903-2910[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Vanchieri, C. (2004) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 96, 1734-1735[Free Full Text]
  48. Couzin, J. (2004) Science 306, 1673-1675[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
L. Finzi, M. X. G. Shao, F. Paye, C. Housset, and J. A. Nadel
Lipopolysaccharide Initiates a Positive Feedback of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Signaling by Prostaglandin E2 in Human Biliary Carcinoma Cells
J. Immunol., February 15, 2009; 182(4): 2269 - 2276.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
Y. Zheng, J. D. Ritzenthaler, X. Sun, J. Roman, and S. Han
Prostaglandin E2 Stimulates Human Lung Carcinoma Cell Growth through Induction of Integrin-Linked Kinase: The Involvement of EP4 and Sp1
Cancer Res., February 1, 2009; 69(3): 896 - 904.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.Home page
L. Yu, W. K. K. Wu, Z. J. Li, H. P. S. Wong, E. K. K. Tai, H. T. Li, Y. C. Wu, and C. H. Cho
E Series of Prostaglandin Receptor 2-Mediated Activation of Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase/Activator Protein-1 Signaling Is Required for the Mitogenic Action of Prostaglandin E2 in Esophageal Squamous-Cell Carcinoma
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., October 1, 2008; 327(1): 258 - 267.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
M. Croyle, N. Akeno, J. A. Knauf, D. Fabbro, X. Chen, J. E. Baumgartner, H. A. Lane, and J. A. Fagin
RET/PTC-Induced Cell Growth Is Mediated in Part by Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Activation: Evidence for Molecular and Functional Interactions between RET and EGFR
Cancer Res., June 1, 2008; 68(11): 4183 - 4191.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Stem CellsHome page
Y. H. Kim and H. J. Han
High-Glucose-Induced Prostaglandin E2 and Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor {delta} Promote Mouse Embryonic Stem Cell Proliferation
Stem Cells, March 1, 2008; 26(3): 745 - 755.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
J. B. Tuynman, L. Vermeulen, E. M. Boon, K. Kemper, A. H. Zwinderman, M. P. Peppelenbosch, and D. J. Richel
Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibition Inhibits c-Met Kinase Activity and Wnt Activity in Colon Cancer
Cancer Res., February 15, 2008; 68(4): 1213 - 1220.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
K. Lim, C. Han, L. Xu, K. Isse, A. J. Demetris, and T. Wu
Cyclooxygenase-2 Derived Prostaglandin E2 Activates -Catenin in Human Cholangiocarcinoma Cells: Evidence for Inhibition of These Signaling Pathways by {omega}3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
Cancer Res., January 15, 2008; 68(2): 553 - 560.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Cancer ResHome page
D. Zhang, J. Li, L. Song, W. Ouyang, J. Gao, and C. Huang
A JNK1/AP-1-Dependent, COX-2 Induction Is Implicated in 12-O-Tetradecanoylphorbol-13-Acetate-Induced Cell Transformation through Regulating Cell Cycle Progression
Mol. Cancer Res., January 1, 2008; 6(1): 165 - 174.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
J. Wohlschlaeger, K. J. Schmitz, J. Palatty, A. Takeda, N. Takeda, C. Vahlhaus, B. Levkau, J. Stypmann, C. Schmid, K. W. Schmid, et al.
Roles of cyclooxygenase-2 and phosphorylated Akt ( T hr308) in cardiac hypertrophy regression mediated by left-ventricular unloading
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2007; 133(1): 37 - 43.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
S. M. Thomas, N. E. Bhola, Q. Zhang, S. C. Contrucci, A. L. Wentzel, M. L. Freilino, W. E. Gooding, J. M. Siegfried, D. C. Chan, and J. R. Grandis
Cross-talk between G Protein-Coupled Receptor and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Signaling Pathways Contributes to Growth and Invasion of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Cancer Res., December 15, 2006; 66(24): 11831 - 11839.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
L. Xu, C. Han, and T. Wu
A Novel Positive Feedback Loop between Peroxisome Proliferator-activated Receptor-{delta} and Prostaglandin E2 Signaling Pathways for Human Cholangiocarcinoma Cell Growth
J. Biol. Chem., November 10, 2006; 281(45): 33982 - 33996.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
S. Lanza-Jacoby, R. Burd, F. E. Rosato Jr., K. McGuire, J. Little, N. Nougbilly, and S. Miller
Effect of Simultaneous Inhibition of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor and Cyclooxygenase-2 in HER-2/Neu-Positive Breast Cancer.
Clin. Cancer Res., October 15, 2006; 12(20): 6161 - 6169.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
C. Han, A. J. Demetris, D. B. Stolz, L. Xu, K. Lim, and T. Wu
Modulation of Stat3 Activation by the Cytosolic Phospholipase A2{alpha} and Cyclooxygenase-2-controlled Prostaglandin E2 Signaling Pathway
J. Biol. Chem., August 25, 2006; 281(34): 24831 - 24846.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
J. Huh, A. Liepins, J. Zielonka, C. Andrekopoulos, B. Kalyanaraman, and A. Sorokin
Cyclooxygenase 2 Rescues LNCaP Prostate Cancer Cells from Sanguinarine-Induced Apoptosis by a Mechanism Involving Inhibition of Nitric Oxide Synthase Activity.
Cancer Res., April 1, 2006; 66(7): 3726 - 3736.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol.Home page
N. Ishimura, H. Isomoto, S. F. Bronk, and G. J. Gores
Trail induces cell migration and invasion in apoptosis-resistant cholangiocarcinoma cells
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, January 1, 2006; 290(1): G129 - G136.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
280/25/24053    most recent
M500562200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Han, C.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Han, C.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 All ASBMB Journals   Molecular and Cellular Proteomics 
 Journal of Lipid Research   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2005 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement