We provide a wealth of high-quality, comprehensive data for the NF1 research community. Embedded within the gene signatures of NFs and MPNSTs lie potential biomarkers and molecular targets for future therapeutic development in NF1, including SOX9. Comparing gene expression profiles of NF1 tumour samples to cultured primary Schwann cells resulted in a 1,108 unique gene signature distinguishing NF1 tumour samples from normal Schwann cells. Identifying gene expression differences in cultured MPNST cell lines, NFSCs and normal Schwann cells avoided the complex heterogeneity inherent to solid tumours; using the cell culture gene signature to identify common gene expression patterns, in the solid tumours, which allowed us to identify the Schwann cell component.
The data did not allow us to directly evaluate differences between tumour types that are independent of Schwann cells (
e.g. microvasculature, additional cell types). We did observe differences in gene expression between cell cultures and their respective solid tumour type, which could represent the influence of the tumour microenvironment. We anticipate that future studies will use this data set to dissect the molecular contribution of other NF-derived cells, including fibroblasts, mast cells and endothelial cells. This will be important as
NF1 +/− mast cells and fibroblasts show NF-relevant properties (reviewed in Cichowski & Jacks,
2001; Le & Parada,
2007) and, in some mouse models of NF1, an
Nf1+/− background enhanced tumour development when
Nf1 was ablated in Schwann cells (Zhu et al,
2002).
Surprisingly, cluster analysis of global gene expression microarray data did not distinguish dermal and plexiform NFs, although MPNSTs normally arise only from plexiform NFs. Dermal and plexiform NF cells may be inherently the same but exposed to different environments, as the dermal NF is typically cutaneous and the plexiform NF sub-cutaneous. Another possibility is that different molecular alterations initiate the formation of dermal or plexiform NFs but converge on a common molecular pathway. It is also possible that small populations of tumour stem cells with the potential for malignant transformation exist within a plexiform NF tumour cell sub-population but that gene expression within this small subset would not be identified by our analysis.
Two distinct classes of NF samples were identified by transcriptional profiling, designated Class 1 and Class 2. Each class includes Schwann cells from dermal and plexiform NFs. There was no clear patient phenotype associated with these classes, although we recognize that more precise patient information and larger series of cases may reveal a possible correlation. Class 1 transcriptional patterns are more similar to NHSCs than Class 2 transcriptional patterns, and both classes were represented in NFSCs in vitro. A small number of primary tumours also showed a Class 1 pattern, indicating a possible relevance to a specific stage in tumour growth or differentiation that is maintained in vitro; the majority of primary tumours show a Class 2 pattern.
Of interest are genes that are amplified in array CGH but which we found to be decreased in expression, such as the SOX10 transcription factor (Mantripragada et al,
2008). Silencing of these genes may be relevant to tumour progression.
SOX10 is expressed throughout the Schwann cell lineage in neural crest cells and mature Schwann cells (Kuhlbrodt et al,
1998). SOX10 normally promotes cell survival in the neural crest, specification in Schwann cell progenitors and myelin production in mature Schwann cells (Schreiner et al,
2007). Sox10-deficient mice lack glial cells in the peripheral nervous system (Britsch et al,
2001). SOX10 activates transcription of myelin genes, including MPZ (Peirano et al,
2000) and MBP (Wei et al,
2004), also down-regulated in NF1 tumours. While SOX8 can compensate for lack of SOX10 function (Kellerer et al,
2006),
SOX8 expression is down-regulated in NF1 tumours. Reduced expression of
SOX10 in NF1 tumours suggests that the decreased expression may be necessary for tumour formation. Low
SOX10 expression in tumour Schwann cells is also consistent with failure of complete differentiation, based on our finding that gene expression profiles of NF1 tumours down-regulate expression of Schwann cell progenitor and immature Schwann cell genes.
Miller et al (Miller et al,
2006), using the strategy applied here (
e.g. Schwann cell referencing) but using chips with lower number of probe sets as compared to those studied here, identified 162 probe sets differently expressed in MPNST cell lines and MPNST tumours compared to normal Schwann cells. Seventy-two unique transcripts overlap with our data set. Sixteen are developmental genes, including
TWIST1,
SOX9,
CUGBP2,
FEZ1,
GAP43,
GAS7,
GPM6B,
GPR56,
LICAM,
NGFR,
NRP2,
PMP22,
QKI,
SEMA3B,
SOX10 and
ZFHX1B. In studies that use different referencing strategies and technologies, among 28 genes defined as notably altered in expression 10 met our statistical criteria (FDR ≤ 0.001) and were changed relative to a Schwann cell reference (Holtkamp et al,
2004; Karube et al,
2006; Levy et al,
2004). Among the 10, the developmentally regulated genes
DHH,
ERBB3,
MPZ,
S100β,
L1CAM and
SOX10 are all down-regulated with respect to normal Schwann cells.
Network analysis of the genes that distinguish NF-related cells and tumours from Schwann cells did not reveal perturbation of an obviously known molecular pathway. We expected to identify gene expression changes downstream of Ras and
EGFR, because loss of
NF1 causes hyperactivity of Ras signalling (Le & Parada,
2007) and
EGFR is abnormally expressed in NFs and MPNSTs (DeClue et al,
2000; Perry et al,
2002). It remains possible that transcriptional targets directly downstream of Ras and
EGFR in Schwann cells are present in our data set but different from those that have been described in other cell types, or that their expression changes were not sufficient to pass our cut-off criteria, but nonetheless represent biologically significant changes.
Comparison of the NF-related tumour gene expression profile to Schwann cell gene expression throughout development (Buchstaller et al,
2004) indicated that NF cells fail to express genes characteristic of immature Schwann cells and MPNST cells express genes characteristic of more primitive neural crest cells. Our study describes similarity of the differentiation state, but not the cell of origin of NFs or MPNST. De-differentiation of a mature Schwann cell to a Schwann cell precursor-like phenotype cannot be excluded from our data. It is worth mentioning that targeting
Nf1 loss in a post-neural crest compartment allowed for mouse NF formation (Wu et al,
2008). Losing the
NF1 gene in a neural crest cell, inherently proliferative and migratory, may produce a malignant cellular phenotype (). Joseph et al (
2008) recently showed that neural crest stem cells do not persist in
Nf1;
p53 mutant mice; MPNST cells derived from these mice exhibit only some neural crest-like features (Joseph et al,
2008). On the basis of their findings, it may be more likely that MPNSTs form through de-differentiation of the NFSC or Schwann cell precursor, which is itself multipotent (Joseph et al,
2008), to a more primitive, neural crest-like stage.
Consistent with MPNST and NF resembling different stages in Schwann cell development, neural crest transcription factors
TWIST1 and
SOX9 are expressed at higher levels in MPNST than NFSCs and reducing
SOX9 expression kills MPNST cells but has a minimal effect on NF cell survival
in vitro. SOX9 in the nucleus of MPNST cells relative to NRSCs is consistent with higher
SOX9 transcriptional activity in MPNST cells.
SOX9 expression is also up-regulated in neural crest-derived pheochromocytomas that arise in
Nf1 mutant mice (Powers et al,
2007). Sox9 may be generally important in stem cells, as it regulates specification of epithelial stem cells (Nowak et al,
2008); in mice lacking
Sox9, neural crest cells apoptose (Cheung et al,
2005). High levels of
SOX9 expression in MPNSTs appear to result in
SOX9 ‘addiction’, consistent with
SOX9 being a lineage-survival oncogene in this system (Garraway & Sellers,
2006). Increased levels of
SOX9 may not be sufficient to drive proliferation characteristic of MPNSTs, as in preliminary experiments in which we expressed
SOX9 in plexiform NFSCs, we observed no change in cell proliferation or cell death (AH and NR, unpublished). Analysis of somatic genetic alterations of
SOX9 in tumours and of effects of
SOX9 on
in vivo tumourigenesis will be necessary to provide definitive evidence that
SOX9 is a lineage addicting/survival oncogene. In summary, SOX9 expression provides a biomarker of NFs and MPNSTs. Developing therapeutics aimed at diminishing
SOX9 expression or SOX9 transcriptional targets represents a strategy for killing MPNST cells.