Dataset Information

PIM kinases inhibit AMPK activation and promote tumorigenicity by phosphorylating LKB1.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The oncogenic PIM kinases and the tumor-suppressive LKB1 kinase have both been implicated in the regulation of cell growth and metabolism, albeit in opposite directions. Here we investigated whether these kinases interact with each other to influence AMPK activation and tumorigenic growth of prostate and breast cancer cells.

Methods

We first determined how PIM and LKB1 kinases affect AMPK phosphorylation levels. We then used in vitro kinase assays to demonstrate that LKB1 is phosphorylated by PIM kinases, and site-directed mutagenesis to identify the PIM target sites in LKB1. The cellular functions of PIM and LKB1 kinases were evaluated using either pan-PIM inhibitors or CRISPR/Cas9 genomic editing, with which all three PIM family members and/or LKB1 were knocked out from PC3 prostate and MCF7 breast cancer cell lines. In addition to cell proliferation assays, we examined the effects of PIM and/or LKB1 loss on tumor growth using the chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) xenograft model.

Results

We provide both genetic and pharmacological evidence to demonstrate that inhibition of PIM expression or activity increases phosphorylation of AMPK at Thr172 in both PC3 and MCF7 cells, but not in their derivatives lacking LKB1. This is explained by our observation that all three PIM family kinases can phosphorylate LKB1 at Ser334. Wild-type LKB1, but not its phosphodeficient derivative, can restore PIM inhibitor-induced AMPK phosphorylation in LKB1 knock-out cells. In the CAM model, loss of LKB1 enhances tumorigenicity of PC3 xenografts, while cells lacking both LKB1 and PIMs exhibit slower proliferation rates and form smaller tumors.

Conclusion

PIM kinases are novel negative regulators of LKB1 that affect AMPK activity in an LKB1-dependent fashion. The impairment of cell proliferation and tumor growth in cells lacking both LKB1 and PIMs indicates that these kinases possess a shared signaling role in the context of cancer. These data also suggest that PIM inhibitors may be a rational therapeutic option for LKB1-deficient tumors. Video Abstract.

SUBMITTER: Mung KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8247201 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recent work indicates that the LKB1 tumour suppressor protein kinase, which is mutated in Peutz-Jeghers cancer syndrome, phosphorylates and activates a group of protein kinases that are related to AMPK (AMP-activated protein kinase). Ten of the 14 AMPK-related protein kinases activated by LKB1, including SIK (salt-induced kinase), MARK (microtubule-affinity-regulating kinase) and BRSK (brain-specific kinase) isoforms, possess a ubiquitin-associated (UBA) domain immediately C-terminal to the kinase catalytic domain. These are the only protein kinases in the human genome known to possess a UBA domain, but their roles in regulating AMPK-related kinases are unknown. We have investigated the roles that the UBA domain may play in regulating these enzymes. Limited proteolysis of MARK2 revealed that the kinase and UBA domains were contained within a fragment that was resistant to trypsin proteolysis. SAXS (small-angle X-ray scattering) analysis of inactive and active LKB1-phosphorylated MARK2 revealed that activation of MARK2 is accompanied by a significant conformational change that alters the orientation of the UBA domain with respect to the catalytic domain. Our results indicate that none of the UBA domains found in AMPK-related kinases interact with polyubiquitin or other ubiquitin-like molecules. Instead, the UBA domains appear to play an essential conformational role and are required for the LKB1-mediated phosphorylation and activation of AMPK-related kinases. This is based on the findings that mutation or removal of the UBA domains of several AMPK-related kinases, including isoforms of MARK, SIK and BRSK, markedly impaired the catalytic activity and LKB1-mediated phosphorylation of these enzymes. We also provide evidence that the UBA domains do not function as LKB1-STRAD (STE20-related adaptor)-MO25 (mouse protein 25) docking/interacting sites and that mutations in the UBA domain of SIK suppressed the ability of SIK to localize within punctate regions of the nucleus. Taken together, these findings suggest that the UBA domains of AMPK-related kinases play an important role in regulating the conformation, activation and localization of these enzymes.