ERBB4 Drives the Proliferation of BRAF-WT Melanoma Cell Lines

L.M. Lucas, R.L. Cullum, V. Dwivedi, J.A. Markham, J.N. Woggerman, C.M. Kelley, E.L. Knerr, L.J. Cook, H.C. Lucas II, D.S. Waits, T.M. Ghosh, K.M. Halanych, R.B. Gupta, D.J. Riese II
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.20.22276663

Abstract

Metastatic skin cutaneous melanomas remain a significant clinical problem. In particular, those melanomas that do not contain a gain-of-function BRAF allele remain challenging to treat because of the paucity of targets for therapeutic intervention. Thus, here we investigate the role of the ERBB4 receptor tyrosine kinase in skin cutaneous melanomas that contain wild-type BRAF alleles (“BRAF WT melanomas”). We have performed in silico analyses of a public repository (The Cancer Genome Atlas - TCGA) of skin cutaneous melanoma gene expression and mutation data (TCGA-SKCM data set). These analyses demonstrate that ERBB4 overexpression strongly correlates with RAS gene or NF1 mutations that stimulate RAS signaling. Thus, these results have led us to hypothesize that elevated ERBB4 signaling promotes PI3K signaling, which cooperates with elevated RAS signaling to drive BRAF WT melanomas. We have tested this hypothesis using commercially available BRAF WT melanoma cell lines. Overexpression of wild-type ERBB4 stimulates clonogenic proliferation of the MEL-JUSO, MEWO, and IPC-298 BRAF WT melanoma cell lines. Moreover, overexpression of a dominant-negative ERBB4 (K751M) mutant inhibits clonogenic proliferation of the MEL-JUSO and MEWO cell lines. We discuss how these results may impact strategies for treating metastatic BRAF WT skin cutaneous melanomas.

Introduction

BRAF inhibitors, MEK inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (“checkpoint inhibitors”) are transforming the treatment of advanced skin cutaneous melanomas that possess oncogenic BRAF mutations (“BRAF mutant melanomas”). A recent clinical trial reports 34% five-year survival of patients with advanced BRAF mutant skin cutaneous melanomas treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors [1, 2]. Another clinical trial reports 60% five-year survival of patients with advanced BRAF mutant skin cutaneous melanomas treated with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors [1, 3]. Finally, combining immune checkpoint inhibitors with BRAF and MEK inhibitors will likely lead to further improvements in survival [4].

Unfortunately, approximately 50% of advanced skin cutaneous melanomas possess wild-type BRAF alleles, and contemporary treatments of advanced skin cutaneous melanomas that contain wild-type BRAF (“BRAF WT melanomas”) have yielded less impressive results. In part, these less impressive results are because of a paucity of actionable targets for the (targeted) treatment of these tumors [5]. Moreover, the five-year survival of patients with advanced BRAF WT skin cutaneous melanomas treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors is only 48%, less than the 60% experienced by patients with advanced BRAF mutant skin cutaneous melanomas in a parallel study [3]. Hence, we have attempted to address this gap in treatment efficacy by evaluating the ERBB4 receptor tyrosine kinase as a candidate target in BRAF WT skin cutaneous melanomas. Should ERBB4 prove to be a reasonable target in BRAF WT skin cutaneous melanomas, we anticipate that strategies that target ERBB4 signaling could be used in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat these tumors, analogous to what has been proposed for the treatment of BRAF mutant skin cutaneous melanomas.

ERBB4 (HER4) is a member of the ERBB family of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), which includes the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), ERBB2 (HER2/Neu), and ERBB3 (HER3). ERBB4 possesses extracellular ligand-binding domains, a single-pass hydrophobic transmembrane domain, an intracellular tyrosine kinase domain, and intracellular tyrosine residues that function as phosphorylation sites. Ligand binding to EGFR, ERBB3, or ERBB4 stabilizes the receptor extracellular domains in an open conformation competent for symmetrical homodimerization and heterodimerization of the receptor extracellular domains. The dimerization of the extracellular domains enables asymmetrical dimerization of the receptor cytoplasmic domains. Phosphorylation of one receptor monomer on tyrosine residues by the tyrosine kinase domain of the other receptor monomer (“cross-phosphorylation”) ensues. This tyrosine phosphorylation creates binding sites for effector proteins and activation of downstream signaling pathways [6].

Elevated signaling by an RTK is a hallmark of many types of cancer. Hence, RTK overexpression, ligand overexpression, and gain-of-function mutations in an RTK gene are all mechanisms for pathologic, elevated RTK signaling [7]. Indeed, EGFR and ERBB2 have been validated as targets for therapeutic intervention in numerous types of tumors; monoclonal antibodies and small molecular tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been approved to treat tumors dependent on these receptors [8-23]. It appears that ERBB3, particularly ERBB3-ERBB2 heterodimers, also drives various human tumors [24, 25].

In contrast, the role that ERBB4 plays in human tumors remains ambiguous. Part of the ambiguity reflects that an ERBB4 homodimer can function as a tumor suppressor, whereas an ERBB4-EGFR or ERBB4-ERBB2 heterodimer can drive tumor cell proliferation or aggressiveness [6]. Hence, in this work we attempt to resolve this ambiguity by testing the hypothesis that ERBB4 is sufficient and necessary for the proliferation of BRAF WT skin cutaneous melanoma cell lines.

Results

A. BRAF WT melanomas do not appear to be less aggressive than BRAF V600X melanomas

The Cancer Genome Atlas – Skin Cutaneous Melanoma (TCGA-SKCM) dataset contains outcome, gene expression, and mutation data for hundreds of skin cutaneous melanomas [26]. We analyzed the TCGA-SKCM dataset to look for meaningful differences between the group of skin cutaneous melanoma patients whose tumors possess BRAF WT alleles (“BRAF WT melanomas”) and the group of melanoma patients whose tumors have a gain-of-function BRAF V600X allele (“BRAF V600X melanomas”). Descriptive data are shown in Table 1a.

View this table:
Table 1a: Comparison of demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics of BRAF V600X and BRAF WT melanoma cases in the TCGA-SKCM dataset.

BRAF WT melanomas account for a slightly greater percentage of cases in the TCGA-SKCM dataset than BRAF V600X melanomas, suggesting that treating BRAF WT melanomas is a significant clinical challenge. Furthermore, Chi-square analysis indicates that a slightly (P=0.1252) greater percentage of BRAF WT melanoma patients had died when the dataset was closed than BRAF V600X melanoma patients (Table 1b). Moreover, Chi-square analysis indicates that the AJCC pathologic stage of the BRAF WT melanomas was not significantly different (P=0.6842) from the AJCC pathologic stage of the BRAF V600X melanomas (Table 1c). Therefore, BRAF WT melanomas do not appear to be less aggressive than BRAF V600X melanomas. Hence, these BRAF WT melanomas pose a significant clinical problem, particularly because there is currently no targeted therapeutic strategy for these tumors.

View this table:
Table 1b: Comparison of survival among BRAF V600X and BRAF WT melanoma cases in the TCGA-SKCM dataset.
View this table:
Table 1c: Comparison of AJCC pathological stage among BRAF V600X and BRAF WT melanoma cases in the TCGA-SKCM dataset.

B. Elevated ERBB4 expression is correlated with RAS or NF1 mutations

Gain-of-function RAS gene mutations occur in about 30% of skin cutaneous melanomas, and loss-of-function mutations in NF1 occur in about 20% of skin cutaneous melanomas. Moreover, gain-of-function BRAF mutations, gain-of-function RAS gene mutations, and loss-of-function NF1 mutations are largely mutually exclusive in skin cutaneous melanomas [27].

Receptor tyrosine kinases typically stimulate RAS pathway signaling [28-34]. Hence, we predicted that elevated ERBB4 expression (which is likely to cause elevated ERBB4 signaling) would be inversely correlated with gain-of-function RAS gene mutations or loss-of-function NF1 mutations in BRAF WT melanomas of the TCGA-SKCM dataset. ERBB4 transcription and NF1/RAS gene expression and mutation data were available for 178 BRAF WT melanomas. Surprisingly, Chi-square analysis indicates that elevated ERBB4 expression (22 melanomas – 12% of the total) is positively correlated (P=0.0057) with a gain-of-function RAS gene mutation or a loss-of-function NF1 mutation in these BRAF WT melanomas (Table 2). This correlation suggests that elevated ERBB4 signaling does not stimulate RAS pathway signaling; instead, this correlation suggests that ERBB4 signaling stimulates a pathway that cooperates with elevated RAS pathway signaling to drive BRAF WT melanomas.

View this table:
Table 2: Elevated ERBB4 expression is correlated with a gain-of-function RAS gene mutation or a loss-of-function NF1 mutation in BRAF WT melanomas.

C. Commercially available BRAF WT melanoma cell lines appear to be appropriate for analyses of ERBB4 function

A prior report of ERBB4 function in human skin cutaneous melanomas primarily utilized proprietary human skin cutaneous melanoma cell lines [35]. This may have contributed to the failure of others to extend the findings of this work. Hence, we have used the Broad Institute Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE) [36] to identify six commercially available BRAF WT melanoma cell lines (Table 3a). RNAseq data from the Broad Institute CCLE indicate that these cell lines do not contain gain-of-function mutations in BRAF or PIK3CA, nor loss-of-function mutations in PTEN; however, they do contain mutations in NRAS, HRAS, or NF1. Hence, if the malignant phenotypes of these cell lines are dependent on elevated ERBB4 signaling, this elevated ERBB4 signaling may stimulate PI3K pathway signaling, which would cooperate with elevated RAS pathway signaling to drive the malignant phenotypes. This hypothesis is supported by our observation that the coupling of ligand-induced ERBB4 signaling to IL3-independent proliferation in BaF3 cell lines is dependent on ERBB4 coupling to the PI3K pathway [37].

View this table:
Table 3a Commercially available BRAF WT melanoma cell lines do not possess BRAF, PIK3CA, or PTEN mutations, but do possess NRAS, HRAS, and/or NF1 mutations.

RNAseq data from the Broad Institute CCLE (Table 3b) also indicate that these cell lines exhibit different patterns of ERBB gene transcription and ERBB4 ligand gene transcription. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any correlation between these patterns of gene expression and the absence or presence of an ERBB4 mutation (Table 3b).

View this table:
Table 3b: Commercially available BRAF WT melanoma cell lines exhibit different patterns of ERBB receptor gene transcription and ERBB4 ligand gene transcription.

D. ERBB4 is sufficient and necessary for clonogenic proliferation of MEL-JUSO, MEWO, and IPC298 human melanoma cell lines

We have previously used clonogenic proliferation assays to measure the effects of ERBB4 signaling on human prostate [38, 39], breast [39, 40], and pancreatic [41] tumor cell lines. Briefly, we infected MEL-JUSO, MEWO, and IPC-298 BRAF WT melanoma cells (Table 3a) with a recombinant amphotropic retrovirus that expresses wild-type ERBB4 (LXSN-ERBB4-WT), a recombinant amphotropic retrovirus that expresses the ERBB4 K751M dominant-negative mutant (LXSN-ERBB4-DN), the vector control amphotropic retrovirus (LXSN), or a mock virus preparation. Because the LXSN recombinant retroviral vector contains a neomycin resistance gene, we selected infected cells using G418. Infection of MEL-JUSO cells with LXSN-ERBB4-WT results in greater clonogenic proliferation than infection with the LXSN control retrovirus. Likewise, infection of MEL-JUSO cells with LXSN-ERBB4-DN results in less clonogenic proliferation than infection with the LXSN control retrovirus (Figure 1). Similar results were observed when infecting MEWO and IPC-298 cells (data not shown).

Figure 1:
Figure 1: In the MEL-JUSO cell line, stable infection with LXSN-ERBB4-WT causes increased clonogenic proliferation, whereas stable infection with LXSN-ERBB4-DN causes decreased clonogenic proliferation.

To control for differences in viral titer and quantify these effects, in parallel we infected C127 mouse fibroblast cells, which do not endogenously express ERBB4 and do not respond to ERBB4 signaling (data not shown and [42]). We calculated the recombinant retroviral titer for each cell line and viral infection combination. To calculate the efficiency of clonogenic proliferation in the infected MEL-JUSO, MEWO, and IPC-298 cells, we divided the recombinant retroviral titer in each of these cell lines by the corresponding recombinant retroviral titer in the C127 cell line. We report the average efficiency of clonogenic proliferation over a minimum of five independent trials. ANOVA was used to determine whether the efficiency of clonogenic proliferation of the BRAF WT melanoma cell lines infected with the LXSN-ERBB4-WT or LXSN-ERBB4-DN viruses is significantly different from the efficiency of clonogenic proliferation of these cells infected with the control LXSN virus (Table 4). The efficiency of clonogenic proliferation of MEL-JUSO, MEWO, and IPC-298 cells is significantly greater (approximately 4 to 12-fold greater) following infection with LXSN-ERBB4-WT than following infection with the control LXSN virus. Furthermore, the efficiency of clonogenic proliferation of MEL-JUSO and MEWO cells is significantly lower (approximately 60 to 70% lower) following infection with LXSN-ERBB4-DN compared to infection with the control LXSN virus.

View this table:
Table 4: In the MEL-JUSO, MEWO, and IPC-298 cell lines, stable infection with LXSN-ERBB4-WT causes a statistically significant increase in the efficiency of clonogenic proliferation, whereas stable infection with LXSN-ERBB4-DN causes a statistically significant decrease in the efficiency of clonogenic proliferation.

Thus, ectopic expression of wild-type ERBB4 stimulates clonogenic proliferation, whereas ectopic expression of the ERBB4 dominant-negative (K751M) mutant inhibits clonogenic proliferation. These results indicate that ERBB4 is sufficient and necessary for the clonogenic proliferation of at least some BRAF-WT melanoma cell lines. Hence, targeting ERBB4 or its signaling effectors may effectively treat BRAF-WT melanomas that exhibit elevated ERBB4 signaling due to elevated ERBB4 expression.

Materials and Methods

A. Analysis of the TCGA-SKCM dataset

Clinical and biospecimen data were downloaded for all 470 cases found in the TCGA-SKCM dataset [26]. All analyzed datasets are publicly available through the NIH/NCI Genomic Data Commons (GDC) portal [43]. The R statistical computing and graphics environment software [44] was used to reorganize the dataset. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism [45].

B. Cell lines and cell culture

Mouse C127 fibroblasts and the Ψ2 and PA317 recombinant retrovirus packaging cell lines are generous gifts of Daniel DiMaio (Yale University). These cells were cultured essentially as described previously [46]. The MEL-JUSO [47] and IPC-298 [48] human melanoma cell lines were obtained from DSMZ [49] (Braunschweig, Germany) and were cultured as recommended. The MeWo [50] human melanoma cell line was obtained from the American Type Culture Collection [51] (ATCC - Manassas, VA) and was cultured as recommended. Cell culture media, serum, and supplements were obtained from Cytiva [52] (Marlborough, VA). G418 was obtained from Corning [53] (Corning, NY). Genetic and mRNA expression data for the cell lines were obtained from the Broad Institute Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE) ß[36].

C. Recombinant retroviruses

Briefly, the recombinant amphotropic retroviruses LXSN, LXSN-ERBB4 (ERBB4 WT), and LXSN-ERBB4 K751M (ERBB4 DN) were packaged using the Ψ2 ecotropic retrovirus packaging cell line, and the PA317 amphotropic retrovirus packaging cell line as previously described [38].

D. Clonogenic proliferation assays

C127, MEL-JUSO, MeWo, and IPC-298 cells were infected with 500, 3000, 3000, and 20000 amphotropic retroviral infectious units (respectively), essentially as described earlier. After incubation with the viruses, infected cells were selected using G418 at a concentration of 800 ug/mL. The resulting colonies of G418-resistant cells were stained using Giemsa 8, 13, 14, and 11 days later (respectively), and colonies were counted. C127 infections served as a control for viral titer. Tissue culture plates were digitized, and clonogenic proliferation efficiency was calculated as previously described [38]. The statistical significance of differences in clonogenic proliferation was calculated using ANOVA with a p-value threshold of <0.05 (1-tailed).

E. Immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting

Stably infected MEL-JUSO cells were grown to confluence, then serum-starved for 6 hours. Cells were lysed using an isotonic buffer that contains a nonionic detergent. Their protein content was quantified using a Bradford Assay. Protein concentrators were purchased from Cytiva and used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Samples of concentrated lysate containing equal total protein were then immunoprecipitated using specific antibodies. The immunoprecipitants were resolved by SDS-PAGE on a 7.5% acrylamide gel and electro-transferred to 0.2um PVDF. The blots were probed with the anti-phosphotyrosine mouse antibody and visualized using a goat anti-mouse horseradish peroxidase coupled antibody and enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL). The blots were then stripped and probed with the anti-ERBB4 (111B2) rabbit monoclonal antibody (Cell Signaling) and visualized using a goat anti-rabbit horseradish peroxidase coupled antibody and ECL. ECL was obtained from Cytiva, and secondary antibodies were obtained from Thermo Fisher Scientific.

F. Small molecular inhibitors and proliferation assays

Stably infected MEL-JUSO cells were plated in a 96-well plate (Corning) at 1×104 cells/well. The next day they were treated with a drug and after five days of incubation were subjected to an MTT assay as previously described [54]. The PI3K inhibitor LY294002 was obtained from Tocris Bioscience.

Discussion

A. Elevated ERBB4 signaling appears to drive BRAF WT melanomas

Our data suggest that approximately 12% of BRAF WT melanomas exhibit elevated endogenous ERBB4 expression, which presumably results in elevated ERBB4 signaling. Elevated endogenous ERBB4 expression is significantly correlated with NF1/RAS gene mutations. Consequently, we postulated that elevated ERBB4 signaling cooperates with elevated RAS signaling to drive BRAF WT melanomas. We tested this hypothesis by measuring the effects of exogenous expression of ERBB4 WT or an ERBB4 DN mutant on the clonogenic proliferation of BRAF-WT melanoma cell lines.

WT ERBB4 stimulates clonogenic proliferation of MEL-JUSO, MEWO, and IPC-298 BRAF WT melanoma cells. In contrast, the ERBB4 DN (K751M) mutant inhibits clonogenic proliferation of MEL-JUSO, MEWO, and IPC-298 BRAF WT melanoma cells. These results indicate that ERBB4 is sufficient and necessary for the clonogenic proliferation of these BRAF WT melanoma cell lines.

Future experiments will determine whether ERBB4 signaling has similar effects on the proliferation of HMCB, SK-MEL-2, and COLO 792 BRAF WT melanoma cell lines. If ERBB4 signaling does not have similar effects in these cells, we will compare the cells that do not respond to ERBB4 signaling to those that do respond to ERBB4 signaling to identify the determinants of responsiveness to ERBB4 signaling.

Numerous ERBB4 mutants have been found in melanomas and other human tumor samples [6]. The data presented here suggest that some of these mutants exhibit a gain-of-function phenotype that enables them to serve as tumor drivers. We will test that hypothesis.

B. RAS pathway mutations and elevated ERBB4 signaling suggest strategies for treating BRAF WT melanomas

Our data suggest that elevated ERBB4 signaling causes increased PI3K signaling, which cooperates with elevated RAS signaling to drive the proliferation of BRAF WT melanomas (Figure 2). Thus, we predict that ERBB4-dependent, BRAF WT melanomas will respond to a combination of a PI3K inhibitor with a MEK inhibitor. It is commonly accepted that ERBB4 homodimers function as tumor suppressors, whereas ERBB4-EGFR or ERBB4-ERBB2 heterodimers possess oncogenic activities [6]. Therefore, given the toxicity of PI3K inhibitors [55, 56], combining a MEK inhibitor with an anti-EGFR or anti-ERBB2 agent may be a more effective treatment of ERBB4-dependent, BRAF WT melanomas than the combination of a MEK inhibitor with a PI3K inhibitor. We will test these predictions.

Figure 2:
Figure 2: ERBB4 signaling can be stimulated by ERBB4 ligands, ERBB4 overexpression, or ERBB4 mutations. We postulate that elevated signaling by ERBB4-EGFR or ERBB4-ERBB2 heterodimers stimulates signaling by the PI3K pathway, which cooperates with elevated RAS/MAPK pathway signaling to drive the proliferation of BRAF WT melanomas.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/projects/TCGA-SKCM

References

  1. 1.↵
    Schummer, P., B. Schilling, and A. Gesierich, Long-Term Outcomes in BRAF-Mutated Melanoma Treated with Combined Targeted Therapy or Immune Checkpoint Blockade: Are We Approaching a True Cure? Am J Clin Dermatol, 2020. 21(4): p. 493–504.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    Robert, C., et al., Five-Year Outcomes with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Metastatic Melanoma. N Engl J Med, 2019. 381(7): p. 626–636.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Larkin, J., et al., Five-Year Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. N Engl J Med, 2019. 381(16): p. 1535–1546.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Dummer, R., et al., Rationale for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Plus Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Melanoma: A Review. JAMA Oncol, 2020. 6(12): p. 1957–1966.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Swetter, S.M., et al., NCCN Guidelines(R) Insights: Melanoma: Cutaneous, Version 2.2021. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2021. 19(4): p. 364–376.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Lucas, L.M., et al., The Yin and Yang of ERBB4: Tumor Suppressor and Oncoprotein. Pharmacol Rev, 2022. 74(1): p. 18–47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Saraon, P., et al., Receptor tyrosine kinases and cancer: oncogenic mechanisms and therapeutic approaches. Oncogene, 2021. 40(24): p. 4079–4093.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    Tian, X., et al., Challenge and countermeasures for EGFR targeted therapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer, 2022. 1877(1): p. 188645.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.
    Reita, D., et al., Molecular Mechanism of EGFR-TKI Resistance in EGFR-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Application to Biological Diagnostic and Monitoring. Cancers (Basel), 2021. 13(19).
  10. 10.
    Tsubata, Y., R. Tanino, and T. Isobe, Current Therapeutic Strategies and Prospects for EGFR Mutation-Positive Lung Cancer Based on the Mechanisms Underlying Drug Resistance. Cells, 2021. 10(11).
  11. 11.
    Di Noia, V., et al., Treating disease progression with osimertinib in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: novel targeted agents and combination strategies. ESMO Open, 2021. 6(6): p. 100280.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.
    Zhou, J., Q. Ji, and Q. Li, Resistance to anti-EGFR therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer: underlying mechanisms and reversal strategies. J Exp Clin Cancer Res, 2021. 40(1): p. 328.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.
    Melosky, B., et al., The dawn of a new era, adjuvant EGFR inhibition in resected non-small cell lung cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol, 2021. 13: p. 17588359211056306.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.
    Chen, J., M. Colosimo, and E. Lim, The management of HER2-positive early breast cancer: Current and future therapies. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol, 2021. 17 Suppl 6: p. 3–12.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.
    Wu, H.X., K.Q. Zhuo, and K. Wang, Efficacy of targeted therapy in patients with HER2-positive non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 2022. 88(5): p. 2019–2034.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.
    Salkeni, M.A., et al., Neu Perspectives, Therapies, and Challenges for Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press), 2021. 13: p. 539–557.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.
    You, Z., et al., Application of HER2 peptide vaccines in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Cell Int, 2021. 21(1): p. 489.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.
    Pupa, S.M., et al., HER2 Signaling and Breast Cancer Stem Cells: The Bridge behind HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Aggressiveness and Therapy Refractoriness. Cancers (Basel), 2021. 13(19).
  19. 19.
    Li, L., et al., Antibody-drug conjugates in HER2-positive breast cancer. Chin Med J (Engl), 2021. 135(3): p. 261–267.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.
    Hrynchak, I., et al., Nanobody-Based Theranostic Agents for HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: Radiolabeling Strategies. Int J Mol Sci, 2021. 22(19).
  21. 21.
    Fatima, I., et al., Quantum Dots: Synthesis, Antibody Conjugation, and HER2-Receptor Targeting for Breast Cancer Therapy. J Funct Biomater, 2021. 12(4).
  22. 22.
    Azar, I., et al., Spotlight on Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (DS-8201,T-DXd) for HER2 Mutation Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Lung Cancer (Auckl), 2021. 12: p. 103–114.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Vathiotis, I.A., et al., HER2 Aberrations in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: From Pathophysiology to Targeted Therapy. Pharmaceuticals (Basel), 2021. 14(12).
  24. 24.↵
    Hafeez, U., et al., New insights into ErbB3 function and therapeutic targeting in cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, 2020. 20(12): p. 1057–1074.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Kiavue, N., et al., ERBB3 mutations in cancer: biological aspects, prevalence and therapeutics. Oncogene, 2020. 39(3): p. 487–502.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    72 NCI GDC Data Portal: TCGA-SKCM Skin Cutaneous Melanoma Data Set. [Accessed June 15, 2022]; Available from: https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/projects/TCGA-SKCM.
  27. 27.↵
    Al Mahi, A. and J. Ablain, RAS pathway regulation in melanoma. Dis Model Mech, 2022. 15(2).
  28. 28.↵
    Liu, C.Y., et al., Molecular target therapeutics of EGF-TKI and downstream signaling pathways in non-small cell lung cancers. J Chin Med Assoc, 2022. 85(4): p. 409–413.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.
    Smith, C.I.E. and J.A. Burger, Resistance Mutations to BTK Inhibitors Originate From the NF-kappaB but Not From the PI3K-RAS-MAPK Arm of the B Cell Receptor Signaling Pathway. Front Immunol, 2021. 12: p. 689472.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.
    Huang, X.L., et al., Role of receptor tyrosine kinases mediated signal transduction pathways in tumor growth and angiogenesis-New insight and futuristic vision. Int J Biol Macromol, 2021. 180: p. 739–752.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.
    Oliveres, H., D. Pesantez, and J. Maurel, Lessons to Learn for Adequate Targeted Therapy Development in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients. Int J Mol Sci, 2021. 22(9).
  32. 32.
    Santos, E.D.S., et al., EGFR targeting for cancer therapy: Pharmacology and immunoconjugates with drugs and nanoparticles. Int J Pharm, 2021. 592: p. 120082.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.
    Zhao, Y., H. Wang, and C. He, Drug resistance of targeted therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer harbored EGFR mutation: from mechanism analysis to clinical strategy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 2021. 147(12): p. 3653–3664.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    Barbosa, R., L.A. Acevedo, and R. Marmorstein, The MEK/ERK Network as a Therapeutic Target in Human Cancer. Mol Cancer Res, 2021. 19(3): p. 361–374.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    Prickett, T.D., et al., Analysis of the tyrosine kinome in melanoma reveals recurrent mutations in ERBB4. Nat Genet, 2009. 41(10): p. 1127–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    Broad Institute Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia. [Accessed June 15, 2022]; Available from: https://sites.broadinstitute.org/ccle/.
  37. 37.↵
    Wilson, K.J., et al., The Q43L mutant of neuregulin 2beta is a pan-ErbB receptor antagonist. Biochem J, 2012. 443(1): p. 133–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    Williams, E.E., et al., A constitutively active ErbB4 mutant inhibits drug-resistant colony formation by the DU-145 and PC-3 human prostate tumor cell lines. Cancer Lett, 2003. 192(1): p. 67–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. 39.↵
    Gallo, R.M., et al., Multiple Functional Motifs Are Required for the Tumor Suppressor Activity of a Constitutively-Active ErbB4 Mutant. J Cancer Res Ther Oncol, 2013. 1(1): p. 10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Pitfield, S.E., et al., Phosphorylation of ErbB4 on tyrosine 1056 is critical for ErbB4 coupling to inhibition of colony formation by human mammary cell lines. Oncol Res, 2006. 16(4): p. 179–93.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Mill, C.P., K.L. Gettinger, and D.J. Riese, 2nd, Ligand stimulation of ErbB4 and a constitutively-active ErbB4 mutant result in different biological responses in human pancreatic tumor cell lines. Exp Cell Res, 2011. 317(4): p. 392–404.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Penington, D.J., I. Bryant, and D.J. Riese, 2nd, Constitutively active ErbB4 and ErbB2 mutants exhibit distinct biological activities. Cell Growth Differ, 2002. 13(6): p. 247–56.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    NCI Genomic Data Commons (GDC) Portal. [Accessed June 15, 2022]; Available from: https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/.
  44. 44.↵
    The R Project for Statistical Computing. [Accessed June 15, 2022]; Available from: https://www.r-project.org.
  45. 45.↵
    GraphPad Prism. [Accessed June 15, 2022]; Available from: https://www.graphpad.com.
  46. 46.↵
    Riese, D.J., 2nd. and D. DiMaio, An intact PDGF signaling pathway is required for efficient growth transformation of mouse C127 cells by the bovine papillomavirus E5 protein. Oncogene, 1995. 10(7): p. 1431–9.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    MEL-JUSO - DSMZ # ACC 74. [Accessed June 15, 2022]; Available from: https://www.dsmz.de/collection/catalogue/details/culture/ACC-74.
  48. 48.↵
    IPC-298 - DSMZ # ACC 251. [Accessed June 15, 2022]; Available from: https://www.dsmz.de/collection/catalogue/details/culture/ACC-251.
  49. 49.↵
    DSMZ. [Accessed June 15, 2022]; Available from: https://www.dsmz.de.
  50. 50.↵
    MeWo - ATCC # HTB-65. [Accessed June 15, 2022]; Available from: https://www.atcc.org/products/htb-65.
  51. 51.↵
    American Type Culture Collection. [Accessed June 15, 2022]; Available from: https://www.atcc.org.
  52. 52.↵
    Cytiva. [Accessed June 15, 2022]; Available from: https://www.cytivalifesciences.com/en/us/shop.
  53. 53.↵
    Corning. [Accessed June 15, 2022]; Available from: https://www.corning.com/worldwide/en/products/life-sciences.html.
  54. 54.↵
    Cullum, R.L., et al., Development and application of high-throughput screens for the discovery of compounds that disrupt ErbB4 signaling: Candidate cancer therapeutics. PLoS One, 2020. 15(12): p. e0243901.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Nunnery, S.E. and I.A. Mayer, Management of toxicity to isoform alpha-specific PI3K inhibitors. Ann Oncol, 2019. 30(Suppl_10): p. x21–x26.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Greenwell, I.B., A. Ip, and J.B. Cohen, PI3K Inhibitors: Understanding Toxicity Mechanisms and Management. Oncology (Williston Park), 2017. 31(11): p. 821–8.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted June 21, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
ERBB4 Drives the Proliferation of BRAF-WT Melanoma Cell Lines
L.M. Lucas, R.L. Cullum, V. Dwivedi, J.A. Markham, J.N. Woggerman, C.M. Kelley, E.L. Knerr, L.J. Cook, H.C. Lucas II, D.S. Waits, T.M. Ghosh, K.M. Halanych, R.B. Gupta, D.J. Riese II
medRxiv 2022.06.20.22276663; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.20.22276663
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area