1. SLITRK4 expression is increased in human GC with liver metastasis and is associated with poor clinical prognosis.
First, we collected surgically resected tumour tissues from 6 GC patients with liver metastases at Renji Hospital. RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data, including data from primary gastric cancer (GC), para-cancerous (PC), liver metastasis (LM), and adjacent liver (AL) tissues, were analysed to determine differentially expressed genes.
By comparing the differentially expressed genes according to mRNA expression profiles between LM and AL (n = 2141) and LM and GC (n = 348), we identified 19 differentially expressed genes with a log2FC > 3 and P < 0.01 (Fig. 1A). Using a heatmap cluster analysis of these selected genes in 6 paired GC and LM samples, we selected SLITRK4 for further study after excluding genes that was significantly differentially expressed as a result of no in situ expression (Fig. 1B). Moreover, of the SLITRK family, SLITRK4 had the most striking changes after the RNA-seq data were analysed (Fig. 1C). The GEO datasets (GSE65801(20) and GSE30601(21–23)) also supported the finding that SLITRK4 mRNA expression was significantly upregulated in GC compared with normal gastric mucosal tissues (Fig. 1D&E).
We further confirmed the upregulation of SLITRK4 mRNA expression in GC and LM compared with matched PC tissues collected from the Renji cohort (n = 13; Fig. 1F). Consistently, representative immunohistochemical images of SLITRK4 in PC, GC and LM tissues demonstrated rich expression of SLITRK4 in GC and LM, especially in the membranes of GC cells (Fig. 1G). In addition, Kaplan–Meier analyses showed that patients with high SLITRK4 expression had significantly shorter overall survival (OS) times than those with low SLITRK4 expression (n = 69; Fig. 1H)(24). Taken together, these results revealed that the expression level of SLITRK4 was markedly increased in GC and LM, which indicates that SLITRK4 might have a role in the occurrence and development of GC with liver metastases.
2. SLITRK4 knockdown suppressed the proliferation, migration and invasiveness of GC cells in vitro.
We first analysed the mRNA expression levels of SLITRK4 in a human normal gastric epithelial cell line (GES-1) and 7 GC cell lines (BGC823, MKN28, MKN45, MGC803, AGS, HGC27 and SGC7901) by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT–PCR). SLITRK4 was found high expressed in all 7 GC cell lines, and we selected BGC823 and MKN28 for the functional study (Fig. 2A). By constructing sh-NC and sh-SLITRK4 lentiviruses and infecting BGC823 and MKN28 cells, stable cell lines were established. Western blotting (WB) analysis was performed to confirm the knockdown efficiency after puromycin screening (Fig. 2B). The results of the Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8) assay revealed that viability and proliferation were significantly impaired in BGC823 and MKN28 cells transfected with sh-SLITRK4 (Fig. 2C). In addition, the colony formation assay revealed that silencing SLITRK4 drastically inhibited colony formation (Fig. 2D-E). Additionally, Transwell assay was performed, and the results revealed that the migration and invasion abilities of the sh-SLITRK4 groups were suppressed compared with those of the control group (Fig. 2F-G). In conclusion, our data suggested that knockdown of SLITRK4 inhibited the proliferation, migration and invasiveness of GC cells in vitro.
3. SLITRK4 knockdown suppressed liver metastasis and colonization of GC in vivo.
Subsequently, we established a nude mouse model of GC with liver metastasis, in which GC cells were injected into the spleens of nude mice. We first confirmed that BGC823 cells had the strongest ability to form metastatic tumours in the liver compared with the other GC cell lines tested. Therefore, in the next study, we selected BGC823 cells to compare the effect of SLITRK4 on liver metastasis (Fig. 3A). Sh-SLITRK4 and sh-NC BGC823 cells were injected into the spleens of nude mice, and the volumes of liver metastases were measured after 25 days. Consistent with the in vitro results, liver metastases in the sh-SLITRK4 group were obviously attenuated compared with those in the sh-NC group, as reflected by the smaller and lower number of nodules on the liver surface (Fig. 3C). To confirm SLITRK4 knockdown in liver metastases in vivo, RT–PCR of liver metastases from the sh-SLITRK4 and sh-NC groups was also performed (Fig. 3D). In addition, H&E staining and IHC for CK19 and PCNA were used to verify that the liver had been invaded by gastric tumour cells in mice with SLITRK4 knockdown compared with sh-NC mice. These images indicated that after the expression of SLITRK4 was knocked down, the size and number of liver metastases and expression CK19 and PCNA were significantly decreased (Fig. 3E-G). In conclusion, our data suggested that SLITRK4 promoted tumorigenicity and liver metastasis of GC.
4. SLITRK4 directly interacted with CNPY3, and this correlation is also found in humans with GC and liver metastasis.
To further explore the mechanism of SLITRK4-mediated GC invasion and metastasis, we performed co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) experiments to screen and identify SLITRK4-binding proteins and combined the results of bioinformatics predictions (Fig. 4A). We then focused on CNPY3. CNPY3 is primarily located in the extracellular space and endoplasmic reticulum (ER), where it plays an important biological role in tumour metastasis. We performed immunofluorescence (IF) staining to reveal the co-localization of SLITRK4 and CNPY3 on the GC cells (Fig. 4B). Moreover, IHC for SLITRK4 and CNPY3 in serial sections of GC tissue demonstrated that CNPY3 and SLITRK4 expression was highly consistent (Fig. 4C). Based on the GC tissue microarray analysis, the correlation analysis of the H-score of SLITRK4 and CNPY3 (H-score = Σ pi (i + 1), n = 6) confirmed that SLITRK4 was closely correlated with CNPY3 (Fig. 4D). These data were consistent with the observation in the heatmap of the correlation analysis of the SLITRK4 and CNPY3 staining intensity (n = 69, Fig. 4E). The GEO datasets (GSE65801 and GSE30601) also supported that CNPY3 mRNA expression was significantly upregulated in GC compared with normal gastric mucosal tissues (Fig. 4F&G). We further used tissues collected from the Renji cohort and confirmed the overexpression of CNPY3 mRNA in GC and LM compared with matched PC tissues (n = 13, Fig. 4H). In addition, the survival correlation was analysed using a Kaplan–Meier analysis, which revealed that patients with high CNPY3 expression had worse OS than those with low CNPY3 expression (n = 69, Fig. 3I). Consistently, patients with high expression of both CNPY3 and SLITRK4 had the worst prognosis compared with the other groups (n = 46, Fig. 3J). Thus, we speculated that the interaction between SLITRK4 and CNPY3 played an important role in the progression of GC with liver metastasis.
5. The SLITRK4-CNPY3 axis promoted GC proliferation and migration, and formed a complex with TrkB
To understand the effect of CNPY3 on the growth and progression of GC cells, we first constructed lentiviruses with vector or overexpressed CNPY3 and added these constructs to sh-SLITRK4 or sh-NC BGC823 cells. The results of the colony formation and Transwell assays indicated that CNPY3 conspicuously enhanced cell colony formation, invasiveness and migration of sh-NC BGC823 cells, whereas these effects were all weakened in sh-SLITRK4 BGC823 cells (Fig. 5A-D). Therefore, we speculated that CNPY3 might exert pro-cancer effects depending on SLITRK4.
The SLITRK family and the neurotrophic factor receptor family have similar structures and functions. TrkB is one of the neurotrophic factor receptors that affects downstream tyrosine kinase signalling pathways that function in biological processes. Some studies have shown that high TrkB expression is correlated with GC progression and metastasis(25–27). Therefore, we performed Co-IP and found the interaction between SLITRK4 and TrkB (Fig. 5E). The GEO datasets (GSE65801 and GSE30601) also supported that TRKB mRNA expression was significantly upregulated in GC compared with normal gastric mucosal tissues (Fig. 5F&G). IHC studies revealed that the TrkB expression in the GC and LM tissues was significantly higher than that on human PC tissues (Fig. 5H). We also performed IF studies to confirm the co-localization of SLITRK4 and TRKB on the human LM tissue of GC (Fig. 5I).
6. The Slitrk4-cnpy3 Axis Enhanced The Trkb Pathway By Promoting Trkb Receptor Internalization And Recycling
Then, we knocked down SLITRK4 or CNPY3 in BGC823 and MKN28 cells and found that SLITRK4 or CNPY3 knockdown significantly attenuated the phosphorylation level of the TrkB protein and downstream signalling molecules such as PLCG1 and PKCγ. Simultaneous knockdown of CNPY3 and SLITRK4 reduced the phosphorylation levels of TrkB, PLCG1 and PKCγ to the greatest extent (Fig. 6A).
Minseok Song et al. found that SLITRK5, as a coreceptor of TrkB, participates in endocytosis and TrkB recycling(28). We next analysed whether the effect of SLITRK4 on TrkB is related to endocytosis and recycling. The rate of TrkB endocytosis in sh-NC and sh-SLITRK4 BGC823 cells was examined by precipitating biotinylated and internalized TrKB receptor from cell lysates with streptavidin beads and immunoblotting with an anti-TrkB antibody. The results showed that SLITRK4 knockdown led to significant restraint in the internalization of TrkB, while the level of recycling was also significantly diminished (Fig. 6B-D). Then, we examined TrkB protein stability in sh-NC and sh-SLITRK4 BGC823 cells after the addition of cycloheximide (CHX) at different time points (Fig. 6E). Our results suggested that the degradation of TrkB was more quickly in sh-SLITRK4 BGC823 cells (Fig. 6F). These findings revealed that SLITRK4 played a unique role in the endocytosis and recirculation of TrkB and that the SLITRK4-CNPY3 axis enhanced the TrkB pathway by promoting TrkB receptor endocytic recycling. (Fig. 6G)