Although significant variations in the metabolic profiles exist among different cells, little is understood in terms of genetic regulations of such cell type–specific metabolic phenotypes and nutrient requirements. While many cancer cells depend on exogenous glutamine for survival to justify the therapeutic targeting of glutamine metabolism, the mechanisms of glutamine dependence and likely response and resistance of such glutamine-targeting strategies among cancers are largely unknown. In this study, we have found a systematic variation in the glutamine dependence among breast tumor subtypes associated with mammary differentiation: basal- but not luminal-type breast cells are more glutamine-dependent and may be susceptible to glutamine-targeting therapeutics. Glutamine independence of luminal-type cells is associated mechanistically with lineage-specific expression of glutamine synthetase (GS). Luminal cells can also rescue basal cells in co-culture without glutamine, indicating a potential for glutamine symbiosis within breast ducts. The luminal-specific expression of GS is directly induced by GATA3 and represses glutaminase expression. Such distinct glutamine dependency and metabolic symbiosis is coupled with the acquisition of the GS and glutamine independence during the mammary differentiation program. Understanding the genetic circuitry governing distinct metabolic patterns is relevant to many symbiotic relationships among different cells and organisms. In addition, the ability of GS to predict patterns of glutamine metabolism and dependency among tumors is also crucial in the rational design and application of glutamine and other metabolic pathway targeted therapies. Different types of cells have distinct ways of utilizing nutrients and generating energy, thus resulting in distinct nutrient needs. Such cell type–specific metabolic differences are associated with many biological processes and force the symbiosis between different cells and organisms. For example, glutamine symbiosis is a well-recognized phenomenon due to different glutamine synthesis ability. In human cancers, glutamine is also recognized as an important and essential nutrient, termed glutamine addiction. But very little is known about how glutamine addiction varies among different tumors of diverse cellular origins, which hinders personalized therapeutic strategies. Here, we found that basal-type breast cancer cells were sensitive to glutamine deprivation while luminal-type breast cancer cells were not. Luminal cell–specific glutamine independence results from expression of glutamine synthetase conferring the ability to synthesize glutamine. Glutamine synthetase also represses glutaminase and contributes to the maintenance of the polarized expression of glutamine synthetase and glutaminase among breast cancer cells. Collectively, these data illustrate cross-talk between mammary differentiation programs and unique nutrient requirements, which may offer novel therapeutics for basal-type breast cancers.

Background: A variety of oncogenic and environmental factors alter tumor metabolism to serve the distinct cellular biosynthetic and bioenergetic needs present during oncogenesis. Extracellular acidosis is a common microenvironmental stress in solid tumors, but little is known about its metabolic influence, particularly when present in the absence of hypoxia. In order to characterize the extent of tumor cell metabolic adaptations to acidosis, we employed stable isotope tracers to examine how acidosis impacts glucose, glutamine, and palmitate metabolism in breast cancer cells exposed to extracellular acidosis.Results: Acidosis increased both glutaminolysis and fatty acid β-oxidation, which contribute metabolic intermediates to drive the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle) and ATP generation. Acidosis also led to a decoupling of glutaminolysis and novel glutathione (GSH) synthesis by repressingGCLC/GCLMexpression. We further found that acidosis redirects glucose away from lactate production and towards the oxidative branch of the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP). These changes all serve to increase nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) production and counter the increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) present under acidosis. The reduced novel GSH synthesis under acidosis may explain the increased demand for NADPH to recycle existing pools of GSH. Interestingly, acidosis also disconnected novel ribose synthesis from the oxidative PPP, seemingly to reroute PPP metabolites to the TCA cycle. Finally, we found that acidosis activates p53, which contributes to both the enhanced PPP and increased glutaminolysis, at least in part, through the induction ofG6PDandGLS2genes.Conclusions: Acidosis alters the cellular metabolism of several major metabolites, which induces a significant degree of metabolic inflexibility. Cells exposed to acidosis largely rely upon mitochondrial metabolism for energy generation to the extent that metabolic intermediates are redirected away from several other critical metabolic processes, including ribose and glutathione synthesis. These alterations lead to both a decrease in cellular proliferation and increased sensitivity to ROS. Collectively, these data reveal a role for p53 in cellular metabolic reprogramming under acidosis, in order to permit increased bioenergetic capacity and ROS neutralization. Understanding the metabolic adaptations that cancer cells make under acidosis may present opportunities to generate anti-tumor therapeutic agents that are more tumor-specific.

Nrf2 is the key to chemotherapy resistance in MCF7 breast cancer cells under hypoxia

The cellular endosomal sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT) machinery participates in membrane scission and cytoplasmic budding of many RNA viruses. Here, we found that expression of dominant negative ESCRT proteins caused a blockade of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) release and retention of viral BFRF1 at the nuclear envelope. The ESCRT adaptor protein Alix was redistributed and partially colocalized with BFRF1 at the nuclear rim of virus replicating cells. Following transient transfection, BFRF1 associated with ESCRT proteins, reorganized the nuclear membrane and induced perinuclear vesicle formation. Multiple domains within BFRF1 mediated vesicle formation and Alix recruitment, whereas both Bro and PRR domains of Alix interacted with BFRF1. Inhibition of ESCRT machinery abolished BFRF1-induced vesicle formation, leading to the accumulation of viral DNA and capsid proteins in the nucleus of EBV-replicating cells. Overall, data here suggest that BFRF1 recruits the ESCRT components to modulate nuclear envelope for the nuclear egress of EBV. Herpesviruses are large DNA viruses associated with human and animal diseases. After viral DNA replication, the herpesviral nucleocapsids egress through the nuclear membrane for subsequent cytoplasmic virion maturation. However, the mechanism by which the virus regulates the nuclear membrane and cellular machinery involved in this process remained elusive. The cellular endosomal sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT) machinery is known to participate in the biogenesis of multivesicular bodies, cytokinesis and the release of enveloped viruses from cytoplasmic membranes. Here, we show that functional ESCRT machinery is required for the maturation of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). ESCRT proteins are redistributed close to the nucleus-associated membrane through interaction with the viral BFRF1 protein, leading to vesicle formation and structural changes of the nuclear membrane. Remarkably, inhibition of ESCRT machinery abolishes BFRF1-induced vesicle formation, and leads to the accumulation of viral DNA and capsid proteins in the nucleus. Specific interactions between BFRF1 and Alix are required for BFRF1-derived vesicle formation and crucial for the nuclear egress of EBV.

Breast cancer heterogeneity occurs as a consequence of the dysregulation of numerous oncogenic pathways as well as many non-genetic factors, including tumor microenvironmental stresses such as hypoxia, lactic acidosis, and glucose deprivation. Although the importance of these non-genetic factors is well recognized, it is not clear how to integrate these factors within the genetic framework of cancer as the next logical step in understanding tumor heterogeneity.