title: Adaptation to HIF-1 deficiency by upregulation of the AMP/ATP ratio and phosphofructokinase activation in hepatomas.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  HIF-1 deficiency has marked effects on tumour glycolysis and growth. We therefore investigated the consequences of HIF-1 deficiency in mice, using the well established Hepa-1 wild-type (WT) and HIF-1β-deficient (c4) model. These mechanisms could be clinically relevant, since HIF-1 is now a therapeutic target.
  
  
  METHODS
  Hepa-1 WT and c4 tumours grown in vivo were analysed by 18FDG-PET and 19FDG Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy for glucose uptake; by HPLC for adenine nucleotides; by immunohistochemistry for GLUTs; by immunoblotting and by DIGE followed by tandem mass spectrometry for protein expression; and by classical enzymatic methods for enzyme activity.
  
  
  RESULTS
  HIF-1β deficient Hepa-1 c4 tumours grew significantly more slowly than WT tumours, and (as expected) showed significantly lower expression of many glycolytic enzymes. However, HIF-1β deficiency caused no significant change in the rate of glucose uptake in c4 tumours compared to WT when assessed in vivo by measuring fluoro-deoxyglucose (FDG) uptake. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated less GLUT-1 in c4 tumours, whereas GLUT-2 (liver type) was similar to WT. Factors that might upregulate glucose uptake independently of HIF-1 (phospho-Akt, c-Myc) were shown to have either lower or similar expression in c4 compared to WT tumours. However the AMP/ATP ratio was 4.5 fold higher (p < 0.01) in c4 tumours, and phosphofructokinase-1 (PFK-1) activity, measured at prevailing cellular ATP and AMP concentrations, was up to two-fold higher in homogenates of the deficient c4 cells and tumours compared to WT (p < 0.001), suggesting that allosteric PFK activation could explain their normal level of glycolysis. Phospho AMP-Kinase was also higher in the c4 tumours.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Despite their defective HIF-1 and consequent down-regulation of glycolytic enzyme expression, Hepa-1 c4 tumours maintain glucose uptake and glycolysis because the resulting low [ATP] high [AMP] allosterically activate PFK-1. This mechanism of resistance would keep glycolysis functioning and also result in activation of AMP-Kinase and growth inhibition; it may have major implications for the therapeutic activity of HIF inhibitors in vivo. Interestingly, this control mechanism does not involve transcriptional control or proteomics, but rather the classical activation and inhibition mechanisms of glycolytic enzymes.
authors: CR UK Cambridge Research Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre.
authors: Monika
authors: M
authors: Golinska
authors: Helen
authors: H
authors: Troy
authors: Yuen-Li
authors: YL
authors: Chung
authors: Paul M
authors: PM
authors: McSheehy
authors: Manuel
authors: M
authors: Mayr
authors: Xiaoke
authors: X
authors: Yin
authors: Lucy
authors: L
authors: Ly
authors: Kaye J
authors: KJ
authors: Williams
authors: Rachel E
authors: RE
authors: Airley
authors: Adrian L
authors: AL
authors: Harris
authors: John
authors: J
authors: Latigo
authors: Meg
authors: M
authors: Perumal
authors: Eric O
authors: EO
authors: Aboagye
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Perrett
authors: Marion
authors: M
authors: Stubbs
authors: John R
authors: JR
authors: Griffiths
references: Cancer Res. 2002 Feb 1;62(3):688-95
references: 11830521
references: Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Apr;7(4):928-34
references: 11309343
references: Semin Cancer Biol. 2009 Feb;19(1):25-31
references: 19130886
references: Biomed Chromatogr. 1991 Sep;5(5):207-11
references: 1742551
references: Cancer Cell. 2007 Aug;12(2):108-13
references: 17692803
references: Mol Cell Biol. 2004 Jul;24(13):5923-36
references: 15199147
references: Biochem J. 1990 Jan 15;265(2):503-9
references: 2302181
references: Cell Metab. 2006 Mar;3(3):187-97
references: 16517406
references: Nature. 2010 Jun 3;465(7298):562-4
references: 20520704
references: Cell Metab. 2006 Mar;3(3):177-85
references: 16517405
references: Biochem J. 1997 Feb 15;322 ( Pt 1):119-27
references: 9078251
references: Mol Cell Biol. 2001 May;21(10):3436-44
references: 11313469
references: Eur J Biochem. 1995 Apr 15;229(2):558-65
references: 7744080
references: Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Oct 1;15(19):5945-6
references: 19789327
references: Nature. 2008 Mar 13;452(7184):230-3
references: 18337823
references: Anal Biochem. 1976 May 7;72:248-54
references: 942051
references: Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Feb 1;13(3):1010-8
references: 17289897
references: Cancer Res. 2000 Apr 15;60(8):2122-7
references: 10786672
references: Semin Cancer Biol. 2005 Aug;15(4):300-8
references: 15908230
references: J Biol Chem. 1964 Nov;239:3619-22
references: 14257585
references: Oncogene. 2002 Jan 10;21(2):282-90
references: 11803471
references: Mol Cell Biol. 1999 Jan;19(1):1-11
references: 9858526
references: Oncogene. 2006 Nov 23;25(55):7225-34
references: 16715124
references: J Biol Chem. 2002 Feb 22;277(8):6183-7
references: 11744734
references: Biochem J. 1985 Jul 1;229(1):141-51
references: 4038253
references: Trends Mol Med. 2001 Aug;7(8):345-50
references: 11516994
references: J Biol Chem. 1996 Jun 21;271(25):15117-23
references: 8662957
references: Nat Rev Cancer. 2008 Sep;8(9):705-13
references: 19143055
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Jul 22;94(15):8104-9
references: 9223322
references: Cancer Res. 2004 May 15;64(10):3500-7
references: 15150104
references: Cancer Res. 2005 May 15;65(10):4147-52
references: 15899805
references: Int J Cancer. 2003 Mar 10;104(1):85-91
references: 12532423
references: Mol Cell. 2005 Apr 29;18(3):283-93
references: 15866171
references: Cancer Cell. 2006 Jun;9(6):425-34
references: 16766262