A novel fibroblast growth factor-1 (FGF1) mutant that acts as an FGF antagonist

Molecular Landscape, Genomic Shift and Prediction in the Neoadjuvant Setting of HER2 Positive Breast Cancer

The amplification or overexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) defines a breast cancer (BC) subtype which benefits from neoadjuvant HER2-targeted therapy. However, at least 40% of patients respond poorly or do not respond to treatment. We analyzed the main genomic alterations of 64 HER2+ patients by next-generation sequencing to identify new predictors of response and correlate them with clinicopathological parameters. We also compared the genomic alterations between primary and residual tumors after neoadjuvant treatment. The TP53 gene was the most frequently mutated gene, and in combination with ERBB2 overexpression, the two were predictive of residual cancer burden (RCB) (p=0.001). Furthermore, the combination of their immunohistochemical counterpart (p53 mutant and Score3+ for HER2 can predict complete pathological response and the grade of response (p=0.038 and p=0.031, respectively). Therefore, p53 could be included in the initial panel of BC biomarkers to help therapeutic decision making in HER2+ cases.

Neuregulin-1 (NRG1) Binds to the Allosteric Binding Site (Site 2) and Suppresses Allosteric Integrin Activation by Inflammatory Cytokines: A Potential Mechanism of Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Fibrosis Action of NRG1

We showed that multiple inflammatory cytokines (e.g., CCL5, CXCL12, CX3CL1, CD40L, and FGF2) bind to the allosteric site (site 2) of integrins, distinct from the classical RGD-binding site (site 1), and allosterically activate integrins. A major inflammatory lipid mediator 25-hydroxycholesterol is known to bind to site 2 and allosterically activates integrins and induces inflammatory signals (e.g., IL-6 and TNF secretion). Thus, site 2 is involved in inflammatory signaling. Neuregulin-1 (NRG1) is known to suppresses the progression of inflammatory diseases, fibrosis, and insulin resistance. But, the mechanism of anti-inflammatory action of NRG1 is unclear. We previously showed that NRG1 binds to the classical RGD-binding site (site 1). Mutating the 3 Lys residues that are involved in site 1 binding (NRG1 3KE mutant) is defective in binding to site 1 and in ErbB3-mediated mitogenic signals. Docking simulation predicted that NRG1 binds to site 2. We hypothesized that NRG1 acts as an antagonist of site 2 and blocks allosteric activation by multiple cytokines. Here, we describe that NRG1 binds to site 2 but does not activate soluble αvβ3 or αIIbβ3 in 1 mM Ca2+, unlike inflammatory cytokines. Instead, NRG1 suppressed integrin activation by several inflammatory cytokines, suggesting that NRG1 acts as a competitive inhibitor of site 2. Wild-type NRG1 is not suitable for long-term treatment due to its mitogenicity. We showed that the non-mitogenic NRG1 3KE mutant still bound to site 2 and inhibited allosteric activation of soluble and cell-surface integrins, suggesting that NRG1 3KE may have potential as a therapeutic.

FGF1 Suppresses Allosteric Activation of β3 Integrins by FGF2: A Potential Mechanism of Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Thrombotic Action of FGF1

Several inflammatory cytokines bind to the allosteric site (site 2) and allosterically activate integrins. Site 2 is also a binding site for 25-hydroxycholesterol, an inflammatory lipid mediator, and is involved in inflammatory signaling (e.g., TNF and IL-6 secretion) in addition to integrin activation. FGF2 is pro-inflammatory and pro-thrombotic, and FGF1, homologous to FGF2, has anti-inflammatory and anti-thrombotic actions, but the mechanism of these actions is unknown. We hypothesized that FGF2 and FGF1 bind to site 2 of integrins and regulate inflammatory signaling. Here, we describe that FGF2 is bound to site 2 and allosterically activated β3 integrins, suggesting that the pro-inflammatory action of FGF2 is mediated by binding to site 2. In contrast, FGF1 bound to site 2 but did not activate these integrins and instead suppressed integrin activation induced by FGF2, indicating that FGF1 acts as an antagonist of site 2 and that the anti-inflammatory action of FGF1 is mediated by blocking site 2. A non-mitogenic FGF1 mutant (R50E), which is defective in binding to site 1 of αvβ3, suppressed β3 integrin activation by FGF2 as effectively as WT FGF1.

The heparin-binding domain of VEGF165 directly binds to integrin αvβ3 and VEGFR2/KDR D1: a potential mechanism of negative regulation of VEGF165 signaling by αvβ3

VEGF-A is a key cytokine in tumor angiogenesis and a major therapeutic target for cancer. VEGF165 is the predominant isoform of VEGF-A, and it is the most potent angiogenesis stimulant. VEGFR2/KDR domains 2 and 3 (D2D3) bind to the N-terminal domain (NTD, residues 1-110) of VEGF165. Since removal of the heparin-binding domain (HBD, residues 111-165) markedly reduced the mitogenic activity of the growth factor, it has been proposed that the HBD plays a critical role in the mitogenicity of VEGF165. Here, we report that αvβ3 specifically bound to the isolated VEGF165 HBD but not to VEGF165 NTD. Based on docking simulation and mutagenesis, we identified several critical amino acid residues within the VEGF165 HBD required for αvβ3 binding, i.e., Arg123, Arg124, Lys125, Lys140, Arg145, and Arg149. We discovered that VEGF165 HBD binds to the KDR domain 1 (D1) and identified that Arg123 and Arg124 are critical for KDR D1 binding by mutagenesis, indicating that the KDR D1-binding and αvβ3-binding sites overlap in the HBD. Full-length VEGF165 mutant (R123A/R124A/K125A/K140A/R145A/R149A) defective in αvβ3 and KDR D1 binding failed to induce ERK1/2 phosphorylation, integrin β3 phosphorylation, and KDR phosphorylation and did not support proliferation of endothelial cells, although the mutation did not affect the KDR D2D3 interaction with VEGF165. Since β3-knockout mice are known to show enhanced VEGF165 signaling, we propose that the binding of KDR D1 to the VEGF165 HBD and KDR D2D3 binding to the VEGF165 NTD are critically involved in the potent mitogenicity of VEGF165. We propose that binding competition between KDR and αvβ3 to the VEGF165 HBD endows integrin αvβ3 with regulatory properties to act as a negative regulator of VEGF165 signaling.

The heparin-binding domain of VEGF165 directly binds to integrin αvβ3 and plays a critical role in signaling

VEGF-A is a key cytokine in tumor angiogenesis and a major therapeutic target for cancer. VEGF165 is the predominant isoform and is the most potent angiogenesis stimulant. VEGFR2/KDR domains 2 and 3 (D2D3) bind to the N-terminal domain (NTD, residues 1-110) of VEGF165. Since removal of the heparin-binding domain (HBD, residues 111-165) markedly reduced the mitogenic activity of VEGF165, it has been proposed that the HBD plays a critical role in the mitogenicity of VEGF165. Integrin αvβ3 has been shown to bind to VEGF165, but the role of integrin αvβ3 in VEGF165 signaling are unclear. Here we describe that αvβ3 specifically bound to the isolated HBD, but not to the NTD. We identified several critical amino acid residues in HBD for integrin binding (Arg-123, Arg-124, Lys-125, Lys-140, Arg-145, and Arg-149) by docking simulation and mutagenesis, and generated full-length VEGF165 that is defective in integrin binding by including mutations in the HBD. The full-length VEGF165 mutant defective in integrin binding (R123A/R124A/K125A/K140A/R145A/R149A) was defective in ERK1/2 phosphorylation, integrin β3 phosphorylation, and KDR phosphorylation, although the mutation did not affect KDR binding to VEGF165. We propose a model in which VEGF165 induces KDR (through NTD)-VEGF165 (through HBD)-integrin αvβ3 ternary complex formation on the cell surface and this process is critically involved in potent mitogenicity of VEGF165.

Unconventional Protein Secretion in Brain Tumors Biology: Enlightening the Mechanisms for Tumor Survival and Progression

Non-canonical secretion pathways, collectively known as unconventional protein secretion (UPS), are alternative secretory mechanisms usually associated with stress-inducing conditions. UPS allows proteins that lack a signal peptide to be secreted, avoiding the conventional endoplasmic reticulum-Golgi complex secretory pathway. Molecules that generally rely on the canonical pathway to be secreted may also use the Golgi bypass, one of the unconventional routes, to reach the extracellular space. UPS studies have been increasingly growing in the literature, including its implication in the biology of several diseases. Intercellular communication between brain tumor cells and the tumor microenvironment is orchestrated by various molecules, including canonical and non-canonical secreted proteins that modulate tumor growth, proliferation, and invasion. Adult brain tumors such as gliomas, which are aggressive and fatal cancers with a dismal prognosis, could exploit UPS mechanisms to communicate with their microenvironment. Herein, we provide functional insights into the UPS machinery in the context of tumor biology, with a particular focus on the secreted proteins by alternative routes as key regulators in the maintenance of brain tumors.

Metabolic Messengers: fibroblast growth factor 1

While fibroblast growth factor (FGF) 1 is expressed in multiple tissues, only adipose-derived and brain FGF1 have been implicated in the regulation of metabolism. Adipose FGF1 production is upregulated in response to dietary stress and is essential for adipose tissue plasticity in these conditions. Similarly, in the brain, FGF1 secretion into the ventricular space and the adjacent parenchyma is increased after a hypercaloric challenge induced by either feeding or glucose infusion. Potent anorexigenic properties have been ascribed to both peripheral and centrally injected FGF1. The ability of recombinant FGF1 and variants with reduced mitogenicity to lower glucose, suppress adipose lipolysis and promote insulin sensitization elevates their potential as candidates in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and associated comorbidities. Here, we provide an overview of the known metabolic functions of endogenous FGF1 and discuss its therapeutic potential, distinguishing between peripherally or centrally administered FGF1.

Role of hypothalamic MAPK/ERK signaling and central action of FGF1 in diabetes remission

The capacity of the brain to elicit sustained remission of hyperglycemia in rodent models of type 2 diabetes following intracerebroventricular (icv) injection of fibroblast growth factor 1 (FGF1) is well established. Here, we show that following icv FGF1 injection, hypothalamic signaling by extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), members of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) family, is induced for at least 24 h. Further, we show that this prolonged response is required for the sustained antidiabetic action of FGF1 since it is abolished by sustained (but not acute) pharmacologic blockade of hypothalamic MAPK/ERK signaling. We also demonstrate that FGF1 R50E, a FGF1 mutant that activates FGF receptors but induces only transient hypothalamic MAPK/ERK signaling, fails to mimic the sustained glucose lowering induced by FGF1. These data identify sustained activation of hypothalamic MAPK/ERK signaling as playing an essential role in the mechanism underlying diabetes remission induced by icv FGF1 administration.

•

FGF1 action in the brain induces remission of diabetic hyperglycemia

•

FGF1 induces sustained activation of hypothalamic MAPK/ERK signaling

•

Blockade of hypothalamic MAPK/ERK signaling abolishes the antidiabetic action of FGF1

•

FGF1 increases hypothalamic astrocyte-neuron interaction by transcriptomic analysis

Low Stability of Integrin-Binding Deficient Mutant of FGF1 Restricts Its Biological Activity

Fibroblast growth factor 1 (FGF1) has been shown to interact with integrin α_vβ₃ through a specific binding site, involving Arg35 residue. The FGF1 mutant (R35E) with impaired integrin binding was found to be defective in its proliferative response, although it was still able to interact with FGF receptors (FGFR) and heparin and induce the activation of downstream signaling pathways. Here, we demonstrate that the lack of mitogenic potential of R35E mutant is directly caused by its decreased thermodynamic stability and susceptibility to proteolytic degradation. Introduction of three stabilizing mutations into R35E variant compensated the effect of destabilizing R35E mutation and restored the proliferation potential of FGF1. Moreover, the stabilized R35E variant regained both anti-apoptotic and wound healing activities, while remaining defective in binding to integrin α_vβ₃. Our results suggest that the thermodynamic stability and resistance to degradation, rather than the interaction with integrin are required for mitogenic response of FGF1.

Integrin Binding to the Trimeric Interface of CD40L Plays a Critical Role in CD40/CD40L Signaling

CD40L plays a major role in immune response and is a major therapeutic target for inflammation. Integrin α5β1 and CD40 simultaneously bind to CD40L. It is unclear if α5β1 and CD40 work together in CD40/CD40L signaling or how α5β1 binds to CD40L. In this article, we describe that the integrin-binding site of human CD40L is predicted to be located in the trimeric interface by docking simulation. Mutations in the predicted integrin-binding site markedly reduced the binding of α5β1 to CD40L. Several CD40L mutants defective in integrin binding were defective in NF-κB activation and B cell activation and suppressed CD40L signaling induced by wild-type CD40L; however, they still bound to CD40. These findings suggest that integrin α5β1 binds to monomeric CD40L through the binding site in the trimeric interface of CD40L, and this plays a critical role in CD40/CD40L signaling. Integrin αvβ3, a widely distributed vascular integrin, bound to CD40L in a KGD-independent manner, suggesting that αvβ3 is a new CD40L receptor. Several missense mutations in CD40L that induce immunodeficiency with hyper-IgM syndrome type 1 (HIGM1) are clustered in the integrin-binding site of the trimeric interface. These HIGM1 CD40L mutants were defective in binding to α5β1 and αvβ3 (but not to CD40), suggesting that the defect in integrin binding may be a causal factor of HIGM1. These findings suggest that α5β1 and αvβ3 bind to the overlapping binding site in the trimeric interface of monomeric CD40L and generate integrin-CD40L-CD40 ternary complex. CD40L mutants defective in integrins have potential as antagonists of CD40/CD40L signaling.

Cross-Talk between Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptors and Other Cell Surface Proteins

Fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) and their receptors (FGFRs) constitute signaling circuits that transmit signals across the plasma membrane, regulating pivotal cellular processes like differentiation, migration, proliferation, and apoptosis. The malfunction of FGFs/FGFRs signaling axis is observed in numerous developmental and metabolic disorders, and in various tumors. The large diversity of FGFs/FGFRs functions is attributed to a great complexity in the regulation of FGFs/FGFRs-dependent signaling cascades. The function of FGFRs is modulated at several levels, including gene expression, alternative splicing, posttranslational modifications, and protein trafficking. One of the emerging ways to adjust FGFRs activity is through formation of complexes with other integral proteins of the cell membrane. These proteins may act as coreceptors, modulating binding of FGFs to FGFRs and defining specificity of elicited cellular response. FGFRs may interact with other cell surface receptors, like G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) or receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs). The cross-talk between various receptors modulates the strength and specificity of intracellular signaling and cell fate. At the cell surface FGFRs can assemble into large complexes involving various cell adhesion molecules (CAMs). The interplay between FGFRs and CAMs affects cell–cell interaction and motility and is especially important for development of the central nervous system. This review summarizes current stage of knowledge about the regulation of FGFRs by the plasma membrane-embedded partner proteins and highlights the importance of FGFRs-containing membrane complexes in pathological conditions, including cancer.

Direct binding to integrins and loss of disulfide linkage in interleukin-1β (IL-1β) are involved in the agonistic action of IL-1β

There is a strong link between integrins and interleukin-1β (IL-1β), but the specifics of the role of integrins in IL-1β signaling are unclear. We describe that IL-1β specifically bound to integrins αvβ3 and α5β1. The E128K mutation in the IL1R-binding site enhanced integrin binding. We studied whether direct integrin binding is involved in IL-1β signaling. We compared sequences of IL-1β and IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL1RN), which is an IL-1β homologue but has no agonistic activity. Several surface-exposed Lys residues are present in IL-1β, but not in IL1RN. A disulfide linkage is present in IL1RN, but is not in IL-1β because of natural C117F mutation. Substitution of the Lys residues to Glu markedly reduced integrin binding of E128K IL-1β, suggesting that the Lys residues mediate integrin binding. The Lys mutations reduced, but did not completely abrogate, agonistic action of IL-1β. We studied whether the disulfide linkage plays a role in agonistic action of IL-1β. Reintroduction of the disulfide linkage by the F117C mutation did not affect agonistic activity of WT IL-1β, but effectively reduced the remaining agonistic activity of the Lys mutants. Also, deletion of the disulfide linkage in IL1RN by the C116F mutation did not make it agonistic. We propose that the direct binding to IL-1β to integrins is primarily important for agonistic IL-1β signaling, and that the disulfide linkage indirectly affects signaling by blocking conformational changes induced by weak integrin binding to the Lys mutants. The integrin-IL-1β interaction is a potential target for drug discovery.

The integrin-binding defective FGF2 mutants potently suppress FGF2 signalling and angiogenesis

We recently found that integrin αvβ3 binds to fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-αvβ31 (FGF1), and that the integrin-binding defective FGF1 mutant (Arg-50 to glutamic acid, R50E) is defective in signalling and antagonistic to FGF1 signalling. R50E suppressed angiogenesis and tumour growth, suggesting that R50E has potential as a therapeutic. However, FGF1 is unstable, and we had to express R50E in cancer cells for xenograft study, since injected R50E may rapidly disappear from circulation. We studied if we can develop antagonist of more stable FGF2. FGF2 is widely involved in important biological processes such as stem cell proliferation and angiogenesis. Previous studies found that FGF2 bound to αvβ3 and antagonists to αvβ3 suppressed FGF2-induced angiogenesis. However, it is unclear how FGF2 interacts with integrins. Here, we describe that substituting Lys-119/Arg-120 and Lys-125 residues in the predicted integrin-binding interface of FGF2 to glutamic acid (the K119E/R120E and K125E mutations) effectively reduced integrin binding to FGF2. These FGF2 mutants were defective in signalling functions (ERK1/2 activation and DNA synthesis) in NIH3T3 cells. Notably they suppressed, FGF2 signalling induced by WT FGF2 in endothelial cells, suggesting that the FGF2 mutants are antagonists. The FGF2 mutants effectively suppressed tube formation in vitro, sprouting in aorta ring assays ex vivo and angiogenesis in vivo The positions of amino acids critical for integrin binding are different between FGF1 and FGF2, suggesting that they do not interact with integrins in the same manner. The newly developed FGF2 mutants have potential as anti-angiogenic agents and useful tools for studying the role of integrins in FGF2 signalling.

Crosstalk between insulin-like growth factor (IGF) receptor and integrins through direct integrin binding to IGF1

It has been generally accepted that integrin cell adhesion receptors are involved in growth factor signaling (integrin-growth factor crosstalk), since antagonists to integrins often suppress growth factor signaling. Partly because integrins have been originally identified as cell adhesion receptors to extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins, current models of the crosstalk between IGF1 and integrins propose that ECM ligands (e.g., vitronectin) bind to integrins and IGF1 binds to IGF receptor type 1 (IGF1R), and two separate signals merge inside the cells. Our research proves otherwise. We discovered that IGF1 interacts directly with integrins, and induces integrin-IGF-IGF1R complex formation on the cell surface. IGF1 signaling can be detected in the absence of ECM (anchorage-independent conditions). Integrin antagonists block both ECM-integrin interaction and IGF-integrin interaction, and do not distinguish the two. This is one possible reason why integrin-IGF1 interaction has not been detected. With these new discoveries, we believe that the direct IGF-integrin interaction should be incorporated into models of IGF1 signaling. The integrin-binding defective mutant of IGF1 is defective in inducing IGF signaling, although the mutant still binds to IGF1R. Notably, the IGF1 mutant is dominant-negative and suppresses cell proliferation induced by wt IGF1, and suppresses tumorigenesis in vivo, and thus the IGF1 mutant has potential as a therapeutic.

Secreted Phospholipase A2 Type IIA (sPLA2-IIA) Activates Integrins in an Allosteric Manner

Secreted phospholipase A2 type IIA (sPLA2-IIA) is a well-established pro-inflammatory protein and has been a major target for drug discovery. However, the mechanism of its signaling action has not been fully understood. We previously found that sPLA2-IIA binds to integrins αvβ3 and α4β1 in human and that this interaction plays a role in sPLA2-IIA's signaling action. Our recent studies found that sPLA2-IIA activates integrins in an allosteric manner through direct binding to a newly identified binding site of integrins (site 2), which is distinct from the classical RGD-binding site (site 1). The sPLA2-IIA-induced integrin activation may be related to the signaling action of sPLA2-IIA. Since sPLA2-IIA is present in normal human tears in addition to rheumatoid synovial fluid at high concentrations the sPLA2-IIA-mediated integrin activation on leukocytes may be involved in immune responses in normal and pathological conditions.

Enhanced Expression of Integrin αvβ3 Induced by TGF-β Is Required for the Enhancing Effect of Fibroblast Growth Factor 1 (FGF1) in TGF-β-Induced Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) in Mammary Epithelial Cells

Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) plays a critical role in cancer metastasis, and is regulated by growth factors such as transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) and fibroblast growth factors (FGF) secreted from the stromal and tumor cells. However, the role of growth factors in EMT has not been fully established. Several integrins are upregulated by TGF-β1 during EMT. Integrins are involved in growth factor signaling through integrin-growth factor receptor crosstalk. We previously reported that FGF1 directly binds to integrin αvβ3 and the interaction was required for FGF1 functions such as cell proliferation and migration. We studied the role of αvβ3 induced by TGF-β on TGF-β-induced EMT. Here, we describe that FGF1 augmented EMT induced by TGF-β1 in MCF10A and MCF12A mammary epithelial cells. TGF-β1 markedly amplified integrin αvβ3 and FGFR1 (but not FGFR2). We studied if the enhancing effect of FGF1 on TGF-β1-induced EMT requires enhanced levels of both integrin αvβ3 expression and FGFR1. Knockdown of β3 suppressed the enhancement by FGF1 of TGF-β1-induced EMT in MCF10A cells. Antagonists to FGFR suppressed the enhancing effect of FGF1 on EMT. Integrin-binding defective FGF1 mutant did not augment TGF-β1-induced EMT in MCF10A cells. These findings suggest that enhanced integrin αvβ3 expression in addition to enhanced FGFR1 expression is critical for FGF1 to augment TGF-β1-induced EMT in mammary epithelial cells.

Proinflammatory secreted phospholipase A2 type IIA (sPLA-IIA) induces integrin activation through direct binding to a newly identified binding site (site 2) in integrins αvβ3, α4β1, and α5β1

Integrins are activated by signaling from inside the cell (inside-out signaling) through global conformational changes of integrins. We recently discovered that fractalkine activates integrins in the absence of CX3CR1 through the direct binding of fractalkine to a ligand-binding site in the integrin headpiece (site 2) that is distinct from the classical RGD-binding site (site 1). We propose that fractalkine binding to the newly identified site 2 induces activation of site 1 though conformational changes (in an allosteric mechanism). We reasoned that site 2-mediated activation of integrins is not limited to fractalkine. Human secreted phospholipase A2 type IIA (sPLA2-IIA), a proinflammatory protein, binds to integrins αvβ3 and α4β1 (site 1), and this interaction initiates a signaling pathway that leads to cell proliferation and inflammation. Human sPLA2-IIA does not bind to M-type receptor very well. Here we describe that sPLA2-IIA directly activated purified soluble integrin αvβ3 and transmembrane αvβ3 on the cell surface. This activation did not require catalytic activity or M-type receptor. Docking simulation predicted that sPLA2-IIA binds to site 2 in the closed-headpiece of αvβ3. A peptide from site 2 of integrin β1 specifically bound to sPLA2-IIA and suppressed sPLA2-IIA-induced integrin activation. This suggests that sPLA2-IIA activates αvβ3 through binding to site 2. sPLA2-IIA also activated integrins α4β1 and α5β1 in a site 2-mediated manner. We recently identified small compounds that bind to sPLA2-IIA and suppress integrin-sPLA2-IIA interaction (e.g. compound 21 (Cmpd21)). Cmpd21 effectively suppressed sPLA2-IIA-induced integrin activation. These results define a novel mechanism of proinflammatory action of sPLA2-IIA through integrin activation.

Fibroblast Growth Factor Signaling in Metabolic Regulation

The prevalence of obesity is a growing health problem. Obesity is strongly associated with several comorbidities, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, certain cancers, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes, which all reduce life expectancy and life quality. Several drugs have been put forward in order to treat these diseases, but many of them have detrimental side effects. The unexpected role of the family of fibroblast growth factors in the regulation of energy metabolism provides new approaches to the treatment of metabolic diseases and offers a valuable tool to gain more insight into metabolic regulation. The known beneficial effects of FGF19 and FGF21 on metabolism, together with recently discovered similar effects of FGF1 suggest that FGFs and their derivatives carry great potential as novel therapeutics to treat metabolic conditions. To facilitate the development of new therapies with improved targeting and minimal side effects, a better understanding of the molecular mechanism of action of FGFs is needed. In this review, we will discuss what is currently known about the physiological roles of FGF signaling in tissues important for metabolic homeostasis. In addition, we will discuss current concepts regarding their pharmacological properties and effector tissues in the context of metabolic disease. Also, the recent progress in the development of FGF variants will be reviewed. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current concepts and consensuses regarding FGF signaling in metabolic health and disease and to provide starting points for the development of FGF-based therapies against metabolic conditions.

An integrin binding-defective mutant of insulin-like growth factor-1 (R36E/R37E IGF1) acts as a dominant-negative antagonist of the IGF1 receptor (IGF1R) and suppresses tumorigenesis but still binds to IGF1R

Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF1) is a major therapeutic target for cancer. We recently reported that IGF1 directly binds to integrins (αvβ3 and α6β4) and induces ternary complex formation (integrin-IGF1-IGF1 receptor (IGF1R)) and that the integrin binding-defective mutant of IGF1 (R36E/R37E) is defective in signaling and ternary complex formation. These findings predict that R36E/R37E competes with WT IGF1 for binding to IGF1R and inhibits IGF signaling. Here, we described that excess R36E/R37E suppressed cell viability increased by WT IGF1 in vitro in non-transformed cells. We studied the effect of R36E/R37E on viability and tumorigenesis in cancer cell lines. We did not detect an effect of WT IGF1 or R36E/R37E in cancer cells under anchorage-dependent conditions. However, under anchorage-independent conditions, WT IGF1 enhanced cell viability and induced signals, whereas R36E/R37E did not. Notably, excess R36E/R37E suppressed cell viability and signaling induced by WT IGF1 under anchorage-independent conditions. Using cancer cells stably expressing WT IGF1 or R36E/R37E, we determined that R36E/R37E suppressed tumorigenesis in vivo, whereas WT IGF1 markedly enhanced it. R36E/R37E suppressed the binding of WT IGF1 to the cell surface and the subsequent ternary complex formation induced by WT IGF1. R36E/R37E suppressed activation of IGF1R by insulin. WT IGF1, but not R36E/R37E, induced ternary complex formation with the IGF1R/insulin receptor hybrid. These findings suggest that 1) IGF1 induces signals under anchorage-independent conditions and that 2) R36E/R37E acts as a dominant-negative inhibitor of IGF1R (IGF1 decoy). Our results are consistent with a model in which ternary complex formation is critical for IGF signaling.

A dominant-negative FGF1 mutant (the R50E mutant) suppresses tumorigenesis and angiogenesis

Fibroblast growth factor-1 (FGF1) and FGF2 play a critical role in angiogenesis, a formation of new blood vessels from existing blood vessels. Integrins are critically involved in FGF signaling through crosstalk. We previously reported that FGF1 directly binds to integrin αvβ3 and induces FGF receptor-1 (FGFR1)-FGF1-integrin αvβ3 ternary complex. We previously generated an integrin binding defective FGF1 mutant (Arg-50 to Glu, R50E). R50E is defective in inducing ternary complex formation, cell proliferation, and cell migration, and suppresses FGF signaling induced by WT FGF1 (a dominant-negative effect) in vitro. These findings suggest that FGFR and αvβ3 crosstalk through direct integrin binding to FGF, and that R50E acts as an antagonist to FGFR. We studied if R50E suppresses tumorigenesis and angiogenesis. Here we describe that R50E suppressed tumor growth in vivo while WT FGF1 enhanced it using cancer cells that stably express WT FGF1 or R50E. Since R50E did not affect proliferation of cancer cells in vitro, we hypothesized that R50E suppressed tumorigenesis indirectly through suppressing angiogenesis. We thus studied the effect of R50E on angiogenesis in several angiogenesis models. We found that excess R50E suppressed FGF1-induced migration and tube formation of endothelial cells, FGF1-induced angiogenesis in matrigel plug assays, and the outgrowth of cells in aorta ring assays. Excess R50E suppressed FGF1-induced angiogenesis in chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assays. Interestingly, excess R50E suppressed FGF2-induced angiogenesis in CAM assays as well, suggesting that R50E may uniquely suppress signaling from other members of the FGF family. Taken together, our results suggest that R50E suppresses angiogenesis induced by FGF1 or FGF2, and thereby indirectly suppresses tumorigenesis, in addition to its possible direct effect on tumor cell proliferation in vivo. We propose that R50E has potential as an anti-cancer and anti-angiogenesis therapeutic agent (“FGF1 decoy”).

Insulin-like growth factor (IGF) signaling requires αvβ3-IGF1-IGF type 1 receptor (IGF1R) ternary complex formation in anchorage independence, and the complex formation does not require IGF1R and Src activation

Integrin αvβ3 plays a role in insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) signaling (integrin-IGF1 receptor (IGF1R) cross-talk) in non-transformed cells in anchorage-dependent conditions. We reported previously that IGF1 directly binds to αvβ3 and induces αvβ3-IGF1-IGF1R ternary complex formation in these conditions. The integrin-binding defective IGF1 mutant (R36E/R37E) is defective in inducing ternary complex formation and IGF signaling, whereas it still binds to IGF1R. We studied if IGF1 can induce signaling in anchorage-independent conditions in transformed Chinese hamster ovary cells that express αvβ3 (β3-CHO) cells. Here we describe that IGF1 signals were more clearly detectable in anchorage-independent conditions (polyHEMA-coated plates) than in anchorage-dependent conditions. This suggests that IGF signaling is masked by signals from cell-matrix interaction in anchorage-dependent conditions. IGF signaling required αvβ3 expression, and R36E/R37E was defective in inducing signals in polyHEMA-coated plates. These results suggest that αvβ3-IGF1 interaction, not αvβ3-extracellular matrix interaction, is essential for IGF signaling. Inhibitors of IGF1R, Src, AKT, and ERK1/2 did not suppress αvβ3-IGF-IGF1R ternary complex formation, suggesting that activation of these kinases are not required for ternary complex formation. Also, mutations of the β3 cytoplasmic tail (Y747F and Y759F) that block β3 tyrosine phosphorylation did not affect IGF1R phosphorylation or AKT activation. We propose a model in which IGF1 binding to IGF1R induces recruitment of integrin αvβ3 to the IGF-IGF1R complex and then β3 and IGF1R are phosphorylated. It is likely that αvβ3 should be together with the IGF1-IGF1R complex for triggering IGF signaling.