Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Newest Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Subjects
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • License, Copyright, Fee
    • FAQ
    • Why Submit
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editors & Staff
    • Board Members
    • Licensing and Reuse
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Privacy Policy
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • LSA LLC
  • Alerts
  • Other Publications
    • EMBO Press
    • The EMBO Journal
    • EMBO reports
    • EMBO Molecular Medicine
    • Molecular Systems Biology
    • Rockefeller University Press
    • Journal of Cell Biology
    • Journal of Experimental Medicine
    • Journal of General Physiology
    • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
    • Genes & Development
    • Genome Research

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Life Science Alliance
  • Other Publications
    • EMBO Press
    • The EMBO Journal
    • EMBO reports
    • EMBO Molecular Medicine
    • Molecular Systems Biology
    • Rockefeller University Press
    • Journal of Cell Biology
    • Journal of Experimental Medicine
    • Journal of General Physiology
    • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
    • Genes & Development
    • Genome Research
  • My alerts
Life Science Alliance

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Newest Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Subjects
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • License, Copyright, Fee
    • FAQ
    • Why Submit
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editors & Staff
    • Board Members
    • Licensing and Reuse
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Privacy Policy
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • LSA LLC
  • Alerts
  • Follow lsa Template on Twitter
Research Article
Source Data
Transparent Process
Open Access

In vivo CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screen: TCEAL1 silencing enhances docetaxel efficacy in prostate cancer

Linda K Rushworth, Victoria Harle, Peter Repiscak, William Clark, Robin Shaw, View ORCID ProfileHolly Hall, Martin Bushell, View ORCID ProfileHing Y Leung  Correspondence email, Rachana Patel
Linda K Rushworth
1Institute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
2Cancer Research UK Beatson Institute, Glasgow, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Victoria Harle
1Institute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
2Cancer Research UK Beatson Institute, Glasgow, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Repiscak
1Institute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
2Cancer Research UK Beatson Institute, Glasgow, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William Clark
2Cancer Research UK Beatson Institute, Glasgow, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robin Shaw
2Cancer Research UK Beatson Institute, Glasgow, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Holly Hall
2Cancer Research UK Beatson Institute, Glasgow, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Holly Hall
Martin Bushell
1Institute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
2Cancer Research UK Beatson Institute, Glasgow, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hing Y Leung
1Institute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
2Cancer Research UK Beatson Institute, Glasgow, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Hing Y Leung
  • For correspondence: h.leung@beatson.gla.ac.uk
Rachana Patel
2Cancer Research UK Beatson Institute, Glasgow, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Published 8 October 2020. DOI: 10.26508/lsa.202000770
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • Metrics
  • Reviewer Comments
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Supplementary Materials
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1. In vivo whole genome CRISPR/Cas9 screen.

    (A) PTEN and SPRY2 genomic alterations in metastatic prostate cancer patients with taxane treatment (SU2C/PCF Dream Team, 2015). (B) Non-cystic prostate tumour weights from indicated mice at clinical end point (Pten−/−, n = 5; Pten−/− Spry2−/+, n = 6; *P < 0.05; Mann–Whitney test; mean values ± SD are shown). (C) Kaplan–Meier plot for overall survival of SP1 prostate orthograft bearing mice treated as indicated (log-rank Mantel–Cox test). (D) IHC quantification of Ki67 staining in SP1 prostate tumour orthograft sections from CD-1 nude immunocompromised mice treated as indicated (vehicle, n = 5; docetaxel, n = 4; *P < 0.05; Mann–Whitney test; mean values ± SD are shown). (E) Schematic of the workflow of the CRISPR drop-out screen, bioinformatics analysis and target validation. (F) Western blot images to confirm expression of Cas9 in whole cell lysates from SP1 cells transfected with Cas9-EGFP. α-tubulin is used as a loading control. (G) Western blot images to confirm expression of Cas9 cytoplasmic and nuclear extracts from FACS-sorted SP1 cells with stable Cas9-EGFP expression. Lamin B and α-tubulin were used as nuclear and cytosolic markers, respectively. (H) Schematic illustration of in vivo CRISPR/Cas9 screen. SP1 cells were stably transfected with Cas9-EGFP. After double FACS sorting, SP1 cells with stable expression of Cas9 were selected and amplified for the screen. GeCKO2 V2 whole genome sgRNA library A was used for lentiviral production and transduction of SP1 Cas9-EGFP cells. After 7 d of puromycin selection, the infected SP1 cells were injected in the anterior prostates of CD1-immunocompromised mice. After 7 d of recovery, mice were randomised and treated with vehicle (n = 9) or docetaxel (n = 5). (I) sgRNA transfected SP1 prostate orthograft burden in CD-1 nude immunocompromised mice treated as indicated (Vehicle, n = 9; docetaxel, n = 5; ns, not significant; Mann–Whitney test; mean values ± SD are shown).

    Source data are available for this figure.

    Source Data for Figure 1[LSA-2020-00770_SdataF1.pdf]

  • Figure S1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S1.

    Development of an orthograft model for a CRISPR/Cas9 screen. (A) Representative images of a prostate tumour from a Probasin-Cre Ptenfl/fl Spry2fl/+ mouse, SP1 primary cell line established from a prostate tumour, and SP1 prostate orthograft generated by injecting SP1 cells in the anterior prostate of a CD-1 nude immunocompromised mouse. Scale bars = 100 μm. (B) Western blot image of androgen receptor expression in SP1 cells. α-tubulin is used as a housekeeping gene. (C) Representative immunostained images of SP1 prostate orthograft sections from CD-1 nude immunocompromised mice treated as indicated (vehicle, n = 5; docetaxel, n = 4). Scale bar = 100 μm. (D) Detailed workflow of in vivo CRISPR/Cas9 screen.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2. Bioinformatics analysis identifies negatively selected genes.

    (A) Boxplot of the sgRNA-normalised read counts for the plasmid, pre-injection cells, and vehicle and docetaxel-treated tumour samples. Summary statistics shown are median, hinges for the 25th and 75th percentiles, whiskers extending from the hinges to the smallest/largest value no further than 1.5 × IQR from the hinge and “outlying” points. (B) Cumulative probability distribution of sgRNAs in the plasmid, pre-injection cells, and vehicle and docetaxel-treated tumour samples. Shift in the curves for vehicle and docetaxel-treated tumour samples represents the depletion in a subset of sgRNAs after injection and after injection and docetaxel treatment, respectively. Distributions for each condition are averaged across replicates. (C) Principle component analysis plot of plasmid (n = 1), cells (n = 1), and vehicle (n = 9) and docetaxel (n = 5)-treated tumour samples. Each dot represents one primary prostate tumour from the respective experimental groups. (D) Boxplot of sgRNA normalised read counts for each sgRNA detected for three selected significant (padj < 0.25) negatively selected genes in the mock and docetaxel treated samples. Summary statistics shown are median, hinges for the 25th and 75th percentiles, whiskers extending from the hinges to the smallest/largest value no further than 1.5 × IQR from the hinge and “outlying” points. (E) The indicated cell lines were transfected with non-targeting or targeting siRNA for 24 h before treatment with DMSO or docetaxel for a further 72 h. The number of cells was counted and the fold change compared with control is shown (n = 3 independent biological experiments, with three independent wells; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, ***P < 0.0001; one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test; mean values ± SD are shown).

  • Figure S2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S2.

    Negatively selected genes are identified by bioinformatics analysis. (A) Sample-to-sample Pearson correlation of normalised sgRNA reads counts for plasmid (n = 1), transduced SP1-Cas9 cells (n = 1), and vehicle (n = 9) and docetaxel (n = 5)-treated prostate tumour samples. (B) Representation of whole genome sgRNA library in different conditions. Top left plot represents ranked sgRNA abundance in plasmid. Remaining plots represent ranked log2FC relative to the plasmid for different conditions. Log2FC were calculated using values averaged across each condition. (C) Boxplot of sgRNA normalised read counts for each sgRNA detected for 14 of the significant (padj < 0.25) negatively selected genes in the vehicle and docetaxel treated prostate tumour samples. Summary statistics shown are median, hinges for the 25th and 75th percentiles, whiskers extending from the hinges to the smallest/largest value no further than 1.5 × IQR from the hinge and “outlying” points.

  • Figure S3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S3.

    Validation of negatively selected genes in prostate cancer cells. (A) qRT-PCR analysis of gene expression. The indicated cell lines were transfected with non-targeting or targeting pooled siRNA for 24 h before treatment with DMSO or docetaxel for a further 72 h. Casc3 was used as a reference gene for normalisation, and the fold change compared with control is shown (n = 3 independent biological experiments, with three independent wells). (B) SP1 cells were transfected with non-targeting or targeting pooled siRNA as indicated for 24 h before treatment with DMSO or docetaxel for a further 72 h. The number of cells was counted and the fold change compared with control is shown (upper panels). qRT-PCR analysis of gene expression (lower panels). Casc3 was used as a reference gene for normalisation, and the fold change compared with control is shown (RQ, relative quantitation; n = 3 independent biological experiments, with three independent wells; **P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, ***P < 0.0001; one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test; mean values ± SD are shown). (C) PC3M cells were transfected with non-targeting or targeting siRNA as indicated for 24 h before treatment with DMSO or docetaxel for a further 72 h. The number of cells was counted and the fold change compared with control is shown (top panels). qRT-PCR analysis of gene expression (lower panels). Casc3 was used as a reference gene for normalisation, and the fold change compared with control is shown (RQ, relative quantitation; n = 3 independent biological experiments, with three independent wells; **P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, ***P < 0.0001; one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test; mean values ± SD are shown).

  • Figure S4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S4.

    Analysis of the effects of TCEAL1 loss. (A) Western blot images of TCEAL1 expression in a panel of human prostate cell lines. HSC70 is used as a loading control (n = 3, a representative blot is shown). (B) PC3M cells were transfected with non-targeting (NT2, NT pool) or TCEAL1-targeting (individual [TCEAL1 2 and TCEAL1 3] or pooled [TCEAL1 pool]) siRNA as indicated for 24 h before treatment with DMSO for a further 72 h. The number of cells was counted and the fold change compared with NT2 control is shown (n = 3 independent biological experiments, with three independent wells; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, ns, not significant; one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s test; mean values ± SD are shown). Data presented in this panel was performed at the same time as that from Fig 3A. (C) RWPE cells were treated with non-targeting or TCEAL1 pooled siRNA as indicated for 24 h before treatment with DMSO or docetaxel for a further 72 h. Casc3 was used as a reference gene for normalisation, and the fold change compared with control is shown (RQ, relative quantitation; n = 3 independent biological experiments, with three independent wells). (D) Quantification of percentage of PC3M cells, treated as indicated, in each stage of the cell cycle (n = 3 independent biological experiments; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, ***P < 0.0001; one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test, mean values ± SD are shown). (E) PC3M cells were transfected with non-targeting or TCEAL1-targeting pooled siRNA for 24 h before treatment with DMSO or docetaxel for a further 48 h. RNA was extracted and sequenced. Principal Component Analysis plot of RNA sequencing data is shown (n = 4 independent biological experiments). (C, F) PC3M cells were treated as in (C). Heat map compares the fold change for each treatment condition with the control (non-targeting siRNA and DMSO) for each of the detected TCEAL gene family members (n = 4 independent biological experiments).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3. Analysis of TCEAL1 knockdown–mediated effects.

    (A) PC3M cells were transfected with non-targeting (NT2, NT pool) or TCEAL1-targeting (individual [TCEAL1 2 and TCEAL1 3] or pooled [TCEAL1 pool]) siRNA as indicated for 24 h before treatment with docetaxel for a further 72 h. The number of cells was counted and the fold change compared with NT2 control is shown (n = 3 independent biological experiments, with three independent wells; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.001; one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s test; mean values ± SD are shown). (A, B) PC3M cells were treated as panel (A). Western blot image of TCEAL1 expression after siRNA transfection. HSC70 is used as a loading control (n = 3, a representative blot is shown). (C) RWPE cells were transfected with non-targeting or TCEAL1-targeting pooled siRNA as indicated for 24 h before treatment with DMSO or docetaxel for a further 72 h. The number of cells was counted and the fold change compared with control is shown (n = 3 independent biological experiments, with three independent wells; ***P < 0.0001, **P < 0.001, ns, not significant; one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test; mean values ± SD are shown). (D) Cell cycle profiles of PC3M cells treated as indicated. Cells were transfected with either control (non-targeting) or TCEAL1-targeting pooled siRNA for 24 h before being synchronised by a double thymidine block. Cells were released into fresh media containing DMSO or docetaxel for 48 h. All cells were collected and fixed in ethanol. After fixation, cells were stained with propidium iodide and analysed using flow cytometry (n = 3 independent biological experiments, representative plots are shown). (E) Quantification of percentage of PC3M cells in all stages of the cell cycle as indicated (n = 3 independent biological experiments; *P < 0.01, **P < 0.001, ***P < 0.0001; one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test; mean values ± SD are shown). (F) Plot showing the top 20 enriched Gene Ontology biological processes for genes up-regulated upon TCEAL1 suppression. The colour of the bar details the enrichment score, and the x-axis is the P-value. Processes involved in the cell cycle are highlighted in red. (G) Plot showing the top 20 enriched Gene Ontology biological processes for genes down-regulated on TCEAL1 suppression. The colour of the bar details the enrichment score, and the x-axis is the P-value.

    Source data are available for this figure.

    Source Data for Figure 3[LSA-2020-00770_SdataF3.pdf]

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4. Transcriptome informed pathway analysis upon suppressed TCEAL1 expression combined with docetaxel treatment.

    (A) PC3M cells were transfected with non-targeting or TCEAL1-targeting pooled siRNA for 24 h before treatment with DMSO or docetaxel for a further 48 h. RNA was extracted and sequenced. Venn diagram shows the number of genes that had altered expression in the three treatment conditions compared with control samples (n = 4 independent biological experiments). (B) Plot showing the enriched gene sets after Gene Set Enrichment Analysis from RNA sequencing using the Hallmark gene sets. X-axis shows the sample condition, with the enriched gene sets on the left of the plot. The legend details triangle size relative to −log10 of the adjusted P-value (1.3 = −log100.05). Colour shows the Normalised Enrichment Score (NES) compared with the control (non-targeting siRNA and DMSO) (Doc = docetaxel treatment). (C) Enrichment plots of Hallmark E2F target genes (gene set size = 200) for each of the indicated treatment conditions (n = 4 independent biological experiments; NES, Normalised Enrichment Score, P.adjust = a Benjamini–Hochberg adjusted P-value). (D) qRT-PCR validation of selected E2F target genes. PC3M cells were transfected with non-targeting or TCEAL1-targeting pooled siRNA as indicated for 24 h before treatment with DMSO or docetaxel for a further 72 h. Casc3 was used as a reference gene for normalisation, and the fold change compared with control is shown (RQ, relative quantitation; n = 3 independent biological experiments; *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.0001; one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test; mean values ± SD are shown).

  • Figure S5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S5.

    Transcriptome analysis of TCEAL1 loss identified E2F target genes. (A) Heat map compares log10 fold change for each treatment condition with the control (non-targeting siRNA and DMSO) (n = 4 independent biological experiments). (B) qRT-PCR validation of selected E2F target genes. PC3M cells were transfected with non-targeting or targeting siRNA as indicated for 24 h before treatment with DMSO or docetaxel for a further 48 h. Casc3 was used as a reference gene for normalisation, and the fold change compared with control is shown (RQ, relative quantitation; n = 3 independent biological experiments, with three independent wells; *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.0001, ns, not significant; one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test; mean values ± SD are shown).

Tables

  • Figures
  • Supplementary Materials
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Significant (padj < 0.25) negatively selected genes.

    Gene symbolDetected sgRNAsGood sgRNAslog2 fold changeAdjusted P-value
    Tceal122−3.40.0267
    Gm1092132−2.60.0324
    Gm1005833−1.20.0324
    mmu-mir-466o22−2.40.0324
    Vmn1r10022−2.50.0324
    Cul922−4.30.0364
    0610010B08Rik33−1.90.0526
    Defa2522−1.50.0525
    Gm1428822−4.40.0525
    mmu-mir-669d22−3.50.0583
    Olfr52222−2.40.0642
    Mettl1022−4.90.0675
    5031410I06Rik33−3.60.1235
    Ccl21a33−1.30.1848
    Wdr7232−2.20.1848
    Hist1h2bc22−1.80.1848
    Gm291332−4.40.2331
    • Genes in bold have identifiable human orthologues. The number of detected sgRNAs (library A contained three sgRNAs for each gene and four sgRNAs per miRNA) is shown. “Good” sgRNAs is the number of detected sgRNAs that were negatively selected.

Supplementary Materials

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Table S1 Overview of sequencing data.

  • Table S2 Sequences of TCEAL1 sgRNAs in GeCKOv2 library A and their predicted off target effects.

  • Table S3 Percentages (±SD) of PC3M cells in the indicated stages of the cell cycle (n = 3 biological replicates).

  • Table S4 Expression of MDR genes after TCEAL1 knockdown.

  • Table S5 Statistics.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Life Science Alliance.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
In vivo CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screen: TCEAL1 silencing enhances docetaxel efficacy in prostate cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Life Science Alliance
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Life Science Alliance web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
In vivo CRISPR screen identifies TCEAL1 to enhance docetaxel
Linda K Rushworth, Victoria Harle, Peter Repiscak, William Clark, Robin Shaw, Holly Hall, Martin Bushell, Hing Y Leung, Rachana Patel
Life Science Alliance Oct 2020, 3 (12) e202000770; DOI: 10.26508/lsa.202000770

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
In vivo CRISPR screen identifies TCEAL1 to enhance docetaxel
Linda K Rushworth, Victoria Harle, Peter Repiscak, William Clark, Robin Shaw, Holly Hall, Martin Bushell, Hing Y Leung, Rachana Patel
Life Science Alliance Oct 2020, 3 (12) e202000770; DOI: 10.26508/lsa.202000770
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
Issue Cover

In this Issue

Volume 3, No. 12
December 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Cover (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Masthead (PDF)
Advertisement

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Materials and Methods
    • Data Availability
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • Metrics
  • Reviewer Comments
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Cancer

EMBO Press LogoRockefeller University Press LogoCold Spring Harbor Logo

Content

  • Home
  • Newest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Subject Collections

For Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Guidelines
  • License, copyright, Fee

Other Services

  • Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • Editors & Staff
  • Reviewer Guidelines
  • Feedback
  • Licensing and Reuse
  • Privacy Policy

ISSN: 2575-1077
© 2021 Life Science Alliance LLC

Life Science Alliance is registered as a trademark in the U.S. Patent and Trade Mark Office and in the European Union Intellectual Property Office.