Urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) is overexpressed in the tumor–stromal invasive microenvironment in many human cancers, including medulloblastoma. The role of uPAR in tumor progression and angiogenesis has been well characterized. Previously, in medulloblastoma cells, we showed that ionizing radiation (IR)–induced uPAR is a potent activator of cancer stem cell (CSC)–like properties and is associated with various transcription factors that are involved during embryonic development and cancer. In the present study, we show that uPAR protein acts as a cytoplasmic sequestration factor for a novel basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor, Hand-1. The Hand-1 protein plays an essential role in the differentiation of trophoblast giant cells and cardiac morphogenesis, and yet its precise cellular function and its contribution to cancer remain mostly unknown. We also observed that the Hand-1 protein is upregulated in uPAR short hairpin RNA–treated medulloblastoma cells and accompanies sustained cell growth and angiogenesis. Furthermore, IR-induced uPAR overexpression negatively regulates Hand-1 activity and results in the stabilization of angiogenesis-promoting molecules, including hypoxia-inducible factor-1α. Finally, uPAR overexpression and its association with Hand-1 after IR treatment indicate that uPAR is capable of regulating Hand-1 and that uPAR has a role in the process of IR-induced tumor angiogenesis. Mol Cancer Ther; 13(5); 1309–22. ©2014 AACR.

Medulloblastoma is the most frequent malignant brain tumor in children and adolescents (1). Following surgery and treatment with chemotherapy and radiation, medulloblastomas often recur as a consequence of a rare subpopulation of cells that exhibit stem cell properties such as self-renewal capacity and multilineage differentiation (2). Interestingly, these cancer stem cells (CSC) exist closer to tumor vasculature and interact physically with vascular endothelial cells (3). This highlights the fact that, to target the putative CSC vascular niche, it is first necessary to understand the mechanism by which CSCs are protected by tumor vasculature.

Urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) is part of a cell surface system that also consists of the serine protease uPA and several specific inhibitors (plasminogen activator inhibitors 1 and 2; refs. 4, 5). This system has classically been thought to drive tumor progression by mediating directed extracellular proteolysis on the surface of invading cancer cells (6). In addition to mediating proteolysis, several mechanistic studies demonstrated that uPAR also had a role in cancer cell survival, invasion, migration, and angiogenesis in vitro, and its knockdown showed reduced tumor burden in in vivo conditions (7–12). Recent data provided new insights into the role of uPAR to facilitate epithelial–mesenchymal transition and to induce CSC-like properties in medulloblastoma and breast cancer cells (13, 14). Downregulation of uPAR abolishes Notch 1 and WNT–β-catenin-pertinent gene expression and signaling events in cancer cells (13, 15). Although whether or not nonproteolytic function of uPAR requires uPA–uPAR interaction remains to be answered, it is clear that uPAR can promote tumor progression independent of its proteolytic function (13, 16).

The fact that uPAR lacks intracellular domain suggests that its signaling must be mediated through its coreceptors. Indeed, uPAR influences a range of biologic functions due to its ability to engage in multiple protein–protein interactions (13, 17–19), which emphasizes the possibility of other unidentified proteins that may interact with uPAR. In this study, we showed that uPAR associates with the basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) transcription factor (TF), Hand-1. Hand-1 induction in mouse embryonic stem cells promotes cellular differentiation (20), whereas uPAR is not required for mouse embryonic development, growth to adulthood, or reproduction (21), indicating that uPAR may have an acquired role in CSC maintenance. Our data suggest that the antagonistic activities of uPAR and Hand-1 in cancer cells must be closely regulated.

Hand-1 protein can form homo- and heterodimer combinations with multiple bHLH partners (22, 23), which reflects the mechanisms of Hand-1–mediated transcriptional activation in the nucleus. Furthermore, Hand-1 plays a functional role in vasculogenesis and embryonic survival by both transcriptional activation and suppression of thymosin β4 protein, which has been implicated in cell migration and angiogenesis (24). Here, we present evidence for a novel differential regulation of Hand-1 via the proposed interaction with a non-bHLH protein and uPAR, and we determined that aberrant uPAR expression in cancer cells can function as a repressor of Hand-1 transcriptional activity. In colon cancer, the hand-1 gene was shown to be epigenetically silenced and ectopic expression of Hand-1 caused significant repression of cancer cell growth when compared with normal colon cells (25, 26). Although little is known about the Hand-1 protein's role in cancer, identification of Hand-1 and the functional significance of its interactions are of interest in cancer cells. Our studies explored the functional role of uPAR in the negative regulation of Hand-1 activity in medulloblastoma tumor growth and angiogenesis.

Cell lines, transfection, and ionizing radiation

The medulloblastoma cell line D283 Med (HTB-185) was obtained from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). D425, D458, H2402, and H2405 cells were kindly provided by Dr. Darell D. Bigner (Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC); UW228 cells were kindly provided by Dr. Ali-Osman (Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC). These cells were authenticated on the basis of c-Myc amplification and chromosomal aberrations by the provider (27, 28). These cells were cultured and transfected following standard protocols (29, 30). Human microvascular endothelial cells (HMEC) were purchased from ATCC and cultured according to standard protocol (31). For combination treatments, an ionizing radiation (IR) dose of 6 Gy was given after 48 hours of transfection using the RS 2000 Biological Irradiator X-ray unit (Rad Source Technologies Inc.). Irradiated cells were further incubated for 24 hours.

Plasmids, short hairpin RNA construct, antibodies, inhibitor, and reagents

We used uPAR human cDNA cloned in pCMV6-AC vector (Origene) for full-length uPAR (FL-uPAR). We used Hand-1 human cDNA cloned in pDsRed Express-C1 vector (Clontech) for full-length Hand-1 (FL-Hand-1) overexpression. The cells overexpressing uPAR and Hand-1 in our study will be referred to as uPAROE and Hand-1OE cells, respectively. A monocistronic-pU construct designed to knock down uPAR was generated in our laboratory (32). A pCDNA3-scrambled vector with an imperfect sequence (pSV) was used as a control. An insertion mutation was introduced within the predicted monopartite nuclear localization signal (NLS) fragment of FL-Hand-1 plasmid using a QuikChange XL site-directed mutagenesis kit (Stratagene) and specific primers (Supplementary Table S1) following the manufacturer's instructions. This mutant plasmid was termed Hand-1 (ΔNLS). Antibodies such as anti-uPAR, Hand-1, DsRed, factor inhibiting HIF-1 (FIH-1), glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), tubulin, and lamin B were purchased from Santa Cruz Biotechnology; Myc-tag was purchased from Cell Signaling Technology; and hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1A) was purchased from Novus Biologicals. Recombinant human Hand-1 partial recombinant protein was purchased from Novus Biologicals. N-(methoxyoxoacetyl)-glycine methyl ester (DMOG) was purchased from Cayman Chemicals.

Establishment of stable cells overexpressing uPAR and Hand-1 (uPAROE and Hand-1OE)

Cells were transfected at 80% confluence in 6-well culture plates with FL-uPAR (with Myc-tagged or without Myc-tagged) and FL-Hand-1 (DsRed-tagged) constructs. The medium was replaced with normal growth medium and incubated for 48 hours. On day 3, cells were grown in 10 μg/mL neomycin (Cayman Chemicals) containing medium and the clones with stable expression of uPAR and Hand-1 were selected according to previously established protocols (13).

Subcellular protein fractionation, immunoblotting, and immunoprecipitation

Nuclear extracts and Triton X-114–mediated phase partitioning was performed according to standard protocol (33). Immunoprecipitation (IP) assays were carried out by incubating 800 μg of nuclear/cytoplasmic extracts with specific primary antibody (2 μg) overnight at 4°C on an end-to-end rotator following a previously established protocol (33). Immunoprecipitated proteins were immunoblotted using specific primary antibodies.

Ubiquitination assay

For the ubiquitination assay, whole cell lysates (500 μg protein/sample) were incubated with UbiCapture-Q Matrix (VWR International) by gentle agitation at 4°C overnight to pull down all ubiquitinated proteins according to the manufacturer's instructions. After washing three times, captured proteins were eluted with 2× SDS-PAGE loading buffer and analyzed by Western blotting using anti–HIF-1A antibody.

Immunocytochemistry and immunohistochemistry

For immunocytochemical analysis, treated cells were seeded onto 4-well chamber slides, fixed, permeabilized with ice-cold methanol, and blocked for 1 hour using 3% bovine serum albumin in PBS. Cells were incubated with primary antibody and Alexa Fluor–conjugated secondary antibody for 60 minutes at room temperature. Before mounting, the slides were washed with PBS and incubated for 5 minutes with a 1:100 dilution of 4′-6-diamidino-2-phenylindole for nuclear staining and analyzed using confocal microscopy (Olympus BX61 Fluoview) at 40× magnification. For immunohistochemical analysis, tissue sections (5–6 μm thick) were deparaffinized in xylene and rehydrated in graded ethanol solutions. Antigen retrieval was carried out with 10 mmol/L citrate buffer (pH 6) at boiling temperature for 60 minutes and permeabilization in 0.1% Triton-X-100. The tissue sections were incubated with primary antibodies for HIF-1A and FIH-1A, and then incubated with horseradish peroxidase–conjugated secondary antibodies, followed by 3,3′-diaminobenzidine (DAB) peroxidase substrate (Sigma) solution, counterstained with hematoxylin, and mounted. The images were captured with an Olympus BX61 fluorescent microscope attached with a CCD camera.

In vitro angiogenic assay

Angiogenic assay was performed as previously described (34) with minor modifications. HMECs (2 × 104 cells/well) were grown in the presence of cancer cell culture filtrates in 96-well plates coated with growth factor–reduced Matrigel and incubated for 16 hours at 37°C. The formation of capillary-like structures was captured. The degree of angiogenesis was quantified by the number of branch points per view and cumulative tube length.

Dorsal skin-fold chamber model

Athymic nude female mice (6903 F) obtained from Harlan Laboratories were maintained within a specific-pathogen, germ-free environment. The implantation technique of the dorsal skin-fold chamber model has been described previously (34). Briefly, diffusion chambers with control-, Hand-1OE–, or FL-uPAR–transfected stable cells (2 × 106) were placed subcutaneously in the skin through the superficial incision made horizontally along the edge of the dorsal air sac. After 10 days, the animals were anesthetized with ketamine/xylizine and sacrificed by intracardial perfusion with saline (10 mL) followed by 10 mL of 10% formalin/0.1 mol/L phosphate solution. The mice were carefully skinned around the implanted chambers, and the skin fold covering the chambers was photographed under a visible light microscope. The vascular length density was calculated by dividing the total vessel length in a frame by the area of the frame (35).

Surgical orthotopic implantation

D283 control and Hand-1OE stable cells (1 × 106) with or without IR treatment were injected intracerebrally into nude mice following previously established protocols (13). The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Peoria, IL, approved all surgical interventions and postoperative animal care (protocol #857, dated May 27, 2009 and renewed on June 30, 2012).

Chromatin immunoprecipitation, cloning, DNA sequencing, TF-binding site prediction, and TF interaction array

ChIP assay was performed using the ChIP-IT Express Kit from Active Motif, and cloning, DNA sequencing, TF-binding site prediction analysis were done following previously standardized protocol (13). TF protein interaction array versions I (MA3501) and II (MA3502) from Panomics were used to study protein–protein interactions between human recombinant uPAR (ruPAR; R&D Systems, Inc.) protein (bait) with Hand-1 and Hand-2 TF immobilized on membranes following the established protocol (13).

Reverse transcription PCR

Reverse transcription (RT)-PCR reactions were performed according to standard protocol using specific primers listed in Supplementary Table S1.

Electrophoretic mobility shift assays

Electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSA) was performed using 2 μg of nuclear extract and specific biotinylated probes (Supplementary Table S2) following the manufacturer's instructions (Panomics).

Statistical analysis

All the data presented (immunoblots, RT-PCR, and immunocytochemistry and immunohistochemistry) are representative of three independent experiments. All data are presented as means ± SE of at least three independent experiments. One-way ANOVA combined with a Tukey post hoc test of means was used for multiple comparisons. Statistical differences are presented at P ≤ 0.05, P ≤ 0.01, and P ≤ 0.001.

IR-induced uPAR is inversely associated with Hand-1 protein

uPAR is well known to establish multiple interactions with various proteins (36). Previously, from the TranSignal TF protein array, we found a number of factors that interacted with uPAR involved in neurogenesis during embryonic development and cancer (13). Here, we revealed one such most significant interacting factor, Hand-1 with recombinant uPAR (ruPAR) protein. However, we observed that ruPAR binds to the Hand-1 but not the Hand-2 protein (Fig. 1A). We then screened six different (UW228, D425, D283, D458, H2402, and H2405) medulloblastoma cell lines and found that while some (UW228, D425, D283, and H2402) expressed higher levels of uPAR and lower levels of Hand-1, whereas H2405 cells expressed higher levels of uPAR and Hand-1 and D458 cells expressed lower levels of uPAR and Hand-1 (Fig. 1B). Most of the medulloblastoma cell lines showed higher uPAR levels when compared with Hand-1, suggesting mutually negative regulation of their expression. Because the IR treatment induces overexpression of uPAR in medulloblastoma cells (13), we next asked whether Hand-1 expression is affected in IR-treated medulloblastoma cells. Consistent with our earlier reports, uPAR was found to be upregulated by IR treatment in a dose-dependent (up to 8 Gy) manner. Interestingly, we also observed a concurrent IR dose-dependent decrease in Hand-1 expression (Fig. 1C). Our previous studies reported that IR treatment induces the expression of uPAR and other CSC markers, thereby promoting cancer stemness (13). Here, we further observed that the addition of increasing concentrations of human recombinant stem cell factor increased uPAR levels while suppressing Hand-1 expression in UW228 cells (Supplementary Fig. S1A and S1B). These findings are suggestive of the negative regulation of Hand-1 in cancer stemness.

Figure 1.

uPAR is physically associated with Hand-1 in medulloblastoma cells. A, the human recombinant uPAR (ruPAR) was used as bait to immunoprobe TF, Hand-1, and Hand-2 using TranSignal TF protein array version I (MA3501) and II (MA3502). B, immunoblot analysis of cell lysate proteins (40 μg) from six medulloblastoma cell lines. The blots were developed using antibodies specific for uPAR and Hand-1; GAPDH was used as a loading control. C, immunoblot analysis of cell lysates from control (0 Gy) and IR-treated (1 to 8 Gy) UW228 and D283 cells. The immunoblots were developed using antibodies specific for uPAR and Hand-1; GAPDH was used as a loading control. D, immunocytochemistry analysis of control and IR-treated cells grown on chambered slides was immunoprobed for uPAR and Hand-1 (1:100) and incubated with secondary antibodies, conjugated with Alexa Fluor green (uPAR) and red (Hand-1) at a concentration of 1:200. Microscopic examination (Olympus BX61 Fluoview) was done at 40× magnification. E, co-IP of the cytoplasmic extracts obtained from uPAROE (Myc-tagged) control and IR-treated UW228 and D283 cells using anti-uPAR antibody. The immunoprecipitated proteins were immunoblotted against anti–Myc-tag and anti–Hand-1 antibodies. F, co-IP of cytoplasmic extracts obtained from Hand-1OE (DsRed-tagged) control and IR-treated UW228 and D283 cells using anti-DsRed antibody. The immunoprecipitated proteins were immunoblotted against anti–Hand-1 and anti-uPAR antibodies. The immunoblot and immunocytochemistry data are representative of three independent experiments.

Figure 1.

uPAR is physically associated with Hand-1 in medulloblastoma cells. A, the human recombinant uPAR (ruPAR) was used as bait to immunoprobe TF, Hand-1, and Hand-2 using TranSignal TF protein array version I (MA3501) and II (MA3502). B, immunoblot analysis of cell lysate proteins (40 μg) from six medulloblastoma cell lines. The blots were developed using antibodies specific for uPAR and Hand-1; GAPDH was used as a loading control. C, immunoblot analysis of cell lysates from control (0 Gy) and IR-treated (1 to 8 Gy) UW228 and D283 cells. The immunoblots were developed using antibodies specific for uPAR and Hand-1; GAPDH was used as a loading control. D, immunocytochemistry analysis of control and IR-treated cells grown on chambered slides was immunoprobed for uPAR and Hand-1 (1:100) and incubated with secondary antibodies, conjugated with Alexa Fluor green (uPAR) and red (Hand-1) at a concentration of 1:200. Microscopic examination (Olympus BX61 Fluoview) was done at 40× magnification. E, co-IP of the cytoplasmic extracts obtained from uPAROE (Myc-tagged) control and IR-treated UW228 and D283 cells using anti-uPAR antibody. The immunoprecipitated proteins were immunoblotted against anti–Myc-tag and anti–Hand-1 antibodies. F, co-IP of cytoplasmic extracts obtained from Hand-1OE (DsRed-tagged) control and IR-treated UW228 and D283 cells using anti-DsRed antibody. The immunoprecipitated proteins were immunoblotted against anti–Hand-1 and anti-uPAR antibodies. The immunoblot and immunocytochemistry data are representative of three independent experiments.

Close modal

Next, we compared the specific localization of Hand-1 with that of uPAR in control- and IR-treated UW228 and D283 cells. Consistent with previously published data, we found higher levels of Hand-1 in the nucleus, especially in the control cells, which is believed to lead to increased transcriptional activation (37). In contrast with control, we localized Hand-1 to the cytoplasmic fraction in IR-treated cells. In addition, Hand-1 and uPAR proteins were found to colocalize in the cytoplasm but were excluded from the nuclei in the IR-treated cells (Fig. 1D). This colocalization was confirmed by the co-IP experiments. Myc-tagged uPAR or DsRed-tagged Hand-1 was overexpressed (uPAROE/Hand-1OE) in both control- and IR-treated cells. Consistent with immunocytochemistry results, the co-IP of cytoplasmic extract proteins using anti-uPAR and the reverse pull down co-IP using anti-DsRed antibody confirmed the association between uPAR and Hand-1 (Fig. 1E and F). These experiments confirmed the physical interaction between uPAR and Hand-1 in the cytoplasmic extract, which was more prominent in the IR-treated cells. Unlike in the cytoplasmic extract, we could not detect any physical interaction in the nuclear extracts (data not shown).

Nuclear localization of Hand-1 correlates inversely with uPAR overexpression and IR treatment

Hand-1 is predominantly a nuclear protein and, upon closer inspection, showed a putative bipartite nuclear localization signal (NLS) at the C-terminus, RESKRKR [EL-VE] KRIKGR (Fig. 2A). To test the function of this putative NLS, we generated constructs for the expression of a series of DsRed fusion proteins (Fig. 2B). We transfected UW228 and D283 cells with these constructs and analyzed the subcellular localization of the DsRed fusion proteins by immunoblot (Fig. 2C) and immunocytochemistry (Fig. 2D) analysis. Consistent with the localization of endogenous Hand-1 in medulloblastoma cells, we found that DsRed-Hand-1 localized mainly to the nucleus. However, in IR-treated cells, DsRed-Hand-1 predominantly localized to the cytoplasm, recapitulating the cytoplasmic localization of endogenous Hand-1 observed in IR-treated cells. When we exogenously expressed the DsRed-Hand-1 (ΔNLS) truncation, we observed increased signal in the cytoplasm of control cells (Non-IR). Indeed, the mutant DsRed-Hand-1 (ΔNLS) protein showed cellular localization similar to that of IR-treated cells (Fig. 1C), suggesting that the NLS element is important for nuclear and nucleolar localization of Hand-1. To further determine whether the above predicted sequence represented functional NLS, we examined the localization of the DsRed-NLS (Fig. 2D). When exogenously expressed in medulloblastoma cells, DsRed-Hand-1 localized nearly entirely throughout the nucleus including the nucleoli. This was in stark contrast to the control DsRed construct that was broadly distributed throughout the cell (Fig. 2D). Together, these results confirmed that Hand-1-NLS amino acid sequence represented a functional NLS.

Figure 2.

Hand-1 is differentially localized within the control and IR-treated cells. A, schematic representation of NLS sequence in the human Hand-1 (hHand-1) protein identified using cNLS mapper. B, the predicted monopartite NLS sequence in the Hand-1 protein was cloned and the two lysines (K) at position 176 and 178 replaced by asparagine (N) residues are shown in the box. C, immunoblot analysis of cyoplasmic extract (CE) and nuclear extract (NE) proteins obtained from Hand-1 and Hand-1 (ΔNLS) overexpressing control and IR-treated (6 Gy) cells. The immunoblots were developed using antibodies specific for DsRed; tubulin and lamin B were used as loading controls for CE and NE, respectively. D, immunolocalization of DsRed in Hand-1, Hand-1 (ΔNLS), and Hand-1NLS expressing UW228 and D283 cells (C, cytoplasmic; N, nuclear). E, the Hand-1 ChIP was performed in Hand-1OE UW228 and D283 cells using a ChIP-IT express kit (Active Motif). The ChIP-eluted chromatin was subjected for cloning and sequencing (Eton Bioscience) analysis. The sequencing data from the clones were filtered using VecScreen, which interprets the contamination of vector sequences, and NCBI blast tool, which interprets the sequences from the human and other reference genomes. The ClustalW2 multiple sequence alignment program (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalw2/) was used to align the filtered sequences of all the clones. The VecScreen-primed sequences from different clones were analyzed further for the presence of possible putative TFBS using TRANSFAC 7.0. The authenticity of the TFBS was confirmed by other promoter-binding software tools; AlGGEN server PROMO (Version 3.0) and Transcription Element Search Software (TESS). The predicted Hand-1 TF-binding sites were confirmed by performing EMSA using nuclear extract (2 μg) of UW228 cells and biotinylated probes (Supplementary Table S2). The data are representative of three independent experiments.

Figure 2.

Hand-1 is differentially localized within the control and IR-treated cells. A, schematic representation of NLS sequence in the human Hand-1 (hHand-1) protein identified using cNLS mapper. B, the predicted monopartite NLS sequence in the Hand-1 protein was cloned and the two lysines (K) at position 176 and 178 replaced by asparagine (N) residues are shown in the box. C, immunoblot analysis of cyoplasmic extract (CE) and nuclear extract (NE) proteins obtained from Hand-1 and Hand-1 (ΔNLS) overexpressing control and IR-treated (6 Gy) cells. The immunoblots were developed using antibodies specific for DsRed; tubulin and lamin B were used as loading controls for CE and NE, respectively. D, immunolocalization of DsRed in Hand-1, Hand-1 (ΔNLS), and Hand-1NLS expressing UW228 and D283 cells (C, cytoplasmic; N, nuclear). E, the Hand-1 ChIP was performed in Hand-1OE UW228 and D283 cells using a ChIP-IT express kit (Active Motif). The ChIP-eluted chromatin was subjected for cloning and sequencing (Eton Bioscience) analysis. The sequencing data from the clones were filtered using VecScreen, which interprets the contamination of vector sequences, and NCBI blast tool, which interprets the sequences from the human and other reference genomes. The ClustalW2 multiple sequence alignment program (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalw2/) was used to align the filtered sequences of all the clones. The VecScreen-primed sequences from different clones were analyzed further for the presence of possible putative TFBS using TRANSFAC 7.0. The authenticity of the TFBS was confirmed by other promoter-binding software tools; AlGGEN server PROMO (Version 3.0) and Transcription Element Search Software (TESS). The predicted Hand-1 TF-binding sites were confirmed by performing EMSA using nuclear extract (2 μg) of UW228 cells and biotinylated probes (Supplementary Table S2). The data are representative of three independent experiments.

Close modal

Moreover, the anti–Hand-1 antibody–precipitated chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) DNA was isolated from UW228 and D283 cells, which were then cloned, sequenced, and analyzed. The ChIP analyses identified a number of short individual sequences that revealed E12/E47/MyoD, GATA-1, and c-Myb TF binding consensus sequences (Fig. 2E). Following this, to examine the role of Hand-1 in the aforementioned TF-mediated transactivation activity, we performed EMSA using double-stranded biotinylated oligos identified by ChIP. We observed that although IR treatment downregulated E12/E47/MyoD and GATA-1 activity, c-Myb activity was increased when compared with control cells. The incubation of nuclear extracts obtained from Hand-1–overexpressing (Hand-OE) cells and rHand-1–treated cells with anti–Hand-1 antibody induced a supershift in E12/E47/MyoD complex migration. These results are indicative of heterodimerization of Hand-1 with transcription factor E12/E47/MyoD, although not all the E12/E47/MyoD was bound to Hand-1. These experiments recapitulated previously published results demonstrating that both Hand-1 and Hand-2 proteins directly compete for dimerization with MyoD/E12 during embryogenesis (38). Indeed, Hand-1OE in medulloblastoma cells upregulated all of the TF-mediated transcriptional activity (Fig. 2E).

Hand-1 antagonizes the uPAR-induced angiogenesis and tumor growth

Both Hand-1 and uPAR proteins are implicated in angiogenesis. Hand-1 is required during normal angiogenesis for vascular smooth muscle recruitment to the endothelial tissue in the yolk sac (39). The abundance of uPAR on aggressive tumor cells relative to cells in otherwise normal states (40, 41) is considered to be a key angiogenic mediator contributing to pathologic angiogenesis. Using protein array analysis, we found increased expression of several proangiogenic factors in uPAROE cells relative to Hand-1OE cells. Interestingly, we observed a slight upregulation in uPA and FGF-2 levels in Hand-1OE cells when compared with uPAROE cells (Fig. 3A), suggesting their role in early embryogenesis and development (42–45). Earlier, we showed that increased expression of uPAR with IR treatment induces the angiogenic ability of medulloblastoma cells (7, 44). In addition, in the present study, we sought to confirm and expand on the findings of our previous work demonstrating similar increases in the angiogenesis network formation with IR treatment and uPAROE. We also observed that both short hairpin RNA (shRNA)-mediated uPAR knockdown (pU) and Hand-1OE in UW228 and D283 were associated with marked impairment of tumor angiogenesis (Fig. 3B). Similarly, the orthotopic implantation of D283-Hand-1OE cells in nude mice showed regression of tumor angiogenesis and growth as determined by dorsal air sac mice model (Fig. 3C) and bioluminescence imaging (Fig. 3D). Furthermore, the intravenous delivery of uPAROE plasmid alone and in combination with IR treatment aggravates vascular network formation and also increases tumor growth (Fig. 3C and D). We further show that Hand-1OE suppresses IR-induced tumor angiogenesis in both in vitro and in vivo experiments (Fig. 3B and C). Overall, our results indicate the antiangiogenic effect of Hand-1OE in medulloblastoma cells.

Figure 3.

Hand-1 overexpression inhibits angiogenesis tube-inducing ability of medulloblastoma cells. A, human angiogenesis antibody array (RayBio) to identify the expression levels of various chemokines in uPAROE and Hand-1OE UW228 cells. B, in vitro angiogenesis assay: control, uPAROE, and Hand-1OE medulloblastoma cells (UW228 and D283) were seeded in 100-mm petri dishes and left overnight. The control cells were transfected with either pSV or pU and cultured for 24 hours. The cells were incubated in serum-free medium, irradiated (6 Gy), and incubated further for 16 hours. The tumor cell culture filtrates were then collected and added into 96-well plates, which were coated with Matrigel and preseeded with HMEC (2 × 104 cells/well). After overnight incubation at 37°C, cells were observed under the bright field microscope for formation of capillary-like structures. The percentage of branch points times the branches was calculated and represented graphically. C, in vivo angiogenesis assay using the dorsal skin-fold model in nude mice as described in Materials and Methods. Ten days after implantation, the animals were sacrificed and the skin fold covering the diffusion chamber was observed under a stereo zoom dissection microscope (SZX12; Olympus) at 20× magnification for the presence of tumor-induced neovasculature. The vascular length density was calculated in treated and control animals by dividing the total vessel length in a frame by the area of the frame. Representative photomicrographs are observed in several fields of skin folds obtained from all the animals of respective group (n = 3). D, in vivo imaging of luciferase in nude mouse brains that were intracranially injected with control and IR-treated cells in combination with Hand-1OE and uPAROE. Representative images of animals from the indicated groups of animals are shown (n = 4).

Figure 3.

Hand-1 overexpression inhibits angiogenesis tube-inducing ability of medulloblastoma cells. A, human angiogenesis antibody array (RayBio) to identify the expression levels of various chemokines in uPAROE and Hand-1OE UW228 cells. B, in vitro angiogenesis assay: control, uPAROE, and Hand-1OE medulloblastoma cells (UW228 and D283) were seeded in 100-mm petri dishes and left overnight. The control cells were transfected with either pSV or pU and cultured for 24 hours. The cells were incubated in serum-free medium, irradiated (6 Gy), and incubated further for 16 hours. The tumor cell culture filtrates were then collected and added into 96-well plates, which were coated with Matrigel and preseeded with HMEC (2 × 104 cells/well). After overnight incubation at 37°C, cells were observed under the bright field microscope for formation of capillary-like structures. The percentage of branch points times the branches was calculated and represented graphically. C, in vivo angiogenesis assay using the dorsal skin-fold model in nude mice as described in Materials and Methods. Ten days after implantation, the animals were sacrificed and the skin fold covering the diffusion chamber was observed under a stereo zoom dissection microscope (SZX12; Olympus) at 20× magnification for the presence of tumor-induced neovasculature. The vascular length density was calculated in treated and control animals by dividing the total vessel length in a frame by the area of the frame. Representative photomicrographs are observed in several fields of skin folds obtained from all the animals of respective group (n = 3). D, in vivo imaging of luciferase in nude mouse brains that were intracranially injected with control and IR-treated cells in combination with Hand-1OE and uPAROE. Representative images of animals from the indicated groups of animals are shown (n = 4).

Close modal

Nuclear Hand-1 regulates tumor angiogenesis through a FIH-1–dependent mechanism

Next, to address the functional role of Hand-1 in uPAR-mediated angiogenesis, we performed a series of experiments using shRNA specific for uPAR (pU) and Hand-1OE plasmids in a panel of four human medulloblastoma cell lines. The pU, Hand-1OE, and Hand-1OE (ΔNLS) treatments showed increased Hand-1 mRNA expression by quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR). Interestingly, Hand-1 overexpression, in all treatments, led to a marked decrease in the mRNA levels of Hand-2. Furthermore, both shRNA-mediated depletion of uPAR and overexpression of Hand-1 in medulloblastoma cells led to decreased expression of HIF-1A, whereas levels of FIH-1 and tumor suppressor von Hippel–Lindau (VHL) were elevated (Fig. 4A–D). HIF-1 is an important regulatory factor in the initiation of angiogenesis and in radiotherapy response (46, 47). Hypoxia in tumor cells is known to regulate angiogenesis via activation of HIF-1A–mediated transcriptional upregulation of uPAR (48). Under normoxic conditions, HIF-1A is targeted for proteasomal degradation involving the E3 ubiquitin ligase complex containing VHL (49–51). Furthermore, FIH-1 inhibits the transactivation domain activity of HIF-1 by preventing HIF-1A binding to p300/CBP and also by directly interacting with HIF-1A (52–54). Interestingly, elevated levels of FIH-1 were detected with Hand-1 overexpression in all four medulloblastoma cell lines by using qRT-PCR and Western blot analysis. In contrast, overexpression of Hand-1 (ΔNLS) suppressed FIH-1 and resulted in upregulation of HIF-1A mRNA expression (Fig. 4A–D). These results indicate the role of nuclear Hand-1 in regulating FIH-1 expression.

Figure 4.

Hand-1 regulates FIH-1 biogenesis through a uPAR-dependent mechanism. RT-PCR and immunoblot analysis of shRNA specific for uPAR- (pU), Hand-1OE–, and Hand-1– (ΔNLS) transfected UW228 (A), D283 (B), D458 (C), and H2402 (D) medulloblastoma cells. The fold change to control cells was calculated using 2-ΔΔCt (in which ΔΔCT = ΔCT of treatment—ΔCT of control) from three independent experiments and is represented graphically (mean ± SE, n = 3; *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01, ***, P < 0.001; *, the significant increase when compared with control cells). E and F, analysis of 1463 bp 5′-flanking region of the human FIH-1 gene (EMBL accession number X166135) identified 8 putative bHLH-binding sites. qPCR amplicons covering R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, and R8 are indicated by black lines below. E, to investigate whether Hand-1 binding to the FIH-1 promoter is localized around these bHLH-binding sites, we used UW228 and D283 ChIP DNA immunoprecipitated by anti–Hand-1 antibody. Immunoprecipitated DNA was analyzed by semiquantitative RT-PCR using ChIP-specific primers covering FIH-1 promoter regions R1–R8 (primers are listed in Supplementary Table S3). F, the fold enrichment of Hand-1 interaction with different regions (R1–R8) in the FIH-1 promoter was quantified and represented graphically. The negative control anti-immunoglobulin G (IgG) ChIP DNA did not show any amplification with R1–R8 primers.

Figure 4.

Hand-1 regulates FIH-1 biogenesis through a uPAR-dependent mechanism. RT-PCR and immunoblot analysis of shRNA specific for uPAR- (pU), Hand-1OE–, and Hand-1– (ΔNLS) transfected UW228 (A), D283 (B), D458 (C), and H2402 (D) medulloblastoma cells. The fold change to control cells was calculated using 2-ΔΔCt (in which ΔΔCT = ΔCT of treatment—ΔCT of control) from three independent experiments and is represented graphically (mean ± SE, n = 3; *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01, ***, P < 0.001; *, the significant increase when compared with control cells). E and F, analysis of 1463 bp 5′-flanking region of the human FIH-1 gene (EMBL accession number X166135) identified 8 putative bHLH-binding sites. qPCR amplicons covering R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, and R8 are indicated by black lines below. E, to investigate whether Hand-1 binding to the FIH-1 promoter is localized around these bHLH-binding sites, we used UW228 and D283 ChIP DNA immunoprecipitated by anti–Hand-1 antibody. Immunoprecipitated DNA was analyzed by semiquantitative RT-PCR using ChIP-specific primers covering FIH-1 promoter regions R1–R8 (primers are listed in Supplementary Table S3). F, the fold enrichment of Hand-1 interaction with different regions (R1–R8) in the FIH-1 promoter was quantified and represented graphically. The negative control anti-immunoglobulin G (IgG) ChIP DNA did not show any amplification with R1–R8 primers.

Close modal

Most interestingly, we observed around 8 putative bHLH-binding sites in the promoter region of the human FIH-1 gene. To investigate whether Hand-1 binding to FIH-1 promoter was localized to these sites, we used UW228 and D283 ChIP DNA immunoprecipitated by anti–Hand-1 and anti-immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. ChIP was carried out by scanning the bHLH binding in the first 1463 bp 5′-flanking region of the human FIH-1 gene (EMBL accession number X166135) using semiquantitative qRT-PCR with primers for regions (R) named 1–8 (Fig. 4E). Hand-1 enrichment at R2 and R8 (P < 0.01), which includes three and one putative bHLH-binding sites respectively, was greater than at other regions containing bHLH- (R1, R5, and R6) or no bHLH- (R3, R4, and R7) binding sites (Fig. 4F). The coefficient of Hand-1 interaction to different bHLH-binding regions in the FIH-1 promoter indicated that Hand-1 may bind to FIH-1 promoter in a region detected by the R2 and R8 primers (Fig. 4F).

Hand-1 inhibits radiation-mediated HIF-1A activation and angiogenesis in vitro

Both VHL and FIH-1 specifically interact with HIF-1A, and overexpression of either protein is thought to inhibit angiogenesis as a result of decreased HIF-1–mediated VEGF expression (52). Therefore, we next examined the role of Hand-1–induced FIH-1 in the regulation of angiogenesis and HIF-1A–mediated transcriptional activation. To investigate this, we added DMOG, a potent inhibitor of FIH-1 asparaginyl hydroxylase activity (55), to Hand-1 and Hand-1 (ΔNLS) overexpressing cells. The addition of DMOG (200 μmol/L) stimulated angiogenesis network formation in Hand-1OE cells, whereas there was no significant change in Hand-1OE (ΔNLS) cells (Fig. 5A and B and Supplementary Fig. S1C). Experiments have also shown that DMOG induces stabilization of HIF-1A and downstream gene expression under hypoxic conditions (56).

Figure 5.

Hand-1 suppresses medulloblastoma cell angiogenesis in vitro. A, quantitative analysis of tube-forming ability of HMEC cells upon treatment with culture filtrates of Hand-1OE and Hand-1 (ΔNLS) cells treated with or without DMOG inhibitor. B, the percentage of branch points times the branches was calculated and represented graphically. C, monitoring HIF-1A activation as assessed by HIF-1 DNA binding in nuclear extracts (5 μg) using a TransAM assay kit (TransAM, HIF-1 Transcription Factor Assay Kit; Active Motif) following the manufacturer's protocol. Nuclear extract of CoCl2-treated HeLa cells (provided by the manufacturer) served as a positive control. D, to determine the activation of HIF-1A, immunoblot analysis of nuclear extract proteins (80 μg) was done using antibodies specific for HIF-1A; lamin B was used as a loading control. The VEGF-D protein was analyzed in culture filtrates (CF) by immunoblot. E, the control and Hand-1OE with or without IR-treated cells were lysed for ubiquitination assays to detect endogenous ubiquitinated HIF-1A protein. F, diagramatic representation of antagonistic activities of uPAR and Hand-1 signaling. The IR treatment induces uPAR expression and activates uPAR-dependent cell signaling. We showed that aberrant expression and stabilization of uPAR in IR-treated cells is associated with increased cytoplasmic sequestration of Hand-1 protein. This uPAR-mediated cytoplasmic anchoring of Hand-1 suppresses Hand-1 heterodimer-induced transcription of FIH-1 in the nucleus of IR-treated cells when compared with the nonirradiated control cells. In summary, we showed the negative regulation of Hand-1 by uPAR in IR-treated cells and its association with increased angiogenesis. In view of these findings, downregulation of uPAR or upregulation of Hand-1 accompanied by IR has significant therapeutic implications through the regulation of tumor growth and angiogenesis.

Figure 5.

Hand-1 suppresses medulloblastoma cell angiogenesis in vitro. A, quantitative analysis of tube-forming ability of HMEC cells upon treatment with culture filtrates of Hand-1OE and Hand-1 (ΔNLS) cells treated with or without DMOG inhibitor. B, the percentage of branch points times the branches was calculated and represented graphically. C, monitoring HIF-1A activation as assessed by HIF-1 DNA binding in nuclear extracts (5 μg) using a TransAM assay kit (TransAM, HIF-1 Transcription Factor Assay Kit; Active Motif) following the manufacturer's protocol. Nuclear extract of CoCl2-treated HeLa cells (provided by the manufacturer) served as a positive control. D, to determine the activation of HIF-1A, immunoblot analysis of nuclear extract proteins (80 μg) was done using antibodies specific for HIF-1A; lamin B was used as a loading control. The VEGF-D protein was analyzed in culture filtrates (CF) by immunoblot. E, the control and Hand-1OE with or without IR-treated cells were lysed for ubiquitination assays to detect endogenous ubiquitinated HIF-1A protein. F, diagramatic representation of antagonistic activities of uPAR and Hand-1 signaling. The IR treatment induces uPAR expression and activates uPAR-dependent cell signaling. We showed that aberrant expression and stabilization of uPAR in IR-treated cells is associated with increased cytoplasmic sequestration of Hand-1 protein. This uPAR-mediated cytoplasmic anchoring of Hand-1 suppresses Hand-1 heterodimer-induced transcription of FIH-1 in the nucleus of IR-treated cells when compared with the nonirradiated control cells. In summary, we showed the negative regulation of Hand-1 by uPAR in IR-treated cells and its association with increased angiogenesis. In view of these findings, downregulation of uPAR or upregulation of Hand-1 accompanied by IR has significant therapeutic implications through the regulation of tumor growth and angiogenesis.

Close modal

Local recurrence after radiation therapy is mediated, at least in part, by a hypoxic tumor microenvironment (57). Moreover, HIF-1 was identified to play a pivotal role in hypoxia-mediated radioresistance and provided a rational basis for targeting HIF-1 after radiation therapy (58, 59). Previous studies have shown that radiation treatment enhances HIF-1A expression in cancer cells (46, 60). We therefore first investigated whether IR treatment upregulates HIF-1 activity in medulloblastoma cells. We used the TransAM transcription factor assay Kit to determine the levels of activated HIF-1 in nuclear extracts of UW228 and D283 cells. We observed that with IR treatment, HIF-1 protein binds to an immobilized oligonucleotide probe containing the hypoxia responsive element, and its binding efficiency to this probe decreases with Hand-1OE and shRNA-mediated knockdown of uPAR (pU; Fig. 5C). These results demonstrate negative regulation of HIF-1 activation with Hand-1 overexpression. Quantification of HIF-1 reporter fluorescence intensity over time revealed that IR treatment caused a statistically significant increase in HIF-1 activity when compared with non–IR-treated controls. Again, the Hand-1OE (ΔNLS) cells demonstrated no changes in HIF-1 activation following IR treatment (Fig. 5C). To determine whether the observed activity data were reflective of actual changes in HIF-1 signaling, we studied the effect of IR on protein levels for both HIF-1 and cytokines expressed under its control. IR treatment resulted in a slight increase in the nuclear levels of HIF-1A protein, whereas it did lead to a marked increase in the secretion of HIF-1–regulated cytokine such as VEGF-D in medulloblastoma cells (Fig. 5D).

In normoxia, HIF-1A is rapidly degraded by the ubiquitin–proteasome system; under hypoxic conditions, however, this degradation is blocked. We examined HIF-1A stabilization in response to IR treatment alone and in combination with Hand-1OE and Hand-1OE (ΔNLS). To test for the possible ubiquitination of HIF-1A, we used the UbiQapture-Q Kit, which showed increased capture of HIF-1A protein with antiubiquitin antibody in control cells when compared with IR-treated D283 cells. These results indicate increased degradation of HIF-1A in control cells. Moreover, IR in combination with Hand-1OE also showed increased HIF-1A degradation when compared with IR-treated cells. In contrast, IR in combination with Hand-1OE (ΔNLS) showed no significant increase in HIF-1A degradation (Fig. 5E). All of these data suggest that Hand-1 has a functional role in the stabilization of HIF-1A.

Hand-1 overexpression suppresses radiation-induced HIF-1A expression in mouse brain tumors

We next sought to determine to what degree Hand-1OE regulates tumor radiosensitization. As shown above, Hand-1 upregulates the expression of an important protein called FIH-1 that targets HIF-1A. It would be informative to know whether Hand-1–induced FIH-1 expression regulates HIF-1A stabilization in mouse brain tumors. D283 cells were stably transfected with Hand-1OE plasmids followed by IR treatment, after which the cell suspension was implanted in the cerebellum of nude mice. Tumors were allowed to grow for 45 days and confirmed by hematoxylin and eosin staining (Fig. 6A). The IR-treated D283–Hand-1OE stable cells showed lower tumor growth and migration when compared with IR-treated control cells. Alternatively, the intravenous administration of full-length uPAROE plasmid inhibited the tumor suppressor property of Hand-1OE+IR–treated cells (Fig. 6A).

Figure 6.

Overexpression of Hand-1 sensitizes medulloblastoma tumor cells to IR. A, the intracerebral tumors were established by surgical orthotopic implantation of D283 control and Hand-1OE stable cells with or without IR treatment in nude mice. The mice were intravenously administered FL-uPAR plasmid on day 3 and day 5 of cancer cell implantation. Animals were monitored for 45 days, and then the mouse brains were fixed in 10% buffered formalin, and processed for paraffin embedding. Mouse brain tissue sections were subjected to hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining. The corresponding brain tissue sections were further analyzed through DAB staining to detect the basal expression levels of FIH-1 and HIF-1A (B) and immunostained using Alexa Fluor anti-uPAR (green) and anti–Hand-1 (red) secondary antibodies (C). Microscopic examination was done (Olympus BX61 Fluoview) at 40× magnification.

Figure 6.

Overexpression of Hand-1 sensitizes medulloblastoma tumor cells to IR. A, the intracerebral tumors were established by surgical orthotopic implantation of D283 control and Hand-1OE stable cells with or without IR treatment in nude mice. The mice were intravenously administered FL-uPAR plasmid on day 3 and day 5 of cancer cell implantation. Animals were monitored for 45 days, and then the mouse brains were fixed in 10% buffered formalin, and processed for paraffin embedding. Mouse brain tissue sections were subjected to hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining. The corresponding brain tissue sections were further analyzed through DAB staining to detect the basal expression levels of FIH-1 and HIF-1A (B) and immunostained using Alexa Fluor anti-uPAR (green) and anti–Hand-1 (red) secondary antibodies (C). Microscopic examination was done (Olympus BX61 Fluoview) at 40× magnification.

Close modal

We further performed DAB staining, which confirmed increased HIF-1A expression in IR and uPAROE treatments. Through DAB staining, we were able to observe several areas of FIH-1 staining within the nucleus which were more prominent in control and Hand-1OE tumors. The IR-treated tumors demonstrated lower levels of FIH-1 as well as its nuclear localization (Fig. 6B). In addition, immunofluorescence studies using Alexa Fluor–conjugated secondary antibody against Hand-1 (red) and uPAR (green) confirmed their association (yellow) in IR and uPAR overexpressing in vivo tumors (Fig. 6C). In control tumors, we observed increased Hand-1 and FIH-1 levels that were spread throughout the tumor region when compared with in vitro medulloblastoma cells (Supplementary Fig. S2). These results argue that radiation causes prominent HIF-1A upregulation in vivo when compared with in vitro, suggesting that an intact tumor–host interface may be required for this radioprotective response to occur.

The Hand-1 protein falls into a large phylogenetic group of transcriptional regulators referred to as the “bHLH family.” bHLH proteins exhibit the unique and important ability to regulate a variety of different transcriptional programs via the formation of homodimers or heterodimerization with several different bHLH partners (61, 62). This dimerization is a prerequisite for DNA binding to E-box (CANNTG). As a member of the bHLH class B (tissue-restricted) TFs, Hand-1 is capable of forming heterodimers with bHLH class A (near-ubiquitous) TFs (63) and may also form homodimers with other tissue-restricted bHLH proteins such as HEY and most closely related factor Hand-2 (38). Aside from its ability to dimerize with other nuclear proteins, the mechanism by which Hand-1 regulates transcription is complex and may require tertiary Hand-1 protein interactions with non-bHLH factors (64). However, little is known about the function of these dimers or, more importantly, how they are regulated in cancer cells.

Here, we describe the negative regulation of Hand-1 by a non-bHLH protein uPAR, a known activator of tumor progression and angiogenesis. Earlier, we correlated increased uPAR signaling with IR treatment, and found that its suppression caused reduced invasion and migration in medulloblastoma cells (7). We also showed that the overexpression of uPAR was associated with activation of WNT/β-catenin signaling and cancer stemness, which was enhanced upon radiation treatment (13). Furthermore, the role of uPAR in angiogenesis, inflammation, wound repair, and tumor progression is due to its ability to engage in multiple protein–protein interactions (19, 65–67), which indicates that uPAR is capable of regulating other molecules to a large extent. Numerous studies confirmed the stable localization of uPAR on the cell surface and cytoplasm of the malignant cells (68, 69). Very importantly, we identified HSP90β as the prominent interacting molecule in uPAR stabilization after IR treatment (13). In continuation of our previous study, we demonstrate that aberrant expression and stabilization of uPAR in IR-treated cells is associated with increased cytoplasmic sequestration of Hand-1 protein. As a result, the uPAR-mediated cytoplasmic anchoring of Hand-1 protein represses Hand-1 heterodimer-induced transcription in the nucleus and alters the regulation of angiogenesis-related processes (Fig. 5F). Previous studies of differential expression of vascular genes downstream of Hand-1 have indicated that Hand-1 is required for normal angiogenesis and extraembryonic vasculature development (39). However, there have been no conjectures into how Hand-1 might function at the level of direct downstream regulation of targets of angiogenesis.

We observed a synergistic increase in the expression of a major angiogenesis regulator, HIF-1A, in response to IR treatment. The literature has shown that HIF-1A activation promotes transcriptional activation of uPAR in cancer cells (48, 70, 71), thereby indicating that a mutual regulatory mechanism exists between HIF-1A and uPAR signaling mechanisms, which regulates the angiogenesis tube-inducing ability and adaptation to radiation treatment of both cancer cells and CSCs (Fig. 5F). The role of HIF-1A activation (46) and uPAR overexpression (7, 13) in enhancing tumor- and endothelial cell radioresistance has stimulated an increased interest in research to block these molecules to improve treatment efficacy.

Interestingly, we also observed for the first time that overexpression of Hand-1 and its localization in the nucleus were associated with increased transcription of FIH-1. We identified that the promoter region of FIH-1 possessed 8 putative bHLH-binding regions and that the Hand-1 binding to FIH-1 promoter was localized to these sites. Furthermore, the Hand-1–ChIP and EMSA analyses indicated that nuclear Hand-1 associates with E12/E47/MyoD, GATA-1, or c-Myb proteins and their respective consensus sequences. The results also indicate that it may mediate FIH-1 gene transcription. Earlier studies have suggested that FIH-1 along with VHL protein functions cooperatively to suppress HIF-1A–mediated transactivation under nonhypoxic conditions (52). The FIH-1 loss-of-function may also contribute to increased HIF-1–mediated transactivation of downstream target genes such as VEGF in gliomas and other human cancers (72, 73).

It is evident that Hand-1 facilitates adaptive reprogramming of gene expression in adult and embryonic cells in response to physiologic, pathologic, and external cues (23, 74, 75). All of our data and the functional redundancy reported thus far suggested a wide range of upstream signals/mediators that can regulate the localization and functioning of intracellular Hand-1. The increased expression of angiogenesis-promoting molecules such as HIF-1A/VEGF-D/uPAR among IR-treated cells has led us to relate their regulatory role in decreased Hand-1–mediated FIH-1 transcription. Further, we showed that upregulation of uPAR during pathologic angiogenesis is highly associated with decreased Hand-1 expression in medulloblastoma cells. We have discovered a novel function of Hand-1 in regulating angiogenesis. Overexpression of Hand-1 in cancer cells leads to the upregulation of FIH-1, which inhibits angiogenesis in vivo and in vitro. Furthermore, this inhibition of angiogenesis is mediated through the uPAR–HIF-1 pathway. Taken together, our results demonstrate that Hand-1 expression and its nuclear translocation suppress the growth and angiogenic potential of medulloblastoma cells. This suppression was found to be mediated by downregulation of uPAR. Our data show that IR treatment upregulated uPAR stabilization, possibly via HSP90 association, decreased accumulation of nuclear Hand-1, and consequently activated the HIF-1A target gene transcription such as VEGF-D. In conclusion, our study has demonstrated the antagonistic regulation of Hand-1 by uPAR in IR-treated cells and its association with increased angiogenesis (Fig. 5F). In view of these findings, downregulation of uPAR or upregulation of Hand-1 accompanied by IR has significant therapeutic implications through the regulation of tumor growth and angiogenesis.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Conception and design: S. Asuthkar, V.R. Gogineni, J.S. Rao, K.K. Velpula

Development of methodology: S. Asuthkar, K.K. Velpula

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): S. Asuthkar, K.K. Velpula

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): S. Asuthkar, J.S. Rao, K.K. Velpula

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: S. Asuthkar, V.R. Gogineni, J.S. Rao, K.K. Velpula

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): K.K. Velpula

Study supervision: J.S. Rao, K.K. Velpula

The authors thank Noorjehan Ali for her technical assistance, Debbie McCollum for article preparation, and Diana Meister and William Lee for article review.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Louis
DN
,
Ohgaki
H
,
Wiestler
OD
,
Cavenee
WK
,
Burger
PC
,
Jouvet
A
, et al
The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system
.
Acta Neuropathol
2007
;
114
:
97
109
.
2.
Visvader
JE
. 
Cells of origin in cancer
.
Nature
2011
;
469
:
314
22
.
3.
Calabrese
C
,
Poppleton
H
,
Kocak
M
,
Hogg
TL
,
Fuller
C
,
Hamner
B
, et al
A perivascular niche for brain tumor stem cells
.
Cancer Cell
2007
;
11
:
69
82
.
4.
Dass
K
,
Ahmad
A
,
Azmi
AS
,
Sarkar
SH
,
Sarkar
FH
. 
Evolving role of uPA/uPAR system in human cancers
.
Cancer Treat Rev
2008
;
34
:
122
36
.
5.
Ellis
V
,
Behrendt
N
,
Dano
K
. 
Plasminogen activation by receptor-bound urokinase A kinetic study with both cell-associated and isolated receptor
.
J Biol Chem
1991
;
266
:
12752
8
.
6.
Waltz
DA
,
Natkin
LR
,
Fujita
RM
,
Wei
Y
,
Chapman
HA
. 
Plasmin and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 promote cellular motility by regulating the interaction between the urokinase receptor and vitronectin
.
J Clin Invest
1997
;
100
:
58
67
.
7.
Nalla
AK
,
Asuthkar
S
,
Bhoopathi
P
,
Gujrati
M
,
Dinh
DH
,
Rao
JS
. 
Suppression of uPAR retards radiation-induced invasion and migration mediated by integrin beta1/FAK signaling in medulloblastoma
.
PLoS ONE
2010
;
5
:
e13006
.
8.
Kenny
HA
,
Leonhardt
P
,
Ladanyi
A
,
Yamada
SD
,
Montag
A
,
Im
HK
, et al
Targeting the urokinase plasminogen activator receptor inhibits ovarian cancer metastasis
.
Clin Cancer Res
2011
;
17
:
459
71
.
9.
Mazar
AP
. 
Urokinase plasminogen activator receptor choreographs multiple ligand interactions: implications for tumor progression and therapy
.
Clin Cancer Res
2008
;
14
:
5649
55
.
10.
Zhang
J
,
Sud
S
,
Mizutani
K
,
Gyetko
MR
,
Pienta
KJ
. 
Activation of urokinase plasminogen activator and its receptor axis is essential for macrophage infiltration in a prostate cancer mouse model
.
Neoplasia
2011
;
13
:
23
30
.
11.
Gondi
CS
,
Kandhukuri
N
,
Dinh
DH
,
Gujrati
M
,
Rao
JS
. 
Down-regulation of uPAR and uPA activates caspase-mediated apoptosis and inhibits the PI3K/AKT pathway
.
Int J Oncol
2007
;
31
:
19
27
.
12.
Margheri
F
,
Chilla
A
,
Laurenzana
A
,
Serrati
S
,
Mazzanti
B
,
Saccardi
R
, et al
Endothelial progenitor cell-dependent angiogenesis requires localization of the full-length form of uPAR in caveolae
.
Blood
2011
;
118
:
3743
55
.
13.
Asuthkar
S
,
Gondi
CS
,
Nalla
AK
,
Velpula
KK
,
Gorantla
B
,
Rao
JS
. 
Urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR)-mediated regulation of WNT/beta-catenin signaling is enhanced in irradiated medulloblastoma cells
.
J Biol Chem
2012
;
287
:
20576
89
.
14.
Jo
M
,
Eastman
BM
,
Webb
DL
,
Stoletov
K
,
Klemke
R
,
Gonias
SL
. 
Cell signaling by urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor induces stem cell-like properties in breast cancer cells
.
Cancer Res
2010
;
70
:
8948
58
.
15.
Raghu
H
,
Gondi
CS
,
Dinh
DH
,
Gujrati
M
,
Rao
JS
. 
Specific knockdown of uPA/uPAR attenuates invasion in glioblastoma cells and xenografts by inhibition of cleavage and trafficking of Notch -1 receptor
.
Mol Cancer
2011
;
10
:
130
.
16.
Nusrat
AR
,
Chapman
HA
 Jr
. 
An autocrine role for urokinase in phorbol ester-mediated differentiation of myeloid cell lines
.
J Clin Invest
1991
;
87
:
1091
7
.
17.
Balsara
RD
,
Merryman
R
,
Virjee
F
,
Northway
C
,
Castellino
FJ
,
Ploplis
VA
. 
A deficiency of uPAR alters endothelial angiogenic function and cell morphology
.
Vasc Cell
2011
;
3
:
10
.
18.
Preissner
KT
,
Kanse
SM
,
May
AE
. 
Urokinase receptor: a molecular organizer in cellular communication
.
Curr Opin Cell Biol
2000
;
12
:
621
8
.
19.
Mekkawy
AH
,
de Bock
CE
,
Lin
Z
,
Morris
DL
,
Wang
Y
,
Pourgholami
MH
. 
Novel protein interactors of urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor
.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun
2010
;
399
:
738
43
.
20.
Hayashi
Y
,
Furue
MK
,
Tanaka
S
,
Hirose
M
,
Wakisaka
N
,
Danno
H
, et al
BMP4 induction of trophoblast from mouse embryonic stem cells in defined culture conditions on laminin
.
In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim
2010
;
46
:
416
30
.
21.
Bugge
TH
,
Suh
TT
,
Flick
MJ
,
Daugherty
CC
,
Romer
J
,
Solberg
H
, et al
The receptor for urokinase-type plasminogen activator is not essential for mouse development or fertility
.
J Biol Chem
1995
;
270
:
16886
94
.
22.
Hollenberg
SM
,
Sternglanz
R
,
Cheng
PF
,
Weintraub
H
. 
Identification of a new family of tissue-specific basic helix-loop-helix proteins with a two-hybrid system
.
Mol Cell Biol
1995
;
15
:
3813
22
.
23.
Scott
IC
,
Anson-Cartwright
L
,
Riley
P
,
Reda
D
,
Cross
JC
. 
The HAND1 basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor regulates trophoblast differentiation via multiple mechanisms
.
Mol Cell Biol
2000
;
20
:
530
41
.
24.
Smart
N
,
Dube
KN
,
Riley
PR
. 
Identification of Thymosin beta4 as an effector of Hand1-mediated vascular development
.
Nat Commun
2010
;
1
:
46
.
25.
Jin
B
,
Yao
B
,
Li
JL
,
Fields
CR
,
Delmas
AL
,
Liu
C
, et al
DNMT1 and DNMT3B modulate distinct polycomb-mediated histone modifications in colon cancer
.
Cancer Res
2009
;
69
:
7412
21
.
26.
Martinez
HJ
,
Ferraro
A
,
Sacchetti
S
,
Keller
S
,
De Martino
I
,
Borbone
E
, et al
HAND1 gene expression is negatively regulated by the High Mobility Group A1 proteins and is drastically reduced in human thyroid carcinomas
.
Oncogene
2009
;
28
:
876
85
.
27.
Bigner
SH
,
Friedman
HS
,
Vogelstein
B
,
Oakes
WJ
,
Bigner
DD
. 
Amplification of the c-myc gene in human medulloblastoma cell lines and xenografts
.
Cancer Res
1990
;
50
:
2347
50
.
28.
Ali-Osman
F
,
Stein
DE
,
Renwick
A
. 
Glutathione content and glutathione-S-transferase expression in 1,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea-resistant human malignant astrocytoma cell lines
.
Cancer Res
1990
;
50
:
6976
80
.
29.
Asuthkar
S
,
Velpula
KK
,
Nalla
AK
,
Gogineni
VR
,
Gondi
CS
,
Rao
JS
. 
Irradiation-induced angiogenesis is associated with an MMP-9-miR-494-syndecan-1 regulatory loop in medulloblastoma cells
.
Oncogene
Epub 2013 Jun 3
.
30.
Bhoopathi
P
,
Chetty
C
,
Dontula
R
,
Gujrati
M
,
Dinh
DH
,
Rao
JS
, et al
SPARC stimulates neuronal differentiation of medulloblastoma cells via the Notch1/STAT3 pathway
.
Cancer Res
2011
;
71
:
4908
19
.
31.
Kunigal
S
,
Lakka
SS
,
Gondi
CS
,
Estes
N
,
Rao
JS
. 
RNAi-mediated downregulation of urokinase plasminogen activator receptor and matrix metalloprotease-9 in human breast cancer cells results in decreased tumor invasion, angiogenesis and growth
.
Int J Cancer
2007
;
121
:
2307
16
.
32.
Lakka
SS
,
Gondi
CS
,
Dinh
DH
,
Olivero
WC
,
Gujrati
M
,
Rao
VH
, et al
Specific interference of uPAR and MMP-9 gene expression induced by double-stranded RNA results in decreased invasion, tumor growth and angiogenesis in gliomas
.
J Biol Chem
2005
;
280
:
21882
92
.
33.
Asuthkar
S
,
Nalla
AK
,
Gondi
CS
,
Dinh
DH
,
Gujrati
M
,
Mohanam
S
, et al
Gadd45a sensitizes medulloblastoma cells to irradiation and suppresses MMP-9-mediated EMT
.
Neuro Oncol
2011
;
13
:
1059
73
.
34.
Bhoopathi
P
,
Chetty
C
,
Gujrati
M
,
Dinh
DH
,
Rao
JS
,
Lakka
SS
. 
The role of MMP-9 in the anti-angiogenic effect of secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine
.
Br J Cancer
2010
;
102
:
530
40
.
35.
Levasseur
JE
,
Wei
EP
,
Raper
AJ
,
Kontos
AA
,
Patterson
JL
. 
Detailed description of a cranial window technique for acute and chronic experiments
.
Stroke
1975
;
6
:
308
17
.
36.
Ragno
P
. 
The urokinase receptor: a ligand or a receptor? Story of a sociable molecule
.
Cell Mol Life Sci
2006
;
63
:
1028
37
.
37.
Martindill
DM
,
Risebro
CA
,
Smart
N
,
Franco-Viseras
MM
,
Rosario
CO
,
Swallow
CJ
, et al
Nucleolar release of Hand1 acts as a molecular switch to determine cell fate
.
Nat Cell Biol
2007
;
9
:
1131
41
.
38.
Firulli
BA
,
Hadzic
DB
,
McDaid
JR
,
Firulli
AB
. 
The basic helix-loop-helix transcription factors dHAND and eHAND exhibit dimerization characteristics that suggest complex regulation of function
.
J Biol Chem
2000
;
275
:
33567
73
.
39.
Morikawa
Y
,
Cserjesi
P
. 
Extra-embryonic vasculature development is regulated by the transcription factor HAND1
.
Development
2004
;
131
:
2195
204
.
40.
Politis
I
,
Zavizjon
B
,
Cheli
F
,
Baldi
A
. 
Expression of urokinase plasminogen activator receptor in resting and activated bovine neutrophils
.
J Dairy Res
2002
;
69
:
195
204
.
41.
Jardi
M
,
Ingles-Esteve
J
,
Burgal
M
,
Azqueta
C
,
Velasco
F
,
Lopez-Pedrera
C
, et al
Distinct patterns of urokinase receptor (uPAR) expression by leukemic cells and peripheral blood cells
.
Thromb Haemost
1996
;
76
:
1009
19
.
42.
Hadadeh
O
,
Barruet
E
,
Peiretti
F
,
Verdier
M
,
Bernot
D
,
Hadjal
Y
, et al
The plasminogen activation system modulates differently adipogenesis and myogenesis of embryonic stem cells
.
PLoS ONE
2012
;
7
:
e49065
.
43.
Zhang
X
,
Shu
MA
,
Harvey
MB
,
Schultz
GA
. 
Regulation of urokinase plasminogen activator production in implanting mouse embryo: effect of embryo interaction with extracellular matrix
.
Biol Reprod
1996
;
54
:
1052
8
.
44.
Dorey
K
,
Amaya
E
. 
FGF signalling: diverse roles during early vertebrate embryogenesis
.
Development
2010
;
137
:
3731
42
.
45.
Villegas
SN
,
Canham
M
,
Brickman
JM
. 
FGF signalling as a mediator of lineage transitions–evidence from embryonic stem cell differentiation
.
J Cell Biochem
2010
;
110
:
10
20
.
46.
Moeller
BJ
,
Cao
Y
,
Li
CY
,
Dewhirst
MW
. 
Radiation activates HIF-1 to regulate vascular radiosensitivity in tumors: role of reoxygenation, free radicals, and stress granules
.
Cancer Cell
2004
;
5
:
429
41
.
47.
Dewhirst
MW
,
Cao
Y
,
Li
CY
,
Moeller
B
. 
Exploring the role of HIF-1 in early angiogenesis and response to radiotherapy
.
Radiother Oncol
2007
;
83
:
249
55
.
48.
Buchler
P
,
Reber
HA
,
Tomlinson
JS
,
Hankinson
O
,
Kallifatidis
G
,
Friess
H
, et al
Transcriptional regulation of urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor by hypoxia-inducible factor 1 is crucial for invasion of pancreatic and liver cancer
.
Neoplasia
2009
;
11
:
196
206
.
49.
Salceda
S
,
Caro
J
. 
Hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha (HIF-1alpha) protein is rapidly degraded by the ubiquitin-proteasome system under normoxic conditions. Its stabilization by hypoxia depends on redox-induced changes
.
J Biol Chem
1997
;
272
:
22642
7
.
50.
Cockman
ME
,
Masson
N
,
Mole
DR
,
Jaakkola
P
,
Chang
GW
,
Clifford
SC
, et al
Hypoxia inducible factor-alpha binding and ubiquitylation by the von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor protein
.
J Biol Chem
2000
;
275
:
25733
41
.
51.
Semenza
GL
. 
Regulation of mammalian O2 homeostasis by hypoxia-inducible factor 1
.
Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol
1999
;
15
:
551
78
.
52.
Mahon
PC
,
Hirota
K
,
Semenza
GL
. 
FIH-1: a novel protein that interacts with HIF-1alpha and VHL to mediate repression of HIF-1 transcriptional activity
.
Genes Dev
2001
;
15
:
2675
86
.
53.
Kasper
LH
,
Boussouar
F
,
Boyd
K
,
Xu
W
,
Biesen
M
,
Rehg
J
, et al
Two transactivation mechanisms cooperate for the bulk of HIF-1-responsive gene expression
.
EMBO J
2005
;
24
:
3846
58
.
54.
Arany
Z
,
Huang
LE
,
Eckner
R
,
Bhattacharya
S
,
Jiang
C
,
Goldberg
MA
, et al
An essential role for p300/CBP in the cellular response to hypoxia
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1996
;
93
:
12969
73
.
55.
Lando
D
,
Peet
DJ
,
Gorman
JJ
,
Whelan
DA
,
Whitelaw
ML
,
Bruick
RK
. 
FIH-1 is an asparaginyl hydroxylase enzyme that regulates the transcriptional activity of hypoxia-inducible factor
.
Genes Dev
2002
;
16
:
1466
71
.
56.
Sasidharan
P
,
Heimler
R
. 
Transfusion-induced changes in the breathing pattern of healthy preterm anemic infants
.
Pediatr Pulmonol
1992
;
12
:
170
3
.
57.
Yoshimura
M
,
Itasaka
S
,
Harada
H
,
Hiraoka
M
. 
Microenvironment and radiation therapy
.
Biomed Res Int
2013
;
2013
:
685308
.
58.
Harada
H
,
Inoue
M
,
Itasaka
S
,
Hirota
K
,
Morinibu
A
,
Shinomiya
K
, et al
Cancer cells that survive radiation therapy acquire HIF-1 activity and translocate towards tumour blood vessels
.
Nat Commun
2012
;
3
:
783
.
59.
Thomlinson
RH
,
Gray
LH
. 
The histological structure of some human lung cancers and the possible implications for radiotherapy
.
Br J Cancer
1955
;
9
:
539
49
.
60.
Singh-Gupta
V
,
Zhang
H
,
Banerjee
S
,
Kong
D
,
Raffoul
JJ
,
Sarkar
FH
, et al
Radiation-induced HIF-1alpha cell survival pathway is inhibited by soy isoflavones in prostate cancer cells
.
Int J Cancer
2009
;
124
:
1675
84
.
61.
Massari
ME
,
Murre
C
. 
Helix-loop-helix proteins: regulators of transcription in eucaryotic organisms
.
Mol Cell Biol
2000
;
20
:
429
40
.
62.
Miller
LL
,
Lopes
JM
. 
Over-expression of the INO2 regulatory gene alters regulation of an INO1-lacZ reporter gene but does not affect regulation of INO1 expression
.
Curr Genet
2001
;
39
:
77
82
.
63.
Johnson
JE
,
Birren
SJ
,
Saito
T
,
Anderson
DJ
. 
DNA binding and transcriptional regulatory activity of mammalian achaete-scute homologous (MASH) proteins revealed by interaction with a muscle-specific enhancer
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1992
;
89
:
3596
600
.
64.
Hill
AA
,
Riley
PR
. 
Differential regulation of Hand1 homodimer and Hand1-E12 heterodimer activity by the cofactor FHL2
.
Mol Cell Biol
2004
;
24
:
9835
47
.
65.
Blasi
F
,
Carmeliet
P
. 
uPAR: a versatile signalling orchestrator
.
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol
2002
;
3
:
932
43
.
66.
Del Rosso
M
. 
uPAR in angiogenesis regulation
.
Blood
2011
;
117
:
3941
3
.
67.
Koshelnick
Y
,
Ehart
M
,
Hufnagl
P
,
Heinrich
PC
,
Binder
BR
. 
Urokinase receptor is associated with the components of the JAK1/STAT1 signaling pathway and leads to activation of this pathway upon receptor clustering in the human kidney epithelial tumor cell line TCL-598
.
J Biol Chem
1997
;
272
:
28563
7
.
68.
Jankun
J
,
Merrick
HW
,
Goldblatt
PJ
. 
Expression and localization of elements of the plasminogen activation system in benign breast disease and breast cancers
.
J Cell Biochem
1993
;
53
:
135
44
.
69.
de Witte
JH
,
Foekens
JA
,
Brunner
N
,
Heuvel
JJ
,
van Tienoven
T
,
Look
MP
, et al
Prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) in cytosols and pellet extracts derived from primary breast tumours
.
Br J Cancer
2001
;
85
:
85
92
.
70.
Ali
MA
,
Reis
A
,
Ding
LH
,
Story
MD
,
Habib
AA
,
Chattopadhyay
A
, et al
SNS-032 prevents hypoxia-mediated glioblastoma cell invasion by inhibiting hypoxia inducible factor-1alpha expression
.
Int J Oncol
2009
;
34
:
1051
60
.
71.
Yoon
SY
,
Lee
YJ
,
Seo
JH
,
Sung
HJ
,
Park
KH
,
Choi
IK
, et al
uPAR expression under hypoxic conditions depends on iNOS modulated ERK phosphorylation in the MDA-MB-231 breast carcinoma cell line
.
Cell Res
2006
;
16
:
75
81
.
72.
Semenza
GL
,
Jiang
BH
,
Leung
SW
,
Passantino
R
,
Concordet
JP
,
Maire
P
, et al
Hypoxia response elements in the aldolase A, enolase 1, and lactate dehydrogenase A gene promoters contain essential binding sites for hypoxia-inducible factor 1
.
J Biol Chem
1996
;
271
:
32529
37
.
73.
Zagzag
D
,
Zhong
H
,
Scalzitti
JM
,
Laughner
E
,
Simons
JW
,
Semenza
GL
. 
Expression of hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha in brain tumors: association with angiogenesis, invasion, and progression
.
Cancer
2000
;
88
:
2606
18
.
74.
Ekerot
M
,
Stavridis
MP
,
Delavaine
L
,
Mitchell
MP
,
Staples
C
,
Owens
DM
, et al
Negative-feedback regulation of FGF signalling by DUSP6/MKP-3 is driven by ERK1/2 and mediated by Ets factor binding to a conserved site within the DUSP6/MKP-3 gene promoter
.
Biochem J
2008
;
412
:
287
98
.
75.
Keyse
SM
. 
Dual-specificity MAP kinase phosphatases (MKPs) and cancer
.
Cancer Metastasis Rev
2008
;
27
:
253
61
.