Urinary detection of lung cancer in mice via noninvasive pulmonary protease profiling

Intrapulmonary protease-sensitive nanoparticles detect lung cancer as a urinary readout in two genetically engineered mouse models. Noninvasive nanoparticles for lung cancer Previously developed nanoparticle technology has been shown to detect the hallmark protease activity of many cancers, amplifying it into a urinary readout. Now, Kirkpatrick et al. optimize protease activity–based nanosensors for the detection of lung cancer. Intratracheal instillation of nanosensors enabled detection of localized lung adenocarcinoma in two immunocompetent, autochthonous mouse models. The sensors distinguished between lung cancer and lung inflammation, and did not detect protease activity in a colorectal cancer xenograft model. Further work will need to confirm the approach for human lung cancer and other lung cancer subtypes and to formulate the nanosensors for intrapulmonary delivery in patients. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death, and patients most commonly present with incurable advanced-stage disease. U.S. national guidelines recommend screening for high-risk patients with low-dose computed tomography, but this approach has limitations including high false-positive rates. Activity-based nanosensors can detect dysregulated proteases in vivo and release a reporter to provide a urinary readout of disease activity. Here, we demonstrate the translational potential of activity-based nanosensors for lung cancer by coupling nanosensor multiplexing with intrapulmonary delivery and machine learning to detect localized disease in two immunocompetent genetically engineered mouse models. The design of our multiplexed panel of sensors was informed by comparative transcriptomic analysis of human and mouse lung adenocarcinoma datasets and in vitro cleavage assays with recombinant candidate proteases. Intrapulmonary administration of the nanosensors to a Kras- and Trp53-mutant lung adenocarcinoma mouse model confirmed the role of metalloproteases in lung cancer and enabled accurate detection of localized disease, with 100% specificity and 81% sensitivity. Furthermore, this approach generalized to an alternative autochthonous model of lung adenocarcinoma, where it detected cancer with 100% specificity and 95% sensitivity and was not confounded by lipopolysaccharide-driven lung inflammation. These results encourage the clinical development of activity-based nanosensors for the detection of lung cancer.

[1]  Molly M. Stevens,et al.  Renal clearable catalytic gold nanoclusters for in vivo disease monitoring , 2019, Nature Nanotechnology.

[2]  Amin Aalipour,et al.  Engineered immune cells as highly sensitive cancer diagnostics , 2019, Nature Biotechnology.

[3]  C. Pritchard,et al.  Early detection of pre-malignant lesions in a KRASG12D-driven mouse lung cancer model by monitoring circulating free DNA , 2019, Disease Models & Mechanisms.

[4]  S. Bhatia,et al.  Protease activity sensors noninvasively classify bacterial infections and antibiotic responses , 2018, EBioMedicine.

[5]  S. Bhatia,et al.  Classification of prostate cancer using a protease activity nanosensor library , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  S. Bhatia,et al.  Harnessing Protease Activity to Improve Cancer Care , 2018 .

[7]  O. Elemento,et al.  Challenges in Using ctDNA to Achieve Early Detection of Cancer , 2017, bioRxiv.

[8]  E. Mohammadi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence , 2017, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[9]  Witold Rzyman,et al.  European position statement on lung cancer screening. , 2017, The Lancet. Oncology.

[10]  S. Bhatia,et al.  Ultrasensitive tumour-penetrating nanosensors of protease activity , 2017, Nature Biomedical Engineering.

[11]  James D. Brenton,et al.  Liquid biopsies come of age: towards implementation of circulating tumour DNA , 2017, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[12]  A. Kundaje,et al.  Molecular definition of a metastatic lung cancer state reveals a targetable CD109–Janus kinase–Stat axis , 2017, Nature Medicine.

[13]  Jos Jonkers,et al.  Genetically engineered mouse models in oncology research and cancer medicine , 2016, EMBO molecular medicine.

[14]  A. M. Houghton,et al.  Lung Cancer Subtypes Generate Unique Immune Responses , 2016, The Journal of Immunology.

[15]  Ivana V. Yang,et al.  Integrated Genomics Reveals Convergent Transcriptomic Networks Underlying Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. , 2016, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[16]  Birgit Kasch,et al.  Next Generation , 2016, Im OP.

[17]  S. Bhatia,et al.  Mathematical framework for activity-based cancer biomarkers , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  G. Silvestri,et al.  A Bronchial Genomic Classifier for the Diagnostic Evaluation of Lung Cancer. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  T. Afonyushkin,et al.  Alterations of lung microbiota in a mouse model of LPS-induced lung injury. , 2015, American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology.

[20]  Max Kuhn,et al.  caret: Classification and Regression Training , 2015 .

[21]  W. Huber,et al.  Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2 , 2014, Genome Biology.

[22]  Arash Naeim,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  Joana A. Vidigal,et al.  In vivo engineering of oncogenic chromosomal rearrangements with the CRISPR/Cas9 system , 2014, Nature.

[24]  S. Bhatia,et al.  Disease Detection by Ultrasensitive Quantification of Microdosed Synthetic Urinary Biomarkers , 2014, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[25]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  Comprehensive molecular profiling of lung adenocarcinoma , 2014, Nature.

[26]  Gabriel A Kwong,et al.  Point-of-care diagnostics for noncommunicable diseases using synthetic urinary biomarkers and paper microfluidics , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Ash A. Alizadeh,et al.  An ultrasensitive method for quantitating circulating tumor DNA with broad patient coverage , 2013, Nature Medicine.

[28]  David K. Wood,et al.  Nanoparticles That Sense Thrombin Activity As Synthetic Urinary Biomarkers of Thrombosis , 2013, ACS nano.

[29]  M. Gould,et al.  Risks of Transthoracic Needle Biopsy: How High? , 2013, Clinical pulmonary medicine.

[30]  O. Abudayyeh,et al.  Mass-encoded synthetic biomarkers for multiplexed urinary monitoring of disease , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[31]  Johannes E. Schindelin,et al.  Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis , 2012, Nature Methods.

[32]  D. Berry,et al.  Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. , 2012, JAMA.

[33]  C. Gatsonis,et al.  Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening , 2012 .

[34]  D. Hanahan,et al.  Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation , 2011, Cell.

[35]  T. Jacks,et al.  Conditional mouse lung cancer models using adenoviral or lentiviral delivery of Cre recombinase , 2009, Nature Protocols.

[36]  S. Lippman,et al.  Lung cancer. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[37]  Christine T. N. Pham,et al.  Neutrophil serine proteases: specific regulators of inflammation , 2006, Nature Reviews Immunology.

[38]  J. Mesirov,et al.  GenePattern 2.0 , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[39]  M. Daly,et al.  PGC-1α-responsive genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation are coordinately downregulated in human diabetes , 2003, Nature Genetics.

[40]  G. Elmberger,et al.  Aspartic proteinase napsin is a useful marker for diagnosis of primary lung adenocarcinoma , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[41]  L. Breiman Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[42]  Christine Brun,et al.  In silico prediction of protein-protein interactions in human macrophages , 2001, BMC Research Notes.

[43]  R. Khokha,et al.  Differential expression of matrix metalloproteinases and their inhibitors in non‐small cell lung cancer , 2000, The Journal of pathology.

[44]  L. Tanoue,et al.  Lung cancer screening. , 2015, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[45]  J. Mesirov,et al.  An oncogenic KRAS2 expression signature identified by cross-species gene-expression analysis , 2005, Nature Genetics.