Drosophila and mammalian models uncover a role for the myoblast fusion gene TANC1 in rhabdomyosarcoma

Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a malignancy of muscle myoblasts, which fail to exit the cell cycle, resist terminal differentiation, and are blocked from fusing into syncytial skeletal muscle. In some patients, RMS is caused by a translocation that generates the fusion oncoprotein PAX-FOXO1, but the underlying RMS pathogenetic mechanisms that impede differentiation and promote neoplastic transformation remain unclear. Using a Drosophila model of PAX-FOXO1–mediated transformation, we show here that mutation in the myoblast fusion gene rolling pebbles (rols) dominantly suppresses PAX-FOXO1 lethality. Further analysis indicated that PAX-FOXO1 expression caused upregulation of rols, which suggests that Rols acts downstream of PAX-FOXO1. In mammalian myoblasts, gene silencing of Tanc1, an ortholog of rols, revealed that it is essential for myoblast fusion, but is dispensable for terminal differentiation. Misexpression of PAX-FOXO1 in myoblasts upregulated Tanc1 and blocked differentiation, whereas subsequent reduction of Tanc1 expression to native levels by RNAi restored both fusion and differentiation. Furthermore, decreasing human TANC1 gene expression caused RMS cancer cells to lose their neoplastic state, undergo fusion, and form differentiated syncytial muscle. Taken together, these findings identify misregulated myoblast fusion caused by ectopic TANC1 expression as a RMS neoplasia mechanism and suggest fusion molecules as candidates for targeted RMS therapy.

Whereas most solid adult malignancies are epithelial carcinomas, solid childhood malignancies are often mesenchymal sarcomas. Soft tissue sarcomas account for 10% of all new pediatric malignancies, 50% of which are skeletal muscle–lineage rhabdomyosarcomas (RMS) (1, 2). Children with high-risk RMS endure a 3-year event-free survival rate of only 20% (3), emphasizing the need to uncover the molecular underpinnings of RMS neoplasia.

PAX-FOXO1–positive RMS (clinically termed alveolar RMS) is notoriously aggressive (4). The PAX-FOXO1 transcription factor (also known as PAX-FKHR) is generated by chromosomal translocations that fuse a PAX gene (PAX3 on chromosome 2 or PAX7 on chromosome 1) to FOXO1 on chromosome 13. Since the PAX3 and PAX7 transcription factors influence skeletal muscle development, PAX3/7 gene targets are postulated to underlie PAX-FOXO1 neoplasia (5).

To dissect PAX3/7-FOXO1 pathobiology, we have generated Drosophila PAX-FOXO1 models (6), since PAX molecules show striking evolutionary conservation (refs. 6–8 and Supplemental Figure 1; supplemental material available online with this article; doi: 10.1172/JCI59877DS1), and muscle development is similar between Drosophila and vertebrates. Misexpression of PAX3/7-FOXO1 in differentiating muscle tissue, an expression profile similar to a PAX3-FOXO1 tumorigenic mouse model (9), causes myoblast fusion defects that result in larval lethality. Although tumorigenesis is not observed, misfused PAX3/7-FOXO1 myogenic cells act aggressively, demonstrating an ability to infiltrate nonmuscle tissue compartments (6). Since these phenotypes are amenable to unbiased genetic modifier screening, we have been isolating new PAX-FOXO1 suppressors and enhancers (R.L. Galindo, unpublished observations). These modifiers, such as the myoblast fusion gene rolling pebbles (rols) reported here, are providing insight into the mechanisms underlying PAX-FOXO1 pathogenicity.

For these studies, we focused on a Drosophila chromosomal deletion, Df(3L)vin5, that dominantly suppresses PAX7-FOXO1–induced lethality (Supplemental Figure 2A). Human PAX7 demonstrates slightly higher sequence identity to Drosophila PAX3/7 than does human PAX3 and was therefore used here in flies. Df(3L)vin5 deletes segments 68A2–69A1 on chromosome 3, which includes the muscle-patterning gene rols, located at 68F1. rols encodes an essential adaptor molecule that links the Kirre transmembrane receptor with the machinery that drives myoblast cell-cell fusion and syncytial muscle formation; therefore, rols expression in the somatic mesoderm temporally coincides precisely with embryonic myoblast fusion (10–12). However, we found by mRNA expression profiling that rols is misexpressed in PAX7-FOXO1 larval muscle: it was reported as absent on control microarrays (n = 3), and expressed 3.6-fold above background on PAX7-FOXO1 arrays (n = 3) (R.L. Galindo, unpublished observations). Thus, we hypothesized that heterozygous deletion of the rols locus might account for Df(3L)vin5-mediated PAX7-FOXO1 suppression and that rols might act as a PAX7-FOXO1 target gene.

Of the 2 alternative transcripts expressed from the rols locus, only one of which is expressed in myoblasts (10–12); expression of the second is restricted to endodermal/ectodermal precursors. We tested 2 rols homozygous-lethal, P-element insertion loss-of-function alleles, P1027 and P1729, for suppression of PAX7-FOXO1. Of these 2 alleles, only the P1729 insertion disrupts expression of the myoblast rols transcript (10–12) (myoblast expression of rols is unperturbed in P1027); accordingly, only the rols^P1729 allele suppressed PAX7-FOXO1–induced lethality and muscle pathogenicity (Supplemental Figure 2, A and B).

To investigate whether rols acts as a downstream PAX-FOXO1 target, we used the daughterless-Gal4 transgene (commonly used in Drosophila to direct strong expression of UAS-transgenes in all cells throughout development) to drive ubiquitous embryonic expression of UAS-PAX7-FOXO1 and probed for Rols misexpression. Since native Rols expression initiates at embryonic stage 11 (10–12), we focused only on embryos stage 10 or earlier. Diffuse expression of PAX7-FOXO1 and Rols was observed in blastoderm (stage 4–5) embryos (Figure 1), which consist of uncommitted precursor cells, and expression persisted in all examined cells — including nonmyogenic ectodermal and endodermal cells — of gastrulated (stage 9–10) embryos (Supplemental Figure 3, A–D). Taken together, these Drosophila studies revealed that rols acts as a PAX7-FOXO1 downstream target gene, direct or indirect, and as a bona fide genetic effector.

Figure 1

PAX7-FOXO1 induces Rols misexpression in Drosophila. Whole-mount wild-type and daughterless-Gal, UAS-PAX7-FOXO1 (da>>PAX7-FOXO1) blastoderm embryos (anterior pole) were stained with anti–PAX7-FOXO1 and anti-Rols (red), and nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). Wild-type embryos displayed no PAX7-FOXO1 or Rols protein expression; daughterless-Gal, UAS-PAX7-FOXO1 embryos showed diffuse PAX7-FOXO1 (transcription factor) and Rols (cytoplasmic adaptor molecule) expression: whereas the latter was excluded from the nucleus, the former was found within both cytoplasm and nuclei. Original magnification, ×800.

To extend our studies from Drosophila to mammals, we first questioned whether rols myoblast fusion activity is evolutionarily conserved. In mammals, 2 orthologs of rols are present, tetratricopeptide-repeat, ankyrin-repeat, coiled-coil–containing protein 1(Tanc1) and Tanc2, neither of which has been studied in muscle. Since only Tanc1 is expressed in somites when myoblast fusion occurs (12), we hypothesized that Tanc1 is the functional ortholog. We turned to mouse C2C12 cultured myoblasts, which, when switched from growth to differentiation medium (DM), differentiate and fuse to form syncytial myotubes. Quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) confirmed that Tanc1 was expressed in C2C12 cells (Figure 2A) and that relative expression levels decreased 40% as differentiation proceeded (Supplemental Figure 4).

Figure 2

Tanc1 is essential for myoblast fusion, but not for myogenic differentiation. (A) qRT-PCR confirmed shRNA-mediated silencing of mouse Tanc1 (mTanc1). After 72 hours of transient transfection, constructs A6 and A10 were tested individually and in combination and compared with control cells transfected with a GFP hairpin. Tanc1 mRNA levels were normalized to β-actin, which did not change over the course of differentiation. Mean values are shown above bars. (B) Tanc1 silencing blocked myoblast fusion. Fusion indices were calculated (see Methods) for cells transfected with the Tanc1 hairpins or the control GFP hairpin. (C) Tanc1-silenced myoblasts differentiated into MHC-positive myocytes. Differentiation indices were calculated for C2C12 cells treated with the Tanc1 hairpins or the GFP hairpin. (D) Crystal violet stain of wild-type C2C12 cells and fusion-defective Tanc1-silenced cells. Arrows denote residual dye particles. (E) Unfused Tanc1-silenced C2C12 cells differentiated into MHC-positive myocytes. Cells were stained with MF-20 antibody and DAPI. For all transfections, a total of 10 μg DNA was used. Original magnification, ×400 (D and E). ***P < 0.001 vs. control.

We next used shRNAs to establish that Tanc1 activity is essential for myotube formation. We tested 2 separate constructs, A6 and A10, individually and in combination and used qRT-PCR to confirm mRNA knockdown (Figure 2A). Tanc1 silencing potently blocked the formation of syncytial myotubes in a dose-dependent manner (Figure 2, B, D, and E). Tanc1-silenced cells, however, still transitioned from round precursors to spindle-shaped cells (Figure 2, D and E), suggestive of successful myocyte differentiation. Immunofluorescence for muscle-specific myosin heavy chain (MHC; a marker of terminal differentiation) confirmed that Tanc1 shRNA–treated myoblasts successfully switched to a differentiated state (Figure 2, C and E). Thus, the mechanisms that drive cell-cell fusion uncouple from the myogenic signals that induce myocyte terminal differentiation.

Similar to the rols/PAX7-FOXO1 genetic interaction in Drosophila, Tanc1 was critical for PAX-FOXO1 pathogenicity in mammalian myoblasts. We used retroviral-mediated gene transfer to generate stable PAX3-FOXO1–expressing C2C12 myoblasts, as PAX3-FOXO1 is the more common RMS chimera and the form most often profiled in mammalian cells, and confirmed that PAX3-FOXO1 protein misexpression levels were comparable to human PAX3-FOXO1 RMS cultured cells (specifically, RMS-13 cells; Supplemental Figure 5; also shown is Drosophila larval PAX7-FOXO1 expression). We found that PAX3-FOXO1 induced overexpression of Tanc1 (Figure 3A) and that, like RMS cells, PAX3-FOXO1 myoblasts demonstrated neoplasia-related phenotypes, including impaired myogenic differentiation and an inability to form myotubes (Figure 3, B and C, and Supplemental Figure 6A). However, reducing Tanc1 expression back to normal levels markedly suppressed PAX3-FOXO1 pathogenicity, as transient transfection of Tanc1 shRNA into PAX3-FOXO1 myoblasts restored both differentiation and fusion potential (Figure 3, B and C). It is worth noting that in PAX3-FOXO1 cells, the A6 hairpin alone demonstrated the most effective rescue. Immunoblot analysis confirmed that PAX3-FOXO1 protein levels remained unchanged (Supplemental Figure 6B). Thus, Tanc1 is a critical PAX3-FOXO1 downstream effector.

Figure 3

TANC1 silencing rescues differentiation arrest and failed fusion of PAX3-FOXO1 cells and marks RMS tumor cells. (A–C) Tanc1 silencing in PAX3-FOXO1–infected mouse C2C12 cells. (A) Tanc1 shRNA treatment reduced Tanc1 expression to levels approximating those of GFP-infected control cells. Cells were treated with A6, A10, or A6 and A10 combined. (B) Tanc1-silenced cells differentiated and fused into MHC-positive myotubes. Differentiation and fusion indices were calculated as in Methods. (C) Tanc1-silenced cells showed restored differentiation and fusion. (D–F) TANC1 silencing in human PAX3-FOXO1 RMS-13 cells. (D) TANC1 shRNA reduced TANC1 expression compared with cells treated with GFP shRNA. (E and F) TANC1 silencing restored differentiation and fusion potential. (G) TANC1 immunohistochemistry in pediatric skeletal muscle. Scattered myofibers were positive for TANC1 protein. (H) TANC1 immunohistochemistry strongly highlighted PAX3-FOXO1 RMS. Malignant rhabdomyoblasts (arrows) were strongly positive for TANC1, whereas interwoven fibrovascular stroma (arrowheads) was negative. Arrows denote MHC-positive syncytial tissue. Original magnification, ×400 (C and F–H); ×1,000 (H, insets). In A and D, mean values are shown above bars. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 vs. control.

To determine whether Tanc1 overexpression itself perturbs myoblast fusion and/or differentiation, we again used retroviral-mediated gene transfer to generate C2C12 cells that constitutively overexpress Tanc1 (Supplemental Figure 7A). Like PAX3-FOXO1 cells, Tanc1-infected myoblasts were severely crippled with regard to myoblast fusion potential; however, unlike PAX3-FOXO1 cells, Tanc1 myoblasts differentiated normally into myocytes (Supplemental Figure 7B). These finding again show that fusion potential can be uncoupled from myocyte terminal differentiation.

We next turned to RMS-13 cells to establish that human TANC1 influences RMS. RMS-13 cells, similar to RMS myoblasts in vivo, exhibited little to no expression of MHC or fusion potential (Figure 3, E and F, and Supplemental Figure 8A). Treatment of RMS-13 cells with shRNA — the A6 and A10 hairpins, which target both mouse Tanc1 and human TANC1 — again reduced the relative expression of TANC1 mRNA as well as TANC1 protein steady-state levels, whereas PAX3-FOXO1 protein levels remained unchanged (Figure 3D and Supplemental Figure 8, A and B). When switched to DM, TANC1-silenced RMS-13 myoblasts transitioned from polygonal myoblasts to spindled cells (Supplemental Figure 8C), suggestive of differentiation into myocytes. Immunofluorescence confirmed that TANC1-silenced RMS-13 cells differentiated and fused to form MHC-positive syncytia (Figure 3, E and F). Consistent with these findings, TANC1-silenced RMS-13 cells showed markedly diminished oncogenicity, as demonstrated by decreased anchorage-independent growth and colony formation on soft agar (Supplemental Figure 8D).

Finally, immunohistochemistry showed that TANC1 protein was strongly expressed in PAX3-FOXO1 RMS tumors (n = 5; Figure 3H) compared with control childhood skeletal muscle tissue (n = 3; Figure 3G). These findings highlight the notion that TANC1 misexpression can be used to mark PAX-FOXO1 RMS tumor cells.

RMS model systems conveniently promote insights into not only neoplasia, but also muscle development. Although ultrastructural studies suggest that myoblast fusion biology is conserved (13–17), few of the Drosophila fusigenic genes have been identified as essential in mammals (13, 18–20), and none of these were from the founder subfamily. As the name implies, founder myoblasts are seminal to Drosophila myogenesis, uniquely dictating the location and physiology of each individual muscle (21). With rols and Tanc1, we have now shown that founder gene function is conserved in mammals and, furthermore, participates in human disease. How founder gene activity influences other forms of neuromuscular disease now becomes an intriguing issue.

Regarding RMS, we conclude that: (a) Tanc1 is essential for mammalian myoblast fusion, but is dispensable for the myogenic differentiation of wild-type cells; (b) PAX-FOXO1 signaling drives Tanc1 overexpression; (c) reducing rols/Tanc1/TANC1 activity suppresses gain-of-function PAX-FOXO1 pathogenicity in multiple independent model systems, highlighting TANC1 as a critical PAX-FOXO1 downstream effector; and (d) TANC1 activity and altered myoblast fusion mechanistically contribute to PAX-FOXO1 RMS.

Genetic screening in a Drosophila model and loss-of-function/gain-of-function studies in mammalian platforms have collaboratively uncovered a PAX-FOXO1→TANC1 neoplasia axis, a finding we believe to be novel. Our results also argue that the relationship between myogenesis transcription factor (e.g., MyoD) signaling and myoblast fusion genes is intricate. In the presence of altered fusion potential, both Drosophila (10–12) and mammalian myoblasts (present study) transition to differentiated myocytes, which suggests that later aspects of myogenesis signaling must uncouple from the TANC1 fusigenic pathway. Yet correcting PAX-FOXO1–mediated overexpression of rols/TANC1 rescued PAX-FOXO1–induced differentiation and arrest. These results intimate that correction of the TANC1 fusigenic axis feeds back to and rescues PAX-FOXO1–mediated misregulation of myogenic signaling, raising fascinating questions regarding the mechanisms by which this occurs. Our observation that PAX3-FOXO1 protein levels remained unchanged in TANC1-silenced cells argues that rescue does not originate from decreased expression of PAX3-FOXO1 from the PAX3 promoter. Thus, we speculate that rescue occurs epistatically downstream of PAX3-FOXO1.

Interestingly, myoblasts were remarkably sensitive to modest variations in TANC1 expression levels. A relatively wide range of rescue penetrance was observed for the 2 TANC1 shRNA hairpins and combined cocktail, even though the relative expression levels of mouse Tanc1 or human TANC1, when treated by the various shRNAs, differed by 38% and 35%, respectively. We note, however, that the relative levels of Tanc1 gene expression decreased only 40% over the normal course of differentiation. Thus, we favor the notion that a relatively precise requirement for appropriate TANC1 expression is biologically relevant for both myoblast fusion and RMS pathobiology.

Reprogramming neoplastic precursor cells to undergo terminal differentiation — commonly referred to as differentiation therapy — is of particular clinical interest, as it is often substantially less toxic than general chemotherapeutic agents (e.g., use of retinoic acid in acute promyelocytic leukemia). Conceptually, targeting the myoblast fusion pathway may represent a new avenue for PAX-FOXO1 RMS differentiation therapy, although whether an equivalent TANC1 axis participates in PAX-FOXO1–negative (i.e., embryonal) RMS remains a provocative question. Of note, Yang and colleagues have demonstrated that forced inhibition of MyoD in embryonal RMS cells prompts terminal differentiation (22). Therefore, RMS in general appears to be a clinically ripe candidate for differentiation therapy.

View Supplemental data

We are grateful to Thomas Gerald and Linh Tran for excellent technical support and Kristine Leos and Shama Khokhar for IHC support. We thank Mark Hatley, Rhonda Bassel-Duby, Diego Castrillon, and Eric Olson for manuscript review. This work was supported by the UTSW President’s Research Council, Children’s Cancer Fund (Dallas, Texas, USA), Burroughs Wellcome Career Award for Medical Scientists, and Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation “A” Award.

Address correspondence to: Rene L. Galindo, Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75390-9072, USA. Phone: 214.648.4116; Fax: 214.648.4070; E-mail: rene.galindo@utsouthwestern.edu.

Conflict of interest: The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

Reference information: J Clin Invest. 2012;122(1):403–407. doi:10.1172/JCI59877.

1. Loeb DM, Thornton K, Shokek O. Pediatric soft tissue sarcomas. Surg Clin North Am. 2008;88(3):615–627.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
2. Gurney J, Young J, Roffers S, Smith M, Bunin G. Soft tissue sarcomas. In: Ries LAG, Smith MA, Gurney JG, Linet M, Tamra T, Young JL, Bunin GR, eds. Cancer Incidence and Survival among Children and Adolescents: United States SEER Program 1975-1995, National Cancer Institute, SEER Program . Bethesda, Maryland, USA: NIH; 1999:111–124.
3. Hayes-Jordan A, Andrassy R. Rhabdomyosarcoma in children. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2009;21(3):373–378.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
4. Huh WW, Skapek SX. Childhood rhabdomyosarcoma: new insight on biology and treatment. Curr Oncol Rep. 2010;12(6):402–410.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
5. Wang Q, Fang WH, Krupinski J, Kumar S, Slevin M, Kumar P. Pax genes in embryogenesis and oncogenesis. J Cell Mol Med. 2008;12(6A):2281–2294.
6. Galindo RL, Allport JA, Olson EN. A Drosophila model of the rhabdomyosarcoma initiator PAX7-FKHR. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(36):13439–13444.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
7. Halder G, Callaerts P, Gehring WJ. Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila. Science. 1995;267(5205):1788–1792.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
8. Xue L, Li X, Noll M. Multiple protein functions of paired in Drosophila development and their conservation in the Gooseberry and Pax3 homologs. Development. 2001;128(3):395–405.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
9. Keller C, Arenkiel BR, Coffin CM, El-Bardeesy N, DePinho RA, Capecchi MR. Alveolar rhabdomyosarcomas in conditional Pax3:Fkhr mice: cooperativity of Ink4a/ARF and Trp53 loss of function. Genes Dev. 2004;18(21):2614–2626.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
10. Rau A, et al. rolling pebbles (rols) is required in Drosophila muscle precursors for recruitment of myoblasts for fusion. Development. 2001;128(24):5061–5073.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
11. Menon SD, Chia W. Drosophila rolling pebbles: a multidomain protein required for myoblast fusion that recruits D-Titin in response to the myoblast attractant Dumbfounded. Dev Cell. 2001;1(5):691–703.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
12. Chen EH, Olson EN. Antisocial, an intracellular adaptor protein, is required for myoblast fusion in Drosophila. Dev Cell. 2001;1(5):705–715.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
13. Kim S, et al. A critical function for the actin cytoskeleton in targeted exocytosis of prefusion vesicles during myoblast fusion. Dev Cell. 2007;12(4):571–586.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
14. Doberstein SK, Fetter RD, Mehta AY, Goodman CS. Genetic analysis of myoblast fusion: blown fuse is required for progression beyond the prefusion complex. J Cell Biol. 1997;136(6):1249–1261.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
15. Knudsen KA. Fusion of myoblasts. In: Hoekstra JWaD, ed. Membrane Fusion . New York, New York, USA: Marcel Decker; 1992:601–626.
16. Wakelam MJ. The fusion of myoblasts. Biochem J. 1985;228(1):1–12.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
17. Zhang S, Chen EH. Ultrastructural analysis of myoblast fusion in Drosophila. Methods Mol Biol. 2008;475:275–297.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
18. Vasyutina E, Martarelli B, Brakebusch C, Wende H, Birchmeier C. The small G-proteins Rac1 and Cdc42 are essential for myoblast fusion in the mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(22):8935–8940.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
19. Sohn RL, et al. A role for nephrin, a renal protein, in vertebrate skeletal muscle cell fusion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(23):9274–9279.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
20. Laurin M, Fradet N, Blangy A, Hall A, Vuori K, Cote JF. The atypical Rac activator Dock180 (Dock1) regulates myoblast fusion in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(40):15446–15451.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
21. Rochlin K, Yu S, Roy S, Baylies MK. Myoblast fusion: when it takes more to make one. Dev Biol. 2010;341(1):66–83.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
22. Yang Z, et al. MyoD and E-protein heterodimers switch rhabdomyosarcoma cells from an arrested myoblast phase to a differentiated state. Genes Dev. 2009;23(6):694–707.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar