RESEARCH ARTICLE

Open Access

Proteomic Changes Associated With Endogenous FBXW7 Mutations in Moderately Differentiated Endometrial Cancer Cells Include Increased TROP2 and Galectin-3 Levels

Mary Ellen Urick

orcid.org/0000-0002-1032-504X

Reproductive Cancer Genetics Section, Cancer Genetics and Comparative Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Suresh Kumar Chalapareddy,

Suresh Kumar Chalapareddy

Reproductive Cancer Genetics Section, Cancer Genetics and Comparative Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Eun-Jeong Yu,

Eun-Jeong Yu

orcid.org/0000-0002-2118-2128

Reproductive Cancer Genetics Section, Cancer Genetics and Comparative Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Daphne W. Bell,

Corresponding Author

Daphne W. Bell

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0001-7314-3932

Reproductive Cancer Genetics Section, Cancer Genetics and Comparative Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Correspondence:

Daphne W. Bell ([email protected])

Search for more papers by this author

Mary Ellen Urick,

Mary Ellen Urick

orcid.org/0000-0002-1032-504X

Reproductive Cancer Genetics Section, Cancer Genetics and Comparative Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Suresh Kumar Chalapareddy,

Suresh Kumar Chalapareddy

Reproductive Cancer Genetics Section, Cancer Genetics and Comparative Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Eun-Jeong Yu,

Eun-Jeong Yu

orcid.org/0000-0002-2118-2128

Reproductive Cancer Genetics Section, Cancer Genetics and Comparative Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Daphne W. Bell,

Corresponding Author

Daphne W. Bell

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0001-7314-3932

Reproductive Cancer Genetics Section, Cancer Genetics and Comparative Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Correspondence:

Daphne W. Bell ([email protected])

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 14 March 2025

https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.70765

Funding: This work was supported by National Institutes of Health, ZO1-HG200338.

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

ABSTRACT

Background

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in the US and the fifth leading cause of cancer death in this population. The FBXW7 tumor suppressor gene is frequently mutated in all molecular subtypes of EC. The encoded protein is part of a ubiquitin ligase complex that targets substrate proteins for ubiquitination and, in most instances, proteasome-mediated degradation.

Aims

The purpose of this investigation was to identify the proteomic changes associated with endogenous FBXW7 mutations in EC.

Materials & Methods

Quantitative LC–MS/MS was used to identify significant (p < 0.05) differences in the proteomes and phosphoproteomes of two FBXW7-mutated EC cell lines, HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} and JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C}, as compared to isogenic mutation-corrected cell lines. Western blotting was performed to orthogonally validate a subset of protein changes.

Results

Analysis of LC–MS/MS results identified 397 total proteins and/or phosphoproteins with significantly different levels in both HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} and JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C}, as compared to isogenic mutation-corrected cell lines. This protein set included increased levels of TROP2, galectin-3, ASS1, and PLCG2 in both HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} and JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C} cells; these perturbations orthogonally validated by western blotting.

Conclusion

This study provides novel insights into the proteomic and phosphoproteomic effects of the endogenous FBXW7^−R367X and FBXW7^−R505C mutations in EC cells, including increased levels of galectin-3, a potentially druggable target, and of TROP2, which is a druggable target in EC.

1 Introduction

Endometrial cancer (EC) is currently the fifth leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States (US) [1], and by 2040 it is expected to become the 4th leading cause of cancer death for US women [2]. Endometrioid ECs (EECs) are the most frequently diagnosed histological subtype, representing approximately 80% of new diagnoses and causing approximately 50% of EC deaths. The majority of non-endometrioid tumors are serous, clear cell, or metaplastic ECs (uterine carcinosarcomas). Endometrioid and serous ECs segregate across four prognostically distinct molecular subgroups in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA): copy number high/serous-like, microsatellite instability (MSI)/hypermutated, copy number low/microsatellite stable (MSS), and POLE/ultramutated ([3]; reviewed in [4]). The POLE/ultramutated subgroup had the best prognosis, and the copy number high/serous-like subgroup had the worst prognosis [3].

The FBXW7 tumor suppressor protein is a subunit of a ubiquitin ligase complex that regulates proteolytic and non-proteolytic ubiquitination of substrate proteins [5, 6]. The functional domains of FBXW7 include a C-terminal WD repeat region that mediates FBXW7-substrate binding. FBXW7 is one of the most frequently mutated genes in EC (reviewed in [4]). Somatic mutations in FBXW7 occur in 10%–12% of endometrioid, 15%–29% of serous, 10%–39% of clear cell, and 13%–25% of metaplastic ECs ([3, 7]; and reviewed in [4]). The R465, R479, and R505 residues within the WD repeats mediate binding of FBXW7 to proteins targeted for ubiquitination (reviewed in [5]), and are mutation hotspots in EC and in some other tumor types [8]. Studies in other cancer cell types have shown that FBXW7 hotspot mutants at residues R465 and R479 are dominant-negative mutants that fail to bind substrate proteins, resulting in elevated substrate levels [8].

Despite the frequent occurrence of FBXW7 mutations in EC and the pathogenicity of Fbxw7 deletion in a genetically engineered mouse model of uterine cancer [9], little is known regarding the functional consequences of FBXW7 mutations in the context of human EC cells. Because many FBXW7 substrates are oncoproteins that regulate gene transcription or signal transduction, we hypothesized that FBXW7 mutations in EC will result in altered levels of a myriad of proteins and post-translationally modified proteins, including phosphoproteins. We recently reported the proteomic and phosphoproteomic effects of knocking in the FBXW7-R465, -R479, or -R505 mutations into serous and high-grade EC cells [10-12]. Here, we aimed to determine the proteomic and phosphoproteomic effects of endogenous FBXW7 mutations in EC cells. Using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS), we profiled the proteomes and phosphoproteomes of two moderately differentiated EC cell lines (HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} and JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C}) and isogenic mutation-corrected cell lines that we previously generated by CRISPR-Cas9 editing [10, 12]. We identified 98 total proteins at significantly (p < 0.05) different levels in both HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} and JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C} cells as compared with the isogenic mutation-corrected cells. Intriguingly, we found that both of the endogenously mutated EC cell lines had significantly increased levels of TROP2 (Trophoblast Cell Surface Antigen 2), a druggable protein targeted by the antibody-drug conjugate Sacituzumab Govitecan (IMMU-132), which is currently being evaluated in a phase II clinical trial for the treatment of persistent or recurrent EC (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04251416) (See interim results at https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.6081).

2 Results

A comparison of mass spectrometry-detected protein levels in HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} parental cells to those in isogenic mutation-corrected cells revealed significantly different (p < 0.05) levels of 171 total proteins and 717 phosphorylated peptides (corresponding to 475 unique phosphorylated proteins), all of which were reproducibly altered in triplicate lysate preparations (Figure 1A,B, Tables S1 and S2). Among total proteins with significantly different levels in HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} parental cells compared to isogenic mutation-corrected cells, 17% (29/171) also exhibited significantly different levels of phosphoproteins; considering total and phosphorylated proteins combined, fold change > 5 was observed in 11% (67/617) of proteins (Figure 2). The significantly altered proteins and phosphoproteins observed between the HEC-1-B cell lines included 18% (17/94) of known and predicted FBXW7 substrates [13] (Figure S1), 7% (8/114) of proteins encoded by genes in an expression signature that predicts FBXW7 mutation status in human cancer [14] (Figure S2), 5% (22/456) of proteins encoded by orthologs of murine genes differentially expressed following re-introduction of Fbxw7 into uterine carcinosarcoma cells from Fbxw7/Pten deficient animals [9] (Figure S3), 3% (30/929) of proteins encoded by ubiquitin-related genes and 4% (4/95) of proteins encoded by deubiquitinating genes [15] (Figure S4).

Details are in the caption following the image — **FIGURE 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of normalized signal-to-noise or total proteome peptides exhibiting significantly (p < 0.05) different levels in (A) HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} and (C) JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C} mutant parental cells compared to isogenic mutation-corrected cells in replicate lysates prepared for each cell line. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of normalized abundance of filtered phosphorylated peptides exhibiting significantly (p < 0.05) different levels in (B) HEC-1-B^FBXW7-R367X and (D) JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C} parental cells compared to isogenic mutation-corrected cells in replicate lysates prepared for each cell line. Phosphopeptides shown met the following filtering criteria: ≥ ± 2.0 average fold change, maximum abundance > 1,000,000, and coefficient of variance (CV) ≤ 50% for peptides with ≤ 10 average fold change or CV ≤ 80% for peptides with > 10 average fold change. Fold change is not shown on this figure and was calculated within replicates, comparing values in isogenic mutation-corrected cells to parental cells. For each heatmap, the ordered (top to bottom) protein names are provided in Tables S5–S8 and fold change values are provided in Figures 2 and 3 and Tables S1–S4.

Comparing JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C} cells to the isogenic mutation-corrected cells, we found 2193 total proteins (including 2 isoforms for 9 proteins) and 3770 phosphorylated peptides (corresponding to 1926 unique phosphorylated proteins) that exhibited significantly different levels, all of which were reproducibly altered in triplicate lysate preparations (Figure 1C,D, and Tables S3 and S4). Among the total proteins with significantly different levels in JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C} cells compared to the isogenic mutation-corrected cells, 23% (513/2184) also exhibited significantly different levels of phosphorylation; among these proteins, 25.7% (132/513) have a fold change > 5 for the total protein level (Figure 3). Proteins and/or phosphoproteins present at significantly different levels between the JHUEM-1 cell lines included 57% (54/94) of known and predicted FBXW7 substrates [13] (Figure S1), and proteins corresponding to 40% (46/114) of genes in an expression signature that predicts FBXW7 mutation status [14] (Figure S2), 13% (61/456) of proteins encoded by orthologues of murine genes differentially expressed following re-introduction of Fbxw7 into uterine carcinosarcoma cells from Fbxw7/Pten deficient animals [9] (Figure S3), 25% (230/929) of ubiquitin-related genes and 24% (23/95) of deubiquitinating genes [15] (Figure S4).

We identified 397 phosphorylated and/or total proteins that exhibited significantly different levels in the FBXW7-mutant parental cell line compared to the isogenic mutation-corrected cell line for both HEC-1-B and JHUEM-1 (Figure 4). Ninety-eight proteins exhibited significantly different total protein levels in both HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} and JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C}, 40 of which exhibited higher levels in the FBXW7-mutant parental lines compared to the isogenic mutation-corrected lines (Figure 4); 40 of the remaining 58 proteins exhibited lower levels in the FBXW7-mutant parental lines compared to the isogenic CRISPR-edited FBXW7 non-mutant derivative lines. A majority (22/40) of the proteins exhibiting higher levels in FBXW7-mutant cells annotated to the gene ontology (GO) term vesicle (GO:0031982); the most significantly associated gene ontology terms were extracellular exosome (GO:0070062), extracellular vesicle (GO:1903561) and extracellular organelle (GO:0043230), which were all comprised of the same set of 18 proteins (ASS1, BCAM, BLVRA, CA2, CLN5, DNASE2, GLB1, HEXB, galectin-3 (LGALS3), LGALS3BP, MYH14, PADI2, PLCG2, PODXL, PPL, SCEL, SLPI, TROP2 (TACSTD2)) with significantly different levels in FBXW7-mutant HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} and JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C} cells compared to the isogenic mutation-corrected cell lines (Table S9). The gene ontology terms most significantly associated with proteins that exhibited lower levels in FBXW7-mutant cells were cytoskeletal protein binding (GO:0008092), protein localization to secretory granule (GO:0033366), transport vesicle (GO:0030133), and transport vesicle membrane (GO:0030658) (Table S10). GO terms that were most significantly associated with the 98 total proteins present at significantly different levels in both FBXW7-mutant cell lines were identical protein binding (GO:0042802), gamma-aminobutyric acid metabolic process (GO:0009448), neurotransmitter catabolic process (GO:0042135), and gamma-aminobutyric acid catabolic process (GO:0009450) (Table S11).

Ten significantly altered total proteins that increased in both HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} and JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C} mutant lines, compared to the isogenic mutation-corrected cells, exhibited a normalized fold change of ≥ 30-fold in JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C} cells (Figure 5A). We used Western blotting to orthogonally assess levels of six of these proteins (TROP2 (TACSTD2), galectin-3 (LGALS3), ASS1, PLCG2, AGR2, NaPi2b (SLC34A2)) for which antibodies were available from Cell Signaling Technology. Possibly due to the small fold change observed for AGR2 and NaPi2b (SLC34A2) in HEC-1-B^FBXW7-R367X (Figure 5A), and the differential sensitivities of LC–MS/MS and Western blotting, we did not observe increased levels of AGR2 (Anterior gradient protein 2 homolog) or NaPi2b (Sodium-dependent phosphate transport protein 2B) in HEC-1-B^FBXW7-R367X cells, compared to isogenic mutation-corrected cells (Figure S6). We confirmed increased levels of the remaining four proteins, namely TROP2 (Trophoblast cell surface antigen 2), galectin-3, ASS1 (Argininosuccinate synthase 1) and PLCG2 (Phospholipase C gamma 2), in HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} cells and of all six proteins in JHUEM-1^FBXW7-R505C cells, compared to isogenic mutation-corrected lines (Figure 5B, Figures S5 and S6).

3 Materials and Methods

3.1 Ethics Statement

The research conducted in this study was excluded from IRB Review per the Common Rule 45 CFR 46 and NIH policy for the use of specimens/data.

3.2 Cell Culture

HEC-1-B was originally established from a moderately differentiated papillary adenocarcinoma [16]. JHUEM-1 was established from a grade-2 EEC (URL: https://cellbank.brc.riken.jp/cell_bank/CellInfo/?cellNo=RCB1548). HEC-1-B EC cells were acquired from ATCC (HTB-113) and maintained in EMEM + 10% FBS at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere with 5% CO₂. JHUEM-1 EEC cells were purchased from Riken Bioresource Research Center and maintained in DMEM/HamF12 + 15% FBS at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere with 5% CO₂. Cells were authenticated by Laragen Inc. (Culver City, CA) using short tandem repeat profiling prior to shipment to the Washington University Genome Engineering and iPSC Center (GEIC; St. Louis, MO). All cell lines were verified mycoplasma free by the Washington University GEIC and re-authenticated by Laragen Inc. (Culver City, CA) at the time frozen stocks were established. Both cell lines were previously inferred to harbor microsatellite instability [17]; HEC-1-B was reported to have an FBXW7 deep deletion, while JHUEM-1 had no detectable FBXW7 copy number aberration [17].

3.3 Generation of CRISPR-Edited FBXW7 Non-Mutated Cell Lines

HEC-1-B and JHUEM-1 cells were CRISPR-edited by the GEIC at Washington University, St. Louis, to correct the endogenous FBXW7 c.C1099T (p.R367X) and c.C1513T (p.R505C) mutations, respectively, following methods published previously [11].

3.4 DNA Extraction, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Amplification and Sanger Sequencing

DNA was extracted using the Gentra Puregene Kit (Qiagen, Germantown, MD) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Verification of single mutations and wildtype status of all remaining coding exons of FBXW7 in JHUEM-1 and HEC-1-B parental cells and wildtype status of all FBXW7 coding exons of CRISPR-edited derivative lines (Figure S1) was verified using FBXW7 primers [18], PCR conditions, purification, and Sanger sequencing exactly as previously reported [10].

3.5 Lysate Preparation and Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) Analysis

HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} (passage (P)5), HEC-1-B mutation corrected (P5), JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C} (P3), and JHUEM-1 mutation corrected (P5) cells were counted with a Countess Cell Counter (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA), plated into four 150 mm dishes at a density of 4 × 10⁶ cells per dish, and scraped into a total of 4 mL urea lysis buffer (Cell Signaling Technology (CST), Danvers, MA) the following day. Triplicate lysates were prepared for each cell line from the same passage number to minimize proteomic variation due to cell age and were immediately frozen on dry ice before shipment to CST. Sonication, centrifugation, reduction, digestion, and purification of cellular extracts and LC–MS/MS analysis were performed exactly as previously described [11]. Also, as previously described [11], Immobilized Metal Affinity Chromatography (IMAC) enrichment with Fe-NTA magnetic beads (CST) was used for phosphorylated protein analysis, and labeling with TMT10plex reagent (Thermo Fisher Scientific) was used for total protein analysis. LC–MS/MS analysis was performed using an Orbitrap-Fusion Lumos Tribrid mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) with replicate injections of each sample for the IMAC analysis. An HCD-MS2 acquisition method was used for phosphopeptide analysis, and an MS3 acquisition method was used for total proteome analysis. Details of acquisition methods have been previously provided [11].

3.6 Peptide and Protein Identification

Mass spectra evaluations and peptide and protein identification were performed by CST exactly as previously described [11].

3.7 Filtering to Proteins With Significantly Different Levels in FBXW7-Mutated Parental Cells

Proteins exhibiting significantly different levels in FBXW7 non-mutant CRISPR-edited HEC-1-B and JHUEM-1 cells compared to isogenic FBXW7-mutant parental cells were determined using a previously published filtering scheme [11]. Briefly, total proteins with ≥ ± 2.0 average fold change were filtered to those with significantly (p < 0.05) different levels in FBXW7 non-mutant CRISPR-edited cells compared to isogenic FBXW7-mutant parental cells. p-values were based on a two-tailed t-test using the signal:noise for each CRISPR-edited derivative line versus isogenic parental cells across three replicates. Phosphorylated peptides were filtered using these same criteria with additional filters of maximum abundance > 1,000,000 and percent coefficient of variance (%CV) ≤ 50% for peptides with ≤ 10 average fold change or ≤ 80% for peptides with > 10 average fold change. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering was performed using Partek Genomics Suite.

3.8 Functional Annotation

Proteins were functionally annotated using g:Profiler [19] (RRID :S CR_008653) and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) (QIAGEN Inc., https://www.qiagenbioinformatics.com/products/ingenuitypathway-analysis).

3.9 Western Blot Analysis

For HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} (P8), HEC-1-B mutation corrected (P7 or P8), JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C} (P11), and JHUEM-1 mutation corrected (P11) cell lines, protein isolation, quantification, gel electrophoresis, and transfer were performed as previously described [10, 12], from cells collected 1 day after plating 1.6 × 10⁶ cells per 100 mm dish, in RIPA buffer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) containing 1× Protease/Phosphatase inhibitor cocktail (#5872; Cell Signaling Technology). Triplicate lysates were prepared for each cell line from the same passage number to minimize proteomic variation due to cell age.

Proteins were subjected to electrophoresis into 10% Mini-PROTEAN-TGX gels or 4%–15% gradient Mini-PROTEAN-TGX gels (Bio-Rad Laboratories) and wet transferred to PVDF membranes (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA). Blots were blocked in tris-buffered saline containing 0.1% Tween 20 (TBST) + 5% milk and incubated in the following antibodies from Cell Signaling Technology and R&D systems according to their suggested protocols at dilutions of 1:1000: AGR2 (#13062), LGALS3 (#87985), TACSTD2/TROP2 (#47866), PLCG2 (#3872), NaPi2b/SLC34A2 (#66445), ASS1 (#70720). As a loading control, blots were incubated in β-Actin antibody (A2228; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis MO) overnight at 4°C at a dilution of 1:10,000 in TBST + 5% BSA. Secondary antibodies were Cell Signaling Technology # 7074 and #7076 used at 1:2000 in TBST + 5% milk and incubated for 1–2 h. Proteins were detected using Clarity and Clarity Max Western ECL Substrate (Bio-Rad Laboratories) prior to film exposure (Carestream Health Inc., Rochester, NY or Agfa Healthcare NV, Mortsel, Belgium) and development using a film processor (Konica Minolta, Ramsey, NJ). To enable probing with multiple antibodies, blots were incubated in Restore Western Blot Stripping Buffer (Thermo Fisher Scientific). All Western blots are representative of a minimum of three lysate replicates.

4 Discussion

In the present study, we searched for proteomic and phosphoproteomic changes associated with endogenous FBXW7 mutations in the moderately differentiated EC cell lines, HEC-1-B^{FBXW7−R367X} and JHUEM-1^{FBXW7−R505C}. To more accurately reflect tumor cells in vivo, we utilized unsynchronized cell lines for these experiments. It is conceivable that synchronized cell populations might yield different results for proteins that are present at variable levels throughout the cell cycle. In our experimental conditions, we identified 3809 proteins and/or phosphoproteins that exhibited increased or decreased levels in at least one of the mutated cell lines compared to isogenic mutation-corrected cells; the levels of 98 total proteins and 270 phosphoproteins were altered in both mutant cell lines. The 98 total proteins included TROP2 (TACSTD2), a protein being clinically evaluated as a druggable target for EC, and galectin-3 (LGALS3), which is a potentially druggable target.

TROP2 is a transmembrane glycoprotein that regulates cell proliferation, migration, and intracellular signal transduction pathways (reviewed in [20]). Upregulation of this protein has been detected by IHC in 60% of SECs and 84% of EECs [21, 22]. Among endometrioid tumors, strong expression of TROP2 was associated with higher tumor grade and cervical involvement, which are adverse prognosticators [23, 24]. The mechanistic basis for increased TROP2 protein levels in FBXW7-mutated EC cells remains to be determined. One possible mechanism is that the FBXW7-SKP1-CUL1 ubiquitin ligase complex regulates TROP2 via ubiquitin-mediated degradation, and therefore mutations disrupting the FBXW7 WD repeats result in the loss of FBXW7/TROP2 binding and elevated TROP2 levels. Alternatively, FBXW7 substrates, or their downstream effectors, might regulate TROP2 levels either transcriptionally or post-translationally. In this regard, it is interesting to speculate that galectin-3 might mediate the effect of FBXW7 on TROP2 levels because galectin-3 positively regulates TROP2 (TACSTD2) gene expression in colorectal cancer cells [25] and both galectin-3 and TROP2 exhibited increased levels in the two FBXW7-mutated EC cell lines in our study.

Galectin-3 is a β-galactosidase binding protein involved in the regulation of apoptosis, cell cycle, cell growth, metastasis, and other cellular processes [26]. Our study is the first to report that increased galectin-3 protein levels are associated with FBXW7 mutations in EC cells. Dysregulation of this protein has previously been reported in EC, but results were conflicting. Whereas some studies observed galectin-3 upregulation in EC as compared with control tissues [27], others observed downregulation [28-31] or no change in expression [32]. It has been suggested that these contradictory findings might be due to methodological variability across studies [27]. It is also possible that the analysis of unsynchronized cell populations may contribute to the interstudy variability regarding galectin-3 levels in EC cells. Our results raise the additional possibility that interstudy differences in the FBXW7 mutation status of endometrial tumors may be an additional confounding factor contributing to these contradictory findings.

Interestingly, several of the orthogonally validated proteins that exhibited increased levels in one or both cell lines with endogenous FBXW7 mutations in our study are druggable or potentially druggable [33-35], including galectin-3 ([36]; reviewed in [37]) and TROP2 [38]. A recent preclinical study using serous EC cell lines, xenografts, and patient-derived organoids showed that galectin-3 knockout or treatment with a galectin-3 inhibitor resulted in the reduction of several tumorigenic features, including reduced tumor growth in vivo [36]. Regarding druggability, TROP2 is particularly interesting because sacituzumab govitecan (SG) (an antibody-drug conjugate that targets TROP2 and which has SN-38, an active metabolite of irinotecan, as the payload) is currently being evaluated for the treatment of EC. Preclinical studies in EC cells have shown that increased TROP2 levels are a biomarker of sensitivity to killing by SG. Moreover, SG exhibited antitumor activity in TROP2-positive EC cell line-derived xenografts [21, 22]. Clinical trials evaluating SG for the treatment of EC have thus far yielded encouraging results [39-41] (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04251416) (URL: https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04251416) [40]. Given our finding that endogenous FBXW7 mutations are associated with increased levels of TROP2 in EC cells, it would be interesting, in future studies, to determine whether FBXW7 mutation status, either alone or in combination with TROP2 protein status, is a molecular correlate of clinical responsiveness of EC patients to SG.

The clinical management of ECs is continuing to evolve with increased knowledge of the molecular landscapes of these tumors. Surrogate tests for the four TCGA prognostic subgroups, based on determining POLE, MSI, and p53 status, have been developed and validated ([42, 43]; and reviewed in [4, 44-46]). The FIGO staging system for EC was recently revised to include consideration of additional features including molecular subtype based on the results of surrogate testing [47], although this has been somewhat controversial [48-50]. It should be noted, however, that although advances have been made in disease risk stratification over the past decade, there are still some challenges to incorporating molecular subtyping of EC into routine clinical practice (reviewed in [46]). Despite this, a better understanding of the molecular and proteomic landscapes of ECs provides momentum for useful clinical developments that could benefit EC patients. For example, we previously reported that FBXW7-mutant EC cells exhibit significantly altered levels of L1CAM as compared to their isogenic FBXW7-wildtype counterparts [12]. L1CAM is being studied for its value as a prognostic biomarker, and overexpression has recently been associated with adverse outcomes [43, 51-57].

In conclusion, our study provides novel insights into the proteomic and phosphoproteomic effects of endogenous FBXW7 mutations in EC cells, including thousands of significantly altered protein levels as well as increased levels of galectin-3 and the druggable target TROP2. Future studies to (1) elucidate the mechanisms underlying increased levels of these proteins in FBXW7-mutant cell lines, (2) determine whether the increased levels of TROP2 and galectin-3 associated with FBXW7 mutations are detectable on EC tissue specimens by immunohistochemistry and whether the combined results are prognostic and/or predictive, and (3) determine whether FBXW7 mutation status is a biomarker of clinical responsiveness to SG are warranted.

Author Contributions

Mary Ellen Urick: conceptualization (equal); project administration (equal); investigation (lead); formal analysis (lead); writing-original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal); visualization (lead). Suresh Kumar Chalapareddy: investigation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal); visualization (equal). Eun-Jeong Yu: investigation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal); visualization (equal). Daphne W. Bell: conceptualization (equal); funding acquisition (lead); project administration (equal); supervision (lead); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal); visualization (equal).

Ethics Statement

The research conducted in this study was excluded from IRB Review per the Common Rule 45 CFR 46 and NIH policy for the use of specimens/data.

Conflicts of Interest

Dr. Mary Ellen Urick, Dr. Suresh Kumar Chalapareddy, and Dr. Eun-Jeong Yu have no conflicts of interest. Dr. Daphne W. Bell is an inventor on US patent no. 7,294,468, which has been licensed and provides royalty income for work performed outside the current study.

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study will be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Supporting Information

References

1 American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures 2024 (American Cancer Society, 2024).
Google Scholar
2L. Rahib, M. R. Wehner, L. M. Matrisian, and K. T. Nead, “Estimated Projection of US Cancer Incidence and Death to 2040,” JAMA Network Open 4, no. 4 (2021): e214708, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.4708.
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.4708
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, C. Kandoth, N. Schultz, et al., “Integrated Genomic Characterization of Endometrial Carcinoma,” Nature 497, no. 7447 (2013): 67–73, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12113.
10.1038/nature12113
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4M. E. Urick and D. W. Bell, “Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets in Endometrial Cancer,” Nature Reviews. Cancer 19, no. 9 (2019): 510–521, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-019-0177-x.
10.1038/s41568-019-0177-x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5R. J. Davis, M. Welcker, and B. E. Clurman, “Tumor Suppression by the Fbw7 Ubiquitin Ligase: Mechanisms and Opportunities,” Cancer Cell 26, no. 4 (2014): 455–464, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2014.09.013.
10.1016/j.ccell.2014.09.013
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6H. Lan and Y. Sun, “FBXW7 E3 Ubiquitin Ligase: Degrading, Not Degrading, or Being Degraded,” Protein & Cell 10, no. 12 (2019): 861–863, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13238-019-0652-x.
10.1007/s13238-019-0652-x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7A. C. Berger, A. Korkut, R. S. Kanchi, et al., “A Comprehensive Pan-Cancer Molecular Study of Gynecologic and Breast Cancers,” Cancer Cell 33, no. 4 (2018): 690–705, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.014.
10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.014
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8S. Akhoondi, D. Sun, N. von der Lehr, et al., “FBXW7/hCDC4 Is a General Tumor Suppressor in Human Cancer,” Cancer Research 67, no. 19 (2007): 9006–9012, https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-1320.
10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-1320
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9I. C. Cuevas, S. S. Sahoo, A. Kumar, et al., “Fbxw7 Is a Driver of Uterine Carcinosarcoma by Promoting Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116, no. 51 (2019): 25880–25890, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911310116.
10.1073/pnas.1911310116
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10M. E. Urick and D. W. Bell, “In Vitro Effects of FBXW7 Mutation in Serous Endometrial Cancer: Increased Levels of Potentially Druggable Proteins and Sensitivity to SI-2 and Dinaciclib,” Molecular Carcinogenesis 57, no. 11 (2018): 1445–1457, https://doi.org/10.1002/mc.22867.
10.1002/mc.22867
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11M. E. Urick and D. W. Bell, “Proteomic Profiling of FBXW7-Mutant Serous Endometrial Cancer Cells Reveals Upregulation of PADI2, a Potential Therapeutic Target,” Cancer Medicine 9, no. 11 (2020): 3863–3874, https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3013.
10.1002/cam4.3013
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12M. E. Urick, E. J. Yu, and D. W. Bell, “High-Risk Endometrial Cancer Proteomic Profiling Reveals That FBXW7 Mutation Alters L1CAM and TGM2 Protein Levels,” Cancer 127, no. 16 (2021): 2905–2915, https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33567.
10.1002/cncr.33567
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13A. Arabi, K. Ullah, R. M. Branca, et al., “Proteomic Screen Reveals Fbw7 as a Modulator of the NF-κB Pathway,” Nature Communications 3 (2012): 976, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1975.
10.1038/ncomms1975
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14R. J. Davis, M. Gönen, D. H. Margineantu, et al., “Pan-Cancer Transcriptional Signatures Predictive of Oncogenic Mutations Reveal That Fbw7 Regulates Cancer Cell Oxidative Metabolism,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115, no. 21 (2018): 5462–5467, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718338115.
10.1073/pnas.1718338115
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Z. Ge, J. S. Leighton, Y. Wang, et al., “Integrated Genomic Analysis of the Ubiquitin Pathway Across Cancer Types,” Cell Reports 23, no. 1 (2018): 213–226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.03.047.
10.1016/j.celrep.2018.03.047
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16H. Kuramoto, S. Tamura, and Y. Notake, “Establishment of a Cell Line of Human Endometrial Adenocarcinoma In Vitro,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 114, no. 8 (1972): 1012–1019, https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(72)90861-7.
10.1016/0002-9378(72)90861-7
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17M. Ghandi, F. W. Huang, J. Jané-Valbuena, et al., “Next-Generation Characterization of the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia,” Nature 569, no. 7757 (2019): 503–508, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1186-3.
10.1038/s41586-019-1186-3
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18M. Le Gallo, A. J. O'Hara, M. L. Rudd, et al., “Exome Sequencing of Serous Endometrial Tumors Identifies Recurrent Somatic Mutations in Chromatin-Remodeling and Ubiquitin Ligase Complex Genes,” Nature Genetics 44, no. 12 (2012): 1310–1315, https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2455.
10.1038/ng.2455
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19U. Raudvere, L. Kolberg, I. Kuzmin, et al., “G:Profiler: A Web Server for Functional Enrichment Analysis and Conversions of Gene Lists (2019 Update),” Nucleic Acids Research 47, no. W1 (2019): W191–W198, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz369.
10.1093/nar/gkz369
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20X. Liu, J. Deng, Y. Yuan, et al., “Advances in Trop2-Targeted Therapy: Novel Agents and Opportunities Beyond Breast Cancer,” Pharmacology & Therapeutics 239 (2022): 108296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2022.108296.
10.1016/j.pharmthera.2022.108296
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21C. Han, E. Perrone, B. Zeybek, et al., “In Vitro and In Vivo Activity of Sacituzumab Govitecan, an Antibody-Drug Conjugate Targeting Trophoblast Cell-Surface Antigen 2 (TROP2) in Uterine Serous Carcinoma,” Gynecologic Oncology 156, no. 2 (2020): 430–438, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.11.018.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.11.018
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
22E. Perrone, P. Manara, S. Lopez, et al., “Sacituzumab Govitecan, an Antibody-Drug Conjugate Targeting Trophoblast Cell-Surface Antigen 2, Shows Cytotoxic Activity Against Poorly Differentiated Endometrial Adenocarcinomas In Vitro and In Vivo,” Molecular Oncology 14, no. 3 (2020): 645–656, https://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.12627.
10.1002/1878-0261.12627
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23E. Bignotti, L. Zanotti, S. Calza, et al., “TROP2 Protein Overexpression Is an Independent Marker for Predicting Disease Recurrence in Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinoma,” BMC Clinical Pathology 12 (2012): 22, https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6890-12-22.
10.1186/1472-6890-12-22
PubMed Google Scholar
24S. Y. Celik and Ö. İ. Çelik, “Can TROP2 Be Used as a Prognostic Marker in Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinoma?,” Indian Journal of Pathology & Microbiology 63, no. 3 (2020): 418–422, https://doi.org/10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_783_19.
10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_783_19
PubMed Google Scholar
25T. Yamashita, Y. Mori, S. M. Alzaaqi, et al., “Induction of TROP2 Expression Through the Binding of Galectin-3 to MUC1,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 516, no. 1 (2019): 44–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2019.06.003.
10.1016/j.bbrc.2019.06.003
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
26A. U. Newlaczyl and L. G. Yu, “Galectin-3—A Jack-of-All-Trades in Cancer,” Cancer Letters 313, no. 2 (2011): 123–128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2011.09.003.
10.1016/j.canlet.2011.09.003
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27H. Brustmann, D. Riss, and S. Naudé, “Galectin-3 Expression in Normal, Hyperplastic, and Neoplastic Endometrial Tissues,” Pathology, Research and Practice 199, no. 3 (2003): 151–158, https://doi.org/10.1078/0344-0338-00368.
10.1078/0344-0338-00368
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28J. Al-Maghrabi, A. S. Abdelrahman, T. Ghabrah, N. S. Butt, B. Al-Maghrabi, and M. N. Khabaz, “Immunohistochemical Expression of Galectin-3 Is Significantly Associated With Grade, Stage and Differentiation of Endometrial Carcinomas,” Pathology, Research and Practice 213, no. 4 (2017): 348–352, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2017.01.012.
10.1016/j.prp.2017.01.012
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29C. B. Ege, M. Akbulut, O. Zekioğlu, and N. Ozdemir, “Investigation of Galectin-3 and Heparanase in Endometrioid and Serous Carcinomas of the Endometrium and Correlation With Known Predictors of Survival,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 284, no. 5 (2011): 1231–1239, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1766-9.
10.1007/s00404-010-1766-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30C. J. Stewart and M. L. Crook, “Galectin-3 Expression in Uterine Endometrioid Adenocarcinoma: Comparison of Staining in Conventional Tumor Glands and in Areas of MELF Pattern Myometrial Invasion,” International Journal of Gynecological Pathology 29, no. 6 (2010): 555–561, https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181e4ee4ea.
10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181e4ee4ea
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31F. A. van den Brule, C. Buicu, A. Berchuck, et al., “Expression of the 67-kD Laminin Receptor, Galectin-1, and Galectin-3 in Advanced Human Uterine Adenocarcinoma,” Human Pathology 27, no. 11 (1996): 1185–1191, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0046-8177(96)90313-5.
10.1016/S0046-8177(96)90313-5
PubMed Google Scholar
32A. Vanderstraeten, C. Luyten, G. Verbist, S. Tuyaerts, and F. Amant, “Mapping the Immunosuppressive Environment in Uterine Tumors: Implications for Immunotherapy,” Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy 63, no. 6 (2014): 545–557, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00262-014-1537-8.
10.1007/s00262-014-1537-8
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33R. Keshet, J. S. Lee, L. Adler, et al., “Targeting Purine Synthesis in ASS1-Expressing Tumors Enhances the Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors,” Nature Cancer 1, no. 9 (2020): 894–908, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43018-020-0106-7.
10.1038/s43018-020-0106-7
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
34J. Tymon-Rosario, M. Gorman, D. L. Richardson, C. Washington, and A. D. Santin, “Advances in Antibody-Drug Conjugates for Gynecologic Malignancies,” Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology 35, no. 1 (2023): 6–14, https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000838.
10.1097/GCO.0000000000000838
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
35S. Ullah, S. U. Khan, A. Khan, et al., “Prospect of Anterior Gradient 2 Homodimer Inhibition via Repurposing FDA-Approved Drugs Using Structure-Based Virtual Screening,” Molecular Diversity 26, no. 3 (2022): 1399–1409, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11030-021-10263-x.
10.1007/s11030-021-10263-x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
36Y. Matoba, D. T. Zarrella, V. Pooladanda, et al., “Targeting Galectin 3 Illuminates Its Contributions to the Pathology of Uterine Serous Carcinoma,” British Journal of Cancer 130, no. 9 (2024): 1463–1476, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-024-02621-x.
10.1038/s41416-024-02621-x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
37R. Ahmed, K. Anam, and H. Ahmed, “Development of Galectin-3 Targeting Drugs for Therapeutic Applications in Various Diseases,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 9 (2023): 8116, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24098116.
10.3390/ijms24098116
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
38A. Sethi, S. Sanam, R. Alvala, and M. Alvala, “An Updated Patent Review of Galectin-1 and Galectin-3 Inhibitors and Their Potential Therapeutic Applications (2016-Present),” Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents 31, no. 8 (2021): 709–721, https://doi.org/10.1080/13543776.2021.1903430.
10.1080/13543776.2021.1903430
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
39A. Bardia, W. A. Messersmith, E. A. Kio, et al., “Sacituzumab Govitecan, a TROP2-Directed Antibody-Drug Conjugate, for Patients With Epithelial Cancer: Final Safety and Efficacy Results From the Phase I/II IMMU-132-01 Basket Trial,” Annals of Oncology 32, no. 6 (2021): 746–756, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.03.005.
10.1016/j.annonc.2021.03.005
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
40A. Santin, B. McNamara, E. R. Siegel, et al., “Preliminary Results of a Phase II Trial With Sacituzumab Govitecan-Hziy in Patients With Recurrent Endometrial Carcinoma Overexpressing TROP2,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 41, no. 16_suppl (2023): 5599.
10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.5599
Google Scholar
41A. Santin, B. Corr, A. I. Spira, et al., “TROPiCS-03: A Phase 2 Basket Study of Sacituzumab Govitecan (SG) in Patients (Pts) With Metastatic Solid Tumors—Early Analysis in Pts With Advanced/Metastatic Endometrial Cancer (EC),” Journal of Clinical Oncology 41, no. 16_suppl (2023): 5610.
10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.5610
Google Scholar
42S. Kommoss, M. K. McConechy, F. Kommoss, et al., “Final Validation of the ProMisE Molecular Classifier for Endometrial Carcinoma in a Large Population-Based Case Series,” Annals of Oncology 29, no. 5 (2018): 1180–1188, https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy058.
10.1093/annonc/mdy058
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
43E. Stelloo, R. A. Nout, E. M. Osse, et al., “Improved Risk Assessment by Integrating Molecular and Clinicopathological Factors in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer-Combined Analysis of the PORTEC Cohorts,” Clinical Cancer Research 22, no. 16 (2016): 4215–4224, https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2878.
10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2878
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
44V. Di Donato, A. Giannini, and G. Bogani, “Recent Advances in Endometrial Cancer Management,” Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 6 (2023): 2241, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062241.
10.3390/jcm12062241
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
45O. D'Oria, A. Giannini, A. R. Besharat, and D. Caserta, “Management of Endometrial Cancer: Molecular Identikit and Tailored Therapeutic Approach,” Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology 50, no. 10 (2023): 210, https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog5010210.
10.31083/j.ceog5010210
Web of Science® Google Scholar
46J. A. How, A. A. Jazaeri, S. N. Westin, et al., “Translating Biological Insights Into Improved Management of Endometrial Cancer,” Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology 21, no. 11 (2024): 781–800, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-024-00934-7.
10.1038/s41571-024-00934-7
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
47J. S. Berek, X. Matias-Guiu, C. Creutzberg, et al., “Endometrial Cancer Staging Subcommittee, FIGO Women's Cancer Committee. FIGO Staging of Endometrial Cancer: 2023,” International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 162, no. 2 (2023): 383–394, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14923.
10.1002/ijgo.14923
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
48X. Matias-Guiu, S. Lax, M. R. Raspollini, et al., “FIGO 2023 Staging for Endometrial Cancer, When, if It Is Not Now?,” European Journal of Cancer 213 (2024): 115115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2024.115115.
10.1016/j.ejca.2024.115115
PubMed Google Scholar
49W. G. McCluggage, T. Bosse, C. B. Gilks, et al., “FIGO 2023 Endometrial Cancer Staging: Too Much, Too Soon?,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 34, no. 1 (2024): 138–143, https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2023-004981.
10.1136/ijgc-2023-004981
PubMed Google Scholar
50G. F. Zannoni, A. Santoro, D. Arciuolo, et al., “Endometrial Cancer and 2023 FIGO Staging System: Not Too Soon, but Maybe Too Much?,” Gynecologic Oncology 189 (2024): 98–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.07.678.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.07.678
PubMed Google Scholar
51T. Bosse, R. A. Nout, E. Stelloo, et al., “L1 Cell Adhesion Molecule Is a Strong Predictor for Distant Recurrence and Overall Survival in Early Stage Endometrial Cancer: Pooled PORTEC Trial Results,” European Journal of Cancer 50, no. 15 (2014): 2602–2610, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.07.014.
10.1016/j.ejca.2014.07.014
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
52A. Giannini, O. D'Oria, G. Corrado, et al., “The Role of L1CAM as Predictor of Poor Prognosis in Stage I Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 309, no. 3 (2024): 789–799, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07149-8.
10.1007/s00404-023-07149-8
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
53A. Kleppe, K. Lindemann, W. Kildal, et al., “Prognostic and Therapeutic Implication of Molecular Classification Including L1CAM Expression in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer,” Gynecologic Oncology 192 (2025): 80–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.11.005.
10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.11.005
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
54F. K. Kommoss, A. N. Karnezis, F. Kommoss, et al., “L1CAM Further Stratifies Endometrial Carcinoma Patients With no Specific Molecular Risk Profile,” British Journal of Cancer 119, no. 4 (2018): 480–486, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0187-6.
10.1038/s41416-018-0187-6
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
55A. S. V. M. van den Heerik, N. Horeweg, R. A. Nout, et al., “PORTEC-4a: International Randomized Trial of Molecular Profile-Based Adjuvant Treatment for Women With High-Intermediate Risk Endometrial Cancer,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 30, no. 12 (2020): 2002–2007, https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-001929.
10.1136/ijgc-2020-001929
PubMed Google Scholar
56E. Vizza, V. Bruno, G. Cutillo, et al., “Prognostic Role of the Removed Vaginal Cuff and Its Correlation With L1CAM in Low-Risk Endometrial Adenocarcinoma,” Cancers (Basel) 14, no. 1 (2021): 34, https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14010034.
10.3390/cancers14010034
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
57B. G. Wortman, C. L. Creutzberg, H. Putter, et al., “Ten-Year Results of the PORTEC-2 Trial for High-Intermediate Risk Endometrial Carcinoma: Improving Patient Selection for Adjuvant Therapy,” British Journal of Cancer 119, no. 9 (2018): 1067–1074, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0310-8.
10.1038/s41416-018-0310-8
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Volume14, Issue6

March 2025

e70765

Filename	Description
cam470765-sup-0001-FigureS1.pdfPDF document, 10.2 MB	Figure S1.
cam470765-sup-0002-TableS1.xlsxExcel 2007 spreadsheet , 7.9 MB	Table S1.

Proteomic Changes Associated With Endogenous FBXW7 Mutations in Moderately Differentiated Endometrial Cancer Cells Include Increased TROP2 and Galectin-3 Levels