TMIC-18. ROLE OF NEUROTRANSMITTERS IN GLIOBLASTOMA PATHOPHYSIOLOGY: EMERGING INSIGHTS

Abstract INTRODUCTION Glioblastoma (GBM) are the most common primary brain tumor in adults associated with a dismal patient outcome. While it is well-known that glutamatergic neurons can form functional synapses with glioblastoma cells to enhance tumor growth, lesser is known about the effects of activity of other neuronal types on glioblastoma biology, especially among different glioblastoma molecular subtypes. Here, we examined the effects of various neurotransmitters on the growth of glioblastoma cells characterized as classical, proneural and mesenchymal subtypes. METHODS Patient-derived glioblastoma cell lines were exposed to varying concentrations of different neurotransmitters and assessed for cell viability using CCK-8 assay. Transcriptomic data from TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) database was analyzed for correlation of expression of neurotransmitter receptors (NTRs) with patient survival. Using IVY-GAP database, we compared the expression of NTRs at leading-edge versus tumor core of tumors to assess their possible involvement in cell migration and microenvironmental interactions. RESULTS Consistent with previous findings, we observed an increase in cell viability in all GBM cell lines after being incubated with L-glutamate. The classical subtype has a stronger growth response to L-glutamate compared to the other two subtypes. TCGA data revealed the expression of GRIK4 (glutamate ionotropic receptor kainate type subunit 4) as highest in the classical subtype as well as inversely correlated with worse patient survival in this GBM subtype, as opposed to proneural or mesenchymal patient groups. CCK8 assay also suggested that acetylcholine and dopamine increase glioblastoma cell growth. A subset of cholinergic and glutamatergic receptors (CHRM1, GRM2) was found upregulated in infiltrating/leading-edge regions of glioblastoma tumors compared to the tumor core, suggesting possible involvement in glioblastoma-neuron interactions. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that GBM subtypes may differentially leverage neuro-modulatory mechanisms to support their growth. Future studies will investigate the differential neuronal responses in GBM subtypes using pharmacological/genetic approaches.