GSTP1 DNA Methylation and Expression Status Is Indicative of 5-aza-2′-Deoxycytidine Efficacy in Human Prostate Cancer Cells

DNA methylation plays an important role in carcinogenesis and the reversibility of this epigenetic modification makes it a potential therapeutic target. To date, DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTi) have not demonstrated clinical efficacy in prostate cancer, with one of the major obstacles being the inability to monitor drug activity during the trial. Given the high frequency and specificity of GSTP1 DNA methylation in prostate cancer, we investigated whether GSTP1 is a useful marker of DNMTi treatment efficacy. LNCaP prostate cancer cells were treated with 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine (5-aza-CdR) either with a single high dose (5–20 µM), every alternate day (0.1–10 µM) or daily (0.005–2.5 µM). A daily treatment regimen with 5-aza-CdR was optimal, with significant suppression of cell proliferation achieved with doses of 0.05 µM or greater (p<0.0001) and induction of cell death from 0.5 µM (p<0.0001). In contrast, treatment with a single high dose of 20 µM 5-aza-CdR inhibited cell proliferation but was not able to induce cell death. Demethylation of GSTP1 was observed with doses of 5-aza-CdR that induced significant suppression of cell proliferation (≥0.05 µM). Re-expression of the GSTP1 protein was observed only at doses of 5-aza-CdR (≥0.5 µM) associated with induction of cell death. Treatment of LNCaP cells with a more stable DNMTi, Zebularine required at least a 100-fold higher dose (≥50 µM) to inhibit proliferation and was less potent in inducing cell death, which corresponded to a lack of GSTP1 protein re-expression. We have shown that GSTP1 DNA methylation and protein expression status is correlated with DNMTi treatment response in prostate cancer cells. Since GSTP1 is methylated in nearly all prostate cancers, our results warrant its testing as a marker of epigenetic therapy response in future clinical trials. We conclude that the DNA methylation and protein expression status of GSTP1 are good indicators of DNMTi efficacy

DNA Methylation of the ABO Promoter Underlies Loss of ABO Allelic Expression in a Significant Proportion of Leukemic Patients

Background: Loss of A, B and H antigens from the red blood cells of patients with myeloid malignancies is a frequent occurrence. Previously, we have reported alterations in ABH antigens on the red blood cells of 55% of patients with myeloid malignancies. Methodology/Principal Findings: To determine the underlying molecular mechanisms of this loss, we assessed ABO allelic expression in 21 patients with ABH antigen loss previously identified by flow cytometric analysis as well as an additional 7 patients detected with ABH antigen changes by serology. When assessing ABO mRNA allelic expression, 6/12 (50%) patients with ABH antigen loss detected by flow cytometry and 5/7 (71%) of the patients with ABH antigen loss detected by serology had a corresponding ABO mRNA allelic loss of expression. We examined the ABO locus for copy number and DNA methylation alterations in 21 patients, 11 with loss of expression of one or both ABO alleles, and 10 patients with no detectable allelic loss of ABO mRNA expression. No loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at the ABO locus was observed in these patients. However in 8/11 (73%) patients with loss of ABO allelic expression, the ABO promoter was methylated compared with 2/10 (20%) of patients with no ABO allelic expression loss (P = 0.03). Conclusions/Significance: We have found that loss of ABH antigens in patients with hematological malignancies is associated with a corresponding loss of ABO allelic expression in a significant proportion of patients. Loss of ABO allelic expression was strongly associated with DNA methylation of the ABO promoter.Tina Bianco-Miotto, Damian J. Hussey, Tanya K. Day, Denise S. O'Keefe and Alexander Dobrovi

The Magnitude of Androgen Receptor Positivity in Breast Cancer Is Critical for Reliable Prediction of Disease Outcome

Purpose: Consensus is lacking regarding the androgen receptor (AR) as a prognostic marker in breast cancer. The objectives of this study were to comprehensively review the literature on AR prognostication and determine optimal criteria for AR as an independent predictor of breast cancer survival. Experimental Design: AR positivity was assessed by immunostaining in two clinically validated primary breast cancer cohorts [training cohort, n = 219; validation cohort, n = 418; 77% and 79% estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) positive, respectively]. The optimal AR cut-point was determined by ROC analysis in the training cohort and applied to both cohorts. Results: AR was an independent prognostic marker of breast cancer outcome in 22 of 46 (48%) previous studies that performed multivariate analyses. Most studies used cut-points of 1% or 10% nuclear positivity. Herein, neither 1% nor 10% cut-points were robustly prognostic. ROC analysis revealed that a higher AR cut-point (78% positivity) provided optimal sensitivity and specificity to predict breast cancer survival in the training (HR, 0.41; P = 0.015) and validation (HR, 0.50; P = 0.014) cohorts. Tenfold cross-validation confirmed the robustness of this AR cut-point. Patients with ERα-positive tumors and AR positivity ≥78% had the best survival in both cohorts (P 0.87) had the best outcomes (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: This study defines an optimal AR cut-point to reliably predict breast cancer survival. Testing this cut-point in prospective cohorts is warranted for implementation of AR as a prognostic factor in the clinical management of breast cancer