Bone Microenvironment Modulates Expression and Activity of Cathepsin B in Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancers metastasize to bone leading to osteolysis. Here we assessed proteolysis of DQ-collagen I (a bone matrix protein) and, for comparison, DQ-collagen IV, by living human prostate carcinoma cells in vitro. Both collagens were degraded, and this degradation was reduced by inhibitors of matrix metallo, serine, and cysteine proteases. Because secretion of the cysteine protease cathepsin B is increased in human breast fibroblasts grown on collagen I gels, we analyzed cathepsin B levels and secretion in prostate cells grown on collagen I gels. Levels and secretion were increased only in DU145 cells—cells that expressed the highest baseline levels of cathepsin B. Secretion of cathepsin B was also elevated in DU145 cells grown in vitro on human bone fragments. We further investigated the effect of the bone microenvironment on cathepsin B expression and activity in vivo in a SCID-human model of prostate bone metastasis. High levels of cathepsin B protein and activity were found in DU145, PC3, and LNCaP bone tumors, although the PC3 and LNCaP cells had exhibited low cathepsin B expression in vitro. Our results suggest that tumor-stromal interactions in the context of the bone microenvironment can modulate the expression of the cysteine protease cathepsin B

Imaging and quantifying the dynamics of tumor-associated proteolysis

The roles of proteases in cancer are dynamic. Furthermore, the roles or functions of any one protease may differ from one stage of cancer to another. Proteases from tumor-associated cells (e.g., fibroblasts, inflammatory cells, endothelial cells) as well as from tumor cells make important contributions to \u27tumor proteolysis\u27. Many tumors exhibit increases in expression of proteases at the level of transcripts and protein; however, whether those proteases play causal roles in malignant progression is known for only a handful of proteases. What the critical substrate or substrates that are cleaved in vivo by any given protease is also known for only a few proteases. Therefore, the recent development of techniques and reagents for live cell imaging of protease activity, in conjunction with informed knowledge of critical natural substrates, should help to define protease functions. Here we describe live cell assays for imaging proteolysis, protocols for quantifying proteolysis and the use of such assays to follow the dynamics of proteolysis by tumor cells alone and tumor cells interacting with other cells found in the tumor microenvironment. In addition, we describe an in vitro model that recapitulates the architecture of the mammary gland, a model designed to determine the effects of dynamic interactions with the surrounding microenvironment on \u27tumor proteolysis\u27 and the respective contributions of various cell types to \u27tumor proteolysis\u27. The assays and models described here could serve as screening platforms for the identification of proteolytic pathways that are potential therapeutic targets and for further development of technologies and imaging probes for in vivo use

Neoadjuvant antiangiogenic therapy reveals contrasts in primary and metastatic tumor efficacy

Abstract Thousands of cancer patients are currently in clinical trials evaluating antiangiogenic therapy in the neoadjuvant setting, which is the treatment of localized primary tumors prior to surgical intervention. The rationale is that shrinking a tumor will improve surgical outcomes and minimize growth of occult micrometastatic disease—thus delaying post‐surgical recurrence and improving survival. But approved VEGF pathway inhibitors have not been tested in clinically relevant neoadjuvant models that compare pre‐ and post‐surgical treatment effects. Using mouse models of breast, kidney, and melanoma metastasis, we demonstrate that primary tumor responses to neoadjuvant VEGFR TKI treatment do not consistently correlate with improved post‐surgical survival, with survival worsened in certain settings. Similar negative effects did not extend to protein‐based VEGF pathway inhibitors and could be reversed with altered dose, surgical timing, and treatment duration, or when VEGFR TKIs are combined with metronomic ‘anti‐metastatic’ chemotherapy regimens. These studies represent the first attempt to recapitulate the complex clinical parameters of neoadjuvant therapy in mice and identify a novel tool to compare systemic antiangiogenic treatment effects on localized and disseminated disease