Androgen Receptor Signaling Regulates DNA Repair in Prostate Cancers

We demonstrate that the androgen receptor (AR) regulates a transcriptional program of DNA repair genes that promotes prostate cancer radioresistance, providing a potential mechanism by which androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) synergizes with ionizing radiation (IR). Using a model of castration-resistant prostate cancer, we show that second-generation antiandrogen therapy results in downregulation of DNA repair genes. Next, we demonstrate that primary prostate cancers display a significant spectrum of AR transcriptional output which correlates with expression of a set of DNA repair genes. Employing RNA-seq and ChIP-seq, we define which of these DNA repair genes are both induced by androgen and represent direct AR targets. We establish that prostate cancer cells treated with IR plus androgen demonstrate enhanced DNA repair and decreased DNA damage and furthermore that antiandrogen treatment causes increased DNA damage and decreased clonogenic survival. Finally, we demonstrate that antiandrogen treatment results in decreased classical non-homologous end joining

Repression of the Arf tumor suppressor by E2F3 is required for normal cell cycle kinetics

Tumor development is dependent upon the inactivation of two key tumor-suppressor networks, p16(Ink4a)–cycD/cdk4–pRB–E2F and p19(Arf)–mdm2–p53, that regulate cellular proliferation and the tumor surveillance response. These networks are known to intersect with one another, but the mechanisms are poorly understood. Here, we show that E2F directly participates in the transcriptional control of Arf in both normal and transformed cells. This occurs in a manner that is significantly different from the regulation of classic E2F-responsive targets. In wild-type mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs), the Arf promoter is occupied by E2F3 and not other E2F family members. In quiescent cells, this role is largely fulfilled by E2F3b, an E2F3 isoform whose function was previously undetermined. E2f3 loss is sufficient to derepress Arf, triggering activation of p53 and expression of p21(Cip1). Thus, E2F3 is a key repressor of the p19(Arf)–p53 pathway in normal cells. Consistent with this notion, Arf mutation suppresses the activation of p53 and p21(Cip1) in E2f3-deficient MEFs. Arf loss also rescues the known cell cycle re-entry defect of E2f3(-/-) cells, and this correlates with restoration of appropriate activation of classic E2F-responsive genes. Our data also demonstrate a direct role for E2F in the oncogenic activation of Arf. Specifically, we observe recruitment of the endogenous activating E2Fs, E2F1, and E2F3a, to the Arf promoter. Thus, distinct E2F complexes directly contribute to the normal repression and oncogenic activation of Arf. We propose that monitoring of E2F levels and/or activity is a key component of Arf's ability to respond to inappropriate, but not normal cellular proliferation

Identification of multipotent luminal progenitor cells in human prostate organoid cultures

The prostate gland consists of basal and luminal cells arranged as pseudostratified epithelium. In tissue recombination models, only basal cells reconstitute a complete prostate gland, yet murine lineage-tracing experiments show that luminal cells generate basal cells. It has remained challenging to address the molecular details of these transitions and whether they apply to humans, due to the lack of culture conditions that recapitulate prostate gland architecture. Here, we describe a 3D culture system that supports long-term expansion of primary mouse and human prostate organoids, composed of fully differentiated CK5+ basal and CK8+ luminal cells. Organoids are genetically stable, reconstitute prostate glands in recombination assays, and can be experimentally manipulated. Single human luminal and basal cells give rise to organoids, yet luminal-cell-derived organoids more closely resemble prostate glands. These data support a luminal multilineage progenitor cell model for prostate tissue and establish a robust, scalable system for mechanistic studies

Identification of Different Classes of Luminal Progenitor Cells within Prostate Tumors

Primary prostate cancer almost always has a luminal phenotype. However, little is known about the stem/progenitor properties of transformed cells within tumors. Using the aggressive Pten/Tp53-null mouse model of prostate cancer, we show that two classes of luminal progenitors exist within a tumor. Not only did tumors contain previously described multipotent progenitors, but also a major population of committed luminal progenitors. Luminal cells, sorted directly from tumors or grown as organoids, initiated tumors of adenocarcinoma or multilineage histological phenotypes, which is consistent with luminal and multipotent differentiation potentials, respectively. Moreover, using organoids we show that the ability of luminal-committed progenitors to self-renew is a tumor-specific property, absent in benign luminal cells. Finally, a significant fraction of luminal progenitors survived in vivo castration. In all, these data reveal two luminal tumor populations with different stem/progenitor cell capacities, providing insight into prostate cancer cells that initiate tumors and can influence treatment response

Identification of Different Classes of Luminal Progenitor Cells within Prostate Tumors

Primary prostate cancer almost always has a luminal phenotype. However, little is known about the stem/progenitor properties of transformed cells within tumors. Using the aggressive Pten/Tp53-null mouse model of prostate cancer, we show that two classes of luminal progenitors exist within a tumor. Not only did tumors contain previously described multipotent progenitors, but also a major population of committed luminal progenitors. Luminal cells, sorted directly from tumors or grown as organoids, initiated tumors of adenocarcinoma or multilineage histological phenotypes, which is consistent with luminal and multipotent differentiation potentials, respectively. Moreover, using organoids we show that the ability of luminal-committed progenitors to self-renew is a tumor-specific property, absent in benign luminal cells. Finally, a significant fraction of luminal progenitors survived in vivo castration. In all, these data reveal two luminal tumor populations with different stem/progenitor cell capacities, providing insight into prostate cancer cells that initiate tumors and can influence treatment response

Androgen Receptor Signaling Regulates DNA Repair in Prostate Cancers

We demonstrate that the androgen receptor (AR) regulates a transcriptional program of DNA repair genes that promotes prostate cancer radioresistance, providing a potential mechanism by which androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) synergizes with ionizing radiation (IR). Using a model of castration-resistant prostate cancer, we show that second-generation antiandrogen therapy results in downregulation of DNA repair genes. Next, we demonstrate that primary prostate cancers display a significant spectrum of AR transcriptional output which correlates with expression of a set of DNA repair genes. Employing RNA-seq and ChIP-seq, we define which of these DNA repair genes are both induced by androgen and represent direct AR targets. We establish that prostate cancer cells treated with IR plus androgen demonstrate enhanced DNA repair and decreased DNA damage and furthermore that antiandrogen treatment causes increased DNA damage and decreased clonogenic survival. Finally, we demonstrate that antiandrogen treatment results in decreased classical non-homologous end joining

ERF mutations reveal a balance of ETS factors controlling prostate oncogenesis

Half of all prostate cancers are caused by the TMPRSS2-ERG gene-fusion, which enables androgens to drive expression of the normally silent E26 transformation-specific (ETS) transcription factor ERG in prostate cells. Recent genomic landscape studies of such cancers have reported recurrent point mutations and focal deletions of another ETS member, the ETS2 repressor factor ERF. Here we show these ERF mutations cause decreased protein stability and mostly occur in tumours without ERG upregulation. ERF loss recapitulates the morphological and phenotypic features of ERG gain in normal mouse prostate cells, including expansion of the androgen receptor transcriptional repertoire, and ERF has tumour suppressor activity in the same genetic background of Pten loss that yields oncogenic activity by ERG. In the more common scenario of ERG upregulation, chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing indicates that ERG inhibits the ability of ERF to bind DNA at consensus ETS sites both in normal and in cancerous prostate cells. Consistent with a competition model, ERF overexpression blocks ERG-dependent tumour growth, and ERF loss rescues TMPRSS2-ERG-positive prostate cancer cells from ERG dependency. Collectively, these data provide evidence that the oncogenicity of ERG is mediated, in part, by competition with ERF and they raise the larger question of whether other gain-of-function oncogenic transcription factors might also inactivate endogenous tumour suppressors