Abstract

Genomic instability is a fundamental feature of human cancer often resulting from impaired genome maintenance. In prostate cancer, structural genomic rearrangements are a common mechanism driving tumorigenesis. However, somatic alterations predisposing to chromosomal rearrangements in prostate cancer remain largely undefined. Here, we show that SPOP, the most commonly mutated gene in primary prostate cancer, modulates DNA double strand break (DSB) repair, and that SPOP mutation is associated with genomic instability. In vivo, SPOP mutation results in a transcriptional response consistent with BRCA1 inactivation resulting in impaired homology-directed repair (HDR) of DSB. Furthermore, we found that SPOP mutation sensitizes to DNA damaging therapeutic agents such as PARP inhibitors. These results implicate SPOP as a novel participant in DSB repair, suggest that SPOP mutation drives prostate tumorigenesis in part through genomic instability, and indicate that mutant SPOP may increase response to DNA damaging therapeutics.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Gunther Boysen

    Department of Pathologygy and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Christopher E Barbieri

    Department of Urologygy, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    Christopher E Barbieri, A patent (US Patent Application No: 2013/0331,279) has been issued to Weill Medical College of Cornell University on SPOP mutations in prostate cancer; is listed as co-inventor.
  3. Davide Prandi

    Centre for Integrative Biologygy, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Mirjam Blattner

    Department of Pathologygy and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Sung-Suk Chae

    Department of Pathologygy and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Arun Dahija

    Department of Pathologygy and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Srilakshmi Nataraj

    Department of Pathologygy and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Dennis Huang

    Department of Pathologygy and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Clarisse Marotz

    Department of Pathologygy and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Limei Xu

    Department of Pathologygy and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Julie Huang

    Department of Pathologygy and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Paola Lecca

    Centre for Integrative Biologygy, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Sagar Chhangawala

    Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Deli Liu

    Department of Urologygy, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Pengbo Zhou

    Department of Pathologygy and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Andrea Sboner

    Department of Pathologygy and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Johann S de Bono

    Division of Clinical Studies, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Francesca Demichelis

    Centre for Integrative Biologygy, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Yariv Houvras

    Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Mark A Rubin

    Department of Pathologygy and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    rubinma@med.cornell.edu
    Competing interests
    Mark A Rubin, A patent (US Patent Application No: 2013/0331,279) has been issued to Weill Medical College of Cornell University on SPOP mutations in prostate cancer; is listed as co-inventor.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All protocols were performed with prior approval of the WCMC IACUC under protocol 2012-0065.

Copyright

© 2015, Boysen et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 7,232
    views
  • 1,476
    downloads
  • 145
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Gunther Boysen
  2. Christopher E Barbieri
  3. Davide Prandi
  4. Mirjam Blattner
  5. Sung-Suk Chae
  6. Arun Dahija
  7. Srilakshmi Nataraj
  8. Dennis Huang
  9. Clarisse Marotz
  10. Limei Xu
  11. Julie Huang
  12. Paola Lecca
  13. Sagar Chhangawala
  14. Deli Liu
  15. Pengbo Zhou
  16. Andrea Sboner
  17. Johann S de Bono
  18. Francesca Demichelis
  19. Yariv Houvras
  20. Mark A Rubin
(2015)
SPOP mutation leads to genomic instability in prostate cancer
eLife 4:e09207.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09207

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09207

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Adam D Longhurst, Kyle Wang ... David P Toczyski
    Tools and Resources

    Progression through the G1 phase of the cell cycle is the most highly regulated step in cellular division. We employed a chemogenetic approach to discover novel cellular networks that regulate cell cycle progression. This approach uncovered functional clusters of genes that altered sensitivity of cells to inhibitors of the G1/S transition. Mutation of components of the Polycomb Repressor Complex 2 rescued proliferation inhibition caused by the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib, but not to inhibitors of S phase or mitosis. In addition to its core catalytic subunits, mutation of the PRC2.1 accessory protein MTF2, but not the PRC2.2 protein JARID2, rendered cells resistant to palbociclib treatment. We found that PRC2.1 (MTF2), but not PRC2.2 (JARID2), was critical for promoting H3K27me3 deposition at CpG islands genome-wide and in promoters. This included the CpG islands in the promoter of the CDK4/6 cyclins CCND1 and CCND2, and loss of MTF2 lead to upregulation of both CCND1 and CCND2. Our results demonstrate a role for PRC2.1, but not PRC2.2, in antagonizing G1 progression in a diversity of cell linages, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), breast cancer, and immortalized cell lines.

    1. Cell Biology
    Tomoharu Kanie, Roy Ng ... Peter K Jackson
    Research Article

    The primary cilium is a microtubule-based organelle that cycles through assembly and disassembly. In many cell types, formation of the cilium is initiated by recruitment of ciliary vesicles to the distal appendage of the mother centriole. However, the distal appendage mechanism that directly captures ciliary vesicles is yet to be identified. In an accompanying paper, we show that the distal appendage protein, CEP89, is important for the ciliary vesicle recruitment, but not for other steps of cilium formation (Tomoharu Kanie, Love, Fisher, Gustavsson, & Jackson, 2023). The lack of a membrane binding motif in CEP89 suggests that it may indirectly recruit ciliary vesicles via another binding partner. Here, we identify Neuronal Calcium Sensor-1 (NCS1) as a stoichiometric interactor of CEP89. NCS1 localizes to the position between CEP89 and a ciliary vesicle marker, RAB34, at the distal appendage. This localization was completely abolished in CEP89 knockouts, suggesting that CEP89 recruits NCS1 to the distal appendage. Similarly to CEP89 knockouts, ciliary vesicle recruitment as well as subsequent cilium formation was perturbed in NCS1 knockout cells. The ability of NCS1 to recruit the ciliary vesicle is dependent on its myristoylation motif and NCS1 knockout cells expressing a myristoylation defective mutant failed to rescue the vesicle recruitment defect despite localizing properly to the centriole. In sum, our analysis reveals the first known mechanism for how the distal appendage recruits the ciliary vesicles.