ERG signaling in prostate cancer is driven through PRMT5-dependent methylation of the androgen receptor

Abstract

The TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion is common in androgen receptor (AR) positive prostate cancers, yet its function remains poorly understood. From a screen for functionally relevant ERG interactors, we identify the arginine methyltransferase PRMT5. ERG recruits PRMT5 to AR-target genes, where PRMT5 methylates AR on arginine 761. This attenuates AR recruitment and transcription of genes expressed in differentiated prostate epithelium. The AR-inhibitory function of PRMT5 is restricted to TMPRSS2:ERG-positive prostate cancer cells. Mutation of this methylation site on AR results in a transcriptionally hyperactive AR, suggesting that the proliferative effects of ERG and PRMT5 are mediated through attenuating AR's ability to induce genes normally involved in lineage differentiation. This provides a rationale for targeting PRMT5 in TMPRSS2:ERG positive prostate cancers. Moreover, methylation of AR at arginine 761 highlights a mechanism for how the ERG oncogene may coax AR towards inducing proliferation versus differentiation.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Zineb Mounir

    Department of Oncology, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Joshua M Korn

    Department of Oncology, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Thomas Westerling

    Department of Medical Oncology, Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Fallon Lin

    Department of Oncology, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Christina A Kirby

    Center for Proteomic Chemistry, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Markus Schirle

    Developmental and Molecular Pathways, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Gregg McAllister

    Developmental and Molecular Pathways, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Greg Hoffman

    Developmental and Molecular Pathways, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Nadire Ramadan

    Developmental and Molecular Pathways, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Anke Hartung

    Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Yan Feng

    Developmental and Molecular Pathways, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. David Randal Kipp

    Oncology, NIBR, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Christopher Quinn

    Oncology, NIBR, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Michelle Fodor

    Oncology, NIBR, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Jason Baird

    Oncology, NIBR, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Marie Schoumacher

    Department of Oncology, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Ronald Meyer

    Department of Oncology, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. James Deeds

    Department of Oncology, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Gilles Buchwalter

    Department of Medical Oncology, Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Travis Stams

    Center for Proteomic Chemistry, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Nicholas Keen

    Department of Oncology, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. William R Sellers

    Department of Oncology, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Myles Brown

    Department of Medical Oncology, Center for Functional Cancer Epigenetics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Raymond A Pagliarini

    Department of Oncology, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Cambridge, United States
    For correspondence
    raymond.pagliarini@novartis.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Scott A Armstrong, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States

Version history

  1. Received: December 21, 2015
  2. Accepted: May 6, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 16, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: May 18, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: June 15, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2016, Mounir 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

  • 3,972
    Page views
  • 1,036
    Downloads
  • 56
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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. Zineb Mounir
  2. Joshua M Korn
  3. Thomas Westerling
  4. Fallon Lin
  5. Christina A Kirby
  6. Markus Schirle
  7. Gregg McAllister
  8. Greg Hoffman
  9. Nadire Ramadan
  10. Anke Hartung
  11. Yan Feng
  12. David Randal Kipp
  13. Christopher Quinn
  14. Michelle Fodor
  15. Jason Baird
  16. Marie Schoumacher
  17. Ronald Meyer
  18. James Deeds
  19. Gilles Buchwalter
  20. Travis Stams
  21. Nicholas Keen
  22. William R Sellers
  23. Myles Brown
  24. Raymond A Pagliarini
(2016)
ERG signaling in prostate cancer is driven through PRMT5-dependent methylation of the androgen receptor
eLife 5:e13964.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13964

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13964

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    Wanyoung Lim, Inwoo Hwang ... Sungsu Park
    Research Article

    Chemoresistance is a major cause of treatment failure in many cancers. However, the life cycle of cancer cells as they respond to and survive environmental and therapeutic stress is understudied. In this study, we utilized a microfluidic device to induce the development of doxorubicin-resistant (DOXR) cells from triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells within 11 days by generating gradients of DOX and medium. In vivo chemoresistant xenograft models, an unbiased genome-wide transcriptome analysis, and a patient data/tissue analysis all showed that chemoresistance arose from failed epigenetic control of the nuclear protein-1 (NUPR1)/histone deacetylase 11 (HDAC11) axis, and high NUPR1 expression correlated with poor clinical outcomes. These results suggest that the chip can rapidly induce resistant cells that increase tumor heterogeneity and chemoresistance, highlighting the need for further studies on the epigenetic control of the NUPR1/HDAC11 axis in TNBC.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Bingrui Li, Fernanda G Kugeratski, Raghu Kalluri
    Research Article

    Non-invasive early cancer diagnosis remains challenging due to the low sensitivity and specificity of current diagnostic approaches. Exosomes are membrane-bound nanovesicles secreted by all cells that contain DNA, RNA, and proteins that are representative of the parent cells. This property, along with the abundance of exosomes in biological fluids makes them compelling candidates as biomarkers. However, a rapid and flexible exosome-based diagnostic method to distinguish human cancers across cancer types in diverse biological fluids is yet to be defined. Here, we describe a novel machine learning-based computational method to distinguish cancers using a panel of proteins associated with exosomes. Employing datasets of exosome proteins from human cell lines, tissue, plasma, serum, and urine samples from a variety of cancers, we identify Clathrin Heavy Chain (CLTC), Ezrin, (EZR), Talin-1 (TLN1), Adenylyl cyclase-associated protein 1 (CAP1), and Moesin (MSN) as highly abundant universal biomarkers for exosomes and define three panels of pan-cancer exosome proteins that distinguish cancer exosomes from other exosomes and aid in classifying cancer subtypes employing random forest models. All the models using proteins from plasma, serum, or urine-derived exosomes yield AUROC scores higher than 0.91 and demonstrate superior performance compared to Support Vector Machine, K Nearest Neighbor Classifier and Gaussian Naive Bayes. This study provides a reliable protein biomarker signature associated with cancer exosomes with scalable machine learning capability for a sensitive and specific non-invasive method of cancer diagnosis.