Development of Bag-1L as a therapeutic target in androgen receptor-dependent prostate cancer

Abstract

Targeting the activation function-1 (AF-1) domain located in the N-terminus of the androgen receptor (AR) is an attractive therapeutic alternative to the current approaches to inhibit AR action in prostate cancer (PCa). Here we show that the AR AF-1 is bound by the cochaperone Bag-1L. Mutations in the AR interaction domain or loss of Bag-1L abrogate AR signaling and reduce PCa growth. Clinically, Bag-1L protein levels increase with progression to castration-resistant PCa (CRPC) and high levels of Bag-1L in primary PCa associate with a reduced clinical benefit from abiraterone when these tumors progress. Intriguingly, residues in Bag-1L important for its interaction with the AR AF-1 are within a potentially druggable pocket, implicating Bag-1L as a potential therapeutic target in PCa.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated
    1. Cato L
    (2017) Targeting the androgen receptor N-terminus via the cochaperone Bag-1L
    Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no: GSE89939).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Laura Cato

    Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7072-4368
  2. Antje Neeb

    Prostate Cancer Target Therapy Group, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Adam Sharp

    Prostate Cancer Target Therapy Group, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Victor Buzón

    Institute for Research in Biomedicine, The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Scott B Ficarro

    Blais Proteomics Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Linxiao Yang

    Institute of Applied Physics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Claudia Muhle-Goll

    Institute for Biological Interfaces 4, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Nane C Kuznik

    Institute of Toxicology and Genetics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ruth Riisnaes

    Prostate Cancer Target Therapy Group, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Daniel Nava Rodrigues

    Prostate Cancer Target Therapy Group, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Olivier Armant

    Institute of Toxicology and Genetics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Victor Gourain

    Institute of Toxicology and Genetics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Guillaume Adelmant

    The Blais Proteomics Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Emmanuel A Ntim

    Institute of Toxicology and Genetics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Thomas Westerling

    Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. David Dolling

    Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Pasquale Rescigno

    Prostate Cancer Target Therapy Group, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Ines Figueiredo

    Prostate Cancer Target Therapy Group, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Friedrich Fauser

    Botanical Institute II, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Jennifer Wu

    Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Jaice T Rottenberg

    Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Liubov Shatkina

    Institute of Toxicology and Genetics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Claudia Ester

    Institute of Toxicology and Genetics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Burkhard Luy

    Institute for Biological Interfaces 4, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Holger Puchta

    Botanical Institute II, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. Jakob Troppmair

    Daniel-Swarovski Research Laboratory, Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Nicole Jung

    Institute of Organic Chemistry, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Stefan Bräse

    Institute of Toxicology and Genetics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  29. Uwe Strähle

    Institute of Toxicology and Genetics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  30. Jarrod A Marto

    The Blais Proteomics Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  31. Gerd Ulrich Nienhaus

    Institute of Toxicology and Genetics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5027-3192
  32. Bissan Al-Lazikani

    Cancer Research UK Cancer Therapeutics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  33. Xavier Salvatella

    Institute for Research in Biomedicine, The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8371-4185
  34. Johann S de Bono

    Prostate Cancer Target Therapy Group, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  35. Andrew CB Cato

    Institute of Toxicology and Genetics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
    For correspondence
    andrew.cato@kit.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8508-3834
  36. Myles Brown

    Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Instittue, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    myles_brown@dfci.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8213-1658

Funding

Prostate Cancer Foundation

  • Laura Cato
  • Adam Sharp
  • Johann S de Bono
  • Andrew CB Cato
  • Myles Brown

Deutsche Krebshilfe

  • Andrew CB Cato

Barr Foundation

  • Laura Cato

Prostate Cancer UK

  • Adam Sharp

Medical Research Council

  • Adam Sharp

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Chi Van Dang, University of Pennsylvania, United States

Version history

  1. Received: March 23, 2017
  2. Accepted: August 7, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 10, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 5, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2017, Cato 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

  • 2,539
    views
  • 525
    downloads
  • 30
    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. Laura Cato
  2. Antje Neeb
  3. Adam Sharp
  4. Victor Buzón
  5. Scott B Ficarro
  6. Linxiao Yang
  7. Claudia Muhle-Goll
  8. Nane C Kuznik
  9. Ruth Riisnaes
  10. Daniel Nava Rodrigues
  11. Olivier Armant
  12. Victor Gourain
  13. Guillaume Adelmant
  14. Emmanuel A Ntim
  15. Thomas Westerling
  16. David Dolling
  17. Pasquale Rescigno
  18. Ines Figueiredo
  19. Friedrich Fauser
  20. Jennifer Wu
  21. Jaice T Rottenberg
  22. Liubov Shatkina
  23. Claudia Ester
  24. Burkhard Luy
  25. Holger Puchta
  26. Jakob Troppmair
  27. Nicole Jung
  28. Stefan Bräse
  29. Uwe Strähle
  30. Jarrod A Marto
  31. Gerd Ulrich Nienhaus
  32. Bissan Al-Lazikani
  33. Xavier Salvatella
  34. Johann S de Bono
  35. Andrew CB Cato
  36. Myles Brown
(2017)
Development of Bag-1L as a therapeutic target in androgen receptor-dependent prostate cancer
eLife 6:e27159.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27159

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27159

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Kevin Nuno, Armon Azizi ... Ravindra Majeti
    Research Article

    Relapse of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is highly aggressive and often treatment refractory. We analyzed previously published AML relapse cohorts and found that 40% of relapses occur without changes in driver mutations, suggesting that non-genetic mechanisms drive relapse in a large proportion of cases. We therefore characterized epigenetic patterns of AML relapse using 26 matched diagnosis-relapse samples with ATAC-seq. This analysis identified a relapse-specific chromatin accessibility signature for mutationally stable AML, suggesting that AML undergoes epigenetic evolution at relapse independent of mutational changes. Analysis of leukemia stem cell (LSC) chromatin changes at relapse indicated that this leukemic compartment underwent significantly less epigenetic evolution than non-LSCs, while epigenetic changes in non-LSCs reflected overall evolution of the bulk leukemia. Finally, we used single-cell ATAC-seq paired with mitochondrial sequencing (mtscATAC) to map clones from diagnosis into relapse along with their epigenetic features. We found that distinct mitochondrially-defined clones exhibit more similar chromatin accessibility at relapse relative to diagnosis, demonstrating convergent epigenetic evolution in relapsed AML. These results demonstrate that epigenetic evolution is a feature of relapsed AML and that convergent epigenetic evolution can occur following treatment with induction chemotherapy.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Ibtisam Ibtisam, Alexei F Kisselev
    Short Report

    Rapid recovery of proteasome activity may contribute to intrinsic and acquired resistance to FDA-approved proteasome inhibitors. Previous studies have demonstrated that the expression of proteasome genes in cells treated with sub-lethal concentrations of proteasome inhibitors is upregulated by the transcription factor Nrf1 (NFE2L1), which is activated by a DDI2 protease. Here, we demonstrate that the recovery of proteasome activity is DDI2-independent and occurs before transcription of proteasomal genes is upregulated but requires protein translation. Thus, mammalian cells possess an additional DDI2 and transcription-independent pathway for the rapid recovery of proteasome activity after proteasome inhibition.