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.

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

  • 2,600
    views
  • 538
    downloads
  • 33
    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. Immunology and Inflammation
    Sofia V Krasik, Ekaterina A Bryushkova ... Ekaterina O Serebrovskaya
    Research Article

    The current understanding of humoral immune response in cancer patients suggests that tumors may be infiltrated with diffuse B cells of extra-tumoral origin or may develop organized lymphoid structures, where somatic hypermutation and antigen-driven selection occur locally. These processes are believed to be significantly influenced by the tumor microenvironment through secretory factors and biased cell-cell interactions. To explore the manifestation of this influence, we used deep unbiased immunoglobulin profiling and systematically characterized the relationships between B cells in circulation, draining lymph nodes (draining LNs), and tumors in 14 patients with three human cancers. We demonstrated that draining LNs are differentially involved in the interaction with the tumor site, and that significant heterogeneity exists even between different parts of a single lymph node (LN). Next, we confirmed and elaborated upon previous observations regarding intratumoral immunoglobulin heterogeneity. We identified B cell receptor (BCR) clonotypes that were expanded in tumors relative to draining LNs and blood and observed that these tumor-expanded clonotypes were less hypermutated than non-expanded (ubiquitous) clonotypes. Furthermore, we observed a shift in the properties of complementarity-determining region 3 of the BCR heavy chain (CDR-H3) towards less mature and less specific BCR repertoire in tumor-infiltrating B-cells compared to circulating B-cells, which may indicate less stringent control for antibody-producing B cell development in tumor microenvironment (TME). In addition, we found repertoire-level evidence that B-cells may be selected according to their CDR-H3 physicochemical properties before they activate somatic hypermutation (SHM). Altogether, our work outlines a broad picture of the differences in the tumor BCR repertoire relative to non-tumor tissues and points to the unexpected features of the SHM process.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Rosalyn W Sayaman, Masaru Miyano ... Mark A LaBarge
    Research Article Updated

    Effects from aging in single cells are heterogenous, whereas at the organ- and tissue-levels aging phenotypes tend to appear as stereotypical changes. The mammary epithelium is a bilayer of two major phenotypically and functionally distinct cell lineages: luminal epithelial and myoepithelial cells. Mammary luminal epithelia exhibit substantial stereotypical changes with age that merit attention because these cells are the putative cells-of-origin for breast cancers. We hypothesize that effects from aging that impinge upon maintenance of lineage fidelity increase susceptibility to cancer initiation. We generated and analyzed transcriptomes from primary luminal epithelial and myoepithelial cells from younger <30 (y)ears old and older >55 y women. In addition to age-dependent directional changes in gene expression, we observed increased transcriptional variance with age that contributed to genome-wide loss of lineage fidelity. Age-dependent variant responses were common to both lineages, whereas directional changes were almost exclusively detected in luminal epithelia and involved altered regulation of chromatin and genome organizers such as SATB1. Epithelial expression variance of gap junction protein GJB6 increased with age, and modulation of GJB6 expression in heterochronous co-cultures revealed that it provided a communication conduit from myoepithelial cells that drove directional change in luminal cells. Age-dependent luminal transcriptomes comprised a prominent signal that could be detected in bulk tissue during aging and transition into cancers. A machine learning classifier based on luminal-specific aging distinguished normal from cancer tissue and was highly predictive of breast cancer subtype. We speculate that luminal epithelia are the ultimate site of integration of the variant responses to aging in their surrounding tissue, and that their emergent phenotype both endows cells with the ability to become cancer-cells-of-origin and represents a biosensor that presages cancer susceptibility.