Abstract

Androgen receptor (AR) inhibitors represent the mainstay of prostate cancer treatment. In a genome-wide CRISPR-Cas9 screen using LNCaP prostate cancer cells, loss of co-repressor TLE3 conferred resistance to AR antagonists apalutamide and enzalutamide. Genes differentially expressed upon TLE3 loss share AR as the top transcriptional regulator, and TLE3 loss rescued the expression of a subset of androgen-responsive genes upon enzalutamide treatment. GR expression was strongly upregulated upon AR inhibition in a TLE3-negative background. This was consistent with binding of TLE3 and AR at the GR locus. Furthermore, GR binding was observed proximal to TLE3/AR-shared genes. GR inhibition resensitized TLE3KO cells to enzalutamide. Analyses of patient samples revealed an association between TLE3 and GR levels that reflected our findings in LNCaP cells, of which the clinical relevance is yet to be determined. Together, our findings reveal a mechanistic link between TLE3 and GR-mediated resistance to AR inhibitors in human prostate cancer.

Data availability

Data for Figure 1 (CRISPR resistance screen) is provided (source data file for Figure 1).Data for Figure 2 (RNA-seq) have been deposited in GEO under accession code GSE130246.Data (ChIP-seq) for Figure 3 and 4 is publicly available (GSE94682).Data for Figure 5C is the TCGA dataset (publicly available).

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sander AL Palit

    Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    s.palit@nki.nl
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2487-4311
  2. Daniel Vis

    Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Suzan Stelloo

    Division of Oncogenomics, Oncode Institute, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Cor Lieftink

    Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Stefan Prekovic

    Division of Oncogenomics, Oncode Institute, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Elise Bekers

    Division of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Ingrid Hofland

    Core Facility Molecular Pathology and Biobanking, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Tonći Šuštić

    Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Liesanne Wolters

    Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Roderick Beijersbergen

    Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Andries M Bergman

    Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Balázs Győrffy

    TTK Cancer Biomarker Research Group, Institute of Enzymology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Lodewyk FA Wessels

    Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Wilbert Zwart

    Division of Oncogenomics, Oncode Institute, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    Wilbert Zwart, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9823-7289
  15. Michiel S van der Heijden

    Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    ms.vd.heijden@nki.nl
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding (NKI2014-7080)

  • Michiel S van der Heijden

KWF Kankerbestrijding (NKI2014-7080)

  • Andries M Bergman

KWF Kankerbestrijding (NKI2014-7080)

  • Wilbert Zwart

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

Copyright

© 2019, Palit 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

  • 2,425
    views
  • 415
    downloads
  • 28
    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. Sander AL Palit
  2. Daniel Vis
  3. Suzan Stelloo
  4. Cor Lieftink
  5. Stefan Prekovic
  6. Elise Bekers
  7. Ingrid Hofland
  8. Tonći Šuštić
  9. Liesanne Wolters
  10. Roderick Beijersbergen
  11. Andries M Bergman
  12. Balázs Győrffy
  13. Lodewyk FA Wessels
  14. Wilbert Zwart
  15. Michiel S van der Heijden
(2019)
TLE3 loss confers AR inhibitor resistance by facilitating GR-mediated human prostate cancer cell growth
eLife 8:e47430.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47430

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47430

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Arman Angaji, Michel Owusu ... Johannes Berg
    Research Article

    In growing cell populations such as tumours, mutations can serve as markers that allow tracking the past evolution from current samples. The genomic analyses of bulk samples and samples from multiple regions have shed light on the evolutionary forces acting on tumours. However, little is known empirically on the spatio-temporal dynamics of tumour evolution. Here, we leverage published data from resected hepatocellular carcinomas, each with several hundred samples taken in two and three dimensions. Using spatial metrics of evolution, we find that tumour cells grow predominantly uniformly within the tumour volume instead of at the surface. We determine how mutations and cells are dispersed throughout the tumour and how cell death contributes to the overall tumour growth. Our methods shed light on the early evolution of tumours in vivo and can be applied to high-resolution data in the emerging field of spatial biology.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Susanne Tilk, Judith Frydman ... Dmitri A Petrov
    Research Article

    In asexual populations that don’t undergo recombination, such as cancer, deleterious mutations are expected to accrue readily due to genome-wide linkage between mutations. Despite this mutational load of often thousands of deleterious mutations, many tumors thrive. How tumors survive the damaging consequences of this mutational load is not well understood. Here, we investigate the functional consequences of mutational load in 10,295 human tumors by quantifying their phenotypic response through changes in gene expression. Using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), we find that high mutational load tumors up-regulate proteostasis machinery related to the mitigation and prevention of protein misfolding. We replicate these expression responses in cancer cell lines and show that the viability in high mutational load cancer cells is strongly dependent on complexes that degrade and refold proteins. This indicates that the upregulation of proteostasis machinery is causally important for high mutational burden tumors and uncovers new therapeutic vulnerabilities.