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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Myles Brown, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, United States

Version history

  1. Received: April 4, 2019
  2. Accepted: December 19, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 19, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 17, 2020 (version 2)

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

  • 2,307
    views
  • 404
    downloads
  • 23
    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. 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.