Androgen-regulated transcription of ESRP2 drives alternative splicing patterns in prostate cancer

Abstract

Prostate is the most frequent cancer in men. Prostate cancer progression is driven by androgen steroid hormones, and delayed by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Androgens control transcription by stimulating androgen receptor (AR) activity, yet also control pre-mRNA splicing through less clear mechanisms. Here we find androgens regulate splicing through AR-mediated transcriptional control of the epithelial-specific splicing regulator ESRP2. Both ESRP2 and its close paralog ESRP1 are highly expressed in primary prostate cancer. Androgen stimulation induces splicing switches in many endogenous ESRP2-controlled mRNA isoforms, including splicing switches correlating with disease progression. ESRP2 expression in clinical prostate cancer is repressed by ADT, which may thus inadvertently dampen epithelial splice programmes. Supporting this, treatment with the AR antagonist bicalutamide (Casodex®) induced mesenchymal splicing patterns of genes including FLNB and CTNND1. Our data reveals a new mechanism of splicing control in prostate cancer with important implications for disease progression.

Data availability

Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO under accession code GSE129540.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jennifer Munkley

    Institute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    Jennifer.munkley@ncl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8631-4531
  2. Li Ling

    Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. S R Gokul Krishnan

    Institute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4886-2710
  4. Gerald Hysenaj

    Institute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Emma Scott

    Institute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Caroline Dalgliesh

    Institute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Htoo Zarni Oo

    Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Teresa Mendes Maia

    Instituto de Medicina Molecular João Lobo Antunes, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0038-9629
  9. Kathleen Cheung

    Bioinformatics Support Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Ingrid Ehrmann

    Institute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Karen E Livermore

    Institute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Hanna Zielinska

    Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Oliver Thompson

    Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Bridget Knight

    NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Paul McCullagh

    Department of Pathology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. John McGrath

    Exeter Surgical Health Services Research Unit, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Malcolm Crundwell

    Department of Urology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Lorna W Harries

    Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Mads Daugaard

    Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Simon Cockell

    Bioinformatics Support Unit, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Nuno L Barbosa-Morais

    Instituto de Medicina Molecular João Lobo Antunes, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
    For correspondence
    nmorais@medicina.ulisboa.pt
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1215-0538
  22. Sebastian Oltean

    Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    s.oltean@exeter.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. David J Elliott

    Institute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    David.Elliott@ncl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6930-0699

Funding

Prostate Cancer UK (PG12-34)

  • Jennifer Munkley
  • Emma Scott
  • Karen E Livermore

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/P006612/1)

  • Ingrid Ehrmann

Terry Fox Research Institute (TFRI-NF-PPG)

  • Mads Daugaard

Breast Cancer Now (2014NovPR355)

  • Caroline Dalgliesh

Prostate Cancer UK (RIA16-ST2-011)

  • Jennifer Munkley
  • Emma Scott
  • Karen E Livermore

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animal work was performed with the approval of Bristol University animal research ethics committee, according to recommendations of www.nc3rs.org.uk, and the UK Government Home Office (home office license PPL 30/3105). All experiments and procedures were approved by the UK Home office in accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals was followed.

Human subjects: RNA samples from prostate cancer patients were obtained with ethical approval through the Exeter NIHR Clinical Research Facility tissue bank (Ref: STB20). Written informed consent for the use of surgically obtained tissue was provided by all patients.

Copyright

© 2019, Munkley 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

  • 3,841
    views
  • 582
    downloads
  • 51
    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. Jennifer Munkley
  2. Li Ling
  3. S R Gokul Krishnan
  4. Gerald Hysenaj
  5. Emma Scott
  6. Caroline Dalgliesh
  7. Htoo Zarni Oo
  8. Teresa Mendes Maia
  9. Kathleen Cheung
  10. Ingrid Ehrmann
  11. Karen E Livermore
  12. Hanna Zielinska
  13. Oliver Thompson
  14. Bridget Knight
  15. Paul McCullagh
  16. John McGrath
  17. Malcolm Crundwell
  18. Lorna W Harries
  19. Mads Daugaard
  20. Simon Cockell
  21. Nuno L Barbosa-Morais
  22. Sebastian Oltean
  23. David J Elliott
(2019)
Androgen-regulated transcription of ESRP2 drives alternative splicing patterns in prostate cancer
eLife 8:e47678.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47678

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47678

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Leif Benner, Savannah Muron ... Brian Oliver
    Research Article

    Differentiation of female germline stem cells into a mature oocyte includes the expression of RNAs and proteins that drive early embryonic development in Drosophila. We have little insight into what activates the expression of these maternal factors. One candidate is the zinc-finger protein OVO. OVO is required for female germline viability and has been shown to positively regulate its own expression, as well as a downstream target, ovarian tumor, by binding to the transcriptional start site (TSS). To find additional OVO targets in the female germline and further elucidate OVO’s role in oocyte development, we performed ChIP-seq to determine genome-wide OVO occupancy, as well as RNA-seq comparing hypomorphic and wild type rescue ovo alleles. OVO preferentially binds in close proximity to target TSSs genome-wide, is associated with open chromatin, transcriptionally active histone marks, and OVO-dependent expression. Motif enrichment analysis on OVO ChIP peaks identified a 5’-TAACNGT-3’ OVO DNA binding motif spatially enriched near TSSs. However, the OVO DNA binding motif does not exhibit precise motif spacing relative to the TSS characteristic of RNA polymerase II complex binding core promoter elements. Integrated genomics analysis showed that 525 genes that are bound and increase in expression downstream of OVO are known to be essential maternally expressed genes. These include genes involved in anterior/posterior/germ plasm specification (bcd, exu, swa, osk, nos, aub, pgc, gcl), egg activation (png, plu, gnu, wisp, C(3)g, mtrm), translational regulation (cup, orb, bru1, me31B), and vitelline membrane formation (fs(1)N, fs(1)M3, clos). This suggests that OVO is a master transcriptional regulator of oocyte development and is responsible for the expression of structural components of the egg as well as maternally provided RNAs that are required for early embryonic development.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Erik Toraason, Alina Salagean ... Diana E Libuda
    Research Article Updated

    The preservation of genome integrity during sperm and egg development is vital for reproductive success. During meiosis, the tumor suppressor BRCA1/BRC-1 and structural maintenance of chromosomes 5/6 (SMC-5/6) complex genetically interact to promote high fidelity DNA double strand break (DSB) repair, but the specific DSB repair outcomes these proteins regulate remain unknown. Using genetic and cytological methods to monitor resolution of DSBs with different repair partners in Caenorhabditis elegans, we demonstrate that both BRC-1 and SMC-5 repress intersister crossover recombination events. Sequencing analysis of conversion tracts from homolog-independent DSB repair events further indicates that BRC-1 regulates intersister/intrachromatid noncrossover conversion tract length. Moreover, we find that BRC-1 specifically inhibits error prone repair of DSBs induced at mid-pachytene. Finally, we reveal functional interactions of BRC-1 and SMC-5/6 in regulating repair pathway engagement: BRC-1 is required for localization of recombinase proteins to DSBs in smc-5 mutants and enhances DSB repair defects in smc-5 mutants by repressing theta-mediated end joining (TMEJ). These results are consistent with a model in which some functions of BRC-1 act upstream of SMC-5/6 to promote recombination and inhibit error-prone DSB repair, while SMC-5/6 acts downstream of BRC-1 to regulate the formation or resolution of recombination intermediates. Taken together, our study illuminates the coordinated interplay of BRC-1 and SMC-5/6 to regulate DSB repair outcomes in the germline.