Human DECR1 is an androgen-repressed survival factor that regulates PUFA oxidation to protect prostate tumor cells from ferroptosis

  1. Zeyad D Nassar
  2. Chui Yan Mah
  3. Jonas Dehairs
  4. Ingrid JG Burvenich
  5. Swati Irani
  6. Margaret M Centenera
  7. Madison Helm
  8. Raj K Shrestha
  9. Max Moldovan
  10. Anthony S Don
  11. Jeff Holst
  12. Andrew M Scott
  13. Lisa G Horvath
  14. David J Lynn
  15. Luke A Selth
  16. Andrew J Hoy
  17. Johannes V Swinnen
  18. Lisa M Butler  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Adelaide, Australia
  2. KU Leuven, Belgium
  3. Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Australia
  4. South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Australia
  5. University of Sydney, Australia
  6. University of New South Wales, Australia
  7. Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Australia

Abstract

Fatty acid β-oxidation (FAO) is the main bioenergetic pathway in human prostate cancer (PCa) and a promising novel therapeutic vulnerability. Here we demonstrate therapeutic efficacy of targeting FAO in clinical prostate tumors cultured ex vivo, and identify DECR1, encoding the rate-limiting enzyme for oxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), as robustly overexpressed in PCa tissues and associated with shorter relapse-free survival. DECR1 is a negatively-regulated androgen receptor (AR) target gene and, therefore, may promote PCa cell survival and resistance to AR targeting therapeutics. DECR1 knockdown selectively inhibited β-oxidation of PUFAs, inhibited proliferation and migration of PCa cells, including treatment resistant lines, and suppressed tumor cell proliferation and metastasis in mouse xenograft models. Mechanistically, targeting of DECR1 caused cellular accumulation of PUFAs, enhanced mitochondrial oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation, and induced ferroptosis. These findings implicate PUFA oxidation via DECR1 as an unexplored facet of FAO that promotes survival of PCa cells.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Zeyad D Nassar

    Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7779-2697
  2. Chui Yan Mah

    Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8820-4037
  3. Jonas Dehairs

    Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ingrid JG Burvenich

    Tumour Targeting Laboratory, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Swati Irani

    Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Margaret M Centenera

    Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Madison Helm

    Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Raj K Shrestha

    Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Max Moldovan

    Precision Medicine, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Anthony S Don

    Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Jeff Holst

    School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Andrew M Scott

    Tumour Targeting Laboratory, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Lisa G Horvath

    Oncology, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. David J Lynn

    Precision Medicine, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Luke A Selth

    Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Andrew J Hoy

    Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Johannes V Swinnen

    Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Lisa M Butler

    Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    For correspondence
    lisa.butler@adelaide.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2698-3220

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council (Early Career Fellowship,1138648)

  • Zeyad D Nassar

KU Leuven (Project Grants C16/15/073 and C32/17/052)

  • Johannes V Swinnen

Australian Research Council (Future Fellowship,FT130101004)

  • Lisa M Butler

Cancer Council South Australia (Beat Cancer Fellowship,PRF1117)

  • Lisa M Butler

Movember Foundation (Revolutionary Team Award,MRTA3)

  • Lisa M Butler

National Health and Medical Research Council (Project Grant,1121057)

  • Luke A Selth

National Health and Medical Research Council (Project Grant,1100626)

  • Anthony S Don

National Health and Medical Research Council (Fellowship,1084178)

  • Andrew M Scott

Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (Young Investigator Award,YI 1417)

  • Zeyad D Nassar

Cure Cancer Australia Foundation (Project Grant,1164798)

  • Zeyad D Nassar

EMBL Australia (Group Leader Award)

  • David J Lynn

University of Sydney (Robinson Fellowship)

  • Andrew J Hoy

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Project Grants G.0841.15 and G.0C22.19N)

  • Johannes V Swinnen

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 studies were approved by the Austin Health Animal Ethics Committee (approval number A2015/05311), Heidelberg, Australia, and the University of Adelaide Animal Ethics Committee (approval number M-2019-037), and were carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

Human subjects: Fresh and archival prostate tissue specimens were collected from men undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy at St. Andrew's Hospital (Adelaide, South Australia) with written informed consent through the Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource. Ethical Approval was provided by the Human Research Ethics Committees of the University of Adelaide (H-2012-016) and St Andrew's Hospital.

Copyright

© 2020, Nassar 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

  • 4,712
    views
  • 717
    downloads
  • 122
    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. Zeyad D Nassar
  2. Chui Yan Mah
  3. Jonas Dehairs
  4. Ingrid JG Burvenich
  5. Swati Irani
  6. Margaret M Centenera
  7. Madison Helm
  8. Raj K Shrestha
  9. Max Moldovan
  10. Anthony S Don
  11. Jeff Holst
  12. Andrew M Scott
  13. Lisa G Horvath
  14. David J Lynn
  15. Luke A Selth
  16. Andrew J Hoy
  17. Johannes V Swinnen
  18. Lisa M Butler
(2020)
Human DECR1 is an androgen-repressed survival factor that regulates PUFA oxidation to protect prostate tumor cells from ferroptosis
eLife 9:e54166.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54166

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54166

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Maojin Tian, Le Yang ... Peiqing Zhao
    Research Article

    TIPE (TNFAIP8) has been identified as an oncogene and participates in tumor biology. However, how its role in the metabolism of tumor cells during melanoma development remains unclear. Here, we demonstrated that TIPE promoted glycolysis by interacting with pyruvate kinase M2 (PKM2) in melanoma. We found that TIPE-induced PKM2 dimerization, thereby facilitating its translocation from the cytoplasm to the nucleus. TIPE-mediated PKM2 dimerization consequently promoted HIF-1α activation and glycolysis, which contributed to melanoma progression and increased its stemness features. Notably, TIPE specifically phosphorylated PKM2 at Ser 37 in an extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK)-dependent manner. Consistently, the expression of TIPE was positively correlated with the levels of PKM2 Ser37 phosphorylation and cancer stem cell (CSC) markers in melanoma tissues from clinical samples and tumor bearing mice. In summary, our findings indicate that the TIPE/PKM2/HIF-1α signaling pathway plays a pivotal role in promoting CSC properties by facilitating the glycolysis, which would provide a promising therapeutic target for melanoma intervention.

    1. Cancer Biology
    Yiwei Huang, Gujie Wu ... Cheng Zhan
    Research Article

    Chemotherapy is widely used to treat lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) patients comprehensively. Considering the limitations of chemotherapy due to drug resistance and other issues, it is crucial to explore the impact of chemotherapy and immunotherapy on these aspects. In this study, tumor samples from nine LUAD patients, of which four only received surgery and five received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, were subjected to scRNA-seq analysis. In vitro and in vivo assays, including flow cytometry, immunofluorescence, Seahorse assay, and tumor xenograft models, were carried out to validate our findings. A total of 83,622 cells were enrolled for subsequent analyses. The composition of cell types exhibited high heterogeneity across different groups. Functional enrichment analysis revealed that chemotherapy drove significant metabolic reprogramming in tumor cells and macrophages. We identified two subtypes of macrophages: Anti-mac cells (CD45+CD11b+CD86+) and Pro-mac cells (CD45+CD11b+ARG +) and sorted them by flow cytometry. The proportion of Pro-mac cells in LUAD tissues increased significantly after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Pro-mac cells promote tumor growth and angiogenesis and also suppress tumor immunity. Moreover, by analyzing the remodeling of T and B cells induced by neoadjuvant therapy, we noted that chemotherapy ignited a relatively more robust immune cytotoxic response toward tumor cells. Our study demonstrates that chemotherapy induces metabolic reprogramming within the tumor microenvironment of LUAD, particularly affecting the function and composition of immune cells such as macrophages and T cells. We believe our findings will offer insight into the mechanisms of drug resistance and provide novel therapeutic targets for LUAD in the future.