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

  • 4,788
    views
  • 723
    downloads
  • 125
    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
    Ismail M Meraz, Mourad Majidi ... Jack A Roth
    Research Article

    Expression of NPRL2/TUSC4, a tumor-suppressor gene, is reduced in many cancers including NSCLC. Restoration of NPRL2 induces DNA damage, apoptosis, and cell-cycle arrest. We investigated NPRL2 antitumor immune responses in aPD1R/KRAS/STK11mt NSCLC in humanized-mice. Humanized-mice were generated by transplanting fresh human cord blood-derived CD34 stem cells into sub-lethally irradiated NSG mice. Lung-metastases were developed from KRAS/STK11mt/aPD1R A549 cells and treated with NPRL2 w/wo pembrolizumab. NPRL2-treatment reduced lung metastases significantly, whereas pembrolizumab was ineffective. Antitumor effect was greater in humanized than non-humanized-mice. NPRL2 + pembrolizumab was not synergistic in KRAS/STK11mt/aPD1R tumors but was synergistic in KRASwt/aPD1S H1299. NPRL2 also showed a significant antitumor effect on KRASmt/aPD1R LLC2 syngeneic-tumors. The antitumor effect was correlated with increased infiltration of human cytotoxic-T, HLA-DR+DC, CD11c+DC, and downregulation of myeloid and regulatory-T cells in TME. Antitumor effect was abolished upon in-vivo depletion of CD8-T, macrophages, and CD4-T cells whereas remained unaffected upon NK-cell depletion. A distinctive protein-expression profile was found after NPRL2 treatment. IFNγ, CD8b, and TBX21 associated with T-cell functions were significantly increased, whereas FOXP3, TGFB1/B2, and IL-10RA were strongly inhibited by NPRL2. A list of T-cell co-inhibitory molecules was also downregulated. Restoration of NPRL2 exhibited significantly slower tumor growth in humanized-mice, which was associated with increased presence of human cytotoxic-T, and DC and decreased percentage of Treg, MDSC, and TAM in TME. NPRL2-stable cells showed a substantial increase in colony-formation inhibition and heightened sensitivity to carboplatin. Stable-expression of NPRL2 resulted in the downregulation of MAPK and AKT-mTOR signaling. Taken-together, NPRL2 gene-therapy induces antitumor activity on KRAS/STK11mt/aPD1R tumors through DC-mediated antigen-presentation and cytotoxic immune-cell activation.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cancer Biology
    Flavie Coquel, Sing-Zong Ho ... Philippe Pasero
    Research Article

    Cancer cells display high levels of oncogene-induced replication stress (RS) and rely on DNA damage checkpoint for viability. This feature is exploited by cancer therapies to either increase RS to unbearable levels or inhibit checkpoint kinases involved in the DNA damage response. Thus far, treatments that combine these two strategies have shown promise but also have severe adverse effects. To identify novel, better-tolerated anticancer combinations, we screened a collection of plant extracts and found two natural compounds from the plant, Psoralea corylifolia, that synergistically inhibit cancer cell proliferation. Bakuchiol inhibited DNA replication and activated the checkpoint kinase CHK1 by targeting DNA polymerases. Isobavachalcone interfered with DNA double-strand break repair by inhibiting the checkpoint kinase CHK2 and DNA end resection. The combination of bakuchiol and isobavachalcone synergistically inhibited cancer cell proliferation in vitro. Importantly, it also prevented tumor development in xenografted NOD/SCID mice. The synergistic effect of inhibiting DNA replication and CHK2 signaling identifies a vulnerability of cancer cells that might be exploited by using clinically approved inhibitors in novel combination therapies.