A feedback loop between the androgen receptor and 6-phosphogluoconate dehydrogenase (6PGD) drives prostate cancer growth

  1. Joanna L Gillis
  2. Josephine A Hinneh
  3. Natalie K Ryan
  4. Swati Irani
  5. Max Moldovan
  6. Lake-Ee Quek
  7. Raj K Shrestha
  8. Adrienne R Hanson
  9. Jianling Xie
  10. Andrew J Hoy
  11. Jeff Holst
  12. Margaret M Centenera
  13. Ian G Mills
  14. David J Lynn
  15. Luke A Selth  Is a corresponding author
  16. Lisa M Butler  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Adelaide, Australia
  2. South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Australia
  3. University of Sydney, Australia
  4. Flinders University, Australia
  5. University of New South Wales, Australia
  6. Queen's University Belfast, United Kingdom

Abstract

Alterations to the androgen receptor (AR) signalling axis and cellular metabolism are hallmarks of prostate cancer. This study provides insight into both hallmarks by uncovering a novel link between AR and the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP). Specifically, we identify 6-phosphogluoconate dehydrogenase (6PGD) as an androgen-regulated gene that is upregulated in prostate cancer. AR increased the expression of 6PGD indirectly via activation of sterol regulatory element binding protein 1 (SREBP1). Accordingly, loss of 6PGD, AR or SREBP1 resulted in suppression of PPP activity, as revealed by 1,2-13C2 glucose metabolic flux analysis. Knockdown of 6PGD also impaired growth and elicited death of prostate cancer cells, at least in part due to increased oxidative stress. We investigated the therapeutic potential of targeting 6PGD using two specific inhibitors, physcion and S3, and observed substantial anti-cancer activity in multiple models of prostate cancer, including aggressive, therapy-resistant models of castration-resistant disease as well as prospectively-collected patient-derived tumour explants. Targeting of 6PGD was associated with two important tumour-suppressive mechanisms: first, increased activity of the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), which repressed anabolic growth-promoting pathways regulated by ACC1 and mTOR; and second, enhanced AR ubiquitylation, associated with a reduction in AR protein levels and activity. Supporting the biological relevance of positive feedback between AR and PGD, pharmacological co-targeting of both factors was more effective in suppressing the growth of prostate cancer cells than single agent therapies. Collectively, this work provides new insight into the dysregulated metabolism of prostate cancer and provides impetus for further investigation of co-targeting AR and the PPP as a novel therapeutic strategy.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figure 1.Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO under accession code GSE152254

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Joanna L Gillis

    Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Josephine A Hinneh

    Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Natalie K Ryan

    Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Swati Irani

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

    Precision Medicine, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Lake-Ee Quek

    Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Raj K Shrestha

    Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Adrienne R Hanson

    Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jianling Xie

    Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Andrew J Hoy

    Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3922-1137
  11. Jeff Holst

    School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0377-9318
  12. Margaret M Centenera

    Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Ian G Mills

    Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
    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

    Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia
    For correspondence
    luke.selth@flinders.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. 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

Cancer Australia (1138766)

  • Margaret M Centenera
  • Ian G Mills
  • David J Lynn
  • Lisa M Butler

Movember Foundation (MRTA3)

  • Andrew J Hoy
  • Margaret M Centenera
  • Luke A Selth
  • Lisa M Butler

Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (MRTA3)

  • Andrew J Hoy
  • Margaret M Centenera
  • Luke A Selth
  • Lisa M Butler

Cancer Council South Australia (Principal Cancer Research Fellowships)

  • Luke A Selth
  • Lisa M Butler

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

Ethics

Human subjects: Prostate cancer tissue was obtained with informed written consent through the Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource from men undergoing radical prostatectomy at St Andrew's Hospital (Adelaide, Australia). Ethical approval for the use of human prostate tumours was obtained from the Ethics Committees of the University of Adelaide (Adelaide, Australia) and St Andrew's Hospital (Adelaide, Australia). All experiments were performed in accordance with the guidelines of the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).

Copyright

© 2021, Gillis 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

  • 2,520
    views
  • 345
    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. Joanna L Gillis
  2. Josephine A Hinneh
  3. Natalie K Ryan
  4. Swati Irani
  5. Max Moldovan
  6. Lake-Ee Quek
  7. Raj K Shrestha
  8. Adrienne R Hanson
  9. Jianling Xie
  10. Andrew J Hoy
  11. Jeff Holst
  12. Margaret M Centenera
  13. Ian G Mills
  14. David J Lynn
  15. Luke A Selth
  16. Lisa M Butler
(2021)
A feedback loop between the androgen receptor and 6-phosphogluoconate dehydrogenase (6PGD) drives prostate cancer growth
eLife 10:e62592.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62592

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62592

Further reading

    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.

    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.