Stable expression of full length human androgen receptor in PC-3 prostate cancer cells enhances sensitivity to retinoic acid but not to 1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3

BACKGROUND: PC-3 prostate cancer cell growth is inhibited by 1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) (1,25 D) and retinoids, but not to the same extent as the androgen receptor (AR) positive LNCaP prostate cancer cells. Previous reports suggest a role for AR in growth inhibition of LNCaP cells by 1,25 D and retinoids. PC-3 cells do not express AR. We therefore asked whether re-expression of AR would enhance the response of PC-3 cells to 1,25 D and retinoids. METHODS: PC-3 cells were stably transfected with wild type human AR cDNA. Pooled cells expressing AR protein at levels comparable to LNCaP cells were used to analyze response to 1,25 D, retinoids, androgens, and anti-androgens. RESULTS: AR re-expression in PC-3 cells restored response to androgens and anti-androgens, but growth inhibition by 1,25 D was not significantly altered. However, cells were sensitized to low levels of retinoids, and, in contrast to the parental PC-3 cells, sub-optimal levels of 1,25 D and retinoids caused additive growth inhibition. CONCLUSIONS: Restoring AR expression and activity in PC-3 cells results in enhanced sensitivity to low levels of retinoids while the response to 1,25 D remains unaltered. Thus, the involvement of AR in prostate cancer growth inhibition by 1,25 D appears to be cell line specific.     

PC-3 cells with enhanced androgen receptor signaling: a model for clonal selection in prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: Two sublines of the human prostate cancer cell line, PC-3, which is widely used as a model of prostate cancer progression, have been reported: PC-3(AR-) that do not express androgen receptor (AR), and PC-3AR+ that have measurable AR RNA but little protein. METHODS: We assayed the geneotype, karyotype, AR expression, and physical characteristics of the two PC-3 sublines, and compared their ability to elicit a transactivation response from ectopic AR in the presence and absence of specific AR coregulators. RESULTS: PC-3(AR-) and PC-3AR+ cells are genotypically and karyotypically similar, but exhibit salient differences in their morphology, growth rate, and expression of AR RNA. Whereas endogenous AR expression in PC-3AR+ cells does not result in sufficient protein to confer androgen responsiveness in culture, ectopic AR consistently elicited a much greater transactivation response in PC-3AR+ than in PC-3(AR-) cells, without altered sensitivity to activation by native ligand or AR coregulators including GRIP1, BRCA1, and Zac1. Moreover, phenotypic differences of AR variants implicated in prostate cancer susceptibility and progression were only observed in PC-3AR+ cells. Higher levels of known AR coregulator proteins detected in PC-3AR+ compared with PC-3(AR-) cells likely contribute to these differences. CONCLUSIONS: These studies provide new evidence that the androgen-signaling axis can be sensitized in prostate cancer cells, and have important implications for the analysis and interpretation of AR structure and function in in vitro cell systems.     

Molecular modelling of the androgen receptor axis: rational basis for androgen receptor intervention in androgen-independent prostate cancer

Androgen depletion in combination with antiandrogenic agents is initially highly effective for treating prostate cancer, and is the recommended treatment for more advanced or higher-grade tumours. However, many tumours eventually become insensitive to androgens, even though the androgen receptor (AR) continues to be expressed. Computational chemistry combined with structural analysis of nuclear receptors and determination of binding affinities of natural and designed coregulators (coactivators and corepressors) provides the theoretical framework for the rational design of novel therapeutic agents directed at the AR. Adding alternative groups to various sites throughout the receptor can alter the conformation of the molecule and its functional binding with coactivators or corepressors. Possible molecules can be identified thoroughly and systematically using intelligent high-throughput screening and FASTrack chemistry (three-dimensional crystallography). Applying these techniques should eventually result in therapeutic agents for androgen-independent prostate cancer that can block binding of AR coactivators while simultaneously increasing binding of AR corepressors.     

Differential regulation of IGFBP-3 by the androgen receptor in the lineage-related androgen-dependent LNCaP and androgen-independent C4-2 prostate cancer models

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence implicating insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) as a growth inhibitor of prostate cancer (CaP), little is known about changes in its regulation and function during progression to androgen independence. METHODS: The expression levels of IGFBP-3 were determined by cDNA microarray analysis and tissue microarrays (TMAs) after androgen ablations. LNCaP (LN-BP3) and C4-2 (C4-2-BP3) sublines were used to compare the apoptotic effects of IGFBP-3 in LNCaP (androgen-dependent) and C4-2 (androgen-independent) cells. RESULTS: After androgen deprivation, IGFBP-3 mRNA levels increased more in C4-2 compared to LNCaP cells. Androgens suppressed IGFBP-3 levels in a dose-dependent manner in LNCaP and C4-2 cell. IGFBP-3 expression was increased after NHT in human CaP tissues. Apoptotic rates increased in LN-BP3, but not C4-2-BP3 cells, following doxycycline-mediated IGFBP-3 induction. CONCLUSIONS: C4-2 cell survival in an androgen-depleted environment may be facilitated through differential resistance to the apoptotic effects elicited by IGFBP-3.     

ACTR/AIB1/SRC-3 and androgen receptor control prostate cancer cell proliferation and tumor growth through direct control of cell cycle genes

BACKGROUND: Co-factor ACTR is frequently overexpressed and/or amplified in multiple types of tumors. The mechanism of its function in prostate cancer (CaP) is still unclear. METHODS: The effects of ACTR and androgen receptor (AR) depletion on cell proliferation and gene expression and their functions were analyzed in a panel of androgen-dependent and -independent CaP cells and CWR22 xenograft. RESULTS: ACTR and AR, but not TIF2, are required for proliferation of androgen-dependent and -independent cells, and for tumor growth. While AR depletion inhibited the expression of cyclin D1, cyclin B, and cdc2, ACTR depletion reduced the expression of cyclin E and cdk2. In response to serum stimulation, AR and ACTR are recruited to the corresponding target gene promoters to activate their expression in androgen-independent manner. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that AR and ACTR may play important roles in androgen ablation resistance by controlling key cell cycle gene expression.     

The androgen receptor in hormone-refractory prostate cancer

Advanced prostate cancer is responsive to hormone therapy that interferes with androgen receptor （AR） signalling. However, the effect is short-lived, as nearly all tumours progress to a hormone-refractory （HR） state, a lethal stage of the disease. Intuitively, the AR should not be involved because hormone therapy that blocks or reduces AR activity is not effective in treating HR tumours. However, there is still a consensus that AR plays an essential role in HR prostate cancer （HRPC） because AR signalling is still functional in HR tumours. AR signalling can be activated in HR tumours through several mechanisms. First, activation of intracellular signal transduction pathways can sensitize the AR to castrate levels of androgens. Also, mutations in the AR can change AR ligand specificity, thereby allowing it to be activated by non-steroids or anti-androgens. Finally, overexpression of the wild-type AR sensitizes itself to low concentrations of androgens. Therefore, drugs targeting AR signalling could still be effective in treating HRPC.