Abstract

Standard treatment for metastatic prostate cancer (CaP) prevents ligand-activation of androgen receptor (AR). Despite initial remission, CaP progresses while relying on AR. AR transcriptional output controls CaP behavior and is an alternative therapeutic target, but its molecular regulation is poorly understood. Here, we show that action of activated AR partitions into fractions that are controlled preferentially by different coregulators. In a 452-AR-target gene panel, each of 18 clinically relevant coregulators mediates androgen-responsiveness of 0%-57% genes and acts as a coactivator or corepressor in a gene-specific manner. Selectivity in coregulator-dependent AR action is reflected in differential AR binding site composition and involvement with CaP biology and progression. Isolation of a novel transcriptional mechanism in which WDR77 unites the actions of AR and p53, the major genomic drivers of lethal CaP, to control cell cycle progression provides proof-of-principle for treatment via selective interference with AR action by exploiting AR dependence on coregulators.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Song Liu

    Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Sangeeta Kumari

    Department of Cancer Biology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Qiang Hu

    Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Dhirodatta Senapati

    Department of Cancer Biology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Varadha Balaji Venkadakrishnan

    Department of Cancer Biology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Dan Wang

    Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Adam D DePriest

    Department of Cancer Genetics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Simon E Schlanger

    Department of Cancer Biology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Salma Ben-Salem

    Department of Cancer Biology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Malyn May Valenzuela

    Department of Cancer Biology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Belinda Willard

    Research Core Services, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Shaila Mudambi

    Department of Cell Stress Biology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Wendy M Swetzig

    Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Gokul M Das

    Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Mojgan Shourideh

    Department of Cancer Genetics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Shahriah Koochekpour

    Department of Cancer Genetics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Sara Moscovita Falzarano

    Department of Anatomic Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Cristina Magi-Galluzzi

    Department of Anatomic Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Neelu Yadav

    Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Xiwei Chen

    Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Changshi Lao

    Institute of Nanosurface Science and Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Jianmin Wang

    Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Jean-Noel Billaud

    QIAGEN Bioinformatics, Redwood City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Hannelore Heemers

    Department of Cancer Biology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, United States
    For correspondence
    heemerh@ccf.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9137-5083

Funding

Prostate Cancer Foundation

  • Hannelore Heemers

National Cancer Institute (CA166440)

  • Hannelore Heemers

Velosano3

  • Hannelore Heemers

National Cancer Institute (1S10RR031537-01)

  • Belinda Willard

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

Copyright

© 2017, Liu 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

  • 4,730
    views
  • 724
    downloads
  • 50
    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. Song Liu
  2. Sangeeta Kumari
  3. Qiang Hu
  4. Dhirodatta Senapati
  5. Varadha Balaji Venkadakrishnan
  6. Dan Wang
  7. Adam D DePriest
  8. Simon E Schlanger
  9. Salma Ben-Salem
  10. Malyn May Valenzuela
  11. Belinda Willard
  12. Shaila Mudambi
  13. Wendy M Swetzig
  14. Gokul M Das
  15. Mojgan Shourideh
  16. Shahriah Koochekpour
  17. Sara Moscovita Falzarano
  18. Cristina Magi-Galluzzi
  19. Neelu Yadav
  20. Xiwei Chen
  21. Changshi Lao
  22. Jianmin Wang
  23. Jean-Noel Billaud
  24. Hannelore Heemers
(2017)
A comprehensive analysis of coregulator recruitment, androgen receptor function and gene expression in prostate cancer
eLife 6:e28482.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28482

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28482

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Susanne Tilk, Judith Frydman ... Dmitri A Petrov
    Research Article

    In asexual populations that don’t undergo recombination, such as cancer, deleterious mutations are expected to accrue readily due to genome-wide linkage between mutations. Despite this mutational load of often thousands of deleterious mutations, many tumors thrive. How tumors survive the damaging consequences of this mutational load is not well understood. Here, we investigate the functional consequences of mutational load in 10,295 human tumors by quantifying their phenotypic response through changes in gene expression. Using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), we find that high mutational load tumors up-regulate proteostasis machinery related to the mitigation and prevention of protein misfolding. We replicate these expression responses in cancer cell lines and show that the viability in high mutational load cancer cells is strongly dependent on complexes that degrade and refold proteins. This indicates that the upregulation of proteostasis machinery is causally important for high mutational burden tumors and uncovers new therapeutic vulnerabilities.