Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Epigenetics ; 11(3): 184-93, 2016 03 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26890396

ABSTRACT

Small cell prostate carcinoma (SCPC) morphology is rare at initial diagnosis but often emerges during prostate cancer progression and portends a dismal prognosis. It does not express androgen receptor (AR) or respond to hormonal therapies. Clinically applicable markers for its early detection and treatment with effective chemotherapy are needed. Our studies in patient tumor-derived xenografts (PDX) revealed that AR-negative SCPC (AR(-)SCPC) expresses neural development genes instead of the prostate luminal epithelial genes characteristic of AR-positive castration-resistant adenocarcinomas (AR(+)ADENO). We hypothesized that the differences in cellular lineage programs are reflected in distinct epigenetic profiles. To address this hypothesis, we compared the DNA methylation profiles of AR(-) and AR(+) PDX using methylated CpG island amplification and microarray (MCAM) analysis and identified a set of differentially methylated promoters, validated in PDX and corresponding donor patient samples. We used the Illumina 450K platform to examine additional regions of the genome and the correlation between the DNA methylation profiles of the PDX and their corresponding patient tumors. Struck by the low frequency of AR promoter methylation in the AR(-)SCPC, we investigated this region's specific histone modification patterns by chromatin immunoprecipitation. We found that the AR promoter was enriched in silencing histone modifications (H3K27me3 and H3K9me2) and that EZH2 inhibition with 3-deazaneplanocin A (DZNep) resulted in AR expression and growth inhibition in AR(-)SCPC cell lines. We conclude that the epigenome of AR(-) is distinct from that of AR(+) castration-resistant prostate carcinomas, and that the AR(-) phenotype can be reversed with epigenetic drugs.


Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Small Cell/genetics , DNA Methylation/genetics , Enhancer of Zeste Homolog 2 Protein/genetics , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/genetics , Receptors, Androgen/genetics , Adenosine/administration & dosage , Adenosine/analogs & derivatives , Animals , Carcinoma, Small Cell/pathology , Cell Line, Tumor , Cell Lineage/genetics , CpG Islands/genetics , Enhancer of Zeste Homolog 2 Protein/antagonists & inhibitors , Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic/drug effects , Humans , Male , Mice , Promoter Regions, Genetic , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/pathology , Receptors, Androgen/biosynthesis , Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays
2.
Clin Cancer Res ; 18(3): 666-77, 2012 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22156612

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Small-cell prostate carcinoma (SCPC) morphology predicts for a distinct clinical behavior, resistance to androgen ablation, and frequent but short responses to chemotherapy. We sought to develop model systems that reflect human SCPC and can improve our understanding of its biology. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We developed a set of castration-resistant prostate carcinomas xenografts and examined their fidelity to their human tumors of origin. We compared the expression and genomic profiles of SCPC and large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) xenografts to those of typical prostate adenocarcinoma xenografts. Results were validated immunohistochemically in a panel of 60 human tumors. RESULTS: The reported SCPC and LCNEC xenografts retain high fidelity to their human tumors of origin and are characterized by a marked upregulation of UBE2C and other mitotic genes in the absence of androgen receptor (AR), retinoblastoma (RB1), and cyclin D1 (CCND1) expression. We confirmed these findings in a panel of samples of CRPC patients. In addition, array comparative genomic hybridization of the xenografts showed that the SCPC/LCNEC tumors display more copy number variations than the adenocarcinoma counterparts. Amplification of the UBE2C locus and microdeletions of RB1 were present in a subset, but none displayed AR nor CCND1 deletions. The AR, RB1, and CCND1 promoters showed no CpG methylation in the SCPC xenografts. CONCLUSION: Modeling human prostate carcinoma with xenografts allows in-depth and detailed studies of its underlying biology. The detailed clinical annotation of the donor tumors enables associations of anticipated relevance to be made. Future studies in the xenografts will address the functional significance of the findings.


Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Small Cell/genetics , Carcinoma, Small Cell/metabolism , Disease Models, Animal , Prostatic Neoplasms/genetics , Prostatic Neoplasms/metabolism , Aged , Animals , Carcinoma, Small Cell/pathology , Comparative Genomic Hybridization , Gene Expression Profiling , Humans , Immunohistochemistry , Male , Mice , Middle Aged , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Tissue Array Analysis , Transplantation, Heterologous
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...