Loss and revival of androgen receptor signaling in advanced prostate cancer

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41388-020-01598-0#Sec9

@axolotl @Dubya_B @awor @Greek @orthogs @Frustrated @scaredoutofmymind @Northern_Star

have you guys read this? came out a couple of weeks ago

“At this point, the studies mentioned above provide only incomplete insights into the feasibility and relevance of AR re-expression in a few cell line models. Moreover, the clinical relevance is yet to be fully discovered. Nevertheless, these findings confirm that it is possible to revert at least in part the process that leads to de-differentiation and AR negativity.”

if im not mistaken, does this mean we can increase the possibility that all the permanent doomers are wrong? :smile:

5 Likes

" In a treatment naïve setting, the upfront inhibition of key factors involved in the lineage plasticity may render responses to ARSi more durable (Fig. 2b). Such a combinatorial approach may be used for patients at higher risk of developing AR-negative disease (e.g., presence of TP53 and RB1 mutations)."

Is this useful to check for our genetics study? @Dubya_B

I don’t understand the science at this level of detail, but there is really no reason to think that the damage is completely irreversible. It’s possible that we don’t know how to reverse it yet, and it may seem unlikely in the near future, but I think it is the wrong attitude to assume we are permanently doomed.

2 Likes

I didn’t get the mechanism part of it either

But the other sections were easier to read

It’s already known to be possible to restore AR signaling

Re-activation of AR expression in AR-negative prostate cancer

Because the AR pathway represents such a key therapeutic contact point in prostate cancer, researchers have set out to search for means to restore AR signaling in AR-negative prostate cancer (Fig. 2). As mentioned above, induced lineage plasticity mediates the onset of AR-negative prostate cancer. For this reason, silencing or inhibiting transcription factors of cellular plasticity, such as SOX2, could have an impact on AR re-expression. In line with this, SOX2 silencing abrogates the capability of cells with TP53 and RB1 loss to develop lineage plasticity and to express neuroendocrine markers [45].

Alternatively, drugs that affect epigenetic silencing in different ways have been successfully used to re-express AR in AR-negative cell lines. Among these are drugs that block DNA methylation (azacytidine) and increase active (HDAC inhibitors Trichostatin A) or diminish repressive histone marks (EZH2 inhibitors) at the AR promoter [73, 74, 79] (Fig. 2). Most notably, various EZH2 inhibitors (DZNep, GSK126, EPZ6438) have been reported to upregulate AR protein expression in human NEPC cell lines NCI-H660/MDA PCa 144-13 and in mouse prostate epithelial cells with ablation of Rb1 and Trp53 [44, 73]. That said, the pharmacological inhibition of EZH2 does not seem sufficient to re-gain AR positivity in recently generated patient-derived NEPC organoid lines [80].

Moreover, indirect perturbations have shown the ability to restore AR expression as well. Among these are the administering of the nerve growth factor (NGF) to DU145 cells [81] (Fig. 2). NGF has two receptors, p75NTR and TrkA. p75NTR is known in prostate cancer field since its tumor suppressor features [82]. Moreover, its expression decreases during disease progression. Conversely, Trka activation has shown oncogenic features in prostate cancer [83]. Although the authors did not explain the mechanism of NGF-mediated AR re-expression in prostate cancer cells, NGF administration can downregulate DNA methyltransferases in other cells [84]. It is tempting to speculate that NGF treatment could restore AR through downmodulation of DNA methylation.

More recently, the Forkhead Box C2 protein (FOXC2) has been shown to modulate AR in both AR-positive and -negative cell lines. Generally, its expression is negatively correlated with AR presence. Indeed, its silencing in AR-negative DU145 cells can strongly re-establish AR protein expression. The effects on FOXC2 targets are mediated by Zeb1, a known transcriptional repressor. Since FOXC2 is directly activated by P-p38 phosphorylation, inhibition of this pathway by the p38 inhibitor SB203580 can exert the same effect in restoring AR expression [85] (Fig. 2). Interestingly, SB203580 administration can also decrease SOX2 levels in AR-negative cells, possibly linking p38 activity, SOX2 expression, and cellular plasticity [85].

At this point, the studies mentioned above provide only incomplete insights into the feasibility and relevance of AR re-expression in a few cell line models. Moreover, the clinical relevance is yet to be fully discovered. Nevertheless, these findings confirm that it is possible to revert at least in part the process that leads to de-differentiation and AR negativity.

2 Likes

What are your thoughts on it?

My conclusion is that since we don’t have prostrate cancer it might be a little different for us in some ways

But the fact that they can re establish ar signaling is great

If the ar receptor is overexpressed isn’t that increased AR sensitivity and signaling?
How about this, the AR receptor being overexpressed has very little to do with what the core of PFS might be. Its just a gene that happens to be upregulated. Keep moving.

I wouldn’t bet on that

“I believe AR overexpression is crucial in this condition, which awor of course hypothesised. So I began with the hypothesis that somehow loratadine was able to interact with this. I first found these anecdotes:” - Axolotl