HOXB13 interaction with MEIS1 modifies proliferation and gene expression in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The recurrent p.Gly84Glu germline mutation (G84E) in HOXB13 is consistently associated with prostate cancer (PCa), although the mechanisms underlying such linkage remain elusive. The majority of the PCa-associated HOXB13 mutations identified are localized to two conserved domains in HOXB13 that have been shown to mediate the interaction with MEIS cofactors belonging to the TALE family of homeodomain transcription factors. In this study, we sought to interrogate the biochemical and functional interactions between HOXB13 and MEIS in prostatic cells with a goal of defining how the HOXB13-MEIS complex impacts PCa pathobiology and define the extent to which the oncogenic activity of G84E is related to its effect on HOXB13-MEIS interaction/function. METHODS: HOXB13 and MEIS paralog expression in prostate epithelial cells and PCa cell lines was characterized by qPCR and immunoblot analyses. HOXB13 and MEIS1 co-expression in human prostate tissue was confirmed by IHC, followed by co-IP mapping of HOXB13-MEIS1 interactions. Proliferation of the PCa cell line LAPC4 following shRNA-mediated knockdown of each gene or both genes was assessed using DNA- and metabolic-based assays. Transcriptional targets of HOXB13 and MEIS1 were identified by gene expression profiling and qPCR. Finally, protein stability of HOXB13 in the context of MEIS1 was determined using pulse-chase assays. RESULTS: HOXB13 and MEIS1 are co-expressed and interact in prostate cells. Both of the putative MEIS interacting domains (MID) within HOXB13 were shown to be capable of mediating the interaction between HOXB13 and MEIS1 independently and such interactions were not influenced by the G84E mutation. The inhibitory effect of either HOXB13 or MEIS1 knockdown on cellular proliferation was augmented by knockdown of both genes, and MEIS1 knockdown abolished HOXB13-driven regulation of BCHE and TNFSF10 mRNA expression. Notably, we demonstrated that MEIS1 stabilized the HOXB13 protein in LAPC4 cells. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence for functional HOXB13-MEIS1 interactions in PCa. MEIS1 may contribute to the cancer-promoting actions of HOXB13 in cellular proliferation and gene regulation by prolonging HOXB13 half-life. Our data demonstrates that G84E is not a loss-of-function mutation that interferes with HOXB13 stability or ability to interact with MEIS1.

Germline mutations in HOXB13 and prostate-cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: Family history is a significant risk factor for prostate cancer, although the molecular basis for this association is poorly understood. Linkage studies have implicated chromosome 17q21-22 as a possible location of a prostate-cancer susceptibility gene. METHODS: We screened more than 200 genes in the 17q21-22 region by sequencing germline DNA from 94 unrelated patients with prostate cancer from families selected for linkage to the candidate region. We tested family members, additional case subjects, and control subjects to characterize the frequency of the identified mutations. RESULTS: Probands from four families were discovered to have a rare but recurrent mutation (G84E) in HOXB13 (rs138213197), a homeobox transcription factor gene that is important in prostate development. All 18 men with prostate cancer and available DNA in these four families carried the mutation. The carrier rate of the G84E mutation was increased by a factor of approximately 20 in 5083 unrelated subjects of European descent who had prostate cancer, with the mutation found in 72 subjects (1.4%), as compared with 1 in 1401 control subjects (0.1%) (P=8.5x10(-7)). The mutation was significantly more common in men with early-onset, familial prostate cancer (3.1%) than in those with late-onset, nonfamilial prostate cancer (0.6%) (P=2.0x10(-6)). CONCLUSIONS: The novel HOXB13 G84E variant is associated with a significantly increased risk of hereditary prostate cancer. Although the variant accounts for a small fraction of all prostate cancers, this finding has implications for prostate-cancer risk assessment and may provide new mechanistic insights into this common cancer. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).

Cancer/testis antigen PAGE4, a regulator of c-Jun transactivation, is phosphorylated by homeodomain-interacting protein kinase 1, a component of the stress-response pathway.

Prostate-associated gene 4 (PAGE4) is a cancer/testis antigen that is typically restricted to the testicular germ cells but is aberrantly expressed in cancer. Furthermore, PAGE4 is developmentally regulated with dynamic expression patterns in the developing prostate and is also a stress-response protein that is upregulated in response to cellular stress. PAGE4 interacts with c-Jun, which is activated by the stress-response kinase JNK1, and plays an important role in the development and pathology of the prostate gland. Here, we have identified homeodomain-interacting protein kinase 1 (HIPK1), also a component of the stress-response pathway, as a kinase that phosphorylates PAGE4 at T51. We show that phosphorylation of PAGE4 is critical for its transcriptional activity since mutating this T residue abolishes its ability to potentiate c-Jun transactivation. In vitro single molecule FRET indicates phosphorylation results in compaction of (still) intrinsically disordered PAGE4. Interestingly, however, while our previous observations indicated that the wild-type nonphosphorylated PAGE4 protein interacted with c-Jun [Rajagopalan , K. et al. ( 2014 ) Biochim, Biophys. Acta 1842 , 154 -163], here we show that phosphorylation of PAGE4 weakens its interaction with c-Jun in vitro. These data suggest that phosphorylation induces conformational changes in natively disordered PAGE4 resulting in its decreased affinity for c-Jun to promote interaction of c-Jun with another, unidentified, partner. Alternatively, phosphorylated PAGE4 may induce transcription of a novel partner, which then potentiates c-Jun transactivation. Regardless, the present results clearly implicate PAGE4 as a component of the stress-response pathway and uncover a novel link between components of this pathway and prostatic development and disease.

PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry in Gastric Cancer: Comparison of Combined Positive Score and Tumor Area Positivity Across 28-8, 22C3, and SP263 Assays.

PURPOSE: The clinical application of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing is complicated by the availability of multiple IHC assays, scoring algorithms, and cutoffs. This study assessed the analytical comparability of three commercially available PD-L1 assays and two scoring algorithms used to assess PD-L1 status in gastric cancer (GC) samples. METHODS: Serial sections of 100 resected GC samples, with PD-L1 expression levels across the dynamic range, were stained with three in vitro diagnostic-grade PD-L1 assays (28-8, 22C3, and SP263). Three trained pathologists blindly and independently scored slides using combined positive score (CPS) and tumor area positivity (TAP) algorithms. Comprehensive statistical analyses were performed to evaluate analytical concordance. Digital image analysis (DIA) was used to objectively compare the technical performance of each assay by simulating CPS and TAP. RESULTS: Comparable staining patterns were observed with these three PD-L1 assays. Despite discernible variation in staining intensity, reproducible evaluations of PD-L1 positivity were observed. Inter- and intra-assay assessments of all three assays, using either CPS or TAP and the same PD-L1 cutoffs, demonstrated moderate to almost-perfect (interassay Cohen's kappa [κ] range, 0.47-0.83) and substantial to almost-perfect (intra-assay κ range, 0.77-1.00) agreement. Interpathologist assessment exhibited a significant level of concordance (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.92). No difference in technical performance was observed using DIA. CONCLUSION: This study highlights analytical concordance in PD-L1 testing between three major PD-L1 assays when TAP and CPS are applied. Comparability of the technical assay performance was further supported by independent DIA. These observations support cross-application flexibility of the different PD-L1 assays and scoring algorithms to characterize PD-L1 expression in GC.

Analytical validation of a novel comprehensive genomic profiling informed circulating tumor DNA monitoring assay for solid tumors.

Emerging technologies focused on the detection and quantification of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in blood show extensive potential for managing patient treatment decisions, informing risk of recurrence, and predicting response to therapy. Currently available tissue-informed approaches are often limited by the need for additional sequencing of normal tissue or peripheral mononuclear cells to identify non-tumor-derived alterations while tissue-naïve approaches are often limited in sensitivity. Here we present the analytical validation for a novel ctDNA monitoring assay, FoundationOne®Tracker. The assay utilizes somatic alterations from comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of tumor tissue. A novel algorithm identifies monitorable alterations with a high probability of being somatic and computationally filters non-tumor-derived alterations such as germline or clonal hematopoiesis variants without the need for sequencing of additional samples. Monitorable alterations identified from tissue CGP are then quantified in blood using a multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay based on the validated SignateraTM assay. The analytical specificity of the plasma workflow is shown to be 99.6% at the sample level. Analytical sensitivity is shown to be >97.3% at ≥5 mean tumor molecules per mL of plasma (MTM/mL) when tested with the most conservative configuration using only two monitorable alterations. The assay also demonstrates high analytical accuracy when compared to liquid biopsy-based CGP as well as high qualitative (measured 100% PPA) and quantitative precision (<11.2% coefficient of variation).

Somatic molecular subtyping of prostate tumors from HOXB13 G84E carriers.

A recurrent germline mutation (G84E) in the HOXB13 gene is associated with early onset and family history-positive prostate cancer in patients of European descent, occurring in up to 5% of prostate cancer families. To date, the molecular features of prostate tumors occurring in HOXB13 G84E carriers have not been studied in a large cohort of patients. We identified 101 heterozygous carriers of G84E who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer between 1985 and 2011 and matched these men by race, age and tumor grade to 99 HOXB13 wild-type controls. Immunostaining for HOXB13, PTEN, ERG, p53 and SPINK1 as well as RNA in situ hybridization for ETV1/4/5 were performed using genetically validated assays. Tumors from G84E carriers generally expressed HOXB13 protein at a level comparable to benign and wild-type glands. ETS gene expression (either ERG or ETV1/4/5) was seen in 36% (36/101) of tumors from G84E carriers compared to 68% (65/96) of the controls (p < 0.0001). PTEN was lost in 11% (11/101) of G84E carriers compared to 25% (25/99) of the controls (p = 0.014). PTEN loss was enriched among ERG-positive compared to ERG-negative tumors in both groups of patients. Nuclear accumulation of the p53 protein, indicative of underlying TP53 missense mutations, was uncommon in both groups, occurring in 1% (1/101) of the G84E carriers versus 2% (2/92) of the controls (p = NS). Taken together, these data suggest that genes other than ERG and PTEN may drive carcinogenesis/progression in the majority of men with germline HOXB13 mutations.