What can we learn from rodents about prolactin in humans?

Prolactin (PRL) is a 23-kDa protein hormone that binds to a single-span membrane receptor, a member of the cytokine receptor superfamily, and exerts its action via several interacting signaling pathways. PRL is a multifunctional hormone that affects multiple reproductive and metabolic functions and is also involved in tumorigenicity. In addition to being a classical pituitary hormone, PRL in humans is produced by many tissues throughout the body where it acts as a cytokine. The objective of this review is to compare and contrast multiple aspects of PRL, from structure to regulation, and from physiology to pathology in rats, mice, and humans. At each juncture, questions are raised whether, or to what extent, data from rodents are relevant to PRL homeostasis in humans. Most current knowledge on PRL has been obtained from studies with rats and, more recently, from the use of transgenic mice. Although this information is indispensable for understanding PRL in human health and disease, there is sufficient disparity in the control of the production, distribution, and physiological functions of PRL among these species to warrant careful and judicial extrapolation to humans.

Prolactin confers resistance against cisplatin in breast cancer cells by activating glutathione-S-transferase.

Resistance to chemotherapy is a major obstacle for successful treatment of breast cancer patients. Given that prolactin (PRL) acts as an anti-apoptotic/survival factor in the breast, we postulated that it antagonizes cytotoxicity by chemotherapeutic drugs. Treatment of breast cancer cells with PRL caused variable resistance to taxol, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin. PRL prevented cisplatin-induced G(2)/M cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. In the presence of PRL, significantly less cisplatin was bound to DNA, as determined by mass spectroscopy, and little DNA damage was seen by gamma-H2AX staining. PRL dramatically increased the activity of glutathione-S-transferase (GST), which sequesters cisplatin in the cytoplasm; this increase was abrogated by Jak and mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitors. PRL upregulated the expression of the GSTmu, but not the pi, isozyme. A GST inhibitor abrogated antagonism of cisplatin cytotoxicity by PRL. In conclusion, PRL confers resistance against cisplatin by activating a detoxification enzyme, thereby reducing drug entry into the nucleus. These data provide a rational explanation for the ineffectiveness of cisplatin in breast cancer, which is characterized by high expression of both PRL and its receptor. Suppression of PRL production or blockade of its actions should benefit patients undergoing chemotherapy by allowing for lower drug doses and expanded drug options.

Bisphenol A at low nanomolar doses confers chemoresistance in estrogen receptor-alpha-positive and -negative breast cancer cells.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to chemotherapy is a major problem facing breast cancer patients, and identifying potential contributors to chemoresistance is a critical area of research. Bisphenol A (BPA) has long been suspected to promote carcinogenesis, but the high doses of BPA used in many studies generated conflicting results. In addition, the mechanism by which BPA exerts its biological actions is unclear. Although estrogen has been shown to antagonize anticancer drugs, the role of BPA in chemoresistance has not been examined. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine whether BPA at low nanomolar concentrations opposes the action of doxorubicin, cisplatin, and vinblastine in the estrogen receptor-alpha (ERalpha)-positive T47D and the ERalpha-negative MDA-MB-468 breast cancer cells. METHODS: We determined the responsiveness of cells to anticancer drugs and BPA using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) cytotoxicity assay. Specific ERalpha and ERbeta inhibitors and real-time polymerase chain reaction were used to identify potential receptor(s) that mediate the actions of BPA. Expression of antiapoptotic proteins was assessed by Western blotting. RESULTS: BPA antagonizes the cytotoxicity of multiple chemotherapeutic agents in both ERalpha-positive and -negative breast cancer cells independent of the classical ERs. Both cell types express alternative ERs, including G-protein-coupled receptor 30 (GPR30) and members of the estrogen-related receptor family. Increased expression of antiapoptotic proteins is a potential mechanism by which BPA exerts its anticytotoxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: BPA at environmentally relevant doses reduces the efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents. These data provide considerable support to the accumulating evidence that BPA is hazardous to human health.

LS14 cells: a model for chemoresistance in liposarcoma.

Liposarcoma, a malignancy of adipose tissue, is the most common soft tissue sarcoma. Patients whose primary tumor cannot be resected or those who have developed metastasis, have poor prognosis since liposarcomas are highly resistant to chemotherapy. We recently generated a spontaneously immortalized cell line, named LS14, from a patient with metastatic liposarcoma. Our goal was to compare the responsiveness of LS14 and SW872 liposarcoma cells to anti-cancer drugs and explore mechanisms of chemoresistance. Using complementary assays for cell viability and number we found that SW872 cells responded robustly to relatively low concentrations of doxorubicin, cisplatin and vinblastine. This reduction in cell viability was due to apoptosis, as evident by phosphatidylserine exposure and caspase 3 cleavage. In contrast, only a high dose of doxorubicin or combination therapy effectively reduced LS14 cell viability and induced apoptosis. LS14 cells showed a higher expression of Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL, but a lower expression of survivin and Bax, than SW872 cells, suggesting that anti-apoptotic proteins contribute to chemoresistance in LS14 cells. Although LS14 cells did not form colonies in soft agar, they generated large tumors and metastases in SCID mice, establishing their tumorigenicity in vivo. In conclusion, LS14 cells are much more resistant to chemotherapy than SW872 cells, making them an excellent model for exploring the efficacy and mechanism of action of anti-cancer drugs in liposarcomas.

Novel roles of prolactin and estrogens in breast cancer: resistance to chemotherapy.

Resistance to chemotherapy is a major complication in the treatment of advanced breast cancer. Estrogens and prolactin (PRL) are implicated in the pathogenesis of breast cancer but their roles in chemoresistance have been overlooked. A common feature to the two hormones is activation of their receptors by diverse compounds, which mimic or antagonize their actions. The PRL receptor is activated by lactogens (PRL, GH, or placental lactogen) originating from the pituitary, breast, adipose tissue, or the placenta. Estrogen receptors exist in multiple membrane-associated and cytoplasmic forms that can be activated by endogenous estrogens, man-made chemicals, and phytoestrogens. Here, we review evidence that low doses of PRL, estradiol (E(2)), and bisphenol A (BPA) antagonize multiple anticancer drugs that induce cell death by different mechanisms. Focusing on cisplatin, a DNA-damaging drug which is effective in the treatment of many cancer types but not breast cancer, we compare the abilities of PRL, E(2), and BPA to antagonize its cytotoxicity. Whereas PRL acts by activating the glutathione-S-transferase detoxification enzyme, E(2) and BPA act by inducing the antiapoptotic protein Bcl-2. The implications of these findings to patients undergoing chemotherapy are discussed.

Bisphenol A and estradiol are equipotent in antagonizing cisplatin-induced cytotoxicity in breast cancer cells.

Resistance to chemotherapy is a major problem facing breast cancer patients. Cisplatin, a highly effective DNA-damaging drug, has shown only little success in breast cancer treatment. We are reporting that low nanomolar doses of bisphenol A (BPA) or estradiol antagonize cisplatin cytotoxicity in breast cancer cells, with their effects not mediated via classical estrogen receptors. Although both compounds increase the expression of Bcl-2, a Bcl-2 inhibitor completely blocked the protective effects of BPA while only partially affecting those of estradiol. Blockade of BPA and E2 actions should sensitize ER-negative breast tumors to anti-cancer drugs and allow for the inclusion of cisplatin in treatment regimens.

Treatment-dependent androgen receptor mutations in prostate cancer exploit multiple mechanisms to evade therapy.

Mutations in the androgen receptor (AR) that enable activation by antiandrogens occur in hormone-refractory prostate cancer, suggesting that mutant ARs are selected by treatment. To validate this hypothesis, we compared AR variants in metastases obtained by rapid autopsy of patients treated with flutamide or bicalutamide, or by excision of lymph node metastases from hormone-naïve patients. AR mutations occurred at low levels in all specimens, reflecting genetic heterogeneity of prostate cancer. Base changes recurring in multiple samples or multiple times per sample were considered putative selected mutations. Of 26 recurring missense mutations, most in the NH(2)-terminal domain (NTD) occurred in multiple tumors, whereas those in the ligand binding domain (LBD) were case specific. Hormone-naïve tumors had few recurring mutations and none in the LBD. Several AR variants were assessed for mechanisms that might underlie treatment resistance. Selection was evident for the promiscuous receptor AR-V716M, which dominated three metastases from one flutamide-treated patient. For the inactive cytoplasmically restricted splice variant AR23, coexpression with AR enhanced ligand response, supporting a decoy function. A novel NTD mutation, W435L, in a motif involved in intramolecular interaction influenced promoter-selective, cell-dependent transactivation. AR-E255K, mutated in a domain that interacts with an E3 ubiquitin ligase, led to increased protein stability and nuclear localization in the absence of ligand. Thus, treatment with antiandrogens selects for gain-of-function AR mutations with altered stability, promoter preference, or ligand specificity. These processes reveal multiple targets for effective therapies regardless of AR mutation.