Establishment of primary prostate epithelial and tumorigenic cell lines using a non-viral immortalization approach.

BACKGROUND: Research on prostate cancer is mostly performed using cell lines derived from metastatic disease, not reflecting stages of tumor initiation or early progression. Establishment of cancer cell lines derived from the primary tumor site has not been described so far. By definition, cancer cells are able to be cultured indefinitely, whereas normal epithelial cells undergo senescence in vitro. Epithelial cells can be immortalized, accomplished by using viral integration of immortalization factors. Viral approaches, however, might be impaired by regulatory and safety issues as well as random integration into regulatory genetic elements, modifying precise gene expression. We intend to use surgical specimen of prostate cancer patients to (i) prove for establishment of cancer cell lines, and (ii) perform non-viral, Sleeping Beauty (SB) transposase-based immortalization of prostate epithelial cells. METHODS: Radical prostatectomy samples of prostate cancer patients (n = 4) were dissociated and cultured in vitro. Cells were cultivated either without or after non-viral, Sleeping-Beauty transposase-based stable transfection with immortalization factors SV40LT and hTERT. Established cell lines were analyzed in vitro and in vivo for characteristics of prostate (cancer) cells. RESULTS: Initial cell cultures without genetic manipulation underwent senescence within ≤ 15 passages, demonstrating inability to successfully derive primary prostate cancer cell lines. By using SB transposase-based integration of immortalization factors, we were able to establish primary prostate cell lines. Three out of four cell lines displayed epithelial characteristics, however without expression of prostate (cancer) characteristics, e.g., androgen receptor. In vivo, one cell line exhibited tumorigenic potential, yet characteristics of prostate adenocarcinoma were absent. CONCLUSION: Whereas no primary prostate cancer cell line could be established, we provide for the first-time immortalization of primary prostate cells using the SB transposase system, thereby preventing regulatory and molecular issues based on viral immortalization approaches. Although, none of the newly derived cell lines demonstrated prostate cancer characteristics, tumor formation was observed in one cell line. Given the non-prostate adenocarcinoma properties of the tumor, cells have presumably undergone oncogenic transformation rather than prostate cancer differentiation. Still, these cell lines might be used as a tool for research on prostate cancer initiation and early cancer progression.

Co-expression and clinical utility of AR-FL and AR splice variants AR-V3, AR-V7 and AR-V9 in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgen receptor (AR) splice variants (AR-Vs) have been discussed as a biomarker in prostate cancer (PC). However, some reports question the predictive property of AR-Vs. From a mechanistic perspective, the connection between AR full length (AR-FL) and AR-Vs is not fully understood. Here, we aimed to investigate the dependence of AR-FL and AR-V expression levels on AR gene activity. Additionally, we intended to comprehensively analyze presence of AR-FL and three clinically relevant AR-Vs (AR-V3, AR-V7 and AR-V9) in different stages of disease, especially with respect to clinical utility in PC patients undergoing AR targeted agent (ARTA) treatment. METHODS: AR-FL and AR-V levels were analyzed in PC and non-PC cell lines upon artificial increase of AR pre-mRNA using either drug treatment or AR gene activation. Furthermore, expression of AR-FL and AR-Vs was determined in PC specimen at distinct stages of disease (primary (n = 10) and metastatic tissues (n = 20), liquid biopsy samples (n = 422), mCRPC liquid biopsy samples of n = 96 patients starting novel treatment). Finally, baseline AR-FL and AR-V status was correlated with clinical outcome in a defined cohort of n = 65 mCRPC patients undergoing ARTA treatment. RESULTS: We revealed rising levels of AR-FL accompanied with appearance and increase of AR-Vs in dependence of elevated AR pre-mRNA levels. We also noticed increase in AR-FL and AR-V levels throughout disease progression. AR-V expression was always associated with high AR-FL levels without any sample being solely AR-V positive. In patients undergoing ARTA treatment, AR-FL did show prognostic, yet not predictive validity. Additionally, we observed a substantial clinical response to ARTA treatment even in AR-V positive patients. Accordingly, multivariate analysis did not demonstrate independent significance of AR-Vs in neither predictive nor prognostic clinical utility. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a correlation between AR-FL and AR-V expression during PC progression; with AR-V expression being a side-effect of elevated AR pre-mRNA levels. Clinically, AR-V positivity relies on high levels of AR-FL, making cells still vulnerable to ARTA treatment, as demonstrated by AR-FL and AR-V positive patients responding to ARTA treatment. Thus, AR-FL and AR-V might be considered as a prognostic, yet not predictive biomarker in mCRPC patients.