Prostate field cancerization and exosomes: Association between CD9, early growth response 1 and fatty acid synthase

Amirrad,Farideh; Pytak,Philip   A.; Sadeghiani‑Pelar,Neda; Nguyen,Julie  P.T.; Cauble,Emily  L.; Jones,Anna  C.; Bisoffi,Marco

doi:10.3892/ijo.2020.4980

Prostate field cancerization and exosomes: Association between CD9, early growth response 1 and fatty acid synthase

Authors:
- Farideh Amirrad
- Philip A. Pytak
- Neda Sadeghiani‑Pelar
- Julie P.T. Nguyen
- Emily L. Cauble
- Anna C. Jones
- Marco Bisoffi
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chapman University School of Pharmacy, Harry and Diane Rinker Health Science Campus, Irvine, CA 92618, USA, Division of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Chapman University Schmid College of Science and Technology, Keck Center for Science and Engineering, Orange, CA 92866, USA, Division of Biological Sciences, Chapman University Schmid College of Science and Technology, Keck Center for Science and Engineering, Orange, CA 92866, USA, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, NM 87102, USA
Published online on: February 10, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2020.4980
Pages: 957-968

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Intracapsular and well‑defined adenocarcinomas of the prostate are often surrounded by tissue areas that harbor molecular aberrations, including those of genetic, epigenetic and biochemical nature. This is known as field cancerization, or a field effect and denotes a state of pre‑malignancy. Such alterations in histologically normal tumor‑adjacent prostatic tissues have been recognized as clinically important and are potentially exploitable as biomarkers of disease and/or targets for preventative/therapeutic intervention. The authors have previously identified and validated two protein markers of field cancerization: The expressional upregulation of the transcription factor early growth response 1 (EGR‑1) and the lipogenic enzyme fatty acid synthase (FASN). However, the molecular etiology of prostate field cancerization, including EGR‑1 and FASN upregulation, remains largely unknown. It was thus hypothesized that extracellular vesicles, notably exosomes, released by tumor lesions may induce molecular alterations in the surrounding tissues, resulting in field cancerization, priming the tissue, and ultimately promoting multifocal tumorigenesis, which is often observed in prostate cancer. Towards testing this hypothesis, the current study, to the best of our knowledge, for the first time, presents correlative protein expression data, generated in disease‑free, tumor‑adjacent and cancerous human prostate tissues by quantitative immunofluorescence, between the exosomal marker CD9, and EGR‑1 and FASN. Despite the pilot character of the present study, and the static nature and heterogeneity of human tissues, the data suggest that CD9 expression itself is part of a field effect. In support of this hypothesis, the results suggest a possible contribution of exosomes to the induction of field cancerization in the prostate, particularly for EGR‑1. These findings were corroborated in established cell models of cancerous (LNCaP) and non‑cancerous (RWPE‑1) human prostate epithelial cells. The findings of this study warrant further investigation into the functional interface between exosomes and field cancerization, as a detailed understanding of this characterization may lead to the development of clinical applications related to diagnosis and/or prognosis and targeted intervention to prevent progression from pre‑malignancy to cancer.

View Figures

View References

1	Slaughter DP, Southwick HW and Smejkal W: Field cancerization in oral stratified squamous epithelium; clinical implications of multicentric origin. Cancer. 6:963–968. 1953. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Angadi PV, Savitha JK, Rao SS and Sivaranjini Y: Oral field cancerization: Current evidence and future perspectives. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 16:171–180. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Braakhuis BJ, Tabor MP, Kummer JA, Leemans CR and Brakenhoff RH: A genetic explanation of Slaughter's concept of field cancerization: Evidence and clinical implications. Cancer Res. 63:1727–1730. 2003.PubMed/NCBI
4	Curtius K, Wright NA and Graham TA: An evolutionary perspective on field cancerization. Nat Rev Cancer. 18:19–32. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar
5	Takeshima H and Ushijima T: Accumulation of genetic and epigenetic alterations in normal cells and cancer risk. NPJ Precis Oncol. 3:72019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Lochhead P, Chan AT, Nishihara R, Fuchs CS, Beck AH, Giovannucci E and Ogino S: Etiologic field effect: Reappraisal of the field effect concept in cancer predisposition and progression. Mod Pathol. 28:14–29. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
7	Gabriel KN, Jones AC, Nguyen JP, Antillon KS, Janos SN, Overton HN, Jenkins SM, Frisch EH, Trujillo KA and Bisoffi M: Association and regulation of protein factors of field effect in prostate tissues. Int J Oncol. 49:1541–1552. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Haaland CM, Heaphy CM, Butler KS, Fischer EG, Griffith JK and Bisoffi M: Differential gene expression in tumor adjacent histologically normal prostatic tissue indicates field cancerization. Int J Oncol. 35:537–546. 2009.PubMed/NCBI
9	Heaphy CM, Fleet TM, Treat EG, Lee SJ, Smith AY, Davis MS, Griffith JK, Fischer EG and Bisoffi M: Organ-wide telomeric status in diseased and disease-free prostatic tissues. Prostate. 70:1471–1479. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Jones AC, Antillon KS, Jenkins SM, Janos SN, Overton HN, Shoshan DS, Fischer EG, Trujillo KA and Bisoffi M: Prostate field cancerization: Deregulated expression of macrophage inhibitory cytokine 1 (MIC-1) and platelet derived growth factor A (PDGF-A) in tumor adjacent tissue. PLoS One. 10:e01193142015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Jones AC, Trujillo KA, Phillips GK, Fleet TM, Murton JK, Severns V, Shah SK, Davis MS, Smith AY, Griffith JK, et al: Early growth response 1 and fatty acid synthase expression is altered in tumor adjacent prostate tissue and indicates field cancerization. Prostate. 72:1159–1170. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar
12	Treat EG, Heaphy CM, Massie LW, Bisoffi M, Smith AY, Davis MS and Griffith JK: Telomere DNA content in prostate biopsies predicts early rise in prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology. 75:724–729. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
13	Trujillo KA, Jones AC, Griffith JK and Bisoffi M: Markers of field cancerization: Proposed clinical applications in prostate biopsies. Prostate Cancer. 2012:3028942012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Nonn L, Ananthanarayanan V and Gann PH: Evidence for field cancerization of the prostate. Prostate. 69:1470–1479. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Choi JY, Kim S, Kwak HB, Park DH, Park JH, Ryu JS, Park CS and Kang JH: Extracellular Vesicles as a Source of Urological Biomarkers: Lessons Learned From Advances and Challenges in Clinical Applications to Major Diseases. Int Neurourol J. 21:83–96. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Dhondt B, Van Deun J, Vermaerke S, de Marco A, Lumen N, De Wever O and Hendrix A: Urinary extracellular vesicle biomarkers in urological cancers: From discovery towards clinical implementation. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 99:236–256. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Pan J, Ding M, Xu K, Yang C and Mao LJ: Exosomes in diagnosis and therapy of prostate cancer. Oncotarget. 8:97693–97700. 2017.PubMed/NCBI
18	Vlaeminck-Guillem V: Extracellular Vesicles in Prostate Cancer Carcinogenesis, Diagnosis, and Management. Front Oncol. 8:2222018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Panigrahi GK and Deep G: Exosomes-based biomarker discovery for diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. Front Biosci. 22:1682–1696. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar
20	Soekmadji C, Russell PJ and Nelson CC: Exosomes in prostate cancer: Putting together the pieces of a puzzle. Cancers (Basel). 5:1522–1544. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
21	Fordyce CA, Heaphy CM, Joste NE, Smith AY, Hunt WC and Griffith JK: Association between cancer-free survival and telomere DNA content in prostate tumors. J Urol. 173:610–614. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Livak KJ and Schmittgen TD: Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods. 25:402–408. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar
23	Mora GR, Olivier KR, Cheville JC, Mitchell RF Jr, Lingle WL and Tindall DJ: The cytoskeleton differentially localizes the early growth response gene-1 protein in cancer and benign cells of the prostate. Mol Cancer Res. 2:115–128. 2004.PubMed/NCBI
24	Duijvesz D, Burnum-Johnson KE, Gritsenko MA, Hoogland AM, Vredenbregt-van den Berg MS, Willemsen R, Luider T, Paša-Tolić L and Jenster G: Proteomic profiling of exosomes leads to the identification of novel biomarkers for prostate cancer. PLoS One. 8:e825892013. View Article : Google Scholar
25	Malla RR, Pandrangi S, Kumari S, Gavara MM and Badana AK: Exosomal tetraspanins as regulators of cancer progression and metastasis and novel diagnostic markers. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 14:383–391. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Mizutani K, Terazawa R, Kameyama K, Kato T, Horie K, Tsuchiya T, Seike K, Ehara H, Fujita Y, Kawakami K, et al: Isolation of prostate cancer-related exosomes. Anticancer Res. 34:3419–3423. 2014.PubMed/NCBI
27	Dakubo GD, Jakupciak JP, Birch-Machin MA and Parr RL: Clinical implications and utility of field cancerization. Cancer Cell Int. 7:22007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J, Wysock JS, Lepor H, Rosenkrantz AB and Taneja SS: Optimization of prostate biopsy: The role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol. 192:648–658. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Bostanci Y, Kazzazi A and Djavan B: Optimizing prostate biopsy. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 64:233–243. 2012.
30	Delongchamps NB and Haas GP: Saturation biopsies for prostate cancer: Current uses and future prospects. Nat Rev Urol. 6:645–652. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Rabbani F, Stroumbakis N, Kava BR, Cookson MS and Fair WR: Incidence and clinical significance of false-negative sextant prostate biopsies. J Urol. 159:1247–1250. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Halin S, Hammarsten P, Adamo H, Wikström P and Bergh A: Tumor indicating normal tissue could be a new source of diagnostic and prognostic markers for prostate cancer. Expert Opin Med Diagn. 5:37–47. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Mazzucchelli R, Galosi AB, Santoni M, Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M, Cheng L and Montironi R: Role of the pathologist in active surveillance for prostate cancer. Anal Quant Cytopathol Histpathol. 37:65–68. 2015.PubMed/NCBI
34	Pomerantz M: Active Surveillance: Pathologic and Clinical Variables Associated with Outcome. Surg Pathol Clin. 8:581–585. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Bellardita L, Valdagni R, van den Bergh R, Randsdorp H, Repetto C, Venderbos LD, Lane JA and Korfage IJ: How does active surveillance for prostate cancer affect quality of life? A systematic review. Eur Urol. 67:637–645. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
36	Kwon O and Hong S: Active surveillance and surgery in localized prostate cancer. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 66:175–187. 2014.PubMed/NCBI
37	Lou DY and Fong L: Neoadjuvant therapy for localized prostate cancer: Examining mechanism of action and efficacy within the tumor. Urol Oncol. 34:182–192. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar
38	Marshall S and Taneja S: Focal therapy for prostate cancer: The current status. Prostate Int. 3:35–41. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
39	Andreoiu M and Cheng L: Multifocal prostate cancer: Biologic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Hum Pathol. 41:781–793. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
40	Duan Y, Tan Z, Yang M, Li J, Liu C, Wang C, Zhang F, Jin Y, Wang Y and Zhu L: PC-3-Derived Exosomes Inhibit Osteoclast Differentiation by Downregulating miR-214 and Blocking NF-κB Signaling Pathway. BioMed Res Int. 2019:86508462019. View Article : Google Scholar
41	Li SL, An N, Liu B, Wang SY, Wang JJ and Ye Y: Exosomes from LNCaP cells promote osteoblast activity through miR-375 transfer. Oncol Lett. 17:4463–4473. 2019.PubMed/NCBI
42	Krishn SR, Singh A, Bowler N, Duffy AN, Friedman A, Fedele C, Kurtoglu S, Tripathi SK, Wang K, Hawkins A, et al: Prostate cancer sheds the αvβ3 integrin in vivo through exosomes. Matrix Biol. 77:41–57. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar
43	McAtee CO, Booth C, Elowsky C, Zhao L, Payne J, Fangman T, Caplan S, Henry MD and Simpson MA: Prostate tumor cell exosomes containing hyaluronidase Hyal1 stimulate prostate stromal cell motility by engagement of FAK-mediated integrin signaling. Matrix Biol. 78-79:165–179. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar
44	Panigrahi GK, Praharaj PP, Peak TC, Long J, Singh R, Rhim JS, Abd Elmageed ZY and Deep G: Hypoxia-induced exosome secretion promotes survival of African-American and Caucasian prostate cancer cells. Sci Rep. 8:38532018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
45	Ramteke A, Ting H, Agarwal C, Mateen S, Somasagara R, Hussain A, Graner M, Frederick B, Agarwal R and Deep G: Exosomes secreted under hypoxia enhance invasiveness and stemness of prostate cancer cells by targeting adherens junction molecules. Mol Carcinog. 54:554–565. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
46	Soekmadji C, Riches JD, Russell PJ, Ruelcke JE, McPherson S, Wang C, Hovens CM, Corcoran NM, Hill MM and Nelson CC; Australian Prostate Cancer Collaboration BioResource: Modulation of paracrine signaling by CD9 positive small extracellular vesicles mediates cellular growth of androgen deprived prostate cancer. Oncotarget. 8:52237–52255. 2016.
47	Gitenay D and Baron VT: Is EGR1 a potential target for prostate cancer therapy? Future Oncol. 5:993–1003. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
48	Pagel JI and Deindl E: Early growth response 1 - a transcription factor in the crossfire of signal transduction cascades. Indian J Biochem Biophys. 48:226–235. 2011.PubMed/NCBI
49	Adamson E, de Belle I, Mittal S, Wang Y, Hayakawa J, Korkmaz K, O'Hagan D, McClelland M and Mercola D: Egr1 signaling in prostate cancer. Cancer Biol Ther. 2:617–622. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
50	Adamson ED and Mercola D: Egr1 transcription factor: Multiple roles in prostate tumor cell growth and survival. Tumour Biol. 23:93–102. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
51	Baron A, Migita T, Tang D and Loda M: Fatty acid synthase: A metabolic oncogene in prostate cancer? J Cell Biochem. 91:47–53. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar
52	Zadra G, Photopoulos C and Loda M: The fat side of prostate cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1831:1518–1532. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
53	Duijvesz D, Versluis CY, van der Fels CA, Vredenbregt-van den Berg MS, Leivo J, Peltola MT, Bangma CH, Pettersson KS and Jenster G: Immuno-based detection of extracellular vesicles in urine as diagnostic marker for prostate cancer. Int J Cancer. 137:2869–2878. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
54	Pan J, Alimujiang M, Chen Q, Shi H and Luo X: Exosomes derived from miR-146a-modified adipose-derived stem cells attenuate acute myocardial infarction-induced myocardial damage via downregulation of early growth response factor 1. J Cell Biochem. 120:4433–4443. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar