Min Wang1, Xiuheng Liu, Guanjun Jiang, Hui Chen, Jia Guo, Xiaodong Weng. 1. Department of Urology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Jiefang Road 238, Wuhan, 430060, Hubei, People's Republic of China, drwangmin@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between the expression of LSD1 and E-cadherin in prostate cancer and their prognostic significance. METHODS: The expression of LSD1 and E-cadherin in prostate cancer was detected using immunohistochemistry, and the relationship between the expressions of these two molecules was analyzed by correlation analysis. Furthermore, LNCap cell line was treated with Pargyline (an inhibitor of LSD1), and Western blot was used to analyze LSD1 and E-cadherin expression. RESULTS: LSD1 expression increased significantly in prostate cancer specimens compared with benign prostatic hyperplasia (P < 0.05). Further analysis testified that LSD1 expression was positively correlated with higher Gleason Score, distant metastases, and poor prognosis (P < 0.05). Nevertheless, E-cadherin expression decreased significantly in prostate cancer specimens compared with benign prostatic hyperplasia (P < 0.05) and was negatively correlated with higher Gleason Score, distant metastases (P < 0.05). Correlation analysis revealed that LSD1 expression was negatively correlated with E-cadherin expression in prostate cancer (rs = -0.486, P = 0.001). Positive LSD1 expression and negative E-cadherin expression were significantly correlated with high 2-year progression (occurrence of castration-resistant prostate cancer) rate and low 5-year survival rate (P < 0.05). Moreover, Pargyline inhibited activity of LSD1 and up-regulated E-cadherin expression. CONCLUSION: High LSD1 expression combined with low E-cadherin expression might be predictors of prostate cancer progression and metastasis. Inhibition of LSD1 may be a potential therapeutic target for prevention of prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between the expression of LSD1 and E-cadherin in prostate cancer and their prognostic significance. METHODS: The expression of LSD1 and E-cadherin in prostate cancer was detected using immunohistochemistry, and the relationship between the expressions of these two molecules was analyzed by correlation analysis. Furthermore, LNCap cell line was treated with Pargyline (an inhibitor of LSD1), and Western blot was used to analyze LSD1 and E-cadherin expression. RESULTS:LSD1 expression increased significantly in prostate cancer specimens compared with benign prostatic hyperplasia (P < 0.05). Further analysis testified that LSD1 expression was positively correlated with higher Gleason Score, distant metastases, and poor prognosis (P < 0.05). Nevertheless, E-cadherin expression decreased significantly in prostate cancer specimens compared with benign prostatic hyperplasia (P < 0.05) and was negatively correlated with higher Gleason Score, distant metastases (P < 0.05). Correlation analysis revealed that LSD1 expression was negatively correlated with E-cadherin expression in prostate cancer (rs = -0.486, P = 0.001). Positive LSD1 expression and negative E-cadherin expression were significantly correlated with high 2-year progression (occurrence of castration-resistant prostate cancer) rate and low 5-year survival rate (P < 0.05). Moreover, Pargyline inhibited activity of LSD1 and up-regulated E-cadherin expression. CONCLUSION: High LSD1 expression combined with low E-cadherin expression might be predictors of prostate cancer progression and metastasis. Inhibition of LSD1 may be a potential therapeutic target for prevention of prostate cancer.
Authors: Philip Kahl; Lucia Gullotti; Lukas Carl Heukamp; Susanne Wolf; Nicolaus Friedrichs; Roland Vorreuther; Gerold Solleder; Patrick J Bastian; Jörg Ellinger; Eric Metzger; Roland Schüle; Reinhard Buettner Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Eric Metzger; Axel Imhof; Dharmeshkumar Patel; Philip Kahl; Katrin Hoffmeyer; Nicolaus Friedrichs; Judith M Müller; Holger Greschik; Jutta Kirfel; Sujuan Ji; Natalia Kunowska; Christian Beisenherz-Huss; Thomas Günther; Reinhard Buettner; Roland Schüle Journal: Nature Date: 2010-03-14 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Michael Stanbrough; Glenn J Bubley; Kenneth Ross; Todd R Golub; Mark A Rubin; Trevor M Penning; Phillip G Febbo; Steven P Balk Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: J A Ruizeveld de Winter; P J Janssen; H M Sleddens; M C Verleun-Mooijman; J Trapman; A O Brinkmann; A B Santerse; F H Schröder; T H van der Kwast Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 1994-04 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Sergio Regufe da Mota; Sarah Bailey; Rosemary A Strivens; Annette L Hayden; Leon R Douglas; Patrick J Duriez; M Teresa Borrello; Hanae Benelkebir; A Ganesan; Graham Packham; Simon J Crabb Journal: Cancer Cell Int Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 5.722