| Literature DB >> 29069765 |
Emma Dorris1, Amanda O'Neill1, Karen Hanrahan1, Ann Treacy2, R William Watson1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overtreatment of low-grade prostate cancer is a recognised problem for clinicians and patients. However, under-treatment runs the risk of missing the opportunity for cure in those who could benefit. Identification of new biomarkers of disease progression, including metastases, is required to better stratify and appropriately treat these patients. The ability to predict if prostate cancer will recur is an important clinical question that would impact treatment options for patients. Studies in other cancers have associated MARCKS with metastasis.Entities:
Keywords: MARCKS; biochemical recurrence; invasion; migration; prostate cancer
Year: 2017 PMID: 29069765 PMCID: PMC5641108 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.18894
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Clinical features of prostate cancer patient cohorts
| Clinical Features | Non-BCR | BCR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 64 | (46-69) | 63 | (42-73) | |
| 7.75 | (1.9-17) | 7.67 | (1-18.5) | |
| 83 | (27-109) | n/a | n/a | |
| n/a | n/a | 11 | (2-72) | |
| | 8 | 22.22 | 11 | 33.33 |
| | 20 | 55.56 | 15 | 45.45 |
| | 6 | 16.67 | 6 | 18.18 |
| | 2 | 5.56 | 1 | 3.03 |
| | 32 | 88.89 | 29 | 87.88 |
| | 4 | 11.11 | 4 | 12.12 |
| | 17 | 47.22 | 25 | 75.76 |
| | 19 | 52.78 | 8 | 24.24 |
| | 24 | 66.67 | 17 | 51.52 |
| | 12 | 33.33 | 16 | 48.48 |
| | 35 | 97.22 | 28 | 84.85 |
| | 1 | 2.78 | 5 | 15.15 |
| | 5 | 13.89 | 3 | 9.09 |
| | 1 | 2.78 | 2 | 6.06 |
| | 30 | 83.33 | 28 | 84.85 |
| | 35 | 97.22 | 25 | 75.76 |
| | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 3.03 |
| | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
| | 1 | 2.78 | 7 | 21.21 |
| | 35 | 97.22 | 21 | 63.64 |
| | 0 | 0.00 | 4 | 12.12 |
| | 1 | 2.78 | 8 | 24.24 |
Figure 1MARCKS staining in non-BCR and BCR cohorts
(A) Representative IHC staining of MARCKS protein in different Gleason grades in non-BCR (n=36) and BCR (n=33) cohorts. (B) Boxplot of MARCKS staining immunoscore between non-BCR and BCR cohorts. Central line in boxplot represents median, circle represents mean. p=0.016 Pearson's Chi-square test.
Figure 2MARCKS does not play a role in prostate cancer cell viability
MARCKS knockdown did not alter the (A) proliferation (B) viability or (C) basal apoptosis of prostate cancer cells. Error bars +/− SEM. P-value calculated using Student's T-Test n=3 independent experiments.
Figure 3MARCKS promotes invasion and is associated with altered actin patterning
(A) MARCKS knockdown reduces migration of the aggressive prostate cancer cell line PC3 (P≤0.001) but not the well-differentiatedPNT2 cell line. (B) MARCKS knockdown decreases invasion in both the PC3 (P≤0.001) and PNT2 (P≤0.05) cell line. (C) Representative (n=3 individual experiments) cropped western blots showing MARCKS knockdown. There is no evidence of a cadherin switch, decrease in Vinculin or a perturbance in the AKT pathway in response to MARCKS knockdown. There is decrease in FAK in the siMARCKS treated cells. (D) Immunofluorescent staining of actin (red) in response to MARCKS knockdown demonstrates less surface protrusions and cell spreading in PC3 cells. PC3 cell colonies treated with siMARCKS are more compact with more cell-cell adhesion than those treated with control (non-targeting) siRNA. (E) MMP9 gene expression is decreased in PC3 cells following MARCKS knockdown. Error bars +/− SEM. P-value calculated using Student's T-Test, at least n=3 individual experiments except for the FAK PNT-2 western which is an n=1.