Martin K Bakht1,2,3, Jessica M Lovnicki4, Janice Tubman1, Keith F Stringer1,5, Jonathan Chiaramonte6, Michael R Reynolds6, Iulian Derecichei1, Rosa-Maria Ferraiuolo7, Bre-Anne Fifield1, Dorota Lubanska1, So Won Oh2,3, Gi Jeong Cheon8,3, Cheol Kwak9, Chang Wook Jeong9, Keon Wook Kang2,3, John F Trant6, Colm Morrissey10, Ilsa M Coleman11, Yuzhuo Wang4, Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar12, Xuesen Dong4, Lisa A Porter13. 1. Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Laboratory of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Vancouver Prostate Centre, Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Department of Pathology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. 6. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada. 7. Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea larrycheon@snu.ac.kr lporter@uwindsor.ca. 9. Department of Urology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 10. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 11. Divison of Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; and. 12. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 13. Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada larrycheon@snu.ac.kr lporter@uwindsor.ca.
Abstract
Although the incidence of de novo neuroendocrine prostate cancer (PC) is rare, recent data suggest that low expression of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is associated with a spectrum of neuroendocrine hallmarks and androgen receptor (AR) suppression in PC. Previous clinical reports indicate that PCs with a phenotype similar to neuroendocrine tumors can be more amenable to imaging by 18F-FDG than by PSMA-targeting radioligands. In this study, we evaluated the association between neuroendocrine gene signature and 18F-FDG uptake-associated genes including glucose transporters (GLUTs) and hexokinases, with the goal of providing a genomic signature to explain the reported 18F-FDG avidity of PSMA-suppressed tumors. Methods: Data-mining approaches, cell lines, and patient-derived xenograft models were used to study the levels of 14 members of the SLC2A family (encoding GLUT proteins), 4 members of the hexokinase family (genes HK1-HK3 and GCK), and PSMA (FOLH1 gene) after AR inhibition and in correlation with neuroendocrine hallmarks. Also, we characterize a neuroendocrine-like PC (NELPC) subset among a cohort of primary and metastatic PC samples with no neuroendocrine histopathology. We measured glucose uptake in a neuroendocrine-induced in vitro model and a zebrafish model by nonradioactive imaging of glucose uptake using a fluorescent glucose bioprobe, GB2-Cy3. Results: This work demonstrated that a neuroendocrine gene signature associates with differential expression of genes encoding GLUT and hexokinase proteins. In NELPC, elevated expression of GCK (encoding glucokinase protein) and decreased expression of SLC2A12 correlated with earlier biochemical recurrence. In tumors treated with AR inhibitors, high expression of GCK and low expression of SLC2A12 correlated with neuroendocrine histopathology and PSMA gene suppression. GLUT12 suppression and upregulation of glucokinase were observed in neuroendocrine-induced PC cell lines and patient-derived xenograft models. A higher glucose uptake was confirmed in low-PSMA tumors using a GB2-Cy3 probe in a zebrafish model. Conclusion: A neuroendocrine gene signature in neuroendocrine PC and NELPC associates with a distinct transcriptional profile of GLUTs and hexokinases. PSMA suppression correlates with GLUT12 suppression and glucokinase upregulation. Alteration of 18F-FDG uptake-associated genes correlated positively with higher glucose uptake in AR- and PSMA-suppressed tumors. Zebrafish xenograft tumor models are an accurate and efficient preclinical method for monitoring nonradioactive glucose uptake.
Although the incidence of de novo neuroendocrine prostate cancer (PC) is rare, recent data suggest that low expression of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is associated with a spectrum of neuroendocrine hallmarks and androgen receptor (AR) suppression in PC. Previous clinical reports indicate that PCs with a phenotype similar to neuroendocrine tumors can be more amenable to imaging by 18F-FDG than by PSMA-targeting radioligands. In this study, we evaluated the association between neuroendocrine gene signature and 18F-FDG uptake-associated genes including glucose transporters (GLUTs) and hexokinases, with the goal of providing a genomic signature to explain the reported 18F-FDG avidity of PSMA-suppressed tumors. Methods: Data-mining approaches, cell lines, and patient-derived xenograft models were used to study the levels of 14 members of the SLC2A family (encoding GLUT proteins), 4 members of the hexokinase family (genes HK1-HK3 and GCK), and PSMA (FOLH1 gene) after AR inhibition and in correlation with neuroendocrine hallmarks. Also, we characterize a neuroendocrine-like PC (NELPC) subset among a cohort of primary and metastatic PC samples with no neuroendocrine histopathology. We measured glucose uptake in a neuroendocrine-induced in vitro model and a zebrafish model by nonradioactive imaging of glucose uptake using a fluorescent glucose bioprobe, GB2-Cy3. Results: This work demonstrated that a neuroendocrine gene signature associates with differential expression of genes encoding GLUT and hexokinase proteins. In NELPC, elevated expression of GCK (encoding glucokinase protein) and decreased expression of SLC2A12 correlated with earlier biochemical recurrence. In tumors treated with AR inhibitors, high expression of GCK and low expression of SLC2A12 correlated with neuroendocrine histopathology and PSMA gene suppression. GLUT12 suppression and upregulation of glucokinase were observed in neuroendocrine-induced PC cell lines and patient-derived xenograft models. A higher glucose uptake was confirmed in low-PSMA tumors using a GB2-Cy3 probe in a zebrafish model. Conclusion: A neuroendocrine gene signature in neuroendocrine PC and NELPC associates with a distinct transcriptional profile of GLUTs and hexokinases. PSMA suppression correlates with GLUT12 suppression and glucokinase upregulation. Alteration of 18F-FDG uptake-associated genes correlated positively with higher glucose uptake in AR- and PSMA-suppressed tumors. Zebrafish xenograft tumor models are an accurate and efficient preclinical method for monitoring nonradioactive glucose uptake.
Authors: Paola M Perez; Thomas A Hope; Spencer C Behr; Annemieke van Zante; Eric J Small; Robert R Flavell Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Martin K Bakht; Iulian Derecichei; Yinan Li; Rosa-Maria Ferraiuolo; Mark Dunning; So Won Oh; Abdulkadir Hussein; Hyewon Youn; Keith F Stringer; Chang Wook Jeong; Gi Jeong Cheon; Cheol Kwak; Keon Wook Kang; Alastair D Lamb; Yuzhuo Wang; Xuesen Dong; Lisa A Porter Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 5.678
Authors: Cátia V Vaz; Ricardo Marques; Marco G Alves; Pedro F Oliveira; José E Cavaco; Cláudio J Maia; Sílvia Socorro Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2015-06-06 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Eric G Bluemn; Ilsa M Coleman; Jared M Lucas; Roger T Coleman; Susana Hernandez-Lopez; Robin Tharakan; Daniella Bianchi-Frias; Ruth F Dumpit; Arja Kaipainen; Alexandra N Corella; Yu Chi Yang; Michael D Nyquist; Elahe Mostaghel; Andrew C Hsieh; Xiaotun Zhang; Eva Corey; Lisha G Brown; Holly M Nguyen; Kenneth Pienta; Michael Ittmann; Michael Schweizer; Lawrence D True; David Wise; Paul S Rennie; Robert L Vessella; Colm Morrissey; Peter S Nelson Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Himisha Beltran; Davide Prandi; Juan Miguel Mosquera; Matteo Benelli; Loredana Puca; Joanna Cyrta; Clarisse Marotz; Eugenia Giannopoulou; Balabhadrapatruni V S K Chakravarthi; Sooryanarayana Varambally; Scott A Tomlins; David M Nanus; Scott T Tagawa; Eliezer M Van Allen; Olivier Elemento; Andrea Sboner; Levi A Garraway; Mark A Rubin; Francesca Demichelis Journal: Nat Med Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Mark J Dunning; Sarah L Vowler; Emilie Lalonde; Helen Ross-Adams; Paul Boutros; Ian G Mills; Andy G Lynch; Alastair D Lamb Journal: EBioMedicine Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 8.143
Authors: Nicole Melong; Shelby Steele; Morgan MacDonald; Alice Holly; Colin C Collins; Amina Zoubeidi; Jason N Berman; Graham Dellaire Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Harrison K Tsai; Jonathan Lehrer; Mohammed Alshalalfa; Nicholas Erho; Elai Davicioni; Tamara L Lotan Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Haneen Amawi; Alaa A A Aljabali; Sai H S Boddu; Sadam Amawi; Mohammad A Obeid; Charles R Ashby; Amit K Tiwari Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2021-01-03 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Joel Vargas Ahumada; Sofía D González Rueda; Fabio A Sinisterra Solís; Quetzali Pitalúa Cortés; Liliana P Torres Agredo; Jimenez Ríos Miguel; Anna Scavuzzo; Irma Soldevilla-Gallardo; Miguel A Álvarez Avitia; Nora Sobrevilla; Francisco Osvaldo García Pérez Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-06-03