4.7 Article

Androgen receptor phosphorylation at serine 515 by Cdk1 predicts biochemical relapse in prostate cancer patients

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 108, Issue 1, Pages 139-148

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.480

Keywords

androgen receptor; biomarker; phosphorylation; prostate cancer

Categories

Funding

  1. Association of International Cancer Research
  2. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Research Endowment Fund
  3. Think Pink
  4. Cancer Research UK [15151] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Prostate cancer cell growth is dependent upon androgen receptor (AR) activation, which is regulated by specific kinases. The aim of the current study is to establish if AR phosphorylation by Cdk1 or ERK1/2 is of prognostic significance. Methods: Scansite 2.0 was utilised to predict which AR sites are phosphorylated by Cdk1 and ERK1/2. Immunohistochemistry for these sites was then performed on 90 hormone-naive prostate cancer specimens. The interaction between Cdk1/ERK1/2 and AR phosphorylation was investigated in vitro using LNCaP cells. Results: Phosphorylation of AR at serine 515 (pAR(S515)) and PSA at diagnosis were independently associated with decreased time to biochemical relapse. Cdk1 and pCdk1(161), but not ERK1/2, correlated with pARS515. High expression of pAR(S515) in patients with a PSA at diagnosis of <= 20 ng ml(-1) was associated with shorter time to biochemical relapse (P = 0.019). This translated into a reduction in disease-specific survival (10-year survival, 38.1% vs 100%, P<0.001). In vitro studies demonstrated that treatment with Roscovitine (a Cdk inhibitor) caused a reduction in pCdk1(161) expression, pAR(S515)expression and cellular proliferation. Conclusion: In prostate cancer patients with PSA at diagnosis of <= 20 ng ml(-1), phosphorylation of AR at serine 515 by Cdk1 may be an independent prognostic marker.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available