4.7 Article

Proteomic Comparison and MRM-Based Comparative Analysis of Metabolites Reveal Metabolic Shift in Human Prostate Cancer Cell Lines

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 3390-3402

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b00464

关键词

quantitative proteomics; metabolite; metabolic shift; androgen receptor; AMPK; CRPC

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973) [2012CB966803, 2012CB966801, 2014CBA02003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the major challenges in prostate cancer therapy remains the development of effective treatments for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), as the underlying mechanisms for its progression remain elusive. Previous studies showed that androgen receptor (AR) is crucially involved in regulation of metabolism in prostate cancer (PCa) cells throughout the transition from early stage, androgen-sensitive PCa to androgen-independent CRPC. AR achieves such metabolic rewiring directively either via its transcriptional activity or via interactions with AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK). However, due to the heterogeneous expression and activity status of AR in PCa cells, it remains a challenge to investigate the links between AR status and metabolic alterations. To this end, we compared the proteomes of three pairs of androgen-sensitive (AS) and androgen-independent (AI) PCa cell lines, namely, PC3-AR(+)/PC3, 22Rv1/Du145, and LNCaP/C42B, using an iTRAQ labeling approach. Our results revealed that most of the differentially expressed proteins between each pair function in metabolism, indicating a metabolic shift between AS and AT cells, as further validated by multiple reaction monitoring (MRM)-based quantification of nucleotides and relative comparison of fatty acids between these cell lines. Furthermore, increased adenylate kinase isoenzyme 1 (AK1) in AS relative to AT cells may result in activation of AMPK, representing a major regulatory factor involved in the observed metabolic shift in PCa cells.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据