Androgen plays a critical role in regulating the growth and differentiation of normal prostate epithelia, as well as the initial growth of prostate cancer cells. Nevertheless, prostate carcinomas eventually become androgen-unresponsive, and the cancer is refractory to hormonal therapy. To gain insight into the mechanism involved in this hormone-refractory phenomenon, we have examined the potential role of the androgen receptor (AR) in that process. We have investigated the expression of AR and two prostate-specific androgen-responsive antigens, prostatic acid phosphatase (PAcP) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), for the functional activity of AR in LNCaP and PC-3 human prostate carcinoma cells. Our results are as follows. (i) Clone 33 LNCaP cells express AR, PAcP, and PSA, and cell growth is stimulated by 5alpha-dihydrotestosterone (DHT). Stimulation of cell growth correlates with decreased cellular PAcP activity. (ii) In clone 81 LNCaP cells, the expression of PAcP decreases with a concurrent decrease in the degree of androgen stimulation of cell growth, whereas the expression of PSA mRNA level is up-regulated by DHT, as in clone 33 cells. Conversely, in PAcP cDNA-transfected clone 81 cells, an additional expression of cellular PAcP correlates with an increased stimulation by androgen, higher than the corresponding control cells. (iii) PC-3 cells express a low level of functional AR with no detectable PAcP or PSA, and the growth of PC-3 cells is not affected by DHT treatment. Nevertheless, in two PAcP cDNA-transfected PC-3 sublines, the expression of exogenous cellular PAcP correlates with androgen stimulation. This androgen stimulation of cell growth concurs with an increased tyrosine phosphorylation of a phosphoprotein of 185 kDa. In summary, the data indicate that the expression of AR alone is not sufficient for androgen stimulation of cell growth. Furthermore, in AR-expressing prostate cancer cells, the expression of cellular PAcP correlates with androgen stimulation of cell proliferation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: