Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Androgens and androgen receptor (AR, NR3C4) clearly play a crucial role in prostate cancer progression. Besides, the link between metabolic disorders and the risk of developing a prostate cancer has been emerging these last years. Interestingly, “lipid” nuclear receptors such as LXRα/NR1H3 and LXRβ/NR1H2 (as well as FXRα/NR1H4 and SHP/NR0B2) have been described to decrease the lipid metabolism, while AR increases it. Moreover, these former orphan nuclear receptors can regulate androgen levels and modulate AR activity. Thus, it is not surprising to find such receptors involved in the physiology of prostate. This review is focused on the roles of liver X receptors (LXRs), farnesoid X receptor (FXR), and small heterodimeric partner (SHP) in prostate physiology and their capabilities to interfere with the androgen-regulated pathways by modulating the levels of active androgen within the prostate. By the use of prostate cancer cell lines, mice deficient for these nuclear receptors and human tissue libraries, several authors have pointed out the putative possibility to pharmacologically target these receptors. These data open a new field of research for the development of new drugs that could overcome the castration resistance in prostate cancer, a usual phenomenon in patients.

Keywords

prostate cancer LXR FXR SHP lipid metabolism

Abbreviations

ABCA1, ATP-binding cassette A1; ADT, androgen deprivation therapy; AKT/PKB, protein kinase B; AMACR, α-methylacyl CoA racemase; AP-1, activator protein-1; AR, androgen receptor; CDKN1A/p21CIP1, cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1; CDKN1B/p27KIP1, cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1B; CRPC, castration-resistant prostate cancer; DHT, dihydrotestosterone; ERK1/2, extracellular signal–regulated kinases; FXR, farnesoid X receptor; LXR, liver X receptor; MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase; MTOR/mTOR, mammalian target of rapamycin; NFκB1/p105, nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells; OATP, organic-anion-transporting polypeptide; PCa, prostate cancer; PI3K, phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; PTEN, Phosphatase and TENsin homolog; SRC/Src, proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase; SHP, small heterodimeric partner; SLCO1B3/OATP1B3, solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 1B3; SLiMs, selective liver X receptor modulators; SOCS3, suppressor of cytokine signaling 3; SREBF/SREBP, sterol regulatory element–binding protein; UGT2, UDP glucuronosyltransferase 2.

Introduction

Prostate Cancer at a Glance

Even though the Greek physician Herophilos (335-280 bc) was the first to describe the prostate in man according to Galen of Pergamon (129-216 ac), the first surgical case of prostate cancer (PCa) was documented by George Langstaff in 1817 and histologically defined in 1853.¹ As expected, and despite the urban legend, PCa is not a modern phenomenon. Indeed, Ghabili et al¹ nicely reported that radiographic analyses of skeletons and of mummies pointed out that men have been affected by this tumor since stone and bronze ages. However, the reported prevalence was lower compared to the one of modern populations. Interestingly, PCa was also probably present in the Americas centuries prior to European colonization.¹

Today, PCa, along with colorectal and breast cancer, displays a higher rate of prevalence in the developed countries, with about 6-fold difference in comparison with low-incidence countries. This increment has been linked to different risk factors and diagnostic practices.² Indeed, the incidence of PCa is constantly increasing due in part to new diagnostic methods,³ to the increasing impact of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, to the perceptions of PCa fear,⁴ and also to the increase in life expectancy. For example, in high-income countries with a low and gradual increase in the rate of PSA testing, such as Japan or the United Kingdom, the prevalence of PCa continues to slightly increase.⁵ However, the role of PSA testing in the reduction of PCa-related mortality rates at the population level is rather controverted.^6,7

In contrary to some other cancers, PCa has a relatively slow evolution and about 85% of diagnosed PCa are in patients older than 65 years.⁸ It is currently admitted that more men die with PCa rather than from it. Indeed, a study performed by Sakr et al⁹ pointed out that 50% of the men of 50 years old have a latent PCa on autopsy analyses and that the initiating events leading to a clinically relevant PCa likely occur decades before. Nonetheless, the development and the etiology of the disease are still poorly understood, and various factors such as genetic/ethnical origin, diet, lifestyle, and environmental factors have been suggested to play a role.¹⁰

As already stated, great differences in the incidence of PCa have been observed depending on the ethnical origin or the country of the patients.¹¹ A Caucasian American has 30% less risk to develop a PCa compared with an African American,^12,13 but at the same time, Asians develop twice less PCa than Americans.¹⁴ Yet the genetic background cannot explain everything because the first generation of immigrants from Asia living in the United States has a more important risk of PCa than those living in Asia.¹⁵ Among various factors putatively identified, higher lipid intake in the United States has been pointed out.¹⁶ A comparable observation had been done years before by Shimizu et al¹⁷ in the Japanese population that moved to America.

PCa, Also a Matter of Metabolic Disorder

As enlightened by previous epidemiological studies describing the link between the high lipid intake in Western countries and the risk of developing a PCa, the high prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome is associated with worse oncological outcomes in men with PCa¹⁸; the tumor is more aggressive and the biochemical recurrence rate is higher.¹⁹ In direction with this link, metformin, an antidiabetic drug that leads to significant improvement of metabolic syndrome parameters, has been shown to induce apoptosis in PCa cells.^20,21 However, the use of metformin for the treatment of patients with PCa is still a matter of debate.²²

A high lipogenesis has also been associated to PCa, as it supplies the tumor with key membrane components such as phospholipids and cholesterol. Indeed, cancer cells being characterized by a higher rate of multiplication need to abundantly build membrane for that.²³ Indeed, Swinnen’s group has been among the first to propose pharmacological inhibition of lipogenesis to induce apoptosis in cancer cell lines²⁴ and to reduce tumor growth in xenograft models, eg, by targeting squalene synthase by zaragozic acid²⁵ or by blocking acetyl-CoA carboxylases²⁶ using soraphen A.

Last but not least, cholesterol imbalance has been pointed out in PCa. Cholesterol accumulation in tumors is not a recent observation. White demonstrated in 1909 an “accumulation of crystals of lipid nature in tumors” and suggested that “cholesterol might be associated in some way with the regulation of cell proliferation.”²⁷ Such cholesterol accumulation was also observed later on in skin cancer.²⁸ Then Swyer showed for the first time an increase of cholesterol content by 2-fold in a zone of the prostate affected by a hypertrophy compared with the surrounding healthy tissues.²⁹ Two mechanisms are put forward to explain the intracellular cholesterol accumulation: a higher circulating cholesterol uptake, and an increase in the accumulation of the mevalonate pathway enzymes.^30,31

Yue et al identified aberrant accumulation of esterified cholesterol in lipid droplets of high-grade PCa and metastases using imaging data.³² The authors showed that such cholesteryl ester accumulation was a consequence of loss of the tumor suppressor Phosphatase and TENsin homolog (PTEN), one of the most common genetic events in PCa, and thus subsequent activation of the phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (PKB/AKT) pathway in PCa cells. In response to the loss of the PTEN, they identified the activation of the mammalian target of rapamycin (MTOR/mTOR) pathway and downstream activation of sterol regulatory element–binding protein (SREBF/SREBP), and the upregulation of LDL receptor (LDL-R³²). However, blockade of mTOR by analogs of rapamycin has been shown to be inefficient in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) so far,³³ but more promising in radioresistant PCa.³⁴

Hence, despite a higher accumulation of cholesterol within the tumor has been well demonstrated in PCa, no clear link has been however made between circulating cholesterol levels and high Gleason score, positive nodal status, and positive surgical margins.³⁵ Nevertheless, it has been tempted to test various compounds decreasing the levels of cholesterol in androgen-dependent or -independent cancer cell cultures or in animal models.^36-41 Altogether, sufficient data are lacking to support the use of statins for the primary prevention of PCa. Meanwhile, statins have been associated with improved PCa-specific survival, particularly in men undergoing radiotherapy, suggesting usefulness of statins in secondary and tertiary prevention.⁴² Yet more epidemiological and mechanistic studies are needed to eventually use statins in PCa.⁴³

Androgens and Androgen Receptor Control PCa Progression

Androgens and androgen receptor (AR, NR3C4) play a crucial role in PCa. Indeed, since Huggins and Hodges’ princeps article in 1941,⁴⁴ it has been admitted that PCa is driven by androgen levels and androgen activity through AR transcriptional regulation.

Among the various androgens, dihydrotestosterone (DHT) is the most active on AR to induce cell proliferation. DHT is synthesized from testosterone by 5α-reductase 2 (SRD5A2) (Figure 1), which can be targeted in PCa by dutasteride, a 5α-reductase inhibitor, despite some controversies.⁴⁵ DHT could also be synthesized from androsterone and 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol even in small amounts. On the opposite, androsterone, 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol, and DHT can be transformed in nonactive glucuronides by UDP glucuronosyltransferase 2 (UGT2) B15 and B17.⁴⁶ Note that AR downregulates the expression of UGT2B15/17 (Figure 2), thus decreasing the inactivation of androgens.⁴⁷

Figure 1.

Interconnection between LXRs and AR in prostate cell.

Figure 2.

Summary of the interconnections among AR, LXRs, FXR, and SHP in prostate cell.

Hence, PCa is initially an androgen-dependent disease; unfortunately, about 30% of patients will relapse after primary therapy.⁴⁸ Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), by surgical or biochemical castration, is the main treatment for relapsed patients and provides temporary relief to tumor burden.⁴⁹ This step is performed by downregulating androgen production by using steroid synthesis inhibitors, as well as antiandrogens, that act at the level of AR.⁴⁹ However, most of the PCa will dedifferentiate to CRPC and inevitably will develop a more aggressive and metastatic cancer. Despite approved treatment options for this PCa stage (eg, taxane compounds; abiraterone that inhibits 17alpha-hydroxylase involved in androgen synthesis; enzalutamide that blocks AR; sipuleucel-T, a therapeutic vaccine), drug resistance will eventually develop in few months.

The exact mechanism of transition from castration sensitive PCa to castration-resistant disease is still not fully understood, but AR definitely plays a key role as described by Bevan’s group⁵⁰; several mechanisms could be cited, among them an increased number of the AR encoding gene copies making them more sensitive to lower levels of androgens, development of cellular clones harboring mutations within the ligand-binding domain of AR and hence potentially activated by steroids that usually do not bind AR, and modifications of AR coactivators or corepressors. Hence, despite an extremely low level of circulating androgens, AR remains active and continues to drive PCa progression.

Beside the classical ligand-regulation of the transcriptional activity, AR could also rapidly interact with the nonreceptor tyrosine kinase SRC/Src increasing cell proliferation through activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)/extracellular signal–regulated kinases (ERK1/2) cascade,⁵¹ or with PI3K/AKT signaling pathway (Figure 1), and controlling cell survival.⁵² Based on that, innovative therapies will be necessary to counteract this so-called nongenomic signaling of AR during the establishment of metastatic CRPC.⁵³

Finally, “androgens meet lipids” (Figure 1) as AR activation increases fatty acid synthesis ^23,54-56 and SREBP2,³⁰ a key-player in de novo synthesis of cholesterol and its cellular uptake,⁵⁷ and decreases ATP-binding cassette A1 (ABCA1), a cholesterol export pump.⁵⁸ This last point is crucial because cholesterol is an obligatory precursor for testosterone and DHT synthesis, the only two active androgens on AR⁵⁹; more importantly, tumor cells also have the ability to abnormally synthesize DHT from cholesterol⁶⁰ or from adrenal androgens.^61,62

Together with AR, other nuclear receptors have been involved in PCa (for a review, see Leach et al⁵⁰); among them the popular “Ménage-à-trois” LXR-FXR-SHP (liver X receptor–farnesoid X receptor–small heterodimeric partner) has been described to be the major player in the regulation of both cholesterol and bile acid homeostasis.⁶³ Altogether, targeting this new “Ménage-à-quatre” appears to be of importance to take care of the prostate. Interestingly, the role of these 3 nuclear receptors has been emerging these last years in ex vivo or in vivo experiments, especially with the generation of transgenic animals knock-out for LXRs. Noteworthy, The Cancer Genome Atlas pointed out that these nuclear receptors could present alterations of copy numbers of their respective encoding genes in PCa.⁵⁰

LXRα and LXRβ Are Involved in Prostate Physiology

LXRα/NR1H3 and LXRβ/NR1H2 (as well as FXRα/NR1H4 and SHP/NR0B2) are members of the nuclear receptor superfamily. They are composed of several functional domains, among them a central DNA-binding domain and a C-terminal ligand-biding domain.⁶⁴ At the end of the 1990s, Janowski et al demonstrated that LXRs are the bona fide receptors for oxysterols,^65,66 oxidized derivatives of cholesterol. Hence, it was suggested that LXRs could regulate cholesterol homeostasis in the cell and was demonstrated thanks to the analysis of Lxr-deficient mice.⁶⁷ Since this seminal article, others groups have associated LXR roles to numerous physiological functions.^64,68

In the prostate, Liao’s group was the first to evoke a putative positive role of LXRs in PCa.⁵⁸ The authors showed that ABCA1, a bona fide LXR-target gene which increases cholesterol export, was downregulated by androgens (Figure 2) in LNCaP cells.⁵⁸ The same group identified that activation of LXRs by the synthetic agonist T0901317 decreased the percentage of S-phase LNCaP cells in a dose-dependent manner and increased the expression of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor CDKN1B/p27KIP1⁵⁸, by decreasing the S-phase kinase associated protein 2 (SKP2) involved in the degradation of cell cycle inhibitors.⁶⁹ At last, Chuu et al demonstrated that LXRs and some of their target genes were decreased during the progression of androgen-dependent tumor to androgen-independent relapsed tumors in a xenograft model.⁷⁰ These data thus made a clear link between LXRs and the proliferative capacities of PCa cells (Figure 2). Likewise, we identified that Lxrα;β-deficient mice fed a high cholesterol diet presented prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia characterized by an accumulation of the oncogene and histone methyl transferase Enhancer of Zeste Homolog 2 (EZH2) which results in the downregulation of the tumor suppressors microseminoprotein beta (MSMB) and NK3 homeobox 1 (NKX3.1).⁷¹ It is noteworthy that overexpression of EZH2 has been described in patients with an aggressive PCa.⁷² EZH2 controls prostate cell proliferation through the epigenetic silencing of NKX3.1⁷³ and MSMB.⁷⁴ In wild-type mice fed a high cholesterol diet, LXRs induce the transcription of Inducible Degrader of the LDL receptor MYLIP/IDOL (Figures 1 and 2), a ubiquitin ligase that targets LDL-R, and of ABC transporters, altogether maintaining a controlled level of cholesterol and a low amount of EZH2.⁷¹ So far, it has not been possible to dissociate the exact role of each LXR isoform as they both compensate each other.

In addition to the role of LXRs in the control of cellular cholesterol content and prostate cell proliferation, we showed that the activation of LXRs by various natural or synthetic ligands increases the level of apoptosis in LNCaP cells.⁷⁵ This phenomenon is linked to the presence of smaller and thinner lipid rafts after LXR stimulation and the downregulation of AKT phosphorylation in these lipid rafts. After having derived new models of epithelial cells from the dorsal prostate (MPECs) of wild-type or Lxr-deficient mice, Dufour et al enlightened that LXRs modulate AKT and MAPK phosphorylation accumulation, making them potential mediators of LXRs in cell cycle control⁷⁶ (Figure 2). Altogether, these results confirm that LXRs are becoming exquisite pharmacological targets for PCa, unless specific modulators, we called SLiMs (selective LXR modulators^77,78), could be developed.

On the other side, LXRs also control AR activity. Indeed, Lxr-deficient mice also develop benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).⁷⁹ In man, BPH is clearly due to an excessive activity of AR and the production of DHT.⁸⁰ Using transgenic animals, we were able to demonstrate that LXRα acts as a key modulator of the cross talk between the stromal and epithelial compartments, which is essential for the integration of androgen signaling in the prostate and its effect on the epithelium.⁸¹ Interestingly, Tsui et al⁸² pointed out that LXR expression was higher in androgen-sensitive LNCaP cells than in other PCa cell lines. Moreover, T0901317-activated LXRs decrease AR accumulation and PSA production in LNCaP. Overall, AR and LXRs are definitively interconnected (Figure 1). These data open numerous opportunities to develop new therapeutic concepts especially in CRPC situations where AR activity could become independent of androgen levels. If LXRs negatively modulate AR accumulation, a SLiM could increase PCa cell apoptosis, as well as decrease AR activity, hence, bypassing the castration-resistant stage.

One of the most challenging issues in PCa is to slow down the metastatic potential of the tumor.⁸³ Fu et al described an interesting effect of GW3965, another LXR synthetic ligand, on LNCaP cells. Activation of LXR increases the suppressor of cytokine signaling 3 (SOCS3) accumulation, followed by a decrease of phosphorylated AKT, activator protein-1 (AP-1), and nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NFκB1/p105).⁸⁴ GW3965 also inhibited PCa invasion in xenografted mice, suggesting that LXRs could be targetable to prevent metastases.

However, these potential effects of LXRs in PCa treatment should be modulated. Indeed, it should be kept in mind that, in prostate, tumor cells are surrounded by immune cells such as dendritic cells that initiate immune responses, including antitumor activity after their CC chemokine receptor-7 (CCR7)-dependent migration to lymphoid organs. Activation of LXRα inhibits CCR7 expression dampening the antitumor immune responses.⁸⁵ Likewise, drugs inhibiting cholesterol synthesis (and thus LXR ligands), such as zaragozic acid, increase the efficacy of the treatments in xenografted mice with tumors.⁸⁶ Once again, these contradictory results enlighten the necessity to develop tissue- and cell-specific LXR ligands to decipher the exact roles of each LXR in each cell type. It should also be noticed that no variation of LXRα and/or LXRβ expression has been linked to cancer grades. This would imply to stratify patients’ cohorts, which has not been performed so far.

Putative Role of FXR in PCa

FXR/NR1H4 is the nuclear receptor for bile acids.⁸⁷ However, the inactive androgen androsterone has also been described as a potent activator of FXR.⁸⁸ This point is important because androsterone is present in prostate. Conversely, to LXR and the historical story of cholesterol accumulation in prostate tumors, the link between FXR, bile acids, and prostate physiology is less evident.

The first “historical” link came with Wang and Schaffner⁸⁹ who observed that BIO 87-20 hamsters, developing spontaneous cystic prostate hypertrophy, had a lower prostate size and weight with much less distended prostatic acini when were treated with colestipol, a bile-acid-sequestering anion-exchange resin. More recently, it has been shown that bile acid content is increased in patients with a PCa treated with an ADT⁹⁰; in parallel, ADT has been associated with an increased risk of diverse biliary diseases.⁹¹ Alpha-methylacyl CoA racemase (AMACR) is overexpressed in PCa⁹² and is a better diagnostic marker than PSA. AMACR plays a key role in the β oxidation of branched chain fatty acids and the bile acid intermediates dihydroxycholestanoic acid and trihydroxycholestanoic acid. Furthermore, AMACR is highly expressed in androgen-sensitive PCa cell lines and is required for the proliferation of these cells.⁹³

Even though lithocholic acid selectively induces apoptosis in androgen-sensitive and -insensitive prostate cell lines,^94,95 few studies have focused on the molecular effects of FXR activation in androgen-sensitive or androgen-insensitive prostate cell lines. Indeed, FXR inhibits cell proliferation by decreasing lipid metabolism via targeting SREBP1c (Figure 2).⁹⁶ Likewise, chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA, a natural FXR ligand) and GW4065 (a synthetic FXR agonist) decrease LNCaP cell proliferation by the induction of PTEN accumulation, which in turn decreases the phosphorylation of AKT and the survival pathway.⁹⁷ Interestingly, new derivatives of ursodeoxycholic acid and CDCA induce the apoptosis of human prostate androgen-insensitive carcinoma PC-3 cells by increasing cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1 CDKN1A/p21CIP1 and the cleaved form of poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase 1 PARP1.⁹⁸ However, it has not been proved yet that FXR mediates the effect of these molecules. Finally, the most important point is that FXR accumulation was found to be significantly lower, at both mRNA and protein levels, in human PCa tissues compared with the pair-matched adjacent normal tissues.⁹⁷ Again, no correlation was made with grades/stages of the tumors by the authors. Based on these results, one can suggest that FXR ligands could have some benefit in the treatment of PCa.

Unfortunately, other data showed a negative role of bile acids and FXR in the development of PCa. First of all, androgen metabolite androsterone, which is also an activator of FXR, reduces the glucuronidation of androgens catalyzed by UGT2B15/B17 in an FXR-dependent manner in LNCaP cells.⁹⁹ Such an action would increase the levels of androsterone, 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol, and finally DHT, and thus activate AR and induce cell proliferation. On the contrary, the increase of androsterone could also neutralize the AR-induced proliferation by blocking the proliferation via FXR (Figure 2). This dual paradoxical effect of FXR is also seen in the regulation of the solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 1B3 SLCO1B3/OATP1B3, which is an export pump for steroids and bile acids¹⁰⁰ and seems to be upregulated by FXR in the prostate,¹⁰¹ but not in the liver.¹⁰² If this regulation is efficient in the prostate, FXR would deplete the cells in steroids (including bile acids) by increasing OATP1B3; bile acid depletion will act as a safety valve and will reduce FXR activity. More investigations are thus needed using adequate in vivo models to understand how FXR targeting could be interesting in PCa management.

SHP, a Noncanonical Nuclear Receptor With Significant Potential in PCa

Short heterodimer partner (SHP/NR0B2) is an atypical orphan nuclear receptor: It lacks the classical DNA- and possesses a ligand-binding domain. Despite its strong repressive activity on other nuclear receptors such as AR, no known ligand for SHP has been identified so far.¹⁰³

Initially described as downregulating bile acid synthesis in liver by decreasing 7α-cholesterol hydroxylase CYP7A1 in an LXR-dependent manner,¹⁰⁴ SHP became a member of the Triad with LXR and FXR when it appeared that FXR was the nuclear receptor for bile acids¹⁰⁵ and SHP was one of its bona fide target genes.

Indeed, it was the discovery of synthetic SHP ligands that gave the opportunity to link SHP to PCa.¹⁰⁶ Some of these ligands had a strong inhibitory effect on proliferation and inducing effect on apoptosis in the PCa androgen-insensitive DU-145 cells (50% efficacy less than 1µM).

In spite of SHP role in the regulation of androgen synthesis directly in the testis¹⁰⁷ or indirectly via gonadotropin hormones,¹⁰⁸ such role has never been described so far in prostate, but cannot be excluded. Besides, SHP seems to play an antitumor role in many types of cancers¹⁰⁹; unfortunately, SHP mRNA and/or protein accumulation has never been studied in prostate tumors. The centerpiece pointing out SHP as interesting in PCa comes from the fact that AR negatively regulates the amount of SHP (Figure 2).¹¹⁰ Indeed, miR-141 which targets SHP is induced by AR in LNCaP cells. One could thus hypothesize that increasing concentration of active androgens would block SHP, which antagonizes AR activity and neutralizes the proliferative role of androgens.

Conclusion and Perspectives

PCa incidence is drastically increasing in Westernized countries. Today, the main challenge is to have good diagnostic and prognostic markers that could help in the management of the patients. As androgens have been playing a central role in the progression of the tumors, most of these markers were previously obtained focusing on the screening of AR target genes. The involvement of other transcription factors, members or not of the nuclear receptor superfamily, has made possible to identify new signaling pathways regulating progression of the tumor until metastasis. LXR, FXR, and SHP have been associated for many years to the regulation of metabolism. It is finally not surprising to find them as putative pharmacological targets to treat PCa, especially knowing that they can regulate androgen levels and AR activity (Figure 1). Altogether, developing new specific molecules regulating these nuclear receptors will give the opportunity to offer different therapeutic arsenals. This is probably the most challenging issue, especially in CRPC, which is the fate of almost all PCa.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

M.C., S.D., S.M., S.B., A.M., and J.-M.A.L. collected the information, wrote the manuscript, and drew the figures; all authors read and approved the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Part of this work was financed by grants from Université Blaise Pascal, Region Auvergne Rhône Alpes, Fond Européen de Developpement Régional (FEDER), AAP Plan Cancer Environnement 2016.

References

Ghabili

Tosoian

Schaeffer

et al . The history of prostate cancer from antiquity: review of paleopathological studies. Urology. 2016;97:8-12.

Jemal

Bray

Center

Ferlay

Ward

Forman

Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69-90.

McDonald

Parsons

JK.

The case for tailored prostate cancer screening: an NCCN perspective. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13:1576-1583.

Cobran

Hall

Aiken

WD.

African-American and Caribbean-born men’s perceptions of prostate cancer fear and facilitators for screening behavior: a pilot study. J Cancer Educ. 2018;33(3):640-648.

Baade

Youlden

Krnjacki

LJ.

International epidemiology of prostate cancer: geographical distribution and secular trends. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2009;53:171-184.

Andriole

Crawford

Grubb

et al . Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1310-1319.

Schröder

Hugosson

Roobol

et al . Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1320-1328.

Grönberg

Prostate cancer epidemiology. Lancet. 2003;361:859-864.

Sakr

Haas

Cassin

Pontes

Crissman

JD.

The frequency of carcinoma and intraepithelial neoplasia of the prostate in young male patients. J Urol. 1993;150:379-385.

10.

Perdana

Mochtar

Umbas

Hamid

ARA

. The risk factors of prostate cancer and its prevention: a literature review. Acta Med Indones. 2016;48:228-238.

11.

Rebbeck

TR.

Prostate cancer genetics: variation by race, ethnicity, and geography. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2017;27:3-10.

12.

DeSantis

Siegel

Sauer

et al . Cancer statistics for African Americans, 2016: progress and opportunities in reducing racial disparities. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:290-308.

13.

Pietro

Chornokur

Kumar

Davis

Park

JY.

Racial differences in the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Int Neurourol J. 2016;20:S112-S119.

14.

Tran

Udaltsova

Armstrong

Friedman

Klatsky

AL.

Risk of cancer in Asian Americans: a Kaiser Permanente cohort study. Cancer Causes Control. 2016;27:1197-1207.

15.

Cook

Goldoft

Schwartz

Weiss

NS.

Incidence of adenocarcinoma of the prostate in Asian immigrants to the United States and their descendants. J Urol. 1999;161:152-155.

16.

Watanabe

Nakayama

Shiraishi

Stemmermann

Yatani

. Comparative studies of prostate cancer in Japan versus the United States. A review. Urol Oncol. 2000;5:274-283.

17.

Shimizu

Ross

Bernstein

Yatani

Henderson

Mack

TM.

Cancers of the prostate and breast among Japanese and white immigrants in Los Angeles County. Br J Cancer. 1991;63:963-966.

18.

Taylor

Ascui

Watt

MJ.

Linking obesogenic dysregulation to prostate cancer progression. Endocr Connect. 2015;4:R68-R80.

19.

Gacci

Russo

De Nunzio

et al . Meta-analysis of metabolic syndrome and prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20(2):146-155.

20.

Ben Sahra

Laurent

Giuliano

et al . Targeting cancer cell metabolism: the combination of metformin and 2-deoxyglucose induces p53-dependent apoptosis in prostate cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2010;70:2465-2475.

21.

Loubière

Goiran

Laurent

Djabari

Tanti

J-F

Bost

Metformin-induced energy deficiency leads to the inhibition of lipogenesis in prostate cancer cells. Oncotarget. 2015;6:15652-15661.

22.

Hankinson

Fam

Patel

NN.

A review for clinicians: prostate cancer and the antineoplastic properties of metformin. Urol Oncol. 2017;35:21-29.

23.

Swinnen

Heemers

van de Sande

et al . Androgens, lipogenesis and prostate cancer. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2004;92:273-279.

24.

Kuemmerle

Rysman

Lombardo

et al . Lipoprotein lipase links dietary fat to solid tumor cell proliferation. Mol Cancer Ther. 2011;10:427-436.

25.

Brusselmans

Timmermans

Van de Sande

et al . Squalene synthase, a determinant of Raft-associated cholesterol and modulator of cancer cell proliferation. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:18777-18785.

26.

Beckers

Organe

Timmermans

et al . Chemical inhibition of acetyl-CoA carboxylase induces growth arrest and cytotoxicity selectively in cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2007;67:8180-8187.

27.

White

The occurrence of crystals in tumours. J Pathol Bacteriol. 1909;13:3-10.

28.

Vargas

Cholesterine in cutanecous cancer. Urol Cutan Rev. 1932;310.

29.

Swyer

The cholesterol content of normal and enlarged prostates. Cancer Res. 1942;2:372-375.

30.

Chen

Hughes-Fulford

Human prostate cancer cells lack feedback regulation of low-density lipoprotein receptor and its regulator, SREBP2. Int J Cancer. 2001;91:41-45.

31.

Thysell

Surowiec

Hörnberg

et al . Metabolomic characterization of human prostate cancer bone metastases reveals increased levels of cholesterol. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e14175.

32.

Yue

Lee

S-Y

et al . Cholesteryl ester accumulation induced by PTEN loss and PI3K/AKT activation underlies human prostate cancer aggressiveness. Cell Metab. 2014;19:393-406.

33.

Statz

Patterson

Mockus

SM.

mTOR inhibitors in castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review. Target Oncol. 2017;12:47-59.

34.

Chang

Graham

et al . Targeting PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway in the treatment of prostate cancer radioresistance. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2015;96:507-517.

35.

Wettstein

Saba

Umbehr

et al . Prognostic role of preoperative serum lipid levels in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Prostate. 2017;77:549-556.

36.

Gordon

Midha

Szeitz

et al . Oral simvastatin administration delays castration-resistant progression and reduces intratumoral steroidogenesis of LNCaP prostate cancer xenografts. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19:21-27.

37.

Hoque

Chen

X-C.

Statin induces apoptosis and cell growth arrest in prostate cancer cells. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:88-94.

38.

Sekine

Furuya

Nishii

Koike

Matsui

Suzuki

Simvastatin inhibits the proliferation of human prostate cancer PC-3 cells via down-regulation of the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008;372:356-361.

39.

Sivaprasad

Abbas

Dutta

Differential efficacy of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl CoA reductase inhibitors on the cell cycle of prostate cancer cells. Mol Cancer Ther. 2006;5:2310-2316.

40.

Zheng

Cui

X-X

Avila

et al . Atorvastatin and celecoxib inhibit prostate PC-3 tumors in immunodeficient mice. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:5480-5487.

41.

Zhuang

Kim

Adam

Solomon

Freeman

MR.

Cholesterol targeting alters lipid raft composition and cell survival in prostate cancer cells and xenografts. J Clin Invest. 2005;115:959-968.

42.

Alfaqih

Allott

Hamilton

Freeman

Freedland

SJ.

The current evidence on statin use and prostate cancer prevention: are we there yet?

Nat Rev Urol. 2017;14:107-119.

43.

Murai

Cholesterol lowering: role in cancer prevention and treatment. Biol Chem. 2015;396:1-11.

44.

Huggins

Hodges

. Studies on prostatic cancer. I. The effect of castration, of estrogen and of androgen injection on serum phosphatases in metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. Cancer Res. 1941;1:293-297.

45.

Lacy

Kyprianou

A tale of two trials: the impact of 5α-reductase inhibition on prostate cancer (Review). Oncol Lett. 2014;8:1391-1396.

46.

Gauthier-Landry

Bélanger

Barbier

. Multiple roles for UDP-glucuronosyltransferase (UGT)2B15 and UGT2B17 enzymes in androgen metabolism and prostate cancer evolution. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2015 Jan;145:187-92.

47.

Bao

B-Y

Chuang

B-F

Wang

et al . Androgen receptor mediates the expression of UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 2 B15 and B17 genes. Prostate. 2008;68:839-848.

48.

Cornford

Bellmunt

Bolla

et al . EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71:630-642.

49.

Lowrance

Roth

Kirkby

Murad

Cookson

MS.

Castration-resistant prostate cancer: AUA guideline amendment 2015. J Urol. 2016;195:1444-1452.

50.

Leach

Powell

Bevan

CL.

Women in cancer thematic review: new roles for nuclear receptors in prostate cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2016;23:T85-T108.

51.

Migliaccio

Castoria

Di Domenico

et al . Steroid-induced androgen receptor-oestradiol receptor beta-Src complex triggers prostate cancer cell proliferation. EMBO J. 2000;19:5406-5417.

52.

Baron

Manin

Beaudoin

et al . Androgen receptor mediates non-genomic activation of phosphatidylinositol 3-OH kinase in androgen-sensitive epithelial cells. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:14579-14586.

53.

Leung

Sadar

MD.

Non-genomic actions of the androgen receptor in prostate cancer. Front Endocrinol. 2017;8:2.

54.

Heemers

Maes

Foufelle

Heyns

Verhoeven

Swinnen

JV.

Androgens stimulate lipogenic gene expression in prostate cancer cells by activation of the sterol regulatory element-binding protein cleavage activating protein/sterol regulatory element-binding protein pathway. Mol Endocrinol. 2001;15:1817-1828.

55.

Heemers

Verrijdt

Organe

et al . Identification of an androgen response element in intron 8 of the sterol regulatory element-binding protein cleavage-activating protein gene allowing direct regulation by the androgen receptor. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:30880-30887.

56.

Swinnen

Verhoeven

Androgens and the control of lipid metabolism in human prostate cancer cells. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1998;65:191-198.

57.

Brown

Goldstein

JL.

Sterol regulatory element binding proteins (SREBPs): controllers of lipid synthesis and cellular uptake. Nutr Rev. 1998;56:S1-S3; discussion S54-S75.

58.

Fukuchi

Hiipakka

Kokontis

et al . Androgenic suppression of ATP-binding cassette transporter A1 expression in LNCaP human prostate cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2004;64:7682-7685.

59.

Alioui

Celhay

Baron

Lobaccaro

J-MA

. Lipids and prostate cancer adenocarcinoma. Clin Lipidol. 2014;9:643-655.

60.

Dillard

Lin

M-F

Khan

SA.

Androgen-independent prostate cancer cells acquire the complete steroidogenic potential of synthesizing testosterone from cholesterol. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2008;295:115-120.

61.

Luu-The

Bélanger

Labrie

Androgen biosynthetic pathways in the human prostate. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;22:207-221.

62.

Mohler

Titus

Bai

et al . Activation of the androgen receptor by intratumoral bioconversion of androstanediol to dihydrotestosterone in prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2011;71:1486-1496.

63.

Kalaany

Mangelsdorf

DJ.

LXRs and FXR: the Yin and Yang of cholesterol and fat metabolism. Annu Rev Physiol. 2006;68:159-191.

64.

Maqdasy

Trousson

Tauveron

Volle

Baron

Lobaccaro

J-MA

. Once and for all, LXRα and LXRβ are gatekeepers of the endocrine system. Mol Aspects Med. 2016;49:31-46.

65.

Janowski

Willy

Devi

Falck

Mangelsdorf

DJ.

An oxysterol signalling pathway mediated by the nuclear receptor LXR alpha. Nature. 1996;383:728-731.

66.

Janowski

Grogan

Jones

et al . Structural requirements of ligands for the oxysterol liver X receptors LXRalpha and LXRbeta. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96:266-271.

67.

Peet

Turley

et al . Cholesterol and bile acid metabolism are impaired in mice lacking the nuclear oxysterol receptor LXR alpha. Cell. 1998;93:693-704.

68.

Hong

Tontonoz

Liver X receptors in lipid metabolism: opportunities for drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2014;13:433-444.

69.

Chuu

C-P

Kokontis

Hiipakka

Liao

Modulation of liver X receptor signaling as novel therapy for prostate cancer. J Biomed Sci. 2007;14:543-553.

70.

Chuu

Hiipakka

Kokontis

Fukuchi

Chen

R-Y

Liao

Inhibition of tumor growth and progression of LNCaP prostate cancer cells in athymic mice by androgen and liver X receptor agonist. Cancer Res. 2006;66:6482-6486.

71.

Pommier

AJC

Dufour

Alves

et al . Liver x receptors protect from development of prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia in mice. PLoS Genet. 2013;9:e1003483.

72.

Varambally

Dhanasekaran

Zhou

et al . The polycomb group protein EZH2 is involved in progression of prostate cancer. Nature. 2002;419:624-629.

73.

Kunderfranco

Mello-Grand

Cangemi

et al . ETS transcription factors control transcription of EZH2 and epigenetic silencing of the tumor suppressor gene Nkx3.1 in prostate cancer. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e10547.

74.

Beke

Nuytten

Van Eynde

Beullens

Bollen

The gene encoding the prostatic tumor suppressor PSP94 is a target for repression by the Polycomb group protein EZH2. Oncogene. 2007;26:4590-4595.

75.

Pommier

AJC

Alves

Viennois

et al . Liver X Receptor activation downregulates AKT survival signaling in lipid rafts and induces apoptosis of prostate cancer cells. Oncogene. 2010;29:2712-2723.

76.

Dufour

Pommier

Alves

et al . Lack of liver x receptors leads to cell proliferation in a model of mouse dorsal prostate epithelial cell. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e58876.

77.

Viennois

Pommier

AJC

Mouzat

et al . Targeting liver X receptors in human health: deadlock or promising trail? Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2011;15:219-232.

78.

Viennois

Mouzat

Dufour

Morel

Lobaccaro

J-M

Baron

Selective liver X receptor modulators (SLiMs): what use in human health?

Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2012;351:129-141.

79.

Kim

H-J

Andersson

Bouton

Warner

Gustafsson

J-A.

Stromal growth and epithelial cell proliferation in ventral prostates of liver X receptor knockout mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:558-563.

80.

Füllhase

Schneider

MP.

5-alpha-reductase inhibitors and combination therapy. Urol Clin North Am. 2016;43:325-336.

81.

Viennois

Esposito

Dufour

et al . Lxrα regulates the androgen response in prostate epithelium. Endocrinology. 2012;153:3211-3223.

82.

Tsui

K-H

Chung

L-C

Feng

T-H

et al . Divergent effect of liver X receptor agonists on prostate-specific antigen expression is dependent on androgen receptor in prostate carcinoma cells. Prostate. 2015;75:603-615.

83.

Clement

Sweeney

CJ.

Evolving treatment of oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13:9-18.

84.

Yao

Huang

et al . LXR agonist regulates the carcinogenesis of PCa via the SOCS3 pathway. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2014;33:195-204.

85.

Villablanca

Raccosta

Zhou

et al . Tumor-mediated liver X receptor-alpha activation inhibits CC chemokine receptor-7 expression on dendritic cells and dampens antitumor responses. Nat Med. 2010;16:98-105.

86.

Lanterna

Musumeci

Raccosta

et al . The administration of drugs inhibiting cholesterol/oxysterol synthesis is safe and increases the efficacy of immunotherapeutic regimens in tumor-bearing mice. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2016;65:1303-1315.

87.

Gadaleta

Cariello

Sabbà

Moschetta

Tissue-specific actions of FXR in metabolism and cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2015;1851:30-39.

88.

Wang

Lai

Moy

Bhat

Hartman

Evans

MJ.

The nuclear hormone receptor farnesoid X receptor (FXR) is activated by androsterone. Endocrinology. 2006;147:4025-4033.

89.

Wang

Schaffner

CP.

Effect of candicidin and colestipol on the testes and prostate glands of BIO 87.20 hamsters. Invest Urol. 1976;14:66-71.

90.

Saylor

Karoly

Smith

MR.

Prospective study of changes in the metabolomic profiles of men during their first three months of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:3677-3685.

91.

Saylor

Smith

O’Malley

Keating

NL.

Androgen-deprivation therapy and risk for biliary disease in men with prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65:642-649.

92.

Evans

AJ.

α-methylacyl CoA racemase (P504S): overview and potential uses in diagnostic pathology as applied to prostate needle biopsies. J Clin Pathol. 2003;56:892-897.

93.

Zha

Ferdinandusse

Denis

et al . α-methylacyl-CoA racemase as an androgen-independent growth modifier in prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2003;63:7365-7376.

94.

Gafar

Draz

Goldberg

et al . Lithocholic acid induces endoplasmic reticulum stress, autophagy and mitochondrial dysfunction in human prostate cancer cells. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2445.

95.

Goldberg

Titorenko

Beach

Sanderson

JT.

Bile acids induce apoptosis selectively in androgen-dependent and -independent prostate cancer cells. PeerJ. 2013;1:e122.

96.

Liu

Zhao

Wang

Teng

Yuan

Farnesoid X receptor ligand CDCA suppresses human prostate cancer cells growth by inhibiting lipid metabolism via targeting sterol response element binding protein 1. Am J Transl Res. 2016;8:5118-5124.

97.

Liu

Tong

S-J

Wang

L-X.

Farnesoid X receptor inhibits LNcaP cell proliferation via the upregulation of PTEN. Exp Ther Med. 2014;8:1209-1212.

98.

Choi

Suh

Jin

Yoo

Kim

ND.

Apoptosis and modulation of cell cycle control by synthetic derivatives of ursodeoxycholic acid and chenodeoxycholic acid in human prostate cancer cells. Cancer Lett. 2003;199:157-167.

99.

Kaeding

Bouchaert

Bélanger

et al . Activators of the farnesoid X receptor negatively regulate androgen glucuronidation in human prostate cancer LNCAP cells. Biochem J. 2008;410:245-253.

100.

Yang

Xie

Mostaghel

et al . SLCO2B1 and SLCO1B3 may determine time to progression for patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2565-2573.

101.

Svoboda

Riha

Wlcek

Jaeger

Thalhammer

Organic anion transporting polypeptides (OATPs): regulation of expression and function. Curr Drug Metab. 2011;12:139-153.

102.

Jung

Elferink

MGL

Stellaard

Groothuis

GMM

. Analysis of bile acid-induced regulation of FXR target genes in human liver slices. Liver Int. 2007;27:137-144.

103.

Zhang

Hagedorn

Wang

Role of nuclear receptor SHP in metabolism and cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2011;1812:893-908.

104.

Makishima

Repa

et al . Molecular basis for feedback regulation of bile acid synthesis by nuclear receptors. Mol Cell. 2000;6:507-515.

105.

Makishima

Okamoto

Repa

et al . Identification of a nuclear receptor for bile acids. Science. 1999;284:1362-1365.

106.

Dawson

Xia

Liu

et al . An adamantyl-substituted retinoid-derived molecule that inhibits cancer cell growth and angiogenesis by inducing apoptosis and binds to small heterodimer partner nuclear receptor: effects of modifying its carboxylate group on apoptosis, proliferation, and protein-tyrosine phosphatase activity. J Med Chem. 2007;50:2622-2639.

107.

Volle

Duggavathi

Magnier

et al . The small heterodimer partner is a gonadal gatekeeper of sexual maturation in male mice. Genes Dev. 2007;21:303-315.

108.

Vega

Martinot

Baptissart

et al . Identification of the link between the hypothalamo-pituitary axis and the testicular orphan nuclear receptor NR0B2 in adult male mice. Endocrinology. 2015;156:660-669.

109.

Zou

Lehn

Magee

Zhang

New insights into orphan nuclear receptor SHP in liver cancer. Nucl Receptor Res. 2015;2:101162.

110.

Xiao

Gong

A-Y

Eischeid

et al . miR-141 modulates androgen receptor transcriptional activity in human prostate cancer cells through targeting the small heterodimer partner protein. Prostate. 2012;72:1514-1522.

LXRs,SHP,and FXR in Prostate Cancer: Enemies or Ménage à Quatre With AR?

Abstract

Keywords

Abbreviations

Introduction

Prostate Cancer at a Glance

PCa, Also a Matter of Metabolic Disorder

Androgens and Androgen Receptor Control PCa Progression

LXRα and LXRβ Are Involved in Prostate Physiology

Putative Role of FXR in PCa

SHP, a Noncanonical Nuclear Receptor With Significant Potential in PCa

Conclusion and Perspectives

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References