The identification of fibroblasts and cancer-associated fibroblasts from human cancer tissue using surface markers is difficult, especially because the markers used currently are usually not expressed solely by fibroblasts, and the identification of fibroblast-specific surface molecules is still under investigation. It was aimed to compare three commercially available antibodies in the detection of different surface epitopes of fibroblasts (anti-fibroblast, fibroblast activation protein α, and fibroblast surface protein). The specificity of their expression, employing fibroblast cell lines and tumor-derived fibroblasts from breast and prostate tissues was investigated. Both the established fibroblast cell line HFF-1 and ex vivo primary fibroblasts isolated from breast and prostate cancer tissues expressed the tested surface markers to different degrees. Surprisingly, those markers were expressed also by permanent cell lines of epithelial origin, both benign and cancer-derived (breast-cell lines MCF 10A, HMLE and prostate-cell lines BPH-1, DU 145, and PC-3). The expression of fibroblast activation protein α increased on the surface of previously described models of epithelial cells undergoing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in response to treatment with TGF-β1. To prove the co-expression of the fibroblast markers on cells of epithelial origin, we used freshly dissociated human prostate and breast cancer tissues. The results confirmed the co-expression of anti-fibroblast and fibroblast surface protein on CD31/CD45-negative/EpCAM-positive epithelial cells. In summary, our data support the findings that the tested fibroblast markers are not fibroblast specific and may be expressed also by cells of epithelial origin (e.g., cells undergoing EMT). Therefore, the expression of these markers should be interpreted with caution, and the combination of several epitopes for both positive (anti-fibroblast or fibroblast activation protein α) and negative (EpCAM) identification of fibroblasts from breast and prostate tumor tissues is advised. © 2017 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry.

The DNA damage checkpoints provide an anti-cancer barrier in diverse tumour types, however this concept has remained unexplored in prostate cancer (CaP). Furthermore, targeting DNA repair defects by PARP1 inhibitors (PARPi) as a cancer treatment strategy is emerging yet requires suitable predictive biomarkers. To address these issues, we performed immunohistochemical analysis of multiple markers of DNA damage signalling, oxidative stress, DNA repair and cell cycle control pathways during progression of human prostate disease from benign hyperplasia, through intraepithelial neoplasia to CaP, complemented by genetic analyses of TMPRSS2-ERG rearrangement and NQO1, an anti-oxidant factor and p53 protector. The DNA damage checkpoint barrier (γH2AX, pATM, p53) mechanism was activated during CaP tumorigenesis, albeit less and with delayed culmination compared to other cancers, possibly reflecting lower replication stress (slow proliferation despite cases of Rb loss and cyclin D1 overexpression) and progressive loss of ATM activator NKX3.1. Oxidative stress (8-oxoguanine lesions) and NQO1 increased during disease progression. NQO1 genotypes of 390 men did not indicate predisposition to CaP, yet loss of NQO1 in CaP suggested potential progression-opposing tumour suppressor role. TMPRSS2-ERG rearrangement and PTEN loss, events sensitizing to PARPi, occurred frequently along with heterogeneous loss of DNA repair factors 53BP1, JMJD1C and Rev7 (all studied here for the first time in CaP) whose defects may cause resistance to PARPi. Overall, our results reveal an unorthodox DNA damage checkpoint barrier scenario in CaP tumorigenesis, and provide novel insights into oxidative stress and DNA repair, with implications for biomarker guidance of future targeted therapy of CaP.

Background Castration‐resistant prostate cancer (PCa) represents a serious health challenge. Based on mechanistically‐supported rationale we explored new therapeutic options based on clinically available drugs with anticancer effects, including inhibitors of PARP1 enzyme (PARPi), and histone deacetylases (vorinostat), respectively, and disulfiram (DSF, known as alcohol‐abuse drug Antabuse) and its copper‐chelating metabolite CuET that inhibit protein turnover. Methods Drugs and their combination with ionizing radiation (IR) were tested in various cytotoxicity assays in three human PCa cell lines including radio‐resistant stem‐cell like derived cells. Mechanistically, DNA damage repair, heat shock and unfolded protein response (UPR) pathways were assessed by immunofluorescence and immunoblotting. Results We observed enhanced sensitivity to PARPi/IR in PC3 cells consistent with lower homologous recombination (HR) repair. Vorinostat sensitized DU145 cells to PARPi/IR and decreased mutant p53. Vorinostat also impaired HR‐mediated DNA repair, as determined by Rad51 foci formation and downregulation of TOPBP1 protein, and overcame radio‐resistance of stem‐cell like DU145‐derived cells. All PCa models responded well to CuET or DSF combined with copper. We demonstrated that DSF interacts with copper in the culture media and forms adequate levels of CuET indicating that DSF/copper and CuET may be considered as comparable treatments. Both DSF/copper and CuET evoked hallmarks of UPR in PCa cells, documented by upregulation of ATF4, CHOP and phospho‐eIF2α, with ensuing heat shock response encompassing activation of HSF1 and HSP70. Further enhancing the cytotoxicity of CuET, combination with an inhibitor of the anti‐apoptotic protein survivin (YM155, currently undergoing clinical trials) promoted the UPR‐induced toxicity, yielding synergistic effects of CuET and YM155. Conclusions We propose that targeting genotoxic and proteotoxic stress responses by combinations of available drugs could inspire innovative strategies to treat castration‐resistant PCa.