Some cancers evade targeted therapies through a mechanism known as lineage plasticity, whereby tumor cells acquire phenotypic characteristics of a cell lineage whose survival no longer depends on the drug target. We use in vitro and in vivo human prostate cancer models to show that these * Corresponding author. sawyersc@mskcc.org. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Mutations in the FOXA1 transcription factor define a unique subset of prostate cancers but the functional consequences of these mutations and whether they confer gain or loss of function is unknown1-9. By annotating the FOXA1 mutation landscape from 3086 human prostate cancers, we define two hotspots in the forkhead domain: Wing2 (~50% of all mutations) and R219 (~5%), a highly conserved DNA contact residue. Clinically, Wing2 mutations are seen in adenocarcinomas at all stages, whereas R219 mutations are enriched in metastatic tumors with neuroendocrine histology. Interrogation of the biologic properties of FOXA1WT and 14 FOXA1 mutants revealed gain-of-function in mouse prostate organoid proliferation assays. 12 of these mutants, as well as FOXA1WT, promoted an exaggerated pro-luminal differentiation program whereas two different R219 mutants blocked luminal differentiation and activate a mesenchymal and neuroendocrine transcriptional program. ATAC-seq of FOXA1WT and representative Wing2 and R219 mutants revealed dramatic, mutant-specific changes in open chromatin at thousands of genomic loci, together with novel sites of FOXA1 binding and associated increases in gene expression. Of note, peaks in R219 mutant expressing cells lack the canonical core FOXA1 binding motifs (GTAAAC/T) but are enriched for a related, non-canonical motif (GTAAAG/A), which is preferentially activated by R219 mutant FOXA1 in reporter assays. Thus, FOXA1 mutations alter its normal pioneering function through perturbation of normal luminal epithelial differentiation programs, providing further support to the role of lineage plasticity in cancer progression.

Summary Metastatic prostate cancer is characterized by recurrent genomic copy number alterations that are presumed to contribute to resistance to hormone therapy. We identified CHD1 loss as a cause of antiandrogen resistance in an in vivo small hairpin RNA (shRNA) screen of 730 genes deleted in prostate cancer. ATAC-seq and RNA-seq analyses showed that CHD1 loss resulted in global changes in open and closed chromatin with associated transcriptomic changes. Integrative analysis of this data, together with CRISPR-based functional screening, identified four transcription factors (NR3C1, POU3F2, NR2F1, and TBX2) that contribute to antiandrogen resistance, with associated activation of non-luminal lineage programs. Thus, CHD1 loss results in chromatin dysregulation, thereby establishing a state of transcriptional plasticity that enables the emergence of antiandrogen resistance through heterogeneous mechanisms.

SUMMARY Despite the development of second-generation antiandrogens, acquired resistance to hormone therapy remains a major challenge in treating advanced prostate cancer. We find that cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) can promote antiandrogen resistance in mouse models and in prostate organoid cultures. We identify neuregulin 1 (NRG1) in CAF supernatant, which promotes resistance in tumor cells through activation of HER3. Pharmacological blockade of the NRG1/HER3 axis using clinical-grade blocking antibodies re-sensitizes tumors to hormone deprivation in vitro and in vivo . Furthermore, patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer with increased tumor NRG1 activity have an inferior response to second-generation antiandrogen therapy. This work reveals a paracrine mechanism of antiandrogen resistance in prostate cancer amenable to clinical testing using available targeted therapies.

Half of all prostate cancers are caused by the TMPRSS2–ERG genefusion, which enables androgens to drive expression of the normally silent E26 transformation-specific (ETS) transcription factor ERG in prostate cells1,2. Recent genomic landscape studies of such cancers3–8 have reported recurrent point mutations and focal deletions of another ETS member, the ETS2 repressor factor ERF9. Here we show these ERF mutations cause decreased protein stability and mostly occur in tumours without ERG upregulation. ERF loss recapitulates the morphological and phenotypic features of ERG gain in normal mouse prostate cells, including expansion of the androgen receptor transcriptional repertoire, and ERF has tumour suppressor activity in the same genetic background of Pten loss that yields oncogenic activity by ERG. In the more common scenario of ERG upregulation, chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing indicates that ERG inhibits the ability of ERF to bind DNA at consensus ETS sites both in normal and in cancerous prostate cells. Consistent with a competition model, ERF overexpression blocks ERG-dependent tumour growth, and ERF loss rescues TMPRSS2–ERG-positive prostate cancer cells from ERG dependency. Collectively, these data provide evidence that the oncogenicity of ERG is mediated, in part, by competition with ERF and they raise the larger question of whether other gain-of-function oncogenic transcription factors might also inactivate endogenous tumour suppressors.