Disruption of androgen receptor-cofactor interactions by the RNA-binding protein FUS/TLS alters androgen signalling in prostate cancer

Disruption of androgen receptor-cofactor interactions by the RNA-binding protein FUS/TLS alters androgen signalling in prostate cancer | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Disruption of androgen receptor-cofactor interactions by the RNA-binding protein FUS/TLS alters androgen signalling in prostate cancer Greg Brooke, Rachel Culley, Damien Leach, Leena Latonen, Ellie Rees, and 10 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6609773/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 06 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in Oncogene → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Prostate cancer is dependent upon the androgen receptor, the activity of which is modified by cofactors that either enhance or repress its activity, often in a context-dependent manner. FUS/TLS is a multifunctional protein known to be important in multiple cancer types; in prostate cancer, we previously showed that FUS has a potential tumour suppressor role. Here, transcriptomic analysis of the LNCaP prostate cancer cell line shows a significant overlap in genes regulated by FUS and the androgen receptor. We demonstrate that FUS can regulate androgen receptor activity, in either direction, but predominantly represses androgen signalling. Reporter assays and domain-specific analyses of FUS identified mechanisms by which FUS modifies androgen receptor activity. FUS interacts with the androgen receptor and other cofactors to repress transcription; ChIP assays suggest that repression occurs via disassembly of the transcriptional complex. Quantitative proteomics and RNA-Seq were used to investigate FUS expression in patient samples across prostate cancer stages. FUS was found to be down-regulated in primary tumours, but up-regulated in advanced aggressive stages. These findings suggest that in early prostate cancer, FUS represses AR activity and tumour progression, leading to its down-regulation. In contrast, its up-regulation in later stages may reflect a switch to pro-oncogenic function. Biological sciences/Cell biology/Mechanisms of disease Biological sciences/Cancer Prostate cancer androgen receptor therapy resistance cofactors FUS TLS coactivator corepressor Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Introduction Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in western men and tumour growth is almost invariably dependent upon the androgen receptor (AR), a ligand-dependent transcription factor and member of the steroid receptor subgroup of the nuclear receptor superfamily ( 1 ). In common with other nuclear receptors, the AR has a modular structure consisting of N- and C-terminal activation functions (AF-1 and AF-2, respectively), a central DNA-binding domain and a C-terminal ligand binding domain. In the absence of androgen, the AR exists in the cytoplasm as part of a large heat shock protein complex that holds the receptor in a ligand-binding competent state. Upon ligand binding the receptor undergoes a conformational change that promotes nuclear localisation, dimerisation and binding to response elements within the regulatory regions of target genes, resulting in gene expression changes which in the case of PCa can drive tumour growth ( 1 ). These transcriptional effects involve the recruitment of cofactor proteins to liganded, DNA-bound AR. Therapies for non-organ confined PCa target the androgen signalling axis by either blocking androgen synthesis (e.g. LHRH antagonists/analogues and CYP17A antagonists) or directly targeting the receptor (antiandrogens) ( 2 ). Antiandrogens inhibit AR activity via multiple mechanisms, for example by targeting the receptor to specific cellular compartments and/or by promoting the recruitment of corepressors rather than coactivators ( 3 ). These therapies are successful in the majority of patients but invariably eventually fail and the tumours progress to the castrate resistant (CRPC) stage. Much evidence exists to suggest that the AR continues to drive CRPC growth, even in the androgen-depleted environment ( 4 ). In addition to constitutive or promiscuous activation of AR itself, it has been proposed that alterations in cofactor levels, over-expression of coactivators or down-regulation of corepressors, can enhance AR signalling and promote therapy failure ( 5 – 7 ). Interestingly, many of these cofactor proteins are also regulated in response to androgen signalling. Prohibitin, for example, is a co-repressor of AR activity and is down-regulated in response to androgen, while some co-activators are androgen-upregulated at the mRNA level ( 8 – 10 ). The AR therefore regulates multiple factors that subsequently feedback and regulate its own activity. In a proteomic screen to identify AR regulated proteins, we identified that the RNA-binding protein Fused in Ewings Sarcoma/Tanslocated in Liposarcoma (FUS/TLS) is down-regulated in response to androgen and appears to have the characteristics of a novel tumour suppressor in PCa ( 11 ). Immunohistochemical analysis of primary prostate tumours demonstrated that FUS expression inversely correlated with Gleason grade and directly correlated with survival. Further, manipulation of FUS expression was demonstrated to have a significant bearing on PCa proliferation in in vitro and in vivo models, with FUS having potent inhibitory effects. Additional studies have found FUS to have similar activity in other cancer types. For example, Chen et al. ( 12 ) found FUS to have tumour suppressor activity in pancreatic cancer. In contrast, FUS levels have been found to be increased in liposarcoma, and elevated levels of this RNA-binding protein correlate with poor prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer (NCLSC) ( 13 , 14 ). FUS therefore appears to play alternative roles in different malignancies. FUS is a multifunctional protein, shown to be important in multiple cellular processes including DNA repair, RNA splicing, microRNA processing and transcriptional regulation ( 15 ). In the latter process, FUS has been demonstrated to regulate gene transcription via non-coding RNA-dependent recruitment to the promoter regions of target genes. For example, Wang et al . found that FUS is recruited and tethered to the Cyclin D1 promoter via non-coding RNA, disrupts the recruitment of accessory proteins such as p300 and subsequently blocks gene transcription ( 16 ). FUS has also been previously demonstrated to interact with the DBD of other steroid receptors, but this interaction does not affect receptor-DNA binding ( 17 ). Further, FUS is also recruited to the DNA-bound estrogen receptor (ER)-a when the receptor is bound to the antagonist tamoxifen ( 18 ) suggesting that it may act as a corepressor of ERa. FUS has previously been shown to interact with the AR and to enhance receptor activity in some contexts ( 17 , 19 ). Here we show that FUS can enhance AR regulation of some genes, but predominantly inhibits AR activity through disruption of the transcriptional complex. The inhibitory effects of FUS upon PCa growth ( 11 ) are therefore likely to be, at least in part, via direct repression of AR activity. Interestingly, FUS levels are elevated in CRPC, suggesting that FUS may switch from a tumour suppressive to a growth-promoting role in advanced disease. Methods Ligands. Ligands were dissolved in EtOH (VWR, Leicestershire, UK) and stored at − 20°C. 17β-oestradiol, dexamethasone, progesterone and bicalutamide were from Sigma (Dorset, UK), mibolerone (MIB) from PerkinElmer (Buckinghamshire, UK). HDAC inhibitors Trichostatin A (dissolved in EtOH), valproic acid and sodium butyrate (both dissolved in ddH 2 O) were from Sigma. Plasmids. The following have been previously described: pSG5-SRC1e, ERE-LUC, pSG5-ERα ( 20 ); PB-PROM-LUC and TAT-GRE-E1B-LUC ( 21 ); pSVAR ( 22 ); pSG5-ARA70, pCMVβ-p300 ( 23 ); pCMV-HA-EWS ( 24 ); pSG5-GR ( 25 ); pGL2-LEXA-GAL4-LUC (luciferase reporter under control of both LexA and Gal4 response elements), pSG5-LEXA-VP16 (LexA DNA-binding domain fused to VP16 activation domain) ( 26 ), p5-GAL-LUC, pVP16-AR ( 27 ) and pSG5-hPR-B ( 28 ). Full-length and truncated FUS were PCR-cloned into the pM-GAL4 (Gal4 DNA-binding domain) (Clontech, Mountain View, CA, USA) plasmid using 5’ Bam H1 and 3’ Xba 1 restriction sites. TAF15 was PCR cloned from pTL-TAF15 into pSG5 using 5’ Bam HI and 3’ Xma I restriction sites (primer sequences provided in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2). All plasmids were verified by sequencing. pTL-TAF15 and pCMV-HA-EWS were kind gifts from Prof L Tora (Institut de Génétique et de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire, France) and Prof. P Cohen (University of Dundee, Scotland) respectively. The FUS mutants (G92A, F438V, G488S and K510E) were generated using the QuikChange II Site-directed mutagenesis kit (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Mutagenesis primer sequences are provided in Supplementary Table 3. All plasmids were verified by sequencing. Cell culture. Cell lines were obtained from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA), except for PC3wtAR, which was a kind gift from Prof A. Cato ( 29 ). Lines were STR authenticated by the ATCC and were frozen at a low passage. Lines were grown for a maximum of 6 months before a fresh aliquot was defrosted. Mycoplasma testing was performed every 3 months using the MycoAlert Detection Kit (Lonza, Basel Switzerland). COS-1 and MCF-7 cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium and LNCaP and PC3wtAR in RPMI 1640 as described previously ( 27 , 30 ). LNCaP-FUS and LNCaP-TR2 were cultured in RPMI containing tetracycline-free FCS and Penicillin-Streptomycin-Glutamine (PSG) ( 11 ). For experiments requiring hormonal stimulation, cells were incubated in phenol-red free media containing double charcoal stripped FCS (First Link UK, Birmingham, UK) and PSG prior to treatment. Reporter assays. COS-1, PC3wtAR and MCF-7 cells were seeded at 60% confluence in 24-well plates and incubated for 24 h in androgen-depleted media. For dose–response experiments, COS-1 cells were transfected using the modified calcium phosphate method ( 27 ) with 100ng of expression vectors for the AR, GR, PR, and ERa, 0-400 ng of FUS, EWS or TAF15 expression vectors, 1 µg of luciferase reporter (TAT-GRE-E1B-LUC, PB-PROM-LUC or ERE-LUC) and 100 ng of PDM-LACZ-b-GAL PC3wtAR and MCF-7 cells were transfected using FuGENE 6 (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) with 100 ng PDM-LAC-Z-β-GAL and 1 µg TAT-GRE-E1B-LUC and 0-400 ng of pSG5-FUS. For the trans-activation/repression and mammalian 2-hybrid assays cells were transfected with 1 µg of luciferase reporter (pGL2-LEXA-GAL4-LUC or 5-GAL-LUC respectively) and 200 ng of pM-GAL4-FUS (FULL-E). For the mammalian 2-hybrid assays cells were co-transfected with 100 ng pVP16-AR, pSG5-SRC1e, pCMVβ-p300 or pSG5-ARA70. For the trans-repression assays cells were co-transfected with 100 ng pSG5-LEXA-VP16. In all transcription assays cells were co-transfected with 100 ng of PDM-LACZ-b-GAL, and up to 400 ng of pSG5-FUS or pM-GAL4-FUS (FULL-E) per well. The amount of DNA added to each well was made equal by the addition of pSG5-empty or pM-GAL4-EMPTY. After transfection cells were incubated ± ligand/HDAC inhibitor for 24 h before lysis, and luciferase and β-galactosidase activities measured using the LucLite Plus (PerkinElmer) and Galacto-light Plus (Tropix, Bedford, MA, USA) kits, respectively. Microarray and qPCR. LNCaP-FUS and LNCaP-TR2 were cultured in hormone-depleted media for 72 hrs ± 10 nM Doxycycline and treated ± 10 nM Mibolerone for a further 24 hrs. Cells were lysed with QIAshredders, and RNA recovered using an RNAeasy kit with the additional DNAse step (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). RNA quality was checked using a BioAnalyser (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and cDNA synthesized via reverse transcription using a Super Script II kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Microarray was performed by Source Bioscience (Nottingham, UK) using Human HT-12 v4 Beadchips (Illumina, Saffron Walden, UK). Data was analyzed using AltAnalysis software ( 31 ). Gene regulation was set as p value < 0.05, and a log fold change greater than 0.5 or below − 0.5. Heatmaps were generated using Morpheus software (Broad Institute) with hierarchical clustering performed using Pearson correlation coefficients. For qPCR, RNA was extracted and cDNA generated as described and performed using an ABI 7900HT qPCR machine (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). qPCR was performed using Fast SYBR Green (Applied Biosystems) and primers specific to KLK2 , NDRG1 , FUS , PSA , TMPRSS2 and L19 (primer sequences provided in Supplemental Table 4). Relative gene expression changes were determined using the 2 −∆∆CT method and gene expression normalised to L19 data. Immunoblotting and immunofluorescent imaging . Immunoblotting was performed as previously described ( 5 ) using the following primary antibodies: AR (N-20), SRC-1 (M-341), FUS (4H11), EWS (G-5) antibodies were from Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz, CA, USA). The TAF15 antibody (GTX77901) was from GeneTex (Irvine, CA, USA) and the acetylated H3 antibody (06-599) was from Merck Millipore (MA, USA). For imaging, COS1 cells were seeded in hormone-depleted media on glass coverslips in 24 well plates. Cells were transfected with 200 ng of pSVAR and pSG5-FUS per well using FuGENE 6. Cells were incubated for 24hrs and treated ± 10 nM Mibolerone for 2 hrs. Cells were fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde for 15 min, washed 3 x with PBS (5 min with rotation) and permeabilised using 0.1% Triton X-100 (10 min). Cells were again washed 3 x with PBS prior to blocking with 1% BSA in PBS-0.05% Tween for 30 min. Cells were incubated with primary antibodies specific for AR and FUS followed by HRP or ALEXA Fluor conjugated secondary antibodies and visualised as previously described ( 32 ). Chromatin immunoprecipitation. LNCaP-FUS cells were grown to approximately 70% and serum starved for 72 h. Cells were treated ± 10 nM Mibolerone for 2 hrs before cross-linking with formaldehyde (Sigma) for 10 min at 37°C. ChIP was performed as previously described ( 33 ). The AR (N-20), SRC-1 (M-341) and FUS (4H11) antibodies were from Santa Cruz and the RNA Pol II (CTD4H8) antibody was from Merck Millipore. qPCR was performed to investigate AR, SRC1, RNA Pol II and FUS recruitment to the PSA enhancer (forward 5′-TGA CAG TAA ACA AAT CTG TTG TAA GAG ACA-3′; reverse, 5′-AGC AGG CAT CCT TGC AAG AT-3′). Depletion of FUS levels using siRNA. FUS levels were reduced in LNCaP cells using a Dharmacon On-Target siRNA pool (L-009497-00-0005; Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA, USA) as previously described ( 27 ). Immunohistochemistry. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumour microarrays of PCa (n = 239) and CRPC (n = 100) samples were used. The clinicopathological information of the cohort is described in Leinonen et al. (2013). Sections were deparaffinized and antigen retrieval was performed by using sodium-citrate buffer (pH 6) at + 98°C for 15 min. The staining was performed by Lab Vision Autostainer (ThermoFischer Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). FUS (4H11) was used as the primary antibody followed by secondary antibody (N-Histofine® Simple Stain MAX PO; Nichirei, Tokyo, Japan). ImmPACT DAB (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA, USA) was used as a chromogen. The sections were counterstained with hematoxylin and mounted with DPX mounting medium (Sigma-Aldrich). Scoring of staining intensity on tumour areas was performed on a 0–3 scale, and the difference in score distributions between PCa and CRPC groups was statistically assessed with Chi squared test. RNA-Seq and Proteomic analysis of patient samples. Tissue specimens from 10 BPH, 17 untreated PC, and 11 CRPC samples were acquired from Tampere University Hospital (Tampere, Finland). Five 5 µm slices of fresh-frozen tissue were processed as previously described and digested peptides analysed using a Nano-RPLC-MSTOF instrumentation using Eksigent 425 NanoLC coupled to high speed TripleTOF™ 5600 + mass spectrometer (Ab Sciex, Concord, Canada) ( 34 ). For transciptomic analysis, RNA was extracted from matching samples and libraries prepared for paired-end analysis (Illumina HiSeq2000) ( 35 ). Alterations in the expression of FUS, at different stages of PCa, was subsequently assessed in the proteomics and RNA-seq datasets. Results The Androgen Receptor and FUS commonly regulate a number of genes. We have previously demonstrated that FUS is a potent inhibitor of androgen-dependent tumour growth in PCa models and that its expression is directly correlated with patient survival ( 11 ). To identify down-stream targets of FUS, transcriptomic analysis was performed on the LNCaP-FUS cell line; LNCaP cells stably transfected with a doxycycline inducible FUS expression vector resulting in a robust inducible increase in FUS protein levels (Fig. 1 a). Cells were hormone starved for 3 days and then treated ± mibolerone (synthetic analogue of dihydrotestosterone) ± doxycycline for 24hrs. As a control, the parental line (LNCaP-TR2) was also treated with the same conditions. Treatment of LNCaP-TR2 with doxycycline significantly altered expression of only 1 androgen-regulated gene (LOC147804, Supplemental Fig. 1). This was removed from the subsequent analysis of the LNCaP-FUS line to ensure that any changes identified in response to doxycycline are as a result of FUS over-expression and not an artefact of doxycycline treatment. In the absence of doxycycline, expression levels of 1113 genes were regulated (644 up, 469 down) in response to androgen (p log2(0.5), Fig. 1 b-d). FUS reduced androgen-induced up-/down-regulation of 429 genes. The expression of 265 genes, which in the absence of elevated FUS showed weak androgen regulation (p > 0.05 and/or FC < log2(0.5)), became significantly androgen-regulated (108 up- and 157 down-regulated) following over-expression of FUS, while the expression levels of 5 target genes already significantly androgen-regulated was enhanced by FUS. Most interestingly, the direction of androgen regulation of 140 genes was reversed in response to FUS expression, i.e. genes that were androgen down-regulated were found to be androgen up-regulated following doxycycline treatment. The expression of 420 of genes was not significantly altered by FUS. To validate the transcriptomic data, a panel of targets, from the different categories of regulated genes, was validated using qPCR following FUS over-expression (Fig. 2 a) or FUS depletion (Fig. 2 b and c). Two known AR-upregulated target genes, KLK3 and TMPRSS2 ( 36 , 37 ), were found to be repressed by FUS ; as expected these were up-regulated when FUS was depleted. Likewise, expression of an AR-target gene, NDRG1 , whose androgen-regulation was enhanced in response to FUS overexpression, was reduced following FUS knock-down (Fig. 2 a and c). The expression of DMC1 , a gene down-regulated in response to androgen, was found to be significantly enhanced in response to mibolerone + doxycycline, also in agreement with the microarray data. In summary, the data demonstrates that FUS has differential effects upon AR signalling, but appears to predominantly repress AR activity. FUS is a novel repressor of androgen receptor activity. The findings from our previous study ( 11 ) and microarray data presented here suggest that FUS inhibits PCa growth, at least in part, via regulation of androgen signalling. To further investigate FUS regulation of AR activity, COS-1 cells were co-transfected with plasmids encoding the AR, one of two different androgen responsive luciferase reporters and increasing amounts of FUS expression plasmid, which produced increasing amounts of FUS protein (Fig. 2 d). AR activity was reduced dose-dependently, by approximately 70% and 50%, in response to FUS over-expression on the TAT-GRE-E1B-LUC and PROBASIN-PROM-LUC promoters respectively (Fig. 2 e). To confirm that this effect was not cell-line dependent or an artefact of exogenous transiently expressed AR, reporter assays were repeated in AR-positive MCF-7 and PC3wtAR (PC3 cells stably transfected with wild-type AR ( 29 )) cells. In both cell types, FUS again significantly repressed AR activity (Fig. 2 f). As described previously, FUS interacts with several steroid receptors, but the effect upon the transcriptional activity of the receptors was not assessed ( 17 ). To determine whether the repressive effects of FUS are specific for AR, the effect of increasing FUS levels upon the transcriptional activity of the closely related glucocorticoid, oestrogen and progesterone receptors was investigated. Similar to the AR, the activity of glucocorticoid receptor was repressed, whereas little effect upon progesterone and oestrogen receptor’s activity was evident; only a slight increase in oestrogen receptor activity was measured in response to high FUS levels (Fig. 3 a). FUS, along with TAF-15 and EWS, is a member of the TET family of RNA-binding proteins. TET family members have similar domain structures, including an RNA recognition motif (RRM) and zinc finger (Zn), sharing amino acid sequence homology of 47–59% (Fig. 3 b). Reporter assays were therefore performed to investigate whether the other TET family members also regulate AR activity. Interestingly, in contrast to FUS, EWS and TAF-15 were found to enhance AR transcriptional activity (Fig. 3 c, d). FUS interacts with the AR via its RNA Recognition Motif domain. To characterise the mechanism(s) of regulation of AR by FUS, we first investigated its cellular localisation. In COS1 cells transfected with expression vectors for AR and FUS, AR protein was cytoplasmic and nuclear in the absence of androgen, and translocated into the nucleus upon hormone stimulation, as expected (Fig. 4 ). The FUS antibody detected the endogenous and exogenous protein, showing it to be localised in the nucleus and unaffected by androgen treatment. As some degree of colocalization in the nucleus was evident, mammalian 2-hybrid assays were performed to investigate if FUS and AR interact. The experiment utilised full-length and truncated forms of FUS fused to Gal4 DNA-binding domain (Gal4DBD) and VP16 activation domain (VP16AD)-fused AR (Fig. 5 a). As previously described ( 19 , 38 , 39 ), the N-terminus of FUS (construct A, amino acids 1-366) contains a potent activation domain, which resulted in auto-activation of the co-transfected Gal4-responsive reporter. C-terminal extension (construct B, amino acids 1-449) reduced this intrinsic activity. Comparison of VP16-empty and VP16-AR identified ligand-independent interaction between the AR and FUS construct A (amino acids 1-366), but not other constructs. To see if FUS interacts with the AR when agonist-bound, the experiment was repeated in the presence of mibolerone (Fig. 5 b). The interaction between the AR and construct A was enhanced in the presence of mibolerone, and additional ligand-dependent interactions were identified between the AR and the other RRM-containing constructs B and C (amino acids 1-449 and 288–526 respectively). The interaction between FUS and the AR therefore appears to be dependent upon the RRM (amino acids 288–366). Antagonists have been shown to inhibit AR activity, at least in part, via recruitment of co-repressors ( 40 ). To investigate if FUS interacts with antiandrogen-bound AR, mammalian 2-hybrid assays were repeated in the presence of the antiandrogen bicalutamide. Similar to the interaction induced by mibolerone, the antagonist-bound AR was found to interact with FUS construct A, however unlike mibolerone, no interactions were evident for constructs B and C (Fig. 5 c). Next, reporter assays were performed in the presence of bicalutamide (Fig. 5 d). As expected, FUS and 1 µM bicalutamide each inhibited AR activity. Importantly, the combination of FUS and 1 µM bicalutamide showed additive effects, resulting in over 60% repression of AR activity compared to less than 40% individually. FUS contains activation and repression domains . We have shown that FUS can repress AR activity but it also contains intrinsic activation domains. To see if FUS contains intrinsic repression domains, the ability of the Gal4DBD-fused FUS constructs to repress VP16AD-induced luciferase activity were assessed in trans-repression assays ( 41 ). Again, constructs A, B and D auto-activated the system indicating the presence of activation domains (Fig. 6 a). Conversely, full-length FUS and constructs C and E significantly reduced VP16-induced luciferase expression (43, 66 and 80% reduction in activity compared to empty vector respectively) indicating overall repressive function. Comparison of constructs C, D and E, also comparing B to A, suggests that the region between the RNA recognition motif and zinc finger (amino acids 366–426) contains a repression domain. Upon removal of this domain (construct D compared to E), repressive effects were abolished. Several corepressors reduce receptor activity by recruiting histone deacetylases (HDACs) (e.g. ( 42 , 43 )). To test this, the trans-repression assay above was repeated with full-length FUS and those constructs demonstrated to have repressive activity (C and E), in the presence of the HDAC inhibitors trichostatin A, sodium butyrate and valproic acid (Fig. 6 b). These compounds did not reverse the inhibitory action of FUS constructs, neither did they have any effect on the extent of repression by full-length FUS in COS cells co-transfected with this and wild-type AR (Fig. 6 c). As a control, AR activity (Fig. 6 d) and histone H3 acetylation (Fig. 6 e) were enhanced in response to the HDAC inhibitors demonstrating that they are functional in this system. Therefore the mechanism by which FUS represses AR activity does not appear to be via recruitment of Class I/II HDACs. To identify which domains were necessary for AR repression, the Gal4-fused FUS constructs were co-transfected with full-length AR and an androgen-responsive luciferase reporter (TAT-GRE-EIB-1) (Fig. 6 f). Full-length FUS and constructs A-C repressed AR activity by over 60% whereas the C-terminus of FUS (constructs D and E) was found to enhance AR activity. Interestingly the intrinsic repression domain (amino acids 366–426) was not required for the repression of AR since construct A, which lacks this region, was still able to repress AR activity. Instead, the critical FUS domain for AR repression is the RRM, the region identified to be critical for the FUS-AR interaction (Figs. 5 a and b). FUS interacts with AR coactivators and disrupts complex formation at response elements . The N-terminus of FUS has previously been demonstrated to interact with and inhibit activity of CBP and p300 ( 16 ), cofactors that enhance AR activity ( 44 ). To test FUS interaction with coactivators, a modified mammalian 2-hybrid assay was performed whereby the ability of the coactivators to enhance Gal4DBD-FUS activity was used as an indicator of a positive interaction. The coactivators p300, SRC1 and ARA 70 were all found to interact with the FUS N-terminus (construct A, Fig. 7 a). It is therefore possible that AR and FUS compete for coactivators, either through direct interaction or sequestration. To investigate this, reporter assays were performed in COS-1 cells transfected with plasmids encoding androgen-responsive luciferase reporter, AR, SRC1 and increasing concentrations of pSG5-FUS. SRC1 enhanced AR activity over 3-fold and increasing concentrations of FUS significantly decreased this enhanced activity (Fig. 7 b). FUS can therefore compete with or sequester co-activators to decrease AR activity. FUS was previously demonstrated to bind to specific regions of the genome via non-coding RNA ( 16 ) and we have demonstrated that FUS interacts with AR and coactivators. Chromatin immunoprecipitation was therefore performed to investigate if FUS affects the assembly of the transcriptional complex. Upon stimulation with androgen, AR, RNA POLII and SRC1 recruitment was enhanced to the regulatory region (Fig. 7 c, MIB vs EtOH, both -DOX). Interestingly, increased FUS expression (+ DOX) did not affect AR recruitment, but did significantly reduce SRC1 and RNA Pol II recruitment. No significant difference was evident for FUS itself binding chromatin, although there was a trend towards increased FUS binding following FUS over-expression. We therefore conclude that FUS represses AR activity not by disrupting AR chromatin-binding, but via disruption of the formation of an active transcriptional complex at the regulatory regions of target genes. FUS levels are down-regulated in PCa, but elevated in CRPC . Alterations in cofactor expression has been proposed as a mechanism of therapy resistance in PCa ( 1 ). We were therefore interested to see if the levels of FUS, and the other members of the TLS family (EWS1 and TAF15), are altered throughout disease progression. Expression was analysed at the RNA (RNA-sequencing) and protein (mass spectrometry) level in clinical samples representing Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (non-malignant control) (BPH), PCa (untreated, primary tumour) and CRPC (advanced, therapy-resistant) (Fig. 8 a). In agreement with our previous findings ( 11 ), FUS protein levels were lower in primary PCa compared to BPH. However, this was not the case at the RNA level. Further, contrary to what was expected, FUS was significantly elevated at the RNA and protein level in CRPC compared to untreated primary PCa (Fig. 8 a). As described previously, EWS and TAF15 enhanced AR activity in reporter assays (Fig. 3 c). Alterations in EWS and TAF15 levels during disease progression were less pronounced compared to FUS. However, the expression of all family members was found to be significantly higher at the protein level in CRPC compared to PCa (Fig. 8 a). To further investigate the role of the TLS family in PCa, in particular therapy resistance, the TCGA dataset was interrogated. Increased FUS expression was found to significantly correlate with biochemical relapse, but no such correlation was found for EWS and TAF15 (Fig. 8 b). To validate the changes in FUS expression in PCa, IHC was performed on samples from 239 patients with primary PCa and 100 with CRPC; slides were scored for nuclear and cytoplasmic intensity. In agreement with RNA-seq and mass spec data, nuclear and cytoplasmic FUS expression was elevated in CRPC (Fig. 8 c and d). Our data therefore suggests that FUS is growth inhibitory, in early stages of prostate cancer, in part via regulation of androgen signalling. However, since it is up-regulated in CRPC, it may shift to having an oncogenic role which could drive therapy resistance. Discussion FUS is a multifunctional protein that has been linked to multiple diseases, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and cancer ( 15 , 45 ). We previously demonstrated that FUS has tumour suppressor activity in PCa ( 11 ), but contradictory to this, FUS had been shown to interact with and co-activate the AR ( 19 ). To investigate this further, and to better understand by what mechanisms FUS inhibits PCa growth, the transcriptome of LNCaP PCa cells was analysed following up-regulation of FUS expression. This demonstrated that the overlap between FUS and AR target genes is significant and that, although FUS can act as a co-activator of the AR on some genes, overall it predominantly represses AR activity. Other co-factors have also been described to have differential effects upon transcription factor activity. For example, RIP140 has been shown to function both as a nuclear receptor coactivator and corepressor; the mechanisms of this dual activity remain to be fully elucidated but appear to be dependent upon cofactor interactions and promoter context ( 46 ). It is therefore possible that FUS can act as both a co-activator and co-repressor. FUS has previously been shown to interact with the AR ( 19 ) and data presented here supports and extends this. Upon translocation to the nucleus, FUS and AR co-localise; the androgen-induced interaction is dependent upon the FUS RRM motif (Fig. 8 e). Interestingly, this region was important in both androgen-dependent interaction and also in in the interaction between FUS and antiandrogen-bound AR. In reporter assays, FUS was found to repress androgen-activated AR and also enhance the antagonistic action of an antiandrogen. This therefore suggests that FUS not only plays a role in the physiological (androgen) regulation of AR activity, but also influences pharmacological (anti-androgen) action and therefore may play a significant role in therapy response. This correlates with a study that used quantitative proteomics to identify cofactors that interact with agonist and antagonist bound estrogen receptor-a ( 18 ). In that study, FUS was found to interact with estrogen receptor-a when it was bound to the anti-estrogen tamoxifen. Although the data presented here focus mainly upon the AR, we also found FUS to repress GR activity and to enhance ERa activity. Co-repressors have been demonstrated to repress AR signalling via different mechanisms, for example via recruitment of histone deacetylases or inhibition of nuclear localisation ( 47 ). Our detailed analysis of FUS domains provides insight into how this cofactor regulates AR activity. In agreement with a previous study ( 39 ), FUS was found to have an intrinsic N-terminal activation domain and we demonstrate this domain to interact with co-activators. In addition, we identified a novel C-terminal activation domain and a central trans-repression domain (Fig. 8 e). The addition of trichostatin A, sodium butyrate and valproic acid demonstrates that this repression domain is not HDAC Class I- or II- dependent, although it is possible that other classes of deacetylases could be involved. However, the AR-repressive activity of FUS is not dependent upon this domain and instead the RRM motif, through which FUS interacts with the AR, is indispensable. This domain, and RNA binding, has also been shown to be important in the pathology of other diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) ( 48 ). Wang et al. demonstrated that FUS is recruited to the CCND1 promoter via lncRNA and interacts with coactivators, including p300, to disrupt formation of the transcription initiation complex and therefore reduce gene expression [17]. Interestingly, in the absence of lncRNA, FUS has been found to adopt a compact structure, and RNA binding induces a conformational change that results in an extended structure that is thought to enable FUS to interact with CBP/p300, thereby facilitating transcriptional interference ( 49 ). RNA binding and the RRM region are therefore of significant importance in FUS signalling. We demonstrated that the N-terminal activation domain of FUS can interact with other coactivators in addition to p300, namely SRC1 and ARA70. ChIP assays demonstrated that FUS inhibits receptor activity via an interesting mechanism. AR recruitment to the ARE within the regulatory region of KLK3 is not affected by FUS, but SRC1 and RNA POLII recruitment is significantly impaired in response to this factor. It therefore appears that FUS can inhibition target gene expression by disrupting the AR transcriptional complex, rather than affecting AR binding itself. Alterations in cofactor levels have been suggested as one mechanism of therapy resistance ( 50 ). To investigate whether FUS levels are altered during disease progression, RNA-seq and quantitative proteomic analyses were performed in BPH, untreated primary PCa and CRPC patient samples. In agreement with our previous study ( 11 ), FUS protein levels are lower in PCa compared to BPH. This, combined with the findings of the current study, would suggest that FUS has an inhibitory role in early stages of PCa and is therefore downregulated to facilitate tumour growth. In contrast, FUS may have an oncogenic role in advanced, therapy resistant stages of the disease. The rationale behind this is that IHC analysis of patient samples showed FUS upregulated in CRPC, with an increase in cytoplasmic and nuclear expression. The increase in FUS levels in CRPC is intriguing and requires further investigation. A likely explanation is that the altered expression is a reflection of the plasticity associated with AR signalling throughout disease development and progression ( 51 , 52 ). For example, ChIP-seq analysis has demonstrated that the number of AR binding sites in the genome increases in prostate cancer compared to normal prostate and this is elevated further in CRPC ( 53 ). Alterations in cofactor/pioneer factor expression, including FUS, are therefore likely to play an important role in reprogramming AR signalling, resulting in the gene signatures associated with the different stages of the disease ( 52 ). In contrast to FUS, the other members of the TLS family (EWS and TAF15) were found to enhance AR activity in reporter assays, in agreement with previous studies showing that these factors have oncogenic activity in cancer ( 54 , 55 ). For example, Kedage et al. demonstrated that EWS interacts with oncogenic ETS factors to promote PCa progression ( 54 ) and EWS has been shown to act as a co-activator through interaction with CBP/p300 ( 56 ). TAF15 has also been shown to have oncogenic properties in other tumours, such as gastric cancer ( 57 ). Interestingly, similar to FUS, the expression of these factors was also found to be elevated in CRPC, suggesting that the entire TLS family may have an oncogenic role in driving advanced PCa. In addition to the TLS family, a number of other RNA binding proteins have been shown to be up-regulated during PCa progression ( 58 ). Up-regulation of these functionally-related proteins appears to be as a result of increased ribosome biogenesis and chromatin-related functions that have been associated with CRPC. In conclusion, FUS can modulate the activity of the AR in either direction, dependent on target, but appears to predominantly repress AR activity. The mechanism of repression is via disruption of the AR transcriptional complex and we propose a model by which tumour cells down-regulate this inhibitory factor in early stages of the disease. However, FUS levels are elevated in CRPC and it remains unclear as to the role of FUS in this stage of the disease. It is possible that this is a reflection of the plasticity associated with AR signalling throughout disease progression. Alternatively, FUS may enhance CRPC growth via an AR independent mechanism. Further work is needed to provide a complete understanding of the role that FUS plays in CRPC and whether such alterations in activity can be targeted for therapeutic gain. Conclusion FUS contains trans-activation and trans-repression domains and can act as both an androgen receptor coactivator and corepressor. FUS enhances the antagonistic activity of the antiandrogen bicalutamide and predominantly acts as a corepressor of androgen receptor activity. The mechanism of repression appears to be disassembly of the transcriptional complex, blocking recruitment of coactivators and the basal transcription machinery. Analysis of patient samples demonstrated that FUS is down-regulated in early stages of prostate cancer and is up-regulated in advanced stages of the disease. Together, this suggests that FUS has an inhibitory role in early stages of the disease, at least in part as a result of repression of androgen receptor activity and is therefore down-regulated. However, in advanced stages of the disease FUS may switch to have a pro-oncogenic role, promoting therapy resistance. Abbreviations AF: Activation Function ALS: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis AR: Androgen Receptor ARA70: Androgen Receptor Associated Protein 70 ARE: Androgen Response Element BPH: Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia CRPC: Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer DBD: DNA Binding Domain DMC1: DNA Meiotic Recombinase 1 DNA‐PK: DNA-Dependent Protein Kinase DOX: Doxycycline EtOH: Ethanol ERa: Estrogen Receptor a EWS: Ewing Sarcoma Breakpoint Region 1 Gene FUS: Fused in Sarcoma KLK3: Kallikrein 3 LHRH: Luteinizing Hormone Releasing Hormone MIB: Mibolerone NDRG1: N-Myc Downstream Regulated 1 PCa: Prostate Cancer RRM: RNA Recognition Motif SRC1: Steroid Receptor Coactivator 1 TAF-15: TATA-Box Binding Protein Associated Factor 15 TLS: Translocated in Liposarcoma TMPRSS2: Transmembrane Serine Protease 2 Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: Approval for the use of patient samples was granted by the ethical committee of the Tampere University Hospital and the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs. Availability of data and materials: The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding: G. Brooke was supported by a Martin Harris Fellowship; R. Culley by an MRC DTP Scholarship; D. Leach by The Urology Foundation/John Black Charitable Foundation and Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund; M. Alkheilewi by the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre; A. Pine by the Rosetrees Trust; F. F. Fioretti and S. M. Powell by Prostate Cancer UK; L. Latonen and T. Visakorpi were supported by the Academy of Finland (grant no. 317871 LL, 317755 TV), the Sigrid Juselius Foundation and the Cancer Society of Finland. Author Contributions: G.B. designed experiments, generated data, analysed data and wrote/edited the manuscript. R.C., D.L., L.L., E.R., M.A., A.P., F.F., C.R., A.A., S.P., V.R. designed and performed experiments, and analysed data. J.W. and T.V. helped to design experiments and edited the manuscript. C.B. designed experiments, analysed data and wrote/edited the manuscript. Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the Brooke and Bevan labs for their discussion and support. We are also grateful to Prof L Tora (Institut de Génétique et de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire, France) and Prof. P Cohen (University of Dundee, Scotland) for providing pTL-TAF15 and pCMV-HA-EWS, respectively. References Brooke GN, Bevan CL. The Role of Androgen Receptor Mutations in Prostate Cancer Progression. Current Genomics. 2009;10(1):18-25. Sekhoacha M, Riet K, Motloung P, Gumenku L, Adegoke A, Mashele S. Prostate Cancer Review: Genetics, Diagnosis, Treatment Options, and Alternative Approaches. Molecules. 2022;27(17). Helsen C, Van den Broeck T, Voet A, Prekovic S, Van Poppel H, Joniau S, et al. Androgen receptor antagonists for prostate cancer therapy. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2014;21(4):T105-18. Coutinho I, Day TK, Tilley WD, Selth LA. Androgen receptor signaling in castration-resistant prostate cancer: a lesson in persistence. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2016;23(12):T179-T97. Dart DA, Brooke GN, Sita-Lumsden A, Waxman J, Bevan CL. Reducing prohibitin increases histone acetylation, and promotes androgen independence in prostate tumours by increasing androgen receptor activation by adrenal androgens. Oncogene. 2012;31(43):4588-98. Zhou HJ, Yan J, Luo W, Ayala G, Lin SH, Erdem H, et al. SRC-3 is required for prostate cancer cell proliferation and survival. Cancer Res. 2005;65(17):7976-83. Sun S, Zhong X, Wang C, Sun H, Wang S, Zhou T, et al. BAP18 coactivates androgen receptor action and promotes prostate cancer progression. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(17):8112-28. Urbanucci A, Waltering KK, Suikki HE, Helenius MA, Visakorpi T. Androgen regulation of the androgen receptor coregulators. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:219. Gamble SC, Chotai D, Odontiadis M, Dart DA, Brooke GN, Powell SM, et al. Prohibitin, a protein downregulated by androgens, represses androgen receptor activity. Oncogene. 2007;26(12):1757-68. Gamble SC, Odontiadis M, Waxman J, Westbrook JA, Dunn MJ, Wait R, et al. Androgens target prohibitin to regulate proliferation of prostate cancer cells. Oncogene. 2004;23(17):2996-3004. Brooke GN, Culley RL, Dart DA, Mann DJ, Gaughan L, McCracken SR, et al. FUS/TLS is a novel mediator of androgen-dependent cell-cycle progression and prostate cancer growth. Cancer Res. 2011;71(3):914-24. Chen L, Zhang JJ, Chen Q, Ge WL, Meng LD, Huang XM, et al. Long noncoding RNA SOX2OT promotes the proliferation of pancreatic cancer by binding to FUS. International Journal of Cancer. 2020. Spitzer JI, Ugras S, Runge S, Decarolis P, Antonescu C, Tuschl T, et al. mRNA and protein levels of FUS, EWSR1, and TAF15 are upregulated in liposarcoma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2011;50(5):338-47. Xiong D, Wu YB, Jin C, Li JJ, Gu J, Liao YF, et al. Elevated FUS/TLS expression is negatively associated with E-cadherin expression and prognosis of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Lett. 2018;16(2):1791-800. Sama RR, Ward CL, Bosco DA. Functions of FUS/TLS from DNA repair to stress response: implications for ALS. ASN Neuro. 2014;6(4). Wang X, Arai S, Song X, Reichart D, Du K, Pascual G, et al. Induced ncRNAs allosterically modify RNA-binding proteins in cis to inhibit transcription. Nature. 2008;454(7200):126-30. Powers CA, Mathur M, Raaka BM, Ron D, Samuels HH. TLS (translocated-in-liposarcoma) is a high-affinity interactor for steroid, thyroid hormone, and retinoid receptors. Mol Endocrinol. 1998;12(1):4-18. Mohammed H, D'Santos C, Serandour AA, Ali HR, Brown GD, Atkins A, et al. Endogenous purification reveals GREB1 as a key estrogen receptor regulatory factor. Cell Rep. 2013;3(2):342-9. Haile S, Lal A, Myung JK, Sadar MD. FUS/TLS is a co-activator of androgen receptor in prostate cancer cells. PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e24197. Belandia B, Orford RL, Hurst HC, Parker MG. Targeting of SWI/SNF chromatin remodelling complexes to estrogen-responsive genes. EMBO J. 2002;21(15):4094-103. Verrijdt G, Schoenmakers E, Haelens A, Peeters B, Verhoeven G, Rombauts W, et al. Change of specificity mutations in androgen-selective enhancers. Evidence for a role of differential DNA binding by the androgen receptor. J Biol Chem. 2000;275(16):12298-305. Brinkmann AO, Faber PW, van Rooij HC, Kuiper GG, Ris C, Klaassen P, et al. The human androgen receptor: domain structure, genomic organization and regulation of expression. J Steroid Biochem. 1989;34(1-6):307-10. Bevan CL, Hoare S, Claessens F, Heery DM, Parker MG. The AF1 and AF2 domains of the androgen receptor interact with distinct regions of SRC1. Mol Cell Biol. 1999;19(12):8383-92. Klevernic IV, Morton S, Davis RJ, Cohen P. Phosphorylation of Ewing's sarcoma protein (EWS) and EWS-Fli1 in response to DNA damage. Biochem J. 2009;418(3):625-34. Kalkhoven E, Kwakkenbos-Isbrucker L, de Laat SW, van der Saag PT, van der Burg B. Synthetic progestins induce proliferation of breast tumor cell lines via the progesterone or estrogen receptor. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 1994;102(1-2):45-52. Christian M, Tullet JM, Parker MG. Characterization of four autonomous repression domains in the corepressor receptor interacting protein 140. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(15):15645-51. Brooke GN, Parker MG, Bevan CL. Mechanisms of androgen receptor activation in advanced prostate cancer: differential co-activator recruitment and gene expression. Oncogene. 2008;27(21):2941-50. Belandia B, Powell SM, Garcia-Pedrero JM, Walker MM, Bevan CL, Parker MG. Hey1, a mediator of notch signaling, is an androgen receptor corepressor. Mol Cell Biol. 2005;25(4):1425-36. Peterziel H, Mink S, Schonert A, Becker M, Klocker H, Cato AC. Rapid signalling by androgen receptor in prostate cancer cells. Oncogene. 1999;18(46):6322-9. Reebye V, Cano LQ, Lavery DN, Brooke GN, Powell SM, Chotai D, et al. Role of the HSP90-Associated Cochaperone p23 in Enhancing Activity of the Androgen Receptor and Significance for Prostate Cancer. Molecular Endocrinology. 2012;26(10):1694-706. Emig D, Salomonis N, Baumbach J, Lengauer T, Conklin BR, Albrecht M. AltAnalyze and DomainGraph: analyzing and visualizing exon expression data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38(Web Server issue):W755-62. Brooke GN, Powell SM, Lavery DN, Waxman J, Buluwela L, Ali S, et al. Engineered repressors are potent inhibitors of androgen receptor activity. Oncotarget. 2014;5(4):959-69. Lavery DN, Villaronga MA, Walker MM, Patel A, Belandia B, Bevan CL. Repression of androgen receptor activity by HEYL, a third member of the Hairy/Enhancer-of-split-related family of Notch effectors. J Biol Chem. 2011;286(20):17796-808. Latonen L, Afyounian E, Jylha A, Nattinen J, Aapola U, Annala M, et al. Integrative proteomics in prostate cancer uncovers robustness against genomic and transcriptomic aberrations during disease progression. Nature Communications. 2018;9. Ylipaa A, Kivinummi K, Kohvakka A, Annala M, Latonen L, Scaravilli M, et al. Transcriptome Sequencing Reveals PCAT5 as a Novel ERG-Regulated Long Noncoding RNA in Prostate Cancer. Cancer Research. 2015;75(19):4026-31. Leach DA, Mohr A, Giotis ES, Cil E, Isac AM, Yates LL, et al. The antiandrogen enzalutamide downregulates TMPRSS2 and reduces cellular entry of SARS-CoV-2 in human lung cells. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):4068. Riegman PH, Vlietstra RJ, van der Korput JA, Brinkmann AO, Trapman J. The promoter of the prostate-specific antigen gene contains a functional androgen responsive element. Mol Endocrinol. 1991;5(12):1921-30. Sanchez-Garcia I, Rabbitts TH. Transcriptional activation by TAL1 and FUS-CHOP proteins expressed in acute malignancies as a result of chromosomal abnormalities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1994;91(17):7869-73. Zinszner H, Albalat R, Ron D. A novel effector domain from the RNA-binding protein TLS or EWS is required for oncogenic transformation by CHOP. Genes Dev. 1994;8(21):2513-26. Tan MH, Li J, Xu HE, Melcher K, Yong EL. Androgen receptor: structure, role in prostate cancer and drug discovery. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2015;36(1):3-23. Belandia B, Powell SM, Garcia-Pedrero JM, Walker MM, Bevan CL, Parker MG. Hey1, a mediator of notch signaling, is an androgen receptor corepressor. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 2005;25(4):1425-36. Jeong BC, Hong CY, Chattopadhyay S, Park JH, Gong EY, Kim HJ, et al. Androgen receptor corepressor-19 kDa (ARR19), a leucine-rich protein that represses the transcriptional activity of androgen receptor through recruitment of histone deacetylase. Molecular endocrinology. 2004;18(1):13-25. Petre CE, Wetherill YB, Danielsen M, Knudsen KE. Cyclin D1: mechanism and consequence of androgen receptor co-repressor activity. The Journal of biological chemistry. 2002;277(3):2207-15. Culig Z, Comuzzi B, Steiner H, Bartsch G, Hobisch A. Expression and function of androgen receptor coactivators in prostate cancer. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2004;92(4):265-71. Tan AY, Manley JL. TLS/FUS: a protein in cancer and ALS. Cell Cycle. 2012;11(18):3349-50. Nautiyal J. Transcriptional coregulator RIP140: an essential regulator of physiology. J Mol Endocrinol. 2017;58(3):R147-R58. Wang L, Hsu CL, Chang CS. Androgen receptor corepressors: An overview. Prostate. 2005;63(2):117-30. Daigle JG, Lanson NA, Jr., Smith RB, Casci I, Maltare A, Monaghan J, et al. RNA-binding ability of FUS regulates neurodegeneration, cytoplasmic mislocalization and incorporation into stress granules associated with FUS carrying ALS-linked mutations. Hum Mol Genet. 2013;22(6):1193-205. Hamad N, Watanabe H, Uchihashi T, Kurokawa R, Nagata T, Katahira M. Direct visualization of the conformational change of FUS/TLS upon binding to promoter-associated non-coding RNA. Chem Commun (Camb). 2020;56(64):9134-7. Saraon P, Jarvi K, Diamandis EP. Molecular alterations during progression of prostate cancer to androgen independence. Clin Chem. 2011;57(10):1366-75. Leach DA, Fernandes RC, Bevan CL. Cellular specificity of androgen receptor, coregulators, and pioneer factors in prostate cancer. Endocr Oncol. 2022;2(1):R112-R31. Ozturan D, Morova T, Lack NA. Androgen Receptor-Mediated Transcription in Prostate Cancer. Cells. 2022;11(5). Pomerantz MM, Qiu X, Zhu Y, Takeda DY, Pan W, Baca SC, et al. Prostate cancer reactivates developmental epigenomic programs during metastatic progression. Nat Genet. 2020;52(8):790-9. Kedage V, Selvaraj N, Nicholas TR, Budka JA, Plotnik JP, Jerde TJ, et al. An Interaction with Ewing's Sarcoma Breakpoint Protein EWS Defines a Specific Oncogenic Mechanism of ETS Factors Rearranged in Prostate Cancer. Cell Rep. 2016;17(5):1289-301. Ballarino M, Jobert L, Dembele D, de la Grange P, Auboeuf D, Tora L. TAF15 is important for cellular proliferation and regulates the expression of a subset of cell cycle genes through miRNAs. Oncogene. 2013;32(39):4646-55. Rossow KL, Janknecht R. The Ewing's sarcoma gene product functions as a transcriptional activator. Cancer Res. 2001;61(6):2690-5. Tang L, Guo C, Li X, Zhang B, Huang L. TAF15 promotes cell proliferation, migration and invasion of gastric cancer via activation of the RAF1/MEK/ERK signalling pathway. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):5846. Aikio E, Koivukoski S, Kallio E, Sadeesh N, Niskanen EA, Latonen L. Complementary analysis of proteome-wide proteomics reveals changes in RNA binding protein-profiles during prostate cancer progression. Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2023;6(10):e1886. Additional Declarations There is NO conflict of interest to disclose. Supplementary Files SupplementalMethodsTable1.pdf Supplementary Table 1. SupplementalMethodsTable2.pdf Supplementary Table 2. SupplementaryMethodsTable3.pdf Supplementary Table 3. SupplementaryMethodsTable4.pdf Supplementary Table 4. SupplementalFigure1.pdf Supplemental Figure 1. The effect of doxycycline upon gene expression in the parental LNCaP-TR2 line. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 06 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in Oncogene → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: revise 30 May, 2025 Review # 2 received at journal 28 May, 2025 Reviewer # 2 agreed at journal 20 May, 2025 Review # 1 received at journal 20 May, 2025 Reviewer # 1 agreed at journal 19 May, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 19 May, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 08 May, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 07 May, 2025 First submitted to journal 07 May, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6609773","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":458723787,"identity":"0291e4a7-773d-44d7-90f6-16cbe32587bc","order_by":0,"name":"Greg Brooke","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4501-4134","institution":"University of Essex","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Greg","middleName":"","lastName":"Brooke","suffix":""},{"id":458723788,"identity":"a277be3e-1c59-4ee8-ac2c-7f1a42068b2b","order_by":1,"name":"Rachel Culley","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rachel","middleName":"","lastName":"Culley","suffix":""},{"id":458723789,"identity":"3311c915-7341-4c9f-8229-c9dae7273ea8","order_by":2,"name":"Damien Leach","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3203-9826","institution":"Imperial College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Damien","middleName":"","lastName":"Leach","suffix":""},{"id":458723790,"identity":"de7d02a3-2cfe-4ac1-b56e-766e13ddd44e","order_by":3,"name":"Leena Latonen","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4502-2193","institution":"University of Eastern Finland","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Leena","middleName":"","lastName":"Latonen","suffix":""},{"id":458723791,"identity":"59a0c168-6e4c-43f8-864b-af8014c3db21","order_by":4,"name":"Ellie Rees","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ellie","middleName":"","lastName":"Rees","suffix":""},{"id":458723792,"identity":"8e607b93-64f2-423f-8ab1-5b92b3200192","order_by":5,"name":"Mohammad Alkheilewi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohammad","middleName":"","lastName":"Alkheilewi","suffix":""},{"id":458723793,"identity":"8af52fdc-b799-4ec2-8904-c5a51e8a4c7d","order_by":6,"name":"Angela Pine","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Angela","middleName":"","lastName":"Pine","suffix":""},{"id":458723794,"identity":"a0a4681c-c675-447c-a132-fe7ff08cad74","order_by":7,"name":"Flavia Fioretti","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Flavia","middleName":"","lastName":"Fioretti","suffix":""},{"id":458723795,"identity":"47529ed5-224b-4886-9371-e9bf6dc1e6b9","order_by":8,"name":"Claire Reader","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Claire","middleName":"","lastName":"Reader","suffix":""},{"id":458723796,"identity":"0572fc33-f6d8-4164-947e-d040e141bce3","order_by":9,"name":"Aygun Azadova","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aygun","middleName":"","lastName":"Azadova","suffix":""},{"id":458723797,"identity":"8a8a5e38-0004-4bec-bdfe-ae9043048e78","order_by":10,"name":"Suzanne Powell","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Suzanne","middleName":"","lastName":"Powell","suffix":""},{"id":458723798,"identity":"2ee86738-02ce-4860-9655-36435012b967","order_by":11,"name":"Vikash Reebye","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Imperial College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Vikash","middleName":"","lastName":"Reebye","suffix":""},{"id":458723799,"identity":"e6814a12-3cb9-47a7-bdae-d3bd8e0d70c3","order_by":12,"name":"Jonathan Waxman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jonathan","middleName":"","lastName":"Waxman","suffix":""},{"id":458723800,"identity":"e6dde8d9-b8c9-4d6e-8e68-9b39220f0154","order_by":13,"name":"Tapio Visakorpi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tapio","middleName":"","lastName":"Visakorpi","suffix":""},{"id":458723801,"identity":"deec4c10-deea-41ae-ac7e-94de424d129e","order_by":14,"name":"Charlotte Bevan","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7533-0552","institution":"Imperial College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Charlotte","middleName":"","lastName":"Bevan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-07 08:25:09","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6609773/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6609773/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-026-03682-3","type":"published","date":"2026-02-06T05:00:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":83282127,"identity":"1e1c04a4-4b17-4c35-9586-4e53d250967a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 10:31:48","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":522494,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCross-talk between the androgen receptor and FUS. \u003c/strong\u003e(a) LNCaP-FUS cells were treated ± mibolerone (MIB) ± doxycycline (DOX) for 24hrs and enhanced FUS expression confirmed using immunoblotting. Microarray analysis was performed on LNCaP-FUS to identify genes differentially expressed in response to MIB alone or plus FUS (+DOX). (b) Venn diagram summarising the number of genes regulated by FUS and/or MIB. (c) Heat map visualization of the 1,378 genes found to be differentially regulated in response to MIB and/or DOX. Each horizontal line represents one sample. (d) Scatter plot indicating the alterations in androgen-regulated gene expression in response to elevated FUS (+DOX).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"fig1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/7df91fa8670ba237be757421.png"},{"id":83282132,"identity":"7f22dfd3-789c-4e37-a311-b5608ef62397","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 10:31:48","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":173331,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFUS regulates androgen receptor activity. \u003c/strong\u003e(a) LNCaP-FUS cells were treated ± mibolerone (MIB) ± doxycycline (DOX) for 24hrs and qPCR performed to quantify gene expression. (b) LNCaP cells were transfected with siRNA targeting FUS and successful depletion confirmed using qPCR and immunoblotting. (c) Target gene expression, following siRNA depletion of FUS was measured using qPCR. COS-1 cells were transfected with plasmids encoding the AR, androgen-responsive luciferase reporters (TAT-GRE-E1B-LUC or PROBASIN-PROM-LUC), a β-galactosidase expression vector, increasing amounts of pSG5-FUS and treated ± MIB (mibolerone). (d) Immunoblotting was performed to confirm FUS over-expression and (e) luciferase assays were performed to investigate the effect of elevated FUS levels upon AR activity. (f) MCF-7 and PC3wtAR were transfected with the TAT-GRE-E1B-LUC reporter, β-galactosidase expression vector, increasing amounts of pSG5-FUS and treated ± MIB. Luciferase activity was normalised to β-galactosidase activity and expressed as a percentage of AR activity in the presence of MIB and absence of FUS. Mean ± 1SE of 3 independent repeats repeated in duplicate. ANOVA * p\u0026lt;0.05, ** p\u0026lt;0.005.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"fig2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/ee2bdb8fa6e668c1be6e8ac1.png"},{"id":83282130,"identity":"b4b24cb1-7c42-4748-badd-8c6599917b94","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 10:31:48","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":157366,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFUS represses the glucocorticoid receptor, whereas EWS and TAF15 enhance AR activity. \u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(a) COS-1 cells were transfected with an appropriate luciferase reporter plasmid (GR, PR, AR = TAT-GRE-EIB-LUC and ERa = 3xERE-LUC), a β-galactosidase expression vector (BOS-β-gal) and expression plasmids for the GR, ERa, PR and FUS. Cells were treated with the receptors cognate hormone (GR = dexamethasone, ERa = oestradiol, PR = progesterone) for 24hrs. Luciferase data was normalised to β-galactosidase and expressed as a % of receptor activity in the absence of FUS. (b) Schematic representation of the TET family members highlighting the key domains and table summarising their % amino acid similarity: SYGQ - serine-tyrosine-glycine-glutamine domain; RRM - RNA-recognition motif; Zn - zinc finger domain; RGG - Arginine-Glycine-Glycine- rich domains. (c) Luciferase assays were performed as above with pSVAR and increasing amounts of vectors coding for EWS and TAF15. (d) Cells transfected with increasing concentrations of plasmids encoding EWS and TAF15 were lysed, proteins separated by SDS-PAGE and protein expression visualised using immunoblotting. Results are mean ± 1SE of 3 independent experiments repeated in duplicate. ANOVA *p\u0026lt;0.05, **p\u0026lt;0.005.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"fig3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/00dfaf715ee6fce34b64deff.png"},{"id":83282135,"identity":"ef9ada52-d42e-4c13-958d-31a91ee339e4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 10:31:48","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":983999,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe AR co-localizes with FUS in the nucleus. \u003c/strong\u003eCOS-1 cells were transfected with expression vectors for the AR and FUS or empty control. Cells were treated for 2hrs ± mibolerone (MIB). Immunofluorescent staining was performed for the AR and FUS, nuclei stained with DAPI and cellular localisation visualised using fluorescent microscopy (bars = 20 µM).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"fig4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/2aada7a5d574a0c82fe3003c.png"},{"id":83282138,"identity":"0479727e-a214-4c4d-949e-f1abc5d85c40","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 10:31:48","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":39361,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFUS interacts with the AR and enhances the antagonistic activity of bicalutamide. \u003c/strong\u003e(a) COS-1 cells were transfected with plasmids encoding a Gal-4 responsive luciferase reporter (5-GAL-LUC), full-length or truncations of FUS fused to Gal-4 ± VP-16 fused AR, (b) ± MIB, (c) ± BIC. (d) COS-1 cells were transfected with plasmids encoding the AR, FUS, a luciferase reporter (TAT-GRE-E1B-LUC) and β-galactosidase and treated ± MIB ± BIC. Luciferase data was normalised to β-galactosidase activity. Mean of 3 independent repeats performed in duplicate ± 1SE. ANOVA *p\u0026lt;0.05, ** p\u0026lt;0.005, *** p\u0026lt;0.0005, comparing white to black bars for each construct.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"fig5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/8da0962b302a9e2ae759e09e.png"},{"id":83282137,"identity":"3a903a09-edd1-450c-adac-f91810870e28","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 10:31:48","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":97105,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFUS represses AR activity via an HDAC-independent mechanism.\u0026nbsp; \u003c/strong\u003e(a)\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003eCOS-1 cells were co-transfected with a luciferase reporter construct containing 7xLexA and 4xGal4 response elements (LexA\u003csub\u003e(7)\u003c/sub\u003e-Gal4\u003csub\u003e(4)\u003c/sub\u003e-LUC) and expression plasmids for β-galactosidase, LexA-VP16, and either Gal4-DBD alone (Empty) or Gal4-DBD fused to full-length or domains of FUS. (b) The trans-repression assay was repeated for full-length FUS and constructs C and E and cells were treated with the HDAC inhibitors trichostatin A, sodium butyrate, and valproic acid. \u0026nbsp;Values are expressed as a percentage of VP16-LexA activity in the presence of empty Gal4-DBD and are the mean + 1SE of 3 independent experiments performed in duplicate.\u0026nbsp;(c and d) COS-1 cells were transfected with an AR-responsive luciferase plasmid, and expression vectors for β-galactosidase, AR and FUS.\u0026nbsp; Luciferase activity was expressed as % of AR activity in the absence of HDAC inhibitor and FUS.\u0026nbsp; (e)\u0026nbsp; COS-1 cells were treated with HDAC inhibitors and histone H3 acetylation levels visualised using immunoblotting.\u0026nbsp; (f) COS-1 were transfected with AR-responsive luciferase plasmid, and expression vectors for β-galactosidase, AR and either Gal4-fused full-length or truncations of FUS.\u0026nbsp; Luciferase activity expressed as % AR activity in the presence of Gal4-empty plasmid. Mean ±1SE of 3 independent repeats in duplicate.\u0026nbsp; ANOVA ** p\u0026lt;0.005, *** p\u0026lt;0.0005.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"fig6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/b405642908ccf48529e68128.png"},{"id":83282985,"identity":"7816dd96-27c5-4060-9eaa-ca101d023fcc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 10:39:48","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":32034,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFUS interacts with coactivators and blocks AR recruitment of SRC1 and PolII. \u003c/strong\u003e(a)\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003eCOS-1 were transfected with a Gal4 luciferase reporter and b-galactosidase expression plasmid, expression plasmids for Gal4 fused full-length of truncations of FUS and p300, SRC1 or ARA70. (b) COS-1 were transfected with plasmids encoding the AR, SRC-1, FUS and b-galactosidase, and an AR-responsive luciferase reporter. Luciferase activity was expressed as a % of AR activity in the presence of mibolerone (MIB) and absence of SRC1 and FUS. Mean ± 1SE of 3 independent repeats in duplicate. (c) LNCaP FUS were treated ± MIB ± DOX and chromatin immunoprecipitation performed using antibodies specific to the AR, SRC1, RNA Pol II, FUS, or IgG control. Enrichment of the \u003cem\u003eKLK3\u003c/em\u003e enhancer was analysed using qPCR. Mean ± 1SE of 3 independent repeats. ANOVA * p\u0026lt;0.05, ** p\u0026lt;0.005, *** p\u0026lt;0.0005.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"fig7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/e271c39c857caa8d4d3dcf21.png"},{"id":83283388,"identity":"ac564844-2758-4ec3-976e-93d2ded40da8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 10:47:48","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":485250,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFUS expression is decreased in PCa but increased in CRPC. \u003c/strong\u003e(a) FUS, EWS and TAF15 expression was analysed in patient samples from BPH, PCa and CRPC at the RNA level (using RNA-seq) and protein level (quantitative mass spectrometry). Mann-Whitney test, * p\u0026lt;0.05, *** p\u0026lt;0.0005 (b) FUS, EWS and TAF15 expression was correlated with biochemical relapse in the TCGA dataset (n=499). (c) IHC was performed on samples from PCa and CRPC using a FUS-specific antibody (Santa Cruz, 4H11). Samples were scored for cellular localisation and intensity. Chi-Squared Test *** p\u0026lt;0.0001. (d) representative IHC images showing images of weak FUS staining in PCa (i and ii) and high nuclear staining or nuclear and cytoplasmic staining in CRPC (iii and iv). (e) Schematic representation of FUS, highlighting the activation, repression and AR interaction domains identified. RRM = RNA Recognition Motif, Zn = Zinc Finger.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"fig8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/4999e50615b1be427daa2ad6.png"},{"id":102094496,"identity":"2e9fd307-f759-4e54-ad57-958711be61ae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-07 08:07:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3536877,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/86674dcb-7351-4b9d-a8e1-c67b2c6b6672.pdf"},{"id":83282128,"identity":"91110681-b515-48ed-a4ec-6fad9dd8ba99","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 10:31:48","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":44923,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Supplementary Table 1.","description":"","filename":"SupplementalMethodsTable1.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/eb1c2701a087694b81923bc7.pdf"},{"id":83282983,"identity":"8ae412f4-b217-47a6-a050-4cf8ab28f2d5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 10:39:48","extension":"pdf","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":42438,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Supplementary Table 2.","description":"","filename":"SupplementalMethodsTable2.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/205a3d66c353dd4c85ae3459.pdf"},{"id":83282984,"identity":"eeac156a-7098-4497-adfa-f6751c84cf42","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 10:39:48","extension":"pdf","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":50421,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMethodsTable3.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/f3a372b51714a86f1b8a60d7.pdf"},{"id":83282134,"identity":"c13d0f9a-2a42-42c5-894d-9aec36bf23ad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 10:31:48","extension":"pdf","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":38218,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table 4.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMethodsTable4.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/776bffbf96bdf123045f6f44.pdf"},{"id":83282143,"identity":"537cae9a-0aa0-4aa3-9638-c20fa9e0c5a5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 10:31:48","extension":"pdf","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":288345,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplemental Figure 1. The effect of doxycycline upon gene expression in the parental LNCaP-TR2 line.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementalFigure1.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6609773/v1/fa59c2628b807ea4a6019c77.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"There is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e conflict of interest to disclose.","formattedTitle":"Disruption of androgen receptor-cofactor interactions by the RNA-binding protein FUS/TLS alters androgen signalling in prostate cancer","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eProstate cancer (PCa) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in western men and tumour growth is almost invariably dependent upon the androgen receptor (AR), a ligand-dependent transcription factor and member of the steroid receptor subgroup of the nuclear receptor superfamily (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). In common with other nuclear receptors, the AR has a modular structure consisting of N- and C-terminal activation functions (AF-1 and AF-2, respectively), a central DNA-binding domain and a C-terminal ligand binding domain. In the absence of androgen, the AR exists in the cytoplasm as part of a large heat shock protein complex that holds the receptor in a ligand-binding competent state. Upon ligand binding the receptor undergoes a conformational change that promotes nuclear localisation, dimerisation and binding to response elements within the regulatory regions of target genes, resulting in gene expression changes which in the case of PCa can drive tumour growth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). These transcriptional effects involve the recruitment of cofactor proteins to liganded, DNA-bound AR.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherapies for non-organ confined PCa target the androgen signalling axis by either blocking androgen synthesis (e.g. LHRH antagonists/analogues and CYP17A antagonists) or directly targeting the receptor (antiandrogens) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Antiandrogens inhibit AR activity via multiple mechanisms, for example by targeting the receptor to specific cellular compartments and/or by promoting the recruitment of corepressors rather than coactivators (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). These therapies are successful in the majority of patients but invariably eventually fail and the tumours progress to the castrate resistant (CRPC) stage. Much evidence exists to suggest that the AR continues to drive CRPC growth, even in the androgen-depleted environment (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to constitutive or promiscuous activation of AR itself, it has been proposed that alterations in cofactor levels, over-expression of coactivators or down-regulation of corepressors, can enhance AR signalling and promote therapy failure (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR6\" citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). Interestingly, many of these cofactor proteins are also regulated in response to androgen signalling. Prohibitin, for example, is a co-repressor of AR activity and is down-regulated in response to androgen, while some co-activators are androgen-upregulated at the mRNA level (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR9\" citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e). The AR therefore regulates multiple factors that subsequently feedback and regulate its own activity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn a proteomic screen to identify AR regulated proteins, we identified that the RNA-binding protein Fused in Ewings Sarcoma/Tanslocated in Liposarcoma (FUS/TLS) is down-regulated in response to androgen and appears to have the characteristics of a novel tumour suppressor in PCa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e). Immunohistochemical analysis of primary prostate tumours demonstrated that FUS expression inversely correlated with Gleason grade and directly correlated with survival. Further, manipulation of FUS expression was demonstrated to have a significant bearing on PCa proliferation in \u003cem\u003ein vitro\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ein vivo\u003c/em\u003e models, with FUS having potent inhibitory effects. Additional studies have found FUS to have similar activity in other cancer types. For example, Chen \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e) found FUS to have tumour suppressor activity in pancreatic cancer. In contrast, FUS levels have been found to be increased in liposarcoma, and elevated levels of this RNA-binding protein correlate with poor prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer (NCLSC) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e). FUS therefore appears to play alternative roles in different malignancies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFUS is a multifunctional protein, shown to be important in multiple cellular processes including DNA repair, RNA splicing, microRNA processing and transcriptional regulation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e). In the latter process, FUS has been demonstrated to regulate gene transcription via non-coding RNA-dependent recruitment to the promoter regions of target genes. For example, Wang \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. found that FUS is recruited and tethered to the \u003cem\u003eCyclin D1\u003c/em\u003e promoter via non-coding RNA, disrupts the recruitment of accessory proteins such as p300 and subsequently blocks gene transcription (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e). FUS has also been previously demonstrated to interact with the DBD of other steroid receptors, but this interaction does not affect receptor-DNA binding (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e). Further, FUS is also recruited to the DNA-bound estrogen receptor (ER)-a when the receptor is bound to the antagonist tamoxifen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e) suggesting that it may act as a corepressor of ERa.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFUS has previously been shown to interact with the AR and to enhance receptor activity in some contexts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e). Here we show that FUS can enhance AR regulation of some genes, but predominantly inhibits AR activity through disruption of the transcriptional complex. The inhibitory effects of FUS upon PCa growth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e) are therefore likely to be, at least in part, via direct repression of AR activity. Interestingly, FUS levels are elevated in CRPC, suggesting that FUS may switch from a tumour suppressive to a growth-promoting role in advanced disease.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLigands.\u003c/b\u003e Ligands were dissolved in EtOH (VWR, Leicestershire, UK) and stored at \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;20\u0026deg;C. 17β-oestradiol, dexamethasone, progesterone and bicalutamide were from Sigma (Dorset, UK), mibolerone (MIB) from PerkinElmer (Buckinghamshire, UK). HDAC inhibitors Trichostatin A (dissolved in EtOH), valproic acid and sodium butyrate (both dissolved in ddH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO) were from Sigma.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePlasmids.\u003c/b\u003e The following have been previously described: pSG5-SRC1e, ERE-LUC, pSG5-ERα (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e); PB-PROM-LUC and TAT-GRE-E1B-LUC (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e); pSVAR (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e); pSG5-ARA70, pCMVβ-p300 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e); pCMV-HA-EWS (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e); pSG5-GR (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e); pGL2-LEXA-GAL4-LUC (luciferase reporter under control of both LexA and Gal4 response elements), pSG5-LEXA-VP16 (LexA DNA-binding domain fused to VP16 activation domain) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e), p5-GAL-LUC, pVP16-AR (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e) and pSG5-hPR-B (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e). Full-length and truncated FUS were PCR-cloned into the pM-GAL4 (Gal4 DNA-binding domain) (Clontech, Mountain View, CA, USA) plasmid using 5\u0026rsquo; \u003cem\u003eBam\u003c/em\u003eH1 and 3\u0026rsquo; \u003cem\u003eXba\u003c/em\u003e1 restriction sites. TAF15 was PCR cloned from pTL-TAF15 into pSG5 using 5\u0026rsquo; \u003cem\u003eBam\u003c/em\u003e HI and 3\u0026rsquo; \u003cem\u003eXma\u003c/em\u003e I restriction sites (primer sequences provided in Supplementary Tables\u0026nbsp;1 and 2). All plasmids were verified by sequencing. pTL-TAF15 and pCMV-HA-EWS were kind gifts from Prof L Tora (Institut de G\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;tique et de Biologie Mol\u0026eacute;culaire et Cellulaire, France) and Prof. P Cohen (University of Dundee, Scotland) respectively. The FUS mutants (G92A, F438V, G488S and K510E) were generated using the QuikChange II Site-directed mutagenesis kit (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Mutagenesis primer sequences are provided in Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;3. All plasmids were verified by sequencing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCell culture.\u003c/b\u003e Cell lines were obtained from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA), except for PC3wtAR, which was a kind gift from Prof A. Cato (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e). Lines were STR authenticated by the ATCC and were frozen at a low passage. Lines were grown for a maximum of 6 months before a fresh aliquot was defrosted. Mycoplasma testing was performed every 3 months using the MycoAlert Detection Kit (Lonza, Basel Switzerland). COS-1 and MCF-7 cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium and LNCaP and PC3wtAR in RPMI 1640 as described previously (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e). LNCaP-FUS and LNCaP-TR2 were cultured in RPMI containing tetracycline-free FCS and Penicillin-Streptomycin-Glutamine (PSG) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e). For experiments requiring hormonal stimulation, cells were incubated in phenol-red free media containing double charcoal stripped FCS (First Link UK, Birmingham, UK) and PSG prior to treatment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eReporter assays.\u003c/b\u003e COS-1, PC3wtAR and MCF-7 cells were seeded at 60% confluence in 24-well plates and incubated for 24 h in androgen-depleted media. For dose\u0026ndash;response experiments, COS-1 cells were transfected using the modified calcium phosphate method (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e) with 100ng of expression vectors for the AR, GR, PR, and ERa, 0-400 ng of FUS, EWS or TAF15 expression vectors, 1 \u0026micro;g of luciferase reporter (TAT-GRE-E1B-LUC, PB-PROM-LUC or ERE-LUC) and 100 ng of PDM-LACZ-b-GAL PC3wtAR and MCF-7 cells were transfected using FuGENE 6 (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) with 100 ng PDM-LAC-Z-β-GAL and 1 \u0026micro;g TAT-GRE-E1B-LUC and 0-400 ng of pSG5-FUS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the trans-activation/repression and mammalian 2-hybrid assays cells were transfected with 1 \u0026micro;g of luciferase reporter (pGL2-LEXA-GAL4-LUC or 5-GAL-LUC respectively) and 200 ng of pM-GAL4-FUS (FULL-E). For the mammalian 2-hybrid assays cells were co-transfected with 100 ng pVP16-AR, pSG5-SRC1e, pCMVβ-p300 or pSG5-ARA70. For the trans-repression assays cells were co-transfected with 100 ng pSG5-LEXA-VP16. In all transcription assays cells were co-transfected with 100 ng of PDM-LACZ-b-GAL, and up to 400 ng of pSG5-FUS or pM-GAL4-FUS (FULL-E) per well.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe amount of DNA added to each well was made equal by the addition of pSG5-empty or pM-GAL4-EMPTY. After transfection cells were incubated\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;ligand/HDAC inhibitor for 24 h before lysis, and luciferase and β-galactosidase activities measured using the LucLite Plus (PerkinElmer) and Galacto-light Plus (Tropix, Bedford, MA, USA) kits, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMicroarray and qPCR.\u003c/b\u003e LNCaP-FUS and LNCaP-TR2 were cultured in hormone-depleted media for 72 hrs\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10 nM Doxycycline and treated\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10 nM Mibolerone for a further 24 hrs. Cells were lysed with QIAshredders, and RNA recovered using an RNAeasy kit with the additional DNAse step (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). RNA quality was checked using a BioAnalyser (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and cDNA synthesized via reverse transcription using a Super Script II kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Microarray was performed by Source Bioscience (Nottingham, UK) using Human HT-12 v4 Beadchips (Illumina, Saffron Walden, UK). Data was analyzed using AltAnalysis software (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e). Gene regulation was set as p value\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, and a log fold change greater than 0.5 or below \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.5. Heatmaps were generated using Morpheus software (Broad Institute) with hierarchical clustering performed using Pearson correlation coefficients.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor qPCR, RNA was extracted and cDNA generated as described and performed using an ABI 7900HT qPCR machine (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). qPCR was performed using Fast SYBR Green (Applied Biosystems) and primers specific to \u003cem\u003eKLK2\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eNDRG1\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eFUS\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePSA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eTMPRSS2\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eL19\u003c/em\u003e (primer sequences provided in Supplemental Table\u0026nbsp;4). Relative gene expression changes were determined using the 2\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;∆∆CT\u003c/sup\u003e method and gene expression normalised to \u003cem\u003eL19\u003c/em\u003e data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eImmunoblotting and immunofluorescent imaging\u003c/b\u003e. Immunoblotting was performed as previously described (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) using the following primary antibodies: AR (N-20), SRC-1 (M-341), FUS (4H11), EWS (G-5) antibodies were from Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz, CA, USA). The TAF15 antibody (GTX77901) was from GeneTex (Irvine, CA, USA) and the acetylated H3 antibody (06-599) was from Merck Millipore (MA, USA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor imaging, COS1 cells were seeded in hormone-depleted media on glass coverslips in 24 well plates. Cells were transfected with 200 ng of pSVAR and pSG5-FUS per well using FuGENE 6. Cells were incubated for 24hrs and treated\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10 nM Mibolerone for 2 hrs. Cells were fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde for 15 min, washed 3 x with PBS (5 min with rotation) and permeabilised using 0.1% Triton X-100 (10 min). Cells were again washed 3 x with PBS prior to blocking with 1% BSA in PBS-0.05% Tween for 30 min. Cells were incubated with primary antibodies specific for AR and FUS followed by HRP or ALEXA Fluor conjugated secondary antibodies and visualised as previously described (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eChromatin immunoprecipitation.\u003c/b\u003e LNCaP-FUS cells were grown to approximately 70% and serum starved for 72 h. Cells were treated\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10 nM Mibolerone for 2 hrs before cross-linking with formaldehyde (Sigma) for 10 min at 37\u0026deg;C. ChIP was performed as previously described (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e). The AR (N-20), SRC-1 (M-341) and FUS (4H11) antibodies were from Santa Cruz and the RNA Pol II (CTD4H8) antibody was from Merck Millipore. qPCR was performed to investigate AR, SRC1, RNA Pol II and FUS recruitment to the \u003cem\u003ePSA\u003c/em\u003e enhancer (forward 5\u0026prime;-TGA CAG TAA ACA AAT CTG TTG TAA GAG ACA-3\u0026prime;; reverse, 5\u0026prime;-AGC AGG CAT CCT TGC AAG AT-3\u0026prime;).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDepletion of FUS levels using siRNA.\u003c/b\u003e FUS levels were reduced in LNCaP cells using a Dharmacon On-Target siRNA pool (L-009497-00-0005; Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA, USA) as previously described (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eImmunohistochemistry.\u003c/b\u003e Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumour microarrays of PCa (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;239) and CRPC (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;100) samples were used. The clinicopathological information of the cohort is described in Leinonen et al. (2013). Sections were deparaffinized and antigen retrieval was performed by using sodium-citrate buffer (pH 6) at +\u0026thinsp;98\u0026deg;C for 15 min. The staining was performed by Lab Vision Autostainer (ThermoFischer Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). FUS (4H11) was used as the primary antibody followed by secondary antibody (N-Histofine\u0026reg; Simple Stain MAX PO; Nichirei, Tokyo, Japan). ImmPACT DAB (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA, USA) was used as a chromogen. The sections were counterstained with hematoxylin and mounted with DPX mounting medium (Sigma-Aldrich). Scoring of staining intensity on tumour areas was performed on a 0\u0026ndash;3 scale, and the difference in score distributions between PCa and CRPC groups was statistically assessed with Chi squared test.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRNA-Seq and Proteomic analysis of patient samples.\u003c/b\u003e Tissue specimens from 10 BPH, 17 untreated PC, and 11 CRPC samples were acquired from Tampere University Hospital (Tampere, Finland). Five 5 \u0026micro;m slices of fresh-frozen tissue were processed as previously described and digested peptides analysed using a Nano-RPLC-MSTOF instrumentation using Eksigent 425 NanoLC coupled to high speed TripleTOF\u0026trade; 5600\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;mass spectrometer (Ab Sciex, Concord, Canada) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e). For transciptomic analysis, RNA was extracted from matching samples and libraries prepared for paired-end analysis (Illumina HiSeq2000) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e). Alterations in the expression of FUS, at different stages of PCa, was subsequently assessed in the proteomics and RNA-seq datasets.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eThe Androgen Receptor and FUS commonly regulate a number of genes.\u003c/b\u003e We have previously demonstrated that FUS is a potent inhibitor of androgen-dependent tumour growth in PCa models and that its expression is directly correlated with patient survival (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e). To identify down-stream targets of FUS, transcriptomic analysis was performed on the LNCaP-FUS cell line; LNCaP cells stably transfected with a doxycycline inducible \u003cem\u003eFUS\u003c/em\u003e expression vector resulting in a robust inducible increase in FUS protein levels (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea). Cells were hormone starved for 3 days and then treated\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;mibolerone (synthetic analogue of dihydrotestosterone)\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;doxycycline for 24hrs. As a control, the parental line (LNCaP-TR2) was also treated with the same conditions. Treatment of LNCaP-TR2 with doxycycline significantly altered expression of only 1 androgen-regulated gene (LOC147804, Supplemental Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). This was removed from the subsequent analysis of the LNCaP-FUS line to ensure that any changes identified in response to doxycycline are as a result of FUS over-expression and not an artefact of doxycycline treatment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the absence of doxycycline, expression levels of 1113 genes were regulated (644 up, 469 down) in response to androgen (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, FC\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;log2(0.5), Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eb-d). FUS reduced androgen-induced up-/down-regulation of 429 genes. The expression of 265 genes, which in the absence of elevated FUS showed weak androgen regulation (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 and/or FC\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;log2(0.5)), became significantly androgen-regulated (108 up- and 157 down-regulated) following over-expression of FUS, while the expression levels of 5 target genes already significantly androgen-regulated was enhanced by FUS. Most interestingly, the direction of androgen regulation of 140 genes was reversed in response to FUS expression, i.e. genes that were androgen down-regulated were found to be androgen up-regulated following doxycycline treatment. The expression of 420 of genes was not significantly altered by FUS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo validate the transcriptomic data, a panel of targets, from the different categories of regulated genes, was validated using qPCR following FUS over-expression (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea) or FUS depletion (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eb and c). Two known AR-upregulated target genes, \u003cem\u003eKLK3\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eTMPRSS2\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e), were found to be repressed by FUS ; as expected these were up-regulated when FUS was depleted. Likewise, expression of an AR-target gene, \u003cem\u003eNDRG1\u003c/em\u003e, whose androgen-regulation was enhanced in response to FUS overexpression, was reduced following FUS knock-down (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea and c). The expression of \u003cem\u003eDMC1\u003c/em\u003e, a gene down-regulated in response to androgen, was found to be significantly enhanced in response to mibolerone\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;doxycycline, also in agreement with the microarray data. In summary, the data demonstrates that FUS has differential effects upon AR signalling, but appears to predominantly repress AR activity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFUS is a novel repressor of androgen receptor activity.\u003c/b\u003e The findings from our previous study (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e) and microarray data presented here suggest that FUS inhibits PCa growth, at least in part, via regulation of androgen signalling. To further investigate FUS regulation of AR activity, COS-1 cells were co-transfected with plasmids encoding the AR, one of two different androgen responsive luciferase reporters and increasing amounts of FUS expression plasmid, which produced increasing amounts of FUS protein (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ed). AR activity was reduced dose-dependently, by approximately 70% and 50%, in response to FUS over-expression on the TAT-GRE-E1B-LUC and PROBASIN-PROM-LUC promoters respectively (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ee). To confirm that this effect was not cell-line dependent or an artefact of exogenous transiently expressed AR, reporter assays were repeated in AR-positive MCF-7 and PC3wtAR (PC3 cells stably transfected with wild-type AR (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e)) cells. In both cell types, FUS again significantly repressed AR activity (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ef).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs described previously, FUS interacts with several steroid receptors, but the effect upon the transcriptional activity of the receptors was not assessed (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e). To determine whether the repressive effects of FUS are specific for AR, the effect of increasing FUS levels upon the transcriptional activity of the closely related glucocorticoid, oestrogen and progesterone receptors was investigated. Similar to the AR, the activity of glucocorticoid receptor was repressed, whereas little effect upon progesterone and oestrogen receptor\u0026rsquo;s activity was evident; only a slight increase in oestrogen receptor activity was measured in response to high FUS levels (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ea).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFUS, along with TAF-15 and EWS, is a member of the TET family of RNA-binding proteins. TET family members have similar domain structures, including an RNA recognition motif (RRM) and zinc finger (Zn), sharing amino acid sequence homology of 47\u0026ndash;59% (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eb). Reporter assays were therefore performed to investigate whether the other TET family members also regulate AR activity. Interestingly, in contrast to FUS, EWS and TAF-15 were found to enhance AR transcriptional activity (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ec, d).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFUS interacts with the AR via its RNA Recognition Motif domain.\u003c/b\u003e To characterise the mechanism(s) of regulation of AR by FUS, we first investigated its cellular localisation. In COS1 cells transfected with expression vectors for AR and FUS, AR protein was cytoplasmic and nuclear in the absence of androgen, and translocated into the nucleus upon hormone stimulation, as expected (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). The FUS antibody detected the endogenous and exogenous protein, showing it to be localised in the nucleus and unaffected by androgen treatment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs some degree of colocalization in the nucleus was evident, mammalian 2-hybrid assays were performed to investigate if FUS and AR interact. The experiment utilised full-length and truncated forms of FUS fused to Gal4 DNA-binding domain (Gal4DBD) and VP16 activation domain (VP16AD)-fused AR (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ea). As previously described (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e), the N-terminus of FUS (construct A, amino acids 1-366) contains a potent activation domain, which resulted in auto-activation of the co-transfected Gal4-responsive reporter. C-terminal extension (construct B, amino acids 1-449) reduced this intrinsic activity. Comparison of VP16-empty and VP16-AR identified ligand-independent interaction between the AR and FUS construct A (amino acids 1-366), but not other constructs. To see if FUS interacts with the AR when agonist-bound, the experiment was repeated in the presence of mibolerone (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eb). The interaction between the AR and construct A was enhanced in the presence of mibolerone, and additional ligand-dependent interactions were identified between the AR and the other RRM-containing constructs B and C (amino acids 1-449 and 288\u0026ndash;526 respectively). The interaction between FUS and the AR therefore appears to be dependent upon the RRM (amino acids 288\u0026ndash;366).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAntagonists have been shown to inhibit AR activity, at least in part, via recruitment of co-repressors (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e). To investigate if FUS interacts with antiandrogen-bound AR, mammalian 2-hybrid assays were repeated in the presence of the antiandrogen bicalutamide. Similar to the interaction induced by mibolerone, the antagonist-bound AR was found to interact with FUS construct A, however unlike mibolerone, no interactions were evident for constructs B and C (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ec). Next, reporter assays were performed in the presence of bicalutamide (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ed). As expected, FUS and 1 \u0026micro;M bicalutamide each inhibited AR activity. Importantly, the combination of FUS and 1 \u0026micro;M bicalutamide showed additive effects, resulting in over 60% repression of AR activity compared to less than 40% individually.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFUS contains activation and repression domains\u003c/b\u003e. We have shown that FUS can repress AR activity but it also contains intrinsic activation domains. To see if FUS contains intrinsic repression domains, the ability of the Gal4DBD-fused FUS constructs to repress VP16AD-induced luciferase activity were assessed in trans-repression assays (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e). Again, constructs A, B and D auto-activated the system indicating the presence of activation domains (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003ea). Conversely, full-length FUS and constructs C and E significantly reduced VP16-induced luciferase expression (43, 66 and 80% reduction in activity compared to empty vector respectively) indicating overall repressive function. Comparison of constructs C, D and E, also comparing B to A, suggests that the region between the RNA recognition motif and zinc finger (amino acids 366\u0026ndash;426) contains a repression domain. Upon removal of this domain (construct D compared to E), repressive effects were abolished.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral corepressors reduce receptor activity by recruiting histone deacetylases (HDACs) (e.g. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e)). To test this, the trans-repression assay above was repeated with full-length FUS and those constructs demonstrated to have repressive activity (C and E), in the presence of the HDAC inhibitors trichostatin A, sodium butyrate and valproic acid (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003eb). These compounds did not reverse the inhibitory action of FUS constructs, neither did they have any effect on the extent of repression by full-length FUS in COS cells co-transfected with this and wild-type AR (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003ec). As a control, AR activity (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003ed) and histone H3 acetylation (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003ee) were enhanced in response to the HDAC inhibitors demonstrating that they are functional in this system. Therefore the mechanism by which FUS represses AR activity does not appear to be via recruitment of Class I/II HDACs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo identify which domains were necessary for AR repression, the Gal4-fused FUS constructs were co-transfected with full-length AR and an androgen-responsive luciferase reporter (TAT-GRE-EIB-1) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003ef). Full-length FUS and constructs A-C repressed AR activity by over 60% whereas the C-terminus of FUS (constructs D and E) was found to enhance AR activity. Interestingly the intrinsic repression domain (amino acids 366\u0026ndash;426) was not required for the repression of AR since construct A, which lacks this region, was still able to repress AR activity. Instead, the critical FUS domain for AR repression is the RRM, the region identified to be critical for the FUS-AR interaction (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ea and b).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFUS interacts with AR coactivators and disrupts complex formation at response elements\u003c/b\u003e. The N-terminus of FUS has previously been demonstrated to interact with and inhibit activity of CBP and p300 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e), cofactors that enhance AR activity (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e). To test FUS interaction with coactivators, a modified mammalian 2-hybrid assay was performed whereby the ability of the coactivators to enhance Gal4DBD-FUS activity was used as an indicator of a positive interaction. The coactivators p300, SRC1 and ARA\u003csub\u003e70\u003c/sub\u003e were all found to interact with the FUS N-terminus (construct A, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003ea). It is therefore possible that AR and FUS compete for coactivators, either through direct interaction or sequestration. To investigate this, reporter assays were performed in COS-1 cells transfected with plasmids encoding androgen-responsive luciferase reporter, AR, SRC1 and increasing concentrations of pSG5-FUS. SRC1 enhanced AR activity over 3-fold and increasing concentrations of FUS significantly decreased this enhanced activity (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003eb). FUS can therefore compete with or sequester co-activators to decrease AR activity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFUS was previously demonstrated to bind to specific regions of the genome via non-coding RNA (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e) and we have demonstrated that FUS interacts with AR and coactivators. Chromatin immunoprecipitation was therefore performed to investigate if FUS affects the assembly of the transcriptional complex. Upon stimulation with androgen, AR, RNA POLII and SRC1 recruitment was enhanced to the regulatory region (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003ec, MIB vs EtOH, both -DOX). Interestingly, increased FUS expression (+\u0026thinsp;DOX) did not affect AR recruitment, but did significantly reduce SRC1 and RNA Pol II recruitment. No significant difference was evident for FUS itself binding chromatin, although there was a trend towards increased FUS binding following FUS over-expression. We therefore conclude that FUS represses AR activity not by disrupting AR chromatin-binding, but via disruption of the formation of an active transcriptional complex at the regulatory regions of target genes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFUS levels are down-regulated in PCa, but elevated in CRPC\u003c/b\u003e. Alterations in cofactor expression has been proposed as a mechanism of therapy resistance in PCa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). We were therefore interested to see if the levels of FUS, and the other members of the TLS family (EWS1 and TAF15), are altered throughout disease progression. Expression was analysed at the RNA (RNA-sequencing) and protein (mass spectrometry) level in clinical samples representing Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (non-malignant control) (BPH), PCa (untreated, primary tumour) and CRPC (advanced, therapy-resistant) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003ea). In agreement with our previous findings (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e), FUS protein levels were lower in primary PCa compared to BPH. However, this was not the case at the RNA level. Further, contrary to what was expected, FUS was significantly elevated at the RNA and protein level in CRPC compared to untreated primary PCa (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003ea). As described previously, EWS and TAF15 enhanced AR activity in reporter assays (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ec). Alterations in EWS and TAF15 levels during disease progression were less pronounced compared to FUS. However, the expression of all family members was found to be significantly higher at the protein level in CRPC compared to PCa (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003ea). To further investigate the role of the TLS family in PCa, in particular therapy resistance, the TCGA dataset was interrogated. Increased FUS expression was found to significantly correlate with biochemical relapse, but no such correlation was found for EWS and TAF15 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003eb).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo validate the changes in FUS expression in PCa, IHC was performed on samples from 239 patients with primary PCa and 100 with CRPC; slides were scored for nuclear and cytoplasmic intensity. In agreement with RNA-seq and mass spec data, nuclear and cytoplasmic FUS expression was elevated in CRPC (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003ec and d). Our data therefore suggests that FUS is growth inhibitory, in early stages of prostate cancer, in part via regulation of androgen signalling. However, since it is up-regulated in CRPC, it may shift to having an oncogenic role which could drive therapy resistance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eFUS is a multifunctional protein that has been linked to multiple diseases, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and cancer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e). We previously demonstrated that FUS has tumour suppressor activity in PCa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e), but contradictory to this, FUS had been shown to interact with and co-activate the AR (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e). To investigate this further, and to better understand by what mechanisms FUS inhibits PCa growth, the transcriptome of LNCaP PCa cells was analysed following up-regulation of FUS expression. This demonstrated that the overlap between FUS and AR target genes is significant and that, although FUS can act as a co-activator of the AR on some genes, overall it predominantly represses AR activity. Other co-factors have also been described to have differential effects upon transcription factor activity. For example, RIP140 has been shown to function both as a nuclear receptor coactivator and corepressor; the mechanisms of this dual activity remain to be fully elucidated but appear to be dependent upon cofactor interactions and promoter context (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e). It is therefore possible that FUS can act as both a co-activator and co-repressor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFUS has previously been shown to interact with the AR (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e) and data presented here supports and extends this. Upon translocation to the nucleus, FUS and AR co-localise; the androgen-induced interaction is dependent upon the FUS RRM motif (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003ee). Interestingly, this region was important in both androgen-dependent interaction and also in in the interaction between FUS and antiandrogen-bound AR. In reporter assays, FUS was found to repress androgen-activated AR and also enhance the antagonistic action of an antiandrogen. This therefore suggests that FUS not only plays a role in the physiological (androgen) regulation of AR activity, but also influences pharmacological (anti-androgen) action and therefore may play a significant role in therapy response. This correlates with a study that used quantitative proteomics to identify cofactors that interact with agonist and antagonist bound estrogen receptor-a (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e). In that study, FUS was found to interact with estrogen receptor-a when it was bound to the anti-estrogen tamoxifen. Although the data presented here focus mainly upon the AR, we also found FUS to repress GR activity and to enhance ERa activity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCo-repressors have been demonstrated to repress AR signalling via different mechanisms, for example via recruitment of histone deacetylases or inhibition of nuclear localisation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e). Our detailed analysis of FUS domains provides insight into how this cofactor regulates AR activity. In agreement with a previous study (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e), FUS was found to have an intrinsic N-terminal activation domain and we demonstrate this domain to interact with co-activators. In addition, we identified a novel C-terminal activation domain and a central trans-repression domain (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003ee). The addition of trichostatin A, sodium butyrate and valproic acid demonstrates that this repression domain is not HDAC Class I- or II- dependent, although it is possible that other classes of deacetylases could be involved. However, the AR-repressive activity of FUS is not dependent upon this domain and instead the RRM motif, through which FUS interacts with the AR, is indispensable. This domain, and RNA binding, has also been shown to be important in the pathology of other diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWang et al. demonstrated that FUS is recruited to the \u003cem\u003eCCND1\u003c/em\u003e promoter via lncRNA and interacts with coactivators, including p300, to disrupt formation of the transcription initiation complex and therefore reduce gene expression [17]. Interestingly, in the absence of lncRNA, FUS has been found to adopt a compact structure, and RNA binding induces a conformational change that results in an extended structure that is thought to enable FUS to interact with CBP/p300, thereby facilitating transcriptional interference (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e). RNA binding and the RRM region are therefore of significant importance in FUS signalling. We demonstrated that the N-terminal activation domain of FUS can interact with other coactivators in addition to p300, namely SRC1 and ARA70. ChIP assays demonstrated that FUS inhibits receptor activity via an interesting mechanism. AR recruitment to the ARE within the regulatory region of \u003cem\u003eKLK3\u003c/em\u003e is not affected by FUS, but SRC1 and RNA POLII recruitment is significantly impaired in response to this factor. It therefore appears that FUS can inhibition target gene expression by disrupting the AR transcriptional complex, rather than affecting AR binding itself.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlterations in cofactor levels have been suggested as one mechanism of therapy resistance (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e). To investigate whether FUS levels are altered during disease progression, RNA-seq and quantitative proteomic analyses were performed in BPH, untreated primary PCa and CRPC patient samples. In agreement with our previous study (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e), FUS protein levels are lower in PCa compared to BPH. This, combined with the findings of the current study, would suggest that FUS has an inhibitory role in early stages of PCa and is therefore downregulated to facilitate tumour growth. In contrast, FUS may have an oncogenic role in advanced, therapy resistant stages of the disease. The rationale behind this is that IHC analysis of patient samples showed FUS upregulated in CRPC, with an increase in cytoplasmic and nuclear expression. The increase in FUS levels in CRPC is intriguing and requires further investigation. A likely explanation is that the altered expression is a reflection of the plasticity associated with AR signalling throughout disease development and progression (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e). For example, ChIP-seq analysis has demonstrated that the number of AR binding sites in the genome increases in prostate cancer compared to normal prostate and this is elevated further in CRPC (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e). Alterations in cofactor/pioneer factor expression, including FUS, are therefore likely to play an important role in reprogramming AR signalling, resulting in the gene signatures associated with the different stages of the disease (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to FUS, the other members of the TLS family (EWS and TAF15) were found to enhance AR activity in reporter assays, in agreement with previous studies showing that these factors have oncogenic activity in cancer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e). For example, Kedage \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e demonstrated that EWS interacts with oncogenic ETS factors to promote PCa progression (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e) and EWS has been shown to act as a co-activator through interaction with CBP/p300 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e). TAF15 has also been shown to have oncogenic properties in other tumours, such as gastric cancer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e). Interestingly, similar to FUS, the expression of these factors was also found to be elevated in CRPC, suggesting that the entire TLS family may have an oncogenic role in driving advanced PCa. In addition to the TLS family, a number of other RNA binding proteins have been shown to be up-regulated during PCa progression (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e). Up-regulation of these functionally-related proteins appears to be as a result of increased ribosome biogenesis and chromatin-related functions that have been associated with CRPC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, FUS can modulate the activity of the AR in either direction, dependent on target, but appears to predominantly repress AR activity. The mechanism of repression is via disruption of the AR transcriptional complex and we propose a model by which tumour cells down-regulate this inhibitory factor in early stages of the disease. However, FUS levels are elevated in CRPC and it remains unclear as to the role of FUS in this stage of the disease. It is possible that this is a reflection of the plasticity associated with AR signalling throughout disease progression. Alternatively, FUS may enhance CRPC growth via an AR independent mechanism. Further work is needed to provide a complete understanding of the role that FUS plays in CRPC and whether such alterations in activity can be targeted for therapeutic gain.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eFUS contains trans-activation and trans-repression domains and can act as both an androgen receptor coactivator and corepressor. FUS enhances the antagonistic activity of the antiandrogen bicalutamide and predominantly acts as a corepressor of androgen receptor activity. The mechanism of repression appears to be disassembly of the transcriptional complex, blocking recruitment of coactivators and the basal transcription machinery. Analysis of patient samples demonstrated that FUS is down-regulated in early stages of prostate cancer and is up-regulated in advanced stages of the disease. Together, this suggests that FUS has an inhibitory role in early stages of the disease, at least in part as a result of repression of androgen receptor activity and is therefore down-regulated. However, in advanced stages of the disease FUS may switch to have a pro-oncogenic role, promoting therapy resistance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAF: Activation Function\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eALS: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAR: Androgen Receptor\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eARA70: Androgen Receptor Associated Protein 70\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eARE: Androgen Response Element\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBPH: Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCRPC: Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDBD: DNA Binding Domain\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDMC1: DNA Meiotic Recombinase 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDNA‐PK: DNA-Dependent Protein Kinase\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDOX: Doxycycline\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEtOH: Ethanol\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eERa: Estrogen Receptor\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEWS: Ewing Sarcoma Breakpoint Region 1 Gene\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFUS: Fused in Sarcoma\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKLK3: Kallikrein 3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLHRH: Luteinizing Hormone Releasing Hormone\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMIB: Mibolerone\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNDRG1: N-Myc Downstream Regulated 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePCa: Prostate Cancer\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRRM: RNA Recognition Motif\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSRC1: Steroid Receptor Coactivator 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTAF-15: TATA-Box Binding Protein Associated Factor 15\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTLS: Translocated in Liposarcoma\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTMPRSS2: Transmembrane Serine Protease 2\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eApproval for the use of patient samples was granted by the ethical committee of the Tampere University Hospital and the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eG. Brooke was supported by a Martin Harris Fellowship; R. Culley by an MRC DTP Scholarship; D. Leach by The Urology Foundation/John Black Charitable Foundation and Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund; M. Alkheilewi by the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre; A. Pine by the Rosetrees Trust; F. F. Fioretti and S. M. Powell by Prostate Cancer UK; L. Latonen and T. Visakorpi were supported by the Academy of Finland (grant no. 317871 LL, 317755 TV), the Sigrid Juselius Foundation and the Cancer Society of Finland.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eG.B. designed experiments, generated data, analysed data and wrote/edited the manuscript. \u0026nbsp;R.C., D.L., L.L., E.R., M.A., A.P., F.F., C.R., A.A., S.P., V.R. designed and performed experiments, and analysed data. \u0026nbsp;J.W. and T.V. helped to design experiments and edited the manuscript. C.B. designed experiments, analysed data and wrote/edited the manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to thank the Brooke and Bevan labs for their discussion and support. \u0026nbsp;We are also grateful to Prof L Tora (Institut de G\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;tique et de Biologie Mol\u0026eacute;culaire et Cellulaire, France) and Prof. P Cohen (University of Dundee, Scotland) for providing pTL-TAF15 and pCMV-HA-EWS, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooke GN, Bevan CL. The Role of Androgen Receptor Mutations in Prostate Cancer Progression. Current Genomics. 2009;10(1):18-25.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSekhoacha M, Riet K, Motloung P, Gumenku L, Adegoke A, Mashele S. Prostate Cancer Review: Genetics, Diagnosis, Treatment Options, and Alternative Approaches. Molecules. 2022;27(17).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelsen C, Van den Broeck T, Voet A, Prekovic S, Van Poppel H, Joniau S, et al. Androgen receptor antagonists for prostate cancer therapy. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2014;21(4):T105-18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoutinho I, Day TK, Tilley WD, Selth LA. Androgen receptor signaling in castration-resistant prostate cancer: a lesson in persistence. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2016;23(12):T179-T97.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDart DA, Brooke GN, Sita-Lumsden A, Waxman J, Bevan CL. Reducing prohibitin increases histone acetylation, and promotes androgen independence in prostate tumours by increasing androgen receptor activation by adrenal androgens. Oncogene. 2012;31(43):4588-98.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhou HJ, Yan J, Luo W, Ayala G, Lin SH, Erdem H, et al. SRC-3 is required for prostate cancer cell proliferation and survival. Cancer Res. 2005;65(17):7976-83.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSun S, Zhong X, Wang C, Sun H, Wang S, Zhou T, et al. BAP18 coactivates androgen receptor action and promotes prostate cancer progression. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(17):8112-28.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUrbanucci A, Waltering KK, Suikki HE, Helenius MA, Visakorpi T. Androgen regulation of the androgen receptor coregulators. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:219.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGamble SC, Chotai D, Odontiadis M, Dart DA, Brooke GN, Powell SM, et al. Prohibitin, a protein downregulated by androgens, represses androgen receptor activity. Oncogene. 2007;26(12):1757-68.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGamble SC, Odontiadis M, Waxman J, Westbrook JA, Dunn MJ, Wait R, et al. Androgens target prohibitin to regulate proliferation of prostate cancer cells. Oncogene. 2004;23(17):2996-3004.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooke GN, Culley RL, Dart DA, Mann DJ, Gaughan L, McCracken SR, et al. FUS/TLS is a novel mediator of androgen-dependent cell-cycle progression and prostate cancer growth. Cancer Res. 2011;71(3):914-24.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen L, Zhang JJ, Chen Q, Ge WL, Meng LD, Huang XM, et al. Long noncoding RNA SOX2OT promotes the proliferation of pancreatic cancer by binding to FUS. International Journal of Cancer. 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpitzer JI, Ugras S, Runge S, Decarolis P, Antonescu C, Tuschl T, et al. mRNA and protein levels of FUS, EWSR1, and TAF15 are upregulated in liposarcoma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2011;50(5):338-47.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXiong D, Wu YB, Jin C, Li JJ, Gu J, Liao YF, et al. Elevated FUS/TLS expression is negatively associated with E-cadherin expression and prognosis of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Lett. 2018;16(2):1791-800.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSama RR, Ward CL, Bosco DA. Functions of FUS/TLS from DNA repair to stress response: implications for ALS. ASN Neuro. 2014;6(4).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang X, Arai S, Song X, Reichart D, Du K, Pascual G, et al. Induced ncRNAs allosterically modify RNA-binding proteins in cis to inhibit transcription. Nature. 2008;454(7200):126-30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePowers CA, Mathur M, Raaka BM, Ron D, Samuels HH. TLS (translocated-in-liposarcoma) is a high-affinity interactor for steroid, thyroid hormone, and retinoid receptors. Mol Endocrinol. 1998;12(1):4-18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohammed H, D\u0026apos;Santos C, Serandour AA, Ali HR, Brown GD, Atkins A, et al. Endogenous purification reveals GREB1 as a key estrogen receptor regulatory factor. Cell Rep. 2013;3(2):342-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaile S, Lal A, Myung JK, Sadar MD. FUS/TLS is a co-activator of androgen receptor in prostate cancer cells. PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e24197.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBelandia B, Orford RL, Hurst HC, Parker MG. Targeting of SWI/SNF chromatin remodelling complexes to estrogen-responsive genes. EMBO J. 2002;21(15):4094-103.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVerrijdt G, Schoenmakers E, Haelens A, Peeters B, Verhoeven G, Rombauts W, et al. Change of specificity mutations in androgen-selective enhancers. Evidence for a role of differential DNA binding by the androgen receptor. J Biol Chem. 2000;275(16):12298-305.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrinkmann AO, Faber PW, van Rooij HC, Kuiper GG, Ris C, Klaassen P, et al. The human androgen receptor: domain structure, genomic organization and regulation of expression. J Steroid Biochem. 1989;34(1-6):307-10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBevan CL, Hoare S, Claessens F, Heery DM, Parker MG. The AF1 and AF2 domains of the androgen receptor interact with distinct regions of SRC1. Mol Cell Biol. 1999;19(12):8383-92.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKlevernic IV, Morton S, Davis RJ, Cohen P. Phosphorylation of Ewing\u0026apos;s sarcoma protein (EWS) and EWS-Fli1 in response to DNA damage. Biochem J. 2009;418(3):625-34.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKalkhoven E, Kwakkenbos-Isbrucker L, de Laat SW, van der Saag PT, van der Burg B. Synthetic progestins induce proliferation of breast tumor cell lines via the progesterone or estrogen receptor. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 1994;102(1-2):45-52.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChristian M, Tullet JM, Parker MG. Characterization of four autonomous repression domains in the corepressor receptor interacting protein 140. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(15):15645-51.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooke GN, Parker MG, Bevan CL. Mechanisms of androgen receptor activation in advanced prostate cancer: differential co-activator recruitment and gene expression. Oncogene. 2008;27(21):2941-50.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBelandia B, Powell SM, Garcia-Pedrero JM, Walker MM, Bevan CL, Parker MG. Hey1, a mediator of notch signaling, is an androgen receptor corepressor. Mol Cell Biol. 2005;25(4):1425-36.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeterziel H, Mink S, Schonert A, Becker M, Klocker H, Cato AC. Rapid signalling by androgen receptor in prostate cancer cells. Oncogene. 1999;18(46):6322-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReebye V, Cano LQ, Lavery DN, Brooke GN, Powell SM, Chotai D, et al. Role of the HSP90-Associated Cochaperone p23 in Enhancing Activity of the Androgen Receptor and Significance for Prostate Cancer. Molecular Endocrinology. 2012;26(10):1694-706.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEmig D, Salomonis N, Baumbach J, Lengauer T, Conklin BR, Albrecht M. AltAnalyze and DomainGraph: analyzing and visualizing exon expression data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38(Web Server issue):W755-62.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooke GN, Powell SM, Lavery DN, Waxman J, Buluwela L, Ali S, et al. Engineered repressors are potent inhibitors of androgen receptor activity. Oncotarget. 2014;5(4):959-69.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLavery DN, Villaronga MA, Walker MM, Patel A, Belandia B, Bevan CL. Repression of androgen receptor activity by HEYL, a third member of the Hairy/Enhancer-of-split-related family of Notch effectors. J Biol Chem. 2011;286(20):17796-808.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLatonen L, Afyounian E, Jylha A, Nattinen J, Aapola U, Annala M, et al. Integrative proteomics in prostate cancer uncovers robustness against genomic and transcriptomic aberrations during disease progression. Nature Communications. 2018;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYlipaa A, Kivinummi K, Kohvakka A, Annala M, Latonen L, Scaravilli M, et al. Transcriptome Sequencing Reveals PCAT5 as a Novel ERG-Regulated Long Noncoding RNA in Prostate Cancer. Cancer Research. 2015;75(19):4026-31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeach DA, Mohr A, Giotis ES, Cil E, Isac AM, Yates LL, et al. The antiandrogen enzalutamide downregulates TMPRSS2 and reduces cellular entry of SARS-CoV-2 in human lung cells. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):4068.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRiegman PH, Vlietstra RJ, van der Korput JA, Brinkmann AO, Trapman J. The promoter of the prostate-specific antigen gene contains a functional androgen responsive element. Mol Endocrinol. 1991;5(12):1921-30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSanchez-Garcia I, Rabbitts TH. Transcriptional activation by TAL1 and FUS-CHOP proteins expressed in acute malignancies as a result of chromosomal abnormalities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1994;91(17):7869-73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZinszner H, Albalat R, Ron D. A novel effector domain from the RNA-binding protein TLS or EWS is required for oncogenic transformation by CHOP. Genes Dev. 1994;8(21):2513-26.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTan MH, Li J, Xu HE, Melcher K, Yong EL. Androgen receptor: structure, role in prostate cancer and drug discovery. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2015;36(1):3-23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBelandia B, Powell SM, Garcia-Pedrero JM, Walker MM, Bevan CL, Parker MG. Hey1, a mediator of notch signaling, is an androgen receptor corepressor. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 2005;25(4):1425-36.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJeong BC, Hong CY, Chattopadhyay S, Park JH, Gong EY, Kim HJ, et al. Androgen receptor corepressor-19 kDa (ARR19), a leucine-rich protein that represses the transcriptional activity of androgen receptor through recruitment of histone deacetylase. Molecular endocrinology. 2004;18(1):13-25.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePetre CE, Wetherill YB, Danielsen M, Knudsen KE. Cyclin D1: mechanism and consequence of androgen receptor co-repressor activity. The Journal of biological chemistry. 2002;277(3):2207-15.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCulig Z, Comuzzi B, Steiner H, Bartsch G, Hobisch A. Expression and function of androgen receptor coactivators in prostate cancer. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2004;92(4):265-71.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTan AY, Manley JL. TLS/FUS: a protein in cancer and ALS. Cell Cycle. 2012;11(18):3349-50.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNautiyal J. Transcriptional coregulator RIP140: an essential regulator of physiology. J Mol Endocrinol. 2017;58(3):R147-R58.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang L, Hsu CL, Chang CS. Androgen receptor corepressors: An overview. Prostate. 2005;63(2):117-30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaigle JG, Lanson NA, Jr., Smith RB, Casci I, Maltare A, Monaghan J, et al. RNA-binding ability of FUS regulates neurodegeneration, cytoplasmic mislocalization and incorporation into stress granules associated with FUS carrying ALS-linked mutations. Hum Mol Genet. 2013;22(6):1193-205.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHamad N, Watanabe H, Uchihashi T, Kurokawa R, Nagata T, Katahira M. Direct visualization of the conformational change of FUS/TLS upon binding to promoter-associated non-coding RNA. Chem Commun (Camb). 2020;56(64):9134-7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaraon P, Jarvi K, Diamandis EP. Molecular alterations during progression of prostate cancer to androgen independence. Clin Chem. 2011;57(10):1366-75.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeach DA, Fernandes RC, Bevan CL. Cellular specificity of androgen receptor, coregulators, and pioneer factors in prostate cancer. Endocr Oncol. 2022;2(1):R112-R31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOzturan D, Morova T, Lack NA. Androgen Receptor-Mediated Transcription in Prostate Cancer. Cells. 2022;11(5).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePomerantz MM, Qiu X, Zhu Y, Takeda DY, Pan W, Baca SC, et al. Prostate cancer reactivates developmental epigenomic programs during metastatic progression. Nat Genet. 2020;52(8):790-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKedage V, Selvaraj N, Nicholas TR, Budka JA, Plotnik JP, Jerde TJ, et al. An Interaction with Ewing\u0026apos;s Sarcoma Breakpoint Protein EWS Defines a Specific Oncogenic Mechanism of ETS Factors Rearranged in Prostate Cancer. Cell Rep. 2016;17(5):1289-301.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBallarino M, Jobert L, Dembele D, de la Grange P, Auboeuf D, Tora L. TAF15 is important for cellular proliferation and regulates the expression of a subset of cell cycle genes through miRNAs. Oncogene. 2013;32(39):4646-55.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRossow KL, Janknecht R. The Ewing\u0026apos;s sarcoma gene product functions as a transcriptional activator. Cancer Res. 2001;61(6):2690-5.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTang L, Guo C, Li X, Zhang B, Huang L. TAF15 promotes cell proliferation, migration and invasion of gastric cancer via activation of the RAF1/MEK/ERK signalling pathway. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):5846.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAikio E, Koivukoski S, Kallio E, Sadeesh N, Niskanen EA, Latonen L. Complementary analysis of proteome-wide proteomics reveals changes in RNA binding protein-profiles during prostate cancer progression. Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2023;6(10):e1886.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"oncogene","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"onc","sideBox":"Learn more about [Oncogene](http://www.nature.com/onc/)","snPcode":"41388","submissionUrl":"https://mts-onc.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"Oncogene","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Prostate cancer, androgen receptor, therapy resistance, cofactors, FUS, TLS, coactivator, corepressor","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6609773/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6609773/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eProstate cancer is dependent upon the androgen receptor, the activity of which is modified by cofactors that either enhance or repress its activity, often in a context-dependent manner. FUS/TLS is a multifunctional protein known to be important in multiple cancer types; in prostate cancer, we previously showed that FUS has a potential tumour suppressor role. Here, transcriptomic analysis of the LNCaP prostate cancer cell line shows a significant overlap in genes regulated by FUS and the androgen receptor. We demonstrate that FUS can regulate androgen receptor activity, in either direction, but predominantly represses androgen signalling.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReporter assays and domain-specific analyses of FUS identified mechanisms by which FUS modifies androgen receptor activity. FUS interacts with the androgen receptor and other cofactors to repress transcription; ChIP assays suggest that repression occurs via disassembly of the transcriptional complex. Quantitative proteomics and RNA-Seq were used to investigate FUS expression in patient samples across prostate cancer stages. FUS was found to be down-regulated in primary tumours, but up-regulated in advanced aggressive stages. These findings suggest that in early prostate cancer, FUS represses AR activity and tumour progression, leading to its down-regulation. In contrast, its up-regulation in later stages may reflect a switch to pro-oncogenic function.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Disruption of androgen receptor-cofactor interactions by the RNA-binding protein FUS/TLS alters androgen signalling in prostate cancer","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-22 10:31:43","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6609773/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"revise","date":"2025-05-30T16:18:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2025-05-28T12:05:13+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2025-05-20T13:42:29+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2025-05-20T10:46:07+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2025-05-19T13:03:07+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-05-19T12:26:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-05-08T11:34:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-05-07T08:20:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Oncogene","date":"2025-05-07T08:20:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"oncogene","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"onc","sideBox":"Learn more about [Oncogene](http://www.nature.com/onc/)","snPcode":"41388","submissionUrl":"https://mts-onc.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"Oncogene","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4f94f1d6-713e-453e-bdb5-b61b06631ba8","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 22nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":48731266,"name":"Biological sciences/Cell biology/Mechanisms of disease"},{"id":48731267,"name":"Biological sciences/Cancer"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-07T08:07:38+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6609773","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-026-03682-3","journal":{"identity":"oncogene","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Oncogene"},"publishedOn":"2026-02-06 05:00:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"February 6th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-22 10:31:43","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41388-026-03682-3","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-026-03682-3","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6609773","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6609773","identity":"rs-6609773","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}