1. Introduction
Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in males worldwide [1].
Although, the growth and development of prostate gland can be controlled by
androgen but estrogen can also play an important role in its development and
carcinogenesis [2, 3]. Not only the estrogen but its metabolites such as
16-hydroxyestrone (16-OHE) and 2-hydroxyestrone
(2-OHE) can also be related with PC [4]. These are predominant metabolites
that are produced during oxidative metabolism of estrogen [5].
16-OHE is an active estrogen metabolite that is bound to
its receptor with high affinity and can function as estrogen agonist to induce
various responses [6]. In contrast, 2-OHE has weak estrogen activity and
inhibits angiogenesis [7]. Their ratio (i.e., 2-OHE/16-OHE)
has been more related to breast cancer [8] than PC. In prostate cancer, patients
with high urinary 2-OHE/16-OHE ratio had a 40%
non-significant reduction in the risk of PC, with a condition in which
prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration higher than 4 ng/mL, was excluded
from control subjects [9]. PSA levels were closely linked to prostate size and
larger prostate gland was also related with estrogen levels [10]. Later
study on the PC showed that there is no difference in the concentration of
estrogen metabolites rather DNA adducts formation by estrogen, were found to be
more active in PC patients than control subjects [11]. Recently, to probe the
role of estrogen in PC, 15 urinary estrogen metabolites were determined in
different PC patients and it was found a modest difference in the estrogen
metabolites concentration between the cancer patients and control subjects [12].
4-hydroxyestrone (4-OHE) ranked higher in abundance among cases than
control groups. Concentration of estriol (E), estrone (E),
16-ketoestradiol (16-kE2), 2-hydroxyestrone (2-OHE) and estradiol (E)
were the highest among all groups, about 60–70% of the total urinary
metabolites and E was the dominant estrogen in all study groups. On the
other hand, 4-methoxyestradiol (4-MeOE) was least abundant metabolites
detected in the urine of all the groups. In another study, same urinary
estrogen metabolites and their ratio were determined in PC patients. This study
showed that oxidative metabolism of estrogen favoring 2-hydroxylation over
16-hydroxylation, was associated with reduced risk of PC [13].
Previous studies from the lab also showed an important role of catechol estrogen
modified DNA in the etiopathogenesis of PC [14]. Recent study showed that
16-hydroxyestrone is responsible for causing breast cancer [15].
Infect, these estrogen metabolites play an important role in cancer as well as in
autoimmune diseases [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26].
The importance of estrogen in PC can be explained by two important facts. One is
the presence of estrogen receptor (ER) in the prostate tissues in these patients
[27] and the other is the response to estrogen therapy by the PC patients [28].
The effect of estrogen is mediated by two receptors: ER and
ER. These two receptors are expressed in prostate tissues. ER
is the most prevalent and mainly expressed in basal-epithelial cells of prostate
while ER is mainly confined to stromal cells occasionally found in
basal-epithelial [29]. Although, PC specimen express both ER and
ER but their concentration remains unknown at different stages
of the cancer [30]. The expression and functions of both the receptors mediate
the development and growth of PC. The loss of ER is linked to the
development from normal tissues to PC, whereas, those cancers retaining their
expression might have a chance for recurrence [31]. In addition, expression of
isoform of ER (ER2 and ER5) showed a prognostic
biomarker in PC patients [32]. Estrogen plays important role in prostate
carcinogenesis [33]. Circulating levels of estradiol (estrone) were slightly
higher in African American men than in Caucasian men, whereas, these males have
twice the prostate cancer risk of Caucasian [34]. Therefore, increased
circulating estrogen might increase prostate cancer risk. Epidemiological data
from various source showed mixed results. One study showed an association of
increased plasma estrogen with an elevated risk of prostate cancer [35] and
another corelating risk with elevated estrogens [36]. While other studies showed
opposite finding i.e., increasing prostate cancer risk associated with decreasing
levels of estradiol [37]. Other results showed that estrogen metabolic pathway
favoring 2-hydroxylation over 16-hydroxylation might reduce the risk of
clinically evident prostate cancer [38]. The study also confirmed an association
between the risk of PC and higher urinary levels of 16-OHE and
protective effect of higher 2-OHE to 16-OHE ratio [39].
Estrone and estradiol are oxidatively metabolized via two major pathways:
formation of catechol estrogen and 16-hydroxylation. The
catechol estrogens are 2-hydroxy and 4-hydroxyestrogens that are
further inactivated in liver by conjugation reaction such as glucuronidation and
sulfation. The other pathway of inactivation occurs in extra hepatic tissues by
O-methylation catalyzed by catechol-o-methyl transferase [40].
There are significant evidences that showed that estrogen metabolites play an
important role in PC. One study showed a negative relation between the risk of PC
and elevated ratio of 2-OHE/16-OHE and positive relation
between PC and 16-OHE [9]. Most of the studies on PC either
explain the role of urinary estrogen metabolites in PC or expression of ER in PC
but none of them could explain the combined effects of estrogen metabolite and
its receptor on PC. To test this important hypothesis, we investigate antibodies
from PC to 16-OHE-ER because estrogen metabolite
directly involved in PC and ER had been expressed in prostate tissues. This gives
us opportunity to screen PC patient’s sera with 16-OHE-ER to
probe their role. Furthermore, antibodies induced against this complex can
also be used as an immunological probe for the determination of
16-OHE concentration and 2-OHE/16-OHE ratio
in the PC patients.
2. Material and methods
2.1 Prostate cancer patients and controls
We have recruited 60 PC patients and their blood samples were taken to
access antibodies against 16-OHE-ER complex. Their ages range
from 45 to 87 years (65 7.1), who underwent a prostate biopsy.
Experienced pathologist evaluated biopsy samples through routine histology
diagnosis. We have taken prostate cancer patients more of stages III and IV as
compared to I and II. Gleason score of 8 for almost all of the samples were
taken. We have chosen different stages of the disease for PC patients. The controls (n = 40) were the males, age-matched, normal individuals,
who were free from PC, coming to the hospital for routine checkup or blood donor
or hospital staff. Baseline characteristics of selected patients and controls
were given in Table 1. Spot urine samples from 35 patients and 30 control
subjects were also taken for the estimation of estrogen metabolites and their
ratio. All serum samples (patients and controls) were heated at 56 C
for 30 min to deactivate complement protein and then stored at –20 C
with sodium azide (0.1%) as preservatives. Prior consent from all the subjects
was taken and finally, this study was approved by the Institutional Ethical
Review Board before subject enrolment (No.: 1/53/39).
Table 1.Baseline characteristics of subjects and estimation of
16-OHE and 2-OHE/16-OHE ratio in prostate
cancer patients.
Characteristics |
Prostate cancer (n = 60) |
Controls (n = 40) |
Age (years) |
65 7.1 |
62 8.3 |
BMI (Kg/m) |
|
|
|
25 |
15 (25%) |
9 (22.5%) |
|
25–29.9 |
36 (60%) |
25 (62.5%) |
|
30 |
9 (15%) |
6 (15%) |
Smoking status |
|
|
|
Never |
24 (40%) |
17 (42.5%) |
|
Past |
15 (25%) |
12 (30%) |
|
Current |
21 (35%) |
11 (27.5%) |
Employed |
|
|
|
Yes |
35 (58.3%) |
27 (67.5%) |
|
No |
14 (23.3%) |
8 (20%) |
|
Retired |
11 (18.3%) |
5 (12.5%) |
Family history of prostate cancer |
|
|
|
Yes |
21 (35%) |
8 (20%) |
|
No |
39 (65%) |
32 (80%) |
Race or ethnic group |
|
|
|
White/Caucasian |
37 (61.7%) |
22 (55%) |
|
Black/African |
10 (16.7%) |
8 (20%) |
|
Asian |
8 (13.3%) |
6 (15%) |
|
Others |
5 (8.3%) |
4 (10%) |
16-OHE estimation in urine (n = 35) by |
|
|
|
Anti-16-OHE-ER antibodies |
5.2 ng/g creatinine |
5.2 ng/g creatinine |
|
Human 16-hydroxyestrone ELISA Kit |
5 ng/g creatinine |
- |
2-OHE/16-OHE ratio |
1.65 |
- |
2-OHE/16-OHE ratio |
1.61 |
- |
The amount of 16-OHE level was measured by ELISA and the
values are corrected with creatinine. 2-OHE/16-OHE;
Ratio estimated by anti-16-OHE-ER antibodies;
Ratio estimated by commercially available kit.
n = 30. Correlation coefficient r = 0.94 (p 0.001). |
2.2 16-OHE-ER complex formation
16-OHE-ER complex was formed as described previously [15].
Briefly, 16-hydroxyestrone (16-OHE) with a
concentration of 1–10 mM was incubated with ER (1 mg) in potassium phosphate
buffer (0.1 M, pH 6) and 1 M sodium cyanoborohydride was mixed. The
reaction mixture was kept for 48 h at 37 C with shaking.
16-OHE was dissolved in ethonal in such a way that the ethanol
concentration was 0.1% of the total volume of the reaction mixture. The reaction
mixture was dialyzed with PBS, pH 7.4 to remove excess unbound
16-OHE.
2.3 Antibodies against 16-OHE-ER complex
Antibodies against 16-OHE-ER were induced in experimental
animals (female rabbits, n = 8) as mention previously [16]. We also induced
antibodies against 16-OHE and ER to checked their immunogenicity,
whether they alone have any effects on the induction of antibodies or not.
Briefly, 16-OHE-ER (50 g) was mixed with equal volume of
complete Freund’s adjuvant and the mixture injected intramuscularly in the
experimental animals. Later doses were given with incomplete Freund’s adjuvant.
Each rabbit was given 8 injections (weekly) with a total of 400 g of all
antigens. Pre-immune sera served as negative control and were taken prior to the
immunization.
2.4 Purification of antibodies against 16-OHE-ER
complex in prostate cancer
Immunoglobulin G was isolated and purified from the sera of PC patients on a
Protein A-Agarose column as described previously [41]. The purity and homogeneity
of the purified IgG was checked on 7.5% PAGE. The concentration of
immunoglobulin G was evaluated by taken the formula 1.40 OD = 1.0 mg/mL.
2.5 ELISA
Antibody screening was done in PC or immunized sera by direct binding ELISA as
mention earlier [25]. Competition ELISA was also used for specific binding of
PC/immunized antibodies to 16-OHE-ER complex [25]. Briefly, this
complex (100 L, 2.5 g/mL) was coated onto microtiter plate for 2 h
at 25 C and later for 24 h at 4 C. This plate was washed with
TBS-T and unoccupied sites were blocked with 100 L of BSA (1.5%). Immune
complexes were prepared by incubating 100 L of PC/immunized sera (1 : 100
dilution) with increasing concentration of 16-OHE-ER complex (or
16-OHE or ER) at 37 C for 2 h and 4 C,
overnight. 100 L of immune complex was incubated in each well and
anti-human IgG-alkaline phosphatase conjugate was finally added, followed by
addition of p-nitrophenyl phosphate as substrate to developed the reaction. The
absorbance was taken at 410 nm on to a microplate reader and data was present as
percent inhibition. For 16-OHE, we used the Human
16-hydroxyestrone ELISA Kit (Glory Science Co. Lt, Shirley, NY, USA)
and for 2-/16-OHE ratio, the Estramet
2-hydroxyestrogen/16-OHE ELISA Kit
(CD Diagnostics, Claymont, DE, USA) was used.
2.6 Quantitation and formation of immune complexes from prostate
cancer patients
Quantitation and formation of immune complexes were done as mention previously
[26]. Briefly, PC IgG (100 g) was incubated with increasing amount (0–40
g) of various antigens (16-OHE-ER, ER and
16-OHE) in a reaction mixture of 400 L. The reaction
mixture was incubated for 4 h at 37 C and overnight at 4 C.
Normal human IgG serves as control that were also treated with the same
conditions. The mixture was centrifuged and pelleted, washed with PBS and finally
solubilized in 250 L NaCl. Free protein and protein bound in
immune complex were determined by colorimetric methods [42]. The affinity
constant was calculated by determining affinity using Langmuir plot [43].
2.7 Statistical analysis
Statistical significance was determined using the student’s t-test
(SPSS Statistic 22, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and normality test was applied. A
p-value of p 0.05 was taken as statistical significance.
3. Results
3.1 Characterization of 16-OHE-ER complex
Incubation of 16-OHE with ER resulted in the formation of high
molecular weight complex that showed less mobility on the SDS-PAGE relative to ER
[44]. Molecular weight of newly synthesized complex is closed to 68 kDa. UV
absorption spectra revealed that 16-OHE-ER demonstrated high
absorbance, which was about 38.3% UV hyperchromicity compared to ER at 280 nm
(Table 2, Ref. [15]).
Table 2.Characterization of 16-OHE-ER adducts and control.
Parameters |
16-OHE-ER Complex |
ER |
Hyperchromacity at 280 nm (%) |
38.3% |
- |
Molecular Weight (kDa) |
68 |
=68 |
Band on SDS-PAGE |
Thick |
Sharp |
Mobility on SDS-PAGE |
Less |
More |
Adapted from [15]. The experiment was done by incubating
16-OHE-ER and ER in 0.1 M potassium phosphate, pH 6.0, containing
1 mol of sodium cyanoborohydride and 0.1% ethanol at 37 C for
48 h. Hyperchromacity of 16-OHE-ER was calculated by measuring OD
of 16-OHE-ER as compared to ER. |
3.2 Antibodies against 16-OHE-ER complexes in the
sera of prostate cancer patients
Serum samples collected from 60 patients and 40 control subjects, were tested
for the presence of antibodies against 16-OHE-ER, ER and
16-OHE by direct binding ELISA. Nearly all the selected sera
demonstrate high binding to 16-OHE-ER in comparison to ER or
16-OHE (p 0.05 or p 0.001). Normal
human sera showed no appreciable binding to either of the antigens (Fig. 1).
Binding specificity was also checked with ER and 16-OHE and it
was found that their binding is less as compared to 16-OHE-ER.
16-OHE did not showed any binding with either antibodies from PC
or normal subjects. In all our experiments we have chosen ER because
this isoform showed better results compared to ER. Competition
ELISA was further used to detect binding specificities of antibodies fromPC to 16-OHE-ER, ER and 16-OHE.
16-OHE-ER showed an inhibition to about 59.8% 7.3%
(37.3%–81.9%) in the antibody activity.
Fig. 1.
Direct binding ELISA of controls and prostate cancer (PC)
patients. Direct binding enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay of control (n = 40)
and PC antibodies (n = 60) to 16-OHE-ER (), ER (░) and
16-OHE (). Microtitre plates were coated with 100 L of
respective antigen (2.5 g/mL). The reaction was developed with
p-nitrophenyl phosphate as the substrate and the absorbance was recorded at 410
nmas described in “Materials and Methods”. Each histogram represents the mean
SD. p 0.001, p 0.001, significantly
higher binding than normal sera and 16-OHE in PC; p
0.05 significantly higher binding than ER in PC.
ER demonstrates less inhibition, that was about 42.3% 5.3%
(15.5%–65.3%) and 16-OHE showed no appreciable inhibition to
antibodies from PC (12.4% 3.9%) (Fig. 2a). The antibodies
from PC were isolated and purified by affinity chromatography on Protein
A-Agarose column (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA). Purity of the isolated IgG from PC
patients was checked by running SDS-PAGE and it was found to be a single
homogenous band on the gel (Fig. 3).
Fig. 2.
Inhibition ELISA of antibodies in PC and control
groups. (a) Inhibition ELISA of anti-(16-OHE-ER, ER,
16-OHE) PC (--, --, --) and
normal (--, --) sera with 16-OHE-ER, ER,
16-OHE. Microtitre plates were coated with respective antigens
(2.5 g/mL). Note: Inhibition values for normal sera with
16-OHE were negligible and are not shown. Significantly
higher inhibition than ER (p 0.05) and 16-OHE
(p 0.001). (b) Inhibition of PC
anti-(16-OHE-ER, ER, 16-OHE) IgG binding to
16-OHE-ER (--), ER (--),
16-OHE (--). (--, --) Represent
the inhibition of Normal anti-16-OHE-ER and ER IgG binding to
16-OHE-ER and ER. Microtitre plates were coated with respective
antigens (2.5 g/mL). Inhibition values for normal IgG with
16-OHE were negligible and are not shown. Significantly
higher inhibition than ER (p 0.05) and 16-OHE (p 0.001).
Fig. 3.
SDS-PAGE of purified IgG on 7.5% polyacrylamide gel (Lane: 1.
Protein Marker (kDa), 2. Purified IgG).
In competition binding assay, 16-OHE-ER shown an inhibition of
about 69.3% 10.3% (41.8%–85.3%) in the antibody activity, while for
ER, it was about 46.3% 3.2% (18.1%–69.8%). The inhibition of PC IgG
was also evaluated with 16-OHE and it was found to about 15.9%
3.9% (Fig. 2b).
Binding specificities of antibodies from PC were also checked according
to various clinical characteristics, they had during the study. Accordingly, we
divided them in eight groups based on what clinical characteristics they had
during the course of the study. Whether the cancer patients are ER positive or
not? PSA less than or greater than 4, 12-OHE/16-OHE ratio
and BMI. Among all, cancer patients who were ER positive showed the highest
inhibition (76.3% 8.9%), followed by patients with smoking (75.8%
5.4%), low 12-OHE/16-OHE ratio (72.4% 7.3%) and PSA
level 4 (71.3% 7.8%) (Table 3). Inhibition values according to
BMI showed that obese and overweight patients have high inhibition values
(75.3% 8.3% and 72.3% 9.8%) and depend on this
parameter. While for other groups such as ER negative, diabetes,
hypertension and herbal medication, PSA 4 and high
12-OHE/16-OHE ratio have no major effects on the inhibition
values (Table 3).
Table 3.Clinical characteristics and immunological data of different
prostate cancer patients.
Prostate cancer patients (n = 60) |
Maximum percent (%) inhibition at 20 g/mL |
16-OHE-ER |
ER |
16-OHE |
Overall |
69.3 10.3 |
46.4 3.2 |
15.9 3.9 |
Estrogen receptor (ER) |
|
|
|
|
Positive (n = 35) |
76.3 8.9 |
52.3 4.5 |
14.9 4.1 |
|
Negative (n = 25) |
67.9 11.3 |
45.8 3.1 |
11.2 3.1 |
Smoking at baseline |
|
|
|
|
Current/Past (n = 36) |
75.8 5.4 |
45.1 8.1 |
13.5 9.1 |
|
Never (n = 24) |
68.3 11.8 |
43.4 3.5 |
11.2 8.1 |
Diabetes medications (n = 22) |
67.3 8.4 |
45.8 4.1 |
14.3 3.1 |
Hypertension medications (n = 25) |
68.5 3.8 |
43.4 5.7 |
13.8 3.4 |
Herbal medications (n = 10) |
67.3 4.9 |
44.3 8.1 |
12.3 6.2 |
PSA (ng/mL) |
|
|
|
|
4 (n = 15) |
69.3 8.9 |
45.3 8.4 |
11.5 4.1 |
|
4 (n = 45) |
71.3 7.8 |
48.4 4.3 |
15.8 3.9 |
2-OHE/16-OHE ratio |
|
|
|
|
High (n = 28) |
67.2 11.4 |
47.4 3.1 |
11.4 3.9 |
|
Low (n = 32) |
72.4 7.3 |
48.5 5.4 |
12.1 8.9 |
BMI (Kg/m) |
|
|
|
|
25 (n = 15) |
68.3 9.4 |
45.8 3.7 |
13.3 1.3 |
|
25–29.9 (n = 36) |
72.3 9.8 |
44.3 8.1 |
14.4 2.9 |
|
30 (n = 9) |
75.3 8.3 |
43 4.2 |
16.9 4.5 |
NH IgG (n = 25) |
8.2 2.6 |
7.9 3.1 |
5.4 1.9 |
The experiments were carried out by incubating ELISA plate with 100 L of
different antigens (2.5 g/mL) as described in “Materials and Methods
section”; mean SD.
NH IgG, normal human IgG.
*p 0.001 & p 0.05, significantly higher inhibition
than NH IgG & ER IgG.
16-OHE-ER as inhibitor, ER as inhibitor,
16-OHE as inhibitor. |
3.3 Affinity of antibodies against 16-OHE-ER in
prostate cancer patients
The antigen-antibody interaction was further characterized by
estimating affinity constant. In this technique, varying amounts of different
antigens (16-OHE-ER, ER and 16-OHE) were treated
with constant amount of PC IgG (100 g, n = 8). Normal human IgG was a
negative control that was also treated with the same conditions. The
data showed that about 24 g of 16-OHE-ER complexes was
bound to about 73 g of PC IgG. With ER, a maximum of 32 g of ER was
bound to about 61 g of cancer IgG. Similarly, with 16-OHE,
a maximum of 35 g of 16-OHE was bound to about 59 g
of PC IgG. Langmuir plot was used to evaluates the apparent association
constant (Fig. 4). The affinity constant of prostate cancer IgG was found to be
of the order of 1.19 10 M, 1.45 10 M and 1.13
10 M for 16-OHE-ER, ER and
16-OHE, respectively. Affinity of PC IgG from the patients was
found to highest for 16-OHE-ER in comparison to ER or
16-OHE.
Fig. 4.
Determination of apparent association constant by Langmuir
plot. Antigens were 16-OHE-ER (--), ER (--)
and 16-OHE (--). Immune complexes were prepared by
incubating 100 g of IgG with varying amounts of different antigens (0–100
g) in an assay volume of 400 L for 2 h at room temperature and
overnight at 4 C. The binding data were analyzed for antibody affinity
as described in “Materials and Methods”. Significantly higher binding
than ER (p 0.05) and 16-OHE (p 0.001).
3.4 Induced antibodies against 16-OHE-ER and their
characterization
The antigencity of 16-OHE-ER with theirsuitable controls were induced in experimental animals (female rabbits). The
16-OHE-ER was found to be highly immunogenic (1 : 25600)
triggering high titer antibodies [44]. Pre-immune sera did not show any binding
to 16-OHE-ER and served as negative control. The titer shown by
ER and 16-OHE was low incomparison to 16-OHE-ER.
In competition ELISA, induced antibodies in the serum showed an inhibition of
about 75.3% in the antibody activity with 16-OHE-ER as an
inhibitor at 20 g/mL and 50% inhibition was achieved at 7.7 g/mL
(Fig. 5a).
Fig. 5.
Inhibition ELISA and immunecross-reactivity of immune IgG
against 16-OHE-ER. (a) Inhibition ELISA of
anti-(16-OHE-ER, ER, 16-OHE) immune sera (, ░,
) and anti-(16-OHE-ER, ER, 16-OHE) IgG binding
to 16-OHE-ER (), ER (░), 16-OHE (). Inhibition
values for pre-immune sera and IgG with 16-OHE-ER, ER,
16-OHE, were negligible and are not shown. Microtire plates were
coated with respective antigens (2.5 g/mL). (b)Immunecross-reactivity of immunized IgG against 16-OHE-ER with
similar molecules. Estimation of immune cross-reactivity of
anti-16-OHE-ER antibodies against 16-OHE-ER
(--), ER (--), 16-OHE(--),
2-OHE(--), progesterone receptor (PR) (),
4-OHE (--).
For ER and 16-OHE, the inhibition values were found to be 71.8%
and 64.3%, respectively and 50% inhibition was achieved at 13.8
g/mL and 17.3 g/mL. The induced IgG was isolated and purified on
protein A-Agarose column and their cross-reactivity was also checked. The
inhibition value for 16-OHE-ER with induced IgG was found to be
95%. While for ER and 16-OHE, it was found to be 91% and 84.3%
(Fig. 5a). Immunocross-reactivity of anti-16-OHE-ER antibodies
was also checked with 16-OHE-ER, ER,
16-OHE, 2-OHE, progesterone receptor (PR), 4-OHE,
just to rule out whether anti-16-OHE-ER antibodies shared common
epitopes on these antigens. The anti-16-OHE-ER antibodies
recognized its own antigen (i.e., 16-OHE-ER) in addition to the
cross-reactivity shown with 16-OHE (Fig. 5b).
Similar is the case for anti-16-OHE antibodies in which these
antibodies showed binding with 16-OHE-ER. As
anti-16-OHE-ER antibodies showed cross-reactivity with
16-OHE, so these antibodies can be used as probe for the
estimation of 16-OHE in the urine of PC patients. The mean value
of 16-hydroxyestrone (16-OHE) was 5.2 ng/g
creatinine, as estimated by anti-16-OHE-ER antibodies,
which is comparable to the value obtained by using a commercially available kit
(5.0 ng/g creatinine) (Table 1). In healthy controls (n = 30), the mean
value of 16-OHE was found to be 4.4 ng/g creatinine.
While, the 2-HE/16-OHE ratio for the prostate
cancer was found to be 1.65.
4. Discussion
Estrogen (and its metabolites) can function as potential agent in the
progression and development of PC [45]. They play a causative role in PC but the
exact mechanism remains unknown. The potential mechanism that can explain the
role of estrogen in PC includes epigenetic modification and estrogenic imprinting
hyperprolectinemia, direct genotoxicity, inflammation and receptor-mediated
actions. Although, estrogen can be used as potential hormonal therapy in PC but
it can also cause this cancer [46]. Estrogen mediated its effect through the
binding to its receptor (ER and ER) in the cells. Both the
receptors for estrogen are expressed in normal prostate. ER is
expressed in the stromal cells and ER is found in the basal cells of
prostate. ER has tumor suppression role in which its expression is
decreased leading to methylation of CpG dinucleotide in the gene [47]. Moreover,
polymorphism in codon 10 of ER is a risk factor for PC [48]. Estrogen
act as causative factor not only through their receptors but also through their
role as genotoxic agent [49]. Estrogen can be oxidized to active
catechol-estrogen metabolites by P450-mediated hydroxylation [50]. These
metabolites lead to the generation of ROS that can damaged DNA and make DNA
adducts [49]. Once DNA get damaged it alters its antigenicity leading to the
generation of autoantibodies in autoimmune diseases [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 44]. P450-mediated
hydroxylation also produced 16-hydroxyestrone metabolites that exert
its effect through binding to its receptor [51]. Elevated levels of urinary
16-OHE were associated with increased risk of prostate cancer [9]
and ER had been expressed in prostate, so there might be a good opportunity to
know the combed effect of 16-OHE and ER on PC. To study this
important phenomenon, the binding affinity of the antibodies from PC
with 16-OHE-ER was measured to check whether this complex
(16-OHE-ER) has any affinity with antibodies from PC.
The binding specificity of antibodies from sera of 60 PC patients and 40 controls
to 16-OHE-ER was checked with direct binding and inhibition
ELISA. This complex showed high binding with almost all the chosen sera compared
to controls (p 0.001). The combination of 16-OHE and
ER exposed specific groups/molecules that can function as good epitopes for the
prostate cancer IgGs. These results showed that 16-OHE-ER can
acts as better inhibitor showing a substantial difference in the binding of
16-OHE-ER over ER (p 0.05) or 16-OHE
(p 0.001). This data is similar to our previous studies from the lab
that showed high binding of 16-OHE and ER adduct by breast cancer
IgGs [44]. Various therapeutic approaches targeting the use of monoclonal
antibodies (Mabs) to prostate specific antigen in PC had been taken into
consideration [52]. These approaches include early detection of PC with the use
of monoclonal antibodies with hormone and chemotherapy [53]. These Mabs in PC
include anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) Mabtrastuzumab,
anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) Mabscetuximab and panituzumab and
the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) Mabbevacizumab [54]. In animal
model, anti-IL-20 monoclonal antibodies suppress PC growth and therefore, can be
a novel target for the treatment of PC [55]. The presence or high level of serum
antibodies against genitouring pathogens was not associated with PC [55].
The specificities of antibodies from PC were also tested according to
various clinical characteristics in PC patients. Among them, those PC patients
who expressed ER showed the highest inhibition followed by those cancer patients
who had history of smoking, low 2-OHE/16-OHE ratio and PSA
level 4. As mention already, ER and ER are expressed
in prostate tissues and they are present in prostate during carcinogenesis [27].
Such binding might be observed because these patients already had antibodies
against ER, which in combination of 16-OHE, generate more
immunological response. Cigarette smoking may increase the risk of PC by
effecting circulatory hormone or through exposure to various carcinogens [56]. It
might be possible that smoking increases the concentration of
16-OHE in these cancer patients that come in contact with ER,
makes a complex and thus generate antibodies against this complex and showed high
binding. As far as the high binding of patients with low
2-OHE/16-OHE ratio is concern, low ratio means high
concentration of 16-OHE, which is an active estrogen metabolite
and elevated urinary level have been associated with increased risk for PC [9].
Estrogen metabolites such as 16-OHE involved in the release of
inflammatory mediators from the human amnion-derived cells [57] and somehow
linked to inflammation. Again, high binding is due to the autoantibodies
produced during inflammatory conditions. High binding in patients with PSA level
4 might be due to prostatitis or urinary tract infections, in which its
concentration has been dramatically increased. The inhibition values gradually
increased according to different stages and grades of PC indicating that more
antibodies are produced as the PC progresses [58]. In addition, depression
augments the production of antibodies against 16-OHE-ER complex
in prostate cancer patients [58]. Depression increased the production of
antibodies through the generation of pro-inflammatory conditions in these
patients.
To further confirmed the recognition of 16-OHE-ER complex by
antibodies from PC, we determined the affinity of antibodies by quantitative
precipitin titration. The affinity constant of the order of 10 M clearly
demonstrates high recognition of this complex by PC antibodies. The high
recognition of 16-OHE-ER complex by PC IgGs indicates possible
participation of 16-OHE-ER complex in prostate cancer
pathogenesis. Studies have shown that estrogen metabolites (including
16-OHE) are present in tissues, bile, urine and blood [7]. The
production of antibodies in prostate cancer might arise as a result of formation
of 16-OHE-ER complex. Therefore, it could be possible that
16-OHE-ER complex might be one of the important factors toward
the generation of antibodies in prostate cancer. The induced antibodies showed
cross-reactivity towards other antigens (i.e., anti-16-OHE-ER
with 16-OHE and anti-16-OHE antibodies with
16-OHE-ER). Because anti-16-OHE-ER antibodies
showed cross-reactivity with 16-OHE, these antibodies can be used
as immunochemical probe for the estimation of 16-OHE in PC
patients. These antibodies (i.e., anti-16-OHE-ER antibodies) were
also used to determined 2-OHE/16-OHE ratio in PC patients.
The proposed mechanism for the generation of antibodies in PC includes the
production of antibodies against 16-OHE-ER through the formation
of 16-OHE-ER complex. 16-OHE and ER bind to each
other to formed 16-OHE-ER complex in prostate tissues. Formation
of complex modified its immunogenicity leading to the generation and elevated
levels of PC antibodies (Fig. 6). We strongly recommended to use other techniques
like western blotting and immunohistochemistry of the cancer patient’s samples to
confirmed their systemic level and in the tissue. This would help us to know
their levels in the serum to compare with in the tissues of the cancer patients.
Fig. 6.
The proposed mechanism for the production of high affinity
antibodies in prostate cancer (PC) patients.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, our data clearly demonstrates the possible antigenic role of
16-OHE-ER in the generation of antibodies in PC patients. Results
imply that combination of 16-OHE and ER generates discriminating
epitopes, which were highly recognized by PC IgG. Anti-16-OHE-ER
antibodies shown to represent an alternate immunological probe for the estimation
of 16-OHE and 2-OHE/16-OHE ratio in the
urine of different PC patients, although we recommended to generate monoclonal
antibodies-based probe for more specificity and accuracy.
Abbreviations
16-OHE, 16-hydroxyestrone; PC, prostate cancer; ER,
estrogen receptor; 2-OHE, 2-hydroxyestrone; 16-OHE-ER,
16-hydroxyestrone-estrogen receptor; ELISA, enzyme linked
immunosorbent assay; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; SDS-PAGE, sodium dodecyl
sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis.
Author contributions
WAK conceived, designed, performed the experiments and wrote the paper; MWAK
performed the experiments and analyzed the data.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Prior consent from all the subjects was taken and finally, this study was
approved by the Institutional Ethical Review Board (Deanship of scientific
Research, KKU, 1/53/39).
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Sam A. Mark for his help and support. We are greatly thankful
to him for reviewing the English language for this manuscript work.
Funding
The research was funded by Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid
University, grant number R.G.P.1/53/39.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.