Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Article

Disruption of Androgen and Estrogen Receptor Activity in Prostate Cancer by a Novel Dietary Diterpene Carnosol: Implications for Chemoprevention

Jeremy J. Johnson, Deeba N. Syed, Yewseok Suh, Chenelle R. Heren, Mohammad Saleem, Imtiaz A. Siddiqui and Hasan Mukhtar
Jeremy J. Johnson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deeba N. Syed
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yewseok Suh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chenelle R. Heren
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mohammad Saleem
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Imtiaz A. Siddiqui
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hasan Mukhtar
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0168 Published September 2010
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    A, chemical structures of DHT, E2, and carnosol. B, crystal structures of AR and ER bound to DHT and E2, respectively, were acquired from the protein database bank (www.rcsb.org) and the native ligand was removed and replaced with carnosol. C, the PCa cell lines LNCaP and 22Rv1 and breast cancer cell line MCF7 that express both AR and ER-α were treated with carnosol for 48 h and evaluated for cell viability using an MTT assay. D, cells were grown to 60% to 70% confluence and treated with or without carnosol (40 μmol/L) for 48 h. The effect of carnosol on cellular morphology in LNCaP and MCF7 cells can be visualized.

  • Fig. 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2.

    A, TR-FRET AR competitive binding assay with carnosol. B, TR-FRET ER-α competitive binding assay with carnosol. A 100× stock concentration of carnosol in 100% DMSO was diluted to 4× concentration (4% DMSO) in assay buffer and challenged with a control competitor. C, to verify if carnosol is an inhibitor of native ligand-binding properties (i.e., antagonist) or binding properties (i.e., agonist), we stimulated AR-UAS-bla GripTite HEK293 cells with R1881, a known agonist of AR, using cells that express the LBD of AR. A standard curve was done using an agonist (R1881) and an antagonist (cyproterone acetate). The EC50 of R1881 was 0.127 nmol/L and the EC50 of cyproterone acetate was 11.5 nmol/L. The standard curve for R1881 was done in triplicate spanning 10 doses ranging from 0.001 to 30 nmol/L. The standard curve for cyproterone acetate was done in triplicate spanning 10 doses ranging from 0.1 nmol/L to 3 μmol/L. D, to verify if carnosol is an inhibitor of native ligand-binding properties (i.e., antagonist) or binding properties (i.e., agonist), we stimulated ER-α-UAS-bla GripTite HEK293 cells with E2, a known agonist of ER-α, using cells that express the LBD of ER-α. A standard curve was done using an agonist (E2) and an antagonist (4-hydroxytamoxifen). The EC50 of E2 was 0.027 nmol/L and the EC50 of 4-hydroxytamoxifen was 1.77 nmol/L. The standard curve for E2 was done in triplicate spanning 10 doses ranging from 0.0002 to 10 nmol/L. The standard curve for 4-hydroxytamoxifen was done in triplicate spanning 10 doses ranging from 0.002 to 100 nmol/L.

  • Fig. 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3.

    Cells were grown to 60% to 70% confluence and treated with carnosol up to 24 h, and whole-cell lysates were prepared. Protein (40 μg) was subjected to SDS-PAGE followed by Western blot analysis and chemiluminescence detection as described in Materials and Methods. Equal loading of protein was confirmed by stripping the immunoblot and reprobing it for β-actin. A, LNCaP, 22Rv1, and MCF7 cells were treated with carnosol for 24 h and whole-cell lysates were collected and prepared as described in Materials and Methods. Intracellular protein expression of AR, ER-α, and PSA was evaluated by Western blot after carnosol treatment. B, LNCaP cells were treated with cycloheximide, carnosol, or carnosol/cycloheximide, and whole-cell lysates were prepared as described above with lysates collected at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h. AR, ER-α, and PSA intracellular protein expression was evaluated by Western blot analysis.

  • Fig. 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4.

    A and B, LNCaP cells were transiently transfected with an ∼6-kb AR promoter-luciferase reporter plasmid in a pGL3-Basic vector or an ∼5.8-kb ER-α promoter-luciferase reporter plasmid in a pGL2-Basic vector. Eighteen hours after transfection, cells were treated with DMSO (vehicle) or 30 μmol/L carnosol and analyzed for luciferase activity after 24-h treatment with carnosol. Columns, mean of three individual samples; bars, SD. *, P < 0.01. C and D, LNCaP cells were grown in chamber slides at 100,000 per chamber overnight and treated with carnosol (30 μmol/L) for 24 h. For labeling, anti-AR antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology) and Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen) were used as primary and secondary antibodies after 24-h carnosol treatment, respectively. For labeling, anti-ER-α (Cell Signaling Technology) and Alexa Fluor 594 goat anti-mouse IgG were used after 24-h treatment. DAPI was used to counterstain the nucleus.

  • Fig. 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5.

    A, PrECs were treated with DMSO (i.e., vehicle control), carnosol (30 μmol/L), flutamide (30 μmol/L), or tamoxifen (30 μmol/L). Phase-contrast images at ×40 magnification were taken 48 h after treatment. B, PrEC cells were treated with increasing concentrations of carnosol, tamoxifen, or flutamide, and MTT assay was done to determine the effect on cell viability. Columns, mean of three individual samples; bars, SD. C, cleaved (activated) caspase-3 was detected by ELISA. 22Rv1 cells were treated with vehicle, carnosol (30 μmol/L), and carnosol (60 μmol/L) for 24 h, and protocol was followed per the manufacturer's directions. Columns, mean of three individual samples; bars, SD. *, P < 0.01, carnosol-treated samples versus control. D, LNCaP cells were grown to 60% to 70% confluence and medium was replaced containing carnosol, flutamide, and tamoxifen, or combinations of carnosol/flutamide, carnosol/tamoxifen, or flutamide/tamoxifen. Total cell lysates were prepared, and 40 μg protein was subjected to SDS-PAGE followed by Western blot analysis. Equal loading of protein was confirmed by stripping the immunoblot and reprobing it for β-actin.

  • Fig. 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 6.

    Effect of carnosol on 22Rv1 tumor growth and PSA secretion in athymic nude mice. Fourteen animals were s.c. injected in each flank of the mouse with ∼1 × 106 22Rv1 cells to initiate tumor growth. The animals were divided into two cohorts, with seven animals in each cohort receiving either cottonseed oil (control) or carnosol. Twenty-four hours after cell implantation, the animals in cohort 1 received cottonseed oil (100 μL) by oral gavage five times weekly and served as control. The animals in cohort 2 received carnosol (30 mg/kg) by oral gavage in cottonseed oil five times weekly. Once tumors started to grow, tumors were measured three times weekly and tumor volumes were calculated. A, body weights were recorded 5 d weekly and plotted over days after tumor cell inoculation. B, the average tumor volume of control and carnosol-treated mice was plotted over days after tumor cell inoculation. Points, mean of 14 tumors in seven mice; bars, SD. *, P < 0.05. C, representative tumors of control and carnosol-treated mice. Total cell lysates were prepared, and 10 μg protein was subjected to SDS-PAGE followed by Western blot analysis. Equal loading of protein was confirmed by stripping the immunoblot and reprobing it for β-actin. D, serum PSA levels were analyzed by ELISA at the conclusion of the study. Columns, mean of seven animals per cohort; bars, SD. *, P < 0.01.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Prevention Research: 3 (9)
September 2010
Volume 3, Issue 9
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Prevention Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Disruption of Androgen and Estrogen Receptor Activity in Prostate Cancer by a Novel Dietary Diterpene Carnosol: Implications for Chemoprevention
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Prevention Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Prevention Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Disruption of Androgen and Estrogen Receptor Activity in Prostate Cancer by a Novel Dietary Diterpene Carnosol: Implications for Chemoprevention
Jeremy J. Johnson, Deeba N. Syed, Yewseok Suh, Chenelle R. Heren, Mohammad Saleem, Imtiaz A. Siddiqui and Hasan Mukhtar
Cancer Prev Res September 1 2010 (3) (9) 1112-1123; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0168

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Disruption of Androgen and Estrogen Receptor Activity in Prostate Cancer by a Novel Dietary Diterpene Carnosol: Implications for Chemoprevention
Jeremy J. Johnson, Deeba N. Syed, Yewseok Suh, Chenelle R. Heren, Mohammad Saleem, Imtiaz A. Siddiqui and Hasan Mukhtar
Cancer Prev Res September 1 2010 (3) (9) 1112-1123; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0168
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Lifestyle and genetic risk and colorectal neoplasms
  • Targeting CD40 and PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibits OPL Progression to OSCC
  • Screening for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Prevention Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Prevention Research
eISSN: 1940-6215
ISSN: 1940-6207

Advertisement