Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Lactate dehydrogenase-B is silenced by promoter hypermethylation in human prostate cancer

Abstract

In order to identify novel candidates associated with prostate cancer metastasis, we compared the proteomic profile of the poorly metastatic human prostate cancer cell line LNCaP, with its highly metastatic variant LNCaP-LN3, by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. A major protein spot (pI of 5.9 and molecular weight of 37 kDa) was seen in LNCaP cells, but not in LNCaP-LN3 cells and was identified as lactate dehydrogenase-B (LDHB), by tandem mass spectrometry. Furthermore, enzyme kinetic assays and zymography showed a higher LDH enzyme activity in LNCaP cells compared with LNCaP-LN3. Bisulphite-modified DNA sequencing showed promoter hypermethylation in LNCaP-LN3 cells but not in LNCaP, Du145, PC3, CWR22 or BPH45 cells. Treatment of LNCaP-LN3 cells with 5′-azacytidine caused re-expression of LDHB transcripts. In tissues, LDHB promoter hypermethylation occurred at a higher frequency in prostate cancer, 14/ 31 (45%), compared to adjacent nonmalignant or benign tissue, 2/19 (11%) (P<0.025). Immunohistochemistry showed a higher frequency of LDHB expression in benign or non-malignant tissues, 59/ 73 (81%), compared to cancer cases, 3/53 (6%) (P<0.001). Absent LDHB expression was also seen in 7/7 (100%) cases of metastatic cancer in bone. Our data are the first to show loss of LDHB expression in prostate cancer, the mechanism of which appears to involve promoter hypermethylation.

Introduction

Prostate cancer is among the most commonly diagnosed cancers in men and is the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths (Greenlee et al., 2000; Gronberg, 2003). While certain tumours are slow growing and usually do not impact on patient survival, other tumours unpredictably develop into incurable metastatic disease (Chodak et al., 1994; Hamdy, 2001; Bhandari et al., 2005).

The molecular mechanisms underlying prostate cancer metastasis are poorly understood, partly because of the lack of reliable in vivo models. In an effort to develop better models for the study of prostate cancer metastasis, Pettaway et al. (1996), established metastatic variants by successive orthotopic implantation of the LNCaP cell line into the prostates of nude mice (Horoszewicz et al., 1980). One of the variants, LNCaP-LN3, had significantly higher incidences of lymph node and liver metastasis.

Recent advances in ‘proteomics’, the large-scale characterization of the protein complement of cells, tissues, fluids, etc., offers a promising approach for the identification of novel proteins associated with disease development (Banks et al., 2000; Graves and Haystead, 2002). Although previous proteomic studies on prostate cancer have identified a number of alterations associated with the development of cancer (Ahram et al., 2002; Meehan et al., 2002; Schulz et al., 2003; Cheung et al., 2004), studies aimed specifically at identifying protein alterations associated with the metastatic progression are limited. A recent study has compared the protein profile of a highly metastatic human prostate cancer cell line M12 with its poorly tumorigenic variant M12(F6), and identified a reduced level of vimentin in the poorly tumorigenic variant (Liu et al., 2003).

The aim of the present study was to identify novel protein targets associated with the metastatic progression of human prostate cancer using comparative proteomics on isogenetic prostate cancer cell lines with a low (LNCaP) and high (LNCaP-LN3) metastatic potential. Our findings and their significance are discussed.

Results

LDHB protein and mRNA is absent in LNCaP-LN3 but expressed in LNCaP cells

Image analysis comparisons of the 2D-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) gels displaying the protein profiles of the LNCaP and LNCaP-LN3 cells showed remarkable similarities with regards to ‘on/off’ differences. However, a major protein seen as a spot with a pI of 5.9 and a molecular mass of 37 kDa was reproducibly found to be absent in LNCaP-LN3 cells relative to LNCaP cells (Figure 1). MALDI-TOF-MS and ESI-MS/MS analyses of the protein spot identified it as being LDHB (gene identifier 4557032) (Figure 2). ESI-MS/MS data gave a probability score of 701, with 49% sequence coverage and 17 peptides matched. The expression of LDHB protein by LNCaP cells but not in LNCaP-LN3 cells was also validated by 2D Western blotting (Figure 3). Furthermore, direct sequencing of the RT–PCR product confirmed the presence of LDHB transcripts in the LNCaP cell line, but barely detectable levels in LNCaP-LN3 cells (Figure 4).

Figure 1
figure1

Cropped images of the silver-stained 2D gels from the poorly metastatic (LNCaP) and the highly metastatic (LNCaP-LN3) cell lines. Note the presence of a protein spot (corresponding to LDHB) in the LNCaP cell line but its absence in the LNCaP-LN3 cell line (arrow heads).

Figure 2
figure2

Identification of LDHB by MALDI-TOF and ESI tandem mass spectrometry analyses. (a) MALDI TOF-MS spectrum obtained of the protein spot shown in Figure 1. Eighteen peptides were matched giving a Mowse score of 136, where protein scores greater than 63 are significant (P<0.05). (b) ESI-MS/MS of the same protein spot showing the peptides matched (bold red), and 49% sequence coverage of the LDHB protein sequence in the database.

Figure 3
figure3

2D Western blots of LNCaP and LNCaP-LN3 cells, probing with the goat anti-LDH antibody (Abcam). Note the presence of LDHB protein in the LNCaP cells (arrow head), but its absence in the LNCaP-LN3 cells. Although the antibody is reactive to both the LDHA and LDHB isoenzymes, the LDHA isoenzyme is not detected since it has a pI of 9.0, which is well outside the pH range of the IPG strips used (4–7).

Figure 4
figure4

RT–PCR analysis for LDHB mRNA expression in LNCaP and LNCaP-LN3 cells. LDHB mRNA expression is seen in the LNCaP cells (lane 1), but is absent/ barely detectable in the LNCaP-LN3 cells (lane 2). Treatment of LNCaP-LN3 cells with a 1 μ M dose of the demethylating agent 5′-azacytidine for 5 days caused re-expression of LDHB-specific transcripts (lane 3). GAPDH was used as a loading and PCR control.

LDHB promoter is hypermethylated in LNCaP-LN3 but not LNCaP cells

Hypermethylation of CpG sites within the promoter region of tumour suppressor genes is a widely accepted mechanism associated with gene silencing (Das and Singal, 2004; Li et al., 2005). In order to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying the loss of LDHB expression in the LNCaP-LN3 cell line, we sequenced the LDHB promoter region using previously published primers (Maekawa et al., 2003), or using primer pair LDH-B-Fwd2/ LDH-B-Rev2 (Figure 5). This region selected for amplification has previously been related to promoter activity (Takeno and Li, 1989; Maekawa et al., 2003). Sequencing of the LDHB promoter region showed an absence of promoter hypermethylation in the LDHB-expressing LNCaP cells, whereas promoter hypermethylation was present in the nonexpressing LNCaP-LN3 cells (Figure 6a). LDHB promoter hypermethylation was also absent in Du145, PC3 and CWR22 prostate cancer cell lines and in the BPH45 cell line derived from a patient with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (Klingler et al., 1999).

Figure 5
figure5

CpG map of the studied region of the LDHB promoter. This map is based on published sequences (GenBank Accession number X13794) and shows the bisulphite-modified DNA sequence. The primers used for amplification and their respective positions are shown relative to the ATG start site, which was designated +1. A total of 28 CpG sites were sequenced and are shown with bold underline.

Figure 6
figure6

Representative chromatogram sequences of the LDHB promoter region using primer pair LDH-B-Fwd2/ LDH-B-Rev2. Two sites of CpG methylation (arrows) are shown in the LNCaP-LN3 cell line (a) and in a case of prosate cancer tissue (b). CpG methylation was not seen in BPH tissue (c).

Restoration of LDHB mRNA expression by 5′-azacytidine treatment

We next tested the ability of the DNA methyltransferase inhibitor, 5′-azacytidine (Das and Singal, 2004) to restore LDHB mRNA expression in the LNCaP-LN3 cell line. LNCaP-LN3 cells were treated with the demethylating agent 5′-azacytidine for 5 days and the expression of LDHB mRNA was determined by RT–PCR analysis. Following RT–PCR, re-expression of LDHB mRNA transcripts was seen in the treated LNCaP-LN3 cells (Figure 4).

LNCaP-LN3 cells have a lower overall LDH enzyme activity

To determine whether the loss of LDHB subunit seen in the LNCaP-LN3 cells affected overall LDH enzyme activity, kinetic enzyme assays were performed using the cytosolic protein fractions from the LNCaP and LNCaP-LN3 cells. These data showed that the initial rate of reaction for LNCaP cells was 23.8 absorbance units/g of protein, and for LNCaP-LN3 cells was 13.3 absorbance units/g of protein (data not shown). Thus, in LNCaP cells, the initial rate of reaction was 1.78 (23.8/13.3) times higher than that of LNCaP-LN3.

LDH isoenzyme patterns in prostate cancer cell lines

In order to determine the isoenzyme patterns in the LNCaP and LNCaP-LN3 cell lines, we performed LDH zymography as described in the Materials and methods. As expected, LNCaP-LN3 cells predominantly showed expression of the LDH-5 isoenzyme (LDH-A4), with a weaker expression of the LDH-4 (LDH-A3B1) isoenzyme, but no detectable levels of LDH isoenzymes LDH-1 (LDH-B4), LDH-2 (LDH-A1B3) or LDH-3 (LDH-A2B2), (Figure 7). In contrast, LNCaP cells showed expression of LDH isoenzymes -2, -3, -4 and -5. The finding of the LDH-4 isoenzyme in LNCaP-LN3 cells was most likely due to the expression of very low levels of LDH-B by a subpopultion of LNCaP-LN3 cells.

Figure 7
figure7

Zymogram of LDH isoenzyme patterns in human prostate cancer cell lines. Note the relatively high expression of isoenzymes LDH-5, -4, -3 and -2 in LNCaP cells (lane 1), but expression of only LDH-5 and -4 in the LNCaP-LN3 cell line (lane 2). Equal amounts of protein were loaded for each of the two cell lines and performed in triplicate. Expression of all five isoenzymes LDH-1, -2, -3, -4 and -5 can be seen in mouse heart (Ht), used as a positive control.

LDHB promoter hypermethylation is frequent in human prostate cancer

Sequencing of bisulphite-modified DNA extracted from tissues showed promoter hypermethylation in 14/31 (45%) cases of prostatic adenocarcinoma (Figure 6b) and 1/2 cases of metastatic cancer in bone. In contrast, methylation was seen in only 2/14 (14%) cases of adjacent nonmalignant epithelium, but not in any of the five cases of BPH tissues analysed (Figure 6c). The difference in the frequency of methylation between cancer and nonmalignant or BPH tissues was statistically significant (P<0.025, χ2).

Immunohistochemical expression of LDHB protein in human prostate

To assess the expression of LDHB protein in tissues, we performed immunohistochemistry on BPH, adjacent nonmalignant, premalignant, malignant and metastatic tissues arranged onto tissue microarrays. In nonmalignant or BPH tissue, LDHB staining was localized predominantly in the cytoplasm of basal cells with weaker staining of the luminal cells (Figure 8). Expression was seen in 59/73 (81%) cases of BPH and nonmalignant tissues, whereas in cancer tissues 50/53 (94%) cases showed absent expression, while the remainder 3/53 (6%) cases of cancer showed strong expression (Figure 8). The expression of LDHB in nonmalignant or BPH tissue, but absent expression in cancer tissue was statistically significant (P<0.001). Absent expression was seen in 7/7 (100%) cases of metastatic cancer in bone and 3/5 (60%) cases of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia lesions (HG-PIN).

Figure 8
figure8

Immunostaining for LDHB protein in benign and malignant prostate tissues using the anti-LDH-B-specific mouse monoclonal antibody (Sigma). (a) Nonmalignant tissue showing strong LDHB protein expression in the cytoplasm of basal cells with weaker expression in the luminal cells. (b) Adenocarcinoma showing complete absence of LDHB protein expression within the malignant cells. (c) An infrequent case of adenocarcinoma showing intense LDHB protein expression within malignant cells.

Discussion

In an effort to identify novel proteins associated with prostate cancer metastasis, we performed comparative 2D-PAGE analysis on a poorly metastatic cell line (LNCaP) and its highly metastatic variant (LNCaP-LN3). Remarkably, the two cell lines showed virtually identical protein expression profiles with respect to ‘on/off’ changes. Possible reasons for this were that our protein extraction protocol selectively enriched for the cytosolic protein fraction. Furthermore, only proteins with a isoelectric point (pI), within the range 4–7 were resolved in the first dimension, thus proteins with a pI outside this range were not represented on the 2D gels. Nevertheless, a single protein spot with a pI of 5.9 and a molecular mass of 37 kDa was seen to be present in the poorly metastatic LNCaP cells, but was absent in the highly metastatic LNCaP-LN3 cells. Subsequent peptide mass fingerprint analyses identified this to be LDH subunit B, and its identity was further confirmed by 2D Western blotting and sequencing of the RT–PCR product. Thus, our data suggest that the LDHB subunit represents a candidate protein whose loss of expression may be associated with the metastatic progression of human prostate cancer.

Support for the involvement of LDHB in metastasis comes from a recent proteomic study showing downregulation of the LDHB subunit in a highly metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma cell strain (MHCC97-H) compared to a strain with a lower metastatic potential (MHCC97-L) (Ding et al., 2004). In addition to the involvement of LDHB in tumour metastasis, other studies have shown that it may be involved in the development of prostate cancer. For instance, measurements of LDH isoenzymes in prostatic fluid from patients with and without prostate cancer have shown a higher LDH-5/LDH-1 ratio in the prostatic fluid from patients with prostatic malignancy compared to patients with BPH (Grayhack et al., 1980). Taken together, our data suggest that loss of the LDHB subunit may play a role both in the development and metastatic progression of human prostate cancer.

LDH isoenzymes catalyse the interconversion of lactate and pyruvate in the glycolytic pathway and are key mediators of glycolysis (Holbrook et al., 1975). In mammals, two genes code for two LDH subunits; LDHA and LDHB. These subunits associate and give rise to five tetrameric forms of LDH isoenzymes: LDH-A4 (LDH-5), LDH-A3B1 (LDH-4), LDH-A2B2 (LDH-3), LDH-A1B3 (LDH-2) and LDHB4 (LDH-1) (Markert et al., 1975). Our finding of absent LDHB expression in a high frequency of prostate cancers and in the LNCaP-LN3 cell line could explain a number of key observations relating to the altered cellular metabolism and tumour behaviour seen in prostate and other cancers. For instance, previous studies have shown that malignant transformation is associated with an increase in glycolytic flux and increased cellular lactate excretion (Walenta and Mueller-Klieser, 2004; Walenta et al., 2004). Thus, loss of LDHB in prostate cancer cells is expected to eliminate LDH isoenzymes 1–4, leaving only the LDH-5 (LDH-A4) isoenzyme, the isoenzyme with the highest efficiency to catalyse the conversion of pyruvate to lactate, particularly under hypoxic conditions (Shim et al., 1997; Maekawa et al., 2003; Walenta and Mueller-Klieser, 2004; Walenta et al., 2004; Koukourakis et al., 2005). Other studies have shown that high tumour lactate levels can enhance the in vitro migration and invasion of cancer cells (Martinez-Zaguilan et al., 1996; Shi et al., 2001; Stern et al., 2002). Furthermore, the production of lactate in solid malignant tumours has been correlated with a high incidence of distant metastasis (Brizel et al., 2001). Although using the in vitro kinetic enzyme assay and zymography we showed a lower overall LDH enzyme activity in the LNCaP-LN3 variant compared to LNCaP cells, these results may not represent the in vivo scenario, where tumour cells frequently encounter hypoxic conditions (Vaupel and Harrison, 2004). Furthermore, the role of other factors such as HIF-1, a well-characterized hypoxia inducible gene that is known to upregulate LDHA levels under hypoxic conditions, cannot be appreciated in vitro (Firth et al., 1995; Semenza et al., 1996). Further studies, utilizing in vivo models, are required to elucidate the exact mechanism by which loss of LDHB contributes to tumour progression.

Numerous studies have shown that hypermethylation of normally unmethylated CpG dinucleotides located in a gene promoter is associated with gene silencing at the transcriptional level (Das and Singal, 2004; Li et al., 2005). A previous study has reported LDHB promoter hypermethylation in 3/20 (7%) of gastric cancer tissues but not in the corresponding healthy mucosa (Maekawa et al., 2003). However, our finding of LDHB promoter hypermethylation in 45% of human prostate cancers, but rarely in nonmalignant or benign tissues suggests that LDHB methylation is a frequent event associated with the development of prostate cancer. Interestingly, by immunohistochemistry, 14/73 (9%) of adjacent nonmalignant or benign tissues showed absent LDHB expression. This finding could indicate epigenetic silencing of LDHB at a very early stage of tumorigenesis, well before the development of any histological changes. Although another mechanism underlying the loss of LDHB could involve chromosome loss of heterozygosity, this mechanism is unlikely since previous cytogenetic and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) studies on the LNCaP-LN3 and other prostate cancer cell lines did not detect alterations affecting chromosome 12p12.2–p12.1, to where the LDHB gene maps (Rethore et al., 1976; Chu et al. 2001).

In summary, our data have demonstrated the feasibility of using 2D-PAGE followed by mass spectrometry in an in vivo model of human metastatic prostate cancer to identify candidate protein(s) associated with tumorigenesis. The mechanism underlying the loss of LDHB protein expression appears to involve promoter hypermethylation. Thus, the role of LDHB promoter hypermethylation and the consequences of loss of protein expression warrants further investigation in prostate and other cancers.

Materials and methods

Patient material

Archived paraffin-embedded tissues obtained by radical prostatectomy, cystoprostatectomy or prostatic resection from patients attending the Academic Urology unit, University of Sheffield were used. Cases of metastatic prostate cancer in bone were collected by 8 mm trephine under general anaesthesia. For sequencing of the LDHB gene promoter region, 31 cases of prostatic adenocarcinoma, 14 cases of matched nonmalignant tissues, two cases of metastatic cancer in bone and five cases of BPH were used. Tumour Gleason grades were: 2 (n=3); 3 (n=8); 4 (n=15) or 5 (n=5) (Table 1). For immunohistochemistry, tissue microarrays comprising 53 cases of prostatic adenocarcinoma of various Gleason grades (2–5); 40 cases of matched nonmalignant tissue, seven cases of metastatic cancer in bone, five cases of HG-PIN lesions and 33 cases of BPH were used. Twenty-eight of the 31 cases of adenocarcinoma used for sequencing were also used for immunohistochemistry (Table 1). Prior local ethics committee approval and informed patient consent was obtained.

Table 1 Summary of the prostate cancers sequenced and immunostained

Cell lines and culture

The human prostate cancer cell lines LNCaP, Du145 and PC3 were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA, USA). The LNCaP-LN3 metastatic variant of the LNCaP cell line was kindly provided by Dr Curtis Pettaway (University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Centre) (Pettaway et al., 1996). The CWR22 prostatic cancer xenograft was passaged under UK Home Office regulations as described previously (Rehman et al., 2005). The BPH45 cell line derived from a patient with BPH has been described previously (Klingler et al., 1999).

Tissue microdissection and DNA extraction

Tissues were precisely microdissected by removing 0.6 mm cylindrical cores to a depth of 2–3 mm from relevant malignant, nonmalignant and benign areas of the paraffin blocks as previously described (Rehman et al., 2005), and the DNA was extracted according to previously published methods (Rehman et al., 1996).

Two-dimensional PAGE

LNCaP and LNCaP-LN3 cell lines were cultured to 90% confluence in T175 flasks. Cytosolic protein fractions were prepared using the NER-pierce cell lysis kit according to the manufacturer's instructions (Pierce, Northumberland, UK), with the addition of COMPLETE EDTA-freeTM protease inhibitor mixture (Roche Diagnostics, East Sussex, UK). The protein concentration was determined using the Coomassie G-250 protein assay (Pierce, Northumberland, UK), according to supplied instructions.

Analytical and preparative 2D-PAGE gels were performed as previously detailed (Allen et al., 2003; Rehman et al., 2004a). Analytical gels were scanned using a Powerlook III scanner (UMax, Ascot, UK) and analysed using the Phoretix two-dimensional software (Nonlinear Dynamics, Newcastle, UK). For the purpose of this study, only those protein expression differences seen as ‘on–off’ differences were scored.

MALDI-TOF-MS and ESI-MS/MS analyses

MALDI-TOF-MS and ESI-MS/MS analyses were performed using the commercially available Protein and Nucleic Acid Chemistry (PNAC) facility at the University of Cambridge, UK (http://www.bioc.cam.ac.uk/pnac/pnac.html), according to previously published methods (Himpel et al., 2001). Database searches were performed using the Mascot Software (Matrix Science, London, UK) to search the Swiss Prot/TrEMBL (www.ca.expasy.org) and NCBI (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) databases.

Two-dimensional Western blotting

Proteins were extracted from prostate cancer cell lines using the Mammalian cell lysis kit (Sigma-Aldrich, Dorset, UK) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Protein extracts (100 μg each) were resolved in two-dimensions as described above and the gel was trimmed to include the region of interest. The proteins were then blotted onto immobilon PVDF transfer membranes for 1 h at 65 V. Blots were then blocked using 5% nonfat milk for 1 h, then incubated with a 1:2000 dilution of the polyclonal goat anti-human LDH antibody (Code ab2101, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), overnight at 4°C. After incubation with horseradish peroxidase-conjugated anti-goat secondary antibody at a 1:30 000 dilution (Dako, Cambridge, UK), the membranes were developed by DuraWest substrate detection kit (Pierce) and exposed to an X-ray film. Anti-actin antibody (Sigma-Aldrich, Dorset, UK) was used as a protein loading control.

RNA extraction

RNA was extracted using TRI reagent (Sigma-Aldrich, Dorset, UK) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After precipitation, the pellet was washed three times with 75% ethanol. All RNA was quantified spectrophotometrically.

cDNA synthesis and LDHB reverse transcription PCR

RNA (2 μg) was reverse transcribed into cDNA using a reverse transcription kit (Invitrogen, Paisley, UK), with 250 ng of random primers according to the manufacturer's instructions. For LDHB RT–PCR, primers were designed manually using the LDHB transcript sequence from the Ensembl genome browser (ENST00000350669). The sequence of the forward primer was (5′ –3′): IndexTermTTGTGGTTTCCAACCCAGTGGACA (LDHB-F-RT1, mapping across exons 4–5) and the reverse primer was: IndexTermAAAATCCATCCATGGCAGCTGCTG (LDHB-R-RT1, mapping within exon 5). RT–PCR was performed using 20 pmol of each primer in 20 μl volumes as described previously (Rehman et al., 2005).

Sequencing of bisulphite-modified DNA and primer design

For sequencing of the LDHB promoter, two primer pairs were used. The sequences of the first primer pair were those previously published which gave a 282 bp PCR product with 14 CpG sites (Maekawa et al., 2003) (Figure 5). The second primer pair was designed using the methprimer web tool (http://www.urogene.org/methprimer), by importing the LDHB promoter sequence (GenBank accession no. X13794). The primer sequences were (5′–3′): IndexTermTTTGGTTTATAGGTAAGTTTGATGG (LDH-B-Fwd2) and IndexTermACTACTACCCTCTACCTTCTACTCCTC (LDH-B-Rev2) (Figure 5). The relative position of the LDH-B-Fwd2 primer was –3015 to –3039 and that of the LDH-B-Rev2 primer was –2843 to −2869, designating the ATG translation start site as +1. The 197 bp PCR product contained 14 CpG sites. The promoter region selected for sequence analysis has been shown to be related to promoter activity (Maekawa et al., 2003; Takeno and Li, 1989). All primers were purchased from MWG (www.mwg-biotech.com).

Sodium bisulphate-modified DNA was sequenced as previously described (Rehman et al., 2005) and the chromatograms were visualized using the Chromas software (http://www.technelysium.com.au/chromas.html).

Statistical analyses

The χ2 analyses were performed using the web χ2 calculator (http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/webtools/web_chi.html).

Lactate dehydrogenase enzyme activity assay

LDH enzyme activity was assayed in the LNCaP and LNCaP-LN3 cell lines, by a modification of the method of Bergmeyer (1974). Briefly, the assay determines the activity of LDH by measuring the rate at which the enzyme catalyses the interconversion of pyruvate to lactate. The rate of reaction was determined by the decrease in absorbance at 340 nm, resulting from the oxidation of NADH to NAD+.

Fresh cytosolic proteins were isolated from cell lines using the Mammalian cell extraction kit (Pierce) according to supplied instructions. Following protein quantification (Bio-rad), the lysates were immediately used for the enzyme assay. A 0.26 mM β-NADH solution was mixed with 100 μl of 68 mM sodium pyruvate solution in a cuvette (1 cm path). The mixture was placed into a Smart-Spec 3000 photospectrometer (BioRad), and the absorbance at 340 nm was measured until a constant reading was obtained. To ensure reproducibility, this procedure was repeated three times for each cell line and using extracts from three separate extractions. Purified L-lactate dehydrogenase enzyme solution (Sigma-Aldrich) was used as a positive control (data not shown).

LDH isoenzyme analysis

LDH isoenzyme patterns were determined by previously published methods (Salplachta and Necas, 2000). Briefly, following protein quantification, 100 μg of protein per sample was loaded onto a 6% nondenaturing polyacrylamide gel and electrophoresed for 60 min at 200 V and at 4°C. Following electrophoresis, the gels were placed in 10 ml of staining solution containing 0.1 mol/l sodium lactate, 1.5 mmol/l NAD, 0.1 mol/l Tris-HCl (pH 8.6), 10 mmol/l NaCl, 5 mmol/ MgCl2, 0.3 mg Phenazinmethosulphate (PMS) and 2.5 mg nitrobluetetrazolium (NBT). The assay relies on the conversion of lactate to pyruvate, with the production of NADH and H+. The NADH then reduces PMS, which in turn reduces NBT to give an insoluble product, diformazan. To ensure maximum sensitivity for detection of the various isoenzymes, the reaction was allowed to proceed to completion. Protein extracted from mouse heart served as a positive control and was obtained from an animal killed as part of another study.

Immunohistochemistry and scoring of staining

Immunohistochemistry was performed essentially as described previously (Rehman et al., 2004b). Sections were incubated for 1 h with mouse monoclonal anti-human LDH-B-specific antibody (Cat. No L7016, Sigma, Dorset, UK) at a 1:200 dilution in 1/4 X Casein in 0.5 M TBS, 2 mM CaCl2, 0.012 % Tween 20, pH 7.5. Secondary antibody was biotinylated rabbit anti-mouse, used at a 1:400 dilution (Vector laboratories, Peterborough, UK). The anti-LDH-B antibody used has previously been shown to be LDH-B specific and nonreactive against LDH-A (Tsoi et al., 2001).

5′-Azacytidine treatment

LNCaP-LN3 cells were cultured in T175 flasks with RPMI-1640 medium to 20% confluence. A final concentration of 1 μ M freshly prepared 5′-azacytidine (Sigma-Aldrich) was added to the culture medium. After 5 days of drug treatment, RNA was isolated using TRI reagent (Sigma) as described above.

Accession codes

Accessions

GenBank/EMBL/DDBJ

References

  1. Ahram M, Best CJ, Flaig MJ, Gillespie JW, Leiva IM, Chuaqui RF et al. (2002). Mol Carcinog 33: 9–15.

  2. Allen S, Heath PR, Kirby J, Wharton SB, Cookson MR, Menzies FM et al. (2003). J Biol Chem 278: 6371–6383.

  3. Banks RE, Dunn MJ, Hochstrasser DF, Sanchez JC, Blackstock W, Pappin DJ et al. (2000). Lancet 356: 1749–1756.

  4. Bergmeyer HU (ed). (1974). Methods of Enzymatic Analysis. Academic press: New York, pp 574–578.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhandari MS, Petrylak DP, Hussain M . (2005). Eur J Cancer 41: 941–953.

  6. Brizel DM, Schroeder T, Scher RL, Walenta S, Clough RW, Dewhirst MW et al. (2001). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51: 349–353.

  7. Cheung PK, Woolcock B, Adomat H, Sutcliffe M, Bainbridge TC, Jones EC et al. (2004). Cancer Res 64: 5929–5933.

  8. Chodak GW, Thisted RA, Gerber GS, Johansson JE, Adolfsson J, Jones GW et al. (1994). N Engl J Med 330: 242–248.

  9. Chu LW, Pettaway CA, Liang JC . (2001). Cancer Genet Cytogenet 127: 161–167.

  10. Das PM, Singal R . (2004). J Clin Oncol 15: 4632–4642.

  11. Ding SJ, Li Y, Shao XX, Zhou H, Zeng R, Tang ZY et al. (2004). Proteomics 4: 982–994.

  12. Firth JD, Ebert BL, Ratcliffe PJ . (1995). J Biol Chem 270: 21021–21027.

  13. Graves PR, Haystead TA . (2002). Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 66: 39–63.

  14. Grayhack JT, Lee C, Oliver L, Schaeffer AJ, Wendel EF . (1980). Prostate 1: 227–237.

  15. Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA . (2000). CA Cancer J Clin 50: 7–33.

  16. Gronberg H . (2003). Lancet 36: 859–864.

  17. Hamdy FC . (2001). Cancer Treat Rev 27: 143–151.

  18. Himpel S, Panzer P, Eirmbter K, Czajkowska H, Sayed M, Packman LC et al. (2001). Biochem J 359: 497–505.

  19. Holbrook JJ, Liljas A, Steindel SJ, Rossman MG . (1975). In: The Enzymes. Boyer PD (ed). Lactate Dehydrogenase. Academic Press: New York, pp 191–292.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Horoszewicz JS, Leong SS, Chu TM, Wajsman ZL, Friedman M, Papsidero L et al. (1980). Prog Clin Biol Res 37: 115–132.

  21. Klingler HC, Bretland AJ, Reid SV, Chapple CR, Eaton CL . (1999). Prostate 41: 110–120.

  22. Koukourakis MI, Giatromanolaki A, Sivridis E, Gatter KC, Harris AL . (2005). Neoplasia 7: 1–6.

  23. Li LC, Carroll PR, Dahiya R . (2005). J Natl Cancer Inst 97: 103–115.

  24. Liu X, Wu Y, Zehner ZE, Jackson-Cook C, Ware JL . (2003). Electrophoresis 24: 3445–3453.

  25. Maekawa M, Taniguchi T, Ishikawa J, Sugimura H, Sugano K, Kanno T . (2003). Clin Chem 49: 1518–1520.

  26. Markert CL, Shaklee JB, Whitt GS . (1975). Science 189: 102–114.

  27. Martinez-Zaguilan R, Seftor EA, Seftor RE, Chu YW, Gillies RJ, Hendrix MJ . (1996). Clin Exp Metast 14: 176–186.

  28. Meehan KL, Holland JW, Dawkins HJ . (2002). Prostate 50: 54–63.

  29. Pettaway CA, Pathak S, Greene G, Ramirez E, Wilson MR, Killion JJ et al. (1996). Clin Cancer Res 2: 1627–1636.

  30. Rehman I, Azzouzi AR, Catto JW, Allen S, Cross SS, Feeley K et al. (2004a). Urology 64: 1238–1243.

  31. Rehman I, Azzouzi AR, Cross SS, Deloulme JC, Catto JW, Wylde N et al. (2004b). Hum Pathol 35: 1385–1391.

  32. Rehman I, Cross SS, Catto JW, Leiblich A, Mukherjee A, Rahmene AR et al. (2005). Prostate 65: 322–330.

  33. Rehman I, Takata M, Wu YY, Rees JL . (1996). Oncogene 12: 2483–2490.

  34. Rethore MO, Junien C, Malpuech G, Baccichetti C, Tenconi R, Kaplan JC et al. (1976). Ann Genet 19: 140–142.

  35. Salplachta J, Necas J . (2000). Acta Vet Brno 69: 267–275.

  36. Schulz WA, Burchardt M, Cronauer MV . (2003). Mol Hum Reprod 9: 437–448.

  37. Semenza GL, Jiang BH, Leung SW, Passantino R, Concordet JP, Maire P et al. (1996). J Biol Chem 271: 32529–32537.

  38. Shi Q, Le X, Wang B, Abbruzzese JL, Xiong Q, He Y et al. (2001). Oncogene 20: 3751–3756.

  39. Shim H, Dolde C, Lewis BC, Wu CS, Dang G, Jungmann RA et al. (1997). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 6658–6663.

  40. Stern R, Shuster S, Neudecker BA, Formby B . (2002). Exp Cell Res 276: 24–31.

  41. Takeno T, Li SS . (1989). Biochem J 257: 921–924.

  42. Tsoi SC, Zheng J, Xu F, Kay HH . (2001). Placenta 22: 317–322.

  43. Vaupel P, Harrison L . (2004). Oncologist 9: 4–9.

  44. Walenta S, Mueller-Klieser WF . (2004). Semin Radiat Oncol 14: 267–274.

  45. Walenta S, Schroeder T, Mueller-Klieser W . (2004). Curr Med Chem 11: 2195–2204.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial support was provided by a National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) grant (MRC 58152) to FC Hamdy. We thank Dr Len Packman (University of Cambridge) for peptide mass fingerprint analyses and database searches and Anne Fowles for technical assistance.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I Rehman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leiblich, A., Cross, S., Catto, J. et al. Lactate dehydrogenase-B is silenced by promoter hypermethylation in human prostate cancer. Oncogene 25, 2953–2960 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1209262

Download citation

Keywords

  • prostate cancer
  • hypermethylation
  • proteomic
  • benign prostatic hyperplasia
  • metastatic

Further reading

Search

Quick links