S

Shuang G. Zhao

University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center

ORCID: 0000-0002-9166-6507

Publishes on Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research, Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment, Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics. 408 papers and 11.5k citations.

408Publications
11.5kTotal Citations

Is this you? Claim your profile.

Add your photo, update your bio, and get notified when your ranking changes.

Top publicationsby citations

Genome-wide CRISPR screen identifies HNRNPL as a prostate cancer dependency regulating RNA splicing
Fei Teng, Yiwen Chen, Tengfei Xiao et al.|Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|2017
Cited by 356Open Access

Alternative RNA splicing plays an important role in cancer. To determine which factors involved in RNA processing are essential in prostate cancer, we performed a genome-wide CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screen to identify the genes that are required for prostate cancer growth. Functional annotation defined a set of essential spliceosome and RNA binding protein (RBP) genes, including most notably heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein L (HNRNPL). We defined the HNRNPL-bound RNA landscape by RNA immunoprecipitation coupled with next-generation sequencing and linked these RBP-RNA interactions to changes in RNA processing. HNRNPL directly regulates the alternative splicing of a set of RNAs, including those encoding the androgen receptor, the key lineage-specific prostate cancer oncogene. HNRNPL also regulates circular RNA formation via back splicing. Importantly, both HNRNPL and its RNA targets are aberrantly expressed in human prostate tumors, supporting their clinical relevance. Collectively, our data reveal HNRNPL and its RNA clients as players in prostate cancer growth and potential therapeutic targets.

Associations of Luminal and Basal Subtyping of Prostate Cancer With Prognosis and Response to Androgen Deprivation Therapy
Shuang G. Zhao, S. Laura Chang, Nicholas Erho et al.|JAMA Oncology|2017
Cited by 312Open Access

Importance: There is a clear need for a molecular subtyping approach in prostate cancer to identify clinically distinct subgroups that benefit from specific therapies. Objectives: To identify prostate cancer subtypes based on luminal and basal lineage and to determine associations with clinical outcomes and response to treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PAM50 classifier was used to subtype 1567 retrospectively collected (median follow-up, 10 years) and 2215 prospectively collected prostate cancer samples into luminal- and basal-like subtypes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Metastasis, biochemical recurrence, overall survival, prostate cancer–specific survival, associations with biological pathways, and clinicopathologic variables were the main outcomes. Results: Among the 3782 samples, the PAM50 classifier consistently segregated prostate cancer into 3 subtypes in both the retrospective and prospective cohorts: luminal A (retrospective, 538 [34.3%]; prospective, 737 [33.3%]), luminal B (retrospective, 447 [28.5%]; prospective, 723 [32.6%]), and basal (retrospective, 582 [37.1%]; prospective, 755 [34.1%]). Known luminal lineage markers, such as NKX3.1 and KRT18, were enriched in luminal-like cancers, and the basal lineage CD49f signature was enriched in basal-like cancers, demonstrating the connection between these subtypes and established prostate cancer biology. In the retrospective cohort, luminal B prostate cancers exhibited the poorest clinical prognoses on both univariable and multivariable analyses accounting for standard clinicopathologic prognostic factors (10-year biochemical recurrence-free survival [bRFS], 29%; distant metastasis-free survival [DMFS], 53%; prostate cancer-specific survival [PCSS], 78%; overall survival [OS], 69%), followed by basal prostate cancers (10-year bRFS, 39%; DMFS, 73%; PCSS, 86%; OS, 80%) and luminal A prostate cancers (10-year bRFS, 41%; DMFS, 73%; PCSS, 89%; OS, 82%). Although both luminal-like subtypes were associated with increased androgen receptor expression and signaling, only luminal B prostate cancers were significantly associated with postoperative response to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in a subset analysis in our retrospective cohorts (n = 315) matching patients based on clinicopathologic variables (luminal B 10-year metastasis: treated, 33% vs untreated, 55%; nonluminal B 10-year metastasis: treated, 37% vs untreated, 21%; P = .006 for interaction). Conclusions and Relevance: Luminal- and basal-like prostate cancers demonstrate divergent clinical behavior, and patients with luminal B tumors respond better to postoperative ADT than do patients with non–luminal B tumors. These findings contribute novel insight into prostate cancer biology, providing a potential clinical tool to personalize ADT treatment for prostate cancer by predicting which men may benefit from ADT after surgery.