Abstract
Introduction: Prostate cancer (PC), which is a disease driven
by the activity of the androgen receptor (AR), is the most commonly
diagnosed malignancy and despite advances in diagnostic and treatment
strategies, PC is the second most common cause of cancer mortality in
men [(Bray et al., 2018)](#ref-0012). Taxane-based chemotherapy is
the only chemotherapy that prolongs survival in metastatic PC patients
[(Petrylak et al., 2004; Tannock et al., 2004)](#ref-0097). At the
cellular level, taxanes bind to and stabilize microtubules (MTs)
inhibiting all MT-dependent intracellular pathways. MTs are highly
dynamic polymers that stochastically switch between phases of growth,
shrinkage, and pause [(Jordan and Wilson, 2004)](#ref-0058).
Altered MT dynamics endow cancer cells with both survival and migratory
advantages [(Mitchison, 2012)](#ref-0090). Taxanes inhibit MT
dynamics and alter the spatial organization of the MT network, thereby
inhibiting intracellular trafficking of molecular cargo critical for
tumor survival. In PC specifically, taxanes inhibit transcriptional
activity downstream of MT stabilization [(Thadani-Mulero et al.,
2012)](#ref-0112) and AR nuclear accumulation [(Darshan et al.,
2011; Zhu et al., 2010)](#ref-0021). Methods: Different
tubulin inhibitors, even from within the same structural class as the
taxanes, affect distinct parameters of MT dynamics [(Jordan and
Wilson, 2004)](#ref-0058), yet the selection of taxane for
chemotherapy is not based on the particular patterns of dynamic behavior
of the MT cytoskeleton in individual patients. We envisage that
systematic characterization using quantitative analysis of MT dynamics
in PC patient cells expressing clinically relevant protein isoforms
[(Matov et al., 2024; Thoma et al., 2010)](#ref-0082), before and
after treatment with each of the taxanes, will allow us to identify
criteria for the selection of the most suitable drug combination at the
onset of treatment. Results: We link MT dynamics in the
presence of AR variants and sensitivity/resistance to taxanes and
connect fundamental research with clinically relevant concepts to
elucidate cellular mechanisms of clinical response to taxanes and, thus,
advance the customization of therapy. Our computational live-cell
analysis addresses questions in the context of the inherent differences
in MT homeostasis as a function of AR content in PC cells, the specific
parameters of MT dynamics each of the taxanes affects, and how can this
information be used to match endogenous patterns of MT dynamics with
drug-modulated MT behavior. Conclusion: We investigate whether
the sensitivity to taxanes, evaluated by computational analysis of MTs,
can be linked to gene expression correlated with AR and its variants,
and whether the resistance to taxanes can be linked to the presence of a
specific AR splice variant, and can we identify which of the taxanes
will be most effective based on the endogenous patterns of MT dynamics.