BACKGROUND: Low-risk breast cancer susceptibility alleles or SNPs confer only modest breast cancer risks ranging from just over 1.0 to 1.3 fold. Yet, they are common among most populations and therefore are involved in the development of essentially all breast cancers. The mechanism by which the low-risk SNPs confer breast cancer risks is currently unclear. The breast cancer association consortium BCAC has hypothesized that the low-risk SNPs modulate expression levels of nearby located genes. METHODS: Genotypes of five low-risk SNPs were determined for 40 human breast cancer cell lines, by direct sequencing of PCR-amplified genomic templates. We have analyzed expression of the four genes that are located nearby the low-risk SNPs, by using real-time RT-PCR and Human Exon microarrays. RESULTS: The SNP genotypes and additional phenotypic data on the breast cancer cell lines are presented. We did not detect any effect of the SNP genotypes on expression levels of the nearby-located genes MAP3K1, FGFR2, TNRC9 and LSP1. CONCLUSION: The SNP genotypes provide a base line for functional studies in a well-characterized cohort of 40 human breast cancer cell lines. Our expression analyses suggest that a putative disease mechanism through gene expression modulation is not operative in breast cancer cell lines.
BACKGROUND: Low-risk breast cancer susceptibility alleles or SNPs confer only modest breast cancer risks ranging from just over 1.0 to 1.3 fold. Yet, they are common among most populations and therefore are involved in the development of essentially all breast cancers. The mechanism by which the low-risk SNPs confer breast cancer risks is currently unclear. The breast cancer association consortium BCAC has hypothesized that the low-risk SNPs modulate expression levels of nearby located genes. METHODS: Genotypes of five low-risk SNPs were determined for 40 humanbreast cancer cell lines, by direct sequencing of PCR-amplified genomic templates. We have analyzed expression of the four genes that are located nearby the low-risk SNPs, by using real-time RT-PCR and Human Exon microarrays. RESULTS: The SNP genotypes and additional phenotypic data on the breast cancer cell lines are presented. We did not detect any effect of the SNP genotypes on expression levels of the nearby-located genes MAP3K1, FGFR2, TNRC9 and LSP1. CONCLUSION: The SNP genotypes provide a base line for functional studies in a well-characterized cohort of 40 humanbreast cancer cell lines. Our expression analyses suggest that a putative disease mechanism through gene expression modulation is not operative in breast cancer cell lines.
About ten percent of breast cancerpatients have a history of multiple breast cancer cases in their family, suggesting the inheritance of breast cancer susceptibility alleles in these families. Germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are identified in about one quarter of the families with breast cancer. Female carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have an estimated 50–90% life-time risk to develop breast cancer, classifying both genes as high-risk susceptibility genes [1,2]. Other high-risk breast cancer genes include the p53, PTEN and STK11 genes, but mutations in these genes account for only few familial breast cancers. CHEK2 was the first moderate-risk breast cancer gene being identified [3-5]. Germline mutations in CHEK2 are identified in up to 5% of breast cancer families, albeit that their prevalence varies widely among populations. Female carriers of CHEK2 mutations have a moderate two to three fold increased risk to develop breast cancer. By now, several other moderate-risk breast cancer genes have been identified, including ATM, BRIP1 and PALB2 [6-9]. Mutations in these genes all confer increased breast cancer risks of two to three fold and mutations in each of these genes are identified in about 1% of the familial breast cancers. Recently, the international breast cancer association consortium (BCAC) has conducted a large genome-wide association study and identified five single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that associated with breast cancer [10]. Four of these SNPs were within haplotype blocks that contained genes: SNP rs2981582 locates in intron 2 of the FGFR2 gene at chromosome 10q; SNP rs889312 locates near MAP3K1 at 5q; SNP rs3803662 locates between TNRC9 and the LOC643714 gene at 16q; and SNP rs3817198 locates intronic in LSP1 at 11p. SNP rs13281615 locates at 8q24 in a region without any annotated genes. Importantly, independent genome-wide association studies have associated other SNPs in FGFR2 with breast cancer [11,12]. As FGFR2 had already been implicated in breast cancer [13-20], the significance of the FGFR2 SNPs as susceptibility alleles seemed evident. The TNRC9 SNP had also been associated with breast cancer in another study [21]. Lastly, the 8q24 SNP was of particular interest because other SNPs at 8q24 had been associated with increased risks of prostate cancer and colorectal cancer [22-26]. BCAC estimated that each of the five identified SNPs associated with rather small increased breast cancer risks, ranging from just over 1.0 to 1.3 fold, classifying them as low-risk susceptibility alleles [10]. However, these low-risk SNPs are very common and their impact is therefore still substantial, together accounting for almost 5% of the familial breast cancers.The mechanism by which the low-risk susceptibility alleles confer breast cancer risks was obscure [10]. In analogy with the high-risk and moderate-risk breast cancer genes, it had been anticipated that the identified SNPs associated with disease-causing alleles in the coding sequences of nearby located genes. However, extensive sequencing efforts have not identified such alleles in the SNP-associated haplotype blocks, suggesting that the SNPs themselves might be the disease-causing susceptibility alleles [10]. BCAC therefore proposed an alternative disease mechanism that involves expression modulation of genes located in the vicinity of the identified SNPs, thereby conferring low breast cancer risks. Here, we have evaluated expression modulation in a well-characterized cohort of 40 humanbreast cancer cell lines, allowing us to specifically address whether this mechanism might operate in breast cancer cells.
Methods
Breast cancer cell lines
The 40 humanbreast cancer cell lines used in this study are listed in Table 1 and have been described in detail elsewhere [27]. Microsatellite analysis with nearly 150 polymorphic markers had shown that all cell lines are unique and monoclonal [28].
Table 1
Genotypes of five low-risk SNPs in 40 human breast cancer cell lines
Breast cancer cell lines
SNP genotypes and allelic losses
8q24
Loss 8q
MAP3K1
Loss 5q
FGFR2
Loss 10q
TNRC9
Loss 16q
LSP1
Loss 11p
SUM185PE
Het
No
Het
No
Maj H
nd
Min H
nd
Maj H
nd
BT483
Het
No
Maj H
No
Min H
Yes
Maj H
No
Maj H
No
MDA-MB-134VI
Het
No
Het
No
Het
No
Het
No
Maj H
No
MDA-MB-175VII
Het
No
Min H
No
Het
No
Het
No
Maj H
No
MDA-MB-415
Het
No
Het
No
Min H
Yes
Het
No
Het
No
MPE600
Het
No
Maj H
nd
Het
No
Maj H
nd
Het
No
SUM52PE
Maj H
nd
Maj H
nd
Maj H
nd
Maj H
nd
Maj H
nd
CAMA-1
Het
No
Het
No
Min H
No
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
MCF-7
Maj H
No
Het
No
Maj H
No
Het
No
Maj H
Yes
ZR75-1
Het
No
Het
No
Min H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
Het
No
SUM44PE
Het
No
Min H
nd
Maj H
nd
Het
No
Min H
nd
T47D
Het
No
Het
No
Maj H
No
Min H
Yes
Min H
Yes
MDA-MB-361
Het
No
Het
No
Maj H
No
Het
No
Min H
No
BT474
Het
No
Maj H
No
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
No
Maj H
No
UACC812
Min H
No
Min H
No
Het
No
Het
No
Min H
Yes
ZR75-30
Maj H
nd
Min H
nd
Min H
nd
Min H
nd
Maj H
nd
OCUB-F
Maj H
nd
Maj H
nd
Min H
nd
Min H
nd
Maj H
nd
SK-BR-5
Het
No
Maj H
nd
Min H
nd
Min H
nd
Maj H
nd
SUM190PT
Min H
nd
Min H
nd
Maj H
nd
Min H
nd
Maj H
nd
SUM225CWN
Het
No
Maj H
nd
Maj H
nd
Maj H
nd
Het
No
MDA-MB-330
Het
No
Min H
Yes
Min H
Yes
Het
No
Maj H
No
MDA-MB-453
Het
No
Het
No
Min H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
SK-BR-3
Min H
Yes
Het
No
Het
No
Maj H
Yes
Min H
No
EVSA-T
Min H
nd
Min H
nd
Maj H
nd
Maj H
nd
Min H
nd
UACC893
Maj H
No
Maj H
No
Maj H
Yes
Het
No
Maj H
No
BT20
Min H
No
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
Het
No
HCC1937
Het
No
Min H
nd
Het
No
Het
No
Maj H
nd
MDA-MB-468
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
SUM149PT
Min H
nd
Het
No
Min H
nd
Min H
nd
Maj H
Yes
SUM229PE
Maj H
nd
Maj H
nd
Maj H
nd
Maj H
nd
Min H
nd
BT549
Maj H
No
Maj H
No
Maj H
Yes
Het
No
Min H
Yes
Hs578T
Het
No
Maj H
Yes
Min H
Yes
Min H
No
Maj H
No
MDA-MB-157
Maj H
No
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
Min H
No
Maj H
Yes
MDA-MB-231
Maj H
Yes
Het
No
Het
No
Maj H
Yes
Het
No
MDA-MB-436
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
No
Min H
No
Maj H
Yes
SK-BR-7
Het
No
Het
No
Min H
nd
Maj H
nd
Het
No
SUM159PT
Maj H
nd
Het
No
Min H
nd
Het
No
Maj H
nd
SUM1315MO2
Het
No
Maj H
nd
Min H
nd
Het
No
Maj H
nd
SUM102PT
Het
No
Het
No
Maj H
nd
Het
No
Maj H
nd
MDA-MB-435s
Maj H
No
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
Yes
Maj H
No
Total major homozygotes
13
17
19
16
25
Total heterozygotes
21
15
7
14
7
Total minor homozygotes
6
8
14
10
8
Percentage of allelic loss
13
25
52
32
37
Genotypes of five low-risk SNPs have been determined in the current study. Allelotype data have been reported elsewhere and involved microsatellite analysis. Loss: Yes, allelic loss at the indicated chromosomal region; and No, no allelic loss at the indicated chromosomal region. nd, not determined; Maj H, major homozygotes; Min H, minor homozygotes; Het, heterozygote allele carriers.
Genotypes of five low-risk SNPs in 40 humanbreast cancer cell linesGenotypes of five low-risk SNPs have been determined in the current study. Allelotype data have been reported elsewhere and involved microsatellite analysis. Loss: Yes, allelic loss at the indicated chromosomal region; and No, no allelic loss at the indicated chromosomal region. nd, not determined; Maj H, major homozygotes; Min H, minor homozygotes; Het, heterozygote allele carriers.
Genotyping
Genotypes of five low-risk susceptibility alleles have been determined: rs889312 (A>C) near the MAP3K1 gene; rs2981582 (C>T) in the FGFR2 gene; rs3803662 (C>T) near the TNRC9 gene; rs3817198 (T>C) in the LSP1 gene and rs13281615 (A>G) that located in a gene desert at chromosome 8q24 [10]. Genotyping was performed by direct sequencing of PCR-amplified genomic templates, using the BigDye Terminator V3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems) and an ABI 3130xL Genetic Analyzer. Primer sequences are available upon request.Allele frequencies of cases and controls reported by BCAC have been obtained by using their reported Odds Ratio data [10], and inferring allele frequencies by assuming that Odds Ratios reflect the ratio of minor allele carriers versus major allele carriers from the cases divided by the ratio of minor allele carriers versus major allele carriers from the controls.
Expression analysis
Transcript expression levels of four genes have been determined: MAP3K1, FGFR2, TNRC9 and LSP1. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) was performed on cDNA templates that had been generated with oligo-dT and random hexamer primers from total RNA isolates, using Power SYBR Green PCR Master Mix (Applied Biosystems) and an ABI Prism 7700. Ct values were normalized according HPRT and HMBS housekeeper Ct values. Transcript expression had also been determined by Human Exon 1.0 ST microarrays (Affymetrix), as described elsewhere [29]. The exon array data have been deposited in NCBI's Gene Expression Omnibus [30] and are accessible through GEO Series accession number GSE16732.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11.5, considering P-values of less than 0.05 significant. Fisher's exact test was used to determine association of the SNP genotypes with the breast cancer cell lines. The Kruskal Wallis test was used to compare gene expression levels among three SNP genotype groups (major homozygotes, heterozygotes, and minor homozygotes).
Results and discussion
Genotyping of low-risk susceptibility alleles in breast cancer cell lines
Genotypes of five low-risk susceptibility alleles [10] were determined in a cohort of 40 humanbreast cancer cell lines. For each SNP, frequencies of major homozygotes, heterozygotes and minor homozygotes are shown in Figure 1a and genotypes are detailed in Table 1. Frequencies of homozygote genotypes typically were higher than anticipated, likely related to allelic losses in the cell line samples (Figure 1a; [10]). For four SNPs (8q24, MAP3K1, FGFR2 and TNRC9), the minor allele frequencies among the cell lines were higher than among the 21,860 BCAC breast cancer cases and 22,578 population controls (Figure 1b; [10]). Fisher's exact testing indicated that the minor allele frequencies among the cell lines were significantly higher than the BCAC population controls for two SNPs: MAP3K1 and TNRC9 (Figure 1b). In Table 1 and 2, we also included previously-determined phenotypic and genotypic data on the breast cancer cell lines, including data on molecular subtyping and allelotyping (Hollestelle et al. submitted for publication; [28]). Together with the SNP genotypes, we provide a base line for functional studies in this cohort of breast cancer cell lines.
Figure 1
Genotypes and minor allele frequencies of five low-risk breast cancer susceptibility alleles or SNPs in human breast cancer cell lines. 1a. Gray bars represent SNP genotype frequencies of 21,860 blood-derived samples from breast cancer cases reported by the breast cancer association consortium BCAC [10], and white bars represent genotype frequencies in 40 breast cancer cell lines. Maj H, major homozygotes; Min H, minor homozygotes; and Het, heterozygote allele carriers. The major and minor alleles of each allele are indicated between brackets. 1b. Black and gray bars represent minor allele frequencies in 22,578 population controls and 21,860 breast cancer cases, respectively, as reported by BCAC [10]. White bars represent frequencies identified in 40 breast cancer cell lines.
Table 2
Molecular and phenotypic characterizations of 40 breast cancer cell lines
Breast cancer cell lines
Breast cancer subtype
Intrinsic subtype
Protein expression
ER
PgR
ERBB2
3-neg
SUM185PE
Luminal-type
Luminal
-
-
-
+
BT483
Luminal-type
Luminal
+
-
+
-
MDA-MB-134VI
Luminal-type
Luminal
+
-
-
-
MDA-MB-175VII
Luminal-type
Luminal
+
-
-
-
MDA-MB-415
Luminal-type
Luminal
+
-
-
-
MPE600
Luminal-type
Luminal
+
-
+
-
SUM52PE
Lumina-type
Luminal
+
-
+
-
CAMA-1
Lumina-type
Luminal
+
+
+
-
MCF-7
Luminal-type
Luminal
+
+
-
-
ZR75-1
Luminal-type
Luminal
+
+
+
-
SUM44PE
Luminal-type
Luminal
+
+
-
-
T47D
Luminal-type
Luminal
+
+
-
-
MDA-MB-361
Luminal-type
Luminal
+
+
++
-
BT474
Luminal-type
Luminal
-
+
++
-
UACC812
Luminal-type
Luminal
-
+
++
-
ZR75-30
Luminal-type
Luminal
+
-
++
-
OCUB-F
Luminal-type
Luminal
-
-
++
-
SK-BR-5
Luminal-type
Luminal
-
-
++
-
SUM190PT
Luminal-type
nd
-
-
++
-
SUM225CWN
Luminal-type
nd
-
-
++
-
MDA-MB-330
Luminal-type
ERBB2
+
-
++
-
MDA-MB-453
Luminal-type
ERBB2
-
-
++
-
SK-BR-3
Luminal-type
ERBB2
-
-
++
-
EVSA-T
Luminal-type
ERBB2
-
-
++
-
UACC893
Luminal-type
ERBB2
-
-
++
-
BT20
Basal-type
Basal-like
-
-
-
+
HCC1937
Basal-type
Basal-like
-
-
-
+
MDA-MB-468
Basal-type
Basal-like
-
-
-
+
SUM149PT
Basal-type
Basal-like
-
-
-
+
SUM229PE
Basal-type
Basal-like
-
-
-
+
BT549
Basal-type
Normal-like
-
-
-
+
Hs578T
Basal-type
Normal-like
-
-
-
+
MDA-MB-157
Basal-type
Normal-like
-
-
-
+
MDA-MB-231
Basal-type
Normal-like
-
-
-
+
MDA-MB-436
Basal-type
Normal-like
-
-
-
+
SK-BR-7
Basal-type
Normal-like
-
-
-
+
SUM159PT
Basal-type
Normal-like
-
-
-
+
SUM1315MO2
Basal-type
Normal-like
-
-
-
+
SUM102PT
Basal-type
Normal-like
nd
nd
nd
nd
MDA-MB-435s
Basal-type
Normal-like
-
-
-
+
Total phenotype positives
14
8
13
16
Phenotypic characterizations have been reported elsewhere and involved protein expression patterns of the cell lines for the breast cancer subtyping (cytokeratins, ER, PgR and ERBB2) and expression of the intrinsic gene set for the intrinsic subtyping (Hollestelle et al. submitted for publication). Protein expression: +, expressed; ++, over expressed; and -, not detectable; 3-neg, triple-negative.
Genotypes and minor allele frequencies of five low-risk breast cancer susceptibility alleles or SNPs in humanbreast cancer cell lines. 1a. Gray bars represent SNP genotype frequencies of 21,860 blood-derived samples from breast cancer cases reported by the breast cancer association consortium BCAC [10], and white bars represent genotype frequencies in 40 breast cancer cell lines. Maj H, major homozygotes; Min H, minor homozygotes; and Het, heterozygote allele carriers. The major and minor alleles of each allele are indicated between brackets. 1b. Black and gray bars represent minor allele frequencies in 22,578 population controls and 21,860 breast cancer cases, respectively, as reported by BCAC [10]. White bars represent frequencies identified in 40 breast cancer cell lines.Molecular and phenotypic characterizations of 40 breast cancer cell linesPhenotypic characterizations have been reported elsewhere and involved protein expression patterns of the cell lines for the breast cancer subtyping (cytokeratins, ER, PgR and ERBB2) and expression of the intrinsic gene set for the intrinsic subtyping (Hollestelle et al. submitted for publication). Protein expression: +, expressed; ++, over expressed; and -, not detectable; 3-neg, triple-negative.
Expression levels of nearby located genes in breast cancer cell lines do not correlate with their SNP genotype
Surprisingly, BCAC had not identified disease-causing gene variants within the haplotype blocks of the five low-risk SNPs [10]. They proposed an alternative disease mechanism, in which SNP genotypes modulate expression levels of nearby located genes. Such disease mechanism was conceivable because the minor SNP alleles confer only low risks for breast cancer. Here, we have evaluated whether gene expression modulation is operative in breast cancer cell lines, by associating SNP genotypes of the breast cancer cell lines with the expression levels of nearby located genes.Gene expression data of the four genes physically nearest to the SNPs were obtained by Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST microarray profiling and by qPCR analysis. Both transcript expression analysis methods revealed similar expression levels for each of the four genes: MAP3K1, FGFR2, TNRC9 and LSP1, with Spearman correlation coefficients of -0.6, -0.7, -0.8 and -0.4, respectively, among the 40 breast cancer cell lines (Table 3 and Figures 2 and 3). Because BCAC had shown that the low-risk SNPs confer breast cancer risks in a dose-dependent manner, with the highest risks for the minor homozygotes [10], association between gene expression levels and SNP genotypes was performed by three-group comparisons. Exon array data are shown in Figure 2, with cell lines from each genotype group depicted in a different color. Unique outliers typically represented decreased expression of one or more probes sets, such as exon 17 of MAP3K1 or exons 3–5 of TNRC9, possibly related to the presence of SNPs in probe sequences, alternative splicing or genomic deletions [29]. Expression of recurrent isoforms as reported by NCBI was detected only for the FGFR2 gene, with two cell lines expressing the isoform that lacked exon 9. Both cell lines were minor homozygotes for the FGFR2 SNP. Overall, there was no apparent association between the exon array expression level of each of the four genes and their SNP genotypes (Figure 2). The qPCR Ct-values are detailed in Table 3 and the three-group comparisons are shown in Figure 3. Again, we did not detect any association between gene expression levels with SNP genotypes for the four genes. It is possible that gene expression levels are affected by allelic loss of the gene loci. We therefore also have compared gene expression levels in major and minor homozygotes with allelic loss to the gene expression levels in cell lines without allelic loss, but gene expression levels did not correlate with allelic losses either (Table 4). Altogether, these results strongly suggest that a putative disease mechanism by expression modulation does not operate via cancer cells. Yet, recent studies have shown that expression levels of the FGFR2, MAP3K1 and TNRC9 genes associated with their SNP genotype in clinical breast cancer samples [31,32]. It may be that expression modulation is operative in non-neoplastic stromal or epithelial cells and perhaps only early in carcinogenesis. Alternatively, it may be that expression modulation of these genes was operative in invasive breast cancer cells but was lost upon in vitro propagation of the cell lines. Expression analysis of carefully dissected tumor cells and non-neoplastic epithelial and stromal cells from clinical breast cancer samples should resolve this issue and may determine the precise mechanism of expression modulation by low-risk breast cancer susceptibility alleles.
Table 3
Gene expression analysis of MAP3K1, FGFR2, TNRC9 and LSP1 in 40 human breast cancer cell lines by quantitative RT-PCR, represented by normalized Ct values
Breast cancer cell lines
Transcript expression (normalized Ct values)
MAP3K1
FGFR2
TNRC9
LSP1
BT20
23
30
45
38
BT474
24
35
22
35
BT483
22
31
25
36
BT549
29
32
39
40
CAMA-1
24
33
26
45
EVSA-T
25
33
25
45
HCC1937
26
32
37
45
Hs578T
26
45
45
34
MCF-7
25
34
28
39
MDA-MB-134VI
22
37
24
35
MDA-MB-157
25
44
33
29
MDA-MB-175VII
24
35
23
36
MDA-MB-231
26
45
45
35
MDA-MB-330
26
32
27
33
MDA-MB-361
23
34
23
44
MDA-MB-415
23
28
20
33
MDA-MB-435s
25
45
45
45
MDA-MB-436
26
35
31
37
MDA-MB-453
24
36
29
45
MDA-MB-468
25
35
37
37
MPE600
23
31
22
42
OCUB-F
23
39
23
42
SK-BR-3
25
32
26
37
SK-BR-5
23
37
21
43
SK-BR-7
26
39
45
35
SUM102PT
25
35
32
29
SUM1315M02
26
43
44
35
SUM149PT
27
38
45
37
SUM159PT
27
45
43
34
SUM185PE
23
38
23
45
SUM190PT
24
45
23
45
SUM225CWN
24
36
23
39
SUM229PE
25
39
33
36
SUM44PE
22
41
26
36
SUM52PE
24
24
24
37
T47D
20
36
45
35
UACC812
24
38
24
45
UACC893
21
36
25
36
ZR75-1
24
36
24
32
ZR75-30
23
33
23
43
Total high expressers (Ct <20)
1
0
1
0
Total moderate expressers (Ct 20–30)
39
2
23
2
Total low expressers (Ct >30–35)
0
12
4
5
Total no expressers (Ct >35)
0
26
12
33
Figure 2
Normalized expression levels from Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST microarrays of 2a. . Kruskal Wallis testing using the average expression among all probe sets for each gene did not reveal significant associations between gene expression and SNP genotypes. Each line represents a cell line, with the color-coding according the genotype groups: green, major homozygotes; red, minor homozygotes; and blue, heterozygotes. Two cell lines with the delEx9 isoform of FGFR2 are indicated with bold red lines. Probe sets for each gene were ordered by physical location and indicated by exon, where probe sets that were not unique for that gene were omitted. Probe sets with expression values less than the background of 50 were also omitted, unless more than 3 cell lines had expression levels higher than 100.
Figure 3
Correlation of gene expression levels of 3a. . Kruskal Wallis testing did not reveal any significant association between gene expression and SNP genotypes. Maj H, major homozygotes; Min H, minor homozygotes; and Het, heterozygote allele carriers. The number of cell lines in each genotype group is indicated under the genotypes and data are detailed in Table 1.
Table 4
Gene expression of MAP3K1, FGFR2, TNRC9 and LSP1 in human breast cancer cell lines according to their allelic loss status at the gene locus
Gene
Genotype(Number of cell lines)
Average expression level (Normalized Ct values)
MAP3K1
Het (n = 14)
24 ± 2
Maj H no loss (n = 4)
24 ± 4
Min H no loss (n = 2)
24 ± 0
Maj H allelic loss (n = 1)
26
Min H allelic loss (n = 6)
25 ± 1
FGFR2
Het (n = 7)
36 ± 5
Maj H no loss (n = 4)
31 ± 7
Min H no loss (n = 1)
33
Maj H allelic loss (n = 6)
35 ± 6
Min H allelic loss (n = 6)
38 ± 6
TNRC9
Het (n = 14)
30 ± 8
Maj H no loss (n = 2)
24 ± 2
Min H no loss (n = 3)
36 ± 8
Maj H allelic loss (n = 1)
45
Min H allelic loss (n = 7)
36 ± 9
LSP1
Het (n = 7)
37 ± 4
Maj H no loss (n = 8)
37 ± 4
Min H no loss (n = 2)
41 ± 5
Maj H allelic loss (n = 3)
40 ± 5
Min H allelic loss (n = 7)
38 ± 6
Although numbers are small for some sample groups, there are no apparent differences in gene expression levels related to allelic loss status. Allelic loss data and qPCR expression data are detailed in Table 1 and Table 3, respectively. Maj H, major homozygotes; Min H, minor homozygotes; Het, heterozygote allele carriers.
Normalized expression levels from Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST microarrays of 2a. . Kruskal Wallis testing using the average expression among all probe sets for each gene did not reveal significant associations between gene expression and SNP genotypes. Each line represents a cell line, with the color-coding according the genotype groups: green, major homozygotes; red, minor homozygotes; and blue, heterozygotes. Two cell lines with the delEx9 isoform of FGFR2 are indicated with bold red lines. Probe sets for each gene were ordered by physical location and indicated by exon, where probe sets that were not unique for that gene were omitted. Probe sets with expression values less than the background of 50 were also omitted, unless more than 3 cell lines had expression levels higher than 100.Correlation of gene expression levels of 3a. . Kruskal Wallis testing did not reveal any significant association between gene expression and SNP genotypes. Maj H, major homozygotes; Min H, minor homozygotes; and Het, heterozygote allele carriers. The number of cell lines in each genotype group is indicated under the genotypes and data are detailed in Table 1.Gene expression analysis of MAP3K1, FGFR2, TNRC9 and LSP1 in 40 humanbreast cancer cell lines by quantitative RT-PCR, represented by normalized Ct valuesGene expression of MAP3K1, FGFR2, TNRC9 and LSP1 in humanbreast cancer cell lines according to their allelic loss status at the gene locusAlthough numbers are small for some sample groups, there are no apparent differences in gene expression levels related to allelic loss status. Allelic loss data and qPCR expression data are detailed in Table 1 and Table 3, respectively. Maj H, major homozygotes; Min H, minor homozygotes; Het, heterozygote allele carriers.
Conclusion
We present the genotypes of five low-risk susceptibility alleles or SNPs of 40 humanbreast cancer cell lines. Using this cell line model, we have evaluated the BCAC hypothesis that low-risk SNPs confer breast cancer risks by modulation of expression levels of nearby located genes. We found no evidence for expression modulation in the breast cancer cell lines, suggesting that such disease mechanism is more likely to operate in non-neoplastic epithelial or stromal cells or has been lost during in vitro propagation of the cell lines.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
MR and FE carried out genotyping and transcript expression analyses, AH carried out protein expression analyses, and MR and AD performed statistical analyses. MR, JGMK and MS designed the study, and MR and MS wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Pre-publication history
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/9/236/prepub
Authors: Fons Elstrodt; Antoinette Hollestelle; Jord H A Nagel; Michael Gorin; Marijke Wasielewski; Ans van den Ouweland; Sofia D Merajver; Stephen P Ethier; Mieke Schutte Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: A Antoniou; P D P Pharoah; S Narod; H A Risch; J E Eyfjord; J L Hopper; N Loman; H Olsson; O Johannsson; A Borg; B Pasini; P Radice; S Manoukian; D M Eccles; N Tang; E Olah; H Anton-Culver; E Warner; J Lubinski; J Gronwald; B Gorski; H Tulinius; S Thorlacius; H Eerola; H Nevanlinna; K Syrjäkoski; O-P Kallioniemi; D Thompson; C Evans; J Peto; F Lalloo; D G Evans; D F Easton Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2003-04-03 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: F Penault-Llorca; F Bertucci; J Adélaïde; P Parc; F Coulier; J Jacquemier; D Birnbaum; O deLapeyrière Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1995-04-10 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: J Adnane; P Gaudray; C A Dionne; G Crumley; M Jaye; J Schlessinger; P Jeanteur; D Birnbaum; C Theillet Journal: Oncogene Date: 1991-04 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Anthony Renwick; Deborah Thompson; Sheila Seal; Patrick Kelly; Tasnim Chagtai; Munaza Ahmed; Bernard North; Hiran Jayatilake; Rita Barfoot; Katarina Spanova; Lesley McGuffog; D Gareth Evans; Diana Eccles; Douglas F Easton; Michael R Stratton; Nazneen Rahman Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2006-07-09 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: I C Harkes; F Elstrodt; W N M Dinjens; M Molier; J G M Klijn; E M J J Berns; M Schutte Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Wei Bin Fang; Min Yao; Iman Jokar; Nabil Alhakamy; Cory Berkland; Jin Chen; Dana Brantley-Sieders; Nikki Cheng Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Irina M Shapiro; Albert W Cheng; Nicholas C Flytzanis; Michele Balsamo; John S Condeelis; Maja H Oktay; Christopher B Burge; Frank B Gertler Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: Mara Artibani; Andrew H Sims; Joan Slight; Stuart Aitken; Anna Thornburn; Morwenna Muir; Valerie G Brunton; Jorge Del-Pozo; Linda R Morrison; Elad Katz; Nicholas D Hastie; Peter Hohenstein Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 4.379