Literature DB >> 19607694

Low-risk susceptibility alleles in 40 human breast cancer cell lines.

Muhammad Riaz1, Fons Elstrodt, Antoinette Hollestelle, Abbas Dehghan, Jan Gm Klijn, Mieke Schutte.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19607694      PMCID: PMC3087328          DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-9-236

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Cancer        ISSN: 1471-2407            Impact factor:   4.430


Background

About ten percent of breast cancer patients 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 human breast cancer cell lines, allowing us to specifically address whether this mechanism might operate in breast cancer cells.

Methods

Breast cancer cell lines

The 40 human breast 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 linesSNP genotypes and allelic losses

8q24Loss 8qMAP3K1Loss 5qFGFR2Loss 10qTNRC9Loss 16qLSP1Loss 11p
SUM185PEHetNoHetNoMaj HndMin HndMaj Hnd
BT483HetNoMaj HNoMin HYesMaj HNoMaj HNo
MDA-MB-134VIHetNoHetNoHetNoHetNoMaj HNo
MDA-MB-175VIIHetNoMin HNoHetNoHetNoMaj HNo
MDA-MB-415HetNoHetNoMin HYesHetNoHetNo
MPE600HetNoMaj HndHetNoMaj HndHetNo
SUM52PEMaj HndMaj HndMaj HndMaj HndMaj Hnd
CAMA-1HetNoHetNoMin HNoMaj HYesMaj HYes
MCF-7Maj HNoHetNoMaj HNoHetNoMaj HYes
ZR75-1HetNoHetNoMin HYesMaj HYesHetNo
SUM44PEHetNoMin HndMaj HndHetNoMin Hnd
T47DHetNoHetNoMaj HNoMin HYesMin HYes
MDA-MB-361HetNoHetNoMaj HNoHetNoMin HNo
BT474HetNoMaj HNoMaj HYesMaj HNoMaj HNo
UACC812Min HNoMin HNoHetNoHetNoMin HYes
ZR75-30Maj HndMin HndMin HndMin HndMaj Hnd
OCUB-FMaj HndMaj HndMin HndMin HndMaj Hnd
SK-BR-5HetNoMaj HndMin HndMin HndMaj Hnd
SUM190PTMin HndMin HndMaj HndMin HndMaj Hnd
SUM225CWNHetNoMaj HndMaj HndMaj HndHetNo
MDA-MB-330HetNoMin HYesMin HYesHetNoMaj HNo
MDA-MB-453HetNoHetNoMin HYesMaj HYesMaj HYes
SK-BR-3Min HYesHetNoHetNoMaj HYesMin HNo
EVSA-TMin HndMin HndMaj HndMaj HndMin Hnd
UACC893Maj HNoMaj HNoMaj HYesHetNoMaj HNo
BT20Min HNoMaj HYesMaj HYesMaj HYesHetNo
HCC1937HetNoMin HndHetNoHetNoMaj Hnd
MDA-MB-468Maj HYesMaj HYesMaj HYesMaj HYesMaj HYes
SUM149PTMin HndHetNoMin HndMin HndMaj HYes
SUM229PEMaj HndMaj HndMaj HndMaj HndMin Hnd
BT549Maj HNoMaj HNoMaj HYesHetNoMin HYes
Hs578THetNoMaj HYesMin HYesMin HNoMaj HNo
MDA-MB-157Maj HNoMaj HYesMaj HYesMin HNoMaj HYes
MDA-MB-231Maj HYesHetNoHetNoMaj HYesHetNo
MDA-MB-436Maj HYesMaj HYesMaj HNoMin HNoMaj HYes
SK-BR-7HetNoHetNoMin HndMaj HndHetNo
SUM159PTMaj HndHetNoMin HndHetNoMaj Hnd
SUM1315MO2HetNoMaj HndMin HndHetNoMaj Hnd
SUM102PTHetNoHetNoMaj HndHetNoMaj Hnd
MDA-MB-435sMaj HNoMaj HYesMaj HYesMaj HYesMaj HNo
Total major homozygotes1317191625
Total heterozygotes21157147
Total minor homozygotes6814108
Percentage of allelic loss1325523237

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 human breast cancer cell lines 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.

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 human breast 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 linesBreast cancer subtypeIntrinsic subtypeProtein expression

ERPgRERBB23-neg
SUM185PELuminal-typeLuminal---+
BT483Luminal-typeLuminal+-+-
MDA-MB-134VILuminal-typeLuminal+---
MDA-MB-175VIILuminal-typeLuminal+---
MDA-MB-415Luminal-typeLuminal+---
MPE600Luminal-typeLuminal+-+-
SUM52PELumina-typeLuminal+-+-
CAMA-1Lumina-typeLuminal+++-
MCF-7Luminal-typeLuminal++--
ZR75-1Luminal-typeLuminal+++-
SUM44PELuminal-typeLuminal++--
T47DLuminal-typeLuminal++--
MDA-MB-361Luminal-typeLuminal++++-
BT474Luminal-typeLuminal-+++-
UACC812Luminal-typeLuminal-+++-
ZR75-30Luminal-typeLuminal+-++-
OCUB-FLuminal-typeLuminal--++-
SK-BR-5Luminal-typeLuminal--++-
SUM190PTLuminal-typend--++-
SUM225CWNLuminal-typend--++-
MDA-MB-330Luminal-typeERBB2+-++-
MDA-MB-453Luminal-typeERBB2--++-
SK-BR-3Luminal-typeERBB2--++-
EVSA-TLuminal-typeERBB2--++-
UACC893Luminal-typeERBB2--++-
BT20Basal-typeBasal-like---+
HCC1937Basal-typeBasal-like---+
MDA-MB-468Basal-typeBasal-like---+
SUM149PTBasal-typeBasal-like---+
SUM229PEBasal-typeBasal-like---+
BT549Basal-typeNormal-like---+
Hs578TBasal-typeNormal-like---+
MDA-MB-157Basal-typeNormal-like---+
MDA-MB-231Basal-typeNormal-like---+
MDA-MB-436Basal-typeNormal-like---+
SK-BR-7Basal-typeNormal-like---+
SUM159PTBasal-typeNormal-like---+
SUM1315MO2Basal-typeNormal-like---+
SUM102PTBasal-typeNormal-likendndndnd
MDA-MB-435sBasal-typeNormal-like---+
Total phenotype positives1481316

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 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. Molecular and phenotypic characterizations of 40 breast cancer cell lines 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.

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 linesTranscript expression (normalized Ct values)

MAP3K1FGFR2TNRC9LSP1
BT2023304538
BT47424352235
BT48322312536
BT54929323940
CAMA-124332645
EVSA-T25332545
HCC193726323745
Hs578T26454534
MCF-725342839
MDA-MB-134VI22372435
MDA-MB-15725443329
MDA-MB-175VII24352336
MDA-MB-23126454535
MDA-MB-33026322733
MDA-MB-36123342344
MDA-MB-41523282033
MDA-MB-435s25454545
MDA-MB-43626353137
MDA-MB-45324362945
MDA-MB-46825353737
MPE60023312242
OCUB-F23392342
SK-BR-325322637
SK-BR-523372143
SK-BR-726394535
SUM102PT25353229
SUM1315M0226434435
SUM149PT27384537
SUM159PT27454334
SUM185PE23382345
SUM190PT24452345
SUM225CWN24362339
SUM229PE25393336
SUM44PE22412636
SUM52PE24242437
T47D20364535
UACC81224382445
UACC89321362536
ZR75-124362432
ZR75-3023332343
Total high expressers (Ct <20)1010
Total moderate expressers (Ct 20–30)392232
Total low expressers (Ct >30–35)01245
Total no expressers (Ct >35)0261233
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

GeneGenotype(Number of cell lines)Average expression level (Normalized Ct values)
MAP3K1Het (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

FGFR2Het (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

TNRC9Het (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

LSP1Het (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 human breast cancer cell lines by quantitative RT-PCR, represented by normalized Ct values Gene expression of MAP3K1, FGFR2, TNRC9 and LSP1 in human breast cancer cell lines according to their allelic loss status at the gene locus 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.

Conclusion

We present the genotypes of five low-risk susceptibility alleles or SNPs of 40 human breast 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
  32 in total

1.  CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer: a collaborative analysis involving 10,860 breast cancer cases and 9,065 controls from 10 studies.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2004-04-30       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  BRCA1 mutation analysis of 41 human breast cancer cell lines reveals three new deleterious mutants.

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

3.  Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case Series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies.

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

4.  Transforming potential of alternatively spliced variants of fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 in human mammary epithelial cells.

Authors:  Allison B Moffa; Stacey L Tannheimer; Stephen P Ethier
Journal:  Mol Cancer Res       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.852

Review 5.  The genetic epidemiology of breast cancer genes.

Authors:  Deborah Thompson; Douglas Easton
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.673

6.  Expression of FGF and FGF receptor genes in human breast cancer.

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

7.  BEK and FLG, two receptors to members of the FGF family, are amplified in subsets of human breast cancers.

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

8.  ATM mutations that cause ataxia-telangiectasia are breast cancer susceptibility alleles.

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

9.  Expression of basic fibroblast growth factor, FGFR1 and FGFR2 in normal and malignant human breast, and comparison with other normal tissues.

Authors:  Y A Luqmani; M Graham; R C Coombes
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Allelotype of 28 human breast cancer cell lines and xenografts.

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

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  [Genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 for hereditary breast cancer].

Authors:  Katharina Simon; Jochen B Geigl; Gunda Pristauz
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2010-11

2.  C-Src-mediated RANKL-induced breast cancer cell migration by activation of the ERK and Akt pathway.

Authors:  Lingyun Zhang; Yuee Teng; Ye Zhang; Jing Liu; Ling Xu; Jinglei Qu; Kezuo Hou; Xianghong Yang; Yunpeng Liu; Xiujuan Qu
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 2.967

3.  The CCL2 chemokine is a negative regulator of autophagy and necrosis in luminal B breast cancer cells.

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

4.  Loss of GM130 in breast cancer cells and its effects on cell migration, invasion and polarity.

Authors:  Francesco Baschieri; Edith Uetz-von Allmen; Daniel F Legler; Hesso Farhan
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 4.534

5.  An EMT-driven alternative splicing program occurs in human breast cancer and modulates cellular phenotype.

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

6.  Midostaurin preferentially attenuates proliferation of triple-negative breast cancer cell lines through inhibition of Aurora kinase family.

Authors:  Masaaki Kawai; Akio Nakashima; Shinji Kamada; Ushio Kikkawa
Journal:  J Biomed Sci       Date:  2015-07-04       Impact factor: 8.410

7.  AKR1B1 promotes basal-like breast cancer progression by a positive feedback loop that activates the EMT program.

Authors:  Xuebiao Wu; Xiaoli Li; Qiang Fu; Qianhua Cao; Xingyu Chen; Mengjie Wang; Jie Yu; Jingpei Long; Jun Yao; Huixin Liu; Danping Wang; Ruocen Liao; Chenfang Dong
Journal:  J Exp Med       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 14.307

8.  WT1 expression in breast cancer disrupts the epithelial/mesenchymal balance of tumour cells and correlates with the metabolic response to docetaxel.

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

9.  A CRISPR-Cas9-triggered strand displacement amplification method for ultrasensitive DNA detection.

Authors:  Wenhua Zhou; Li Hu; Liming Ying; Zhen Zhao; Paul K Chu; Xue-Feng Yu
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 14.919

10.  p62 Regulates the Proliferation of Molecular Apocrine Breast Cancer Cells.

Authors:  Fumi Nozaki; Yukari Hirotani; Yoko Nakanishi; Hiromi Yamaguchi; Haruna Nishimaki; Hiroko Noda; Xiaoyan Tang; Hisae Yamamoto; Atsuko Suzuki; Toshimi Seki; Shinobu Masuda
Journal:  Acta Histochem Cytochem       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 1.938

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.