PURPOSE: Metabolic dependence on glucose utilisation has been described for different tumours characterised by activation of Akt, upregulation of GLUT1, M2PK and TKTL1. To date, however, little is known about glucose metabolism in breast cancer tissue. METHODS: We analysed 55 breast cancer specimens, 26 adjacent ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS) and 23 adjacent normal breast tissues for expression of glycolytic markers by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: We found expression of pAkt in 49%, GLUT1 in 25%, M2PK in 68% and TKTL1 in 31% of the tumours investigated. Expression of pAkt and Her2neu are positively correlated with borderline significance (P = 0.055). Expression of pAkt, GLUT1 and TKTL1 were higher in breast cancer and DCIS than in normal tissue. Surprisingly, M2PK expression was highest in normal breast tissue. CONCLUSIONS: We found a glycolytic phenotype in a high percentage of breast cancer samples. Inhibition of glycolysis might evolve as a future option for breast cancer therapy.
PURPOSE: Metabolic dependence on glucose utilisation has been described for different tumours characterised by activation of Akt, upregulation of GLUT1, M2PK and TKTL1. To date, however, little is known about glucose metabolism in breast cancer tissue. METHODS: We analysed 55 breast cancer specimens, 26 adjacent ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS) and 23 adjacent normal breast tissues for expression of glycolytic markers by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: We found expression of pAkt in 49%, GLUT1 in 25%, M2PK in 68% and TKTL1 in 31% of the tumours investigated. Expression of pAkt and Her2neu are positively correlated with borderline significance (P = 0.055). Expression of pAkt, GLUT1 and TKTL1 were higher in breast cancer and DCIS than in normal tissue. Surprisingly, M2PK expression was highest in normal breast tissue. CONCLUSIONS: We found a glycolytic phenotype in a high percentage of breast cancer samples. Inhibition of glycolysis might evolve as a future option for breast cancer therapy.
Authors: M Sun; G Wang; J E Paciga; R I Feldman; Z Q Yuan; X L Ma; S A Shelley; R Jove; P N Tsichlis; S V Nicosia; J Q Cheng Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: M Krockenberger; A Honig; L Rieger; J F Coy; M Sutterlin; M Kapp; E Horn; J Dietl; U Kammerer Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Jeffrey C Rathmell; Casey J Fox; David R Plas; Peter S Hammerman; Ryan M Cinalli; Craig B Thompson Journal: Mol Cell Biol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.272
Authors: Joachim Schneider; Kathleen Neu; Hans-Georg Velcovsky; Harald Morr; Erich Eigenbrodt Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2003-04-10 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: S Langbein; M Zerilli; A Zur Hausen; W Staiger; K Rensch-Boschert; N Lukan; J Popa; M P Ternullo; A Steidler; C Weiss; R Grobholz; F Willeke; P Alken; G Stassi; P Schubert; J F Coy Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-02-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Barbara Chiavarina; Diana Whitaker-Menezes; Ubaldo E Martinez-Outschoorn; Agnieszka K Witkiewicz; Ruth Birbe; Anthony Howell; Richard G Pestell; Johanna Smith; Rene Daniel; Federica Sotgia; Michael P Lisanti Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Karim Rezaul; Jay Kumar Thumar; Deborah H Lundgren; Jimmy K Eng; Kevin P Claffey; Lori Wilson; David K Han Journal: Genes Cancer Date: 2010-03
Authors: Claire B Pollock; Yuzhi Yin; Hongyan Yuan; Xiao Zeng; Sruthi King; Xin Li; Levy Kopelovich; Chris Albanese; Robert I Glazer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 3.240