INTRODUCTION: The lack of large panels of validated antibodies, tissue handling variability, and intratumoral heterogeneity potentially hamper comprehensive study of the functional proteome in non-microdissected solid tumors. The purpose of this study was to address these concerns and to demonstrate clinical utility for the functional analysis of proteins in non-microdissected breast tumors using reverse phase protein arrays (RPPA). METHODS: Herein, 82 antibodies that recognize kinase and steroid signaling proteins and effectors were validated for RPPA. Intraslide and interslide coefficients of variability were <15%. Multiple sites in non-microdissected breast tumors were analyzed using RPPA after intervals of up to 24 h on the benchtop at room temperature following surgical resection. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 82 total and phosphoproteins demonstrated time-dependent instability at room temperature with most variability occurring at later time points between 6 and 24 h. However, the 82-protein functional proteomic "fingerprint" was robust in most tumors even when maintained at room temperature for 24 h before freezing. In repeat samples from each tumor, intratumoral protein levels were markedly less variable than intertumoral levels. Indeed, an independent analysis of prognostic biomarkers in tissue from multiple tumor sites accurately and reproducibly predicted patient outcomes. Significant correlations were observed between RPPA and immunohistochemistry. However, RPPA demonstrated a superior dynamic range. Classification of 128 breast cancers using RPPA identified six subgroups with markedly different patient outcomes that demonstrated a significant correlation with breast cancer subtypes identified by transcriptional profiling. CONCLUSION: Thus, the robustness of RPPA and stability of the functional proteomic "fingerprint" facilitate the study of the functional proteome in non-microdissected breast tumors.
INTRODUCTION: The lack of large panels of validated antibodies, tissue handling variability, and intratumoral heterogeneity potentially hamper comprehensive study of the functional proteome in non-microdissected solid tumors. The purpose of this study was to address these concerns and to demonstrate clinical utility for the functional analysis of proteins in non-microdissected breast tumors using reverse phase protein arrays (RPPA). METHODS: Herein, 82 antibodies that recognize kinase and steroid signaling proteins and effectors were validated for RPPA. Intraslide and interslide coefficients of variability were <15%. Multiple sites in non-microdissected breast tumors were analyzed using RPPA after intervals of up to 24 h on the benchtop at room temperature following surgical resection. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 82 total and phosphoproteins demonstrated time-dependent instability at room temperature with most variability occurring at later time points between 6 and 24 h. However, the 82-protein functional proteomic "fingerprint" was robust in most tumors even when maintained at room temperature for 24 h before freezing. In repeat samples from each tumor, intratumoral protein levels were markedly less variable than intertumoral levels. Indeed, an independent analysis of prognostic biomarkers in tissue from multiple tumor sites accurately and reproducibly predicted patient outcomes. Significant correlations were observed between RPPA and immunohistochemistry. However, RPPA demonstrated a superior dynamic range. Classification of 128 breast cancers using RPPA identified six subgroups with markedly different patient outcomes that demonstrated a significant correlation with breast cancer subtypes identified by transcriptional profiling. CONCLUSION: Thus, the robustness of RPPA and stability of the functional proteomic "fingerprint" facilitate the study of the functional proteome in non-microdissected breast tumors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Functional proteome; Kinase signaling; RPPA; Steroid signaling
Authors: Raoul Tibes; Yihua Qiu; Yiling Lu; Bryan Hennessy; Michael Andreeff; Gordon B Mills; Steven M Kornblau Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: M J Ellis; A Coop; B Singh; L Mauriac; A Llombert-Cussac; F Jänicke; W R Miller; D B Evans; M Dugan; C Brady; E Quebe-Fehling; M Borgs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Amanda F Baker; Tomislav Dragovich; Nathan T Ihle; Ryan Williams; Cecilia Fenoglio-Preiser; Garth Powis Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-06-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Emanuel F Petricoin; Verena E Bichsel; Valerie S Calvert; Virginia Espina; Mary Winters; Lynn Young; Claudio Belluco; Bruce J Trock; Marc Lippman; David A Fishman; Dennis C Sgroi; Peter J Munson; Laura J Esserman; Lance A Liotta Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Yoichi Nagata; Keng-Hsueh Lan; Xiaoyan Zhou; Ming Tan; Francisco J Esteva; Aysegul A Sahin; Kristine S Klos; Ping Li; Brett P Monia; Nina T Nguyen; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Mien-Chie Hung; Dihua Yu Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: F M Sirotnak; Yuhong She; Nushmia Z Khokhar; Paula Hayes; William Gerald; Howard I Scher Journal: Mol Carcinog Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 4.784
Authors: Christiane Knuefermann; Yang Lu; Bolin Liu; Weidong Jin; Ke Liang; Ling Wu; Mathias Schmidt; Gordon B Mills; John Mendelsohn; Zhen Fan Journal: Oncogene Date: 2003-05-22 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: A Bellacosa; D de Feo; A K Godwin; D W Bell; J Q Cheng; D A Altomare; M Wan; L Dubeau; G Scambia; V Masciullo; G Ferrandina; P Benedetti Panici; S Mancuso; G Neri; J R Testa Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1995-08-22 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Evgenia Gubanova; Brandee Brown; Sergei V Ivanov; Thomas Helleday; Gordon B Mills; Wendell G Yarbrough; Natalia Issaeva Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Turgut Dogruluk; Yiu Huen Tsang; Maribel Espitia; Fengju Chen; Tenghui Chen; Zechen Chong; Vivek Appadurai; Armel Dogruluk; Agna Karina Eterovic; Penelope E Bonnen; Chad J Creighton; Ken Chen; Gordon B Mills; Kenneth L Scott Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Robert J G Cardnell; Carmen Behrens; Lixia Diao; YouHong Fan; Ximing Tang; Pan Tong; John D Minna; Gordon B Mills; John V Heymach; Ignacio I Wistuba; Jing Wang; Lauren A Byers Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Srikanth R Ambati; Eloisi Caldas Lopes; Kohji Kosugi; Ullas Mony; Ahmet Zehir; Smit K Shah; Tony Taldone; Andre L Moreira; Paul A Meyers; Gabriela Chiosis; Malcolm A S Moore Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2013-12-15 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Kibeom Jang; Hyunho Yoon; Karina E Hew; Fiona Simpkins; Minsoon Kim; Diana J Azzam; Jun Sun; Dekuang Zhao; Tan A Ince; Wenbin Liu; Wei Guo; Zhi Wei; Gao Zhang; Gordon B Mills; Joyce M Slingerland Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jun Li; Wei Zhao; Rehan Akbani; Wenbin Liu; Zhenlin Ju; Shiyun Ling; Christopher P Vellano; Paul Roebuck; Qinghua Yu; A Karina Eterovic; Lauren A Byers; Michael A Davies; Wanleng Deng; Y N Vashisht Gopal; Guo Chen; Erika M von Euw; Dennis Slamon; Dylan Conklin; John V Heymach; Adi F Gazdar; John D Minna; Jeffrey N Myers; Yiling Lu; Gordon B Mills; Han Liang Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Pradeep Chaluvally-Raghavan; Fan Zhang; Sunila Pradeep; Mark P Hamilton; Xi Zhao; Rajesha Rupaimoole; Tyler Moss; Yiling Lu; Shuangxing Yu; Chad V Pecot; Miriam R Aure; Sylvain Peuget; Cristian Rodriguez-Aguayo; Hee-Dong Han; Dong Zhang; Avinashnarayan Venkatanarayan; Marit Krohn; Vessela N Kristensen; Mihai Gagea; Prahlad Ram; Wenbin Liu; Gabriel Lopez-Berestein; Philip L Lorenzi; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Koei Chin; Joe Gray; Nelson J Dusetti; Sean E McGuire; Elsa R Flores; Anil K Sood; Gordon B Mills Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 31.743