INTRODUCTION: Gene expression data derived from clinical cancer specimens provide an opportunity to characterize cancer-specific transcriptional programs. Here, we present an analysis delineating a correlation-based gene expression landscape of breast cancer that identifies modules with strong associations to breast cancer-specific and general tumor biology. METHODS: Modules of highly connected genes were extracted from a gene co-expression network that was constructed based on Pearson correlation, and module activities were then calculated using a pathway activity score. Functional annotations of modules were experimentally validated with an siRNA cell spot microarray system using the KPL-4 breast cancer cell line, and by using gene expression data from functional studies. Modules were derived using gene expression data representing 1,608 breast cancer samples and validated in data sets representing 971 independent breast cancer samples as well as 1,231 samples from other cancer forms. RESULTS: The initial co-expression network analysis resulted in the characterization of eight tightly regulated gene modules. Cell cycle genes were divided into two transcriptional programs, and experimental validation using an siRNA screen showed different functional roles for these programs during proliferation. The division of the two programs was found to act as a marker for tumor protein p53 (TP53) gene status in luminal breast cancer, with the two programs being separated only in luminal tumors with functional p53 (encoded by TP53). Moreover, a module containing fibroblast and stroma-related genes was highly expressed in fibroblasts, but was also up-regulated by overexpression of epithelial-mesenchymal transition factors such as transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-beta1) and Snail in immortalized human mammary epithelial cells. Strikingly, the stroma transcriptional program related to less malignant tumors for luminal disease and aggressive lymph node positive disease among basal-like tumors. CONCLUSIONS: We have derived a robust gene expression landscape of breast cancer that reflects known subtypes as well as heterogeneity within these subtypes. By applying the modules to TP53-mutated samples we shed light on the biological consequences of non-functional p53 in otherwise low-proliferating luminal breast cancer. Furthermore, as in the case of the stroma module, we show that the biological and clinical interpretation of a set of co-regulated genes is subtype-dependent.
INTRODUCTION: Gene expression data derived from clinical cancer specimens provide an opportunity to characterize cancer-specific transcriptional programs. Here, we present an analysis delineating a correlation-based gene expression landscape of breast cancer that identifies modules with strong associations to breast cancer-specific and general tumor biology. METHODS: Modules of highly connected genes were extracted from a gene co-expression network that was constructed based on Pearson correlation, and module activities were then calculated using a pathway activity score. Functional annotations of modules were experimentally validated with an siRNA cell spot microarray system using the KPL-4 breast cancer cell line, and by using gene expression data from functional studies. Modules were derived using gene expression data representing 1,608 breast cancer samples and validated in data sets representing 971 independent breast cancer samples as well as 1,231 samples from other cancer forms. RESULTS: The initial co-expression network analysis resulted in the characterization of eight tightly regulated gene modules. Cell cycle genes were divided into two transcriptional programs, and experimental validation using an siRNA screen showed different functional roles for these programs during proliferation. The division of the two programs was found to act as a marker for tumor protein p53 (TP53) gene status in luminal breast cancer, with the two programs being separated only in luminal tumors with functional p53 (encoded by TP53). Moreover, a module containing fibroblast and stroma-related genes was highly expressed in fibroblasts, but was also up-regulated by overexpression of epithelial-mesenchymal transition factors such as transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-beta1) and Snail in immortalized human mammary epithelial cells. Strikingly, the stroma transcriptional program related to less malignant tumors for luminal disease and aggressive lymph node positive disease among basal-like tumors. CONCLUSIONS: We have derived a robust gene expression landscape of breast cancer that reflects known subtypes as well as heterogeneity within these subtypes. By applying the modules to TP53-mutated samples we shed light on the biological consequences of non-functional p53 in otherwise low-proliferating luminal breast cancer. Furthermore, as in the case of the stroma module, we show that the biological and clinical interpretation of a set of co-regulated genes is subtype-dependent.
Authors: Jewel Daniel; Jonathan Coulter; Ju-Hyung Woo; Kathleen Wilsbach; Edward Gabrielson Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Juan-Manuel Schvartzman; Pascal H G Duijf; Rocio Sotillo; Courtney Coker; Robert Benezra Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Stefan Glück; Jeffrey S Ross; Melanie Royce; Edward F McKenna; Charles M Perou; Eli Avisar; Lin Wu Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-03-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Charles Coutant; Roman Rouzier; Yuan Qi; Jacqueline Lehmann-Che; Giampaolo Bianchini; Takayuki Iwamoto; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; W Fraser Symmans; Serge Uzan; Fabrice Andre; Hugues de Thé; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Nicolai J Birkbak; Aron C Eklund; Qiyuan Li; Sarah E McClelland; David Endesfelder; Patrick Tan; Iain B Tan; Andrea L Richardson; Zoltan Szallasi; Charles Swanton Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Henrik Edgren; Astrid Murumagi; Sara Kangaspeska; Daniel Nicorici; Vesa Hongisto; Kristine Kleivi; Inga H Rye; Sandra Nyberg; Maija Wolf; Anne-Lise Borresen-Dale; Olli Kallioniemi Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: M Guedj; L Marisa; A de Reynies; B Orsetti; R Schiappa; F Bibeau; G MacGrogan; F Lerebours; P Finetti; M Longy; P Bertheau; F Bertrand; F Bonnet; A L Martin; J P Feugeas; I Bièche; J Lehmann-Che; R Lidereau; D Birnbaum; F Bertucci; H de Thé; C Theillet Journal: Oncogene Date: 2011-07-25 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Maggie C U Cheang; Stephen K Chia; David Voduc; Dongxia Gao; Samuel Leung; Jacqueline Snider; Mark Watson; Sherri Davies; Philip S Bernard; Joel S Parker; Charles M Perou; Matthew J Ellis; Torsten O Nielsen Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-05-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Balázs Győrffy; Giulia Bottai; Jacqueline Lehmann-Che; György Kéri; László Orfi; Takayuki Iwamoto; Christine Desmedt; Giampaolo Bianchini; Nicholas C Turner; Hugues de Thè; Fabrice André; Christos Sotiriou; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Angelo Di Leo; Lajos Pusztai; Libero Santarpia Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2014-01-05 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Helena Cirenajwis; Henrik Ekedahl; Martin Lauss; Katja Harbst; Ana Carneiro; Jens Enoksson; Frida Rosengren; Linda Werner-Hartman; Therese Törngren; Anders Kvist; Erik Fredlund; Pär-Ola Bendahl; Karin Jirström; Lotta Lundgren; Jillian Howlin; Åke Borg; Sofia K Gruvberger-Saal; Lao H Saal; Kari Nielsen; Markus Ringnér; Hensin Tsao; Håkan Olsson; Christian Ingvar; Johan Staaf; Göran Jönsson Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2015-05-20
Authors: Feride Kroepil; Georg Fluegen; Daniel Vallböhmer; Stephan E Baldus; Levent Dizdar; Andreas M Raffel; Dieter Hafner; Nikolas H Stoecklein; Wolfram T Knoefel Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2013-03-22 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Irem Gurbuz; Jacqueline Ferralli; Tim Roloff; Ruth Chiquet-Ehrismann; Maria B Asparuhova Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 27.401