Literature DB >> 23977219

XRCC3 and RAD51 expression are associated with clinical factors in breast cancer.

Jia Hu1, Ning Wang, Ya-Jie Wang.   

Abstract

AIMS: XRCC3 and RAD51 are two important members in homologous recombination repair pathway. This study was performed to detect the expressions of these two molecules in breast cancer and explore their correlations with clinicopathological factors. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Immunohistochemistry was used to detect protein expressions of XRCC3 and RAD51 in 248 cases of breast cancer tissue and 78 cases of adjacent non-cancerous tissue. Data showed that expressions for both XRCC3 and RAD51 were significantly increased in breast cancer. High XRCC3 expression was associated with large tumor size and positive PR and HER2 status, while high RAD51 expression was associated with axillary lymph node metastasis and positive PR and HER2 status. The result of multivariate analysis demonstrated that HER2, PR and RAD51 were significantly association with XRCC3. And besides XRCC3, axillary lymph node metastasis and PR were significantly correlated with RAD51.
CONCLUSIONS: XRCC3 and RAD51 were significantly associated with clinicopathological factors and they might play important roles in the development and progress of breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23977219      PMCID: PMC3748017          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072104

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


Introduction

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers and the leading cause of tumor-related death among women worldwide. Though the exact etiology remains unknown, increasing evidence indicates that breast cancer pathogenesis is tightly linked with double-strand break (DSB) repair dysfunction [1], [2]. RAD51, which catalyses strand transfer between a broken sequence and its undamaged homologue to allow re-synthesis of the damaged region, represents the central recombinase of homologous recombination repair (HRR). However, its localization to DSBs depends on the function and its direct interaction with XRCC3 [3], a RAD51 paralog that participates in the HRR pathway. It is known that RAD51 expression is significantly increased in breast cancer [4], [5]. And the research conducted by Maacke et al. suggested a correlation between wild-type RAD51 expression and histological grading invasive ductal breast cancer [4]. Though later study performed by Barbano et al. didn’t confirm this association, they found that high RAD51 mRNA expression was associated with breast cancer patient’s outcome [5]. Taking the similarity and close association between XRCC3 and RAD51 into account, it is speculated that XRCC3 may also play an important role in the pathogenesis of breast cancer. Most studies on XRCC3 were focused on its gene polymorphisms. And epidemiological studies have demonstrated a correlation between gene polymorphisms of XRCC3 and breast cancer risk [6]–[8]. But the expression of XRCC3 in breast cancer was not well studied. In this study, immunohistochemistry was used to explore the prevalence of XRCC3 and RAD51 expression and their possible roles in breast cancer.

Patients and Methods

Ethics Statement

All of the tissue specimens used in this study were obtained with patient written informed consent and the Ethics Committee of Changhai Hospital granted approval for this measure as well as the research protocol.

Study Subjects

All primary breast cancer patients who had undergone initial surgery at The First Affiliated Hospital of Second Military Medical University (Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China) between January 2009 and June 2010 were identified, by reviewing electronic charts. Patients who represented other primary tumor site or received preoperative radiotherapy or chemotherapy were excluded. Finally, a total of 248 patients (median age, 54.7 years old; range, 31 to 84 years old) were enrolled in this study. The following variables were recorded: patient age at diagnosis, menopausal status, largest tumor diameter, number of lymph node metastasis, TNM stage (UICC), histology grade (Elston-Ellis grade), ER, PR, and HER2. The paraffin-embedded pathologic specimens from surgical resection of these patients were obtained from the archives of Department of Pathology. All these resection samples had a uniform fixation, dissection and processing protocol. In addition, 78 cases of adjacent non-cancerous tissues were collected.

Tissue Microarray (TMA) and Immunohistochemistry (IHC)

To cover more tumor cells and represent the typical pathological changes, large core TMAs were used. Briefly, TMA blocks were constructed as follows: 1.5 mm diameter cylinders from the center of the tumor away from areas of ulceration and necrosis were punched from representative areas of a tissue block, and re-embedded into a recipient paraffin block in a defined position, using a tissue arraying instrument (Beecher Instruments, Sun Prairie, WI, USA). Then, TMA blocks were cut into 4-µm sections and processed for IHC. Antibodies were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA) and diluted in phosphate-buffered saline/0.1% bovine serum albumin. The XRCC3 (SAB4503092) antibody and the RAD51 (SAB1406364) antibody were used at 10 ug/ml and 2 ug/ml, respectively, overnight at 4°C. Immunostaining was performed using the Envision System with diaminobenzidine (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark). A negative control was obtained by replacing the primary antibody with a normal murine or rabbit IgG at the same dilutions.

IHC Evaluation

Expressions of XRCC3 and RAD51 in the TMAs were evaluated by two individuals (N.W. and Y.J.W.), who were blinded to the clinicopathological data of these breast cancer patients, at 200× magnification light microscopy. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion between the two evaluators.

Semi-quantitative Criteria

A semi-quantitative evaluation of XRCC3 and RAD51 positivity by IHC was performed using a method described as follows: the percentage of positive cells was divided into five grades (percentage scores): ≤10% (0), 11–25% (1), 26–50% (2), 51–75% (3), and >75% (4). The intensity of staining was divided into four grades (intensity scores): no staining (0), light brown (1), brown (2), and dark brown (3). Staining positivity was determined by the formula: overall scores = percentage score×intensity score. The total score ranged from 0 to 12, with low expression (0–8) and high expression (9–12). HER2 IHC was evaluated according to the Dako scoring system [9]. A positive HER2 result was IHC staining of 3+ or 2+ with a positive fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) result [10]. And the Leake’s score was used for evaluation of ER and PR [11]. ER and PR positivity was taken as a score ≥3 [12].

Statistic Analysis

The STATA 10.0 software was applied for statistical analysis. Associations between different variables were assessed by Pearson’s chi-square test. Multivariate analysis was evaluated by logistic regression analysis. P-values <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant in all of the statistical analyses.

Results

Staining of XRCC3 and RAD51 in Breast Cancers

Diffuse cytoplasmic and nuclear staining for XRCC3 (Figure 1) and RAD51 (Figure 2) was observed. As both XRCC3 and RAD51 are related with DNA repair and have to be active in the nucleus, only the nuclear staining was considered. The mean percentage of positive cells was much higher in breast cancers than in adjacent non-cancerous tissues (XRCC3: 64% vs. 20%; RAD51: 83% vs. 55%). Take staining intensity into consideration, nuclear staining for both XRCC3 and RAD51 was scored and subjected to statistical analysis. The results were summarized in Table 1. It suggested that expressions for both XRCC3 and RAD51 were significantly higher in breast cancer (XRCC3: P<0.001; RAD51: P<0.001).
Figure 1

Representative results of XRCC3 protein expression by immunohistochemical analysis.

Percentage of positive cells and staining intensity are much lower in adjacent non-cancerous tissue (A.×40; B.×200) than in breast cancer (C.×40; D.×200).

Figure 2

Representative results of RAD51 protein expression by immunohistochemical analysis.

Percentage of positive cells and staining intensity are much lower in adjacent non-cancerous tissue (A.×40; B.×200) than in breast cancer (C.×40; D.×200).

Table 1

Expression of XRCC3 and RAD51 in breast cancer and adjacent non-cancerous tissue.

XRCC3 expression Χ2/P valueRAD51 expression Χ2/P value
LowHighLowHigh
Adjacent non-cancerous tissue762 27.791/6018 63.340/
Breast cancer16880 <0.001 66182 <0.001

Representative results of XRCC3 protein expression by immunohistochemical analysis.

Percentage of positive cells and staining intensity are much lower in adjacent non-cancerous tissue (A.×40; B.×200) than in breast cancer (C.×40; D.×200).

Representative results of RAD51 protein expression by immunohistochemical analysis.

Percentage of positive cells and staining intensity are much lower in adjacent non-cancerous tissue (A.×40; B.×200) than in breast cancer (C.×40; D.×200).

Correlation to Clinicopathological Factors

Results on the association between XRCC3 and RAD51 expressions and some clinicopathological factors are presented in Table 2. Significant differences of XRCC3 expression were found between the classifications of subgroups of tumor size (P = 0.036), PR status (P = 0.031), and HER2 status (P = 0.034). RAD51 expression was significantly different according to the status of axillary lymph node metastasis (P = 0.004), as well as PR status (P = 0.011) and HER2 status (P = 0.036). And as expected, a strong association exists between XRCC3 expression and RAD51 expression (Table 3; P<0.001).
Table 2

Correlation between expression of XRCC3 and RAD51 and clinicopathological factors.

XRCC3 expressionRAD51 expressionTotal
LowHighLowHigh
Age at diagnosis
≤453122124153
>451375854141195
Χ2/P value2.640/0.1040.544/0.461
Menopausal status
Premenopausal6035276895
Postmenopausal964029107136
Unknown17
Χ 2/P value1.408/0.2351.534/0.215
Histology grade
I–II1176346134180
III5117204868
Χ2/P value2.259/0.1330.376/0.540
Tumor size
T1: ≤2 cm6325295988
T2: 2–5 cm964333106139
T3: >5 cm91241721
Χ2/P value 6.659/0.036 3.015/0.222
Axillary lymph node metastasis
No94404589134
Yes68331784101
Unknown13
Χ2/P value0.214/0.643 8.312/0.004
TNM stage
13712193049
2954034101135
3302194251
Unknown13
Χ2/P value3.554/0.1695.978/0.050
ER
5827226385
+1105344119163
Χ2/P value0.014/0.9040.035/0.851
PR
7022335992
+985833123156
Χ2/P value 4.661/0.031 6.417/0.011
HER2
1254953121174
+4331136174
Χ2/P value 4.480/0.034 4.419/0.036
Table 3

Association between XRCC3 and RAD51.

RAD51XRCC3Total Χ2 P value
LowHigh
Low60666 22.089 <0.001
High10874182

Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis

Because TNM stage was dependent on tumor size and axillary lymph node metastasis, it was excluded in multivariate analysis. Variables that were selected for multivariate analysis included XRCC3, RAD51, HER2, ER, PR, age at diagnosis, histology grade, tumor size, and axillary lymph node metastasis. The values assigned to these variables were as follows: age at diagnosis ≤45 years old = “1”, >45 years old = “2”; histology grade: I = “1”, II = “2”, III = “3”; tumor size: ≤2 cm = “1”, 2.1–5 cm = “2”, >5 cm = “3”; axillary lymph node metastasis: 0 = “1”, 1–3 = “2”, 4–9 = “3”, >10 = “4”; XRCC3, RAD51, ER, PR, HER2: low expression or negative = “1”, high expression or positive = “2”. XRCC3 and RAD51 were selected as dependent variable to perform multivariate analysis respectively. As Table 4 showed, HER2, PR and RAD51 were demonstrated a significant association with XRCC3. And XRCC3, axillary lymph node metastasis and PR were significantly correlated with RAD51.
Table 4

Multivariate analysis by logistic regression analysis.

Dependent variableIndependentvariableRegression coefficientSE P valueOR95% CI
XRCC3HER20.7030.3520.0462.0191.012–4.028
PR0.7580.3690.0402.1331.035–4.395
RAD511.7530.5040.0015.7732.151–15.494
RAD51Axillary lymph node metastasis0.4310.2000.0311.5391.040–2.278
PR0.8590.3670.0192.3611.150–4.848
XRCC31.7770.504<0.0015.9142.203–15.881

Discussion

As a major defense against environmental damage to cells, DNA repair is vital to the integrity of genome. Abnormality in this process is believed to implicate in tumorigenesis. Theoretically, decreased or loss of expression of DNA repair proteins could damage the DNA repair capacity and lead to genomic instability, thus increase susceptibility to cancer. However, a series of studies suggested that changes in the expression of DNA repair protein were quite complicated during tumorigenesis, as some were down-regulated but others were up-regulated[4], [5], [13]–[15]. XRCC3 is a human homolog of RAD51 and participate in the HRR pathway. It plays an important role in the assembly or stabilization of a multimeric form of RAD51 during DNA repair [3]. RAD51 was reported to have a significantly increased expression in immortalized and tumor cells, including breast cancer. While few studies on XRCC3 expression in breast cancer were reported. Our results showed that the expression levels of both XRCC3 and RAD51 were significantly increased in breast cancer, which was consistent with their high mRNA expressions. How to explain this phenomenon? Is it a result of cells responding to DNA damage but not sufficient to maintain the genome stability? Or the overexpression of these proteins promotes genome instability and tumorigenesis? Richardson et al. used a genetic system to examine the potential for multiple DSBs to lead to genome rearrangements in the presence of increased RAD51 expression, and found a connection between elevated RAD51 protein levels and genome instability as well as tumor progression [16]. Studies on XRCC3 function revealed that XRCC3 was required for the proliferation of MCF7 cells and the decrease in its expression leaded to the accumulation of DNA breaks and the induction of p53-dependent cell death [17]. And on the other hand, cells over-expressing XRCC3 were more invasive and showed a higher tumorigenesis in vivo [18]. What’s more, our study suggested significant associations existed between the expression of these two markers and HER2 level, which was a strong poor prognostic factor in breast cancer. And high expression of XRCC3 and RAD51 were associated with large tumor size and axillary lymph node metastasis respectively. Base on these results, we are disposed to agree that overexpression of XRCC3 and RAD51 may play an important role in the pathogenesis of breast cancer. Accumulated evidence indicated that activation of erbB family of receptors could promote chemo- and radiotherapy resistance when mutated or over-expressed [19]–[21]. And recent studies demonstrated a role of erbB-signaling in regulating DSB repair [22]–[26]. Not only did it regulate the DNA repair capacity through immediate activation of downstream pathways that might control the fast component of DNA-DSB repair [25], but also it was involved in activating DNA-DSB repair through its translocation to the nucleus, which might be important for the slow component of DNA-DSB [26]. Golding et al. found that expression of EGFR variant III could increase the formation of phospho-DNA-PKcs and –ATM repair foci, and RAD51 foci and expression levels, while expression of dominant-negative EGFR exerted an opposite effect [22]. In this study, we found that a significant correlation existed between HER2 and the expression of XRCC3 and RAD51, indicating an effect of HER2 on the transcription of genes that coded for proteins involved in the repair of DNA damages. Previous studies suggested that progesterone had an affect on DNA repair ability [27]–[29]. But the relationship between PR and DNA repair was seldom studied. In this study, our data suggested positive PR status was significantly associated with high expression of XRCC3 and RAD51, even in multivariate analysis. Interestingly, Barbano et al. explored the expression of RAD51 in breast cancer and observed that RAD51 expression was inversely associated with PR status [5]. Despite the contrary result, PR was suggested a potential role in DNA repair. But the exact mechanism needs further investigation. XRCC3 and RAD51 are two important molecules in HRR pathway. Laboratory researches found that abnormalities in their function were not only associated with tumorigenesis, but also metastasis and chemo- and radiotherapy resistance [18], [30], [31]. In this study, we used clinical specimens and confirmed the role of XRCC3 and RAD51 in development and progress of breast cancer. AND the significant correlation among the expressions of PR, HER2, XRCC3 and RAD51 indicated that PR and HER2 might be involved in DNA repair. The further mechanism research will not only help clarify the etiology of breast cancer, but also provide effective means to prevent tumor metastasis and resolve the problems of tumor resistance.
  30 in total

1.  Ten genes for inherited breast cancer.

Authors:  Tom Walsh; Mary-Claire King
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 31.743

2.  ATM gene expression is associated with differentiation and angiogenesis in infiltrating breast carcinomas.

Authors:  M Cuatrecasas; G Santamaria; M Velasco; E Camacho; L Hernandez; M Sanchez; C Orrit; C Murcia; A Cardesa; E Campo; P L Fernandez
Journal:  Histol Histopathol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.303

3.  Xrcc3 is required for assembly of Rad51 complexes in vivo.

Authors:  D K Bishop; U Ear; A Bhattacharyya; C Calderone; M Beckett; R R Weichselbaum; A Shinohara
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  1998-08-21       Impact factor: 5.157

4.  Increased expression of human DNA repair genes, XRCC1, XRCC3 and RAD51, in radioresistant human KB carcinoma cell line N10.

Authors:  T Yanagisawa; M Urade; Y Yamamoto; J Furuyama
Journal:  Oral Oncol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 5.337

5.  Perturbation of sheep ovarian surface epithelial cells by ovulation: evidence for roles of progesterone and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in the restoration of DNA integrity.

Authors:  W J Murdoch
Journal:  J Endocrinol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.286

Review 6.  Preclinical evaluation of molecular-targeted anticancer agents for radiotherapy.

Authors:  Mechthild Krause; Daniel Zips; Howard D Thames; Johann Kummermehr; Michael Baumann
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2006-08-17       Impact factor: 6.280

Review 7.  Links between DNA double strand break repair and breast cancer: accumulating evidence from both familial and nonfamilial cases.

Authors:  Ranju Ralhan; Jatinder Kaur; Rolf Kreienberg; Lisa Wiesmüller
Journal:  Cancer Lett       Date:  2006-07-18       Impact factor: 8.679

8.  Gene regulation profile reveals consistent anticancer properties of progesterone in hormone-independent breast cancer cells transfected with progesterone receptor.

Authors:  Joyce C L Leo; Suk Mei Wang; Chun Hua Guo; Swee Eng Aw; Yi Zhao; Jin Ming Li; Kam M Hui; Valerie C L Lin
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2005-11-20       Impact factor: 7.396

9.  Altered expression of DNA double-strand break detection and repair proteins in breast carcinomas.

Authors:  S Angèle; I Treilleux; A Brémond; P Tanière; J Hall
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.087

10.  Species, sex and inter-individual differences in DNA repair induced by nine sex steroids in primary cultures of rat and human hepatocytes.

Authors:  Antonietta Martelli; Francesca Mattioli; Marianna Angiola; Roland Reimann; Giovanni Brambilla
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2003-04-20       Impact factor: 2.433

View more
  10 in total

1.  Increased expression of IRS-1 is associated with lymph node metastasis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Jiadi Luo; Qiuyuan Wen; Jiao Li; Lina Xu; Shuzhou Chu; Weiyuan Wang; Lei Shi; Guiyuan Xie; Donghai Huang; Songqing Fan
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2014-08-15

2.  Polymorphism of XRCC3 in Egyptian Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Mona Khyri Alkasaby; Abeer Ibrahim Abd El-Fattah; Iman Hassan Ibrahim; Hesham Samir Abd El-Samie
Journal:  Pharmgenomics Pers Med       Date:  2020-08-06

3.  EBV-LMP1 targeted DNAzyme enhances radiosensitivity by inhibiting tumor angiogenesis via the JNKs/HIF-1 pathway in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Lifang Yang; Liyu Liu; Zhijie Xu; Weihua Liao; Deyun Feng; Xin Dong; San Xu; Lanbo Xiao; Jingchen Lu; Xiangjian Luo; Min Tang; Ann M Bode; Zigang Dong; Lunquan Sun; Ya Cao
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2015-03-20

4.  The Expression and Clinical Outcome of pCHK2-Thr68 and pCDC25C-Ser216 in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Huayong Jiang; Bin Wang; Fuli Zhang; Yuanyu Qian; Chia-Chen Chuang; Mingzhen Ying; Yajie Wang; Li Zuo
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2016-10-28       Impact factor: 5.923

5.  Increased expression of mitochondrial transcription factor A and nuclear respiratory factor-1 predicts a poor clinical outcome of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wei Gao; Meihong Wu; Ning Wang; Yingyi Zhang; Jing Hua; Gusheng Tang; Yajie Wang
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2017-11-24       Impact factor: 2.967

6.  Evaluation of X-Ray Repair Cross-Complementing Family Members as Potential Biomarkers for Predicting Progression and Prognosis in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jie Mei; Huiyu Wang; Runjie Wang; Jiadong Pan; Chaoying Liu; Juanying Xu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-03-17       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Shikonin Ameliorates LPS-Induced Cardiac Dysfunction by SIRT1-Dependent Inhibition of NLRP3 Inflammasome.

Authors:  Tao Guo; Zhong-Biao Jiang; Zhong-Yi Tong; Yang Zhou; Xiang-Ping Chai; Xian-Zhong Xiao
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2020-10-16       Impact factor: 4.566

8.  Activation of Akt/mTOR pathway is associated with poor prognosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Weiyuan Wang; Qiuyuan Wen; Lina Xu; Guiyuan Xie; Jiao Li; Jiadi Luo; Shuzhou Chu; Lei Shi; Donghai Huang; Jinghe Li; Songqing Fan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Study on the Mechanism of Cell Cycle Checkpoint Kinase 2 (CHEK2) Gene Dysfunction in Chemotherapeutic Drug Resistance of Triple Negative Breast Cancer Cells.

Authors:  Li Luo; Wei Gao; Jinghui Wang; Dingxue Wang; Xiaobo Peng; Zhaoyang Jia; Ye Jiang; Gongzhuo Li; Dongxin Tang; Yajie Wang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2018-05-15

10.  Elevated expression of HSP10 protein inhibits apoptosis and associates with poor prognosis of astrocytoma.

Authors:  Weibing Fan; Shuang-Shi Fan; Juan Feng; Desheng Xiao; Songqing Fan; Jiadi Luo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-13       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.