| Literature DB >> 26956474 |
Raúl M Luque1,2,3,4, Alicia Villa-Osaba5,6,7,8, Fernando L-López9,10,11,12, Ana I Pozo-Salas13, Rafael Sánchez-Sánchez14, Rosa Ortega-Salas15, Luis de Lecea16, Marina Álvarez-Benito17,18, José López-Miranda19,20,21, Manuel D Gahete22,23,24,25, Justo P Castaño26,27,28,29.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Somatostatin (SST) and cortistatin (CORT), two structurally and functionally related peptides, share a family of widespread receptors (sst1-5) to exert apparently similar biological actions, including endocrine/metabolic regulation and suppression of tumor cell proliferation. However, despite their therapeutic potential, attempts to apply SST-analogs to treat breast cancer have yielded unsatisfactory results. Actually, the specific roles of SST and CORT in mammary gland tumorigenesis (MGT), particularly in relation to metabolic dysregulation (i.e. obesity), remain unknown.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26956474 PMCID: PMC4782371 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-016-0689-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res ISSN: 1465-5411 Impact factor: 6.466
Fig. 1Diet-induced obese phenotype in wild-type (WT), cortistatin (CORT)-knockout (KO) and somatostatin (SST)-KO mice. a Growth curves (represented as body weight over time of high-fat (HF) diet feeding, starting at 8 week of age). D indicates effect of HF diet analyzed by two-way analysis of variance. b Glucose (mg/dL) and leptin levels (ng/mL) at the day of sacrifice (23–43/group). c Fat mass, lean mass and free water percentages (close to the day of sacrifice; n = 10–16/group). Values are mean ± standard error of the mean: *p <0.05, **p <0.01, ***p <0.001 for significant differences between groups analyzed by the Fisher, Bonferroni or Mann–Whitney post-hoc test
Fig. 2Mammary gland tumor formation induced by 7, 12 dimethylbenz[α]anthracene (DMBA) in wild-type (WT), cortistatin (CORT)-knockout (KO) and somatostatin (SST)-KO mice on a low fat (LF)/high fat (HF) diet. a Tumor incidence (represented as percentage of mice with tumors), b tumor latency in days, c tumor multiplicity, and d tumor burden (n = 23–43/group). Values represent percentages (for tumor incidence) or mean ± standard error of the mean: *p <0.05, **p <0.01, ***p <0.001 for significant differences between groups analyzed by the Fisher or Mann–Whitney post-hoc test. n.d. not detected
DMBA-induced mammary gland tumor formation in WT, CORT-KO and SST-KO mice by whole-mount analysis
| WT | CORT-KO | SST-KO | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LF ( | HF ( | LF ( | HF ( | LF ( | HF ( | |
| Whole-mount analysis | ||||||
| Tumor | 3 % | 5 % | 14 %## | 13 % | 4 %$ | 3 %$ |
| Hyperplasia | 16 % | 35 %** | 10 % | 25 %** | 13 % | 38 %*** |
| Normal | 81 % | 60 %** | 76 % | 63 % | 83 % | 59 %** |
| Percentage of mice that were not included in the studya | 35 % | 24.5 % | 21.4 % | 40 % | 30.3 % | 23 % |
**p <0.01, ***p <0.001, for mice fed a low fat (LF) diet vs high fat (HF) diet (within the same genotype); ## p <0.01 in wild-type (WT) vs knockout (KO) mice (within the same diet group); $ p <0.05) in cortistatin (CORT)-KO vs somatostatin (SST)-KO (within the same diet group). aMice that died during the 3 weeks of 7, 12 dimethylbenz[α]anthracene (DMBA) administration or during the weeks immediately subsequent, due to the toxicity of this compound and/or the invasiveness of the method used to deliver DMBA, were not included in the study
Fig. 3Incidence curve for 7, 12 dimethylbenz[α]anthracene (DMBA)-induced mammary gland tumor in wild-type (WT), cortistatin (CORT)-knockout (KO) and somatostatin (SST)-KO mice on a low fat (LF)/high fat (HF) diet. Percentage of mice (n = 23–43/group) without tumor after DMBA administration over time for each experimental group, indicating the moment when tumors were first detected. Differences identified by the log-rank (Mantel–Cox) test are shown
HER2, ER and PR status and malignancy features of DMBA-induced mammary gland tumors in WT, CORT-KO and SST-KO mice
| Group | Histological type | HER2a | ER | PR | Ki 67 | Mitosisb | Inflammationc | Angiogenesisc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WT LF | Undifferentiated carcinoma | 1+ Negative | Positive | Positive | - | 10 | 1/3 | 1/3 |
| Undifferentiated carcinoma | 1+ Negative | Positive | Negative | - | 12 | 1/3 | 2/3 | |
| Well-differentiated squamous carcinoma | 1+ Negative | Positive | - | - | 9 | 2/3 | 1/3 | |
| WT HF | Undifferentiated carcinoma | 0 Negative | Positive | Negative | - | 11 | 0/3 | 1/3 |
| Moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 1+ Negative | Positive | Negative | 40 % | 6 | 1/3 | 1/3 | |
| CORT-KO LF | Undifferentiated carcinoma | 0 Negative | Positive | Positive | 65 % | 12 | 1/3 | 1/3 |
| Undifferentiated carcinoma | 0 Negative | Positive | Positive | 70 % | 19 | 1/3 | 2/3 | |
| Undifferentiated carcinoma | 0 Negative | Positive | - | 65 % | 5 | 1/3 | 1/3 | |
| Undifferentiated carcinoma | 1+ Negative | Positive | Negative | - | 5 | 1/3 | 2/3 | |
| Undifferentiated carcinoma | 1+ Negative | Negative | - | - | 5 | 2/3 | 1/3 | |
| Undifferentiated carcinoma | 1+ Negative | Positive | Negative | - | 8 | 0/3 | 1/3 | |
| Undifferentiated carcinoma | 0 Negative | Positive | Positive | 70 % | 7 | 1/3 | 1/3 | |
| Well-differentiated squamous carcinoma | 1+ Negative | Positive | Positive | 70 % | 9 | 1/3 | 1/3 | |
| Well-differentiated squamous carcinoma | 1+ Negative | Positive | Positive | 90 % | 10 | 1/3 | 1/3 | |
| Well-differentiated squamous carcinoma | 1+ Negative | - | Positive | 70 % | 8 | 1/3 | 1/3 | |
| CORT-KO HF | Undifferentiated carcinoma | 0 Negative | Positive | Negative | 75 % | 12 | 2/3 | 1/3 |
| Undifferentiated carcinoma | 0 Negative | Positive | Positive | - | 6 | 1/3 | 1/3 | |
| Well-differentiated squamous carcinoma | 2+ Positive | Positive | Negative | 70 % | 13 | 2/3 | 1/3 | |
| Moderately differentiated squamous carcinoma | 1+ Negative | Positive | Positive | - | 2 | 3/3 | 2/3 | |
| SST-KO HF | Undifferentiated carcinoma | 1+ Negative | Positive | - | 50 % | 7 | 1/3 | 1/3 |
| Undifferentiated carcinoma | 1+ Negative | Positive | Negative | 80 % | 19 | 1/3 | 2/3 | |
| Well-differentiated squamous carcinoma | 2+ Positive | Positive | Positive | 75 % | 10 | 1/3 | 1/3 |
aPresence of human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) was evaluated as negative (0: negative staining or, 1+: >10 % of cells with incomplete or undetectable staining) or positive (2+: >10 % of cells with complete staining). bNumber of mitotic cells per each 10 high power fields. cInflammation and de novo angiogenesis were valued as 0/3 (no inflammation), 1/3 (scarce), 2/3 (moderate) or 3/3 (abundant). ER estrogen receptor, PR progesterone receptor, WT wild-type, HF high fat, LF low fat, CORT-KO cortistatin knockout, SST-KO somatostatin knockout
Fig. 4Impact of low fat (LF)/high fat (HF) diets on mammary gland (MG) development in wild-type (WT), cortistatin (CORT)-knockout (KO) and somatostatin (SST)-KO mice. MG complexity (represented as the ductal branching by counting number of intersecting branches along a line between the leading edge of the ducts and the lymph node) and terminal end buds (TEBs) were determined in: a young virgin (8-week-old) WT, CORT-KO and SST-KO mice (n = 10–30/group); b adult WT, CORT-KO and SST-KO mice fed a LF or a HF diet for 12 weeks (n = 4–12/group); and c adult WT, CORT-KO and SST-KO mice (4–14/group) fed a LF or HF diet for 12 weeks and treated with 7, 12 dimethylbenz[α]anthracene (DMBA) at 20 weeks of age. Values represent mean ± standard error of the mean: *p <0.05, **p <0.01 for differences between groups analyzed by the Bonferroni or Mann–Whitney test. Right representative images of each experimental group by whole mount
Fig. 5Circulating hormone levels in wild-type (WT), cortistatin (CORT)-knockout (KO) and somatostatin (SST)-KO mice on low fat (LF) and high fat (HF) diets. Values represent mean ± standard error of the mean of the percentage of growth hormone (GH), insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-I), prolactin (PRL), insulin and corticosterone plasma levels of each experimental group (n = 22–40/group; setting the WT LF group as 100 %): **p <0.01 for significant differences between groups analyzed by the Mann–Whitney post-hoc test