| Literature DB >> 27271599 |
Jarline Encarnación1, Carmen Ortiz2, Ralphdy Vergne3, Wanda Vargas4, Domenico Coppola5, Jaime L Matta6.
Abstract
Nucleotide Excision Repair (NER) is a critical pathway involved in breast cancer (BC). We have previously published that a low DNA repair capacity (DRC) is associated with a higher risk of BC in Puerto Rican women. Let-7b belongs to a miRNA family with tumor suppressor activity that targets oncogenes. We isolated miRNAs from plasma of 153 Puerto Rican women with and without BC. DRC was measured in lymphocytes by means of a host cell reactivation assay. These women were divided into four groups according to their DRC level: High (>3.8%) and low (<3.8%). The four groups consisted of BC patients with high (n = 35) and low (n = 43) DRC and controls with high (n = 39) and low (n = 36) DRC. Epidemiologic data were collected at initial BC diagnosis and almost five years after diagnosis. A significant difference in Let-7b expression was found in BC patients with high DRC versus the remaining groups (p < 0.001). Thus, our data reveal a possible role of Let-7b on DRC during breast carcinogenesis. Our study is innovative because it provides the first evidence that Let-7b may play role in DRC regulation (through the NER repair pathway) in BC.Entities:
Keywords: DNA repair; Let-7b; breast cancer; nucleotide excision repair pathway
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27271599 PMCID: PMC4926399 DOI: 10.3390/ijms17060865
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Patient demographics of control and breast cancer patient groups.
| Variable | Number of Patients (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| BC Group ( | Control Group ( | ||
| DRC | |||
| Low (<3.8) | 43 (28) | 36 (24.0) | |
| High (≥3.8) | 35 (23.0) | 39 (25) | 0.4714 |
| Age | |||
| 21–40 years | 8 (10.2) | 13 (17.3) | |
| 41–60 years | 34 (43.6) | 46 (61.3) | 0.0049 |
| ≥ 61 years | 36 (46.2) | 16 (21.3) | |
| Body mass index | |||
| <25 kg/m2 | 24 (30.8) | 30 (40.0) | |
| ≥25 kg/m2 | 53 (67.9) | 42 (56.0) | 0.4045 |
| Missing | 1 (1.3) | 3 (4.0) | |
| Ever been pregnant | |||
| Yes | 69 (88.5) | 60 (80.0) | |
| No | 9 (11.5) | 15 (20.0) | 0.2238 |
| Age at first birth | |||
| ≤19 years | 21 (30.4) | 9 (15.0) | |
| 20–29 years | 33 (47.8) | 47 (78.3) | |
| ≥30 years | 13 (18.8) | 4 (6.7) | 0.0029 |
| Missing | 2 (2.9) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Ever breastfeed | |||
| Yes | 47 (68.1) | 41 (68.3) | |
| No | 22 (31.9) | 19 (31.7) | <0.9789 |
| Oral contraceptive use | |||
| Yes | 33 (42.3) | 37 (49.3) | 0.4779 |
| No | 45 (57.7) | 38 (50.7) | |
| Age started oral contraceptive | |||
| <20 years | 4 (12.1) | 9 (24.3) | |
| ≥21 years | 26 (78.8) | 27 (73.0) | 0.3811 |
| Missing | 3 (9.1) | 1 (2.7) | |
| Regular menstrual periods | |||
| Yes | 52 (66.7) | 39 (52.0) | |
| No | 26 (33.3) | 35 (46.7) | 0.1118 |
| Missing | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.3) | |
| Age at menarche | |||
| ≤12 years | 40 (51.3) | 40 (53.3) | |
| ≥13 years | 37 (47.4) | 35 (46.7) | 0.9932 |
| Missing | 1 (1.3) | 0 (0.0) | |
| History of endometriosis | |||
| Yes | 5 (6.4) | 4 (5.3) | |
| No | 73 (93.6) | 71 (94.7) | 0.7772 |
| Hysterectomy | |||
| Yes | 19 (24.4) | 17 (22.7) | |
| No | 59 (75.6) | 58 (77.3) | 0.9553 |
| Age of hysterectomy | |||
| ≤40 years | 6 (31.6) | 7 (41.2) | |
| 41–49 years | 10 (52.6) | 10 (58.8) | |
| ≥50 years | 3 (15.8) | 0 (0.0) | 0.2259 |
| Oophorectomy | |||
| Yes | 12 (15.4) | 15 (20.0) | |
| No | 66 (84.6) | 59 (78.7) | |
| Missing | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.3) | 0.5255 |
| Age of oophorectomy | |||
| ≤40 years | 0 (0.0) | 6 (40.0) | |
| 41–49 years | 4 (33.3) | 4 (26.7) | |
| ≥50 years | 6 (50.0) | 3 (20.0) | 0.0347 |
| Missing | 2 (16.7) | 2 (13.3) | |
| Menopause | |||
| Yes | 60 (76.9) | 53 (70.7) | |
| No | 18 (23.1) | 22 (29.3) | 0.4623 |
| Hormone replacement therapy | |||
| Yes | 17 (21.8) | 31 (41.3) | |
| No | 61 (78.2) | 44 (58.7) | 0.0143 |
| Smoking | |||
| Yes | 13 (16.7) | 7 (9.3) | |
| No | 65 (83.3) | 68 (90.7) | 0.232 |
| Alcohol consumption | |||
| Yes | 15 (19.2) | 14 (18.7) | |
| No | 63 (80.8) | 61 (81.3) | 1 |
| Family history of cancer (not BC) | |||
| Yes | 49 (62.8) | 38 (50.7) | |
| No | 29 (37.2) | 37 (49.3) | 0.4623 |
| BC history in any family member | |||
| Yes | 23 (29.5) | 14 (18.7) | |
| No | 55 (70.5) | 61 (81.3) | 0.1339 |
To assess significant differences (p value) among groups, Pearson chi-squared test was performed. BC, breast cancer; DRC, DNA repair capacity.
Figure 1Sample stratification of 153 breast cancer patients and controls based on their DNA repair capacity (DRC) levels. These women were divided into four groups according to their DRC level: high (>3.8%) and low (<3.8%). The four groups consisted of BC patients with high (n = 35) and low (n = 43) DRC and controls with high (n = 39) and low (n = 36) DRC. Asterisk over the bars represent the statistical significance of the KW test, *** p < 0.001.
Clinicopathological characteristics of breast cancer patients.
| Variable | Number of BC Patients (%) | Let-7b 1
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low DRC (<3.8) Group ( | High DRC (≥3.8) Group ( | ||
| Estrogen receptor | |||
| Positive | 34 (79.1) | 20 (60.6) | 0.0007 |
| Negative | 4 (9.3) | 7 (21.2) | |
| Missing | 5 (11.6) | 6 (18.2) | |
| Progesterone receptor | |||
| Positive | 30 (69.8) | 18 (54.5) | 0.0007 |
| Negative | 8 (18.6) | 9 (27.3) | |
| Missing | 5 (11.6) | 6 (18.2) | |
| HER2 | |||
| Positive | 7 (16.3) | 9 (27.3) | |
| Negative | 23 (53.5) | 16 (48.5) | 0.0258 |
| Missing | 13 (30.2) | 8 (24.2) | |
| Grade | |||
| I | 6 (14.0) | 2 (6.1) | |
| II | 19 (44.2) | 15 (45.5) | |
| III | 7 (16.3) | 8 (24.2) | |
| Missing | 11 (25.6) | 8 (24.2) | |
| Subtypes | |||
| Luminal A | 23 (53.5) | 14 (42.4) | 0.0063 |
| Luminal B | 7 (16.3) | 9 (27.3) | |
| Triple negative | 1 (2.3) | 2 (6.1) | |
| Missing | 12 (27.9) | 8 (24.2) | |
| Site | |||
| Ductal | 39 (90.7) | 28 (84.8) | 0.0140 |
| Ductal + lobular | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.0) | |
| Lobular | 2 (4.7) | 2 (6.1) | |
| Missing | 2 (4.7) | 2 (6.1) | |
| Type | |||
| 4 (9.3) | 6 (18.2) | 0.0019 | |
| Invasive | 38 (88.4) | 27 (81.8) | |
| Missing | 1 (2.3) | 0 (0.0) | |
Clinicopathological characteristics of patients with breast cancer were stratified using DRC as a dichotomous variable, followed by a second stratification using the raw data of Let-7b expression. To assess to significant differences among groups, the Kruskal-Wallis test was performed; 1 p-value was based on a two-tailed test.
Figure 2Let-7b expression measured in plasma samples of breast cancer patients and women without breast cancer (controls) with high and low DRC. (A) No significant differences were observed between the breast cancer patients (n = 43) and the control group (n = 37) with low DRC; (B) Statistically significant results were found between the breast cancer patients (n = 35) and controls (n = 39) with high DRC; (C) Comparison between breast cancer patients with high versus low DRC showed a significant difference in Let-7b expression; (D) No significant difference was observed when control groups with high versus low DRC were compared. Box plots represent the data distribution of 78 breast cancer patients and 76 controls in independent experiments. *** p < 0.001 using KW test.
Figure 3Linear regression was performed to test correlations between DNA repair capacity (DRC) levels and Let-7b expression in breast cancer patients.