| Literature DB >> 27911856 |
Pietro Fici1, Giulia Gallerani1, Anne-Pierre Morel2,3,4,5,6, Laura Mercatali7, Toni Ibrahim7, Emanuela Scarpi8, Dino Amadori9, Alain Puisieux2,3,4,5,6,10, Michel Rigaud1, Francesco Fabbri1.
Abstract
Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) has been shown to be associated with tumor progression and metastasis. During this process in breast cancer, a crucial role is played by alternative splicing systems. To identify a new early prognostic marker of metastasis, we evaluated EMT-related gene expression in breast cell lines, and in primary tumor tissue from 31 patients with early breast cancer, focusing our attention on EMT-related splicing factors ESRP1, ESRP2 and RBFOX2. Results showed that the expression patterns of these genes were indicative of the onset of EMT in in-vitro models, but not in tissue samples. However, the ratio between ESRP1 or ESRP2 and RBFOX2 significantly decreased during EMT and positively correlated with the EMT-specific phenotype in cell models, representing a promising prognostic markers. Low ESRP1/RBFOX2 ratio value was associated with a higher risk of metastasis (p < 0.005) in early breast cancer patients, regardless other clinical features. A cut-off of ratio of 1.067 was determined by ROC curve analysis (AUC 0.8375; 95% CI 0.6963-0.9787). Our study show evidence that a decrease in this ratio correlates with cancer progression. The results provide a rationale for using ESRP1/RBFOX2 ratio as a new prognostic biomarker for the early prediction of metastatic potential in breast cancer.Entities:
Keywords: EMT; EMT ratio; alternative splicing; early breast cancer; tumor aggressiveness
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 27911856 PMCID: PMC5356812 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.13682
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Phase-contrast images of MCF10A, HMEC immortalized with empty vector (HMEi_v) and HMEi-SNAIL cell cultures
(A) HMEi_v cells without 4-OHT; (B) HMEi_v cells treated with 4-OHT; (C) HMEi-SNAIL cells without 4-OHT (control); (D) HMEi-SNAIL cells at the end of 4-OHT treatment (13th day); (E) MCF10A cells without TGFβ (control); (F) MCF10A cells at the end of TGFβ treatment (13th day). Magnification 10× for all images (scale bar: 50 μm).
Figure 2Kinetics of EMT-related gene expression in treated HMEi-SNAIL (left) and MCF10A (right) in which EMT was induced
Epithelial gene expression in HMEi-SNAIL (A) and MCF10A (B); Mesenchymal gene expression in HMEi-SNAIL (C) and MCF10A (D); EMT-TF expression in HMEi-SNAIL (E) and MCF10A (F); EMT-related splicing factor expression in HMEi-SNAIL (G) and MCF10A (H); EMT-related splicing factor expression ratio values in HMEi-SNAIL (I) and MCF10A (J); Splicing variant products in HMEi-SNAIL (K) and MCF10A (L). Cell samples were collected and analyzed every 6 hours during the first 24 hours (from T0 to T3). From 24 hours to the 13th day of treatment (T15), cells were detached and tested every 24 hours.
Median gene expression values of EMT-related genes and median ratio value ESRP1/RBFOX2 and ESRP2/RBFOX2 in early breast cancer tissue
| NED ( | MET ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Assay | Median value (range) | Median value (range) | |
| 0.89 (0.32–13.92) | 0.64 (0.19–6.36) | 0.653 | |
| 0.80 (0.19–3.83) | 1.07 (0.30–6.49) | 0.545 | |
| 1.18 (0.17–2.43) | 1.21 (0.20–3.76) | 0.860 | |
| 0.78 (0.13–10.10) | 1.71 (0.41–4.01) | 0.060 | |
| 0.83 (0.09–6.15) | 1.57 (0.33–19.19) | 0.269 | |
| 0.66 (0.14–2.42) | 1.45 (0.41–6.56) | 0.060 | |
| 0.81 (0.14–14.15) | 1.08 (0.35–3.35) | 0.360 | |
| 0.79 (0.19–5.58) | 0.96 (0.40–7.59) | 0.739 | |
| 1.03 (0.28–7.54) | 1.10 (0.08–25.88) | 0.597 | |
| 0.79 (0.18–4.23) | 1.18 (0.16–4.95) | 0.424 | |
| 0.75 (0.20–6.94) | 1.41 (0.11–6.05) | 0.402 | |
| 1.14 (0.42–6.72) | 0.76 (0.36–2.09) | 0.171 | |
| 0.92 (0.12–17.84) | 1.23 (0.45–3.47) | 0.159 | |
| 0.74 (0.26–4.63) | 1.40 (0.66–2.61) | 0.043 | |
| 1.37 (0.06–3.03) | 2.30 (0.02–10.98) | 0.470 | |
| 0.97 (0.13–2.79) | 1.56 (0.13–13.80) | 0.253 | |
| 0.43 (0.003–8.86) | 3.91 (0.28–13.85) | 0.008 | |
| 0.43 (0.01–9.37) | 1.42 (0.72–28.16) | 0.060 | |
| 1.42 (0.68–5.82) | 0.64 (0.22–1.71) | ||
| 1.02 (0.10–4.09) | 0.88 (0.36–2.69) | 0.799 |
P ≤ 0.005.
Figure 3(A) ESRP1/RBFOX2 gene expression ratio values in NED and MET samples (*P ≤ 0.005). (B) Volcano plot representing the differences in median expression levels between NED and MET samples plotted against their statistical significance for all assays. The ESRP1/RBFOX2 ratio is the only assay with a statistical power ratio that lies above the horizontal threshold line (dashed line: P = 0.005). T-test P values of the comparison samples are shown in Table 1. (C) ROC curve of ESRP1/RBFOX2 ratio between NED and MET samples and (AUC = area under curve).
Figure 4Representative images of ESRP1 and RBFOX2 expression in early breast cancer tissue of NED 1 (T2N0M0 at time of diagnosis) and MET 2 samples (T2N0M0 at time of diagnosis)
Two ductal infiltrating tumor samples of grade two. (A and D) Hematoxylin and eosin staining of NED 1 sample; (B and E) ESRP1 immunostaining of NED 1 sample (grade 3); (C and F) RBFOX2 immunostaining of NED 1 sample (grade 3); (G and J) Hematoxylin and eosin staining of MET 2 sample; (H and K) ESRP1 Immunostaining of MET 2 sample (grade 1-); (I and L) RBFOX2 immunostaining of MET 2 sample (grade 3+). Magnification 10× and 20×.
Patient characteristics
| NED ( | MET ( | Total ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No (%) | No (%) | No (%) | |
| 58 (28–76) | 59 (46–81) | 59 (28–81) | |
| Ductal | 14 (87.5) | 12 (80.0) | 23 (74.2) |
| Lobular | 0 | 3 (20.0) | 3 (9.7) |
| Ductal | 2 (12.5) | 0 | 2 (6.4) |
| 1 | 3 (20) | 0 | 3 (11.5) |
| 2 | 5 (33.3) | 3 (27.3) | 8 (30.8) |
| 3 | 7 (46.7) | 8 (72.7) | 15 (57.7) |
| Missing | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| 0 | 9 (64.3) | 3 (33.3) | 12 (52.2) |
| 1 | 5 (35.7) | 2 (22.3) | 7 (30.4) |
| 2 | 0 | 1 (11.1) | 1 (4.4) |
| 3 | 0 | 3 (33.3) | 3 (13.0) |
| Missing | 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Viscera | – | 7 (46.6) | 7 (22.6) |
| Bone | – | 4 (26.7) | 4 (12.9) |
| Viscera+bone | – | 4 (26.7) | 4 (12.9) |
| NED | – | – | 15 (51.6) |
NED, no evidence of disease; MET, metastatic disease.