Martin P Ogrodzinski1,2, Shao Thing Teoh1, Sophia Y Lunt3,4. 1. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. 2. Department of Physiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. 3. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. sophia@msu.edu. 4. Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. sophia@msu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with several subtypes that currently do not have targeted therapeutic options. Metabolomics has the potential to uncover novel targeted treatment strategies by identifying metabolic pathways required for cancer cells to survive and proliferate. METHODS: The metabolic profiles of two histologically distinct breast cancer subtypes from a MMTV-Myc mouse model, epithelial-mesenchymal-transition (EMT) and papillary, were investigated using mass spectrometry-based metabolomics methods. Based on metabolic profiles, drugs most likely to be effective against each subtype were selected and tested. RESULTS: We found that the EMT and papillary subtypes display different metabolic preferences. Compared to the papillary subtype, the EMT subtype exhibited increased glutathione and TCA cycle metabolism, while the papillary subtype exhibited increased nucleotide biosynthesis compared to the EMT subtype. Targeting these distinct metabolic pathways effectively inhibited cancer cell proliferation in a subtype-specific manner. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the feasibility of metabolic profiling to develop novel personalized therapy strategies for different subtypes of breast cancer. Schematic overview of the experimental design for drug selection based on breast cancer subtype-specific metabolism. The epithelial mesenchymal transition (EMT) and papillary tumors are histologically distinct mouse mammary tumor subtypes from the MMTV-Myc mouse model. Cell lines derived from tumors can be used to determine metabolic pathways that can be used to select drug candidates for each subtype.
PURPOSE:Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with several subtypes that currently do not have targeted therapeutic options. Metabolomics has the potential to uncover novel targeted treatment strategies by identifying metabolic pathways required for cancer cells to survive and proliferate. METHODS: The metabolic profiles of two histologically distinct breast cancer subtypes from a MMTV-Mycmouse model, epithelial-mesenchymal-transition (EMT) and papillary, were investigated using mass spectrometry-based metabolomics methods. Based on metabolic profiles, drugs most likely to be effective against each subtype were selected and tested. RESULTS: We found that the EMT and papillary subtypes display different metabolic preferences. Compared to the papillary subtype, the EMT subtype exhibited increased glutathione and TCA cycle metabolism, while the papillary subtype exhibited increased nucleotide biosynthesis compared to the EMT subtype. Targeting these distinct metabolic pathways effectively inhibited cancer cell proliferation in a subtype-specific manner. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the feasibility of metabolic profiling to develop novel personalized therapy strategies for different subtypes of breast cancer. Schematic overview of the experimental design for drug selection based on breast cancer subtype-specific metabolism. The epithelial mesenchymal transition (EMT) and papillary tumors are histologically distinct mouse mammary tumor subtypes from the MMTV-Mycmouse model. Cell lines derived from tumors can be used to determine metabolic pathways that can be used to select drug candidates for each subtype.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Cancer subtypes; Mass spectrometry; Metabolic profile; Metabolomics; Targeted therapy
Authors: E Senkus; S Kyriakides; F Penault-Llorca; P Poortmans; A Thompson; S Zackrisson; F Cardoso Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: T Sørlie; C M Perou; R Tibshirani; T Aas; S Geisler; H Johnsen; T Hastie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; T Thorsen; H Quist; J C Matese; P O Brown; D Botstein; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-09-11 Impact factor: 11.205
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: Matt I Gross; Susan D Demo; Jennifer B Dennison; Lijing Chen; Tania Chernov-Rogan; Bindu Goyal; Julie R Janes; Guy J Laidig; Evan R Lewis; Jim Li; Andrew L Mackinnon; Francesco Parlati; Mirna L M Rodriguez; Peter J Shwonek; Eric B Sjogren; Timothy F Stanton; Taotao Wang; Jinfu Yang; Frances Zhao; Mark K Bennett Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Michael Lampa; Heike Arlt; Timothy He; Beatriz Ospina; Jason Reeves; Bailin Zhang; Joshua Murtie; Gejing Deng; Claude Barberis; Dietmar Hoffmann; Hong Cheng; Jack Pollard; Christopher Winter; Victoria Richon; Carlos Garcia-Escheverria; Francisco Adrian; Dmitri Wiederschain; Lakshmi Srinivasan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 3.240