| Literature DB >> 34244560 |
Katsunori Tozuka1, Pattama Wongsirisin2,3, Shigenori E Nagai4, Yasuhito Kobayashi5, Miki Kanno2,3, Kazuyuki Kubo1, Ken Takai4, Kenichi Inoue4, Hiroshi Matsumoto1, Yoshihito Shimizu5, Masami Suganuma6,7.
Abstract
To understand the mechanism underlying metastasis, identification of a mechanism-based and common biomarker for circulating tumour cells (CTCs) in heterogenous breast cancer is needed. SET, an endogenous inhibitor of protein phosphatase 2A, was overexpressed in all subtypes of invasive breast carcinoma tissues. Treatment with SET-targeted siRNAs reduced the motility of MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells in transwell assay. SET knockdown reduced the number of mammospheres by 60-70% in MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells, which was associated with the downregulation of OCT4 and SLUG. Hence, we analysed the presence of SET-expressing CTCs (SET-CTCs) in 24 breast cancer patients. CTCs were enriched using a size-based method and then immunocytochemically analysed using an anti-SET antibody. SET-CTCs were detected in 6/6 (100%) patients with recurrent breast cancer with a median value of 12 (12 cells/3 mL blood), and in 13/18 (72.2%) patients with stage I-III breast cancer with a median value of 2.5, while the median value of healthy controls was 0. Importantly, high numbers of SET-CTCs were correlated with lymph node metastasis in patients with stage I-III disease. Our results indicate that SET contributes to breast cancer progression and can act as a potential biomarker of CTCs for the detection of metastasis.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34244560 PMCID: PMC8270961 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93620-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Immunohistochemical analysis of breast cancer tissue array. (a) Strong expression of SET was detected in nuclei of invasive carcinoma, but not in those of normal and adjacent normal tissues. (b) Immunostaining scores were determined as described in “Methods” section. Invasive carcinoma tissues showed significantly higher score than those of normal and adjacent normal tissues. *P < 0.01.
Overexpression of SET protein in invasive carcinomas with four clinical subtypes using breast cancer tissue microarray.
| Characteristics | No. of samples | % of samples with SET levels | Average SET level | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| HR-positive/HER2-negative | 46 | 13.0 | 21.8 | 65.2 | 2.5 ± 0.7 | |
| HR/HER2-positive | 19 | 5.3 | 10.5 | 84.2 | 2.8 ± 0.5 | |
| HR-negative/HER2-positive | 18 | 5.6 | 27.8 | 66.7 | 2.6 ± 0.6 | |
| Triple negative | 15 | 0.0 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 2.6 ± 0.5 | |
| < 15% | 73 | 9.6 | 28.8 | 61.6 | 2.5 ± 0.7 | 0.011 |
| ≥ 15% | 25 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 88.0 | 2.8 ± 0.5 | |
Figure 2Knocking down of SET with siSETs reduced motility and mammosphere formation in MCF-7 and MDA-MD-231 cells. (a) Treatment with siSET-1 and siSET-2 reduced SET protein level, which was associated with reduction of CIP2A. Original full images in the figure were shown in Supplementary information, Figure S1. Due to cut the membrane prior hybridization or due to clear backgrounds, some of blot images have absent membrane edges, but specificities of bands were confirmed by knocking down using siRNAs. (b) Motility of MCF-7 and MDA-MD-231 cells was reduced upon SET knockdown. (c) SET knockdown inhibited mammosphere formation in MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells. (d) OCT4 and SLUG expression in mammospheres was suppressed by SET knockdown in MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells. *P < 0.01.
Figure 3Knocking down of SET inhibited tumour formation of MCF-7 cells in SCID/Beige mice. (a) siSET-treated MCF-7 cells (●) showed lower incidence (right) and smaller tumours (left) than non-treated (○) and siControl-treated MCF-7 (△) cells. (b) The images show all tumours formed in non-treated (8 sites), siControl-treated (6 sites), and siSET-1-treated (8 sites) mice at the end of the experiment; the graph indicates the weight of each tumour in the three groups. (c) Immunohistochemical analysis showed that SET protein level was significantly lower in tumours developed in siSET-treated group than in those in the non-treated and siControl-treated groups. *P < 0.05.
Figure 4Immunocytochemical analysis of SET-CTCs, epithelial-CTCs and mesenchymal-CTCs. (a) Staining of the nucleus with anti-SET antibody (green), along with DAPI staining, but not with anti-CD45 antibody (absence of red). The number of SET-CTCs differed significantly between healthy control and patients with stage I–III disease, healthy control versus patients with recurrent disease, and patients with stage I–III disease versus patients with recurrent disease. (b) Representative staining of epithelial-CTCs with anti-pan-cytokeratin and anti-EpCAM antibodies (green), along with DAPI staining (blue), but not anti-CD45 antibody (absence of red). The number of epithelial-CTCs differed significantly between healthy control and patients with recurrent disease, and patients with stage I–III disease versus patients with recurrent disease. (c) Representative staining of a mesenchymal-CTC with anti-vimentin antibody (green) and anti-GCDFP15 antibody (red), along with DAPI staining (blue). The number of mesenchymal-CTCs differed significantly between healthy control and patients with stage I–III disease, and healthy control versus patients with recurrent disease. (d) SET-CTCs were detected not only in patients with epithelial-CTCs but also in those with mesenchymal-CTCs. Collared bars show the number of SET-CTCs (orange), epithelial-CTCs (blue), and mesenchymal-CTCs (gray) in each patient. (e) Patients with lymph node metastasis showed higher numbers of SET-CTCs than those with stage I–III disease. (f) No significant difference was observed in the number of epithelial- or mesenchymal-CTCs between patients with or without lymph node metastasis. *P < 0.05.
Numbers of SET-CTCs, epithelial-CTCs, and mesenchymal-CTCs in breast cancer patients and healthy controls along with their characteristics. *P<0.05, **P<0.01.
| Breast cancer patients | Healthy controls | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Stage I–III | Recurrent | ||
| Number of samples | 18 | 6 | 10 |
| Age | 52.5 ± 13.7 (37–87) | 60.0 ± 10.0 (43–69) | 36.2 ± 14.1 (21–64) |
| Yes | 10 | – | – |
| No | 7 | ||
| Samples with ≥ 1 | 13 (72.2%) | 6 (100%)** | 4 (40.0%) |
| Samples with ≥ 4 | 8 (44.4%)* | 5 (83.3%)** | 0 |
Median (range) | 2.5* (0–14) | 12** (3–38) | 0 (0–3) |
| Samples with ≥ 1 | 3 (16.7%)* | 4 (66.7%)** | 0 |
Median (range) | 0* (0–5) | 4** (0–21) | 0 |
| Samples with ≥ 1 | 13 (72.2%)* | 5 (83.3%)** | 0 |
Median (range) | 1.5* (0–26) | 6.5* (0–12) | 0 |