Clinical Cancer Research Joint Metastasis Research Society-AACR Conference on Metastasis Translational Cancer Medicine 2008: Cancer Clinical Trials and Personalized Medicine
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Cell Growth & Differentiation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fukuoka, J.
Right arrow Articles by Jen, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fukuoka, J.
Right arrow Articles by Jen, J.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 10, 4314-4324, July 1, 2004
© 2004 American Association for Cancer Research

Molecular Oncology, Markers, Clinical Correlates

Chromatin Remodeling Factors and BRM/BRG1 Expression as Prognostic Indicators in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Junya Fukuoka1,6, Takeshi Fujii1, Joanna H. Shih2, Tatiana Dracheva1, Daoud Meerzaman1, Audrey Player1, Kyeong Hong1, Sharon Settnek3, Ajay Gupta3, Kenneth Buetow1,3, Stephen Hewitt4, William D. Travis5 and Jin Jen1

1 Laboratory of Population Genetics, 2 Biometric Research Branch, 3 Center for Bioinformatics, 4 Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; 5 Department of Pulmonary and Mediastinal Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D.C.; and 6 Department of Pathology, Shiga University of Medical Science, Shiga, Japan

ABSTRACT

We immunohistochemically examined 12 core proteins involved in the chromatin remodeling machinery using a tissue microarray composed of 150 lung adenocarcinoma (AD) and 150 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) cases. Most of the proteins showed nuclear staining, whereas some also showed cytoplasmic or membranous staining. When the expression patterns of all tested antigens were considered, proteins with nuclear staining clustered into two major groups. Nuclear signals of BRM, Ini-1, retinoblastoma, mSin3A, HDAC1, and HAT1 clustered together, whereas nuclear signals of BRG1, BAF155, HDAC2, BAF170, and RbAP48 formed a second cluster. Additionally, two thirds of the cases on the lung tissue array had follow-up information, and survival analysis was performed for each of the tested proteins. Positive nuclear BRM (N-BRM) staining correlated with a favorable prognosis in SCC and AD patients with a 5 year-survival of 53.5% compared with 32.3% for those whose tumors were negative for N-BRM (P = 0.015). Furthermore, patients whose tumors stained positive for both N-BRM and nuclear BRG1 had a 5 year-survival of 72% compared with 33.6% (P = 0.013) for those whose tumors were positive for either or negative for both markers. In contrast, membranous BRM (M-BRM) staining correlated with a poorer prognosis in AD patients with a 5 year-survival of 16.7% compared with those without M-BRM staining (38.1%; P = 0.016). These results support the notion that BRM and BRG1 participate in two distinct chromosome remodeling complexes that are functionally complementary and that the nuclear presence of BRM, its coexpression with nuclear BRG1, and the altered cellular localization of BRM (M-BRM) are useful markers for non-small cell lung cancer prognosis.

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer has the highest cancer incidence and mortality in the world (1) . Even in localized stages, the prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has remained poor over the last decades, despite curative surgery. At present, tumor staging is the strongest prognostic indicator (2 , 3) , and the 5-year survival rates range from 61% for stage IA disease and 24% for stage IIB disease to <10% for stage III disease (4 , 5) . Despite intensive research, little has changed in the understanding and management of NSCLC. Detailed histopathological features and known clinical prognostic factors have been of limited help in predicting lung cancer outcome.

Studies have shown that modification of chromatin structure is an essential step in gene regulation primarily mediated by chromatin remodeling proteins. Among these proteins, histone is known to establish a dynamic molecular interface and play an active role in the regulation of transcription (6, 7, 8) . Often, transcription is also regulated by other cofactors, and the balance of chromatin remodeling activities may be crucial to ensure accurate responses to developmental or environmental cues and to prevent the transition of normal cells into cancer cells (9) .

The SWI/SNF complex is a major complex of ATP- dependent chromatin remodeling factors and contributes to the regulation of gene expression by altering chromatin structure (10, 11, 12, 13, 14) . SWI/SNF complex, originally identified in yeast, is composed of 11 characterized subunits, and SWI2/SNF2 is the central ATPase (15 , 16) . Human SWI/SNF complexes contain one of the two core catalytic ATPase subunits, BRM or BRG1 (14 , 17, 18, 19) . BRM and BRG1 further diverge in their subunit compositions and are thought to participate in specialized cellular functions (19) . Growing genetic and molecular evidence indicates that subunits of the SWI/SNF complex can act as tumor suppressors in human and mice (7 , 20, 21, 22) . Recently, concomitant loss of BRG1 and BRM expression was reported as a poor prognostic indicator in NSCLC (23) . Results from biochemical and transfection studies also suggest that SWI/SNF may interact and control the transcriptional activity of a variety of genes involved in cellular growth and transformation (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30) .

The recent development of tissue microarray (TMA) technique allows for high-throughput molecular analysis of a large set of paraffin-embedded surgical specimens and makes it possible to effectively evaluate many proteins in a specific biological pathway (31, 32, 33, 34, 35) . Here, we focused on ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling and histone-modifying factors by examining their expression status, relationship, and clinical correlation in 300 pulmonary adenocarcinoma (AD) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical Samples.
Three hundred lung cancer cases (150 pulmonary AD and 150 SCC cases) were selected from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology archive, based on the diagnosis and the quality and quantity of the available tissue on the paraffin block. Demographic and clinical data were collected at the time of block acquisition (Table 1)Citation . A total of 246 patients had complete clinical information. Survival time and outcome data were available for 211 patients. The tumors were staged according to the International Union against Cancer’s tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification and histologically subtyped and graded according to WHO guidelines (36) .


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Clinical characteristics of all non-small cell lung cancer patients used in this study

 
Lung TMA.
The most representative tumor areas were carefully selected based on the matched H&E-stained slides and marked directly on the donor block. The cylindrical tissue sample was cored (diameter, 0.6 mm) from the selected region in the donor block and extruded directly into the recipient block with coordinated wells. One hundred adjacent nondiseased lung tissues from AD and SCC cases, along with 50 nonpulmonary normal tissues, were included in the same array block (Fig. 1)Citation . Multiple 4-µm sections were cut with a microtome using an adhesive-coated tape (Instrumedics). Sections attached with adhesive tapes were floated on the water, transferred to charged glass slides (Fisherbrand, Superfrost/Plus), and allowed to dry while keeping the tape on the tissue slides. Before H&E or immunohistochemical staining, adhesive tapes were peeled off the glass slides immediately after immersing the slide in the TPC solvent (Instrumedics). Every 50th section from each tissue array block was stained with H&E and examined for histopathology and tissue retention. The remaining sections were stored at room temperature until use.



View larger version (54K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Organization of lung tumor tissue microarray (TMA). A, H&E staining of the entire TMA section. B, scheme of TMA. Tissues samples are represented by small rectangles that are arrayed in groups of 25 each. Tumor types are indicated as light gray (adenocarcinoma) or black (squamous cell carcinoma). The clear areas are control tissues including normal lung from patients with adenocarcinoma (#1), or squamous cell carcinoma (#2), and normal nonpulmonary organs (#3).

 
Antibody Selection.
The primary selection of the antibodies was based on protein participation in chromatin remodeling machinery, commercial availability of the antibodies, and reliability of the immunohistochemical staining. For the SWI/SNF complex, both central core catalytic subunits (BRG1 and BRM) and other BRG1-associated factors, including BAF170 and BAF155, and Ini-1 were selected for this study. HDAC1 and HDAC2 are histone deacetylases and were selected because of their known interaction with the SWI/SNF complex (8 , 26) . Retinoblastoma (RB) protein is also known to interact with HDAC and SWI/SNF in association with RbAP48 (37) . mSin3A is an evolutionarily conserved corepressor and a regulator of cell growth and was selected because it complexes with SWI/SNF complex and HDACs (26) . Histone acetyltransferase (HAT) 1 and Tip60 were also selected as an important protein of HAT complex. HAT interacts and stabilizes SWI/SNF to bind promoter nucleosome (38 , 39) . AE1/AE3 and PGP9.5 were used to standardize the staining quality of the tissues on the array. The detailed source information and optimal staining conditions for all antibodies are listed in Table 2Citation .


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 Antibodies and protocols used for immunohistochemical staining

 
Immunohistochemical Staining.
Immediately after removing the adhesive tapes, the sections were deparaffinized with xylene and rehydrated through graded alcohols into water. Heat-induced epitope retrieval was performed by placing slides in plastic coplin jars in citrate buffer (pH 6.0; BioGenex, Sandown, NH) using a decloaking chamber (Biocare Medical, Walnut Creek, CA) for about 30 min. After heat-induced epitope retrieval treatment, endogenous peroxidase was blocked with 0.3% H2O2 in PBS for 20 min followed by washing twice in PBS. When a microwave was used for heat-induced epitope retrieval instead of the decloaking chamber, specimens were heated in a microwave oven for 4 min while keeping the buffer temperature around 95°C. Tissues were placed in the humid chamber and incubated with normal blocking serum for 30 min. The slides were then incubated with the primary antibodies at an optimized titer as shown in Table 2Citation and diluted using Universal blocking reagent (BioGenex) for 60 min. After washing three times with PBS, each series of sections was incubated for 30 min with biotinylated secondary antibodies (Vector Laboratories) diluted to 1:250 by Universal blocking reagent, washed three times in PBS, and then incubated for 45 min with avidin-biotin complex method reagent (Vectastain Elite ABC kit; Vector Laboratories). The reaction products were rinsed twice with PBS, placed in 0.05 M Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.5) for 5 min, and then developed in liquid 3,3'-diaminobenzidine (DAKO) for 3 min. After the development, sections were washed twice with distilled water, lightly counterstained with Mayer’s hematoxylin, dehydrated, cleared, and mounted with resinous mounting medium. All procedures were carried out at room temperature.

Western Analysis and Immunohistochemistry of Lung Cancer Cell Lines.
To determine the specificity of the antibodies, a panel of nine lung cancer cell lines was obtained from American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA) and used for both immunohistochemistry and Western analyses.1 Briefly, confluent cultures of each cell line were prepared for total cell lysate in SDS-PAGE sample buffer or scraped to obtain the cell pellet and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde. The pellets were then transferred into 15-ml tubes, dehydrated, and embedded in paraffin. The paraffin blocks were further processed and sectioned for immunohistochemical staining using the protocols described in Table 2Citation . For Western analyses, cell lysates were sonicated and centrifuged to remove the insoluble material, heated at 95°C for 5 min, and stored at –80°C. The protein quantity for each lysate was adjusted based on the {gamma}-tubulin signal, and the proteins of interest were analyzed using standard protocols (40) . The protein filter was incubated for 1 h at room temperature with anti-BRM (n19), BRG1, BAF155, and Ini-1 antibodies at dilutions of 1:20, 1:200, 1:200, 1:200, respectively. Immunoblots were washed with TBS [50 mM Tris (pH 7.6) and 0.15 M NaCl] containing 0.1% Tween 20 for 15 min, incubated with horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibody (diluted 1:10,000), and visualized using enhanced chemiluminescence Western blotting detection reagents (Amersham Biosciences, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom).

TMA Immunohistochemistry Scoring.
The optimized staining condition for lung tumor microarray was determined based on the coexistence of both positive and negative cells in the same tissue sample. Signals were considered positive when reaction products were localized in the expected cellular component. The criteria for the staining were scored as follows: distribution score was scored as 0 (0%), 1 (1–50%), and 2 (51–100%) to indicate the percentage of positive cells in all tumor cells present in one tissue. The intensity of the signal (intensity score) was scored as 0 (no signal), 1 (weak), 2 (moderate), and 3 (marked). The total of distribution score and intensity score was then summed into a total score (TS) of TS0 (sum = 0), TS1 (sum = 2), TS2 (sum = 3), and TS3 (sum = 4–5). This scoring system was modified from previous conventions due to the smaller size of the tissue samples on TMA (41) . Throughout this study, TS0 or TS1 was regarded as negative, whereas TS2 or TS3 was regarded as positive.

For each antibody staining, specimens with questionable signals due to insufficient tumor cells, tumor cells that were difficult to distinguish from other inflammatory or interstitial cells, or tissues with homogenously weak signals were excluded from further evaluation. Tissue sections with only necrotic tumor cells or tissues with high homogenous background were also excluded. Twenty-seven cases with an intensity score of <3 by all tested antibodies were excluded from all analysis. Furthermore, due to the small size of the tissues in TMA, some positive samples could be scored as negative due to sampling error. In our study, 16 samples showed no AE1/AE3 signal (TSO) in 262 scorable tumors, whereas 9 samples were TS1, despite the fact that all cancer tissues should be positive (42) . Therefore, the percentage of positive cases underscored was estimated to be (16 + 9)/(262 – 16 – 9) x 100 = 10.5% of the positive samples. This estimate is also consistent with the staining status of PGP9.5, which was positive in 50% of TMA samples (127 of 253 samples) and 54% in NSCLC cases (54 of 98) when analyzed using conventional pathological sections (43) .

Statistical Analysis.
Comparisons of clinicopathological factors (i.e., age at diagnosis, gender, histological type, or pathological stage) between positive and negative groups were performed using the {chi}2 test. Because a relatively large number of patients in our cohort died of unknown causes, only overall survival was considered for each antibody staining and prognostic analyses. The log-rank test was used for comparing survival distributions between positive and negative groups of staining, and Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for the two groups. Clinical factors were accounted for by fitting Cox proportional hazard models. When the number of observations in a group is small (<30), the usual P value of the log-rank test requiring a large sample size may not be valid. Consequently, a permutation test was used to evaluate the significance of the difference between survival curves. Specifically, the association between the staining status and survival outcome was randomly permuted. A log-rank test statistic was generated with the permuted data. This procedure was repeated 2000 times, and the P value was the proportion of permutations with the same or larger value of the log-rank test statistic as observed in the actual study. A similar permutation test for the Cox proportional hazards model was used, where the association between staining status and survival outcome along with the clinical factors was randomly permuted. Association of binary staining status between each pair of antibodies was examined using the {chi}2 test, and the association was considered significant if the P value ≤0.01. Association between antibody staining and clinical factors (gender, age at diagnosis, or histological type) was also analyzed using the {chi}2 test, where P ≤ 0.01 was considered significant.

For protein association analyses, hierarchical agglomerative clustering was applied to the total score of staining using average linkage and 1 minus the Spearman rank correlation as the distance metric. Clustering reproducibility was assessed by the method proposed by McShane et al. (44)

Image Database of Lung TMAs.
To facilitate data exchange and sharing, all immunohistochemistry images along with the associated clinicopathological information of the tumors are available at the LPG Image Portal.2 LPG Image was developed leveraging the National Cancer Institute Center for Bioinformatics cancer Images Portal (caIMAGE), which allows researchers to submit and retrieve histology images and annotations. The database is highly interactive and can be searched based on patient’s gender, age, tumor histology, and experimental findings for each of the antibodies described in this study.

RESULTS

Clinicopathological Variables and Their Associations with Patient Survival.
Overall, 273 cases had adequately stained tissues for analysis, and clinical information was available for 230 cases. Among them, age at diagnosis was available for 229 cases, with an average of 64.6 years (range, 36–86 years). Gender was available for 230 cases and included 64 female and 166 male patients. Pathological stage was available for 181 cases. Follow-up time or time to death was available in 196 cases, with a median follow-up of 3.2 years. Fifty two patients were alive at the last follow-up.

Female patients had a better prognosis in overall survival with a median survival of 4.6 years in contrast to a median survival of 2.8 years for males (P = 0.028). As expected, stage I and II patients had a significantly better prognosis than stage III and IV patients (P < 0.001). The median survival for stage I/II and stage III/IV patients was 4.2 and 1.3 years, respectively. There was no significant survival difference between patients with AD and those with SCC. The essential clinical information of the study cohort is summarized in Table 1Citation .

Specificity of the Antibodies.
We compared the protein staining of selected antibodies by Western and immunohistochemical analyses using a panel of nine lung cancer cell lines. BRG1 expression was observed in five of nine cell lines, whereas BRM expression was detectable in six of the nine cell lines, although at much lower levels than BRG1 (Fig. 2A)Citation . Furthermore, five of these six cell lines (H520, H358, EKVX, H226, and H2170) had positive immunohistochemical staining, and three of these cell lines (H520, EKVX, and H2170) showed membranous and cytoplasmic staining with no nuclear staining (Fig. 2B)Citation . BAF155 showed reactive band in all nine cell lines, whereas one cell line (H266) had a weaker band. Ini-1 expression was generally weak but detectable in eight cells and appeared to be absent in H358 cells (Fig. 2A)Citation .



View larger version (94K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Chromatin remodeling factors in lung cancer cell lines. A, immunoblotting of BRG1, BRM, BAF155, and Ini-1 among nine lung cancer cell lines. The EKVX cell line showed a band reactive to anti-BRM but nonimmunoreactive for anti-BRG1 antibody. The apparent sizes of BRG1 and BRM were a little larger than the known molecular size (180 kDa) but are the same as those shown in the data sheet from the supplier (http://www.scbt.com/). BAF155 and Ini-1 showed an immunoreactive band in eight cell lines. H358 appeared to be negative for Ini-1. B, anti-BRM immunohistochemical staining of the same lung cancer cells. Hop92 did not show positive staining by immunohistochemistry but showed a weak positive band on Western blot. Consistent with immunoblotting, immunohistochemical signals of BRM were lower than those of BRG1 in lung cancer cell lines. H520, EKVX, and H2170 showed membranous and cytoplasmic staining, whereas H358 and H226 showed weak and focal nuclear staining.

 
Expression of Proteins as Detected by Immunohistochemistry.
A summary of the staining features for each antibody is listed in Table 3Citation . As expected, the staining of most proteins including RB, HAT1, HDAC1, HDAC2, RbAP48, BAF170, and mSin3A was located exclusively in the tumor cell nucleus. However, BAF155, Ini-1 BRG1, and BRM showed both nuclear and cytoplasmic or nuclear and membranous staining (Table 3Citation ; examples in Fig. 3Citation ). Only Tip60 showed mostly cytoplasmic staining. Expression of HDAC2, nuclear BRM (N-BRM), RB, and nuclear BAF155 was significantly higher in SCC than in AD (P values are 0.001, <0.001, 0.005, and <.001, respectively). No protein was observed more frequently in AD than SCC. No significant staining differences were observed between gender, age (≤60 years versus >60 years), or stage (I/II versus III/IV). In the normal lung, all bronchiolar epithelia showed positive nuclear signal for all tested antibodies, except Ini-1, which showed both nuclear and cytoplasmic staining. Tip60 showed only cytoplasmic staining. For pneumocytes, BRG1 and Ini-1 were positive for most cells; BAF155, BAF170, and HDAC2 were weak to moderately positive in less than half of cells; whereas the remaining antibodies were moderately positive in more than half of the pneumocytes.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3 Immunohistochemical staining of chromatin remodeling factors using TMAa

The actual number of cases is shown for each scoring, whereas percentages are given for – and + cells. N, nuclear, C, cytoplasmic, M, membranous. Total scores 2 and 3 were designated as positive, whereas scores 0 and 1 were recognized as negative.

 


View larger version (155K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Examples of immunohistochemical staining by BRG1 and BRM antibodies in primary lung tissues. A, BRG1 in normal lung. Most of the cells including pneumocytes and interstitial cells were positively stained in the nucleus. B, a lung tumor negative for BRG1 [TS0]. C, a tumor positive for BRG1 (TS3). D, BRM in normal lung. Most of the cells including pneumocytes and other interstitial cells are positive in the nucleus. E, tumor with negative BRM staining (TS0); the surrounding inflammatory cells were positive. F, tumor positive for BRM (TS3). G and H, membranous BRM staining in tumor cells. I, high magnifications (x400) of images shown in G and H. Diameter of tissue core = 0.6 mm.

 
Patterns of Association between Antibodies.
We examined the association of staining status between each pair of the tested proteins using {chi}2 test. Among a total of 128 comparisons(16 x 16/2), we observed 12 and 11 significant associations in AD and SCC, respectively. Of these associations, six were common for both SCC and AD and included associations between HDAC1 and RB, mSin3A, and HAT1; mSin3A and nuclear Ini-1 and HAT1; and HDAC2 and nuclear BAF155. Among the AD cases, staining of BAF170 was positively associated with HDAC2, nuclear BRG1 (N-BRG1), and RbAP48; N-BRG1 was also positively associated with RbAP48, whereas HDAC1 expression was correlated with nuclear Ini-1. For SCC, N-BRG1 staining was positively associated with HDAC2, nuclear BAF155, and Tip60, whereas staining of the RB protein was correlated with mSin3A and HAT1 (Fig. 4A)Citation .



View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Association of staining between each pair of antibodies. A, P values of {chi}2 test between each antibody are shown for adenocarcinoma (gray area) and squamous cell carcinoma (white area). P ≤ 0.01 is considered significant and is indicated in the table. B, one-way clustering indicating the relatedness of expression patterns among all antibodies. Note that all nonnuclear signals clustered distantly from the nuclear signals of the same antibody. C, identification of two highly correlated sets of chromatin remodeling proteins in NSCLC.

 
To gain insight into the potential interaction of the proteins, we organized the expression patterns of all tested antibodies using unsupervised clustering analysis (44) . Two major groups of nuclear protein staining were observed (Fig. 4, B and C)Citation : nuclear staining of BRM, Ini-1, RB, mSin3A, HDAC1, and HAT1 clustered as one group; whereas nuclear staining of BAF155, HDAC2, BAF170, RbAP48, and BRG1 clustered as a second group. Application of the reproducibility measures of McShane et al. (44) showed that these two groups of protein associations were highly reproducible (robustness index > 90%). All of the nonnuclear signals branched outside these two clusters further support the reliability of the nuclear protein associations (Fig. 4C)Citation .

Prognostic Significance.
When the expression of each of the 12 proteins was associated with clinical survival, only BRM staining demonstrated prognostic significance. Positive N-BRM staining was observed in 51 cases among 193 cases with survival outcomes (Fig. 5A)Citation . Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that the overall 5-year survival for patients whose tumors were N-BRM positive was 53.5% compared with 32.3% for those whose tumors were negative for N-BRM (P = 0.015). In contrast, M-BRM staining was observed in 30 of 268 cases, and only four of these tumors also had nuclear staining. Of the 18 cases with survival data, M-BRM correlated with a poorer survival in AD with a 5-year survival of 16.7% for those whose tumors were membrane positive compared with 38% for those whose tumors were negative for M-BRM staining (P = 0.016). The number of the M-BRM-positive cases (six) with SCC did not allow meaningful statistical evaluation.



View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Immunohistochemistry scoring and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses for BRG1 and BRM in non-small cell lung cancer. A, immunohistochemical scoring for nuclear BRG1, nuclear BRM, and membranous BRM signals. Grids corresponded to tumor arrangements on the TMA as shown in Fig. 1BCitation (gray and black blocks). Total scores (TSs) are shown, and the colors corresponded to the TS values. Red, TS3; yellow, TS2; white, TS1/TS0; black, excluded or missing tissues. B, Kaplan-Meier survival plots. The overall patient survival status for antibodies and selected cellular locations are shown. The number of patients in each arm and the associated P values are as indicated.

 
Previous study has shown that concomitant loss of BRG1 and BRM was a poor prognostic indicator (23) . Consistent with this observation, our study also showed that patients whose tumors were positive for both nuclear BRG1 and BRM (n = 15) had a 5-year survival of 72% compared with 33.6% for the rest of the cases (P = 0.013). However, after adjusting for gender and stage, the P value was 0.068 for N-BRM and 0.072 for N-BRM/N-BRG1. In contrast, the predictive value of M-BRM remained strong after adjustments, with a P value of 0.0065. The associated Kaplan-Meier curves are shown in Fig. 5BCitation .

DISCUSSION

Chromatin remodeling factors have been the subject of strong interest in human cancers. However, little is known about their role in lung cancer. Here, we investigated the expression of 12 chromatin remodeling factors in NSCLC by immunohistochemical staining of a TMA containing 300 primary tumor samples.

Association between Antibodies.
Chromatin remodeling factors form complexes, and SWI/SNF is one of the most well-examined complexes (8 , 10) . In our study, we observed many statistically significant associations between pairwise comparisons of protein expression. Among these associations, about 50% were shared between AD and SCC. The remaining 50% were unique to each tumor type.

The SWI/SNF complex is known to be composed of one catalytic ATPase containing core protein (either BRG1 or BRM) and the other BRG1-binding proteins, i.e., BAF170, BAF155, Ini-1, BAF47, BAF60a, BAF60b, BAF60c, BAF250, and BAF50 (10 , 17 , 19) . It is also known to associate with some HDACs, such as HDAC1 and HDAC2, RbAP48, and RB (7 , 10 , 45 , 46) . There are increasing numbers of associated proteins known to interact with this complex. Because the role of SWI/SNF complex in transcription is broad, variation of the associated proteins in the complex is expected for different cellular functions. Among the associations observed in the current study, association between nuclear signals of BRG1 and HDAC2, BAF170, nuclear BAF155, and RbAP48, as well as HDAC1 and mSin3A, Ini-1, and RB have already been reported (10 , 26 , 45, 46, 47) . Using {chi}2 test and clustering analysis, we showed that there were two distinct groups among these proteins (Fig. 4, B and C)Citation . Indeed, most of the known interactions were consistent with our {chi}2 test. Significantly, correlations between RB and HAT1 and mSin3A seen in this study have not been reported previously. HAT complexes and SWI/SNF complexes interact with each other for transcription. To stabilize the SWI/SNF on the promoter region, HAT complexes are thought to increase the retention of SWI/SNF on the promoter (38) . However, our study only revealed the coexistence of potentially interacting proteins and cannot address whether these associations are due to direct interaction within one complex or merely coexist in the same cell.

Prognostic Significance of BRM and BRG1.
BRG1 and BRM are two highly homologous ATPases that are functionally equivalent and form the core of the mammalian SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex (17) . Recently, concomitant loss of BRG1 and BRM was reported as a poor prognostic indicator by Reisman et al. (23) . In their study, 6 cases that were negative for both BRG1 and BRM had a poorer survival rate compared with the other 54 NSCLC cases (41 AD and 19 SCC cases). The antibody used could not distinguish the two proteins. Here, we used antibodies that appeared to be specific for BRG1 and BRM, respectively, based on Western analyses and immunohistochemistry (Figs. 3ACitation and 5ACitation ). Expression of BRM in lung cancer cells was generally low but detectable as a single band at the expected size and showed nonoverlapping expression with BRG1 by immunohistochemistry analysis. In lung cancer cell lines, three of five immunopositive cell lines had membranous staining, whereas two others showed only nuclear staining (Fig. 3B)Citation . Taken together, these findings suggest the following: first, the anti-BRM antibody used in this study did not cross-react with BRG1; second, both membranous and nuclear staining represented the same BRM antigen; and third, membranous staining of BRM is present in primary lung cancers and may be more common in lung cancer cell lines.

We also compared all combinations of BRG1 and BRM staining with survival. Consistent with those reported by Reisman et al. (23) , coexpression of N-BRG1/N-BRM correlated with a trend of better prognosis than any other combinations of these two markers. Significantly, BRG1 and BRM belonged to different clusters based on their expression status among the tested tumors in our study. Kadam and Emerson (48) showed that BRG binds to zinc finger proteins though its NH2-terminal domain and is not present in BRM complex, whereas BRM interacts with two ankylin repeat proteins that are a part of the Notch signal transduction pathway. Our results are consistent with the knowledge that those two proteins do not exist in the same complex (26 , 49) and indicate that BRG and BRM may participate in distinct but complementary cellular processes that are required for cell regulation.

In our study, 30 of 268 NSCLC cases showed a distinctive membranous BRM signal, whereas only 4 of those had coexpression of nuclear signal as well. Staining with COOH terminus and NH2 terminus anti-BRM antibody (clone C-20 and N-19; Santa Cruz Biotechnology) showed a consistent membranous staining pattern (30 of 268 versus 26 of 263 countable samples). The correlation efficiency P value between two antibodies is 10–14. In our study, N-BRM was associated with better prognosis in both SCC and AD tumors, whereas M-BRM was associated with a poorer prognosis only in AD. Although the exact mechanism is unclear, this difference in BRM cellular location may reflect the abnormal translocation of BRM in the cancer or indicate that BRM also participates in cellular processes other than chromatin remodeling. Because concomitant expression of N-BRG1/N-BRM correlated with a better prognosis, we reasoned that M-BRM status may be negatively correlated with N-BRG1 as well. However, 15 of 28 M-BRM-positive tumors were also N-BRG1 positive. Therefore, this change of localization more likely reflects BRM alterations in lung cancer cells independent of BRG1.

Antibody Specificity and Staining Quality Control.
It is worth noting that tissue samples placed on TMA represent only a small portion of the whole tumor. Some samples will demonstrate negative staining due to tissue sampling or heterogeneity. Furthermore, some of the antibodies used here have not been extensively studied by immunohistochemical methods. To ensure specificity, we used Western analysis and immunohistochemistry on lung cancer cell lines to evaluate and optimize the tissue staining conditions. We also relied on well-established antigens, AE1/AE3 and PGP9.5, to evaluate the true positive rate of each antibody and used stringent criteria to exclude samples with uniformly weak stainings. In our pilot tests, we estimated that a number approximately equal to 10% of the positive samples may be falsely negative for each staining. Therefore, antibodies with a high percentage of positively stained samples will have a higher amount of false negative cases, making it less likely to identify significant clinical association. On the other hand, although each chromatin remodeling factor is expected to be present in the majority of cancer cells, all proteins investigated here have portions of negatively stained cases that far exceed the estimated number of false negative tumors (Table 3)Citation . Some of the negative staining reported here may represent a down-regulation of these proteins in the tumors or the lower sensitivity of the antibody. Our consideration of TS1 staining as negative may also have contributed to the lower estimation of antibody staining reported. For instance, our immunoblotting data showed that BRG1 was detected in a similar proportion of lung cancer cells lines as observed in TMA, whereas BAF155 and Ini-1 were only positive in <50% of the primary tumors compared with the data on lung cancer cell lines. Furthermore, because the tumor blocks were collected from pathologists worldwide, the quality and processing history of the blocks could vary greatly, and the clinical pathological and survival information for each case are less than perfect. These factors may also have contributed to the marginal statistical significance observed for some proteins, particularly after adjusting for other clinical factors.

Nonetheless, our study is one of the largest series of lung cancer analyses using an immunohistochemical method to examine the expression status of chromatin remodeling factors (35) . We showed that BRM appeared to be a central protein whose cellular location and staining status appeared to correlate with overall survival in NSCLC patients. Furthermore, we propose that BRM may participate in distinct cellular processes that control growth, depending on the type of lung cancer cells. We also showed that the expression patterns of the chromosome remodeling factors branched into two distinct and reproducible clusters and argue that these clusterings may correspond to the true biological interactions of these factors. Clearly, the uniqueness and biological significance of these associations will have to rely on further analyses in other tissues and tumor types as well as validations by biological and biochemical assays. The prognostic trend of BRM reported here will also await confirmation using cohorts with more complete clinical pathological information.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Drs. Michael Emmert-Buck and John Gillespie for critical comments regarding this study and Anne Wenzel and Craig Hicks for editing the manuscript. We also express our gratitude to the pathology follow-up division at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology for making follow-up and clinical information available for this study.

FOOTNOTES

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Note: J. Jen is also an associate professor in the Department of Otolaryngology and the Oncology Center, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine. T. Fujii is currently at the Department of Laboratory Medicine, International Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.

Requests for reprints: Jin Jen, 41 Library Drive, Room D702, Bethesda, Maryland 20892. Phone: (301) 435-8958; Fax: (301) 435-8963; E-mail: jenj{at}mail.nih.gov

1 J. Fukuoka, A unified approach to standardize immunohistochemical staining using paraffin embedded cell arrays and Western blot, manuscript in preparation. Back

2 http://cancerimages.nci.nih.gov/caIMAGE/index.jsp. Back

Received 11/ 4/03; revised 2/13/04; accepted 4/ 6/04.

REFERENCES

  1. Parkin DM, Pisani P, Ferlay J. Global cancer statistics. CA-Cancer J Clin, 49: 33-64, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Colby TV Corrin B Shimosato Y Brambilla E Travis WD eds. . Histological typing of lung and pleural tumors, Springer Berlin 1999.
  3. Junker K. Prognostic factors in stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer, 33(Suppl 1): S17-24, 2001.
  4. Travis WD, Travis LB, Devesa SS. Lung cancer. Cancer, 75: 191-202, 1995.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Mountain CF. The international system for staging lung cancer. Semin Surg Oncol, 18: 106-15, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Wade PA. Transcriptional control at regulatory checkpoints by histone deacetylases: molecular connections between cancer and chromatin. Hum Mol Genet, 10: 693-8, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Neely KE, Workman JL. The complexity of chromatin remodeling and its links to cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta, 1603: 19-29, 2002.[Medline]
  8. Klochendler-Yeivin A, Muchardt C, Yaniv M. SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling and cancer. Curr Opin Genet Dev, 12: 73-9, 2002.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Davis PK, Brackmann RK. Chromatin remodeling and cancer. Cancer Biol Ther, 2: 22-9, 2003.[Medline]
  10. Narlikar GJ, Fan HY, Kingston RE. Cooperation between complexes that regulate chromatin structure and transcription. Cell, 108: 475-87, 2002.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Langst G, Becker PB. Nucleosome mobilization and positioning by ISWI-containing chromatin-remodeling factors. J Cell Sci, 114: 2561-8, 2001.
  12. Kingston RE, Narlikar GJ. ATP-dependent remodeling and acetylation as regulators of chromatin fluidity. Genes Dev, 13: 2339-52, 1999.[Free Full Text]
  13. Burns LG, Peterson CL. The yeast SWI-SNF complex facilitates binding of a transcriptional activator to nucleosomal sites in vivo. Mol Cell Biol, 17: 4811-9, 1997.[Abstract]
  14. Wu C. Chromatin remodeling and the control of gene expression. J Biol Chem, 272: 28171-4, 1997.[Free Full Text]
  15. Breeden L, Nasmyth K. Cell cycle control of the yeast HO gene: cis- and trans-acting regulators. Cell, 48: 389-97, 1987.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Recht J, Osley MA. Mutations in both the structured domain and N-terminus of histone H2B bypass the requirement for Swi-Snf in yeast. EMBO J, 18: 229-40, 1999.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Phelan ML, Sif S, Narlikar GJ, Kingston RE. Reconstitution of a core chromatin remodeling complex from SWI/SNF subunits. Mol Cell, 3: 247-53, 1999.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Tyler JK, Kadonaga JT. The "dark side" of chromatin remodeling: repressive effects on transcription. Cell, 99: 443-6, 1999.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Wang W, Cote J, Xue Y, et al Purification and biochemical heterogeneity of the mammalian SWI-SNF complex. EMBO J, 15: 5370-82, 1996.[Medline]
  20. Decristofaro MF, Betz BL, Rorie CJ, et al Characterization of SWI/SNF protein expression in human breast cancer cell lines and other malignancies. J Cell Physiol, 186: 136-45, 2001.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Versteege I, Sevenet N, Lange J, et al Truncating mutations of hSNF5/INI1 in aggressive paediatric cancer. Nature, 394: 203-6, 1998.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Klochendler-Yeivin A, Fiette L, Barra J, et al The murine SNF5/INI1 chromatin remodeling factor is essential for embryonic development and tumor suppression. EMBO Rep, 1: 500-6, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Reisman DN, Sciarrotta J, Wang W, Funkhouser WK, Weissman BE. Loss of BRG1/BRM in human lung cancer cell lines and primary lung cancers: correlation with poor prognosis. Cancer Res, 63: 560-6, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Muchardt C, Bourachot B, Reyes JC, Yaniv M. ras transformation is associated with decreased expression of the brm/SNF2alpha ATPase from the mammalian SWI-SNF complex. EMBO J, 17: 223-31, 1998.[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Reyes JC, Barra J, Muchardt C, et al Altered control of cellular proliferation in the absence of mammalian brahma (SNF2alpha). EMBO J, 17: 6979-91, 1998.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Sif S, Saurin AJ, Imbalzano AN, Kingston RE. Purification and characterization of mSin3A-containing Brg1 and hBrm chromatin remodeling complexes. Genes Dev, 15: 603-18, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Strobeck MW, Knudsen KE, Fribourg AF, et al BRG-1 is required for RB-mediated cell cycle arrest. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 97: 7748-53, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Ito T, Yamauchi M, Nishina M, et al Identification of SWI·SNF complex subunit BAF60a as a determinant of the transactivation potential of Fos/Jun dimers. J Biol Chem, 276: 2852-7, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Roberts CW, Galusha SA, McMenamin ME, Fletcher CD, Orkin SH. Haploinsufficiency of Snf5 (integrase interactor 1) predisposes to malignant rhabdoid tumors in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 97: 13796-800, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Guidi CJ, Sands AT, Zambrowicz BP, et al Disruption of Ini1 leads to peri-implantation lethality and tumorigenesis in mice. Mol Cell Biol, 21: 3598-603, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Kallioniemi OP, Wagner U, Kononen J, Sauter G. Tissue microarray technology for high-throughput molecular profiling of cancer. Hum Mol Genet, 10: 657-62, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Nocito A, Kononen J, Kallioniemi OP, Sauter G. Tissue microarrays (TMAs) for high-throughput molecular pathology research. Int J Cancer, 94: 1-5, 2001.[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Kononen J, Bubendorf L, Kallioniemi A, et al Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens. Nat Med, 4: 844-7, 1998.[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Horvath L, Henshall S. The application of tissue microarrays to cancer research. Pathology, 33: 125-9, 2001.[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Bremnes RM, Veve R, Gabrielson E, et al High-throughput tissue microarray analysis used to evaluate biology and prognostic significance of the E-cadherin pathway in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol, 20: 2417-28, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. WHO . Histological typing of lung and pleural tumours, 3rd ed. Springer-Verlag Geneva, Switzerland 1999.
  37. Brehm A, Miska EA, McCance DJ, et al Retinoblastoma protein recruits histone deacetylase to repress transcription. Nature, 391: 597-601, 1998.[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. Hassan AH, Neely KE, Workman JL. Histone acetyltransferase complexes stabilize swi/snf binding to promoter nucleosomes. Cell, 104: 817-27, 2001.[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Kimura A, Horikoshi M. Tip60 acetylates six lysines of a specific class in core histones in vitro. Genes Cells, 3: 789-800, 1998.[Abstract]
  40. Meerzaman D, Shapiro P, Kim K. Involvement of the MAP kinase ERK2 in MUC1 mucin signaling. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol, 281: L86-91, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Guinee DG, Jr, Travis WD, Trivers GE, et al Gender comparisons in human lung cancer: analysis of p53 mutations, anti-p53 serum antibodies and C-erbB-2 expression. Carcinogenesis, 16: 993-1002, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Hammar SP. Lung and pleural neoplasms Dabbs DJ eds. . Diagnostic immunohistochemistry, p. 267-312, Churchill Livingstone Philadelphia 2001.
  43. Hibi K, Westra WH, Borges M, et al PGP9.5 as a candidate tumor marker for non-small-cell lung cancer. Am J Pathol, 155: 711-5, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. McShane LM, Radmacher MD, Freidlin B, et al Methods for assessing reproducibility of clustering patterns observed in analyses of microarray data. Bioinformatics, 18: 1462-9, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Zhang HS, Gavin M, Dahiya A, et al Exit from G1 and S phase of the cell cycle is regulated by repressor complexes containing HDAC-Rb-hSWI/SNF and Rb-hSWI/SNF. Cell, 101: 79-89, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  46. Nicolas E, Morales V, Magnaghi-Jaulin L, et al RbAp48 belongs to the histone deacetylase complex that associates with the retinoblastoma protein. J Biol Chem, 275: 9797-804, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Muchardt C, Yaniv M. When the SWI/SNF complex remodels. The cell cycle. Oncogene, 20: 3067-75, 2001.
  48. Kadam S, Emerson BM. Transcriptional specificity of human SWI/SNF BRG1 and BRM chromatin remodeling complexes. Mol Cell, 11: 377-89, 2003.[CrossRef][Medline]
  49. Xue Y, Canman JC, Lee CS, et al The human SWI/SNF-B chromatin-remodeling complex is related to yeast rsc and localizes at kinetochores of mitotic chromosomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 97: 13015-20, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
T. Fujita, J. Igarashi, E. R. Okawa, T. Gotoh, J. Manne, V. Kolla, J. Kim, H. Zhao, B. R. Pawel, W. B. London, et al.
CHD5, a Tumor Suppressor Gene Deleted From 1p36.31 in Neuroblastomas
J Natl Cancer Inst, July 2, 2008; 100(13): 940 - 949.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
J. Li, N. Zhang, L.-B. Song, W.-T. Liao, L.-L. Jiang, L.-Y. Gong, J. Wu, J. Yuan, H.-Z. Zhang, M.-S. Zeng, et al.
Astrocyte Elevated Gene-1 is a Novel Prognostic Marker for Breast Cancer Progression and Overall Patient Survival
Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2008; 14(11): 3319 - 3326.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
Q. Xi, W. He, X. H.-F. Zhang, H.-V. Le, and J. Massague
Genome-wide Impact of the BRG1 SWI/SNF Chromatin Remodeler on the Transforming Growth Factor Transcriptional Program
J. Biol. Chem., January 11, 2008; 283(2): 1146 - 1155.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
A. V. Das, J. James, S. Bhattacharya, A. N. Imbalzano, M. L. Antony, G. Hegde, X. Zhao, K. Mallya, F. Ahmad, E. Knudsen, et al.
SWI/SNF Chromatin Remodeling ATPase Brm Regulates the Differentiation of Early Retinal Stem Cells/Progenitors by Influencing Brn3b Expression and Notch Signaling
J. Biol. Chem., November 30, 2007; 282(48): 35187 - 35201.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
N. Yamamichi, K.-i. Inada, M. Ichinose, M. Yamamichi-Nishina, T. Mizutani, H. Watanabe, K. Shiogama, M. Fujishiro, T. Okazaki, N. Yahagi, et al.
Frequent Loss of Brm Expression in Gastric Cancer Correlates with Histologic Features and Differentiation State
Cancer Res., November 15, 2007; 67(22): 10727 - 10735.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
F. Pacifico, M. Paolillo, G. Chiappetta, E. Crescenzi, S. Arena, A. Scaloni, M. Monaco, C. Vascotto, G. Tell, S. Formisano, et al.
RbAp48 is a Target of Nuclear Factor-{kappa}B Activity in Thyroid Cancer
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., April 1, 2007; 92(4): 1458 - 1466.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol.Home page
Z. Yin, L. Gonzales, V. Kolla, N. Rath, Y. Zhang, M. M. Lu, S. Kimura, P. L. Ballard, M. F. Beers, J. A. Epstein, et al.
Hop functions downstream of Nkx2.1 and GATA6 to mediate HDAC-dependent negative regulation of pulmonary gene expression
Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol, August 1, 2006; 291(2): L191 - L199.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
J. Tsurutani, J. Fukuoka, H. Tsurutani, J. H. Shih, S. M. Hewitt, W. D. Travis, J. Jen, and P. A. Dennis
Evaluation of Two Phosphorylation Sites Improves the Prognostic Significance of Akt Activation in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Tumors
J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2006; 24(2): 306 - 314.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
N. G. Nagl Jr., A. Patsialou, D. S. Haines, P. B. Dallas, G. R. Beck Jr., and E. Moran
The p270 (ARID1A/SMARCF1) Subunit of Mammalian SWI/SNF-Related Complexes Is Essential for Normal Cell Cycle Arrest
Cancer Res., October 15, 2005; 65(20): 9236 - 9244.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Mol GenetHome page
P. P. Medina, J. Carretero, E. Ballestar, B. Angulo, F. Lopez-Rios, M. Esteller, and M. Sanchez-Cespedes
Transcriptional targets of the chromatin-remodelling factor SMARCA4/BRG1 in lung cancer cells
Hum. Mol. Genet., April 1, 2005; 14(7): 973 - 982.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fukuoka, J.
Right arrow Articles by Jen, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fukuoka, J.
Right arrow Articles by Jen, J.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Cell Growth & Differentiation