Clinical Cancer Research CR Balducci Advances in Breast Cancer
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 Meeting Abstracts Online
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 Chotteau-Lelièvre, A.
Right arrow Articles by Peyrat, J.-P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chotteau-Lelièvre, A.
Right arrow Articles by Peyrat, J.-P.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 10, 7297-7303, November 1, 2004
© 2004 American Association for Cancer Research

Molecular Oncology, Markers, Clinical Correlates

Prognostic Value of ERM Gene Expression in Human Primary Breast Cancers

Anne Chotteau-Lelièvre1,2, Françoise Révillion3, Valérie Lhotellier3, Louis Hornez3, Xavier Desbiens2, Véronique Cabaret4, Yvan de Launoit1,5 and Jean-Philippe Peyrat3

1 Unité Mixte de Recherche 8117-Centre National de la Recherché Scientifique, Régulation Transcriptionnelle au cours de la Tumorigenèse Mammaire, Institut de Biologie de Lille, Institut Pasteur de Lille, Lille Cédex, France; 2 Laboratoire de Biologie du Développement, UPRES 1033, Université des Sciences et Techniques de Lille-Flandres-Artois, Villeneuve d’Ascq Cédex, France; 3 Laboratoire d’Oncologie Moléculaire Humaine and 4 Laboratoire de Cytologie et Anatomie Pathologiques, Centre Oscar Lambret, 59020 Lille Cédex, France; and 5 Laboratoire de Virologie Moléculaire-Faculté de Médecine, Université Libre de Brussels, Brussels, Belgium


   ABSTRACT
Top
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
We measured the expression of ERM gene, a nuclear transcription factor belonging to the ets family, in a series of 364 unselected primary breast cancers from patients who underwent locoregional surgery in the Centre Oscar Lambret between May 1989 and December 1991. The expression of ERM was quantified with a real-time one-step reverse transcription-PCR assay based on the 5'-nuclease activity of the TaqDNA polymerase and with an Abi Prism 7700 Sequence Detector System (Applied Biosystems, Courtaboeuf, France). ERM was positively correlated (Spearman test) to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR; P < 0.001, r = 0.296) and to histoprognostic grading (P = 0.044, r = 0.112), whereas it was negatively correlated to estradiol receptors (P = 0.019, r = -0.124), HER3 (c-erbB-3; P = 0.01, r = –0.135), and HER4 (c-erbB-4; P = 0.003, r = –0.154). Using the {chi}2 test, a positive relationship was found between the expression of ERM and EGFR ({chi}2 = 7.795, P = 0.007). In overall survival studies, Cox univariate analyses demonstrated a prognostic value of ERM (P = 0.006; risk ratio, 2.95) besides the classical prognostic factors histoprognostic grading, node involvement, tumor size, estradiol receptors, progesterone receptors, EGFR, HER3, and HER4. In multivariate analyses, ERM preserved its prognostic value (P = 0.004; risk ratio, 3.779) together with histoprognostic grading, tumor size, estradiol receptors, and progesterone receptors. In relapse-free survival studies, univariate analyses demonstrated that histoprognostic grading, node involvement, tumor size, and HER4 were prognostic factors. These parameters, except histoprognostic grading, retained their prognostic value in multivariate analyses. This study demonstrates for the first time that ERM gene expression is an independent adverse prognostic factor for overall survival in breast cancer patients.


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Transcription factors belonging to the Ets family play an important role in a variety of physiologic and pathological processes notably in tumor development and progression (1, 2, 3) . Within the Ets family, the transcription factors PEA3/E1AF/ETV4 (4 , 5) , ER81/ETV1 (6, 7, 8) , and ERM/ETV5 (9 , 10) have been assigned to the same PEA3 group according to the divergence rate analysis of the 85 residue ETS DNA-binding domain, the evolutionarily conserved region.

Several lines of evidence suggest that PEA3 group members are involved in cancer development and progression and breast cancer is the most documented (see refs. 1 , 11 for review). ErbB2/HER2/neu, a member of human growth factor receptor (HER) family, is implicated in breast cancer (12 , 13) : relationships between PEA3 group members and HER2 have been evidenced. The overexpression of PEA3 group members was reported in primary and metastatic lesions of neu-induced mouse mammary adenocarcinomas (14) , and the three genes are coordinately overexpressed in mammary tumors of mouse mammary tumor virus-neu-transgenic mice (15) . Moreover, in these mice, a dominant form of the PEA3 group members delayed the onset of neu-induced mammary tumors and reduced their number and size (15) . In the human, mRNA levels of ERM, ER81, and PEA3 are highly elevated in estradiol receptor-negative cell lines and not in estradiol receptor-positive cells (16) . Moreover, in a short series of 74 human breast carcinomas, PEA3 mRNA is overexpressed in almost all HER2/Neu-positive tumors, whereas only half of the HER2/Neu-negative tumors overexpressed this transcription factor (17) . However, in conflict with these data, a recent work reported that PEA3 overexpression can suppress HER2/Neu expression in human breast carcinoma and inhibit tumor development in vivo, thus prolonging animal survival and suggesting an inverse relationship between PEA3 and HER2/Neu expression (18) . Moreover, a clinicopathological analysis of PEA3 protein expression in 89 breast cancer patients predicted a better overall survival in this malignancy (19) .

PEA3 overexpression is also involved in development of other tumors as lung cancer (20) , oral cancer (21 , 22) , gastric cancer (23) , colorectal cancer (24) , or ovarian cancer (25) . In this later study, intense expression of PEA3 mRNA in both tumor and stromal cells is correlated with poor overall survival (25) .

It has been demonstrated that proteases, as urokinase-type plasminogen activator and cathepsin D, are implicated in breast cancer progression (26, 27, 28) . The different implication of PEA3 group members in physiologic and pathological processes as tumor appearance and progression is certainly because of their ability to transactivate expression of several matrix metalloproteases (21 , 23 , 24 , 29, 30, 31, 32, 33) , urokinase-type plasminogen activator (20 , 34) , as well as tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase (32 , 33) , integrin subunits (25 , 33) , or adhesion molecules (35) . These latter proteins play a critical role in the metastatic process involving angiogenesis and tumor invasion, and clearly, the pea3 group proteins play a role in their transcriptional regulation. Thus, in light of these data, it would be of great interest to evaluate the prognostic value of the expression of these transcription factors in breast carcinoma.

In the present study, we analyzed the relationships between the levels of ERM mRNA and the classical clinical, pathological, and biological parameters, as well as the clinical outcome in a large series of 364 primary breast cancers.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Cell Lines.
All of the cell lines were purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA). MCF7, T47D, MDA-MB-231, BT20, and HBL100 cells were cultured in MEM, SK-BR-3, and MDA-MB-453 cells were cultured in RPMI 1640, and MDA-MB-468 cells were cultured in Leibovitz’s L-15 medium. All media were supplemented with 10% FCS, 2 mmol/L glutamine, 100 IU/mL penicillin, and 100 µg/mL streptomycin. The cells were grown at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2 and collected at subconfluence. For each cell line, two flasks of 75-cm2 were set up.

Patients.
With the agreement of the investigator’s Institutional Review Board, 364 unselected breast tumor samples were obtained from patients undergoing surgery for locoregional disease in the Centre Oscar Lambret (Anticancer Center of the North of France, Lille, France) between May 1989 and December 1991 (13) . The mean age of the patients was 58 years (range, 26 to 90 years). The median duration follow-up of living patients was 77.6 months. The number of deaths was 94, and the number of relapses was 126. Patients were treated by segmentectomy when the tumor was <3 cm wide and by total mastectomy if the tumor was larger or centrally located. Surgery was followed by radiation therapy. Node-positive premenopausal patients and estradiol receptor-negative and progesterone receptor (PgR)-negative postmenopausal patients received adjuvant treatment: six cycles of chemotherapy. The node-positive estradiol receptor-positive and PgR-positive postmenopausal patients received tamoxifen for 2 years. Node-negative patients received no adjuvant treatment.

Estradiol Receptor and PgR Assay.
Both estradiol receptor and PgR were determined by the dextran-coated charcoal method, as described previously (36) . Our laboratory is affiliated with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Receptor Study Group, which undertook the quality control of the assays (37) .

EGFR Family Member Assay.
The EGFR family members (EGFR, HER2, HER3, and HER4) were quantified using a one-step real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay based on the 5'-nuclease activity of the TaqDNA polymerase and with an Abi Prism 7700 Sequence Detector System (Applied Biosystems, Courtaboeuf, France), as described previously (13) .

Isolation of Total RNA.
The tumor samples were frozen in liquid nitrogen and then stored at –80°C until RNA extraction. The total RNA was isolated (RNeasy Mini kit, Qiagen, Courtaboeuf, France) from 40 mg of each tumor sample and from each flask of the different cell lines. The disruption and the homogenization of the tumor samples were performed with a Rotor-Stator Homogenizer (Ribolyzer, Hybaid, Paris, France). The amount of extracted RNA was quantified by measuring the absorbance at 260 nm.

PCR Primers and TaqMan Fluorogenic Probe.
The ERM primers and the TaqMan fluorogenic probe had the following sequences: 5'-CCAATGGGAATCAAGCAGGA-3' (sense primer); 5'-GGATGACTGGCAGTTAGGCA-3' (antisense primer); and 5'-CCTCGGGATTACTGCGTCGATTCAGA-3' (probe). The size of the PCR product was 68 bp. To confirm the total gene specificity of the sequences chosen for the primers and probes, we performed nucleotide-nucleotide basic local alignment search tool searches against database of expressed sequence tags and nr (the nonredundant set of GenBank, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, and PNA data bank of Japan database sequences).

Reverse Transcription-PCR Conditions.
The reverse transcription and the PCR were performed in a one-step methodology. The reaction mixture (final volume, 50 µL) contained 50 ng of total RNA, 10x (5 µL) TaqMan buffer (Eurogentec, Seraing, Belgium), 5 mmol/L MgCl2, 20 units RNase inhibitor, 12.5 units of murine leukemia virus reverse transcriptase, 1.25 units of Hot Gold Star DNA polymerase (Eurogentec), 300 µmol/L deoxynucleotide triphosphate, 300 nmol/L forward and 600 nmol/L reverse primers, and 200 nmol/L probe. Reverse transcription was performed at 42°C for 30 minutes after a preliminary incubation at 65°C for 10 minutes. The activation, 10 minutes at 95°C, of the Hot Gold Star DNA polymerase was followed by PCR (15 seconds at 95°C and 1 minute at 60°C for 40 cycles). A nontemplate control was included in each experiment. The nontemplate controls and the samples were assayed in duplicate. The interassay coefficient of variation was 1.72 and 3.53% considering the Ct values for TATA box-binding protein (TBP) and ERM genes, respectively, and it was 20.78% considering the normalized expression level of ERM gene (n = 9, RNA of MDA-MB-468 cells).

Relative Quantification of ERM mRNA Expression.
The quantification of PCR products is based upon the TagMan S' nuclease assay (38 , 39) . To take into account the variation in RNA quantity and quality, the expression of ERM was normalized to a control and the endogenous TBP gene quantified with the primers and probe described previously (38, 39, 40) . The use of TBP as a control RNA was relevant in these studies investigating prognosis because we observed that its expression was not associated with tumor aggressiveness (data not shown), in contrast with the widely used glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene (41) .

The relative quantification of ERM gene expression was performed with the comparative cycle threshold (CT) method (42) where the CT parameter is defined as the cycle number at which the fluorescent signal generated by cleavage of the dual-labeled probe is first detectable. This method is based on the use of a calibrator sample (i.e., 1x sample), which permits the quantification in the unknown samples. The human breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231, known to express ERM, was chosen as the calibrator sample (i.e., ERM expression = 1).

The relative ERM expression was given by the formula: 2–{Delta}{Delta}CT, where {Delta}{Delta}CT = {Delta}CT patient sample - {Delta}CT calibrator sample; with {Delta}CT = CT ERM - CT TBP.

For the {Delta}{Delta}CT calculation to be valid, the PCR efficiencies of ERM and TBP must be approximately equal. A method demonstrating that both have the same efficiency is to look how {Delta}CT varies with template amount: the absolute value of the slope of log input amount versus {Delta}CT should be <0.1. Before using the comparative CT method, we performed this validation experiment to check that TBP and ERM had the same PCR efficiency. The slope passed this test (0.08).

Statistical Analyses.
All of the statistical analyses were done with the SPSS software (version 11.5). Relationships between qualitative variables were determined using the {chi}2 test (with Yates’ correction when necessary). Correlations between parameters were assessed according to the Spearman nonparametric test. Overall survival and relapse-free survival were studied by Kaplan-Meier method analysis. Comparison between curves was carried out by the log rank test. The proportional hazard regression method of Cox (43) was used to assess the prognostic significance of parameters taken in association. No time-dependent variable was introduced.


   RESULTS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Expression of ERM in Human Epithelial Breast Cell Lines
The expression of ERM was quantified in the nontumorigenic transformed human breast epithelial cell line HBL100 and in seven human breast cancer cell lines, including MCF7, T47D, MDA-MB-453, MDA-MB-468, BT20, SK-BR-3, and MDA-MB-231 used as calibrator (ERM expression = 1; Table 1Citation ).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 ERM gene expression in human epithelial breast cell lines

 
ERM expression was the highest in the two cell lines BT20 and HBL100. The lowest ERM expression was observed in the two estradiol receptor-positive cell lines T47D and MCF7. Finally, ERM expression was undetectable in the two cell lines MDA-MB-453 and SK-BR-3.

Expression of ERM in Human Breast Cancer Biopsies
The distribution of ERM expression level in the 364 tumor samples was not Gaussian (Fig. 1)Citation . The median value was found to be 0.13 (range from 0 to 1.43). The ERM expression was lower than 0.05 in 67 tumor biopsies (18.4%), and it was undetectable in seven of these samples (1.9%).



View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Fig. 1. Distribution of breast cancer samples as a function of their ERM expression.

 
Relationships with the Pathological, Clinical, and Biological Parameters
In this population of breast cancers, 73.9% of the samples were estradiol receptor positive and 72.7% were PgR positive. The classical correlations between estradiol receptor and PgR (P < 0.001, r = 0.61), estradiol receptor and age (P < 0.001, r = 0.30), and PgR and age (P = 0.019, r = 0.124) were observed. Nodal involvement strongly correlated with tumor size (P < 0.001, r = 0.39).

ERM was negatively correlated (Spearman test) to estradiol receptor (P = 0.019, r = –0.124), HER3 (P = 0.01, r = –0.135), and HER4 (P = 0.003, r = –0.154), whereas it was positively correlated to EGFR (P < 0.001, r = 0.296) and histoprognostic grading (P = 0.044, r = 0.112). Using the {chi}2 test (Table 2)Citation , a strong positive relationship was found between ERM and EGFR ({chi}2 = 7.795, P = 0.007).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Relation ({chi}2 test) between the expression of ERM (N = 364; positivity threshold, 0.05) and clinical, histological, or biological parameters

 
Prognosis Studies
Relapse-free Survival.
Regardless of the threshold tested, ERM did not have prognostic value. In contrast, histoprognostic grading, node involvement, tumor size, and HER4 were prognostic factors (Table 3)Citation . As already reported, HER2 had no prognostic value in this population (13) . In multivariate analyses with the parameters that have a prognostic value in univariate studies, node involvement, tumor size, and HER4 maintained their prognostic value (Table 4)Citation .


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Prognostic factors in Cox univariate analyses

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4 Prognostic factors in Cox multivariate analyses

 
Overall Survival.
The best ERM threshold for prognosis was 0.05; nevertheless, a threshold of 0.04 also allowed us to distinguish two populations of different prognosis. Shorter overall survival was found in patients with elevated ERM expression (Fig. 2)Citation . The number of death was ~3-fold higher in ERM+-patients than in ERM–-patients (87 of 297 versus 7 of 67). Histoprognostic grading, node involvement, tumor size, estradiol receptor, PgR, EGFR, HER3, and HER4 were also prognostic factors (Table 3)Citation . As already reported, HER2 had no prognostic value in this population (13) . The prognostic significance of ERM was assessed separately in lymph node-positive (N = 186) and lymph node-negative (N = 175) patients, and ERM was found to be a prognostic factor on overall survival (P = 0.0155) in lymph node-positive patients. In multivariate analyses, when combining the parameters that have a prognostic value in univariate analyses, ERM preserved its prognostic value (P = 0.004; risk ratio, 3.779) together with histoprognostic grading, tumor size, estradiol receptor, and PgR (Table 4)Citation .



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Fig. 2. Kaplan-Meier plots of overall survival according to the expression of ERM.

 

   DISCUSSION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
In this study, the expression of ERM gene is analyzed for the first time in a large series of primary breast cancers to establish the relationships between expression and the pathological, clinical, and biological parameters and the clinical outcome. The expression was quantified with a real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay as described previously (13) .

In the eight analyzed cell lines, the expression of ERM was found to be in agreement with our previous observations demonstrating that BT-20, HBL-100 and MDA-MB-231 cells express the highest levels of ERM (16) .

With respect to the clinical, histologic, and biological parameters, elevated ERM expression was positively correlated to histoprognostic grading and inversely correlated to the estradiol receptor. Such results suggest that ERM-elevated mRNA expression could be a biological marker of a less differentiated phenotype. Similar results were observed studying PEA3, another Ets-related transcription factor (44) . Interestingly, using cDNA array analysis, ERM has been detected as one of the genes showing the most frequent differential expression between normal breast tissue and breast cancer, with its expression being enhanced (3.6-fold) in tumors (45) .

In the same population of patients, we previously assayed the expression of EGFR family members (13) : we confirmed that EGFR and HER2 were markers of tumor aggressiveness and demonstrated that HER3 and HER4 were markers of differentiation. We presently evidence negative correlations between ERM and HER3 and HER4. In contrast, a strong positive correlation between ERM and EGFR is pointed out. Number of studies has been published concerning the relations between HER2 and PEA3. PEA3 was found increased in HER2-positive experimental tumors (14) or breast cancers (17) . It has been also suggested that PEA3 could be a tumor suppressor gene repressing HER2 (18) . With the present results, it is difficult to explain the correlation between ERM and EGFR, but we cannot exclude the hypothesis that the increase in ERM would result from the increase in EGFR, with ERM acting as a suppressor gene.

We found that ERM had a prognostic value in terms of overall survival in univariate analyses. Recently, PEA3 prognostic value was found to be either positive (19) or absent (44) in small series of breast cancers. We present the first report demonstrating a prognostic value of a Ets-related transcription factor in a large series of breast cancers. Logically, as ERM is related to poor prognosis parameters, it is associated with poor prognosis. The ability of this gene to transactivate matrix metalloproteases (20 , 21 , 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34) is certainly an important factor of this association. Finally, the multivariate Cox analyses combining ERM, EGFR, HER3, HER4, and the other classical biological and clinical prognostic factors revealed that ERM maintained its prognostic value on OS together with the classical prognostic factors such as tumor size, histoprognostic grading, estradiol receptor, and PgR. Nodal status did not maintained its prognostic value. Such a result is certainly due to the fact that in the studied population, nodal involvement strongly correlated with tumor size. Therefore, tumor size functioned as a surrogate for nodal status in the multivariate model as we already observed combining other parameters (13) .

In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that the expression of ERM is a marker of tumor aggressiveness in breast cancer.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Marie-Michèle Louchez, Arnaud Leroy, and Pascale Putmans for their skillful technical assistance.


   FOOTNOTES
 
Grant support: The Centre Oscar Lambret (Lille, France), the Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (Paris, France), the Association pour la Recherché contre le Cancer, the Institut Pasteur de Lille (France), the Action de Recherche Concertée Grant 98/03-224, Communauté Française (Belgium), the Fonds National de la Recherché Scientifique, and the Centre National de la Recherché Scientifique (France).

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: A. Chotteau-Lelièvre and F. Révillion contributed equally to this work.

Requests for reprints: Jean-Philippe Peyrat, Laboratoire d’Oncologie Moléculaire Humaine, Centre Oscar Lambret, rue Frédéric Combemale, BP 307, 59020 Lille Cédex, France. Phone/Fax: 33-3-20-29-55-35; E-mail: jp-peyrat{at}o-lambret.fr

Received 3/26/04; revised 6/22/04; accepted 8/17/04.


   REFERENCES
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Shepherd T, Hassell JA. Role of Ets transcription factors in mammary gland development and oncogenesis. J Mamm Gland Biol Neoplasia 2001;6:129-40.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Feldman RJ, Sementchenko VI, Watson DK. The epithelial-specific Ets factors occupy a unique position in defining epithelial proliferation, differentiation and carcinogenesis. Anticancer Res 2003;23:2125-31.[Medline]
  3. Oikawa T, Yamada T. Molecular biology of the Ets family of transcription factors. Gene (Amst.) 2003;303:11-34.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Xin JH, Cowie A, Lachance P, Hassell JA. Molecular cloning and characterization of PEA3, a new member of the Ets oncogene family that is differentially expressed in mouse embryonic cells. Genes Dev 1992;6:481-96.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Higashino F, Yoshida K, Fujinaga Y, Kamio K, Fujinaga K. Isolation of a cDNA encoding the adenovirus E1A enhancer binding protein: a new human member of the ets oncogene family. Nucleic Acids Res 1993;21:547-53.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Brown TA, McKnight SL. Specificities of protein-protein and protein-DNA interaction of GABP alpha and two newly defined ets-related proteins. Genes Dev 1992;6:2502-12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Monte D, Coutte L, Baert JL, Angeli I, Stehelin D, de Launoit Y. Molecular characterization of the ets-related human transcription factor ER81. Oncogene 1995;11:771-9.[Medline]
  8. Jeon IS, Davis JN, Braun BS, et al A variant Ewing’s sarcoma translocation (7;22) fuses the EWS gene to the ETS gene ETV1. Oncogene 1995;10:1229-34.[Medline]
  9. Monte D, Baert JL, Defossez PA, de Launoit Y, Stehelin D. Molecular cloning and characterization of human ERM, a new member of the Ets family closely related to mouse PEA3 and ER81 transcription factors. Oncogene 1994;9:1397-406.[Medline]
  10. Chotteau-Lelievre A, Desbiens X, Pelczar H, Defossez PA, de Launoit Y. Differential expression patterns of the PEA3 group transcription factors through murine embryonic development. Oncogene 1997;15:937-52.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. de Launoit Y, Chotteau-Lelievre A, Beaudoin C, et al The PEA3 group of ETS-related transcription factors. Role in breast cancer metastasis. Adv Exp Med Biol 2000;480:107-16.[Medline]
  12. Révillion F, Bonneterre J, Peyrat JP. ERBB2 oncogene in human breast cancer and its clinical significance. Eur J Cancer 1998;34:791-808.
  13. Pawlowski V, Révillion F, Hebbar M, Hornez L, Peyrat JP. Prognostic value of the type I growth factor receptors in a large series of human primary breast cancers quantified with a real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:4217-25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Trimble MS, Xin JH, Guy CT, Muller WJ, Hassell JA. PEA3 is overexpressed in mouse metastatic mammary adenocarcinomas. Oncogene 1993;8:3037-42.[Medline]
  15. Shepherd TG, Kockeritz L, Szrajber MR, Muller WJ, Hassell JA. The pea3 subfamily ets genes are required for HER2/Neu-mediated mammary oncogenesis. Curr Biol 2001;11:1739-48.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Baert JL, Monte D, Musgrove EA, Albagli O, Sutherland RL, de Launoit Y. Expression of the PEA3 group of ETS-related transcription factors in human breast cancer cells. Int J Cancer 1997;70:590-7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Benz CC, O’Hagan RC, Richter B, et al HER2/Neu and the Ets transcription activator PEA3 are coordinately up-regulated in human breast cancer. Oncogene 1997;15:1513-25.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Xing X, Wang SC, Xia W, et al The ets protein PEA3 suppresses HER-2/neu overexpression and inhibits tumorigenesis. Nat Med 2000;6:189-95.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Kinoshita J, Kitamura K, Tanaka S, Sugimachi K, Ishida M, Saeki H. Clinical significance of PEA3 in human breast cancer. Surgery (St. Louis) 2002;131:s222-5.
  20. Hiroumi H, Dosaka-Akita H, Yoshida K, et al Expression of E1AF/PEA3, an Ets-related transcription factor in human non-small-cell lung cancers: its relevance in cell motility and invasion. Int J Cancer 2001;93:786-91.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Hida K, Shindoh M, Yasuda M, et al Antisense E1AF transfection restrains oral cancer invasion by reducing matrix metalloproteinase activities. Am J Pathol 1997;150:2125-32.[Abstract]
  22. Hida K, Shindoh M, Yoshida K, et al Expression of E1AF, an ets-family transcription factor, is correlated with the invasive phenotype of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol 1997;33:426-30.[Medline]
  23. Yamamoto H, Horiuchi S, Adachi Y, et al Expression of ets-related transcriptional factor E1AF is associated with tumor progression and over-expression of Matrilysin in human gastric cancer. Carcinogenesis (Lond.) 2004;25:325-32.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Horiuchi S, Yamamoto H, Min Y, Adachi Y, Itoh F, Imai K. Association of ets-related transcriptional factor E1AF expression with tumour progression and overexpression of MMP-1 and Matrilysin in human colorectal cancer. J Pathol 2003;200:568-76.[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Davidson B, Goldberg I, Gotlieb WH, Kopolovic J, Ben-Baruch G, Reich R. PEA3 is the second Ets family transcription factor involved in tumor progression in ovarian carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:1412-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Peyrat JP, Vanlemmens L, Fournier J, Huet G, Révillion F, Bonneterre J. Prognostic value of p53 and uPA in node negative human breast cancers. Clin Cancer Res 1998;4:189-96.[Abstract]
  27. Look MP, van Putten WL, Duffy MJ, et al Pooled analysis of prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator and its inhibitor PAI-1 in 8377 breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst (Bethesda) 2002;94:116-28.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Rochefort H, Garcia M, Glondu M, et al Cathepsin D in breast cancer: mechanisms and clinical applications, a 1999 overview. Clin Chim Acta 2000;291:157-70.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Higashino F, Yoshida K, Noumi T, Seiki M, Fujinaga K. Ets-related protein E1A-F can activate three different matrix metalloproteinase gene promoters. Oncogene 1995;10:1461-3.[Medline]
  30. Kaya M, Yoshida K, Higashino F, Mitaka T, Ishii S, Fujinaga K. A single ets-related transcription factor, E1AF, confers invasive phenotype on human cancer cells. Oncogene 1996;12:221-7.[Medline]
  31. Crawford HC, Fingleton B, Gustavson MD, et al The PEA3 subfamily of Ets transcription factors synergizes with beta-catenin-LEF-1 to activate Matrilysin transcription in intestinal tumors. Mol Cell Biol 2001;21:1370-83.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Barrett JM, Puglia MA, Singh G, Tozer RG. Expression of Ets-related transcription factors and matrix metalloproteinase genes in human breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002;72:227-32.[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Davidson B, Goldberg I, Gotlieb WH, et al Coordinated expression of integrin subunits, matrix metalloproteinases (MMP), angiogenic genes and Ets transcription factors in advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma: a possible activation pathway?. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2003;22:103-15.[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Netzer S, Leenders F, Dumont P, Baert JL, de Launoit Y. Ectopic expression of the ets transcription factor ER81 in transgenic mouse mammary gland enhances both urokinase plasminogen activator and stromelysin-1 transcription. Transgenic Res 2002;11:123-31.[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. de Launoit Y, Audette M, Pelczar H, Plaza S, Baert JL. The transcription of the intercellular adhesion molecule-1 is regulated by Ets transcription factors. Oncogene 1998;16:2065-73.[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Peyrat JP, Bonneterre J, Beuscart R, Djiane J, Demaille A. Insulin-like growth factor I receptors (IGF1-R) in human breast cancer and their relation to estradiol and progesterone receptors. Cancer Res 1988;48:6429-33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Koenders T, Thorpe SM, On behalf of the EORTC receptor study group. Standardization of steroid receptor assays in human breast cancer. IV. Long-term within and between laboratory variation of estrogen and progesterone assays. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1986;22:945-53.[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. Holland PM, Abramson RD, Watson R, Gelfand DH. Detection of specific polymerase chain reaction product by utilizing the 5'-3' exonuclease activity of Thermus aquaticus DNA polymerase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1991;88:7276-80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Livak KJ, Flood SJ, Marmaro J, Giusti W, Deetz K. Oligonucleotides with fluorescent dyes at opposite ends provide a quenched probe system useful for detecting PCR product and nucleic acid hybridization. PCR Methods Appl 1995;4:357-62.[Medline]
  40. Bièche I, Onody P, Laurendeau I, et al Real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay for future management of ERBB2-based clinical applications. Clin Chem 1999;45:1148-56.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Révillion F, Pawlowski V, Hornez L, Peyrat JP. Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene expression in human breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:1038-42.
  42. Livak KJ. Comparitive Ct method. ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. User bulletin no. 2. Applied Biosystems, 1997.
  43. Cox DR. Regression models and lifetables. J R Stat Soc 1972;34:187-200.
  44. Bièche I, Tozlu S, Girault I, et al Expression of PEA3/E1AF/ETV4, an Ets-related transcription factor, in breast tumors: positive links to MMP2, NRG1 and CGB expression. Carcinogenesis (Lond.) 2004;25:405-11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Bertucci F, Houlgatte R, Benziane A, et al Gene expression profiling of primary breast carcinomas using arrays of candidate genes. Hum Mol Genet 2000;9:2981-91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Cell Sci.Home page
V. Firlej, F. Ladam, G. Brysbaert, P. Dumont, F. Fuks, Y. de Launoit, A. Benecke, and A. Chotteau-Lelievre
Reduced tumorigenesis in mouse mammary cancer cells following inhibition of Pea3- or Erm-dependent transcription
J. Cell Sci., October 15, 2008; 121(20): 3393 - 3402.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
M. E. Witek, K. Nielsen, R. Walters, T. Hyslop, J. Palazzo, S. Schulz, and S. A. Waldman
The Putative Tumor Suppressor Cdx2 Is Overexpressed by Human Colorectal Adenocarcinomas
Clin. Cancer Res., December 15, 2005; 11(24): 8549 - 8556.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
V. Firlej, B. Bocquet, X. Desbiens, Y. de Launoit, and A. Chotteau-Lelievre
Pea3 Transcription Factor Cooperates with USF-1 in Regulation of the Murine bax Transcription without Binding to an Ets-binding Site
J. Biol. Chem., January 14, 2005; 280(2): 887 - 898.
[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 Chotteau-Lelièvre, A.
Right arrow Articles by Peyrat, J.-P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chotteau-Lelièvre, A.
Right arrow Articles by Peyrat, J.-P.

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 Meeting Abstracts Online