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 Yuan, B.
Right arrow Articles by Gabrielson, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yuan, B.
Right arrow Articles by Gabrielson, E.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 12, 405-410, January 2006
© 2006 American Association for Cancer Research

Human Cancer Biology

Increased Expression of Mitotic Checkpoint Genes in Breast Cancer Cells with Chromosomal Instability

Bibo Yuan1, Yi Xu1, Ju-Hyung Woo1, Yunyue Wang1, Young Kyung Bae3, Dae-Sung Yoon4, Robert P. Wersto2, Ellen Tully1, Kathleen Wilsbach1 and Edward Gabrielson1

Authors' Affiliations: 1 Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 2 Gerentology Research Center, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, Maryland; 3 Yeungnam University School of Medicine, and 4 Konyang University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

Requests for reprints: Edward Gabrielson, Johns Hopkins Cancer Center, 417 North Caroline Street, Baltimore, MD 21231. Phone: 410-502-5250; Fax: 410-955-8780; E-mail: egabriel{at}jhmi.edu.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Purpose: Most breast cancers have chromosomal instability that seems related to defective mitotic spindle checkpoints. Because the molecular basis of this defect is unknown, we evaluated breast cancer cell lines and tissues for possible defects involving the major mitotic checkpoint genes responsible for maintaining chromosomal stability.

Experimental Design: We analyzed sequences and expression levels (RNA and protein) of eight major spindle checkpoint genes (MAD1L1, MAD2L1, MAD2L2, BUB1, BUB1B, BUB3, CDC20, and TTK) in a panel of 12 breast cancer cell lines, most with established genetic instability and defective spindle damage checkpoint response. mRNA levels of these genes were also measured in primary tumor samples, and immunohistochemical staining was used to evaluate BUB1B protein levels in a panel of 270 additional cases of breast cancer.

Results: No functionally significant sequence variations were found for any of the eight genes in the breast cancer cell lines with chromosomal instability. More surprisingly, the mRNA and protein levels for these checkpoint genes are significantly higher in the genetically unstable breast cancer cell lines and in high-grade primary breast cancer tissues than in the stable (and checkpoint proficient) MCF-10A and normal mammary epithelial cells, or in normal breast tissues. In fact, overexpression of the BUB1B protein is a marker that recognizes nearly 80% of breast cancers in paraffin-embedded tissues.

Conclusions: Defective mitotic spindle checkpoints in breast cancer are most likely not caused by low expression or mutations of these eight checkpoint genes. High levels of these particular transcripts could represent a cellular compensation for defects in other molecular components of the mitotic spindle damage checkpoint, and increased expression of these genes might be markers of breast cancers with chromosomal instability.

Most breast cancers have significantly aberrant genomic structure, including abnormal numbers of chromosomes. We have previously shown that in breast cancer cell lines, chromosome numbers are both variable and unstable (1), a phenomenon that seems related to defective mitotic spindle checkpoint controls. This chromosomal instability in breast cancer is similar to what has been observed in other cancers, where defective mitotic spindle checkpoint genes have been implicated as a basis of chromosomal instability. For example, mutations in the BUB1 mitotic checkpoint gene were initially reported in a small number of colorectal cancers with chromosomal instability (2, 3), Subsequently, mutations of BUB1 were reported in colon and pancreatic cancers (3, 4), and a truncating mutation of the MAD2L1 gene was reported for a single breast cancer cell line (4).

Further analyses of the BUB1, BUB1B, and MAD2L1 checkpoint genes, however, have revealed that these mutations are relatively uncommon in cancer. Supporting a possible alternative mechanism for reducing the activity of checkpoint proteins, several studies have provided evidence that low expression levels of key mitotic spindle checkpoint genes could contribute to defective spindle checkpoint controls in cancer. For example, expression of BUB1 is decreased in many colorectal cancers without mutations (3), and MAD2L1 is reportedly underexpressed in some breast and ovarian cancers (5). Such reduced expression apparently has functional significance, because deletion of one MAD2L2 allele results in a defective mitotic checkpoint in both human cancer cells and murine primary embryonic fibroblasts (6) and haploinsufficiency of BUB1B in mice results in defective mitotic arrest as well as tumors (7).

Based on such functional studies, mutations or underexpression of mitotic spindle checkpoint genes could still logically be predicted to play a role in causing genomic instability in breast cancer, and the limited analysis of these genes to date certainly does remove these genes from suspicion. In this study, we comprehensively evaluated eight major mitotic spindle checkpoint genes in 12 breast cancer cell lines that have been previously characterized for chromosomal instability and mitotic spindle defects and in primary tumor samples of high-grade breast cancers. Specifically, we sequenced transcripts of the MAD1L1, MAD2L2, MAD2L2, BUB1, BUB1B, BUB3, CDC20, and TTK genes and measured mRNA levels by real-time PCR and protein levels by immunoblot. Notably, the MAD1L1, MAD2L2, BUB3, TTK, and CDC20 checkpoint genes have not, to our knowledge, been previously evaluated in breast cancer (other than measurements of transcripts of these genes in microarray analyses). We found no sequence variations of any of these genes that would be suggestive of a functionally significant somatic mutation. Surprisingly, we found increased rather than decreased levels of checkpoint gene transcripts in the breast cancer samples compared with those in primary breast epithelial cells. Extending these findings, we tested a large series of breast tissues for expression of a checkpoint gene protein as a potential marker for breast cancer.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Breast cancer cell lines, culture conditions, and primary breast cancers. The 12 breast cancer cell lines (MDA-MB-231, HCC1806, T47D, HCC1937, HCC38, MCF7, HCC1143, BT549, SKBR3, BT-20, Hs578T, and DU4475) and the nontumorigenic breast cancer epithelial cell line MCF10A were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA) and cultured in recommended medium at 37°C 5% CO2. Immortalized mammary epithelial cells (ME16C) were provided by Dr. Jerry Shay (University of Texas, Dallas, TX; ref. 8) and maintained in MEGM (Clonetics, San Diego, CA). Cultures of primary mammary epithelial cells were established and maintained in MEGM using previously described methods (9). Cultures of the various cells were harvested at 70% to 80% confluency for experiments to measure gene expression.

In compliance and approval from the institutional review board for use of human subjects, snap-frozen samples of primary breast cancer were obtained from surgical pathology specimens and used for measurements of gene mRNA levels. Frozen sections of the tissues were examined for each case to assure that at least 70% of the cells in each sample analyzed were cancer cells. Immunohistochemistry studies were done on tissue microarrays, which used small core biopsy samples of routinely prepared paraffin tissue blocks. All samples used for research were in excess of tissue required for routine diagnosis, and patient identifiers were not linked to specimens.

Sequence analysis of checkpoint gene transcripts. At 80% confluency, cells were harvested, and RNA was isolated using RNAeasy Mini kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA), according to manufacturer's protocol. cDNA synthesis was done using Oligo(dT)18 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA,) and Superscript II RNase H reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen), following the manufacturers' recommendations. PCR amplifications were done using Platinum Taq DNA Polymerase (Invitrogen) with the following conditions: 35 cycles at 94°C for 30 seconds, 60°C for 30 seconds, and 72°C for 1 minute, with a final extension step of 72°C for 5 minutes. Reverse transcription-PCR products were purified using a QIAquick PCR purification kit (Qiagen), and automated fluorescent sequencing was done using appropriate primers (sequences available upon request) on ABI Prism model 3700 automated sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Sequences were analyzed using National Center for Biotechnology Information Blast databases and software. Each sequence was verified twice, using primers in both the forward and reverse directions. Heterozygous as well as homozygous sequence variants were detected by this method.

Real-time quantitative PCR measure expression level of mitotic checkpoint genes. Total RNA was extracted as above. The primers for SYBR Green real-time quantitative PCR were designed specific for each checkpoint gene and for ACTB (ß-actin) as an endogenous control (Table 1). Quantification was based on standard curves constructed by serial dilutions of RNA. The assays were repeated in their entirety for each measurement.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Primers for real-time PCR

 
Multiplex RCR was done in 96-well plates using 50 ng RNA per assay and Taqman reverse transcription reagents and SYBR Green PCR master mix (Applied Biosystems). PCR conditions were 30 minutes at 48°C and 10 minutes at 95 °C followed with 40 cycles at 95°C for 30 seconds and 60°C for 1 minute. Data were collected using the ABI PRISM 7900HT SDS analytic thermal cycler (Applied Biosystems). Each sample was tested in triplicate, and dissociation curves of each sample were used to check the specificity of amplification. For verification of dissociation curve results, PCR reactions were examined by 2% agarose gel electrophoresis. All experiments with intra-assay or inter-assay coefficient of variation of >10% were repeated. The relative expression level of each gene was normalized to the level present in MCF10A cells, using the level of ACTB as a reference standard.

Cell sorting. To isolate G0-G1 and G2-M populations of cells, cultures were harvested at about 80% confluency and resuspended in prewarmed RPMI 1640 containing 2% fetal bovine calf serum, at a density of 106/mL. Hoechst 33342 (Sigma, Milwaukee, WI) was then added at a concentration of 5 µg/mL, and the suspension was incubated at 37°C for 90 minutes in a shaker bath. Cells were pelleted, resuspended in fresh cold medium, and sorted using FACSStar Plus (Becton Dickinson, Mountain View, CA).

Immunoblot analysis of proteins. Cells were harvested and lysed in buffer containing 50 mmol/L Tris-HCl (pH 7.7), 150 mmol/L NaCl, 0.5% NP40, 1 mmol/L DTT, 10% glycerol, and 0.5 µmol/L protease inhibitor cocktail (Sigma, St. Louis, MO). Samples of the lysates (50 µg) were then separated using SDS-PAGE electrophoresis and transferred to Bio-Rad (Hercules, CA) membranes. Specific antisera used to probe the membranes included goat polyclonal anti-MAD2L2, rabbit polyclonal anti-CDC20 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA), monoclonal anti-BUB1B, monoclonal anti-BUB3 (BD Biosciences, San Diego, CA), and rabbit polyclonal anti-ß-actin (Santa Cruz Biotechnology). Subsequently, membranes were hybridized to horseradish peroxidase–conjugated secondary antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology) and visualized with enhanced chemiluminescence (Amersham, Piscataway, NJ).

Immunochemical staining. Breast cancer tissues from a total of 270 patient samples, represented on tissue microarrays, were analyzed using a 1:100 dilution of the same monoclonal anti-BUB1B antibody described above. Immunohistochemical staining of paraffin-embedded pellets of the cell lines corresponded to the expression seen on immunoblots (data not shown), confirming specificity of the antibody for tissue analysis. Slides were pretreated with steam vapors of Target Retrieval solution (DakoCytomation, Carpinteria, CA) according to manufacturer's instructions, and immunochemistry was developed using the conventional streptavidin-avidin-biotin complex kit from DakoCytomation. Staining was scored on the following scale: 0, no staining; 1+, minimal staining; 2+, moderate to strong staining in at least 20% of cells; 3+, strong staining in at least 50% of cells.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Transcripts of mitotic spindle checkpoint genes lack mutations. To begin our analysis, we sequenced transcripts of the eight major checkpoint genes in the 12 breast cancer cell lines. A total of nine sequence variations, all previously reported as polymorphisms, were found in the transcripts from the cell lines (Table 2). No sequence variation that would likely result in a functional change in the protein (e.g., change of amino acid charge) was found. Because these breast cancer cell lines with defective mitotic spindle checkpoints do not have mutations of these common checkpoint genes, we conclude that such mutations are not a prevalent cause of chromosomal instability in breast cancer.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Sequence variations in checkpoint gene transcripts from breast cancer cell lines

 
Increased mRNA and protein levels of mitotic spindle checkpoint genes in breast cancer. Previous studies have implicated decreased expression rather than mutations of checkpoint genes as a cause of defective mitotic spindle damage checkpoints in breast cancer. To determine whether decreased expression of checkpoint genes could be responsible for defective checkpoints seen in most of these cell lines, we quantitatively measured transcripts of the eight major mitotic checkpoint genes in the 12 breast cancer cell lines, in "control" breast epithelial cell lines (MCF10A and primary mammary epithelial cells) with intact mitotic spindle damage response, and in tissue samples from high-grade breast cancers.

Unexpectedly, we found almost uniformly increased mRNA transcript levels of these checkpoint genes (MAD1L1, MAD2L1, MAD2L2, BUB1, BUB1B, BUB3, CDC20, and TTK) in the breast cancer cell lines relative to levels in MCF10A and primary mammary cells. The results are summarized in Fig. 1, where relative expression levels for all samples are normalized to those measured in the MCF10A cell line. The relative increases in expression range from up to 11-fold for the MAD2L2 gene and up to 520 fold for the TTK gene. Notably, the levels of the checkpoint genes in the breast cancer cell lines were never found to be below the range of expression measured in the normal breast epithelial cells.


Figure 1
View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Relative expression levels of checkpoint genes in nonmalignant breast cells (top), breast cancer cell lines (middle), and primary tumor samples (bottom). Expression for each gene was normalized to level of ß-actin in each cell line, and expression was then compared with levels in MCF10A cells. Scale for relative expression is shown in bar below. NA, not amplified in given sample.

 
We also measure transcript levels of the eight checkpoint genes in nine different tissue samples of poorly differentiated (Nottingham grade 3) invasive breast cancers. As shown in Fig. 1 (bottom), the levels of these transcripts in the cancer tissues mirrored our findings in the breast cancer cell lines, with almost uniformly increased expression of checkpoint genes in cancer compared with normal breast.

To confirm overexpression of these genes at the protein level, protein levels of four genes (BUB1B, MAD2L1, BUB3, and CDC20) were measured semiquantitatively by immunoblot using commercially available antisera. For these experiments, protein levels in the cancer cells were compared with those in MCF-10A and immortalized, nontumorigenic mammary epithelial cells (ME16C). As shown in Fig. 2, these four checkpoint proteins are generally present in significantly higher levels in the cancer cell lines than in MCF10A or ME16C cells. Although BUB1B protein levels are somewhat lower in several of the cancer cell lines than in the MCF10A cells, all breast cancer cell lines have significantly higher levels of BUB1B than the ME16C cells (Fig. 2) and cultured primary mammary epithelial cells (data not shown). Thus, checkpoint genes seem to be generally expressed at high levels in breast cancer at both the transcriptional and translational level.


Figure 2
View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Immunoblot of spindle checkpoint gene protein levels in breast cancer cell lines and the nonmalignant MCF10A and ME16C cells. ß-Actin levels as control (bottom).

 
Cell cycle variation does not explain high levels of checkpoint gene expression in breast cancer cells. Because previous investigations found checkpoint genes (e.g., CDC20, and mouse BUB1B) to be expressed in a cell cycle–dependent manner (10, 11), we considered the possibility that high levels of checkpoint gene expression in cancer cells simply reflect a high rate of proliferation. Although the rate of proliferation of the cancer cells does not differ significantly from that of MCF-10A cells or early-passage primary mammary cells, we compared expression levels for G0-G1 and G2-M fractions of flow cytometry sorted MCF-7, MDA-231, and primary mammary cells (Fig. 3). As shown in Fig. 3, the difference in expression between G2-M cells and G0-G1 cells is less than the difference in gene expression across unsorted (and unsynchronized) cells. Thus, cell cycle–dependent variation in expression is insufficient to completely explain the high levels of checkpoint gene transcripts observed in breast cancer cells compared with nonmalignant breast cells.


Figure 3
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Expression levels of spindle checkpoint genes in sorted fractions of primary breast epithelial cells (HMEC) and breast cancer cells. Ratios of levels in G0-G1 fraction to levels in G2-M fraction.

 
Increased expression of BUB1B characterizes high-grade breast cancer. We tested the commercially available antisera to checkpoint proteins and found that antiserum to the BUB1B protein (but not other antisera) stains formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues in a manner consistent with immunoblot results (data not shown). Therefore, we used this antiserum to evaluate expression of BUB1B in a panel of 270 primary breast cancer samples represented on tissue microarrays. Most (77%) of the breast cancers in this set of tumors stained positive (2+ to 3+) for BUB1B, whereas none of the 18 normal breast ductal tissues showed significant staining for this antigen. Representative staining is shown in Fig. 4. The staining in breast cancer for BUB1B is cytoplasmic, similar to the pattern reported for colorectal cancer cells (12). By contrast, for normal colonic epithelium, BUB1B staining is seen with the expected nuclear localization (12), whereas no staining was seen in normal breast epithelium with the conditions used in this study. Some breast cancers show heterogeneous staining for BUB1B (e.g., Fig. 4B).


Figure 4
View larger version (121K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Immunohistochemical staining for BUB1B in breast cancer tissues. A-C from grade 3 ductal cancers; D, from a grade 1 ductal cancer. A and B, arrows designate nonmalignant breast ducts that do not stain significantly for BUB1B. C, arrow designates area of tumor with minimal staining (heterogeneous expression). A-C, expression was interpreted as 3+; D, expression was interpreted as 0. Photographs were taken at 400x magnification.

 
Remarkably, staining for BUB1B is particularly prevalent in grade 2 (86%) and grade 3 (94%) ductal breast cancers, with many fewer cases of grade 1 ductal cancer (18%) and no cases of mucinous breast cancer staining above background for this antigen (Table 3). Not unexpectedly (because of the high prevalence of BUB1B staining), expression was not found to be a significant independent variable predictive of survival among the patients with cancers represented on the arrays (data not shown).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Expression of BUB1B by immunohistochemistry in breast cancer tissues

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Checkpoint genes, which delay mitosis when chromosomes are imperfectly aligned, have drawn considerable attention for their possible role in the phenomenon of genomic instability in neoplasia. This attention was fueled by early reports showing mutations in the BUB1 gene in some cases of colorectal cancer and low expression of the MAD2L1 gene in one breast cancer cell line. Interestingly, even a hemizygous mutation of BUB1 seems to be functionally significant, and haploinsufficiency of checkpoint genes, such as BUB1B, in genetically engineered mice was sufficient to result in slippage of cells from mitotic arrest and enhancement of tumor development. Thus, whereas checkpoint genes do not have characteristics of classic tumor suppressor genes, it would seem that even partial reduction of function for one of these genes could have profound effects on mitotic stability and maintenance of genomic integrity.

Based on such observations, the role of mitotic spindle damage checkpoint genes in the development of chromosomal instability, mutations, or decreased expression of these checkpoint genes in breast cancer might be expected. However, with one exception (5), previous studies on the checkpoint genes in breast cancer failed to find possible mutations or loss of gene expression for the checkpoint genes examined (4, 13–17). Nevertheless, the fragmented nature of these previous studies, which did not include any analysis of MAD1L1, MAD2L2, BUB3, TTK, or CDC20 genes, does not by any means exclude this class of genes from being involved in the pathogenesis of genomic instability in breast cancer. By conducting a more comprehensive evaluation, we can now be more confident in concluding that neither mutations nor underexpression of these checkpoint genes are responsible for the defective checkpoints that are so prevalent in this type of cancer.

Although previous studies that have focused specifically on mitotic checkpoint genes in breast cancer have not found increased expression of these genes, it is notable that some microarray-based gene expression profile studies of breast cancer have found elevated levels of selected genes in subsets of breast cancer. For example, levels of BUB1 mRNA were reported to be high in breast cancers with extremely poor outcome (18), and MAD2L1 levels were reportedly relatively elevated in basal-like breast cancers that respond to chemotherapy (19). Although the transcript levels of many checkpoint genes are below the level required for effective measurement by microarray analysis, these results complement our findings in suggesting that elevated transcript levels of checkpoint genes are common in breast cancers, including subtypes of breast cancer with aggressive clinical biology.

When evaluating this gene expression data of cell culture and tissue samples, it is important to recognize that mitotic checkpoint genes are normally expressed in a cell cycle–dependent manner (10, 11). To verify that breast cancer cells are not deficient in checkpoint proteins at the time they are likely needed most, we measured transcripts in G2-M cells isolated by flow cytometry. These measurements confirmed that the high expression of checkpoint genes in cancer cells persists through mitosis. Furthermore, our immunohistochemical staining for BUB1B protein showed expression in mitotic cells as well as nondividing cells. Thus, it seems unlikely that cell cycle–specific deficiencies in checkpoint protein levels are responsible for loss of the checkpoint controls in breast cancer.

What, then, is the significance of overexpression of checkpoint genes in breast cancer? One possible explanation of this observation would be that high expression of these proteins represents a partial compensation for other defects in the mitotic spindle checkpoint. Indeed, total loss of checkpoint gene function actually seems catastrophic, even for cancer cells (20); thus, it would seem reasonable that cells would have such compensatory mechanisms to prevent total chaos at mitosis. Alternatively, it could be speculated that overexpression of checkpoint genes actually contributes to defective checkpoints and genomic instability. The possibility of this apparent paradox is supported by observations that overexpression of wild-type BUB1 or MAD3 gene leads to chromosome instability in yeast (21).

If overexpression of checkpoint genes contributes to cancer cell survival, or if this overexpression contributes to the malignant phenotype, it is possible that the related pathways could represent potential targets for cancer therapy. A more tangible implication of this overexpression is that increased expression of these genes could be markers of genetic instability in breast cancer. In fact, a single antibody, specific for BUB1B, selectively stained >90% of grade 2 and 3 ductal breast cancers without reacting significantly to normal breast ductal structures. Remarkably, positive staining was seen in relatively few cases of grade 1 ductal breast cancer (18%) and no cases of mucinous breast cancer, which have many fewer genomic alterations than ductal cancers have and thus probably do not have a comparable level of genomic instability (22). Although the sensitivity of this one antibody alone may not be sufficient for application as a diagnostic marker for breast cancer, there is certainly an implication that it could be a part of a panel of markers used to differentiate benign breast cells from malignant cells in some diagnostic situations. Moreover, because the high expression of this protein seems to be relatively selective for high-grade cancers, the potential of this marker for classification of breast cancer should be explored.


   Acknowledgments
 
We thank Dr. Jerry Shay for providing ME16C cells and Jonathan Coulter for assistance in culture of primary mammary epithelial cells.


   Footnotes
 
Grant support: National Cancer Institute grant P50CA 88846-04, Intramural Research Program of the NIH, and National Institute on Aging.

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.

Received 4/25/05; revised 11/ 4/05; accepted 11/11/05.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Yoon DS, Wersto RP, Zhou W, et al. Variable levels of chromosomal instability and mitotic spindle checkpoint defects in breast cancer. Am J Pathol 2002;161:391–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Cahill DP, Lengauer C, Yu J, et al. Mutations of mitotic checkpoint genes in human cancers. Nature 1998;392:300–3.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Shichiri M, Yoshinaga K, Hisatomi H, Sugihara K, Hirata Y. Genetic and epigenetic inactivation of mitotic checkpoint genes hBUB1 and hBUBR1 and their relationship to survival. Cancer Res 2002;62:13–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Percy MJ, Myrie KA, Neeley CK, Azim JN, Ethier SP, Petty EM. Expression and mutational analyses of the human MAD2L1 gene in breast cancer cells. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2000;29:356–62.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Wang X, Jin DY, Ng RW, et al. Significance of MAD2 expression to mitotic checkpoint control in ovarian cancer cells. Cancer Res 2002;62:1662–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Michel LS, Liberal V, Chatterjee A, et al. MAD2 haplo-insufficiency causes premature anaphase and chromosome instability in mammalian cells. Nature 2001;409:355–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Dai W, Wang Q, Liu T, et al. Slippage of mitotic arrest and enhanced tumor development in mice with BubR1 haploinsufficiency. Cancer Res 2004;64:440–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Troester MA, Hoadley KA, Sorlie T, et al. Cell-type-specific responses to chemotherapeutics in breast cancer. Cancer Res 2004;64:4218–26.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Stampfer M, Hallowes RC, Hackett AJ. Growth of normal human mammary cells in culture. In vitro 1980;16:415–25.[Medline]
  10. Weinstein J. Cell cycle-regulated expression, phosphorylation, and degradation of p55Cdc. A mammalian homolog of CDC20/Fizzy/slp1. J Biol Chem 1997;272:28501–11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Davenport JW, Fernandes ER, Harris LD, Neale GA, Goorha R. The mouse mitotic checkpoint gene bub1b, a novel bub1 family member, is expressed in a cell cycle-dependent manner. Genomics 1999;55:113–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Shin HJ, Baek KH, Jeon AH, et al. Dual roles of human BubR1, a mitotic checkpoint kinase, in the monitoring of chromosomal instability. Cancer Cell 2003;4:483–97.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Gemma A, Hosoya Y, Seike M, et al. Genomic structure of the human MAD2 gene and mutation analysis in human lung and breast cancers. Lung Cancer 2001;32:289–95.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Ingvarsson S, Sigbjornsdottir BI, Huiping C, et al. Mutation analysis of the CHK2 gene in breast carcinoma and other cancers. Breast Cancer Res 2002;4:R4.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Miller CW, Ikezoe T, Krug U, et al. Mutations of the CHK2 gene are found in some osteosarcomas, but are rare in breast, lung, and ovarian tumors. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2002;33:17–21.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Myrie KA, Percy MJ, Azim JN, Neeley CK, Petty EM. Mutation and expression analysis of human BUB1 and BUB1B in aneuploid breast cancer cell lines. Cancer Lett 2000;152:193–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Ru HY, Chen RL, Lu WC, Chen JH. hBUB1 defects in leukemia and lymphoma cells. Oncogene 2002;21:4673–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Dai H, van't Veer L, Lamb J, et al. A cell proliferation signature is a marker of extremely poor outcome in a subpopulation of breast cancer patients. Cancer Res 2005;65:4059–66.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, et al. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:5678–85.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Kops GJ, Foltz DR, Cleveland DW. Lethality to human cancer cells through massive chromosome loss by inhibition of the mitotic checkpoint. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:8699–704.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Warren CD, Brady DM, Johnston RC, Hanna JS, Hardwick KG, Spencer FA. Distinct chromosome segregation roles for spindle checkpoint proteins. Mol Biol Cell 2002;13:3029–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Fujii H, Anbazhagan R, Bornman DM, Garrett ES, Perlman E, Gabrielson E. Mucinous cancers have fewer genomic alterations than more common classes of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002;76:255–60.[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
C.-F. Hong, Y.-T. Chou, Y.-S. Lin, and C.-W. Wu
MAD2B, a Novel TCF4-binding Protein, Modulates TCF4-mediated Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transdifferentiation
J. Biol. Chem., July 17, 2009; 284(29): 19613 - 19622.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CarcinogenesisHome page
M. Adler, K. Muller, E. Rached, W. Dekant, and A. Mally
Modulation of key regulators of mitosis linked to chromosomal instability is an early event in ochratoxin A carcinogenicity
Carcinogenesis, April 1, 2009; 30(4): 711 - 719.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
H.-S. Kim, Y.-K. Jeon, G.-H. Ha, H.-Y. Park, Y.-J. Kim, H.-J. Shin, C. G. Lee, D.-H. Chung, and C.-W. Lee
Functional Interaction between BubR1 and Securin in an Anaphase-Promoting Complex/CyclosomeCdc20-Independent Manner
Cancer Res., January 1, 2009; 69(1): 27 - 36.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
K. M.-F. Sze, Y.-P. Ching, D.-Y. Jin, and I. O.-L. Ng
Role of a Novel Splice Variant of Mitotic Arrest Deficient 1 (MAD1), MAD1{beta}, in Mitotic Checkpoint Control in Liver Cancer
Cancer Res., November 15, 2008; 68(22): 9194 - 9201.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
E. Diaz-Rodriguez, R. Sotillo, J.-M. Schvartzman, and R. Benezra
Hec1 overexpression hyperactivates the mitotic checkpoint and induces tumor formation in vivo
PNAS, October 28, 2008; 105(43): 16719 - 16724.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CarcinogenesisHome page
I. Perez de Castro, G. de Carcer, and M. Malumbres
A census of mitotic cancer genes: new insights into tumor cell biology and cancer therapy
Carcinogenesis, May 1, 2007; 28(5): 899 - 912.
[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 Yuan, B.
Right arrow Articles by Gabrielson, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yuan, B.
Right arrow Articles by Gabrielson, E.

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