Clinical Cancer Research The Science of Cancer Health Disparities
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 van Golen, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by Merajver, S. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van Golen, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by Merajver, S. D.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 5, 2511-2519, September 1999
© 1999 American Association for Cancer Research

Molecular Oncology, Markers, Clinical Correlates

A Novel Putative Low-Affinity Insulin-like Growth Factor-binding Protein, LIBC (Lost in Inflammatory Breast Cancer), and RhoC GTPase Correlate with the Inflammatory Breast Cancer Phenotype1

Kenneth L. van Golen, Seena Davies, Zhi Fen Wu, YunFang Wang, Corazon D. Bucana, Holly Root, Settara Chandrasekharappa, Myla Strawderman, Stephen P. Ethier and Sofia D. Merajver2

Departments of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology [K. L. v. G., S. D., Z. F. W., S. D. M.] and Radiation Oncology [S. P. E.], The University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109; Department of Cancer Biology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030 [Y. W., C. D. B.] National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-4431 [H. R., S. C.]; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 [K. L. v. G., S. D., Z. F. W., M. S., S. P. E., S. D. M.]


   ABSTRACT
Top
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Inflammatory breast cancer is a rapidly growing, distinct form of locally advanced breast cancer that carries a guarded prognosis. To identify the genes that contribute to this aggressive phenotype, we compared under- and overexpressed sequences in an inflammatory breast tumor cell line with those of actively replicating normal human mammary epithelial cell lines using differential display. Of the 17 transcripts isolated and characterized from these experiments, overexpression of RhoC GTPase and loss of expression of a novel gene on 6q22, LIBC (lost in inflammatory breast cancer), were highly correlated (P < 0.0095 and P < 0.0013, respectively) with the inflammatory phenotype when a panel of archival inflammatory breast cancers was compared with noninflammatory stage III breast cancers by in situ hybridization. This study suggests two new molecular markers specific for inflammatory breast cancer.


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The term IBC3 was first coined in 1924 by Lee and Tannenbaum (1) to describe a form of locally advanced breast cancer characterized by erythema, skin nodules, peau d’ aurange, and nipple retraction. Although all forms of locally advanced breast cancer can be associated with skin nodules and erythema, IBC is clinically distinguished by the very rapid onset of these changes, which typically arise within 6 months, and is diagnosed as stage IIIb (2 , 3) . Primary IBC accounts for ~6% of new breast cancer cases in the United States annually. With a mean 5-year disease-free survival rate of <45%, IBC is the most lethal form of locally advanced breast cancer (4) . Despite the often-morbid outcome of the disease and the fact that IBC is well characterized clinically (2) , very little is known about the genetic alterations involved in the etiology and progression of this disease. IBC has lower rates of expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors and faster growth kinetics than non-IBC (5) . Key genes known to be involved in carcinogenesis such as p53, c-myb, pS2, and c-erbB2(6, 7, 8) have been shown to have varied levels of expression in IBC. However, no alteration in any of these genes has emerged as specifically characteristic of the inflammatory phenotype. The rapid progression of IBC is not associated with precursor lesions and, from the outset, is highly invasive, especially in the skin. We hypothesized that a limited number of genetic alterations give rise to this constellation of distinct clinical characteristics.

In this study, we compared the differential expression of transcripts from a primary IBC cell line (SUM149) with actively growing normal mammary epithelial cells and the patients’ matched lymphocytes. Seventeen genes, eight expressed by the normal cell lines (and not by the tumor) and nine over-expressed by the tumor cell line, have been identified. This is the first study of the identification and characterization of genes that play a role in determining the phenotype of IBC.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Cell Lines.
Cell lines were maintained under defined, well-tailored culture conditions optimal for growth in each case (9 , 10) . The SUM149 cell line was established from a primary IBC and grown in 5% FBS (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO) supplemented with Ham’s F12 medium (JRH Biosciences, Lenexa, KS) containing insulin and hydrocortisone (Sigma Chemical Co.). Lymphocytes of the SUM149 patient were immortalized with EBV, as described (11 , 12) . Lymphocytes were grown in 10% FBS supplemented with RPMI medium (Life Technologies, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD). Normal HME cells were immortalized with human papilloma virus (13) and grown in 5% FBS supplemented with Ham’s F12 medium containing insulin, hydrocortisone, epidermal growth factor, and cholera toxin (Sigma Chemical Co.). The HME cells were shown to be keratin 19 positive and, therefore, of the same differentiation lineage as the SUM149 cell line. MCF10A cells were grown in Ham’s F12 medium supplemented with insulin, hydrocortisone, and epidermal growth factor. The remaining SUM breast cancer cell lines were cultured as described previously (9 , 10) . All cells were grown at 37°C in 10% CO2.

Differential Display.
Differential display of mRNA was performed using a modified version of the method of Liang and Pardee (14 , 15) , with select components from the RNAimage kit (GenHunter Co., Nashville, TN). mRNA was isolated from cells that had reached 75% confluence using the Micro-FastTrack mRNA isolation kit (In vitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). The mRNAs were then reverse transcribed using a single-base anchored oligo-dT primer (H-T11-G, H-T11-C or H-T11-A). The first-strand cDNAs were then PCR-amplified using one of three primers of arbitrary sequence (H-AP1, H-AP2 or H-AP3) and a 32P-labeled oligo-dT primer. The PCR products were separated on a 6% denaturing polyacrylamide-sequencing gel and visualized on Hyperfilm (Amersham Life Sciences, Buckinghamshire, England). Each experiment was performed three separate times, starting from the mRNA isolation step to confirm differentially expressed transcripts between tumor and normal cells. Transcripts that were differentially expressed in the triplicate experiments were excised from the gel and reamplified with the original primer set used in the differential display step.

Cloning and Sequencing.
Reamplified cDNA fragments were cloned using the pGEM-T Easy kit (Promega, Madison, WI). Plasmid DNAs were purified using the Wizard SV miniprep kit (Promega) and sequenced.

5' RACE.
RACE was performed by using the 5' RACE kit (Life Technologies, Inc.). A gene-specific primer for the 3' end of each differentially expressed transcript was used to generate cDNA from each mRNA isolated from either the SUM149 or HME cell lines. A poly(C) cap was attached to the 3' end of the cDNA after elimination of remnant mRNA. An abridged anchored primer and a second gene-specific primer was used to amplify the cDNA. The PCR products were cloned into pGEM-T Easy and sequenced.

Database Analysis.
Transcript sequences were compared with published gene sequences and expressed sequence tags by the BLASTN, dbEST, and TIGR (The Human Gene Index) databases. The protein sequences were aligned with the Megalign option of the Lasergene program.

Northern Blot Analysis.
Total RNA (10 µg) from SUM breast cancer cell lines, MCF10A, and normal HME cells were isolated using Trizol reagent (Life Technologies, Inc.) and separated on a 1% formaldehyde agarose gel. The separated RNAs were transferred to a Nytran membrane using a TurboBlotter apparatus (Schleicher and Schuell, Keene, NH). Probes for each of the differentially expressed transcripts were cloned from the PCR product derived in the differential display step. Transcript-specific and glyceraldehyde -3-phosphate dehydrogenase (internal control) probes were 32P-labeled, and membranes were hybridized using the method of Church and Gilbert (16) . Northern blots were visualized on X-OMAT film (Kodak, Rochester, NY).

Radiation Hybrid Panel Mapping.
The Stanford G3 panel was used to determine the chromosomal locations of previously unmapped or novel genes. For each of the unmapped genes, PCR primers that produce specific 150–300-bp products from human genomic DNA with no cross-reactivity to rodent genomic DNA were generated. These primers were then used in a PCR reaction with the G3 panel, and each of the clones scored as positive, negative, or ambiguous. These PCR results were submitted to the WICGR mapping program to determine relative distance to chromosomal markers.

Specimen Selection.
Archival samples were selected from stage IIIA and stage IIIB cases logged into a clinical breast cancer database associated with a clinical trial for locally advanced breast cancer (17) .4 For each case, a thorough review of the clinical record was undertaken. The diagnosis of IBC was determined clinically when the record demonstrated that the patient had experienced a rapid onset (within 4 months of presentation) of grave signs of locally advanced disease, erythema, skin nodules, peau d’ aurange, and/or nipple retraction. In some cases, the histological finding of tumor emboli in the ductal lymphatics was also seen. However, this feature, in the absence of the clinical syndrome, was not sufficient to determine the inflammatory phenotype in our series. Unselected slowly progressing stage IIIA and noninflammatory stage IIIB breast cancers of all types were used as controls for the in situ hybridization experiments.

In Situ Hybridization.
In situ hybridization was performed on archival paraffin sections, as described previously (18 , 19 , 20) . Antisense 30-mer oligo DNA probes complementary for the differentially expressed mRNAs were designed from the Northern probe sequences. The probe sequences were submitted to the BLASTN database to ensure specificity. Probes were generated with 6-biotin molecules (Brigati tail) on their 3' end (Research Genetics, Huntsville, AL). The lyophilized probes were reconstituted to a final concentration of 1 µg/µl in probe diluent (Research Genetics). Tissue sections were mounted on silane-treated ProbeOn slides (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA). Slides were placed in the microprobe slide holder, dewaxed, and rehydrated with Autodewaxer and Autoalcohol (Research Genetics). A poly d(T)20 probe was used to verify the integrity of the mRNA in each sample. The appropriate positive and negative controls were used for each case and probe. As a positive experimental control, each experiment included a section of A431 tumor, which overexpressed the EGF-receptor, probed with an EGF-R antisense oligo. Samples were analyzed in a Zeiss photomicroscope (Carl Zeiss, Thornwood, NY), the frequency and intensity of staining relative to the oligo-dT staining was determined independently by two of the investigators who were blind to the sample classification. H&E staining was used to identify tumor, normal mammary epithelium, and other tissues.

PCR-based Library Screening.
DNA (~1 ng) from an {lambda}ZAP (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA) oligo-dT human ovarian cDNA library was amplified using different combinations of PCR primers (10 ng/µl) specific for the N8 transcript with the forward and reverse {lambda}ZAP primers (10 ng/µl). Aliquots of the PCR products were separated on a 1.5% TAE agarose gel and excised. The PCR products were cloned into pGEM-T Easy and sequenced.


   RESULTS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Isolation of Differentially Expressed Transcripts.
A modification of the differential display technique of Liang and Pardee (14 , 15) was used to compare a primary IBC cell line, SUM149, with the patient’s own lymphocytes and two normal HME cell lines. Immortalized normal mammary epithelial cells were used for reference to obtain mRNA from a well-characterized, reproducible, actively replicating culture. These cells are keratin 19 (K19) positive, therefore, ensuring that the normal cells are from the same differentiation lineage as the inflammatory tumor cell line. mRNA transcripts were amplified by combinatorial pairings of single-base anchored oligo-dT primers with arbitrary forward random primers. Because differential display is known to give rise to false positive (spurious amplification) and false negative results, each experiment was performed under identical conditions three separate times, starting from the mRNA isolation step. Only those transcripts that were expressed in all three normal cell lines and not the SUM149 cell line, or expressed solely by SUM149 and not the normal mammary epithelial cell lines or lymphocytes, were considered for further characterization. This way, only those transcripts unique to normal cells and not due to human papilloma virus or EBV immortalization or individual polymorphisms can be identified.Fig. 1Citation illustrates the patterns of expression of the four selected cell lines using one of the primer sets. In this example, two transcripts (N1 and T1) are depicted; these represent transcripts expressed exclusively by the normal and tumor cell lines, respectively. Using this technique, the gel patterns reveal both gains and losses of gene expression, allowing for the identification of both potential oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. Overall, eight differentially expressed transcripts were repeatedly observed to be expressed exclusively in the normal cell lines, whereas nine transcripts were found to be expressed solely in the SUM149 IBC cell line (Table 1)Citation .



View larger version (57K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Representative differential display gel showing two transcripts: one expressed exclusively by the normal cells (N1), and the other expressed solely by the IBC cell line SUM149 (T1). Differential display was performed as described in "Materials and Methods."

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Characterization of differentially expressed genes

 
Identification of Transcripts Differentially Expressed between Normal Mammary Epithelial Cells and the SUM149 IBC Cell Line.
The sequences of the transcripts isolated by the differential display technique generally correspond to the 3' ends of the genes. Additional sequence for each transcript was determined by 5'-RACE and PCR-based library screening. All transcripts were further identified and characterized, except for the olfactory-receptor gene family members. In this case, efficient primers could not be synthesized to acquire larger pieces of the isolated transcripts. This was possibly due to the fact that each of olfactory-receptor gene fragments contained a conserved motif with about 10 unique bases in each transcript. These genes are known to be highly homologous and widespread throughout the human genome (21) .

Sequences corresponding to the 5' and 3' ends of each of the transcripts isolated by differential display were submitted to three different databases: BLASTN, dbEST, and TIGR, then compared with previously published sequences. The results of database analyses are shown in Table 1Citation . The putative gene EST or THC sequence is given along with the corresponding database used in the identification. We identified several known genes and published ESTs. Two transcripts correspond to novel genes with no database matches. The N5 and N6 transcripts were found to be alternatively spliced versions of the same gene and matched to the same EST.

Validation of Differentially Expressed Genes and Transcripts.
To confirm that each of the transcripts was differentially expressed, and to compare levels of expression for each transcript across a broad range of breast cancers, Northern blot analysis was performed on a panel of low-passage cell lines representative of various types and stages of breast cancers. Total RNA was isolated from the 6-15 HME cell line, the MCF10A spontaneously immortalized breast epithelial cell line and 11 breast cancer cell lines, which included SUM149 and one other primary IBC cell line, SUM190 (Fig. 2A)Citation . Comparison of SUM149 with the 6-15 HME cell line confirmed differential expression of each transcript. In the case of the T6 transcript (RhoC GTPase), expression was seen in both the SUM149 cell line and the 6-15 HME cell line. However, the tumor cell line had an 8-fold increase in expression over the normal HME cell line (Fig. 2B)Citation . Southern blot analysis demonstrated that this increase in expression is not due to a detectable increase in gene copy number (Fig. 2C)Citation . Expression of each of the transcripts was seen to be variable across the panel of breast cancer cell lines, with no discernible trends observed. Similar trends of expression were seen in the SUM149 and the SUM190 IBC cell lines (data not shown).



View larger version (42K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. A, Northern blot analysis of five key differentially expressed genes performed on a panel of breast cancer cell lines representing a range of breast cancer types and stages. Differential expression between the 6-15 HME cell line and the SUM149 IBC cell line was confirmed by this method. No discernable trends of alterations were apparent for the noninflammatory cell lines. The novel gene LIBC had only one band present at 2.5 kb. All transcripts identified by differential display were analyzed in an identical fashion by Northern blot. B, comparison of RhoC GTPase expression in the 6-15 HME cell line and the SUM149 IBC cell line by Northern blot analysis. The SUM149 IBC cell line demonstrated an 8-fold increase in RhoC GTPase expression when compared with the 6-15 HME cell line. C, Southern blot analysis of the SUM149 cell line and HME cell lines (6-5 and 6-15 HME) hybridized with a 900-bp probe for RhoC GTPase. Although RhoC expression was increased 8-fold in SUM149 over normal mammary epithelial cells, Southern analysis does not show gene amplification.

 
The chromosomal location of each of the unknown genes was determined by radiation hybrid panel mapping. The results of these experiments, in addition to the previously reported chromosomal locations of some of the known genes are given in Table 1Citation . The N5/N6 transcript, which has an EST match, localized to both chromosomes 7 and 9. This suggests a possible gene family for this transcript found on multiple chromosomes. The N8 transcript, which had an EST match located in PAC clone 142L7 (GenBank accession #HS142L7), was mapped to chromosome 6q21 independently by the chromosome 6 group at the Sanger Center. This transcript is located near marker D6S146. The N2 transcript, which matched to the KIAA0180 gene, mapped near chromosomal marker WI-1163. The T5 transcript corresponding to the overexpressed breast tumor protein mapped near marker WI-4822. Finally, the novel N9 and T8 genes were mapped near markers CHCC.GATA91E12 and CHCC.GATA45B10, respectively.

In Situ Hybridization of Archival Breast Cancer Specimens.
To discern which of the genes identified and characterized in this study were specific to IBC and not to non-IBCs of the same stage, we probed 29 inflammatory and 19 noninflammatory stage III archival breast cancer samples by in situ hybridization. Eleven antisense oligo probes were designed from the Northern blot probe sequences and shown to be specific by BLASTN database analysis. Not all transcripts identified by differential display were tested by in situ hybridization due to a lack of single-copy sequence to design unique and specific probes. The tumor samples were probed and scored blindly with respect to which group each sample belonged. Tumor specimens often contained normal mammary epithelial tissue and connective tissue, which acted as internal normal and negative controls for each probe, respectively. All experiments included an oligo-dT mRNA control and positive experimental control. With few exceptions, the normal tissue always stained positive when the samples were hybridized with probes for transcripts expressed in normal cells and rarely with tumor-derived transcript probes. Specimens and controls were tested randomly as described (18 , 19 , 20) , and data assessed blindly by two separate investigators. The data were evaluated on the basis of frequency and intensity of expression in cells containing viable RNA as determined by the oligo-dT probe. A pathologist confirmed tissue type (i.e., normal versus tumor) for each specimen by comparison with a corresponding H&E-stained section. There was 100% concordance in the assignment of tumor and normal fractions between observers. The two groups of stage III samples were then segregated, and the percentages of tumors in each category that over- or underexpress each transcript are represented in Table 2Citation . Significance in the difference of expression was determined using Fisher’s Exact test. A significant difference in the expression of the N8 transcript (a novel gene that we have termed LIBC; GenBank accession #AF143679; Fig. 3Citation ) was seen when comparing inflammatory and noninflammatory samples. LIBC was expressed in only 20% of inflammatory tumors, in comparison with 79% (P = 0.0013) of noninflammatory tumors. A difference in relative expression was also seen in transcript T6, RhoC GTPase, which was overexpressed in 90% of inflammatory tumors tested, in comparison with only 38% of noninflammatory tumors (P = 0.0095, Fig. 3Citation ). Although a low-level expression of RhoC was detected in a small percentage of normal tissues, staining intensity in the tumors was at least 5-fold greater. When comparing the concordance of having both these genes altered in advanced breast cancer, it was seen that loss of LIBC and overexpression of RhoC occurred in 91% of the inflammatory tumors assayed. In contrast, concordant alteration of both genes was not seen in any of the noninflammatory stage III breast cancers analyzed. The remaining transcripts were expressed in similar proportions by both inflammatory and noninflammatory tumors. Interestingly, N9, another novel gene, was not expressed in any tumor sample of either type, but was expressed in the normal mammary epithelial tissue of each of the samples, suggesting a putative tumor suppressor gene.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 Expression of transcripts in stage III tumor samples as determined by in situ hybridization

 


View larger version (74K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. In situ hybridization of serial sections of inflammatory and noninflammatory stage III archival breast cancer tumor samples with probes for LIBC and RhoC. LIBC expression was absent in inflammatory breast cancer, whereas RhoC was overexpressed. H&E staining of the specimens was used to identify tissue structure. An oligo-dT probe was used to demonstrate that the tissues had intact mRNA.

 
Identification of the LIBC Gene and Predicted Protein Structure.
The full-length sequence of LIBC was determined by PCR-based screening of a random primed ovarian library and identified as a predicted gene within a PAC clone. The LIBC gene encodes a predicted 331 amino acid, 36.9-kDa protein. The predicted LIBC protein has 57% homology to human CTGF precursor. CTGF proteins are highly conserved throughout mammalian evolution; LIBC was seen to have 58%, 59%, and 56% homology to murine, porcine, and bovine CTGFs, respectively (Fig. 4)Citation . These proteins are members of the IGFBP family, and human CTGF has been described as a low-affinity IGFBP otherwise known as an IGFBP-rP (22) . LIBC contains 36 cysteine residues and the IGF-binding domain, GCGCCKIC, starting at amino acid 48. Both protein kinase C and casein kinase 2 phosphorylation sites are present at the COOH-terminal domain. LIBC seems to be N-linked glycosylated and has several predicted myristilation sites throughout the NH2 terminus of the protein that may associate LIBC with the plasma membrane and may aid in its interaction with IGF and insulin receptors.



View larger version (76K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Clustal homology analysis between LIBC, human (h), porcine (p), bovine (b), murine (m), and xenopus (x) CTGFs and the human NOVH low-affinity IGF-binding proteins. Majority amino acid matches are given above the compared protein sequences. Strength of homology at each site correlates with the height of the bar above the consensus sequence.

 

   DISCUSSION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
These experiments provide new insights into the genetic alterations of IBC. In addition to the notably rapid growth rate of IBC, no typical precursor lesion of IBC has been described. Because of this, it is our hypothesis that stage III IBC arises from a single or multiple genetic events occurring concurrently or in rapid succession. The rapid onset of the clinical presentation suggests that, in this disease, a limited number of genetic events may determine this aggressive phenotype.

Using this in vitro model system, we compared a cell line derived from a primary IBC with that patient’s own immortalized lymphocytes and two immortalized replicating normal mammary epithelial cell lines. By this method, we were able to eliminate differences attributable to the immortalization process and expression differences possibly due to polymorphisms. In comparison, breast tissue procured from mammoplasty would provide a large amount of mRNA; however, the majority of cells from the normal breast epithelium would be in the resting state and would, thus, lead to isolation of transcripts that reflect the normal replicative process. Nonimmortalized HME cells grow in culture for two to four passages before becoming senescent. This greatly limits the number of experiments that can be performed on a particular set of normal cells. Additionally, the immortalized HME cells used in this study are well characterized with respect to their differentiation lineage, thus, ensuring that they are the normal counterpart to the SUM149 IBC cell line.

Seventeen genes, eight expressed exclusively by the normal cell lines and nine expressed by the tumor cell line, were identified. Two of the genes, LIBC and the RhoC GTPase were lost and overexpressed, respectively, in archival IBC samples when compared with noninflammatory stage III breast cancer. These two genes demonstrated a concordance of alteration in 91% of the inflammatory samples analyzed, and this pattern of alteration was not observed in any of the noninflammatory samples tested for both transcripts.

Rho was first isolated and cloned from Aplysia and was found to be homologous to Ras (23) . It is highly conserved throughout evolution, and, consequently, transfection of Aplysia Rho (which is 92% homologous to human RhoC) into NIH3T3 cells resulted in malignant transformation (24) . The transforming ability of Rho family members in various other tissue culture systems has been documented (23 , 24) . Furthermore, overexpression of activated Rho proteins has been shown to be a requirement in ras-induced transformation of some fibroblast cell lines (25) . Given that RhoC participates in cytoskeletal reorganization, can modulate ras-dependent signal transduction, and control cellular proliferation and apoptosis (25 , 26 , 27 , 28) , it is a good candidate marker gene for the progression of an invasive and proliferative tumor, such as IBC. Recent studies have linked RhoC overexpression with tumor progression of aggressive ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas and decreased survival (29) . The exact mechanism of RhoC overexpression is not yet known; however, neither gene amplification nor gain-of-function mutations have been found in our cell lines.

LIBC is a strong candidate for a tumor suppressor gene in IBC because it seems to be a member of the low-affinity IGFBP family. Sequence homology and predicted protein structure of LIBC suggest that it is a member of the low-affinity IGFBPs, otherwise known as the IGFBP-rPs (30) . At this time, should further characterization of LIBC prove it to be an IGFBP-rP, it would be known as IGFBP-rP10. IGFBPs and IGFBP-rPs seem to modulate the availability of IGFs to the IGF receptors and, therefore, regulate IGF-mediated proliferative and anabolic effects on the cells (31 , 32) . Additionally, recent studies have demonstrated that IGFBPs may have IGF-independent effects on cellular growth because they specifically inhibit breast cancer cell proliferation (31 , 33) . Furthermore, Burger et al.(34) have recently described IGFBP-rP1 (mac25/IGFBP-7), the down-regulation of which has been associated with progression of breast cancer. The same low-affinity IGFBP has been implicated as a tumor suppressor protein in prostate cancer (35) . This observation does not seem true for all of the IGFBPs. In the case of IGFBP-3, higher mRNA and protein levels in primary breast cancers are correlated with poor prognosis (36 , 37) . Taken together these data suggest a possible role for LIBC as a novel tumor suppressor belonging to the family of IGFBP-rPs.

Because no other statistically significant differences in expression between the inflammatory and noninflammatory phenotype were seen for the other genes in the panel, differences in expression of the remaining transcripts could represent genetic or epigenetic alterations common in advanced breast cancer.

The remainder of the genes described in this study, although not specific for IBC, may play a role in breast cancer development and progression. For those transcripts that have matches in the database to known genes, a clear role in cancer has yet to be defined. H-Nuc/cdc27 has been shown to be associated with the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor gene and is involved with cell cycle regulation (38 , 39) . Mutant H-Nuc/cdc27 has been described as a tumor-specific antigen recognized by CD4+ T cells (40) . Deoxyhypusine synthase activates eIF-5A by hypusinating a unique lysine residue on eIF-5A (41) . In turn, activated eIF-5A is involved in protein synthesis (41) . Chen and Chen (42) have demonstrated that v-HA-Ras-transformed cells have elevated hypusine formation on eIF-5A (42) . A growing body of evidence has demonstrated that genes such as those coding for ribosomal proteins (N3 and T9) modulate a variety of cellular functions, such as control of apoptotic pathways (43) . Therefore, it is conceivable that alterations in one or more of these genes may contribute to breast tumor progression.

Of the genes that exhibit differential expression with respect to normal cells but are not specific for the inflammatory phenotype, HMG-CoA reductase merits specific attention. Alterations in expression of HMG-CoA reductase have been suggested to play a role in breast cancer progression (44 , 45 , 46) . HMG-CoA reductase participates in several functions that are key to cellular proliferation by converting 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA to mevalonate, a key intermediate in the biosynthesis of steroids and aliphatic derivatives, such as cholesterol and dolichol phosphate (44) . These functions are required for cellular replication and isoprenylation of ras-like moieties such as RhoC (44) . Therefore, inhibition of HMG-CoA reductase activity results in a G1 cell cycle arrest inhibition of tumor cell growth (46, 47, 48) . Interestingly, growth inhibition can be overcome by stimulation with estrogen (48) and/or epidermal growth factor (45 , 49) , and tumor cells can take up enough exogenous serum cholesterol to maintain membrane fluidity to actively proliferate (50) . Interestingly, the SUM149 cell line has a 4-fold overexpression of the epidermal growth factor receptor (51) . It is possible that the loss of HMG-CoA reductase expression may constitute a compensatory effect to reduce or stop proliferation, but growth and progression continue to occur due to circumvention of the mevalonate pathway through the mechanisms described above. Of note, the HMG-CoA reductase gene resides on chromosomal location 5q13–13.14, which is found to be an area of frequent loss of heterozygosity in breast cancer, and may correlate with enhanced penetrance in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germ-line mutations (52) . In light of our data, HMG-CoA reductase status warrants further consideration as a prognostic marker in breast cancer or as a modifier gene for the penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2.

In conclusion, two markers specific for IBC emerge from this work: loss of LIBC expression and overexpression of RhoC. The function of these two genes as a tumor suppressor and oncogene, respectively, suggests new targets for therapeutic intervention. In addition, known genes such as HMG-CoA reductase, H-Nuc/cdc27, and deoxyhypusine synthase may be involved in breast cancer progression. Lastly, a novel putative tumor suppressor gene (N9) localized to chromosome 18q12 is frequently involved in locally advanced breast cancer. The experimental strategies followed to arrive at these markers may prove of general applicability to discern specific genetic factors in the pathogenesis of breast cancer subtypes for which appropriate cell lines are available. Up to now, this has been a major challenge in the molecular genetics of breast cancer, for which an orderly progression of lesions is difficult to discern.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Dr. David Sadler for assistance with pathology analysis.


   FOOTNOTES
 
The cost of publication of this article was 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.

1 Supported by Grants DAMD 17-94-J-4054 (to S. D. M.) and NIH 5T32 CA09537-16 and a grant (to S. D. M.) and Postdoctoral Fellowship (to K. L. v. G.) from The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. Back

2 To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at 7217 CCGC, University of Michigan Cancer Center, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0948. E-mail: smerajve{at}umich.edu Back

3 The abbreviations used are: IBC, inflammatory breast cancer; LIBC, lost in IBC; FBS, fetal bovine serum; HME, human mammary epithelial; RACE, rapid amplification of cDNA ends; EST, expressed sequence tag; THC, tentative human consensus; CTGF, connective tissue growth factor; IGF, insulin-like growth factor; IGFBP, IGF-binding protein; IGFBP-rP, IGFBP-related protein; eIF-5A, eukaryotic initiation factor-5A; oligo, oligonucleotide. Back

4 S. D. Merajver, Weber, et al., 1997 ID: 1094. Back

Received 4/ 8/99; revised 6/28/99; accepted 7/ 8/99.


   REFERENCES
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Lee B., Tannenbaum N. Inflammatory carcinoma of the breast: a report of twenty-eight cases from the breast clinic of Memorial Hospital. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet., 39: 580-595, 1924.
  2. Beahrs O., Henson D., Hutter R. . Manual for Staging of Cancer, 3: 145-150, 1988.
  3. Jaiyesimi I., Buzdar A., Hortobagyi G. Inflammatory breast cancer: A review. J. Clin. Oncol., 10: 1014-24, 1992.[Abstract]
  4. Levine P. H., Steinhorn S. C., Ries L. G., Aron J. L. Inflammatory breast cancer. The experience of the Surveillance Epidemiologic and End Results (SEER). J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 74: 291-297, 1985.
  5. Paradiso A., Tommasi S., Brandi M., Marzullo F., Simone G., Lorusso V., Mangia A., De Lena M. Cell kinetics and hormonal receptor status in inflammatory breast carcinoma. Cancer (Phila.), 64: 1922-1927, 1989.[Medline]
  6. Riou G., Le M. G., Travagli J-P., Levin A. J., Moll U. M. Poor prognosis of p53 gene mutation and nuclear overexpression of p53 protein in inflammatory breast carcinoma. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 85: 1765-1767, 1993.[Free Full Text]
  7. Moll U. M., Riou G., Levin A. J. Two distinct mechanisms alter p53 in breast cancer: mutation and nuclear exclusion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 89: 7262-7266, 1992.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Guerin M., Shang Z-M., Andrie N., Riou G. Strong association between c-myb and oestrogen receptor expression in human breast cancer. Oncogene, 5: 131-135, 1989.
  9. Sartor C. I., Dziubinski M. L., Yu C-L., Jove R., Ethier S. P. Role of EGF receptor and Stat-3 activation in autonomous proliferation of SUM-102PT human breast cancer cells. Cancer Res., 57: 978-987, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Ethier S. P., Kokeny K. E., Ridings J. W., Dilts C. A. ErbB family receptor expression and growth regulation in a newly isolated human breast cancer cell line. Cancer Res., 56: 899-907, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Klein G. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-induced transformation of human lymphoid cells and immunosurveillance against lymphoma development. Ann. Immunol. (Paris), 124: 391-405, 1973.[Medline]
  12. Nilsson K., Klein G., Henle W., Henle G. The establishment of lymphoblastoid lines from adult and fetal human lymphoid tissue and its dependence on EBV. Int. J. Cancer, 8: 443-450, 1971.[Medline]
  13. Band V., Zajchowski D., Kulesa V., Sager R. Human papilloma virus DNAs immortalize normal epithelial cells and reduce their growth factor requirements. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 87: 463-467, 1990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Liang P., Pardee A. B. Differential display of messenger RNA by news of the polymerase chain reaction. Science (Washington DC), 257: 967-971, 1992.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Trentmann S., van der Knapp E., Kende H. Alternatives to 35S as a label for the differential display of eukaryotic messenger RNA. Science (Washington DC), 267: 1186-1186, 1995.[Free Full Text]
  16. Church G. M., Gilbert W. Genomic sequencing. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 81: 1991-1995, 1984.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Merajver S. D., Weber B. L., Cody R., Zhang D., Strawderman M., Calzone K. A., LeClaire V., Levin A., Irani J., Halvie M., August D., Wicha M., Pierce L. J. Breast conservation and prolonged chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer: the University of Michigan experience. J. Clin. Oncol., 15: 2873-2881, 1997.[Abstract]
  18. Radinsky R., Bucana C. D., Ellis L. M., Sanchez R., Cleary K. R., Brigati D. J., Fidler I. J. A rapid colorimetric in situ messenger RNA hybridization technique for analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor in paraffin-embedded surgical specimens of human colon carcinomas. Cancer Res., 53: 937-943, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Kitadai Y., Ellis L. M., Tucker S., Greene G. F., Bucana C. D., Cleary K. R., Takahashi Y., Tahara E., Fidler I. J. Multiparametric in situ mRNA hybridization analysis to predict disease recurrence in patients with colon carcinoma. Am. J. Pathol., 149: 1541-1551, 1996.[Abstract]
  20. Greene G. F., Kitadai Y., Pettaway C. A., von Eschenbach A. C., Bucana C. D., Fidler I. J. Correlation of metastasis-related gene expression with metastatic potential in human prostate carcinoma cells implanted in nude mice using an in situ messenger RNA hybridization technique. Am. J. Pathol., 150: 1571-1582, 1997.[Abstract]
  21. Rouquier S., Taviaux S., Trask B. J., Rouquier S., Tavraux S., Trask B. J., Brand-Arpon V., van der Engh G., Demaille J., Giorgio D. Distribution of olfactory receptor genes in the human genome. Nat. Genet., 18: 243-250, 1998.[Medline]
  22. Bork P. The modular architecture of a new family of growth regulators related to connective tissue growth factor. FEBS Lett., 327: 125-130, 1993.[Medline]
  23. Ridley A. J. The GTP-binding protein Rho. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol., 29: 1225-1229, 1997.[Medline]
  24. Prendergast C., Khosravi-Far R., Solski P., Kurzawa H., Lebowitz P., Der C. Critical role of Rho in cell transformation by oncogenic Ras. Oncogene, 10: 2289-2296, 1995.[Medline]
  25. Symons M. Rho family GTPases: the cytoskeleton and beyond. Trends Biochem. Sci., 21: 178-181, 1996.[Medline]
  26. Hall A. Rho GTPases and the actin cytoskeleton. Science (Washington DC), 279: 509-514, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Takahashi H., Ichimiya S., Nimura Y., Watanabe M., Furusato M., Wakui S., Yatani R., Aizawa S., Nakagawara A. Mutation, allelotyping, and transcription analyses of the p73 gene in prostatic carcinoma. Cancer Res., 58: 2076-2077, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Del Peso L., Hernandez-Alcoceba R., Embade N., Carnero A., Esteve P., Paje C., Lacal J. C. Rho proteins induce metastatic properties in vivo. Oncogene, 15: 3047-3057, 1997.[Medline]
  29. Suwa H., Ohshio G., Imamura T., Watanabe G., Arii S., Imamura M., Narumiya S., Hiai H., Fukumoto M. Overexpression of the Rho C gene correlates with progression of ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Br. J. Cancer, 77: 147-152, 1998.[Medline]
  30. Baxter R. A., Binoux M. A., Clemmons D. R., Conover C. A., Drop S. L. S., Holly J. M. P., Mohan S., Oh Y., Rosenfeld R. G. Recommendations for nomenclature of the insulin-like growth factor binding protein superfamily. Endocrinology, 139: 4036 1998.[Free Full Text]
  31. Oh Y. IGF-independent regulation of breast cancer growth by IGF binding proteins. Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 47: 283-293, 1998.[Medline]
  32. Clemons D. R. Role of insulin-like growth factor binding proteins in controlling IGF actions. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol., 140: 19-24, 1998.[Medline]
  33. Oh Y., Gucev Z., Ng L., Muller H., Rosenfeld R. G. Antiproliferative actions of insulin-like growth factor binding protein (IGFBP)-3 in human breast cancer cells. Prog. Growth Factor Res., 6: 503-512, 1995.[Medline]
  34. Burger A. M., Zhang X., Li H., Ostrowski J. L., Beatty B., Venazoni M., Papas T., Seth A. Down-regulation of T1A12/mac25, a novel insulin-like growth factor binding protein related gene, is associated with disease progression in breast carcinomas. Oncogene, 16: 2459-2467, 1998.[Medline]
  35. Sprenger C. C., Damon S. E., Hwa V., Rosenfeld R. G., Plymate S. R. Insulin-like growth factor binding protein-related protein 1 (IGFBP-rP1) is a potential tumor suppressor protein for prostate cancer. Cancer Res., 59: 2370-2375, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Rocha R. L., Hilsenbeck S. G., Jackson J. G., Lee A., Figueroa J., Yee D. Insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 (BP3) mRNA and protein expression are correlated in primary breast cancer tissue; higher levels are detected in tumors with poor prognostic features. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 88: 601-606, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Rocha R. L., Hilsenbeck S. G., Jackson J. G., VanDenBerg C. L., Weng C. N., Lee A. V., Yee D. Insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 and insulin receptor substrate-1 in breast cancer: correlation with clinical parameters and disease-free survival. Clin. Cancer Res., 3: 103-109, 1997.[Abstract]
  38. Tugendriech S., Boguski M. S., Seldin M. S., Hieter P. Linking yeast genetics to mammalian genomes: identification of human homolog of CDC27 via the expressed sequence tag database. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 90: 10031-10035, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Chen P-L., Ueng Y. C., Durfee T., Chen K. C., Yang-Feng T., Lee W-H. Identification of a human homologue of yeast nuc2 which interacts with the retinoblastoma protein in a specific manner. Cell Growth Differ., 6: 199-210, 1995.[Abstract]
  40. Wang R-F., Wang X., Atwood A. C., Topalian S. L., Rosenberg S. A. Cloning genes encoding MHC Class II-restricted antigens: mutated CDC27 as a tumor antigen. Science (Washington DC), 284: 1351-1353, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Park M. H., Wolff E. C., Smit-McBride Z., Hershey J. W., Folk J. E. Comparison of variant forms of eIF-4D. The requirement for hypusine or deoxyhypusine. J. Biol. Chem., 5: 7988-7994, 1991.
  42. Chen Z. P., Chen K. Y. Marked elevation of hypusine formation activity on eukaryotic initiation factor 5A in v-HA-RAS transformed mouse NIH3T3 cells. Cancer Lett., 115: 235-241, 1997.[Medline]
  43. Naora H., Takai I., Adachi M. Altered cellular responses by varying expression of a ribosomal protein gene: sequential coordination of enhancement and suppression of ribosomal protein S3a gene expression induces apoptosis. J. Cell. Biol., 141: 741-753, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Larsson O. Effects of isoprenoids on growth of normal human mammary epithelial cells and breast cancer cells in vitro. Anticancer Res., 14: 123-128, 1994.[Medline]
  45. Larsson O., Blegen H. Regulatory role of mevalonate in the growth of normal and neoplastic human mammary epithelial cells. Anticancer Res., 13: 1075-1080, 1993.[Medline]
  46. Addeo R., Altucci L., Battista T., Bonapace I. M., Cancemi M., Cicatiello L., Germano D., Pacilio C., Salzano S., Bresciani F., Weisz A. Stimulation of human breast cancer MCF-7 cells with estrogen prevents cell cycle arrest by HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 220: 864-870, 1996.[Medline]
  47. Jakobisiak M., Bruno S., Skierski J. S., Darzynkiewicz Z. Cell cycle-specific effects of Lovastatin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 88: 3628-3632, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Keyomarsi K., Sandoval L., Band V., Pardee A. B. Synchronization of tumor and normal cells from G1 to multiple cell cycles by Lovastatin. Cancer Res., 51: 3602-3609, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Vincent T. S., Wulfert E., Merler E. Inhibition of growth factor signaling pathways by Lovastatin. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 180: 1284-1289, 1991.[Medline]
  50. Larsson O., Blegen H. Inhibitory effect of mevalonate on the EGF mitogenic signaling pathway in human breast cancer cells in culture. Cancer Biochem. Biophys., 14: 193-200, 1994.[Medline]
  51. Forozan F., Kallioniemi O. P., Ethier S. P. Genetic analysis of eleven new human breast cancer cell lines. Proc. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res., 39: 856 1998.
  52. Tirkkonen M., Johannsson O., Agnarsson B. A., Olsson H., Ingvarsson S., Karhu R., Tanner M., Isola J., Barkardottir R. B., Borg A., Kallioniemi O. P. Distinct somatic genetic changes associated with tumor progression in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germ-line mutations. Cancer Res., 57: 1222-1227, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
M. J. Hayes, D. Thomas, A. Emmons, T. J. Giordano, and C. G. Kleer
Genetic Changes of Wnt Pathway Genes Are Common Events in Metaplastic Carcinomas of the Breast
Clin. Cancer Res., July 1, 2008; 14(13): 4038 - 4044.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Pathol.Home page
W. Huang, Y. Zhang, S. Varambally, A. M. Chinnaiyan, M. Banerjee, S. D. Merajver, and C. G. Kleer
Inhibition of CCN6 (Wnt-1-Induced Signaling Protein 3) Down-Regulates E-Cadherin in the Breast Epithelium through Induction of Snail and ZEB1
Am. J. Pathol., April 1, 2008; 172(4): 893 - 904.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
S. Johnston, M. Trudeau, B. Kaufman, H. Boussen, K. Blackwell, P. LoRusso, D. P. Lombardi, S. Ben Ahmed, D. L. Citrin, M. L. DeSilvio, et al.
Phase II Study of Predictive Biomarker Profiles for Response Targeting Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER-2) in Advanced Inflammatory Breast Cancer With Lapatinib Monotherapy
J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2008; 26(7): 1066 - 1072.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
S. Chia, S. M. Swain, D. R. Byrd, and D. A. Mankoff
Locally Advanced and Inflammatory Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol., February 10, 2008; 26(5): 786 - 790.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Molecular Cancer TherapeuticsHome page
C. R. Evelyn, S. M. Wade, Q. Wang, M. Wu, J. A. Iniguez-Lluhi, S. D. Merajver, and R. R. Neubig
CCG-1423: a small-molecule inhibitor of RhoA transcriptional signaling
Mol. Cancer Ther., August 1, 2007; 6(8): 2249 - 2260.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann. Surg. Oncol.Home page
S. R. Davies, G. Watkins, R. E. Mansel, and W. G. Jiang
Differential Expression and Prognostic Implications of the CCN Family Members WISP-1, WISP-2, and WISP-3 in Human Breast Cancer
Ann. Surg. Oncol., June 1, 2007; 14(6): 1909 - 1918.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
T. Vargo-Gogola, B. M. Heckman, E. J. Gunther, L. A. Chodosh, and J. M. Rosen
P190-B Rho GTPase-Activating Protein Overexpression Disrupts Ductal Morphogenesis and Induces Hyperplastic Lesions in the Developing Mammary Gland
Mol. Endocrinol., June 1, 2006; 20(6): 1391 - 1405.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
S. J. Van Laere, I. Van der Auwera, G. G. Van den Eynden, H. J. Elst, J. Weyler, A. L. Harris, P. van Dam, E. A. Van Marck, P. B. Vermeulen, and L. Y. Dirix
Nuclear Factor-{kappa}B Signature of Inflammatory Breast Cancer by cDNA Microarray Validated by Quantitative Real-time Reverse Transcription-PCR, Immunohistochemistry, and Nuclear Factor-{kappa}B DNA-Binding.
Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2006; 12(11): 3249 - 3256.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
N. Hakuma, I. Kinoshita, Y. Shimizu, K. Yamazaki, K. Yoshida, M. Nishimura, and H. Dosaka-Akita
E1AF/PEA3 Activates the Rho/Rho-Associated Kinase Pathway to Increase the Malignancy Potential of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Cells
Cancer Res., December 1, 2005; 65(23): 10776 - 10782.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
Q. Pan, L. W. Bao, C. G. Kleer, M. S. Sabel, K. A. Griffith, T. N. Teknos, and S. D. Merajver
Protein Kinase C{varepsilon} Is a Predictive Biomarker of Aggressive Breast Cancer and a Validated Target for RNA Interference Anticancer Therapy
Cancer Res., September 15, 2005; 65(18): 8366 - 8371.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Genes Dev.Home page
A. Hakem, O. Sanchez-Sweatman, A. You-Ten, G. Duncan, A. Wakeham, R. Khokha, and T. W. Mak
RhoC is dispensable for embryogenesis and tumor initiation but essential for metastasis
Genes & Dev., September 1, 2005; 19(17): 1974 - 1979.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
B. M. Jacobsen, S. A. Schittone, J. K. Richer, and K. B. Horwitz
Progesterone-Independent Effects of Human Progesterone Receptors (PRs) in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: PR Isoform-Specific Gene Regulation and Tumor Biology
Mol. Endocrinol., March 1, 2005; 19(3): 574 - 587.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Interv.Home page
T. M. Seasholtz and J. H. Brown
RHO SIGNALING in Vascular Diseases
Mol. Interv., December 1, 2004; 4(6): 348 - 357.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
F. Bertucci, P. Finetti, J. Rougemont, E. Charafe-Jauffret, V. Nasser, B. Loriod, J. Camerlo, R. Tagett, C. Tarpin, G. Houvenaeghel, et al.
Gene Expression Profiling for Molecular Characterization of Inflammatory Breast Cancer and Prediction of Response to Chemotherapy
Cancer Res., December 1, 2004; 64(23): 8558 - 8565.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
K. J. Simpson, A. S. Dugan, and A. M. Mercurio
Functional Analysis of the Contribution of RhoA and RhoC GTPases to Invasive Breast Carcinoma
Cancer Res., December 1, 2004; 64(23): 8694 - 8701.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
I. Bieche, F. Lerebours, S. Tozlu, M. Espie, M. Marty, and R. Lidereau
Molecular Profiling of Inflammatory Breast Cancer: Identification of a Poor-Prognosis Gene Expression Signature
Clin. Cancer Res., October 15, 2004; 10(20): 6789 - 6795.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
W. G. Jiang, G. Watkins, J. Lane, G. H. Cunnick, A. Douglas-Jones, K. Mokbel, and R. E. Mansel
Prognostic Value of Rho GTPases and Rho Guanine Nucleotide Dissociation Inhibitors in Human Breast Cancers
Clin. Cancer Res., December 15, 2003; 9(17): 6432 - 6440.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]