Knockout and transgenic mice of Trp53: what have we learned about p53 in breast cancer?

The human p53 tumor suppressor gene TP53 is mutated at a high frequency in sporadic breast cancer, and Li-Fraumeni syndrome patients who carry germline mutations in one TP53 allele have a high incidence of breast cancer. In the 10 years since the first knockout of the mouse p53 tumor suppressor gene (designated Trp53) was published, much has been learned about the contribution of p53 to biology and tumor suppression in the breast through the use of p53 transgenic and knockout mice. The original mice deficient in p53 showed no mammary gland phenotype. However, studies using BALB/c-Trp53-deficient mice have demonstrated a delayed involution phenotype and a mammary tumor phenotype. Together with other studies of mutant p53 transgenes and p53 bitransgenics, a greater understanding has been gained of the role of p53 in involution, of the regulation of p53 activity by hormones, of the effect of mouse strain and modifier genes on tumor phenotype, and of the cooperation between p53 and other oncogenic pathways, chemical carcinogens and hormonal stimulation in mammary tumorigenesis. Both p53 transgenic and knockout mice are important in vivo tools for understanding breast cancer, and are yet to be exploited for developing therapeutic strategies in breast cancer

Latent transforming growth factor binding protein 4 (LTBP4) is downregulated in mouse and human DCIS and mammary carcinomas

Transforming growth factor beta (TGF-) is able to inhibit the proliferation of epithelial cells and is involved in the carcinogenesis of mammary tumors. Three latent transforming growth factor- binding proteins (LTBPs) are known to modulate TGF- functions. The current study analyses the expression profiles of LTBP4, its isoforms LTBP1 and LTBP3, and TGF-1, TGF-2, TGF-3, and SMAD2, SMAD3 and SMAD4 in human and murine (WAP-TNP8) DCIS compared to invasive mammary tumors. Additionally mammary malignant (MCF7, Hs578T, MDA-MB361) and non malignant cell lines (Hs578BsT) were analysed. Microarray, q-PCR, immunoblot, immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence were used. In comparison to non-malignant tissues (n = 5), LTBP4 was downregulated in all human and mouse DCIS (n = 9) and invasive mammary adenocarcinomas (n = 5) that were investigated. We also found decreased expression of bone morphogenic protein 4 (BMP4) and increased expression of its inhibitor gremlin (GREM1). Treatment of the mammary tumor cell line (Hs578T) with recombinant TGF-1 rescued BMP4 and GREM1 expression. We conclude that the lack of LTBP4-mediated targeting in malignant mammary tumor tissues may lead to a possible modification of TGF-1 and BMP bioavailability and function

Impaired CK1 Delta Activity Attenuates SV40-Induced Cellular Transformation In Vitro and Mouse Mammary Carcinogenesis In Vivo

Simian virus 40 (SV40) is a powerful tool to study cellular transformation in vitro, as well as tumor development and progression in vivo. Various cellular kinases, among them members of the CK1 family, play an important role in modulating the transforming activity of SV40, including the transforming activity of T-Ag, the major transforming protein of SV40, itself. Here we characterized the effects of mutant CK1δ variants with impaired kinase activity on SV40-induced cell transformation in vitro, and on SV40-induced mammary carcinogenesis in vivo in a transgenic/bi-transgenic mouse model. CK1δ mutants exhibited a reduced kinase activity compared to wtCK1δ in in vitro kinase assays. Molecular modeling studies suggested that mutation N172D, located within the substrate binding region, is mainly responsible for impaired mutCK1δ activity. When stably over-expressed in maximal transformed SV-52 cells, CK1δ mutants induced reversion to a minimal transformed phenotype by dominant-negative interference with endogenous wtCK1δ. To characterize the effects of CK1δ on SV40-induced mammary carcinogenesis, we generated transgenic mice expressing mutant CK1δ under the control of the whey acidic protein (WAP) gene promoter, and crossed them with SV40 transgenic WAP-T-antigen (WAP-T) mice. Both WAP-T mice as well as WAP-mutCK1δ/WAP-T bi-transgenic mice developed breast cancer. However, tumor incidence was lower and life span was significantly longer in WAP-mutCK1δ/WAP-T bi-transgenic animals. The reduced CK1δ activity did not affect early lesion formation during tumorigenesis, suggesting that impaired CK1δ activity reduces the probability for outgrowth of in situ carcinomas to invasive carcinomas. The different tumorigenic potential of SV40 in WAP-T and WAP-mutCK1δ/WAP-T tumors was also reflected by a significantly different expression of various genes known to be involved in tumor progression, specifically of those involved in wnt-signaling and DNA repair. Our data show that inactivating mutations in CK1δ impair SV40-induced cellular transformation in vitro and mouse mammary carcinogenesis in vivo

Mouse models of breast cancer metastasis

Metastatic spread of cancer cells is the main cause of death of breast cancer patients, and elucidation of the molecular mechanisms underlying this process is a major focus in cancer research. The identification of appropriate therapeutic targets and proof-of-concept experimentation involves an increasing number of experimental mouse models, including spontaneous and chemically induced carcinogenesis, tumor transplantation, and transgenic and/or knockout mice. Here we give a progress report on how mouse models have contributed to our understanding of the molecular processes underlying breast cancer metastasis and on how such experimentation can open new avenues to the development of innovative cancer therapy

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field