Using TMAs (Tissue MicroArrays) to Evaluate GLS, GLUL, and CAV 1 Immunostaining in Breast Cancer

poster abstractApproximately 1 out of 8 women in the United States will develop invasive breast cancer over the course of their lifetime. Breast cancer has a greater potential of being cured if diagnosed in the earlier phases. We evaluated three well-recognized biomarkers, GLUL, GLS, and Cav 1 (glutamine synthetase, glutaminase, caveolin-1) in 14 TMA (tissue Microarrays). The tissues were normal breast and various subtypes of breast carcinoma by immunohistochemistry (IHC) to determine expression and localization in cancerous tissues in breast carcinoma cases. Approximately 80 to 90 breast biopsies in each of the 14 breast TMA immunostaining were evaluated with the GLUL, GLS, and Cav 1 antibodies. With GLS, immunostaining was seen in most tumor cells (mainly cytoplasm and nucleus) and the stain was clean with no background except in cases that had lymphocytes in the core along with the tumor cells. With GLUL, immunostaining was seen in most tumor cells (mainly cytoplasm and nucleus) and the stain was clean with no background except in cases that had lymphocytes in the core along with the tumor cells. Cav1 was seen only in the endothelial cells in blood vessel walls and some smooth muscle cells in small arterioles in the stroma and surrounding normal ducts, DCIS, and some invasive carcinoma tumor clusters. This information from the immunostains was obtained after analyzing 14 tissue microarrays which is not only time effective but cost effective when analyzing multiple research cases from cancer patients. The data for the three antibodies are currently being analyzed by the biostatistics core group and correlated with the severity of the breast cancer disease with multiple patient demographics

ChIP-BIT: Bayesian inference of target genes using a novel joint probabilistic model of ChIP-seq profiles.

Chromatin immunoprecipitation with massively parallel DNA sequencing (ChIP-seq) has greatly improved the reliability with which transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs) can be identified from genome-wide profiling studies. Many computational tools are developed to detect binding events or peaks, however the robust detection of weak binding events remains a challenge for current peak calling tools. We have developed a novel Bayesian approach (ChIP-BIT) to reliably detect TFBSs and their target genes by jointly modeling binding signal intensities and binding locations of TFBSs. Specifically, a Gaussian mixture model is used to capture both binding and background signals in sample data. As a unique feature of ChIP-BIT, background signals are modeled by a local Gaussian distribution that is accurately estimated from the input data. Extensive simulation studies showed a significantly improved performance of ChIP-BIT in target gene prediction, particularly for detecting weak binding signals at gene promoter regions. We applied ChIP-BIT to find target genes from NOTCH3 and PBX1 ChIP-seq data acquired from MCF-7 breast cancer cells. TF knockdown experiments have initially validated about 30% of co-regulated target genes identified by ChIP-BIT as being differentially expressed in MCF-7 cells. Functional analysis on these genes further revealed the existence of crosstalk between Notch and Wnt signaling pathways

MYC functions are specific in biological subtypes of breast cancer and confers resistance to endocrine therapy in luminal tumours.

BACKGROUND: MYC is amplified in approximately 15% of breast cancers (BCs) and is associated with poor outcome. c-MYC protein is multi-faceted and participates in many aspects of cellular function and is linked with therapeutic response in BCs. We hypothesised that the functional role of c-MYC differs between molecular subtypes of BCs. METHODS: We therefore investigated the correlation between c-MYC protein expression and other proteins involved in different cellular functions together with clinicopathological parameters, patients' outcome and treatments in a large early-stage molecularly characterised series of primary invasive BCs (n=1106) using immunohistochemistry. The METABRIC BC cohort (n=1980) was evaluated for MYC mRNA expression and a systems biology approach utilised to identify genes associated with MYC in the different BC molecular subtypes. RESULTS: High MYC and c-MYC expression was significantly associated with poor prognostic factors, including grade and basal-like BCs. In luminal A tumours, c-MYC was associated with ATM (P=0.005), Cyclin B1 (P=0.002), PIK3CA (P=0.009) and Ki67 (P<0.001). In contrast, in basal-like tumours, c-MYC showed positive association with Cyclin E (P=0.003) and p16 (P=0.042) expression only. c-MYC was an independent predictor of a shorter distant metastases-free survival in luminal A LN+ tumours treated with endocrine therapy (ET; P=0.013). In luminal tumours treated with ET, MYC mRNA expression was associated with BC-specific survival (P=0.001). In ER-positive tumours, MYC was associated with expression of translational genes while in ER-negative tumours it was associated with upregulation of glucose metabolism genes. CONCLUSIONS: c-MYC function is associated with specific molecular subtypes of BCs and its overexpression confers resistance to ET. The diverse mechanisms of c-MYC function in the different molecular classes of BCs warrants further investigation particularly as potential therapeutic targets

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

Application of Metabolomics in Drug Resistant Breast Cancer Research

The metabolic profiles of breast cancer cells are different from normal mammary epithelial cells. Breast cancer cells that gain resistance to therapeutic interventions can reprogram their endogenous metabolism in order to adapt and proliferate despite high oxidative stress and hypoxic conditions. Drug resistance in breast cancer, regardless of subgroups, is a major clinical setback. Although recent advances in genomics and proteomics research has given us a glimpse into the heterogeneity that exists even within subgroups, the ability to precisely predict a tumor’s response to therapy remains elusive. Metabolomics as a quantitative, high through put technology offers promise towards devising new strategies to establish predictive, diagnostic and prognostic markers of breast cancer. Along with other “omics” technologies that include genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics, metabolomics fits into the puzzle of a comprehensive systems biology approach to understand drug resistance in breast cancer. In this review, we highlight the challenges facing successful therapeutic treatment of breast cancer and the innovative approaches that metabolomics offers to better understand drug resistance in cancer

Application of Metabolomics in Drug Resistant Breast Cancer Research

The metabolic profiles of breast cancer cells are different from normal mammary epithelial cells. Breast cancer cells that gain resistance to therapeutic interventions can reprogram their endogenous metabolism in order to adapt and proliferate despite high oxidative stress and hypoxic conditions. Drug resistance in breast cancer, regardless of subgroups, is a major clinical setback. Although recent advances in genomics and proteomics research has given us a glimpse into the heterogeneity that exists even within subgroups, the ability to precisely predict a tumor’s response to therapy remains elusive. Metabolomics as a quantitative, high through put technology offers promise towards devising new strategies to establish predictive, diagnostic and prognostic markers of breast cancer. Along with other “omics” technologies that include genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics, metabolomics fits into the puzzle of a comprehensive systems biology approach to understand drug resistance in breast cancer. In this review, we highlight the challenges facing successful therapeutic treatment of breast cancer and the innovative approaches that metabolomics offers to better understand drug resistance in cancer

Application of Metabolomics in Drug Resistant Breast Cancer Research

The metabolic profiles of breast cancer cells are different from normal mammary epithelial cells. Breast cancer cells that gain resistance to therapeutic interventions can reprogram their endogenous metabolism in order to adapt and proliferate despite high oxidative stress and hypoxic conditions. Drug resistance in breast cancer, regardless of subgroups, is a major clinical setback. Although recent advances in genomics and proteomics research has given us a glimpse into the heterogeneity that exists even within subgroups, the ability to precisely predict a tumor’s response to therapy remains elusive. Metabolomics as a quantitative, high through put technology offers promise towards devising new strategies to establish predictive, diagnostic and prognostic markers of breast cancer. Along with other “omics” technologies that include genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics, metabolomics fits into the puzzle of a comprehensive systems biology approach to understand drug resistance in breast cancer. In this review, we highlight the challenges facing successful therapeutic treatment of breast cancer and the innovative approaches that metabolomics offers to better understand drug resistance in cancer