Allele-specific miRNA-binding analysis identifies candidate target genes for breast cancer risk

Most breast cancer (BC) risk-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms (raSNPs) identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are believed to cis-regulate the expression of genes. We hypothesise that cis-regulatory variants contributing to disease risk may be affecting microRNA (miRNA) genes and/or miRNA binding. To test this, we adapted two miRNA-binding prediction algorithms-TargetScan and miRanda-to perform allele-specific queries, and integrated differential allelic expression (DAE) and expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) data, to query 150 genome-wide significant ( P≤5×10-8 ) raSNPs, plus proxies. We found that no raSNP mapped to a miRNA gene, suggesting that altered miRNA targeting is an unlikely mechanism involved in BC risk. Also, 11.5% (6 out of 52) raSNPs located in 3'-untranslated regions of putative miRNA target genes were predicted to alter miRNA::mRNA (messenger RNA) pair binding stability in five candidate target genes. Of these, we propose RNF115, at locus 1q21.1, as a strong novel target gene associated with BC risk, and reinforce the role of miRNA-mediated cis-regulation at locus 19p13.11. We believe that integrating allele-specific querying in miRNA-binding prediction, and data supporting cis-regulation of expression, improves the identification of candidate target genes in BC risk, as well as in other common cancers and complex diseases.Funding Agency Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology CRESC ALGARVE 2020 European Union (EU) 303745 Maratona da Saude Award DL 57/2016/CP1361/CT0042 SFRH/BPD/99502/2014 CBMR-UID/BIM/04773/2013 POCI-01-0145-FEDER-022184info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Benzyl Isothiocyanate Causes FoxO1-Mediated Autophagic Death in Human Breast Cancer Cells

Benzyl isothiocyanate (BITC), a constituent of edible cruciferous vegetables, inhibits growth of breast cancer cells but the mechanisms underlying growth inhibitory effect of BITC are not fully understood. Here, we demonstrate that BITC treatment causes FoxO1-mediated autophagic death in cultured human breast cancer cells. The BITC-treated breast cancer cells (MDA-MB-231, MCF-7, MDA-MB-468, BT-474, and BRI-JM04) and MDA-MB-231 xenografts from BITC-treated mice exhibited several features characteristic of autophagy, including appearance of double-membrane vacuoles (transmission electron microscopy) and acidic vesicular organelles (acridine orange staining), cleavage of microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3 (LC3), and/or suppression of p62 (p62/SQSTM1 or sequestosome 1) expression. On the other hand, a normal human mammary epithelial cell line (MCF-10A) was resistant to BITC-induced autophagy. BITC-mediated inhibition of MDA-MB-231 and MCF-7 cell viability was partially but statistically significantly attenuated in the presence of autophagy inhibitors 3-methyl adenine and bafilomycin A1. Stable overexpression of Mn-superoxide dismutase, which was fully protective against apoptosis, conferred only partial protection against BITC-induced autophagy. BITC treatment decreased phosphorylation of mTOR and its downstream targets (P70s6k and 4E-BP1) in cultured MDA-MB-231 and MCF-7 cells and MDA-MB-231 xenografts, but activation of mTOR by transient overexpression of its positive regulator Rheb failed to confer protection against BITC-induced autophagy. Autophagy induction by BITC was associated with increased expression and acetylation of FoxO1. Furthermore, autophagy induction and cell growth inhibition resulting from BITC exposure were significantly attenuated by small interfering RNA knockdown of FoxO1. In conclusion, the present study provides novel insights into the molecular circuitry of BITC-induced cell death involving FoxO1-mediated autophagy

Induction of G1 and G2/M cell cycle arrests by the dietary compound 3,3'-diindolylmethane in HT-29 human colon cancer cells

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>3,3'-Diindolylmethane (DIM), an indole derivative produced in the stomach after the consumption of broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables, has been demonstrated to exert anti-cancer effects in both <it>in vivo </it>and <it>in vitro </it>models. We have previously determined that DIM (0 – 30 μmol/L) inhibited the growth of HT-29 human colon cancer cells in a concentration-dependent fashion. In this study, we evaluated the effects of DIM on cell cycle progression in HT-29 cells.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>HT-29 cells were cultured with various concentrations of DIM (0 – 30 μmol/L) and the DNA was stained with propidium iodide, followed by flow cytometric analysis. [³H]Thymidine incorporation assays, Western blot analyses, immunoprecipitation and <it>in vitro </it>kinase assays for cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) and cell division cycle (CDC)2 were conducted.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The percentages of cells in the G1 and G2/M phases were dose-dependently increased and the percentages of cells in S phase were reduced within 12 h in DIM-treated cells. DIM also reduced DNA synthesis in a dose-dependent fashion. DIM markedly reduced CDK2 activity and the levels of phosphorylated retinoblastoma proteins (Rb) and E2F-1, and also increased the levels of hypophosphorylated Rb. DIM reduced the protein levels of cyclin A, D1, and CDK4. DIM also increased the protein levels of CDK inhibitors, p21^CIP1/WAF1and p27^KIPI. In addition, DIM reduced the activity of CDC2 and the levels of CDC25C phosphatase and cyclin B1.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Here, we have demonstrated that DIM induces G1 and G2/M phase cell cycle arrest in HT-29 cells, and this effect may be mediated by reduced CDK activity.</p

Modest induction of phase 2 enzyme activity in the F-344 rat prostate

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in men and is thought to arise as a result of endogenous oxidative stress in the face of compromised carcinogen defenses. We tested whether carcinogen defense (phase 2) enzymes could be induced in the prostate tissues of rats after oral feeding of candidate phase 2 enzyme inducing compounds. METHODS: Male F344 rats were gavage fed sulforaphane, β-naphthoflavone, curcumin, dimethyl fumarate or vehicle control over five days, and on the sixth day, prostate, liver, kidney and bladder tissues were harvested. Cytosolic enzyme activities of nicotinamide quinone oxidoreductase (NQO1), total glutathione transferase (using DCNB) and mu-class glutathione transferase (using CDNB) were determined in the treated and control animals and compared. RESULTS: In prostatic tissues, sulforaphane produced modest but significant increases in the enzymatic activities of NQO1, total GST and GST-mu compared to control animals. β-naphthoflavone significantly increased NQO1 and GST-mu activities and curcumin increased total GST and GST-mu enzymatic activities. Dimethyl fumarate did not significantly increase prostatic phase 2 enzyme activity. Compared to control animals, sulforaphane also significantly induced NQO1 or total GST enzyme activity in the liver, kidney and, most significantly, in the bladder tissues. All compounds were well tolerated over the course of the gavage feedings. CONCLUSION: Orally administered compounds will induce modestly phase 2 enzyme activity in the prostate although the significance of this degree of induction is unknown. The 4 different compounds also altered phase 2 enzyme activity to different degrees in different tissue types. Orally administered sulforaphane potently induces phase 2 enzymes in bladder tissues and should be investigated as a bladder cancer preventive agent

Chemoprevention of Human Cancer:A Reasonable Strategy?

The field of chemoprevention of cancer in humans is at a teenage level of maturity. There is anticipation and energy, and some promising results have come in, but it's unclear whether the entire enterprise is worth the effort. Reflecting on the status of the organism and where we are in its developmental history is therefore an important exercise at this time. Empirical and philosophical perspectives are offered for several key questions: Why prevent Cancer? What is the preclinical evidence that chemoprevention of cancer in humans should work? What is the clinical evidence that chemoprevention agents work? What is the clinical evidence that chemoprevention agent don't work? What is the status of ongoing randomized phase III/IV chemoprevention trials? The answers to each of these questions provide a part of the scaffold for a logical platform for the launching of the chemoprevention imperative as an integral part of our approach to the overall management of human cancer