Validation of COL11A1/procollagen 11A1 expression in TGF-β1-activated immortalised human mesenchymal cells and in stromal cells of human colon adenocarcinoma

Our observations stress once more the usefulness of the DMTX1/1E8.33 mAb for cancer research, and the clinical significance of procollagen 11A1 as a very valuable biomarker to characterise cancer-associated stromal cells and to evaluate human colon adenocarcinomas.Background: The human COL11A1 gene has been shown to be up-regulated in stromal cells of colorectal tumours, but, so far, the immunodetection of procollagen 11A1, the primary protein product of COL11A1, has not been studied in detail in human colon adenocarcinomas. Some cancer-associated stromal cells seem to be derived from bone marrow mesenchymal cells; the expression of the COL11A1 gene and the parallel immunodetection of procollagen 11A1 have not been evaluated in these latter cells, either. Methods: We used quantitative RT-PCR and/or immunocytochemistry to study the expression of DES/desmin, VIM/vimentin, ACTA2/αSMA (alpha smooth muscle actin) and COL11A1/procollagen 11A1 in HCT 116 human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells, in immortalised human bone marrow mesenchymal cells and in human colon adenocarcinoma-derived cultured stromal cells. The immunodetection of procollagen 11A1 was performed with the new recently described DMTX1/1E8.33 mouse monoclonal antibody. Human colon adenocarcinomas and non-malignant colon tissues were evaluated by immunohistochemistry as well. Statistical associations were sought between anti-procollagen 11A1 immunoscoring and patient clinicopathological features. Results: Procollagen 11A1 was immunodetected in human bone marrow mesenchymal cells and in human colon adenocarcinoma-associated spindle-shaped stromal cells but not in colon epithelial or stromal cells of the normal colon. This immunodetection paralleled, in both kinds of cells, that of the other mesenchymalrelated biomarkers studied: vimentin and alpha smooth muscle actin, but not desmin. Thus, procollagen 11A1+ adenocarcinoma-associated stromal cells are similar to “activated myofibroblasts”. In the series of human colon adenocarcinomas here studied, a high procollagen 11A1 expression was associated with nodal involvement (p = 0.05), the development of distant metastases (p = 0.017), and advanced Dukes stages (p = 0.047). Conclusion: The immunodetection of procollagen 11A1 in cancer-associated stromal cells could be a useful biomarker for human colon adenocarcinoma characterisation. Keywords: Procollagen 11A1, Human bone marrow mesenchymal cells, Cancer-associated stromal cells, Human colon adenocarcinom

COL11A1/(pro)collagen 11A1 expression is a remarkable biomarker of human invasive carcinoma-associated stromal cells and carcinoma progression

The COL11A1 human gene codes for the α1 chain of procollagen 11A1 and mature collagen 11A1, an extracellular minor fibrillar collagen. Under regular conditions, this gene and its derived products are mainly expressed by chondrocytes and mesenchymal stem cells as well as osteoblasts. Normal epithelial cells and quiescent fibroblasts from diverse locations do not express them. Mesenchyme-derived tumors and related conditions, such as scleroderma and keloids, are positive for COL11A1/(pro)collagen 11A1 expression, as well as high-grade human gliomas/glioblastomas. This expression is almost absent in benign pathological processes such as breast hyperplasia, sclerosing adenosis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, cirrhosis, pancreatitis, diverticulitis, and inflammatory bowel disease. By contrast, COL11A1/(pro)collagen 11A1 is highly expressed by activated stromal cells of the desmoplastic reaction of different human invasive carcinomas, and this expression is correlated with carcinoma aggressiveness and progression, and lymph node metastasis. COL11A1 upregulation has been shown to be associated to TGF-β1, Wnt, and Hh signaling pathways, which are especially active in cancerassociated stromal cells. At the front of invasive carcinomas, neoplastic epithelial cells, putatively undergoing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, and carcinoma-derived cells with highly metastatic capabilities, can express COL11A1. Thus, in established metastases, the expression of COL11A1/ (pro)collagen 11A1 could rely on both the metastatic epithelial cells and/or the accompanying activated stromal cells. COL11A1/(pro)collagen 11A1 expression is a remarkable biomarker of human carcinoma-associated stromal cells and carcinoma progression

Overexpression of proCOL11A1 as a stromal marker of breast cancer

Background: Our previous studies demonstrated the expression of procollagen11A1 in fibroblasts of pancreatic cancer desmoplasia and the lack of expression in fibroblasts of pancreatitis by means of the polyclonal antibody (anti-proCOL11A1 pAb) we generated. In a similar way, we decided to compare the expression of procollagen11A1 in fibroblasts of infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast and fibroblasts of benign sclerosing lesions of the breast, in order to validate the anti-proCOL11A1 pAb in this setting and to study how proCOL11A1 expression relates to other prognostic and predictive factors, as well as to survival. Methods: 45 core biopsies of sclerosing adenosis and 50 core biopsies of infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast were stained with anti-proCOL11A1 pAb, a polyclonal antibody highly specific to the less homologous fraction of proCOL11A1 (in comparison with proCOL5A1 and proCOL11A2). In addition, the expression of the proCOL11A1 gene was measured by RT-qPCR. On the other hand, the expression of proCOL11A1 was compared to the expression of estrogenic receptors, progestagen receptors, the state of the epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), the histologic grade and the stage of the disease. We also compared the immunohistochemical expression of proCol11A1 to the disease-free interval, and to overall survival. Results: The immunohistochemical analysis showed that proCOL11A1 was expressed in 100% of infiltrating ductal carcinomas, but only focally expressed in 2.2% (1 case) of sclerosing adenosis, in agreement with RT-qPCR results. ProCOL11A1 expression did not prove to have a prognostic value in relation to the disease-free interval or to overall survival in infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Conclusion: The anti-proCOL11A1 pAb is a stromal marker for breast cancer and the expression of proCOL11A1 does not seem to have a prognostic value in infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast

Common non-synonymous SNPs associated with breast cancer susceptibility: findings from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium.

Candidate variant association studies have been largely unsuccessful in identifying common breast cancer susceptibility variants, although most studies have been underpowered to detect associations of a realistic magnitude. We assessed 41 common non-synonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs) for which evidence of association with breast cancer risk had been previously reported. Case-control data were combined from 38 studies of white European women (46 450 cases and 42 600 controls) and analyzed using unconditional logistic regression. Strong evidence of association was observed for three nsSNPs: ATXN7-K264R at 3p21 [rs1053338, per allele OR = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.10, P = 2.9 × 10(-6)], AKAP9-M463I at 7q21 (rs6964587, OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.03-1.07, P = 1.7 × 10(-6)) and NEK10-L513S at 3p24 (rs10510592, OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.07-1.12, P = 5.1 × 10(-17)). The first two associations reached genome-wide statistical significance in a combined analysis of available data, including independent data from nine genome-wide association studies (GWASs): for ATXN7-K264R, OR = 1.07 (95% CI = 1.05-1.10, P = 1.0 × 10(-8)); for AKAP9-M463I, OR = 1.05 (95% CI = 1.04-1.07, P = 2.0 × 10(-10)). Further analysis of other common variants in these two regions suggested that intronic SNPs nearby are more strongly associated with disease risk. We have thus identified a novel susceptibility locus at 3p21, and confirmed previous suggestive evidence that rs6964587 at 7q21 is associated with risk. The third locus, rs10510592, is located in an established breast cancer susceptibility region; the association was substantially attenuated after adjustment for the known GWAS hit. Thus, each of the associated nsSNPs is likely to be a marker for another, non-coding, variant causally related to breast cancer risk. Further fine-mapping and functional studies are required to identify the underlying risk-modifying variants and the genes through which they act.BCAC is funded by Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A12014) and by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n8 223175 (HEALTH-F2–2009-223175) (COGS). Meetings of the BCAC have been funded by the European Union COST programme (BM0606). Genotyping of the iCOGS array was funded by the European Union (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10710), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the ‘CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer’ program and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade of Quebec (PSR-SIIRI-701). Additional support for the iCOGS infrastructure was provided by the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112—the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The ABCFS and OFBCR work was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations imply endorsement t by the US Government or the BCFR. The ABCFS was also supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the New South Wales Cancer Council, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Australia) and the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. J.L.H. is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellow and M.C.S. is a NHMRC Senior Research Fellow. The OFBCR work was also supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research ‘CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer’ program. The ABCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society Grant no. NKI2007-3839 and NKI2009-4363. The ACP study is funded by the Breast Cancer Research Trust, UK. The work of the BBCC was partly funded by ELAN-Programme of the University Hospital of Erlangen. The BBCS is funded by Cancer Research UK and Breakthrough Breast Cancer and acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN). E.S. is supported by NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London, UK. Core funding to the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics was provided by the Wellcome Trust (090532/Z/09/Z). I.T. is supported by the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. The BSUCH study was supported by the Dietmar-Hopp Foundation, the Helmholtz Society and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). The CECILE study was funded by the Fondation de France, the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa), The National League against Cancer, the National Agency for Environmental l and Occupational Health and Food Safety (ANSES), the National Agency for Research (ANR), and the Association for Research against Cancer (ARC). The CGPS was supported by the Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund, the Danish Medical Research Council and Herlev Hospital.The CNIO-BCS was supported by the Genome Spain Foundation the Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer and grants from the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and the Fondo de Investigación Sanitario PI11/00923 and PI081120). The Human Genotyping-CEGEN Unit, CNIO is supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III. D.A. was supported by a Fellowship from the Michael Manzella Foundation (MMF) and was a participant in the CNIO Summer Training Program. The CTS was initially supported by the California Breast Cancer Act of 1993 and the California Breast Cancer Research Fund (contract 97-10500) and is currently funded through the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA77398). Collection of cancer incidence e data was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885. HAC receives support from the Lon V Smith Foundation (LVS39420). The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. Additional cases were recruited in the context of the VERDI study, which was supported by a grant from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). The GENICA was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany grants 01KW9975/5, 01KW9976/8, 01KW9977/0 and 01KW0114, the Robert Bosch Foundation, Stuttgart, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), as well as the Department of Internal Medicine , Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus Bonn, Germany. The HEBCS was supported by the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (132473), the Finnish Cancer Society, The Nordic Cancer Union and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The HERPACC was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture and Technology of Japan, by a Grant-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive 10-Year strategy for Cancer Control from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, by a research grant from Takeda Science Foundation , by Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Applying Health Technology from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan and by National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund. The HMBCS was supported by short-term fellowships from the German Academic Exchange Program (to N.B), and the Friends of Hannover Medical School (to N.B.). Financial support for KARBAC was provided through the regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet, the Stockholm Cancer Foundation and the Swedish Cancer Society. The KBCP was financially supported by the special Government Funding (EVO) of Kuopio University Hospital grants, Cancer Fund of North Savo, the Finnish Cancer Organizations, the Academy of Finland and by the strategic funding of the University of Eastern Finland. kConFab is supported by grants from the National Breast Cancer Foundation , the NHMRC, the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. The kConFab Clinical Follow Up Study was funded by the NHMRC (145684, 288704, 454508). Financial support for the AOCS was provided by the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (DAMD17-01-1-0729), the Cancer Council of Tasmania and Cancer Foundation of Western Australia and the NHMRC (199600). G.C.T. and P.W. are supported by the NHMRC. LAABC is supported by grants (1RB-0287, 3PB-0102, 5PB-0018 and 10PB-0098) from the California Breast Cancer Research Program. Incident breast cancer cases were collected by the USC Cancer Surveillance Program (CSP) which is supported under subcontract by the California Department of Health. The CSP is also part of the National Cancer Institute’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, under contract number N01CN25403. LMBC is supported by the ‘Stichting tegen Kanker’ (232-2008 and 196-2010). The MARIE study was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. (70-2892-BR I), the Federal Ministry of Education Research (BMBF) Germany (01KH0402), the Hamburg Cancer Society and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). MBCSG is supported by grants from the Italian Association ciation for Cancer Research (AIRC) and by funds from the Italian citizens who allocated a 5/1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5 × 1000’). The MCBCS was supported by the NIH grants (CA122340, CA128978) and a Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation and the Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Foundation. MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057, 251553 and 504711 and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. The MEC was supported by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281, CA098758 and CA132839. The work of MTLGEBCS was supported by the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CRN-87521) and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (grant PSR-SIIRI-701). MYBRCA is funded by research grants from the Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI), Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation (CARIF). Additional controls were recruited by the Singapore Eye Research Institute, which was supported by a grant from the Biomedical Research Council (BMRC08/1/35/19,tel:08/1/35/19./550), Singapore and the National medical Research Council, Singapore (NMRC/CG/SERI/2010). The NBCS was supported by grants from the Norwegian Research council (155218/V40, 175240/S10 to A.L.B.D., FUGE-NFR 181600/ V11 to V.N.K. and a Swizz Bridge Award to A.L.B.D.). The NBHS was supported by NIH grant R01CA100374. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The OBCS was supported by research grants from the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, the Academy of Finland, the University of Oulu, and the Oulu University Hospital. The ORIGO study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society (RUL 1997-1505) and the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI-NLCP16). The PBCS was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. pKARMA is a combination of the KARMA and LIBRO-1 studies. KARMA was supported by Ma¨rit and Hans Rausings Initiative Against Breast Cancer. KARMA and LIBRO-1 were supported the Cancer Risk Prediction Center (CRisP; www.crispcenter.org), a Linnaeus Centre (Contract ID 70867902) financed by the Swedish Research Council. The RBCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society (DDHK 2004-3124, DDHK 2009-4318). SASBAC was supported by funding from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore (A∗STAR), the US National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation KC was financed by the Swedish Cancer Society (5128-B07-01PAF). The SBCGS was supported primarily by NIH grants R01CA64277, R01CA148667, and R37CA70867. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The SBCS was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research S305PA, S299 and S295. Funding for the SCCS was provided by NIH grant R01 CA092447. The Arkansas Central Cancer Registry is fully funded by a grant from National Program of Cancer Registries, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data on SCCS cancer cases from Mississippi were collected by the Mississippi Cancer Registry which participates in the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or the Mississippi Cancer Registry. SEARCH is funded by a programme grant from Cancer Research UK (C490/A10124) and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. The SEBCS was supported by the BRL (Basic Research Laboratory) program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2012-0000347). SGBCC is funded by the National Medical Research Council Start-up Grant and Centre Grant (NMRC/CG/NCIS /2010). The recruitment of controls by the Singapore Consortium of Cohort Studies-Multi-ethnic cohort (SCCS-MEC) was funded by the Biomedical Research Council (grant number: 05/1/21/19/425). SKKDKFZS is supported by the DKFZ. The SZBCS was supported by Grant PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. K. J. is a fellow of International PhD program, Postgraduate School of Molecular Medicine, Warsaw Medical University, supported by the Polish Foundation of Science. The TNBCC was supported by the NIH grant (CA128978), the Breast Cancer Research Foundation , Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, the Stefanie Spielman Fund for Breast Cancer Research and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation and the Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Foundation. Part of the TNBCC (DEMOKRITOS) has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek National Funds through the Operational Program ‘Education and Life-long Learning’ of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)—Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: ARISTEIA. The TWBCS is supported by the Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Academia Sinica and the National Science Council, Taiwan. The UKBGS is funded by Breakthrough Breast Cancer and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR). ICR acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by the Wellcome Trust.This is the advanced access published version distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0, which can also be viewed on the publisher's webstie at: http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/07/04/hmg.ddu311.full.pdf+htm

Effect of aluminium on calcium-sensing receptor expression, proliferation, and apoptosis of parathyroid glands from rats with chronic renal failure

Effect of aluminium on calcium-sensing receptor expression, proliferation, and apoptosis of parathyroid glands from rats with chronic renal failure.BackgroundTo assess the effect of aluminium on the calcium-sensing receptor expression, proliferation, and apoptosis in parathyroid glands from rats with chronic renal failure, 21/2-month-old male Wistar rats were 7/8 nephrectomized.MethodsEight weeks after surgery the rats were divided into two groups, one receiving intraperitoneal AlCl3 for 8 weeks and the other receiving intraperitoneal placebo. Serum Al, Ca, P, creatinine, and PTH were measured. Parathyroid glands were removed, formaldehyde-fixed, and paraffin-embedded. Calcium-sensing receptor and proliferation were detected by immunohistochemistry and apoptosis by TUNEL and propidium iodide uptake.ResultsAt the end of the study, despite higher levels of serum P in the aluminium group (6.27 ± 0.63 vs. 5.56 ± 0.58 mg/dL; P = 0.045), serum PTH was lower (89.6 ± 57.7 vs. 183.1 ± 123.8 pg/mL; P = 0.059). No significant differences were found in the calcium-sensing receptor expression between groups (aluminium: 27.1 ± 7.6; placebo: 25.4 ± 3.5 RU). Rats receiving aluminium showed a significantly lower cell proliferation rate than the control rats (0.54 ± 0.69 vs. 4.43 ± 3.10 cells/mm2; P = 0.003). No apoptotic events were detected.ConclusionAluminium was able to reduce the cell proliferation of the parathyroid glands. Due to the low apoptosis rate, however, it was not possible to find any change. Aluminium had no effect on the calcium-sensing receptor expression

Histological grade (HG) in invasive ductal carcinomas of the breast of less than 1 cm: clinical and biological associations during progression from HG1 to HG3

AIM: To study the clinical and biological (cellular proliferation and hormone-dependence) associations during the progression of histological grade (HG), from HG1 to HG3, in invasive ductal carcinomas of the breast (IDC) <1 cm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study group included 119 women with IDCs ≤1 cm, aged between 27 and 88 years (median=61 years). The parameters analyzed were: histological grade (HG1: 52; HG2: 45; HG3: 22); axillary lymph node involvement (N); distant metastasis (M); and immunohistochemical expression of estrogen (ER), progesterone (PR) and androgen (AR) receptors, and Ki67, p53 and B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2). RESULTS: Compared to HG3 tumors, HG1s exhibited an increased expression of ER, AR and BCL2, as well as lower expression of p53 and Ki67. In HG1 tumors, significant (p<0.05) associations were found between ER and PR (positive), ER and p53 (negative), ER and Ki67 (negative), PR and AR (positive), PR and p53 (negative), AR and p53 (negative), p53 and BCL2 (negative), and between BCL2 and Ki67 (negative). HG3s only showed significant (p<0.05) associations between ER and Ki-67 (negative) and between BCL2 or Ki-67 (negative). Only two significant relationships (ER-Ki67 and BCL2-Ki67) persisted in all three grades. CONCLUSION: Our results lead us to the following conclusions: i) compared HG1, HG3 ductal carcinomas exhibited decreased expression of ER, AR and BCL2 and increased expression of p53 and Ki67; and ii) only two significant and negative relations (ER-Ki67 and BCL2-Ki67) persisted in all three grades

Overexpression of proCOL11A1 as a stromal marker of breast cancer

Background: Our previous studies demonstrated the expression of procollagen11A1 in fibroblasts of pancreatic cancer desmoplasia and the lack of expression in fibroblasts of pancreatitis by means of the polyclonal antibody (anti-proCOL11A1 pAb) we generated. In a similar way, we decided to compare the expression of procollagen11A1 in fibroblasts of infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast and fibroblasts of benign sclerosing lesions of the breast, in order to validate the anti-proCOL11A1 pAb in this setting and to study how proCOL11A1 expression relates to other prognostic and predictive factors, as well as to survival. Methods: 45 core biopsies of sclerosing adenosis and 50 core biopsies of infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast were stained with anti-proCOL11A1 pAb, a polyclonal antibody highly specific to the less homologous fraction of proCOL11A1 (in comparison with proCOL5A1 and proCOL11A2). In addition, the expression of the proCOL11A1 gene was measured by RT-qPCR. On the other hand, the expression of proCOL11A1 was compared to the expression of estrogenic receptors, progestagen receptors, the state of the epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), the histologic grade and the stage of the disease. We also compared the immunohistochemical expression of proCol11A1 to the disease-free interval, and to overall survival. Results: The immunohistochemical analysis showed that proCOL11A1 was expressed in 100% of infiltrating ductal carcinomas, but only focally expressed in 2.2% (1 case) of sclerosing adenosis, in agreement with RT-qPCR results. ProCOL11A1 expression did not prove to have a prognostic value in relation to the disease-free interval or to overall survival in infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Conclusion: The anti-proCOL11A1 pAb is a stromal marker for breast cancer and the expression of proCOL11A1 does not seem to have a prognostic value in infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast

Common non-synonymous snps associated with breast cancer susceptibility: findings from the breast cancer association consortium

Candidate variant association studies have been largely unsuccessful in identifying common breast cancer susceptibility variants, although most studies have been underpowered to detect associations of a realistic magnitude. We assessed 41 common non-synonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs) for which evidence of association with breast cancer risk had been previously reported. Case-control data were combined from 38 studies of white European women (46 450 cases and 42 600 controls) and analyzed using unconditional logistic regression. Strong evidence of association was observed for three nsSNPs: ATXN7-K264R at 3p21 [rs1053338, per allele OR = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.10, P = 2.9 x 10 26], AKAP9-M463I at 7q21 (rs6964587, OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.03-1.07, P = 1.7 x 10(-6)) and NEK10-L513S at 3p24 (rs10510592, OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.07-1.12, P = 5.1 x 10(-17)). The first two associations reached genome-wide statistical significance in a combined analysis of available data, including independent data from nine genome-wide association studies (GWASs): for ATXN7-K264R, OR = 1.07 (95% CI = 1.05-1.10, P = 1.0 x 10(-8)); for AKAP9-M463I, OR = 1.05 (95% CI = 1.04-1.07, P = 2.0 x 10(-10)). Further analysis of other common variants in these two regions suggested that intronic SNPs nearby are more strongly associated with disease risk. We have thus identified a novel susceptibility locus at 3p21, and confirmed previous suggestive evidence that rs6964587 at 7q21 is associated with risk. The third locus, rs10510592, is located in an established breast cancer susceptibility region; the association was substantially attenuated after adjustment for the known GWAS hit. Thus, each of the associated nsSNPs is likely to be a marker for another, non-coding, variant causally related to breast cancer risk. Further fine-mapping and functional studies are required to identify the underlying risk-modifying variants and the genes through which they act