Department of Pathology, Thomas Jefferson University, Identification of conserved gene expression features between murine mammary carcinoma models and human breast tumors

Background: Although numerous mouse models of breast carcinomas have been developed, we do not know the extent to which any faithfully represent clinically significant human phenotypes. To address this need, we characterized mammary tumor gene expression profiles from 13 different murine models using DNA microarrays and compared the resulting data to those from human breast tumors. Results: Unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis showed that six models (TgWAP-Myc, TgMMTV-Neu, TgMMTV-PyMT, TgWAP-Int3, TgWAP-Tag, and TgC3(1)-Tag) yielded tumors with distinctive and homogeneous expression patterns within each strain. However, in each of four other models (TgWAP-T121, TgMMTV-Wnt1, Brca1Co/Co;TgMMTV-Cre;p53+/and DMBA-induced), Published: 10 May 2007 Genome Biology 2007, 8:R76 (doi:10.1186/gb-2007-8-5-r76) Received: 29 August 2006 Revised: 18 January 2007 Accepted: 10 May 2007 The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/5/R76 R76.2 Genome Biology 2007, Volume 8, Issue 5, Article R76 Herschkowitz et al. http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/5/R76 Genome Biology 2007, 8:R76 tumors with a variety of histologies and expression profiles developed. In many models, similarities to human breast tumors were recognized, including proliferation and human breast tumor subtype signatures. Significantly, tumors of several models displayed characteristics of human basal-like breast tumors, including two models with induced Brca1 deficiencies. Tumors of other murine models shared features and trended towards significance of gene enrichment with human luminal tumors; however, these murine tumors lacked expression of estrogen receptor (ER) and ERregulated genes. TgMMTV-Neu tumors did not have a significant gene overlap with the human HER2+/ERsubtype and were more similar to human luminal tumors. Conclusion: Many of the defining characteristics of human subtypes were conserved among the mouse models. Although no single mouse model recapitulated all the expression features of a given human subtype, these shared expression features provide a common framework for an improved integration of murine mammary tumor models with human breast tumors. Background Global gene expression analyses of human breast cancers have identified at least three major tumor subtypes and a normal breast tissue group [1]. Two subtypes are estrogen receptor (ER)-negative with poor patient outcomes [2,3]; one of these two subtypes is defined by the high expression of HER2/ERBB2/NEU (HER2+/ER-) and the other shows characteristics of basal/myoepithelial cells (basal-like). The third major subtype is ER-positive and Keratin 8/18-positive, and designated the 'luminal' subtype. This subtype has been subdivided into good outcome 'luminal A' tumors and poor outcome 'luminal B' tumors [2,3]. These studies emphasize that human breast cancers are multiple distinct diseases, with each of the major subtypes likely harboring different genetic alterations and responding distinctly to therapy [4,5]. Further similar investigations may well identify additional subtypes useful in diagnosis and treatment; however, such research would be accelerated if the relevant disease properties could be accurately modeled in experimental animals. Signatures associated with specific genetic lesions and biologies can be causally assigned in such models, potentially allowing for refinement of human data. Significant progress in the ability to genetically engineer mice has led to the generation of models that recapitulate many properties of human cancers [6]. Mouse mammary tumor models have been designed to emulate genetic alterations found in human breast cancers, including inactivation of TP53, BRCA1, and RB, and overexpression of MYC and HER2/ERBB2/NEU. Such models have been generated through several strategies, including transgenic overexpression of oncogenes, expression of dominant interfering proteins, targeted disruption of tumor suppressor genes, and by treatment with chemical carcinogens [7]. While there are many advantages to using the mouse as a surrogate, there are also potential caveats, including differences in mammary physiologies and the possibility of unknown species-specific pathway differences. Furthermore, it is not always clear which features of a human cancer are most relevant for disease comparisons (for example, genetic aberrations, histological features, tumor biology). Genomic profiling provides a tool for comparative cancer analysis and offers a powerful means of cross-species comparison. Recent studies applying microarray technology to human lung, liver, or prostate carcinomas and their respective murine counterparts have reported commonalities [8-10]. In general, each of these studies focused on a single or few mouse models. Here, we used gene expression analysis to classify a large set of mouse mammary tumor models and human breast tumors. The results provide biological insights among and across the mouse models, and comparisons with human data identify biologically and clinically significant shared features. Results Murine tumor analysis To characterize the diversity of biological phenotypes present within murine mammary carcinoma models, we performed microarray-based gene expression analyses on tumors from 13 different murine models (Table 1) using Agilent microarrays and a common reference design [1]. We performed 122 microarrays consisting of 108 unique mammary tumors and 10 normal mammary gland samples (Additional data file 1). Using an unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis of the data (Additional data file 2), murine tumor profiles indicated the presence of gene sets characteristic of endothelial cells, fibroblasts, adipocytes, lymphocytes, and two distinct epithelial cell types (basal/myoepithelial and luminal). Grouping of the murine tumors in this unsupervised cluster showed that some models developed tumors with consistent, model-specific patterns of expression, while other models showed greater diversity and did not necessarily group together. Specifically, the TgWAP-Myc, TgMMTV-Neu, TgMMTV-PyMT, TgWAP-Int3 (Notch4), TgWAP-Tag and TgC3(1)-Tag tumors had high within-model correlations. In contrast, tumors from the TgWAP-T121, TgMMTV-Wnt1, Brca1Co/ Co;TgMMTV-Cre;p53+/-, and DMBA-induced models showed diverse expression patterns. The p53-/transplant model tended to be homogenous, with 4/5 tumors grouping together, while the Brca1+/-;p53+/ionizing radiation (IR) and http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/5/R76 Genome Biology 2007, Volume 8, Issue 5, Article R76 Herschkowitz et al. R76.3

[1]  Marie-Liesse Asselin-Labat,et al.  Gata-3 is an essential regulator of mammary-gland morphogenesis and luminal-cell differentiation , 2007, Nature Cell Biology.

[2]  Zena Werb,et al.  GATA-3 Maintains the Differentiation of the Luminal Cell Fate in the Mammary Gland , 2006, Cell.

[3]  M. Cronin,et al.  Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  A. Nobel,et al.  The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms , 2006, BMC Genomics.

[5]  Zhiyuan Hu,et al.  Estrogen-regulated genes predict survival in hormone receptor-positive breast cancers. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  C. Perou,et al.  Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma , 2006, Modern Pathology.

[7]  C. Perou,et al.  AlphaB-crystallin is a novel oncoprotein that predicts poor clinical outcome in breast cancer. , 2005, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[8]  Zhiyuan Hu,et al.  Classification and risk stratification of invasive breast carcinomas using a real-time quantitative RT-PCR assay , 2006, Breast Cancer Research.

[9]  C. Perou,et al.  Molecular portraits and 70-gene prognosis signature are preserved throughout the metastatic process of breast cancer. , 2005, Cancer research.

[10]  Pablo Tamayo,et al.  Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  T. Jacks,et al.  Mice expressing a mammary gland-specific R270H mutation in the p53 tumor suppressor gene mimic human breast cancer development. , 2005, Cancer research.

[12]  R. Glazer,et al.  Characterization of medroxyprogesterone and DMBA‐induced multilineage mammary tumors by gene expression profiling , 2005, Molecular carcinogenesis.

[13]  D. Medina.  Mammary developmental fate and breast cancer risk. , 2005, Endocrine-related cancer.

[14]  Roman Rouzier,et al.  Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes Respond Differently to Preoperative Chemotherapy , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.

[15]  T. Barrette,et al.  Mining for regulatory programs in the cancer transcriptome , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[16]  L. Chodosh,et al.  Deregulated estrogen receptor alpha expression in mammary epithelial cells of transgenic mice results in the development of ductal carcinoma in situ. , 2005, Cancer research.

[17]  Peter Devilee,et al.  Comparative genomic hybridization profiles in human BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast tumors highlight differential sets of genomic aberrations. , 2005, Cancer research.

[18]  J. Mesirov,et al.  An oncogenic KRAS2 expression signature identified by cross-species gene-expression analysis , 2005, Nature Genetics.

[19]  S. Thorgeirsson,et al.  Application of comparative functional genomics to identify best-fit mouse models to study human cancer , 2004, Nature Genetics.

[20]  C. R. Leemans,et al.  Clinical Significance of Micrometastatic Cells Detected by E48 (Ly-6D) Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction in Bone Marrow of Head and Neck Cancer Patients , 2004, Clinical Cancer Research.

[21]  Alok J. Saldanha,et al.  Java Treeview - extensible visualization of microarray data , 2004, Bioinform..

[22]  R. Strausberg,et al.  Mutation of GATA3 in human breast tumors , 2004, Oncogene.

[23]  W. Sellers,et al.  High tumor incidence and activation of the PI3K/AKT pathway in transgenic mice define AIB1 as an oncogene. , 2004, Cancer cell.

[24]  A. Gown,et al.  Immunohistochemical and Clinical Characterization of the Basal-Like Subtype of Invasive Breast Carcinoma , 2004, Clinical Cancer Research.

[25]  C. Perou,et al.  Cell-Type-Specific Responses to Chemotherapeutics in Breast Cancer , 2004, Cancer Research.

[26]  S. Hilsenbeck,et al.  Somatic Mutation of p53 Leads to Estrogen Receptor α-Positive and -Negative Mouse Mammary Tumors with High Frequency of Metastasis , 2004, Cancer Research.

[27]  D. Pinkel,et al.  pRb Inactivation in Mammary Cells Reveals Common Mechanisms for Tumor Initiation and Progression in Divergent Epithelia , 2004, PLoS biology.

[28]  Jill P. Mesirov,et al.  Consensus Clustering: A Resampling-Based Method for Class Discovery and Visualization of Gene Expression Microarray Data , 2003, Machine Learning.

[29]  J. Sundberg,et al.  Lactation-induced WAP-SV40 Tag Transgene Expression in C57BL/6J Mice Leads to Mammary Carcinoma , 1998, Transgenic Research.

[30]  Joel S. Parker,et al.  Adjustment of systematic microarray data biases , 2004, Bioinform..

[31]  L. Bégin,et al.  Germline BRCA1 mutations and a basal epithelial phenotype in breast cancer. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[32]  H. Varmus,et al.  Evidence that transgenes encoding components of the Wnt signaling pathway preferentially induce mammary cancers from progenitor cells , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  T. Graeber,et al.  Myc-driven murine prostate cancer shares molecular features with human prostate tumors. , 2003, Cancer cell.

[34]  Philip M. Long,et al.  Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  C. Ball,et al.  Identification of genes periodically expressed in the human cell cycle and their expression in tumors. , 2002, Molecular biology of the cell.

[37]  Yudong D. He,et al.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer , 2002, Nature.

[38]  T. Jacks,et al.  Cancer Modeling in the Modern Era Progress and Challenges , 2002, Cell.

[39]  Charles M. Perou,et al.  A Comparison of Gene Expression Signatures from Breast Tumors and Breast Tissue Derived Cell Lines , 2002, Disease markers.

[40]  R. Spang,et al.  Predicting the clinical status of human breast cancer by using gene expression profiles , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[41]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  V. Godfrey,et al.  Impact of ionizing radiation and genetic background on mammary tumorigenesis in p53-deficient mice. , 2001, Cancer research.

[43]  Carsten O. Peterson,et al.  Estrogen receptor status in breast cancer is associated with remarkably distinct gene expression patterns. , 2001, Cancer research.

[44]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[45]  S. Cassenaer,et al.  Haploid loss of Ki-ras delays mammary tumor progression in C3 (1)/SV40 Tag transgenic mice , 2001, Oncogene.

[46]  W. Hahn,et al.  Human breast cancer cells generated by oncogenic transformation of primary mammary epithelial cells. , 2001, Genes & development.

[47]  Christian A. Rees,et al.  Molecular portraits of human breast tumours , 2000, Nature.

[48]  H. Varmus,et al.  Use of MMTV-Wnt-1 transgenic mice for studying the genetic basis of breast cancer , 2000, Oncogene.

[49]  F. Kittrell,et al.  A mammary-specific model demonstrates the role of the p53 tumor suppressor gene in tumor development , 2000, Oncogene.

[50]  L. Hennighausen.  Mouse models for breast cancer , 2000, Oncogene.

[51]  Francisco Portillo,et al.  The transcription factor Snail controls epithelial–mesenchymal transitions by repressing E-cadherin expression , 2000, Nature Cell Biology.

[52]  Christian A. Rees,et al.  Distinctive gene expression patterns in human mammary epithelial cells and breast cancers. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[53]  Thomas Ried,et al.  Conditional mutation of Brca1 in mammary epithelial cells results in blunted ductal morphogenesis and tumour formation , 1999, Nature Genetics.

[54]  I. Andrulis,et al.  Frequency of p53 mutations in breast carcinomas from Ashkenazi Jewish carriers of BRCA1 mutations. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[55]  V. Godfrey,et al.  Mammary tumor formation in p53- and BRCA1-deficient mice. , 1999, Cell growth & differentiation : the molecular biology journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[56]  D. Botstein,et al.  Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[57]  T. Ried,et al.  Amplification of Ki-ras and elevation of MAP kinase activity during mammary tumor progression in C3(1)/SV40 Tag transgenic mice , 1998, Oncogene.

[58]  J. Peto,et al.  p53 mutation with frequent novel codons but not a mutator phenotype in BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast tumours , 1998, Oncogene.

[59]  L. Hennighausen,et al.  Expression of a truncated Int3 gene in developing secretory mammary epithelium specifically retards lobular differentiation resulting in tumorigenesis. , 1996, Cancer research.

[60]  R. Palmiter,et al.  Inhibition of mammary gland involution is associated with transforming growth factor alpha but not c-myc-induced tumorigenesis in transgenic mice. , 1995, Cancer research.

[61]  J. Green,et al.  Prostate and mammary adenocarcinoma in transgenic mice carrying a rat C3(1) simian virus 40 large tumor antigen fusion gene. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[62]  R. Cardiff,et al.  Expression of the neu protooncogene in the mammary epithelium of transgenic mice induces metastatic disease. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[63]  R. Cardiff,et al.  Induction of mammary tumors by expression of polyomavirus middle T oncogene: a transgenic mouse model for metastatic disease , 1992, Molecular and cellular biology.

[64]  F. Bolander,et al.  Prolactin regulation of mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV) expression in normal mouse mammary epithelium , 1989, Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology.

[65]  H. Varmus,et al.  Expression of the int-1 gene in transgenic mice is associated with mammary gland hyperplasia and adenocarcinomas in male and female mice , 1988, Cell.

[66]  A. E. Sippel,et al.  Mouse whey acidic protein is a novel member of the family of 'four-disulfide core' proteins. , 1982, Nucleic acids research.