Epithelial‑mesenchymal transition was identified as a potential marker for breast cancer aggressiveness using reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction

  • Authors:
    • Ulrich Andergassen
    • Kristina Schlenk
    • Udo Jeschke
    • Harald Sommer
    • Alexandra Kölbl
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: May 29, 2018     https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2018.9091
  • Pages: 1733-1739
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

The primary cause of breast cancer‑associated mortality is the formation of distant metastasis. During the metastatic process, single tumor cells dissolve from the primary tumor site and undergo various changes in cell adhesion and motility properties. The tumor cells invade the blood stream and travel to different sites of the body, where they may initiate outgrowth. These cells are referred to as circulating tumor cells (CTCs). The process of changing cellular properties is known as epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT). As a different set of genes is upregulated during EMT, such genes may serve as marker genes for the detection of CTCs based on reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT‑qPCR). Therefore, EMT‑ and breast cancer‑related genes were selected as RT‑qPCR markers. These genes were tested for performance in a model system of blood samples from healthy donors, to which a number of various breast cancer cell lines were added. The genes with optimal performance were subsequently used in RT‑qPCR with 35 breast cancer patient samples. The genes which showed the highest and most consistent increase in gene expression with the increase in the number of cancer cell line cells added were CK19, Snail, FoxC2 and Twist. Following RT‑qPCR for all patient samples, two subgroups were arranged: One group in which all genes were downregulated and the second group with at least one gene indicated an upregulation of gene expression. Comparisons were made between the tumour characteristics from these two groups. Results suggested that carcinomas of the first group exhibited a less aggressive tumor biology compared with those in the second group. The present study indicated a novel RT‑qPCR based test for tumor malignancy.

Introduction

Breast cancer is, although diagnosis and treatment improved a lot in the past years still the most frequent malignancy and causes the most cancer-related death in women worldwide. Thereby it is not the primary tumor itself, which is deathly, but the outgrowth of remote metastases, devastating vital organs. The mechanisms leading to metastasis formation had been investigated and described in detail (1): Single tumor cells detach from the primary tumor mass, enter blood vessels and travel throughout the body via blood stream. When they leave circulation, they can settle in remote spaces of the body and are considered to be the seed for metastatic outgrowth (2). As long as these detached cells are in the blood they are called circulating tumor cells (CTCs) (35), but if these CTCs manage to invade bone marrow, they turn to be ‘DTCs’, disseminated tumor cells, which can even form tumor reservoirs within the bone marrow (610). It had been shown, that the occurrence of CTCs/DTCs strongly influences patients' prognosis towards a worse outcome (5,1012).

The most important step in the formation of CTCs/DTCs is a process called epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT). During EMT the epithelial tumor cells change their phenotypical characteristics like cell adhesion and motility, acquire invasiveness and loose epithelial markers (1315). At the end of the EMT process, it gets hard to recognize these cells as tumor cells, because they adopt a mesenchymal-like appearance (16,17). But the EMT process is reversible, and as the cells leave the circulation to establish metastatic outgrowth in a different organ, mesenchymal to epithelial transition (MET) takes place (1820).

Here we report a reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) based approach for the detection of CTCs from patient blood samples, using EMT-associated genes as PCR targets. The genes, which are described in the following get upregulated, when EMT process is started, but are not upregulated in normal mesenchymal cells like blood cells, so they can be detected by RT-qPCR even in a background of white blood cells (for this reason Vimentin, which is a frequently described EMT-marker was not included in our analysis, as it is also upregulated in normal blood cells). We decided to concentrate on the following genes: Cytokeratin 19, which is also used in the immunohistochemical detection of cancer cells (APAAP-staining) (21,22) and is a marker for shorter disease free survival and reduced overall survival in breast cancer patients (2326). Furthermore it is especially expressed in metastatic breast cancer cells (27,28) and was already used as a biomarker for CTCs in the blood of breast cancer patients (29). Furthermore CK19 was shown to be expressed in CTCs from early and metastatic breast cancer patients, together with the EMT-markers Twist and Vimentin (30), so it could be concluded, that this epithelial marker is not downregulated by EMT. Snail is a zinc-finger domain transcription factor, which is known to trigger EMT by repression of E-cadherin expression (3133). It is upregulated in recurrent tumors (34), provokes loss of epithelial markers (33) and is regarded as a marker of metastatic potential (31). Slug also represses E-cadherin expression (35), but snail and slug have a non-equivalent role in EMT and need different cofactors for DNA binding (36). Additionally, Snail and Slug seem to have high expression levels in early and metastatic breast cancer patients (30). FoxC2 is also a transcription factor and is involved in tumor relapse and metastasis formation (37,38). Slug and FoxC2 are in turn upregulated by snail and twist and are another driving force for EMT (39). FoxC2 is induced during the EMT process, promotes mesenchymal differentiation (40) and is also involved in angiogenesis (41). Together with Twist, FoxC2 is associated with grading and a shorter time to recurrence (38). Twist in turn regulates cell migration, a knockdown results in reduced cell migration and invasion (42), and EMT is induced more moderately (43). Twist also seems to play a role in metastasis formation (44) and is regulated by the Wnt/β-catenin pathway (45). Snail and Twist are regarded as inducers for EMT process, (39) are misregulated in breast cancer and correlate with poor clinical outcomes (46,47). Furthermore Twist upregulates the expression of the proto-oncogene Akt2 (48). Akt2 in turn upregulates integrin-expression (49), leading to an enhanced EMT-like morphological conversion (50), increased migration and invasion and resistance to Paclitaxel (48). ALDH1, last but not least, was described as marker for EMT, which has elevated expression levels in breast cancer patients (46,51), is a marker of stem cells and contributes to a poorer prognosis (52). It is associated with a larger tumor size, higher grading and the occurrence of lymph node metastasis, and hence is related to a more aggressive phenotype and a poorer prognosis (5355). ALDH1, Twist and Akt2 were especially found to be upregulated in a group of CTC-positive breast cancer patients (56).

These genes were first analysed in an artificially created model system: Blood samples from healthy donors were withdrawn and breast cancer cell line cells (MCF-7 and MDA-MB231) were added in certain amounts (0–1,000 cells/ml blood sample). The samples were processed just like the patient samples and RT-qPCR was carried out with all selected marker genes. The genes which performed best in this model system were then used in the patients RT-qPCR, so that precious patient material could be saved. The genes for Cytokeratin 19 (CK19), Snail, FoxC2 and Twist were then used to analyse 35 patient samples, which were selected randomly. After analysis of the RT-qPCR experiments patient samples could be divided into two subgroups: in the first group all genes were downregulated, in the second group at least one gene had an RQ-value greater than 1, meaning that the gene is upregulated. In the comparison of the samples from the two groups it could be seen, that the subgroup of only downregulated genes consisted of less aggressive tumors while in the group, in which at least one of the marker genes was upregulated, tumours had a more aggressive tumor biology, what means, that RT-qPCR analysis of those 4 genes could already give a hint towards tumor aggressiveness.

Materials and methods

Model system samples

As a model system blood samples from healthy donors (all female, average age of 35 years) were withdrawn and processed as described for the patient blood samples, but before addition of TRIzol LS reagent (Invitrogen; ThermoFisher Scientific, Darmstadt, Germany) a certain number (10/100/1,000 per ml blood sample) of breast cancer cell line cells were added (both cell lines used were added to the blood sample in equal parts). Breast cancer cell lines which were used in the experiments were MCF-7 (ATCC: HTB-22) and MDA-MB-231 (ATCC: HTB-26). The cells were subcultured as described in the ATCC product sheet and counted with a Neubauer improved counting chamber to determine exact amounts which had to be added to the blood samples.

Patients

Written consent was received from 35 patients included in the study and conformed to the declaration of Helsinki. Furthermore, ethical approval was received from the ethics committee of LMU Munich (Munich, Germany) (LMU 148–12). 20 ml blood were withdrawn from each patient and processed as described. RT-qPCR was performed on the patient samples and afterwards patient samples could be divided in two subgroups depending on gene expression values. Patient characteristics (as completely as possible) are shown in Table I.

Table I.

Patient subgroups and tumor characteristics.

Table I.

Patient subgroups and tumor characteristics.

No. of sampleAgeTumor sizeNodal stateMetasasis stateGradingER state (%)PR state (%)Her2 stateMenopausal state
  162pT1b (8 mm)pN0 (0/1)pMxG1  80  60negpost
  250pT1b (8 mm)pN0 (0/5)pMxG1  80  95negpre
  373pT1c (13 mm)pN0 (0/2)pM0G1  99  99negpost
  454pT1c (13 mm)pN0 (0/3)pMxG1100100negclimact
  572pT2 (35 mm)pN1a (3/12)pM0G1  90  90negpost
  672cT1b (8,6)pNxpMxG1  90  80negpost
  782pT1b (7 mm)pN0 (0/6)pMxG3  75     0pospost
  867pT1b (8 mm)pN0 (0/1)pMxG3  95  90negpost
  948pT1b (9 mm)pN0 (0/1)pMxG3     0     0negn.a.
1065pT1cpN0 (0/3)pMxG3  85  85posn.a.
1173pT1c (14 mm)pN0 (0/1)pM0G3  80  80negpost
1235pT1c (14 mm)pN0 (0/4)pMxG3  10  10negpre
1365pT2 (34 mm)pN1 (1/2)pM0G3  99  15negpost
1462pT1c (12 mm)pN0 (0/3)pMxG2100100negn.a.
1548pT1c (14 mm)pN0 (0/2)pM0G2  95  95negpre
1660pT2 (22 mm)pN0 (0/1)pMxG2  90  15n.apost
1774pT3pN0 (0/8)pM0G2  90  90negpost
1849pT2 (28 mm)pN1a (2/2)pMxG2  80  80negpre
1965pT1cpN1a (2/19)pMxG3100  33posn.a.
2052pT1c (19 mm)pN0 (0/1)pM0G3     0     0negpost
2173pT2 (40 mm)pN0 (0/4)pMxG2  75  85negn.a.
2284pT1b (8 mm)pN1a (1/24)pM0G2  90  90negn.a.
2364pT1c (12 mm)pN1 (1/3)pMxG2100  70negpost
2450pT1c (14 mm)pN1a (1/4)pMxG2  99  99negn.a.
2551pT1c (19 mm)pN1a (1/1)pMxG2  90  90negpre
2665pT2pN1a (1/3)pMxG2100100negn.a.
2775pT3 (65 mm)pN1a (3/3)pM0G2  81  81negpost
2860pT3pN1a (1/11)pMxG2-3100100negpost
2957pT4bpN2a (4/9)pM1G3     0     0negn.a.
3054pT1cpN0 (0/11)pM1G3n.a.n.a.negpost
3155pT1cpN0 (0/11)pM1G3n.a.n.a.negpost
3284pT1b (8 mm)pN1 (1/18)pM1G3  70  80negpost
3376pT3 (63 mm)pN1a (2/7)pM1n.a.  90  40negpost
3456pT2 (22 mm)pN3cpM1G3  90  20negpost
3575pyT3pN1a (3/12)pM1G2  99     0negpost

[i] n.a., data not available; neg, negative; pos, positive; post, postmenopausal; pre, premenopausal; climact, climacterium; ER, estrogen receptor; Her2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; PR, progesterone receptor; pM0, no metastasis detected; pM1, metastasis detected; pMx, no metastases confirmed.

Blood samples

A total of 20 ml blood were withdrawn from each patient and from some healthy volunteers and diluted with PBS to 30 ml. To enrich the leucocyte/CTC-fraction a density gradient centrifugation was carried out. Therefore the blood samples were layered onto 20 ml of Histopaque 1,077 (Invitrogen; ThermoFisher Scientific) and centrifuged at 400 × g for 25 min at room temperature. Afterwards the buffy coat was aspirated carefully, transferred into a fresh tube and washed with PBS by centrifuging at 250 × g for 10 min at 4°C. Supernatant was discarded and the cell pellet containing leucocytes and CTCs was stored at 80°C until further processing.

RNA isolation

For RNA isolation the cell pellets were dewed and resuspended in 1 ml Trizol LS reagent. 0,2 ml Chloroform (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) were added, samples were vortexed vigorously and subsequently centrifuged at 12,000 × g and 4°C for 15 min. After centrifugation the clear upper phase was carefully aspired and transferred into a fresh Eppendorf tube. A total of 0,5 ml isopropanol (Merck KGaA) were added and samples were placed at −20°C overnight. The next day the samples were centrifuged at 12,000 × g, 4°C for 10 min. to precipitate RNA. Supernatant was removed and RNA-pellet was washed with 75% ethanol (Merck KGaA) and centrifugation at 12,000 × g and 4°C for 10 min. Supernatant was removed again and RNA-pellet was air dried before it was resuspended in RNase-free water. RNA concentration and ratio were measured photometrically (Implen, Munich, Germany) and only RNAs with a ratio between 1,7 and 1,9 were used in further experiments. Additionally RNA integrity was controlled by denaturing gel electrophoresis.

Reverse transcription

For reverse transcription 4 µg of the isolated RNA in a max. Volume of 6 µl were used. Reverse transcription was carried out with the SuperScript III First Strand Synthesis SuperMix (Invitrogen; ThermoFisher Scientific), according to manufacturer's instructions. In brief: annealing buffer and oligo (dT)-Primers were added to the RNA and volume was adjusted to 8 µl with water. After an incubation at 65°C for 5 min and a short cooling on ice 10 µl of 2X first strand reaction mix and 2 µl of the enzyme mix (SuperScriptIII/RNaseOUT) were added and the samples were incubated at 50°C for 50 min. Afterwards enzymes were denatured by a 5-min incubation at 85°C, then samples could be stored at −20°C until use.

qPCR

For qPCR 2 µl of the previously generated cDNA of each sample were pipetted into a 96-well qPCR plate and 18 µl of a mastermix, consisting of 7 µl water, 1 µl TaqMan® PCR-primer (Hydrolysis probes used are listed in Table II; they were not validated, as Applied Biosystems claims a PCR-efficiency of 100±10% for their hydrolysis probes) and 10 µl 2X RT-PCR reaction mix (Applied Biosystems; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) per sample, were added. Every sample was at least analysed as duplicates, 18S was used as a reference gene. Negative (water) controls were included. The qPCR reaction was carried out in an Applied Biosystems 7500 fast machine and the following program was run: 95°C for 20 sec. As an initial denaturation followed by 40 cycles 95°C for 3 sec and 60°C for 30 sec. Increase in fluorescence was measured after every elongation step and thereof gene expression (RQ=relative quantification) was calculated by the SDS V 1.3.1 software using 2−∆∆Cq method (57). RQ-values are displayed in Table IIIA and B.

Table II.

Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction probes.

Table II.

Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction probes.

Probe/GeneOrder no. of probeFragment sizeManufacturer
18SHs99999901_s1187 bpThermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. (Waltham, MA, USA)
GAPDHHs03003631_g1  69 bpThermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
CK19Hs00761767_s1116 bpThermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
SnailHs00195591_m1  66 bpThermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
SlugHs00161904_m1  79 bpThermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
FoxC2Hs00270951_s1102 bpThermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
Akt2Hs01086099_m1  70 bpThermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
TwistHs01675818_s1  85 bpThermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.
ALDH1Hs00946916_m1  61 bpThermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.

Table III.

Gene expression values in patient samples.

Table III.

Gene expression values in patient samples.

A, Subgroup of less aggressive tumors with all marker genes downregulated

No. of sample (corresponding to Table I)RQ CK19RQ SnailRQ FoxC2RQ Twist
  10.3960.3610.9840.439
  20.1070.3930.5130.269
  30.3340.1520.8290.566
  40.0630.0730.190.171
  50.1320.2690.2010.163
  60.0110.1830.0310.024
  70.0330.5970.0230.021
  80.1770.4330.4320.322
  90.0210.3540.1020.132
100.0970.3260.2480.082
110.8540.3390.2810.741
120.0730.2160.170.164
130.0090.370.0440.035
140.1480.0310.7860.364
150.1310.0780.6480.334
160.0140.4940.0910.054
170.0170.3270.0680.086
180.160.7870.7030.567

B, Subgroup of aggressive tumors with at least one marker gene upregulated

No. of sample (corresponding to Table I)RQ CK19RQ SnailRQ FoxC2RQ Twist

190.03810.7470.150.181
200.5720.2371.4791.09
210.40115.3871.9482.15
220.0681.6350.4180.647
230.0273.1430.1910.15
240.012.1030.0620.056
251.0370.5021.6571.231
261.2511.0074.1173.72
271.3150.4532.4861.685
280.4410.2462.2360.579
291.5552.3011.0960.945
300.0161.5650.0680.089
310.4914.5661.4351.65
320.0942.4420.2270.277
330.7351.9652.9222.224
340.0381.2790.2690.207
350.8062.0722.8180.958

[i] Bolded items are gene expression values ≥1. RQ, relative gene expression value.

Evaluation

The relative gene expression of every gene in respect to the expression of 18S was calculated by the SDS-software. The SDS-files can be displayed in Microsoft™ Excel®, and it was also used to generate graphical data for the model system samples, showing gene expression in dependence on the number of breast cancer cell line cells added to the respective blood sample.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS v.23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Kolmogorow-Smirnof-Test was applied to test, if distribution of data was similar. The average RQ-values were compared with the two-tailed t-test and the medians with the Mann-Withney-U-Test.

Results

Results from model system analysis

The analysis of a model system-blood samples from healthy donors with breast cancer cell line cells added in predefined amounts-was used to decide, which marker genes should be used in the patient samples without wasting precious patient material. The strongest increase in gene expression with increasing number of tumor cells added to the blood samples could be found for CK19. Snail, FoxC2 and Twist also had increasing gene expression values and were therefore selected as marker genes for the analysis of patient samples. The expression of Slug could not be detected in the qPCR reaction, maybe the Hydrolysis probe was not suitable enough for the probes used in our experiments. ALDH1 showed a decrease in gene expression in the sample with most tumor cells added, so it was also excluded from further analysis. The increase in gene expression shown by Akt2 was lower than that seen for Snail, FoxC2 and Twist. Therefore it was decided not to use Akt2 in further experiments. Curves for marker gene expression in artificial model system samples are shown in Fig. 1.

Results from analysis of patient samples

After Real-Time PCR analysis patient samples could be subdivided into two subgroups: In the first group of 18 samples all RQ-values of the used marker genes were below 1, what means, that the genes are downregulated in comparison to the reference sample (Table IIIA). In the second group in contrast, which consisted of 17 samples, at least one of the genes analysed was upregulated, having a RQ-value greater than 1 (Table IIIB). Comparing the subgroups a trend seems to become apparent: Tumors in the first group have a less aggressive biology than the ones in the second subgroup. In the first group some tumors still have a G1-grading (samples 1–6), while in the second group all malignancies have a grading of 2 or more. Furthermore in none of the samples from the first group metastasis formation could be detected, while 7 samples (samples 11–17) of the second group show up with remote metastasis. Also for the nodal status a difference can be seen between the two subgroups: while in the first group only three samples have a nodal status of N1 (samples 5, 13 and 18) in the second group only four samples have an N0 status (samples 2, 3, 12 and 13), whereas sample No. 2 is a rather large tumor, sample three belongs to the group of aggressive TNBC-tumours and samples 12 and 13 are of the metastatic subcategory. Additionally in the ‘less aggressive’ category, only one, relatively small, triple-negative tumour can be found (sample 9), while in the second group two triple negative tumours can be found (samples 2 and 11), which also have large tumour sizes, and there are two tumours, for which hormone receptor status was not determined, so it is not sure if they might also be of the rather aggressive TNBC tumor group (samples 12 and 13). Averaging RQ-values of all four genes in both tumor subgroups shows, that RQ-values are higher in the group of aggressive tumors than in the group of less aggressive tumors (Fig. 2). The average and median RQ-values are also statistically significant different between the two groups (Table IV). Only for CK19 the P-values is at a borderline significance level (0.062).

Table IV.

Statistical comparison of gene expression values between the two patient groups.

Table IV.

Statistical comparison of gene expression values between the two patient groups.

Statistical testCK19SnailFoxC2Twist
Kolmogorow-Smirnof (data have similar distribution)0.0180.0000.0020.002
Two-tailed t-test (comparing average values)0.0080.0070.0020.002
Mann-Withney U-Test (comparing medians)0.0620.0000.0110.028

[i] CD19, cluster of differentiation 19.

Discussion

The marker genes, which were used in patient sample analysis are all known as markers for a poor clinical outcome. CK 19 is a marker for metastatic breast cancer (27,28) and late relapse (26), so it is not surprising, that it is upregulated in some of the tumors with aggressive biology, but it still has to be clarified, why it is only upregulated in one of the metastatic breast cancers analysed in our study (sample 11). The other three cases in which it's expression is upregulated have a positive lymph node status, although no coherence between CK19 and lymph node metastasis was shown in the literature. Snail in contrast is upregulated in most aggressive tumor samples, and therefore seems to be a rather important marker. That could be explained by the fact, that snail triggers early events during EMT in it's role as a transcription factor (3134). Fox C2 is upregulated in more than 50% of the tumors with aggressive biology (9 out of 17), but no coherence between it's function in metastasis formation (40,41) it's correlation with grading (38) and lymph node metastasis could be seen form the results of the presented study. Twist plays a more general role within the EMT process, and is upregulated in 7 out of 17 cases in the on hand study. Therefore it could be concluded, that Twist also plays a basic role in tumor cell transformation, but seems not to be such important as Snail. A special role in metastasis formation (44) could not be confirmed from the experiments presented here.

Taking together these results as a rough conclusion can be said, that tumors, for which all of the four used marker genes are downregulated, have a less aggressive tumor biology than those samples, in which at least one gene is upregulated. But a lot of work confirming this thesis is still necessary. First of all, the analysis should be amplified to a larger group of patient blood samples and the marker gene panel could also be enlarged. It still has to be clarified, in which tumor situation a certain gene is upregulated, and the significance of only one in contrast to two or more upregulated genes has to be elucidated. Differences in gene expression between TNBC-samples should also be enlightened. It can be said, that still lots of work has to be done in this field of research, but the results we present in the on hand study are already giving a certain hint and direction for further research in order to improve diagnostics and refine therapeutical approaches. A further research in this filed could thus help to personalize treatment, thereby reducing side-effects while increasing treatment efficiency, so that research would be rather worth while.

References

1 

Alix-Panabieres C and Pantel K: Circulating tumor cells: Liquid biopsy of cancer. Clin Chem. 59:110–118. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Bragado P, Sosa MS, Keely P, Condeelis J and Aguirre-Ghiso JA: Microenvironments dictating tumor cell dormancy. Recent Results Cancer Res. 195:25–39. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Andergassen U, Hofmann S, Kölbl AC, Schindlbeck C, Neugebauer J, Hutter S, Engelstädter V, Ilmer M, Friese K and Jeschke U: Detection of tumor cell-specific mRNA in the peripheral blood of patients with breast cancer-evaluation of several markers with real-time reverse transcription-PCR. Int J Mol Sci. 14:1093–1104. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Andreopoulou E, Yang LY, Rangel KM, Reuben JM, Hsu L, Krishnamurthy S, Valero V, Fritsche HA and Cristofanilli M: Comparison of assay methods for detection of circulating tumor cells in metastatic breast cancer: AdnaGen adna test breast cancer select/detect versus veridex cell search™ system. Int J Cancer. 130:1590–1597. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Bednarz-Knoll N, Alix-Panabières C and Pantel K: Clinical relevance and biology of circulating tumor cells. Breast Cancer Res. 13:2282011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Diel IJ, Solomayer EF, Costa SD, Gollan C, Goerner R, Wallwiener D, Kaufmann M and Bastert G: Reduction in new metastases in breast cancer with adjuvant clodronate treatment. N Engl J Med. 339:357–363. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Dowsett M and Dunbier AK: Emerging biomarkers and new understanding of traditional markers in personalized therapy for breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 14:8019–8026. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Dowsett M, Procter M, McCaskill-Stevens W, de Azambuja E, Dafni U, Rueschoff J, Jordan B, Dolci S, Abramovitz M, Stoss O, et al: Disease-free survival according to degree of HER2 amplification for patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy with or without 1 year of trastuzumab: The HERA trial. J Clin Oncol. 27:2962–2969. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Dunnwald LK, Rossing MA and Li CI: Hormone receptor status, tumor characteristics and prognosis: A prospective cohort of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. 9:R62007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Franken B, de Groot MR, Mastboom WJ, Vermes I, van der Palen J, Tibbe AG and Terstappen LW: Circulating tumor cells, disease recurrence and survival in newly diagnosed breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 14:R1332012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Braun S, Vogl FD, Naume B, Janni W, Osborne MP, Coombes RC, Schlimok G, Diel IJ, Gerber B, Gebauer G, et al: A pooled analysis of bone marrow micrometastasis in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 353:793–802. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Graves H and Czerniecki BJ: Circulating tumor cells in breast cancer patients: An evolving role in patient prognosis and disease progression. Patholog Res Int. 2011:6210902011.PubMed/NCBI

13 

Guarino M: Epithelial-mesenchymal transition and tumour invasion. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 39:2153–2160. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Kölbl AC, Jeschke U and Andergassen U: The significance of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition for circulating tumor cells. Int J Mol Sci. 17:E13082016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Tiwari N, Gheldof A, Tatari M and Christofori G: EMT as the ultimate survival mechanism of cancer cells. Semin Cancer Biol. 22:194–207. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Gorges TM, Tinhofer I, Drosch M, Röse L, Zollner TM, Krahn T and von Ahsen O: Circulating tumour cells escape from EpCAM-based detection due to epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. BMC Cancer. 12:1782012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17 

Raimondi C, Gradilone A, Naso G, Vincenzi B, Petracca A, Nicolazzo C, Palazzo A, Saltarelli R, Spremberg F, Cortesi E and Gazzaniga P: Epithelial-mesenchymal transition and stemness features in circulating tumor cells from breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 130:449–455. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Hugo H, Ackland ML, Blick T, Lawrence MG, Clements JA, Williams ED and Thompson EW: Epithelial-mesenchymal and mesenchymal-epithelial transitions in carcinoma progression. J Cell Physiol. 213:374–383. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Nieto MA: Epithelial plasticity: A common theme in embryonic and cancer cells. Science. 342:12348502013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Yao D, Dai C and Peng S: Mechanism of the mesenchymal-epithelial transition and its relationship with metastatic tumor formation. Mol Cancer Res. 9:1608–1620. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Kurec AS, Baltrucki L, Mason DY and Davey FR: Use of the APAAP method in the classification and diagnosis of hematologic disorders. Clin Lab Med. 8:223–236. 1988.PubMed/NCBI

22 

Noack F, Schmitt M, Bauer J, Helmecke D, Krüger W, Thorban S, Sandherr M, Kuhn W, Graeff H and Harbeck N: A new approach to phenotyping disseminated tumor cells: Methodological advances and clinical implications. Int J Biol Markers. 15:100–104. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Ignatiadis M, Kallergi G, Ntoulia M, Perraki M, Apostolaki S, Kafousi M, Chlouverakis G, Stathopoulos E, Lianidou E, Georgoulias V and Mavroudis D: Prognostic value of the molecular detection of circulating tumor cells using a multimarker reverse transcription-PCR assay for cytokeratin 19, mammaglobin A and HER2 in early breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 14:2593–2600. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

24 

Ignatiadis M, Xenidis N, Perraki M, Apostolaki S, Politaki E, Kafousi M, Stathopoulos EN, Stathopoulou A, Lianidou E, Chlouverakis G, et al: Different prognostic value of cytokeratin-19 mRNA positive circulating tumor cells according to estrogen receptor and HER2 status in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 25:5194–5202. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

25 

Saloustros E and Mavroudis D: CTCs in primary breast cancer (II). Recent Results Cancer Res. 195:187–192. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Saloustros E, Perraki M, Apostolaki S, Kallergi G, Xyrafas A, Kalbakis K, Agelaki S, Kalykaki A, Georgoulias V and Mavroudis D: Cytokeratin-19 mRNA-positive circulating tumor cells during follow-up of patients with operable breast cancer: Prognostic relevance for late relapse. Breast Cancer Res. 13:R602011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Soltani S, Mokarian F and Panjehpour M: The expression of CK-19 gene in circulating tumor cells of blood samples of metastatic breast cancer women. Res Pharm Sci. 10:485–496. 2015.PubMed/NCBI

28 

Zhao S, Yang H, Zhang M, Zhang D, Liu Y, Liu Y, Song Y, Zhang X, Li H, Ma W and Zhang Q: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) detected by triple-marker EpCAM, CK19 and hMAM RT-PCR and their relation to clinical outcome in metastatic breast cancer patients. Cell Biochem Biophys. 65:263–273. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

29 

Tunca B, Egeli U, Cecener G, Tezcan G, Gökgöz S, Tasdelen I, Bayram N, Tolunay S, Umut G, Demirdogen E, et al: CK19, CK20, EGFR and HER2 status of circulating tumor cells in patients with breast cancer. Tumori. 98:243–251. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

30 

Kallergi G, Papadaki MA, Politaki E, Mavroudis D, Georgoulias V and Agelaki S: Epithelial to mesenchymal transition markers expressed in circulating tumour cells of early and metastatic breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. 13:R592011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

31 

Blanco MJ, Moreno-Bueno G, Sarrio D, Locascio A, Cano A, Palacios J and Nieto MA: Correlation of Snail expression with histological grade and lymph node status in breast carcinomas. Oncogene. 21:3241–3246. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

32 

Peinado H, Olmeda D and Cano A: Snail, Zeb and bHLH factors in tumour progression: an alliance against the epithelial phenotype? Nat Rev Cancer. 7:415–428. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

33 

Vega S, Morales AV, Ocaña OH, Valdés F, Fabregat I and Nieto MA: Snail blocks the cell cycle and confers resistance to cell death. Genes Dev. 18:1131–1143. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

34 

Moody SE, Perez D, Pan TC, Sarkisian CJ, Portocarrero CP, Sterner CJ, Notorfrancesco KL, Cardiff RD and Chodosh LA: The transcriptional repressor Snail promotes mammary tumor recurrence. Cancer Cell. 8:197–209. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

35 

Hajra KM, Chen DY and Fearon ER: The SLUG zinc-finger protein represses E-cadherin in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 62:1613–1618. 2002.PubMed/NCBI

36 

Villarejo A, Cortes-Cabrera A, Molina-Ortiz P, Portillo F and Cano A: Differential role of Snail1 and Snail2 zinc fingers in E-cadherin repression and epithelial to mesenchymal transition. J Biol Chem. 289:930–941. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

37 

Dai J, Wang JY, Yang LL, Xiao Y, Qu ZL, Qin SH and Ruan QR: Correlation of Forkhead Box c2 with subtypes and invasive ability of invasive breast cancer. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 34:896–901. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

38 

Lim JC, Koh VC, Tan JS, Tan WJ, Thike AA and Tan PH: Prognostic significance of epithelial-mesenchymal transition proteins Twist and Foxc2 in phyllodes tumours of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 150:19–29. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

39 

Taube JH, Herschkowitz JI, Komurov K, Zhou AY, Gupta S, Yang J, Hartwell K, Onder TT, Gupta PB, Evans KW, et al: Core epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition interactome gene-expression signature is associated with claudin-low and metaplastic breast cancer subtypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 107:15449–15454. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

40 

Mani SA, Yang J, Brooks M, Schwaninger G, Zhou A, Miura N, Kutok JL, Hartwell K, Richardson AL and Weinberg RA: Mesenchyme forkhead 1 (FOXC2) plays a key role in metastasis and is associated with aggressive basal-like breast cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104:10069–10074. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

41 

Kume T: Foxc2 transcription factor: A newly described regulator of angiogenesis. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 18:224–228. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

42 

Finlay J, Roberts CM, Lowe G, Loeza J, Rossi JJ and Glackin CA: RNA-based TWIST1 inhibition via dendrimer complex to reduce breast cancer cell metastasis. Biomed Res Int. 2015:3827452015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

43 

Tang H, Massi D, Hemmings BA, Mandalà M, Hu Z, Wicki A and Xue G: AKT-ions with a TWIST between EMT and MET. Oncotarget. 7:62767–62777. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

44 

Yang J, Mani SA, Donaher JL, Ramaswamy S, Itzykson RA, Come C, Savagner P, Gitelman I, Richardson A and Weinberg RA: Twist, a master regulator of morphogenesis, plays an essential role in tumor metastasis. Cell. 117:927–939. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

45 

Watanabe O, Imamura H, Shimizu T, Kinoshita J, Okabe T, Hirano A, Yoshimatsu K, Konno S, Aiba M and Ogawa K: Expression of twist and wnt in human breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 24:3851–3856. 2004.PubMed/NCBI

46 

Giordano A, Gao H, Anfossi S, Cohen E, Mego M, Lee BN, Tin S, De Laurentiis M, Parker CA and Alvarez RH: Epithelial-mesenchymal transition and stem cell markers in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Mol Cancer Ther. 11:2526–2534. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

47 

Micalizzi DS, Farabaugh SM and Ford HL: Epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cancer: Parallels between normal development and tumor progression. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 15:117–134. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

48 

Cheng GZ, Chan J, Wang Q, Zhang W, Sun CD and Wang LH: Twist transcriptionally up-regulates AKT2 in breast cancer cells leading to increased migration, invasion and resistance to paclitaxel. Cancer Res. 67:1979–1987. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

49 

Arboleda MJ, Lyons JF, Kabbinavar FF, Bray MR, Snow BE, Ayala R, Danino M, Karlan BY and Slamon DJ: Overexpression of AKT2/protein kinase Bbeta leads to up-regulation of beta1 integrins, increased invasion, and metastasis of human breast and ovarian cancer cells. Cancer Res. 63:196–206. 2003.PubMed/NCBI

50 

Irie HY, Pearline RV, Grueneberg D, Hsia M, Ravichandran P, Kothari N, Natesan S and Brugge JS: Distinct roles of Akt1 and Akt2 in regulating cell migration and epithelial-mesenchymal transition. J Cell Biol. 171:1023–1034. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

51 

Kasimir-Bauer S, Hoffmann O, Wallwiener D, Kimmig R and Fehm T: Expression of stem cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition markers in primary breast cancer patients with circulating tumor cells. Breast Cancer Res. 14:R152012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

52 

Ginestier C, Hur MH, Charafe-Jauffret E, Monville F, Dutcher J, Brown M, Jacquemier J, Viens P, Kleer CG, Liu S, et al: ALDH1 is a marker of normal and malignant human mammary stem cells and a predictor of poor clinical outcome. Cell Stem Cell. 1:555–567. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

53 

Liu Y, Lv DL, Duan JJ, Xu SL, Zhang JF, Yang XJ, Zhang X, Cui YH, Bian XW and Yu SC: ALDH1A1 expression correlates with clinicopathologic features and poor prognosis of breast cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 14:4442014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

54 

Morimoto K, Kim SJ, Tanei T, Shimazu K, Tanji Y, Taguchi T, Tamaki Y, Terada N and Noguchi S: Stem cell marker aldehyde dehydrogenase 1-positive breast cancers are characterized by negative estrogen receptor, positive human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 and high Ki67 expression. Cancer Sci. 100:1062–1068. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

55 

Pan H, Wu N, Huang Y, Li Q, Liu C, Liang M, Zhou W, Liu X and Wang S: Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 expression correlates with the invasion of breast cancer. Diagn Pathol. 10:662015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

56 

Aktas B, Tewes M, Fehm T, Hauch S, Kimmig R and Kasimir-Bauer S: Stem cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition markers are frequently overexpressed in circulating tumor cells of metastatic breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. 11:R462009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

57 

Livak KJ and Schmittgen TD: Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods. 25:402–408. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

August-2018
Volume 18 Issue 2

Print ISSN: 1791-2997
Online ISSN:1791-3004

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Andergassen U, Schlenk K, Jeschke U, Sommer H and Kölbl A: Epithelial‑mesenchymal transition was identified as a potential marker for breast cancer aggressiveness using reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Mol Med Rep 18: 1733-1739, 2018
APA
Andergassen, U., Schlenk, K., Jeschke, U., Sommer, H., & Kölbl, A. (2018). Epithelial‑mesenchymal transition was identified as a potential marker for breast cancer aggressiveness using reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Molecular Medicine Reports, 18, 1733-1739. https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2018.9091
MLA
Andergassen, U., Schlenk, K., Jeschke, U., Sommer, H., Kölbl, A."Epithelial‑mesenchymal transition was identified as a potential marker for breast cancer aggressiveness using reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction". Molecular Medicine Reports 18.2 (2018): 1733-1739.
Chicago
Andergassen, U., Schlenk, K., Jeschke, U., Sommer, H., Kölbl, A."Epithelial‑mesenchymal transition was identified as a potential marker for breast cancer aggressiveness using reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction". Molecular Medicine Reports 18, no. 2 (2018): 1733-1739. https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2018.9091