Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp 959–968 | Cite as

An in vitro investigation of metabolically sensitive biomarkers in breast cancer progression

  • Natalie E. Simpson
  • Volodymyr P. Tryndyak
  • Frederick A. Beland
  • Igor P. PogribnyEmail author
Preclinical study

Abstract

Epigenetic biomarkers are emerging as determinants of breast cancer prognosis. Breast cancer cells display unique alterations in major cellular metabolic pathways and it is becoming widely recognized that enzymes that regulate epigenetic alterations are metabolically sensitive. In this study, we used microarray data from the GEO database to compare gene expression for regulators of metabolism and epigenetic alterations among non-invasive epithelial (MCF-7, MDA-MB-361, and T-47D) and invasive mesenchymal (MDA-MB-231, Hs-578T, and BT-549) breast cancer cell lines. The expression of genes, including GLS1, GFPT2, LDHA, HDAC9, MYST2, and SUV420H2, was assessed using RT-PCR. There was differential expression between epithelial and mesenchymal cell lines. MYST2 and SUV420H2 regulate the levels of the epigenetic biomarkers histone H4 lysine 16 acetylation (H4K16ac) and histone H4 lysine 20 trimethylation (H4K20me3), respectively. Reduced amounts of H4K16ac and H4K20me3 correlated with lower levels of MYST2 and SUV420H2 in mesenchymal cells and, along with reduced amounts of histone H3 lysine 9 acetylation (H3K9ac), were found to distinguish epithelial from mesenchymal cells. In addition, both GLS1 and GFPT2 play roles in glutamine metabolism and were observed to be more highly expressed in mesenchymal cell lines, and when glutamine and glutamate levels reported in the NCI-60 metabolomics dataset were compared, the ratio of glutamate/glutamine was found to be higher in mesenchymal cells. Blocking the conversion of glutamine to glutamate using an allosteric inhibitor, Compound 968, against GLS1, increased H4K16ac in T-47D and MDA-MB-231 cells, linking glutamine metabolism to a particular histone modification in breast cancer. These findings support the concept that metabolically sensitive histone modifications and corresponding histone modifying enzymes can be used as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for breast cancer. It also further emphasizes the importance of glutamine metabolism in tumor progression and that inhibitors of cellular metabolic pathways may join histone deacetylase inhibitors as a form of epigenetic therapy.

Keywords

Breast cancer Epigenetics Glutamine metabolism Histone acetylation Biomarkers 

Notes

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

10549_2011_1871_MOESM1_ESM.tif (22 kb)
Supplementary Table 1—Primers to detect expression of metabolic enzymes. Listed are the forward (F) and reverse (R) primers used to detect the expression of specific metabolic genes using quantitative real-time PCR. The transcript variants, if more than one, detected for each gene are also listed. (TIFF 21 kb)
10549_2011_1871_MOESM2_ESM.tif (44 kb)
Supplementary Table 2—Primers used to detect expression of histone modifying enzymes. Primers for histone modifying enzymes (HME) are listed as in Supplementary Table 1. 2 (TIFF 44 kb)
10549_2011_1871_MOESM3_ESM.tif (51 kb)
Supplementary Table 3—Metabolic genes and histone modifying enzymes are significantly different between epithelial and mesenchymal breast cancer cell lines. mRNA expression values obtained from a microarray dataset (GEO accession GSE13915) for non-invasive epithelial (MCF-7, MDA-MB-361, and T-47D) and invasive mesenchymal (MDA-MB-231, Hs-578T, and BT-549) breast cancer cell lines [25]. Significant differences in gene expression for metabolic enzymes (A) and histone modifying enzymes (B) between mesenchymal and epithelial breast cancer cell lines were determined using a t-test. (TIFF 51 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A et al (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61(2):69–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Easton DF et al (1993) Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: results from 214 families. The breast cancer linkage consortium. Am J Hum Genet 52(4):678–701PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nanda R (2007) Targeting the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in the treatment of breast cancer: recent advances and future directions. Rev Recent Clin Trials 2(2):111–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sparano JA, Paik S (2008) Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 26(5):721–728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5):646–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trimboli AJ et al (2008) Direct evidence for epithelial–mesenchymal transitions in breast cancer. Cancer Res 68(3):937–945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Birchmeier W, Behrens J (1994) Cadherin expression in carcinomas: role in the formation of cell junctions and the prevention of invasiveness. Biochim Biophys Acta 1198(1):11–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomson S et al (2005) Epithelial to mesenchymal transition is a determinant of sensitivity of non-small-cell lung carcinoma cell lines and xenografts to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition. Cancer Res 65(20):9455–9462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kashiwagi S et al (2010) Significance of E-cadherin expression in triple-negative breast cancer. Br J Cancer 103(2):249–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giunciuglio D et al (1995) Invasive phenotype of MCF10A cells overexpressing c-Ha-ras and c-erbB-2 oncogenes. Int J Cancer 63(6):815–822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gilles C et al (1999) Vimentin contributes to human mammary epithelial cell migration. J Cell Sci 112(24):4615–4625PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim HJ et al (2007) Constitutively active type I insulin-like growth factor receptor causes transformation and xenograft growth of immortalized mammary epithelial cells and is accompanied by an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition mediated by NF-kappaB and snail. Mol Cell Biol 27(8):3165–3175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chua HL et al (2007) NF-kappaB represses E-cadherin expression and enhances epithelial to mesenchymal transition of mammary epithelial cells: potential involvement of ZEB-1 and ZEB-2. Oncogene 26(5):711–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hinshelwood RA, Clark SJ (2008) Breast cancer epigenetics: normal human mammary epithelial cells as a model system. J Mol Med 86(12):1315–1328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dworkin AM, Huang TH, Toland AE (2009) Epigenetic alterations in the breast: implications for breast cancer detection, prognosis and treatment. Semin Cancer Biol 19(3):165–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCormick F (2001) Cancer gene therapy: fringe or cutting edge? Nat Rev Cancer 1(2):130–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ellis L, Atadja PW, Johnstone RW (2009) Epigenetics in cancer: targeting chromatin modifications. Mol Cancer Ther 8(6):1409–1420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burgio G, Onorati MC, Corona DF (2010) Chromatin remodeling regulation by small molecules and metabolites. Biochim Biophys Acta 1799(10–12):671–680PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Teperino R, Schoonjans K, Auwerx J (2010) Histone methyl transferases and demethylases; can they link metabolism and transcription? Cell Metab 12(4):321–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wellen KE et al (2009) ATP-citrate lyase links cellular metabolism to histone acetylation. Science 324(5930):1076–1080PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gao Z, Xu CW (2011) Glucose metabolism induces mono-ubiquitination of histone H2B in mammalian cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 404(1):428–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klose RJ, Kallin EM, Zhang Y (2006) JmjC-domain-containing proteins and histone demethylation. Nat Rev Genet 7(9):715–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang JB et al (2010) Targeting mitochondrial glutaminase activity inhibits oncogenic transformation. Cancer Cell 18(3):207–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD (2001) Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods 25(4):402–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Choi YL et al (2010) LYN is a mediator of epithelial–mesenchymal transition and a target of dasatinib in breast cancer. Cancer Res 70(6):2296–2306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bhattacharya S, Mariani TJ (2009) Array of hope: expression profiling identifies disease biomarkers and mechanism. Biochem Soc Trans 37(Pt 4):855–862PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richardson AD et al (2008) Central carbon metabolism in the progression of mammary carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 110(2):297–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Petrie K et al (2003) The histone deacetylase 9 gene encodes multiple protein isoforms. J Biol Chem 278(18):16059–16072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tao R et al (2007) Deacetylase inhibition promotes the generation and function of regulatory T cells. Nat Med 13(11):1299–1307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Taipale M et al (2005) hMOF histone acetyltransferase is required for histone H4 lysine 16 acetylation in mammalian cells. Mol Cell Biol 25(15):6798–6810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schotta G et al (2004) A silencing pathway to induce H3-K9 and H4-K20 trimethylation at constitutive heterochromatin. Genes Dev 18(11):1251–1262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Secombe J et al (2007) The trithorax group protein Lid is a trimethyl histone H3K4 demethylase required for dMyc-induced cell growth. Genes Dev 21(5):537–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tryndyak VP, Kovalchuk O, Pogribny IP (2006) Loss of DNA methylation and histone H4 lysine 20 trimethylation in human breast cancer cells is associated with aberrant expression of DNA methyltransferase 1, Suv4-20h2 histone methyltransferase and methyl-binding proteins. Cancer Biol Ther 5(1):65–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Michishita E et al (2008) SIRT6 is a histone H3 lysine 9 deacetylase that modulates telomeric chromatin. Nature 452(7186):492–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schwer B et al (2010) Neural sirtuin 6 (Sirt6) ablation attenuates somatic growth and causes obesity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(50):21790–21794PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mao Z et al (2011) SIRT6 promotes DNA repair under stress by activating PARP1. Science 332(6036):1443–1446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    DeBerardinis RJ et al (2007) Beyond aerobic glycolysis: transformed cells can engage in glutamine metabolism that exceeds the requirement for protein and nucleotide synthesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(49):19345–19350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Elsheikh SE et al (2009) Global histone modifications in breast cancer correlate with tumor phenotypes, prognostic factors, and patient outcome. Cancer Res 69(9):3802–3809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Esteller M (2008) Epigenetics in cancer. N Engl J Med 358(11):1148–1159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Seligson DB et al (2009) Global levels of histone modifications predict prognosis in different cancers. Am J Pathol 174(5):1619–1628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kurdistani SK (2011) Histone modifications in cancer biology and prognosis. Prog Drug Res 67:91–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Moreno DA et al (2010) Differential expression of HDAC3, HDAC7 and HDAC9 is associated with prognosis and survival in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Br J Haematol 150(6):665–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Milde T et al (2010) HDAC5 and HDAC9 in medulloblastoma: novel markers for risk stratification and role in tumor cell growth. Clin Cancer Res 16(12):3240–3252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang WZ et al (2010) Estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha) mediates 17beta-estradiol (E2)-activated expression of HBO1. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 29:140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Goldman RD, Kaplan NO, Hall TC (1964) Lactic dehydrogenase in human neoplastic tissues. Cancer Res 24:389–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Warburg O (1925) Uber den Stoffwechsel der Carcinomzelle. Klin Wochenschr Berl 4:534–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Le A et al (2010) Inhibition of lactate dehydrogenase A induces oxidative stress and inhibits tumor progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(5):2037–2042PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Asiago VM et al (2010) Early detection of recurrent breast cancer using metabolite profiling. Cancer Res 70(21):8309–8318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kapoor-Vazirani P, Kagey JD, Vertino PM (2011) SUV420H2-mediated H4K20 trimethylation enforces RNA polymerase II promoter-proximal pausing by blocking hMOF-dependent H4K16 acetylation. Mol Cell Biol 31(8):1594–1609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wysocka J et al (2006) A PHD finger of NURF couples histone H3 lysine 4 trimethylation with chromatin remodelling. Nature 442(7098):86–90PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC (outside the USA) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalie E. Simpson
    • 1
  • Volodymyr P. Tryndyak
    • 1
  • Frederick A. Beland
    • 1
  • Igor P. Pogribny
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Biochemical ToxicologyNational Center for Toxicological ResearchJeffersonUSA

Personalised recommendations