Loss of E-cadherin is not a necessity for epithelial to mesenchymal transition in human breast cancer
- 2k Downloads
Epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) is typically defined by the acquisition of a spindle cell morphology in combination with loss of E-cadherin and upregulation of mesenchymal markers. However, by studying E-cadherin inactivation in 38 human breast cancer cell lines, we noted that not all cell lines that had undergone EMT had concomitantly lost E-cadherin expression. We further investigated this discrepancy functionally and in clinical breast cancer specimens. Interestingly, reconstitution of wild-type E-cadherin cDNA in a E-cadherin negative cell line that had undergone EMT (MDA-MB-231) did not revert the spindle morphology back to an epithelial morphology. Neither were changes observed in the expression of several markers known to be involved in the EMT process. Similarly, upregulation of E-cadherin via global DNA demethylation in eleven cell lines that had undergone EMT did not induce a change in cell morphology, nor did it alter the expression of EMT markers in these cells. Next, we extracted genes differentially expressed between cell lines that had undergone EMT versus cell lines that had not undergone EMT. Caveolin-1 was identified to be an excellent marker for EMT, irrespective of E-cadherin status (specificity and sensitivity of 100 %). Consistent with our observations in the breast cancer cell lines, expression of Caveolin-1 identified a subset of basal breast cancers, particularly of metaplastic pathology, and only 50 % of these lacked E-cadherin expression. The discrepancy between E-cadherin loss and EMT was thus reproduced in clinical samples. Together, these results indicate that in human breast cancer loss of E-cadherin is not causal for EMT and even not a necessity.
KeywordsE-cadherin EMT Spindle cell morphology Basal subtype Metaplastic breast cancer Caveolin-1
We appreciate the assistance of members of the pathology immunohistochemistry labs. We thank Prof. Wolter Oosterhuis for insightful discussions. This work was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society, Erasmus MC Mrace and Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI)/Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.van Roy F, Berx G (2008) The cell-cell adhesion molecule E-cadherin. Cell Mol Life Sci 65(23):3756–3788Google Scholar
- 7.Derksen PW, Liu X, Saridin F, van der Gulden H, Zevenhoven J, Evers B, van Beijnum JR, Griffioen AW, Vink J, Krimpenfort P, Peterse JL, Cardiff RD, Berns A, Jonkers J (2006) Somatic inactivation of E-cadherin and p53 in mice leads to metastatic lobular mammary carcinoma through induction of anoikis resistance and angiogenesis. Cancer Cell 10:437–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Lien HC, Hsiao YH, Lin YS, Yao YT, Juan HF, Kuo WH, Hung MC, Chang KJ, Hsieh FJ (2007) Molecular signatures of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast by large-scale transcriptional profiling: identification of genes potentially related to epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Oncogene 26:7859–7871PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Sieuwerts AM, Meijer-van Gelder ME, Timmermans M, Trapman AM, Garcia RR, Arnold M, Goedheer AJ, Portengen H, Klijn JG, Foekens JA (2005) How ADAM-9 and ADAM-11 differentially from estrogen receptor predict response to tamoxifen treatment in patients with recurrent breast cancer: a retrospective study. Clin Cancer Res 11:7311–7321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, Ebert BL, Gillette MA, Paulovich A, Pomeroy SL, Golub TR, Lander ES, Mesirov JP (2005) Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:15545–15550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Shipitsin M, Campbell LL, Argani P, Weremowicz S, Bloushtain-Qimron N, Yao J, Nikolskaya T, Serebryiskaya T, Beroukhim R, Hu M, Halushka MK, Sukumar S, Parker LM, Anderson KS, Harris LN, Garber JE, Richardson AL, Schnitt SJ, Nikolsky Y, Gelman RS, Polyak K (2007) Molecular definition of breast tumor heterogeneity. Cancer Cell 11:259–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Hollestelle A, Nagel JHA, Smid M, Lam S, Elstrodt F, Wasielewski M, Ng S, French PJ, Peeters JK, Rozendaal MJ, Riaz M, Koopman DG, ten Hagen TLM, de Leeuw HCGM, Zwarthoff EC, Teunisse A, van der Spek PJ, Klijn JGM, Dinjens WNM, Ethier SP, Clevers H, Jochemsen AG, den Bakker MA, Foekens JA, Martens JWM, Schutte M (2010) Distinct gene mutation profiles among luminal-type and basal-type breast cancer cell lines. Breast Cancer Res Treat 121:53–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Mani SA, Yang J, Brooks M, Schwaninger G, Zhou A, Miura N, Kutok JL, Hartwell K, Richardson AL, Weinberg RA (2007) Mesenchyme Forkhead 1 (FOXC2) plays a key role in metastasis and is associated with aggressive basal-like breast cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:10069–10074PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Lombaerts M, van Wezel T, Philippo K, Dierssen JW, Zimmerman RM, Oosting J, van Eijk R, Eilers PH, van de Water B, Cornelisse CJ, Cleton-Jansen AM (2006) E-cadherin transcriptional downregulation by promoter methylation but not mutation is related to epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in breast cancer cell lines. Br J Cancer 94:661–671PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Moreno-Bueno G, Cubillo E, Sarrio D, Peinado H, Rodriguez-Pinilla SM, Villa S, Bolos V, Jorda M, Fabra A, Portillo F, Palacios J, Cano A (2006) Genetic profiling of epithelial cells expressing E-cadherin repressors reveals a distinct role for Snail, Slug, and E47 factors in epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Cancer Res 66:9543–9556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Bloushtain-Qimron N, Yao J, Snyder EL, Shipitsin M, Campbell LL, Mani SA, Hu M, Chen H, Ustyansky V, Antosiewicz JE, Argani P, Halushka MK, Thomson JA, Pharoah P, Porgador A, Sukumar S, Parsons R, Richardson AL, Stampfer MR, Gelman RS, Nikolskaya T, Nikolsky Y, Polyak K (2008) Cell type-specific DNA methylation patterns in the human breast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:14076–14081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Neve RM, Chin K, Fridlyand J, Yeh J, Baehner FL, Fevr T, Clark L, Bayani N, Coppe JP, Tong F, Speed T, Spellman PT, DeVries S, Lapuk A, Wang NJ, Kuo WL, Stilwell JL, Pinkel D, Albertson DG, Waldman FM, McCormick F, Dickson RB, Johnson MD, Lippman M, Ethier S, Gazdar A, Gray JW (2006) A collection of breast cancer cell lines for the study of functionally distinct cancer subtypes. Cancer Cell 10:515–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, Hastie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Thorsen T, Quist H, Matese JC, Brown PO, Botstein D, Eystein Lonning P, Borresen-Dale AL (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:10869–10874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, Cheang M, Karaca G, Hu Z, Hernandez-Boussard T, Livasy C, Cowan D, Dressler L, Akslen LA, Ragaz J, Gown AM, Gilks CB, van de Rijn M, Perou CM (2004) Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 10:5367–5374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Weigelt B, Kreike B, Reis-Filho JS (2009) Metaplastic breast carcinomas are basal-like breast cancers: a genomic profiling analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117:273–280Google Scholar
- 43.van Horssen R, Hollestelle A, Rens JA, Eggermont AM, Schutte M, Ten Hagen TL (2012) E-cadherin promotor methylation and mutation are inversely related to motility capacity of breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat 136(2):365–377Google Scholar