Tumor Biology

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 1699–1712 | Cite as

Metabolic phenotypes in triple-negative breast cancer

  • Sewha Kim
  • Do Hee Kim
  • Woo-Hee Jung
  • Ja Seung Koo
Research Article

Abstract

The aim of study was to investigate the metabolism of tumor and stromal cells necessary to determine differential tumor–stroma metabolic interactions according to the molecular subtypes of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Tissues from 132 patients of TNBC were prepared for use as tissue microarrays (TMA). Expression of CK5/6, EGFR, claudin 3, claudin 4, claudin7, E-cadherin, AR, GGT1, STAT1, and interleukin-8 was evaluated by immunohistochemical staining using TMA to classify molecular subtypes of TNBC. In addition, immunohistochemical staining for Glut1, CAIX, BNIP3, MCT4, Beclin-1, LC3A, LC3B, and p62 was performed. According to glycolytic status determined by the immunohistochemical expression of Glut-1 and CAIX in tumor and stroma, the metabolic phenotypes of the TNBCs were defined as follows: Warburg type (tumor: glycolysis, stroma: non-glycolysis), reverse Warburg type (tumor: non-glycolysis, stroma: glycolysis), mixed metabolic type (tumor: glycolysis, stroma: glycolysis), and metabolic null type (tumor: non-glycolysis, stroma: non-glycolysis). TNBCs were classified as follows: 79 Warburg type (59.8 %), 7 reverse Warburg type (5.3 %), 24 mixed metabolic type (18.2 %), and 22 metabolic null type (16.7 %). There was no statistical significance between the metabolic phenotypes and molecular subtypes (P = 0.706). Reverse Warburg type showed the most dysfunctional mitochondrial status for stromal cells, while Warburg type showed the most functional mitochondrial status (P = 0.036). Regarding stromal autophagy status, reverse Warburg type showed the most activated status, while all of the Warburg and metabolic null types showed a non-activated status (P < 0.001). In conclusion, Warburg type was the most common metabolic phenotype in TNBC, while reverse Warburg type was the most unusual. Metabolic phenotypes did not differ among the molecular subtypes of TNBCs.

Keywords

Breast cancer Reverse Warburg effect Triple negative Warburg effect 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2012R1A1A1002886).

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. 1956;123:309–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonuccelli G, Tsirigos A, Whitaker-Menezes D, Pavlides S, Pestell RG, Chiavarina B, et al. Ketones and lactate "fuel" tumor growth and metastasis: evidence that epithelial cancer cells use oxidative mitochondrial metabolism. Cell Cycle. 2010;9:3506–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martinez-Outschoorn UE, Balliet RM, Rivadeneira DB, Chiavarina B, Pavlides S, Wang C, et al. Oxidative stress in cancer associated fibroblasts drives tumor-stroma co-evolution: a new paradigm for understanding tumor metabolism, the field effect and genomic instability in cancer cells. Cell Cycle. 2010;9:3256–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pavlides S, Tsirigos A, Vera I, Flomenberg N, Frank PG, Casimiro MC, et al. Loss of stromal caveolin-1 leads to oxidative stress, mimics hypoxia and drives inflammation in the tumor microenvironment, conferring the "reverse Warburg effect": a transcriptional informatics analysis with validation. Cell Cycle. 2010;9:2201–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pavlides S, Whitaker-Menezes D, Castello-Cros R, Flomenberg N, Witkiewicz AK, Frank PG, et al. The reverse Warburg effect: aerobic glycolysis in cancer associated fibroblasts and the tumor stroma. Cell Cycle. 2009;8:3984–4001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martinez-Outschoorn UE, Pavlides S, Whitaker-Menezes D, Daumer KM, Milliman JN, Chiavarina B, et al. Tumor cells induce the cancer associated fibroblast phenotype via caveolin-1 degradation: implications for breast cancer and DCIS therapy with autophagy inhibitors. Cell Cycle. 2010;9:2423–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martinez-Outschoorn UE, Trimmer C, Lin Z, Whitaker-Menezes D, Chiavarina B, Zhou J, et al. Autophagy in cancer associated fibroblasts promotes tumor cell survival: role of hypoxia, HIF1 induction and NFkappaB activation in the tumor stromal microenvironment. Cell Cycle. 2010;9:3515–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kwon JE, Jung WH, Koo JS. Molecules involved in epithelial-mesenchymal transition and epithelial–stromal interaction in phyllodes tumors: implications for histologic grade and prognosis. Tumour Biology. 2012;33:787–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406:747–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:10869–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, Hanna WM, Kahn HK, Sawka CA, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:4429–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Perou CM. Molecular stratification of triple-negative breast cancers. Oncologist. 2011;16:61–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reis-Filho JS, Tutt AN. Triple negative tumours: a critical review. Histopathology. 2008;52:108–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Foulkes WD, Smith IE, Reis-Filho JS. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1938–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Venkitaraman R. Triple-negative/basal-like breast cancer: clinical, pathologic and molecular features. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010;10:199–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rakha EA, Ellis IO. Triple-negative/basal-like breast cancer: review. Pathology. 2009;41:40–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kato H, Takita J, Miyazaki T, Nakajima M, Fukai Y, Masuda N, et al. Glut-1 glucose transporter expression in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is associated with tumor aggressiveness. Anticancer Res. 2002;22:2635–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mineta H, Miura K, Takebayashi S, Misawa K, Araki K, Misawa Y, et al. Prognostic value of glucose transporter 1 expression in patients with hypopharyngeal carcinoma. Anticancer Res. 2002;22:3489–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shaw RJ. Glucose metabolism and cancer. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2006;18:598–608.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tateishi U, Yamaguchi U, Seki K, Terauchi T, Arai Y, Hasegawa T. Glut-1 expression and enhanced glucose metabolism are associated with tumour grade in bone and soft tissue sarcomas: a prospective evaluation by [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:683–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Choi J, Jung WH, Koo JS. Metabolism-related proteins are differentially expressed according to the molecular subtype of invasive breast cancer defined by surrogate immunohistochemistry. Pathobiology. 2013;80:41–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Semenza GL. Regulation of cancer cell metabolism by hypoxia-inducible factor 1. Semin Cancer Biol. 2009;19:12–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2784–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:118–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991;19:403–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pinheiro C, Sousa B, Albergaria A, Paredes J, Dufloth R, Vieira D, et al. GLUT1 and CAIX expression profiles in breast cancer correlate with adverse prognostic factors and MCT1 overexpression. Histol Histopathol. 2011;26:1279–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pinheiro C, Albergaria A, Paredes J, Sousa B, Dufloth R, Vieira D, et al. Monocarboxylate transporter 1 is up-regulated in basal-like breast carcinoma. Histopathology. 2010;56:860–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ricketts CJ, Shuch B, Vocke CD, Metwalli AR, Bratslavsky G, Middelton L, et al. Succinate dehydrogenase kidney cancer: an aggressive example of the Warburg effect in cancer. J Urol. 2012;188:2063–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Witkiewicz AK, Whitaker-Menezes D, Dasgupta A, Philp NJ, Lin Z, Gandara R, et al. Using the "reverse Warburg effect" to identify high-risk breast cancer patients: stromal MCT4 predicts poor clinical outcome in triple-negative breast cancers. Cell Cycle. 2012;11:1108–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sewha Kim
    • 1
  • Do Hee Kim
    • 1
  • Woo-Hee Jung
    • 1
  • Ja Seung Koo
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PathologyYonsei University Health SystemSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of PathologyYonsei University College of Medicine, Severance HospitalSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations