Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Contaminating cells alter gene signatures in whole organ versus laser capture microdissected tumors: a comparison of experimental breast cancers and their lymph node metastases

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Clinical & Experimental Metastasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Genome-wide expression profiling has expedited our molecular understanding of the different subtypes of breast cancers, as well as defined the differences among genes expressed in primary tumors and their metastases. Laser-capture microdissection (LCM) coupled to gene expression analysis allows us to understand how specific cell types contribute to the total cancer gene expression signature. Expression profiling was used to define genes that contribute to breast cancer spread into and/or growth within draining lymph nodes (LN). Whole tumor xenografts and their matched whole LN metastases were compared to LCM captured cancer cells from the same tumors and matched LN metastases. One-thousand nine-hundred thirty genes were identified by the whole organ method alone, and 1,281 genes by the LCM method alone. However, less than 1% (30 genes) of genes that changed between tumors and LN metastases were common to both methods. Several of these genes have previously been implicated in cancer aggressiveness. Our data show that whole-organ and LCM based gene expression profiling yield distinctly different lists of metastasis-promoting genes. Contamination of the tumor cells, and cross reactivity of mouse RNA to human-specific chips may explain these differences, and suggests that LCM-derived data may be more accurate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CK18:

Cytokeratin 18

ER:

Estrogen receptor

H & E:

Hematoxylin and eosin

LCM:

Laser-capture microdissection

LN:

Lymph node

References

  1. van de Rijn M, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al (2002) Expression of cytokeratins 17 and 5 identifies a group of breast carcinomas with poor clinical outcome. Am J Pathol 161(6):1991–1996

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zajchowski DA, Bartholdi MF, Gong Y et al (2001) Identification of gene expression profiles that predict the aggressive behavior of breast cancer cells. Cancer Res 61(13):5168–5178

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Livasy CA, Perou CM, Karaca G et al (2007) Identification of a basal-like subtype of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol 38(2):197–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chang HY, Nuyten DS, Sneddon JB et al (2005) Robustness, scalability, and integration of a wound-response gene expression signature in predicting breast cancer survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(10):3738–3743

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chang HY, Sneddon JB, Alizadeh AA et al (2004) Gene expression signature of fibroblast serum response predicts human cancer progression: similarities between tumors and wounds. PLoS Biol 2(2):E7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF et al (2005) Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 11(16):5678–5685

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Weigelt B, Hu Z, He X et al (2005) Molecular portraits and 70-gene prognosis signature are preserved throughout the metastatic process of breast cancer. Cancer Res 65(20):9155–9158

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797):747–752

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Shipitsin M, Campbell LL, Argani P et al (2007) Molecular definition of breast tumor heterogeneity. Cancer Cell 11(3):259–273

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L et al (2006) Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 355(6):560–569

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Harrell JC, Dye WW, Allred DC et al (2006) Estrogen receptor positive breast cancer metastasis: altered hormonal sensitivity and tumor aggressiveness in lymphatic vessels and lymph nodes. Cancer Res 66(18):9308–9315

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sartorius CA, Shen T, Horwitz KB (2003) Progesterone receptors A and B differentially affect the growth of estrogen-dependent human breast tumor xenografts. Breast Cancer Res Treat 79(3):287–299

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Weigelt B, Wessels LF, Bosma AJ et al (2005) No common denominator for breast cancer lymph node metastasis. Br J Cancer 93(8):924–932

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Montel V, Mose ES, Tarin D (2006) Tumor-stromal interactions reciprocally modulate gene expression patterns during carcinogenesis, metastasis. Int J Cancer 119(2):251–263

    Google Scholar 

  15. Yang F, Foekens JA, Yu J et al (2006) Laser microdissection and microarray analysis of breast tumors reveal ER-alpha related genes and pathways. Oncogene 25(9):1413–1419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Luzzi V, Mahadevappa M, Raja R, Warrington JA, Watson MA (2003) Accurate and reproducible gene expression profiles from laser capture microdissection, transcript amplification, and high density oligonucleotide microarray analysis. J Mol Diagn 5(1):9–14

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Naef F, Huelsken J (2005) Cell-type-specific transcriptomics in chimeric models using transcriptome-based masks. Nucleic Acids Res 33(13):e111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bianco NR, Montano MM (2002) Regulation of prothymosin alpha by estrogen receptor alpha: molecular mechanisms and relevance in estrogen-mediated breast cell growth. Oncogene 21(34):5233–5244

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pan G, Ni J, Wei YF, Yu G, Gentz R, Dixit VM (1997) An antagonist decoy receptor and a death domain-containing receptor for TRAIL. Science 277(5327):815–818

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Force WR, Cheung TC, Ware CF (1997) Dominant negative mutants of TRAF3 reveal an important role for the coiled coil domains in cell death signaling by the lymphotoxin-beta receptor. J Biol Chem 272(49):30835–30840

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lin ZP, Belcourt MF, Cory JG, Sartorelli AC (2004) Stable suppression of the R2 subunit of ribonucleotide reductase by R2-targeted short interference RNA sensitizes p53(-/-) HCT-116 colon cancer cells to DNA-damaging agents and ribonucleotide reductase inhibitors. J Biol Chem 279(26):27030–27038

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Barrons R (2004) Evaluation of personal digital assistant software for drug interactions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 61(4):380–385

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fiucci G, Ravid D, Reich R, Liscovitch M (2002) Caveolin-1 inhibits anchorage-independent growth, anoikis and invasiveness in MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. Oncogene 21(15):2365–2375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hasebe T, Konishi M, Iwasaki M et al (2005) Histological characteristics of tumor cells and stromal cells in vessels and lymph nodes are important prognostic parameters of extrahepatic bile duct carcinoma: a prospective study. Hum Pathol 36(6):655–664

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

These studies were supported by a Department of Defense Predoctoral Breast Cancer Training Grant BC050889 to JCH; and by NIH Grant CA26869, the National Foundation for Cancer Research, the Avon Foundation and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation grants to KBH. The authors would like to thank the UCHSC Laser-Capture and Microarray Core Laboratories.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, MS 8106, RC-1 South, 12801 E. 17th Ave, Room 7402G, PO Box 6511, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    Joshua Chuck Harrell, Wendy W. Dye, Djuana M. E. Harvell, Carol A. Sartorius & Kathryn B. Horwitz

  2. Department of Pathology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO, USA

    Kathryn B. Horwitz

  3. Program in Reproductive Sciences, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO, USA

    Joshua Chuck Harrell & Kathryn B. Horwitz

Authors
  1. Joshua Chuck Harrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wendy W. Dye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Djuana M. E. Harvell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carol A. Sartorius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kathryn B. Horwitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua Chuck Harrell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harrell, J.C., Dye, W.W., Harvell, D.M.E. et al. Contaminating cells alter gene signatures in whole organ versus laser capture microdissected tumors: a comparison of experimental breast cancers and their lymph node metastases. Clin Exp Metastasis 25, 81–88 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10585-007-9105-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10585-007-9105-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation