- Research article
- Open Access
Loss of amphiregulin reduces myoepithelial cell coverage of mammary ducts and alters breast tumor growth
© The Author(s). 2018
- Received: 5 June 2018
- Accepted: 2 October 2018
- Published: 26 October 2018
Amphiregulin (AREG), a ligand of the epidermal growth factor receptor, is not only essential for proper mammary ductal development, but also associated with breast cancer proliferation and growth. In the absence of AREG, mammary ductal growth is stunted and fails to expand. Furthermore, suppression of AREG expression in estrogen receptor-positive breast tumor cells inhibits in-vitro and in-vivo growth.
We crossed AREG-null (AREG−/−) mice with the murine luminal B breast cancer model, MMTV-PyMT (PyMT), to generate spontaneous breast tumors that lack AREG (AREG−/− PyMT). We evaluated tumor growth, cytokeratin-8 (K8)-positive luminal cells, cytokeratin-14 (K14)-positive myoepithelial cells, and expression of AREG, Ki67, and PyMT. Primary myoepithelial cells from nontumor-bearing AREG+/+ mice underwent fluorescence-activated cell sorting and were adapted to culture for in-vitro coculture studies with AT-3 cells, a cell line derived from C57Bl/6 PyMT mammary tumors.
Intriguingly, PyMT-induced lesions progress more rapidly in AREG−/− mice than in AREG+/+ mice. Quantification of K8+ luminal and K14+ myoepithelial cells in non-PyMT AREG−/− mammary glands showed fewer K14+ cells and a thinner myoepithelial layer. Study of AT-3 cells indicated that coculture with myoepithelial cells or exposure to AREG, epidermal growth factor, or basic fibroblast growth factor can suppress PyMT expression. Late-stage AREG−/− PyMT tumors are significantly less solid in structure, with more areas of papillary and cystic growth. Papillary areas appear to be both less proliferative and less necrotic. In The Cancer Genome Atlas database, luminal-B invasive papillary carcinomas have lower AREG expression than luminal B invasive ductal carcinomas.
Our study has revealed a previously unknown role of AREG in myoepithelial cell development and PyMT expression. AREG expression is essential for proper myoepithelial coverage of mammary ducts. Both AREG and myoepithelial cells can suppress PyMT expression. We find that lower AREG expression is associated with invasive papillary breast cancer in both the MMTV-PyMT model and human breast cancer.
- Mammary ductal development
- Breast cancer
Breast cancer remains the most common form of cancer among women in the USA. In the most recent estimates, there are over 250,000 new cases and 40,000 new deaths predicted in 2018 alone . Overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) has been shown to be an important predictor of early recurrence and death in breast cancer [2, 3]. Historically, patients with positive EGFR status were associated with shorter relapse-free and overall survival. However, therapies targeting EGFR in breast cancer have been met with many challenges and little success [4–6]. Amphiregulin (AREG), a ligand of EGFR, has been found to be overexpressed in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer . Further evidence shows that loss of AREG in breast cancer cells can stunt tumor proliferation, growth, and invasiveness in vitro and in vivo [8–10]. In addition to breast cancer, AREG has been shown to play an important role in mammary gland development. During puberty, AREG is the only EGFR ligand that is transcriptionally activated by estrogen receptor signaling in the mammary gland . In the absence of AREG, the mammary ductal tree fails to expand and remains as a rudimentary tree throughout adulthood. In mammary gland transplant studies, epithelial AREG expression and stromal EGFR expression have been identified as critical for proper mammary gland development . Interestingly, when AREG-null epithelial cells are transplanted into a cleared mammary gland, regardless of EGFR status in the stroma, the resultant gland shows a lack of cytokeratin-14 (K14) protein, a marker for myoepithelial cells . While it is unknown whether AREG supports development and maintenance of myoepithelial cells, some evidence suggests that under low EGFR signaling conditions, mammary stem cells (MaSCs) preferentially differentiate into luminal, not myoepithelial, cells . In the same study, it was shown that in the presence of AREG, but not EGF, normal ductal development occurred. Therefore, it is possible that AREG is not only important for the expansion of the ductal tree, but also for proper differentiation of epithelial progenitor cells into luminal and myoepithelial cells.
Little is known about how AREG expression alters breast cancer initiation and progression. In our studies, we sought to better understand the role of AREG in breast cancer using the MMTV-PyMT (PyMT) mouse model. The PyMT model is a widely used murine model of breast cancer due to its similarities in tumor progression stages to human breast cancer [15, 16]. Furthermore, activation of PyMT drives many oncogenic pathways involving key signaling molecules, such as Src, Ras, and PI3K that are overexpressed in many different human cancers [17–19]. By crossing PyMT mice with AREG-null mice, we have evaluated the properties of the spontaneous PyMT breast tumor model in the absence of AREG.
In the studies described, we show for the first time novel functions of AREG in mammary gland development, PyMT expression, and breast cancer growth.
All animal studies were conducted with approval by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). All husbandry was provided by the Institute of Animal Studies (IAS) under the supervision of veterinarians at the institution. Mice were maintained in a pathogen-free facility under controlled light cycles and temperatures. In our animal experiments, we used transgenic mice expressing the polyoma middle-T antigen (PyMT) controlled by the mammary tumor virus (MMTV) in the C57Bl/6 background as our murine breast cancer model. These animals were provided by Dr Jeffrey W. Pollard at our institution, bred in-house, and maintained on the C57Bl/6 background. To explore the role of amphiregulin (AREG) in breast cancer, we used AREG-knockout (AREG−/−) mice in the same background . Genotypes of offspring were identified by quantitative PCR (qPCR) via Transnetyx (Cordova, TN, USA).
Lesion growth and histological measurements
Palpable lesion growth was evaluated three times weekly using a digital caliper. Animals were sacrificed once the largest lesion reached 1 cm in diameter. Animals whose lesions ruptured prior to reaching the appropriate size were excluded from our analyses. AREG−/− lesions had a greater tendency to be cystic and may have ruptured more easily than AREG+/+ lesions as they grew bigger. Lesions were excised and fixed in 10% formalin for 72 h. Tissues were then embedded in paraffin and serially sectioned for immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence studies. Tumor progression was evaluated by a breast cancer pathologist (MHO) for presence of hyperplasia, ductal carcinoma in situ, and adenocarcinoma in a blinded fashion. All IHC and H&E staining was performed by the Histology and Comparative Pathology core facility at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Slides were scanned using the 3DHISTECH Pannoramic 250 flash II digital whole slide scanner. Cystic evaluation was completed by examining 1-cm lesions for the presence of cysts. If a lesion had at least one cyst, it was considered cystic in our analysis.
H&E stains of 1-cm AREG+/+ PyMT (N = 32) and AREG−/− PyMT (N = 22) tumors were evaluated for the presence of necrosis. Quantification of the percentage of necrosis per tumor was determined by averaging the percentage of necrosis in individual 5× fields. The fields used in the analysis were determined randomly using a grid placed over the tissue image in Pannoramic Viewer so as to select unbiased areas. Solid and papillary areas were analyzed separately to determine the amount of necrosis in each type of histological structure. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann–Whitney test.
Circulating tumor cell measurement
The in-vivo intravasation assay for circulating tumor cells (CTCs) was performed as described previously [21–24]. A 25-gauge needle and syringe coated with heparin was inserted into the right ventricle of the heart of anesthetized mice and up to 1 ml of blood was collected from the heart puncture and transferred to a 15-ml tube with 10 ml of 1× RBC lysis buffer (cat. 00-4300-54; Affymetrix). After a 10-min incubation at room temperature, the cell suspension was pelleted by centrifugation at 200 x g for 5 min. The cell pellet was reconstituted in 10 ml of Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium DMEM/F12 (cat. 11320–033; Gibco), supplemented with 20% fetal bovine serum (FBS)-premium select (cat. S11510; Atlanta Biologicals) and plated in a 10-cm tissue culture-treated Petri dish. Media were changed after 48 h. After a 1-week incubation, single tumor cells attached on the dish were counted. Finally, the cell count was normalized to 1 ml of blood.
After mice were sacrificed, the lungs were inflated with 10% formalin and fixed for 72 h. After fixation, the samples were embedded in paraffin and sectioned. Lungs were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). The number of metastatic foci was counted and their area was measured.
The mammary fat pads were evaluated using carmine staining as described previously . Briefly, glands were fixed in Carnoy’s fixative overnight at 4 °C. Glands were rehydrated in serial dilutions of ethanol and rinsed once with water followed by staining with 0.2% carmine alum solution overnight at room temperature. The next day, glands were incubated in 1% HCl/70% EtOH solution for 4 h to remove the excess carmine stain. Glands were then dehydrated in increasing concentrations of ethanol. A 1-h xylene incubation was used to clear the tissue. Cleared glands were mounted in Permount (cat. SP15–500; Fisher Scientific). Finally, the slides were scanned using a conventional digital scanner.
Slides were deparaffinized and stained as described previously . The following primary antibodies were used: PyMT (cat. NB100-2749; Novus Biologicals), IBA1 (cat. NB100-1028; Novus Biologicals), CD31 (cat. 77699; Cell Signaling), KRT8 (cat. TROMA-I; Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank), and KRT14 (cat. 905304; Biolegend). After deparaffinization, slides were placed in a 1× target retrieval solution (cat. S169984-2; Agilent Technologies) and incubated overnight in the Retriever 220 V (cat. 62700-20; Electron Microscopy Sciences) for antigen retrieval. Slides were washed in 1× PBS and incubated with blocking buffer (10% donkey serum/0.1% Triton-X100) for 1 h at 4 °C. Primary antibodies were diluted in 1× PBS-T at the following concentrations: PyMT 1:100, IBA1 1:100, CD31 1:250, KRT8 1:30, and KRT14 1:1000. Samples were incubated with primary antibody solutions overnight at 4 °C. Before secondary antibody incubation, slides were washed three times in 1× PBS-T for 5 min each. The secondary antibodies used were Alexa Fluor 647 donkey anti-rabbit IgG (cat. A31573; Life Technologies), Alexa Fluor 488 donkey anti-Rat IgG (cat. A21208; Life Technologies), and Alexa Fluor 568 donkey anti-goat (cat. A11077; Life Technologies). Secondary antibodies were diluted in 1× PBS-T at 1:250. Secondary antibody incubation was performed at room temperature for 1 h. Slides were mounted using Dapi-Fluoromount-G (cat. OB010020; Southern Biotech) and stored at 4 °C. Slides were scanned using the 3DHISTECH Pannoramic 250 flash II digital whole slide scanner. The 20 × 0.8 NA objective lens was used for all scans.
PyMT expression quantitation and analysis
Three to five fields per sample were chosen for analysis. Images were taken in Pannoramic Viewer and opened in ImageJ. All images were converted to 8-bit and the same threshold was applied to all images. After the threshold was designated, the region of interest (ROI) covered only the mammary ducts or lesions. The surrounding vessels, fat, and stroma were excluded. The PyMT immunofluorescence intensity was analyzed only within the ROIs.
In-situ hybridization experiments were performed using the manufacturer’s protocol for the BaseScope™ Assay (cat. 322971; ACD). After the signal was detected, the slides were blocked with 4% donkey serum (cat. D9663-10ML; Sigma-Aldrich) in 0.1% 1× PBS-T for 1 h at room temperature. Slides were stained for PyMT using the protocol described earlier.
Mammary epithelial cell counting and myoepithelial cell layer thickness measurement
Mammary ducts were immunostained for K8 and K14 to visualize luminal (K8+) and myoepithelial (K14+) cells. The ratio of myoepithelial cells to total mammary epithelial cells was counted manually and calculated for five ducts per mammary fat pad. At least three AREG+/+ mice and three AREG−/− mice were used for this analysis. In cases of uncertainty, a confocal microscope was utilized to differentiate the different cell layers. The outlines of myoepithelial cells were traced to calculate the thickness of the myoepithelial cells.
Mammary epithelial cell isolation
Methods used to retrieve mammary epithelial cells (MECs) from mice were described previously . Excised mammary glands were placed in ice-cold PBS. Glands were finely minced on a bacterial Petri dish and resuspended in 3 ml/mouse DMEM/F12 (cat. 11320-033; Gibco). Then 300 units/ml collagenase III (cat. LS004182; Worthington), 50 μg/ml DNase I (cat. LS002139; Worthington), and 5 μM Y-27632 (cat. Y-5301; LC Labs) were added and incubated at 37 °C for 2 h under constant rotation. Afterward, the digestion mixture was thoroughly mixed and PBS was added to 15 ml. The mixture was centrifuged at 300 × g for 5 min. To remove the erythrocytes, the cell pellet was resuspended with 1 ml RBC lysis buffer (8.3 g/L ammonium acetate, 10 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.5) and incubated on ice for 1 min. The cell mixture was thoroughly mixed, PBS was added to 15 ml, and the mixture was centrifuged again. The cell pellet was resuspended in 1 ml 0.05% Trypsin–EDTA (cat. MT25052CI; Corning) and incubated at 37 °C for 5 min. Trypsin was diluted with 10% FBS in DMEM/F12 and the cell mixture was centrifuged. To dissociate the luminal and myoepithelial cells, the cell pellet was resuspended in 1 ml DMEM/F12, 1 U/ml Dispase (cat. LS02109; Worthington), and 100 μg/ml DNase. The cell mixture was incubated at 37 °C for 5 min and passed through a 40-μm cell strainer. Then 5 ml of PBS was added to the final cell suspension. The cell number was determined using a hemocytometer. The cells were centrifuged and resuspended in FACS buffer (1 ml FBS, 31 ml PBS, 8 ml 10 mM EDTA) at 1 million cells/100 μl.
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting
To isolate myoepithelial cells from the cell suspension, the cells were labeled with 1:100 biotin TER-119 (cat. 116204; Biolegend), biotin CD45 (cat. 103104; Biolegend), biotin CD31 (cat. 102404; Biolegend), APC EpCAM (cat. 17–5791-80; Affymetrix), and PerCP-Cy5.5 CD49f (cat. 562475; BD Biosciences). After a 15-min incubation on ice, streptavidin v450 (cat. 560797; BD Biosciences) and 1 μg/ml DAPI (cat. 422801; Biolegend) were added for another 15-min incubation. Cells were washed once and resuspended in fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) buffer. The lineage-negative (TER-119−CD45−CD31−) EpCAM−CD49f+ cells were identified as myoepithelial cells.
Cell lines and cell culture
Sorted myoepithelial cells were centrifuged and resuspended in 1:20 Matrigel (cat. 354234; Corning) and cultured in advanced-DMEM/F12 (cat. 12634010; Life Technologies) supplemented with 10 ng/ml EGF (cat. 585506; Biolegend), 20 ng/ml bFGF (cat. 710304; Biolegend), 4 μg/ml heparin (cat. H3149-10KU; Sigma-Aldrich), 5% newborn calf serum (cat. SH3011803; HyClone), and 5 μM Y-27632.
AT-3 cells, a murine breast cancer cell line derived from MMTV-PyMT tumors in the C57Bl/6 background, were cultured at 7% CO2 in DMEM high glucose (cat. MT-10-013-CV; Corning) supplemented with 10% FBS premium-select, penicillin–streptomycin (cat. MT30002CI; Corning), 15 mM HEPES (cat. 15630080; Life Technologies), 2 mM l-glutamine (cat. SH3003401; HyClone), NEAA (cat. SH3023801; HyClone), 1 mM sodium pyruvate (cat. 13-115E; Lonza Walkersville), and 1:250,000 2-mercaptoethanol (cat. M6250-100ML; Sigma Aldrich).
For the coculture experiments, 300,000 primary myoepithelial cells and 300,000 AT-3 cells were plated together in a six-well tissue culture plate overnight. In the control well, 300,000 AT-3 cells were plated. Cells were lysed on the following day using Buffer RLT Plus (cat. 1053393; Qiagen) and RNA was extracted using the RNeasy Plus Mini Kit (cat. 74134; Qiagen). Subsequently, cDNA was synthesized and amplified using the Superscript II system (cat. 11904-018; Thermofisher Scientific).
For the stimulation experiments, 300,000 AT-3 cells were plated overnight. On the following day, the media were switched to those containing either 10 ng/ml EGF, 10 ng/ml bFGF, 100 ng/ml AREG (cat. 989-AR-100; R&D Systems), or both EGF and bFGF. Cells were lysed after a 24-h incubation period.
The gene expression level of PyMT was measured in the coculture and stimulation experiments using a SYBR Green Real-Time Master Mix and PyMT primers. The PyMT primer sequences were TTCGATCCGATCCTAGATGC and TGCCGGGAACGTTTTATTAG. PyMT expression was normalized to GAPDH expression. The GAPDH primer sequences were CTGGAGAAACCTGCCAAGTA and TGTTGCTGTAGCCGTATTCA. Each experiment was done in triplicate and repeated at least three independent times. Relative PyMT expression levels were derived from the GAPDH mean cycle threshold (Ct) values subtracted by the PyMT Ct values. Myoepithelial cells and AT-3 cells had similar levels of GAPDH. In coculture experiments, ΔCt values were adjusted to compensate for a twofold dilution in PyMT expression level. Changes in relative PyMT expression levels between experiment and control were measured as the fold change (ΔΔCt).
The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Research Network (http://cancergenome.nih.gov/) provided a database of human breast cancer patient data which we analyzed for AREG expression and histological subtype. Since the MMTV-PyMT model was characterized as most similar to the luminal B subtype in human breast cancer, we chose our sample population from patient tumors that were identified as luminal B subtype. With the final sample of 123 patient samples, 115 were nonpapillary invasive ductal cancer (IDC) and eight were invasive papillary breast cancer (IPC). AREG RNAseq expression data provided by TCGA for these patient samples were then evaluated [27, 28].
All statistical analyses were carried out using GraphPad Prism 7 software. Statistical analyses were performed using tests as indicated in the figure legends.
Expansion and progression of tumorigenic lesions is accelerated in the absence of AREG
To determine whether AREG-associated effects in tumor growth and progression were associated with changes in intravasation and metastasis, we examined metastases in the lungs as well as circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in these animals. Overall, we found no difference in metastasis as measured by the number of foci or total area in the lungs (Additional file 2: Figure S2A, B) or number of CTCs (Additional file 2: Figure S2C). In summary, loss of AREG appears to enhance expansion of tumorigenic lesions and accelerate tumor progression, but does not have an effect on intravasation and metastasis.
In both AREG+/+ PyMT and AREG−/− PyMT mammary glands, all lesions express PyMT (Fig. 3b). Interestingly, the intensity of PyMT fluorescence in these lesions is similar in AREG+/+ PyMT and AREG−/− PyMT mammary glands (Fig. 3c). Since the lesions are larger in AREG−/− PyMT MFPs, this suggests that PyMT is expressed in more areas in AREG−/− PyMT mammary glands. However, the level of expression does not differ in the absence of AREG.
Absence of AREG results in reduced myoepithelial cell number, coverage, and thickness
Because myoepithelial cells are recognized to be tumor suppressors , we hypothesized that myoepithelial cells might be able to suppress PyMT expression. A reduction in myoepithelial cells in the AREG−/− mammary ducts might lead to induction of PyMT expression in more ductal cells, resulting in more lesion formation in AREG−/− PyMT mice. To test this hypothesis, we cocultured primary myoepithelial cells with AT-3 cells, a breast tumor cell line derived from C57Bl/6 MMTV-PyMT mammary tumors . When cocultured with primary myoepithelial cells, PyMT expression in AT-3 cells was significantly reduced (Fig. 4g).
In addition, AREG and FGFR signaling are critical for proper mammary gland elongation and branching . We therefore examined PyMT expression in AT-3 cells cultured in the presence of the EGFR ligands EGF and AREG, as well as FGFR ligand bFGF. In the presence of AREG, EGF, or bFGF, PyMT expression in AT-3 cells was reduced (Fig. 4h). Therefore, a loss of AREG expression in vivo could contribute to the broader expression of PyMT seen in the AREG−/− mice through both a reduction in myoepithelial cells as well as reduced EGFR and FGFR signaling.
Late-stage AREG−/− tumors are histologically distinct from AREG+/+ tumors
We also immunostained these tissues for Ki67 (Fig. 6a, Ki67 images). We compared the Ki67+ areas in solid and papillary regions and found that in both AREG+/+ and AREG−/− tumors, papillary regions have less Ki67 staining (Fig. 6c, d). Since AREG+/+ tumors are proportionally more solid than AREG−/− tumors, this indicates that, as a whole, AREG+/+ tumors are more proliferative than AREG−/− tumors. However, this may be counteracted by increased necrosis: in the solid areas where tumor proliferation is high, tumor cells far from the blood vessel do not receive enough oxygen and nutrients and become hypoxic [33–35]. Rapid growth of the tumor causes exhaustion of the nutrients and oxygen supplied by the nearby blood vessels and, as a result, forms necrotic zones. Conversely, in the papillary and cystic areas that are more common in the AREG−/− tumors, there is slower growth, more stroma, and correspondingly less necrosis.
We used CD31 staining to compare the vasculature between AREG+/+ and AREG−/− tumors (Additional file 5: Figure S5A). The vessel structures in AREG+/+ tumors are thin and long while the vessels in AREG−/− tumors appear shorter and irregular in shape. These observations are complemented by quantification of CD31 signals, showing increased numbers of CD31+ vessels in AREG−/− tumors (Additional file 5: Figure S5B).
Lower AREG expression is associated with papillary breast cancer
In our studies, we found that the loss of AREG resulted in accelerated expansion of PyMT-positive lesions in the PyMT mouse model of breast cancer. As early as 6 weeks of age, lesions in AREG−/− PyMT mice were increasing in size more quickly. Lesions in both AREG+/+ PyMT mice and AREG−/− PyMT mice were PyMT-positive. However, it was unclear why there was a larger PyMT-positive area in the AREG−/− PyMT mice. When we compared the cellular composition of the mammary ducts in AREG+/+ and AREG−/− pubertal and adult mice, we found that AREG−/− ducts had fewer myoepithelial cells and thinner myoepithelial cell layers than AREG+/+ ducts. Interestingly, in AREG+/+ PyMT MFPs, the PyMT-positive lesions do not express AREG. We cocultured primary myoepithelial cells with AT-3 cells, a breast tumor cell line derived from the MMTV-PyMT mouse model, and found a significant reduction in PyMT expression in the AT-3 cells. Furthermore, when we cultured AT-3 cells with EGFR ligands AREG and EGF, or FGFR ligand bFGF, PyMT expression was reduced. In late-stage AREG−/− tumors, we also found a striking difference in the tumor growth pattern. Most of the AREG−/− tumors presented with increased papillary histology, cysts, and number of intratumoral vessels. Finally, we compared the tumor histology and AREG expression of luminal B breast cancer patient samples in TCGA and found papillary breast cancer was associated with low AREG expression.
In the PyMT model, PyMT expression in the mammary gland is driven by the MMTV promoter . Stimulation of the MMTV promoter is primarily controlled by binding of glucocorticoid-bound glucocorticoid receptor complexes to the hormone receptor element in the long terminal repeat (LTR) region of the MMTV promoter [38, 39]. Interestingly, EGF has been shown to stimulate tyrosine phosphorylation of the glucocorticoid receptor in breast epithelial HBL100 cells . As a result of EGF stimulation, binding of dexamethasone to the glucocorticoid receptor is reduced . Dexamethasone treatment inhibits proliferation of HBL100 cells. However, adding EGF to the dexamethasone treatment overcomes dexamethasone-mediated inhibition of cell proliferation. EGF has also been shown to increase the expression of Egr2, a gene that is inhibited by glucocorticoids [42, 43]. This suggests that activation of the EGFR signaling pathway can reduce GR signaling, which is important for MMTV promoter stimulation. Thus, EGF, and possibly AREG, may suppress PyMT expression through inhibition of glucocorticoids binding to its receptor.
It is also possible that loss of AREG alters the balance of proliferation between different cell types that can contribute to formation of a tumor. AREG expression might suppress the proliferation of cells with the capability of driving MMTV promoter activity, and then loss of AREG could lead to increased proliferation of such cells. Alternatively, AREG may bias differentiation. The cell fate of mammary epithelial progenitors has been shown to be partially dependent on EGFR signaling during development . Under high levels of EGFR activation, progenitor cells preferentially differentiate into luminal epithelial cells. The common luminal progenitor gives rise to both ER-positive and ER-negative ductal cells as well as ER-negative alveolar cells . Potentially, the loss of AREG could bias differentiation toward the alveolar cell phenotype, resulting in more cells that can express PyMT. Further studies will be needed to resolve these possibilities.
Furthermore, we have provided evidence that myoepithelial cells can also reduce PyMT expression. Although the mechanism is unknown, myoepithelial cells have a plethora of activities and functions, aside from the canonical mechanical contractile function. In particular, it has been shown that myoepithelial cells are tumor suppressors, involved in the inhibition of breast tumor cell proliferation in vitro and breast tumor growth in vivo, as well as angiogenesis [45, 46]. Myoepithelial cells also produce activin, a member of the TGF-β superfamily, which can also inhibit breast cancer cell proliferation by activating cell cycle arrest mediated by Smads [47, 48]. In other studies, TGF-β negatively regulates MMTV expression in a mammary tumor cell line . Therefore, it is possible that myoepithelial cell-secreted factors may reduce PyMT expression via suppression of the MMTV promoter.
Currently, treatment of breast cancer with receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitors that target EGFR, such as gefitinib, has been met with mixed success [4–6]. Getfitnib treatment in patients with hormone receptor-positive or hormone receptor-negative metastatic breast cancer is associated with low clinical benefit rate (CBR). These treatments are also commonly associated with cutaneous, gastrointestinal, and hair-related toxicities [50, 51]. Therefore, EGFR-targeted therapies are not well tolerated and have low efficacy for some patients. AREG as a novel target for breast cancer therapy is attractive [52, 53], potentially reducing the side effects of broad EGFR inhibition while targeting breast tumor growth that is driven by AREG. One study using an antibody against AREG in ovarian cancer xenografts has successfully reduced tumor growth . In our model, loss of AREG dramatically altered the histological morphology seen in late-stage tumors from a solid to a papillary structure. In human breast cancer, papillary carcinoma is associated with a higher survival rate than invasive ductal carcinoma . AREG-targeted therapy could avoid negative side effects associated with broad EGFR inhibitors, but could also potentially direct tumor growth toward a less aggressive pattern.
Our studies demonstrate a novel role of AREG in myoepithelial cell coverage of mammary ducts during development. In the PyMT model of breast cancer, we have shown that myoepithelial cells and growth factors AREG, EGF, and bFGF suppress PyMT expression. These findings may explain the accelerated growth and progression of early-stage AREG−/− tumors in the MMTV-PyMT model. Interestingly, late-stage AREG−/− tumors are less proliferative and demonstrate increased areas of papillary and cystic features. In human breast cancer, luminal-B IPCs have lower AREG expression compared to IDCs. Together, our results provide new insight into the function of AREG in mammary gland biology, regulation of PyMT, and breast tumor growth.
The authors would like to thank the support and advice from present and past members of the Segall, Cox, Condeelis, and Hodgson laboratories. This work was facilitated by the use of the P250 high-capacity slide scanner that was purchased with funding from National Institutes of Health. The authors would also like to thank the Albert Einstein Cancer Center for assisting our work conducted through the Genomics and Flow Cytometry Core Facilities.
JES is the Betty and Sheldon Feinberg Senior Faculty Scholar in Cancer Research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Funding was provided by National Institutes of Health grants CA100324 (JSC, JES), T32-GM007288 (SPHM, RMC), SIG grant 1S10OD019961-01, and the Albert Einstein Cancer Center (support grant P30CA013330). This work was also supported by the Integrated Imaging Program and the Gruss Lipper Biophotonics Center.
Availability of data and materials
All experimental data are provided in the manuscript.
JES and SPHM provided the overall design of the experiments and writing of the manuscript, with SPHM contributing most of the experiments. MP contributed to the K14 analysis. RMC provided assistance with the in-vivo experiments. JRC and WG assisted with mammary epithelial cell isolation and FACS analysis. GSK and JSC helped with in-vivo transplant experiments. MHO performed early tumor staging and histological analysis of late-stage tumors. DMWZ provided the AREG−/− mice. SIA provided the AT-3 cell line. PAK provided intellectual discussion and ideas. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The animal studies were completed in line with our animal protocol with approval by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.
Consent for publication
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7–30.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Sainsbury JR, et al. Epidermal-growth-factor receptor status as predictor of early recurrence of and death from breast cancer. Lancet. 1987;1(8547):1398–402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Masuda H, et al. Role of epidermal growth factor receptor in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136(2):331–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Butti R, et al. Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) in breast cancer: signaling, therapeutic implications and challenges. Mol Cancer. 2018;17(1):34.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Green MD, et al. Gefitinib treatment in hormone-resistant and hormone receptor-negative advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(11):1813–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Osborne CK, et al. Gefitinib or placebo in combination with tamoxifen in patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a randomized phase II study. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(5):1147–59.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Peterson EA, et al. Amphiregulin Is a critical downstream effector of estrogen signaling in ERalpha-positive breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2015;75(22):4830–8.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Willmarth NE, Ethier SP. Autocrine and juxtacrine effects of amphiregulin on the proliferative, invasive, and migratory properties of normal and neoplastic human mammary epithelial cells. J Biol Chem. 2006;281(49):37728–37.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Willmarth NE, et al. Altered EGFR localization and degradation in human breast cancer cells with an amphiregulin/EGFR autocrine loop. Cell Signal. 2009;21(2):212–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Baillo A, Giroux C, Ethier SP. Knock-down of amphiregulin inhibits cellular invasion in inflammatory breast cancer. J Cell Physiol. 2011;226(10):2691–701.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ciarloni L, Mallepell S, Brisken C. Amphiregulin is an essential mediator of estrogen receptor alpha function in mammary gland development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(13):5455–60.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Sternlicht MD, Sunnarborg SW. The ADAM17-amphiregulin-EGFR axis in mammary development and cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2008;13(2):181–94.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Sternlicht MD, et al. Mammary ductal morphogenesis requires paracrine activation of stromal EGFR via ADAM17-dependent shedding of epithelial amphiregulin. Development. 2005;132(17):3923–33.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Pasic L, et al. Sustained activation of the HER1-ERK1/2-RSK signaling pathway controls myoepithelial cell fate in human mammary tissue. Genes Dev. 2011;25(15):1641–53.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lin EY, et al. Progression to malignancy in the polyoma middle T oncoprotein mouse breast cancer model provides a reliable model for human diseases. Am J Pathol. 2003;163(5):2113–26.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Maglione JE, et al. Transgenic Polyoma middle-T mice model premalignant mammary disease. Cancer Res. 2001;61(22):8298–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Guy CT, et al. Activation of the c-Src tyrosine kinase is required for the induction of mammary tumors in transgenic mice. Genes Dev. 1994;8(1):23–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Raptis L, et al. Cellular ras gene activity is required for full neoplastic transformation by polyomavirus. J Virol. 1991;65(10):5203–10.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Webster MA, et al. Requirement for both Shc and phosphatidylinositol 3′ kinase signaling pathways in polyomavirus middle T-mediated mammary tumorigenesis. Mol Cell Biol. 1998;18(4):2344–59.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Luetteke NC, et al. Targeted inactivation of the EGF and amphiregulin genes reveals distinct roles for EGF receptor ligands in mouse mammary gland development. Development. 1999;126(12):2739–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wyckoff JB, et al. A critical step in metastasis: in vivo analysis of intravasation at the primary tumor. Cancer Res. 2000;60(9):2504–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boimel PJ, et al. Contribution of CXCL12 secretion to invasion of breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(1):R23.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Patsialou A, et al. Selective gene-expression profiling of migratory tumor cells in vivo predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(5):R139.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Karagiannis GS, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy induces breast cancer metastasis through a TMEM-mediated mechanism. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(397).Google Scholar
- Plante I, Stewart MK, Laird DW. Evaluation of mammary gland development and function in mouse models. J Vis Exp. 2011;(53).Google Scholar
- Guo W, et al. Slug and Sox9 cooperatively determine the mammary stem cell state. Cell. 2012;148(5):1015–28.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Cerami E, et al. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov. 2012;2(5):401–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gao J, et al. Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal. 2013;6(269):pl1.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Sternlicht MD, et al. The human myoepithelial cell is a natural tumor suppressor. Clin Cancer Res. 1997;3(11):1949–58.Google Scholar
- Stewart TJ, Abrams SI. Altered immune function during long-term host-tumor interactions can be modulated to retard autochthonous neoplastic growth. J Immunol. 2007;179(5):2851–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Koledova Z, et al. SPRY1 regulates mammary epithelial morphogenesis by modulating EGFR-dependent stromal paracrine signaling and ECM remodeling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(39):E5731–40.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Pal SK, et al. Papillary carcinoma of the breast: an overview. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;122(3):637–45.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Fenton BM, et al. Zonal image analysis of tumour vascular perfusion, hypoxia, and necrosis. Br J Cancer. 2002;86(11):1831–6.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Chung AS, Lee J, Ferrara N. Targeting the tumour vasculature: insights from physiological angiogenesis. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10(7):505–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bordoli MR, et al. Prolyl-4-hydroxylase PHD2- and hypoxia-inducible factor 2-dependent regulation of amphiregulin contributes to breast tumorigenesis. Oncogene. 2011;30(5):548–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hollern DP, Andrechek ER. A genomic analysis of mouse models of breast cancer reveals molecular features of mouse models and relationships to human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(3):R59.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Guy CT, Cardiff RD, Muller WJ. Induction of mammary tumors by expression of polyomavirus middle T oncogene: a transgenic mouse model for metastatic disease. Mol Cell Biol. 1992;12(3):954–61.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Yamamoto KR. Steroid receptor regulated transcription of specific genes and gene networks. Annu Rev Genet. 1985;19:209–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Buetti E, Diggelmann H. Glucocorticoid regulation of mouse mammary tumor virus: identification of a short essential DNA region. EMBO J. 1983;2(8):1423–9.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Rao KV, Fox CF. Epidermal growth factor stimulates tyrosine phosphorylation of human glucocorticoid receptor in cultured cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1987;144(1):512–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rao KV, Williams RE, Fox CF. Altered glucocorticoid binding and action in response to epidermal growth factor in HBL100 cells. Cancer Res. 1987;47(22):5888–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chandra A, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling promotes proliferation and survival in osteoprogenitors by increasing early growth response 2 (EGR2) expression. J Biol Chem. 2013;288(28):20488–98.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Leclerc N, et al. Gene expression profiling of glucocorticoid-inhibited osteoblasts. J Mol Endocrinol. 2004;33(1):175–93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Visvader JE, Stingl J. Mammary stem cells and the differentiation hierarchy: current status and perspectives. Genes Dev. 2014;28(11):1143–58.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Farhanji B, et al. Tumor suppression effects of myoepithelial cells on mice breast cancer. Eur J Pharmacol. 2015;765:171–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nguyen M, et al. The human myoepithelial cell displays a multifaceted anti-angiogenic phenotype. Oncogene. 2000;19(31):3449–59.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Deugnier MA, et al. The importance of being a myoepithelial cell. Breast Cancer Res. 2002;4(6):224–30.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Burdette JE, et al. Activin A mediates growth inhibition and cell cycle arrest through Smads in human breast cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2005;65(17):7968–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cato AC, et al. The regulation of expression of mouse mammary tumor virus DNA by steroid hormones and growth factors. J Steroid Biochem. 1989;34(1–6):139–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gutzmer R, et al. Cutaneous side effects of EGF-receptor inhibition and their management. Hautarzt. 2006;57(6):509–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hartmann JT, et al. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors—a review on pharmacology, metabolism and side effects. Curr Drug Metab. 2009;10(5):470–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Willmarth NE, Ethier SP. Amphiregulin as a novel target for breast cancer therapy. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2008;13(2):171–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Xu Q, Chiao P, Sun Y. Amphiregulin in cancer: new insights for translational medicine. Trends Cancer. 2016;2(3):111–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Carvalho S, et al. An antibody to amphiregulin, an abundant growth factor in patients' fluids, inhibits ovarian tumors. Oncogene. 2016;35(4):438–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zheng YZ, Hu X, Shao ZM. Clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes in invasive papillary carcinoma of the breast: a SEER population-based study. Sci Rep. 2016;6:24037.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Pond AC, et al. Fibroblast growth factor receptor signaling is essential for normal mammary gland development and stem cell function. Stem Cells. 2013;31(1):178–89.View ArticleGoogle Scholar