Cluster analyses of the TCGA and a TMA dataset using the coexpression of HSP27 and CRYAB improves alignment with clinical-pathological parameters of breast cancer and suggests different epichaperome influences for each sHSP.

Our cluster analysis of the Cancer Genome Atlas for co-expression of HSP27 and CRYAB in breast cancer patients identified three patient groups based on their expression level combination (high HSP27 + low CRYAB; low HSP27 + high CRYAB; similar HSP27 + CRYAB). Our analyses also suggest that there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between HSP27 and CRYAB and known clinicopathological markers in breast cancer. Screening an unbiased 248 breast cancer patient tissue microarray (TMA) for the protein expression of HSP27 and phosphorylated HSP27 (HSP27-82pS) with CRYAB also identified three patient groups based on HSP27 and CRYAB expression levels. TMA24 also had recorded clinical-pathological parameters, such as ER and PR receptor status, patient survival, and TP53 mutation status. High HSP27 protein levels were significant with ER and PR expression. HSP27-82pS associated with the best patient survival (Log Rank test). High CRYAB expression in combination with wild-type TP53 was significant for patient survival, but a different patient outcome was observed when mutant TP53 was combined with high CRYAB expression. Our data suggest that HSP27 and CRYAB have different epichaperome influences in breast cancer, but more importantly evidence the value of a cluster analysis that considers their coexpression. Our approach can deliver convergence for archival datasets as well as those from recent treatment and patient cohorts and can align HSP27 and CRYAB expression to important clinical-pathological features of breast cancer.

FGFR2 protein expression in breast cancer: nuclear localisation and correlation with patient genotype.

BACKGROUND: Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) in intron 2 of the Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Type 2 (FGFR2) gene, including rs2981582, contribute to multifactorial breast cancer susceptibility. The high risk polymorphism haplotype in the FGFR2 gene has been associated with increased mRNA transcription and altered transcription factor binding but the effect on FGFR2 protein expression is unknown. 40 breast tumours were identified from individuals with known rs2981582 genotype. Tumour sections were stained for FGFR2 protein expression, and scored for nuclear and cytoplasmic staining in tumour and surrounding normal tissue. FINDINGS: FGFR2 immunohistochemistry demonstrated variable nuclear staining in normal tissue and tumour tissue, as well as consistent cytoplasmic staining. We did not find an association between nuclear staining for FGFR2 and genotype, and there was no association between FGFR2 staining and estrogen or progestogen receptor status. There was an association between presence of nuclear staining for FGFR2 in normal tissue and presence of nuclear staining in the adjacent tumour (Fishers exact test, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Variable nuclear staining for FGFR2 in breast cancer, but an absence of correlation with rs2981582 genotype suggests that the mechanism of action of polymorphisms at the FGFR2 locus may be more complex than a direct effect on mRNA expression levels in the final cancer. The effect may relate to FGFR2 function or localisation during breast development or tumourigenesis. Nuclear localisation of FGFR2 suggests an important additional role for this protein in breast development and breast cancer, in addition to its function as a classical cell surface receptor.

High CCND1 amplification identifies a group of poor prognosis women with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer.

CCND1 encodes for the cyclin D1 protein involved in G1/S cell cycle transition. In breast cancer the mechanism of CCND1 amplification, relationship between cyclin D1 protein expression and the key clinical markers estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2 requires elucidation. Tissue microarrays of primary invasive breast cancer from 93 women were evaluated for CCND1 amplification by fluorescent in-situ hybridization and cyclin D1 protein overexpression by immunohistochemistry. CCND1 amplification was identified in 27/93 (30%) cancers and 59/93 (63%) cancers had overexpression of cyclin D1. CCND1 amplification was significantly associated with cyclin D1 protein overexpression (p < 0.001; Fisher's exact test) and both CCND1 amplification and cyclin D1 protein expression with oestrogen receptor (ER) expression (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001; Fishers exact test). Neither CCND1 amplification nor cyclinD1 expression was associated with tumor size, pathological node status or HER2 amplification, but high CCND1 amplification (Copy Number Gain (CNG) > or = 8) was associated with high tumor grade (p = 0.005; chi square 7.915, 2 df) and worse prognosis by Nottingham Prognostic Index (p = 0.001; 2 sample t-test). High CCND1 amplification (CNG > or = 8) may identify a subset of patients with poor prognosis ER-positive breast cancers who should be considered for additional therapy.

MDM2 SNP309 is associated with high grade node positive breast tumours and is in linkage disequilibrium with a novel MDM2 intron 1 polymorphism.

INTRODUCTION: A functional polymorphism within MDM2, SNP309 T>G, has been linked to early onset cancer. This study examined clinical associations of breast cancer with SNP309 in a Scottish Caucasian population and investigated additional MDM2 intron 1 polymorphisms. METHODS: Intron 1 of MDM2 was PCR amplified and directly sequenced from 299 breast cancer patients and 275 cancer free controls and compared with clinical and pathological parameters. RESULTS: SNP309 was observed, for the control and breast cancer cohorts respectively, at frequencies of: T/T = 44.7% and 39.5%; G/T = 42.2% and 47.2%; G/G = 13.1% and 13.4%, indicating that SNP309 is not a predisposing factor for breast cancer. The 309G/G genotype was associated with high grade tumours (OR = 1.64, 95%CI = 1.06-2.53, p = 0.025) and greater nodal involvement (OR = 2.51, 95%CI = 1.26-4.98, p = 0.009). SNP309 was not associated with an earlier age of cancer diagnosis. No association was observed between genotype and age of breast cancer diagnosis when patients were stratified by menopausal status and estrogen receptor status. Three additional low frequency SNPs were identified: 344T>A, 285G>C and 443G>T, the latter two novel. SNP285 was in complete linkage disequilibrium with SNP309 (D' = 1.0) with the minor alleles being in phase with each other. Moreover, the 285C/C, 309G/G double homozygous genotype was only observed in the breast cancer cohort. CONCLUSION: SNP309G/G is associated with poor prognostic breast cancer features in the Scottish population. Additionally, a novel SNP, SNP285, that is in linkage disequilibrium with SNP309, may also have a role in breast tumorigenesis.