Subtype and cell type specific expression of lncRNAs provide insight into breast cancer.

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are involved in breast cancer pathogenesis through chromatin remodeling, transcriptional and post-transcriptional gene regulation. We report robust associations between lncRNA expression and breast cancer clinicopathological features in two population-based cohorts: SCAN-B and TCGA. Using co-expression analysis of lncRNAs with protein coding genes, we discovered three distinct clusters of lncRNAs. In silico cell type deconvolution coupled with single-cell RNA-seq analyses revealed that these three clusters were driven by cell type specific expression of lncRNAs. In one cluster lncRNAs were expressed by cancer cells and were mostly associated with the estrogen signaling pathways. In the two other clusters, lncRNAs were expressed either by immune cells or fibroblasts of the tumor microenvironment. To further investigate the cis-regulatory regions driving lncRNA expression in breast cancer, we identified subtype-specific transcription factor (TF) occupancy at lncRNA promoters. We also integrated lncRNA expression with DNA methylation data to identify long-range regulatory regions for lncRNA which were validated using ChiA-Pet-Pol2 loops. lncRNAs play an important role in shaping the gene regulatory landscape in breast cancer. We provide a detailed subtype and cell type-specific expression of lncRNA, which improves the understanding of underlying transcriptional regulation in breast cancer.

Crosstalk between microRNA expression and DNA methylation drives the hormone-dependent phenotype of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal DNA methylation is observed as an early event in breast carcinogenesis. However, how such alterations arise is still poorly understood. microRNAs (miRNAs) regulate gene expression at the post-transcriptional level and play key roles in various biological processes. Here, we integrate miRNA expression and DNA methylation at CpGs to study how miRNAs may affect the breast cancer methylome and how DNA methylation may regulate miRNA expression. METHODS: miRNA expression and DNA methylation data from two breast cancer cohorts, Oslo2 (n = 297) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (n = 439), were integrated through a correlation approach that we term miRNA-methylation Quantitative Trait Loci (mimQTL) analysis. Hierarchical clustering was used to identify clusters of miRNAs and CpGs that were further characterized through analysis of mRNA/protein expression, clinicopathological features, in silico deconvolution, chromatin state and accessibility, transcription factor binding, and long-range interaction data. RESULTS: Clustering of the significant mimQTLs identified distinct groups of miRNAs and CpGs that reflect important biological processes associated with breast cancer pathogenesis. Notably, two major miRNA clusters were related to immune or fibroblast infiltration, hence identifying miRNAs associated with cells of the tumor microenvironment, while another large cluster was related to estrogen receptor (ER) signaling. Studying the chromatin landscape surrounding CpGs associated with the estrogen signaling cluster, we found that miRNAs from this cluster are likely to be regulated through DNA methylation of enhancers bound by FOXA1, GATA2, and ER-alpha. Further, at the hub of the estrogen cluster, we identified hsa-miR-29c-5p as negatively correlated with the mRNA and protein expression of DNA methyltransferase DNMT3A, a key enzyme regulating DNA methylation. We found deregulation of hsa-miR-29c-5p already present in pre-invasive breast lesions and postulate that hsa-miR-29c-5p may trigger early event abnormal DNA methylation in ER-positive breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We describe how miRNA expression and DNA methylation interact and associate with distinct breast cancer phenotypes.

Historical Biobanks in Breast Cancer Metabolomics- Challenges and Opportunities.

Background: Metabolomic characterization of tumours can potentially improve prediction of cancer prognosis and treatment response. Here, we describe efforts to validate previous metabolomic findings using a historical cohort of breast cancer patients and discuss challenges with using older biobanks collected with non-standardized sampling procedures. Methods: In total, 100 primary breast cancer samples were analysed by high-resolution magic angle spinning magnetic resonance spectroscopy (HR MAS MRS) and subsequently examined by histology. Metabolomic profiles were related to the presence of cancer tissue, hormone receptor status, T-stage, N-stage, and survival. RNA integrity number (RIN) and metabolomic profiles were compared with an ongoing breast cancer biobank. Results: The 100 samples had a median RIN of 4.3, while the ongoing biobank had a significantly higher median RIN of 6.3 (p = 5.86 × 10-7). A low RIN was associated with changes in choline-containing metabolites and creatine, and the samples in the older biobank showed metabolic differences previously associated with tissue degradation. The association between metabolomic profile and oestrogen receptor status was in accordance with previous findings, however, with a lower classification accuracy. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of standardized biobanking procedures in breast cancer metabolomics studies.

Breast cancer quantitative proteome and proteogenomic landscape.

In the preceding decades, molecular characterization has revolutionized breast cancer (BC) research and therapeutic approaches. Presented herein, an unbiased analysis of breast tumor proteomes, inclusive of 9995 proteins quantified across all tumors, for the first time recapitulates BC subtypes. Additionally, poor-prognosis basal-like and luminal B tumors are further subdivided by immune component infiltration, suggesting the current classification is incomplete. Proteome-based networks distinguish functional protein modules for breast tumor groups, with co-expression of EGFR and MET marking ductal carcinoma in situ regions of normal-like tumors and lending to a more accurate classification of this poorly defined subtype. Genes included within prognostic mRNA panels have significantly higher than average mRNA-protein correlations, and gene copy number alterations are dampened at the protein-level; underscoring the value of proteome quantification for prognostication and phenotypic classification. Furthermore, protein products mapping to non-coding genomic regions are identified; highlighting a potential new class of tumor-specific immunotherapeutic targets.

Integrative clustering reveals a novel split in the luminal A subtype of breast cancer with impact on outcome.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease at the clinical and molecular level. In this study we integrate classifications extracted from five different molecular levels in order to identify integrated subtypes. METHODS: Tumor tissue from 425 patients with primary breast cancer from the Oslo2 study was cut and blended, and divided into fractions for DNA, RNA and protein isolation and metabolomics, allowing the acquisition of representative and comparable molecular data. Patients were stratified into groups based on their tumor characteristics from five different molecular levels, using various clustering methods. Finally, all previously identified and newly determined subgroups were combined in a multilevel classification using a "cluster-of-clusters" approach with consensus clustering. RESULTS: Based on DNA copy number data, tumors were categorized into three groups according to the complex arm aberration index. mRNA expression profiles divided tumors into five molecular subgroups according to PAM50 subtyping, and clustering based on microRNA expression revealed four subgroups. Reverse-phase protein array data divided tumors into five subgroups. Hierarchical clustering of tumor metabolic profiles revealed three clusters. Combining DNA copy number and mRNA expression classified tumors into seven clusters based on pathway activity levels, and tumors were classified into ten subtypes using integrative clustering. The final consensus clustering that incorporated all aforementioned subtypes revealed six major groups. Five corresponded well with the mRNA subtypes, while a sixth group resulted from a split of the luminal A subtype; these tumors belonged to distinct microRNA clusters. Gain-of-function studies using MCF-7 cells showed that microRNAs differentially expressed between the luminal A clusters were important for cancer cell survival. These microRNAs were used to validate the split in luminal A tumors in four independent breast cancer cohorts. In two cohorts the microRNAs divided tumors into subgroups with significantly different outcomes, and in another a trend was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The six integrated subtypes identified confirm the heterogeneity of breast cancer and show that finer subdivisions of subtypes are evident. Increasing knowledge of the heterogeneity of the luminal A subtype may add pivotal information to guide therapeutic choices, evidently bringing us closer to improved treatment for this largest subgroup of breast cancer.

Metabolic clusters of breast cancer in relation to gene- and protein expression subtypes.

BACKGROUND: The heterogeneous biology of breast cancer leads to high diversity in prognosis and response to treatment, even for patients with similar clinical diagnosis, histology, and stage of disease. Identifying mechanisms contributing to this heterogeneity may reveal new cancer targets or clinically relevant subgroups for treatment stratification. In this study, we have merged metabolite, protein, and gene expression data from breast cancer patients to examine the heterogeneity at a molecular level. METHODS: The study included primary tumor samples from 228 non-treated breast cancer patients. High-resolution magic-angle spinning magnetic resonance spectroscopy (HR MAS MRS) was performed to extract the tumors metabolic profiles further used for hierarchical cluster analysis resulting in three significantly different metabolic clusters (Mc1, Mc2, and Mc3). The clusters were further combined with gene and protein expression data. RESULTS: Our result revealed distinct differences in the metabolic profile of the three metabolic clusters. Among the most interesting differences, Mc1 had the highest levels of glycerophosphocholine (GPC) and phosphocholine (PCho), Mc2 had the highest levels of glucose, and Mc3 had the highest levels of lactate and alanine. Integrated pathway analysis of metabolite and gene expression data uncovered differences in glycolysis/gluconeogenesis and glycerophospholipid metabolism between the clusters. All three clusters had significant differences in the distribution of protein subtypes classified by the expression of breast cancer-related proteins. Genes related to collagens and extracellular matrix were downregulated in Mc1 and consequently upregulated in Mc2 and Mc3, underpinning the differences in protein subtypes within the metabolic clusters. Genetic subtypes were evenly distributed among the three metabolic clusters and could therefore contribute to additional explanation of breast cancer heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Three naturally occurring metabolic clusters of breast cancer were detected among primary tumors from non-treated breast cancer patients. The clusters expressed differences in breast cancer-related protein as well as genes related to extracellular matrix and metabolic pathways known to be aberrant in cancer. Analyses of metabolic activity combined with gene and protein expression provide new information about the heterogeneity of breast tumors and, importantly, the metabolic differences infer that the clusters may be susceptible to different metabolically targeted drugs.