4.7 Article

Identification of cellular and genetic drivers of breast cancer heterogeneity in genetically engineered mouse tumour models

期刊

JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 233, 期 2, 页码 124-137

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/path.4345

关键词

Brca2; Pten; p53; tumour heterogeneity; breast cancer molecular subtypes; basal-like

资金

  1. Breakthrough Breast Cancer
  2. Cancer Research UK
  3. Marie-Curie Fellowship
  4. Fundacion Ramon Areces
  5. Marie Curie Actions [IEF-236788]
  6. Breast Cancer Campaign
  7. European Cancer Stem Cell Research Institute
  8. Cardiff University
  9. Breast Cancer Campaign [2012MayPR076] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Cancer Research UK [15938] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The heterogeneous nature of mammary tumours may arise from different initiating genetic lesions occurring in distinct cells of origin. Here, we generated mice in which Brca2, Pten and p53 were depleted in either basal mammary epithelial cells or luminal oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative cells. Basal cell-origin tumours displayed similar histological phenotypes, regardless of the depleted gene. In contrast, luminal ER-negative cells gave rise to diverse phenotypes, depending on the initiating lesions, including both ER-negative and, strikingly, ER-positive invasive ductal carcinomas. Molecular profiling demonstrated that luminal ER-negative cell-origin tumours resembled a range of the molecular subtypes of human breast cancer, including basal-like, luminal B and normal-like'. Furthermore, a subset of these tumours resembled the claudin-low' tumour subtype. These findings demonstrate that not only do mammary tumour phenotypes depend on the interactions between cell of origin and driver genetic aberrations, but also multiple mammary tumour subtypes, including both ER-positive and -negative disease, can originate from a single epithelial cell type. This is a fundamental advance in our understanding of tumour aetiology. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据