Research Article

DOI :10.26650/EurJBiol.2024.1362117 IUP :10.26650/EurJBiol.2024.1362117 Full Text (PDF)

Retrospective Analysis of Transcriptomic Differences between Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC

Objective: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), which has no expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and HER2, is an aggressive subgroup. Molecular differences between TNBC and non-TNBC should be better understood to develop tailored treatment strategies.

Materials and Methods: The expression of the most frequently mutated genes, and of genes for which copy number variation events are observed in the highest percentage of breast cancer patients, was compared between TNBC and non-TNBC samples, in Rprogramming environment, using TCGA-BRCA transcriptomics dataset.

Results: 70% of the most frequently mutated genes in breast cancer (CDH1, GATA3, MLL3 (KMT2C), MAP3K1, PTEN, NCOR1, FAT3, MAP2K4, NF1, ARID1A, LRP1B, RUNX1, MLL2 (KMT2D) and TBX3) was found to have decreased expression in TNBC compared to non-TNBC. The expression of 40% of the genes with the highest frequency of copy number gain events in breast cancer (SLC45A3, PTPRC, ELF3, FCGR2B, AKT3, FH, TPM3 and SETDB1) wasincreased in TNBC compared with non-TNBC. The half of the genes with the highest percentage of copy number loss events in breast cancer (CBFA2T3, CDH1, ZFHX3, CDH11, MAP2K4, GAS7, PER1, RABEP1, NCOR1 and PCM1) was observed to have decreased expression in TNBC compared to non-TNBC. Lastly, the expression of BRCA2, but not of BRCA1, was found to be higher in TNBC than in non-TNBC.

Conclusion: This study provides further evidence in support of previous research, which show the presence of a large number of molecular differences between TNBC and non-TNBC, pointing to the need for more tailored treatment strategies for patients with TNBC.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Estrogen receptor, Progesterone receptor, HER2; Copy number variation, Transcriptomics, Triple negative breast cancer.

References

1. Harding C, Pompei F, Burmistrov D, Welch HG, Abebe R, Wilson R. Breast cancer screening, incidence, and mortality across US counties. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(9):1483-1489. google scholar
2. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249. google scholar
3. Kim M, Park J, Bouhaddou M, et al. A protein interaction landscape of breast cancer. Science. 2021;374(6563):eabf3066. doi: 10.1126/science.abf3066 google scholar
4. Bianchini G, Balko JM, Mayer IA, Sanders ME, Gianni L. Triplenegative breast cancer: Challenges and opportunities of a heterogeneous disease. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(11):674-690. google scholar
5. Bianchini G, De Angelis C, Licata L, Gianni L. Treatment landscape of triple-negative breast cancer-expanded options, evolving needs. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2022;19(2):91-113. google scholar
6. Fallahpour S, Navaneelan T, De P, Borgo A. Breast cancer survival by molecular subtype: A population-based analysis of cancer registry data. CMAJ Open. 2017;5:E734-E739. google scholar
7. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: Clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:4429-4434. google scholar
8. Tan AR, Swain SM. Therapeutic strategies for triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer J. 2008;14:343-351. google scholar
9. Kaplan HG, Malmgren JA, Atwood M. T1N0 triple negative breast cancer: Risk of recurrence and adjuvant chemotherapy. Breast J. 2009;15:454-460. google scholar
10. Won KA, Spruck C. Triple negative breast cancer therapy: Current and future perspectives (Review). Int J Oncol. 2020;57:1245-1261. google scholar
11. Almansour NM. Triple-negative breast cancer: A brief review about epidemiology, risk factors, signaling pathways, treatment and role of artificial intelligence. Front Mol Biosci. 2022;9:836417. doi:10.3389/fmolb.2022.836417. google scholar
12. Berkel C, Kucuk B, Usta M, Yilmaz E, Cacan E. The effect of olaparib and bortezomib combination treatment on ovarian cancer cell lines. Eur J Biol. 2020;79(2):115-123. google scholar
13. Ciriello G, Gatza ML, Beck AH, et al. Comprehensive molecular portraits of invasive lobular breast cancer. Cell. 2015;163(2):506-519. google scholar
14. Jensen MA, Ferretti V, Grossman RL, Staudt LM. The NCI Genomic Data Commons as an engine for precision medicine. Blood. 2017;130(4):453-459. google scholar
15. Zhang Z, Hernandez K, Savage J, et al. Uniform genomic data analysis in the NCI Genomic Data Commons. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):1226. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21254-9. google scholar
16. Berger AC, Korkut A, Kanchi RS, et al. A Comprehensive pancancer molecular study of gynecologic and breast cancers. Cancer Cell. 20189;33(4):690-705.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.014. google scholar
17. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2012;490(7418):61-70. google scholar
18. Rahman M, Jackson LK, Johnson WE, Li DY, Bild AH, Piccolo SR. Alternative preprocessing of RNA-Sequencing data in The Cancer Genome Atlas leads to improved analysis results. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(22):3666-3672. google scholar
19. Weinstein JN, Collisson EA, Mills GB, et al. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network; The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project. Nat Genet. 2013;45(10):1113-1120. google scholar
20. Wilks C, Cline MS, Weiler E, et al. The Cancer Genomics Hub (CGHub): Overcoming cancer through the power of torrential data. Database. 2014:1-10. google scholar
21. Arora S. GSE62944: GEO accession data GSE62944 as a SummarizedExperiment. R package version 1.28.1;2023. http://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/GSE62944.html google scholar
22. Huber W, Carey VJ, Gentleman R, et al. Orchestrating high-throughput genomic analysis with bioconductor. Nat Methods. 2015;12(2):115-121. google scholar
23. Gentleman RC, Carey VJ, Bates DM, et al. Bioconductor: Open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics. Genome Biol. 2004;5(10):R80. doi:10.1186/gb-2004-5-10-r80 google scholar
24. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/ google scholar
25. Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4(43):1686. doi:10.21105/joss.01686 google scholar
26. Wickham H. stringr: Simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations. R package version 1.5.0;2022. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stringr google scholar
27. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York, 2016. google scholar
28. Wickham H, Bryan J. readxl: Read Excel Files. R package version 1.4.2;2023. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readxl google scholar
29. Morgan M, Shepherd L. ExperimentHub: Client to access ExperimentHub resources. R package version 2.4.0;2022. google scholar
30. Morgan M, Obenchain V, Hester J, Pages H. SummarizedExperiment: SummarizedExperiment container. R package version 1.26.1;2022. https://bioconductor.org/packages/SummarizedExperiment google scholar
31. Kassambara A. ggpubr: ’ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. R package version 0.6.0;2023. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr google scholar
32. Allaire J, Xie Y, Dervieux C, et al. rmarkdown: Dynamic Documents for R. R package version 2.21;2023. https://github.com/rstudio/rmarkdown google scholar
33. Xie Y. knitr: A General-Purpose Package for Dynamic Report Generation in R. R package version 1.42;2023. google scholar
34. Berkel C, Cacan E. In silico analysis of DYNLL1 expression in ovarian cancer chemoresistance. Cell Biol Int. 2020;44(8):1598-1605. google scholar
35. Berkel C, Cacan E. Transcriptomic analysis reveals tumor stage-or grade-dependent expression of miRNAs in serous ovarian cancer. Hum Cell. 2021;34(3):862-877. google scholar
36. Li X, Yang J, Peng L, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer has worse overall survival and cause-specific survival than non-triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;161(2):279-287. google scholar
37. Bai X, Ni J, Beretov J, Graham P, Li Y. Triple-negative breast cancer therapeutic resistance: Where is the Achilles’ heel? Cancer Lett. 2021;497:100-111. google scholar
38. Bai F, Zhang LH, Liu X, et al. GATA3 functions downstream of BRCA1 to suppress EMT in breast cancer. Theranostics. 2021;11(17):8218-8233. google scholar
39. Yu W, Huang W, Yang Y, et al. GATA3 recruits UTX for gene transcriptional activation to suppress metastasis of breast cancer. Cell Death Dis. 2019;10(11):832. doi:10.1038/s41419-019-2062-7 google scholar
40. Li S, Shen Y, Wang M, et al. Loss of PTEN expression in breast cancer: Association with clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis. Oncotarget. 2017;8(19):32043-32054. google scholar
41. Hong D, Fritz AJ, Gordon JA, et al. RUNX1-dependent mechanisms in biological control and dysregulation in cancer. J Cell Physiol. 2019;234(6):8597-8609. google scholar
42. Chaudhary S, Appadurai MI, Maurya SK, et al. MUC16 promotes triple-negative breast cancer lung metastasis by modulating RNA-binding protein ELAVL1/HUR. Breast Cancer Res. 2023;25(1):25. doi:10.1186/s13058-023-01630-7 google scholar
43. Ryu TY, Kim K, Kim SK, et al. SETDB1 regulates SMAD7 expression for breast cancer metastasis. BMB Rep. 2019;52(2):139-144. google scholar
44. Wu M, Fan B, Guo Q, et al. Knockdown of SETDB1 inhibits breast cancer progression by miR-381-3p-related regulation. Biol Res. 2018;51(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s40659-018-0189-0 google scholar
45. Liu Z, Liu J, Ebrahimi B, et al. SETDB1 interactions with PELP1 contributes to breast cancer endocrine therapy resistance. Breast Cancer Res. 2022;24(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s13058-022-01520-4 google scholar
46. Swetzig WM, Wang J, Das GM. Estrogen receptor alpha (ERa/ESR1) mediates the p53-independent overexpression of MDM4/MDMX and MDM2 in human breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7(13):16049-16069. google scholar
47. Zhang Z, Zhang J, Li J, et al. miR-320/ELF3 axis inhibits the progression of breast cancer via the PI3K/AKT pathway. Oncol Lett. 2020;19(4):3239-3248. google scholar
48. Kochetkova M, McKenzie OL, Bais AJ, et al. CBFA2T3 (MTG16) is a putative breast tumor suppressor gene from the breast cancer loss of heterozygosity region at 16q24.3. Cancer Res. 2002;62(16):4599-4604. google scholar
49. Dong G, MaG,WuR, et al. ZFHX3 promotes the proliferation and tumor growth of ER-positive breast cancer cells likely by enhancing stem-like features and MYC and TBX3 transcription. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(11):3415. doi: 10.3390/cancers12113415 google scholar
50. Chang JW, Kuo WH, Lin CM, et al. Wild-type p53 upregu-lates an early onset breast cancer-associated gene GAS7 to suppress metastasis via GAS7-CYFIP1-mediated signaling pathway. Oncogene. 2018;37(30):4137-4150. google scholar
51. Hsu CH, Ma HP, Ong JR, et al. Cancer-associated exosomal CBFB facilitates the aggressive phenotype, evasion of oxidative stress, and preferential predisposition to bone prometastatic factor of breast cancer progression. Dis Markers. 2022;2022:8446629. doi: 10.1155/2022/8446629 google scholar
52. Zhang Z, Yamashita H, Toyama T, et al. NCOR1 mRNA is an independent prognostic factor for breast cancer. Cancer Lett. 2006;237(1):123-129. google scholar
53. Mavaddat N, Barrowdale D, Andrulis IL, et al. Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2. Pathology of breast and ovarian cancers among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Jan;21(1):134-147. google scholar
54. De Talhouet S, Peron J, Vuilleumier A, et al. Clinical outcome of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations according to molecular subtypes. Sci Rep. 202027;10(1):7073. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-63759-1 Erratum in: Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):19248. google scholar
55. Lakhani SR, Reis-Filho JS, Fulford L, et al. Prediction of BRCA1 status in patients with breast cancer using estrogen receptor and basal phenotype. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:5175-5180. google scholar
56. Armes JE, Trute L, White D, et al. Distinct molecular pathogeneses of early-onset breast cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a population-based study. Cancer Res. 1999;59:2011-2017. google scholar
57. Palacios J, Honrado E, Osorio A, et al. Phenotypic characterization of BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumors based in a tissue microarray study with 37 immunohistochemical markers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;90:5-14. google scholar
58. Lakhani SR, Van De Vijver MJ, Jacquemier J, et al. The pathology of familial breast cancer: predictive value of immunohistochemical markers estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER-2, and p53 in patients with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2310-2318. google scholar
59. Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Chen X, et al. Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(7):2750-2767. google scholar
60. Sporikova Z, Koudelakova V, Trojanec R, Hajduch M. Genetic markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18(5):e841-e850. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.07.023 google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format

EXPORT

APA

Berkel, Ç. (2019). Retrospective Analysis of Transcriptomic Differences between Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC. European Journal of Biology, 0(0), -. https://doi.org/10.26650/EurJBiol.2024.1362117

AMA

Berkel Ç. Retrospective Analysis of Transcriptomic Differences between Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC. European Journal of Biology. 2019;0(0):-. https://doi.org/10.26650/EurJBiol.2024.1362117

ABNT

Berkel, Ç. Retrospective Analysis of Transcriptomic Differences between Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC. European Journal of Biology, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 0, p. -, 2019.

Chicago: Author-Date Style

Berkel, Çağlar,. 2019. “Retrospective Analysis of Transcriptomic Differences between Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC.” European Journal of Biology 0, no. 0: -. https://doi.org/10.26650/EurJBiol.2024.1362117

Chicago: Humanities Style

Berkel, Çağlar,. “Retrospective Analysis of Transcriptomic Differences between Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC.” European Journal of Biology 0, no. 0 (May. 2024): -. https://doi.org/10.26650/EurJBiol.2024.1362117

Harvard: Australian Style

Berkel, Ç 2019, 'Retrospective Analysis of Transcriptomic Differences between Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC', European Journal of Biology, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. -, viewed 6 May. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/EurJBiol.2024.1362117

Harvard: Author-Date Style

Berkel, Ç. (2019) ‘Retrospective Analysis of Transcriptomic Differences between Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC’, European Journal of Biology, 0(0), pp. -. https://doi.org/10.26650/EurJBiol.2024.1362117 (6 May. 2024).

MLA

Berkel, Çağlar,. “Retrospective Analysis of Transcriptomic Differences between Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC.” European Journal of Biology, vol. 0, no. 0, 2019, pp. -. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/EurJBiol.2024.1362117

Vancouver

Berkel Ç. Retrospective Analysis of Transcriptomic Differences between Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC. European Journal of Biology [Internet]. 6 May. 2024 [cited 6 May. 2024];0(0):-. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/EurJBiol.2024.1362117 doi: 10.26650/EurJBiol.2024.1362117

ISNAD

Berkel, Çağlar. “Retrospective Analysis of Transcriptomic Differences between Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC”. European Journal of Biology 0/0 (May. 2024): -. https://doi.org/10.26650/EurJBiol.2024.1362117

Issue 02019, P. -

TIMELINE

Submitted	18.09.2023
Accepted	23.11.2023
Published Online	31.01.2024

LICENCE

Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

European Journal of Biology