Breast cancer progression and host polymorphisms in the chemokine system: role of the macrophage chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) -2518 G Allele.
Recent reports suggest that the inflammatory reaction at the breast tumor site affects tumor growth and progression. Whereas lymphocytes have been shown to have divergent effects on development of breast cancer (2,10-13), it is widely accepted that high concentrations of TAMs are correlated with poor prognosis (2-10). Macrophage infiltration into tumors is regulated by several cytokines and chemokines, in particular macrophage chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1). MCP-1 is a member of the C-C chemokine family and possesses chemotactic activity for monocytes and T lymphocytes (14-17). MCP-1 is produced not only by tumor cells, but also by stromal cells such fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and monocytes. MCP gene transfer enhances the metastatic potential of cancer cells with increased neovascularization, whereas MCP-1 itself activates monocyte cytostatic function against tumor cells (18,19).
Recently, several studies have focused on other chemokines and chemokine receptors in the susceptibility and progression of cancer (20), in particular "regulated on activation normal T cell expressed and secreted" (RANTES), a molecule that attracts T cells and monocytes, and its receptor CCR5 (21, 22).
A third chemokine, stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF1), seems to be important in breast cancer progression and was demonstrated to be overproduced in breast cancer tissue (23-27).
Genetic variations commonly occur in the regulatory regions of chemokine genes, and such polymorphisms affect chemokine gene transcription in response to inflammatory stimuli. Consistent with this, polymorphisms have been described in the genes encoding for MCP-1, RANTES, CCR5, and SDF-1 (28-31).
The aim of this study was to investigate possible correlations between polymorphisms in the genes encoding for MCP-1, RANTES, SDF-1, and CCR5 and breast cancer clinical phenotypes, specifically the ability of genetic analysis to identify a subgroup of breast cancer patients with a disease that appears more aggressive or prone to metastasize.
We determined the MCP-1 -2518, RANTES -403, CCR5 delta32, and SDF-1 -801 genotypes in DNA isolated from peripheral blood samples of a consecutive unselected series of 83 white women from northern Italy with breast cancer of different stages who underwent surgery, and 141 age-matched healthy white women (control group). The median age of the breast cancer patients was 62 years (range, 24-91 years), and the median age of the controls was 63 years (range, 29-83 years).
We followed all patients in this study for 6-30 months (median follow-up, 21 months). Our Institutional Ethical Committee approved this study, and consent was obtained from patients and controls.
The presence (M+) or absence (M-) of metastasis at the time of operation and during the follow-up, in addition to axillary lymph node invasion at the time of pathologic staging, were considered as well and matched with the distribution of allelic variants (Table 1 in the Data Supplement that accompanies the online version of this Technical Brief at http://www.clinchem.org/content/ vo151 / issue2 /).
Vascular invasion was defined as the presence of cancer cells within endothelium-lined spaces in the hematoxylin/eosin-stained specimens. Whole blood (3 mL) from patients and controls was collected into potassium EDTA. DNA was prepared with Istagene Matrix extraction reagents (Bio-Rad Laboratories). The PCR reactions for MCP-1, RANTES, CCR5, and SDF-1 were carried out in a total volume of 25 [micro]L with 5 [micro]L of extracted genomic DNA; 100 [micro]M each of dATP, dGTP, dTTP, and dCTP; 1.5 mM Mg[Cl.sub.2; 1 U of Taq polymerase; and the two primers, forward and reverse, each at a concentration of 80 nM. The CCR5 delta32 deletion was identified by electrophoresis on a 2% agarose gel; the other three genotypes were determined with the PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism assay described by Szalai et al. (32).
We used the Fisher exact test to check for differences in allele distributions among the groups. Odds ratios (ORs; approximate relative risk) were calculated as an index of the association of chemokine genotypes with each phenotype. For each OR, two-tailed probability values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. All statistical analyses were two-sided and were performed with Stata Statistical Software (Stata Corporation). We used P <0.05 as the cutoff point for statistical significance.
Allele frequencies in both control and patient populations were within Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for the four genotypes. In breast cancer patients, we found no differences in the variant distributions for MCP-1 -2518A/G, RANTES -403G/A, SDF-1 -801G/A, and CCR5 delta32 compared with controls. The relevant values are summarized in Table 2 of the online Data Supplement. SDF-1, RANTES, and CCR5 variant distributions showed no statistically significant differences between subgroup M+ (presence of metastases) vs controls or between subgroups M+ vs M- (absence of metastases) or M- vs controls. We observed no differences in relation to vascular and lymph node invasion.
As for the MCP-1 -2518A/G promoter polymorphism, we observed a strong correlation between the presence of at least one G allele and the M+ subgroup at the end of the follow-up period: for A/A vs A/G + G/G, the OR was 2.83 (95% CI, 1.06-7.64; P = 0.020) for M+ vs M-patients; and for M+ patients vs controls, the OR was 2.09 (95% CI, 1.15-7.52; P = 0.012; Table 1).
At the end of the follow-up, 26 patients with stage I to II disease developed metastases, whereas 40 remained metastasis free. The genotype distribution was as follows: A/A, 8 M+ and 25 M- patients; A/G + G/G;18 M+ and 15 M- patients (P = 0.023).
This study is the first to implicate host chemokine gene variants in the progression of breast cancer. Analysis of polymorphisms in the chemokine system indicated that breast cancer patients carrying at least one G allele for the MCP-1 gene regulatory region were at increased risk of developing metastases independently of the initial stage. We observed no correlation with RANTES, SDF-1, and CCR5 polymorphisms.
Macrophage infiltration is a cornerstone of inflammation and neoangiogenesis, which negatively affect prognosis of invasive breast cancer (8). Therefore, any genetic variation accelerating transcriptional activity in genes encoding for proteins involved in macrophage infiltration could be suspected to enhance tumor progression and metastases.
Although several studies showed the importance of signaling factors, i.e., RANTES, CCR5, and SDF-1, in the susceptibility and progression of breast cancer, our data failed to demonstrate a possible relationship to the genetic patterns of the patients (21-27).
MCP-1 has been shown to inhibit the generation of T lymphocytes in response to tumor aggression (33), and therefore it is likely to be involved in immune response to breast cancer (34).
The presence of a common functional single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the MCP-1 gene was identified by Rovin et al. (28), who found that a biallelic G/A polymorphism at position -2518 of the MCP-1 gene 5'-flanking region influenced the transcriptional activity of the putative distal regulatory segment of the gene. Furthermore, this polymorphism correlated with individual differences in monocyte MCP-1 production. Monocytes from individuals carrying a G allele at -2518 produced more MCP-1 after treatment with interleukin-1[beta] than monocytes from A/A homozygous individuals. It was suggested that MCP-1 plays key roles in macrophage recruitment, expression of angiogenic factors, and activation of matrix metalloproteinases in patients with breast cancer (35). These conclusions are substantially confirmed by our study. In the present series, patients classified at stages I and II at the time of the diagnosis developed distant metastases significantly more frequently when carrying at least one G allele compared with A/A homozygotes.
Our study moves upward to a higher level of control of MCP-1 production. The presence of at least one G allele in the MCP-1 gene promoter of patients with stage I or II disease at the time of diagnosis enhances their risk of metastasis by a factor of 2.67 compared with patients diagnosed in the same stage but homozygous for the allele A. This finding coincides with the known over-expression of MCP-1 in breast cancer tissue (35).
In apparent contrast to the findings of Saji et al. (35), who found a significant association between MCP-1 expression in tumor stromal cells and vascular invasion (lymphatic as well as venous vessels) and a tendency of lymph node involvement, we could not confirm any associations between the presence of a MCP-1 G allele in the host and vascular or lymph node invasion.
In a previous study, we reported a correlation between a functional matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3) gene polymorphism, the more active 5A variant, and breast cancer susceptibility and found that 5A homozygosity is an independent factor of poorer prognosis (36). The results reported here seem to run in the same direction because protease production (including MMP-3) is one of the protumor biological functions of TAMs (20) that are recruited and activated by MCP-1.
Although suggestive and consistent with our hypothesis, the present results must be considered cautiously. Further studies are needed to confirm the role of a functional MCP-1 gene SNP regarding the relationships between breast cancer and host. This is a very complex matter involving an incredibly high number of variables, each of which may influence in some degree this relationship. Functional MCP-1 gene SNPs represent only one of many factors involved in determining the prognosis of breast cancer. Should our data be confirmed, in the future MCP-1 could be a reliable candidate for inclusion in a panel of genetic risk factors conditioning the course of the disease.
DOI : 10.1373/clinchem.2004.041657
(1.) Mantovani A, Bottazzi B, Colotta F, Sozzani S, Ruco L. The origin and function of tumor-associated macrophages. Immunol Today 1992;13:265-70.
(2.) Stewart THM, Heppner GH. Immunological enhancement of breast cancer. Parasitology 1997;115:S141-53.
(3.) Lee AHS, Happerfeld LC, Bobrow LG, Millis RR. Angiogenesis and inflammation in invasive carcinoma of breast. J Clin Pathol 1997;50:669-73.
(4.) van Netten JP, George EJ, Ashmead BJ, Fletcher C, Thorton IG, Coy P. Macrophage-tumor cell associations in breast cancer. Lancet 1993;342: 872-3.
(5.) van Netten JP, Ashmead BJ, Parker RL, Thornton IG, Fletcher C, Cavers D, et al. Macrophage-tumor cell associations: a factor in metastasis of breast cancer? J Leukoc Biol 1993;54:360-2.
(6.) Visscher DW, Tabaczka P, Long D, Crissman JD. Clinicopathologic analysis of macrophage infiltrates in breast carcinoma. Pathol Res Pract 1995;191: 1133-9.
(7.) Lewis CE, Leek R, Harris A, McGee JOD. Cytokine regulation of angiogenesis in breast cancer: the role of tumor-associated macrophages. J Leukoc Biol 1995;57:747-51.
(8.) Leek R, Lewis CE, Whitehouse R, Greenall M, Clarke J, Harris AL. Association of macrophage infiltration with angiogenesis and prognosis in invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer Res 1996;56:4625-9.
(9.) van Netten JP, Ashmed BJ, Cavers D, Fletcher C, Thorton IG, Antonsen BL, et al. "Macrophages" and their putative significance in human breast cancer [Letter]. Br J Cancer 1992;66:220-1.
(10.) O'Sullivan C, Lewis CE. Tumour-associated leukocytes: friends or foes in breast carcinoma [Review]. J Pathol 1994;172:229-35.
(11.) Lewin KY, Zuccarini 0, Sloane JP, Beverley PCL. An immunohistological study of leukocyte localization in benign and malignant breast tissue. Int J Cancer 1985;36:433-8.
(12.) Gottlinger HG, Rieber P, Gokel JM, Lohe KJ, Riethmuller G. Infiltrating mononuclear cells in human breast carcinoma: predominance of T4+ monocytic cells in the tumor stroma. Int J Cancer 1985;35:199-205.
(13.) Camp BJ, Dyhrman ST, Memoli VA, Mott LA, Barth RJ. In situ cytokine production by breast cancer tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Ann Surg Oncol 1996;13:176-84.
(14.) Yoshimura T, Robinson EA, Tanaka S, Appella E, Kuratsu J, Leonard EJ. Purification and amino acid analysis of two human glioma-derived monocyte chemoattractants. J Exp Med 1989;169:1449-59.
(15.) Yoshimura T, Yuhki N, Moore SK, Appella E, Lerman MI, Leonard EJ. Human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1). Full-length cDNA cloning, expression in mitogen-stimulated blood mononuclear leukocytes, and sequence similarity to mouse competence gene. FEBS Lett 1989;244:48793.
(16.) Sozzani S, Sallusto F, Luini W, Zhou D, Piemonti L, Allavena P, et al. Migration of dendritic cells in response to formyl peptides, C5a, and a distinct set of chemokines. J Immunol 1995;155:3292-5.
(17.) Roth SJ, Carr MW, Springer TA. C-C chemokines, but not the C-X-C chemokines interleukin-8 and interferon--y inducible protein-10, stimulate transendothelial chemotaxis of T lymphocytes. Eur J Immunol 1995;25: 3482-8.
(18.) Nakashima E, Mukaida N, Kubota Y, Kuno K, Yasumoto K, Ichimura F, et al. Human MCAF gene transfer enhances the metastatic capacity of a mouse cachectic adenocarcinoma cell line in vivo. Pharmacol Res 1995;12:1598604.
(19.) Zachariae CO, Anderson A0, Thompson HL, Appella E, Mantovani A, Oppenheim JJ, et al. Properties of monocyte chemotactic and activating factor (MCAF) purified from a human fibrosarcoma cell line. J Exp Med 1990;171:2177-82.
(20.) Vicari AP, Caux C. Chemokines in cancer. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2002;13:143-54.
(21.) Azenshtein E, Luboshits G, Shina S, Neumark E, Shahbazian D, Weil M, et al. The CC chemokine RANTES in breast carcinoma progression: regulation of expression and potential mechanisms of premalignant activity. Cancer Res 2002;62:1093-102.
(22.) Manes S, Mira E, Colomer R, Montero S, Real LM, Gomez-Mouton C, et al. CCR5 expression influences the progression of human breast cancer in a p53-dependent manner. J Exp Med 2003;198:1381-9.
(23.) Nagasawa T, Hirota S, Tachibana K, Takakura N, Nishikawa S, Kitamura Y, et al. Defects of B-cell lymphopoiesis and bone-marrow myelopoiesis in mice lacking the CXC chemokine PBSF/SDF-1. Nature 1996;382:635-8.
(24.) Feng Y, Broder CC, Kennedy PE, Berger EA. HIV-1 entry cofactor: functional cDNA cloning of a seven-transmembrane, G protein-coupled receptor. Science 1996;272:872-7.
(25.) Zou W, Machelon V, Coulomb-L'Hermin A, Borvak J, Nome F, Isaeva T, et al. Stromal-derived factor-1 in human tumors recruits and alters the function of plasmocytoid precursor dendritic cells. Nat Med 2001;7:1339-46.
(26.) Nishita M, Aizawa H, Mizuno K. Stromal cell-derived factor 1a activates LIM kinase 1 and induces cofilin phosphorylation for T-cell chemotaxis. Mol Cell Biol 2002;22:774-83.
(27.) Muller A, Homey B, Soto H, Ge N, Catron D, Buchanan ME, et al. Involvement of chemokine receptors in breast cancer metastasis. Nature 2001;410: 50-6.
(28.) Rovin BH, Lu L, Saxena R. A novel polymorphism in the MCP-1 gene regulatory region that influences MCP-1 expression. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1999;259:344-8.
(29.) Liu H, Chao D, Nakayama EE, Taguchi H, Goto M, Xin X, et al. Polymorphism in RANTES chemokine promoter affects HIV-1 disease progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999;96:4581-5.
(30.) Smith MW, Dean M, Carrington M, Winkler C, Huttley GA, Lomb DA, et al. Contrasting influence of CCR2 and CCR5 variants of HIV infection and disease progression. Science 1997;277:959-65.
(31.) Winkler C, Modi W, Smith MW, Nelson GW, Wu X, Carrington M, et al. ALIVE Study, Hemophilia Growth and Development Study (HGDS), Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS), Multicenter Hemophilia Cohort Study (MHCS), San Francisco City Cohort (SFCC): genetic restriction of AIDS pathogenesis by an SDF-1 chemokine gene variant. Science 1998;279:389-93.
(32.) Szalai C, Duba J, Prohaszka Z, Kalina A, Szabo T, Nagy B, et al. Involvement of polymorphisms in the chemokine system in the susceptibility for coronary artery disease (CAD). Coincidence of elevated Lp(a) and MCP-1 -2518G/G genotype in CAD patients. Atherosclerosis 2001;158:233-9.
(33.) Peng L, Shu S, Krauss JC. Monocyte chemoattractant protein inhibits the generation of tumor-reactive T cells. Cancer Res 1997;57:4849-54.
(34.) Ueno T, Toi M, Saji H, Muta M, Bando H, Kuroi K, et al. Significance of macrophage chemoattractant protein-1 in macrophage recruitment, angiogenesis, and survival in human breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6: 3282-9.
(35.) Saji H, Koike M, Yamori T, Saji S, Seiki M, Matsushima K, et al. Significant correlation of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 expression with neovascularization and progression of breast carcinoma. Cancer 2001;92:108591.
(36.) Ghilardi G, Biondi ML, Caputo M, Leviti S, DeMonti M, Guagnellini E, et al. A single nucleotide polymorphism in the matrix metal loproteinase 3 promoter enhances breast cancer susceptibility. Clin Cancer Res 2002;8: 3820-3.
Ghilardi,  * Maria Luisa Biondi,  Anna La Torre,  Lodovica Battaglioli,  and Roberto Scorzal ( Dipartimento MCO, Clinica Chirurgica Generale, Universita degli Studi di Milano-Polo S. Paolo, Milan, Italy;  Laboratorio di Chimica Clinica e Microbiologia, Ospedale S. Paolo-Polo Universitario, Milan, Italy; * address correspondence to this author at: Dipartimento MCO, Clinica Chirurgica Generale, Universita degli Studi di Milano-Polo S. Paolo, Via A. Di Rudim, 8, I-20142 Milan, Italy; e-mail giorgio.ghilardi@unimidt)
Table 1. MCP-1 genotypes in breast cancer patients with (M+) or without (M-) metastases at the end of follow-up. (a) M + patients M - patients (n = 39) (n = 44) n % n % MCP-1 genotype A/A 14 36 27 61 A/G 22 56 16 36 G/G 3 8 1 3 G allele frequency 28 0.36 18 0.21 OR (95% CI) P MCP-1 genotype A/A A/G G/G 2.83 (1.06-7.64) 0.020 G allele frequency 2.17 (1.03-4.64) 0.026 (a) Genotype data are expressed as the genotype frequency. The OR for each genotype was calculated as A/A vs A/G + G/G.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Technical Briefs|
|Author:||Ghilardi, Giorgio; Biondi, Maria Luisa; La Torre, Anna; Battaglioli, Lodovica; Scorza, Roberto|
|Date:||Feb 1, 2005|
|Previous Article:||Estimate of biological variation of laboratory analytes based on the third national health and nutrition examination survey.|
|Next Article:||Biological variation of coenzyme [Q.sub.10].|