Background:
Breast cancer is a major problem in the United States leading to tens of thousands of deaths each year. Although citrus auraptene suppresses cancer in numerous rodent models, its role in breast cancer prevention previously has not been reported. Thus, our goal was to determine the anticarcinogenic effects of auraptene against breast cancer.
Methods:
The effects of auraptene on cell proliferation of MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 human breast carcinoma cells in culture was assessed by measuring metabolism of a substrate to a formazan dye. Dietary effects of auraptene on tumor incidence, multiplicity and latency were studied in the N-methyl nitrosourea (MNU) induced mammary carcinogenesis model in female Sprague Dawley rats. The concentration of auraptene in rat tissues was analyzed by reverse phase HPLC. Cyclin D1 expression in MCF-7 cells and rat tumors was measured by western blot.
Results:
Auraptene (500 ppm) significantly delayed median time to tumor by 39 days compared to the MNU only group (p<0.05, n=24-26). Auraptene (10 muM) reduced Insulin like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1, 10 ng/mL)-induced cyclin D1 expression by 40% in MCF-7 cells. In comparison, western blot analysis of rat mammary tumors (n=10 per group) confirmed that auraptene (500 ppm) significantly reduced (p<0.05) cyclin D1 expression by 49% compared to the MNU only group. Analysis of rat mammary tissue extract by HPLC with fluorescence detection indicated an average concentration (means +/- S.E.) of 1.4 +/- 0.5 muM and 1.8 +/- 0.3 muM in the normal mammary glands of the auraptene 200 ppm and 500 ppm groups, respectively. The concentration (means +/- S.E.) of auraptene in the mammary tumors of the auraptene 200 ppm group was 0.31 +/- 0.98 muM.
Conclusions:
Overall, these observations suggest that the predominant effect of auraptene was to delay the development of tumors possibly through the suppression of cyclin D1 expression. These results point to the potential chemopreventive effects of auraptene in mammary carcinogenesis.

source

• Share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this
• Share on Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet this

Background:
Smokeless tobacco is an alternative for smokers who want to quit but require nicotine. Reliable evidence on its effects is needed. Boffetta et al. and ourselves recently reviewed the evidence on cancer, based on Scandinavian and US studies. Boffetta et al. claimed a significant 60-80% increase for oropharyngeal, oesophageal and pancreatic cancer, and a non-significant 20% increase for lung cancer, data for other cancers being "too sparse". We found increases less than 15% for oesophageal, pancreatic and lung cancer, and a significant 36% increase for oropharyngeal cancer, which disappeared in recent studies. We found no association with stomach, bladder and all cancers combined, using data as extensive as that for oesophageal, pancreatic and lung cancer. We explain these differences.
Methods:
For those cancers Boffetta et al. considered, we compared the methods, studies and risk estimates used in the two reviews.
Results:
One major reason for the difference is our more consistent approach in choosing between study-specific never smoker and combined smoker/non-smoker estimates. Another is our use of derived as well as published estimates. We included more studies, and avoided estimates for data subsets. Boffetta et al. also included some clearly biased or not smoking-adjusted estimates. For pancreatic cancer, their review included significantly increased never smoker estimates in one study and combined smoker/non-smoker estimates in another, omitting a combined estimate in the first study and a never smoker estimate in the second showing no increase. For oesophageal cancer, never smoker results from one study showing a marked increase for squamous cell carcinoma were included, but corresponding results for adenocarcinoma and combined smoker/non-smoker results for both cell types showing no increase were excluded. For oropharyngeal cancer, Boffetta et al. included a markedly elevated estimate that was not smoking-adjusted, and overlooked the lack of association in recent studies.
Conclusions:
When conducting meta-analyses, all relevant data should be used, with clear rules governing the choice between alternative estimates. A systematic meta-analysis using pre-defined procedures and all relevant data gives a lower estimate of cancer risk from smokeless tobacco (probably 1-2% of that from smoking) than does the previous review by Boffetta et al.

source

• Share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this
• Share on Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet this

IntroductionGonadotropin releasing hormone (GNRH1) triggers the release of follicle stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone from the pituitary. Genetic variants in the gene encoding GNRH1 or its receptor may influence breast cancer risk by modulating production of ovarian steroid hormones. We studied the association between breast cancer risk and polymorphisms in genes that code for GNRH1 and its receptor (GNRHR) in the large National Cancer Institute Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium (NCI-BPC3).
Methods:
We sequenced exons of GNRH1 and GNRHR in 95 invasive breast cancer cases. Resulting single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genotyped and used to identify haplotype-tagging SNPs (htSNPS) in a panel of 349 healthy women. The htSNPs were genotyped in 5,603 invasive breast cancer cases and 7,480 controls from the Cancer Prevention Study-II (CPS-II), European Prospective Investigation on Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), Multiethnic Cohort (MEC), Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), and Women’s Health Study (WHS). Circulating levels of sex steroids (androstenedione, estradiol, estrone and testosterone) were also measured in 4713 study subjects.
Results:
Breast cancer risk was not associated with any polymorphism or haplotype in the GNRH1 and GNRHR genes, nor were there any statistically significant interactions with known breast cancer risk factors. Polymorphisms in these two genes were not strongly associated with circulating hormone levels.
Conclusions:
Common variants of the GNRH1 and GNRHR genes are not associated with risk of invasive breast cancer in Caucasians.

source

• Share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this
• Share on Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet this

Background:
The prognosis for patients with breast tumor metastases to brain is extremely poor. Identification of prognostic molecular markers of the metastatic process is critical for designing therapeutic modalities for reducing the occurrence of metastasis. Although ubiquitously present in most human organs, large-conductance calcium- and voltage-activated potassium channel (BKCa) channels are significantly upregulated in breast cancer cells. In this study we investigated the role of KCNMA1 gene that encodes for the pore-forming alpha-subunit of BKCa channels in breast cancer metastasis and invasion.
Methods:
We performed Global exon array to study the expression of KCNMA1 in metastatic breast cancer to brain, compared its expression in primary breast cancer and breast cancers metastatic to other organs, and validated the findings by RT-PCR. Immunohistochemistry was performed to study the expression and localization of BKCa channel protein in primary and metastatic breast cancer tissues and breast cancer cell lines. We performed matrigel invasion, transendothelial migration and membrane potential assays in established lines of normal breast cells (MCF-10A), non-metastatic breast cancer (MCF-7), non-brain metastatic breast cancer cells (MDA-MB-231), and brain-specific metastatic breast cancer cells (MDA-MB-361) to study whether BKCa channel inhibition attenuates breast tumor invasion and metastasis using KCNMA1 knockdown with siRNA and biochemical inhibition with Iberiotoxin (IBTX).
Results:
The Global exon array and RT-PCR showed higher KCNMA1 expression in metastatic breast cancer in brain compared to metastatic breast cancers in other organs. Our results clearly show that metastatic breast cancer cells exhibit increased BKCa channel activity, leading to greater invasiveness and transendothelial migration, both of which could be attenuated by blocking KCNMA1.
Conclusion:
Determining the relative abundance of BKCa channel expression in breast cancer metastatic to brain and the mechanism of its action in brain metastasis will provide a unique opportunity to identify and differentiate between low grade breast tumors that are at high risk for metastasis from those at low risk for metastasis. This distinction would in turn allow for the appropriate and efficient application of effective treatments while sparing patients with low risk for metastasis from the toxic side effects of chemotherapy.

source

• Share:
• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this
• Share on Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet this