Abstract
The majority of human breast cancers are estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), but this has proven challenging to model in genetically engineered mice. This review summarizes information on 21 mouse models that develop ER+ mammary cancer. Where available, information on cancer pathology and gene expression profiles is referenced to assist in understanding which histological subtype of ER+ human cancer each model might represent. ESR1, CCDN1, prolactin, TGFα, AIB1, ESPL1, and WNT1 overexpression, PIK3CA gain of function, as well as loss of P53 (Trp53) or STAT1 are associated with ER+ mammary cancer. Treatment with the PPARγ agonist efatutazone in a mouse with Brca1 and p53 deficiency and 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene exposure in combination with an activated myristoylated form of AKT1 also induce ER+ mammary cancer. A spontaneous mutant in nude mice that develops metastatic ER+ mammary cancer is included. Age of cancer development ranges from 3 to 26 months and the percentage of cancers that are ER+ vary from 21 to 100%. Not all models are characterized as to their estrogen dependency and/or response to anti-hormonal therapy. Strain backgrounds include C57Bl/6, FVB, BALB/c, 129S6/SvEv, CB6F1, and NIH nude. Most models have only been studied on one strain background. In summary, while a range of models are available for studies of pathogenesis and therapy of ER+ breast cancers, many could benefit from further characterization, and opportunity for development of new models remains.
Introduction
Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease consisting of four clinically relevant categories based on the expression patterns of estrogen receptor α (ERα; ESR1) and V-Erb-B2 avian erythroblastic leukemia viral oncogene homolog 2 (HER2) (Guiu et al. 2012). Molecular studies divide breast cancers-expressing ERα into luminal A and luminal B subtypes that are distinguished by different expression patterns of proliferation-related genes. Together they are referred to as ER+ breast cancers. But within this classification exists different morphological/histological subtypes (Habashy et al. 2012). The majority of human invasive ER+ breast cancers are classified as invasive ductal, smaller percentages are defined as invasive lobular, while other histological subtypes including tubular, papillary, invasive cribriform, mucinous, adenocystic, adenosquamous, spindloid, and adenomyoepithelioma appear less commonly. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive cancer. ER+ breast cancer may or may not express progesterone receptor (PGR) and/or HER2+. Triple-negative breast cancer does not express ER, PGR, or enriched HER2 and includes basal-like breast cancer. ER+ luminal subtypes represent ∼70% of all invasive breast cancers diagnosed in the USA each year (Yanagawa et al. 2012).
ER+ breast cancer is defined if 1–10% of the cancer cell nuclei stain for ERα by immunohistochemistry (Harvey et al. 1999, Hammond et al. 2010). Women diagnosed with ER+ breast cancer are candidates for anti-hormonal therapy including tamoxifen, raloxifene, fulvestrant, and the aromatase inhibitors letrozole, exemestane, vorozole, formestane, and fadrozole (Ariazi et al. 2006, Larionov & Miller 2009, Geisler et al. 2012).
Classically, ERα is activated by binding to estrogens, resulting in nuclear translocation with binding to estrogen response elements and expression of estrogen target genes as a major mechanism of action. Membrane/cytoplasmic and G-protein-coupled activities are also described (Renoir et al. 2013). ERβ, which is encoded by a different gene, is generally characterized as being anti-proliferative in breast cancer (Fox et al. 2008). A wide range of molecular activities are known to influence the expression levels and activity of ERα, with many of these pathways having the capacity to contribute to breast cancer development (Manavathi et al. 2013). In both women (Allred et al. 2004) and mice (Frech et al. 2005), deregulated estrogen signaling can result in increased proliferation of the mammary ductal epithelium, leading to cancer progression.
Creation of immortalized ER+ breast cancer cell lines was an important step for the experimental study of ER+ breast cancer pathogenesis and therapy in vitro (Holliday & Speirs 2011, Wong & Chen 2012). Application of these cell lines to xenograft models has enabled a wide variety of in vivo studies examining response to therapy including anti-hormonal approaches (Brodie et al. 2005). Norway rats exposed to chemical carcinogens develop ER+ mammary cancer and have been used in different types of in vivo experiments exploring pathogenesis and treatment (Shull 2007).
Genetic engineering of mouse models to produce ER+ mammary cancer represents an alternative choice for in vivo study of ER+ breast cancer pathogenesis and treatment. Mice are more readily genetically manipulated than rats, there are many genetically engineered mouse models to breed into ER+ breast cancer models for further study, and mice are, in general, less expensive to maintain than rats. Mouse models of ER+ breast cancer have been reviewed previously (Mohibi et al. 2011, Kirma & Tekmal 2012). In this study, we update the discussion with more recently developed models as well as include new complementary information on those that have been described before. To date, five major types of models have been published (Table 1). The first type develops ER+ mammary cancer from direct overexpression of ERα in mammary epithelial cells (Table 1A). The second type exhibits ER+ mammary cancer as a result of genetic aberrations of other molecules within the estrogen-signaling pathway (Table 1B). The third type develops ER+ mammary cancer as a result of pharmacologic treatment in combination with genetic aberrations of other molecules within the estrogen-signaling pathway (Table 2). The fourth type results from exposure to a chemical carcinogen in combination with genetic aberrations of other molecules within the estrogen-signaling pathway (Table 3). The fifth type is derived from brother–sister matings of nude mice (Table 4).
Genetically engineered mouse models that develop ER+ breast cancer
| Published nomenclature | Genetic nomenclature | Background strain | Age range of mice demonstrating cancer development (months) | Percentage of mice with mammary cancers within this age range (%) | Percentage of mammary cancers designated ER+ (%) | Parity required for tumor development | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) Models developing ER+ mammary cancer from direct overexpression of ERα | |||||||
| tTA/TAg/ERα | Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–tTA/tet-op–SV40-TAg | C57Bl/6 | 10–12 | 37 | 100 | No | Tilli et al. (2003) |
| CERM (conditional estrogen receptor α in mammary tissue) | Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA | C57Bl/6 | 10–12 | 3–5 | 50 | No | Miermont et al. (2012) |
| Miermont et al. (2010) | |||||||
| Frech et al. (2005) | |||||||
| AIB1Δ3/CERM | Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–tTA/tet-op-AIB1Δ3 | C57Bl/6 | 19–26 | 7 | 50 | No | Nakles et al. (2011) |
| Brca1f/f; MMTV-Cre/p53+/−/CERM | Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA/Brca1 f11/f11/MMTV-Cre/p53+/− | C57Bl/6 | 9–16 | 100 | 50 | No | Herschkowitz et al. (2007) |
| (B) Models developing ER+ mammary cancer as a result of genetic alterations of molecules impacting estrogen signaling | |||||||
| MMTV-cyclin D1 | MMTV-Ccdn1 | C57Bl/6 | 12 | 5 | 100 | No | Miermont et al. (2012) |
| Wang et al. (1994) | |||||||
| MMTV-cyclin D1 | MMTV-Ccdn1 | FVB | 20–23 | 47.5 | 37.5 | Yes | Lin et al. (2008) |
| MMTV-D1T286A | MMTV-Ccdn1T286A | FVB | 16–20 | 51 | 50 | Yes | Lin et al. (2008) |
| NRL–PRL, line 1655–8 | Lcn2–Prl1655–8 | FVB | 12–21 | 80 | 50 | No | Rose-Hellekant et al. (2003) |
| MMTV-Wnt1 | MMTV-Wnt1 | FVB | 3–7 | 80 | 86 | No | Zhang et al. (2005) |
| P53(R270H/+)WAPCre | p53R270H/+/WAP-Cre | 129Sv/C57BL/6 | 7–8 | 87 | 67 | Yes | Wijnhoven et al. (2005) |
| P53fp/fpWAPCrec | p53fp/fpWAPCrec | CB6F1×C57BL/6 | 8–12.5 | 92 | 40 | No | Lin et al. (2004) |
| p53 null | p53−/− | BALB/c | 11–12 | 24–55 | 21 | No | Medina et al. (2002) |
| Stat1−/− | 129S6/SvEvTac-Stat1tm1Rds | 129S6/SvEv | 18–26 | 62 | 90 | No | Chan et al. (2012) |
| TGFα×p53+/− | Nrl–TGFαp53+/− | FVB/N | 9–21 | 100 | ‘Most’ | No | Rose-Hellekant et al. (2007) |
| MMTV–AIB1 | MMTV–AIB1 | FVB/N | 12–25 | 76 | 40 | No | Torres-Arzayus et al. (2004) |
| MMTV–Espl1 | MMTV–Espl1 | C57Bl/6 | 10–11 | 80 | 100 | Yes | Mukherjee et al. (2013) |
| MMTV–Espl1, p53+/− | MMTV–Espl1p53+/− | C57Bl/6 | 10–11 | 100 | 45 | Yes | Mukherjee et al. (2013) |
| Pik3caH1047R | R26-Pik3caH1047R/MMTV-CreNLST | FVB | 5–16 | 69 | 96 | Yes | Adams et al. (2011) |
Model developing ER+ mammary cancer as a result of pharmacologic treatment in combination with genetic alterations of molecules impacting estrogen signaling
| GEM model published nomenclature | Genetic nomenclature | Background strain | Age range of mice demonstrating cancer development (months) | Percentage of mice with mammary cancers within this age range (%) | Percentage of mammary cancers designated ER+ (%) | Pharmacological inducer | Parity required for tumor development | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brca1f11/f11/p53+/−/MMTV-Cre | Brca1f11/f11/p53+/−/MMTV-Cre | C57Bl/6 | 10–12 | 100 | 23 | Efatutazone administered at age 4 months | No | Nakles et al. (2013) |
Model developing ER+ mammary cancer as a result of carcinogen exposure in combination with genetic alterations of molecules impacting estrogen signaling
| Published nomenclature | Genetic nomenclature | Background strain | Age range of mice demonstrating cancer development (months) | Percentage of mice with mammary cancers within this age range (%) | Percentage of mammary cancers designated ER+ (%) | Chemical inducer | Parity required for tumor development | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMTV-myrAkt1 | MMTV–AKT1myr | C57Bl/6 | 6–12 | 40 | 100 | 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (DMBA) treatment for 5 weeks beginning at 9 weeks of age | No | Blanco-Aparicio et al. (2007) |
Model developing ER+ mammary cancer as a result of brother–sister matings of nude mice
| Published nomenclature | Background strain | Age range of mice demonstrating cancer development (months) | Percentage of mice with mammary cancers within this age range (%) | Percentage of mammary cancers designated ER+ (%) | Parity required for tumor development | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spontaneous mammary tumor model | NIH Nude | 3.5–12 | 62 | 100 | Yes | Kumar et al. (2007) |
At the present time, it is clear that there in no one mouse model that develops all of the histopathological types or molecular subtypes of ER+ human breast cancer (Malhotra et al. 2010). Human breast cancers are classified as non-invasive or invasive, and ER+ cancers are found in both categories. Invasive (also called infiltrating) ductal carcinoma is the most common type of human breast cancer and the majority of these are ER+. Histopathological types of human breast cancer that are even more commonly ER+ include invasive lobular, papillary, and tubular. Not all of the published studies that report the development of genetically engineered mice provide sufficient detail to be able to definitively assign the histopathology developing in the mouse to the corresponding human histopathology. Similarly, not all models have been yet adequately molecularly analyzed to be able to accurately assign molecular subtype. However, where this information is available, it is reported in the text as part of the description of the model.
The transcriptomes of mouse and human mammary epithelial cells demonstrate significant similarities in gene and pathway activation (Lim et al. 2010). However, there are differences in ER expression patterns. Luminal progenitor cells in humans are reported to express higher levels of ER than that in mice (Visvader 2009). In both normal human and mouse mammary gland, ER is expressed in a portion of the non-proliferating luminal mammary epithelial cells, whereas premalignant and malignant lesions demonstrate proliferating ER+ mammary cells (Anderson et al. 1998, Anderson & Clarke 2004). However, while human mammary stroma does not demonstrate expression of ER, ER is expressed in the mouse mammary stroma where it is able to act in a paracrine fashion on the mammary epithelium (Parmar & Cunha 2004).
The genetically engineered mouse models presented here utilize the mouse mammary tumor virus (Mmtv) long-terminal repeat and the rat neu-related lipocalin (Nrl) promoter to drive coding sequences of cancer-inducing proteins. The Mmtv and whey acidic protein (Wap) promoters are used to drive the expression of the Cre recombinase. The Mmtv and Wap promoter sequences contain hormone-responsive elements, while the Nrl promoter is hormonally non-responsive. Molecular studies in vitro demonstrate that while the Mmtv promoter is responsive to glucocorticoid receptor, androgen receptor, and PGR, it is not an ER-responsive promoter (Prefontaine et al. 1999). In vivo, expression of Erbb2 from an Mmtv promoter is not significantly increased by coincident expression of aromatase, which increases estrogen production (Tekmal et al. 2007). The Wap-Cre transgene is active only during lactation, while Mmtv-Cre is active throughout mammary development (Wagner et al. 1997). Studies in which ovariectomy is performed to demonstrate estrogen responsiveness of MMTV-driven cancers should take into account that ovariectomy will result in loss of both estrogen and progesterone, rendering the possibility that tumor regression could be confounded by a decrease in transgene expression levels due to the loss of progesterone. Appropriate controls to perform are to directly assess transgene expression in the presence and absence of ovariectomy. Similarly, if exogenous hormones including estrogen and progesterone are used, their impact on transgene expression levels should be characterized. The same transgene in different integration sites can exhibit different regulatory behavior, so one cannot generalize about the hormone dependency of a specific transgene from one line to another (Wagner et al. 2001). Finally, some hormonally unresponsive promoters within the transgenes can nevertheless demonstrate a dependency for the expression on hormonally regulated developmental stages such as the C3(1)/T(AG) transgene, whose expression is turned on with puberty but does not demonstrate differences in expression in response to isolated alterations in estrogen or ER levels (Yoshidome et al. 2000). Finally, hormonally responsive promoters can lose their dependence upon hormonal signals as reported for the Wap-rtTACre transgene (Lin et al. 2004).
ER1 overexpression mouse models
The addition of murine Esr1 expression to a mouse model in which expression of simian virus 40 T antigen (TAg) is directed to epithelial tissues using a conditional tetracycline responsive gene expression system that induces the appearance of ER+ mammary adenocarcinoma in 37% of the female of tetracycline-operator (tet-op)–Esr1MMTV–tetracycline transactivator (tTA)/(tet-op-TAg) mice by 12 months of age (Tilli et al. 2003; Table 1A). All of the mammary cancers that appear in this model are ER+. The cancers have been shown to bind estrogen and demonstrate estrogen dependence. In this model, expression of both Esr1 and simian virus 40 TAg are targeted together to epithelial cells and temporally regulated using an Mmtv–tTA ‘tet-off’ transgene (Hennighausen et al. 1995, Furth 1997). A ‘tet-off’ regulated transgene is expressed in the absence of exposure of the mice to a tetracycline compound such as doxycycline. Administration of doxycycline to a transgenic mouse carrying the ‘tet-off’ system results in doxycycline binding to the tetracycline responsive transactivator protein, which changes its conformation and renders it unable to bind to the tetracycline responsive promoter. In contrast, in the ‘tet-on’ system a mutated tetracycline responsive transactivator protein is expressed, which binds a tetracycline responsive promoter only when it is bound to a tetracycline compound such as doxycycline. Both systems can be used equally as efficiently in transgenic mice to temporally direct transgene expression. Significantly, in the absence of coincident TAg expression, Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–tTA transgenic mice do not develop mammary gland cancer. The adenocarcinomas that develop in the tet-op–Esr1MMTV–tTA/tet-op–SV40-TAg mice histologically model human ER+ ductal adenocarcinoma.
In contrast, utilization of a different conditional transgene (MMTV–rtTA; Gunther et al. 2002) to target murine Esr1 overexpression to mammary epithelial cells results in 3–5% of the Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA mice exhibiting mammary adenocarcinoma by 12 months of age (Miermont et al. 2010, 2012; Table 1A). Half of the invasive adenocarcinomas that appear are ERα+ and neither cancer prevalence nor percentage of ERα+ adenocarcinoma is altered by low-dose 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (DMBA) exposure, loss of the signal transducers and activators of transcription factor 5a (Stat5a) gene, or coincident cyclin D1 overexpression. Prevalence of preneoplasia is higher than that of cancer with 30% of the mice reproducibly demonstrating ductal hyperplasia (DH) and 40% hyperplastic alveolar nodules (HANs) by age 12 of months (Diaz-Cruz et al. 2011, Nakles et al. 2011). In this model, expression of ERα is increased from 1.5- to 2-fold in mammary epithelial cells, resulting in the appearance of increased mammary ductal epithelial cell proliferation and the appearance of DH and DCIS by 4 months of age (Frech et al. 2005). Disease appearance is dependent upon the presence of cyclin D1 (Frech et al. 2008). Loss of one copy of p53 (Trp53) significantly increases preneoplasia prevalence but not cancer (Diaz-Cruz & Furth 2010). Significantly, ERα+ invasive adenocarcinomas have developed on tamoxifen in this model and tamoxifen delivered at 10 months of age fails to induce a significant reduction in HAN prevalence, consistent with the presence of a significant degree of intrinsic tamoxifen resistance (Miermont et al. 2012). The impact of a ‘tet-off’ transgene (tet-op–tTA), whose expression is on an autoregulatory loop (Shockett et al. 1995), to target tet-op–Esr1 expression to both epithelial and non-epithelial tissues has also been investigated (Tomic et al. 2007). Mammary DH also appears in these mice by 4 months of age (Tilli et al. 2003). The higher rates of preneoplasia and cancer development in Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA as compared with Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–tTA mice is correlated with a significantly higher percentage of mammary epithelial cells demonstrating targeted transgene expression (Hennighausen et al. 1995, Gunther et al. 2002). The tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA mice histologically model human DCIS and ductal adenocarcinoma. Adenosquamouscarcinomas, modeling a less common human subtype, appear less frequently.
Amplified in breast cancer 1 (AIB1), also known as steroid receptor coactivator 3 or thyroid hormone receptor activator molecule 1, impacts the activity of both hormone-dependent and -independent pathways in breast cancer and has been proposed as a modulator of tamoxifen resistance (Lahusen et al. 2009, Xu et al. 2009). A splice variant lacking the N-terminal domain (AIB1Δ3/AIB1-Δ4) is a more potent inducer of estrogen-mediated gene transcription (Chien et al. 2011). Tri-transgenic tet-op–Esr1MMTV–tTA/tet-op–AIB1 and tet-op–Esr1MMTV–tTA/tet-op–AIB1Δ3 mice were generated to compare the impact of AIB1 and AIB1Δ3 on ERα-mediated mammary carcinogenesis (Nakles et al. 2011; Table 1A). ER+ mammary adenocarcinomas modeling human invasive ductal carcinoma was developed in the tet-op–Esr1MMTV–tTA/tet-op–AIB1Δ3 mice, but the prevalence was not significantly different than that found in the Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA mice and cancers did not appear until 19–26 months of age, rendering no advantages of this genetic combination over the Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA mice for the study of ER+ mammary cancer.
Loss of the BReast CAncer 1, early-onset 1 (BRCA1) gene is a genetic risk factor for the development of breast cancer. A high percentage of women born with deleterious mutations in the BRCA1 gene will develop breast cancer by age 70 (Chen & Parmigiani 2007). The predilection for cancer development in estrogen responsive tissues in women carrying BRCA1 mutations may be related to the ability of BRCA1 to downregulate the activity of ERα (Eisen et al. 2008). Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA mice were mated to mice with genetically engineered conditional deletion of exon 11 of the Brca1 gene in the mammary epithelial cells to generate Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA/Brca1-floxed exon 11 (f11)/f11/MMTV-Cre for testing the impact of ERα overexpression on cancer development initiated by loss of BRCA1 function (Jones et al. 2008). In the absence of Esr1 overexpression, 53% of Brca1-deficient mice (Brca1f11 (f11)/f11/MMTV-Cre/p53+/−) develop triple-negative (ER−/PGR−/HER2<2+) adenocarcinomas with gene expression patterns paralleling those found in human breast cancers (Herschkowitz et al. 2007). In contrast, in the presence of Esr1 overexpression, 100% of Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA/Brca1-floxed exon 11 (f11)/f11/MMTV-Cre/p53+/− mice develop mammary adenocarcinomas and 50% of these are ER+ (Table 1A). HAN prevalence is also 100% by 12 months of age and 50% of the hyperplasias are ER+ (Jones et al. 2008). The mammary cancers that develop in the tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA/Brca1 f11/f11/MMTV-Cre/p53+/− mice most commonly histologically model human-invasive ductal carcinoma.
Models that develop ERα+ cancer through alterations in the molecules interacting with the estrogen-signaling pathway
Cyclin D1 overexpression mouse models
Cyclin D1 plays an important role in the regulation of estrogen signaling in mammary tissue (Fu et al. 2004, Casimiro et al. 2013). Expression of cyclin D1 is positively correlated with ERα expression in breast cancer (van Diest et al. 1997, Bostrom et al. 2009). Cyclin D1 forms a complex with CDK4 or CDK6 to regulate the cell cycle at the G1/S phase and CDK4/6 inhibitors such as PD 0332991 are being studied in combination with anti-hormonal agents for the treatment of ERα+ cancer (Sutherland & Musgrove 2002, Lange & Yee 2011). Depending upon the length of time observed, specific transgenic line, and strain background studied, cyclin D1 overexpression targeted to mammary epithelial cells in Mmtv-Ccdn1 transgenic mice results in the development of mammary cancer in 5–47.5% of mice (Wang et al. 1994, Lin et al. 2008, Miermont et al. 2012; Table 1B). Adenocarcinoma and adenosquamouscarcinoma histologic types appear corresponding to the same histologic subtypes in invasive human breast cancers. On an FVB background, 47.5% of Mmtv-Ccdn1 mice develop mammary cancer between 20 and 23 months of age, 37.5% of these cancers are ER+, and isolated ER+ cancer cells placed in tissue culture are reported to demonstrate estrogen responsiveness (Lin et al. 2008). Mmtv-Ccdn1T286A transgenic mice carry a genetically engineered cyclin D1 allele with an activating mutation. The mutant cyclin D1 encoded by the genetically engineered allele cannot be phosphorylated. This lack of phosphorylation interrupts cyclin D1 nuclear export, resulting in its retention in the nucleus and continuing activity (Lin et al. 2008). On an FVB background, 51% of these mice develop mammary cancer by 16–20 months of age, 50% are ER+, and the isolated cancer cells in tissue culture demonstrate estrogen responsiveness and tamoxifen growth inhibition (Lin et al. 2008). A high proportion of mammary adenocarcinomas arising in the Mmtv-Ccdn1 mice demonstrate papillary histology, modeling human papillary breast cancer, while secretory glandular histology predominates in Mmtv-Ccdn1T286A mice, an uncommon histological subtype in humans.
Prolactin overexpression mouse models
Prolactin (PRL) is a peptide hormone essential for normal mammary growth and development that, when overexpressed in mammary tissue, can induce mammary cancer development in mouse models. In women, the role of PRL in breast cancer development remains under investigation (Clevenger et al. 2003, Tworoger et al. 2013). PRL has the ability to activate ERα in the absence of ligand (O'Leary et al. 2013), and high levels of PRL have been associated with tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor resistance (Dowsett et al. 1983, Bhatavdekar et al. 1994, Bami et al. 1998). Genetically engineered mice overexpressing rat Prl from the hormonally unresponsive rat Nrl promoter in the mammary epithelial cells was generated to study the potential role of local PRL overexpression in mammary cancer (Rose-Hellekant et al. 2003, Arendt et al. 2011; Table 1B). ER+ adenocarcinomas developed in one of the two FVB/N Prl–Nrl founder lines generated (line 1655–8; Table 1B). Line 1655–8 demonstrates elevated levels of serum PRL and 80% of the female mice from this line develop mammary adenocarcinomas between 12 and 21 months of age, and 50% of the cancers are ER+. Papillary is the predominant histology (44%) followed by glandular (22%) and solid (22%). Different percentages of ER+ cancer cells are described in the different cancer histologies: glandular (10%), solid (4%), papillary (21%), adenosquamous (32%), and carcinosarcoma (8%), modeling different histologic subtypes of some of the less commonly diagnosed human ER+ breast cancers. Significantly, aged (∼22 months of age) FVB/N mice with pituitary prolactinomas also develop ER+ mammary cancers (Radaelli et al. 2009).
Wnt1 mouse models
Molecules involved in the Wnt1 signaling pathway (including cyclin D1, c-myc, and β-catenin) have been implicated in breast cancer (Li et al. 2000). Wnt1 signaling increases β-catenin levels, which transcriptionally activates cyclin D1 and c-myc. The impact of Wnt1 signaling on cyclin D1 ultimately affects the downstream estrogen–ER complex that regulates gene transcription and expression. The role of Wnt1 in mammary cancer was initially investigated because it is one of the randomly selected sites of integration for the MMTV. Eighty percent of female Mmtv-Wnt1 transgenic mice develop mammary cancer between 3 and 7 months of age with ∼86% categorized as ER+ as defined by at least 5% of the mammary epithelial cancer cells demonstrating ERα expression (Zhang et al. 2005; Table 1B). Growth of the cancers, however, is not repressed by loss of estrogen signaling. Instead ER+ cells are lost, and selection of proliferating ER negative cells maintains cancer growth. Histology of the ER+ mammary cancers was not defined. While neither Ras mutation nor Pten insufficiency impact the percentage of Wnt1-induced mammary cancers demonstrating ER expression, p53 haplo-insufficiency, p53 insufficiency, and HER2/Neu overexpression lead to loss of ER positivity (Zhang et al. 2005, Fuchs-Young et al. 2011).
p53 mutation, p53 deletion, and p53 deletion transplant mouse models
Mutations in the p53 gene are reported in 20–23% of ER+ breast cancer and are reported to negatively impact response to anti-hormonal therapy (Gasco et al. 2002, Uji et al. 2013, Yamamoto et al. 2014). A variety of cellular processes regulated by p53, including cell cycle control, apoptosis, senescence and response to DNA damage, can affect breast cancer development and therapy response (Lai et al. 2012, Walerych et al. 2012). In vitro p53 has been shown to regulate ERα transcription by recruiting essential transcription factors to the ERα promoter in MCF-7 cells (Shirley et al. 2009). However, In vivo, p53-deficient mice have been shown to develop ER+ tumors, indicating that p53 is not required for ER expression.
Three different mouse models of functional p53 loss develop ER+ mammary cancer (Table 1B). Expression of a p53 R270H mutant allele targeted to mammary epithelium and activated during pregnancy using a WAP-Cre transgene (Wijnhoven et al. 2005) generates a mouse model in which mammary cancers appeared in 87% of the mice with a mean latency of 5 months following activation of Cre recombination during pregnancy. Sixty-seven percent of the cancers are reported to exhibit ER stained cells. Papillary and carcinosarcoma subtypes, modeling two less commonly seen human histologic subtypes, demonstrate epithelial cell staining, and a sarcoma subtype shows only positive mesenchymal cells. In another model, the Wap-Cre transgene is used to delete both copies of p53 in mammary epithelium (Lin et al. 2004). Ninety-two percent of the parous mice develop mammary tumors with a median tumor latency of 9.5 months. Forty percent of the cancers are ER+ and include adenocarcinoma, myoepithelial adenocarcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma, and spindle cell histologies. The adenocarcinomas would model human ductal carcinoma, while the others would model less frequently diagnosed subtypes. In contrast, if an Mmtv-Cre transgene is used to execute the p53 deletion, none of the mammary cancers that develop are ER+, whether they are parous or virgin. A third p53-related model developed in BALB/c mice uses implants of mammary epithelium from 8-week-old female mice with germ line loss of p53 that is placed into the cleared mammary fat pads of 3-week-old mice to generate a mouse model of human DCIS (Jerry et al. 2000, Medina et al. 2002, 2003). Between 24 and 55% of the implanted mice develop disease by 11 or 12 months following implantation, and 21% of the lesions are ER+.
STAT1-deficient mouse model
STAT1 plays a role in the mediation of innate immunity, lying downstream of type 1 and 2 interferons, and is reported to both promote leukemogenesis and inhibit mammary carcinogenesis in mice (Koromilas & Sexl 2013). STAT1 is expressed in human breast cancer epithelial cells with some, but not all, studies demonstrating a positive correlation with ERα and disease prognosis (Furth 2013). Ninety percent of the mammary carcinomas that develop in Stat1-deficient (129S6/SvEvTac-Stat1tm1Rds) mice are ER+, show hormone-dependent growth, and demonstrate luminal-type cancer surface markers (Chan et al. 2012; Table 1B). Mammary cancers develop between 18 and 26 months of age. While only 62% of nulliparous mice develop mammary cancer, this increases to 91% in multiparous mice. The molecular signature of the mammary carcinomas developing in the mice resembles that of human luminal-type breast cancers. Histology is only specified as carcinoma and not further subtyped. Follow-up studies suggest that Stat1 suppresses mammary cancer formation through regulation of Jak2 activity by suppressor of cytokine signaling 1 (Socs1; Chan et al. 2014).
Transforming growth factor α overexpression mouse model
Transforming growth factor α (TGFα) is a member of the epidermal growth factor family that is overexpressed in some human breast cancers (Booth & Smith 2007). It promotes epithelial development and proliferation. Upon binding to its receptor, ERBB1, it creates either a homodimer or heterodimer with another member of the ERBB family of proteins (Roepstorff et al. 2008). Some of the dimers have been observed in ER− or ER+/PR− tumors spurring an interest in the role of TGFα in breast cancers (Holbro et al. 2003). TGFα expression can be found in 50–70% of human breast tumors and has been found to be downregulated by tamoxifen in ER+/PR+ breast cancers (Ciardiello et al. 1991, Noguchi et al. 1993). TGFα signaling stimulates cytoplasmic Pi3k, which triggers Akt. Genetically engineered FVB/N mice that overexpress TGFα in mammary epithelial cells due to an Nrl–Tgfα transgene will develop ER+ mammary cancers (Rose-Hellekant et al. 2007; Table 1B). It is reported that ‘most’ mammary cancers are ER+ but PGR− appear in virgin mice between ages 9 and 21 months and parous mice between ages 8 and 14 months of age. Cystic papillary histopathology is found in all the mice with the development of ‘solid adenomatous’ tumors in some mice, the first type may correspond to the papillary subtype in human. Ovariectomy reduces mammary tumor incidence from 100% in mice with ovaries to 67% in ovariectomized mice and increased the mean age at which tumors appeared by 4 months. Significantly mammary cancers that appear in Nrl–Tgfα/p53+/− mice are ER negative.
Aib1 overexpression mouse model
Mmtv–Aib1 mice on an FVB/N background were generated to test the impact of high levels of Aib1 expression targeted to mammary epithelial cells (Torres-Arzayus et al. 2004; Table 1B). ER+ and ER− mammary tumors appear in 40 and 8%, respectively, of female mice with the majority appearing between 12 and 25 months of age. There was no significant difference in the time of onset or incidence between virgin and parous mice. Both mammary preneoplasia and tumors are reported to demonstrate high levels of the phosphorylated forms of insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor, the p70S6 kinase, and phospho-S6 ribosomal protein. Other tumors that appear in these mice include the frequent appearance of pituitary adenomas, uterine leiomyosarcomas, and lung adenocarcinomas and less frequently fibrosarcomas, skin papillomas and squamous cell carcinomas, ovarian teratomas, lymphomas, osteomacrophage sarcomas, and adrenocortical tumors of the kidney. ER+ tumor histopathology is reported as microacinar and comedo type, types corresponding to non-invasive DCIS-type breast cancers in women.
Separase overexpression mouse model
Espl1 encodes the gene for separase, a cysteine protease that hydrolyzes cohesin, mediating progression from metaphase to anaphase. It is overexpressed in some ER+ human breast cancers. Eighty percent of multiparous transgenic C57Bl/6 mice carrying an Mmtv–Espl1 transgene develop mammary tumors by 10–11 months of age (Mukherjee et al. 2013; Table 1B). Tumors also develop in primiparous but not nulliparous mice. Nuclear and cytoplasmic staining for ER is described in all histological types of mammary cancers that developed in these mice: spindle-like, squamous, solid, and glandular, the first two subtypes representing less common histologic human breast cancer subtypes with further information required to know if the other histologies correspond to human ductal carcinomas. Significant intra- and inter-tumor heterogeneity demonstrating both luminal and basal features are present with more and less differentiated areas exhibiting different ER expression levels. An immune reaction with hyperproliferative stroma is present in 12-month-old mice. Introduction of a p53/− background into the mice did not significantly alter tumor penetrance or latency; however, lung metastases are found only in Mmtv–Espl1/p53+/− mice and the percentage of ER+ cells is reduced to ∼45%. The Mmtv–Espl1/p53+/− model is described as being the representative of the more aggressive forms of human breast cancer that exhibit genomic instability, cell cycle defects, and metastases.
Phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase, catalytic subunit α gain-of-function mutation mice
Activating mutations in the phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase, catalytic subunit α (PIK3CA) gene occur in between one-quarter and one-third of human breast cancers, with 40% of these mutations located to the kinase domain. Introduction of a Pik3ca gene sequences carrying the H1047R-activating mutation (Pik3caH1047R) into the Rosa26 (Gt(Rosa)26Sor) locus with activation through expression of an Mmtv-Cre transgene results in 43% of the Pik3caH1047R/p53f/+/MMTV-CreLineA mice developing mammary tumors by 10 months of age when the more strongly expressed Mmtv-CreLineA transgene is used, and 69% of mice by 17 months of age when the more mammary cell targeted but heterogeneously expressed Mmtv-CreNLST transgene is used (Table 1B; Adams et al. 2011). Lymphomas/thymomas as well as other tumors also develop in these mice at significant frequencies (84 and 43% respectively). Tumors appear in both virgin and parous mice. Loss of one p53 allele increases the percentage of Pik3caH1047R/p53f/+/MMTV-CreNLST mice, demonstrating mammary tumors to 80% by ∼10 months of age. Ninety-six percent of the tumors developing in the Pik3caH1047R/p53f/+/MMTV-CreNLST mice are reported as either adenomyoepithelioma or adenosquamouscarcinoma, and ER+ cells are noted to be found in each of these histological cancer types, although specific percentages are not reported. These represent some of the less commonly seen ER+ histological subtypes found in women. Spindle cell tumors also appear.
Pharmacological interventions can promote the development of ERα+ mammary cancer in genetically engineered mice
PPARγ is expressed in human breast cancers where, when activated, it can exert a differentiating, apoptotic, and/or growth inhibiting effect (Kotta-Loizou et al. 2012). Efatutazone was tested as a cancer preventative in Brca1 mice because it is a high affinity PPARγ agonist that does not demonstrate activation of related receptors PPARα or PPARΔ and is currently in human clinical trials for cancer therapy. Brca1 mice were used because they have intrinsic resistance to tamoxifen (Jones et al. 2008) and efatutazone represents an alternative preventative. The percentage of Brca1f11 (f11)/f11/MMTV-Cre/p53+/− mice developing ERα+ cancers can be increased by exposure to the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ agonist efatutazone (Nakles et al. 2013; Table 2). While expression of ERα is rare (0–1%) in cancers developing in untreated Brca1f11/f11/MMTV-Cre/p53+/− mice, it rises to 23% in cancers that develop on efatutazone treatment initiated at 4 months of age. ER+ histologic subtypes that appear on efatutazone in Brca1f11/f11/MMTV-Cre/p53+/− mice include papillary and DCIS, modeling the same histological subtypes found in women.
Carcinogen exposure can promote the development of ERα+ mammary cancer in genetically engineered mice
Nuclear localization of phosphorylated V-Akt murine thymoma viral oncogene homolog 1 (AKT1) is correlated with ER positivity in human breast cancers (Bostner et al. 2013). AKT1 lies downstream of phosphoinositide-3-kinase (PI3K) signaling. This pathway can play numerous roles in carcinogenesis (Klarenbeek et al. 2013). To explore the role of AKT1 activation in breast cancer, a genetically engineered mouse model with the expression of an artificially constitutively activated form of Akt1 targeted to mammary epithelium using the Mmtv promoter was generated (Mmtv-myrAkt1 mice) (Blanco-Aparicio et al. 2007; Table 3). Localization of Akt1 to the membrane through myristoylation generates a mouse model with constitutive AKT activation. Both lines of transgenic mice generated develop mammary cancer, but only after exposure to the chemical carcinogen, DMBA beginning at 9 weeks of age and continuing for 5 weeks. Roughly 40% of the mice exhibit either mammary adenocarcinoma (papillary or poorly differentiated) or adenosquamous carcinoma between 13 and 39 weeks after DMBA administration (between 6 and 12 months of age). All of the cancers are ER+. The poorly differentiated cancers may model the more commonly found invasive ductal carcinomas in women while the other two subtypes would model less commonly found morphologies. Given the cytoplasmic localization of Akt1 in these transgenic mice, they do not directly model the nuclear AKT1 localization reported in human ER+ breast cancer. However, WT mice exposed to DMBA demonstrate predominantly ER− mammary tumors (Yin et al. 2009). The appearance of ER+ mammary cancers in this model appears to be functionally related to expression of the activated Akt1.
Spontaneous ER+ mammary cancer nude mouse model
Although not deliberately genetically engineered, brother–sister matings of heterozygous NIH nude mice resulted in the development of a line of mice with high serum estrogen levels, in which 62% of females develop Erα-positive metastatic mammary cancers by a mean age of 7 months (Kumar et al. 2007; Table 4). Mammary adenocarcinomas appear only in breeding females. Loss of ovarian hormone stimulation through ovariectomy leads to tumor regression. Histologically, the tumors are described as having tubular features, one of the less common ER+ subtypes found in women, generally associated with a good prognosis.
Summary and conclusions
In this study, we describe a spectrum of genetically engineered mouse models that develop ER+ mammary cancer. Different strain backgrounds are represented. While there is significant variability in the percentage of cancer cells demonstrating ER positivity, reported levels fall within the criteria used to define ER+ breast cancer. Some, but not all, of the models have been tested to determine their response to anti-hormonal agents and/or investigated for hormone dependency for growth. An important step in the validation of genetically engineered mouse models of different breast cancer subtypes is to compare their transcriptional profiles with those found in human breast cancers (Pfefferle et al. 2013). ER+ breast cancer models that have been more rigorously investigated for parallels to human disease include Wnt1 overexpression and BRCA1, STAT1, and p53-deficient models. The long latency (>12 months of age) of many models renders them challenging and expensive to work with; however, application of mammary epithelial transplant techniques could make them more tractable for study. There does not appear to be one best mouse model of ER+ mammary cancer consistent with the fact that there is not one type of ER+ human breast cancer. Instead, like all experimental tools, the model system selected should be that most suitable for the experimental design and goals. For example, if there was a reason to directly control the timing of ERα expression or co-express ERα with another gene, then a conditional system would be most appropriate. If the goal is to determine factors that regulate the appearance or maintenance of ERα expression in mammary cancers, then one of the spontaneous ERα+ models may be more useful. More uniform and comprehensive information on hormone responsiveness, response to anti-hormonal agents, and gene expression patterns as compared with human ER+ breast cancers as well as characterization of the genetically engineered mice on different strain backgrounds would be useful.
Future directions
Opportunity for generation of new genetically engineered mouse models remains. There is a strong need for ER+ models that reliably develop metastatic disease. Further characterization of the model developed in nude mice (Kumar et al. 2007) is required before it can be effectively used for experiments that might address the pathophysiology of ER+ metastatic disease. Another approach to develop more sophisticated models reflective of individual ER+ breast cancer subtypes will be to combine transgenic Esr1 expression with other genetic manipulations as was accomplished for both TAg expression and loss of Brca1/p53. For example combining Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA mice with a mouse model of ErbB2/Her2 mutation (Ursini-Siegel et al. 2007) could generate a model for luminal B ER+ breast cancer. Although joining Esr1 overexpression with germ line p53 haplo-insufficiency did not accelerate tumor development (Diaz-Cruz & Furth 2010), combining p53R270H/+/WAP-Cre with Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA mice might be more potent as mutant p53R270H has more molecular impact than simple reduction of p53 expression levels. Moreover, a model with mutant p53 would be translationally relevant for breast cancers carrying somatic p53 mutation in contrast to the germ-line insufficiency model that more closely parallels Li–Fraumeni syndrome. Bringing Esr1 overexpression into the Nrl–Prl line 1655–8 model could make a new laboratory tool for further study of the epidemiologically defined risk of elevated PRL on breast cancer (Tworoger et al. 2013). Loss of Stat1 accelerates mammary cancer development in Mmtv-Neu–IRES-Cre mice (Klover et al. 2010). If loss of Stat1 in Tet-op–Esr1MMTV–rtTA mice accelerated cancer development to under 12 months, this would be a more tractable model for further study of luminal type breast cancer. Targeted development of new models and refinement of existing models will need to build upon the new information emerging from deep sequencing and genetic characterization of ER+ breast cancer in humans.
Declaration of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the review.
Funding
Supported by NCI, NIH 1RO1CA112176 (P A Furth), NCI, NIH 5P30CA051008 (P A Furth) and NCI, NIH T32 Ruth L Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Training Grant 5T32CA009686 (S A Dabydeen).
References
Adams JR, Xu K, Liu JC, Agamez NM, Loch AJ, Wong RG, Wang W, Wright KL, Lane TF & Zacksenhaus E et al. 2011 Cooperation between Pik3ca and p53 mutations in mouse mammary tumor formation. Cancer Research 71 2706–2717. (doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0738).
Allred DC, Brown P & Medina D 2004 The origins of estrogen receptor α-positive and estrogen receptor α-negative human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research 6 240–245. (doi:10.1186/bcr938).
Anderson E & Clarke RB 2004 Steroid receptors and cell cycle in normal mammary epithelium. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia 9 3–13. (doi:10.1023/B:JOMG.0000023584.01750.16).
Anderson E, Clarke RB & Howell A 1998 Estrogen responsiveness and control of normal human breast proliferation. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia 3 23–35. (doi:10.1023/A:1018718117113).
Arendt LM, Rugowski DE, Grafwallner-Huseth TA, Garcia-Barchino MJ, Rui H & Schuler LA 2011 Prolactin-induced mouse mammary carcinomas model estrogen resistant luminal breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research 13 R11. (doi:10.1186/bcr2819).
Ariazi EA, Ariazi JL, Cordera F & Jordan VC 2006 Estrogen receptors as therapeutic targets in breast cancer. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry 6 181–202. (doi:10.2174/156802606776173483).
Bami S, Lissoni P, Meregalli S, Ardizzoia A, Mengo S, Musco F, Merlini D & Tancini G 1998 Clinical efficacy of the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole in relation to prolactin secretion in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Tumori 84 45–47.
Bhatavdekar JM, Patel DD, Karelia NH, Shah NG, Ghosh N, Vora HH, Suthar TP, Balar DB & Doctor SS 1994 Can plasma prolactin predict tamoxifen resistance in patients with advanced breast cancer? European Journal of Surgical Oncology 20 118–121.
Blanco-Aparicio C, Perez-Gallego L, Pequeno B, Leal JF, Renner O & Carnero A 2007 Mice expressing myrAKT1 in the mammary gland develop carcinogen-induced ER-positive mammary tumors that mimic human breast cancer. Carcinogenesis 28 584–594. (doi:10.1093/carcin/bgl190).
Booth BW & Smith GH 2007 Roles of transforming growth factor-α in mammary development and disease. Growth Factors 25 227–235. (doi:10.1080/08977190701750698).
Bostner J, Karlsson E, Pandiyan MJ, Westman H, Skoog L, Fornander T, Nordenskjold B & Stal O 2013 Activation of Akt, mTOR, and the estrogen receptor as a signature to predict tamoxifen treatment benefit. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 137 397–406. (doi:10.1007/s10549-012-2376-y).
Bostrom P, Soderstrom M, Palokangas T, Vahlberg T, Collan Y, Carpen O & Hirsimaki P 2009 Analysis of cyclins A, B1, D1 and E in breast cancer in relation to tumour grade and other prognostic factors. BMC Research Notes 2 140. (doi:10.1186/1756-0500-2-140).
Brodie A, Jelovac D, Macedo L, Sabnis G, Tilghman S & Goloubeva O 2005 Therapeutic observations in MCF-7 aromatase xenografts. Clinical Cancer Research 11 884s–888s.
Casimiro MC, Wang C, Li Z, Di Sante G, Willmart NE, Addya S, Chen L, Liu Y, Lisanti MP & Pestell RG 2013 Cyclin D1 determines estrogen signaling in the mammary gland in vivo. Molecular Endocrinology 27 1415–1428. (doi:10.1210/me.2013-1065).
Chan SR, Vermi W, Luo J, Lucini L, Rickert C, Fowler AM, Lonardi S, Arthur C, Young LJ & Levy DE et al. 2012 STAT1-deficient mice spontaneously develop estrogen receptor α-positive luminal mammary carcinomas. Breast Cancer Research 14 R16. (doi:10.1186/bcr3100).
Chan SR, Rickert CG, Vermi W, Sheehan KC, Arthur C, Allen JA, White JM, Archambault J, Lonardi S & McDevitt TM et al. 2014 Dysregulated STAT1–SOCS1 control of JAK2 promotes mammary luminal progenitor cell survival and drives ERα tumorigenesis. Cell Death and Differentiation 21 234–246. (doi:10.1038/cdd.2013.116).
Chen S & Parmigiani G 2007 Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. Journal of Clinical Oncology 25 1329–1333. (doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.09.1066).
Chien CD, Kirilyuk A, Li JV, Zhang W, Lahusen T, Schmidt MO, Oh AS, Wellstein A & Riegel AT 2011 Role of the nuclear receptor coactivator AIB1-Δ4 splice variant in the control of gene transcription. Journal of Biological Chemistry 286 26813–26827. (doi:10.1074/jbc.M110.216200).
Ciardiello F, Kim N, McGeady ML, Liscia DS, Saeki T, Bianco C & Salomon DS 1991 Expression of transforming growth factor α (TGFα) in breast cancer. Annals of Oncology 2 169–182.
Clevenger CV, Furth PA, Hankinson SE & Schuler LA 2003 The role of prolactin in mammary carcinoma. Endocrine Reviews 24 1–27. (doi:10.1210/er.2001-0036).
Diaz-Cruz ES & Furth PA 2010 Deregulated estrogen receptor α and p53 heterozygosity collaborate in the development of mammary hyperplasia. Cancer Research 70 3965–3974. (doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-3450).
Diaz-Cruz ES, Sugimoto Y, Gallicano GI, Brueggemeier RW & Furth PA 2011 Comparison of increased aromatase versus ERα in the generation of mammary hyperplasia and cancer. Cancer Research 71 5477–5487. (doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-4652).
van Diest PJ, Michalides RJ, Jannink L, van der Valk P, Peterse HL, de Jong JS, Meijer CJ & Baak JP 1997 Cyclin D1 expression in invasive breast cancer. Correlations and prognostic value. American Journal of Pathology 150 705–711.
Dowsett M, McGarrick GE, Harris AL, Coombes RC, Smith IE & Jeffcoate SL 1983 Prognostic significance of serum prolactin levels in advanced breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer 47 763–769. (doi:10.1038/bjc.1983.129).
Eisen A, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, Moller P, Lynch HT, Klijn J, Kim-Sing C, Neuhausen SL, Gilbert L & Ghadirian P et al. 2008 Hormone therapy and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 100 1361–1367. (doi:10.1093/jnci/djn313).
Fox EM, Davis RJ & Shupnik MA 2008 ERβ in breast cancer – onlooker, passive player, or active protector? Steroids 73 1039–1051. (doi:10.1016/j.steroids.2008.04.006).
Frech MS, Halama ED, Tilli MT, Singh B, Gunther EJ, Chodosh LA, Flaws JA & Furth PA 2005 Deregulated estrogen receptor α expression in mammary epithelial cells of transgenic mice results in the development of ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer Research 65 681–685.
Frech MS, Torre KM, Robinson GW & Furth PA 2008 Loss of cyclin D1 in concert with deregulated estrogen receptor α expression induces DNA damage response activation and interrupts mammary gland morphogenesis. Oncogene 27 3186–3193. (doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210974).
Fu M, Wang C, Li Z, Sakamaki T & Pestell RG 2004 Minireview: Cyclin D1: normal and abnormal functions. Endocrinology 145 5439–5447. (doi:10.1210/en.2004-0959).
Fuchs-Young R, Shirley SH, Lambertz I, Colby JK, Tian J, Johnston D, Gimenez-Conti IB, Donehower LA, Conti CJ & Hursting SD 2011 P53 genotype as a determinant of ER expression and tamoxifen response in the MMTV-Wnt-1 model of mammary carcinogenesis. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 130 399–408. (doi:10.1007/s10549-010-1308-y).
Furth PA 1997 Conditional control of gene expression in the mammary gland. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia 2 373–383. (doi:10.1023/A:1026399329934).
Furth PA 2013 STAT signaling in different breast cancer sub-types. Molecular Cell 382 612–615.
Gasco M, Shami S & Crook T 2002 The p53 pathway in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research 4 70–76. (doi:10.1186/bcr426).
Geisler J, Smith I & Miller W 2012 Presurgical (neoadjuvant) endocrine therapy is a useful model to predict response and outcome to endocrine treatment in breast cancer patients. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 131 93–100. (doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2011.12.006).
Guiu S, Michiels S, Andre F, Cortes J, Denkert C, Di Leo A, Hennessy BT, Sorlie T, Sotiriou C & Turner N et al. 2012 Molecular subclasses of breast cancer: how do we define them? The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group Statement. Annals of Oncology 23 2997–3006. (doi:10.1093/annonc/mds586).
Gunther EJ, Belka GK, Wertheim GB, Wang J, Hartman JL, Boxer RB & Chodosh LA 2002 A novel doxycycline-inducible system for the transgenic analysis of mammary gland biology. FASEB Journal 16 283–292. (doi:10.1096/fj.01-0551com).
Habashy HO, Powe DG, Abdel-Fatah TM, Gee JM, Nicholson RI, Green AR, Rakha EA & Ellis IO 2012 A review of the biological and clinical characteristics of luminal-like oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Histopathology 60 854–863. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03912.x).
Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, Fitzgibbons PL, Francis G, Goldstein NS & Hayes M et al. 2010 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 134 907–922. (doi:10.1043/1543-2165-134.7.e48).
Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK & Allred DC 1999 Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 17 1474–1481.
Hennighausen L, Wall RJ, Tillmann U, Li M & Furth PA 1995 Conditional gene expression in secretory tissues and skin of transgenic mice using the MMTV-LTR and the tetracycline responsive system. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 59 463–472. (doi:10.1002/jcb.240590407).
Herschkowitz JI, Simin K, Weigman VJ, Mikaelian I, Usary J, Hu Z, Rasmussen KE, Jones LP, Assefnia S & Chandrasekharan S et al. 2007 Identification of conserved gene expression features between murine mammary carcinoma models and human breast tumors. Genome Biology 8 R76. (doi:10.1186/gb-2007-8-5-r76).
Holbro T, Civenni G & Hynes NE 2003 The ErbB receptors and their role in cancer progression. Experimental Cell Research 284 99–110. (doi:10.1016/S0014-4827(02)00099-X).
Holliday DL & Speirs V 2011 Choosing the right cell line for breast cancer research. Breast Cancer Research 13 215. (doi:10.1186/bcr2889).
Jerry DJ, Kittrell FS, Kuperwasser C, Laucirica R, Dickinson ES, Bonilla PJ, Butel JS & Medina D 2000 A mammary-specific model demonstrates the role of the p53 tumor suppressor gene in tumor development. Oncogene 19 1052–1058. (doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1203270).
Jones LP, Tilli MT, Assefnia S, Torre K, Halama ED, Parrish A, Rosen EM & Furth PA 2008 Activation of estrogen signaling pathways collaborates with loss of Brca1 to promote development of ERα-negative and ERα-positive mammary preneoplasia and cancer. Oncogene 27 794–802. (doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210674).
Kirma NB & Tekmal RR 2012 Transgenic mouse models of hormonal mammary carcinogenesis: advantages and limitations. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 131 76–82. (doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2011.11.005).
Klarenbeek S, van Miltenburg MH & Jonkers J 2013 Genetically engineered mouse models of PI3K signaling in breast cancer. Molecular Oncology 7 146–164. (doi:10.1016/j.molonc.2013.02.003).
Klover PJ, Muller WJ, Robinson GW, Pfeiffer RM, Yamaji D & Hennighausen L 2010 Loss of STAT1 from mouse mammary epithelium results in an increased Neu-induced tumor burden. Neoplasia 12 899–905.
Koromilas AE & Sexl V 2013 The tumor suppressor function of STAT1 in breast cancer. JAK–STAT 2 e23353.
Kotta-Loizou I, Giaginis C & Theocharis S 2012 The role of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ in breast cancer. Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry 12 1025–1044. (doi:10.2174/187152012803529664).
Kumar MJ, Ponvijay KS, Nandhini R, Nagarajan RS, Jose J, Srinivas G, Nagarajan P, Venkatesan R, Kumar K & Singh S 2007 A mouse model for luminal epithelial like ER positive subtype of human breast cancer. BMC Cancer 7 180. (doi:10.1186/1471-2407-7-180).
Lahusen T, Henke RT, Kagan BL, Wellstein A & Riegel AT 2009 The role and regulation of the nuclear receptor co-activator AIB1 in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 116 225–237. (doi:10.1007/s10549-009-0405-2).
Lai D, Visser-Grieve S & Yang X 2012 Tumour suppressor genes in chemotherapeutic drug response. Bioscience Reports 32 361–374. (doi:10.1042/BSR20110125).
Lange CA & Yee D 2011 Killing the second messenger: targeting loss of cell cycle control in endocrine-resistant breast cancer. Endocrine-Related Cancer 18 C19–C24. (doi:10.1530/ERC-11-0112).
Larionov AA & Miller WR 2009 Challenges in defining predictive markers for response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer. Future Oncology 5 1415–1428. (doi:10.2217/fon.09.113).
Li Y, Hively WP & Varmus HE 2000 Use of MMTV-Wnt-1 transgenic mice for studying the genetic basis of breast cancer. Oncogene 19 1002–1009. (doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1203273).
Lim E, Wu D, Pal B, Bouras T, Asselin-Labat ML, Vaillant F, Yagita H, Lindeman GJ, Smyth GK & Visvader JE 2010 Transcriptome analyses of mouse and human mammary cell subpopulations reveal multiple conserved genes and pathways. Breast Cancer Research 12 R21. (doi:10.1186/bcr2560).
Lin SC, Lee KF, Nikitin AY, Hilsenbeck SG, Cardiff RD, Li A, Kang KW, Frank SA, Lee WH & Lee EY 2004 Somatic mutation of p53 leads to estrogen receptor α-positive and -negative mouse mammary tumors with high frequency of metastasis. Cancer Research 64 3525–3532. (doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-3524).
Lin DI, Lessie MD, Gladden AB, Bassing CH, Wagner KU & Diehl JA 2008 Disruption of cyclin D1 nuclear export and proteolysis accelerates mammary carcinogenesis. Oncogene 27 1231–1242. (doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210738).
Malhotra GK, Zhao X, Band H & Band V 2010 Histological, molecular and functional subtypes of breast cancers. Cancer Biology & Therapy 10 955–960. (doi:10.4161/cbt.10.10.13879).
Manavathi B, Dey O, Gajulapalli VN, Bhatia RS, Bugide S & Kumar R 2013 Derailed estrogen signaling and breast cancer: an authentic couple. Endocrine Reviews 34 1–32. (doi:10.1210/er.2011-1057).
Medina D, Kittrell FS, Shepard A, Stephens LC, Jiang C, Lu J, Allred DC, McCarthy M & Ullrich RL 2002 Biological and genetic properties of the p53 null preneoplastic mammary epithelium. FASEB Journal 16 881–883.
Medina D, Kittrell FS, Shepard A, Contreras A, Rosen JM & Lydon J 2003 Hormone dependence in premalignant mammary progression. Cancer Research 63 1067–1072.
Miermont AM, Parrish AR & Furth PA 2010 Role of ERα in the differential response of Stat5a loss in susceptibility to mammary preneoplasia and DMBA-induced carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 31 1124–1131. (doi:10.1093/carcin/bgq048).
Miermont AM, Cabrera MC, Frech SM, Nakles RE, Diaz-Cruz ES, Shiffert MT & Furth PA Association of over-expressed estrogen receptor α with development of tamoxifen resistant hyperplasia and adenocarcinomas in genetically engineered mice Anatomy & Physiology 2012 (Supplement 12) pii001
Mohibi S, Mirza S, Band H & Band V 2011 Mouse models of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Journal of Carcinogenesis 10 35. (doi:10.4103/1477-3163.91116).
Mukherjee M, Ge G, Zhang N, Edwards DG, Sumazin P, Sharan SK, Rao PH & Medina D MMTV–Espl1 transgenic mice develop aneuploid, estrogen receptor α (ERα)-positive mammary adenocarcinomas Oncogene 2013 [in press] doi:10.1038/onc.2013.493).
Nakles RE, Shiffert MT, Diaz-Cruz ES, Cabrera MC, Alotaiby M, Miermont AM, Riegel AT & Furth PA 2011 Altered AIB1 or AIB1Δ3 expression impacts ERα effects on mammary gland stromal and epithelial content. Molecular Endocrinology 25 549–563. (doi:10.1210/me.2010-0114).
Nakles RE, Kallakury BV & Furth PA 2013 The PPARγ agonist efatutazone increases the spectrum of well-differentiated mammary cancer subtypes initiated by loss of full-length BRCA1 in association with TP53 haploinsufficiency. American Journal of Pathology 182 1976–1985. (doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2013.02.006).
Noguchi S, Motomura K, Inaji H, Imaoka S & Koyama H 1993 Down-regulation of transforming growth factor-α by tamoxifen in human breast cancer. Cancer 72 131–136. (doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19930701)72:1<131::AID-CNCR2820720125>3.0.CO;2-Z).
O'Leary KA, Jallow F, Rugowski DE, Sullivan R, Sinkevicius KW, Greene GL & Schuler LA 2013 Prolactin activates ERα in the absence of ligand in female mammary development and carcinogenesis in vivo. Endocrinology 154 4483–4492. (doi:10.1210/en.2013-1533).
Parmar H & Cunha GR 2004 Epithelial–stromal interactions in the mouse and human mammary gland in vivo. Endocrine-Related Cancer 11 437–458. (doi:10.1677/erc.1.00659).
Pfefferle AD, Herschkowitz JI, Usary J, Harrell JC, Spike BT, Adams JR, Torres-Arzayus MI, Brown M, Egan SE & Wahl GM et al. 2013 Transcriptomic classification of genetically engineered mouse models of breast cancer identifies human subtype counterparts. Genome Biology 14 R125. (doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-11-r125).
Prefontaine GG, Walther R, Giffin W, Lemieux ME, Pope L & Hache RJ 1999 Selective binding of steroid hormone receptors to octamer transcription factors determines transcriptional synergism at the mouse mammary tumor virus promoter. Journal of Biological Chemistry 274 26713–26719. (doi:10.1074/jbc.274.38.26713).
Radaelli E, Arnold A, Papanikolaou A, Garcia-Fernandez RA, Mattiello S, Scanziani E & Cardiff RD 2009 Mammary tumor phenotypes in wild-type aging female FVB/N mice with pituitary prolactinomas. Veterinary Pathology 46 736–745. (doi:10.1354/vp.08-VP-0280-R-FL).
Renoir JM, Marsaud V & Lazennec G 2013 Estrogen receptor signaling as a target for novel breast cancer therapeutics. Biochemical Pharmacology 85 449–465. (doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2012.10.018).
Roepstorff K, Grovdal L, Grandal M, Lerdrup M & van Deurs B 2008 Endocytic downregulation of ErbB receptors: mechanisms and relevance in cancer. Histochemistry and Cell Biology 129 563–578. (doi:10.1007/s00418-008-0401-3).
Rose-Hellekant TA, Arendt LM, Schroeder MD, Gilchrist K, Sandgren EP & Schuler LA 2003 Prolactin induces ERα-positive and ERα-negative mammary cancer in transgenic mice. Oncogene 22 4664–4674. (doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1206619).
Rose-Hellekant TA, Schroeder MD, Brockman JL, Zhdankin O, Bolstad R, Chen KS, Gould MN, Schuler LA & Sandgren EP 2007 Estrogen receptor-positive mammary tumorigenesis in TGFα transgenic mice progresses with progesterone receptor loss. Oncogene 26 5238–5246. (doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210340).
Shirley SH, Rundhaug JE, Tian J, Cullinan-Ammann N, Lambertz I, Conti CJ & Fuchs-Young R 2009 Transcriptional regulation of estrogen receptor-α by p53 in human breast cancer cells. Cancer Research 69 3405–3414. (doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-3628).
Shockett P, Difilippantonio M, Hellman N & Schatz DG 1995 A modified tetracycline-regulated system provides autoregulatory, inducible gene expression in cultured cells and transgenic mice. PNAS 92 6522–6526. (doi:10.1073/pnas.92.14.6522).
Shull JD 2007 The rat oncogenome: comparative genetics and genomics of rat models of mammary carcinogenesis. Breast Disease 28 69–86.
Sutherland RL & Musgrove EA 2002 Cyclin D1 and mammary carcinoma: new insights from transgenic mouse models. Breast Cancer Research 4 14–17. (doi:10.1186/bcr411).
Tekmal RR, Nair HB, Perla RP & Kirma N 2007 HER-2/neu x aromatase double transgenic mice model: the effects of aromatase overexpression on mammary tumorigenesis. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 106 111–118. (doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2007.05.009).
Tilli MT, Frech MS, Steed ME, Hruska KS, Johnson MD, Flaws JA & Furth PA 2003 Introduction of estrogen receptor-α into the tTA/TAg conditional mouse model precipitates the development of estrogen-responsive mammary adenocarcinoma. American Journal of Pathology 163 1713–1719. (doi:10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63529-8).
Tomic D, Frech MS, Babus JK, Symonds D, Furth PA, Koos RD & Flaws JA 2007 Effects of ERα overexpression on female reproduction in mice. Reproductive Toxicology 23 317–325. (doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2006.08.004).
Torres-Arzayus MI, Font de Mora J, Yuan J, Vazquez F, Bronson R, Rue M, Sellers WR & Brown M 2004 High tumor incidence and activation of the PI3K/AKT pathway in transgenic mice define AIB1 as an oncogene. Cancer Cell 6 263–274. (doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2004.06.027).
Tworoger SS, Eliassen AH, Zhang X, Qian J, Sluss PM, Rosner BA & Hankinson SE 2013 A 20-year prospective study of plasma prolactin as a risk marker of breast cancer development. Cancer Research 73 4810–4819. (doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-0665).
Uji K, Naoi Y, Kagara N, Shimoda M, Shimomura A, Maruyama N, Shimazu K, Kim SJ & Noguchi S 2013 Significance of TP53 mutations determined by next-generation “deep” sequencing in prognosis of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Cancer Letters 342 19–26. (doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2013.08.028).
Ursini-Siegel J, Schade B, Cardiff RD & Muller WJ 2007 Insights from transgenic mouse models of ERBB2-induced breast cancer. Nature Reviews. Cancer 7 389–397. (doi:10.1038/nrc2127).
Visvader JE 2009 Keeping abreast of the mammary epithelial hierarchy and breast tumorigenesis. Genes and Development 23 2563–2577. (doi:10.1101/gad.1849509).
Wagner KU, Wall RJ, St-Onge L, Gruss P, Wynshaw-Boris A, Garrett L, Li M, Furth PA & Hennighausen L 1997 Cre-mediated gene deletion in the mammary gland. Nucleic Acids Research 25 4323–4330. (doi:10.1093/nar/25.21.4323).
Wagner KU, McAllister K, Ward T, Davis B, Wiseman R & Hennighausen L 2001 Spatial and temporal expression of the Cre gene under the control of the MMTV-LTR in different lines of transgenic mice. Transgenic Research 10 545–553. (doi:10.1023/A:1013063514007).
Walerych D, Napoli M, Collavin L & Del Sal G 2012 The rebel angel: mutant p53 as the driving oncogene in breast cancer. Carcinogenesis 33 2007–2017. (doi:10.1093/carcin/bgs232).
Wang TC, Cardiff RD, Zukerberg L, Lees E, Arnold A & Schmidt EV 1994 Mammary hyperplasia and carcinoma in MMTV-cyclin D1 transgenic mice. Nature 369 669–671. (doi:10.1038/369669a0).
Wijnhoven SW, Zwart E, Speksnijder EN, Beems RB, Olive KP, Tuveson DA, Jonkers J, Schaap MM, van den Berg J & Jacks T et al. 2005 Mice expressing a mammary gland-specific R270H mutation in the p53 tumor suppressor gene mimic human breast cancer development. Cancer Research 65 8166–8173. (doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-1650).
Wong C & Chen S 2012 The development, application and limitations of breast cancer cell lines to study tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor resistance. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 131 83–92. (doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2011.12.005).
Xu J, Wu RC & O'Malley BW 2009 Normal and cancer-related functions of the p160 steroid receptor co-activator (SRC) family. Nature Reviews. Cancer 9 615–630. (doi:10.1038/nrc2695).
Yamamoto M, Hosoda M, Nakano K, Jia S, Hatanaka KC, Takakuwa E, Hatanaka Y, Matsuno Y & Yamashita H 2014 p53 accumulation is a strong predictor of recurrence in ER-positive breast cancer patients treated with aromatase inhibitors. Cancer Science 105 81–88. (doi:10.1111/cas.12302).
Yanagawa M, Ikemot K, Kawauchi S, Furuya T, Yamamoto S, Oka M, Oga A, Nagashima Y & Sasaki K 2012 Luminal A and luminal B (HER2 negative) subtypes of breast cancer consist of a mixture of tumors with different genotype. BMC Research Notes 5 376. (doi:10.1186/1756-0500-5-376).
Yin Y, Yuan H, Zeng X, Kopelovich L & Glazer RI 2009 Inhibition of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ increases estrogen receptor-dependent tumor specification. Cancer Research 69 687–694. (doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-2446).
Yoshidome K, Shibata MA, Couldrey C, Korach KS & Green JE 2000 Estrogen promotes mammary tumor development in C3(1)/SV40 large T-antigen transgenic mice: paradoxical loss of estrogen receptorα expression during tumor progression. Cancer Research 60 6901–6910.
Zhang X, Podsypanina K, Huang S, Mohsin SK, Chamness GC, Hatsell S, Cowin P, Schiff R & Li Y 2005 Estrogen receptor positivity in mammary tumors of Wnt-1 transgenic mice is influenced by collaborating oncogenic mutations. Oncogene 24 4220–4231. (doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1208597).