Of Mice and Women: A Comparative Tissue Biology Perspective of Breast Stem Cells and Differentiation

Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia

Volumn 20, Issue 1-2, 2015, Pages 51-62

  Dontu, Gabriela ^a   Ince, Tan A ^b  

^a GUY S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative pathology; Hormone receptors; Mammary gland; Stem cells

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; BREAST CELL; BREAST DUCT; BREAST EPITHELIUM CELL; BREAST LOBULE; BREAST STEM CELL; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CELL LINEAGE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPARATIVE TISSUE BIOLOGY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN VERSUS ANIMAL COMPARISON; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; REVIEW; STEM CELL; STEM CELL RESEARCH; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; ANIMAL; CARCINOMA; CHEMISTRY; CYTOLOGY; FLOW CYTOMETRY; HISTOLOGY; MAMMARY GLAND; PATHOLOGY; UDDER;

KERATIN;

ANIMALS; CARCINOMA; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CELL LINEAGE; FEMALE; FLOW CYTOMETRY; HISTOLOGY, COMPARATIVE; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; KERATINS; MAMMARY GLANDS, ANIMAL; MAMMARY GLANDS, HUMAN; MICE; STEM CELLS;

EID: 84943348529     PISSN: 10833021     EISSN: 15737039     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10911-015-9341-4     Document Type: Review

References (95)

1. Ince TA et al. Do-it-yourself (DIY) pathology. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26(9):978–9. discussion 979.
2. Hollern DP, Andrechek ER. A genomic analysis of mouse models of breast cancer reveals molecular features of mouse models and relationships to human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(3):R59.
3. Weigelt B et al. Challenges translating breast cancer gene signatures into the clinic. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012;9(1):58–64.
4. Ince TA et al. Transformation of different human breast epithelial cell types leads to distinct tumor phenotypes. Cancer Cell. 2007;12(2):160–70.
5. Rodriguez-Canales J et al. Why is it crucial to reintegrate pathology into cancer research? Bioessays. 2011;33(7):490–8.
6. Barthold SW et al. From whence will they come? - A perspective on the acute shortage of pathologists in biomedical research. J Vet Diagn Investig. 2007;19(4):455–6.
7. Bolon B et al. Advancing translational research. Science. 2011;331(6024):1516–7.
8. Valli T et al. Over 60 % of NIH extramural funding involves animal-related research. Vet Pathol. 2007;44(6):962–3. author reply 963–4.
9. Shackleton M et al. Generation of a functional mammary gland from a single stem cell. Nature. 2006;439(7072):84–8.
10. Pece S et al. Biological and molecular heterogeneity of breast cancers correlates with their cancer stem cell content. Cell. 2010;140(1):62–73.
11. Russo J, Russo IH. Development of the human breast. Maturitas. 2004;49(1):2–15.
12. Russo L et al. Towards understanding the molecular recognition process in prokaryotic zinc-finger domain. Eur J Med Chem. 2015;91:100–8.
13. Gusterson BA, Stein T. Human breast development. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2012;23(5):567–73.
14. Cardiff RD, Wellings SR. The comparative pathology of human and mouse mammary glands. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 1999;4(1):105–22.
15. Chaffin CL, Vandevoort CA. Follicle growth, ovulation, and luteal formation in primates and rodents: a comparative perspective. Exp Biol Med. 2013;238(5):539–48.
16. Wu JM et al. Ovarian aging and menopause: current theories, hypotheses, and research models. Exp Biol Med. 2005;230(11):818–28.
17. Adashi EY. Endocrinology of the ovary. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(5):815–27.
18. Atherton AJ et al. Differential expression of type XIV collagen/undulin by human mammary gland intralobular and interlobular fibroblasts. Cell Tissue Res. 1998;291(3):507–11.
19. Atherton AJ et al. Ectoenzyme regulation by phenotypically distinct fibroblast sub-populations isolated from the human mammary gland. J Cell Sci. 1994;107(10):2931–9.
20. Lensch MW, Ince TA. The terminology of teratocarcinomas and teratomas. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(11):1211. author reply 1211–2.
21. Roy S et al. Rare somatic cells from human breast tissue exhibit extensive lineage plasticity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(12):4598–603.
22. Huh SJ et al. Age- and pregnancy-associated DNA methylation changes in mammary epithelial cells. Stem Cell Reports. 2015;4(2):297–311.
23. Santagata S et al. Taxonomy of breast cancer based on normal cell phenotype predicts outcome. J Clin Invest. 2014;124(2):859–70.
24. Tian H et al. A reserve stem cell population in small intestine renders Lgr5-positive cells dispensable. Nature. 2011;478(7368):255–9.
25. Carlone DL, Breault DT. Slowly cycling versus rapidly cycling intestinal stem cells: distinct roles or redundancy. Cell Cycle. 2011;10(5):723–4.
26. Carlone DL, Breault DT. Tales from the crypt: the expanding role of slow cycling intestinal stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2012;10(1):2–4.
27. Rompolas P, Greco V. Stem cell dynamics in the hair follicle niche. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2014;25–26:34–42.
28. Rompolas P, Mesa KR, Greco V. Spatial organization within a niche as a determinant of stem-cell fate. Nature. 2013;502(7472):513–8.
29. Honeth G et al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase and estrogen receptor define a hierarchy of cellular differentiation in the normal human mammary epithelium. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(3):R52.
30. Villadsen R et al. Evidence for a stem cell hierarchy in the adult human breast. J Cell Biol. 2007;177(1):87–101.
31. Honeth G et al. Models of breast morphogenesis based on localization of stem cells in the developing mammary lobule. Stem Cell Reports. 2015;4(4):699–711.
32. Cardiff RD, Borowsky AD. At last: classification of human mammary cells elucidates breast cancer origins. J Clin Invest. 2014;124(2):478–80.
33. Santagata S, Ince TA. Normal cell phenotypes of breast epithelial cells provide the foundation of a breast cancer taxonomy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2014;14(12):1385–9.
34. Houseman EA, Ince TA. Normal cell-type epigenetics and breast cancer classification: a case study of cell mixture-adjusted analysis of DNA methylation data from tumors. Cancer Informat. 2014;13(4):53–64.
35. Cheatle GL. Clinical Remarks on the early recognition of cancer of the breast. Br Med J. 1906;1(2369):1205–10.
36. Cheatle GL. The relation between ducts and acini to cysts and cancer of the breast. Proc R Soc Med. 1914;7:241–4.
37. Cheatle GL. Discussion on “Pre-cancerous states.”: the pre-carcinomatous state in the breast. Proc R Soc Med. 1926;19:3–4.
38. Foote FW, Stewart FW. Lobular carcinoma in situ: a rare form of mammary cancer. Am J Pathol. 1941;17(4):491–496 3.
39. Johnson J, Jackson TL, Miller W. In situ ductal carcinoma of the breast. JAMA. 1962;181:1000–1.
40. Jensen HM, Rice JR, Wellings SR. Preneoplastic lesions in the human breast. Science. 1976;191(4224):295–7.
41. Jensen HM, Wellings SR. Preneoplastic lesions of the human mammary gland transplanted into the nude athymic mouse. Cancer Res. 1976;36(7 PT 2):2605–10.
42. Wellings SR, Jensen HM. On the origin and progression of ductal carcinoma in the human breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1973;50(5):1111–8.
43. Wellings SR, Jensen HM, DeVault MR. Persistent and atypical lobules in the human breast may be precancerous. Experientia. 1976;32(11):1463–5.
44. Wellings SR, Jensen HM, Marcum RG. An atlas of subgross pathology of the human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1975;55(2):231–73.
45. Cardiff RD, Wellings SR, Faulkin LJ. Biology of breast preneoplasia. Cancer. 1977;39(6):2734–46.
46. Dairkee SH, Puett L, Hackett AJ. Expression of basal and luminal epithelium-specific keratins in normal, benign, and malignant breast tissue. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1988;80(9):691–5.
47. Dairkee SH et al. Monoclonal marker that predicts early recurrence of breast cancer. Lancet. 1987;1(8531):514.
48. Potemski P et al. Prognostic relevance of basal cytokeratin expression in operable breast cancer. Oncology. 2005;69(6):478–85.
49. Badve S et al. Basal-like and triple-negative breast cancers: a critical review with an emphasis on the implications for pathologists and oncologists. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(2):157–67.
50. Sorlie T et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(14):8418–23.
51. Sorlie T et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(19):10869–74.
52. Perou CM et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406(6797):747–52.
53. Gusterson B. Do ‘basal-like’ breast cancers really exist? Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(2):128–34.
54. Malzahn K et al. Biological and prognostic significance of stratified epithelial cytokeratins in infiltrating ductal breast carcinomas. Virchows Arch. 1998;433(2):119–29.
55. Korsching E et al. Basal carcinoma of the breast revisited: an old entity with new interpretations. J Clin Pathol. 2008;61(5):553–60.
56. Santini D et al. Differentiation pathways in primary invasive breast carcinoma as suggested by intermediate filament and biopathological marker expression. J Pathol. 1996;179(4):386–91.
57. Dairkee SH et al. Immunolocalization of a human basal epithelium specific keratin in benign and malignant breast disease. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1987;10(1):11–20.
58. Boecker W, Buerger H. Evidence of progenitor cells of glandular and myoepithelial cell lineages in the human adult female breast epithelium: a new progenitor (adult stem) cell concept. Cell Prolif. 2003;36(1):73–84.
59. Lavasani MA, Moinfar F. Molecular classification of breast carcinomas with particular emphasis on “basal-like” carcinoma: a critical review. J Biophotonics. 2012;5(4):345–66.
60. Gusterson BA et al. Basal cytokeratins and their relationship to the cellular origin and functional classification of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7(4):143–8.
61. Prat A, Perou CM. Deconstructing the molecular portraits of breast cancer. Mol Oncol. 2011;5(1):5–23.
62. Foulkes WD, Smith IE, Reis-Filho JS. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(20):1938–48.
63. Carey L et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: disease entity or title of convenience? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7(12):683–92.
64. Kordek R et al. Basal keratin expression in breast cancer by quantification of mRNA and by immunohistochemistry. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2010;29:39.
65. Lusa L et al. Challenges in projecting clustering results across gene expression-profiling datasets. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(22):1715–23.
66. Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO. Basal-like breast cancer: a critical review. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(15):2568–81.
67. Abramson VG et al. Subtyping of triple-negative breast cancer: implications for therapy. Cancer. 2015;121(1):8–16.
68. Chen X et al. TNBCtype: A Subtyping Tool for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Cancer Informat. 2012;11:147–56.
69. Lehmann BD et al. Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(7):2750–67.
70. Lehmann BD, Pietenpol JA. Identification and use of biomarkers in treatment strategies for triple-negative breast cancer subtypes. J Pathol. 2014;232(2):142–50.
71. Masuda H et al. Differential response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among 7 triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(19):5533–40.
72. Weigelt B, Geyer FC, Reis-Filho JS. Histological types of breast cancer: how special are they? Mol Oncol. 2010;4(3):192–208.
73. Weigelt B, Kreike B, Reis-Filho JS. Metaplastic breast carcinomas are basal-like breast cancers: a genomic profiling analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;117(2):273–80.
74. Weigelt B, Reis-Filho JS. Histological and molecular types of breast cancer: is there a unifying taxonomy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6(12):718–30.
75. Guiu S et al. Molecular subclasses of breast cancer: how do we define them? The IMPAKT 2012 working group statement. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(12):2997–3006.
76. Molyneux G et al. BRCA1 basal-like breast cancers originate from luminal epithelial progenitors and not from basal stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2010;7(3):403–17.
77. Lim E et al. Aberrant luminal progenitors as the candidate target population for basal tumor development in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Nat Med. 2009;15(8):907–13.
78. Keller PJ et al. Defining the cellular precursors to human breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(8):2772–7.
79. Kim J et al. Tumor initiating but differentiated luminal-like breast cancer cells are highly invasive in the absence of basal-like activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(16):6124–9.
80. Petersen OW et al. Epithelial progenitor cell lines as models of normal breast morphogenesis and neoplasia. Cell Prolif. 2003;36(1):33–44.
81. Otterbach F et al. Cytokeratin 5/6 immunohistochemistry assists the differential diagnosis of atypical proliferations of the breast. Histopathology. 2000;37(3):232–40.
82. Clarke CL et al. Cytokeratin 5/6 in normal human breast: lack of evidence for a stem cell phenotype. J Pathol. 2004;204(2):147–52.
83. Mikaelian I et al. Expression of terminal differentiation proteins defines stages of mouse mammary gland development. Vet Pathol. 2006;43(1):36–49.
84. Bu W et al. Keratin 6a marks mammary bipotential progenitor cells that can give rise to a unique tumor model resembling human normal-like breast cancer. Oncogene. 2011;30(43):4399–409.
85. Shaffer AL, Rosenwald A, Staudt LM. Lymphoid malignancies: the dark side of B-cell differentiation. Nat Rev Immunol. 2002;2(12):920–32.
86. Passegue E et al. Normal and leukemic hematopoiesis: are leukemias a stem cell disorder or a reacquisition of stem cell characteristics? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(1):11842–9.
87. Taylor KH et al. Promoter DNA methylation of CD10 in lymphoid malignancies. Leukemia. 2006;20(10):1910–2.
88. Bremner R. Retinoblastoma, an inside job. Cell. 2009;137(6):992–4.
89. Bremner R, Sage J. Cancer: the origin of human retinoblastoma. Nature. 2014;514(7522):312–3.
90. Chen D et al. Cell-specific effects of RB or RB/p107 loss on retinal development implicate an intrinsically death-resistant cell-of-origin in retinoblastoma. Cancer Cell. 2004;5(6):539–51.
91. Xu XL et al. Rb suppresses human cone-precursor-derived retinoblastoma tumours. Nature. 2014;514(7522):385–8.
92. Abdel-Fatah TM et al. High frequency of coexistence of columnar cell lesions, lobular neoplasia, and low grade ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive tubular carcinoma and invasive lobular carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31(3):417–26.
93. Abdel-Fatah TM et al. Morphologic and molecular evolutionary pathways of low nuclear grade invasive breast cancers and their putative precursor lesions: further evidence to support the concept of low nuclear grade breast neoplasia family. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(4):513–23.
94. Tazaki E et al. Histopathologcial and clonal study of combined lobular and ductal carcinoma of the breast. Pathol Int. 2013;63(6):297–304.
95. Sell S. Stem cell origin of cancer and differentiation therapy. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2004;51(1):1–28.