↓ Skip to main content

Epithelial requirement for in vitro proliferation and xenograft growth and metastasis of MDA-MB-468 human breast cancer cells: oncogenic rather than tumor-suppressive role of E-cadherin

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Epithelial requirement for in vitro proliferation and xenograft growth and metastasis of MDA-MB-468 human breast cancer cells: oncogenic rather than tumor-suppressive role of E-cadherin
Published in
Breast Cancer Research, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13058-017-0880-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. J. Hugo, N. P. A. D. Gunasinghe, B. G. Hollier, T. Tanaka, T. Blick, A. Toh, P. Hill, C. Gilles, M. Waltham, E. W. Thompson

Abstract

Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is associated with downregulated E-cadherin and frequently with decreased proliferation. Proliferation may be restored in secondary metastases by mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition (MET). We tested whether E-cadherin maintains epithelial proliferation in MDA-MB-468 breast cancer cells, facilitating metastatic colonization in severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice. EMT/MET markers were assessed in xenograft tumors by immunohistochemistry. Stable E-cadherin manipulation was effected by transfection and verified by Western blotting, immunocytochemistry, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Effects of E-cadherin manipulation on proliferation and chemomigration were assessed in vitro by performing sulforhodamine B assays and Transwell assays, respectively. Invasion was assessed by Matrigel outgrowth; growth in vivo was assessed in SCID mice; and EMT status was assessed by qPCR. Hypoxic response of E-cadherin knockdown cell lines was assessed by qPCR after hypoxic culture. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), one- and two-way ANOVA with posttests, and paired Student's t tests were performed to determine significance (p < 0.05). EMT occurred at the necrotic interface of MDA-MB-468 xenografts in regions of hypoxia. Extratumoral deposits (vascular and lymphatic inclusions, local and axillary nodes, and lung metastases) strongly expressed E-cadherin. MDA-MB-468 cells overexpressing E-cadherin were more proliferative and less migratory in vitro, whereas E-cadherin knockdown (short hairpin CDH1 [shCDH1]) cells were more migratory and invasive, less proliferative, and took longer to form tumors. shCDH1-MDA-MB-468 xenografts did not contain the hypoxia-induced necrotic areas observed in wild-type (WT) and shSCR-MDA-MB-468 tumors, but they did not exhibit an impaired hypoxic response in vitro. Although vimentin expression was not stimulated by E-cadherin knockdown in 2D or 3D cultures, xenografts of these cells were globally vimentin-positive rather than exhibiting regional EMT, and they expressed higher SNA1 than their in vitro counterparts. E-cadherin suppression caused a trend toward reduced lung metastasis, whereas E-cadherin overexpression resulted in the reverse trend, consistent with the increased proliferation rate and predominantly epithelial phenotype of MDA-MB-468 cells outside the primary xenograft. This was also originally observed in WT xenografts. Furthermore, we found that patients with breast cancer that expressed E-cadherin were more likely to have metastases. E-cadherin expression promotes growth of primary breast tumors and conceivably the formation of metastases, supporting a role for MET in metastasis. E-cadherin needs to be reevaluated as a tumor suppressor.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 25%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Computer Science 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2020.
All research outputs
#15,173,117
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research
#1,329
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,841
of 327,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research
#20
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,247 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.