Abstract
Endocrine therapy is a standard treatment offered to patients with ERα (estrogen receptor α)-positive breast cancer. In endocrine therapy, ERα is either directly targeted by anti-estrogens or indirectly by aromatase inhibitors which cause estrogen deficiency. Resistance to these drugs (endocrine resistance) compromises the efficiency of this treatment and requires additional measures. Endocrine resistance is often caused by deregulation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway and/or cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 activities allowing inhibitors of these factors to be used clinically to counteract endocrine resistance. The nuclear mechanisms involved in endocrine resistance are beginning to emerge. Exploring these mechanisms may reveal additional druggable targets, which could help to further improve patients’ outcome in an endocrine resistance setting. This review intends to summarize our current knowledge on the nuclear mechanisms linked to endocrine resistance.
Introduction
Breast cancer (BC), a systemic disease characterized by early tumor cell dissemination (), is the most frequent cancer among women and leading cause of cancer-related death in women worldwide (). Disseminated BC cells often enter dormancy and may later grow out to a metastatic lesion (, ). In a metastasis-free state, there are good therapy options to substantially prolong survival of BC patients. BC is a heterogenous disease, requiring subtyping, classically based on immunohistochemistry (IHC), to offer the patient the best possible treatment. The statuses of estrogen receptor α (ERα), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2) are routinely examined. The majority of BCs are ERα/PR-positive. Additionally, Her2-positive BCs and triple-negative (ERα-, PR- and Her2-negative) BCs (TNBCs) are found. Subtyping by mRNA expression profiling revealed four major BC subtypes (luminal A, luminal B, Her2-enriched and basal-like) (), which overlap with the IHC-subtypes. Luminal A and B tumors are mostly ERα-positive BCs, whereby luminal B tumors are more aggressive. Basal-like BCs show commonly features of TNBCs.
Routine treatment options for BC patients include ERα- and Her2-targeting therapies, chemotherapy, surgery and radiation. Besides ERα and Her2 expression, the luminal subtype, tumor grading and lymph node involvement play a role in therapy decision (). Endocrine therapy is a standard treatment for patients with ERα-positive BCs. Two principal strategies are used in endocrine therapy to block estrogen-dependent ERα activity. One strategy utilizes anti-estrogens to compete with estrogen for binding to the ERα protein. Anti-estrogens are roughly divided in selective ERα modulators (SERMs), such as tamoxifen (TAM) (, ), and selective ERα downregulator (SERDs), such as fulvestrant (FULV) (, ). In contrast to SERMs, SERDs are pure ERα inhibitors, induce ERα degradation and prevent ERα from becoming transcriptionally active (–). In the other strategy, estrogen synthesis is blocked by an aromatase inhibitor (AI), such as exemestane, resulting in estrogen deficiency (). Both strategies are effective for treating ERα-positive BCs.
Endocrine resistance (ENDO-R), the resistance to ERα-targeting therapy, is a major obstacle in treatment of ERα-positive BCs. In first-line treatment, ENDO-R is observed in approximately half of all ERα-positive BCs (). Many factors contributing to ENDO-R have been identified. While there are excellent reviews on the mechanisms of endocrine resistance, which primarily focus on signaling pathways, cell cycle regulators, microRNAs and/or mutation in the ERα-coding gene esr1 (–), this review preferentially aims to summarize the currently known nuclear mechanisms that contribute to ENDO-R. Where necessary, event(s) in other cellular compartments that are crucially linked to the nuclear mechanism discussed, are also described.
ERα, the Target of Endocrine Treatment
The ERα Protein
There are two estrogen receptors, ERα and ERβ (). While ERβ is generally considered to act anti-proliferative, ERα promotes proliferation. Estrogen-activated ERα is a potent stimulator of cyclin D1 expression (, ), leading to activation of cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) 4 and 6, which in turn phosphorylate retinoblastoma protein to initiate cell cycle entry ().
Expression of ERα is regulated by transcription of its gene estrogen receptor 1 (esr1) and by proteasome-dependent degradation of the ERα protein (). Primarily, ERα acts as a transcription factor on estrogen-responsive element (ERE)-containing genes by directly binding to its recognition sequence. It is also possible that ERα binds indirectly to DNA by tethering to other transcription factors, such as activating protein-1 (AP-1) (, ). Two trans-activation domains, transactivation function (AF)-1 and AF-2, allow ERα to interact with the transcriptional machinery, whereby AF-2 mediates estrogen-dependent ERα transcriptional activity (). Two splice variants of ERα, ERα46 and ERα36, exist, whereby ERα46 does not contain the AF-1 domain and ERα36 lacks both transactivation domains.
The ERα protein can be phosphorylated at many sites, which has an impact on its activity (). Particularly important are phosphorylations at Ser-118 and Ser-167 in the AF-1 domain. These modifications, which promote ligand-dependent as well as ligand-independent transcriptional activities of ERα, affect the interaction of ERα with transcriptional co-factors, such as CREB (cAMP regulatory element binding protein)-binding protein (CBP) or steroid receptor co-activator (SRC). Phosphorylation at these sites can be triggered by receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) through the PI3K/AKT/mTOR/p70S6K and the Ras/Raf/MEK1/ERK1/2 pathways.
Besides genomic activities, non-genomic activities of ERα have been documented, which leads to the activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR/p70S6K and the Ras/Raf/MEK1/ERK1/2 pathways (). These activities may involve interactions of ERα with PI3K and the non-receptor tyrosine kinase c-Src.
Role of ERα in Endocrine Resistance
Given that ERα is the key transcriptional driver in ERα-positive BC cells, it is not surprising that ERα inhibitors have a tremendous effect on transcription. Exposure of MCF-7 cells to anti-estrogens leads to altered expression of approximately two-thirds of 1.8 x 104 studied genes (28). Though TAM or FULV induce similar changes in gene expression, it takes different strategies to overcome the inhibitory actions of the two anti-estrogens. In the presence of TAM, ERα can still be active in an estrogen-independent manner allowing ERα-based escape mechanisms. Indeed, one study showed that ERα was transcriptionally active in approximately three quarters of BC specimens from patients who relapsed on TAM (29). ERα-based escape mechanisms in TAM resistance include phosphorylation of the ERα protein, overexpression of ERα co-activators, such as SRC-1, a switch to AP-1-responsive gene activation and a shift from genomic to non-genomic ERα activities (, 30). Nevertheless, as shown with MCF-7 cells, TAM resistance coincides with an altered chromatin organization (31). In addition, hundreds of genes are differently expressed in tamoxifen resistant (TAM-R) cells as compared to estrogen-treated parental cells.
Like TAM resistance, resistance to AI often occurs with the ERα protein remaining active. A frequent escape mechanism involves a mutation in the AF-2 domain allowing constitutive ERα activation in the absence of estrogen (, ).
As pure ERα antagonists, SERDs block ERα activity completely (), requiring cells to find escape routes independent of ERα usage. In fact, in clinical samples, FULV resistance is associated with decreased ERα pathway activity (32). Also, in contrast to TAM-R MCF-7 cells, fulvestrant resistant (FULV-R) MCF-7 cells show almost no response of ERα-regulated genes to estrogen (33). Furthermore, TAM-R sublines are usually sensitive to FULV (34). Nevertheless, in some cases, TAM resistance may be accompanied by FULV resistance (34) suggesting that TAM resistance can also be achieved by ERα-independent mechanisms.
Pre-existing vs. Acquired Endocrine Resistance in Established BC Cell Lines
Drug resistance can either happen when cells in the tumor pre-exist that are intrinsically insensitive to the drug or when cells acquire resistance during treatment. Given the heterogenous nature of tumors (35, 36), it is not unlikely that drug-resistant cell clones have spontaneously developed during clonal evolution (37) without having been challenged by a particular drug. Such pre-existing drug-resistant clones would be expected to allow the cancer to rapidly progress under treatment pressure. In fact, a study on patients with ERα-positive advanced BC treated with FULV and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib revealed that cancers with pre-existing escape mutations reduced progression free-survival significantly and showed “no need” to develop additional escape mutations (38).
Most of our knowledge on mechanisms underlying anti-estrogen resistance has come from studies with established BC lines, predominantly MCF-7, T47D and ZR75-1. These cell lines have been established from pleural effusions of metastatic BC patients (39). Their ERα chromatin binding profiles overlap with those of primary BCs with poor outcome confirming the aggressive nature of these cell lines (40). Numerous studies demonstrated that the MCF-7 cell line is a heterogenous population (41–45), which, when challenged by anti-estrogens, form multiple FULV-R and TAM-R clones, all containing the same DNA aberrations (46). This suggests that the resistant clones all derived from one subpopulation of cells that pre-existed in the MCF-7 cell line (46). It would explain why FULV-R clones appear rapidly (within a couple of weeks) when MCF-7 cells are exposed to FULV (45). Importantly, at the time when MCF-7 or other commonly used BC lines were established, endocrine therapy was not available (40). Hence, it is likely that established BC cell lines contain cells that spontaneously became endocrine resistant in the absence of endocrine treatment before the tumor cells have been collected from the patient decades ago. This should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results obtained in resistance studies with established BC cell lines.
Current Targets for Therapy in Endocrine Resistance
The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway has become a major focus in ENDO-R research and has stimulated the development of drugs that target this pathway (47, 48). PI3K and mTOR inhibitors have been found to be effective drugs to treat patients with an endocrine resistant BC (49, 50). More recently, CDK4 and CDK6 have been shown to be appropriate druggable targets in ENDO-R (, 51). Combinatorial treatments with drugs directed to the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway and to CDK4/6 are discussed to further improve treatment efficacy (52).
Activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway in ENDO-R can occur in different ways and most often involves RTKs, including epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), Her2, Her3, Her4, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF1R) and insulin receptor (IR) (Figure 1). Other ways are a gain-of-function mutation in the phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (pik3ca) gene coding for the PI3K catalytic component p110α (53, 54) or a loss of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) (55). RTKs are often deregulated in ENDO-R by overexpression (EGFR, Her2, Her3, Her4) (34, 56–58), partly as a result of gene amplifications (FGFR1) (59, 60), by mutations (Her2) (61) or by higher availability of RTK ligands, such as heregulin, IGF1 or insulin (Her3, Her4, IGF1R, IR) (62–64).
Figure 1
As the second major pathway that is activated by RTKs, the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK1/2 pathway also contributes to ENDO-R (Figure 1). Independent of RTKs, this pathway can also be activated by mutations in Ras, Raf or MEK or by downregulation of the Ras inhibitor neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) (61).
Dual CDK4/6 inhibitors, such as palbociclib (PD-0332991), in combination with endocrine therapy are currently standard of care for advanced ERα-positive breast cancer (51, 65–68). Activation of CDK4/6 requires physical interaction with their co-factor cyclin D1 (69), whose level raises upon activation of certain proteins, such as RTKs or ERα (70). High expression of cyclin D1 is associated with poor prognosis in ERα-positive breast cancer (71) and linked to an increased risk of relapse on TAM (72). In FULV resistance, of the two CDKs particularly CDK6 may play a role. Increased expression of CDK6 was reported in FULV-treated MCF-7 cells (73, 74). Inhibition of CDK6 suppressed growth of FULV-resistant MCF-7 cells. A high CDK6 level in breast cancer of FULV-treated metastatic patients was found to predict a worse outcome (74).
Deciphering the changes happening in the nucleus upon acquisition of ENDO-R may result in the identification of additional druggable factors in ENDO-R.
Transcription Factors
Sequence-specific transcription factors (TFs) are key drivers of gene expression and can have activating or repressive functions. Activating TFs induce gene transcription by binding to promoters and/or enhancers followed by recruitments of co-activators and RNA polymerase (75). Two major types of activating TFs are distinguished: pioneer and settler TFs (76). Pioneer TFs assist loading of settler TFs by initiating chromatin accessibility (Chromatin Accessibility). Both types of TFs are involved in ENDO-R (Figure 2). They may act as effectors of signaling pathways involved in ENDO-R and/or may reprogram cells from ERα-dependent to ER-independent gene expression.
Figure 2
AP-1
ATF2 and c-Jun are members of the AP-1 family of transcription factors and often form heterodimers (77, 78). Impairment of ERα activity can lead to a shift from ERE-dependent to AP-1-dependent ERα-induced transcription, involving c-Jun (79). Interestingly, c-Jun activity can be regulated by RTKs, partly through the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK1/2 and the PI3K/AKT signaling pathways (80) linking c-Jun to RTK-induced ENDO-R. Another study showed that silencing of ATF2 in FULV-R and TAM-R MCF-7 sublines strongly decreased ERα-independent cellular growth and concomitantly increased the level of ERα and the expression of ERα-responsive genes (81). On the other hand, ATF-2 and c-Jun can have opposite effects on genes. For instance, while c-Jun represses, ATF-2 activates PTEN transcription in BC cells, leading to opposing effects of the two AP-1 members on AKT activity (82).
A screen in a chemical library resulted in the discovery of two ATF-2 inhibitors, celastrol (CSL) and acetyl isogambogic acid (AIGA), which both proved to be potent inhibitors of melanoma growth (83). CSL, known as an anti-inflammatory drug, could also be shown to counteract cis-platin resistance of non-small cell lung cancer by inhibiting ATF-2 (84).
E74-Like Factor 5
Elf5, also known as epithelium-specific Ets transcription factor 2 (ESE2), a member of the E26-transformation-specific/E-twenty-six-specific sequence (ETS) domain family of transcription factors (85), plays a role in BC progression (86). Elf5 is highly expressed in basal-like BCs, while its expression in luminal BCs is lower than in normal breast tissue (87). However, resistance of MCF-7C cells to FULV and TAM coincides with an increase in Elf5 expression. Ectopic expression of Elf5 in MCF-7 and T47D cells was found to down-regulate ERα and FoxA1 levels and to suppress the expression of ERα-driven genes. Additionally, it induces a gene signature resembling that of basal-like BC cells. It is thought that the Elf5-induced switch from a luminal to a basal-like subtype may be one route for ERα-positive BC cells to escape the growth-suppressing effects of anti-estrogens.
Estrogen-Related Receptor-α
ERRα is an orphan nuclear receptor that shows a high homology to ERα in the DNA binding domain, potentially allowing ERRα to activate ERα-target genes in the absence of estrogen (88). Higher levels of ERRα and lower levels of ERα were found in BC specimens from patients who relapsed on TAM compared to BC specimens from untreated patients (29). Furthermore, in TAM-R and FULV-R MCF-7 cells, ERRα expression is increased, while silencing of ERRα has a stronger inhibitory effect on growth of resistant sublines than it does on the growth of the parental cell line. Moreover, high ERRα expression predicts poor prognosis for TAM-treated patients (29) (Table 1).
Table 1
| Protein | Cohort | N (patients) | Molecule analyzed | Detection method(s) | Prognosis | Independent marker in multivariate analysis? | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARID1A | pat. w/primary BC | 476 | protein | IHC | high ARID1A ⇨ higher DFS and OS (all BCs, lum A) | Yes, indicative for good outcome | (89) |
| ARID1A | pat. w/BC | 1824 | DNA | mutational status | mutant ARID1A ⇨ lower OS | n.a. | (28) |
| Bcl-3 | pat. treated w/TAM only | 229 | mRNA | KM-P (in silico) | higher Bcl-3 ⇨ lower RFS | n.a. | (90) |
| DAXX | pat. treated w/ET only or received NST | 742 (ET) 503 (NST) | mRNA | KM-P (in silico) | high DAXX ⇨ higher RFS (ET), high/low DAXX⇨ same RFS (NST) | n.a. | (91) |
| ERRα | pat. treated w/TAM |
|
|
| high ERRα ⇨ lower OS | Yes (mRNA and protein), indicative for poor outcome of TAM-treated pat. | (29) |
| FoxA1 | pat. treated w/TAM only or w/o ET | 615 (TAM) | mRNA | KM-P (in silico) | high FoxA1 ⇨ lower RFS (TAM) high/low FoxA1 ⇨ same RFS (no ET) | n.a. | (92) |
| 500 (no ET) | |||||||
| FoxA1 | pat. treated w/ET only or received NST | 997 (TAM) | protein | IHC | high FoxA1 ⇨ high RFS (TAM and NST) | Yes, indicative for good survival of pat. w/ERα-pos. BC | (93) |
| FoxM1 | pat. w/BC | 965 (lum A) | mRNA | KM-P (in silico) | high FoxM1 ⇨ lower DMFS (lum A, B) lower RFS (TAM) | n.a. | (94) |
| 430 (lum B) | |||||||
| 809 (TAM only) | |||||||
| H2A.Z | pat. w/BC | 517 | protein | IHC | high H2A.Z ⇨ lower OS | Yes, indicative for poor outcome | (95) |
| HDAC | pat. who relapsed on ET (HDACi + exe vs. placebo + exe) | 365 | none | none | HDACi ⇨ higher PFS | n.a. | (96) |
| Notch | pat. w/ERα-pos. BC | 1862 | mRNA | KM-P (in silico) | high Notch activity ⇨ lower RFS and DMFS | n.a. | (97) |
| Notch | pat. treated w/TAM or received NST | 669 (TAM) | mRNA | MA data sets (in silico) | high Notch activity ⇨ lower DMFS (TAM), lower OS (NST) | n.a. | (98) |
| 343 (NST) | |||||||
| Snail Slug Twist | pat. w/non-metastatic BC | 289 | protein | IHC | high Snail, Slug or Twist ⇨ lower RFS | Yes (Snail and Twist combined), indicative for poor survival of pat. w/ERα-pos. BC | (99) |
| XBP1 | pat. w/ERα-pos. BC | 97 | mRNA | Q-RT-PCR | high XBP1(U) ⇨ higher RFS high XB1(S/U) ratio ⇨ lower RFS | Yes, XB1(S/U) ratio indicates poor survival of pat. w/ERα-pos. BC | (100) |
| YB-1 | pat. w/newly diagnosed invasive BC | 4049 | protein | IHC | high YB-1 ⇨ lower BCSS (all BCs, TAM treatment) | Yes, indicative for poor outcome | (101) |
Nuclear proteins linked to endocrine resistance and their impacts on clinical outcome in breast cancer.
BC, breast cancer; BCSS, breast cancer-specific survival; DFS, disease-free survival; DMFS, distant metastasis-free survival; ET, endocrine treatment; HDACi, HDAC inhibitor; IHC, immunohistochemistry; KM-P, Kaplan-Meier plotter (http://kmplot.com/analysis); MA, cDNA microarray; n.a., not analyzed; OS, overall survival; pat., patients; PFS, progression-free survival; Q-RT-PCR, quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; RFS, relapse-free survival; TAM, tamoxifen; NST, no systemic treatment.
The potential role of ERRα in diabetes has encouraged the development of ERRα inhibitors (102). Specific ERRα-targeted drugs have been generated by preventing the recruitment of the co-activator SRC to the ERRα protein. These drugs were proven to have little effects on ERRα relatives ERRβ and ERRγ, did not influence ERα activity and were well tolerated when administered to rats. Such inhibitors were also shown to act anti-proliferatively on breast cancer cells in vitro and in vivo (103). They may be potentially useful for treating ERRα-induced ENDO-R.
Forkhead Box Protein A1
Expression of FoxA1 correlates with ERα expression in primary ERα-positive BCs (104). As a pioneer TF, FoxA1 facilitates ERα binding to promoters and enhancers and cooperates with ERα to drive ERα-dependent transcription (105). Most of the ERα binding takes place outside of proximal promoters (106), coinciding with enhanced gene looping allowing recruitment of distal regulatory transcriptional machinery (31). Silencing of FoxA1 results in failure of estrogen to stimulate growth of MCF-7 or ZR75-1 cells, confirming the essential role of FoxA1 in ERα function (105).
Overexpression of FoxA1 leads to transcriptional reprogramming mainly based on higher FoxA1 occupation of so-called super enhancers (107). Super enhancers are clusters of enhancers densely occupied with transcription factors and located in the vicinity of genes important for cell identity (108). Ectopic expression of FoxA1 desensitizes MCF-7 cells to FULV and TAM (92). Furthermore, FoxA1 was found to be overexpressed in TAM-R sublines derived from MCF-7 and BT474 (92), though TAM resistance of MCF-7 cells may also coincide with a lower FoxA1 level (109). FoxA1 is frequently overexpressed in primary BC, which happens more often in luminal B than luminal A tumors (92).
There are contradicting results in terms of the predictive value of FoxA1 overexpression for TAM-treated patients. While higher FoxA1 mRNA levels correlated with poor survival (92), FoxA1 protein overexpression was associated with favorable outcome (93). In 3.7% of primary BCs and even in 7% of lobular BC the FoxA1 gene is mutated (110). These mutations were found to be associated with higher FoxA1 expression and activity.
Among the genes targeted by FoxA1 is anterior gradient 2 (AGR2), the human homologue of XAG-2, a Xenopus laevis protein playing a potential role in neural development (111). AGR2 is a protein disulfide isomerase and involved in protein maturation control in the endoplasmic reticulum (112). In murine mammapoiesis, AGR2 regulates epithelial proliferation and lobuloalveolar development (113). AGR2 is able to upregulate the EGFR ligand amphiregulin (114) and the expression of cyclin D1 (115), being consistent with the finding that, in primary BC, the level of cyclin D1 correlates with that of AGR2 (116).
As shown with MCF-7 cells, AGR2 is important for ERα-driven proliferation (112, 116–120). AGR2-overexpressing MCF-7 cells show a delay in FULV-induced ERα degradation, likely caused by physical interaction of the AGR2 with the ERα protein (121). Silencing of AGR2 increased the sensitivity of ZR75-1 and T47D cells to FULV and TAM, reduced c-Src kinase activity and decreased the level of the anti-apoptotic protein survivin (115). In TAM-R MCF-7 cells, AGR2 is highly expressed while being mainly regulated by FoxA1 independently of ERα (117). If secreted, AGR2 can bind to the membrane receptor LY6/PLAUR domain containing 3 (LYPD3), whose expression is regulated by FoxA1 in cooperation with the transcription factor grainyhead like transcription factor 2 (GRHL2) (122). There is evidence that AGR2, LYPD3, GRHL2 and FoxA1 act together to foster ENDO-R.
Higher AGR2 expression is associated with unfavorable prognosis in BC (117). This holds true also for ERα-positive BC (116), where AGR2 is more abundant (112, 123). Furthermore, higher AGR2 expression predicts a weaker response to TAM in primary BC (116, 122).
Antibodies against AGR2 and LYPD3 have been found to be effective to suppress growth of TAM-R breast cancer cells in mice (122). Additionally, humanized anti-AGR2 and anti-LYPD3 antibodies are in development. In a pre-clinical trial, an anti-LYPD3 antibody-auristatin conjugate (BAY 1129980) is tested for treatment of LYPD3-expressing non–small cell lung cancer (124).
FoxM1
The FoxM1 gene is transcriptionally regulated by ERα and is important for ERα-driven cellular growth (125). Accordingly, FULV and TAM reduce FoxM1 expression. However, long-term treatment with TAM increases FoxM1 expression in MCF-7 cells (126), while FoxM1 depletion sensitizes TAM-R MCF-7 cells to TAM (125). Among the genes upregulated by FoxM1 are cyclin D1 and ATP-binding cassette super-family G member 2 (ABCG2) (125, 126). ABCG2, a transporter protein that pumps drugs out of the cell (127), was found to contribute to anti-estrogen resistance (126). Many genes, including ABCG2, require active ERK2 for FoxM1-dependent transcription linking FoxM1 transcriptional activity to the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK1/2 pathway. FoxM1 may also be connected to the PI3K/AKT pathway, as overexpression of activated AKT can increase FoxM1 expression (128).
FoxM1 may be suitable as a predictive marker in ENDO-R. Overexpression of FoxM1 in ERα-positive breast cancer was found to correlate with worse prognosis of TAM-treated patients (94, 126). Interestingly, a gene signature linked to the protein 14-3-3ζ, a FoxM1 regulator, is also associated with unfavorable prognosis of TAM-treated patients (129) suggesting that a 14-3-3ζ-FoxM1 axis can drive ENDO-R.
FoxM1 might be targeted through 14-3-3ζ, whose activity can be inhibited by small molecules, such as FOBISIN101, or by the peptide inhibitor R18 (130). R18 was found to strongly support the apoptotic effect of TAM on MCF-7 cells (131).
Hypoxia-Inducible Factor 1/2α
Hypoxia stabilizes HIF-1α and HIF-2α proteins allowing them to initiate transcription of numerous genes engaged to ensure survival under hypoxic conditions (132). In cancer, also non-physiological activation of these transcription factors occur (133). HIF-1α and HIF-2α are involved in tumor progression (134). Among others, they promote metastasis and cancer stem cell activity (Cancer Stem Cells).
Overexpression of HIF-1α or HIF-2α was found to desensitize MCF-7 cells to FULV (135, 136). Likewise, exposure to hypoxia reduced ERα expression and FULV sensitivity of various ERα-positive breast cancer cell lines (136, 137). Also, FULV-R MCF-7 cells showed higher expression of HIF-2α, but not HIF-1α, and could be sensitized to FULV by inhibition of HIF activity.
One target of HIF-2α is EGFR, which has been linked to anti-estrogen resistance. EGFR can also feedback on HIF-2α (136). Furthermore, HIF-2α expression is driven by FoxA1 (107) linking HIF-2α and EGFR to FoxA1.
Interestingly, HIF and ERα share many genes that they can transcriptionally activate (138). Of these, sodium-dependent neutral amino acid transporter 2 (SNAT2) has been linked to FULV resistance. SNAT2 is a transmembrane transporter for short chain neutral amino acids, such as glutamine, and an amino acid sensor (139, 140). When overexpressed in MCF-7 cells, SNAT2 induces FULV resistance in vitro and in vivo (138). FULV-R or TAM-R MCF-7 cells can use glutamine instead of glucose for maintaining metabolism (141), which may play a role in SNAT’s ability to induce FULV resistance. SNAT2 overexpression was associated with worse outcome in luminal B-type, but not in luminal A-type cancers (138).
The activation of HIF also leads to a disconnect between glycolysis and the tricarboxylic acid cycle, whose maintenance becomes then dependent on glutamate (142). Hence, when HIF is activated, glutamine metabolismus is gaining importance in cancer’s energy generation. Therefore, endocrine resistant breast cancer with high HIF activity may be responsive to drugs interfering with glutamine metabolism. A promising druggable target is glutaminase (GLS) which converts glutamine to glutamate (143). The GLS-inhibiting drug CB-839 is now tested in clinical trials (142). In one study, it is combined with paclitaxel to treat TNBCs.
Nuclear Factor κB
The NFкB pathway has been linked to oncogenesis (144) and to ENDO-R (145). The NFкB family of transcription factors include NF-κB1 (p50), NF-κB2 (p52), RelA (p65), RelB and c-Rel, which homo- or heterodimerize to interact with specific DNA binding sites. Upon phosphorylation of the NFкB regulator IκB (inhibitor of NFкB) by IKK (IκB kinase) the NFкB protein is released from the inhibitory complex and translocates to the nucleus to regulate transcription (146).
Being a strong activator of cyclin D1 synthesis (), NFкB may replace ERα in stimulating proliferation when ERα activity is impaired. In a number of FULV-R MCF-7 sublines, increased NFкB (p65, RelB) activity has been noted, whose inhibition resulted in growth-suppressive effects (147–150). NFкB has also been found to prevent apoptosis of FULV-R MCF-7 cells (150).
In FULV resistance induced by mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) or carcinoma-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) the atypical IκB protein B-cell lymphoma-3 (Bcl-3) plays a role, whose expression is associated with poorer survival of TAM-treated patients (90). Bcl-3 can activate NFкB-dependent transcription by binding to transcriptionally repressive p50/p50 and p52/p52 homodimers and “convert” them to activators (151). Bcl-3 is a growth-stimulatory factor in cancer cells (152, 153). It may partially act as such by upregulating the expression of c-Myc (154, 155), a proliferation-inducing protein which may contribute to ENDO-R (141, 156) and by stimulating the expression of sex determining region Y-box 2 (Sox2) (157), a stem cell protein involved in drug resistance (158). In addition, Bcl-3 downregulates the expression of selenoprotein P, plasma 1 (SEPP1) and kelch-like 4 (KLHL4) (90), two genes whose mRNA levels inversely correlate with relapse-free survival of TAM-treated patients. Interestingly, KLHL4 has recently been reported to bind p53 to increase the expression of the cell cycle inhibitor p21 (159). Hence, part of Bcl-3’s growth-stimulatory activity may be based on its suppressive effect on KLHL4 expression.
A number of drugs interfering with the NFкB pathway have been developed (160). some of which are used in clinical trials (161). For instance, the anti-alcoholismus drug disulfiram, which also inhibits NFк;B activity, is tested in a phase II trial of patients with a Her2-negative BC.
X-Box Binding Protein-1
Unfolded protein response (UPR) is activated in the event of endoplasmic reticulum stress (162). UPR is important for ENDO-R, as it is able to act as prosurvival mechanism by eliminating endoplasmic reticulum stress and by re-installing metabolic homeostasis (163). XBP1 is a key transcription factor involved in regulating UPR and is activated by UPR. Upon UPR initiation, XBP1 is activated by unconventional cytoplasmic splicing resulting in the conversion of XBP1 mRNA coding for the unspliced XBP1(U) form to the mRNA encoding spliced XBP1(S) form. In contrast to the XBP1(U) protein, the longer XBP1(S) protein harbors a transactivation domain allowing XBP1(S) to activate transcription through CREB responsive elements. One important target gene of XBP1(S) is esr1, the gene coding for ERα, another the gene encoding the NFкB transcription factor p65/RelA (164). Overexpression of XBP1 renders MCF-7 cells more resistant to FULV (165), while its depletion reduces cell growth of FULV-R MCF-7 cells by inducing apoptosis (164), likely caused by reduced expression of XBP1-regulated anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2 (165). Higher ratio of XBP1(S)- to XBP1(U)-mRNA correlates with worse prognosis of patients with ERα-positive BC, while XBP1(U) expression alone predicts better survival (100).
The importance of UPR for drug resistance has planted the idea of inducing an overload of ER stress (166). This could be achieved by certain nanoparticles or by the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib, the latter being already used to treat certain haematopoietic cancers.
Y-Box Binding Protein 1
The transcription factor YB-1, a so-called cold-shock protein, is involved in cellular stress responses (167). By binding to the ERα protein and interfering with its activity (168, 169) and by upregulating the expression of EGFR and Her2 (168, 170, 171), YB-1 induces a shift from ERα- towards EGFR/Her2-driven gene expression. In line with this, in primary BCs, YB1 expression correlates with the expression of EGFR and Her2 and inversely with that of ERα and PR (170, 172, 173). Higher YB-1 expression is associated with poorer prognosis in BC (174–178) and predicts a worse outcome of TAM-treated patients (101).
Its role in ENDO-R is further supported by the finding that ectopically expressed YB-1 desensitizes MCF-7 and T47D cells to FULV and TAM (179, 180). Lapatinib counteracts the FULV-de-sensitizing effect of YB-1 confirming the involvement of EGFR and Her2. Silencing of YB-1 reverses the switch from ERα to Her2 expression and re-sensitizes cells to anti-estrogens. Interestingly, in FULV-R cells, YB-1 expression is not upregulated, but its phosphorylation at Ser102 is increased (180). P-Ser102 modified YB-1 has been shown to foster anchorage-independent growth and radiation resistance of BC cells (181, 182). Ser102 can be phosphorylated by AKT, p70S6K, and ribosomal S6 kinase (p90RSK) (180). As shown with MCF-7 and ZR75-1 cells, FGFR2-dependent signaling increases the interaction between YB-1 and ERα (169), suggesting also a link between YB-1 and FGFR2.
Interference with YB-1 activity is possible by the novel multikinase inhibitor TAS0612, which targets AKT, p70S6K, and p90RSK and thereby prevents YB-1 phosphorylation at Ser102 and its subsequent transport into the nucleus (180). TAS0612 was shown to efficiently suppress growth of Fulv-R BC cells in vitro and in vivo.
Chromatin Accessibility
Chromatin accessibility is defined by the ability of DNA-binding factors to access chromatin DNA, which is highly compacted by its interactions with histones and other chromatin-binding factors (183). Chromatin accessibility is vital to active transcription. Only 2-3% of the chromation contains accessible DNA to which 90% of the TFs bind. Besides pioneer TFs, chromatin remodeling complexes, such as switch mating type/sucrose non-fermenting (SWI/SNF), histone modifiers, histone readers and mediators play an important role in opening up chromatin (75, 76). Post-transcriptional modifications (PTMs) of histones play a key role in regulating chromatin accessibility (184). PTMs are regulated by “writing” enzymes that add a modification and “erasing” enzymes that remove a modification (185). For instance, histone acetyl transferases (HATs), such as CBP, acetylate histones, thereby promoting transcription, while histone deacetylases (HDACs) deacetylate histones, thereby repressing transcription. PTMs can be recognized by histone readers. Bromodomain histone readers, such as bromodomain-containing protein 4 (BRD4), recognize acetylated histones (186). The bromodomain and extraterminal (BET) family of bromodomain histone readers has recently gained attention as a potential target in cancer therapy.
Long-term repression of transcription can be achieved by DNA methylation, leaving an epigenetic mark that can be transmitted to daughter cells. Abnormal de novo DNA methylation in tumorigenesis prevent the activation of key genes involved in terminal differentiation and thereby in inhibition of proliferation (187).
Resistance to FULV, TAM or AI is accompanied by changes in histone PTM and DNA methylation patterns indicating that resistance to these drugs are accompanied by epigenetic reprogramming (188–190).
AT-Rich Interaction Domain 1A
Among the genes required for the anti-proliferative effects of FULV and TAM is ARID1A, a factor of the SWI/SNF complex BAF (28). It is recruited by FoxA1 to FoxA1/ERα-regulated genes and in turn attracts HDAC1, thereby blocking ERα-depending transcription (Figure 2). Loss of ARID1A leads to increased histone 4 acetylation and recruitment of BRD4 to these genes. This allows that these genes can be transcribed even though anti-estrogens are present, which eventually results in FULV and TAM resistance (28).
Higher expression of ARID1A correlates with good prognosis in BC (89). However, mutations in ARID1A gene, found in 5% of primary and 12% of metastatic BCs, are associated with unfavorable prognosis (28). BET-inhibitors, available for therapy of cancer patients (191), may be useful tools to counteract ENDO-R caused by ARID1A dysfunction.
HDACs
Based on their homology to yeast deacetylases, four classes of human HDACs are distinguished: class I, IIa, IIb. III and class IV (192). Originally identified as enzymes that deacetylase histones, HDACs were later found also to modify non-histone proteins. Class I HDACs (HDAC1, -2, -3, and -8) are primarily located in the nucleus and engaged in histone deacetylation. By removing acetyl group from lysines, histones become more positively charged, which strengthens the interaction with the negatively charged DNA. This leads to higher compaction of the chromatin, which is then less available for transcription (185). HDACs are typically recruited by transcriptional repressors.
In ERα-negative breast cancer cells, HDAC1 contributes to the inactivation of the esr1 promoter (193). In addition, independent of its histone-regulating function, HDAC1 binds directly to the ERα protein, thereby further suppressing ERα activity (194). Subsequently, suppression of HDAC activity by an HDAC inhibitor (HDACi) results in re-occurrence of the ERα protein in ERα-negative cells (195, 196). Furthermore, inhibition of HDAC3 was shown to reduce the formation of FULV-R MCF-7 colonies (197). Also, knock-down of HDAC2 was found to strongly increase the sensitivity to TAM (198). Treatment of TAM-R MCF-7 cells with HDACi was reported to induce apoptosis as well as autophagy and to reduce cellular growth in vitro and in vivo (199–201). It has been speculated that alterations in the expression of ERα co-repressors, such as nuclear co-repressor (NCoR) 1 and 2, may play a role in the cytotoxic effect of HDACi on TAM-R BC cells, as these co-repressors recruit HDACs (202). Loss of such co-repressors may lead to an epigenetic imbalance of ERα-driven gene activity. Importantly, NcoR1 is lost in more than half of all ERα-positive BCs.
In a phase III trial, patients who relapsed on endocrine therapy show a survival benefit when treated with the HDACi tucidinostat in addition to the AI exemestane (96). Hence, there is evidence that HDACs are involved in ENDO-R.
Non-Canonical Histone Variant H2A.Z
Histone variants replace canonical histones at certain places of the chromatin, particularly in transcriptionally active regions of the genome, and thereby locally influence epigenetics (203). Histone variants may allow higher rates of nucleosome turnover and may improve chromatin remodeling at active promoters and enhancers.
There is growing evidence that cancer cells misuse histone variants to foster their proliferative activity. In breast cancer, the mRNA expression of the histone variant H2A.Z correlates with the mRNA levels of cell cycle proteins, including cyclins (204). H2A.Z may be of particular importance for ERα-driven breast cancer (203). Of the two H2A.Z proteins, H2A.Z.1 and H2A.Z.2, H2A.Z.1 is regulated by ERα through an ERE site in its gene h2afz. Furthermore, H2A.Z is recruited to hypomethylated DNA at ERα-active enhancers (205) and is important for estrogen-dependent ERα activity at FoxA1/ERα binding sites (206). Interestingly, ectoptic expression of H2A.Z was shown to increase MCF-7 cell proliferation in the absence of estrogen or in the presence of TAM suggesting a potential role of this protein in ENDO-R (204). Overexpression of H2A.Z is associated with poor outcome in BC (95).
DNA Methylation
Compared to the MCF-7 parental cell line the DNA methylation pattern is different in FULV-R MCF-7 sublines (33, 189, 207, 208). Both altered hyper- and hypomethylation of promoters and enhancers were found to coincide with FULV resistance. Hypermethylation of promoters in the anti-estrogen-resistant sublines was linked to either a higher expression of DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) 3B or DNMT1 (207, 209). In FULV-R MCF-7 cells, promoter A of the esr1 gene is one of the hypermethylated promoters giving rise to strongly reduced ERα expression (208). In contrast, in FULV-R T47D cells, loss in promoter A activity did not coincide with hypermethylation. PTEN is another gene whose promoter can be highly methylated in anti-estrogen resistant MCF-7 cells (209).
In TAM-R MCF-7 cells, hypermethylation was predominantly found in enhancers (189). Of these enhancers ~20% were ERα-responsive, of which approximately half contained FoxA1 binding sites. Importantly, methylation in the ERα-responsive enhancers significantly reduced ERα binding and the expression of the enhancer-driven genes. A higher methylation status in these enhancers was found to be linked to a higher risk of relapse on TAM treatment. Methylation of the ERα-responsive enhancers seems also to play a role in regulating ERα transcriptional activity in the different BC subtypes. The highest median methylation of ERα-responsive enhancers was found in the ERα-negative subtype, whereas it was lowest in luminal A tumors (189).
Cancer Stem Cells (CSC)
There is a great body of evidence that a minor population of cells with stem-like activities, CSCs, are responsible for BC growth initiation and progression (210, 211). To identify CSCs in BC, several markers have been established, among them CD44, CD24, CD133 and aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH1) (212, 213). By being multidrug resistant (214) and by showing low expression of ERα (98, 215) CSCs are highly likely to escape endocrine treatment. If so, anti-estrogens, by eradicating non-CSCs while leaving CSCs alive, would increase the proportion of the CSC population. Indeed, treatment with FULV or TAM has been found to enrich the CSC fraction in the MCF-7 cell line (98, 216). Also, high expression of ALDH1 is associated with failure of ERα-positive BCs to respond to TAM (98). As shown with MCF-7 cells in mouse xenografts, one subpopulation of CSCs (CD133hi/CD44low) may be of particular importance in FULV-R (217). In BC, higher expression of CD133 correlates with lower response rates to chemotherapy (218) suggesting a general role of CD133 in drug response.
CSC activity is maintained by a number of transcription-regulating factors, such as cleaved fragments of the Notch pathway, β-catenin activated by the Wnt pathway and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT)-inducing-TFs (211).
The Notch Pathway
The Notch signaling pathway, important for the maintenance of CSC activity in BC (211), has been linked to ENDO-R (219, 220). To stimulate signaling through the Notch pathway, a Notch receptor interacts with a ligand of the Delta-Serrate-Lag2 (DSL) family, such as JAG1, presented by a neighboring cell. This leads to a γ-secretase-dependent cleavage of the Notch protein resulting in the Notch fragment Notch intracellular domain (NICD) (221, 222). Imported into the nucleus, NICD induces transcription of genes, such as hairy and E(spl (Hes), engaged in regulation of cell fate decisions.
In MCF-7 and T47D cells, Notch1 and Notch4 activities are negatively regulated by estrogen-activated ERα (91, 223). The ERα-dependent repression of the notch4 gene involves the transcriptional repressor death domain associated factor 6 (DAXX), a protein stabilized by ERα. In turn, DAXX recruits DNMT1 to the notch4 promoter leading to DNA methylation. Besides Notch4, DAXX also down-regulates other stemness-relevant genes, including ALDH1A1, thereby causing the tumor-initiating capacity of BC cells to decline. Importantly, higher expression of DAXX correlates with more favorable outcome of patients who received endocrine treatment (91).
Consistent with the repressive effect of ERα on Notch activity, inhibition of ERα in MCF-7 and T47D cells by FULV or TAM increases Notch pathway activity, particularly the activities of Notch 3, 4 and JAG1 (91, 97, 98, 224–226). Furthermore, activation of the Notch pathway renders MCF-7 cells resistant to TAM, which coincides with higher NICD levels of Notch1, 3 and 4 (224). Moreover, higher Notch activity predicts worse outcome in ERα-positive BCs (97, 98).
The link between the ERα and Notch pathways may be more complex. One study shows that Notch1 and JAG1 are involved in ERα expression (227) and that silencing of either protein resulted in a loss of luminal marker genes and a gain in basal-like marker genes. Another study suggested an ERα-driven cross-talk between non-CSCs and CD44+/Epcam+/CD24- -CSCs, by which the Notch pathway is activated to increase the CSC population (228).
Inhibitors of the Notch pathways, such as γ-secretase inhibitors, are tested in breast cancer trials (220) and may be suitable tools to treat Notch-dependent ENDO-R.
The Wnt Pathway
The Wnt pathway is an important pathway in mammopoiesis, involved in mammary stem cell regulation and cell fate decisions (229). Its deregulation can lead to BC. In the canonical Wnt pathway, a Wnt ligand interacts with the Wnt receptor Frizzled, which in concert with its co-receptor low-density lipoprotein receptor-related (LRP) leads to stabilization of the protein β-catenin in the cytoplasm (230). Translocated to the nucleus, this key effector of the Wnt pathway drives transcription by interacting with the transcription factor T cell factor/lymphoid enhancer-binding factor. Among the target genes are the EMT-TFs Twist and Slug. Through a different pathway Wnt/Frizzled interaction leads to increased ATF-2/c-Jun activity (230), two factors of the AP-1 family discussed to be involved in ENDO-R (AP-1).
In FULV-R and TAM-R MCF-7 sublines, expression of Wnt pathway components, including β-catenin, are increased (33). Also, overexpression of β-catenin in MCF-7 cells decreased their sensitivity to FULV (231). Higher β-catenin cytosolic and/or nuclear abundance have been linked to poor survival in BC (232). Since this was found for all BC subtypes, it may simply reflect a higher degree of CSC activity.
EMT-TFs
EMT is an essential process in embryonal development and wound healing allowing stationary cells to switch to a migrating phenotype (233). This is caused by a set of EMT-TFs, such as Twist, Slug and zinc-finger E-box binding homeobox 1 (ZEB1). EMT can bestow cancer cells stem cell features and convert them to CD44+/CD24- CSCs (234). EMT may not lead to a fully formed mesenchymal phenotype, but may give rise to intermediate states, now called quasi-mesenchymal phenotypes (235). Quasi-mesenchymal CSCs may be of particular importance for cancer progression.
Overexpressed in MCF-7 and T47D cells, Twist was shown to bind to the esr1 promoter and to inhibit ERα expression, leading to estrogen-independent proliferation and FULV and TAM resistance (236). Twist-induced suppression of esr1 transcription coincided with DNA methylation, caused by the Twist-recruited DNMT3B. Like Twist, ZEB1 induces esr1 promoter hypermethylation and ENDO-R (237), while ZEB1 downregulation increases FULV sensitivity (238). In FULV-R and TAM-R MCF-7 sublines, primarily Slug was found to be overexpressed (239).
Clinically, higher expression of Twist, Snail or Slug was found to be associated with a higher probability to relapse in ERα-positive BCs (99). Twist and Snail combined were even more powerful in predicting the risk of relapse than each protein alone. However, it remains unclear whether the link between EMT-TF expression and poor clinical outcome is based on the down-modulatory effects of EMT-TFs on ERα signaling or on their ability to promote cellular migration.
Conclusions and Future Perspectives
Currently, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway and CDK4/6 are the prime targets to manage endocrine resistance. However, inhibitors against these targets may fail. For instance, ENDO-R resulting from Her2 mutations or FGFR1 amplification are also resistant to the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (60, 240). Hence, there is a need for a list of biomarkers predicting the responses to the currently used inhibitors. Unraveling the nuclear mechanisms involved in ENDO-R may lead to the discovery of additional biomarkers which may help to optimize treatment of endocrine resistant BCs.
Furthermore, by exploring the nuclear mechanisms that allow escape from endocrine treatment new druggable targets may come to light. However, the diversity of nuclear mechanisms leading to ENDO-R requires additional diagnostics to clarify which nuclear changes are responsible for the observed resistance. One such recently identified promising target is the histone PTM reader BRD4 (28), whose activity can be blocked by BET-inhibitors already available for therapy of cancer patients (191). HDACi, also available for treatment of cancers (192), may be an option to overcome HDAC-dependent suppression of estrogen-driven transcription (96).
Transcription factors are more difficult to target, as they usually lack enzymatic activity. However, drugs can interfere with these factors indirectly, for instance, by blocking enzymes responsible for their activation or by inhibiting their interactions with essential co-factors. Transcription factors that are druggable through such an approach include YB-1, NFкB, Notch and ERRα. YB-1 activity can be suppressed by blocking the kinases that catalyze an essential activating phosphorylation event (180). NFкB can be kept in an inactivated state by IKK inhibitors or by the anti-alcoholismus and anti-cancer drug disulfiram, which seems to interfere with an essential proteolytic step in the NFкB pathway (161). Notch activity can be blocked by γ-secretase inhibitors, which are already used in the clinic to treat cancers (241). As the Notch pathway is also important for maintaining the CSC population in BC, γ-secretase inhibitors may also counteract the rise of the CSC population during endocrine treatment. ERRα inhibitors, developed to treat diabetes (102), interfere with the interaction of ERRα with its co-factor SRC.
Transcriptional activities could also be controlled by interfering with certain miRNAs. For instance, by blocking miR221/222 β-catenin-dependent transcription FULV resistance can be suppressed (231).
Thus, understanding the nuclear mechanisms involved in ENDO-R may help to dissect those patients who benefit most from treatment with PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway and CDK4/6 inhibitors and, additionally, may allow the identification of new druggable targets.
Publisher’s Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Angela Dittmer for critically reading the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
HüsemannYGeiglJBSchubertFMusianiPMeyerMBurghartEet al. Systemic Spread Is an Early Step in Breast Cancer. Cancer Cell (2008) 13:58–68. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2007.12.003
2
TorreLABrayFSiegelRLFerlayJLortet-TieulentJJemalA. Global Cancer Statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin (2015) 65:87–108. doi: 10.3322/caac.21262
3
DittmerJ. Mechanisms Governing Metastatic Dormancy in Breast Cancer. Semin Cancer Biol (2017) 44:72–82. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2017.03.006
4
RissonENobreARMaguer-SattaVAguirre-GhisoJA. The Current Paradigm and Challenges Ahead for the Dormancy of Disseminated Tumor Cells. Nat Cancer (2020) 1:672–80. doi: 10.1038/s43018-020-0088-5
5
PratAPerouCM. Deconstructing the Molecular Portraits of Breast Cancer. Mol Oncol (2011) 5:5–23. doi: 10.1016/j.molonc.2010.11.003
6
HarbeckNGnantM. Breast Cancer. Lancet (2017) 389:1134–50. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31891-8
7
HoskinsJMCareyLAMcLeodHL. CYP2D6 and Tamoxifen: DNA Matters in Breast Cancer. Nat Rev Cancer (2009) 9:576–86. doi: 10.1038/nrc2683
8
DaviesCGodwinJGrayRClarkeMCutterDDarbySet al. Relevance of Breast Cancer Hormone Receptors and Other Factors to the Efficacy of Adjuvant Tamoxifen: Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of Randomised Trials. Lancet (2011) 378:771–84. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60993-8
9
RoccaAMaltoniRBravacciniSDonatiCAndreisD. Clinical Utility of Fulvestrant in the Treatment of Breast Cancer: A Report on the Emerging Clinical Evidence. Cancer Manag Res (2018) 10:3083–99. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S137772
10
NathanMRSchmidP. A Review of Fulvestrant in Breast Cancer. Oncol Ther (2017) 5:17–29. doi: 10.1007/s40487-017-0046-2
11
GuanJZhouWHafnerMBlakeRAChalouniCChenIPet al. Therapeutic Ligands Antagonize Estrogen Receptor Function by Impairing Its Mobility. Cell (2019) 178:949–63.e918. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.06.026
12
DixonJM. Prospects of Neoadjuvant Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy in Breast Cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther (2008) 8:453–63. doi: 10.1586/14737140.8.3.453
13
RingADowsettM. Mechanisms of Tamoxifen Resistance. Endocr Relat Cancer (2004) 11:643–58. doi: 10.1677/erc.1.00776
14
TryfonidisKZardavasDKatzenellenbogenBSPiccartM. Endocrine Treatment in Breast Cancer: Cure, Resistance and Beyond. Cancer Treat Rev (2016) 50:68–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.08.008
15
AlFakeehABrezden-MasleyC. Overcoming Endocrine Resistance in Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. Curr Oncol (2018) 25:S18–27. doi: 10.3747/co.25.3752
16
JeselsohnRDe AngelisCBrownMSchiffR. The Evolving Role of the Estrogen Receptor Mutations in Endocrine Therapy-Resistant Breast Cancer. Curr Oncol Rep (2017) 19:35. doi: 10.1007/s11912-017-0591-8
17
AugereauPPatsourisABourboulouxEGourmelonCAbadie LacourtoisieSBerton RigaudDet al. Hormonoresistance in Advanced Breast Cancer: A New Revolution in Endocrine Therapy. Ther Adv Med Oncol (2017) 9:335–46. doi: 10.1177/1758834017693195
18
DustinDGuGFuquaSAW. ESR1 Mutations in Breast Cancer. Cancer (2019) 125:3714–28. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32345
19
MuluhngwiPKlingeCM. Roles for miRNAs in Endocrine Resistance in Breast Cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer (2015) 22:R279–300. doi: 10.1530/ERC-15-0355
20
FoxEMDavisRJShupnikMA. ERbeta in Breast Cancer–Onlooker, Passive Player, or Active Protector? Steroids (2008) 73:1039–51. doi: 10.1016/j.steroids.2008.04.006
21
MawsonALaiACarrollJSSergioCMMitchellCJSarcevicB. Estrogen and Insulin/IGF-1 Cooperatively Stimulate Cell Cycle Progression in MCF-7 Breast Cancer Cells Through Differential Regulation of C-Myc and Cyclin D1. Mol Cell Endocrinol (2005) 229:161–73. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2004.08.002
22
KleinEAAssoianRK. Transcriptional Regulation of the Cyclin D1 Gene at a Glance. J Cell Sci (2008) 121:3853–7. doi: 10.1242/jcs.039131
23
DickFARubinSM. Molecular Mechanisms Underlying RB Protein Function. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol (2013) 14:297–306. doi: 10.1038/nrm3567
24
MiyoshiYMuraseKSaitoMImamuraMOhK. Mechanisms of Estrogen Receptor-Alpha Upregulation in Breast Cancers. Med Mol Morphol (2010) 43:193–6. doi: 10.1007/s00795-010-0514-3
25
JohnsonABO’MalleyBW. Steroid Receptor Coactivators 1, 2, and 3: Critical Regulators of Nuclear Receptor Activity and Steroid Receptor Modulator (SRM)-Based Cancer Therapy. Mol Cell Endocrinol (2012) 348:430–9. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2011.04.021
26
GibsonDASaundersPT. Estrogen Dependent Signaling in Reproductive Tissues - A Role for Estrogen Receptors and Estrogen Related Receptors. Mol Cell Endocrinol (2012) 348:361–72. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2011.09.026
27
Le RomancerMPoulardCCohenPSentisSRenoirJMCorboL. Cracking the Estrogen Receptor’s Posttranslational Code in Breast Tumors. Endocr Rev (2011) 32:597–622. doi: 10.1210/er.2010-0016
28
NagarajanSRaoSVSuttonJCheesemanDDunnSPapachristouEKet al. ARID1A Influences HDAC1/BRD4 Activity, Intrinsic Proliferative Capacity and Breast Cancer Treatment Response. Nat Genet (2020) 52:187–97. doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0541-5
29
ThewesVSimonRSchroeterPSchlotterMAnzenederTButtnerRet al. Reprogramming of the ERRalpha and ERalpha Target Gene Landscape Triggers Tamoxifen Resistance in Breast Cancer. Cancer Res (2015) 75:720–31. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0652
30
de LeeuwRNeefjesJMichalidesR. A Role for Estrogen Receptor Phosphorylation in the Resistance to Tamoxifen. Int J Breast Cancer (2011) 2011:232435. doi: 10.4061/2011/232435
31
ZhouYGerrardDLWangJLiTYangYFritzAJet al. Temporal Dynamic Reorganization of 3D Chromatin Architecture in Hormone-Induced Breast Cancer and Endocrine Resistance. Nat Commun (2019) 10:1522. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09320-9
32
IndaMABlokEJKuppenPJKCharehbiliAden Biezen-TimmermansECvan BrusselAet al. Estrogen Receptor Pathway Activity Score to Predict Clinical Response or Resistance to Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Primary Breast Cancer. Mol Cancer Ther (2020) 19:680–9. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-19-0318
33
FanMYanPSHartman-FreyCChenLPaikHOyerSLet al. Diverse Gene Expression and DNA Methylation Profiles Correlate With Differential Adaptation of Breast Cancer Cells to the Antiestrogens Tamoxifen and Fulvestrant. Cancer Res (2006) 66:11954–66. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1666
34
GhayadSEVendrellJABen LarbiSDumontetCBiecheICohenPA. Endocrine Resistance Associated With Activated ErbB System in Breast Cancer Cells Is Reversed by Inhibiting MAPK or PI3K/Akt Signaling Pathways. Int J Cancer (2010) 126:545–62. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24750
35
KorenSBentires-AljM. Breast Tumor Heterogeneity: Source of Fitness, Hurdle for Therapy. Mol Cell (2015) 60:537–46. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.10.031
36
BedardPLHansenARRatainMJSiuLL. Tumour Heterogeneity in the Clinic. Nature (2013) 501:355–64. doi: 10.1038/nature12627
37
BlackJRMMcGranahanN. Genetic and Non-Genetic Clonal Diversity in Cancer Evolution. Nat Rev Cancer (2021) 21:379–92. doi: 10.1038/s41568-021-00336-2
38
O’LearyBCuttsRJLiuYHrebienSHuangXFenwickKet al. The Genetic Landscape and Clonal Evolution of Breast Cancer Resistance to Palbociclib Plus Fulvestrant in the PALOMA-3 Trial. Cancer Discov (2018) 8:1390–403. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-0264
39
SheridanCKishimotoHFuchsRKMehrotraSBhat-NakshatriPTurnerCHet al. CD44+/CD24- Breast Cancer Cells Exhibit Enhanced Invasive Properties: An Early Step Necessary for Metastasis. Breast Cancer Res (2006) 8:R59. doi: 10.1186/bcr1610
40
Ross-InnesCSStarkRTeschendorffAEHolmesKAAliHRDunningMJet al. Differential Oestrogen Receptor Binding Is Associated With Clinical Outcome in Breast Cancer. Nature (2012) 481:389–93. doi: 10.1038/nature10730
41
ResnicoffMMedranoEEPodhajcerOLBravoAIBoverLMordohJ. Subpopulations of MCF7 Cells Separated by Percoll Gradient Centrifugation: A Model to Analyze the Heterogeneity of Human Breast Cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (1987) 84:7295–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.7284.7220.7295
42
NugoliMChuchanaPVendrellJOrsettiBUrsuleLNguyenCet al. Genetic Variability in MCF-7 Sublines: Evidence of Rapid Genomic and RNA Expression Profile Modifications. BMC Cancer (2003) 3:13. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-1183-1113
43
JonesCPayneJWellsDDelhantyJDLakhaniSRKortenkampA. Comparative Genomic Hybridization Reveals Extensive Variation Among Different MCF-7 Cell Stocks. Cancer Genet Cytogenet (2000) 117:153–8. doi: 10.1016/s0165-4608(1099)00158-00152
44
LeeAVOesterreichSDavidsonNE. MCF-7 Cells–Changing the Course of Breast Cancer Research and Care for 45 Years. J Natl Cancer Inst (2015) 107(7):djv073. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv073
45
DittmerADittmerJ. Long-Term Exposure to Carcinoma-Associated Fibroblasts Makes Breast Cancer Cells Addictive to Integrin β1. Oncotarget (2018) 9:22079–94. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.25183
46
CoserKRWittnerBSRosenthalNFCollinsSCMelasASmithSLet al. Antiestrogen-Resistant Subclones of MCF-7 Human Breast Cancer Cells Are Derived From a Common Monoclonal Drug-Resistant Progenitor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2009) 106:14536–41. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907560106
47
FoxEMArteagaCLMillerTW. Abrogating Endocrine Resistance by Targeting ERalpha and PI3K in Breast Cancer. Front Oncol (2012) 2:145. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2012.00145
48
MilaniAGeunaEMitticaGValabregaG. Overcoming Endocrine Resistance in Metastatic Breast Cancer: Current Evidence and Future Directions. World J Clin Oncol (2014) 5:990–1001. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v5.i5.990
49
VerretBCortesJBachelotTAndreFArnedosM. Efficacy of PI3K Inhibitors in Advanced Breast Cancer. Ann Oncol (2019) 30:x12–20. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz381
50
YangJNieJMaXWeiYPengYWeiX. Targeting PI3K in Cancer: Mechanisms and Advances in Clinical Trials. Mol Cancer (2019) 18:26. doi: 10.1186/s12943-019-0954-x
51
SpringLMWanderSAZangardiMBardiaA. CDK 4/6 Inhibitors in Breast Cancer: Current Controversies and Future Directions. Curr Oncol Rep (2019) 21:25. doi: 10.1007/s11912-019-0769-3
52
CortesJImSAHolgadoEPerez-GarciaJMSchmidPChavez-MacGregorM. The Next Era of Treatment for Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Triplet Combination-Based Endocrine Therapies. Cancer Treat Rev (2017) 61:53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.09.011
53
HaoYWangCCaoBHirschBMSongJMarkowitzSDet al. Gain of Interaction With IRS1 by P110alpha-Helical Domain Mutants Is Crucial for Their Oncogenic Functions. Cancer Cell (2013) 23:583–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.03.021
54
ZhuWXuB. Overcoming Resistance to Endocrine Therapy in Hormone Receptor-Positive Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative (HR(+)/HER2(-)) Advanced Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systemic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials. Front Med (2020) 15:208–20. doi: 10.1007/s11684-020-0795-4
55
BiswalNCFuXJagtapJMSheaMJKumarVLordsTet al. In Vivo Longitudinal Imaging of RNA Interference-Induced Endocrine Therapy Resistance in Breast Cancer. J Biophotonics (2019) 13(1):e201900180. doi: 10.1002/jbio.201900180
56
MoerkensMZhangYWesterLvan de WaterBMeermanJH. Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Signalling in Human Breast Cancer Cells Operates Parallel to Estrogen Receptor Alpha Signalling and Results in Tamoxifen Insensitive Proliferation. BMC Cancer (2014) 14:283. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-283
57
MontaserRZColeyHM. Crosstalk Between ERalpha and Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Signalling and Implications for the Development of Anti-Endocrine Resistance. Cancers (Basel) (2018) 10(6):209. doi: 10.3390/cancers10060209
58
KirkegaardTHansenSKLarsenSLReiterBESorensenBSLykkesfeldtAE. T47D Breast Cancer Cells Switch From ER/HER to HER/c-Src Signaling Upon Acquiring Resistance to the Antiestrogen Fulvestrant. Cancer Lett (2014) 344:90–100. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2013.10.014
59
FormisanoLLuYServettoAHankerABJansenVMBauerJAet al. Aberrant FGFR Signaling Mediates Resistance to CDK4/6 Inhibitors in ER+ Breast Cancer. Nat Commun (2019) 10:1373. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09068-2
60
DragoJZFormisanoLJuricDNiemierkoAServettoAWanderSAet al. FGFR1 Amplification Mediates Endocrine Resistance But Retains TORC Sensitivity in Metastatic Hormone Receptor-Positive (HR(+)) Breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res (2019) 25:6443–51. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0138
61
RazaviPChangMTXuGBandlamudiCRossDSVasanNet al. The Genomic Landscape of Endocrine-Resistant Advanced Breast Cancers. Cancer Cell (2018) 34:427–38.e426. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.08.008
62
KirkegaardTYdeCWKveiborgMLykkesfeldtAE. The Broad-Spectrum Metalloproteinase Inhibitor BB-94 Inhibits Growth, HER3 and Erk Activation in Fulvestrant-Resistant Breast Cancer Cell Lines. Int J Oncol (2014) 45:393–400. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2014.2434
63
IidaMTsuboiKNiwaTIshidaTHayashiSI. Compensatory Role of Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1 Receptor in Estrogen Receptor Signaling Pathway and Possible Therapeutic Target for Hormone Therapy-Resistant Breast Cancer. Breast Cancer (2019) 26:272–81. doi: 10.1007/s12282-018-0922-0
64
DwyerARTruongTHKerkvlietCPPaulKVKabosPSartoriusCAet al. Insulin Receptor Substrate-1 (IRS-1) Mediates Progesterone Receptor-Driven Stemness and Endocrine Resistance in Oestrogen Receptor+ Breast Cancer. Br J Cancer (2021) 124:217–27. doi: 10.1038/s41416-020-01094-y
65
SerraFLapidariPQuaquariniETagliaferriBSottotettiFPalumboR. Palbociclib in Metastatic Breast Cancer: Current Evidence and Real-Life Data. Drugs Context (2019) 8:212579. doi: 10.7573/dic.212579
66
MurphyCG. The Role of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Breast Cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol (2019) 20:52. doi: 10.1007/s11864-019-0651-4
67
de Melo GagliatoDCBAPerez-GarciaJMLlombartACortesJ. CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Current Practice and Knowledge. Cancers (Basel) (2020) 12(9):2480. doi: 10.3390/cancers12092480
68
AzimHADawoodSEl-SaghirNKassemLAzimHAJr. Understanding the Benefits and Challenges of First-Line Cyclin-Dependent Kinases 4 and 6 Inhibitors in Advanced Breast Cancer Among Postmenopausal Women. Breast J (2020) 26:630–42. doi: 10.1111/tbj.13637
69
TopacioBRZatulovskiyECristeaSXieSTamboCSRubinSMet al. Cyclin D-Cdk4,6 Drives Cell-Cycle Progression via the Retinoblastoma Protein’s C-Terminal Helix. Mol Cell (2019) 74:758–70.e754. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.03.020
70
LukasJBartkovaJBartekJ. Convergence of Mitogenic Signalling Cascades From Diverse Classes of Receptors at the Cyclin D-Cyclin-Dependent Kinase-pRb-Controlled G1 Checkpoint. Mol Cell Biol (1996) 16:6917–25. doi: 10.1128/mcb.6916.6912.6917
71
XuXLChenSZChenWZhengWHXiaXHYangHJet al. The Impact of Cyclin D1 Overexpression on the Prognosis of ER-Positive Breast Cancers: A Meta-Analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat (2013) 139:329–39. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2563-5
72
MussHBBunnJYCrockerAPlautKKohJHeintzNet al. Cyclin D-1, Interleukin-6, HER-2/Neu, Transforming Growth Factor Receptor-II and Prediction of Relapse in Women With Early Stage, Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Treated With Tamoxifen. Breast J (2007) 13:337–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2007.00440.x
73
GiessriglBSchmidtWMKalipciyanMJeitlerMBilbanMGollingerMet al. Fulvestrant Induces Resistance by Modulating GPER and CDK6 Expression: Implication of Methyltransferases, Deacetylases and the hSWI/SNF Chromatin Remodelling Complex. Br J Cancer (2013) 109:2751–62. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.583
74
AlvesCLEliasDLyngMBakMKirkegaardTLykkesfeldtAEet al. High CDK6 Protects Cells From Fulvestrant-Mediated Apoptosis and Is a Predictor of Resistance to Fulvestrant in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res (2016) 22:5514–26. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1984
75
RichartLBidardFCMargueronR. Enhancer Rewiring in Tumors: An Opportunity for Therapeutic Intervention. Oncogene (2021) 40:3475–91. doi: 10.1038/s41388-021-01793-7
76
MayranADrouinJ. Pioneer Transcription Factors Shape the Epigenetic Landscape. J Biol Chem (2018) 293:13795–804. doi: 10.1074/jbc.R117.001232
77
WatsonGRonaiZALauE. ATF2, a Paradigm of the Multifaceted Regulation of Transcription Factors in Biology and Disease. Pharmacol Res (2017) 119:347–57. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2017.02.004
78
HuebnerKProchazkaJMonteiroACMahadevanVSchneider-StockR. The Activating Transcription Factor 2: An Influencer of Cancer Progression. Mutagenesis (2019) 34:375–89. doi: 10.1093/mutage/gez041
79
MalorniLGiulianoMMigliaccioIWangTCreightonCJLupienMet al. Blockade of AP-1 Potentiates Endocrine Therapy and Overcomes Resistance. Mol Cancer Res (2016) 14:470–81. doi: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-15-0423
80
Lopez-BergamiPLauERonaiZ. Emerging Roles of ATF2 and the Dynamic AP1 Network in Cancer. Nat Rev Cancer (2010) 10:65–76. doi: 10.1038/nrc2681
81
GiannoudisAMalkiMIRudrarajuBMohhamedHMenonSLiloglouTet al. Activating Transcription Factor-2 (ATF2) Is a Key Determinant of Resistance to Endocrine Treatment in an In Vitro Model of Breast Cancer. Breast Cancer Res (2020) 22:126. doi: 10.1186/s13058-020-01359-7
82
KimYCGonzalez-NievesRCutlerML. Rsu1-Dependent Control of PTEN Expression Is Regulated via ATF2 and Cjun. J Cell Commun Signal (2019) 13:331–41. doi: 10.1007/s12079-018-00504-4
83
AbbasSBhoumikADahlRVasileSKrajewskiSCosfordNDet al. Preclinical Studies of Celastrol and Acetyl Isogambogic Acid in Melanoma. Clin Cancer Res (2007) 13:6769–78. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1536
84
Lo IaconoMMonicaVVavalaTGisabellaMSaviozziSBraccoEet al. ATF2 Contributes to Cisplatin Resistance in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Celastrol Induces Cisplatin Resensitization Through Inhibition of JNK/ATF2 Pathway. Int J Cancer (2015) 136:2598–609. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29302
85
FindlayVJLaRueACTurnerDPWatsonPMWatsonDK. Understanding the Role of ETS-Mediated Gene Regulation in Complex Biological Processes. Adv Cancer Res (2013) 119:1–61. doi: 10.1016/B1978-1010-1012-407190-407192.400001-407190
86
LukIYReehorstCMMariadasonJM. ELF3, ELF5, EHF and SPDEF Transcription Factors in Tissue Homeostasis and Cancer. Molecules (2018) 23(9):2191. doi: 10.3390/molecules23092191
87
KalyugaMGallego-OrtegaDLeeHJRodenDLCowleyMJCaldonCEet al. ELF5 Suppresses Estrogen Sensitivity and Underpins the Acquisition of Antiestrogen Resistance in Luminal Breast Cancer. PloS Biol (2012) 10:e1001461. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001461
88
SteinRAMcDonnellDP. Estrogen-Related Receptor Alpha as a Therapeutic Target in Cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer (2006) 13:S25–32. doi: 10.1677/erc.1671.01292
89
ChoHDLeeJEJungHYOhMHLeeJHJangSHet al. Loss of Tumor Suppressor ARID1A Protein Expression Correlates With Poor Prognosis in Patients With Primary Breast Cancer. J Breast Cancer (2015) 18:339–46. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2015.18.4.339
90
LeyhBDittmerALangeTMartensJWDittmerJ. Stromal Cells Promote Anti-Estrogen Resistance of Breast Cancer Cells Through an Insulin-Like Growth Factor Binding Protein 5 (IGFBP5)/B-Cell Leukemia/Lymphoma 3 (Bcl-3) Axis. Oncotarget (2015) 6:39307–28. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.5624
91
PeifferDSWyattDZlobinAPirachaANgJDingwallAKet al. DAXX Suppresses Tumor-Initiating Cells in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Following Endocrine Therapy. Cancer Res (2019) 79:4965–77. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-1110
92
FuXJeselsohnRPereiraRHollingsworthEFCreightonCJLiFet al. FOXA1 Overexpression Mediates Endocrine Resistance by Altering the ER Transcriptome and IL-8 Expression in ER-Positive Breast Cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2016) 113:E6600–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1612835113
93
MehtaRJJainRKLeungSChooJNielsenTHuntsmanDet al. FOXA1 Is an Independent Prognostic Marker for ER-Positive Breast Cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat (2012) 131:881–90. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1482-6
94
LuXFZengDLiangWQChenCFSunSMLinHY. FoxM1 Is a Promising Candidate Target in the Treatment of Breast Cancer. Oncotarget (2018) 9:842–52. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.23182
95
HuaSKallenCBDharRBaqueroMTMasonCERussellBAet al. Genomic Analysis of Estrogen Cascade Reveals Histone Variant H2A.Z Associated With Breast Cancer Progression. Mol Syst Biol (2008) 4:188. doi: 10.1038/msb.2008.25
96
JiangZLiWHuXZhangQSunTCuiSet al. Tucidinostat Plus Exemestane for Postmenopausal Patients With Advanced, Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer (ACE): A Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Trial. Lancet Oncol (2019) 20:806–15. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30164-0
97
MagnaniLStoeckAZhangXLánczkyAMirabellaACWangTLet al. Genome-Wide Reprogramming of the Chromatin Landscape Underlies Endocrine Therapy Resistance in Breast Cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2013) 110:E1490–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1219992110
98
SimoesBMO’BrienCSEyreRSilvaAYuLSarmiento-CastroAet al. Anti-Estrogen Resistance in Human Breast Tumors Is Driven by JAG1-NOTCH4-Dependent Cancer Stem Cell Activity. Cell Rep (2015) 12:1968–77. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.08.050
99
van NesJGde KruijfEMPutterHFaratianDMunroACampbellFet al. Co-Expression of SNAIL and TWIST Determines Prognosis in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Early Breast Cancer Patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat (2012) 133:49–59. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1684-y
100
DaviesMPBarracloughDLStewartCJoyceKAEcclesRMBarracloughRet al. Expression and Splicing of the Unfolded Protein Response Gene XBP-1 Are Significantly Associated With Clinical Outcome of Endocrine-Treated Breast Cancer. Int J Cancer (2008) 123:85–8. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23479
101
HabibiGLeungSLawJHGelmonKMasoudiHTurbinDet al. Redefining Prognostic Factors for Breast Cancer: YB-1 Is a Stronger Predictor of Relapse and Disease-Specific Survival Than Estrogen Receptor or HER-2 Across All Tumor Subtypes. Breast Cancer Res (2008) 10:R86. doi: 10.1186/bcr2156
102
PatchRJHuangHPatelSCheungWXuGZhaoBPet al. Indazole-Based Ligands for Estrogen-Related Receptor Alpha as Potential Anti-Diabetic Agents. Eur J Med Chem (2017) 138:830–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2017.07.015
103
ChisamoreMJWilkinsonHAFloresOChenJD. Estrogen-Related Receptor-Alpha Antagonist Inhibits Both Estrogen Receptor-Positive and Estrogen Receptor-Negative Breast Tumor Growth in Mouse Xenografts. Mol Cancer Ther (2009) 8:672–81. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-08-1028
104
SchrijverWSchuurmanKvan RossumADroogMJeronimoCSaltaSet al. FOXA1 Levels Are Decreased in Pleural Breast Cancer Metastases After Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy, and This Is Associated With Poor Outcome. Mol Oncol (2018) 12:1884–94. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.12353
105
HurtadoAHolmesKARoss-InnesCSSchmidtDCarrollJS. FOXA1 Is a Key Determinant of Estrogen Receptor Function and Endocrine Response. Nat Genet (2011) 43:27–33. doi: 10.1038/ng.730
106
GuFHsuHKHsuPYWuJMaYParvinJet al. Inference of Hierarchical Regulatory Network of Estrogen-Dependent Breast Cancer Through ChIP-Based Data. BMC Syst Biol (2010) 4:170. doi: 10.1186/1752-0509-4-170
107
FuXPereiraRDe AngelisCVeeraraghavanJNandaSQinLet al. FOXA1 Upregulation Promotes Enhancer and Transcriptional Reprogramming in Endocrine-Resistant Breast Cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2019) 116:26823–34. doi: 10.21073/pnas.1911584116
108
WhyteWAOrlandoDAHniszDAbrahamBJLinCYKageyMHet al. Master Transcription Factors and Mediator Establish Super-Enhancers at Key Cell Identity Genes. Cell (2013) 153:307–19. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.03.035
109
YamaguchiNNakayamaY. Down-Regulation of Forkhead Box Protein A1 (FOXA1) Leads to Cancer Stem Cell-Like Properties in Tamoxifen-Resistant Breast Cancer Cells Through Induction of Interleukin-6. J Biol Chem (2017) 292:8136–48. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M116.763276
110
CirielloGGatzaMLBeckAHWilkersonMDRhieSKPastoreAet al. Comprehensive Molecular Portraits of Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer. Cell (2015) 163:506–19. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.033
111
AbergerFWeidingerGGrunzHRichterK. Anterior Specification of Embryonic Ectoderm: The Role of the Xenopus Cement Gland-Specific Gene XAG-2. Mech Dev (1998) 72:115–30. doi: 10.1016/s0925-4773(1098)00021-00025
112
SalmansMLZhaoFAndersenB. The Estrogen-Regulated Anterior Gradient 2 (AGR2) Protein in Breast Cancer: A Potential Drug Target and Biomarker. Breast Cancer Res (2013) 15:204. doi: 10.1186/bcr3408
113
VermaSSalmansMLGeyfmanMWangHYuZLuZet al. The Estrogen-Responsive Agr2 Gene Regulates Mammary Epithelial Proliferation and Facilitates Lobuloalveolar Development. Dev Biol (2012) 369:249–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2012.06.030
114
DongAGuptaAPaiRKTunMLoweAW. The Human Adenocarcinoma-Associated Gene, AGR2, Induces Expression of Amphiregulin Through Hippo Pathway Co-Activator YAP1 Activation. J Biol Chem (2011) 286:18301–10. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.215707
115
VanderlaagKEHudakSBaldLFayadat-DilmanLSatheMGreinJet al. Anterior Gradient-2 Plays a Critical Role in Breast Cancer Cell Growth and Survival by Modulating Cyclin D1, Estrogen Receptor-Alpha and Survivin. Breast Cancer Res (2010) 12:R32. doi: 10.1186/bcr2586
116
HrstkaRNenutilRFourtounaAMaslonMMNaughtonCLangdonSet al. The Pro-Metastatic Protein Anterior Gradient-2 Predicts Poor Prognosis in Tamoxifen-Treated Breast Cancers. Oncogene (2010) 29:4838–47. doi: 10.1038/onc.2010.228
117
WrightTMWardellSEJasperJSSticeJPSafiRNelsonERet al. Delineation of a FOXA1/ERalpha/AGR2 Regulatory Loop That Is Dysregulated in Endocrine Therapy-Resistant Breast Cancer. Mol Cancer Res (2014) 12:1829–39. doi: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-14-0195
118
WardellSENelsonERChaoCAMcDonnellDP. Bazedoxifene Exhibits Antiestrogenic Activity in Animal Models of Tamoxifen-Resistant Breast Cancer: Implications for Treatment of Advanced Disease. Clin Cancer Res (2013) 19:2420–31. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-3771
119
HrstkaRMurrayEBrychtovaVFabianPHuppTRVojtesekB. Identification of an AKT-Dependent Signalling Pathway That Mediates Tamoxifen-Dependent Induction of the Pro-Metastatic Protein Anterior Gradient-2. Cancer Lett (2013) 333:187–93. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2013.01.034
120
HengelSMMurrayELangdonSHaywardLO’DonoghueJPanchaudAet al. Data-Independent Proteomic Screen Identifies Novel Tamoxifen Agonist That Mediates Drug Resistance. J Proteome Res (2011) 10:4567–78. doi: 10.1021/pr2004117
121
LiZZhuQChenHHuLNegiHZhengYet al. Binding of Anterior Gradient 2 and Estrogen Receptor-Alpha: Dual Critical Roles in Enhancing Fulvestrant Resistance and IGF-1-Induced Tumorigenesis of Breast Cancer. Cancer Lett (2016) 377:32–43. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2016.04.003
122
CocceKJJasperJSDesautelsTKEverettLWardellSWesterlingTet al. The Lineage Determining Factor GRHL2 Collaborates With FOXA1 to Establish a Targetable Pathway in Endocrine Therapy-Resistant Breast Cancer. Cell Rep (2019) 29:889–903.e810. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.09.032
123
ThompsonDAWeigelRJ. hAG-2, the Human Homologue of the Xenopus Laevis Cement Gland Gene XAG-2, Is Coexpressed With Estrogen Receptor in Breast Cancer Cell Lines. Biochem Biophys Res Commun (1998) 251:111–6. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.1998.9440
124
WilludaJLindenLLerchenHGKopitzCStelte-LudwigBPenaCet al. Preclinical Antitumor Efficacy of BAY 1129980-a Novel Auristatin-Based Anti-C4.4A (LYPD3) Antibody-Drug Conjugate for the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Mol Cancer Ther (2017) 16:893–904. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0474
125
MillourJConstantinidouDStavropoulouAVWilsonMSMyattSSKwokJMet al. FOXM1 Is a Transcriptional Target of ERalpha and has a Critical Role in Breast Cancer Endocrine Sensitivity and Resistance. Oncogene (2010) 29:2983–95. doi: 10.1038/onc.2010.47
126
BergamaschiAMadak-ErdoganZKimYJChoiYLLuHKatzenellenbogenBS. The Forkhead Transcription Factor FOXM1 Promotes Endocrine Resistance and Invasiveness in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer by Expansion of Stem-Like Cancer Cells. Breast Cancer Res (2014) 16:436. doi: 10.1186/s13058-13014-10436-13054
127
TarlingEJde Aguiar VallimTQEdwardsPA. Role of ABC Transporters in Lipid Transport and Human Disease. Trends Endocrinol Metab (2013) 24:342–50. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2013.01.006
128
PhamTHPageYLPercevaultFFerriereFFlouriotGPakdelF. Apigenin, a Partial Antagonist of the Estrogen Receptor (ER), Inhibits ER-Positive Breast Cancer Cell Proliferation Through Akt/FOXM1 Signaling. Int J Mol Sci (2021) 22(1):470. doi: 10.3390/ijms22010470
129
BergamaschiAChristensenBLKatzenellenbogenBS. Reversal of Endocrine Resistance in Breast Cancer: Interrelationships Among 14-3-3ζ, FOXM1, and a Gene Signature Associated With Mitosis. Breast Cancer Res (2011) 13:R70. doi: 10.1186/bcr2913
130
YangXCaoWZhangLZhangWZhangXLinH. Targeting 14-3-3zeta in Cancer Therapy. Cancer Gene Ther (2012) 19:153–9. doi: 10.1038/cgt.2011.85
131
LiuZRSongYWanLHZhangYYZhouLM. Over-Expression of miR-451a can Enhance the Sensitivity of Breast Cancer Cells to Tamoxifen by Regulating 14-3-3zeta, Estrogen Receptor Alpha, and Autophagy. Life Sci (2016) 149:104–13. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2016.02.059
132
SemenzaGL. Hypoxia-Inducible Factors: Mediators of Cancer Progression and Targets for Cancer Therapy. Trends Pharmacol Sci (2012) 33:207–14. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2012.01.005
133
PughCWRatcliffePJ. New Horizons in Hypoxia Signaling Pathways. Exp Cell Res (2017) 356:116–21. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2017.03.008
134
SemenzaGL. The Hypoxic Tumor Microenvironment: A Driving Force for Breast Cancer Progression. Biochim Biophys Acta (2016) 1863:382–91. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2015.05.036
135
JiaXHongQLeiLLiDLiJMoMet al. Basal and Therapy-Driven Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1α Confers Resistance to Endocrine Therapy in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. Oncotarget (2015) 6:8648–62. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.13257
136
AlamMWPerssonCUReinbotheSKaziJURönnstrandLWigerupCet al. Hif2α Contributes to Antiestrogen Resistance via Positive Bilateral Crosstalk With EGFR in Breast Cancer Cells. Oncotarget (2016) 7:11238–50. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.17167
137
PadroMLouieRJLanannaBVKriegAJTimmermanLAChanDA. Genome-Independent Hypoxic Repression of Estrogen Receptor Alpha in Breast Cancer Cells. BMC Cancer (2017) 17:203. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3140-9
138
MorottiMBridgesEValliAChoudhryHSheldonHWigfieldSet al. Hypoxia-Induced Switch in SNAT2/SLC38A2 Regulation Generates Endocrine Resistance in Breast Cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2019) 116:12452–61. doi: 10.11073/pnas.1818521116
139
SchiothHBRoshanbinSHagglundMGFredrikssonR. Evolutionary Origin of Amino Acid Transporter Families SLC32, SLC36 and SLC38 and Physiological, Pathological and Therapeutic Aspects. Mol Aspects Med (2013) 34:571–85. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2012.07.012
140
HydeRCwiklinskiELMacAulayKTaylorPMHundalHS. Distinct Sensor Pathways in the Hierarchical Control of SNAT2, a Putative Amino Acid Transceptor, by Amino Acid Availability. J Biol Chem (2007) 282:19788–98. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M611520200
141
Shajahan-HaqANCookKLSchwartz-RobertsJLEltayebAEDemasDMWarriAMet al. MYC Regulates the Unfolded Protein Response and Glucose and Glutamine Uptake in Endocrine Resistant Breast Cancer. Mol Cancer (2014) 13:239. doi: 10.1186/1476-4598-1113-1239
142
DelgirSBastamiMIlkhaniKSafiASeifFAlivandMR. The Pathways Related to Glutamine Metabolism, Glutamine Inhibitors and Their Implication for Improving the Efficiency of Chemotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res (2021) 787:108366. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2021.108366
143
AltmanBJStineZEDangCV. From Krebs to Clinic: Glutamine Metabolism to Cancer Therapy. Nat Rev Cancer (2016) 16:619–34. doi: 10.1038/nrc.2016.71
144
BasseresDSBaldwinAS. Nuclear factor-kappaB and Inhibitor of kappaB Kinase Pathways in Oncogenic Initiation and Progression. Oncogene (2006) 25:6817–30. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1209942
145
KhongthongPRoseweirAKEdwardsJ. The NF-KB Pathway and Endocrine Therapy Resistance in Breast Cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer (2019) 26:R369–80. doi: 10.1530/ERC-19-0087
146
FusellaFSecliLCannataCBrancaccioM. The One Thousand and One Chaperones of the NF-kappaB Pathway. Cell Mol Life Sci (2020) 77:2275–88. doi: 10.1007/s00018-019-03402-z
147
RigginsRBZwartANehraRClarkeR. The Nuclear Factor KB Inhibitor Parthenolide Restores ICI 182,780 (Faslodex; Fulvestrant)–Induced Apoptosis in Antiestrogen-Resistant Breast Cancer Cells. Mol Cancer Ther (2005) 4:33–41.
148
NingYRigginsRBMullaJEChungHZwartAClarkeR. IFNgamma Restores Breast Cancer Sensitivity to Fulvestrant by Regulating STAT1, IFN Regulatory Factor 1, NF-Kappab, BCL2 Family Members, and Signaling to Caspase-Dependent Apoptosis. Mol Cancer Ther (2010) 9:1274–85. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-1169
149
YdeCWEmdalKBGuerraBLykkesfeldtAE. NFkappaB Signaling Is Important for Growth of Antiestrogen Resistant Breast Cancer Cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat (2012) 135:67–78. doi: 10.1007/s10549-012-2053-1
150
NehraRRigginsRBShajahanANZwartACrawfordACClarkeR. BCL2 and CASP8 Regulation by NF-KappaB Differentially Affect Mitochondrial Function and Cell Fate in Antiestrogen-Sensitive and -Resistant Breast Cancer Cells. FASEB J (2010) 24:2040–55. doi: 10.1096/fj.09-138305
151
MaldonadoVMelendez-ZajglaJ. Role of Bcl-3 in Solid Tumors. Mol Cancer (2011) 10:152. doi: 10.1186/1476-4598-10-152
152
TuKLiuZYaoBXueYXuMDouCet al. BCL-3 Promotes the Tumor Growth of Hepatocellular Carcinoma by Regulating Cell Proliferation and the Cell Cycle Through Cyclin D1. Oncol Rep (2016) 35:2382–90. doi: 10.3892/or.2016.4616
153
UrbanBCCollardTJEagleCJSouthernSLGreenhoughAHamdollah-ZadehMet al. BCL-3 Expression Promotes Colorectal Tumorigenesis Through Activation of AKT Signalling. Gut (2016) 65:1151–64. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308270
154
LiuZJiangYHouYHuYCaoXTaoYet al. The IkappaB Family Member Bcl-3 Stabilizes C-Myc in Colorectal Cancer. J Mol Cell Biol (2013) 5:280–2. doi: 10.1093/jmcb/mjt020
155
DittmerALangeTLeyhBDittmerJ. Protein- and Growth-Modulatory Effects of Carcinoma-Associated Fibroblasts on Breast Cancer Cells: Role of Interleukin6. Int J Oncol (2020) 56:258–72. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2019.4918
156
YuLWangLMaoCDurakiDKimJEHuangRet al. Estrogen-Independent Myc Overexpression Confers Endocrine Therapy Resistance on Breast Cancer Cells Expressing ERalphaY537S and ERalphaD538G Mutations. Cancer Lett (2019) 442:373–82. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2018.10.041
157
DittmerADittmerJ. Carcinoma-Associated Fibroblasts Promote Growth of Sox2-Expressing Breast Cancer Cells. Cancers (Basel) (2020) 12(11):3435. doi: 10.3390/cancers12113435
158
NovakDHuserLEltonJJUmanskyVAltevogtPUtikalJ. SOX2 in Development and Cancer Biology. Semin Cancer Biol (2019) 67:74–82. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.08.007
159
ChoiSHChoSYSongJHurMW. KLHL4, a Novel P53 Target Gene, Inhibits Cell Proliferation by Activating P21(WAF/CDKN1A). Biochem Biophys Res Commun (2020) 530:588–96. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.07.100
160
GiridharanSSrinivasanM. Mechanisms of NF-kappaB P65 and Strategies for Therapeutic Manipulation. J Inflammation Res (2018) 11:407–19. doi: 10.2147/JIR.S140188
161
RamadassVVaiyapuriTTergaonkarV. Small Molecule NF-kappaB Pathway Inhibitors in Clinic. Int J Mol Sci (2020) 21(14):5164. doi: 10.3390/ijms21145164
162
ClarkeRCookKLHuRFaceyCOTavassolyISchwartzJLet al. Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress, the Unfolded Protein Response, Autophagy, and the Integrated Regulation of Breast Cancer Cell Fate. Cancer Res (2012) 72:1321–31. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-3213
163
SisinniLPietrafesaMLeporeSMaddalenaFCondelliVEspositoFet al. Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress and Unfolded Protein Response in Breast Cancer: The Balance Between Apoptosis and Autophagy and Its Role in Drug Resistance. Int J Mol Sci (2019) 20(4):857. doi: 10.3390/ijms20040857
164
HuRWarriAJinLZwartARigginsRBFangHBet al. NF-kappaB Signaling Is Required for XBP1 (Unspliced and Spliced)-Mediated Effects on Antiestrogen Responsiveness and Cell Fate Decisions in Breast Cancer. Mol Cell Biol (2015) 35:379–90. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00847-14
165
GomezBPRigginsRBShajahanANKlimachUWangACrawfordACet al. Human X-Box Binding Protein-1 Confers Both Estrogen Independence and Antiestrogen Resistance in Breast Cancer Cell Lines. FASEB J (2007) 21:4013–27. doi: 10.1096/fj.06-7990com
166
RahmanSKumarVKumarAAbdullahTSRatherIAJanAT. Molecular Perspective of Nanoparticle Mediated Therapeutic Targeting in Breast Cancer: An Odyssey of Endoplasmic Reticulum Unfolded Protein Response (UPR(ER)) and Beyond. Biomedicines (2021) 9(6):635. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9060635
167
KohnoKIzumiHUchiumiTAshizukaMKuwanoM. The Pleiotropic Functions of the Y-Box-Binding Protein, YB-1. Bioessays (2003) 25:691–8. doi: 10.1002/bies.10300
168
ShibataTWatariKIzumiHKawaharaAHattoriSFukumitsuCet al. Breast Cancer Resistance to Antiestrogens Is Enhanced by Increased ER Degradation and ERBB2 Expression. Cancer Res (2017) 77:545–56. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-1593
169
CampbellTMCastroMAAde OliveiraKGPonderBAJMeyerKB. ERalpha Binding by Transcription Factors NFIB and YBX1 Enables FGFR2 Signaling to Modulate Estrogen Responsiveness in Breast Cancer. Cancer Res (2018) 78:410–21. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-1153
170
WuJLeeCYokomDJiangHCheangMCYoridaEet al. Disruption of the Y-Box Binding Protein-1 Results in Suppression of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor and HER-2. Cancer Res (2006) 66:4872–9. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3561
171
StratfordALHabibiGAstaneheAJiangHHuKParkEet al. Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Is Transcriptionally Induced by the Y-Box Binding Protein-1 (YB-1) and Can Be Inhibited With Iressa in Basal-Like Breast Cancer, Providing a Potential Target for Therapy. Breast Cancer Res (2007) 9:R61. doi: 10.1186/bcr1767
172
BansalTTanveerNSinghURSharmaSKaurN. Y-Box Binding Protein 1 Expression in Breast Cancer and Its Correlation With Hormone Receptors and Other Prognostic Markers. J Lab Physicians (2018) 10:420–5. doi: 10.4103/JLP.JLP_58_18
173
WangXGuoXBShenXCZhouHWanDWXueXFet al. Prognostic Role of YB-1 Expression in Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med (2015) 8:1780–91.
174
ShibataTTokunagaEHattoriSWatariKMurakamiYYamashitaNet al. Y-Box Binding Protein YBX1 and Its Correlated Genes as Biomarkers for Poor Outcomes in Patients With Breast Cancer. Oncotarget (2018) 9:37216–28. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.26469
175
PoppSLJoffroyCStopeMBBuckMBFritzPKnabbeC. Antiestrogens Suppress Effects of Transforming Growth Factor-β in Breast Cancer Cells via the Signaling Axis Estrogen Receptor-α and Y-Box Binding Protein-1. Anticancer Res (2013) 33:2473–80.
176
MaciejczykASzelachowskaJEkiertMMatkowskiRHałońALageHet al. Elevated Nuclear YB1 Expression Is Associated With Poor Survival of Patients With Early Breast Cancer. Anticancer Res (2012) 32:3177–84.
177
DahlEEn-NiaAWiesmannFKringsRDjudjajSBreuerEet al. Nuclear Detection of Y-Box Protein-1 (YB-1) Closely Associates With Progesterone Receptor Negativity and Is a Strong Adverse Survival Factor in Human Breast Cancer. BMC Cancer (2009) 9:410. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-9-410
178
JanzMHarbeckNDettmarPBergerUSchmidtAJurchottKet al. Y-Box Factor YB-1 Predicts Drug Resistance and Patient Outcome in Breast Cancer Independent of Clinically Relevant Tumor Biologic Factors HER2, uPA and PAI-1. Int J Cancer (2002) 97:278–82. doi: 10.1002/ijc.1610
179
ItoTKamijoSIzumiHKohnoKAmanoJItoK. Alteration of Y-Box Binding Protein-1 Expression Modifies the Response to Endocrine Therapy in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat (2012) 133:145–59. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1731-8
180
ShibataTWatariKKawaharaASudoTHattoriSMurakamiYet al. Targeting Phosphorylation of Y-Box-Binding Protein YBX1 by TAS0612 and Everolimus in Overcoming Antiestrogen Resistance. Mol Cancer Ther (2020) 19:882–94. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-19-0690
181
SutherlandBWKucabJWuJLeeCCheangMCUYoridaEet al. Akt Phosphorylates the Y-Box Binding Protein 1 at Ser102 Located in the Cold Shock Domain and Affects the Anchorage-Independent Growth of Breast Cancer Cells. Oncogene (2005) 24:4281–92. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1208590
182
LettauKZipsDToulanyM. Simultaneous Targeting of RSK and AKT Efficiently Inhibits YB-1-Mediated Repair of Ionizing Radiation-Induced DNA Double-Strand Breaks in Breast Cancer Cells. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2021) 109:567–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.1009.1005
183
KlemmSLShiponyZGreenleafWJ. Chromatin Accessibility and the Regulatory Epigenome. Nat Rev Genet (2019) 20:207–20. doi: 10.1038/s41576-018-0089-8
184
RothbartSBStrahlBD. Interpreting the Language of Histone and DNA Modifications. Biochim Biophys Acta (2014) 1839:627–43. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2014.03.001
185
ArrowsmithCHBountraCFishPVLeeKSchapiraM. Epigenetic Protein Families: A New Frontier for Drug Discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov (2012) 11:384–400. doi: 10.1038/nrd3674
186
JainAKBartonMC. Bromodomain Histone Readers and Cancer. J Mol Biol (2017) 429:2003–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2016.11.020
187
KlutsteinMNejmanDGreenfieldRCedarH. DNA Methylation in Cancer and Aging. Cancer Res (2016) 76:3446–50. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-3278
188
NguyenVTBarozziIFaronatoMLombardoYSteelJHPatelNet al. Differential Epigenetic Reprogramming in Response to Specific Endocrine Therapies Promotes Cholesterol Biosynthesis and Cellular Invasion. Nat Commun (2015) 6:10044. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10044
189
StoneAZotenkoELockeWJKorbieDMillarEKPidsleyRet al. DNA Methylation of Oestrogen-Regulated Enhancers Defines Endocrine Sensitivity in Breast Cancer. Nat Commun (2015) 6:7758. doi: 10.1038/ncomms8758
190
BiancoSGevryN. Endocrine Resistance in Breast Cancer: From Cellular Signaling Pathways to Epigenetic Mechanisms. Transcription (2012) 3:165–70. doi: 10.4161/trns.20496
191
ShiJVakocCR. The Mechanisms Behind the Therapeutic Activity of BET Bromodomain Inhibition. Mol Cell (2014) 54:728–36. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2014.05.016
192
LiZZhuWG. Targeting Histone Deacetylases for Cancer Therapy: From Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Implications. Int J Biol Sci (2014) 10:757–70. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.9067
193
ZhouQAtadjaPDavidsonNE. Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor LBH589 Reactivates Silenced Estrogen Receptor Alpha (ER) Gene Expression Without Loss of DNA Hypermethylation. Cancer Biol Ther (2007) 6:64–9. doi: 10.4161/cbt.4166.4161.3549
194
KawaiHLiHAvrahamSJiangSAvrahamHK. Overexpression of Histone Deacetylase HDAC1 Modulates Breast Cancer Progression by Negative Regulation of Estrogen Receptor Alpha. Int J Cancer (2003) 107:353–8. doi: 10.1002/ijc.11403
195
YangXPhillipsDLFergusonATNelsonWGHermanJGDavidsonNE. Synergistic Activation of Functional Estrogen Receptor (ER)-Alpha by DNA Methyltransferase and Histone Deacetylase Inhibition in Human ER-Alpha-Negative Breast Cancer Cells. Cancer Res (2001) 61:7025–9.
196
SabnisGJGoloubevaOChumsriSNguyenNSukumarSBrodieAM. Functional Activation of the Estrogen Receptor-Alpha and Aromatase by the HDAC Inhibitor Entinostat Sensitizes ER-Negative Tumors to Letrozole. Cancer Res (2011) 71:1893–903. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-2458
197
YuSGongXMaZZhangMHuangLZhangJet al. Endocrine Resistant Breast Cancer Cells With Loss of ERalpha Expression Retain Proliferative Ability by Reducing Caspase7-Mediated HDAC3 Cleavage. Cell Oncol (Dordr) (2020) 43:65–80. doi: 10.1007/s13402-019-00439-x
198
BicakuEMarchionDCSchmittMLMunsterPN. Selective Inhibition of Histone Deacetylase 2 Silences Progesterone Receptor-Mediated Signaling. Cancer Res (2008) 68:1513–9. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-2822
199
LeeYJWonAJLeeJJungJHYoonSLeeBMet al. Molecular Mechanism of SAHA on Regulation of Autophagic Cell Death in Tamoxifen-Resistant MCF-7 Breast Cancer Cells. Int J Med Sci (2012) 9:881–93. doi: 10.7150/ijms.5011
200
RahaPThomasSThurnKTParkJMunsterPN. Combined Histone Deacetylase Inhibition and Tamoxifen Induces Apoptosis in Tamoxifen-Resistant Breast Cancer Models, by Reversing Bcl-2 Overexpression. Breast Cancer Res (2015) 17:26. doi: 10.1186/s13058-015-0533-z
201
ParkJHAhnMYKimTHYoonSKangKWLeeJet al. A New Synthetic HDAC Inhibitor, MHY218, Induces Apoptosis or Autophagy-Related Cell Death in Tamoxifen-Resistant MCF-7 Breast Cancer Cells. Invest New Drugs (2012) 30:1887–98. doi: 10.1007/s10637-011-9752-z
202
LegareSBasikM. Minireview: The Link Between ERalpha Corepressors and Histone Deacetylases in Tamoxifen Resistance in Breast Cancer. Mol Endocrinol (2016) 30:965–76. doi: 10.1210/me.2016-1072
203
GhiraldiniFGFilipescuDBernsteinE. Solid Tumours Hijack the Histone Variant Network. Nat Rev Cancer (2021) 21:257–75. doi: 10.1038/s41568-020-00330-0
204
SvotelisAGévryNGrondinGGaudreauL. H2A.Z Overexpression Promotes Cellular Proliferation of Breast Cancer Cells. Cell Cycle (2010) 9:364–70. doi: 10.4161/cc.4169.4162.10465
205
BrunelleMNordell MarkovitsARodrigueSLupienMJacquesPEGevryN. The Histone Variant H2A.Z Is an Important Regulator of Enhancer Activity. Nucleic Acids Res (2015) 43:9742–56. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv825
206
GevryNHardySJacquesPELaflammeLSvotelisARobertFet al. Histone H2A.Z Is Essential for Estrogen Receptor Signaling. Genes Dev (2009) 23:1522–33. doi: 10.1101/gad.1787109
207
WangBLiDRodriguez-JuarezRFarfusAStorozynskyQMalachMet al. A Suppressive Role of Guanine Nucleotide-Binding Protein Subunit Beta-4 Inhibited by DNA Methylation in the Growth of Anti-Estrogen Resistant Breast Cancer Cells. BMC Cancer (2018) 18:817. doi: 10.1186/s12885-018-4711-0
208
TsuboiKKanekoYNagatomoTFujiiRHanamuraTGohnoTet al. Different Epigenetic Mechanisms of ERalpha Implicated in the Fate of Fulvestrant-Resistant Breast Cancer. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol (2017) 167:115–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.11.017
209
PhuongNTKimSKLimSCKimHSKimTHLeeKYet al. Role of PTEN Promoter Methylation in Tamoxifen-Resistant Breast Cancer Cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat (2011) 130:73–83. doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-1304-2
210
PeitzschCTyutyunnykovaAPantelKDubrovskaA. Cancer Stem Cells: The Root of Tumor Recurrence and Metastases. Semin Cancer Biol (2017) 44:10–24. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2017.02.011
211
DittmerJ. Breast Cancer Stem Cells: Features, Key Drivers and Treatment Options. Semin Cancer Biol (2018) 53:59–74. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2018.07.007
212
BrooksMDBurnessMLWichaMS. Therapeutic Implications of Cellular Heterogeneity and Plasticity in Breast Cancer. Cell Stem Cell (2015) 17:260–71. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2015.08.014
213
BrugnoliFGrassilliSAl-QassabYCapitaniSBertagnoloV. CD133 in Breast Cancer Cells: More Than a Stem Cell Marker. J Oncol (2019) 2019:7512632. doi: 10.1155/2019/7512632
214
PattabiramanDRWeinbergRA. Tackling the Cancer Stem Cells - What Challenges do They Pose? Nat Rev Drug Discov (2014) 13:497–512. doi: 10.1038/nrd4253
215
HardtOWildSOerleckeIHofmannKLuoSWiencekYet al. Highly Sensitive Profiling of CD44(+)/CD24(-) Breast Cancer Stem Cells by Combining Global mRNA Amplification and Next Generation Sequencing: Evidence for a Hyperactive PI3K Pathway. Cancer Lett (2012) 325:165–74. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2012.06.010
216
RodriguezDRamkairsinghMLinXKapoorAMajorPTangD. The Central Contributions of Breast Cancer Stem Cells in Developing Resistance to Endocrine Therapy in Estrogen Receptor (ER)-Positive Breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel) (2019) 11(7):1028. doi: 10.3390/cancers11071028
217
SansonePCeccarelliCBerishajMChangQRajasekharVKPernaFet al. Self-Renewal of CD133(hi) Cells by IL6/Notch3 Signalling Regulates Endocrine Resistance in Metastatic Breast Cancer. Nat Commun (2016) 7:10442. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10442
218
AomatsuNYashiroMKashiwagiSTakashimaTIshikawaTOhsawaMet al. CD133 Is a Useful Surrogate Marker for Predicting Chemosensitivity to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer. PloS One (2012) 7:e45865. doi: 10.41371/journal.pone.0045865
219
AcarASimoesBMClarkeRBBrennanK. A Role for Notch Signalling in Breast Cancer and Endocrine Resistance. Stem Cells Int (2016) 2016:2498764. doi: 10.1155/2016/2498764
220
BeLowMOsipoC. Notch Signaling in Breast Cancer: A Role in Drug Resistance. Cells (2020) 9(10):2204. doi: 10.3390/cells9102204
221
PannutiAForemanKRizzoPOsipoCGoldeTOsborneBet al. Targeting Notch to Target Cancer Stem Cells. Clin Cancer Res (2010) 16:3141–52. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2823
222
EspinozaIMieleL. Notch Inhibitors for Cancer Treatment. Pharmacol Ther (2013) 139:95–110. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2013.02.003
223
RizzoPMiaoHD’SouzaGOsipoCSongLLYunJet al. Cross-Talk Between Notch and the Estrogen Receptor in Breast Cancer Suggests Novel Therapeutic Approaches. Cancer Res (2008) 68:5226–35. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-5744
224
LombardoYFaronatoMFilipovicAVircilloVMagnaniLCoombesRC. Nicastrin and Notch4 Drive Endocrine Therapy Resistance and Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition in MCF7 Breast Cancer Cells. Breast Cancer Res (2014) 16:R62. doi: 10.1186/bcr3675
225
YunJPannutiAEspinozaIZhuHHicksCZhuXet al. Crosstalk Between PKCalpha and Notch-4 in Endocrine-Resistant Breast Cancer Cells. Oncogenesis (2013) 2:e60. doi: 10.1038/oncsis.2013.26
226
FaronatoMNguyenVTPattenDKLombardoYSteelJHPatelNet al. DMXL2 Drives Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition in Hormonal Therapy Resistant Breast Cancer Through Notch Hyper-Activation. Oncotarget (2015) 6:22467–79. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.24164
227
BuckleyNENic An tSaoirCBBlayneyJKOramLCCrawfordNTD’CostaZCet al. BRCA1 Is a Key Regulator of Breast Differentiation Through Activation of Notch Signalling With Implications for Anti-Endocrine Treatment of Breast Cancers. Nucleic Acids Res (2013) 41:8601–14. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt626
228
HarrisonHSimoesBMRogersonLHowellSJLandbergGClarkeRB. Oestrogen Increases the Activity of Oestrogen Receptor Negative Breast Cancer Stem Cells Through Paracrine EGFR and Notch Signalling. Breast Cancer Res (2013) 15:R21. doi: 10.1186/bcr3396
229
YuQCVerheyenEMZengYA. Mammary Development and Breast Cancer: A Wnt Perspective. Cancers (Basel) (2016) 8(7):65. doi: 10.3390/cancers8070065
230
SharmaMPruittK. Wnt Pathway: An Integral Hub for Developmental and Oncogenic Signaling Networks. Int J Mol Sci (2020) 21(21):8018. doi: 10.3390/ijms21218018
231
RaoXDi LevaGLiMFangFDevlinCHartman-FreyCet al. MicroRNA-221/222 Confers Breast Cancer Fulvestrant Resistance by Regulating Multiple Signaling Pathways. Oncogene (2011) 30:1082–97. doi: 10.1038/onc.2010.487
232
LiSSunYLiL. The Expression of Beta-Catenin in Different Subtypes of Breast Cancer and Its Clinical Significance. Tumour Biol (2014) 35:7693–8. doi: 10.1007/s13277-014-1975-0
233
YangJWeinbergRA. Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition: At the Crossroads of Development and Tumor Metastasis. Dev Cell (2008) 14:818–29. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2008.05.009
234
ManiSAGuoWLiaoMJEatonENAyyananAZhouAYet al. The Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Generates Cells With Properties of Stem Cells. Cell (2008) 133:704–15. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.03.027
235
LambertAWWeinbergRA. Linking EMT Programmes to Normal and Neoplastic Epithelial Stem Cells. Nat Rev Cancer (2021) 21:325-38. doi: 10.1038/s41568-021-00332-6
236
VesunaFLisokAKimbleBDomekJKatoYvan der GroepPet al. Twist Contributes to Hormone Resistance in Breast Cancer by Downregulating Estrogen Receptor-Alpha. Oncogene (2012) 31:3223–34. doi: 10.1038/onc.2011.483
237
ZhangJZhouCJiangHLiangLShiWZhangQet al. ZEB1 Induces ER-Alpha Promoter Hypermethylation and Confers Antiestrogen Resistance in Breast Cancer. Cell Death Dis (2017) 8:e2732. doi: 10.1038/cddis.2017.154
238
ManavalanTTTengYLitchfieldLMMuluhngwiPAl-RayyanNKlingeCM. Reduced Expression of miR-200 Family Members Contributes to Antiestrogen Resistance in LY2 Human Breast Cancer Cells. PloS One (2013) 8:e62334. doi: 10.61371/journal.pone.0062334
239
AlvesCLEliasDLyngMBBakMDitzelHJ. SNAI2 Upregulation Is Associated With an Aggressive Phenotype in Fulvestrant-Resistant Breast Cancer Cells and Is an Indicator of Poor Response to Endocrine Therapy in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer. Breast Cancer Res (2018) 20:60. doi: 10.1186/s13058-018-0988-9
240
NayarUCohenOKapstadCCuocoMSWaksAGWanderSAet al. Acquired HER2 Mutations in ER(+) Metastatic Breast Cancer Confer Resistance to Estrogen Receptor-Directed Therapies. Nat Genet (2019) 51:207–16. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0287-5
241
JiaHWangZZhangJFengF. Gamma-Secretase Inhibitors for Breast Cancer and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Mechanism to Treatment. Life Sci (2021) 268:119007. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.119007
Summary
Keywords
fulvestrant, tamoxifen, estrogen receptor, transcription factors, chromatin accessibility, transcriptional reprogramming, cancer stem cells
Citation
Dittmer J (2021) Nuclear Mechanisms Involved in Endocrine Resistance. Front. Oncol. 11:736597. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.736597
Received
05 July 2021
Accepted
26 August 2021
Published
15 September 2021
Volume
11 - 2021
Edited by
Panagiota S. Filippou, Teesside University, United Kingdom
Reviewed by
Adam Brufsky, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, United States; Eugenia Broude, University of South Carolina, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Dittmer.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jürgen Dittmer, juergen.dittmer@medizin.uni-halle.de
This article was submitted to Molecular and Cellular Oncology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.