Molecular basis for estrogen receptor alpha deficiency in BRCA1-linked breast cancer

Background BRCA1-mutant breast tumors are typically estrogen receptor alpha (ER alpha) negative, whereas most sporadic tumors express wild-type BRCA1 and are ER alpha positive. We examined a possible mechanism for the observed ER alpha-negative phenotype of BRCA1-mutant tumors.

Methods We used a breast cancer disease-specific microarray to identify transcripts that were differentially expressed between paraffin-embedded samples of 17 BRCA1-mutant and 14 sporadic breast tumors. We measured the mRNA levels of estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) ( the gene encoding ER alpha), which was differentially expressed in the tumor samples, by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Regulation of ESR1 mRNA and ER alpha protein expression was assessed in human breast cancer HCC1937 cells that were stably reconstituted with wild-type BRCA1 expression construct and in human breast cancer T47D and MCF-7 cells transiently transfected with BRCA1-specific short-interfering RNA ( siRNA). Chromatin immunoprecipitation assays were performed to determine if BRCA1 binds the ESR1 promoter and to identify other interacting proteins. Sensitivity to the antiestrogen drug fulvestrant was examined in T47D and MCF-7 cells transfected with BRCA1-specific siRNA. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results Mean ESR1 gene expression was 5.4-fold lower in BRCA1-mutant tumors than in sporadic tumors ( 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.6-fold to 40.1-fold, P =.0019). The transcription factor Oct-1 recruited BRCA1 to the ESR1 promoter, and both BRCA1 and Oct-1 were required for ER alpha expression. BRCA1-depleted breast cancer cells expressing exogenous ER alpha were more sensitive to fulvestrant than BRCA1-depleted cells transfected with empty vector ( T47D cells, the mean concentration of fulvestrant that inhibited the growth of 40% of the cells [IC40] for empty vector versus ER alpha: > 10(-5) versus 8.0 x 10(-9) M [ 95% CI=3.1x10(-10) to 3.2 x 10(-6) M]; MCF-7 cells, mean IC40 for empty vector versus ER alpha : > 10(-5) versus 4.9 x 10(-8) M [ 95% CI=2.0 x 10(-9) to 3.9 x 10(-6) M]).

Conclusions BRCA1 alters the response of breast cancer cells to antiestrogen therapy by directly modulating ER alpha expression.

Cyclin G associated kinase interacts with interleukin 12 receptor beta2 and suppresses interleukin 12 induced IFN-gamma production.

BACKGROUND: Although severe encephalopathy has been proposed as a possible contraindication to the use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV), increasing clinical reports showed it was effective in patients with impaired consciousness and even coma secondary to acute respiratory failure, especially hypercapnic acute respiratory failure (HARF). To further evaluate the effectiveness and safety of NPPV for severe hypercapnic encephalopathy, a prospective case-control study was conducted at a university respiratory intensive care unit (RICU) in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) during the past 3 years. METHODS: Forty-three of 68 consecutive AECOPD patients requiring ventilatory support for HARF were divided into 2 groups, which were carefully matched for age, sex, COPD course, tobacco use and previous hospitalization history, according to the severity of encephalopathy, 22 patients with Glasgow coma scale (GCS) <10 served as group A and 21 with GCS = 10 as group B. RESULTS: Compared with group B, group A had a higher level of baseline arterial partial CO2 pressure ((102 +/- 27) mmHg vs (74 +/- 17) mmHg, P <0.01), lower levels of GCS (7.5 +/- 1.9 vs 12.2 +/- 1.8, P <0.01), arterial pH value (7.18 +/- 0.06 vs 7.28 +/- 0.07, P <0.01) and partial O(2) pressure/fraction of inspired O(2) ratio (168 +/- 39 vs 189 +/- 33, P <0.05). The NPPV success rate and hospital mortality were 73% (16/22) and 14% (3/22) respectively in group A, which were comparable to those in group B (68% (15/21) and 14% (3/21) respectively, all P > 0.05), but group A needed an average of 7 cm H2O higher of maximal pressure support during NPPV, and 4, 4 and 7 days longer of NPPV time, RICU stay and hospital stay respectively than group B (P <0.05 or P <0.01). NPPV therapy failed in 12 patients (6 in each group) because of excessive airway secretions (7 patients), hemodynamic instability (2), worsening of dyspnea and deterioration of gas exchange (2), and gastric content aspiration (1). CONCLUSIONS: Selected patients with severe hypercapnic encephalopathy secondary to HARF can be treated as effectively and safely with NPPV as awake patients with HARF due to AECOPD; a trial of NPPV should be instituted to reduce the need of endotracheal intubation in patients with severe hypercapnic encephalopathy who are otherwise good candidates for NPPV due to AECOPD.