JBC Connect with Cosmo for Collagen Detection

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M600184200 on February 27, 2006

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 281, Issue 18, 12210-12217, May 5, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
281/18/12210    most recent
M600184200v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yiu, G. K.
Right arrow Articles by Toker, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yiu, G. K.
Right arrow Articles by Toker, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

NFAT Induces Breast Cancer Cell Invasion by Promoting the Induction of Cyclooxygenase-2*

Gary K. Yiu and Alex Toker1

From the Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02215

Received for publication, January 9, 2006 , and in revised form, February 2, 2006.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The NFAT (nuclear factor of activated T cells) family of transcription factors plays a fundamental role in the transcriptional regulation of the immune response. However, NFATs are ubiquitously expressed, and recent evidence points to their important functions in human epithelial cells and carcinomas. Specifically, NFAT has been shown to be active in human breast and colon carcinoma cells and to promote their invasion through Matrigel. The mechanisms by which NFAT promotes invasion have not been defined. To identify NFAT target genes that induce carcinoma invasion, we have established stable breast cancer cell lines that inducibly express transcriptionally active NFAT. Gene expression profiling by cDNA microarray of cells induced to express NFAT revealed up-regulation of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). Increased NFAT expression and activity induced COX-2 expression as well as prostaglandin E2 synthesis. This induction was more prominent when NFAT was activated by phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate and calcium ionophore ionomycin and was blocked by the NFAT antagonist cyclosporin A. Breast cancer cells with elevated COX-2 expression showed increased invasion through Matrigel, and this was reduced in cells treated with COX-2 inhibitors. Conversely, loss of NFAT1 protein expression using small interfering RNA led to a reduction in COX-2 transcription and reduced invasion. Similarly, Matrigel invasion was reduced in cells in which COX-2 expression was reduced using specific siRNA. These findings demonstrate that NFAT promotes breast cancer cell invasion through the induction of COX-2 and the synthesis of prostaglandins.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
NFAT2 was first identified in T cells as a rapidly inducible transcription factor that binds to the distal antigen receptor response element of the human interleukin-2 (IL-2) promoter and is involved in the regulation of inducible genes such as cytokines and cell surface receptors in immune cells (1–3). However, subsequent studies have revealed that NFAT is also expressed and is active in many other cell types and tissues, and it regulates the expression of genes related to cell cycle progression, angiogenesis, tumorigenesis, and cell differentiation (4–8). The mechanisms by which NFAT controls these cellular processes remain largely undefined.

The NFAT family of transcription factors comprises four classical members: NFAT1, NFAT2, NFAT3, and NFAT4 (2). All are calcium-responsive and are regulated by the calcium/calcineurin signaling pathway (9, 10). A recently identified member, NFAT5, is distinct from NFAT1–4 as it is calcium-insensitive and is regulated by osmotic stress and integrins (11). In resting cells, NFATs are phosphorylated at a cluster of serine residues located in the regulatory domain, effectively masking a nuclear localization signal, thereby retaining NFAT in an inactive conformation in the cytoplasm (2, 12). Upon stimulation with agonists that elicit an increase in intracellular calcium, NFATs are dephosphorylated by the phosphatase calcineurin and translocate to the nucleus. Here they are transcriptionally active by binding to the promoter regions of target genes (13, 14). When the cells return to their unstimulated state, NFAT becomes rephosphorylated and is exported out of the nucleus (2). Classical NFATs typically interact with other transcription factors such as AP-1 (15, 16) and GATA4 (17) to activate transcription. Adjacent NFAT and AP-1 binding sites are present in the promoter region of inducible genes including IL-2 and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) (18, 19).

Cyclooxygenases convert arachidonic acid produced from membrane phospholipids by phospholipase A2 to prostaglandin H2 (PGH2). Prostaglandin endoperoxide is then converted to biologically active prostaglandins (PGD2, PGE2, PGF2{alpha}), prostacyclin (PGI2), and thromboxanes (TxA2) by tissue-specific synthases or reductases (20). Following their synthesis, these prostanoids are secreted and bind to G protein-coupled membrane receptors in target cells in an autocrine or paracrine fashion, thereby triggering downstream signaling events (21). Prostaglandins are important regulators of numerous cellular processes including cell proliferation, inflammation, and angiogenesis (22).

Cyclooxygenase-2 catalyzes the formation of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). COX-2 is distinct from the other isoform, COX-1, which is considered a housekeeping enzyme and is expressed constitutively in most tissues. Conversely, COX-2 is normally expressed at very low or undetectable levels and is rapidly induced at sites of inflammation and proliferation in response to stimuli such as growth factors and tumor promoters (23). COX-2 expression and PGE2 levels are elevated in a variety of human cancers (24–26) and are associated with increased angiogenesis, tumor invasion, and resistance to apoptosis (27–30). Similarly, overexpression of COX-2 has been shown to induce cancer formation in transgenic mice (31, 32). Several epidemiological studies have indicated that continuous users of aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, which inhibit COX activity, have reduced risk or mortality from cancer (33–35). Moreover, COX-2-specific inhibitors have been shown to suppress tumor growth in animal models of human cancer (36, 37).

A link between NFAT activity and COX-2 is evident from previous studies. NFAT has been reported to regulate COX-2 expression in human T lymphocytes (19). Putative NFAT recognition sequences are present in the human COX-2 proximal promoter, and deletion analysis has shown that they are important for its transcriptional activation (19). A recent study also demonstrated that these sites are essential for the induction of COX-2 by NFAT in colon carcinoma cells (38). The consequence of NFAT-mediated COX-2 induction for cancer cell phenotypes has not been established.

The significance of NFAT for cancer development or progression to metastasis has to date not been investigated. Our previous studies on NFAT revealed that it plays an essential role in promoting migration and invasion of breast and colon carcinoma cells (39). To identify the downstream NFAT target genes that are important for invasion, we have analyzed the gene expression profile of breast cancer cells that express NFAT1. We detected a significant up-regulation of COX-2 in these cells. We show that activation of NFAT increases COX-2 expression and PGE2 synthesis. Inactivation of NFAT by cyclosporin A (CsA) or siRNA significantly diminished COX-2 expression. Expression of COX-2 promoted invasion through Matrigel, and this was reduced by the COX-2 inhibitor NS-398 or with siRNA. Together, these results provide the first direct evidence that NFAT promotes breast cancer cell invasion through the induction of COX-2.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Cell Lines and Reagents—The human cell lines MDA-MB-435 and MDA-MB-231 were obtained from American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA) and maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium with 1 g/ml glucose, L-glutamine, and sodium pyruvate (Mediatech, Herndon, VA) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Nova-Tech, Grand Island, NE). The estrogen-independent breast cancer cell line SUM-159-PT has been described (40) and was maintained in Ham's F-12 medium with L-glutamine (Cambrex, Walkersville, MD) supplemented with 5% fetal bovine serum, 1 µg/ml hydrocortisone, and 5 µg/ml insulin (Sigma). SUM.N1-16 and 435.N1-23 cells with inducible NFAT1 expression were derived from SUM-159-PT and MDA-MB-435 cells, respectively, and generated using the tetracycline-regulated expression system from Invitrogen. HA-tagged NFAT1 was subcloned into pcDNA4/TO/Myc-His and was co-transfected into SUM-159-PT cells with pcDNA6/TR. Positive clones were selected and maintained in medium with 20 µg/ml blasticidin and 0.1 mg/ml zeocin (InvivoGen, San Diego, CA). 435.N1-23 cells were prepared by transfecting HA-NFAT1 in pcDNA4/TO/Myc-His into MDA-MB-435 cells that have constitutive expression of tetracycline repressors from pcDNA6/TR. Positive clones were selected and maintained in culture medium containing 10 µg/ml blasticidin and 0.4 mg/ml zeocin. Expression of NFAT1 was induced with 1 µg/ml doxycycline (Clontech) for 16–24 h at 37 °C. SUM.N1 siRNA-4 and SUM.N1 siRNA-17 cells that express NFAT1 siRNA were prepared by transfecting SUM-159-PT cells with NFAT1 siRNA (see below). Stable clones were selected with 20 µg/ml blasticidin and 0.5 mg/ml Geneticin (Invitrogen). Cells were treated with PMA (100 nM; Alexis Biochemicals, San Diego, CA) and ionomycin (100 nM; CalBiochem) for 16–24 h. Cyclosporin A (CalBiochem) was used at 10 µM and NS-398 (Cayman Chemical Co., Ann Arbor, MI) at 50–100 µM. Anti-HA antibody was purified in-house from the 12CA5 hybridoma. Monoclonal anti-COX-2 was from Cayman Chemical Co., and anti-NFAT1 antibody was from Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Santa Cruz, CA). Anti-beta-actin antibody was from Sigma.

Plasmid Constructs—HA-NFAT1 was prepared by cloning HA-tagged murine NFAT1 cDNA into pcDNA4/TO/Myc-His (Invitrogen). The pIL2-Luc luciferase reporter plasmid has been described (41). The pCS2-(n)-beta-gal plasmid was from Promega (Madison, WI). The pCMV-COX-2 expression plasmid and the COX-2 promoter luciferase reporter P2-274 have been described (19) and were provided by Dr. Miguel Iñiguez. COX-2 siRNA was generated by cloning the annealed oligonucleotides with sequences 5'-GAT CCC CAA CCG AGG TGT ATG TAT GAG TGT TTC AAG AGA ACA CTC ATA CAT ACA CCT CGG TTT TTT TGG AAA-3' and 5'-AGC TTT TCC AAA AAA ACC GAG GTG TAT GTA TGA GTG TTC TCT TGA AAC ACT CAT ACA TAC ACC TCG GTT GGG-3' into the BglII/HindIII sites of the pSUPER vector (Oligoengine, Seattle, WA). To silence NFAT1 expression, SUM.N1 siRNA-4 and SUM.N1 siRNA-17 cells were generated with the siRNA plasmid constructed with the following sequences: 5'-GAT CCC CTC CTT AAG CCG CAC GCC TTT TCA AGA GAA AGG CGT GCG GCT TAA GGA TTT TTG GAA A-3' and 5'-AGC TTT TCC AAA AAT CCT TAA GCC GCA CGC CTT TCT CTT GAA AAG GCG TGC GGC TTA AGG AGG G-3'.

Immunoblotting—Total cell lysates were prepared in ice-cold radioimmune precipitation assay lysis buffer (50 mM Tris HCl, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 1% Nonidet P-40, 0.5% sodium deoxycholate, 0.1% SDS, 0.2 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, and 2 mM sodium orthovanadate) supplemented with protease inhibitor mixture from Sigma. The lysates were clarified by centrifugation at 12,000 x g for 10 min, and protein concentration was determined by the Bradford assay (Bio-Rad). Protein lysates were denatured, resolved by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, and transferred onto nitrocellulose membranes. The protein blots were blocked with 5% nonfat milk and incubated with the appropriate primary antibodies for 2 h at room temperature or overnight at 4 °C. Signals were developed by using the SuperSignal West Pico chemiluminescent substrate from Pierce.

Real-time RT-PCR—Total RNA samples were extracted from the cultured cells using TRIzol (Invitrogen) and were reverse transcribed into cDNA using Taqman reverse transcriptase and oligo(dT)16 (Roche Applied Science) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Quantitative real-time PCR was performed using the SYBR Green PCR master mix in an ABI Prism 7700 sequence detector (both from Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). The reactions were carried out with a polymerase-activating step of 95 °C for 10 min followed by 40 cycles of a two-step cycling program (95 °C for 15 s; 60 °C for 1 min) for NFAT1 detection or a three-step cycling program (95 °C for 15 s; 57 °C for 30 s, 72 °C for 45 s) for analyzing COX-2 transcription. For murine NFAT1, the primers were 5'-CGG AGT CCA AGG TTG TGT TCA-3' (sense) and 5'-TGT GGC TGA CTT CGT TTC CTC-3' (antisense). For human NFAT1, the primers were 5'-TGC ATC TAA CCC CAT CGA GTG-3' (sense) and 5'-TGA GGA TCA TTT GCT GGC C-3' (antisense). For glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, the primers were 5'-GCA AAT TCC ATG GCA CCG T-3' (sense) and 5'-TCG CCC CAC TTG ATT TTG G-3' (antisense). For COX-2, the primers were 5'-CAA AAG CTG GGA AGC CTT CTC TAA CC-3' (sense) and 5'-GCC CAG CCC GTT GGT GAA AG-3' (antisense). The PCR products were analyzed on 1 or 1.5% agarose gels to ensure the specificity of amplification.

Transfection and Luciferase Assays—All cell lines were transfected using the TransIT-LT1 transfection reagent from Mirus Bio Corporation (Madison, WI). Luciferase reporter constructs were transiently co-transfected into the cells with pCS2-(n)-beta-gal. Cells were then left untreated or treated overnight with PMA/ionomycin with or without cyclosporin A. Total cell lysates were prepared 24 h after transfection. Luciferase and beta-galactosidase activities were determined using Promega's luciferase assay system and Galacton-Plus from Tropix (Bedford, MA), respectively, in a MicroLumat LB 96 P luminometer (Berthold Analytical Instruments, Nashua, NH).

Matrigel Invasion Assays—Invasion assays were performed essentially as described previously (39). Briefly, Transwell chambers with 8-µm pore filters (Corning, Acton, MA) were coated with 1–5 µgof Matrigel (BD Biosciences). Cells were harvested by trypsinization, resuspended in serum-free Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium containing 0.1% bovine serum albumin, and added (1.0–1.5 x 105 cells/assay) in triplicates to Transwell chambers. The cells were allowed to invade the Matrigel-coated filters at 37 °C toward NIH 3T3-conditioned medium in the lower compartment. After 4–8 h, cells that had invaded to the lower surface of the filter were fixed and stained with crystal violet or 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-beta-D-galactopyranoside (X-gal) and counted.


Figure 1
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1.
Stable breast cancer cell lines with inducible NFAT1 expression. 435.N1-23 and SUM.N1-16 cells that express NFAT1 when induced with doxycycline (Dox.) were derived from MDA-MB-435 and SUM-159-PT cells, respectively. A, cells were treated with Dox (1µg/ml) or vehicle control, lysed, and immunoblotted (IB) with anti-HA or anti-actin. B, total RNA was extracted from control or Dox-treated cells, and cDNA was prepared and assayed for NFAT1 levels by quantitative real-time PCR. Signals obtained from the amplification of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase message were used as internal controls. C, untreated or Dox-treated cells were transiently transfected with pIL2-Luc and pCS2-(n)-beta-gal. Luciferase activity was determined 24 h after transfection and normalized to beta-galactosidase. D, relative invasion of untreated or Dox-treated cells was measured using an in vitro Matrigel assay. All the results shown represent the average values from triplicate measurements of at least two individual experiments. Bars, S.D. The asterisks denote statistically significant differences between control and Dox-treated cells (unpaired Student's t test, p < 0.001).

 
PGE2 Measurements—PGE2 levels in the culture medium of treated cells were determined using a PGE2-monoclonal enzyme immunoassay kit from Cayman Chemical Co. according to the manufacturer's protocol. To collect culture medium supernatants for the assay, growth medium of the cells was replaced with serum-free medium, and after overnight incubation at 37 °C, cell culture medium was spiked with 10 µg/ml arachidonic acid and collected 30 min later. The samples were clarified by centrifugation and analyzed in triplicates. The amount of PGE2 in the culture medium was determined by referring to the signal intensities obtained from a set of PGE2 standards.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Our previous study demonstrated that the {alpha}6beta4 integrin, a tumor-associated antigen, up-regulates NFAT activity in breast carcinoma. We showed that although NFAT5 increases cell migration, NFAT1 promotes both migration and invasion (39). To identify the target genes induced by NFAT that are responsible for promoting migration and invasion, we established clones of MDA-MB-435 and SUM-159-PT cells that inducibly express NFAT1 upon stimulation with tetracycline or the analog doxycycline. As shown in Fig. 1A, NFAT1 expression was induced in doxycycline-treated clones of MDA-MB-435 (435.N1-23) and SUM-159-PT (SUM.N1-16) cells. Increased NFAT1 expression induction was also confirmed at the mRNA level by real-time RT-PCR (Fig. 1B). To investigate whether the induced NFAT1 was transcriptionally active, we transfected an IL-2 luciferase reporter plasmid. As predicted, the induced NFAT1 was functional at driving NFAT-dependent transcription of IL-2 (Fig. 1C). When the stable transfectants were allowed to invade Matrigel in an in vitro invasion assay, doxycycline-treated cells were significantly more invasive compared with their untreated controls (Fig. 1D), consistent with previous data (39).

Using cDNA prepared from untreated and doxycycline-treated 435.N1-23 and SUM.N1-16 cells, we analyzed the gene expression profile induced subsequent to NFAT1 expression. A 6.06-fold (435.N1-23) and 3.05-fold (SUM.N1-16) induction of COX-2 was observed (data not shown). NFAT has been shown to bind to the COX-2 promoter and regulate its transcription in immune cells (19), and a recent study has reported the regulation of COX-2 by NFAT in human colon carcinoma (38). However, the relevance of NFAT in COX-2 regulation and function in breast cancer cell signaling or responses has not been determined. To address this question, we analyzed the expression of COX-2 in doxycycline-treated cells. COX-2 transcription measured by RT-PCR was increased upon NFAT1 expression induced by doxycycline (Fig. 2A). At the protein level, untreated SUM.N1-16 cells revealed low to undetectable levels of both NFAT1 and COX-2. After doxycycline treatment, NFAT1 expression significantly increased and was accompanied by a small but reproducible elevation in COX-2 protein (Fig. 2B). Stimulation with the NFAT agonists PMA and ionomycin led to a dramatic increase in COX-2 expression, likely because of the activation of endogenous NFAT. Moreover, combined treatment of doxycycline and PMA/ionomycin led to an even greater increase in NFAT1 and COX-2 expression (Fig. 2B).


Figure 2
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2.
Activation of NFAT1 induces COX-2. 435.N1-23 and SUM.N1-16 cells were induced with Dox (1 µg/ml) for 24 h. A, total RNA was analyzed by real-time PCR analysis of COX-2 transcription. B, immunoblotting (IB) of the total lysates prepared from control or Dox-treated SUM.N1-16 cells with or without stimulation with 100 nM PMA and ionomycin (Ion.). Antibodies used were specific to anti-NFAT1, anti-COX-2, or anti-actin. n.s., nonspecific bands immunoreactive against the COX-2 antibody.

 


Figure 3
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3.
NFAT1 regulates COX-2 activity. A, SUM.N1-16 cells were incubated overnight with vehicle alone or Dox (1 µg/ml) to induce NFAT1. Cells were then transfected with pCS2-(n)-beta-gal and pIL2-Luc or the COX-2 luciferase reporter construct P2-274. Luciferase and beta-galactosidase activities were measured after incubation for 20 h with or without PMA and ionomycin (Ion.). Cells were also treated with CsA 1 h before the addition of PMA/ionomycin. B, MDA-MB-231 cells were transfected with pCS2-(n)-beta-gal and pIL2-Luc or P2-274. The cells were left untreated or stimulated with PMA and ionomycin with or without CsA for 20 h and assayed for beta-galactosidase and luciferase activities. The luciferase activities determined for the various transfections were normalized to their respective beta-galactosidase signals. The results presented are the mean ± S.D. of triplicate measurements of two individual experiments. The asterisks denote statistically significant differences in COX-2 luciferase activity between treated and untreated cells (unpaired Student's t test, p < 0.01).

 
Next we determined whether the induction of COX-2 by NFAT1 is mediated through the transcriptional activation of the COX-2 promoter. SUM.N1-16 and MDA-MB-231 cells were transfected with the pIL2-luc or the human COX-2 promoter luciferase reporter construct P2-274. Cells stimulated with PMA/ionomycin showed a basal low level of NFAT activity when compared with untreated control (Fig. 3A, left panel). In contrast, induction of NFAT1 expression with doxycycline significantly increased the transcription of both IL-2 (Fig. 3A, left panel) and COX-2 (right panel). Maximum induction of IL-2 and COX-2 transcription was revealed when induced NFAT1 was activated by PMA/ionomycin. Blocking the activation of NFAT with CsA significantly diminished transcription from both reporters (Fig. 3A).

As MDA-MB-231 cells have high levels of endogenous NFAT, we also examined the NFAT-driven IL-2 and COX-2 transcription in these cells. Activation of endogenous NFAT by PMA/ionomycin significantly increased transcriptions from both the IL-2 and COX-2 promoters (Fig. 3B). Again, NFAT inhibition by CsA reduced the induction of transcriptional activation of both reporters.


Figure 4
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 4.
NFAT1 siRNA reduces COX-2 activity and invasion. Stable cell lines SUM.N1 siRNA-4 and SUM.N1 siRNA-17 that constitutively express siRNA specific to NFAT1 were derived from SUM-159-PT cells. A, real-time PCR analysis of total RNA extracted from SUM-159-PT, SUM.N1 siRNA-4, and SUM.N1 siRNA-17 cells. Immunoblotting (IB) was against anti-NFAT1 and anti-actin. B, SUM-159-PT, SUM.N1 siRNA-4, and SUM.N1 siRNA-17 cells were transfected with pIL2-Luc and pCS2-(n)-beta-gal. Luciferase and beta-galactosidase activities were measured after incubating the cells with or without PMA/ionomycin (Ion.) for 20 h. Luciferase activity was determined and normalized to the respective beta-galactosidase signal. C, performed similar to the experiment described in B but with P2-274 COX-2 promoter luciferase reporter. D, Matrigel invasion of SUM-159-PT, SUM.N1 siRNA-4, and SUM.N1 siRNA-17 cells was determined in vitro. All of the results shown are the mean ± S.D. of triplicate measurements of at least two independent experiments. The asterisks and number symbol denote statistically significant differences between control and siRNA-treated cells (unpaired Student's t test; *, p < 0.01; #, p < 0.03).

 
To further investigate the regulation of COX-2 by NFAT, we have developed clones of SUM-159-PT cells in which NFAT expression is reduced by siRNA. Real-time RT-PCR analysis demonstrated that two distinct clones expressed significantly less NFAT1 transcripts compared with parental SUM-159-PT cells. This was confirmed by immunoblotting with anti-NFAT1 (Fig. 4A). Reduced NFAT1 expression with siRNA also markedly attenuated transcription from the IL-2 promoter in cells treated with PMA/ionomycin compared with cells transfected with control siRNA (Fig. 4B). Most importantly, reduced expression of NFAT by siRNA also led to a quantitative reduction of COX-2 promoter luciferase activity (Fig. 4C). Finally, to demonstrate that loss of NFAT1 translates into loss of invasion, we measured Matrigel invasion in control SUM-159-PT cells compared with the stable siRNA clones. As predicted, reduced expression of NFAT1 by siRNA resulted in not only a loss of COX-2 expression but also a marked loss of invasion (Fig. 4D).

To extend the above findings, we transiently transfected COX-2 into MDA-MB-435 and SUM-159-PT cells and measured Matrigel invasion. In both cell lines, COX-2 expression increased invasion (Fig. 5A). COX-2 expression was confirmed by immunoblotting. We also used a loss-of-function approach and constructed COX-2 siRNA to silence COX-2 expression. The efficacy of silencing endogenous COX-2 was determined by immunoblotting (Fig. 5B). Next, SUM.N1-16 cells were transfected with either control or COX-2 siRNA, induced with doxycycline to express NFAT1, followed by Matrigel assays. When NFAT1 expression was induced in control transfected cells, as already demonstrated, this led to a reproducible increase in invasion. However, in the presence of COX-2 siRNA, invasion was reduced to control levels (Fig. 5C, left panel). COX-2 siRNA also significantly blunted Matrigel invasion of MDA-MB-231 cells (Fig. 5C, right panel). These results demonstrate directly that at least one mechanism by which NFAT promotes invasion is through the induction of COX-2.

PGE2 is the major product of COX-2. To further define the role of COX-2 induction by NFAT1 in the invasion phenotype, we assayed PGE2 levels in the culture medium of SUM.N1 cells. In control cells, low levels of PGE2 were detected, but these levels significantly increased when cells were stimulated by PMA/ionomycin to activate endogenous NFAT (Fig. 6A). Moreover, treatment with NS-398, a potent and specific COX-2 inhibitor, blocked PGE2 induction by PMA/ionomycin. More importantly, NFAT1 expression also stimulated PGE2 production, and this was greatly augmented in the presence of PMA/ionomycin (Fig. 6A). Again, this was inhibited by NS-398. We also examined the production of PGE2 in MDA-MB-231 cells, and found that these cells produce high levels of NS-398-sensitive PGE2 in response to PMA/ionomycin, likely because of the high endogenous expression of NFAT1 (Fig. 6B).


Figure 5
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 5.
COX-2 expression promotes invasion of breast cancer cells. A, MDA-MB-435 and SUM-159-PT cells were transfected with pCS2-(n)-beta-gal and pcDNA3-HA or pCMV-COX-2. 24 h after transfection, cells were harvested and allowed to invade Matrigel at 37 °C for 6 h. COX-2 expression was evaluated by immunoblotting (IB) with anti-COX-2 and anti-actin control. B, the efficiency of silencing COX-2 expression in MDA-MB-231 cells by COX-2 siRNA was determined by transfecting cells with COX-2 siRNA or control siRNA (pSUPER). Total lysates were immunoblotted with anti-COX-2 or anti-actin control. C, pCS2-(n)-beta-gal and COX-2 siRNA were transiently transfected into SUM.N1-16 or MDA-MB-231 cells. Transfectants were harvested 48 h after transfection, and invasion was determined in an in vitro Matrigel assay. Dox was added to SUM.N1-16 cells. Results are representative of at least two independent experiments. Bars, S.D. The asterisks denote statistically significant differences between treated and untreated cells (unpaired Student's t test, p < 0.02).

 
SUM.N1-16 cells with induced NFAT1 expression are more invasive (see Fig. 1). That invasion is specifically mediated by COX-2 induction and PGE2 production was revealed by performing Matrigel invasion assays in the presence of increasing amounts of NS-398. As shown in Fig. 6C, invasion stimulated by NFAT1 expression was blocked by the same concentrations of NS-398 that blocked COX-2 activity and reduced PGE2 levels.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Carcinoma invasion is defined as the penetration of tumor cells into adjacent tissues and is one of the hallmarks of malignant tumors. In contrast to benign tumors, invasive tumors have the potential to metastasize because of their access to the vasculature. For this reason, much work has gone into understanding the mechanisms by which epithelial cells acquire this invasive phenotype. Numerous changes at the levels of signaling and gene transcription coordinate the acquisition of motility and invasion. In our previous studies, we showed that the NFAT transcription factor represents one such mechanism, and it is both necessary and sufficient to promote carcinoma invasion in both breast and colon cancer cells (39). However, what has remained elusive is the nature of the genes induced by this transcription factor, which are directly responsible for promoting cancer cell invasion. To address this problem, we developed breast cancer cell lines with elevated inducible NFAT1 expression. As predicted in our previous work (39), inducible expression of NFAT led to increased transcriptional activity with a concomitant increase in invasion through Matrigel. Gene expression profiling by microarray analysis revealed that COX-2 is one of the most consistently up-regulated genes induced by NFAT in breast cancer cells.

Induction of COX-2 by NFAT has been reported in human T lymphocytes (19). This issue has also been investigated in nonimmune cells. For example, NFAT apparently increases COX-2 expression in vascular smooth muscle cells when induced by platelet-derived growth factor and in balloon injury-induced neointima formation in rat carotid artery (42). Similarly, a recent study also provides evidence for COX-2 expression induced by NFAT in colon carcinoma (38). However, our study is the first to demonstrate induction of COX-2 by NFAT in breast cancer cells, and more importantly, we directly demonstrate that COX-2 is one of the genes that is responsible for NFAT-driven Matrigel invasion.

To probe the mechanism by which NFAT induces COX-2, we used a COX-2 promoter reporter construct that harbors two putative NFAT binding sites. The distal site at nucleotide –105 to –97 has no adjacent AP-1 binding site, whereas the proximal NFAT site at nucleotides –76 to –68 has a highly homologous AP-1 consensus sequence at –61 to –67. These elements have been shown to bind NFAT and are important for COX-2 transcription in various cells (19, 38). In human T cells, the proximal NFAT1 site is crucial for regulation of COX-2 transcription (19). In our experiments in breast cancer cells, induction of NFAT1 expression in the presence of the activators PMA/ionomycin resulted in a dramatic increase in NFAT transcriptional activity. Concomitant with this increase was a significant induction of COX-2 message and protein. Similar results, albeit less prominent, were obtained in cells not induced to express NFAT1, and this is likely because of the activation of endogenous NFAT1 and AP-1, known to be expressed in these cells. It is well known that the basic leucine-zipper protein AP-1, composed of Fos and Jun in mammalian cells, is activated by phorbol esters such as PMA (43). In the presence of the calcineurin antagonist cyclosporin A, NFAT activity was diminished, also concomitant with a decrease in COX-2. We therefore conclude that in breast cancer cell lines, NFAT and AP-1 cooperate by binding to the COX-2 promoter, leading to de novo gene transcription and protein expression. The net effect was an increase in PGE2 synthesis, which we also showed was COX-2- and NFAT-dependent.


Figure 6
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 6.
Induction of COX-2 by NFAT1 increases PGE2 production and promotes invasion. A, SUM.N1-16 cells were cultured with or without 1 µg/ml Dox. After 24 h incubation, the culture medium was replaced with serum-free medium, and the cells were either left untreated or stimulated overnight with 100 nM PMA and ionomycin (Ion). NS-398 was added at 50 µM. The culture medium was collected after 24 h, and the production of PGE2 was determined by a PGE2 monoclonal enzyme immunoassay kit as described under "Experimental Procedures." B, PGE2 production was assayed in the culture medium of MDA-MB-231 cells with or without overnight stimulation with PMA and ionomycin in the absence or presence of NS-398. C, SUM.N1-16 cells were treated with the indicated amounts of NS-398 for 2 h prior to incubation with 1 µg/ml Dox. After 24 h, cells were harvested, and invasion was determined by Matrigel assay. The data shown are the representative of two independent experiments with identical results. Bars, S.D. The asterisks denote statistically significant differences in PGE2 production between treated and untreated cells (unpaired Student's t test, p < 0.02).

 
We also evaluated COX-2 regulation in breast cancer cells by silencing NFAT1 expression using siRNA. Reduced expression of NFAT1 by siRNA resulted in reduced NFAT1 expression, transcriptional activity, and invasion, reinforcing the notion that NFAT is both necessary and sufficient to promote invasion. Moreover, reduced NFAT1 also diminished COX-2 induction, and because COX-2 siRNA also effectively blocked invasion in two distinct breast cancer cell lines, whereas COX-2 over-expression increased invasion, we conclude that COX-2 is both necessary and sufficient to drive Matrigel invasion.

Our results are in agreement with several lines of evidence showing that COX-2 is intimately associated with tumor progression and metastasis. There is a strong correlation between the high levels of COX-2 expression and increased invasive potential of cancer cells (44, 45). Long-term use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has been shown to lower the risk of cancer development such as colorectal and prostate cancers (35, 46). Moreover, COX-2 inhibitors show potent effects in reducing tumor growth and metastasis in animal models of cancer (47, 48). Reduced tumorigenesis has also been observed in COX-2 null mice (49, 50). PGE2 is the major product of COX-2 (20) and has been shown to increase the metastatic potential of cancer cells (28, 30). Our data demonstrate that NFAT induction and activation result in elevated levels of PGE2. As expected, the COX-2 inhibitor NS-398, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, significantly diminished PGE2 production. Although the induction of NFAT expression promoted invasion, cells treated with NS-398 displayed reduced invasion in a dosage-dependent manner. This result further indicates that NFAT promotes cancer invasion by induction of COX-2 and increased PGE2 production.

The exact mechanism by which COX-2 and PGE2 enhance tumor invasion is still poorly understood. PGE2 has been shown to regulate aromatase expression and activity in breast cancer, thus affecting local estrogen synthesis (51). Estrogen is strongly associated with breast tumorigenesis by stimulating cell proliferation (52). Immunohistochemical analysis of tissue array specimens of invasive breast cancers also reveals that increased COX-2 expression is invariably associated with elevated expression of matrix metalloproteinase-2 (53). Induction of metalloproteinase-2 by PGE2 has been reported to enhance the invasion of pancreatic cancer cells (30). Studies on transgenic mice suggest that PGE2 signaling via the G protein-linked E-series prostanoid-2 receptor of PGE2, which is highly expressed in breast cancer, induces mammary hyperplasia through the cAMP-dependent up-regulation of amphiregulin (54). A recent study also shows that PGE2 binds to the E-series prostanoid-2 receptor to activate beta-catenin signaling that stimulates the proliferation of colon cancer cells (55). COX-2 expression has also been shown to increase the survival of intestinal epithelial cells (56) and to be pro-angiogenic in endothelial cells (44). For these reasons, COX-2 inhibitors such as rofecoxib (Vioxx) and celecoxib (Celebrex) were until recently enrolled into clinical trials for colorectal cancer therapy. Our studies add a new dimension to the pleiotropic effects induced by COX-2 by demonstrating that COX-2 can promote invasion in an NFAT-dependent manner.

To conclude, our results show that NFAT promotes breast cancer invasion through the induction of COX-2. To our knowledge, to date this is only the second time that a gene induced by NFAT in cancer cells has been directly demonstrated to be responsible for promoting invasion in vitro. Recently, Chen and O'Connor (57) showed that autotaxin/ENPP2, an enzyme that catalyzes the production of lysophosphatidic acid, is also induced by NFAT in breast cancer cells and promotes invasion. Although NFAT has been shown to regulate COX-2 in various cells, and high expression of COX-2 is correlated with increased metastatic potential, no studies have investigated the role of COX-2 as an invasion-promoting gene in the NFAT pathway. We speculate that this may be clinically significant because the identification and characterization of NFAT target genes such as COX-2 may provide new targets and information to design better anticancer drugs that directly inhibit NFAT and its downstream targets.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants CA96710 (to A. T.) and T32HL007893 (G. K. Y.). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave., RN-237, Boston, MA 02215. Tel.: 617-667-8535; Fax: 617-667-3616; E-mail: atoker{at}bidmc.harvard.edu.

2 The abbreviations used are: NFAT, nuclear factor of activated T cells; COX-2, cyclooxygenase-2; PMA, phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate; siRNA, small interfering RNA; IL-2, interleukin-2; PG, prostaglandin; HA, hemagglutinin; RT, reverse transcription; CsA, cyclosporin A; Dox, doxycycline. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank members of the Toker laboratory for technical assistance and insightful discussions. We also thank Dr. Miguel Iñiguez for providing the human COX-2 promoter luciferase reporter and COX-2 constructs.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Shaw, J. P., Utz, P. J., Durand, D. B., Toole, J. J., Emmel, E. A., and Crabtree, G. R. (1988) Science 241, 202–205[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Rao, A., Luo, C., and Hogan, P. G. (1997) Annu. Rev. Immunol. 15, 707–747[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Serfling, E., Berberich-Siebelt, F., Chuvpilo, S., Jankevics, E., Klein-Hessling, S., Twardzik, T., and Avots, A. (2000) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1498, 1–18[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Caetano, M. S., Vieira-de-Abreu, A., Teixeira, L. K., Werneck, M. B., Barcinski, M. A., and Viola, J. P. (2002) FASEB J. 16, 1940–1942[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Baksh, S., Widlund, H. R., Frazer-Abel, A. A., Du, J., Fosmire, S., Fisher, D. E., DeCaprio, J. A., Modiano, J. F., and Burakoff, S. J. (2002) Mol. Cell 10, 1071–1081[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Graef, I. A., Wang, F., Charron, F., Chen, L., Neilson, J., Tessier-Lavigne, M., and Crabtree, G. R. (2003) Cell 113, 657–670[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Neal, J. W., and Clipstone, N. A. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 17246–17254[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Zaichuk, T. A., Shroff, E. H., Emmanuel, R., Filleur, S., Nelius, T., and Volpert, O. V. (2004) J. Exp. Med. 199, 1513–1522[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Hogan, P. G., Chen, L., Nardone, J., and Rao, A. (2003) Genes Dev. 17, 2205–2232[Free Full Text]
  10. Feske, S., Okamura, H., Hogan, P. G., and Rao, A. (2003) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 311, 1117–1132[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Lopez-Rodriguez, C., Aramburu, J., Rakeman, A. S., Copeland, N. G., Gilbert, D. J., Thomas, S., Disteche, C., Jenkins, N. A., and Rao, A. (1999) Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 64, 517–526[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Okamura, H., Aramburu, J., Garcia-Rodriguez, C., Viola, J. P., Raghavan, A., Tahiliani, M., Zhang, X., Qin, J., Hogan, P. G., and Rao, A. (2000) Mol. Cell 6, 539–550[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Shaw, K. T., Ho, A. M., Raghavan, A., Kim, J., Jain, J., Park, J., Sharma, S., Rao, A., and Hogan, P. G. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 11205–11209[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Loh, C., Shaw, K. T., Carew, J., Viola, J. P., Luo, C., Perrino, B. A., and Rao, A. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 10884–10891[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Jain, J., McCaffrey, P. G., Miner, Z., Kerppola, T. K., Lambert, J. N., Verdine, G. L., Curran, T., and Rao, A. (1993) Nature 365, 352–355[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Macian, F., Lopez-Rodriguez, C., and Rao, A. (2001) Oncogene 20, 2476–2489[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Morimoto, T., Hasegawa, K., Wada, H., Kakita, T., Kaburagi, S., Yanazume, T., and Sasayama, S. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 34983–34989[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Jain, J., Miner, Z., and Rao, A. (1993) J. Immunol. 151, 837–848[Abstract]
  19. Iniguez, M. A., Martinez-Martinez, S., Punzon, C., Redondo, J. M., and Fresno, M. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 23627–23635[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Smith, W. L., Marnett, L. J., and DeWitt, D. L. (1991) Pharmacol. Ther. 49, 153–179[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Smith, W. L. (1992) Am. J. Physiol. 263, F181–F191
  22. Hla, T., Ristimaki, A., Appleby, S., and Barriocanal, J. G. (1993) Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 696, 197–204[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Smith, W. L., DeWitt, D. L., and Garavito, R. M. (2000) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 69, 145–182[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Fujita, T., Matsui, M., Takaku, K., Uetake, H., Ichikawa, W., Taketo, M. M., and Sugihara, K. (1998) Cancer Res. 58, 4823–4826[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Soslow, R. A., Dannenberg, A. J., Rush, D., Woerner, B. M., Khan, K. N., Masferrer, J., and Koki, A. T. (2000) Cancer 89, 2637–2645[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Denkert, C., Kobel, M., Pest, S., Koch, I., Berger, S., Schwabe, M., Siegert, A., Reles, A., Klosterhalfen, B., and Hauptmann, S. (2002) Am. J. Pathol. 160, 893–903[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Iniguez, M. A., Rodriguez, A., Volpert, O. V., Fresno, M., and Redondo, J. M. (2003) Trends Mol. Med. 9, 73–78[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Chang, S. H., Liu, C. H., Conway, R., Han, D. K., Nithipatikom, K., Trifan, O. C., Lane, T. F., and Hla, T. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101, 591–596[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Corcoran, C. A., He, Q., Huang, Y., and Sheikh, M. S. (2005) Oncogene 24, 1634–1640[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Ito, H., Duxbury, M., Benoit, E., Clancy, T. E., Zinner, M. J., Ashley, S. W., and Whang, E. E. (2004) Cancer Res. 64, 7439–7446[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Marnett, L. J., and DuBois, R. N. (2002) Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 42, 55–80[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Subbaramaiah, K., and Dannenberg, A. J. (2003) Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 24, 96–102[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Rosenberg, L., Louik, C., and Shapiro, S. (1998) Cancer 82, 2326–2333[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Steinbach, G., Lynch, P. M., Phillips, R. K., Wallace, M. H., Hawk, E., Gordon, G. B., Wakabayashi, N., Saunders, B., Shen, Y., Fujimura, T., Su, L. K., and Levin, B. (2000) N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 1946–1952[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Jacobs, E. J., Rodriguez, C., Mondul, A. M., Connell, C. J., Henley, S. J., Calle, E. E., and Thun, M. J. (2005) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 97, 975–980[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Kawamori, T., Rao, C. V., Seibert, K., and Reddy, B. S. (1998) Cancer Res. 58, 409–412[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Reddy, B. S., Hirose, Y., Lubet, R., Steele, V., Kelloff, G., Paulson, S., Seibert, K., and Rao, C. V. (2000) Cancer Res. 60, 293–297[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Duque, J., Fresno, M., and Iniguez, M. A. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 8686–8693[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Jauliac, S., Lopez-Rodriguez, C., Shaw, L. M., Brown, L. F., Rao, A., and Toker, A. (2002) Nat. Cell Biol. 4, 540–544[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Flanagan, L., Van Weelden, K., Ammerman, C., Ethier, S. P., and Welsh, J. (1999) Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 58, 193–204[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Durand, D. B., Shaw, J. P., Bush, M. R., Replogle, R. E., Belagaje, R., and Crabtree, G. R. (1988) Mol. Cell. Biol. 8, 1715–1724[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Liu, Z., Zhang, C., Dronadula, N., Li, Q., and Rao, G. N. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 14700–14708[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Eferl, R., and Wagner, E. F. (2003) Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 859–868[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Tsujii, M., Kawano, S., and DuBois, R. N. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 3336–3340[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Half, E., Tang, X. M., Gwyn, K., Sahin, A., Wathen, K., and Sinicrope, F. A. (2002) Cancer Res. 62, 1676–1681[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Huls, G., Koornstra, J. J., and Kleibeuker, J. H. (2003) Lancet 362, 230–232[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Gupta, R. A., and Dubois, R. N. (2001) Nat. Rev. Cancer 1, 11–21[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. FitzGerald, G. A. (2003) Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 879–890[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  49. Williams, C. S., Mann, M., and DuBois, R. N. (1999) Oncogene 18, 7908–7916[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Howe, L. R., Chang, S. H., Tolle, K. C., Dillon, R., Young, L. J., Cardiff, R. D., Newman, R. A., Yang, P., Thaler, H. T., Muller, W. J., Hudis, C., Brown, A. M., Hla, T., Subbaramaiah, K., and Dannenberg, A. J. (2005) Cancer Res. 65, 10113–10119[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Richards, J. A., and Brueggemeier, R. W. (2003) J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 88, 2810–2816[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Gadducci, A., Biglia, N., Sismondi, P., and Genazzani, A. R. (2005) Gynecol. Endocrinol. 20, 343–360[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  53. Sivula, A., Talvensaari-Mattila, A., Lundin, J., Joensuu, H., Haglund, C., Ristimaki, A., and Turpeenniemi-Hujanen, T. (2005) Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 89, 215–220[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  54. Chang, S. H., Ai, Y., Breyer, R. M., Lane, T. F., and Hla, T. (2005) Cancer Res. 65, 4496–4499[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Castellone, M. D., Teramoto, H., Williams, B. O., Druey, K. M., and Gutkind, J. S. (2005) Science 310, 1504–1510[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Tsujii, M., and DuBois, R. N. (1995) Cell 83, 493–501[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  57. Chen, M., and O'Connor, K. L. (2005) Oncogene 24, 5125–5130[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 EndocrinologyHome page
T. Pew, M. Zou, D. R. Brickley, and S. D. Conzen
Glucocorticoid (GC)-Mediated Down-Regulation of Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Expression via the Serum and GC Regulated Kinase-1/Forkhead Box O3a Pathway
Endocrinology, May 1, 2008; 149(5): 2637 - 2645.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Pathol.Home page
A. Akimzhanov, L. Krenacs, T. Schlegel, S. Klein-Hessling, E. Bagdi, E. Stelkovics, E. Kondo, S. Chuvpilo, P. Wilke, A. Avots, et al.
Epigenetic Changes and Suppression of the Nuclear Factor of Activated T Cell 1 (NFATC1) Promoter in Human Lymphomas with Defects in Immunoreceptor Signaling
Am. J. Pathol., January 1, 2008; 172(1): 215 - 224.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
D. Schunke, P. Span, H. Ronneburg, A. Dittmer, M. Vetter, H.-J. Holzhausen, E. Kantelhardt, S. Krenkel, V. Muller, F. C.G.J. Sweep, et al.
Cyclooxygenase-2 Is a Target Gene of Rho GDP Dissociation Inhibitor {beta} in Breast Cancer Cells
Cancer Res., November 15, 2007; 67(22): 10694 - 10702.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
C. R. Bush, J. M. Havens, B. M. Necela, W. Su, L. Chen, M. Yanagisawa, P. Z. Anastasiadis, R. Guerra, B. A. Luxon, and E. A. Thompson
Functional Genomic Analysis Reveals Cross-talk between Peroxisome Proliferator-activated Receptor {gamma} and Calcium Signaling in Human Colorectal Cancer Cells
J. Biol. Chem., August 10, 2007; 282(32): 23387 - 23401.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Cancer ResHome page
I. Stasinopoulos, D. R. O'Brien, F. Wildes, K. Glunde, and Z. M. Bhujwalla
Silencing of Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibits Metastasis and Delays Tumor Onset of Poorly Differentiated Metastatic Breast Cancer Cells
Mol. Cancer Res., May 1, 2007; 5(5): 435 - 442.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
F. Batista, D. Vaiman, J. Dausset, M. Fellous, and R. A. Veitia
Potential targets of FOXL2, a transcription factor involved in craniofacial and follicular development, identified by transcriptomics
PNAS, February 27, 2007; 104(9): 3330 - 3335.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
I. G. Maroulakou, W. Oemler, S. P. Naber, and P. N. Tsichlis
Akt1 Ablation Inhibits, whereas Akt2 Ablation Accelerates, the Development of Mammary Adenocarcinomas in Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus (MMTV)-ErbB2/Neu and MMTV-Polyoma Middle T Transgenic Mice
Cancer Res., January 1, 2007; 67(1): 167 - 177.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article