HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 283, Issue 12, 7438-7444, March 21, 2008

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 283/12/7438    most recent M709446200v1 Submit a Letter to Editor Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hurst, D. R. Articles by Welch, D. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hurst, D. R. Articles by Welch, D. R. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Alterations of BRMS1-ARID4A Interaction Modify Gene Expression but Still Suppress Metastasis in Human Breast Cancer Cells^*

Douglas R. Hurst¹, Yi Xie¹, Kedar S. Vaidya, Alka Mehta, Blake P. Moore, Mary Ann Accavitti-Loper^¶, Rajeev S. Samant^||, Ritu Saxena, Alexandra C. Silveira, and Danny R. Welch^**2

From the Departments of Pathology, Cell Biology, and ^**Pharmacology/Toxicology, the Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the ^¶Epitope Recognition and Immunoreagent Core Facility, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama 35294 and the ^||Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama 36688

Received for publication, November 19, 2007 , and in revised form, January 9, 2008.

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
The BRMS1 metastasis suppressor interacts with the protein AT-rich interactive domain 4A (ARID4A, RBBP1) as part of SIN3·histone deacetylase chromatin remodeling complexes. These transcriptional co-repressors regulate diverse cell phenotypes depending upon complex composition. To define BRMS1 complexes and their roles in metastasis suppression, we generated BRMS1 mutants (BRMS1^mut) and mapped ARID4A interactions. BRMS1^L174D disrupted direct interaction with ARID4A in yeast two-hybrid genetic screens but retained an indirect association with ARID4A in MDA-MB-231 and -435 human breast cancer cell lines by co-immunoprecipitation. Deletion of the first coiled-coil domain (BRMS1^CC1) did not disrupt direct interaction in yeast two-hybrid screens but did prevent association by co-immunoprecipitation. These results suggest altered complex composition with BRMS1^mut. Although basal transcription repression was impaired and the pro-metastatic protein osteopontin was differentially down-regulated by BRMS1^L174D and BRMS1^CC1, both down-regulated the epidermal growth factor receptor and suppressed metastasis in MDA-MB-231 and -435 breast cancer xenograft models. We conclude that BRMS1^mut, which modifies the composition of a SIN3·histone deacetylase chromatin remodeling complex, leads to altered gene expression profiles. Because metastasis requires the coordinate expression of multiple genes, down-regulation of at least one important gene, such as the epidermal growth factor receptor, had the ability to suppress metastasis. Understanding which interactions are necessary for particular biochemical/cellular functions may prove important for future strategies targeting metastasis.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
The ability of a cancer cell to complete all steps of the metastatic cascade requires diverse tumor-host interactions that are dependent on the coordinate expression of specific genes both intrinsically and extrinsically (1–3). The metastasis suppressor BRMS1 ³ has been shown to regulate the expression of multiple genes leading to the suppression of metastasis in multiple model systems, including human breast carcinoma (4, 5), melanoma (6), and ovarian carcinoma (7), without preventing orthotopic tumor growth. Specifically, down-regulation of the pro-metastatic genes osteopontin (OPN) and urokinase-type plasminogen activator has been linked to BRMS1 expression (8, 9). Gap junctional intercellular communication is restored by BRMS1 through a change in connexin expression (10). Microarray and proteomic analyses have also been performed showing multiple changes in gene and protein expression when BRMS1 was introduced (11–13). Clinically, loss of BRMS1 protein has been correlated with progesterone receptor expression and inversely correlated with HER2 expression in breast cancer patients (14).

BRMS1 has been proposed to regulate transcription of genes by interaction with a large SIN3·HDAC chromatin remodeling complex through interaction with the protein AT-rich interactive domain 4A (ARID4A) that suppresses basal transcription in vivo using a Gal4-luciferase reporter assay (14). These findings have been confirmed by subsequent protein-protein interaction studies of other proteins known to be a part of this complex in addition to BRMS1 (15–18). A second mechanism identified for BRMS1 that may or may not be distinct from SIN3·HDAC involves the negative regulation of NFB through interaction with RelA/p65 and inhibition of IB phosphorylation (8, 9, 19).

ARID4A is part of multiple protein-protein complexes. In addition to the BRMS1-containing SIN3·HDAC complex, ARID4A interacts with the tumor suppressor retinoblastoma (20) to be recruited to E2F-dependent promoters (21, 22). Although these complexes share some of the same proteins as those identified with BRMS1, including SIN3 and HDAC1, distinct SIN3·HDAC complexes regulate particular transcription factor interactions, leading to activation or repression of specific genes (23). A model depicting how ARID4A regulates E2F-dependent transcriptional repression and that involves direct interaction of ARID4A with retinoblastoma and the 30-kDa SIN3-associated protein (SAP30) to recruit a SIN3·HDAC chromatin modifying complex to E2F-dependent promoters has been proposed by Branton and co-workers (24). Although multiple members of the SIN3·HDAC complexes have been described as tumor suppressors, there are no current reports of specific interactions necessary for or implicated in metastasis suppression.

In the MDA-MB-231 and -435 metastatic human breast cancer cell lines, the BRMS1·SIN3·HDAC complexes are not active tumor suppressors. Orthotopic tumors are still able to grow at a similar rate when BRMS1 is re-expressed in these metastatic cells that have no detectable levels of endogenous BRMS1, but metastasis is suppressed by 90%. Because we previously showed a direct yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) interaction of BRMS1 with ARID4A, we hypothesized that this interaction plays an important role in the ability of BRMS1 to suppress metastasis. To test this hypothesis, we generated a series of deletion mutants of BRMS1 protein that differentially interact with ARID4A. We tested their ability to suppress metastasis and evaluated metastasis-associated phenotypes. Understanding these protein-protein interactions and the intricate roles they play in the process of metastasis, distinct from tumorigenesis, is important to target this deadly disease.

	EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Cell Lines and Cell Culture—MDA-MB-231 and MDA-MB-435 are human estrogen receptor-negative and progesterone receptor-negative cell lines derived from metastatic infiltrating ductal breast carcinomas (25, 26). The origin of MDA-MB-435 has been questioned because the cells express melanoma-associated genes in cDNA microarray experiments (27, 28). However, the patient was reported to have only a breast carcinoma. MDA-MB-435 cells can be induced to secrete milk lipids (29) and have a propensity to metastasize from mammary gland, but not from subcutaneous sites (30). Both cell lines form progressively growing tumors when injected into the mammary fat pads of immunocompromised mice. MDA-MB-435 cells develop macroscopic metastases in the lungs and regional lymph nodes by 10–12 weeks postinoculation but rarely metastasize after direct injection into the lateral tail vein. The opposite pattern exists for MDA-MB-231 in athymic mice.

The cell lines were cultured in a mixture (1:1, v/v) of Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium and Ham's F12 medium (Invitrogen) supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine, 1 mM sodium pyruvate, 0.02 mM non-essential amino acids, and 5% fetal bovine serum (Atlanta Biologicals, Norcross, GA) without antibiotics or anti-mycotics. All cultures were confirmed negative for Mycoplasma spp. infection using a PCR-based test (TaKaRa, Shiga, Japan). Cells were maintained on 100-mm Corning tissue culture dishes at 37 °C with 5% CO₂ in a humidified atmosphere. When cultures reached 80–90% confluence they were passaged using a solution of 2 mM EDTA in Ca²⁺/Mg²⁺-free Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline.

Constructs and Transductions—BRMS1 mutants were created by QuikChange II site-directed mutagenesis (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA) and were confirmed by DNA sequencing. The constructs were amplified by PCR with BamHI and XhoI restriction enzyme digestion sites at each end. After enzyme digestion, the products were ligated into the lentivirus vector vesicular stomatitis virus G (31). Packaging and transfection of the lentivirus in 293T cells and transduction of the MDA-MB-231 and -435 cells were described previously (17, 32, 33). Single cell clones were obtained and screened for expression of BRMS1 or BRMS1 mutants by Western blotting.

Yeast Two-hybrid Analysis—The Y2H screen was performed essentially as described (34, 35). Briefly, BRMS1 or BRMS1 mutant cDNA was cloned in-frame with the Gal4 DNA-binding domain into the pDEST32 vector (Invitrogen), and ARID4A corresponding to the C-terminal amino acids 1007–1257, amplified from human breast cDNA library, was cloned in-frame with the Gal4 activation domain into the pGAD424 vector (Clontech, Mountain View, CA). The yeast Y190 strain was co-transformed with these vectors and grown on synthetic defined/Trp^–/Leu^– plates at 30 °C until colonies reached 1–3 mm in diameter. The colonies were lifted by filter paper, lysed in liquid N₂, and inverted onto another filter soaked with Z buffer/5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-β-D-galactopyranoside (X-gal) solution. β-Galactosidase activity was observed by color change and visually measured corresponding to time as follows: ++, blue within 4 h; +, blue within 4–8 h; and –, longer than 8 h.

Antibodies, Co-immunoprecipitation, and Western Blotting—The monoclonal antibody 1a5.7 directed against a peptide corresponding to the C terminus of BRMS1 (²³¹KARAAVSPQKRKSDGP²⁴⁶) was generated and validated by Western blotting, immunoprecipitation, and mass spectroscopy. Other antibodies used in this study were purchased as indicated: anti-ARID4A clone LY11 (Upstate Biotechnology, Lake Placid, NY), anti-osteopontin (Sigma-Aldrich), and anti-lamin A/C and anti-EGFR (Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers, MA). Co-immunoprecipitation with 1a5.7 was performed as described previously for other antibodies (17) except that protein L-agarose (Pierce) was used in place of protein A/G-agarose. Western blotting was also performed as described except that mouse TrueBlot (eBioscience, San Diego, CA) was used as the secondary antibody for the immunoprecipitated samples.

Reporter Assays—BRMS1 or BRMS1 mutant cDNA was cloned into the pBIND vector (Promega, Madison, WI). COS-7 cells were co-transfected with pBIND and pG5luc vectors using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). Cells were rinsed once with phosphate-buffered saline and lysed with passive lysis buffer (Promega). Luciferase activity was measured with the Dual-Luciferase assay (Promega) using an AutoLumat LB 953 luminometer (Berthold Technologies, Oak Ridge, TN). Renilla luciferase (phRL-SV40; Promega) was used as a transfection control.

Metastasis Assays—Spontaneous and experimental metastasis assays were performed as described previously (4, 5). Ten mice per experimental group were used. The vector-only MDA-MB-231 and -435 cells were previously shown to have the same metastatic phenotype as the parental cells and thus were not included as a control in all experiments to limit the number of animals used (4, 5, 33). Animals were maintained under the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. All protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Food and water were provided ad libitum.

Statistical Analyses—The number of lung metastases was compared for BRMS1- and BRMS1 mutant-transduced cell lines with the parental or vector-only transduced lines. A Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance of ranks procedure was used with Dunn's post hoc test. Calculations were performed using SigmaStat statistical analysis software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Statistical significance was defined as a probability p 0.05.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Second Coiled-coil Domain of BRMS1 Interacts with ARID4A—The direct interaction of BRMS1 with ARID4A was previously identified by Y2H screening, but the region of BRMS1 necessary for interaction had not been determined. Mutants containing gross deletions of BRMS1 were generated and screened by Y2H analysis with ARID4A to map this interaction. Because of their roles in protein-protein interaction, we focused on disruption of the putative coiled-coil domains. Deletion of the first coiled-coil domain between residues 61 and 92, BRMS1^CC1, had no impact on ARID4A binding (Fig. 1). However, deletion of the second coiled-coil domain between residues 130 and 187, BRMS1^CC2, abolished this interaction. Truncation of BRMS1 at residue 137 also failed to elicit an interaction with ARID4A. Further analyses showed that the second coiled-coil domain alone, between residues 147 and 180, could interact with ARID4A, demonstrating that this domain was necessary and sufficient for interaction. Partial deletion of the N or C terminus of this domain, BRMS1^CC2:N or BRMS1^CC2:C, disrupted interaction with ARID4A.

Point Mutant BRMS1^L174D Abolishes Direct Interaction with ARID4A—A series of BRMS1 point mutants were generated in the second coiled-coil domain and screened for interaction with ARID4A by Y2H analysis (Fig. 1). Because deletion of the last seven amino acids in this domain, BRMS1^CC2:N, disrupted interaction with ARID4A, mutations were selected in this region between residues 174 and 180. Conservative mutations, BRMS1^D175A and BRMS1^S177A, maintained a strong interaction with ARID4A. Addition of a charged side chain, BRMS1^L176D, also maintained a strong interaction. However, the same mutation two amino acids upstream, BRMS1^L174D, abolished the interaction with ARID4A.

ARID4A Maintains Indirect Association with BRMS1^L174D but Not BRMS1^CC1—Stable cell lines were generated using two metastatic breast cancer cell lines, MDA-MB-231 and -435, with a BRMS1 mutant that maintains direct interaction with ARID4A, BRMS1^CC1, and the point mutant BRMS1^L174D, which disrupted ARID4A-BRMS1^L174D interaction. Co-immunoprecipitation of BRMS1 or BRMS1 mutants with the BRMS1 monoclonal antibody, 1a5.7, demonstrated that BRMS1^L174D indirectly associated with ARID4A, whereas BRMS1^CC1 was not able to associate with ARID4A in these breast carcinoma cell lines (Fig. 2).

BRMS1 Mutant Differentially Regulates Gene Expression—As part of a co-repressor complex, BRMS1 was previously found to repress basal transcription using a luciferase reporter assay (14). Disrupting the direct interaction of BRMS1-ARID4A with the point mutant BRMS1^L174D also inhibited suppression of basal transcription (Fig. 3A). Down-regulation of the pro-metastatic protein OPN by BRMS1 has been proposed to be important for BRMS1-mediated metastasis suppression (9).⁴ BRMS1^L174D, but not BRMS1^CC1, down-regulated OPN expression (Fig. 3B). More recently, BRMS1 was found to specifically down-regulate EGFR when BRMS1 was re-expressed in both cell lines.⁵ Both of the BRMS1 mutants, BRMS1^L174D and BRMS1^CC1, retained the ability to down-regulate EGFR (Fig. 3C).

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 1. Map of BRMS1-ARID4A interactions by yeast two-hybrid screening. The BRMS1 domain structure and the regions that were deleted or mutated are shown schematically. ARID4A was fused to the Gal4 activation domain, and BRMS1 or BRMS1 mutant was fused to the Gal4 DNA-binding domain as described under "Experimental Procedures." The relative strength of the interaction was estimated by color change: ++, blue within 4 h; +, blue between 4 and 8 h; –, longer than 8 h. The second coiled-coil domain of BRMS1 (amino acids 147–180, BRMS1CC2) was found to be necessary and sufficient for interaction with ARID4A. Because deletion of amino acids 174–180 in the second coiled-coil domain (BRMS1CC2:N) abolished ARID4A interaction, point mutants were generated in this region by site-directed mutagenesis. The point mutant BRMS1L174D was found to disrupt ARID4A interaction. β-gal, β-galactosidase; NLS, nuclear localization sequence.

CC1

View larger version (56K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 2. ARID4A maintains indirect association with BRMS1L174D but not BRMS1CC1. Top panels, co-immunoprecipitation of ARID4A with a monoclonal antibody directed to the C terminus of BRMS1 was performed with human breast cell lines expressing BRMS1 or BRMS1 mutants. Although BRMS1L174D does not directly interact with ARID4A, it was able to co-immunoprecipitate ARID4A in both cell lines, suggesting that a SIN3·HDAC complex including these proteins is intact. Co-immunoprecipitation of ARID4A with BRMS1CC1, which interacts with ARID4A by Y2H screening, was undetectable in MDA-MB-231 and significantly reduced in MDA-MB-435, suggesting that other BRMS1-protein interactions are necessary to enable the BRMS1-ARID4A interaction (modeled in Fig. 5). Bottom panels, whole cell lysates were probed with the BRMS1 antibody. Each panel represents a single blot with three lanes removed that were samples containing additional BRMS1 mutants (unrelated to current study). The blots were otherwise not modified. Parent represents the non-transduced cell lines, and the numbers represent single-cell clones of the respective transduction. Although expression of the CC1 and L174D mutants in MDA-MB-435 cells is not equal, the biological behaviors (i.e. metastasis, EGFR expression, etc.) replicate the findings in MDA-MB-231 transductants. IP, immunoprecipitation; IB, immunoblot.

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

BRMS1 is a predominantly nuclear protein that suppresses metastasis in multiple xenograft model systems by inhibiting multiple steps of the metastatic cascade (36). BRMS1 protein contains several potential protein-binding domains including coiled-coil and imperfect leucine zippers, and previous reports demonstrated that BRMS1 interacts with ARID4A as part of large (1.2 MDa) SIN3·HDAC complex(es) (15–18, 37). Because BRMS1 has been shown to affect the transcription of multiple genes that are known to play a role in metastasis and SIN3·HDAC complexes epigenetically regulate gene expression, we asked if the direct interaction of BRMS1-ARID4A was necessary for BRMS1-mediated metastasis suppression. To test this hypothesis, the domain of BRMS1 required for ARID4A interaction was mapped, and a point mutant that disrupted this interaction was generated. Unexpectedly, we found that metastasis was still suppressed with BRMS1 mutants that did not associate with ARID4A either directly, BRMS1^L174D, or indirectly, BRMS1^CC1. These studies have enabled us to propose a model of how BRMS1 is associated with a SIN3·HDAC complex (Fig. 5).

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 3. BRMS1 mutants specifically down-regulate EGFR but do not repress basal transcription. A, basal transcription was measured by a Dual-Luciferase reporter assay. BRMS1L174D did not significantly repress transcription compared with pBIND vector control. All values are normalized to control, and error bars represent S.E. from three replicates of two independent experiments. B, immunoblotting of serum-free medium shows differential down-regulation of OPN by BRMS1mut. Loading was normalized according to cell number as determined by a hemocytometer. C, immunoblotting of whole cell lysate shows that although basal transcription and OPN expression are affected, BRMS1mut still specifically down-regulates EGFR, which has been shown to affect downstream signaling (see Footnote 5).

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 4. BRMS1 mutants suppress metastasis. The table on the left shows the incidence and the mean number of lung metastases for each group. The data are shown graphically on the right with black dots representing the number of lung metastases from each mouse; the box represents the 10th and 90th percentiles, and the black line is the mean for each group. The MDA-MB-231 parental cell line had seven mice that had too many metastases to count and were conservatively assigned a value of 100.

Initially the data between the Y2H screening and co-immunoprecipitation appear discordant. However, the findings are entirely internally consistent once one considers how the complex as a whole interacts. Previous studies have shown that suppressor of defective silencing 3 (SUDS3, mammalian SDS3) is in the same SIN3·HDAC complex (17, 37). Combined with recent Y2H preliminary data⁶ showing that BRMS1^L174D directly interacts with SUDS3, whereas BRMS1^CC1 does not, it is tempting to speculate that SUDS3-BRMS1 interaction is required as a tether for the ARID4A-BRMS1 interaction. This provides a rational explanation for why BRMS1^CC1 does not co-immunoprecipitate ARID4A in human breast cancer cells, whereas BRMS1^L174D does co-immunoprecipitate ARID4A.

The direct interaction of ARID4A with BRMS1 in Y2H screening required the second coiled-coil domain of BRMS1. CC2 was both necessary and sufficient for the interaction. It is possible that, in addition to a sequence-specific CC2-ARID4A interaction, gross CC2 mutations or deletions could change the tertiary structure of BRMS1, which, in turn, could directly or indirectly alter other regions of the BRMS1 protein. If true, then it is possible that some of the larger mutations introduced into BRMS1 might affect folding-based, protein-protein interactions. For example, it is also not yet known whether the two coiled-coil domains of BRMS1 (CC1 and CC2) are involved in an intramolecular interaction necessary to create an ARID4A binding site. That would not appear to be the case because amino acid residues 147–180 (within CC2) are sufficient for the ARID4A interaction to occur.

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 5. BRMS1 binding to the SIN3·HDAC complex is mediated by one or more complex components. BRMS1 and ARID4A are shown interacting with a SIN3·HDAC complex(es) that is not yet completely defined. BRMS1L174D is unable to directly interact with ARID4A, but both proteins remain associated via other interactions. The binding of BRMS1L174D to the complex may change the overall composition (depicted by a change in shading) and/or change the structure but insufficiently to disrupt ARID4A complex association. BRMS1CC1 may no longer associate with the complex, even though it has the ability to directly interact with ARID4A. Again, the structure-function of the overall complex would determine the selectivity of transcriptional regulation and/or metastasis suppression. co-IP, co-immunoprecipitation.

The fact that both BRMS1^L174D and BRMS1^CC1 mutants suppress metastasis was also surprising. If the SIN3·HDAC complex is required for BRMS1-mediated metastasis suppression, then one would predict that neither mutant would suppress metastasis. However, those were not the data. An alternative possibility is that the SIN3·HDAC complex(es) in the parent cells (which have little to no detectable levels of BRMS1) is required for the coordinate expression of genes necessary for metastasis. Changing the stoichiometric balance and/or the prevalence of the component proteins could significantly affect gene expression patterns that, in turn, regulate cancer metastasis. The latter hypothesis is supported by the finding that the BRMS1 mutants still maintain the ability to interact with (at least some) members of the SIN3·HDAC complexes. At present, it is not possible to determine whether BRMS1 re-expression has changed the overall equilibrium that leads to specific functional differences. By disrupting direct ARID4A-BRMS1 interactions using BRMS1^L174D, basal transcription was no longer repressed as evidenced by the Gal4-luciferase reporter assay. Yet OPN was specifically down-regulated by BRMS1^L174D, but not BRMS1^CC1, whereas both BRMS1^L174D and BRMS1^CC1 mutants maintained the ability to down-regulate EGFR. Together, these findings demonstrate how the downstream functions of BRMS1-based multiprotein complexes could change by modifying the equilibrium of individual proteins. We are cautious, however, because a definitive role for EGFR changes in BRMS1-mediated metastasis suppression has not yet been definitively established.

The possibility also exists that BRMS1^L174D or BRMS1^CC1 may suppress metastasis by affecting different steps in the metastatic cascade. Unfortunately, a robust in vitro assay that predicts metastasis suppression has not yet been identified. Therefore, it is not currently possible to directly test this hypothesis. Also, although unlikely, it is possible that the metastasis suppression caused by BRMS1^mut may be via a different mechanism than BRMS1. Again, testing this possibility will require an in vitro surrogate assay.

Although the primary focus of this study was the interaction of BRMS1 with ARID4A, other BRMS1 protein interactions could have been affected by mutating BRMS1, including NFB, BAF57, N-Myc interactor, and/or CCG1. All of these transcription complex components could affect the ability of BRMS1 to suppress metastasis. Whether these complexes are distinct from or associated with SIN3·HDAC is presently not known.

Clearly, future studies are necessary to characterize these BRMS1 interactions to understand how each complex is involved in metastasis so that it will be possible to identify specific transcriptional targets relevant to cancer metastasis. Nonetheless, without understanding the exact mechanism by which the BRMS1 mutants suppress metastasis, it is exciting to postulate that minimal domains of BRMS1 or perhaps small peptides or inhibitors that modify these protein-protein interactions could inhibit metastasis.

	FOOTNOTES

 
^* This work was supported by United States Public Health Service Grants CA87728 (to D. R. W.) and F32CA113037 (to D. R. H.), a grant from the National Foundation for Cancer Research Center for Metastasis Research (to D. R. W.), and Susan G. Komen for the Cure Grants PDF1122006 (to K. S. V.) and BCTR0503488 (to R. S. S.). 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.

¹ Both authors contributed equally to this work.

² To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Pathology, 1670 University Blvd., Rm. VH-G019, Birmingham, AL 35294-0019. Tel.: 205-934-2961; Fax: 205-975-1126; E-mail: DanWelch{at}uab.edu.

³ The abbreviations used are: BRMS1, breast cancer metastasis suppressor 1; ARID4A, AT-rich interactive domain 4A; SUDS3, suppressor of defective silencing 3; SIN3, SWI-independent 3; HDAC, histone deacetylase; Y2H, yeast two-hybrid; OPN, osteopontin; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; CC, coiled-coil domain.

⁴ Hedley, B. D., Welch, D. R., Allan, A. L., Al-Katib, W., Dales, D. W., Postenka, C. O., Casey, G., MacDonald, I. C., and Chambers, A. F. (2008) Int. J. Cancer, in press.

⁵ K. S. Vaidya, S. Harihar, P. A. Phadke, L. J. Stafford, D. G. Hicks, G. Casey, D. B. Dewald, and D. R. Welch, submitted for publication.

⁶ A. C. Silveira and D. R. Welch, manuscript in preparation.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
We thank Dr. Janet Price (University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center) for generously providing the MDA-MB-231 and -435 cells and Drs. John Kappes and Yujiang Jia for generating the lentiviruses for infection. We also thank Dr. Joe Stafford for helping with the animal studies and members of the Welch laboratory for critical reading of the manuscript.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 

1. Eccles, S. A., and Welch, D. R. (2007) Lancet 369, 1742–1757[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Langley, R. R., and Fidler, I. J. (2007) Endocr. Rev. 28, 297–321[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Nguyen, D. X., and Massagué, J. (2007) Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 341–352[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Seraj, M. J., Samant, R. S., Verderame, M. F., and Welch, D. R. (2000) Cancer Res. 60, 2764–2769[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Samant, R. S., Seraj, M. J., Saunders, M. M., Sakamaki, T., Shevde, L. A., Harms, J. F., Leonard, T. O., Goldberg, S. F., Budgeon, L. R., Meehan, W. J., Winter, C. R., Christensen, N. D., Verderame, M. F., Donahue, H. J., and Welch, D. R. (2001) Clin. Exp. Metastasis 18, 683–693[CrossRef]
6. Shevde, L. A., Samant, R. S., Goldberg, S. F., Sikaneta, T., Alessandrini, A., Donahue, H. J., Mauger, D. T., and Welch, D. R. (2002) Exp. Cell Res. 273, 229–239[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Zhang, S., Lin, Q. D., and Di, W. (2006) Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 16, 522–531[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Cicek, M., Fukuyama, R., Welch, D. R., Sizemore, N., and Casey, G. (2005) Cancer Res. 65, 3586–3595[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Samant, R. S., Clark, D. W., Fillmore, R. A., Cicek, M., Metge, B. J., Chandramouli, K. H., Chambers, A. F., Casey, G., Welch, D. R., and Shevde, L. A. (2007) Mol. Cancer 6: 6 10.1186/1476–4598–6–6[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10. Saunders, M. M., Seraj, M. J., Li, Z. Y., Zhou, Z. Y., Winter, C. R., Welch, D. R., and Donahue, H. J. (2001) Cancer Res. 61, 1765–1767[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Champine, P. J., Michaelson, J., Weimer, B., Welch, D. R., and DeWald, D. B. (2007) Clin. Exp. Metastasis 24, 551–565[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Cicek, M., Samant, R. S., Kinter, M., Welch, D. R., and Casey, G. (2004) Clin. Exp. Metastasis 21, 149–157[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Rivera, J., Megias, D., and Bravo, J. (2007) J. Proteome Res. 6, 4006–4018[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Hicks, D. G., Yoder, B. J., Short, S., Tarr, S., Prescott, N., Crowe, J. P., Dawson, A. E., Budd, G. T., Sizemore, S., Cicek, M., Choueiri, T., Tubbs, R. R., Gaile, D., Nowak, N., Accavitti-Loper, M. A., Frost, A. R., Welch, D. R., and Casey, G. (2006) Clin. Cancer Res. 12, 6702–6708[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Nikolaev, A. Y., Papanikolaou, N. A., Li, M., Qin, J., and Gu, W. (2004) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 323, 1216–1222[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Doyon, Y., Cayrou, C., Ullah, M., Landry, A. J., Cote, V., Selleck, W., Lane, W. S., Tan, S., Yang, X. J., and Cote, J. (2006) Mol. Cell 21, 51–64[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Hurst, D. R., Mehta, A., Moore, B. P., Phadke, P. A., Meehan, W. J., Accavitti, M. A., Shevde, L. A., Hopper, J. E., Xie, Y., Welch, D. R., and Samant, R. S. (2006) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 348, 1429–1435[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Le Guezennec, X., Vermeulen, M., and Stunnenberg, H. G. (2006) Nucleic Acids Res. 34, 3929–3937[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Liu, Y., Smith, P. W., and Jones, D. R. (2006) Mol. Cell. Biol. 26, 8683–8696[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Fattaey, A. R., Helin, K., Dembski, M. S., Dyson, N., Harlow, E., Vuocolo, G. A., Hanobik, M. G., Haskell, K. M., Oliff, A., and DeFeo-Jones, D. (1993) Oncogene 8, 3149–3156[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21. Lai, A., Lee, J. M., Yang, W. M., DeCaprio, J. A., Kaelin, W. G., Jr., Seto, E., and Branton, P. E. (1999) Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 6632–6641[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Lai, A., Marcellus, R. C., Corbeil, H. B., and Branton, P. E. (1999) Oncogene 18, 2091–2100[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
23. Silverstein, R. A., and Ekwall, K. (2005) Curr. Genet. 47, 1–17[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Binda, O., Roy, J. S., and Branton, P. E. (2006) Mol. Cell. Biol. 26, 1917–1931[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Cailleau, R., Young, R., Olive, M., and Reeves, W. J. (1974) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 53, 661–674[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26. Cailleau, R., Olive, M., and Cruciger, Q. V. J. (1978) In Vitro 14, 911–915[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
27. Ross, D. T., Scherf, U., Eisen, M. B., Perou, C. M., Rees, C., Spellman, P., Iyer, V., Jeffrey, S. S., Van de Rijn, M., Waltham, M., Pergamenschikov, A., Lee, J. C. F., Lashkari, D., Shalon, D., Myers, T. G., Weinstein, J. N., Botstein, D., and Brown, P. O. (2000) Nat. Genet. 24, 227–235[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Rae, J. M., Creighton, C. J., Meck, J. M., Haddad, B. R., and Johnson, M. D. (2007) Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 104, 13–19[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
29. Sellappan, S., Grijalva, R., Zhou, X. Y., Yang, W. T., BarEli, M., Mills, G. B., and Yu, D. H. (2004) Cancer Res. 64, 3479–3485[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Welch, D. R. (1997) Clin. Exp. Metastasis 15, 272–306[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Naldini, L., Blomer, U., Gallay, P., Ory, D., Mulligan, R., Gage, F. H., Verma, I. M., and Trono, D. (1996) Science 272, 263–267[Abstract]
32. Nash, K. T., Phadke, P. A., Navenot, J.-M., Hurst, D. R., Accavitti-Loper, M. A., Sztul, E., Vaidya, K. S., Frost, A. R., Kappes, J. C., Peiper, S. C., and Welch, D. R. (2007) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99, 309–321[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Phadke, P. A., Mercer, R. R., Harms, J. F., Jia, Y., Frost, A. R., Jewell, J., Bussard, K. M., Nelson, S., Moore, C., Kappes, J. C., Gay, C. V., Mastro, A. M., and Welch, D. R. (2006) Clin. Cancer Res. 12, 1431–1440[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Vidal, M., Braun, P., Chen, E., Boeke, J. D., and Harlow, E. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 10321–10326[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. Vidal, M., and Legrain, P. (1999) Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 919–929[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Phadke, P. A., Vaidya, K. S., Nash, K. T., Hurst, D. R., and Welch, D. R. (2008) Am. J. Pathol., in press
37. Meehan, W. J., Samant, R. S., Hopper, J. E., Carrozza, M. J., Shevde, L. A., Workman, J. L., Eckert, K. A., Verderame, M. F., and Welch, D. R. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 1562–1569[Abstract/Free Full Text]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. R. Welch Metastasis Suppressors: Discovery, Mechanisms, and Translation into Clinical Practice Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Educ. Book, April 18, 2009; 2009(1): 191 - 195. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R. Hurst, M. D. Edmonds, G. K. Scott, C. C. Benz, K. S. Vaidya, and D. R. Welch Breast Cancer Metastasis Suppressor 1 Up-regulates miR-146, Which Suppresses Breast Cancer Metastasis Cancer Res., February 15, 2009; 69(4): 1279 - 1283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. S. Vaidya, S. Harihar, P. A. Phadke, L. J. Stafford, D. R. Hurst, D. G. Hicks, G. Casey, D. B. DeWald, and D. R. Welch Breast Cancer Metastasis Suppressor-1 Differentially Modulates Growth Factor Signaling J. Biol. Chem., October 17, 2008; 283(42): 28354 - 28360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 283/12/7438    most recent M709446200v1 Submit a Letter to Editor Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hurst, D. R. Articles by Welch, D. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hurst, D. R. Articles by Welch, D. R. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?