Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia
Published in: Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia 3/2019

01-09-2019 | Breast Cancer

How to Choose a Mouse Model of Breast Cancer, a Genomic Perspective

Authors: Matthew R. Swiatnicki, Eran R. Andrechek

Published in: Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia | Issue 3/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Human breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with numerous subtypes that have been defined through immunohistological, histological, and gene expression patterns. The diversity of breast cancer has made the study of its various underlying causes complex. To facilitate the examination of particular facets of breast cancer, mouse models have been generated, ranging from carcinogen induced models to genetically engineered mice. While mouse models have been generated to mimic the initiating event, including p53 loss, BRCA loss, or overexpression of HER2 / Neu / erbB2, other genomic events are often not well characterized. However, these secondary genetic events are often critical to the mouse tumor evolution, subtype, and outcome, just as they are in human breast cancer. As such, these other genomic events are a critical component of what models are chosen to study specific subtypes of human breast cancer. Here we review the genomic analyses that have been completed for various genetically engineered mouse models, how they compare to human breast cancer, and detail how this information can be used in choosing a mouse model for analysis.
Literature
1.
Greenough RB (1925) Varying degrees of malignancy in cancer of the breast.
2.
3.
Perou CMCM, Sørile T, Eisen MBMB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406:747–52.PubMed
4.
5.
Malhotra GK, Zhao X, Band H, Band V. Histological, molecular and functional subtypes of breast cancers. Cancer Biol Ther. 2010;10:955–60.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Tavassoli FA DP (2003) Tumours of the Breast World Heal Organ.
7.
Li CI, Anderson BO, Daling JR, Moe RE. Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. JAMA. 2003;289:1421.PubMed
8.
Dieci MV, Orvieto E, Dominici M, Conte P, Guarneri V. Rare breast Cancer subtypes: histological, molecular, and clinical peculiarities. Oncologist. 2014;19:805–13.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Ellis IO, Galea M, Broughton N, Locker A, Blamey RW, Elston CW. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1992;20:479–89.PubMed
10.
Morrogh M, Andrade VP, Giri D, Sakr RA, Paik W, Qin L-X, et al. Cadherin-catenin complex dissociation in lobular Neoplasia of the breast HHS public access. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;132:641–52.PubMed
11.
Ciriello G, Gatza ML, Beck AH, Wilkerson MD, Rhie SK, Pastore A, et al. Comprehensive molecular portraits of invasive lobular breast Cancer. Cell. 2015;163:506–19.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Wasif N, Maggard MA, Ko CY, Giuliano AE. Invasive lobular vs. ductal breast Cancer: a stage-matched comparison of outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1862–9.PubMed
13.
van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van ‘t Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1999–2009.PubMed
14.
15.
Prat A, Pineda E, Adamo B, Galván P, Fernández A, Gaba L, et al. Clinical implications of the intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Breast. 2015;24:S26–35.PubMed
16.
Prat A, Cheang MCU, Martín M, Parker JS, Carrasco E, Caballero R, et al. Prognostic significance of progesterone receptor-positive tumor cells within immunohistochemically defined luminal a breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:203–9.PubMed
17.
Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheung MCU, et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1160–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L, Weigelt B, Nuyten DSA, Nobel AB, et al. Concordance among gene-expression–based predictors for breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:560–9.PubMed
19.
Fan C, Prat A, Parker JS, Liu Y, Carey LA, Troester MA, et al. Building prognostic models for breast cancer patients using clinical variables and hundreds of gene expression signatures. BMC Med Genet. 2011;4(3).
20.
Prat A, Bianchini G, Thomas M, Belousov A, Cheang MCU, Koehler A, et al. Research-based PAM50 subtype predictor identifies higher responses and improved survival outcomes in HER2- positive breast cancer in the NOAH study. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:511–21.PubMed
21.
Banerjee S, Reis-Filho JS, Ashley S, Steele D, Ashworth A, Lakhani SR, et al. Basal-like breast carcinomas: clinical outcome and response to chemotherapy. J Clin Pathol. 2006;59:729–35.PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Prat A, Cruz C, Hoadley KA, Díez O, Perou CM, Balmaña J. Molecular features of the basal-like breast cancer subtype based on BRCA1 mutation status. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;147:185–91.PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Derose YS, Wang G, Lin YC, et al. Tumor grafts derived from women with breast cancer authentically reflect tumor pathology, growth, metastasis and disease outcomes. Nat Med. 2011;17:1514–20.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Zhang X, Lewis MT. Establishment of patient-derived Xenograft (PDX) models of human breast Cancer. Curr Protoc Mouse Biol. 2013;3:21–9.PubMed
25.
Julien S, Merino-Trigo A, Lacroix L, Pocard M, Goere D, Mariani P, et al. Characterization of a large panel of patient-derived tumor xenografts representing the clinical heterogeneity of human colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:5314–28.PubMed
26.
du Manoir S, Orsetti B, Bras-Gonçalves R, Nguyen TT, Lasorsa L, Boissière F, et al. Breast tumor PDXs are genetically plastic and correspond to a subset of aggressive cancers prone to relapse. Mol Oncol. 2014;8:431–43.PubMed
27.
Kuracha MR, Thomas P, Loggie BW, Govindarajan V. Patient-derived xenograft mouse models of pseudomyxoma peritonei recapitulate the human inflammatory tumor microenvironment. Cancer Med. 2016;5:711–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Villacorta-Martin C, Craig AJ, Villanueva A. Divergent evolutionary trajectories in transplanted tumor models. Nat Genet. 2017;49:1565–6.PubMed
29.
Guenot D, Guérin E, Aguillon-Romain S, Pencreach E, Schneider A, Neuville A, et al. Primary tumour genetic alterations and intra-tumoral heterogeneity are maintained in xenografts of human colon cancers showing chromosome instability. J Pathol. 2006;208:643–52.PubMed
30.
Yamagiwa K, Ichikawa K. Experimental study of the pathogenesis of carcinoma. J Cancer Res. 1918;27:123–81.
31.
Pazos P, Lanari C, Meiss R, Charreau EH, Dosne Pasqualini C. Mammary carcinogenesis induced by N-methyl-N-nitrosourea (MNU) and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) in BALB/c mice. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1991;20:133–8.
32.
Bonser M (1954) The Evolution of mammary cancer induced in female IF mice with minimal doses of locally acting methylcholanthrene.
33.
Abba MC, Zhong Y, Lee J, Kil H, Lu Y, Takata Y, et al. DMBA induced mouse mammary tumors display high incidence of activating Pik3ca and loss of function Pten mutations. Oncotarget. 2016;7:64289–99.PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Currier N, Solomon SE, Demicco EG, Chang DLF, Farago M, Ying H, et al. Oncogenic signaling pathways activated in DMBA-induced mouse mammary tumors. Toxicol Pathol. 2005;33:726–37.PubMed
35.
Rehm S. Chemically induced mammary gland adenomyoepitheliomas and myoepithelial carcinomas of mice. Immunohistochemical and ultrastructural features. Am J Pathol. 1990;136:575–84.PubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Behbod F, Kittrell FS, LaMarca H, Edwards D, Kerbawy S, Heestand JC, et al. An intraductal human-in-mouse transplantation model mimics the subtypes of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res. 2009;11:R66.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Valdez KE, Fan F, Smith W, Allred DC, Medina D, Behbod F. Human primary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) subtype-specific pathology is preserved in a mouse intraductal (MIND) xenograft model. J Pathol. 2011;225:565–73.PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
D’Cruz CM, Gunther EJ, Boxer RB, et al. C-MYC induces mammary tumorigenesis by means of a preferred pathway involving spontaneous Kras2 mutations. Nat Med. 2001;7:235–9.PubMed
39.
Andrechek ER, Cardiff RD, Chang JT, Gatza ML, Acharya CR, Potti A, et al. Genetic heterogeneity of Myc-induced mammary tumors reflecting diverse phenotypes including metastatic potential. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:16387–92.PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Ivics ZN, Hackett PB, Plasterk RH, Izsvá Z. Molecular reconstruction of sleeping beauty, a Tc1-like transposon from fish, and its transposition in human cells its original location and promotes its reintegration else- where in the genome (Plasterk, 1996). Autonomous mem- bers of a transposon family can express an active trans- posase, the trans-acting factor for transposition, and thus are capable of transposing on their own. Nonauton Cell. 1997;91:501–10.PubMed
41.
Drabek D, Zagoraiou L, DeWit T, Langeveld A, Roumpaki C, Mamalaki C, et al. Transposition of the Drosophila hydei Minos transposon in the mouse germ line. Genomics. 2003;81:108–11.PubMed
42.
Ding S, Wu X, Li G, Han M, Zhuang Y, Xu T. Efficient transposition of the piggyBac (PB) transposon in mammalian cells and mice. Cell. 2005;122:473–83.PubMed
43.
Collier LS, Carlson CM, Ravimohan S, Dupuy AJ, Largaespada DA. Cancer gene discovery in solid tumours using transposon-based somatic mutagenesis in the mouse. Nature. 2005;436:272–6.PubMed
44.
Kas SM, De Ruiter JR, Schipper K, et al. Insertional mutagenesis identifies drivers of a novel oncogenic pathway in invasive lobular breast carcinoma. Nat Genet. 2017;49:1219–30.PubMed
45.
Stewart TA, Pattengale PK, Leder P. Spontaneous mammary adenocarcinomas in transgenic mice that carry and express MTV/myc fusion genes. Cell. 1984;38:627–37.PubMed
46.
Andres A-C, Schonenberger C-A, Groner B, Hennighausent L, Lemeur M, Gerlinger P. Ha-ras oncogene expression directed by a milk protein gene promoter: tissue specificity, hormonal regulation, and tumor induction in transgenic mice (whey acidic protein gene/whey acidic protein-ras transgene/Y chromosome integration/mammary gland tumors/salivary gland tumors). Dev Biol. 1987;84:1299–303.
47.
Vassar R, Rosenberg M, Rosst S, Tyner A, Fuchs E (1989) Tissue-specific and differentiation-specific expression of a human K14 keratin gene in transgenic mice (stratified squamous epithelia), Tissue-specific and differentiation-specific expression of a human K14 keratin gene in transgenic mice.
48.
Jackson EL, Willis N, Mercer K, Bronson RT, Crowley D, Montoya R, et al. Analysis of lung tumor initiation and progression using conditional expression of oncogenic K-ras. Genes Dev. 2001;15:3243–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Muller WJ, Sinn E, Pattengale PK, Wallace R, Leder P. Single-step induction of mammary adenocarcinoma in transgenic mice bearing the activated c-neu oncogene. Cell. 1988;54:105–15.PubMed
50.
Gunther EJ, Belka GK, Wertheim GBW, Wang J, Hartman JL, Boxer RB, et al. A novel doxycycline-inducible system for the transgenic analysis of mammary gland biology. FASEB J. 2002;16:283–92.PubMed
51.
Debies MT, Gestl SA, Mathers JL, Mikse OR, Leonard TL, Moody SE, et al. Tumor escape in a Wnt1-dependent mouse breast cancer model is enabled by p19Arf/p53 pathway lesions but not p16Ink4a loss. J Clin Invest. 2008;118:51–63.PubMed
52.
Moody SE, Sarkisian CJ, Hahn KT, Gunther EJ, Pickup S, Dugan KD, et al. Conditional activation of Neu in the mammary epithelium of transgenic mice results in reversible pulmonary metastasis. Cancer Cell. 2002;2:451–61.PubMed
53.
Podsypanina K, Politi K, Beverly LJ, Varmus HE. Oncogene cooperation in tumor maintenance and tumor recurrence in mouse mammary tumors induced by Myc and mutant Kras. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008;105:5242–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Demarest RM, Dahmane N, Capobianco AJ. Notch is oncogenic dominant in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood. 2011;117:2901–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Wang X, Cunningham M, Zhang X, Tokarz S, Laraway B, Troxell M, et al. Phosphorylation regulates c-Myc’s oncogenic activity in the mammary gland. Cancer Res. 2011;71:925–36.PubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Andrechek ER. Amplification of the neu/erbB-2 oncogene in a mouse model of mammary tumorigenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2000;97:3444–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Andrechek ER, Hardy WR, Laing MA, Muller WJ (2004) Germ-line expression of an oncogenic erbB2 allele confers resistance to erbB2-induced mammary tumorigenesis.
58.
Liu DP, Song H, Xu Y. A common gain of function of p53 cancer mutants in inducing genetic instability. Oncogene. 2010;29:949–56.PubMed
59.
Yuan W, Stawiski E, Janakiraman V, et al. Conditional activation of Pik3ca H1047R in a knock-in mouse model promotes mammary tumorigenesis and emergence of mutations. Oncogene. 2013;3253:318–26.
60.
Cressman VL, Backlund DC, Hicks EM, Gowen LC, Godfrey V, Koller BH. Mammary tumor formation in p53- and BRCA1-deficient mice. Cell Growth Differ. 1999;10:1–10.PubMed
61.
Rao T, Ranger JJ, Smith HW, Lam SH, Chodosh L, Muller WJ (2014) Inducible and coupled expression of the polyomavirus middle T antigen and Cre recombinase in transgenic mice: an in vivo model for synthetic viability in mammary tumour progression. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​bcr3603.
62.
Ranger JJ, Levy DE, Shahalizadeh S, Hallett M, Muller WJ. Identification of a Stat3-dependent transcription regulatory network involved in metastatic progression. Cancer Res. 2009;69:6823–30.PubMedPubMedCentral
63.
Masuda T, Xu X, Dimitriadis EK, Lahusen T, Deng CX (2016) “DNA binding region” of BRCA1 affects genetic stability through modulating the intra-S-phase checkpoint. Int J Biol Sci 12:133–143.PubMedPubMedCentral
64.
Annunziato S, Kas SM, Nethe M, Yücel H, del Bravo J, Pritchard C, et al. Modeling invasive lobular breast carcinoma by CRISPR / Cas9-mediated somatic genome editing of the mammary gland. Genes Dev. 2016;30:1470–80.PubMedPubMedCentral
65.
Xue W, Chen S, Yin H, Tammela T, Papagiannakopoulos T, Joshi NS, et al. CRISPR-mediated direct mutation of cancer genes in the mouse liver HHS public access. Nature. 2014;514:380–4.PubMedPubMedCentral
66.
Platt RJ, Chen S, Zhou Y, Yim MJ, Swiech L, Kempton HR, et al. CRISPR-Cas9 Knockin mice for genome editing and Cancer modeling. Cell. 2014;159:440–55.PubMedPubMedCentral
67.
Gaj T, Gersbach CA, Barbas CF. ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;31:397–405.PubMedPubMedCentral
68.
Ahronian LG, Lewis BC. Using the RCAS-TVA system to model human Cancer in mice. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2014;2014:pdb.top069831.
69.
Guy CT, Cardiff RD, Muller WJ. Induction of mammary tumors by expression of polyomavirus middle T oncogene: a transgenic mouse model for metastatic disease. Mol Cell Biol. 1992;12:954–61.PubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Golovkina TV, Prakash O, Ross SR. Endogenous mouse mammary tumor virus Mtv-17 is involved in Mtv-2-induced tumorigenesis in GR mice. Virology. 1996;218:14–22.PubMed
71.
72.
Jhan J-R, Andrechek ER. Stat3 accelerates Myc induced tumor formation while reducing growth rate in a mouse model of breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7:65797–807.PubMedPubMedCentral
73.
Hollern DP, Honeysett J, Cardiff RD, Andrechek ER. The E2F transcription factors regulate tumor development and metastasis in a mouse model of metastatic breast Cancer. Mol Cell Biol. 2014;34:3229–43.PubMedPubMedCentral
74.
Cardiff RD, Anver MR, B a G, et al. The mammary pathology of genetically engineered mice: the consensus report and recommendations from the Annapolis meeting. Oncogene. 2000;19:968–88.PubMed
75.
Cardiff RD, Wellings SR. The comparative pathology of human and mouse mammary glands. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 1999;4:105–22.PubMed
76.
Ponzo MG, Lesurf R, Petkiewicz S, O'Malley FP, Pinnaduwage D, Andrulis IL, et al. Met induces mammary tumors with diverse histologies and is associated with poor outcome and human basal breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:12903–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
77.
78.
Lifsted T, Le Voyer T, Williams M, Muller W, Klein-Szanto A, Buetow KH, et al. Identification of inbred mouse strains harboring genetic modifiers of mammary tumor age of onset and metastatic progression. Int J Cancer. 1998;77:640–4.PubMed
79.
Jeffers M, Fiscella M, Webb CP, Anver M, Koochekpour S, Vande Woude GF. The mutationally activated met receptor mediates motility and metastasis. Med Sci. 1998;95:14417–22.
80.
Seth P, Porter D, Lahti-Domenici J, Geng Y, Richardson A, Polyak K, et al. Cellular and molecular targets of estrogen in normal human breast tissue. Cancer Res. 2002;62:4540–4.PubMed
81.
Lukes L, Crawford NPS, Walker R, Hunter KW. The origins of breast Cancer prognostic gene expression profiles. Cancer Res. 2009;69:310–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
82.
Flowers M, Schroeder JA, Borowsky AD, Besselsen DG, Thomson CA, Pandey R, et al. Pilot study on the effects of dietary conjugated linoleic acid on tumorigenesis and gene expression in PyMT transgenic mice. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31:1642–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
83.
Eilon T, Barash I. Forced activation of Stat5 subjects mammary epithelial cells to DNA damage and preferential induction of the cellular response mechanism during proliferation. J Cell Physiol. 2011;226:616–26.PubMed
84.
Lou Y, Preobrazhenska O, Auf Dem Keller U, Sutcliffe M, Barclay L, McDonald PC, et al. Epithelial-Mesenchymal transition (EMT) is not sufficient for spontaneous murine breast cancer metastasis. Dev Dyn. 2008;237:2755–68.PubMed
85.
Kretschmer C, Sterner-Kock A, Siedentopf F, Schoenegg W, Schlag PM, Kemmner W. Identification of early molecular markers for breast cancer. Mol Cancer. 2011;10:15.PubMedPubMedCentral
86.
Zhang M, Tsimelzon A, Chang C-H, Fan C, Wolff A, Perou CM, et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity in a Trp53-null mouse model of human breast Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2015;5:520–33.PubMedPubMedCentral
87.
McBryan J, Howlin J, Kenny PA, Shioda T, Martin F. ERalpha-CITED1 co-regulated genes expressed during pubertal mammary gland development: implications for breast cancer prognosis. Oncogene. 2007;26:6406–19.PubMed
88.
Herschkowitz JI, Simin K, Weigman VJ, Mikaelian I, Usary J, Hu Z, et al. Identification of conserved gene expression features between murine mammary carcinoma models and human breast tumors. Genome Biol. 2007;8:R76.PubMedPubMedCentral
89.
Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, Mcguire WL. Human breast Cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2lneu oncogene. Science (80- ). 1987;235:177–82.
90.
Kirouac DC, Du J, Lahdenranta J, Onsum MD, Nielsen UB, Schoeberl B, et al. HER2+ Cancer cell dependence on PI3K vs. MAPK signaling axes is determined by expression of EGFR, ERBB3 and CDKN1B. PLoS Comput Biol. 2016;12:1004827.
91.
92.
93.
94.
Bild AH, Yao G, Chang JT, Wang Q, Potti A, Chasse D, et al. Oncogenic pathway signatures in human cancers as a guide to targeted therapies. Nature. 2006;439:353–7.PubMed
95.
96.
Nik-Zainal S, Davies H, Staaf J, Ramakrishna M, Glodzik D, Zou X, et al. Landscape of somatic mutations in 560 breast cancer whole-genome sequences. Nature. 2016;534:47–54.PubMedPubMedCentral
97.
Bose R, Kavuri SM, Searleman AC, Shen W, Shen D, Koboldt DC, et al. Activating HER2 mutations in HER2 gene amplification negative breast cancer. Cancer Discov. 2013;3:224–37.PubMed
98.
Samuels Y, Wang Z, Bardelli A, et al. High frequency of mutations of the PIK3CA gene in human cancers. Science. 2004;80(304):554.
99.
McFadden DG, Politi K, Bhutkar A, et al. Mutational landscape of EGFR- , MYC- , and Kras- driven genetically engineered mouse models of lung adenocarcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113:E6409–17.PubMedPubMedCentral
100.
Govindan R, Ding L, Griffith M, Subramanian J, Dees ND, Kanchi KL, et al. Genomic landscape of non-small cell lung cancer in smokers and never-smokers. Cell. 2012;150:1121–34.PubMedPubMedCentral
101.
Rennhack JP, Swiatnicki M, Zhang Y, et al Integrated sequence and gene expression analysis of mouse models of breast cancer reveals critical events with human parallels Fax Running Title: Integrated genomic characterization of mouse models of breast cancer. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1101/​375154
102.
Pfefferle AD, Agrawal YN, Koboldt DC, Kanchi KL, Herschkowitz JI, Mardis ER, et al. Genomic profiling of murine mammary tumors identifies potential personalized drug targets for p53-deficient mammary cancers. Dis Model Mech. 2016;9:749–57.PubMedPubMedCentral
103.
Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, Math M, Larkin J, Endesfelder D, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:883–92.PubMedPubMedCentral
104.
Navin N, Kendall J, Troge J, Andrews P, Rodgers L, McIndoo J, et al. Tumor evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing. Nature. 2011;472:90–5.PubMedPubMedCentral
105.
Pal B, Chen Y, Vaillant F, Jamieson P, Gordon L, Rios AC, et al. Construction of developmental lineage relationships in the mouse mammary gland by single-cell RNA profiling. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1627.PubMedPubMedCentral
106.
107.
Pitteri SJ, Faca VM, Kelly-Spratt KS, Kasarda AE, Wang H, Zhang Q, et al. Plasma proteome profiling of a mouse model of breast Cancer identifies a set of up-regulated proteins in common with human breast Cancer cells. J Proteome Res. 2008;7:1481–9.PubMed
108.
Schoenherr RM, Kelly-Spratt KS, Lin C, Whiteaker JR, Liu T, Holzman T, et al. Proteome and Transcriptome profiles of a Her2/Neu-driven mouse model of breast Cancer. Proteomics Clin Appl. 2011;5:179–88.PubMedPubMedCentral
109.
Andrechek ER, Cardiff RD, Chang JT, Gatza ML, Acharya CR, Potti A, Nevins JR (2009) Genetic heterogeneity of Myc-induced mammary tumors reflecting diverse phenotypes including metastatic potential.
110.
Ponzo MG, Lesurf R, Petkiewicz S, O'Malley FP, Pinnaduwage D, Andrulis IL, et al. Met induces mammary tumors with diverse histologies and is associated with poor outcome and human basal breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:12903–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
111.
Fluck MM, Schaffhausen BS. Lessons in signaling and tumorigenesis from Polyomavirus middle T antigen. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2009;73:542–63.PubMedPubMedCentral
112.
Guy CT, Webster MA, Schaller M, Parsons TJ, Cardiff RD, Muller WJ. Expression of the neu protooncogene in the mammary epithelium of transgenic mice induces metastatic disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1992;89:10578–82.PubMedPubMedCentral
113.
Tsukamoto AS, Grosschedl R, Guzman RC, Parslow T, Varmus HE. Expression of the int-1 gene in transgenic mice is associated with mammary gland hyperplasia and adenocarcinomas in male and female mice. Cell. 1988;55:619–25.PubMed
114.
Bocchinfuso WP, Hively WP, Couse JF, Varmus HE, Korach KS (1999) A mouse mammary tumor virus-Wnt-1 transgene induces mammary gland hyperplasia and tumorigenesis in mice lacking estrogen receptor.
115.
Jiang Z, Deng T, Jones R, Li H, Herschkowitz JI, Liu JC, et al. Rb deletion in mouse mammary progenitors induces luminal-B or basal-like/EMT tumor subtypes depending on p53 status. J Clin Invest. 2010;120:3296–309.PubMedPubMedCentral
116.
Dj J, Kittrell FS, Kuperwasser C, Laucirica R, Dickinson ES, Bonilla PJ, et al. A mammary-specific model demonstrates the role of the p53 tumor suppressor gene in tumor development. Oncogene. 2000;19:1052–8.
117.
Deng C-X, Xu X, Wagner K-U, Larson D, Weaver Z, Li C, et al. Conditional mutation of Brca1 in mammary epithelial cells results in blunted ductal morphogenesis and tumour formation. Nat Genet. 1999;22:37–43.PubMed
118.
Chan SR, Vermi W, Luo J, Lucini L, Rickert C, Fowler AM, et al. STAT1-deficient mice spontaneously develop estrogen receptor α-positive luminal mammary carcinomas. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14:R16.PubMedPubMedCentral
119.
Meraz MA, White JM, Sheehan KCF, Bach EA, Rodig SJ, Dighe AS, et al. Targeted disruption of the Stat1 gene in mice reveals unexpected physiologic specificity in the JAK-STAT signaling pathway. Cell. 1996;84:431–42.PubMed
120.
Maroulakou IG, Anver M, Garrett L, Green JE. Prostate and mammary adenocarcinoma in transgenic mice carrying a rat C3(1) simian virus 40 large tumor antigen fusion gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1994;91:11236–40.PubMedPubMedCentral
121.
Jones RA, Campbell CI, Gunther EJ, Chodosh LA, Petrik JJ, Khokha R, et al. Transgenic overexpression of IGF-IR disrupts mammary ductal morphogenesis and induces tumor formation. Oncogene. 2007;26:1636–44.PubMed
122.
Moorehead RA, Barnett EF, Franks SE, Campbell CI, Siwicky MD, Livingstone J, et al. Transgenic IGF-IR overexpression induces mammary tumors with basal-like characteristics, whereas IGF-IR-independent mammary tumors express a claudin-low gene signature. Oncogene. 2011;31:3298–309.PubMedPubMedCentral
123.
Iavnilovitch E, Groner B, Barash I. Overexpression and forced activation of stat5 in mammary gland of transgenic mice promotes cellular proliferation, enhances differentiation, and delays postlactational apoptosis. Mol Cancer Res. 2002;1:32–47.PubMed
124.
Bultman SJ, Herschkowitz JI, Godfrey V, Gebuhr TC, Yaniv M, Perou CM, et al. Characterization of mammary tumors from Brg1 heterozygous mice. Oncogene. 2008;27:460–8.PubMed
125.
Tremblay PJ, Pothier F, Hoang T, Tremblay G, Brownstein S, Liszauer A, et al. Transgenic mice carrying the mouse mammary tumor virus ras fusion gene: distinct effects in various tissues. Mol Cell Biol. 1989;9:854–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
126.
Kuraguchi M, Ohene-Baah NY, Sonkin D, Bronson RT, Kucherlapati R. Genetic mechanisms in Apc-mediated mammary tumorigenesis. PLoS Genet. 2009;5:1000367.
127.
Liu S, Umezu-Goto M, Murph M, Lu Y, Liu W, Zhang F, et al. Expression of Autotaxin and Lysophosphatidic acid receptors increases mammary tumorigenesis, invasion, and metastases. Cancer Cell. 2009;15:539–50.PubMedPubMedCentral
128.
Hu C, Diévart A, Lupien M, Calvo E, Tremblay G, Jolicoeur P. Overexpression of activated murine Notch1 and Notch3 in transgenic mice blocks mammary gland development and induces mammary tumors. Am J Pathol. 2006;168:973–90.PubMedPubMedCentral
129.
Usary J, Zhao W, Darr D, Roberts PJ, Liu M, Balletta L, et al. Predicting drug responsiveness in human cancers using genetically engineered mice. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:4889–99.PubMedPubMedCentral
130.
Jhan J-R, Andrechek ER. Effective personalized therapy for breast cancer based on predictions of cell signaling pathway activation from gene expression analysis. Oncogene. 2017;36:3553–61.PubMed
Metadata
Title
How to Choose a Mouse Model of Breast Cancer, a Genomic Perspective
Authors
Matthew R. Swiatnicki
Eran R. Andrechek
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 1083-3021
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7039
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10911-019-09433-3

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia 3/2019 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

GATA3 Truncating Mutations Promote Cistromic Re-Programming In Vitro, but Not Mammary Tumor Formation in Mice

OriginalPaper

The Milk Protein Alpha-Casein Suppresses Triple Negative Breast Cancer Stem Cell Activity Via STAT and HIF-1alpha Signalling Pathways in Breast Cancer Cells and Fibroblasts

OriginalPaper

BRCA1 Attenuates Progesterone Effects on Proliferation and NFκB Activation in Normal Human Mammary Epithelial Cells

ReviewPaper

The Eleventh ENBDC Workshop: Advances in Technology Help to Unveil Mechanisms of Mammary Gland Development and Cancerogenesis

ReviewPaper

Remodeling of Murine Mammary Adipose Tissue during Pregnancy, Lactation, and Involution

ReviewPaper

Emerging Role of SOX Proteins in Breast Cancer Development and Maintenance
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits