Subjects

  • A Corrigendum to this article was published on 05 August 2015

Abstract

Progesterone receptor (PR) expression is used as a biomarker of oestrogen receptor-α (ERα) function and breast cancer prognosis. Here we show that PR is not merely an ERα-induced gene target, but is also an ERα-associated protein that modulates its behaviour. In the presence of agonist ligands, PR associates with ERα to direct ERα chromatin binding events within breast cancer cells, resulting in a unique gene expression programme that is associated with good clinical outcome. Progesterone inhibited oestrogen-mediated growth of ERα+ cell line xenografts and primary ERα+ breast tumour explants, and had increased anti-proliferative effects when coupled with an ERα antagonist. Copy number loss of PGR, the gene coding for PR, is a common feature in ERα+ breast cancers, explaining lower PR levels in a subset of cases. Our findings indicate that PR functions as a molecular rheostat to control ERα chromatin binding and transcriptional activity, which has important implications for prognosis and therapeutic interventions.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Accessions

Primary accessions

Gene Expression Omnibus

Data deposits

All microarray and ChIP-seq data are deposited in GEO with the accession number GSE68359. All proteomic data are deposited with the PRIDE database with the accession number PXD002104.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. Estrogen plus progestin and breast cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 304, 1684–1692 (2010)

  2. 2.

    et al. Androgen receptor agonist activity of the synthetic progestin, medroxyprogesterone acetate, in human breast cancer cells. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 154, 11–20 (1999)

  3. 3.

    , & Unequal risks for breast cancer associated with different hormone replacement therapies: results from the E3N cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 107, 103–111 (2008)

  4. 4.

    et al. Subtyping of breast cancer by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between subtype and short and long term survival: a collaborative analysis of data for 10,159 cases from 12 studies. PLoS Med. 7, e1000279 (2010)

  5. 5.

    , , & Antiestrogenic effect of R5020, a synthetic progestin in human breast cancer cells in culture. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 56, 1124–1130 (1983)

  6. 6.

    , , , & Mechanisms of cyclin-dependent kinase inactivation by progestins. Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 1812–1825 (1998)

  7. 7.

    , & Progesterone receptor inhibits proliferation of human breast cancer cells via induction of MAPK phosphatase 1 (MKP-1/DUSP1). J. Biol. Chem. 286, 43091–43102 (2011)

  8. 8.

    et al. Patient-derived luminal breast cancer xenografts retain hormone receptor heterogeneity and help define unique estrogen-dependent gene signatures. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 135, 415–432 (2012)

  9. 9.

    , , & A novel antiestrogenic mechanism in progesterone receptor-transfected breast cancer cells. J. Biol. Chem. 280, 17480–17487 (2005)

  10. 10.

    , , , & Progesterone receptor status significantly improves outcome prediction over estrogen receptor status alone for adjuvant endocrine therapy in two large breast cancer databases. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 1973–1979 (2003)

  11. 11.

    , , & Relationship of presence of progesterone receptors to prognosis in early breast cancer. Cancer Res. 40, 3357–3360 (1980)

  12. 12.

    et al. Single-injection depot progesterone before surgery and survival in women with operable breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 2845–2851 (2011)

  13. 13.

    et al. Activity of megestrol acetate in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer after nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor failure: a phase II trial. Ann. Oncol. 25, 831–836 (2014)

  14. 14.

    & Estrogen-induced transcription of the progesterone receptor gene does not parallel estrogen receptor occupancy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 15180–15184 (1996)

  15. 15.

    et al. Retrospective analysis of time to recurrence in the ATAC trial according to hormone receptor status: an hypothesis-generating study. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 7512–7517 (2005)

  16. 16.

    The Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 Collaborative Group. A comparison of letrozole and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 353, 2747–2757 (2005)

  17. 17.

    et al. Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in a randomized trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer: BIG 1–98. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 3846–3852 (2007)

  18. 18.

    , , , & Biology of progesterone receptor loss in breast cancer and its implications for endocrine therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 7721–7735 (2005)

  19. 19.

    , , , & FOXA1 is a key determinant of estrogen receptor function and endocrine response. Nature Genet. 43, 27–33 (2011)

  20. 20.

    , , , & Ligand-modulated regulation of progesterone receptor messenger ribonucleic acid and protein in human breast cancer cell lines. Mol. Endocrinol. 2, 263–271 (1988)

  21. 21.

    et al. Endogenous purification reveals GREB1 as a key estrogen receptor regulatory factor. Cell Rep. 3, 342–349 (2013)

  22. 22.

    et al. Two domains of the progesterone receptor interact with the estrogen receptor and are required for progesterone activation of the c-Src/Erk pathway in mammalian cells. Mol. Cell. Biol. 23, 1994–2008 (2003)

  23. 23.

    et al. Histone modifications at human enhancers reflect global cell-type-specific gene expression. Nature 459, 108–112 (2009)

  24. 24.

    & DiffBind: differential binding analysis of ChIP-Seq peak data. Bioconductor (2011)

  25. 25.

    & Non-overlapping progesterone receptor cistromes contribute to cell-specific transcriptional outcomes. PLoS ONE 7, e35859 (2012)

  26. 26.

    , , & Progestin-dependent progression of human breast tumor xenografts: a novel model for evaluating antitumor therapeutics. Cancer Res. 67, 9929–9936 (2007)

  27. 27.

    et al. Evidence for efficacy of new Hsp90 inhibitors revealed by ex vivo culture of human prostate tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 3562–3570 (2012)

  28. 28.

    et al. Therapeutic response to CDK4/6 inhibition in breast cancer defined by ex vivo analyses of human tumors. Cell Cycle 11, 2756–2761 (2012)

  29. 29.

    et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 486, 346–352 (2012)

  30. 30.

    , , & The frequency and mechanism of loss of heterozygosity on chromosome 11q in breast cancer. J. Pathol. 180, 38–43 (1996)

  31. 31.

    et al. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov 2, 401–404 (2012)

  32. 32.

    et al. ChIP-seq: Using high-throughput sequencing to discover protein-DNA interactions. Methods 48, 240–248 (2009)

  33. 33.

    , & TopHat: discovering splice junctions with RNA-Seq. Bioinformatics 25, 1105–1111 (2009)

  34. 34.

    & Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol. 11, R106 (2010)

  35. 35.

    et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15545–15550 (2005)

  36. 36.

    , & Most random gene expression signatures are significantly associated with breast cancer outcome. PLOS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002240 (2011)

  37. 37.

    & Checking gene expression signatures against random and known signatures with SigCheck. Bioconductor

  38. 38.

    et al. Detection of discrete androgen receptor epitopes in prostate cancer by immunostaining: measurement by color video image analysis. Cancer Res. 54, 4096–4102 (1994)

  39. 39.

    , & A single-array preprocessing method for estimating full-resolution raw copy numbers from all Affymetrix genotyping arrays including GenomeWideSNP 5 & 6. Bioinformatics 25, 2149–2156 (2009)

  40. 40.

    & A faster circular binary segmentation algorithm for the analysis of array CGH data. Bioinformatics 23, 657–663 (2007)

  41. 41.

    , , & beadarray: R classes and methods for Illumina bead-based data. Bioinformatics 23, 2183–2184 (2007)

  42. 42.

    , , , & BASH: a tool for managing BeadArray spatial artefacts. Bioinformatics 24, 2921–2922 (2008)

  43. 43.

    et al. A re-annotation pipeline for Illumina BeadArrays: improving the interpretation of gene expression data. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, e17 (2010)

  44. 44.

    et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 1160–1167 (2009)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank S. Leigh-Brown, the staff in the genomic core facility, S. Halim, the proteomic core facility and the bioinformatic core facility at Cancer Research UK. We acknowledge S. Jindal for pathology review, N. Ryan for technical assistance and S. Edwards for statistical analysis with ex vivo culture. The MCF7-LucYFP cells were a kind gift from N. Benaich. We thank H. Gronemeyer for the PR-A and PR-B expressing vectors. We would like to acknowledge the support of the University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK and Hutchison Whampoa Limited. Research reported in this manuscript was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number 5P30CA142543 (to University of Texas Southwestern) and Department of Defense grants W81XWH-12-1-0288-03 (GVR). W.D.T. is supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (ID 1008349; ID 1084416) and Cancer Australia (ID 627229) T.E.H. held a Fellowship Award from the US Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program (BCRP; W81XWH-11-1-0592) and currently is supported by a Florey Fellowship from the Royal Adelaide Hospital Research Foundation. J.S.C. is supported by an ERC starting grant and an EMBO Young investigator award.

Author information

Author notes

    • Wayne D. Tilley
    •  & Jason S. Carroll

    These authors jointly supervised this work.

Affiliations

  1. Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK

    • Hisham Mohammed
    • , I. Alasdair Russell
    • , Rory Stark
    • , Oscar M. Rueda
    • , Aurelien A. Serandour
    • , Alejandra Bruna
    • , Amel Saadi
    • , Suraj Menon
    • , James Hadfield
    • , Michelle Pugh
    • , Gordon D. Brown
    • , Clive D’Santos
    • , Jessica L. L. Robinson
    • , Rosalind Launchbury
    • , John Stingl
    • , Carlos Caldas
    •  & Jason S. Carroll
  2. Dame Roma Mitchell Cancer Research Laboratories and the Adelaide Prostate Cancer Research Centre, School of Medicine, Hanson Institute Building, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia

    • Theresa E. Hickey
    • , Gerard A. Tarulli
    • , Stephen N. Birrell
    •  & Wayne D. Tilley
  3. Department of Urology, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75390, USA

    • Ganesh V. Raj
  4. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 450 West Drive, CB7295, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA

    • Grace Silva
    •  & Charles M. Perou
  5. Cambridge Breast Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK

    • Carlos Caldas
  6. Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK

    • Carlos Caldas

Authors

  1. Search for Hisham Mohammed in:

  2. Search for I. Alasdair Russell in:

  3. Search for Rory Stark in:

  4. Search for Oscar M. Rueda in:

  5. Search for Theresa E. Hickey in:

  6. Search for Gerard A. Tarulli in:

  7. Search for Aurelien A. Serandour in:

  8. Search for Stephen N. Birrell in:

  9. Search for Alejandra Bruna in:

  10. Search for Amel Saadi in:

  11. Search for Suraj Menon in:

  12. Search for James Hadfield in:

  13. Search for Michelle Pugh in:

  14. Search for Ganesh V. Raj in:

  15. Search for Gordon D. Brown in:

  16. Search for Clive D’Santos in:

  17. Search for Jessica L. L. Robinson in:

  18. Search for Grace Silva in:

  19. Search for Rosalind Launchbury in:

  20. Search for Charles M. Perou in:

  21. Search for John Stingl in:

  22. Search for Carlos Caldas in:

  23. Search for Wayne D. Tilley in:

  24. Search for Jason S. Carroll in:

Contributions

Experimental work was conducted by H.M., I.A.R., T.E.H., G.A.T., A.A.A.S., A.B., A.S., C.D., J.L.L.R., R.L. and G.S. Computational analysis was conducted by R.S., O.M.R., S.M. and G.D.B. Clinical samples, information and support was provided by S.N.B., G.V.R., C.M.P. and C.C. In vivo work was conducted by J.S. Genomic work was conducted by J.H. and M.P. All experiments were overseen by W.D.T. and J.S.C. The manuscript was written by H.M., I.A.R., T.E.H., W.D.T. and J.S.C. with help from the other authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wayne D. Tilley or Jason S. Carroll.

Extended data

Supplementary information

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Table 1

    This Supplementary table contains all RIME proteomic SILAC data from Figures 1a, Figure 1b and Extended data figure 1.

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Table 2

    Peak numbers following ERα, PR and p300 ChIP-seq in T-47D and MCF-7 cell lines. The number of peaks for the different conditions are shown, these include estrogen, estrogen plus progesterone and estrogen plus R5020 treatment. Also included are the common peaks observed under estrogen plus progesterone and estrogen plus R5020 conditions.

  3. 3.

    Supplementary Table 3

    Enriched pathways based on the ERα binding events induced by progesterone and R5020. The enriched pathways that occur in both T-47D and MCF-7 cells are shown. The values represent the Odds ratio.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14583

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.