Analysis | Published:

Regulators of genetic risk of breast cancer identified by integrative network analysis

Nature Genetics volume 48, pages 1221 (2016) | Download Citation

Abstract

Genetic risk for breast cancer is conferred by a combination of multiple variants of small effect. To better understand how risk loci might combine, we examined whether risk-associated genes share regulatory mechanisms. We created a breast cancer gene regulatory network comprising transcription factors and groups of putative target genes (regulons) and asked whether specific regulons are enriched for genes associated with risk loci via expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs). We identified 36 overlapping regulons that were enriched for risk loci and formed a distinct cluster within the network, suggesting shared biology. The risk transcription factors driving these regulons are frequently mutated in cancer and lie in two opposing subgroups, which relate to estrogen receptor (ER)+ luminal A or luminal B and ER basal-like cancers and to different luminal epithelial cell populations in the adult mammary gland. Our network approach provides a foundation for determining the regulatory circuits governing breast cancer, to identify targets for intervention, and is transferable to other disease settings.

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

Referenced accessions

Gene Expression Omnibus

References

  1. 1.

    , , , & Leveraging models of cell regulation and GWAS data in integrative network-based association studies. Nat. Genet. 44, 841–847 (2012).

  2. 2.

    , , & Network analysis of GWAS data. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 23, 602–610 (2013).

  3. 3.

    et al. Reverse engineering of regulatory networks in human B cells. Nat. Genet. 37, 382–390 (2005).

  4. 4.

    et al. Master regulators of FGFR2 signalling and breast cancer risk. Nat. Commun. 4, 2464 (2013).

  5. 5.

    et al. Large-scale genotyping identifies 41 new loci associated with breast cancer risk. Nat. Genet. 45, 353–361 (2013).

  6. 6.

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

  7. 7.

    et al. Breast cancer risk-associated SNPs modulate the affinity of chromatin for FOXA1 and alter gene expression. Nat. Genet. 44, 1191–1198 (2012).

  8. 8.

    , , & Breast and prostate cancer: more similar than different. Nat. Rev. Cancer 10, 205–212 (2010).

  9. 9.

    Statistical power of expression quantitative trait loci for mapping of complex trait loci in natural populations. Genetics 178, 2201–2216 (2008).

  10. 10.

    et al. Integrative eQTL-based analyses reveal the biology of breast cancer risk loci. Cell 152, 633–641 (2013).

  11. 11.

    Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 490, 61–70 (2012).

  12. 12.

    et al. COSMIC: exploring the world's knowledge of somatic mutations in human cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D805–D811 (2015).

  13. 13.

    et al. A comprehensive nuclear receptor network for breast cancer cells. Cell Rep. 3, 538–551 (2013).

  14. 14.

    , , & Minireview: the androgen receptor in breast tissues: growth inhibitor, tumor suppressor, oncogene? Mol. Endocrinol. 26, 1252–1267 (2012).

  15. 15.

    et al. The transcriptional network for mesenchymal transformation of brain tumours. Nature 463, 318–325 (2010).

  16. 16.

    et al. Gene expression profiling shows medullary breast cancer is a subgroup of basal breast cancers. Cancer Res. 66, 4636–4644 (2006).

  17. 17.

    et al. Phenotypic and functional characterisation of the luminal cell hierarchy of the mammary gland. Breast Cancer Res. 14, R134 (2012).

  18. 18.

    et al. Maintenance of hormone responsiveness in luminal breast cancers by suppression of Notch. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 2742–2747 (2012).

  19. 19.

    et al. Unraveling the regulatory mechanisms underlying tissue-dependent genetic variation of gene expression. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002431 (2012).

  20. 20.

    & From expression QTLs to personalized transcriptomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12, 277–282 (2011).

  21. 21.

    & From candidate gene studies to GWAS and post-GWAS analyses in breast cancer. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 30, 32–41 (2015).

  22. 22.

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

  23. 23.

    , , , & Cellular reprogramming by the conjoint action of ERα, FOXA1, and GATA3 to a ligand-inducible growth state. Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 526 (2011).

  24. 24.

    et al. Essential gene profiles in breast, pancreatic, and ovarian cancer cells. Cancer Discov. 2, 172–189 (2012).

  25. 25.

    & Relationships of ESR1 and XBP1 expression in human breast carcinoma and stromal cells isolated by laser capture microdissection compared to intact breast cancer tissue. Endocrine 40, 212–221 (2011).

  26. 26.

    et al. Cooperative interaction between retinoic acid receptor-α and estrogen receptor in breast cancer. Genes Dev. 24, 171–182 (2010).

  27. 27.

    et al. Androgen receptor driven transcription in molecular apocrine breast cancer is mediated by FoxA1. EMBO J. 30, 3019–3027 (2011).

  28. 28.

    et al. YB-1 transforms human mammary epithelial cells through chromatin remodeling leading to the development of basal-like breast cancer. Stem Cells 32, 1437–1450 (2014).

  29. 29.

    et al. Neural crest transcription factor Sox10 is preferentially expressed in triple-negative and metaplastic breast carcinomas. Hum. Pathol. 44, 959–965 (2013).

  30. 30.

    et al. NFIB is a potential target for estrogen receptor–negative breast cancers. Mol. Oncol. 5, 538–544 (2011).

  31. 31.

    et al. TRIM29 suppresses TWIST1 and invasive breast cancer behavior. Cancer Res. 74, 4875–4887 (2014).

  32. 32.

    et al. C/EBPβ, but not C/EBPα, is essential for ductal morphogenesis, lobuloalveolar proliferation, and functional differentiation in the mouse mammary gland. Genes Dev. 12, 1917–1928 (1998).

  33. 33.

    et al. MiR-155–mediated loss of C/EBPβ shifts the TGF-β response from growth inhibition to epithelial-mesenchymal transition, invasion and metastasis in breast cancer. Oncogene 32, 5614–5624 (2013).

  34. 34.

    et al. Distinct stem cells contribute to mammary gland development and maintenance. Nature 479, 189–193 (2011).

  35. 35.

    et al. Notch3 marks clonogenic mammary luminal progenitor cells in vivo. J. Cell Biol. 203, 47–56 (2013).

  36. 36.

    et al. Luminal progenitors restrict their lineage potential during mammary gland development. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002069 (2015).

  37. 37.

    et al. Aberrant luminal progenitors as the candidate target population for basal tumor development in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Nat. Med. 15, 907–913 (2009).

  38. 38.

    et al. BRCA1 basal-like breast cancers originate from luminal epithelial progenitors and not from basal stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 7, 403–417 (2010).

  39. 39.

    & Systems biology and genomics of breast cancer. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 3, a003293 (2011).

  40. 40.

    et al. Transcriptome analyses of mouse and human mammary cell subpopulations reveal multiple conserved genes and pathways. Breast Cancer Res. 12, R21 (2010).

  41. 41.

    et al. The Ets transcription factor Elf5 specifies mammary alveolar cell fate. Genes Dev. 22, 581–586 (2008).

  42. 42.

    et al. ELF5 suppresses estrogen sensitivity and underpins the acquisition of antiestrogen resistance in luminal breast cancer. PLoS Biol. 10, e1001461 (2012).

  43. 43.

    et al. FOXA1 represses the molecular phenotype of basal breast cancer cells. Oncogene 32, 554–563 (2013).

  44. 44.

    Matrix eQTL: ultra fast eQTL analysis via large matrix operations. Bioinformatics 28, 1353–1358 (2012).

  45. 45.

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

  46. 46.

    et al. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, e47 (2015).

  47. 47.

    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).

  48. 48.

    et al. The Connectivity Map: using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science 313, 1929–1935 (2006).

  49. 49.

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

  50. 50.

    & The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann. Satist. 29, 1165–1188 (2001).

  51. 51.

    et al. Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics. Genome Biol. 5, R80 (2004).

  52. 52.

    et al. R/Bioconductor package for representing modular structures, nested networks and multiple levels of hierarchical associations. Genome Biol. 13, R29 (2012).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Califano for helpful discussions and J. Stingl for advice and critical reading of the manuscript. We are grateful to the genomics and bioinformatics cores at the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute for their support. This work was funded by Cancer Research UK and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. M.A.A.C. is funded by the National Research Council (CNPq) of Brazil. T.E.H. held a fellowship from the US Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program (W81XWH-11-1-0592) and is currently supported by a Royal Adelaide Hospital Career Development Fellowship (Australia). T.E.H. and W.D.T. are funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia (1008349 to W.D.T. and 1084416 to W.D.T. and T.E.H.) and Cancer Australia/National Breast Cancer Foundation (627229 to W.D.T. and T.E.H.; ID: PS-15-041-W.D.T.). B.A.J.P. is a Gibb Fellow of Cancer Research UK and a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. We would like to acknowledge the support of the University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK and Hutchison Whampoa, Ltd.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Bioinformatics and Systems Biology Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Polytechnic Center, Curitiba, Brazil.

    • Mauro A A Castro
  2. Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Li Ka Shing Centre, Cambridge, UK.

    • Ines de Santiago
    • , Thomas M Campbell
    • , Courtney Vaughn
    • , Edith Ross
    • , Florian Markowetz
    • , Bruce A J Ponder
    •  & Kerstin B Meyer
  3. Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Hutchison/Medical Research Council (MRC) Research Centre, Cambridge, UK.

    • Ines de Santiago
    • , Thomas M Campbell
    • , Courtney Vaughn
    • , Bruce A J Ponder
    •  & Kerstin B Meyer
  4. Dame Roma Mitchell Cancer Research Laboratories, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

    • Theresa E Hickey
    •  & Wayne D Tilley

Authors

  1. Search for Mauro A A Castro in:

  2. Search for Ines de Santiago in:

  3. Search for Thomas M Campbell in:

  4. Search for Courtney Vaughn in:

  5. Search for Theresa E Hickey in:

  6. Search for Edith Ross in:

  7. Search for Wayne D Tilley in:

  8. Search for Florian Markowetz in:

  9. Search for Bruce A J Ponder in:

  10. Search for Kerstin B Meyer in:

Contributions

M.A.A.C. and K.B.M. designed the experiments, and M.A.A.C. and I.d.S. carried out the computational analysis. T.M.C. carried out the microarray experiments, and C.V. performed the siRNA transfection and proliferation analysis. T.E.H. and W.D.T. performed AR ChIP-seq experiments. E.R. carried out copy number normalization and eQTL calling. F.M. provided computational expertise. K.B.M., M.A.A.C. and B.A.J.P. developed the ideas and wrote the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerstin B Meyer.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Text and Figures

    Supplementary Note, Supplementary Figures 1–22 and Supplementary Tables 1–5.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3458

Further reading