Using the nucleoside analogue EdU (5-ethynyl-2 0 -deoxyuridine) for thymidine substitution instead of BrdU (5-bromo-2 0 -deoxyuridine) in cell proliferation assays has recently been proposed. However, the effect of EdU on cell viability, DNA synthesis, and cell cycle progression and consequently its usability for dynamic cell proliferation analysis in vitro has not been explored. We compared the effect of EdU and BrdU incorporation into SK-BR-3 and BT474 breast cancer cells and the impact on cell cycle kinetics, cell viability, and DNA damage. We found that EdU can be used not only for pulse but also for continuous cell labeling and henceforth in high resolution EdU/Hoechst quenching assays. BrdU and EdU proliferation assays based on click chemistry revealed comparable results. However, cell viability of SK-BR-3 breast cancer cells was highly affected by long term exposure to EdU. Both SK-BR-3 as well as BT474 cells show cell cycle arrests upon long term EdU treatment whereas only SK-BR-3 cells were driven into necrotic cell death by long term exposure to EdU. In contrast BT474 cells appeared essentially unharmed by EdU treatment in terms of viability. Consequently using EdU enables highly sensitive and quantitative detection of proliferating cells and facilitates even continuous cell cycle assessment. Nevertheless, potential cellular susceptibility needs to be individually evaluated. ' 2009 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry Key terms click chemistry; EdU; BrdU; thymidine analogue; EdU/Hoechst quenching; cell proliferation; BT474; SK-BR-3; cell cycle kinetics; cell death; necrosis DYNAMIC cell proliferation assessment using flow cytometry is a potent approach for identifying and quantifying the effect and efficacy of, for example, growth factors and anticancer drugs on tumor cells (1). 5-bromo-2 0 -deoxyuridine (BrdU)-based techniques constitute powerful tools to determine cell cycle kinetics and to disclose potential mitogenic, cytostatic, and cytotoxic effects upon specific cell treatment (2,3). Usually, BrdU incorporation into DNA is detected either by quenching of the DNA binding Hoechst 33258 fluorescence (BrdU/Hoechst quenching technique) (4,5) or by antibody-based BrdU detection (6,7). Both approaches require a stoichiometric DNA counterstaining.Antibody-based detection of the thymidine analogue BrdU demands the often tricky and elaborate DNA denaturation facilitating sterical access of antibodies (8). Alternatively, 5-ethynyl-2 0 -deoxyuridine (EdU), structurally similar to the natural nucleoside, can be coupled via click chemistry (9,10). EdU detection is based on a copper-catalyzed covalent reaction between a dye-conjugated azide and the alkyne group of the EdU (Fig. 1). The small sized dye-azide allows for efficient EdU detection upon incorporation using gentle conditions. Aldehyde-based fixation and detergent permeabilization for the dye (e.g. Alexa Fluor 1 dye)-conjugated azide enables

Introduction HER2 overexpression, or rather HER2 gene amplification, is indicative for Herceptin therapy in both metastatic and pre-metastatic breast cancer patients. Patient's individual sensitivity to Herceptin treatment, however, varies enormously and spans from effectual responsiveness over acquired insensitivity to complete resistance from the outset. Thus no predictive information can be deduced from HER2 determination so that molecular biomarkers indicative for Herceptin sensitivity or resistance need to be identified. Both ErbB receptor-dependent signalling molecules as well as HER2-related ErbB receptor tyrosine kinases, known to mutually interact and to cross-regulate each other are prime candidates to be involved in cellular susceptibility to Herceptin.

No abstract

BackgroundNot only four but rather seven different human epidermal growth factor receptor related (Her) receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) have been described to be expressed in a variety of normal and neoplastic tissues: Her1, Her2, Her3, and additionally four Her4 isoforms have been identified. A differential expression of Her4 isoforms does not, however, play any role in either the molecular diagnostics or treatment decision for breast cancer patients. The prognostic and predictive impact of Her4 expression in breast cancer is basically unclear.MethodsWe quantified the Her4 variants JM-a/CYT1, JM-a/CYT2, JM-b/CYT1, and JM-b/CYT2 by isoform-specific polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) in (i) triple-negative, (ii) Her2 positive breast cancer tissues and (iii) in benign breast tissues.ResultsIn all three tissue collectives we never found the JM-b/CYT1 or the JM-b/CYT2 isoform expressed. In contrast, the two JM-a/CYT1 and JM-a/CYT2 isoforms were always simultaneously expressed but at different ratios. We identified a positive prognostic impact on overall survival (OS) in triple-negative and event-free survival (EFS) in Her2 positive patients. This finding is independent of the absolute JM-a/CYT1 to JM-a/CYT2 expression ratio. In Her2 positive patients, Her4 expression only has a favorable effect in estrogen-receptor (ER)-positive but not in ER-negative individuals.ConclusionIn summary, JM-a/CYT1 and JM-a/CYT2 but not JM-b isoforms of the Her4 receptor are simultaneously expressed in both triple-negative and Her2 positive breast cancer tissues. Although different expression ratios of the two JM-a isoforms did not reveal any additional information, Her4 expression basically indicates a prolonged EFS and OFS. An extended expression analysis that takes all Her receptor homologs, including the Her4 isoforms, into account might render more precisely the molecular diagnostics required for the development of optimized targeted therapies.

Over the last decade, a number of monoclonal antibodies and small molecule inhibitors emerged as potent therapeutic agents in the treatment of Her2/neu overexpressing breast cancer. Numerous patients, however, do not adequately respond to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)/Her2 receptor targeting. Receptor-and, in turn, growth-stimulating effects, which potentially hamper antiproliferative cell treatment, have barely been investigated. BT474 and SK-BR-3 breast cancer cell lines were treated with Trastuzumab, Pertuzumab, and Lapatinib alone using different combinations and concentrations. Moreover, epidermal growth factor (EGF) or heregulin (HRG) was added to reveal potential growth factor-mediated compensatory effects. Receptor and intracellular signaling were analyzed as a function of cell treatment. Read-out parameters were cell proliferation and apoptosis. BT474 cells were efficiently driven into quiescence by Trastuzumab, but not by Pertuzumab treatment. Simultaneous EGF or HRG administration, however, restored the BT474 cell proliferation capacity. In contrast, neither therapeutic antibody treatment caused a profound inhibition of SK-BR-3 cell-cycle progress. Lapatinib turned out to be the most potent cell-cycle inhibitor in both cell lines even though its impact was significantly abrogated in the presence of EGF and HRG. The compensatory effect of EGF on Lapatinib-induced cell-cycle inhibition was reversed by Trastuzumab as well as by Pertuzumab treatment. Most importantly, HRGcaused compensation of Lapatinib-induced cell-cycle exit was reversed by Pertuzumab but not by Trastuzumab. Apparently, multiple anti-EGFR/Her2 targeting by using Trastuzumab, Pertuzumab, and Lapatinib more efficiently affects receptor function (interaction and activation) and consequently enhances their antiproliferative capacity. Growth inhibition by anticancer drugs targeted to Her/ErbB receptors, however, can be significantly undermined in the presence of EGF and in particular by HRG treatment, which suggests that specific therapeutic growth factor sequestration might further enhance anti-EGFR/Her2 targeting. '