Discovery Of Gene That Causes HER2 Breast Cancer To Spread Raises Hope For New Treatment
Featured ArticleMain Category: Breast Cancer
Also Included In: Genetics; Cancer / Oncology
Article Date: 15 Jul 2010 - 11:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
4.5 (10 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
5 (2 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 4 posts |
Scientists in Scotland have identified a gene that plays a key role in the spread of HER2 positive breast cancer to other parts of the body, raising hopes of a new treatment for this common form of breast cancer.
Research leader Dr Elad Katz, from the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Unit at the University of Edinburgh, and colleagues describe their research and discovery of the new gene, called C35, in a paper that was published online in the British Journal of Cancer on 13 July.
HER2 positive breast cancer is a type of breast cancer where an overexpression of the HER2/neu gene and its associated protein HER2 (Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor 2) is linked to increased disease recurrence and worse prognosis.
It accounts for 1 in 5 of all breast cancer cases and affects about 9,000 women a year in the UK, including around 800 in Scotland. Herceptin (trastuzumab) targets the HER2 positive cancer but it is not effective in all patients, hence the need for new drug targets to help save the lives of thousands of women with this form of the disease and who do not respond to Herceptin.
Katz and colleagues decided to take a look at C35 because while it is over-expressed in many invasive breast cancers, its function is unknown.
For the study they took specimens from 122 breast cancers and using a method involving tissue microarrays, they examined the association between C35 and HER2 expression.
They found that in primary breast cancers, high levels of C35 mRNA gene expression were linked with HER2 gene amplification, and using lab cultures, were able to show that high levels of C35 protein expression were linked with hallmarks of how cancer cells are formed: for instance they grew colonies in soft agar and then showed they invaded collagen matrices (the scaffolding that gives tissue its structure) to form larger three-dimensional structures.
The transformed cells also showed other characteristics of cells undergoing transition to tumor cells (eg "epithelial to mesenchymal transition", changes to cell shape, and "down-regulation of epithelial markers, such as E-cadherin and keratin-8").
And the researchers also found that part of the transformation triggered by C35 depended on Syk kinase, an enzyme that mediates important signals from C35.
Katz and colleagues concluded that:
"C35 functions as an oncogene in breast cancer cell lines. Drug targeting of C35 or Syk kinase might be helpful in treating a subset of patients with HER2-amplified breast cancers."
Professor David Harrison, Director of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Unit at the University of Edinburgh, told the press that:
"This is an important development because we now know one of the key triggers to the spread this type of cancer."
Researchers at Breakthrough Breast Cancer are excited by this discovery because there are already drugs in development that could target C35, offering a new treatment for HER2 positive breast cancer.
"It is exciting to know there is a drug out there which could potentially stop this process happening and save the lives of women with breast cancer," said Harrison.
"We now need to do more work in the lab to prove this concept before we can start patient trials," he added.
Katz agreed:
"We are at an early stage, but there is now a real possibility there could be a new treatment for women with HER2 positive breast cancer," he said.
"A gene on the HER2 amplicon, C35, is an oncogene in breast cancer whose actions are prevented by inhibition of Syk."
E Katz, S Dubois-Marshall, A H Sims, D Faratian, J Li, E S Smith, J A Quinn, M Edward, R R Meehan, E E Evans, S P Langdon and D J Harrison.
British Journal of Cancer, Published online 13 July 2010
DOI:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605763
Additional sources: Breakthrough Breast Cancer, wikipedia.
Written by: Catharine Paddock, PhD
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
MLA
16 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/194890.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/194890.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (4)
breakthrough
posted by eve o'connor on 16 Jul 2010 at 11:34 pminteresting and exciting breakthrough for breast cancer women with HER2 positive receptor assay
Discovering Various Gene Expressions
posted by Gregory D. Pawelski on 17 Jul 2010 at 10:22 amGene expression means whether or not a gene (part of the patient's tumor cell's DNA) is expressed, meaning its RNA being made from the gene (RNA is the intermediary which codes for protein synthesis and it is the activity of proteins which determine the behavior of a tumor cell).
In chemotherapy selection, gene and protein analysis examines a single process within the cell or a relatively small number of porcesses. The "aim" of gene and protein expression testing is to tell if there is a theoretical predisposition to drug reponse. The goal is to look for patterns of normal and abnormal gene expression which could "suggest" that certain proteins might or might not be produced within a cell. Just because a gene is present, it does not mean that an associated protein has been produced.
Protein testing goes one step further by testing to see if the relevant protein actually has been produced. However, even protein testing cannot tell us if a protein is "functional" or how it will interact with other proteins in the presence of targeted anti-cancer drugs. Functional Tumor Cell Profiling tests not only for the presence of genes and proteins but also for their "functionality," for their interaction with other genes, proteins and processes occurring within the cell, and for their response to targeted anti-cancer drugs.
Gene and protein analysis cannot discriminate among the activities of different drugs within the same class. Instead, gene and protein examination assumes that all drugs within a class will produce precisely the same effect, even though from clinical experience, this is not the case. Nor can gene and protein tesing tell us anything about drug combinations. Functional Tumor Cell Profiling measures genes before and after drug exposure. Gene Expression Profiles measure the gene expression only in the "resting" state, prior to drug exposure.
Given the technical and conceptual advantages of Functional Profiling Assays together with their performance and the modest efficacy of therapy prediction based on analysis of genome express, there is reason for a renewal in its interest for optimized use of medical treatment of malignant disease. The assay can actually integrate all the gene expression into one convenient test result.
It's not an either/or situation. Cancer is a complex disease and needs to be attacked on many fronts. The best thing to do is to combine these and other different tests (protein function, cell function and disease analysis) in ways which make the most sense.
Great news
posted by siobhan on 20 Jul 2010 at 3:40 pmAs a 37 year old mum with her2 breast cancer and secondaries in the lung I'm am delighted with any updates on this. I am currently on herceptin and thankfully its working well but hoping for the best in the future. I would like to thank all the doctors and scientists who help to give people like me the best chance in life.
Great news Thank you...
"Science Must Join Hands With Proven Natural Protocols to Ever Conquer Cancer"
posted by D. Campbell on 9 Oct 2010 at 3:29 pmThis article is very exciting as I have Grade III, Her2 positive, ER/PR Negative, Stage IIIa breast cancer. I've had modified radical mastectomy with lymph nodes removed (9 out of 16 were involved). At this point all that is left are bad cancer cells floating around in my body. However, Oncologists insist on giving the standard chemo and radiation (which at best may give me a couple of months longer to live after months of no quality of life due to their deadly cancer-causing poisons. They won't (or are not allowed to) use any single treatment for this type of cancer even if that's what I choose. I have refused to have the standard chemo or the radiation as there is nothing to radiate. Chemo shrinks tumors, but I don't have any to shrink. I believe strongly that these cells could be eradicated or severely reduced with IV oxygen therapy, raising cell alkalinity, or several other known abnormal-cell-targeting regimens which could lengthen or save my life. The barrier between "scientific" chemicals and well-known and proven natural treatments in my opinion is causing unnecessary deaths. We are told it is our body and we have choices about our treatment, but the only choice I've been given after 4 months of research into both methods is "Take the deadly chemicals we offer (which after 60 years of study offer very little and can cause other cancers) or do nothing. That's not much of a choice. The multi-billion dollar Chemo industry takes precedence over far less expensive potentially life-giving treatments. The FDA makes it criminal to even claim natural medicine can fight cancer or anything else unless they approve it, and the drug lobby is much more powerful than patients. Pharma takes natural chemicals and alters their natural chemical chain by adding a man-made chemical to make it unique so they can Trademark it and sell it for thousands of times more than the original natural ingredients would cost to produce. A natural chemical element cannot be Trademarked as it is readily available around the world; so the big pharmaceutical companies' gargantuan profits are protected by FDA at the expense of the taxpayers and patient's lives. It's up to patients to find out what might be best for them, where if all treatments were taught in our universities and made widely available patients would actually have a choice. This is done to "protect" patients from themselves even if there is a better choice for each individual patient. They seem to think we all are to stupid to research knowledge provided, weigh our odds and decide for ourselves what we want to do. This is just another problem with big government controlling everything in our lives, and we all know that money is the name of the game. Even when there is a new discovery, those of us alive today probably won't be by the time FDA gets around to approving it.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.





