Abstract LB-67: Breast cancer-associated lymphangiogenesis: roles of PGE2 and EP4 receptor on lymphatic endothelial cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Lymphatic metastasis is a common event in breast cancer, facilitated by tumor-associated lymphangiogenesis, molecular mechanisms of which remain poorly defined. We had earlier shown that endogenous PGE2 resulting from elevated COX-2 expression by breast cancer cells promotes tumor progression and metastasis by multiple mechanisms: inactivation of host immune cells, stimulation of tumor cell migration, tumor-associated angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis. The latter was due to upregulation of VEGF-C or -D secretion due to activation of EP4 receptors on breast cancer cells and cancer-infiltrating macrophages. Objectives: To examine whether PGE2 in the tumor micro-environment directly promotes lymphangiogenesis by stimulating EP4 receptors on lymphatic endothelial cells (LEC).Approaches: In vitro studies utilized a rat mesenteric lymphatic endothelial cell line (RMLEC) and a COX-2 expressing, VEGF-C/-D producing murine breast cancer cell line C3L5; in vivo studies measured lymphangiogenesis in nude mice. Results RMLEC expressed all EP receptors and responded to PGE2, an EP4 agonist (EP4a) PGE1-OH, or C3L5 cell conditioned media (C3L5-CM) by increased proliferation, migration and accelerated tube formation on growth factor-reduced matrigel. Tube formation on matrigel alone was completely abrogated in the presence of COX 1/2 inhibitor indomethacin (10uM), COX-2 inhibitor (COX-2i) NS-398 (15uM), and a selective EP4 antagonist (EP4A) RQ15986 (2.5 nM), indicating the roles of COX-2 and EP4. Addition of PGE2, EP4a, or C3L5-CM individually in presence of the COX-2i, or EP4A, partially restored the tube formation, reinforcing the role of EP4 on RMLEC. RMLEC grown in the presence of PGE2 showed upregulation of COX2, EP4, VEGF-C and VEGF-D mRNAs. Knocking down EP4 with shRNA in RMLEC abrogated tube formation on matrigel in the absence or presence of PGE-2, EP4a, or C3L5-CM. EP4 silenced RMLEC also became unresponsive to these agents in stimulating PGE2, VEGF-C, and -D production. Finally in a directed in vivo lymphangiogenesis assay (DIVLA) using implants of angioreactors including PGE-2, EP4a or VEGF-C in the dorsal flanks of nude mice, we simultaneously measured lymphangiogenesis and angiogenesis using dual immunostaining of the tissue contents for Lyve-1 and cd31, or prox-1 and cd31. Results demonstrated the lymphangiogenic as well as angiogenic capacity of PGE2 and EP4a in vivo by recruitment of new vessels. Conclusions: Tumor or host-derived PGE2 stimulates lymphangiogenesis, at least in part, by activating EP4 on the LEC. Combined with earlier studies we show that EP4 is a common therapeutic target on tumor and host cells (macrophages and LEC) in abrogating multiple events in breast cancer progression. This may spare cardio-protective prostanoids like PGI2, inhibited by COX-2 inhibitors Citation Format: Peeyush K. Lala, Gannareddy V. Girish, Xiping Xin, Mousumi Majumder, Elena Tutunea-Fatan, Pinki Nandi. Breast cancer-associated lymphangiogenesis: roles of PGE2 and EP4 receptor on lymphatic endothelial cells. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-67. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-LB-67
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".