Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Modelling breast cancer: one size does not fit all

Nature Reviews Cancer volume 7, pages 659–672 (2007)Cite this article

Key Points

  • The models commonly used to investigate breast cancer, including breast cancer cell lines, xenografts and genetically engineered mice (GEM), are discussed. Their strengths and limitations, and how they can be optimally used and improved, are described.

  • Breast cancer cell lines share many of the genetic and genomic features of human breast cancers, including representing several breast cancer subtypes. Several cell lines may also serve as models to investigate tumour-initiating cell properties.

  • Utilization of cell lines as subtype systems in three-dimensional and heterotypic cultures represent powerful approaches to investigate the signalling interactions that contribute to breast cancer biology.

  • Xenografts of cell lines and breast cancer clinical isolates allow for the examination of human breast cancer cells in the context of the in vivo environment, as the cell culture environment cannot completely recapitulate the complex multicellular and cell–extracellular matrix interactions that are involved in the initiation and progression of breast cancer.

  • Genetically engineered mouse models of breast cancer exhibit many features of human breast cancer and thus provide invaluable models for investigating the biology and pathogenesis of this disease. The accumulating number of molecular profiling studies provide a framework for comparing GEM and human breast cancer.

  • Because of the complexity and heterogeneity of breast cancer no individual model recapitulates all aspects of this disease. Thus, an integrated and multi-systems approach is currently the strongest way to model this disease.

Abstract

Breast cancer is not a single disease, but is instead a collection of diseases that have distinct histopathological features, genetic and genomic variability, and diverse prognostic outcomes. Thus, no individual model would be expected to completely recapitulate this complex disease. Here, the models commonly used to investigate breast cancer including cell lines, xenografts and genetically engineered mice, are discussed to help address the question: what is the most powerful way to investigate this heterogeneous disease?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: The biology of breast cancer.
Figure 2: The identification of breast cancer subtypes by molecular profiling.
Figure 3: Culture methods and xenografts.
Figure 4: Molecular profiling of mammary tumours from GEM and comparison with human breast cancer profiles.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2007. (American Cancer Society, 2007).

  2. Ferlay, J. et al. Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. Ann. Oncol. 18, 581–592 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ravdin, P. M. et al. The decrease in breast-cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 1670–1674 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lacroix, M. & Leclercq, G. Relevance of breast cancer cell lines as models for breast tumours: an update. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 83, 249–289 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hahn, W. C. & Weinberg, R. A. Rules for making human tumor cells. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 1593–1603 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rangarajan, A., Hong, S. J., Gifford, A. & Weinberg, R. A. Species- and cell type-specific requirements for cellular transformation. Cancer Cell 6, 171–183 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rangarajan, A. & Weinberg, R. A. Comparative biology of mouse versus human cells: modelling human cancer in mice. Nature Rev. Cancer 3, 952–959 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nandi, S., Guzman, R. C. & Yang, J. Hormones and mammary carcinogenesis in mice, rats, and humans: a unifying hypothesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 92, 3650–3657 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Burdall, S. E., Hanby, A. M., Lansdown, M. R. & Speirs, V. Breast cancer cell lines: friend or foe? Breast Cancer Res. 5, 89–95 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Perou, C. M. et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406, 747–752 (2000). This seminal molecular profiling study of human breast cancers identified five distinct subtypes of ductal carcinoma.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ross, D. T. et al. Systematic variation in gene expression patterns in human cancer cell lines. Nature Genet. 24, 227–235 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Charafe-Jauffret, E. et al. Gene expression profiling of breast cell lines identifies potential new basal markers. Oncogene 25, 2273–2284 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Neve, R. M. et al. A collection of breast cancer cell lines for the study of functionally distinct cancer subtypes. Cancer Cell 10, 515–527 (2006). This comprehensive study, which compares the molecular profiles and genomic alterations of 51 breast cancer cell lines and human breast tumours, highlights the similarities and differences between cell lines and primary tumours and suggests that when subtype cell lines are used as a system they provide powerful models for investigating breast cancer.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Van't Veer, L. J. & Weigelt, B. Road map to metastasis. Nature Med. 9, 999–1000 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Weigelt, B., Bosma, A. J., Hart, A. A., Rodenhuis, S. & van 't Veer, L. J. Marker genes for circulating tumour cells predict survival in metastasized breast cancer patients. Br. J. Cancer 88, 1091–1094 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Dontu, G. et al. In vitro propagation and transcriptional profiling of human mammary stem/progenitor cells. Genes Dev. 17, 1253–1270 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Villadsen, R. et al. Evidence for a stem cell hierarchy in the adult human breast. J. Cell Biol. 177, 87–101 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Al-Hajj, M., Wicha, M. S., Benito-Hernandez, A., Morrison, S. J. & Clarke, M. F. Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 3983–3988 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ponti, D. et al. Isolation and in vitro propagation of tumorigenic breast cancer cells with stem/progenitor cell properties. Cancer Res. 65, 5506–5511 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Polyak, K. Molecular alterations in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Curr. Opin. Oncol. 14, 92–96 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Reya, T., Morrison, S. J., Clarke, M. F. & Weissman, I. L. Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells. Nature 414, 105–111 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wicha, M. S., Liu, S. & Dontu, G. Cancer stem cells: an old idea — a paradigm shift. Cancer Res. 66, 1883–1890; discussion 1895–1886 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dalerba, P., Cho, R. W. & Clarke, M. F. Cancer stem cells: models and concepts. Annu. Rev. Med. 58, 267–284 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuperwasser, C. et al. Reconstruction of functionally normal and malignant human breast tissues in mice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 4966–4971 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Dontu, G. & Wicha, M. S. Survival of mammary stem cells in suspension culture: implications for stem cell biology and neoplasia. J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia 10, 75–86 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Phillips, T. M., McBride, W. H. & Pajonk, F. The response of CD24−/low/CD44+ breast cancer-initiating cells to radiation. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 98, 1777–1785 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen, M. S. et al. Wnt/β-catenin mediates radiation resistance of Sca1+ progenitors in an immortalized mammary gland cell line. J. Cell Sci. 120, 468–477 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Woodward, W. A. et al. WNT/β-catenin mediates radiation resistance of mouse mammary progenitor cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 618–623 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Sheridan, C. et al. CD44+/CD24− breast cancer cells exhibit enhanced invasive properties: an early step necessary for metastasis. Breast Cancer Res. 8, R59 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Shipitsin, M. et al. Molecular definition of breast tumor heterogeneity. Cancer Cell 11, 259–273 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Abraham, B. K. et al. Prevalence of CD44+/CD24−/low cells in breast cancer may not be associated with clinical outcome but may favor distant metastasis. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 1154–1159 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu, R. et al. The prognostic role of a gene signature from tumorigenic breast-cancer cells. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 217–226 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Armstrong, L. et al. Phenotypic characterization of murine primitive hematopoietic progenitor cells isolated on basis of aldehyde dehydrogenase activity. Stem Cells 22, 1142–1151 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fillmore, C. & Kuperwasser, C. Human breast cancer stem cell markers CD44 and CD24: enriching for cells with functional properties in mice or in man? Breast Cancer Res. 9, 303 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ross, D. T. & Perou, C. M. A comparison of gene expression signatures from breast tumors and breast tissue derived cell lines. Dis. Markers 17, 99–109 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kenny, P. A. et al. The morphologies of breast cancer cell lines in three-dimensional assays correlate with their profiles of gene expression. Mol. Oncol. 1, 84–96 (2007). This study compares gene expression, genomic alterations and morphologies of 27 breast cancer cell lines cultured in 2D versus 3D conditions, which indicates that 3D cultures more precisely mimic the in vivo environment.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Li, C. et al. Cell type and culture condition-dependent alternative splicing in human breast cancer cells revealed by splicing-sensitive microarrays. Cancer Res. 66, 1990–1999 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Shaw, K. R., Wrobel, C. N. & Brugge, J. S. Use of three-dimensional basement membrane cultures to model oncogene-induced changes in mammary epithelial morphogenesis. J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia 9, 297–310 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Debnath, J. & Brugge, J. S. Modelling glandular epithelial cancers in three-dimensional cultures. Nature Rev. Cancer 5, 675–688 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Paszek, M. J. & Weaver, V. M. The tension mounts: mechanics meets morphogenesis and malignancy. J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia 9, 325–342 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee, G. Y., Kenny, P. A., Lee, E. H. & Bissell, M. J. Three-dimensional culture models of normal and malignant breast epithelial cells. Nature Methods 4, 359–365 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Paszek, M. J. et al. Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype. Cancer Cell 8, 241–254 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Chan, S. K., Hill, M. E. & Gullick, W. J. The role of the epidermal growth factor receptor in breast cancer. J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia 11, 3–11 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. van Golen, K. L. Inflammatory breast cancer: relationship between growth factor signaling and motility in aggressive cancers. Breast Cancer Res. 5, 174–179 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Dillon, R. L., White, D. E. & Muller, W. J. The phosphatidyl inositol 3-kinase signaling network: implications for human breast cancer. Oncogene 26, 1338–1345 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kenny, P. A. & Bissell, M. J. Targeting TACE-dependent EGFR ligand shedding in breast cancer. J. Clin. Invest. 117, 337–345 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Joyce, J. A. Therapeutic targeting of the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Cell 7, 513–520 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Albini, A. & Sporn, M. B. The tumour microenvironment as a target for chemoprevention. Nature Rev. Cancer 7, 139–147 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Fukino, K., Shen, L., Patocs, A., Mutter, G. L. & Eng, C. Genomic instability within tumor stroma and clinicopathological characteristics of sporadic primary invasive breast carcinoma. JAMA 297, 2103–2111 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pukrop, T. et al. Wnt 5a signaling is critical for macrophage-induced invasion of breast cancer cell lines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 5454–5459 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Hagemann, T. et al. Enhanced invasiveness of breast cancer cell lines upon co-cultivation with macrophages is due to TNF-α dependent up-regulation of matrix metalloproteases. Carcinogenesis 25, 1543–1549 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Goswami, S. et al. Macrophages promote the invasion of breast carcinoma cells via a colony-stimulating factor-1/epidermal growth factor paracrine loop. Cancer Res. 65, 5278–5283 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Tsutsui, S. et al. Macrophage infiltration and its prognostic implications in breast cancer: the relationship with VEGF expression and microvessel density. Oncol. Rep. 14, 425–431 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Leek, R. D., Landers, R. J., Harris, A. L. & Lewis, C. E. Necrosis correlates with high vascular density and focal macrophage infiltration in invasive carcinoma of the breast. Br. J. Cancer 79, 991–995 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Lin, E. Y. et al. Macrophages regulate the angiogenic switch in a mouse model of breast cancer. Cancer Res. 66, 11238–11246 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Heppner, G. H., Miller, F. R. & Shekhar, P. M. Nontransgenic models of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2, 331–334 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Balkwill, F., Charles, K. A. & Mantovani, A. Smoldering and polarized inflammation in the initiation and promotion of malignant disease. Cancer Cell 7, 211–217 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Schwertfeger, K. L., Rosen, J. M. & Cohen, D. A. Mammary gland macrophages: pleiotropic functions in mammary development. J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia 11, 229–238 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hovey, R. C., McFadden, T. B. & Akers, R. M. Regulation of mammary gland growth and morphogenesis by the mammary fat pad: a species comparison. J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia 4, 53–68 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Weigelt, B., Peterse, J. L. & van 't Veer, L. J. Breast cancer metastasis: markers and models. Nature Rev. Cancer 5, 591–602 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Minn, A. J. et al. Genes that mediate breast cancer metastasis to lung. Nature 436, 518–524 (2005). A breast cancer cell line xenograft metastasis model was used to identify a metastasis gene signature that could identify patients who would develop metastatic disease.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Kluger, H. M. et al. Using a xenograft model of human breast cancer metastasis to find genes associated with clinically aggressive disease. Cancer Res. 65, 5578–5587 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Montel, V., Huang, T. Y., Mose, E., Pestonjamasp, K. & Tarin, D. Expression profiling of primary tumors and matched lymphatic and lung metastases in a xenogeneic breast cancer model. Am. J. Pathol. 166, 1565–1579 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Liu, S. et al. Hedgehog signaling and Bmi-1 regulate self-renewal of normal and malignant human mammary stem cells. Cancer Res. 66, 6063–6071 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Prendergast, G. C. & Jaffee, E. M. Cancer immunologists and cancer biologists: why we didn't talk then but need to now. Cancer Res. 67, 3500–3504 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Voskoglou-Nomikos, T., Pater, J. L. & Seymour, L. Clinical predictive value of the in vitro cell line, human xenograft, and mouse allograft preclinical cancer models. Clin. Cancer Res. 9, 4227–4239 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Shoemaker, R. H. The NCI60 human tumour cell line anticancer drug screen. Nature Rev. Cancer 6, 813–823 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Johnson, J. I. et al. Relationships between drug activity in NCI preclinical in vitro and in vivo models and early clinical trials. Br. J. Cancer 84, 1424–1431 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Sharpless, N. E. & Depinho, R. A. The mighty mouse: genetically engineered mouse models in cancer drug development. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 741–754 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Proia, D. A. & Kuperwasser, C. Reconstruction of human mammary tissues in a mouse model. Nature Protoc. 1, 206–214 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Orimo, A. et al. Stromal fibroblasts present in invasive human breast carcinomas promote tumor growth and angiogenesis through elevated SDF-1/CXCL12 secretion. Cell 121, 335–348 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. MacDonald, I. C. & Chambers, A. F. Breast cancer metastasis progression as revealed by intravital videomicroscopy. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 6, 1271–1279 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Wyckoff, J. B. et al. Direct visualization of macrophage-assisted tumor cell intravasation in mammary tumors. Cancer Res. 67, 2649–2656 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Varticovski, L. et al. Accelerated preclinical testing using transplanted tumors from genetically engineered mouse breast cancer models. Clin. Cancer Res. 13, 2168–2177 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Guy, C. T., Cardiff, R. D. & Muller, W. J. Induction of mammary tumors by expression of polyomavirus middle T oncogene: a transgenic mouse model for metastatic disease. Mol. Cell. Biol. 12, 954–961 (1992).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Guy, C. T. et al. Expression of the Neu protooncogene in the mammary epithelium of transgenic mice induces metastatic disease. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 89, 10578–10582 (1992).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Muller, W. J., Sinn, E., Pattengale, P. K., Wallace, R. & Leder, P. Single-step induction of mammary adenocarcinoma in transgenic mice bearing the activated c-Neu oncogene. Cell 54, 105–115 (1988).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Sinn, E. et al. Coexpression of MMTV/v-Ha-ras and MMTV/c-myc genes in transgenic mice: synergistic action of oncogenes in vivo. Cell 49, 465–475 (1987).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Gunther, E. J. et al. A novel doxycycline-inducible system for the transgenic analysis of mammary gland biology. FASEB J. 16, 283–292 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Wagner, K. U. et al. Spatial and temporal expression of the Cre gene under the control of the MMTV-LTR in different lines of transgenic mice. Transgenic Res. 10, 545–553 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Wagner, K. U. et al. Cre-mediated gene deletion in the mammary gland. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 4323–4330 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Jonkers, J. et al. Synergistic tumor suppressor activity of BRCA2 and p53 in a conditional mouse model for breast cancer. Nature Genet. 29, 418–425 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Lin, S. C. et al. Somatic mutation of p53 leads to estrogen receptor α-positive and -negative mouse mammary tumors with high frequency of metastasis. Cancer Res. 64, 3525–3532 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Utomo, A. R., Nikitin, A. Y. & Lee, W. H. Temporal, spatial, and cell type-specific control of Cre-mediated DNA recombination in transgenic mice. Nature Biotech. 17, 1091–1096 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Loonstra, A. et al. Growth inhibition and DNA damage induced by Cre recombinase in mammalian cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 9209–9214 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Soyal, S. M. et al. Cre-mediated recombination in cell lineages that express the progesterone receptor. Genesis 41, 58–66 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Mukherjee, A. et al. Targeting iCre expression to murine progesterone receptor cell-lineages using bacterial artificial chromosome transgenesis. Genesis 44, 601–610 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Du, Z. et al. Introduction of oncogenes into mammary glands in vivo with an avian retroviral vector initiates and promotes carcinogenesis in mouse models. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 17396–17401 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Cardiff, R. D. et al. The mammary pathology of genetically engineered mice: the consensus report and recommendations from the Annapolis meeting. Oncogene 19, 968–988 (2000). This is a seminal report on the comparative pathology and biology of mammary tumours from GEM and human breast cancers.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Russo, J. & Russo, I. H. Atlas and histologic classification of tumors of the rat mammary gland. J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia 5, 187–200 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Gunther, E. J. et al. Impact of p53 loss on reversal and recurrence of conditional Wnt-induced tumorigenesis. Genes Dev. 17, 488–501 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Desai, K. V. et al. Initiating oncogenic event determines gene-expression patterns of human breast cancer models. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 6967–6972 (2002). This molecular profiling study compares six widely used genetically engineered mouse models of breast cancer with each other and with normal mammary glands to identify oncogene-specific and nonspecific pathways that contribute to tumour development and progression.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Moody, S. E. et al. Conditional activation of Neu in the mammary epithelium of transgenic mice results in reversible pulmonary metastasis. Cancer Cell 2, 451–461 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Boxer, R. B., Jang, J. W., Sintasath, L. & Chodosh, L. A. Lack of sustained regression of c-MYC-induced mammary adenocarcinomas following brief or prolonged MYC inactivation. Cancer Cell 6, 577–586 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Derksen, P. W. et al. Somatic inactivation of E-cadherin and p53 in mice leads to metastatic lobular mammary carcinoma through induction of anoikis resistance and angiogenesis. Cancer Cell 10, 437–449 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Andrechek, E. R. et al. Amplification of the Neu/ErbB-2 oncogene in a mouse model of mammary tumorigenesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 3444–3449 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Slamon, D. J. et al. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/Neu oncogene. Science 235, 177–182 (1987).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Elledge, R. M. & Allred, D. C. Prognostic and predictive value of p53 and p21 in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 52, 79–98 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Hu, Y. et al. From mice to humans: identification of commonly deregulated genes in mammary cancer via comparative SAGE studies. Cancer Res. 64, 7748–7755 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Bouchard, L., Lamarre, L., Tremblay, P. J. & Jolicoeur, P. Stochastic appearance of mammary tumors in transgenic mice carrying the MMTV/c-Neu oncogene. Cell 57, 931–936 (1989).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Ursini-Siegel, J., Schade, B., Cardiff, R. D. & Muller, W. J. Insights from transgenic mouse models of ERBB2-induced breast cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 7, 389–397 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Siegel, P. M., Dankort, D. L., Hardy, W. R. & Muller, W. J. Novel activating mutations in the Neu proto-oncogene involved in induction of mammary tumors. Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 7068–7077 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Montagna, C., Andrechek, E. R., Padilla-Nash, H., Muller, W. J. & Ried, T. Centrosome abnormalities, recurring deletions of chromosome 4, and genomic amplification of HER2/Neu define mouse mammary gland adenocarcinomas induced by mutant HER2/Neu. Oncogene 21, 890–898 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Hodgson, J. G. et al. Copy number aberrations in mouse breast tumors reveal loci and genes important in tumorigenic receptor tyrosine kinase signaling. Cancer Res. 65, 9695–9704 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Andrechek, E. R. et al. Gene expression profiling of Neu-induced mammary tumors from transgenic mice reveals genetic and morphological similarities to ErbB2-expressing human breast cancers. Cancer Res. 63, 4920–4926 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Slamon, D. J. et al. Studies of the HER-2/Neu proto-oncogene in human breast and ovarian cancer. Science 244, 707–712 (1989).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Herschkowitz, J. I. et al. Identification of conserved gene expression features between murine mammary carcinoma models and human breast tumors. Genome Biol. 8, R76 (2007). This molecular profiling study compares 13 widely used genetically engineered mouse models of breast cancer with human breast cancers to provide a framework for comparing GEM and human breast cancer.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Li, Y. et al. Evidence that transgenes encoding components of the Wnt signaling pathway preferentially induce mammary cancers from progenitor cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 15853–15858 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Gestl, S. A., Leonard, T. L., Biddle, J. L., Debies, M. T. & Gunther, E. J. Dormant Wnt-initiated mammary cancer can participate in reconstituting functional mammary glands. Mol. Cell. Biol. 27, 195–207 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Welm, A. L. et al. The macrophage-stimulating protein pathway promotes metastasis in a mouse model for breast cancer and predicts poor prognosis in humans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 7570–7575 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Kuperwasser, C. et al. A mouse model of human breast cancer metastasis to human bone. Cancer Res. 65, 6130–6138 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Westbrook, T. F. et al. A genetic screen for candidate tumor suppressors identifies REST. Cell 121, 837–848 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Dobie, K. W. et al. Variegated transgene expression in mouse mammary gland is determined by the transgene integration locus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 6659–6664 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Choi, Y. W., Henrard, D., Lee, I. & Ross, S. R. The mouse mammary tumor virus long terminal repeat directs expression in epithelial and lymphoid cells of different tissues in transgenic mice. J. Virol. 61, 3013–3019 (1987).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Henrard, D. & Ross, S. R. Endogenous mouse mammary tumor virus is expressed in several organs in addition to the lactating mammary gland. J. Virol. 62, 3046–3049 (1988).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Wen, J., Kawamata, Y., Tojo, H., Tanaka, S. & Tachi, C. Expression of whey acidic protein (WAP) genes in tissues other than the mammary gland in normal and transgenic mice expressing mWAP/hGH fusion gene. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 41, 399–406 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Cardiff, R. D. Validity of mouse mammary tumour models for human breast cancer: comparative pathology. Microsc. Res. Tech. 52, 224–230 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Wagner, K. U. Models of breast cancer: quo vadis, animal modeling? Breast Cancer Res. 6, 31–38 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Davis, M. A. & Reynolds, A. B. Blocked acinar development, E-cadherin reduction, and intraepithelial neoplasia upon ablation of p120-catenin in the mouse salivary gland. Dev. Cell 10, 21–31 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Huggins, C., Grand, L. C. & Brillantes, F. P. Mammary cancer induced by a single feeding of polymucular hydrocarbons, and its suppression. Nature 189, 204–207 (1961).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Russo, I. H. & Russo, J. Developmental stage of the rat mammary gland as determinant of its susceptibility to 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 61, 1439–1449 (1978).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Thompson, H. J., Adlakha, H. & Singh, M. Effect of carcinogen dose and age at administration on induction of mammary carcinogenesis by 1-methyl-1-nitrosourea. Carcinogenesis 13, 1535–1539 (1992).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Thompson, H. J. & Meeker, L. D. Induction of mammary gland carcinomas by the subcutaneous injection of 1-methyl-1-nitrosourea. Cancer Res. 43, 1628–1629 (1983).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Russo, J. et al. Molecular basis of pregnancy-induced breast cancer protection. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 15, 306–342 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Russo, J. et al. The genomic signature of breast cancer prevention. Recent Results Cancer Res. 174, 131–150 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Blakely, C. M. et al. Hormone-induced protection against mammary tumorigenesis is conserved in multiple rat strains and identifies a core gene expression signature induced by pregnancy. Cancer Res. 66, 6421–6431 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Russo, J. et al. Comparative study of human and rat mammary tumorigenesis. Lab. Invest. 62, 244–278 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Zan, Y. et al. Production of knockout rats using ENU mutagenesis and a yeast-based screening assay. Nature Biotech. 21, 645–651 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Nguyen, D. X. & Massague, J. Genetic determinants of cancer metastasis. Nature Rev. Genet. 8, 341–352 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Tan, B. T., Park, C. Y., Ailles, L. E. & Weissman, I. L. The cancer stem cell hypothesis: a work in progress. Lab. Invest. 86, 1203–1207 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Sorlie, T. et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 10869–10874 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Sorlie, T. et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8418–8423 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. Zhao, H. et al. Different gene expression patterns in invasive lobular and ductal carcinomas of the breast. Mol. Biol. Cell 15, 2523–2536 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Carey, L. A. et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin. Cancer Res. 13, 2329–2334 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Al-Hajj, M., Becker, M. W., Wicha, M., Weissman, I. & Clarke, M. F. Therapeutic implications of cancer stem cells. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 14, 43–47 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Bissell, M. J., Radisky, D. C., Rizki, A., Weaver, V. M. & Petersen, O. W. The organizing principle: microenvironmental influences in the normal and malignant breast. Differentiation 70, 537–546 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. Bissell, M. J. & Labarge, M. A. Context, tissue plasticity, and cancer: are tumor stem cells also regulated by the microenvironment? Cancer Cell 7, 17–23 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. Bissell, M. J., Rizki, A. & Mian, I. S. Tissue architecture: the ultimate regulator of breast epithelial function. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 15, 753–762 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. Debnath, J., Muthuswamy, S. K. & Brugge, J. S. Morphogenesis and oncogenesis of MCF-10A mammary epithelial acini grown in three-dimensional basement membrane cultures. Methods 30, 256–268 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. MacDonald, I. C., Groom, A. C. & Chambers, A. F. Cancer spread and micrometastasis development: quantitative approaches for in vivo models. Bioessays 24, 885–893 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Wyckoff, J. B., Jones, J. G., Condeelis, J. S. & Segall, J. E. A critical step in metastasis: in vivo analysis of intravasation at the primary tumor. Cancer Res. 60, 2504–2511 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Chambers, A. F., Naumov, G. N., Vantyghem, S. A. & Tuck, A. B. Molecular biology of breast cancer metastasis. Clinical implications of experimental studies on metastatic inefficiency. Breast Cancer Res. 2, 400–407 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to C. Perou, C. Kuperwasser, M. Bissell, M. Wicha, J. Chang and M. Lewis for kindly providing preprints and sharing their data before publication. We would like to thank C. Allred for contributing the histopathology images and K. Schwertfeger for critical reading of the manuscript. We apologize to authors whose work was omitted owing to space limitations. Supported in part by 1K99CA127,361-01 awarded to T.V.-G. and CA16,303 awarded to J.M.R.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, 77030, Texas, USA

    Tracy Vargo-Gogola & Jeffrey M. Rosen

Authors
  1. Tracy Vargo-Gogola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey M. Rosen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey M. Rosen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Related links

Related links

FURTHER INFORMATION

Jeffrey M. Rosen's homepage

Mayo Clinic web page on breast cancer

Glossary

Triple negative subtype

A subtype of invasive ductal carcinoma that is ER, PR and ERBB2 negative.

Pleural effusion

A fluid, which contains tumour cells, that accumulates between the thin layers of tissue lining the lung and chest wall.

Limiting dilution transplantation

An experimental method for estimating the number of cells that have stem or progenitor or tumour-initiating behaviour within a population of cells.

Aldefluor

An aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) substrate that allows the identification and isolation of stem or progenitor cells based on the observation that these cells have high ALDH activity.

Matrix compliance

The flexibility of the matrix surrounding the cells, which exerts forces that affect cell behaviour.

Homotypic

An interaction between cells of the same type.

Angiogenic switch

A shift in the net balance between positive and negative angiogenesis factors in which there are increased positive factors to promote the growth of new blood vessels in tumours.

Intravital microscopy

Fluorescence microscopy that allows the visualization of individual cells within living tissues or animals.

Fibrosis

The formation of excess fibrous connective tissue that results from a reactive process within the tumour stroma.

Dormant tumour-initiating cells

The cells within a tumour that are not actively cycling and are capable of giving rise to a new tumour.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

A drug treatment given to reduce the size of tumours before surgery.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vargo-Gogola, T., Rosen, J. Modelling breast cancer: one size does not fit all. Nat Rev Cancer 7, 659–672 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2193

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2193

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing