Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28330493›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2017

Loss of MMP-8 in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)-associated myoepithelial cells contributes to tumour promotion through altered adhesive and proteolytic function.

Muge Sarper, Michael D Allen, Jenny Gomm, Linda Haywood, Julie Decock, Sally Thirkettle, Ahsen Ustaoglu, Shah-Jalal Sarker, John Marshall, Dylan R Edwards and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Role of MMP8 in Cancer: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. The Microenvironment in DCIS and Its Role in Disease Progression.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Muge SarperTranslational Cancer Discovery Team, CRUK Cancer Therapeutics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5NG, UK.
Michael D AllenCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, John Vane Science Centre, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. m.allen@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2121-8087
Jenny GommCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, John Vane Science Centre, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Linda HaywoodCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, John Vane Science Centre, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Julie DecockCancer Research Centre, Qatar Biomedical Research Institute, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar.
Sally ThirkettleCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, John Vane Science Centre, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Ahsen UstaogluCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, John Vane Science Centre, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Shah-Jalal SarkerCentre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, John Vane Science Centre, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
John MarshallCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, John Vane Science Centre, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Dylan R EdwardsSchool of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
J Louise JonesCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, John Vane Science Centre, Charterhouse Square, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. l.j.jones@qmul.ac.uk.
Queen Mary University of London · GBInstitute of Cancer Research · GBQatar Foundation · QAUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNormal myoepithelial cells (MECs) play an important tumour-suppressor role in the breast but display an altered phenotype in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), gaining tumour-promoter functions. Matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8) is expressed by normal MECs but is lost in DCIS. This study investigated the function of MMP-8 in MECs and the impact of its loss in DCIS.

methodsPrimary normal and DCIS-associated MECs, and normal (N-1089) and DCIS-modified myoepithelial (β6-1089) cell lines, were used to assess MMP-8 expression and function. β6-1089 lacking MMP-8 were transfected with MMP-8 WT and catalytically inactive MMP-8 EA, and MMP-8 in N-1089 MEC was knocked down with siRNA. The effect on adhesion and migration to extracellular matrix (ECM), localisation of α6β4 integrin to hemidesmosomes (HD), TGF-β signalling and gelatinase activity was measured. The effect of altering MEC MMP-8 expression on tumour cell invasion was investigated in 2D and 3D organotypic models.

resultsAssessment of primary cells and MEC lines confirmed expression of MMP-8 in normal MEC and its loss in DCIS-MEC. Over-expression of MMP-8 WT but not MMP-8 EA in β6-1089 cells increased adhesion to ECM proteins and reduced migration. Conversely, knock-down of MMP-8 in N-1089 reduced adhesion and increased migration. Expression of MMP-8 WT in β6-1089 led to greater localisation of α6β4 to HD and reduced retraction fibre formation, this being reversed by MMP-8 knock-down in N-1089. Over-expression of MMP-8 WT reduced TGF-β signalling and gelatinolytic activity. MMP-8 knock-down enhanced TGF-β signalling and gelatinolytic activity, which was reversed by blocking MMP-9 by knock-down or an inhibitor. MMP-8 WT but not MMP-8 EA over-expression in β6-1089 reduced breast cancer cell invasion in 2D and 3D invasion assays, while MMP-8 knock-down in N-1089 enhanced cancer cell invasion. Staining of breast cancer cases for MMP-8 revealed a statistically significant loss of MMP-8 expression in DCIS with invasion versus pure DCIS (p = 0.001).

conclusionsThese data indicate MMP-8 is a vital component of the myoepithelial tumour-suppressor function. It restores MEC interaction with the matrix, opposes TGF-β signalling and MMP-9 proteolysis, which contributes to inhibition of tumour cell invasion. Assessment of MMP-8 expression may help to determine risk of DCIS progression.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCell AdhesionCell Line, TransformedCell Line, TumorCell MovementCell SurvivalCell Transformation, NeoplasticEpithelial CellsFemaleGene ExpressionGene Knockdown TechniquesHumansImmunohistochemistryIntegrin alpha6beta4Biomarkers, TumorIntegrin alpha6beta4Matrix Metalloproteinase 8Matrix Metalloproteinase 9Transforming Growth Factor betaAdhesionDuctal carcinoma in situHemidesmosomesInvasionMicroenvironmentMMP-8Myoepithelial cellOrganotypic assays

Identifiers

PMID28330493
PMCPMC5363009
OpenAlexW2600154300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.