ARTICLE

Effect of Smad7 Expression on Metastasis of Mouse Mammary Carcinoma JygMC(A) Cells

Haruhito Azuma, Shogo Ehata, Hideyo Miyazaki, Tetsuro Watabe, Osamu Maruyama, Takeshi Imamura, Takeshi Sakamoto, Satoshi Kiyama, Yuko Kiyama, Takanobu Ubai, Teruo Inamoto, Shiro Takahara, Yuko Itoh, Yoshinori Otsuki, Yoji Katsuoka, Kohei Miyazono, Shigeo Horie

Affiliations of authors: Department of Urology (HA, TS, SK, Y. Kiyama, TU, T. Inamoto, Y. Katsuoka) and Department of Anatomy and Biology (YI, YO), Osaka Medical College, Takatsuki, Osaka, Japan; Department of Molecular Pathology, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan (SE, HM, TW, KM); Department of Urology, Juntendo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan (SE); Department of Urology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan (OM, SH); Department of Biochemistry, The Cancer Institute of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo Japan (SE, T. Imamura, KM); Department of Urology, Osaka University, School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan (ST)

Correspondence to: Kohei Miyazono, MD, Department of Molecular Pathology, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan (e-mail: miyazono-ind{at}umin.ac.jp).


    ABSTRACT
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Background: Transforming growth factor {beta} (TGF-{beta}) facilitates metastasis during the advanced stages of cancer. Smad6, Smad7, and c-Ski block signaling by the TGF-{beta} superfamily proteins through different modes of action. We used adenovirus-mediated gene transfer of these natural inhibitors in a mouse model of breast cancer to examine the roles of TGF-{beta} superfamily signaling in tumor growth and metastasis. Methods: We systemically administered, by intravenous injection, adenoviruses (AdCMV) containing the mouse cDNAs for Smad7, Smad6, c-Ski, the c-Ski mutant c-Ski (ARPG), or LacZ (control) to nude mice (>19 mice/group) bearing tumors derived from mouse mammary carcinoma JygMC(A) cells, which spontaneously metastasize to lung and liver, and examined their effects on survival and metastasis. High-throughput western blotting analysis was used to examine the expression levels for 47 signal transduction proteins in JygMC(A) cells and primary tumors. We also investigated the proliferation, migration, and invasion of JygMC(A) cells that stably overexpressed Smad6 or Smad7. Nonparametric comparisons were done by Kruskal–Wallis H statistic and Wilcoxon's rank sum tests. Parametric comparisons were done by one-way analysis of variance or two-sided unpaired Student's t tests. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Control mice bearing tumors derived from JygMC(A) cells showed many metastases to the lung and liver; all animals died by 50 days after cell inoculation. By contrast, mice treated with AdCMV–Smad7 or AdCMV–c-Ski demonstrated a dramatic decrease in metastasis and statistically significantly longer survival than control mice (Smad7 versus LacZ: medium survival = 55 days versus 41 days, difference = 14 days [95% confidence interval {CI} = 6 days to 22 days], P<.001), whereas mice treated with AdCMV–Smad6 or AdCMV–c-Ski (ARPG) did not. Expression of Smad7 in JygMC(A) cells was associated with increased expression of major components of adherens and tight junctions, including E-cadherin, decreased expression of N-cadherin, and decreases in the migratory and invasive abilities of the JygMC(A) cells. Conclusion: Smad7 inhibits metastasis, possibly by regulating cell–cell adhesion. Systemic expression of Smad7 may be a novel strategy for the prevention of metastasis of advanced cancers.



    INTRODUCTION
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Transforming growth factor {beta} (TGF-{beta}) signaling has two distinct and opposite roles in tumor progression and metastasis (13). During the early stages of carcinogenesis, TGF-{beta} signaling suppresses tumor cell growth. For example, some gastrointestinal tumors have mutations in genes encoding components of the TGF-{beta} signaling pathway, and those mutations are associated with the aberrant growth of cancer cells (4,5). However, as carcinogenesis proceeds and tumor cells begin to escape from TGF-{beta}–induced growth arrest, TGF-{beta} accelerates tumor progression and metastasis (69). In fact, increased expression of TGF-{beta} has been found in many human cancers relative to nontransformed cells, and the level of TGF-{beta} is statistically correlated with enhanced invasion and metastasis of tumors [reviewed in Derynck et al. (8)].

Members of the TGF-{beta} superfamily, which include TGF-{beta}, activin, and bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), transmit their signals through Smad proteins (4,10). Signals from TGF-{beta} and activin are transduced through two receptor-regulated Smad proteins (R-Smads), Smad2 and Smad3, whereas signals from BMPs are transduced through other R-Smads (i.e., Smad1, Smad5, and Smad8). Smad4 is a common-partner Smad (Co-Smad) that forms complexes with activated R-Smads. The R-Smad and Co-Smad complexes translocate into the nucleus, where they regulate transcription of target genes (e.g., plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 [PAI-1]). By contrast, Smad6 and Smad7 inhibit intracellular signaling by the TGF-{beta} superfamily proteins, mainly by interacting with activated type I receptors for the TGF-{beta} superfamily proteins. Smad6 predominantly inhibits BMP signaling, whereas Smad7 inhibits both TGF-{beta} and BMP signaling.

Positive and negative regulation of target gene transcription by TGF-{beta} is mediated by the binding of Smads to transcriptional coactivators and corepressors, respectively (11). The protooncoprotein c-Ski is a transcriptional corepressor that interacts strongly with Smad2, Smad3, and Smad4 but only weakly with Smad1 and Smad5 (1214). c-Ski suppresses signaling of both TGF-{beta} and BMPs through its binding to Smad proteins and recruitment of histone deacetylases by means of N-CoR and mSin3A (1517). A mutant form of c-Ski, c-Ski (ARPG), which has an insertion of four amino acids (Ala–Arg–Pro–Gly), inhibits signaling by TGF-{beta} but not by BMPs because of its lack of binding to Smad4 (17,18).

In this study, we used adenovirus-mediated gene transfer to modulate TGF-{beta} signaling in an established mouse model of breast cancer to elucidate the roles of TGF-{beta} superfamily signals in cancer growth and metastasis (19).


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Cell Culture and Reagents

JygMC(A) cells, which spontaneously metastasize to lung and liver when inoculated subcutaneously into nude mice, were originally isolated from a mammary carcinoma that arose in a Chinese wild mouse (Mus musculus Sub-Jyg) (19). The cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's minimal essential medium (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) containing 10% fetal calf serum (FCS) and 100 U/mL penicillin and 100 µg/mL streptomycin (GIBCO, Grand Island, NY). We established JygMC(A) cells that stably overexpressed mouse Smad6, Smad7, or neither by transfecting the cells with expression plasmids pCAG-IP-Smad6, pCAG-IP-Smad7, or pCAG-IP-empty (20), respectively, using FuGENE6 reagent according to the manufacturer's instructions (Roche, Indianapolis, IL). Transfected cells were cultured for 3 weeks in medium containing 5 µg/mL puromycin (Sigma), and the puromycin-resistant JygMC(A) cells that remained in culture were then subcloned and maintained in medium containing 5 µg/mL puromycin. Recombinant human TGF-{beta}3 and BMP-4 were obtained from R&D Systems (Minneapolis, MN).

Adenoviruses

Recombinant E1-deleted adenoviral vectors carrying mouse cDNAs encoding Smad6 (AdCMV–Smad6), Smad7 (AdCMV–Smad7), c-Ski (AdCMV–cSki), c-Ski (ARPG) (AdCMV–c-Ski[ARPG]), or the {beta}-galactosidase (LacZ) reporter gene (AdCMV–LacZ) under control of cytomegalovirus (CMV) promoters were generated and purified as previously described (17,21,22). We used AdCMV–LacZ as control (LacZ), and we also used virus buffer only as another control group (Control).

Adenovirus-Mediated Gene Transfer Into Cells In Vitro and Into Tissues In Vivo

For in vitro experiments, JygMC(A) cells (106) were plated and incubated with each adenovirus at various concentrations (1, 10, or 100 multiplicity of infection) for 2 hours with gentle agitation. The cells were incubated for 12 hours after the addition of fresh medium containing 1% FCS. Cells incubated with virus buffer served as controls. For in vivo gene transfer, intravenous administration of each virus was performed through the penile vein. We detected expression of {beta}-galactosidase by incubating adenovirus-infected tissues or cells in 0.2% glutaraldehyde for 10 minutes followed by incubation at 37 °C for at least 4 hours in 1 mg/mL 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-beta-D-galactopyranoside (X-Gal; Sigma) and observation with a phase-contrast microscope.

In Vivo Experiment With Adenovirus-Mediated Smad6 or Smad7 Expression

JygMC(A) cells (107 cells, unless otherwise specified) were inoculated subcutaneously into the flanks of 5-week-old male BALB/c nu/nu mice (Nihon Slc, Shizuoka, Japan). Ten days after the inoculation of the cells, when the primary tumors were approximately 10 mm x 10 mm, mice were randomly assigned to six groups; mice in each group received an intravenous administration of a virus or virus buffer once weekly (109 plaque-forming units/week) until the animals died (30 mice per group for the Smad6, Smad7, LacZ, and Control groups, and 20 mice per group for the c-Ski and c-Ski[ARPG] groups). On days 7, 21, 28, 36, and 42 after adenovirus administration was initiated, we randomly selected mice from each group (total n > 9 per group), killed them by administering xylazine (20 mg/kg of body weight) and ketamine (120 mg/kg) in one intraperitoneal injection, and harvested their lungs, livers, and primary tumors for histologic and molecular analyses. The remaining mice from each group (at least 10 mice per group) were used to evaluate survival, which was defined as the time from inoculation of JygMC(A) cells to the time of death. None of the mice had to be killed because of criteria specified in the experimental protocols. All experimental protocols were conducted in accordance with the policies of the Animal Ethics Committee at the Osaka Medical College.

In Vivo Experiment Using JygMC(A) Cells that Stably Express Smad6 or Smad7

To investigate tumor growth and metastasis in mice bearing tumors derived from JygMC(A) cells that stably express Smad6 or Smad7 (Jyg-Smad6 cells and Jyg-Smad7 cells, respectively), we injected 107 Jyg–Smad6 cells (Jyg–Smad6 group), Jyg–Smad7 cells (Jyg–Smad7 group), Jyg–Empty cells (Jyg–Empty group), or parental JygMC(A) cells into the flanks of male 5-week-old BALB/c nu/nu mice (n > 40 mice/group). In vivo tumor growth, metastasis, and survival times of animals were examined in a same way as they were in the adenoviral experiment.

Analyses of Tumor Growth and Metastasis

Tumors were measured every 3 days in two dimensions: the longest axis (a) and the shortest perpendicular axis (b). We calculated tumor volume (TV) using the formula 0.4 ab2 and transformed the resulting absolute values for tumor volume into relative values (v) using the formula Vx/V0, where V0 was the tumor volume on the day adenovirus administration was initiated and Vx was the tumor volume on day x thereafter (23). We evaluated tumor metastasis by counting the number of metastatic colonies in one histologic section of the midportion of each sample of liver and lung from each mouse, by measuring lung and liver weights, and by determining the ratio of the metastatic area to the total area in histologic sections from the midportion of each organ harvested on day 36 after the initiation of the virus administration (n > 9/group). The ratio of metastatic area to total area in the histologic section was calculated by using a public-domain image analysis program (NIH Image; written by Wayne Rasband at National Institutes of Health and available at http://rsb.info.nih.gov/nih-image/download.html). The result was expressed as a percentage.

Reverse Transcription–Polymerase Chain Reaction Analysis

Total RNAs isolated from JygMC(A) cells and from mouse tissues by using an RNeasy Mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) were used for first-strand synthesis of cDNAs by using an Omniscript RT kit (QIAGEN). We used a Lightcycler system (Roche Diagnostics), as previously described (24), to perform quantitative real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT–PCR) analyses of RNA levels for the mouse genes encoding Smad6 and Smad7, and of target genes of TGF-{beta} superfamily signals, including PAI-1 and inhibitor of differentiation/inhibitor of DNA binding 1 (Id-1), and various cell adhesion molecules, including E-cadherin (Cdh-1), N-cadherin (Cdh-2), {alpha}-catenin (Catn-{alpha}), {beta}-catenin (Catn-{beta}), nexillin (Nexn), profilin 1 (Pfn-1), gelsolin (Gsn), Occludin (Ocln), and zonula occludens 2 (ZO-2). The primer sequences and PCR conditions are described in Supplemental Table 1 (available at: http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/jnci/content/vol97/issue23).

Western Blot Analysis

JygMC(A) cell pellets or mouse tissues were homogenized and sonicated three times for 3 seconds each on ice in radioimmunoprecipitation assay (RIPA) buffer. The lysates were centrifuged (at 12 000g for 15 minutes), and their protein concentrations were determined using a bicinchoninic acid (BCA) assay kit (Pierce Biotechnology, Rockford, IL). Proteins (equal amounts of lysate loaded per lane) were resolved by sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)–polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) and transferred onto the polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA). All gels were stained with Coomassie blue to confirm equal protein loads and homogenous protein transfer. Membranes were incubated with blocking solution (20 mM Tris–HCl [pH 7.5], 100 mM NaCl, 0.1% Triton-X-100, and 3% bovine serum albumin) overnight at 4 °C. The filters were then incubated overnight with the following primary antibodies: rabbit anti–mouse phospho-Smad1/5 antibody, which recognizes the phosphorylated forms of Smad1 and Smad5, (1 : 200 dilution; Cell Signaling Technology, Beverly, MA); rabbit anti–mouse Smad1/5 antibody, which recognizes the phosphorylated and unphosphorylated forms of Smad1 and Smad5, (1 : 200 dilution; Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA); rabbit anti–mouse phospho-Smad2 antibody, which recognizes the phosphorylated form of Smad2, (1 : 200 dilution; United Biomedical, Hauppauge, MA), and rabbit anti–mouse Smad2/3 antibody, which recognizes the phosphorylated and unphosphorylated forms of Smad2 and Smad3 (1 : 200 dilution; Transduction Laboratories, Lexington, KY). The filters were washed extensively with Tris-buffered saline–0.1% Triton-X (TBST), and immunoreactive bands were visualized by using an enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) blotting system (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Uppsala, Sweden).

PowerBlot Western Array Analysis

Total cell extracts from JygMC(A) cells and from the primary tumors from mice in each group harvested on the day 36 after initiation of the virus injection were processed by the PowerBlot facility (Becton Dickinson Biosciences, Bedford, MA), which determined the expression levels of 47 different signal transduction proteins using a combination of SDS–PAGE (5%–15% gradient acrylamide gels); immunoblotting with specific monoclonal antibodies as revealed by a horseradish peroxidase–conjugated goat anti–mouse secondary antibody; capture of chemiluminescence data by a charge-coupled device camera; and computerized processing of densitometric data (for details about the methodology, see http://www.clontech.co.jp/custom/powerblot). Data were normalized by dividing the signal obtained for each protein by the sum of signals obtained for all 47 proteins for one given sample. Proteins whose expression levels in two initial PowerBlot analyses varied by at least 20% were subjected to a third independent analysis to verify their expression levels.

Cell Growth, Migration, and Invasion Assays

For cell growth assays, we plated JygMC(A) cells, Jyg–Smad6 cells, or Jyg–Smad7 cells in six-well plates in fresh medium (104 cells/well), incubated the cells at 37 °C for 72 hours, and then determined the number of cells per well. For migration assays, we prepared 80% confluent monolayers of each cell line and infected cells with each adenovirus. A wound was incised in cultured cells of each dish for 24 hours after infection with each virus, and the edge of the wound was marked on the bottom of each well, as previously described (25). After another 24 hours, photographs were taken while viewing the cells by phase-contrast microscopy. We counted only the cells that had migrated into the midportion of each trisected wound area to exclude the influence of cell growth at the edge of wounded area. In vitro invasion assays were performed using BioCoat Matrigel Invasion Chambers (Becton-Dickinson Bioscience) according to the manufacturer's instructions. In brief, JygMC(A) cells were cultured for 24 hours in medium containing 1% FCS and then seeded into the transwell insert chamber with a filter coated with Matrigel, and the inserts were placed in the lower chambers, which were filled with medium containing 5% FCS. The cells were incubated for 12 hours, after which we counted the cells that had invaded the lower side of the filter in at least 10 fields of view of a phase-contrast microscope. All assays (i.e., the cell growth, migration, and invasion assays) were done in triplicate, and two independent experiments were performed.

Statistical Analysis

We used the Kruskal–Wallis H statistic to compare tumor metastasis data from multiple groups of mice, including organ weight, number of metastatic colonies, and the ratio of metastatic area to total area, as well as in vitro data from JygMC(A) cells infected with each adenovirus tested in the cell growth, migration, and invasion assays. When the P values for the overall comparisons were less than .05, we performed posthoc pairwise comparisons by using Wilcoxon's rank sum test. Unpaired Student's t tests were performed for parametric comparisons between two groups (assumptions of the test were verified). Parametric comparisons among more than two groups were subjected to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) without replication. When the ANOVA result was statistically significant, posthoc pairwise comparisons were performed by using the Scheffe test (26). Mouse survival was evaluated by Kaplan–Meier analysis and the log rank test. P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical tests were two-sided.


    RESULTS
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Effect of Systemic Smad7, Smad6, c-Ski, and c-Ski (ARPG) Expression on Metastasis of JygMC(A) Cells

Mice bearing tumors derived from injection of JygMC(A) cells were treated with intravenous administration of AdCMV–Smad7 (Smad7 group, n = 30), AdCMV–Smad6 (Smad6 group, n = 30), AdCMV–c-Ski (c-Ski group, n = 20), AdCMV–c-Ski (ARPG) (c-Ski [ARPG] group, n = 20), AdCMV–LacZ (LacZ group, n = 30), or virus buffer (Control group, n = 30). More than half of the mice in the Control and LacZ groups developed metastatic lesions in lung and liver by 3 weeks after virus or virus buffer administration. In these two groups of control mice, metastatic lesions progressed aggressively and diffusely thereafter, and almost all mice developed metastases in these organs by 5 weeks (Fig. 1, A and B).



View larger version (86K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Smad7 and c-Ski effects on metastasis of JygMC(A) cells. A) Mice bearing tumors derived from JygMC(A) cells were treated with virus buffer (Control), AdCMV–Smad7 (Smad7), AdCMV–Smad6 (Smad6), AdCMV–c-Ski (c-Ski), or AdCMV–c-Ski (ARPG) [c-Ski (ARPG)] beginning on day 10 after JygMC(A) cell injection, or treated with AdCMV–Smad7 beginning 3 weeks after JygMC(A) cell injection. Their lungs (left panels) and livers (right panels) were analyzed on day 46 after inoculation of JygMC(A) cells. Representative examples of the two organs from each group of mice are shown. Lungs of mice in the Control, Smad6, and c-Ski (ARPG) groups show hemorrhage and necrosis because of metastasis. B–D) Quantitative evaluation of metastatic lesions by number of metastatic colonies (B), organ weight (C), and ratio of metastatic area to total area (D) in lungs and livers of mice harvested at 5 weeks after inoculation (n > 10 mice/group). The data are displayed in box-and-whisker plots; center horizontal lines indicate median values, boxes delineate interquartile ranges, whiskers demarcate values within the 10th–90th percentiles, and solid circles indicate values less than the 10th percentile and greater than the 90th percentile. *, statistically significant difference compared with Control (P values ranged from .036 [for ratio of metastatic area in the lung sections, Control versus Smad7–3wks] to .001); +, statistically significant difference compared with LacZ (P values range from .04 [for ratio of metastatic area in lung sections, LacZ versus Smad7–3wks] to <.001); #, statistically significant difference compared with Smad6 (P values range from .013 to <.001); ++, statistically significant difference compared with c-Ski (ARPG) (P values range from .037 [for organ weight in the liver sections, c-Ski (ARPG) versus Smad7–3wks] to .001); {ddagger}, statistically significant difference compared with Smad7–3wks (P values range from .026 [for number of liver colonies, Smad7–3wks versus Smad7] to < .001). E) Representative macroscopic and microscopic images of hematoxylin–eosin-stained sections of lung and liver from mice treated with virus buffer (Control) (left panels) and from mice treated with AdCMV–Smad7 (middle panels) or AdCMV–Smad6 (right panels). Original magnification of microscopic findings, x200 (scale bar, 50 µm). Magnification in the boxed areas, x500 (scale bar, 10 µm). F) Time course of primary tumor growth in mice treated with intravenous injection of each virus or with virus buffer (Control). Primary tumors were measured every 3 days, and tumor volume was calculated. Each point represents a mean value; bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals. G) Survival of mice treated with intravenous injection of each virus or virus buffer (Control), as evaluated by Kaplan–Meier analysis and the log rank test. *, statistically significant difference compared with Control (P values range from .014 to <.001); +, statistically significant difference compared with LacZ (P values range from .006 to <.001); #, statistically significant difference compared with Smad6 (Smad7: P = .002; c-Ski: P = .005). ++, statistically significant difference compared with c-Ski (ARPG) (Smad7: P = .001; c-Ski: P<.001). {ddagger}, statistically significant difference between Smad7–3wks and Smad7 (P = .0483).

 
By contrast, we observed only a few metastatic colonies in the lungs and livers of mice treated with systemic gene transfer of Smad7 or c-Ski 5 weeks after adenovirus administration (Lung: Smad7 versus Control, median number of colonies = 13 versus 128, difference = 115 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 104 to 130], P<.001; Smad7 versus LacZ, median number of colonies = 13 versus 124, difference = 111 [95% CI = 92 to 147], P<.001; c-Ski versus Control, median number of colonies = 12 versus 128, difference = 116 [95% CI = 100 to 138], P = .0022; c-Ski versus LacZ, median number of colonies = 12 versus 124, difference = 112 [95% CI = 92 to 154], P = .0026; Liver: Smad7 versus Control, median number of colonies = 2.2 versus 15, difference = 12.8 [95% CI = 6.0 to 19], P<.001; Smad7 versus LacZ, median number of colonies = 2.2 versus 19.8, difference = 17.6 [95% CI = 6.0 to 22], P = .001; c-Ski versus Control, median number of colonies = 3.5 versus 15, difference = 11.5 [95% CI = 4.0 to 20], P = .0073; c-Ski versus LacZ, median number of colonies = 3.5 versus 19.8, difference = 16.3 [95% CI = 4.0 to 23], P = .0084) (Fig. 1, A and B). The lungs and livers of mice in the Smad7 and c-Ski groups weighed statistically significantly less than the respective organs of mice in the Control and LacZ groups (Lung: Smad7 versus Control, median weight = 0.184 g versus 1.026 g, difference = 0.842 g [95% CI = 0.646 g to 0.913 g], P<.001; Smad7 versus LacZ, median weight = 0.184 g versus 1.007 g, difference = 0. 823 g [95% CI = 0.646 g to 0.982g], P<.001; c-Ski versus Control, median weight = 0.213 g versus 1.026 g, difference = 0.813 g [95% CI = 0.478 g to 0.886 g], P<.001; c-Ski versus LacZ, median weight = 0.213 g versus 1.007 g, difference = 0.794 g [95% CI = 0.444 g to 0.957 g], P = .0013; Liver: Smad7 versus Control, median weight = 1.411 g versus 2.297 g, difference = 0.886 g [95% CI = 0.679 g to 1.007 g], P<.001; Smad7 versus LacZ, median weight = 1.411 g versus 2.223 g, difference = 0.812 g [95% CI = 0.657 g to 1.069 g], P<.001; c-Ski versus Control, median weight = 1.567 g versus 2.297 g, difference = 0.73 g [95% CI = 0.598 g to 1.039 g], P<.001; c-Ski versus LacZ, median weight = 1.567 g versus 2.223 g, difference = 0.656 g [95% CI = 0.573 g to 1.015 g], P<.001) (Fig. 1, C). A quantitative evaluation of the extent of metastasis, which we performed by calculating the ratio of metastatic area to total area in histologic sections of lung and liver, confirmed this apparent decrease in metastasis (Lung: Smad7 versus Control, median ratio = 6.41% versus 48.3%, difference = 41.9% [95% CI = 23.7% to 46.0%], P<.001; Smad7 versus LacZ, median ratio = 6.41% versus 46.7%, difference = 40.3% [95% CI = 24.0% to 51.5%], P<.001; c-Ski versus Control, median ratio = 8.91% versus 48.3%, difference = 39.4% [95% CI = 20.5% to 44.7%], P<.001; c-Ski versus LacZ, median ratio = 8.91% versus 46.7%, difference = 37.8% [95% CI = 23.8% to 51.2%], P<.001; Liver: Smad7 versus Control, median ratio = 2.15% versus 15.0%, difference = 12.9% [95% CI = 9.77% to 19.3%], P<.001; Smad7 versus LacZ, median ratio = 2.15% versus 19.8%, difference = 17.7% [95% CI = 13.4% to 22.8%], P<.001; c-Ski versus Control, median ratio = 3.48% versus 15.0%, difference = 11.5% [95% CI = 6.76% to 22.0%], P<.001; c-Ski versus LacZ, median ratio = 3.48% versus 19.8%, difference = 16.3% [95% CI = 8.16% to 21.9%], P = .001) (Fig. 1, D). By contrast, mice treated with systemic gene transfer of Smad6 or c-Ski (ARPG) had many metastases in lung and liver (Fig. 1, A). In fact, there were no statistically significant differences in metastatic colony number, organ weight, or metastatic area in the lung and liver among Smad6-treated, c-Ski (ARPG)-treated, and control mice (Fig. 1, B–D).

Representative macroscopic and microscopic images of hematoxylin–eosin-stained sections of lung and liver from mice that were killed after 5 weeks of treatment with AdCMV–Smad7 or AdCMV–Smad6 and from Control (virus buffer) mice are shown in Fig. 1, E. In control mice, we observed more than 100 metastatic lesions (i.e., hematoxylin–eosin-stained areas) in a lung section, and more than 20 metastatic lesions in a liver section from each mouse (n = 10 or more sections/group). Microscopic observation revealed aggressive cancer growth, with structural deformity in each organ (Fig. 1, E, left panels). By contrast, in the mice treated with AdCMV–Smad7, only minute metastatic lesions were observed macroscopically, and only a few cancer cells were observed at higher resolution, both in lung and liver (Fig. 1, E, middle panels). However, mice treated with AdCMV–Smad6 showed many metastases (Fig. 1, E, right panels), similar to what we observed in the control mice. There were no statistically significant differences in primary tumor growth among all groups of mice examined, and in all mice, subcutaneously inoculated tumor cells became bulky masses by 35 days after inoculation (Fig. 1, F).

Effect of Systemic Gene Transfer of Smad7 or c-Ski on Mouse Survival

We evaluated the survival of mice that received the various systemic treatments from the time of JygMC(A) cell inoculation to the time of death due to the lung and liver metastasis (n > 10 mice per group). Among the control mice (LacZ and Control), more than 50% of the mice in each group (LacZ: 13 of 15 mice; Control: 10 of 15 mice) died within 43 days of JygMC(A) cell inoculation with marked body weight loss and cachexia; no mice survived beyond 50 days (Fig. 1, G). There was no difference in median survival between mice treated with AdCMV–LacZ and Control mice (i.e., mice treated with virus buffer; P = .37). By contrast, mice systemically treated with AdCMV-Smad7 or AdCMV–c-Ski lived statistically significantly longer than mice in each of the control groups (Smad7 versus LacZ: median survival = 55 days versus 41 days, difference = 14 days [95% CI = 6 days to 22 days], P<.001; Smad7 versus Control: median survival = 55 days versus 43 days, difference = 12 days [95% CI = 6 days to 18 days] P<.001; c-Ski versus LacZ: median survival = 51 days versus 41 days, difference = 10 days [95% CI = 5 days to 15 days], P<.001; c-Ski versus Control: median survival = 51 days versus 43 days, difference = 8 days [95% CI = 3 days to 13 days], P<.001); at least 50% of the mice in the Smad7 (7 of 12 mice) and c-Ski (5 of 10 mice) groups survived for 50 days with healthy appearance, and two (17%) of the 12 mice treated with AdCMV–Smad7 ultimately survived for more than 70 days. By contrast, there was no statistically significant difference in survival time between AdCMV-Smad6–treated or AdCMV-c-Ski (ARPG)–treated mice and control mice (Smad6 versus LacZ: median survival = 43 days versus 41 days, difference = 2 days [95% CI = –1 day to 5 days], P = .11; Smad6 versus Control: median survival = 43 days versus 43 days, difference = 0 days [95% CI = –3 day to 3 days], P = .30; c-Ski(ARPG) versus LacZ: median survival = 44 days versus 41 days, difference = 3 days [95% CI = 1 day to 5 days], P<.18; c-Ski(ARPG) versus Control; median survival = 44 days versus 43 days, difference = 1 day [95% CI = –3 day to 5 days], P = .70). These results suggest that adenovirus-mediated gene transfer of Smad7 or c-Ski, but not of Smad6 or c-Ski (ARPG), prolonged mouse survival through the inhibition tumor metastasis.

Effect of Delayed Gene Transfer of Smad7 on Metastasis of JygMC(A) Cells

We also examined the effect of Smad7 expression on the growth of tumor cells after the initial development of metastases at the target organs by delaying the initiation of Smad7 adenovirus administration until 3 weeks after inoculation of the cancer cells (Fig. 1). Compared with mice treated with virus buffer only (Control), mice bearing tumors with delayed Smad7 treatment (Smad7–3wks) developed many but statistically significantly fewer metastases in the lung and liver (Smad7–3wks versus Control: median number of lung colonies = 49 versus 128, difference = 79 [95% CI = 57 to 99], P = .0022; median lung weight = 0.623 g versus 1.026 g, difference = 0.403 g [95% CI = 0.118 g to 0.635 g], P = .001; median ratio of metastatic area in lung = 31.7% versus 48.3%, difference = 16.6% [95% CI = 2.12% to 26.6%], P = .0357; Smad7–3wks versus Control: median number of liver colonies = 9.5 versus 13, difference = 3.5 [95% CI = 1.0 to 14.0], P = .0171; median liver weight = 1.786 g versus 2.297 g, difference = 0.511 g [95% CI = 0.314 g to 0.744 g], P = .0021; ratio of metastatic area in liver = 12.7% versus 15.0%, difference = 2.3% [95% CI = 0.26% to 11.0%], P = .0498) (Fig. 1, A–D) and statistically significantly longer survival (Smad7–3wks versus Control: median survival = 43 days versus 49 days, difference = 6 days [95% CI = 3.4 days to 8.6 days], P = .014) (Fig. 1, G). These results suggest that Smad7 expression inhibits the development of new metastatic colonies but does not influence the growth or progression of existing metastatic colonies.

Efficacy of Systemic Adenovirus Administration in Tumors and Host Tissues

To determine the efficiency of adenovirus-mediated gene transfer into mice bearing tumors, we evaluated the LacZ expression in lung, liver, and primary tumor tissue after systemic administration of AdCMV–LacZ using X-Gal staining methods. We observed a strong LacZ expression in the liver and weaker expression in the lung and primary tumors of mice on day 4 after adenovirus administration (Fig. 2, A).



View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Expression of exogenous LacZ, Smad7, and Smad6 genes in mice treated with adenovirus-mediated gene transfer. A) Lung (top panel), liver (middle panel), and tumor (bottom panel) were obtained from mice treated with systemic administration of AdCMV–LacZ on day 4 after virus administration and subjected to X-Gal staining to detect expression of {beta}-galactosidase encoded by the LacZ gene (boxed area in each panel shows the corresponding histologic section; scale bar shows 20 µm). B) Reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis of mRNA expression of exogenous Smad7 or Smad6 in lung, liver, and tumor of mice treated with systemic administration of AdCMV–Smad7 (S7), AdCMV–Smad6 (S6), or AdCMV–LacZ (C). A PCR for each set of primers was run using water instead of mRNA as a control (N). C) Quantitative RT–PCR analysis of mRNA levels for PAI-1 (top panel) and Id-1 (bottom panel) in the tumors of mice treated with AdCMV–Smad7 (Smad7), AdCMV–Smad6 (Smad6), or AdCMV–LacZ (LacZ). Each value is normalized to the expression of G3PDH and represents a mean of triplicate determinants; bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals. Top panel: *, P<.001, Smad7 versus LacZ; +, P<.001, Smad7 versus Smad6; bottom panel: *, P<.001, LacZ versus Smad7 and LacZ versus Smad6.

 
We then examined expression of the systemically administered genes encoding Smad6 and Smad7 in mouse lung, liver, and primary tumors by RT–PCR analyses. Mice treated with AdCMV–Smad6 or AdCMV–Smad7 had markedly higher levels of Smad6 and Smad7 mRNAs, respectively, in lung, liver, and primary tumors on day 4 after adenovirus administration than mice treated with AdCMV–LacZ (Fig. 2, B). We further measured mRNA levels of PAI-1, a target gene of TGF-{beta}, and of Id-1, a target gene of BMP, in the primary tumors of mice treated with AdCMV–Smad7, AdCMV–Smad6, or AdCMV–Lac-Z, by using quantitative RT–PCR analysis. Primary tumors from mice treated with AdCMV–Smad7 had statistically significantly less PAI-1 and Id-1 mRNA than those from mice treated with AdCMV–Lac-Z (Fig. 2, C), whereas primary tumors from mice treated with AdCMV-Smad6–infected mice had statistically significantly less Id-1 mRNA. Together, these results demonstrate that systemic administration of AdCMV–Smad6 or AdCMV–Smad7 results in successful gene transfer in the primary tumors as well as in the host tissues and indicate that administration of AdCMV–Smad6 and AdCMV–Smad7 could inhibit endogenous TGF-{beta} superfamily signals.

Response of JygMC(A) Cells to TGF-{beta} and BMP

We next examined whether TGF-{beta} and BMP signals are transduced in JygMC(A) cells by treating cells in culture with human recombinant TGF-{beta}3 (3 ng/mL) or BMP-4 (50 ng/mL) for 1 hour and examining their effects on phosphorylation of Smad proteins using anti–phospho Smad antibodies. TGF-{beta}3, but not BMP-4, induced phosphorylation of Smad2 (Fig. 3, A), and BMP-4, but not TGF-{beta}3, induced phosphorylation of Smad1 and Smad5 (Fig. 3, B) in JygMC(A) cells. Moreover, TGF-{beta}3, but not BMP-4, increased PAI-1 mRNA levels (Fig. 3, C, upper panel), and BMP-4, but not TGF-{beta}3, increased Id-1 mRNA levels compared with the untreated controls (Fig. 3, C, lower panel), in JygMC(A) cells. These findings suggest that JygMC(A) cells can respond to both TGF-{beta} and BMP.



View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Response of JygMC(A) cells to TGF-{beta} and BMP. JygMC(A) cells were treated with TGF-{beta}3 (3 ng/mL), BMP-4 (50 ng/mL), or buffer (Control) for 1 hour. Protein lysates were prepared, and equal amounts of each lysate were subjected to western blot analysis using (A) an anti–phospho-Smad2 antibody (top panel) or an anti–Smad2/3 antibody (bottom panel) or (B) an anti–phospho-Smad1/5 antibody (top panel) or an anti–Smad1/5 antibody (bottom panel). C) Quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT–PCR) analysis of mRNA levels for PAI-1 (top panel) and Id-1 (bottom panel) in JygMC(A) cells after 24 hours of treatment with 3 ng/mL TGF-{beta}3, 50 ng/mL BMP-4, or control. Each value is normalized to the expression of G3PDH and represents a mean of triplicate determinants; bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals. Top panel: *, P<.001, Control versus TGF-{beta}3; +, P<.001, TGF-{beta}3 versus BMP-4;Bottom panel *, P< .001, Control versus BMP-4; +, P<.001, TGF-{beta}3 versus BMP-4.

 
Metastasis in Mice Bearing Tumors Derived from JygMC(A) Cells that Stably Express Smad7

We next examined whether Smad7 inhibits metastasis through a direct effect on the JygMC(A) cells from which the primary tumors were derived or through an indirect effect on the microenvironment for metastasis in the target organs. We first generated JygMC(A) cells that stably express Smad6 or Smad7 (Jyg–Smad6 cells and Jyg–Smad7 cells, respectively) or that contained the empty expression vector (Jyg–Empty) as a control. Western blot analyses confirmed that equivalent levels of Smad6 and Smad7 genes were expressed by the respective stable cell lines (data not shown). We injected the flanks of nude mice with each newly constructed stable cell line, Jyg–Smad6, Jyg–Smad7 or Jyg–Empty (n = 40 mice/group) or with parental JygMC(A) cells (n = 30 mice). Mice bearing tumors derived from cells stably transfected with Jyg–Empty and from parental cells (Control) served as the control groups. Similar to the results in the adenovirus-mediated gene transfer experiment (Fig. 1), there were no statistically significant differences in tumor growth among mice injected with any of the three stable cell lines or with parental cell line (Supplemental Fig. 1; available at: http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/jnci/content/vol97/issue23). However, mice bearing tumors derived from Jyg–Smad7 cells displayed statistically significantly less metastasis than control mice, as determined by a decrease in the number of metastatic colonies (Fig. 4, B), in organ weight (Fig. 4, C), and in the ratio of metastatic area to total area (Fig. 4, D) in both lung and liver. Also, the Jyg–Smad7 mice survived statistically significantly longer than mice from any of the other groups (Jyg–Smad7 versus Jyg–Empty: median survival = 95 days versus 45 days, difference = 50 days [95% CI = 39 days to 61 days], P<.001; Jyg–Smad7 versus Control: median survival = 95 days versus 42 days, difference = 53 days [95% CI = 42 days to 64 days], P<.001; Jyg–Smad7 versus Jyg–Smad6: median survival = 95 days versus 43 days, difference = 52 days [95% CI = 41 days to 63 days], P<.001); no mice in the Jyg–Smad7 group died before 40 days after tumor cell injection, and 12 (57%) of the 21 mice in this group survived for more than 90 days with a healthy appearance. Two mice ultimately survived for more than 130 days (Fig. 4, E). All of the mice injected with Jyg–Smad7 cells died because of enlarged primary tumors but had little evidence of metastasis. By contrast, mice bearing tumors derived from Jyg–Smad6 cells showed neither a reduction in cancer metastasis (Fig. 4, A–D) nor a statistically significant difference in survival compared with the control mice (Fig. 4, E; P = .34 for Jyg–Smad6 versus Jyg–Empty; P = .16 for Jyg–Smad6 versus Control).



View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Effect of stable expression of Smad6 and Smad7 in JygMC(A) cells on in vivo cancer growth and metastasis. A) Mice were inoculated with 107 JygMC(A) cells stably transfected with empty expression vector (Jyg–Empty) or expression vector containing the gene for Smad6 (Jyg–Smad6) or Smad7 (Jyg–Smad7), or with a mixture of untransfected JygMC(A) cells and Jyg–Smad7 cells (Cont-Smad7–combined) and were analyzed for metastasis in lungs and liver on day 46 after tumor cell injection. Mice inoculated with 5 x 106 parental JygMC(A) cells (Cont-1/2 group) and with 5 x 106 Jyg–Smad7 cells (Jyg-Smad7–1/2 group) were used as controls for Cont-Smad7–combined. Representative pictures of lungs (left panels) and livers (right panels) of mice from the Jyg–Empty, Jyg–Smad6, and Cont-Smad7–combined groups harvested on the day 46 after the injection of cancer cells are shown. B–D) Quantitative evaluation of metastatic lesions by number of metastatic colonies (B), organ weight (C), and ratio of metastatic area to total area (D) in lungs and livers of mice harvested at 5 weeks after inoculation (n > 10 mice/group). Data are displayed in box-and-whisker plots; center horizontal lines indicate median values, boxes delineate interquartile ranges, whiskers demarcate values within the 10th–90th percentiles, and solid circles indicate values less than the 10th percentile and greater than the 90th percentile. *, P<.001, Control versus Jyg–Smad7 or Jyg–Smad7–1/2 in colony number, organ weight, and the ratio of metastatic area in lung as well as liver sections; +, P<.001, Jyg–Empty versus Jyg–Smad7 or Jyg–Smad7–1/2 in colony number, organ weight, and the ratio of metastatic area in lung as well as liver sections; #, P<.001, Jyg–Smad6 versus Jyg–Smad7 or Jyg–Smad7–1/2 in colony number, organ weight, and the ratio of metastatic area in lung as well as liver sections; ++, P<.001, Cont-1/2 versus Jyg–Smad7 or Jyg–Smad7–1/2 in colony number, organ weight, and the ratio of metastatic area in lung as well as liver sections; {ddagger}, P<.001, Cont–Smad7–combined versus Jyg–Smad7 or Jyg-Smad7–1/2 in colony number, organ weight, and the ratio of metastatic area in lung as well as liver sections. E) Survival of mice bearing tumors derived from each cell line, as evaluated by Kaplan–Meier analysis and the log rank test. *, P<.001, Jyg–Smad7 versus Control, Jyg–Empty, Jyg–Smad6, Cont–1/2, or Cont–Smad7–combined; +, P<.001, Jyg–Smad7–1/2 versus Control, Jyg–Empty, Jyg–Smad6, Cont–1/2, or Cont–Smad7–combined.

 
Effect of Smad7 Expression on Metastasis of Adjacent Tumor Cells

To examine whether JygMC(A) cells that stably express Smad7 influence the microenvironment of surrounding tissues (possibly through the production of soluble factors), we evaluated tumor growth, metastasis, and survival of 5-week-old male nude mice that were subcutaneously injected with a mixture of 5 x 106 untransfected parental JygMC(A) cells and 5 x 106 Jyg–Smad7 cells (Cont-Smad7-combined group, n = 30). Mice injected with 5 x 106 parental JygMC(A) cells (Cont-1/2 group, n = 30) or with 5 x 106 Jyg-Smad7 cells (Jyg–Smad7–1/2 group, n = 30) were used as controls. We observed no statistically significant differences between mice bearing tumors derived from the combined cell lines (the Cont-Smad7-combined group) and mice bearing tumors derived from JygMC(A) cells alone (the Cont-1/2 group) with respect to the growth of the primary tumors (Supplemental Fig. 1; available at: http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/jnci/content/vol97/issue23), metastasis to lung and liver (Fig. 4, A–D), or animal survival (Fig. 4, E). These findings strongly suggest that the Smad7 protein directly modulates the cancer cells in which it is expressed to reduce their metastatic potential rather than acting through intercellular mediators.

Effect of Smad7 Expression on the Molecular Signature of JygMC(A) Cells

We next attempted to identify proteins whose expression is differentially modulated by Smad7 expression. For this purpose, we used a high-throughput western blotting method that uses mixtures of monoclonal antibodies to evaluate differences in levels of cellular signaling proteins in total cell extracts among different cells or tissues. We were particularly interested in changes in the expression of proteins that are associated with cell adhesion because in the first steps of metastasis, tumor cells lose cell–cell adhesiveness and gain motility (27).

We prepared extracts of JygMC(A) cells, JygMC(A) cells that had been infected with AdCMV–LacZ or AdCMV–Smad7, Jyg–Empty cells, and Jyg–Smad7 cells, and subjected the extracts to a PowerBlot analysis to examine the relative expression levels of 47 signal transducing molecules involved in cell–cell adhesion. Analyses of the resulting antibody array data indicated that expression of nine proteins was increased whereas expression of one protein was decreased in JygMC(A) cells treated with AdCMV–Smad7 relative to parental JygMC(A) as well as in Jyg–Smad7 cells relative to Jyg–Empty cells. Proteins whose expression increased included components of adherens junctions (i.e., E-cadherin, {alpha}-catenin, {beta}-catenin, nexillin, profilin, gelsolin, and phosphorylated FAK) and tight junctions (i.e., occludin and ZO-2). However, expression of the mesenchymal marker N-cadherin was statistically significantly lower in cells that expressed exogenous Smad7 than in cells that did not (Smad7 versus Control: mean relative RNA level = 1.15 versus 16.2, difference = 15.05 [95% CI = 12.4 to 17.9], P = .003; Jyg–Smad7 versus Jyg–Empty: mean relative RNA level = 1.23 versus 7.54, difference = 6.31 [95% CI = 4.54 to 8.94], P<.001). The PowerBlot results were confirmed by western blot analyses of cell extracts (data not shown) as well as by quantitative RT–PCR of RNA isolated from JygMC(A) cells infected with AdCMV–LacZ or AdCMV–Smad7, Jyg–Empty cells, and Jyg–Smad7 cells (Fig. 5). These findings indicate that Smad7 may increase the expression of proteins associated with cell adhesion properties and that Smad7 increases E-cadherin expression but inhibits N-cadherin expression.



View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Effects of Smad7 gene expression on the adhesion properties of JygMC(A) cells. Quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction analyses of A) JygMC(A) cells infected with AdCMV–LacZ (LacZ) or AdCMV–Smad7 (Smad7) and of B) JygMC(A) cells stably transfected with pCAG-IP–Smad7 (Jyg–Smad7) or pCAG-IP–empty (Jyg–Empty). *, statistically significant difference between the Smad7 and control groups for each molecule. Each value is normalized to the expression of G3PDH and represents a mean of triplicate determinants; bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals. Cdh1 = E-cadherin; Cdh2 = N-cadherin; Catn-{alpha} = {alpha}-catenin; Catn-{beta} = {beta}-catenin; Nxn = nexillin; Pfn-1 = profilin 1; Ocln = occludin; Gsn = gelsolin; ZO-2 = zonula occludens 2.

 
Morphology of JygMC(A) Cells that Overexpress Smad6 or Smad7 Expression

Molecular alterations of JygMC(A) cells by Smad7 prompted us to examine the effects of Smad7 expression on cell morphology. JygMC(A) cells exhibited spindlelike, fibroblastic morphology with stress fibers oriented longitudinally (Supplemental Fig. 2; available at: http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/jnci/content/vol97/issue23). However, expression of Smad7, but not Smad6, changed the morphology of JygMC(A) cells to a flat, epithelial shape, and markedly increased the number of tight junctions compared with parental cells (Supplemental Fig. 2; available at: http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/jnci/content/vol97/issue23).

Effect of Smad7 Expression on JygMC(A) Cell Motility and Invasion In Vitro

We examined the effects of Smad6 or Smad7 expression on the behavior of JygMC(A) cells in vitro. We used JygMC(A) cells, JygMC(A) cells that had been infected with AdCMV–Smad6 (Smad6), AdCMV–Smad7 (Smad7), or AdCMV–LacZ (LacZ), and Jyg–Empty, Jyg–Smad6, and Jyg–Smad7 cells in these assays. Cell growth assays demonstrated that Smad6 or Smad7 expression by both adenovirus-mediated and stable methods did not affect cancer cell proliferation. There was no statistically significant difference in cancer cell growth ratios among any of the cancer cell lines we used [JygMC(A) cells, JygMC(A) cells that had been infected with AdCMV–Smad6, AdCMV–Smad7, or AdCMV–LacZ, and Jyg–Empty, Jyg–Smad6, and Jyg–Smad7 cells]. (Fig. 6, A). These results are consistent with our in vivo data showing that Smad7 gene transfer did not influence primary tumor growth.



View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Effect of Smad7 expression on JygMC(A) cell motility and invasion in vitro. Effects of adenovirus-mediated transfer (left panels) and stable transfection (right panels) of genes encoding Smad6 and Smad7 on the proliferation (A), migration (B), and invasion (C) of JygMC(A) cells. Parental JygMC(A) cells (i.e., uninfected, untransfected cells) were used a control. The data are displayed in box-and-whisker plots; center horizontal lines indicate median values, boxes delineate interquartile ranges, whiskers demarcate values within the 10th–90th percentiles, and solid circles indicate values less than the 10th percentile and greater than the 90th percentile. *, P<.001, Smad7 versus Control or Jyg–Smad7 versus Control in migration assay (middle panels) and in invasion assay (bottom panels); +, P<.001, Smad7 versus LacZ or Jyg–Smad7 versus Jyg–Empty in migration assay (middle panels) and in invasion assay (bottom panels); #, P<.001, Smad7 versus Smad6 or Jyg–Smad7 versus Jyg–Smad6 in migration assay (middle panels) and in invasion assay (bottom panels). C = control; L = AdCMV–LacZ, S6 = AdCMV–Smad6; S7 = AdCMV–Smad7; J-E = Jyg–Empty; J-S6 = Jyg–Smad6; J-S7 = Jyg–Smad7; FV = field of view.

 
We next used a cell migration scratch wound healing assay of tissue culture cell monolayers to examine the effects of Smad6 and Smad7 expression on the motility of JygMC(A) cells in vitro. We found that statistically significantly fewer JygMC(A) cells that expressed Smad7, but not Smad6, migrated into the midportion of a trisected wound area than either parental JygMC(A) cells or JygMC(A) cells infected with AdCMV–LacZ (Smad7 versus LacZ: median number of migrating cells = 5 versus 49.5, difference = 44.5 [95% CI = 35 to 51], P<.001; Smad7 versus Control: median number of migrating cells = 5 versus 52.5, difference = 47.5 [95% CI = 36 to 53], P<.001; Smad6 versus LacZ: median number of migrating cells = 51.5 versus 49.5, difference = 2 [95% CI = –14 to 13], P>.99; Smad6 versus Control: median number of migrating cells = 51.5 versus 52.5, difference = 1.0 [95% CI = –14 to 11], P = .88); Jyg–Smad7 versus Jyg–Empty: median number of migrating cells = 4 versus 60, difference = 56 [95% CI = 36 to 62], P<.001; Jyg–Smad7 versus Control: median number of migrating cells = 4 versus 49, difference = 45 [95% CI = 36 to 60], P<.001) (Fig. 6, B; Supplemental Fig. 3, A; available at: http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/jnci/content/vol97/issue23). We further investigated the effect of Smad7 expression on the invasive ability of JygMC(A) cells with the use of a Matrigel invasion assay. We found that statistically significantly fewer JygMC(A) cells expressing Smad7, but not Smad6, than control cells invaded through the filter (Smad7 versus LacZ: median number of invading cells = 26 versus 48, difference = 22 [95% CI = 15 to 28], P = .0022; Smad7 versus Control: median number of invading cells = 26 versus 49, difference = 23 [95% CI = 17 to 34], P = .0022; Smad6 versus LacZ: median number of invading cells = 48.1 versus 48.2, difference = 0.1 [95% CI = –9 to 6.5], P>.998); Smad6 versus Control: median number of invading cells = 48.1 versus 48.9, difference = 0.8 [95% CI = –13 to 5.1], P = .936); Jyg–Smad7 versus Jyg–Empty: median number of invading cells = 12.8 versus 50.9, difference = 38.1 [95% CI = 23 to 44], P = .002; Jyg–Smad7 versus Control: median number of invading cells = 13 versus 49, difference = 36 [95% CI = 28 to 42], P = .002; Jyg–Smad6 versus Jyg–Empty: median number of invading cells = 50.6 versus 50.9, difference in location = 0.3 [95% CI = –12 to 7.8], P = .9372; Jyg–Smad6 versus Control: median number of invading cells = 50.6 versus 46.8, difference = 3.8 [95% CI = –8.4 to 7.7], P = .1) (Fig. 6, C; Supplemental Fig. 2, B, Available at: http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/jnci/content/vol97/issue23). These results suggest that the in vitro migratory and invasive abilities of JygMC(A) cells were inhibited by Smad7 expression.


    DISCUSSION
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
In this study, we have shown that adenovirus-mediated systemic gene transfer of Smad7, but not Smad6, statistically significantly inhibited metastasis of mouse mammary carcinoma JygMC(A) cells and prolonged mouse survival. We also demonstrated that Smad7 gene transfer increased the expression of major components of adherens and tight junctions, modified the profiles of cadherin expression by increasing E-cadherin expression and decreasing N-cadherin expression, and inhibited the migratory and invasive abilities of the JygMC(A) cells.

The spread of tumor cells from a primary site to distant organs is a critical stage in cancer metastasis that involves both a loss of cell–cell adhesion and a gain of invasive properties (28). Many studies in experimental systems as well as in human patients have revealed that alterations in the adhesive properties of tumor cells are associated with tumor progression and metastasis (2933). Decreased expression or mutation of major components of adherens junctions is associated with the initiation of cancer metastasis (29,31,32,3443). Moreover, increases in or reconstitution of such adhesive properties has been shown to suppress metastasis in many different neoplastic tissues (4447). Here we have shown that Smad7 expression substantially increased the expression of major components of adherens junctions, such as E-cadherin, and tight junctions, such as occludin. Thus, Smad7 expression may enhance the adhesive properties of cancer cells through the formation of adherens junctions and tight junctions in cancer cells, and thereby contribute to the inhibition of metastasis.

We also found that expression of N-cadherin was statistically significantly lower in JygMC(A) cells that expressed Smad7 than in JygMC(A) cells that did not. N-cadherin enhances the motility and invasive ability of various types of tumor cells (4852). It has been repeatedly reported that de novo expression of N-cadherin in tumor cells is associated with the loss of functional E-cadherin (5355). Also, TGF-{beta} has been implicated in the switching of cadherin properties from E-cadherin to N-cadherin. This cadherin switch has been found to occur during the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and may promote cancer metastasis (5658). Our finding that cancer cells with Smad7 expression have increased expression of N-cadherin and decreased expression of E-cadherin (Fig. 5) raises the intriguing possibility that a Smad7-mediated "cadherin switch" from expression of mesenchymal, promigratory cadherins (e.g., N-cadherin) to expression of epithelial, proadhesive cadherins (e.g., E-cadherin) inhibits tumor invasion and metastasis, and that this cadherin switch may be associated with Smad7-mediated inhibition of TGF-{beta} signaling.

In agreement with the above findings, morphologic analysis of cancer cells with Smad7 expression revealed that Smad7 expression changed the morphology of JygMC(A) cells from a spindlelike, fibroblastic shape to a flat, epithelial shape, and markedly strengthened the cell–cell adhesion with increased numbers of tight junctions. In vitro migration and invasion assays revealed that JygMC(A) cell motility was statistically significantly lower in cells that expressed exogenous Smad7 than in cells that did not. These results, taken together with our data on the expression of adhesion properties (Fig. 5) and delayed gene transfer of Smad7, suggest that Smad7 gene expression inhibits the development of new metastases but does not influence the growth or progression of already-existing metastatic colonies by increasing the cell–cell interactions within primary tumors.

Several studies (2,6,59) have shown that the extracellular domain of T{beta}R-II, a soluble TGF-{beta} antagonist, suppresses metastasis in mouse breast cancer models, suggesting that inhibition of TGF-{beta} signaling is essential for the prevention of metastasis. In agreement with these findings, we found that only Smad7 and c-Ski, which effectively inhibit TGF-{beta}–regulated signals (6061), but not Smad6, which does not, prevented metastasis in our mouse model. Although Smad7, c-Ski, and the extracellular domain of T{beta}R-II all block TGF-{beta} signaling, their modes of action differ. The extracellular domain of T{beta}R-II blocks binding of TGF-{beta} to its specific receptors. Because TGF-{beta} acts in an autocrine fashion in some cancer cells (8) and might bind to its receptors on the surface of the cells, TGF-{beta} that is secreted in autocrine fashion may escape from the inhibitory effect of the extracellular domain of T{beta}R-II. By contrast, Smad7 and c-Ski may efficiently block TGF-{beta} superfamily signaling inside the cells. Therefore, Smad7 and c-Ski may exhibit their effects more efficiently than the extracellular domain of T{beta}R-II. However, Smad7 and c-Ski primarily inhibit Smad-mediated signaling, but not other types of signaling (62). Furthermore, Smad7 and c-Ski have been reported to elicit biologic activities that are independent of TGF-{beta} signals, such as the induction of apoptosis in prostate carcinoma cells (63). However, we detected no differences in apoptosis between the control JygMC(A) cells and Smad7-expressing JygMC(A) cells (data not shown). It will be interesting to compare the effects on the inhibition of metastasis of Smad7 and c-Ski with those of the extracellular domain of T{beta}R-II in a future study.

We found that the c-Ski (ARPG) mutant, which was previously shown to inhibit TGF-{beta} signaling (17), did not inhibit cancer metastasis. Although it is not known whether BMP signaling can facilitate the progression of certain tumors in a similar fashion to TGF-{beta} signaling, BMPs regulate the growth of some cancers (64,65). Our results show that Smad7 and c-Ski, which inhibit both TGF-{beta} and BMP signaling, efficiently inhibited the development of metastasis, suggesting that the blocking of both TGF-{beta} and BMP signals is required for the inhibition of cancer metastasis. However, our study is limited because we have not shown directly that inhibition of TGF-{beta} signaling is sufficient to inhibit metastasis of JygMC(A) cells.

In conclusion, our results indicate that TGF-{beta} superfamily signals are important for regulating cell–cell interactions and cancer metastasis, and that blocking these signals by systemic expression of Smad7 may be a novel strategy for the prevention of cancer metastasis, especially among patients with advanced-stage disease.


    NOTES
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
We thank our colleagues for suggestions and discussion.

Supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science, Sports and Technology of Japan. The study sponsor had no role in the design of the study or in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data.

Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science, Sports, and Technology of Japan.


    REFERENCES
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

(1) Cui W, Fowlis DJ, Bryson S, Duffie E, Ireland H, Balmain A, et al. TGFbeta1 inhibits the formation of benign skin tumors, but enhances progression to invasive spindle carcinomas in transgenic mice. Cell 1996;86:531–42.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(2) Muraoka RS, Dumont N, Ritter CA, Dugger TC, Brantley DM, Chen J, et al. Blockade of TGF-beta inhibits mammary tumor cell viability, migration, and metastases. J Clin Invest 2002;109:1551–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(3) Welch DR, Fabra A, Nakajima M. Transforming growth factor beta stimulates mammary adenocarcinoma cell invasion and metastatic potential. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1990;87:7678–82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(4) Heldin CH, Miyazono K, ten Dijke P. TGF-beta signaling from cell membrane to nucleus through SMAD proteins. Nature 1997;390:465–71.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(5) Bhowmick NA, Chytil A, Plieth D, Gorska AE, Dumont N, Shappell S, et al. TGF-beta signaling in fibroblasts modulates the oncogenic potential of adjacent epithelia. Science 2004;303:848–51.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(6) Tang B, Vu M, Booker T, Santner SJ, Miller FR, Anver MR, et al. TGF-beta switches from tumor suppressor to prometastatic factor in a model of breast cancer progression. J Clin Invest 2003;112:1116–24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(7) Kang Y, Siegel PM, Shu W, Drobnjak M, Kakonen SM, Cordon-Cardo C, et al. A multigenic program mediating breast cancer metastasis to bone. Cancer Cell 2003;3:537–49.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(8) Derynck R, Akhurst RJ, Balmain A. TGF-beta signaling in tumor suppression and cancer progression. Nat Genet 2001;29:117–29.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(9) Wakefield LM, Roberts AB. TGF-beta signaling: positive and negative effects on tumorigenesis. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2002;12:22–9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(10) Shi Y, Massague J. Mechanisms of TGF–beta signaling from cell membrane to the nucleus. Cell 2003;113:685–700.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(11) Massague J, Blain SW, Lo RS. TGFbeta signaling in growth control, cancer, and heritable disorders. Cell 2000;103:295–309.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(12) Akiyoshi S, Inoue H, Hanai J, Kusanagi K, Nemoto N, Miyazono K, et al. c-Ski acts as a transcriptional co-repressor in transforming growth factor-beta signaling through interaction with Smads. J Biol Chem 2000;274:35269–77.[CrossRef][ISI]

(13) Luo K, Stroschein SL, Wang W, Chen D, Martens E, Zhou S, et al. The Ski oncoprotein interacts with the Smad proteins to repress TGFbeta signaling. Genes Dev 1999;13:2196–206.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(14) Sun Y, Liu X, Eaton EN, Lane WS, Lodish HF, Weinberg RA. Interaction of the Ski oncoprotein with Smad3 regulates TGF-beta signaling. Mol Cell 1999;4:499–509.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(15) Nomura T, Khan MM, Kaul SC, Dong HD, Wadhwa R, Colmenares C, et al. Ski is a component of the histone deacetylase complex required for transcriptional repression by Mad and thyroid hormone receptor. Genes Dev 1999;13:412–23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(16) Wang W, Mariani FV, Harland RM, Luo K. Ski represses bone morphogenic protein signaling in Xenopus and mammalian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000;97:14394–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(17) Takeda M, Mizuide M, Oka M, Watabe T, Inoue H, Suzuki H, et al. Interaction with Smad4 is indispensable for suppression of BMP signaling by c-Ski. Mol Biol Cell 2004;15:963–72.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(18) Colmenares C, Teumer JK, Stavnezer E. Transformation-defective v-ski induces MyoD and myogenin expression but not myotube formation. Mol Cell Biol 1991;11:1167–70.[ISI][Medline]

(19) Morimoto J, Hiroishi S, Taniguchi Y, Mori H. Newly established high mammary cancer strain of mice with severe pulmonary metastasis. Basic Investigation Breast Carcinoma 1997;6:70–4.

(20) Fujikura J, Yamato E, Yonemura S, Hosoda K, Masui S, Nakao K, et al. Differentiation of embryonic stem cells is induced by GATA factors. Genes Dev 2002;16:784–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(21) Fujii M, Takeda K, Imamura T, Aoki H, Sampath TK, Enomoto S, et al. Roles of bone morphogenetic protein type I receptors and Smad proteins in osteoblast and chondroblast differentiation. Mol Biol Cell 1999;10:3801–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(22) Nakao A, Fujii M, Masumura R, Kumano K, Saito Y, Miyazono K, et al. Transient gene transfer and expression of Smad7 prevents bleomycin-induced lung fibrosis in mice. J Clin Invest 1999;104:5–11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(23) Azuma H, Takahara S, Ichimaru N, Wang JD, Itoh Y, Otsuki Y, et al. Marked prevention of tumor growth and metastasis by a novel immunosuppressive agent, FTY720, in mouse breast cancer models. Cancer Res 2002;62:1410–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(24) Ota T, Fujii M, Sugizaki T, Ishii M, Miyazawa K, Aburatani H, et al. Targets of transcriptional regulation by two distinct type I receptors for transforming growth factor-beta in human umbilical vein endothelial cells. J Cell Physiol 2002;193:299–318.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(25) Seidel CL, Helgason T, Allen JC, Wilson C. Migratory abilities of different vascular cells from the tunica media of canine vessels. Am J Physiol 1997;272:C847–52.

(26) Hall W, Bird KD. Simultaneous multiple comparison procedures for categorical data. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1986;20:350–9.[ISI][Medline]

(27) Fidler IJ. The pathogenesis of cancer metastasis: the ‘seed and soil’ hypothesis revisited. Nat Rev Cancer 2003;3:453–8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(28) Liotta LA, Kohn EC. The microenvironment of the tumour-host interface. Nature 2001;411:375–9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(29) Cunningham CC. Actin structural proteins in cell motility. Cancer Metastasis Rev 1992;11:69–77.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(30) Martin TA, Jiang WG. Tight junctions and their role in cancer metastasis. Histol Histopathol 2001;16:1183–95.[ISI][Medline]

(31) Cavallaro U, Christofori G. Cell adhesion in tumor invasion and metastasis: loss of the glue is not enough. Biochim Biophys Acta 2001;1552:39–45.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(32) Tapon N. Modeling transformation and metastasis in Drosophila. Cancer Cell 2003;4:333–5.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(33) Ren J, Hamada J, Takeichi N, Fujikawa S, Kobayashi H. Ultrastructural differences in junctional intercellular communication between highly and weakly metastatic clones derived from rat mammary carcinoma. Cancer Res 1990;50:358–62.[Abstract]

(34) Menez J, Le Maux Chansac B, Dorothee G, Vergnon I, Jalil A, Carlier MF, et al. Mutant alpha-actinin-4 promotes tumorigenicity and regulates cell motility of a human lung carcinoma. Oncogene 2004;23:2630–9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(35) Dosaka-Akita H, Hommura F, Fujita H, Kinoshita I, Nishi M, Morikawa T, et al. Frequent loss of gelsolin expression in non-small cell lung cancers of heavy smokers. Cancer Res 1998;58:322–7.[Abstract]

(36) Tobioka H, Isomura H, Kokai Y, Sawada N. Polarized distribution of carcinoembryonic antigen is associated with a tight junction molecule in human colorectal adenocarcinoma. J Pathol 2002;198:207–12.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(37) Tian YC, Phillips AO. Interaction between the transforming growth factor-beta type II receptor/Smad pathway and beta-catenin during transforming growth factor-beta1-mediated adherens junction disassembly. Am J Pathol 2002;160:1619–28.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(38) Ozdamar B, Bose R, Barrios-Rodiles M, Wang HR, Zhang Y, Wrana JL. Regulation of the polarity protein Par6 by TGFbeta receptors controls epithelial cell plasticity. Science 2005;307:1603–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(39) Barrios-Rodiles M, Brown KR, Ozdamar B, Bose R, Liu Z, Donovan RS, et al. High-throughput mapping of a dynamic signaling network in mammalian cells. Science 2005;307:1621–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(40) Tan X, Egami H, Ishikawa S, Sugita H, Kamohara H, Nakagawa M, et al. Involvement of matrix metalloproteinase-7 in invasion-metastasis through induction of cell dissociation in pancreatic cancer. Int J Oncol 2005;26:1283–9.[ISI][Medline]

(41) Kurrey NK, K A, Bapat SA. Snail and Slug are major determinants of ovarian cancer invasiveness at the transcription level. Gynecol Oncol 2005;97:155–65.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(42) Tan X, Tamori Y, Egami H, Ishikawa S, Kurizaki T, Takai E, et al. Analysis of invasion-metastasis mechanism in pancreatic cancer: involvement of tight junction transmembrane protein occludin and MEK/ERK signal transduction pathway in cancer cell dissociation. Oncol Rep 2004;11:993–8.[ISI][Medline]

(43) Tobioka H, Isomura H, Kokai Y, Tokunaga Y, Yamaguchi J, Sawada N. Occludin expression decreases with the progression of human endometrial carcinoma. Hum Pathol 2004;35:159–64.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(44) Vleminckx K, Vakaet LJ, Mareel M, Fiers W, van Roy F. Genetic manipulation of E-cadherin expression by epithelial tumor cells reveals an invasion suppressor role. Cell 1991;12:107–19.[CrossRef]

(45) Luo J, Lubaroff DM, Hendrix MJ. Suppression of prostate cancer invasive potential and matrix metalloproteinase activity by E-cadherin transfection. Cancer Res 1999;59:3552–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(46) Hsu MY, Meier FE, Nesbit M, Hsu JY, Van Belle P, Elder DE, et al. E-cadherin expression in melanoma cells restores keratinocyte-mediated growth control and down-regulates expression of invasion-related adhesion receptors. Am J Pathol 2000;156:1515–25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(47) Frixen UH, Behrens J, Sachs M, Eberle G, Voss B, Warda A, et al. E-cadherin-mediated cell-cell adhesion prevents invasiveness of human carcinoma cells. J Cell Biol 1991;113:173–85.[Abstract]

(48) Hazan RB, Phillips GR, Qiao RF, Norton L, Aaronson SA. Exogenous expression of N-cadherin in breast cancer cells induces cell migration, invasion, and metastasis. J Cell Biol 2000;148:779–90.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(49) Islam S, Carey TE, Wolf GT, Wheelock MJ, Johnson KR. Expression of N-cadherin by human squamous carcinoma cells induces a scattered fibroblastic phenotype with disrupted cell-cell adhesion. J Cell Biol 1996;135:1643–54.[Abstract]

(50) Li G, Satyamoorthy K, Herlyn M. N-cadherin-mediated intercellular interactions promote survival and migration of melanoma cells. Cancer Res 2001;61:3819–25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(51) Tran NL, Nagle RB, Cress AE, Heimark RL. N-Cadherin expression in human prostate carcinoma cell lines. An epithelial-mesenchymal transformation mediating adhesion with stromal cells. Am J Pathol 1999;155:787–98.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(52) Nieman MT, Prudoff RS, Johnson KR, Wheelock MJ. N-cadherin promotes motility in human breast cancer cells regardless of their E-cadherin expression. J Cell Biol 1999;147:631–44.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(53) Li G, Herlyn M. Dynamics of intercellular communication during melanoma development. Mol Med Today 2000;6:163–9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(54) Tomita K, van Bokhoven A, van Leenders GJ, Ruijter ET, Jansen CF, Bussemakers MJ, et al. Cadherin switching in human prostate cancer progression. Cancer Res 2000;60:3650–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(55) Sanders DS, Blessing K, Hassan GA, Bruton R, Marsden JR, Jankowski J. Alterations in cadherin and catenin expression during the biological progression of melanocytic tumours. Mol Pathol 1999;52:151–7.[Abstract]

(56) Portella G, Cumming SA, Liddell J, Cui W, Ireland H, Akhurst RJ, et al. Transforming growth factor beta is essential for spindle cell conversion of mouse skin carcinoma in vivo: implications for tumor invasion. Cell Growth Differ 1998;9:393–404.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(57) Maeda M, Johnson KR, Wheelock MJ. Cadherin switching: essential for behavioral but not morphological changes during an epithelium-to-mesenchyme transition. J Cell Sci 2005;118:873–87.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(58) Nakajima S, Doi R, Toyoda E, Tsuji S, Wada M, Koizumi M, et al. N-cadherin expression and epithelial-mesenchymal transition in pancreatic carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:4125–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(59) Yang YA, Dukhanina O, Tang B, Mamura M, Letterio JJ, MacGregor J, et al. Lifetime exposure to a soluble TGF-beta antagonist protects mice against metastasis without adverse side effects. J Clin Invest 2002;109:1607–15.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(60) Itoh S, Landstrom M, Hermansson A, Itoh F, Heldin CH, Heldin NE, et al. Transforming growth factor-beta1 induces nuclear export of inhibitory Smad7. J Biol Chem 2002;273:29195–201.[CrossRef]

(61) Hanyu A, Ishidou Y, Ebisawa T, Shimanuki T, Imamura T, Miyazono K. The N-domain of Smad7 is essential for specific inhibition of transforming growth factor-beta signaling. J Cell Biol 2001;155:1017–28.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(62) Moustakas A, Heldin CH. Non-Smad TGF-beta signals. J Cell Sci 2005;118:3573–84.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(63) Landstrom M, Heldin NE, Bu S, Hermansson A, Itoh S, ten Dijke P, et al. Smad7 mediates apoptosis induced by transforming growth factor {beta} in prostatic carcinoma cells. Curr Biol 2000;10:535–8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(64) Ide H, Yoshida T, Matsumoto N, Aoki K, Osada Y, Sugimura T, et al. Growth regulation of human prostate cancer cells by bone morphogenetic protein-2. Cancer Res 1997;57:5022–7.[Abstract]

(65) Pouliot F, Blais A, Labrie C. Overexpression of a dominant negative type II bone morphogenetic protein receptor inhibits the growth of human breast cancer cells. Cancer Res 2003;63:277–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Manuscript received February 24, 2005; revised September 22, 2005; accepted October 7, 2005.


This article has been cited by other articles in HighWire Press-hosted journals:


Editorial about this Article

             
Copyright © 2005 Oxford University Press (unless otherwise stated)
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement