Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
J Biol Chem. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 Apr 14.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2293288



The BRMS1 metastasis suppressor interacts with the protein AT rich interactive domain 4A (ARID4A, retinoblastoma-binding protein 1, RBBP1) as part of SIN3:histone deacetylase chromatin remodeling complexes. These transcriptional co-repressors regulate diverse cell phenotypes depending upon complex composition. To define BRMS1 complexes and their roles in metastasis suppression, we generated BRMS1 mutants (BRMS1mut) and mapped ARID4A interactions. BRMS1L174D disrupted direct interaction with ARID4A in yeast two-hybrid genetic screens (Y2H) but retained an indirect association with ARID4A in MDA-MB-231 and -435 human breast cancer cell lines by co-immunoprecipitation (co-IP). Deletion of the first coiled-coil domain (BRMS1ΔCC1) did not disrupt direct (Y2H) interaction, but did prevent association by co-IP. These results suggest altered complex composition with BRMS1mut. Although basal transcription repression was impaired and the pro-metastatic protein osteopontin (OPN) was differentially down-regulated by BRMS1L174D and BRMS1ΔCC1, both down-regulated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and suppressed metastasis in MDA-MB-231 and -435 breast cancer xenograft models. We conclude that BRMS1mut that modify the composition of a SIN3:HDAC chromatin remodeling complex leads to altered gene expression profiles. Because metastasis requires the coordinate expression of multiple genes, down-regulation of at least one important gene, such as EGFR, had the ability to suppress metastasis. Understanding which interactions are necessary for particular biochemical/cellular functions may prove important for future strategies targeting metastasis.

The ability of a cancer cell to complete all steps of the metastatic cascade requires diverse tumor-host interactions that are dependent on the coordinate expression of specific genes both intrinsically and extrinsically (13). The metastasis suppressor breast cancer metastasis suppressor 1 (BRMS1) has been shown to regulate the expression of multiple genes leading to the suppression of metastasis in multiple model systems including human breast carcinoma (4,5), melanoma (6), and ovarian carcinoma (7) without preventing orthotopic tumor growth. Specifically, down-regulation of the pro-metastatic genes osteopontin (OPN) and urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) have been linked to BRMS1 expression (8,9). Gap junctional intercellular communication (GJIC) is restored by BRMS1 through a change in connexin expression (10). Microarray and proteomic analyses have also been performed showing multiple changes in gene and protein expression when BRMS1 was introduced (1113). Clinically, loss of BRMS1 protein has been correlated with progesterone receptor (PR) expression and inversely correlated with HER2 expression in breast cancer patients (14).

BRMS1 has been proposed to regulate transcription of genes by interaction with a large SIN3:HDAC chromatin remodeling complex through interaction with the protein AT rich interacting domain 4A (ARID4A) that suppresses basal transcription in vivo using a GAL4 luciferase reporter assay (14). These findings have been confirmed by subsequent protein-protein interaction studies of other proteins known to be a part of this complex in addition to BRMS1 (1518). A second mechanism identified for BRMS1 that may or may not be distinct from SIN3:HDAC involves the negative regulation of nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) through interaction with RelA/p65 and inhibition of IκBα phosphorylation (8,9,19).

ARID4A is part of multiple protein-protein complexes. In addition to the BRMS1 containing SIN3:HDAC complex, ARID4A interacts with the tumor suppressor retinoblastoma (pRB) (20) to recruit E2F-dependent promoters (21,22). Although these complexes share some of the same proteins as those identified with BRMS1, including SIN3 and HDAC1, distinct SIN3:HDAC complexes regulate particular transcription factor interactions leading to activation or repression of specific genes (23). A model depicting how ARID4A regulates E2F-dependent transcriptional repression has been proposed by Branton and colleagues that involves direct interaction of ARID4A with pRB and the 30 kDa SIN3 associated protein (SAP30) to recruit a SIN3:HDAC chromatin modifying complex to E2F-dependent promoters (24). Although multiple members of the SIN3:HDAC complexes have been described as tumor suppressors, there are no current reports of specific interactions necessary for or implicated in metastasis suppression.

In the MDA-MB-231 and -435 metastatic human breast cancer cell lines, the BRMS1:SIN3:HDAC complexes are not active tumor suppressors. Orthotopic tumors are still able to grow at a similar rate when BRMS1 is re-expressed in these metastatic cells that have no detectable levels of endogenous BRMS1, but metastasis is suppressed by ~90%. Since we previously showed a direct (Y2H) interaction of BRMS1 with ARID4A, we hypothesized that this interaction played an important role in the ability of BRMS1 to suppress metastasis. To test this hypothesis, we generated a series of deletion mutants of BRMS1 protein that differentially interact with ARID4A. We tested their ability to suppress metastasis and evaluated metastasis associated phenotypes. Understanding these protein-protein interactions and the intricate roles they play in the process of metastasis, distinct from tumorigenesis, is important in order to target this deadly disease.

Experimental Procedures

Cell lines and cell culture

MDA-MB-231 and MDA-MB-435 are human estrogen receptor- and progesterone receptor-negative cell lines derived from metastatic infiltrating ductal breast carcinomas (25,26). The origin of MDA-MB-435 has been questioned since the cells express melanoma-associated genes in cDNA microarray experiments (27,28). However, the patient was reported only to have a breast carcinoma. MDA-MB-435 cells can be induced to secrete milk lipids (29,) and have a propensity to metastasize from mammary gland but not from subcutaneous sites (30). Both cell lines form progressively growing tumors when injected into the mammary fat pads of immunocompromised mice. MDA-MB-435 cells develop macroscopic metastases in the lungs and regional lymph nodes by 10–12 weeks postinoculation, but rarely metastasize after direct injection into the lateral tail vein. The opposite pattern exists for MDA-MB-231 in athymic mice.

The cell lines were cultured in a mixture (1:1 v:v) of Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium and Ham’s F12 medium (DMEM/F12; Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine, 1 mM sodium pyruvate, 0.02 mM non-essential amino acids, 5 % fetal bovine serum (Atlanta Biologicals, Norcross, Georgia), without antibiotics or antimycotics. All cultures were confirmed negative for Mycoplasma spp. infection using a PCR-based test (TaKaRa, Shiga, Japan). Cells were maintained on 100 mm Corning tissue culture dishes at 37°C with 5 % CO2 in a humidified atmosphere. When cultures reached 80–90 % confluence they were passaged using a solution of 2 mM EDTA in Ca2+/Mg2+ free Dulbecco’s phosphate buffer saline (CMF-DPBS).

Constructs and transductions

BRMS1 mutants were created by QuickChange II site-directed mutagenesis technique (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA) and were confirmed by DNA sequencing. The constructs were amplified by PCR with BamH1 and Xho1 restriction enzyme digest sites at each end. After enzyme digestion, the products were ligated into the lentivirus vector VSV G (31). Packaging and transfection of the lentivirus in 293T cells and transduction of the MDA-MB-231 and -435 cells were previously described (17,32,33). Single cell clones were obtained and screened for expression of BRMS1 or BRMS1 mutants by western blot.

Yeast two-hybrid analysis

The yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) screen was performed essentially as described (34;35). Briefly, the BRMS1 or BRMS1mut cDNA was cloned in frame with the Gal4 DNA binding domain into the pDEST32 vector (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and ARID4A corresponding to the C-terminus amino acids 1007–1257, amplified from human breast cDNA library, was cloned in frame with the Gal4 activation domain into the pGAD424 vector (Clontech, Mountain View, CA). The yeast Y190 strain was co-transformed with these vectors and grown on SD/-Trp/-Leu plates at 30°C until colonies reached 1–3 mm in diameter. The colonies were lifted by filter paper, lysed in liquid N2 and inverted onto another filter soaked with Z buffer/X-gal solution. β-galactosidase activity was observed by color change and visually measured corresponding to time as follows: blue within 4 hours = ++, blue within 4–8 hours = +, and longer than 8 hours = −.

Antibodies, co-immunoprecipitation, and western blotting

The monoclonal antibody 1a5.7 directed against a peptide corresponding to the C-terminus of BRMS1 (231KARAAVSPQKRKSDGP246) was generated and validated by western blotting, immunoprecipitation, and mass spectroscopy. Other antibodies used in this study were purchased: anti-ARID4A clone LY11 (Upstate Biotechnology, Lake Placid, NY), anti-osteopontin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO), anti-lamin A/C and anti-EGFR (Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers, MA). Co-immunoprecipitation with 1a5.7 was performed as previously described for other antibodies (17) except that protein L agarose (Pierce Biotechnology, Rockford, IL) was used in place of protein A/G agarose. Western blotting was also performed as described except that mouse TrueBlot (eBioscience, San Diego, CA) was used as the secondary antibody for the immunoprecipitated samples.

Reporter Assays

BRMS1 or BRMS1 mutant cDNA was cloned into pBIND vector (Promega, Madison, WI). COS-7 cells were co-transfected with pBIND and pG5luc vectors using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). Cells were rinsed once with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and lysed with passive lysis buffer (Promega, Madison, WI). Luciferase activity was measured with the dual-luciferase assay (Promega, Madison, WI) using an AutoLumt LB 953 luminometer (Berthold Technologies, Oak Ridge, TN). Renilla luciferase (phRL-SV40, Promega, Madison, WI) was used as a transfection control.

Metastasis Assays

Spontaneous and experimental metastasis assays were performed as described previously (4,5). Ten mice per experimental group were used. The vector only MDA-MB-231 and -435 cells were previously shown to have the same metastatic phenotype as the parental cells and thus were not included as a control in all experiments to limit the number of animals used (4,5,33). Animals were maintained under the guidelines of NIH and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. All protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Food and water were provided ad libitum.

Statistical Analyses

The number of lung metastases was compared for BRMS1 and BRMS1 mutant transduced cell lines to the parental or vector-only-transduced lines. A Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA of ranks procedure was used with Dunn’s post hoc test. Calculations were performed using SigmaStat statistical analysis software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Statistical significance was defined as a probability P ≤ 0.05.


Second coiled-coil domain of BRMS1 interacts with ARID4A

The direct interaction of BRMS1 with ARID4A was previously identified by Y2H, but the region of BRMS1 necessary for interaction had not been determined. Mutants containing gross deletions of BRMS1 were generated and screened by Y2H with ARID4A in order to map this interaction. Because of their roles in protein-protein interaction, we focused on disruption of the putative coiled-coil domains. Deletion of the first coiled-coil domain between residues 61–92, BRMS1ΔCC1, had no impact on ARID4A binding (Fig. 1). However, deletion of the second coiled-coil domain between residues 130–187, BRMS1ΔCC2, abolished this interaction. Truncation of BRMS1 at residue 137 also failed to elicit an interaction with ARID4A. Further analyses showed that expression of the second coiled-coil domain alone, between residues 147–180, could interact with ARID4A, demonstrating that this domain was necessary and sufficient for interaction. Partial deletion of the N- or C-terminus of the this domain, BRMS1CC2:C and BRMS1CC2:N, disrupted interaction with ARID4A.

Fig. 1
Map of BRMS1:ARID4A interactions by yeast two-hybrid. The BRMS1 domain structure and the regions that were deleted or mutated are shown schematically. ARID4A was fused to the Gal4 activation domain and BRMS1 or BRMS1mutant were fused to the Gal4 DNA binding ...

Point mutant BRMS1L174D abolishes direct interaction with ARID4A

A series of BRMS1 point mutants were generated in the second coiled-coil domain and screened for interaction with ARID4A by Y2H (Fig. 1). Because deletion of the last seven amino acids in this domain, BRMS1CC2:N, disrupted interaction with ARID4A, mutations were selected in this region between residues 174–180. Conservative mutations, BRMS1D175A and BRMS1S177A, maintained a strong interaction with ARID4A. Addition of a charged side chain, BRMS1L176D, also maintained a strong interaction. However, the same mutation two amino acids upstream, BRMS1L174D, abolished the interaction with ARID4A.

ARID4A maintains indirect association with BRMS1L174D but not BRMS1ΔCC1

Stable cell lines were generated using two metastatic breast cancer cell lines, MDA-MB-231 and -435, with a BRMS1 mutant that maintains direct interaction with ARID4A, BRMS1ΔCC1, and the point mutant BRMS1L174D that disrupted ARID4A:BRMS1L174D interaction. Co-immunoprecipitation of BRMS1 or BRMS1 mutants with the BRMS1 mAb, 1a5.7, demonstrated that BRMS1L174D indirectly associated with ARID4A while BRMS1ΔCC1 was not able to associate with ARID4A in these breast carcinoma cell lines (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
ARID4A maintains indirect association with BRMS1L174D but not BRMS1ΔCC1. Co-immunoprecipitation (co-IP) of ARID4A with a mAb directed to the C-terminus of BRMS1 was performed with human breast cell lines expressing BRMS1 or BRMS1 mutants. Although ...

BRMS1mut differentially regulate gene expression

As part of a co-repressor complex, BRMS1 was previously found to repress basal transcription using a luciferase reporter assay (14). Disrupting the direct interaction of BRMS1:ARID4A with the point mutant, BRMS1L174D, also inhibited suppression of basal transcription (Fig. 3A). Down-regulation of the pro-metastatic protein OPN by BRMS1 has been proposed to be important for BRMS1 mediated metastasis suppression (9; Hedley et al. submitted). BRMS1L174D but not BRMS1ΔCC1 down-regulated OPN expression (Fig. 3B). More recently, BRMS1 was found to specifically down-regulate the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) when BRMS1 was re-expressed in both cell lines (Vaidya et al. submitted). Both of the BRMS1 mutants, BRMS1L174D and BRMS1ΔCC1, retained the ability to down-regulate EGFR (Fig. 3C).

Fig. 3
BRMS1 mutants specifically down-regulate EGFR but do not repress basal transcription. A, basal transcription was measured by a dual luciferase reporter assay. BRMS1L174D did not significantly repress transcription compared to pBIND vector control. All ...

BRMS1 mutants suppress metastasis

To determine if the direct interaction of BRMS1:ARID4A is necessary for BRMS1 mediated metastasis suppression, two model systems were utilized representing spontaneous (MDA-MB-435, from an orthotopic injection) and experimental (MDA-MB-231, following intravenous injection) metastasis. The BRMS1L174D which does not directly interact with ARID4A and the BRMS1ΔCC1 which can still directly interact with ARID4A were tested for their ability to suppress metastasis in these two systems. Both mutants in both of the assays suppressed metastasis comparable to that of wild-type BRMS1 (Fig. 4). These results demonstrate that direct interaction of BRMS1:ARID4A is not necessary for BRMS1 mediated metastasis suppression.

Fig. 4
BRMS1 mutants suppress metastasis. The table on the left shows the incidence and the mean number of lung metastases for each group. The data is shown graphically on the right with black dots representing the number of lung metastases from each mouse; ...


The coordinate expression of multiple genes is necessary to enable a cancer cell to complete all the steps of the metastatic cascade and proteins that regulate transcription may dramatically impact this process (13). SIN3:HDAC complexes epigenetically regulate gene expression and may be critical determinants for cancer spread. Although many proteins associated with these complexes have been characterized as tumor suppressors, there are currently no reports of specific interactions necessary for metastasis suppression. In this study, we have extended our previous findings that BRMS1 is a member of a SIN3:HDAC complex(es) and specifically focused on the direct interaction of BRMS1 with ARID4A. These studies are part of a long-term objective of characterizing how these complex proteins are interacting to understand the intricate roles they play in metastasis.

BRMS1 is a predominantly nuclear protein that suppresses metastasis in multiple xenograft model systems by inhibiting multiple steps of the metastatic cascade (36). BRMS1 protein contains several potential protein-binding domains including coiled-coil and imperfect leucine zippers and previous reports demonstrated that BRMS1 interacts with ARID4A as part of large (~1.2 MDa) SIN3:HDAC complex(es) (1518,37). Since BRMS1 has been shown to affect the transcription of multiple genes that are known to play a role in metastasis and SIN3:HDAC complexes epigenetically regulate gene expression, we asked if the direct interaction of BRMS1:ARID4A was necessary for BRMS1 mediated metastasis suppression. To test this hypothesis, the domain of BRMS1 required for ARID4A interaction was mapped and a point mutant that disrupted this interaction was generated. Unexpectedly, we found that metastasis was still suppressed with BRMS1 mutants that did not associate with ARID4A either directly, BRMS1L174D, or indirectly, BRMS1ΔCC1. These studies have enabled us to propose a model of how BRMS1 is associated with a SIN3:HDAC complex (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
BRMS1 binding to the SIN3:HDAC complex is mediated by one or more complex components. BRMS1 and ARID4A are shown interacting with a SIN3:HDAC complex(es) that is not yet completely defined. The BRMS1L174D is unable to directly interact with ARID4A, but ...

Although Y2H is usually accepted as a measure of direct protein-protein interaction, there is a small possibility for other proteins to bridge interactions between the two proteins of interest. However, based on our data that the second coiled-coil domain of BRMS1 alone could interact with the C-terminal domain of ARID4A in a Y2H genetic screen, it is unlikely that the interaction is occurring through bridging proteins. The finding argues that CC2 is sufficient for ARID4A interactions. Furthermore, if bridging proteins were required, then BRMS1L174D should have also interacted with ARID4A since ARID4A and BRMS1L174D are still associated according to co-IP. Moreover, Y2H has been performed with SAP30 and HDAC1 (other members of the same complex). No interaction with BRMS1 was found (data not shown), further supporting the observation that a positive interaction in Y2H most likely reflects a direct protein-protein interaction.

Initially, the data between the Y2H and co-IP appears discordant. However, the findings are entirely internally consistent once one considers how the complex as a whole interacts. Previous studies have shown that suppressor of defective silencing 3 (SUDS3, mSDS3) is in the same SIN3:HDAC complex (17,37). Combined with recent Y2H preliminary data (Silveira and Welch in preparation) showing that BRMS1L174D directly interacts with SUDS3 while BRMS1ΔCC1 does not, it is tempting to speculate that SUDS3:BRMS1 interaction is required as a tether for the ARID4A:BRMS1 interaction. This provides a rational explanation why the BRMS1ΔCC1 does not co-IP ARID4A while the BRMS1L174D does co-IP ARID4A in the human breast cancer cells.

The direct interaction of ARID4A with BRMS1 in Y2H required the second coiled-coil domain of BRMS1. CC2 was both necessary and sufficient for the interaction. It is possible that, in addition to a sequence-specific CC2:ARID4A interaction, gross CC2 mutations or deletions could change the tertiary structure of BRMS1 which, in turn, could directly or indirectly alter other regions of the BRMS1 protein. If true, then it is possible that some of the larger mutations introduced into BRMS1 might affect folding-based, protein-protein interactions. For example, it is also not yet known whether the two coiled-coil domains of BRMS1 (CC1 and CC2) are involved in an intramolecular interaction necessary to create an ARID4A binding site. That would not appear to be the case because amino acid residues 147–180 (within the CC2 domain) are sufficient for the ARID4A interaction to occur.

Structural studies of BRMS1 will eventually be required to fully understand the impact of various mutations on tertiary structure. Structural analyses are currently in progress. That effort has been hindered because no sufficiently similar structures have been reported which can serve as a template from which atomic coordinates can be predicted.

The fact that both BRMS1L174D and BRMS1ΔCC1 mutants suppress metastasis was also surprising. If the SIN3:HDAC complex is required for the BRMS1 mediated metastasis suppression, then one would predict that neither mutant would suppress metastasis. However, those were not the data. An alternative possibility is that the SIN3:HDAC complex(es) in the parent cells (which have little to no detectable levels of BRMS1) is required for the coordinate expression of genes necessary for metastasis. Changing the stoichiometric balance and/or the prevalence of the component proteins could significant affect gene expression patterns that, in turn, regulate cancer metastasis. The latter hypothesis is supported by the finding that the BRMS1 mutants still maintain the ability to interact with (at least some) members of the SIN3:HDAC complexes. At present, it is not possible to determine whether BRMS1 re-expression has changed the overall equilibrium that leads to specific functional differences. By disrupting direct ARID4A:BRMS1 interactions using BRMS1L174D, basal transcription was no longer repressed as evidenced by the Gal4 luciferase reporter assay. Yet, OPN was specifically down-regulated by BRMS1L174D but not BRMS1ΔCC1; whereas, both BRMS1L174D and BRMS1ΔCC1 mutants maintained the ability to down-regulate EGFR. Together, these findings demonstrate how the downstream functions of BRMS1-based multi-protein complexes could change by modifying the equilibrium of individual proteins. We are cautious, however, because a definitive role for EGFR changes in the BRMS1-mediated metastasis suppression has not yet been definitively established.

The possibility also exists that BRMS1L174D or BRMS1ΔCC1 may suppress metastasis by affecting different steps in the metastatic cascade. Unfortunately, a robust in vitro assay that predicts metastasis suppression has not yet been identified. Therefore, it is not currently possible to directly test this hypothesis. Also, although unlikely, it is possible that the metastasis suppression caused by the BRMS1mut may be via a different mechanism than BRMS1. Again, testing this possibility will require an in vitro surrogate assay.

While the primary focus of this study was the interaction of BRMS1 with ARID4A, other BRMS1 protein interactions could have been affected by mutating BRMS1, including NF B, BAF57, NMI, and/or CCG1. All of these transcription complex components could affect the ability of BRMS1 to suppress metastasis. Whether these complexes are distinct from or associated with SIN3:HDAC is presently not known.

Clearly, future studies are necessary to characterize these BRMS1 interactions to understand how each complex is involved in metastasis so that it will be possible to identify specific transcriptional targets relevant to cancer metastasis. Nonetheless, without understanding the exact mechanism of how the BRMS1 mutants are suppressing metastasis, it is exciting to postulate that minimal domains of BRMS1 or perhaps small peptides or inhibitors that modify these protein-protein interactions could inhibit metastasis.


This work was supported by the U.S. Public Health Service (CA87728 to DRW; F32CA113037 to DRH), National Foundation for Cancer Research – Center for Metastasis Research (DRW), and Susan G. Komen for the Cure (PDF1122006 to KSV; BCTR0503488 to RSS). We thank Dr. Janet Price (U.T. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center) for generously providing the MDA-MB-231 and -435 cells and Drs. John Kappes and Yujiang Jia for generating the lentiviruses for infection. We also thank Dr. Joe Stafford for helping with the animal studies and members of the Welch lab for critical reading of the manuscript.

The abbreviations used are

breast cancer metastasis suppressor 1
AT rich interactive domain 4A (also known as RBBP1, retinoblastoma binding protein 1)
suppressor of defective silencing 3 (also known as SDS3)
histone deacetylase
SWI-independent 3
yeast two-hybrid


1. Eccles SA, Welch DR. Lancet. 2007;369:1742–1757. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Langley RR, Fidler IJ. Endocrine Rev. 2007;28:297–321. [PubMed]
3. Nguyen DX, Massagué J. Nature Rev Genet. 2007;8:341–352. [PubMed]
4. Seraj MJ, Samant RS, Verderame MF, Welch DR. Cancer Res. 2000;60:2764–2769. [PubMed]
5. Samant RS, Seraj MJ, Saunders MM, Sakamaki T, Shevde LA, Harms JF, Leonard TO, Goldberg SF, Budgeon LR, Meehan WJ, Winter CR, Christensen ND, Verderame MF, Donahue HJ, Welch DR. Clin Exptl Metastasis. 2001;18:683–693. [PubMed]
6. Shevde LA, Samant RS, Goldberg SF, Sikaneta T, Alessandrini A, Donahue HJ, Mauger DT, Welch DR. Exp Cell Res. 2002;273:229–239. [PubMed]
7. Zhang S, Lin QD, DI W. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:522–531. [PubMed]
8. Cicek M, Fukuyama R, Welch DR, Sizemore N, Casey G. Cancer Res. 2005;65:3586–3595. [PubMed]
9. Samant RS, Clark DW, Fillmore RA, Cicek M, Metge BJ, Chandramouli KH, Chambers AF, Casey G, Welch DR, Shevde LA. Mol Cancer. 2007;6:6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Saunders MM, Seraj MJ, Li ZY, Zhou ZY, Winter CR, Welch DR, Donahue HJ. Cancer Res. 2001;61:1765–1767. [PubMed]
11. Champine PJ, Michaelson J, Weimer B, Welch DR, DeWald DB. Clin Exptl Metastasis. 2007;24:551–565. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
12. Cicek M, Samant RS, Kinter M, Welch DR, Casey G. Clin Exptl Metastasis. 2004;21:149–157. [PubMed]
13. Rivera J, Megias D, Bravo J. J Proteome Res. 2007;6:4006–4018. [PubMed]
14. Hicks DG, Yoder BJ, Short S, Tarr S, Prescott N, Crowe JP, Dawson AE, Budd GT, Sizemore S, Cicek M, Choueiri T, Tubbs RR, Gaile D, Nowak N, Accavitti-Loper MA, Frost AR, Welch DR, Casey G. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:6702–6708. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Nikolaev AY, Papanikolaou NA, Li M, Qin J, Gu W. Biochem Biophys Res Comm. 2004;323:1216–1222. [PubMed]
16. Doyon Y, Cayrou C, Ullah M, Landry AJ, Cote V, Selleck W, Lane WS, Tan S, Yang XJ, Cote J. Molec Cell. 2006;21:51–64. [PubMed]
17. Hurst DR, Mehta A, Moore BP, Phadke PA, Meehan WJ, Accavitti MA, Shevde LA, Hopper JE, Xie Y, Welch DR, Samant RS. Biochem Biophys Res Comm. 2006;348:1429–1435. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
18. Le Guezennec X, Vermeulen M, Stunnenberg HG. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:3929–3937. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
19. Liu Y, Smith PW, Jones DR. Molec Cell Biol. 2006;26:8683–8696. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20. Fattaey AR, Helin K, Dembski MS, Dyson N, Harlow E, Vuocolo GA, Hanobik MG, Haskell KM, Oliff A, DeFeo-Jones D. Oncogene. 1993;8:3149–3156. [PubMed]
21. Lai A, Lee JM, Yang WM, DeCaprio JA, Kaelin WG, Jr, Seto E, Branton PE. Molec Cell Biol. 1999;19:6632–6641. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Lai A, Marcellus RC, Corbeil HB, Branton PE. Oncogene. 1999;18:2091–2100. [PubMed]
23. Silverstein RA, Ekwall K. Curr Genet. 2005;47:1–17. [PubMed]
24. Binda O, Roy JS, Branton PE. Molec Cell Biol. 2006;26:1917–1931. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Cailleau R, Young R, Olive M, Reeves WJ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1974;53:661–674. [PubMed]
26. Cailleau R, Olive M, Cruciger QVJ. In Vitro. 1978;14:911–915. [PubMed]
27. Ross DT, Scherf U, Eisen MB, Perou CM, Rees C, Spellman P, Iyer V, Jeffrey SS, Van de Rijn M, Waltham M, Pergamenschikov A, Lee JCE, Lashkari D, Shalon D, Myers TG, Weinstein JN, Botstein D, Brown PO. Nat Genet. 2000;24:227–235. [PubMed]
28. Rae JM, Creighton CJ, Meck JM, Haddad BR, Johnson MD. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006
29. Sellappan S, Grijalva R, Zhou XY, Yang WT, BarEli M, Mills GB, Yu DH. Cancer Res. 2004;64:3479–3485. [PubMed]
30. Welch DR. Clin Exptl Metastasis. 1997;15:272–306. [PubMed]
31. Naldini L, Blomer U, Gallay P, Ory D, Mulligan R, Gage FH, Verma IM, Trono D. Science. 1996;272:263–267. [PubMed]
32. Nash KT, Phadke PA, Navenot JM, Hurst DR, Accavitti-Loper MA, Sztul E, Vaidya KS, Frost AR, Kappes JC, Peiper SC, Welch DR. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:309–321. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
33. Phadke PA, Mercer RR, Harms JF, Jia Y, Frost AR, Jewell J, Bussard KM, Nelson S, Moore C, Kappes JC, Gay CV, Mastro AM, Welch DR. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:1431–1440. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Vidal M, Braun P, Chen E, Boeke JD, Harlow E. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1996;93:10321–10326. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
35. Vidal M, Legrain P. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999;27:919–929. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
36. Phadke PA, Vaidya KS, Nash KT, Hurst DR, Welch DR. Am J Pathol. 2007 In Press. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
37. Meehan WJ, Samant RS, Hopper JE, Carrozza MJ, Shevde LA, Workman JL, Eckert KA, Verderame MF, Welch DR. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:1562–1569. [PubMed]
PubReader format: click here to try


Save items

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...


Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...