Next Article in Journal
Investigating the Relationship between Vitamin D and Persistent Symptoms Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection
Previous Article in Journal
A Crosstalk between Diet, Microbiome and microRNA in Epigenetic Regulation of Colorectal Cancer
Previous Article in Special Issue
Omega-3 Supplementation and Heart Disease: A Population-Based Diet by Gene Analysis of Clinical Trial Outcomes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 13
Issue 7
10.3390/nu13072431
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

A Milk-Fat Based Diet Increases Metastasis in the MMTV-PyMT Mouse Model of Breast Cancer

by
Fabiola N. Velazquez
1,2,†,
Valentina Viscardi
1,2,†,
Julia Montemage
1,2,
Leiqing Zhang
1,2,
Carolena Trocchia
1,2,
Megan M. Delamont
3,
Rasheed Ahmad
4,
Yusuf A. Hannun
1,2,
Lina M. Obeid
1,2 and
Ashley J. Snider
1,2,4,*,‡
1
Department of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
2
Cancer Center, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
3
Department of Nutritional Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
4
Immunology & Microbiology Department, Dasman Diabetes Institute, Kuwait City 15462, Kuwait
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
‡
Current address: BIO5 Institute, University of Arizona, 1230 N Cherry Ave., BSRL 372, Tucson, AZ 85718, USA.
Nutrients 2021, 13(7), 2431; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13072431
Submission received: 1 June 2021 / Revised: 1 July 2021 / Accepted: 12 July 2021 / Published: 15 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Impact of the Modern Western Human Diet on Inflammatory Diseases: Emerging Strategies for Prevention and Treatment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A high-fat diet (HFD) and obesity are risk factors for many diseases including breast cancer. This is particularly important with close to 40% of the current adult population being overweight or obese. Previous studies have implicated that Mediterranean diets (MDs) partially protect against breast cancer. However, to date, the links between diet and breast cancer progression are not well defined. Therefore, to begin to define and assess this, we used an isocaloric control diet (CD) and two HFDs enriched with either olive oil (OOBD, high in oleate, and unsaturated fatty acid in MDs) or a milk fat-based diet (MFBD, high in palmitate and myristate, saturated fatty acids in Western diets) in a mammary polyomavirus middle T antigen mouse model (MMTV-PyMT) of breast cancer. Our data demonstrate that neither MFBD or OOBD altered the growth of primary tumors in the MMTV-PyMT mice. The examination of lung metastases revealed that OOBD mice exhibited fewer surface nodules and smaller metastases when compared to MFBD and CD mice. These data suggest that different fatty acids found in different sources of HFDs may alter breast cancer metastasis.

1. Introduction

Obesity is as an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer [1]. The consumption of dietary fat increases the risk of developing breast cancer [2,3,4] with several studies linking increased breast cancer incidence to a high-fat Western diet [5,6,7,8]. Furthermore, obesity has also been associated with increased tumor size and poor prognosis [9,10]. However, the contribution of specific fat sources and fatty acids in those sources (saturated fatty acid (SFA), monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA), and polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA)) to increased breast cancer risk is less clear [11]. Two meta-analysis studies identified associations between the increased risk of breast cancer and a higher intake of SFA [12,13], while data from a matched control study in Sweden determined that there was a positive correlation with MUFA and PUFA intake, but not SFA intake [14]. Other reports have shown that MUFAs and PUFAs could have independent and opposite effects on breast cancer, with MUFA inversely and PUFA positively associated with breast cancer risk [15,16]. Additionally, the intake of specific types of PUFA have been shown to have an inverse association with the risk of breast cancer [17,18]. Several factors can contribute to these contradictory results, such as errors in measuring dietary fat, studies in populations with uniform fat intake, or the fact that specific types of dietary fat are present in the same food sources. The use of mouse models to evaluate the effects of diet on breast cancer development allows us a more controlled environment to study the effect of different fat sources.
The mammary polyomavirus middle T antigen overexpression mouse model (MMTV-PyMT) is a powerful tool to examine the effects of diet in the development of breast cancer. Mammary lesions in these mice closely resemble human breast cancer progression [19] and respond to dietary modification [20]. Previous reports have shown that a high-fat diet (HFD) from soybean oil increased primary mammary tumors as well as lung metastasis in MMTV-PyMT mice. The up-regulation of proinflammatory cytokines, adipokines, and angiogenic factors were associated with the increased aggressiveness of mammary carcinogenesis caused by HFD [20,21]. Deletion of the adipocyte MCP-1 gene in MMTV-PyMT mice decreased the levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines and angiogenic factors caused by HFD feeding and attenuated its effect on tumor growth [22], denoting the close connection between obesity–inflammation–breast cancer in this mouse model. An additional benefit to examining the effects of specific types of fat in a HFD in the MMTV-PyMT mice on the FVB background is that this background strain is resistant to diet-induced obesity [23,24]. This allows for the study of dietary effects on tumorigenesis and metastasis without the confounding effects of obesity.
The present study tested the effects of two different HFDs on primary mammary tumor formation and pulmonary metastasis in the MMTV-PyMT mouse model of breast cancer. A milk fat-based diet (MFBD) and an olive oil-based diet (OOBD) were compared to an isocaloric low-fat control diet (CD) (Table 1). No differences were detected in tumor latency or growth among the different diets, while the MFBD but not OOBD, increased lung metastasis compared to the CD. These results suggest that different sources of dietary fat and potentially specific dietary fatty acids may influence breast cancer progression in the MMTV-PyMT model.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Mouse Models

MMTV-PyMT (FVB/N-Tg (MMTV-PyMT) 634 Mul/J) mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. MMTV-PyMT female mice were used for this study. Mice were maintained on regular chow until 8 weeks of age, at which time they were randomized to either a milk fat-based diet (MFBD, 42% of calories from fat, TD.088137), an olive oil-based diet (OOBD, 42% of calories from fat, TD.140589), or an isocaloric control diet (CD, 12.6% of calories from fat, TD.05230) purchased from Envigo, Inc. (Indianapolis, IN, USA). Animals were maintained under standard laboratory conditions, and all animal procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Stony Brook University (SBU) and followed the guidelines of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

2.2. Tumor Monitoring

Tumor monitoring and measurements were performed as described in Velazquez et al. [25]. The area of the lung metastases were calculated through microscopy (EVOS M500, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).

2.3. RNA Extraction and Quantitative Real-Time PCR

RNA extraction and quantitative real-time PCR in tumor tissues were performed as described in Choi et al. [26]. The following TaqMan probes (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) were used: mouse S1PR1 (ID: Mm02619656_s1), mouse TNFα (ID: Mm00443260_g1), mouse MMP9 (ID: Mm00442991_m1), and mouse β-actin (ID: Mm02619580_g1). Cycle threshold (Ct) values were obtained for each gene of interest and normalized to the β-actin.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). Data are mean ± S.E.M. and were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with a Dunn’s Multiple Comparison Test or by an unpaired Student’s t-test. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Milk Fat and Olive Oil Diets Do Not Alter Tumor Weight or Volume in MMTV-PyMT Mice

Obesity and diets high in fat have been shown to have a significant impact on the prognosis and survival in breast cancer patients [27,28]. To begin to define the impact of diets enriched with specific dietary fatty acids on breast cancer, we used female MMTV-PyMT mice, which present with high tumor incidence and metastases rates [29,30]. These mice provide more rapid and predictable metastases that develop in the lung and lymph nodes. Female MMTV-PyMT mice were fed a MFBD, OOBD, or CD starting at 8 weeks of age. Body weight and tumor measurements were collected every two weeks, and the mice were euthanized at 16 weeks (Figure 1A). From 10 to 16 weeks, the body weights were similar among all diets including the CD (Figure 1B). Mice fed MFBD and OOBD exhibited no difference in tumor weight or final tumor volume from CD fed mice at 16 weeks (Figure 1C–E). Importantly, CD fed mice exhibited similar tumor growth to MMTV-PyMT mice who were fed a standard regular chow diet (data not shown). These data suggest that a MFBD nor an OOBD alter primary tumor size or tumor weight in the MMTV-PyMT model.

3.2. MFBD Fed Mice Exhibit Increased Lung Metastasis in MMTV-PyMT Mice

HFDs have been implicated in metastasis and inflammation in MMTV-PyMT mice [31]. Therefore, in order to determine if the MFBD or OOBD altered lung metastases in the MMTV-PyMT mice, lungs were harvested at 16 weeks and assessed for metastases (Figure 2A). The number of surface nodules were significantly higher in mice who were fed the MFBD (13.20 ± 5.96, mean ± SEM) than the mice who were fed the OOBD (1.93 ± 0.55) (Figure 2B, CD = 11.43 ± 6.60). Moreover, the area for the lung metastases from OOBD (average: 0.52 × 105 µm2 ± 0.83 × 104) was significantly smaller when compared to the CD (average: 1.30 × 105 µm2 ± 2.34 × 104) or the MFBD (average: 1.21 × 105 µm2 ± 2.79 × 104) mice (Figure 2C). Large tumors (>0.1 mm2) were present in 23% of the CD and MFD mice, but in only 10% of the OOBD mice, indicating mice fed the OOBD exhibited smaller metastases (Figure 2D). These results indicate that while the MFBD does not increase primary tumor growth, this diet results in increased lung metastasis in the MMTV-PyMT model.

3.3. MFBD Increases TNFα Expression in Primary Tumors

Many factors influence primary tumor growth and overall metastatic potential including VEGF, HIF1α, and FGF as well as many cytokines and chemokines. Therefore, we next investigated the effects of enriched HFDs on the signaling pathways and inflammation in the tumor. Using a RT-PCR array, we surveyed 42 growth factors, cytokines, and chemokines that have been implicated in tumor growth, inflammation, and metastases (Table S1). From the array, several MMPs, cytokines, and sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 (S1PR1) were of particular interest. Upon validation, primary tumor tissues from the MFBD mice exhibited significant increases in TNFα expression compared to tumors from the OOBD fed mice as well as increased an expression of S1PR1 and MMP9; however, these were not statistically significant (Figure 3). These cytokines suggested the potential for a more inflammatory tumor micro-environment in mice fed a MFBD than an OOBD.

4. Discussion

The present study demonstrates that two different types of HFDs do not affect tumor latency or primary tumor growth in the MMTV-PyMT model compared to an isocaloric control diet. However, mice fed an OOBD exhibited decreases in the number of lung metastases (assessed by surface nodules) compared mice fed a MFBD. Additionally, OOBD fed mice exhibited a decreased area of lung metastasis compared to the CD and MFBD mice. These results suggest that different types of HFDs could have a differential effect on breast cancer progression without affecting primary tumor growth.
The absence of differences in tumor latency and primary tumor growth contradicts previous studies in the MMTV-PyMT model where a HFD prolonged [21] or shortened [32] tumor latency and increased tumor growth [20,21,32]. One of the reasons for these observed discrepancies could be the age when the diet was started in the female mice. MMTV-PyMT mice are a fast-progressing model with mammary lesions starting as early 4 weeks of age and signs of early malignant transition at 8 weeks of age [30]. The present work analyzed tumor progression in mice fed either a CD, a MFBD, or an OOBD from 8–16 weeks of age, while the previous reports that show an effect on primary tumor growth started at 3–4 weeks of age [20,21,32]. Additionally, we did not observe an increase in weight gain in female mice fed with either MFBD or OOBD compared to the CD. This is somewhat not surprising as the FVB background strain has been shown to be resistant to diet induced obesity [23,24]. In a study by Hu et al., FVB mice fed a HFD for 8 weeks did not exhibit changes in body weight, metabolic rate, or the expression of nutrient-sensitive genes [24]. In fact, ovariectomized FVB mice fed with HFD at 8 weeks of age for 13 weeks and injected with MMTV-PyMT tumor derived cells did not show differences in tumor growth as well as in body weight [33]. These results suggest that in the lack of obesity, a high-fat diet alone does not modify primary tumor growth.
The higher levels of TNFα expression in the primary tumor tissues from MFBD mice compared to OOBD and CD mice could play role in the differences observed in metastasis. The increase of TNFα and additional cytokines have been previously reported in mammary tumors from MMTV-PyMT mice fed with a HFD [21]. TNFα has been shown to induce epithelial–mesenchymal transition in breast cancer cell lines [34,35], and it has been suggested as a prognostic marker for human breast cancer progression [36,37]. Interleukin-6 (IL6) has also been implicated in mammary tumors from mice fed a HFD [38] and in tumor cell lines derived from MMTV-K-Ras mice [39]. Due to the significance of the local immune environment in breast cancer progression [40], with findings that also show its role in the MMTV-PyMT model [41], additional studies on the tumor microenvironment and inflammatory cytokines could help to elucidate mechanisms contributing to the observed differences in metastases.
Additional factors from the diet used in the present study could also play a role in the results observed. For example, it has been shown that HFD caused hyperinsulinemia when compared to a control diet [42]. Insulin could affect cell growth and alter the invasiveness of breast cancer cells [43], and insulin resistance has been shown to be associated with increased breast cancer risk [44]. The MFBD and OOBD used in this work have similar calories from carbohydrates (43.7% Kcal and 43% Kcal, respectively) and their percentages are lower than in the CD (68.5% Kcal). Plasma insulin levels or an additional low carbohydrate diet could lend insight into the role of insulin and insulin resistance in tumor formation and metastasis in HFD models.
Studies over the last 20 years have associated a Mediterranean diet (MD), which is typically associated with consumption of olive oil, with lower breast cancer incidence in humans across several different study populations [45,46,47,48]. When compared to a Western diet (WD) it has been suggested that the MD could be preventive in the development of breast cancer [49]. However, a study examining the effects of a MD in France demonstrated no association between breast cancer risk and MD [50]. The PREDIMED study uncovered associations of decreased breast cancer risk in women that consumed a MD with extra virgin olive oil when compared to a MD with nuts or an advised low-fat control diet [51]. Our studies found no difference in overall tumor growth or progression among the MFBD, the OOBD, or CD. Future studies should be geared at examining additional sources of dietary fatty acids on initial tumor growth and progression, as this could lend important insight into sources of dietary fats to examine in future clinical studies.
Analysis of lung metastasis in mice fed the OOBD demonstrated a significant reduction in the average area of lung metastasis compared to the CD and MFBD, while comparison between the two HFDs indicated that the OOBD decreased the number of surface nodes compared to the MFBD. Previous reports have shown increased primary tumor growth and metastases in MMTV-PyMT mice fed either a soybean oil based HFD [21,22] or a lard based HFD [30] compared to a control or standard chow diet. Conversely, a study by Cowen et al. demonstrated higher tumor volume but not increased lung metastases in MMTV-PyMT mice fed a lard based HFD compared to a low-calorie control diet [20]. These studies demonstrate the importance of an isocaloric control diet and the use of two or more fat sources for investigations into the effects of a specific HFD on breast cancer development and metastasis. Our study is the first study reporting a positive effect of a specific type of HFD, OOBD vs. MFBD, on breast cancer progression in MMTV-PyMT mice by decreasing the area of lung metastasis. Future studies will be geared at defining the mechanisms by which specific dietary fatty acids in HFDs alter metastasis and breast cancer development.

Supplementary Materials

The following is available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nu13072431/s1, Table S1: PCR Array analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.A.H., L.M.O., and A.J.S.; methodology, C.T., V.V., L.Z., J.M., M.M.D., and F.N.V.; software, F.N.V. and A.J.S.; validation, F.N.V. and A.J.S.; formal analysis, F.N.V. and A.J.S.; investigation, F.N.V., V.V., J.M., L.Z., and C.T.; resources, A.J.S., Y.A.H., L.M.O., and R.A.; data curation, L.Z. and A.J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, F.N.V. and A.J.S.; writing—review and editing, F.N.V., V.V., J.M., L.Z., C.T., R.A., Y.A.H., and A.J.S.; visualization, A.J.S.; supervision, Y.A.H., L.M.O., and A.J.S.; project administration, A.J.S.; funding acquisition, Y.A.H., L.M.O., and A.J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Cancer Institute, Grant P01-CA097132 (YAH, LMO, AJS).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Animals were maintained under standard laboratory conditions, and all animal procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Stony Brook University (SBU) and followed the guidelines of the American Veterinary Medical Association (protocol number 631702, 18 July 2014).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Sphingolipid Animal Cancer Pathobiology Core for the mouse models used in these studies: National Cancer Institute Grant P01-CA097132 (YAH, LMO, AJS). We would also like to acknowledge the technical support provided by the Stony Brook University Research Histology Core Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Stony Brook Medicine.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sun, Y.S.; Zhao, Z.; Yang, Z.N.; Xu, F.; Lu, H.J.; Zhu, Z.Y.; Shi, W.; Jiang, J.; Yao, P.P.; Zhu, H.P. Risk Factors and Preventions of Breast Cancer. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2017, 13, 1387–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Shetty, P.J.; Sreedharan, J. Breast Cancer and Dietary Fat Intake: A correlational study. Nepal. J. Epidemiol. 2019, 9, 812–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Miller, E.R.; Wilson, C.; Chapman, J.; Flight, I.; Nguyen, A.M.; Fletcher, C.; Ramsey, I. Connecting the dots between breast cancer, obesity and alcohol consumption in middle-aged women: Ecological and case control studies. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Thiebaut, A.C.; Kipnis, V.; Chang, S.C.; Subar, A.F.; Thompson, F.E.; Rosenberg, P.S.; Hollenbeck, A.R.; Leitzmann, M.; Schatzkin, A. Dietary fat and postmenopausal invasive breast cancer in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study cohort. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2007, 99, 451–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hruby, A.; Hu, F.B. The Epidemiology of Obesity: A Big Picture. Pharmacoeconomics 2015, 33, 673–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Anderson, B.O.; Jakesz, R. Breast cancer issues in developing countries: An overview of the Breast Health Global Initiative. World J. Surg. 2008, 32, 2578–2585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Porter, P. “Westernizing” women’s risks? Breast cancer in lower-income countries. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 213–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Laversanne, M.; Brewster, D.H.; Gombe Mbalawa, C.; Kohler, B.; Pineros, M.; Steliarova-Foucher, E.; Swaminathan, R.; Antoni, S.; et al. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents: Inclusion criteria, highlights from Volume X and the global status of cancer registration. Int. J. Cancer 2015, 137, 2060–2071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Neuhouser, M.L.; Aragaki, A.K.; Prentice, R.L.; Manson, J.E.; Chlebowski, R.; Carty, C.L.; Ochs-Balcom, H.M.; Thomson, C.A.; Caan, B.J.; Tinker, L.F.; et al. Overweight, Obesity, and Postmenopausal Invasive Breast Cancer Risk: A Secondary Analysis of the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Oncol. 2015, 1, 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Widschwendter, P.; Friedl, T.W.; Schwentner, L.; DeGregorio, N.; Jaeger, B.; Schramm, A.; Bekes, I.; Deniz, M.; Lato, K.; Weissenbacher, T.; et al. The influence of obesity on survival in early, high-risk breast cancer: Results from the randomized SUCCESS A trial. Breast Cancer Res. 2015, 17, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Holmes, M.D.; Hunter, D.J.; Colditz, G.A.; Stampfer, M.J.; Hankinson, S.E.; Speizer, F.E.; Rosner, B.; Willett, W.C. Association of dietary intake of fat and fatty acids with risk of breast cancer. JAMA 1999, 281, 914–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Boyd, N.F.; Stone, J.; Vogt, K.N.; Connelly, B.S.; Martin, L.J.; Minkin, S. Dietary fat and breast cancer risk revisited: A meta-analysis of the published literature. Br. J. Cancer 2003, 89, 1672–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Sieri, S.; Krogh, V.; Ferrari, P.; Berrino, F.; Pala, V.; Thiebaut, A.C.; Tjonneland, A.; Olsen, A.; Overvad, K.; Jakobsen, M.U.; et al. Dietary fat and breast cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 88, 1304–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wirfalt, E.; Mattisson, I.; Gullberg, B.; Johansson, U.; Olsson, H.; Berglund, G. Postmenopausal breast cancer is associated with high intakes of omega6 fatty acids (Sweden). Cancer Causes Control. 2002, 13, 883–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Voorrips, L.E.; Brants, H.A.; Kardinaal, A.F.; Hiddink, G.J.; van den Brandt, P.A.; Goldbohm, R.A. Intake of conjugated linoleic acid, fat, and other fatty acids in relation to postmenopausal breast cancer: The Netherlands Cohort Study on Diet and Cancer. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2002, 76, 873–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Wolk, A.; Bergstrom, R.; Hunter, D.; Willett, W.; Ljung, H.; Holmberg, L.; Bergkvist, L.; Bruce, A.; Adami, H.O. A prospective study of association of monounsaturated fat and other types of fat with risk of breast cancer. Arch. Intern. Med. 1998, 158, 41–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Murff, H.J.; Shu, X.O.; Li, H.; Yang, G.; Wu, X.; Cai, H.; Wen, W.; Gao, Y.T.; Zheng, W. Dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids and breast cancer risk in Chinese women: A prospective cohort study. Int. J. Cancer 2011, 128, 1434–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Sczaniecka, A.K.; Brasky, T.M.; Lampe, J.W.; Patterson, R.E.; White, E. Dietary intake of specific fatty acids and breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women in the VITAL cohort. Nutr. Cancer 2012, 64, 1131–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Attalla, S.; Taifour, T.; Bui, T.; Muller, W. Insights from transgenic mouse models of PyMT-induced breast cancer: Recapitulating human breast cancer progression In Vivo. Oncogene 2021, 40, 475–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Cowen, S.; McLaughlin, S.L.; Hobbs, G.; Coad, J.; Martin, K.H.; Olfert, I.M.; Vona-Davis, L. High-Fat, High-Calorie Diet Enhances Mammary Carcinogenesis and Local Inflammation in MMTV-PyMT Mouse Model of Breast Cancer. Cancers 2015, 7, 1125–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Sundaram, S.; Yan, L. High-fat Diet Enhances Mammary Tumorigenesis and Pulmonary Metastasis and Alters Inflammatory and Angiogenic Profiles in MMTV-PyMT Mice. Anticancer. Res. 2016, 36, 6279–6287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Sundaram, S.; Yan, L. Adipose monocyte chemotactic protein-1 deficiency reduces high-fat diet-enhanced mammary tumorigenesis in MMTV-PyMT mice. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2020, 77, 108313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Devlin, M.J.; Robbins, A.; Cosman, M.N.; Moursi, C.A.; Cloutier, A.M.; Louis, L.; Van Vliet, M.; Conlon, C.; Bouxsein, M.L. Differential effects of high fat diet and diet-induced obesity on skeletal acquisition in female C57BL/6J vs. FVB/NJ Mice. Bone Rep. 2018, 8, 204–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hu, C.C.; Qing, K.; Chen, Y. Diet-induced changes in stearoyl-CoA desaturase 1 expression in obesity-prone and -resistant mice. Obes. Res. 2004, 12, 1264–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Velazquez, F.N.; Zhang, L.; Viscardi, V.; Trocchia, C.; Hannun, Y.A.; Obeid, L.M.; Snider, A.J. Loss of sphingosine kinase 1 increases lung metastases in the MMTV-PyMT mouse model of breast cancer. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0252311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Choi, S.; Snider, J.M.; Cariello, C.P.; Lambert, J.M.; Anderson, A.K.; Cowart, L.A.; Snider, A.J. Sphingosine kinase 1 is required for myristate-induced TNFalpha expression in intestinal epithelial cells. Prostaglandins Other Lipid Mediat. 2020, 149, 106423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ewertz, M.; Jensen, M.B.; Gunnarsdottir, K.A.; Hojris, I.; Jakobsen, E.H.; Nielsen, D.; Stenbygaard, L.E.; Tange, U.B.; Cold, S. Effect of obesity on prognosis after early-stage breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Protani, M.; Coory, M.; Martin, J.H. Effect of obesity on survival of women with breast cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2010, 123, 627–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Davie, S.A.; Maglione, J.E.; Manner, C.K.; Young, D.; Cardiff, R.D.; MacLeod, C.L.; Ellies, L.G. Effects of FVB/NJ and C57Bl/6J strain backgrounds on mammary tumor phenotype in inducible nitric oxide synthase deficient mice. Transgenic Res. 2007, 16, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Lin, E.Y.; Jones, J.G.; Li, P.; Zhu, L.; Whitney, K.D.; Muller, W.J.; Pollard, J.W. Progression to malignancy in the polyoma middle T oncoprotein mouse breast cancer model provides a reliable model for human diseases. Am. J. Pathol. 2003, 163, 2113–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Nagahashi, M.; Yamada, A.; Katsuta, E.; Aoyagi, T.; Huang, W.C.; Terracina, K.P.; Hait, N.C.; Allegood, J.C.; Tsuchida, J.; Yuza, K.; et al. Targeting the SphK1/S1P/S1PR1 Axis That Links Obesity, Chronic Inflammation, and Breast Cancer Metastasis. Cancer Res. 2018, 78, 1713–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Gordon, R.R.; Hunter, K.W.; La Merrill, M.; Sorensen, P.; Threadgill, D.W.; Pomp, D. Genotype X diet interactions in mice predisposed to mammary cancer: II. Tumors and metastasis. Mamm Genome 2008, 19, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bousquenaud, M.; Fico, F.; Solinas, G.; Ruegg, C.; Santamaria-Martinez, A. Obesity promotes the expansion of metastasis-initiating cells in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2018, 20, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Asiedu, M.K.; Ingle, J.N.; Behrens, M.D.; Radisky, D.C.; Knutson, K.L. TGFbeta/TNF(alpha)-mediated epithelial-mesenchymal transition generates breast cancer stem cells with a claudin-low phenotype. Cancer Res. 2011, 71, 4707–4719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Li, C.W.; Xia, W.; Huo, L.; Lim, S.O.; Wu, Y.; Hsu, J.L.; Chao, C.H.; Yamaguchi, H.; Yang, N.K.; Ding, Q.; et al. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition induced by TNF-alpha requires NF-kappaB-mediated transcriptional upregulation of Twist1. Cancer Res. 2012, 72, 1290–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Garcia-Tunon, I.; Ricote, M.; Ruiz, A.; Fraile, B.; Paniagua, R.; Royuela, M. Role of tumor necrosis factor-alpha and its receptors in human benign breast lesions and tumors (in situ and infiltrative). Cancer Sci. 2006, 97, 1044–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Cohen, E.N.; Gao, H.; Anfossi, S.; Mego, M.; Reddy, N.G.; Debeb, B.; Giordano, A.; Tin, S.; Wu, Q.; Garza, R.J.; et al. Inflammation Mediated Metastasis: Immune Induced Epithelial-To-Mesenchymal Transition in Inflammatory Breast Cancer Cells. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0132710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Monk, J.M.; Liddle, D.M.; Hutchinson, A.L.; Burns, J.L.; Wellings, H.; Cartwright, N.M.; Muller, W.J.; Power, K.A.; Robinson, L.E.; Ma, D.W.L. Fish oil supplementation increases expression of mammary tumor apoptosis mediators and reduces inflammation in an obesity-associated HER-2 breast cancer model. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2021, 95, 108763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Leslie, K.; Gao, S.P.; Berishaj, M.; Podsypanina, K.; Ho, H.; Ivashkiv, L.; Bromberg, J. Differential interleukin-6/Stat3 signaling as a function of cellular context mediates Ras-induced transformation. Breast Cancer Res. 2010, 12, R80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. DeNardo, D.G.; Coussens, L.M. Inflammation and breast cancer. Balancing immune response: Crosstalk between adaptive and innate immune cells during breast cancer progression. Breast Cancer Res. 2007, 9, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mei, Y.; Wang, M.; Lu, G.; Li, J.; Peng, L.; Lang, Y.; Yang, M.; Jiang, L.; Li, C.; Zheng, L.; et al. Postponing tumor onset and tumor progression can be achieved by alteration of local tumor immunity. Cancer Cell Int. 2021, 21, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lang, P.; Hasselwander, S.; Li, H.; Xia, N. Effects of different diets used in diet-induced obesity models on insulin resistance and vascular dysfunction in C57BL/6 mice. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 19556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Rose, D.P.; Vona-Davis, L. The cellular and molecular mechanisms by which insulin influences breast cancer risk and progression. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2012, 19, R225–R241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Del Giudice, M.E.; Fantus, I.G.; Ezzat, S.; McKeown-Eyssen, G.; Page, D.; Goodwin, P.J. Insulin and related factors in premenopausal breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 1998, 47, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Buckland, G.; Travier, N.; Cottet, V.; Gonzalez, C.A.; Lujan-Barroso, L.; Agudo, A.; Trichopoulou, A.; Lagiou, P.; Trichopoulos, D.; Peeters, P.H.; et al. Adherence to the mediterranean diet and risk of breast cancer in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition cohort study. Int. J. Cancer. J. Int. Du Cancer 2013, 132, 2918–2927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Demetriou, C.A.; Hadjisavvas, A.; Loizidou, M.A.; Loucaides, G.; Neophytou, I.; Sieri, S.; Kakouri, E.; Middleton, N.; Vineis, P.; Kyriacou, K. The mediterranean dietary pattern and breast cancer risk in Greek-Cypriot women: A case-control study. BMC Cancer 2012, 12, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Wu, A.H.; Yu, M.C.; Tseng, C.C.; Stanczyk, F.Z.; Pike, M.C. Dietary patterns and breast cancer risk in Asian American women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2009, 89, 1145–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Murtaugh, M.A.; Sweeney, C.; Giuliano, A.R.; Herrick, J.S.; Hines, L.; Byers, T.; Baumgartner, K.B.; Slattery, M.L. Diet patterns and breast cancer risk in Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women: The Four-Corners Breast Cancer Study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 87, 978–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Trichopoulou, A.; Lagiou, P.; Kuper, H.; Trichopoulos, D. Cancer and Mediterranean dietary traditions. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2000, 9, 869–873. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bessaoud, F.; Daures, J.P.; Gerber, M. Dietary factors and breast cancer risk: A case control study among a population in Southern France. Nutr. Cancer 2008, 60, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Toledo, E.; Salas-Salvado, J.; Donat-Vargas, C.; Buil-Cosiales, P.; Estruch, R.; Ros, E.; Corella, D.; Fito, M.; Hu, F.B.; Aros, F.; et al. Mediterranean Diet and Invasive Breast Cancer Risk Among Women at High Cardiovascular Risk in the PREDIMED Trial: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern. Med. 2015, 175, 1752–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nutrients 13 02431 g001 550
Figure 1. High fat diets (HFDs) do not alter tumor volume or weight in the mammary polyomavirus middle T antigen MMTV-PyMT breast cancer model. (A) Scheme for diets and MMTV-PyMT breast cancer model. Female MMTV-PyMT mice on the FVB background were fed a milk fat-based diet (MFBD), olive oil-based diet (OOBD), or an isocaloric control diet (CD) beginning at 8 weeks of age weeks. (B) Body weight was assessed every two weeks. (C) Tumor volume was measured at 10, 12, 14, and 16 weeks of age using calipers. (D,E) Tumors were excised at 16 weeks and weighed, and tumor volume was measured with calipers. Data represent mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM), n ≥ 8 for each diet.
Figure 1. High fat diets (HFDs) do not alter tumor volume or weight in the mammary polyomavirus middle T antigen MMTV-PyMT breast cancer model. (A) Scheme for diets and MMTV-PyMT breast cancer model. Female MMTV-PyMT mice on the FVB background were fed a milk fat-based diet (MFBD), olive oil-based diet (OOBD), or an isocaloric control diet (CD) beginning at 8 weeks of age weeks. (B) Body weight was assessed every two weeks. (C) Tumor volume was measured at 10, 12, 14, and 16 weeks of age using calipers. (D,E) Tumors were excised at 16 weeks and weighed, and tumor volume was measured with calipers. Data represent mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM), n ≥ 8 for each diet.
Nutrients 13 02431 g001
Nutrients 13 02431 g002 550
Figure 2. MFBD increases lung metastases in the MMTV-PyMT breast cancer model. (A) Representative images of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained lung sections from MMTV-PyMT mice fed CD, MFBD, or OOBD. Upper panel magnification = 4x, scale bar = 600 µm; lower panel magnification = 10x, scale bar = 250 µm. (B) Quantification of the number of surface nodes on the lungs from 16-week-old MMTV-PyMT fed CD, MFBD or OOBD. Data represent mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis: Unpaired t-test, * p < 0.05, n ≥ 8 for each diet. (C) Quantification of the area of lung metastasis mice fed CD, MFBD, or OOBD. Data represent mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA with a Dunn’s multiple comparison test, * p < 0.05, n = 4 for each diet. (D) Tumor size distribution represented as percent of total.
Figure 2. MFBD increases lung metastases in the MMTV-PyMT breast cancer model. (A) Representative images of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained lung sections from MMTV-PyMT mice fed CD, MFBD, or OOBD. Upper panel magnification = 4x, scale bar = 600 µm; lower panel magnification = 10x, scale bar = 250 µm. (B) Quantification of the number of surface nodes on the lungs from 16-week-old MMTV-PyMT fed CD, MFBD or OOBD. Data represent mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis: Unpaired t-test, * p < 0.05, n ≥ 8 for each diet. (C) Quantification of the area of lung metastasis mice fed CD, MFBD, or OOBD. Data represent mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA with a Dunn’s multiple comparison test, * p < 0.05, n = 4 for each diet. (D) Tumor size distribution represented as percent of total.
Nutrients 13 02431 g002
Nutrients 13 02431 g003 550
Figure 3. MFBD increases tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) expression in primary tumors in the MMTV-PyMT breast cancer model. mRNA levels of (A) TNFα, (B) matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9), and (C) sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 (S1PR1) expression in primary tumors were analyzed using real time RT-PCR and normalized to β-actin. Data represent mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis: Unpaired t-test, * p < 0.05, n ≥ 6 for each diet.
Figure 3. MFBD increases tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) expression in primary tumors in the MMTV-PyMT breast cancer model. mRNA levels of (A) TNFα, (B) matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9), and (C) sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 (S1PR1) expression in primary tumors were analyzed using real time RT-PCR and normalized to β-actin. Data represent mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis: Unpaired t-test, * p < 0.05, n ≥ 6 for each diet.
Nutrients 13 02431 g003
Table
Table 1. Diet Composition.
Table 1. Diet Composition.
Diet Formula ControlMFBDOOBD
(g/Kg)(g/Kg)(g/Kg)
Casein 195.00195.00195.00
DL-Methionine 3.003.003.00
Sucrose 341.00341.46345.20
Corn Starch 211.99150.00147.82
Maltodextrin 100.00- -
Anhydrous Milkfat 37.20210.0072.50
Olive Oil --135.50
Soybean Oil 12.80- -
Cholesterol -1.501.85
Cellulose 50.0050.0050.00
Mineral Mix, AIN-76 35.0035.0035.00
Vitamin Mix, Teklad 10.0010.0010.00
Ethioxyquin, antioxidant 0.010.040.04
Nutrient Composition % Weight% Kcal% Weight% Kcal% Weight% Kcal
Protein 17.3018.7017.3015.2017.3015.30
Carbohydrate 63.5068.6048.5042.7048.7043.00
Fat 5.2012.6021.1042.0021.0041.70
Energy (Kcal/g) 3.70 4.50 4.50
Diet Formula g/Kg%g/Kg%g/Kg%
Total Fat 58.98 216.55 223.64
SFA 26.1052.4136.7165.270.4033.85
MUFA 14.6029.365.7331.3120.7070.40
PUFA 9.1018.37.353.516.9013.95
4:0 1.402.377.983.692.761.23
6:0 0.861.464.832.231.670.75
8:0 0.410.702.311.070.800.36
10:0 0.741.254.201.941.450.65
12:0 1.202.036.513.012.251.01
14:0 4.407.4624.5711.358.483.79
14:1 0.300.511.680.780.580.26
15:0 0.601.023.361.551.160.52
16:0 11.2018.9955.0225.4137.6016.81
16:1 0.711.203.991.843.001.34
17:0 0.260.441.470.680.510.23
17:1 -0.000.040.020.150.07
18:0 5.208.8226.2512.1212.505.59
18:1 13.5022.8959.2227.35116.8052.23
18:2 7.9013.396.092.8115.707.02
18:3 1.202.031.050.481.180.53
20:1 -0.000.420.190.150.07
20:4 -0.000.210.100.000.00
n-61.202.036.302.9115.707.02
n-37.9013.391.050.481.200.54
MFBD = milk fat-based diet; OOBD = olive oil-based diet; g = gram; Kg = kilogram; AIN = American Institute of Nutrition; Kcal = kilocalorie; SFA = saturated fatty acid; MUFA = monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA = polyunsaturated fatty acid; n-6 = omega-6; n-3 = omega-3.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Velazquez, F.N.; Viscardi, V.; Montemage, J.; Zhang, L.; Trocchia, C.; Delamont, M.M.; Ahmad, R.; Hannun, Y.A.; Obeid, L.M.; Snider, A.J. A Milk-Fat Based Diet Increases Metastasis in the MMTV-PyMT Mouse Model of Breast Cancer. Nutrients 2021, 13, 2431. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13072431

AMA Style

Velazquez FN, Viscardi V, Montemage J, Zhang L, Trocchia C, Delamont MM, Ahmad R, Hannun YA, Obeid LM, Snider AJ. A Milk-Fat Based Diet Increases Metastasis in the MMTV-PyMT Mouse Model of Breast Cancer. Nutrients. 2021; 13(7):2431. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13072431

Chicago/Turabian Style

Velazquez, Fabiola N., Valentina Viscardi, Julia Montemage, Leiqing Zhang, Carolena Trocchia, Megan M. Delamont, Rasheed Ahmad, Yusuf A. Hannun, Lina M. Obeid, and Ashley J. Snider. 2021. "A Milk-Fat Based Diet Increases Metastasis in the MMTV-PyMT Mouse Model of Breast Cancer" Nutrients 13, no. 7: 2431. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13072431

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop