Dietary energy availability affects primary and metastatic breast cancer and metformin efficacy

doi:10.1007/s10549-009-0647-z

Breast Cancer Res Treat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 September 1.

Published in final edited form as:

Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 September; 123(2): 333–344.

Published online 2009 November 22. doi: 10.1007/s10549-009-0647-z

PMCID: PMC2888909

NIHMSID: NIHMS171476

Dietary energy availability affects primary and metastatic breast cancer and metformin efficacy

Kathryn N. Phoenix, Frank Vumbaca, Melissa M. Fox, Rebecca Evans, and Kevin P. Claffey

Kathryn N. Phoenix, Center for Vascular Biology, Department of Cell Biology, University of Connecticut Health Center, 263 Farmington Ave., Farmington, CT 06030-3501, USA;

Contributor Information.

Corresponding author.

Kevin P. Claffey: claffey/at/nso2.uchc.edu

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Breast Cancer Res Treat

See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.

Abstract

Dietary energy restriction has been shown to repress both mammary tumorigenesis and aggressive mammary tumor growth in animal studies. Metformin, a caloric restriction mimetic, has a long history of safe use as an insulin sensitizer in diabetics and has been shown to reduce cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality in humans. To determine the potential impact of dietary energy availability and metformin therapy on aggressive breast tumor growth and metastasis, an orthotopic syngeneic model using triple negative 66cl4 tumor cells in Balb/c mice was employed. The effect of dietary restriction, a standard maintenance diet or a diet with high levels of free sugar, were tested for their effects on tumor growth and secondary metastases to the lung. Metformin therapy with the various diets indicated that metformin can be highly effective at suppressing systemic metabolic biomarkers such as IGF-1, insulin and glucose, especially in the high energy diet treated animals. Long-term metformin treatment demonstrated moderate yet significant effects on primary tumor growth, most significantly in conjunction with the high energy diet. When compared to the control diet, the high energy diet promoted tumor growth, expression of the inflammatory adipokines leptin and resistin, induced lung priming by bone marrow-derived myeloid cells and promoted metastatic potential. Metformin had no effect on adipokine expression or the development of lung metastases with the standard or the high energy diet. These data indicate that metformin may have tumor suppressing activity where a metabolic phenotype of high fuel intake, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes exist, but may have little or no effect on events controlling the metastatic niche driven by proinflammatory events.

Keywords: Breast cancer, Dietary energy restriction, Metformin, Metastasis, Leptin, Resistin

Introduction

Epidemiological studies have established a clear relationship between breast cancer and obesity. Specifically, obesity and weight gain have been directly correlated to increased breast cancer risk and mortality [1, 2]. A large prospective study has defined an increased risk of mortality from breast cancer up to 2.12-fold for women with increased body mass index (BMI) compared to normal weight individuals [3].

The relationship between excess dietary fuel intake and cancer has been modeled in a number of transplant and endogenous cancer animal models. In a review by Freedman et al., it was highlighted that higher caloric intake was sufficient to significantly increase the development of mammary tumors in rats and mice [4]. More recently, diet-induced obesity has been shown to promote the incidence of mammary tumor development in the MMTV-neu model of breast cancer [5]. However, few studies have directly evaluated primary mammary tumor growth and metastasis in conjunction with increased caloric intake.

Caloric restriction has been demonstrated to be an effective method to decrease cancer incidence and tumor growth including mammary tumors (reviewed by [6]). While a number of studies have demonstrated reduced mammary tumorigenesis associated with caloric restriction or dietary energy restriction, few have investigated dietary energy restriction as a direct treatment for primary or metastatic breast cancer. However, models of primary prostate and brain tumor growth have shown to be effectively suppressed with dietary restriction [7, 8].

A number of therapeutic compounds have been investigated to replace direct modulation of caloric or energy intake, collectively termed caloric restriction mimetics (CRM) [9]. One compound suggested to be a useful CRM candidate is metformin. Metformin (1,1-dimethylbiguinide hydrochloride) is a drug used as a first-line treatment for type-2 diabetes [10], where it acts by increasing insulin sensitivity. Increased insulin signaling results in reduced insulin levels, reduced hepatic gluconeogenesis and increased glucose uptake by muscle [11]. Epidemiological studies have revealed that metformin therapy decreased cancer incidence and the risk of cancer-related mortality in diabetics when compared to those treated with sulfonylureas or other therapies [12, 13].

Metformin has been shown to significantly repress the growth of a number of cancer cell lines including breast cancer cell lines in vitro [14–17]. Systemic treatment with metformin in pre-clinical animal models has also demonstrated some benefit, such as the repression of pancreatic cancer progression in hamsters and the decrease of Her-2/neu and Apc^Min/+ driven tumorigenesis in mice [18, 19]. Treatment with metformin effectively repressed xenograft tumor models including, LNCap prostate and p53-deficient colon cancer and was able to attenuate the increases in Lewis Lung Carcinoma growth promoted by a high energy diet [16, 20]. Interestingly, using a triple negative human breast tumor xenograft model with a standard diet, systemic metformin treatment resulted in increased tumor size primarily mediated through increased angiogenesis [14]. Finally, Hirsch et al. recently reported that while metformin alone has a minimal effect in a human model of breast tumor growth in vivo, the combination of metformin and doxorubicin treatment represses tumor growth to near elimination [21]. Interestingly, this report also demonstrates that metformin may be selectively targeting cancer stem cells within these tumors, suggesting that combination therapy with metformin may significantly reduce tumor burden and prolong remission.

Here, a syngeneic model of aggressive triple negative mammary cancer was utilized in immune-competent mice to evaluate the contribution of dietary energy to primary tumor growth and progression to metastatic disease. Additionally, the effect of systemic metformin was analyzed to determine how metformin affects the primary tumor and/or metastatic events. Systemic mediators were evaluated to determine how these were affected by diet and metformin therapy and whether they correlated with tumor progression and/or metastatic events.

Materials and methods

Cell line and culture conditions, antibodies, and chemical effectors

The 66cl4 cell line was obtained from Dr. Fred Miller (Karmanos Cancer Institute and Wayne State University, Detroit, MI). The 66cl4 cell line was derived from a single spontaneously arising mammary tumor from a Balb/c mouse [22]. 66cl4 cells were transfected to express fluorescence red protein, using pDsRed2-ER vector (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). The cell line was maintained using Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml)-streptomycin (100 µg/ml), and Geneticin sulfate (G418) (1.2 mg/ml). Cells were cultured at 37°C in 5% CO₂. Antibodies used for immunoblots for phospho-AMPKα (Thr172), AMPKα, phospho-p44/42 MAPK (Thr202, Tyr204), p44/42 MAPK, phospho-p70 6S kinase (Thr389) and p70 S6 kinase were from Cell Signaling Technology (Beverly, MA), cyclin D1 and cyclin E antibodies were from Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Santa Cruz, CA) and the antibody for β-actin was from Abcam (Cambridge, MA). Metformin was purchased from Sigma–Aldrich (St. Louis, MO).

Cell growth assays

Cell growth was determined as previously described using methylthiazolyldiphenyl-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) (Sigma) following the manufacturer’s protocol [14].

SDS–PAGE and immunoblots

Whole cell extracts were obtained using RIPA lysis buffer (1× PBS, 1% NP40, 0.1% SDS, 1.0% Deoxycholate) as described previously [14]. Blots were developed using ECL reagents (Millipore) on a Kodak Multimodel Imager (2000MM).

Animal housing and treatments

Mice were kept in standardized housing and fed either the standard chow diet (Teklad 2018) or a high energy diet (Teklad Custom Diet, TD08445). The breakdown of each diet is listed in Table 1. Dietary energy restriction (DER)—Daily food intake was determined for each individually housed animal for one week on the standard diet. At the initiation of DER, 70% of each animal’s ad libitum (ad lib) food intake was measured and given to the mouse daily. Metformin treatments—During the metformin studies, mice were fed the standard or high energy diet as stated in each experiment and half of the mice were given oral metformin (3.3 mg/ml) in drinking water. Water and metformin-water were kept in light-protected, amber glass bottles and changed every three days. It was estimated that mice drank approximately 5 ml of water each day, yielding a dose of 825 mg/kg/day for a 20 g mouse, the maximum tolerated dose as determined in pilot studies (data not shown).

Table 1

Summary of diets

Orthotopic syngeneic breast cancer primary tumor and metastatic model

66cl4-DsRed cells were injected subcutaneously (1 × 10⁶ cells/mouse) in the mammary fat pad of 6- to 8- week-old female Balb/c mice and monitored as previously described [14]. Tumor and lung tissue were harvested and processed for frozen and/or paraffin histology using standard methods.

Immunohistochemistry and quantification

Paraffin sections of tumors were used for immunohistochemical analyses/quantification with H&E staining and with antibodies to platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule (PECAM-1/CD31) (Santa Cruz, Inc. Santa Cruz, CA) and apoptosis with ApopTag TUNEL kit (Intergen, Purchase, NY) as described previously [14]. To analyze lung metastases, three lung sections from each animal, 100 µm apart, were examined for lung lesions. A lung lesion was counted as >10 fluorescent cells clustered together when examined at 40× magnification.

Immunofluorescence

Frozen sections of lung tissue were stained with CD11b (BD Pharmigen), F4/80, phospho-AMPKα, phospho-ACC (Upstate) or LC3B (Abcam) antibodies as described previously [23]. Images were analyzed in areas free of any metastatic tumor foci or within tumor foci and quantified as previously described [14].

Insulin-like growth factor ELISA assay

Serum insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) levels were determined with the Quantikine Mouse IGF-1 Immunoassay from R&D Systems, Inc. (Minneapolis, MN).

Adipokine analysis

Serum adipokine levels (insulin, leptin, resistin, TNF-α, MCP-1, and IL-6) were determined by the Milliplex Mouse Cytokine/Chemokine Panel (Millipore) using Luminex MAP technology (Luminex Corp, Austin, TX) according to the manufacturer’s protocol.

Statistical analysis

Results from individual experiments are represented as mean ± standard error unless otherwise stated. Statistical comparison of groups was performed using two-tailed Student t-tests or ANOVA. Statistical significance was defined as *P ≤ 0.05 or **P ≤ 0.01.

Results

Dietary energy restriction represses tumor growth and metastasis in an aggressive model of hormone-independent breast cancer

Many studies on caloric and dietary energy restriction have demonstrated significant reductions in mammary tumorigenesis [24–26]; however, few studies have examined the effect of these dietary interventions on established primary breast tumor growth and progression to metastatic disease. To directly examine the effect of DER on tumor growth and progression to metastatic lesions, the 66cl4 tumor model was employed in Balb/c mice. Tumor growth was monitored and the average tumor volume calculated twice weekly (Fig. 1a). DER mice displayed significantly reduced tumor growth rates compared to ad lib fed mice. At harvest, the DER treatment tumors were 35% smaller than the ad lib tumors. Since 66cl4 tumor cells are known to preferentially metastasize to the lung [27], lungs were collected and evaluated for metastatic disease (Fig. 1b). All ad lib mice displayed multiple metastatic lung lesions, while only 38% of the DER mice had lung lesions. DER resulted in an 87% reduction in the average number of metastatic nodules per lung compared to ab lib controls. DER efficacy was evaluated throughout the experiment by monitoring blood glucose levels. Prior to harvest, the ad lib group displayed an average blood glucose of 95 mg/dl, where the DER group averaged only 75 mg/dl which were statistically different (Fig. 1c).

Fig. 1

Effect of dietary energy restriction on tumor growth and metastasis. Female balb/c mice were injected subcutaneously into the mammary fat pad with 1 × 10⁶ 66cl4 cells. Mice were fed ad libitum (Ad Lib) or given 70% of the ad lib diet daily (DER). (more ...)

Effect of metformin on primary tumor growth in animals maintained on standard chow diet

As a reported CRM, the ability of metformin to affect primary tumor growth in this model was evaluated in mice maintained on a standard rodent diet (Table 1). Prior to use in this tumor model, cultured 66cl4 cells were evaluated for their response to metformin treatment in vitro (Supplemental Fig. 1). Metformin effectively activated AMP-dependent kinase and repressed cell proliferation and protein synthesis. Along with reduced proliferation, MAPK activation and cyclin E and D1 expression were significantly reduced by metformin treatments, consistent with observations in other cell lines [15, 17, 28–31]. Metformin showed no significant effect on the growth of the 66cl4 tumors in animals maintained on standard diet when compared to untreated controls as determined by external measurements, Fig. 2a or by weight of harvested tumors (Fig. 2b). Despite similar tumor size at harvest, the amount of viable tumor area in the metformin-treated group was significantly decreased when compared to controls (Fig. 2c). Additionally, intra-tumoral apoptotic cells were increased and the number of mitotic figures was suppressed by metformin treatment (Fig. 2d and e, respectively). The microvascular density (MVD) was evaluated with quantitative PECAM-1/CD31 staining; however, there were no differences observed between the two groups (data not shown). Finally, the effect of metformin on metastatic dissemination to distal lung tissue was evaluated. No difference was found in the number of metastatic lesions in control versus metformin-treated mice, 0.714 ± 0.184 vs. 0.750 ± 0.412, respectively, P = 0.941.

Fig. 2

Effect of metformin on tumor growth and intratumoral viability, apoptosis, and mitotic activity in conjunction with a standard diet. Female balb/c mice were injected subcutaneously into the mammary fat pad with 1 × 10⁶ 66cl4 cells. Mice were fed (more ...)

Metformin represses primary tumor growth but not metastasis when combined with a high energy diet

It has been reported that a high energy diet can promote the growth of syngeneic Lewis Lung Carcinoma in C57Bl/6 mice and that metformin treatment can attenuate this increased growth [20]. Given these observations, the effect of a high energy diet on the growth of the 66cl4 mammary tumors and the effect of metformin on these tumors were evaluated. A diet with increased free sugar content (HED) (Table 1) was provided with and without metformin. Mice on HED established larger tumors more quickly, and the final tumor volumes were larger than those on the standard diet (Fig. 3a compared to Fig. 2a). In agreement with the Lewis Lung report [20], mice receiving HED plus metformin displayed significantly smaller tumors than mice on the same diet without metformin (Fig. 3a). The average tumor weight at harvest was significantly reduced in the metformin-treated group (Fig. 3b). No significant difference was observed in tumor viability between the HED alone and HED with metformin (Fig. 3c). Apoptosis was increased and the number of mitotic figures was decreased in the viable tumor regions of the metformin-treated group, similar to observations of tumors in the standard diet experiments (Fig. 3c and d, respectively).

Fig. 3

Effect of metformin on tumor growth, intratumoral apoptosis, and mitotic activity in conjunction with a high energy diet. Female balb/c mice were injected subcutaneously into the mammary fat pad with 1 × 10⁶ 66cl4 cells. Mice were fed a high energy (more ...)

It has been demonstrated that AMPK activation with metformin can promote the process of autophagy in vitro and in human colon tumor xenografts [32]. Although viable tumor area was unchanged, it appeared that tumor cell density may be higher in the metformin-treated animals as indicated by the nuclear hematoxylin staining in Fig. 3e, HED compared to HED + Met. Therefore, tumors from both groups were analyzed for cell density by quantitative nuclear staining. The HED plus metformin group displayed a significant increase (23%) in tumor cell density compared to the HED group alone (2533 ± 104.3 cells/hpf vs. 1959 ± 124.3 cells/hpf, respectively, P = 0.0028).

To assess possible implications for metastatic potential, lungs were analyzed for metastatic lesions. There was no significant difference in the number of lung lesions between HED and HED plus metformin groups, 2.20 ± 0.611 vs. 4.00 ± 1.130, respectively, P = 0.168. However, mice treated with HED displayed a significant increase in both size and number of lung lesions compared to mice on the control diet (Fig. 4a–c).

Fig. 4

Effect of dietary energy availability on metastatic lung lesions. Lungs were removed from balb/c female mice with 66cl4 mammary tumors that were given a control diet (Control) or a high energy diet (HED). a Quantification of the total number of lung lesions. (more ...)

The efficacy of dietary and metabolic therapeutic interventions on circulating metabolic biomarkers

To evaluate the differences in the systemic responses to dietary modifications and metformin treatment, several systemic physiological mediators, blood glucose, IGF-1, and insulin levels, were evaluated from blood samples obtained at the end of each experiment (Table 2). Blood glucose and IGF-1 levels were significantly reduced in animals on the DER diet to 79% and 76% of controls. In addition, insulin levels were reduced by 53% in DER animals when compared to the ad lib group.

Table 2

Efficacy of metabolic interventions on blood glucose, insulin and IGF-1 levels

The use of metformin with the standard diet did not significantly affect blood glucose, IGF-1 or insulin levels when compared to the controls. However, when metformin was used in animals provided the HED, metformin effectively suppressed blood glucose and IGF-1 levels by 17% and 27% of the HED group, respectively. The metformin suppression of glucose and IGF-1 levels in HED was brought down to equivalent levels as observed in the control diet animals. Although not statistically significant (P = 0.1366), insulin levels were decreased in HED with metformin compared to HED alone by 24%.

HED significantly increased the levels of blood glucose by 22% compared to control diet. The effect of HED was also reflected in increased weight gain over the course of the tumor model where final body weights were significantly greater for the HED at 21.81 ± 0.383 g vs. 18.26 ± 0.391 g for animals on standard diet (P ≤ 0.001). Metformin treatment also significantly suppressed the increase in body weight by 10.5% to 19.52 ± 1.77 g vs. HED alone, 21.81 ± 0.383 (P = 0.0041).

Energy availability and metformin effect on circulating adipokine levels

While metformin showed significant effects on metabolic growth factors in this model, the number of metastatic lung lesions was unchanged, suggesting that other systemic mediators may be promoting tumor cell inoculation and survival. To investigate systemic mediators that have been suggested to promote disease progression and facilitate lung metastasis [33], a panel of cytokines and adipokines were assessed in serum samples obtained at harvest. Serum samples from HED animals were compared to those on standard control diet, and two adipokines, leptin and resistin, were found to be significantly elevated (Table 3). Leptin was increased 2.9-fold and resistin 4.1-fold compared to those on standard diet. Resistin was significantly reduced (30%) by metformin treatment in animals on the standard diet while leptin was unaffected. Interestingly, metformin was ineffective at regulating either leptin or resistin in animals on HED, consistent with their increased adiposity. Other proinflammatory mediators such as TNF-alpha, IL-6, and MCP-1 were evaluated; however, most samples were at, or below, the minimal level of detection (data not shown).

Table 3

Effect of systemic metformin on adipokine levels

Effect of metformin on AMPK activation and autophagy in metastatic lung lesions

While metformin was able to suppress systemic levels of glucose and growth factors that reflected in reduction of primary tumor growth in the high energy diet group, there was no effect on the number or size of metastatic lung lesions by metformin treatment. To evaluate whether metformin treatment was exerting any effect on the metastatic lesions, AMPK signaling events were evaluated in lung tissue and metastatic lung lesions. Immunofluorescence was performed on sections of lung from HED and HED plus metformin-treated animals to evaluate AMPK activation and the AMPK substrate, acetyl-CoA carbosylase (ACC) in the metastatic lung lesions or unaffected lung tissue (Fig. 5). There were no differences observed in the amount of p-AMPK or phosphorylated ACC (p-ACC) in the normal lung tissue. However, metastatic lung lesions displayed increased signal for both p-AMPK and p-ACC, when compared to surrounding normal lung tissue. It was also noted that there was significant variation between individual lesions and subsequently no significant differences were observed between the HED and HED plus metformin groups. Interestingly, while evaluating the metastatic lung lesions, the tumor foci in the HED plus metformin group appeared have an increased cell density compared to the HED alone. Since the primary tumors displayed a significant increase in cellular density with metformin treatment, lung tumor lesions were evaluated for active autophagy (Fig. 6a). Immunofluorescence for the autophagy marker, LC3B, revealed distinct punctuate perinuclear staining consistent with positive staining for autophagosomes. Quantification of the positive cells indicated that the HED plus metformin lung lesions displayed a significant increase (50%) in the number of LC3B positive clusters (Fig. 6b).

Fig. 5

Effect of metformin on AMPK activation in metastatic lung lesions. Lungs were removed from balb/c female mice with 66cl4 mammary tumors that were given a high energy diet (HED) or HED plus metformin (HED + Met). Lungs were stained with H&E or (more ...)

Fig. 6

Metformin promotes autophagy in combination with a high energy diet. Lungs were removed from balb/c female mice with 66cl4 mammary tumors that were given a high energy diet (HED) or HED plus metformin (HED + Met). Immunofluorescence was performed for (more ...)

A high energy diet promotes cd11b positive cell infiltration into lungs

An emerging molecular theme that seems to correlate proinflammatory events with the promotion of metastatic foci has indicated that tissues, especially lung parenchyma, can be “primed” to promote the homing and survival of tumor cells. This priming can be promoted in part, by the pre-localization of bone marrow-derived myeloid cells and macrophages in lung tissue [34]. Since HED treatment resulted in significantly increased levels of the proinflammatory adipokines leptin and resistin, lungs from mice-treated standard control diet and HED with and without metformin were evaluated for myeloid infiltrating cells expressing the CD11b and/or F4/80 antigens. Very few CD11b positive cells were present in the lungs of mice on the control diet, while mice on HED had a dramatic 20-fold increase in the number of CD11b positive cells (Fig. 7a). The presence of these cells appeared to be predominantly in the lung parenchyma as evidenced by immunofluorescence images (Fig. 7b). Metformin treatment appeared to increase the number of CD11b positive cells in conjunction with the control diet and decreased the number of CD11b positive cells in conjunction with the HED, however neither of these reached statistical significance. No differences were observed in the F4/80 staining that predominantly recognized resident alveolar macrophages in all of the treatment groups (data not shown).

Fig. 7

Effect of dietary energy and metformin on CD11b positive cell infiltration. Lungs were removed from balb/c female mice with 66cl4 mammary tumors that were given a control diet or a high energy diet and treated with and without metformin. a Quantification (more ...)

Discussion

This study used a syngeneic model of murine primary and metastatic mammary cancer to evaluate and compare the effects of nutrient availability, dietary energy restriction, and metabolic therapeutic intervention with metformin. The 66cl4 cells are a subpopulation of a spontaneously occurring mammary tumor from a Balb/c mouse and are known to metastasize to the lung [27]. The aggressive nature of this tumor model suggests highly activated growth factor signaling as evidence by high proliferation rates in vitro, MAPK activation signals and lack of estrogen dependence. These cells do not express the hormone receptors for estrogen or progesterone or the Her-2 receptor and appear to represent a murine model of triple negative breast cancer. Triple negative breast cancer is more frequent in younger women as well as women who are obese. In addition, women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer have especially poor prognosis and rapid occurrence of metastases [35, 36]. It is especially important to develop adjuvant interventions for women with this aggressive subtype of breast cancer.

From the perspective of primary tumor expansion, DER was the most effective at suppressing tumor growth and metastatic disease in this model. The application of metformin resulted in moderate, yet significant, effects on the primary tumor phenotype. Most prominently, increased apoptosis and reduced proliferation was observed. This data are in agreement with the in vitro observations that metformin treatment reduced proliferation, protein synthesis, and MAPK signaling in the 66cl4 cells and is consistent with findings reported in the human triple negative breast cancer cells, MDA-MB-231, when treated with metformin [37]. Primary tumor expansion was promoted by increased dietary energy availability and the effect attenuated by the addition of metformin, which is consistent with the report by Algire et al. that utilized a HED and metformin in the Lewis Lung Carcinoma tumor model [16, 20]. These two studies confirm the efficacy of metformin to repress the growth of aggressive primary tumors in the presence of excess dietary energy in two independent tumor models. When metastatic disease was evaluated, only the application of DER resulted in a significant repression of lung lesions. Even though metformin effectively repressed primary tumor growth when used with HED, it was unable to repress the number of metastatic lung lesions in conjunction with either diet. Importantly, the HED group developed an increased number of metastatic lesions as well as larger lesions when compared to the standard diet group. Even though metformin was able to induce autophagy as demonstrated by increased cell density and LC3b staining of the HED group, metformin therapy was not sufficient to reduce the disease burden in the lungs of these animals.

It has been proposed that growth factor pathways can be critical in supporting breast cancer growth, especially in relation to obesity and diabetes. In addition, the efficacy of DER against tumor progression has been attributed to reduced IGF-1 levels and downstream signaling [38]. The use of DER most efficiently repressed IGF-1 levels as well as blood glucose and insulin levels, while the use of metformin repressed blood glucose and IGF-1 levels only when given with the HED, as has been reported in other studies [19, 20, 39]. These data demonstrate that, while metformin can repress glucose and IGF-1 levels in the presence of excess dietary energy, metformin is not as effective under a balanced energy status and falls short of DER in this regard.

The effect of increased dietary energy in the form of free sugar and therapeutic modifiers such as metformin on the metastatic process is a more complex process to model and interpret. A suppression of distal metastasis was observed with DER compared to control diet, but surprisingly, metformin did not suppress metastasis in conjunction with the HED diet despite the fact that metformin was effective at controlling both IGF-1 and insulin levels. The implications of these results may be significant and imply that the contribution of glucose and IGF-1 in secondary metastasis is offset by other pro-metastatic events as suggested by other recent reports [40, 41]. Not surprisingly, the HED regimen dramatically increases both leptin and resistin levels well above the standard diet. The increased levels of both adipokines were not suppressed by metformin treatment. These data suggest that clinical measures other than glucose, IGF-1, and insulin may be useful when considering the effectiveness of metformin or other metabolic therapeutics when used as adjuvant breast cancer therapies.

As recent reports indicate, there is a growing interest in circulating adipokines as proinflammatory and tumorigenic factors for primary and metastatic cancer [42–44]. These data suggest that the effects of metformin on primary tumors are distinct from the events required for secondary metastasis to the lung, especially in this aggressive breast cancer model. It would be expected that HED may be promoting distal tissue priming to promote tumor cell homing, which is strongly supported by the evidence of significant infiltration of myeloid cells within the lung parenchyma with the HED regimen. It should be emphasized that leptin and resistin levels are only two adipokines that may be involved in this process, but any number of proinflammatory agents and growth factors may be involved, including cytokines such as TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, or SDF-1α. Additional work is needed to investigate the role for each of these adipokines and local mediators to determine their contribution to the metastatic process.

Since epidemiological studies suggest that up to 50% of our population over the age of 50 exhibit metabolic syndrome [45, 46], representing a pre-diabetic condition related to high caloric intake and a sedentary lifestyle, the relationship of metabolic imbalance and the initiation and/or progression of breast cancer has become critically relevant. The data presented here imply that primary tumor growth and secondary tumor cell metastasis is supported by high energy consumption. Second, where potential novel therapies might be employed to suppress metastatic tumor growth, the identification of adipokines and local mediators that promote tissue priming may be critical in targeting tumor cell inoculation and/or survival in metastatic sites.

Supplementary Material

supplement

Click here to view.^{(63K, pdf)}

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Nancy Ryan and Xiaoxiao Hong for their technical assistance. This work was supported by NIH:NCI CA064436 and the Connecticut Breast Health Initiative, Inc.

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-009-0647-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Contributor Information

Kathryn N. Phoenix, Center for Vascular Biology, Department of Cell Biology, University of Connecticut Health Center, 263 Farmington Ave., Farmington, CT 06030-3501, USA.

Frank Vumbaca, Center for Vascular Biology, Department of Cell Biology, University of Connecticut Health Center, 263 Farmington Ave., Farmington, CT 06030-3501, USA.

Melissa M. Fox, Center for Vascular Biology, Department of Cell Biology, University of Connecticut Health Center, 263 Farmington Ave., Farmington, CT 06030-3501, USA.

Rebecca Evans, Center for Vascular Biology, Department of Cell Biology, University of Connecticut Health Center, 263 Farmington Ave., Farmington, CT 06030-3501, USA.

Kevin P. Claffey, Center for Vascular Biology, Department of Cell Biology, University of Connecticut Health Center, 263 Farmington Ave., Farmington, CT 06030-3501, USA.

References

1. Dal Maso L, Zucchetto A, Talamini R, Serraino D, Stocco CF, Vercelli M, Falcini F, Franceschi S. Effect of obesity and other lifestyle factors on mortality in women with breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2008;123(9):2188–2194. [PubMed]

2. Montazeri A, Sadighi J, Farzadi F, Maftoon F, Vahdaninia M, Ansari M, Sajadian A, Ebrahimi M, Haghighat S, Harirchi I. Weight, height, body mass index and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: a case-control study. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:278. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

3. Calle EE, Rodriguez C, Walker-Thurmond K, Thun MJ. Overweight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospectively studied cohort of U.S. adults. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(17):1625–1638. [PubMed]

4. Freedman LS, Clifford C, Messina M. Analysis of dietary fat, calories, body weight, and the development of mammary tumors in rats and mice: a review. Cancer Res. 1990;50(18):5710–5719. [PubMed]

5. Cleary MP, Grande JP, Juneja SC, Maihle NJ. Diet-induced obesity and mammary tumor development in MMTV-neu female mice. Nutr Cancer. 2004;50(2):174–180. [PubMed]

6. Kritchevsky D. Caloric restriction and cancer. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo) 2001;47(1):13–19. [PubMed]

7. Freedland SJ, Mavropoulos J, Wang A, Darshan M, Demark-Wahnefried W, Aronson WJ, Cohen P, Hwang D, Peterson B, Fields T, Pizzo SV, Isaacs WB. Carbohydrate restriction, prostate cancer growth, and the insulin-like growth factor axis. Prostate. 2008;68(1):11–19. [PubMed]

8. Seyfried TN, Sanderson TM, El-Abbadi MM, McGowan R, Mukherjee P. Role of glucose and ketone bodies in the metabolic control of experimental brain cancer. Br J Cancer. 2003;89(7):1375–1382. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

9. Ingram DK, Zhu M, Mamczarz J, Zou S, Lane MA, Roth GS, deCabo R. Calorie restriction mimetics: an emerging research field. Aging Cell. 2006;5(2):97–108. [PubMed]

10. Kirpichnikov D, McFarlane SI, Sowers JR. Metformin: an update. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(1):25–33. [PubMed]

11. Stumvoll M, Nurjhan N, Perriello G, Dailey G, Gerich JE. Metabolic effects of metformin in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(9):550–554. [PubMed]

12. Bowker SL, Majumdar SR, Veugelers P, Johnson JA. Increased cancer-related mortality for patients with type 2 diabetes who use sulfonylureas or insulin. Diab Care. 2006;29(2):254–258. [PubMed]

13. Evans JM, Donnelly LA, Emslie-Smith AM, Alessi DR, Morris AD. Metformin and reduced risk of cancer in diabetic patients. BMJ. 2005;330(7503):1304–1305. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

14. Phoenix KN, Vumbaca F, Claffey KP. Therapeutic metformin/AMPK activation promotes the angiogenic phenotype in the ERalpha negative MDA-MB-435 breast cancer model. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;113(1):101–111. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

15. Alimova IN, Liu B, Fan Z, Edgerton SM, Dillon T, Lind SE, Thor AD. Metformin inhibits breast cancer cell growth, colony formation and induces cell cycle arrest in vitro. Cell Cycle. 2009;8(6):909–915. [PubMed]

16. Ben Sahra I, Laurent K, Loubat A, Giorgetti-Peraldi S, Colosetti P, Auberger P, Tanti JF, Le Y, Marchand-Brustel, Bost F. The antidiabetic drug metformin exerts an antitumoral effect in vitro and in vivo through a decrease of cyclin D1 level. Oncogene. 2008;27(25):3576–3586. [PubMed]

17. Zakikhani M, Dowling R, Fantus IG, Sonenberg N, Pollak M. Metformin is an AMP kinase-dependent growth inhibitor for breast cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2006;66(21):10269–10273. [PubMed]

18. Schneider MB, Matsuzaki H, Haorah J, Ulrich A, Standop J, Ding XZ, Adrian TE, Pour PM. Prevention of pancreatic cancer induction in hamsters by metformin. Gastroenterology. 2001;120(5):1263–1270. [PubMed]

19. Tomimoto A, Endo H, Sugiyama M, Fujisawa T, Hosono K, Takahashi H, Nakajima N, Nagashima Y, Wada K, Nakagama H, Nakajima A. Metformin suppresses intestinal polyp growth in ApcMin/+mice. Cancer Sci. 2008;99(11):2136–2141. [PubMed]

20. Algire C, Zakikhani M, Blouin MJ, Shuai JH, Pollak M. Metformin attenuates the stimulatory effect of a high-energy diet on in vivo LLC1 carcinoma growth. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2008;15(3):833–839. [PubMed]

21. Hirsch HA, Iliopoulos D, Tsichlis PN, Struhl K. Metformin selectively targets cancer stem cells, and acts together with chemotherapy to block tumor growth and prolong remission. Cancer Res. 2009;69(19):7507–7511. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

22. Miller FR, Miller BE, Heppner GH. Characterization of metastatic heterogeneity among subpopulations of a single mouse mammary tumor: heterogeneity in phenotypic stability. Invasion Metastasis. 1983;3(1):22–31. [PubMed]

23. Agarwal A, Munoz-Najar U, Klueh U, Shih SC, Claffey KP. N-acetyl-cysteine promotes angiostatin production and vascular collapse in an orthotopic model of breast cancer. Am J Pathol. 2004;164(5):1683–1696. [PubMed]

24. Klurfeld DM, Weber MM, Kritchevsky D. Inhibition of chemically induced mammary and colon tumor promotion by caloric restriction in rats fed increased dietary fat. Cancer Res. 1987;47(11):2759–2762. [PubMed]

25. Welsch CW. Relationship between dietary fat and experimental mammary tumorigenesis: a review and critique. Cancer Res. 1992;52(7 Suppl):2040s–2048s. [PubMed]

26. Zhu Z, Haegele AD, Thompson HJ. Effect of caloric restriction on pre-malignant and malignant stages of mammary carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis. 1997;18(5):1007–1012. [PubMed]

27. Aslakson CJ, Miller FR. Selective events in the metastatic process defined by analysis of the sequential dissemination of subpopulations of a mouse mammary tumor. Cancer Res. 1992;52(6):1399–1405. [PubMed]

28. Dowling RJ, Zakikhani M, Fantus IG, Pollak M, Sonenberg N. Metformin inhibits mammalian target of rapamycin-dependent translation initiation in breast cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2007;67(22):10804–10812. [PubMed]

29. Woods A, Vertommen D, Neumann D, Turk R, Bayliss J, Schlattner U, Wallimann T, Carling D, Rider MH. Identification of phosphorylation sites in AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) for upstream AMPK kinases and study of their roles by site-directed mutagenesis. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(31):28434–28442. [PubMed]

30. Zhou G, Myers R, Li Y, Chen Y, Shen X, Fenyk-Melody J, Wu M, Ventre J, Doebber T, Fujii N, Musi N, Hirshman MF, Goodyear LJ, Moller DE. Role of AMP-activated protein kinase in mechanism of metformin action. J Clin Invest. 2001;108(8):1167–1174. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

31. Zhuang Y, Miskimins WK. Cell cycle arrest in Metformin treated breast cancer cells involves activation of AMPK, down-regulation of cyclin D1, and requires p27Kip1 or p21Cip1. J Mol Signal. 2008;3:18. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

32. Buzzai M, Jones RG, Amaravadi RK, Lum JJ, DeBerardinis RJ, Zhao F, Viollet B, Thompson CB. Systemic treatment with the antidiabetic drug metformin selectively impairs p53-deficient tumor cell growth. Cancer Res. 2007;67(14):6745–6752. [PubMed]

33. Kaplan RN, Riba RD, Zacharoulis S, Bramley AH, Vincent L, Costa C, MacDonald DD, Jin DK, Shido K, Kerns SA, Zhu Z, Hicklin D, Wu Y, Port JL, Altorki N, Port ER, Ruggero D, Shmelkov SV, Jensen KK, Rafii S, Lyden D. VEGFR1-positive haematopoietic bone marrow progenitors initiate the premetastatic niche. Nature. 2005;438(7069):820–827. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

34. Hiratsuka S, Watanabe A, Aburatani H, Maru Y. Tumour-mediated upregulation of chemoattractants and recruitment of myeloid cells predetermines lung metastasis. Nat Cell Biol. 2006;8(12):1369–1375. [PubMed]

35. Kwan ML, Kushi LH, Weltzien E, Maring B, Kutner SE, Fulton RS, Lee MM, Ambrosone CB, Caan BJ. Epidemiology of breast cancer subtypes in two prospective cohort studies of breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res. 2009;11(3):R31. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

36. Yang XR, Sherman ME, Rimm DL, Lissowska J, Brinton LA, Peplonska B, Hewitt SM, Anderson WF, Szeszenia-Dabrowska N, Bardin-Mikolajczak A, Zatonski W, Cartun R, Mandich D, Rymkiewicz G, Ligaj M, Lukaszek S, Kordek R, Garcia-Closas M. Differences in risk factors for breast cancer molecular subtypes in a population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(3):439–443. [PubMed]

37. Liu B, Fan Z, Edgerton SM, Deng XS, Alimova IN, Lind SE, Thor AD. Metformin induces unique biological and molecular responses in triple negative breast cancer cells. Cell Cycle. 2009;8(13):2031–2040. [PubMed]

38. Kari FW, Dunn SE, French JE, Barrett JC. Roles for insulin-like growth factor-1 in mediating the anti-carcinogenic effects of caloric restriction. J Nutr Health Aging. 1999;3(2):92–101. [PubMed]

39. Anisimov VN, Berstein LM, Egormin PA, Piskunova TS, Popovich IG, Zabezhinski MA, Kovalenko IG, Poroshina TE, Semenchenko AV, Provinciali M, Re F, Franceschi C. Effect of metformin on life span and on the development of spontaneous mammary tumors in HER-2/neu transgenic mice. Exp Gerontol. 2005;40(8–9):685–693. [PubMed]

40. Pollak M. Do cancer cells care if their host is hungry? Cell Metab. 2009;9(5):401–403. [PubMed]

41. Pollak M. Macronutrient intake and cancer: how does dietary restriction influence tumor growth and why should we care? Cancer Prev Res. 2009;2(8):698–701. [PubMed]

42. Cirillo D, Rachiglio AM, la Montagna R, Giordano A, Normanno N. Leptin signaling in breast cancer: an overview. J Cell Biochem. 2008;105(4):956–964. [PubMed]

43. Hou WK, Xu YX, Yu T, Zhang L, Zhang WW, Fu CL, Sun Y, Wu Q, Chen L. Adipocytokines and breast cancer risk. Chin Med J (Engl) 2007;120(18):1592–1596. [PubMed]

44. Rose DP, Komninou D, Stephenson GD. Obesity, adipocytokines, and insulin resistance in breast cancer. Obes Rev. 2004;5(3):153–165. [PubMed]

45. Ford ES, Giles WH, Dietz WH. Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome among US adults: findings from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. JAMA. 2002;287(3):356–359. [PubMed]

46. Park YW, Zhu S, Palaniappan L, Heshka S, Carnethon MR, Heymsfield SB. The metabolic syndrome: prevalence and associated risk factor findings in the US population from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(4):427–436. [PMC free article] [PubMed]