Skip to main content
Fig. 1 | Molecular Cancer

Fig. 1

From: SALL1 functions as a tumor suppressor in breast cancer by regulating cancer cell senescence and metastasis through the NuRD complex

Fig. 1

SALL1 expression is down-regulated in human breast cancer. a and b Gene expression levels of SALL1 in different cancer cell lines (in a) and in tumor tissues (in b) using Real-time PCR analyses. Tumor cell lines include breast cancer (human MDA-MB-231, MCF7, BC80, 31, 30, 29, 16, 12, and 10), melanoma (human Mel1938, Mel1586, Mel1860, Mel1363, Mel1526 and Mel1628), prostate cancer (PC3 and DU145), colon cancer (SW480), and lymphoma (L428 and L504). Normal breast cell lines (BN6, BN16, MCF10A and MCF12A), Fibroblasts (F163, F160, F158 and F112) and 293 T cells were included as controls. mRNA levels in each cell line and tissue were normalized to the relative quantity of GAPDH expression and then adjusted to SALL1 levels in 293 T cells (set as 1). Results shown in the histogram are mean ± SD from three independent experiments. c and d Association analyses of SALL1 expression with specific breast cancer subtypes. The data sets were accessed from the TCGA breast cancer Argilent microarray expression database downloaded from the cBioPortal (http://www.cbioportal.org/). The box plot indicated the log 2 transformed mRNA median expression level of SALL1 in the tissues. N indicated the number of sample size of each tissue type. Mann-Whitney analysis was used to compare the SALL1 expression across the different breast cancer subtypes and normal tissues, and **p < 0.01 within the comparison groups. e SALL1 expression in tumor cells in breast cancer tissues was determined using the immunohistochemical staining. f and g SALL1 expression levels in breast cancer tissues with different ER and HER2 status. SALL1+ cell population in ER+ patients was significantly higher than that in ER patients. Furthermore, SALL1+ cell numbers in HER2+ patients were much higher than that in HER2 patients. Tissue immunohistochemical staining and cell number counting were identical as in (e). Significance was determined by unpaired T test

Back to article page