For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
66
views
259
references
 Top references
cited by
93
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      349
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Dietary Natural Products for Prevention and Treatment of Breast Cancer

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Breast cancer is the most common cancer among females worldwide. Several epidemiological studies suggested the inverse correlation between the intake of vegetables and fruits and the incidence of breast cancer. Substantial experimental studies indicated that many dietary natural products could affect the development and progression of breast cancer, such as soy, pomegranate, mangosteen, citrus fruits, apple, grape, mango, cruciferous vegetables, ginger, garlic, black cumin, edible macro-fungi, and cereals. Their anti-breast cancer effects involve various mechanisms of action, such as downregulating ER-α expression and activity, inhibiting proliferation, migration, metastasis and angiogenesis of breast tumor cells, inducing apoptosis and cell cycle arrest, and sensitizing breast tumor cells to radiotherapy and chemotherapy. This review summarizes the potential role of dietary natural products and their major bioactive components in prevention and treatment of breast cancer, and special attention was paid to the mechanisms of action.

          Related collections

          Most cited references259

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Interaction of estrogenic chemicals and phytoestrogens with estrogen receptor beta.

          G G Kuiper, J G Lemmen, B. Carlsson … (1998)
          The rat, mouse and human estrogen receptor (ER) exists as two subtypes, ER alpha and ER beta, which differ in the C-terminal ligand-binding domain and in the N-terminal transactivation domain. In this study, we investigated the estrogenic activity of environmental chemicals and phytoestrogens in competition binding assays with ER alpha or ER beta protein, and in a transient gene expression assay using cells in which an acute estrogenic response is created by cotransfecting cultures with recombinant human ER alpha or ER beta complementary DNA (cDNA) in the presence of an estrogen-dependent reporter plasmid. Saturation ligand-binding analysis of human ER alpha and ER beta protein revealed a single binding component for [3H]-17beta-estradiol (E2) with high affinity [dissociation constant (Kd) = 0.05 - 0.1 nM]. All environmental estrogenic chemicals [polychlorinated hydroxybiphenyls, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and derivatives, alkylphenols, bisphenol A, methoxychlor and chlordecone] compete with E2 for binding to both ER subtypes with a similar preference and degree. In most instances the relative binding affinities (RBA) are at least 1000-fold lower than that of E2. Some phytoestrogens such as coumestrol, genistein, apigenin, naringenin, and kaempferol compete stronger with E2 for binding to ER beta than to ER alpha. Estrogenic chemicals, as for instance nonylphenol, bisphenol A, o, p'-DDT and 2',4',6'-trichloro-4-biphenylol stimulate the transcriptional activity of ER alpha and ER beta at concentrations of 100-1000 nM. Phytoestrogens, including genistein, coumestrol and zearalenone stimulate the transcriptional activity of both ER subtypes at concentrations of 1-10 nM. The ranking of the estrogenic potency of phytoestrogens for both ER subtypes in the transactivation assay is different; that is, E2 > zearalenone = coumestrol > genistein > daidzein > apigenin = phloretin > biochanin A = kaempferol = naringenin > formononetin = ipriflavone = quercetin = chrysin for ER alpha and E2 > genistein = coumestrol > zearalenone > daidzein > biochanin A = apigenin = kaempferol = naringenin > phloretin = quercetin = ipriflavone = formononetin = chrysin for ER beta. Antiestrogenic activity of the phytoestrogens could not be detected, except for zearalenone which is a full agonist for ER alpha and a mixed agonist-antagonist for ER beta. In summary, while the estrogenic potency of industrial-derived estrogenic chemicals is very limited, the estrogenic potency of phytoestrogens is significant, especially for ER beta, and they may trigger many of the biological responses that are evoked by the physiological estrogens.
          Article 0 comments Cited 545 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of the ligand binding specificity and transcript tissue distribution of estrogen receptors alpha and beta.

            G G Kuiper, B Carlsson, K Grandien … (1997)
            The rat estrogen receptor (ER) exists as two subtypes, ER alpha and ER beta, which differ in the C-terminal ligand binding domain and in the N-terminal transactivation domain. In this study we investigated the messenger RNA expression of both ER subtypes in rat tissues by RT-PCR and compared the ligand binding specificity of the ER subtypes. Saturation ligand binding analysis of in vitro synthesized human ER alpha and rat ER beta protein revealed a single binding component for 16 alpha-iodo-17 beta-estradiol with high affinity [dissociation constant (Kd) = 0.1 nM for ER alpha protein and 0.4 nM for ER beta protein]. Most estrogenic substances or estrogenic antagonists compete with 16 alpha-[125I]iodo-17 beta-estradiol for binding to both ER subtypes in a very similar preference and degree; that is, diethylstilbestrol > hexestrol > dienestrol > 4-OH-tamoxifen > 17 beta-estradiol > coumestrol, ICI-164384 > estrone, 17 alpha-estradiol > nafoxidine, moxestrol > clomifene > estriol, 4-OH-estradiol > tamoxifen, 2-OH-estradiol, 5-androstene-3 beta, 17 beta-diol, genistein for the ER alpha protein and dienestrol > 4-OH-tamoxifen > diethylstilbestrol > hexestrol > coumestrol, ICI-164384 > 17 beta-estradiol > estrone, genistein > estriol > nafoxidine, 5-androstene-3 beta, 17 beta-diol > 17 alpha-estradiol, clomifene, 2-OH-estradiol > 4-OH-estradiol, tamoxifen, moxestrol for the ER beta protein. The rat tissue distribution and/or the relative level of ER alpha and ER beta expression seems to be quite different, i.e. moderate to high expression in uterus, testis, pituitary, ovary, kidney, epididymis, and adrenal for ER alpha and prostate, ovary, lung, bladder, brain, uterus, and testis for ER beta. The described differences between the ER subtypes in relative ligand binding affinity and tissue distribution could contribute to the selective action of ER agonists and antagonists in different tissues.
            Article 0 comments Cited 407 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: classification, prognostication, and prediction.

              Jorge S. Reis-Filho, Lajos Pusztai (2011)
              Microarray-based gene expression profiling has had a major effect on our understanding of breast cancer. Breast cancer is now perceived as a heterogeneous group of different diseases characterised by distinct molecular aberrations, rather than one disease with varying histological features and clinical behaviour. Gene expression profiling studies have shown that oestrogen-receptor (ER)-positive and ER-negative breast cancers are distinct diseases at the transcriptomic level, that additional molecular subtypes might exist within these groups, and that the prognosis of patients with ER-positive disease is largely determined by the expression of proliferation-related genes. On the basis of these principles, a molecular classification system and prognostic multigene classifiers based on microarrays or derivative technologies have been developed and are being tested in randomised clinical trials and incorporated into clinical practice. In this review, we focus on the conceptual effect and potential clinical use of the molecular classification of breast cancer, and discuss prognostic and predictive multigene predictors. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Article 0 comments Cited 253 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Nutrients
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Nutrients
                Journal ID (publisher-id): nutrients
                Title: Nutrients
                Publisher: MDPI
                ISSN (Electronic): 2072-6643
                Publication date (Electronic): 08 July 2017
                Publication date Collection: July 2017
                Volume: 9
                Issue: 7
                Electronic Location Identifier: 728
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Food, Nutrition and Health, Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China; liya28@ 123456mail2.sysu.edu.cn (Y.L.); mengx7@ 123456mail2.sysu.edu.cn (X.M.); zhangjj46@ 123456mail2.sysu.edu.cn (J.-J.Z.)
                [2 ]School of Chinese Medicine, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China
                [3 ]School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China; ganry@ 123456connect.hku.hk
                [4 ]South China Sea Bioresource Exploitation and Utilization Collaborative Innovation Center, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510006, China
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: u3003781@ 123456connect.hku.hk (S.L.); lihuabin@ 123456mail.sysu.edu.cn (H.-B.L.); Tel.: +852-3917-6498 (S.L.); +86-20-8733-2391 (H.-B.L.)
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4162-1511
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2332-8554
                Article
                Publisher ID: nutrients-09-00728
                DOI: 10.3390/nu9070728
                PMC ID: 5537842
                PubMed ID: 28698459
                SO-VID: ce91c60f-85af-430a-9d3b-c5e1c6f0d457
                Copyright © © 2017 by the authors.
                License:

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Date received : 29 April 2017
                Date accepted : 30 June 2017
                Categories
                Subject: Review

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Nutrition & Dietetics
                Keywords: breast cancer,soy,fruit,vegetable,anticancer,mechanism of action
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Nutrition & Dietetics
                Keywords: breast cancer, soy, fruit, vegetable, anticancer, mechanism of action

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content349

                See all similar

                Cited by91

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors2,769

                See all reference authors