Expression of Immunoproteasome Subunit LMP7 in Breast Cancer and Its Association with Immune-Related Markers

Miseon Lee; In Hye Song; Sun-Hee Heo; Young-Ae Kim; In Ah Park; Won Seon Bang; Hye Seon Park; Gyungyub Gong; Hee Jin Lee

doi:10.4143/crt.2017.500

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 51(1); 2019 > Article

Original Article Expression of Immunoproteasome Subunit LMP7 in Breast Cancer and Its Association with Immune-Related Markers: Miseon Lee, MD¹, In Hye Song, MD¹, Sun-Hee Heo, PhD^1,2, Young-Ae Kim, PhD^1,2, In Ah Park, MD¹, Won Seon Bang, BS^1,2, Hye Seon Park, BS^1,2, Gyungyub Gong, MD, PhD¹, Hee Jin Lee, MD, PhD^1,; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2019;51(1):80-89.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2017.500
Published online: February 26, 2018

¹Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Asan Center for Cancer Genome Discovery, Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Hee Jin Lee, MD, PhD Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel: 82-2-3010-5889 Fax: 82-2-472-7898 E-mail: backlila@gmail.com

*Miseon Lee and In Hye Song contributed equally to this work.

• Received: October 18, 2017 • Accepted: February 22, 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

9,368 Views
315 Download
25 Web of Science
27 Crossref
25 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
In the presence of interferon, proteasome subunits are replaced by their inducible counterparts to form an immunoproteasome (IP) plays a key role in generation of antigenic peptides presented by MHC class I molecules, leading to elicitation of a T cell‒mediated immune response. Although the roles of IP in other cancers, and inflammatory diseases have been extensively studied, its significance in breast cancer is unclear.
Materials and Methods
We investigated the expression of LMP7, an IP subunit, and its relationship with immune system components in two breast cancer cohorts.
Results
In 668 consecutive breast cancer cohort, 40% of tumors showed high level of LMP7 expression, and tumors with high expression of LMP7 had more tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in each subtype of breast cancer. In another cohort of 681 triple-negative breast cancer patients cohort, the expression of LMP7 in tumor cells was significantly correlated with the amount of TILs and the expression of interferon-associated molecules (MxA [p < 0.001] and PKR [p < 0.001]), endoplasmic reticulum stress-associated molecules (PERK [p=0.012], p-eIF2a [p=0.001], and XBP1 [p < 0.001]), and damage-associated molecular patterns (HMGN1 [p < 0.001] and HMGB1 [p < 0.001]). Patients with higher LMP7 expression had better disease-free survival outcomes than those with no or low expression in the positive lymph node metastasis group (p=0.041).
Conclusion
Close association between the TIL levels and LMP7 expression in breast cancer indicates that better antigen presentation through greater LMP7 expression might be associated with more TILs.
Key words: Immunoproteasome, Breast neoplasms, LMP7, Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, Interferons, HLA antigens

Introduction

Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) have a poor prognosis and low survival rate than other subtypes. Until now, no standard targeted treatment for TNBCs is available. Currently, much attention is focused on immunotherapy-related treatments [1]. The effects of conventional breast cancer treatments are partly due to interactions with the immune system. Therefore, improved insight into the connection between the immune system and breast cancer may improve treatments and outcomes.

Proteasomes are multisubunit complexes that degrade intracellular proteins through the ubiquitin–proteasome pathway [2,3]. In the presence of interferon, the three catalytic β subunits β1, β2, and β5 in the proteasome complex are replaced by proteasome subunit LMP2 (PSMB9)/β1i, LMP10 (PSMB10)/β2i, and LMP7 (PSMB8)/β5i, respectively, to form the immunoproteasome (IP). Subunits β5 and LMP7 perform chymotrypsin-like activity, subunits β1 and LMP2 perform caspase-like activity, and subunits β2 and LMP10 perform trypsin-like activity. However, the substrate-binding pockets of IPs differ from those of proteasome. IPs display an altered cleavage patterns, generating peptides suitable for binding onto a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I, facilitating CD8+ T-cell responses [4]. Thus, IPs play a key role for T cell–mediated immunity by contributing antigen epitopes presentation in tumors. Lack of expression or downregulation of an IP may contribute to immune evasion through antigen loss.

We previously demonstrated that elevated endoplasmic reticulum stress in TNBCs triggers release of damage-associated molecular patterns such as HMGB1 and HMGN1, which is known to be associated with attraction of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) to tumor microenvironment [5-9]. Then TILs can release interferon, which can elevate expression of MHC classes on tumor cells. However, the impact of IP expression on antigen presentation in breast cancer is not well established. In this present study, we evaluated the expression of LMP7 in a consecutive breast cancer and another TNBC tissue series. The higher the LMP7 level was, the higher the TILs were in each subtype of breast cancer. Also in TNBC cohort, higher levels of LMP7 were correlated with higher histologic grades and greater TILs. We also found that LMP7 was a better prognostic factor for disease-free survival in the group of positive lymph node metastases of the TNBC cohort.

Materials and Methods

1. Patients and tissue specimens

Two sets of breast cancer samples were used in the current analyses. The first series included 668 consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent surgery for primary breast cancer in 1998 at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea and for whom formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples were available. Six cycles of an adjuvant cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²), methotrexate (40 mg/m²), and 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m²) or cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m²), adriamycin (50 mg/m²), and 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m²) were administered in 439 of the 668 patients in the consecutive breast cancer cohort. Twelve patients underwent adjuvant chemotherapy with unknown regimens. Radiotherapy and hormone therapy was performed in 178 (26.6%) and 439 (65.7%) patients, respectively. The median follow-up duration was 13.3 years.

We evaluated 681 TNBC patients with surgically resected tissues obtained from surgeries conducted between 2004 and 2010 at Asan Medical Center, and 16 were excluded due to a lack of a tissue sample for tissue microarray analyses. Thus, 665 breast cancer patients were available for immunohistochemistry for LMP7. In this group, 476 patients did not present with lymph node metastasis, and they received four cycles of adjuvant adriamycin (60 mg/m²) plus cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m²) (AC). The remaining 205 patients presented with lymph node metastases and were treated with four cycles of AC followed by either four cycles of docetaxel (75 mg/m²) or paclitaxel (175 mg/m²). In total, 537 patients (80.8%) received radiotherapy. The median follow-up period was 78.3 months. Clinical information was obtained from medical records and pathology reports from the surgery.

2. Histological evaluation

The hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides were reviewed by two pathologists (H.J.L. and G.G.). The histologic type of breast cancer was assessed based on the 2012 World Health Organization classification, and the histologic grade of breast cancer was evaluated according to the modified Bloom-Richardson grading system. The slides were evaluated for the levels of stromal TILs using full sections in 10% increments (if less than 10%, 1%, or 5% level criteria were used) as well as the histologic subtype and grade, pT stage, and pN stage.

3. Tissue microarray and immunohistochemical analysis

Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples were arrayed with a tissue-arraying instrument as previously described [10]. Tissue microarray sections were stained with an automatic immunohistochemical staining device (Benchmark XT, Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ). Antibodies for LMP7 (1:2,000, ab95926, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA), human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-ABC (1:1,600, ab70328, EMR8–5, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), estrogen receptor (ER; 1:200, Leica Biosystems, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK), progesterone receptor (PR; 1:200, Leica Biosystems), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2; 1:8, Ventana Medical Systems), MxA (1:1,000, ab95926, Abcam), PERK (1:200, Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers, MA), p-eIF2α (1:200, ab32157, Abcam), XBP1 (1:75, ab37152, Abcam), PKR (1:400, ab32052, Abcam), HMGB1 (1:200, ab18256, Abcam), and HMGN1 (1:1,000, ab5212, Abcam) were used. ER and PR levels were considered positive if at least 1% positive tumor nuclei staining is identified [11]. Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) tumors were classified if those were positive on ER and/or PR staining. HER2-overexpressing tumors were classified if those were 3+ scores by immunohistochemistry or positive gene amplification by silver in situ hybridization [12]. The intensity of immunochemical staining was evaluated on a four-value intensity scale (0, 1, 2, and 3). The percentages of membranous and/or cytoplasmic expression were also evaluated. The immunoreactive score was calculated as multiply the product of the intensity by the percentage of positive cells.

HLA-ABC expression in tumor cells were categorized as one of three levels, as previously described (strongly positive, expression in more than 75% of tumor cells; weakly positive, expression between 25% and 75% of tumor cells; negative, loss of expression in more than 75% of tumor cells) [13].

4. The Cancer Genome Atlas data

The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data portal was used to download breast cancer data [14]. A total of 84 cases of basal-like breast cancer were analyzed. We downloaded level-3 gene expression data derived from an Agilent custom 244K whole genome microarray and somatic mutation data from an Illumina Genomic Analyzer (San Diego, CA). The gene expression level was median-centered by gene.

5. Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS ver. 18 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) and R statistical software. The Kruskal-Wallis test, chi-squared test, Spearman’s correlation, log-rank test, Cox proportional hazards regression model, and hierarchical clustering were used, as appropriate. All tests were two-sided and were done at significance level of α=0.05.

6. Ethical statement

Exemption from informed consent after de-identification of information was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Asan Medical Center (2013-0866).

Results

1. Clinicopathologic characteristics and correlation with immune-related molecules according to LMP7 expression in the consecutive breast cancer cohort

To determine the histopathologic characteristics of the breast cancers according to LMP7 expression, we analyzed 668 consecutive breast tumor tissues of the first consecutive breast cancer series consisting of 373 HR+/HER2–, 44 HR+/HER2+, 81 HR–/HER2+, and 190 TNBC tumors (Table 1). A loss of LMP7 expression in tumor cells was present in 181 cases, while 218 and 269 tumors showed low and high levels of LMP7 expression, respectively (Fig. 1). LMP7 expression level was similar in each breast cancer subtype (immunoreactive score: HR+/HER2–, 54.1±64.7; HR+/HER2+, 46.5±57.9; HR–/HER2+, 50.1±63.5; TNBC, 62.0±67.5). Tumors with high levels of LMP7 expression had more TILs (p ≤ 0.041) in all subtypes. Since LMP7 expression was correlated with the level of TILs, we further analyzed the association of LMP7 expression with other factors that were correlated with the level of TILs in previous studies [5-9]. LMP7 expression in tumor cells was significantly correlated with interferon-associated molecules HLA-ABC (p ≤ 0.007) and MxA (p < 0.001, except HR+/HER2+ subtype). Higher expression of endoplasmic reticulum stress-associated molecule p-eIF2a was significantly associated with high level of LMP7 in HR+/HER2– subtype (p=0.008). Cytoplasmic expression of damage associated molecular pattern HMGN1 was higher in tumors with high LMP7 (p=0.01). However, the histologic grade, pT stage, and lymph node metastases were not significantly associated with LMP7 expression. In survival analysis, LMP7 expression was not associated with disease-free survival in all subtypes (HR+/HER2–: p=0.61; hazard ratio, 0.999; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.996 to 1.002; HR+/HER2+: p=0.143; hazard ratio, 1.006, 95% CI, 0.998 to 1.013; HR–/HER2+: p=0.307; hazard ratio, 1.003; 95% CI, 0.998 to 1.008; TNBC: p=0.158; hazard ratio, 0.996; 95% CI, 0.992 to 1.001).

2. Correlation of LMP7 expression with pathological parameters and expression of immune-related molecules in another TNBC cohort

Since TNBCs are aggressive and considered as appropriate candidates for cancer immunotherapy among breast cancer subtypes, we further analyzed LMP7 expression in another cohort of 681 TNBCs, which had homogeneous standardized adjuvant treatment. The expression of LMP7 was analyzable in 665 cases: 20.6%, 38.6%, and 40.8% of TNBCs showed no, low, and high cytoplasmic expression of LMP7, respectively (Table 2). In TNBCs, high LMP7 expression levels were also significantly correlated with a higher histologic grade (p=0.001) and higher TIL level (p < 0.001). However, pT stage (p=0.454) and lymph node metastasis (p=0.116) were not significantly associated with LMP7 expression. LMP7 expression in tumor cells was significantly correlated with interferon-associated molecules such as HLA-ABC (p < 0.001), MxA (p < 0.001), and PKR (p < 0.001) and endoplasmic reticulum stress-associated molecules such as PERK (p=0.012), p-eIF2a (p=0.001), and XBP1 (p < 0.001). Further, LMP expression in tumor cells was significantly correlated with the cytoplasmic expression of damage-associated molecular patterns such as HMGN1 (p < 0.001) and HMGB1 (p < 0.001). These results are likewise presented in the clustering analysis (Fig. 2).

3. Prognostic significance of LMP7 expression in the TNBC cohort

Since prognosis and adjuvant chemotherapeutic agents differ according to lymph node metastasis, we analyzed the prognostic significance of LMP7 expression in the TNBC cohort separately in groups with the presence or absence of lymph node metastasis. Patients with higher LMP7 expression showed better disease-free survival outcomes than those with no or little expression of LMP7 in the group of positive lymph node metastases (p=0.041) (Fig. 3). However, by multivariate analyses, which included histologic grade, pT stage, level of TIL, and LMP7 expression, only the TIL level (p=0.014) (Table 3) was a significantly better prognostic factor in the group. There were no differences among patients with different levels of LMP7 expression in the group without lymph node metastasis (p=0.541).

4. Correlation of IP and T-cell markers in basal-like of TCGA data hierarchical clustering

Since we only analyzed LMP7, one of three IP subunits, using immunohistochemistry, we further assessed the TCGA data to assess any correlation of IP expression and T-cell infiltration (Table 4). We also analyzed ordinary proteasome expression. The gene expression of IP subunits (PSMB8, PSMB9, and PSMB10) showed significant correlation with each other and with immune molecules (CD3D, CD3E, CD3G, and CD8), whereas the gene expression of ordinary proteasomes (PSMB5, PSMB6, and PSMB7) did not show significant association.

Discussion

Cancer cells have increased proteasome levels for rapid cell proliferation. However, studies have shown that IP levels vary depending on the type of cancers [4]. Interestingly, whereas the upregulation of IP expression has been reported in prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, and lung cancer, the downregulation of IP expression has been reported in cancers of the colon [15], kidney, skin, neck, head, and esophagus [16]. Among them, upregulation of IPs is often observed in the cancer types in which the inflammatory process is important in pathogenesis of cancer. On the other hand, abnormal MHC class I expression and the loss of antigen processing are attributes of malignant cells in human and murine models that are associated with the occurrence and progression of melanoma, breast, and colorectal cancers [4]. T cell‒mediated immune tumor suppression is a complex process with numerous requirements, among which is antigen processing by the IP and presentation through HLA class I surface molecules expressed on tumor cells. The IP genes is regulated by both cell-intrinsic and cell-extrinsic factors in different types of cancer [17]. Rouette et al. [17] found that in breast cancer, the upregulation of IP genes is a cancer cell-extrinsic process correlated with the presence of interferon γ–secreting TILs. The high expression of IP genes correlates with improved survival in patients with breast cancer from TCGA data [17]. We confirmed this finding in our current study using a large number of TNBC patients who received standardized adjuvant treatments. However, LMP7 expression was not a significant prognostic factor in multivariate analysis including level of TIL. This result might be due to close association of LMP7 expression with TILs which is a strong independent prognostic factor in TNBCs.

We previously demonstrated associations between TILs, endoplasmic reticulum stress-associated molecules (PERK, p-eIF2, and XBP1), and the release of damage-associated molecular patterns (HMGB1 and HMGN1), which are associated with the activation of interferon pathway [5-8,18,19]. In the present study, we observed a significant association between TIL levels and the expression of the interferonassociated molecules MxA, PKR, HLA-ABC, and LMP7. Therefore, we can speculate that elevated endoplasmic reticulum stress induces the release of damage-associated molecular patterns to the tumor microenvironment, which activates interferon signaling in tumor cells. The elevated interferon signaling in TNBC cells then induces higher activity in the IPs, which might improve antigen presentation and result in the recruitment of TILs to the tumor tissue. We showed from our current analyses also that TNBCs with no LMP7 expression had poorer survival outcomes in those cases with lymph node metastasis, which might be caused by lack of effective antigen presentation in these tumors. However, in the consecutive breast cancer cohort, while LMP7 expression showed positive correlation with level of TILs and expression of HLA-ABC, LMP7 expression was not associated with survival in all subtypes. These results might be caused by different role of immune microenvironment in each subtype of breast cancer or by various treatment modalities given in the consecutive breast cancer cohort. Patients with this cohort had surgery for breast cancer from 1993 to 1998 and received various kinds of adjuvant treatments which were not standardized as treatment of secondary TNBC cohort.

Since proteasomes and IPs have differential preferences for cleavage sites, tumors with a high expression of IPs might have different repertoires of displayed antigens from those with a low expression of IPs. Tumor antigens that are more efficiently or poorly processed by IPs have been identified previously [20]. For example, MAGE-A3, which is a cancertestis antigen, is better processed by cells carrying IPs, while melanoma differentiation antigens such as Melan-A^MART1 and gp100^Pmel17 are known to be poorly processed by those cells. Although there has been no study to date that has explored which tumor antigens are more efficiently processed by IPs in breast cancer, there might be some epitopes that are better processed by IPs that are recognized by cytotoxic T lymphocytes better in breast cancers with high expression of IPs. If we could find such peptides that are recognized by the cytotoxic T lymphocyte, we could incorporate these into the design of immunotherapies such as vaccination and the adoptive transfer of T lymphocytes reactive to the epitopes.

The limitations of this study included its retrospective design and the evaluation of LMP7 alone among IP subunits. Further studies should examine other IP subunits and their relationships, and identify tumor epitopes that are better processed by IPs.

NOTES

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare (HI17C0337).

Fig. 1.

Immunohistochemical staining of LMP7 in breast cancer tissues. Representative images are shown (×200).

Fig. 2.

Heat map plot for LMP7 expression with interferon-associated molecules, endoplasmic reticulum stress-associated molecules, damage-associated molecular patterns, and amount of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.

Fig. 3.

Relationship between LMP7 expression and disease-free survival in the triple-negative breast cancer cohort. Kaplan-Meier survival curves are shown for disease-free survival in the group of positive lymph node (LN) metastases and in the group of negative LN metastases.

Table 1.

Comparison of pathological variables according to LMP7 expression in the first consecutive breast cancer cohort

	HR+/HER2– (n=362)				HR+/HER2+ (n=42)				HR–/HER2+ (n=80)				TNBC (n=184)
	Cytoplasmic LMP7				Cytoplasmic LMP7				Cytoplasmic LMP7				Cytoplasmic LMP7
	None	Low	High	p-value	None	Low	High	p-value	None	Low	High	p-value	None	Low	High	p-value
Histologic grade
1&2	89 (86.4)	94 (79.7)	108 (76.6)	0.156	6 (54.5)	11 (73.3)	10 (62.5)	0.608	12 (52.2)	13 (50.0)	10 (32.3)	0.254	18 (40.9)	16 (27.1)	18 (22.2)	0.088
3	14 (13.6)	24 (20.3)	33 (23.4)		5 (45.5)	4 (26.7)	6 (37.5)		11 (47.8)	13 (50.0)	21 (67.7)		26 (59.1)	43 (72.9)	63 (77.8)
pT
1	43 (41.7)	42 (35.6)	58 (41.1)	0.495	5 (45.5)	5 (33.3)	3 (18.8)	0.487	6 (26.1)	5 (19.2)	7 (22.6)	0.375	13 (29.5)	13 (22.0)	23 (28.4)	0.084
2	51 (49.5)	64 (54.2)	72 (51.1)		4 (36.4)	8 (53.3)	11 (68.8)		11 (47.8)	17 (65.4)	21 (67.7)		20 (45.5)	37 (62.7)	50 (61.7)
3	6 (5.8)	10 (8.5)	11 (7.8)		2 (18.2)	1 (6.7)	2 (12.5)		6 (26.1)	4 (15.4)	2 (6.5)		5 (11.4)	8 (13.6)	6 (7.4)
4	3 (2.9)	2 (1.7)	0		0	1 (6.7)	0		0	0	1 (3.2)		6 (13.6)	1 (1.7)	2 (2.5)
Lymph node metastasis
Negative	52 (51.0)	49 (42.2)	68 (49.6)	0.355	6 (54.5)	4 (26.7)	4 (25.0)	0.246	10 (43.5)	10 (38.5)	13 (41.9)	0.959	18 (42.9)	30 (50.8)	42 (53.8)	0.522
Positive	50 (49.0)	67 (57.8)	69 (50.4)		5 (45.5)	11 (73.3)	12 (75.0)		13 (56.5)	16 (61.5)	18 (58.1)		24 (57.1)	29 (49.2)	36 (46.2)
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (%)
< 10	88 (85.4)	96 (81.4)	91 (64.5)	< 0.001	9 (81.8)	8 (53.3)	10 (62.5)	0.041	13 (56.5)	11 (42.3)	7 (22.6)	0.003	22 (50.0)	22 (37.3)	16 (19.8)	< 0.001
10-30	12 (11.7)	14 (11.9)	30 (21.3)		2 (18.2)	7 (46.7)	2 (12.5)		6 (26.1)	12 (46.2)	7 (22.6)		15 (34.1)	16 (27.1)	16 (19.8)
30-60	3 (2.9)	7 (5.9)	9 (6.4)		0	0	4 (25.0)		2 (8.7)	3 (11.5)	7 (22.6)		5 (11.4)	11 (18.6)	18 (22.2)
> 60	0	1 (0.8)	11 (7.8)		0	0	0		2 (8.7)	0	10 (32.3)		2 (4.5)	10 (16.9)	31 (38.3)
HLA-ABC
No	90 (91.8)	81 (69.2)	36 (25.5)	< 0.001	8 (72.7)	7 (46.7)	1 (6.3)	0.007	18 (78.3)	15 (57.7)	5 (16.1)	< 0.001	37 (86.0)	16 (27.1)	8 (9.9)	< 0.001
Weak	5 (5.1)	22 (18.8)	43 (30.5)		2 (18.2)	5 (33.3)	8 (50.0)		3 (13.0)	8 (30.8)	6 (19.4)		2 (4.7)	17 (28.8)	7 (8.6)
Strong	3 (3.1)	14 (12.0)	62 (44.0)		1 (9.1)	3 (20.0)	7 (43.8)		2 (8.7)	3 (11.5)	20 (64.5)		4 (9.3)	26 (44.1)	66 (81.5)
MxA
Low	89 (87.3)	92 (78.0)	73 (51.8)	< 0.001	9 (90.0)	8 (53.3)	8 (50.0)	0.100	22 (95.7)	18 (69.2)	14 (45.2)	< 0.001	34 (81.0)	37 (62.7)	32 (39.5)	< 0.001
High	13 (12.7)	26 (22.0)	68 (48.2)		1 (10.0)	7 (46.7)	8 (50.0)		1 (4.3)	8 (30.8)	17 (54.8)		8 (19.0)	22 (37.3)	49 (60.5)
p-eIF2a
Low	56 (55.4)	64 (55.7)	54 (38.6)	0.008	6 (54.5)	5 (33.3)	3 (18.8)	0.171	10 (43.5)	9 (34.6)	12 (38.7)	0.772	23 (53.5)	28 (47.5)	28 (34.6)	0.092
High	45 (44.6)	51 (44.3)	86 (61.4)		5 (45.5)	10 (66.7)	13 (81.3)		13 (56.5)	17 (65.4)	19 (61.3)		20 (46.5)	31 (52.5)	53 (65.4)
Cytoplasmic HMGB1
Low	57 (73.1)	65 (73.0)	78 (66.7)	0.543	5 (62.5)	6 (50.0)	10 (66.7)	0.681	12 (63.2)	11 (52.4)	18 (72.0)	0.400	17 (56.7)	31 (64.6)	31 (45.6)	0.130
High	21 (26.9)	24 (27.0)	39 (33.3)		3 (37.5)	6 (50.0)	5 (33.3)		7 (36.8)	10 (47.6)	7 (28.0)		13 (43.3)	17 (35.4)	37 (54.4)
Cytoplasmic HMGN1
Low	88 (87.1)	97 (83.6)	113 (80.1)	0.343	9 (81.8)	10 (66.7)	13 (81.3)	0.654	18 (78.3)	16 (64.0)	20 (64.5)	0.464	38 (86.4)	38 (64.4)	50 (61.7)	0.010
High	13 (12.9)	19 (16.4)	28 (37.9)		2 (18.2)	5 (33.3)	3 (18.8)		5 (21.7)	9 (36.0)	11 (35. 5)		6 (13.6)	21 (35.6)	31 (38.3)

Values are presented as number (%). HR, hormone receptor, HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer.

Table 2.

Comparison of pathological variables and various immune-related markers according to LMP7 expression in the second TNBC cohort

	Cytoplasmic LMP7
	None	Low	High	p-value
Histologic grade
1&2	45 (32.8)	64 (24.9)	50 (18.5)	0.001
3	92 (67.2)	285 (72.3)	221 (81.5)
pT
1	62 (45.3)	111 (43.9)	115 (42.4)	0.454
2	69 (50.4)	204 (51.8)	148 (54.6)
3	6 (4.4)	10 (3.9)	8 (33.3)
4	0	1 (0.3)	0
LN metastasis
Negative	91 (66.4)	174 (67.7)	195 (72.0)	0.116
Positive	46 (33.6)	83 (32.3)	76 (28.0)
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (%)
< 10	68 (49.6)	64 (24.9)	29 (18.0)	< 0.001
10-30	36 (26.3)	71 (27.6)	44 (29.3)
30-60	16 (11.7)	61 (23.7)	70 (47.6)
> 60	17 (12.4)	61 (23.7)	128 (62.1)
HLA-ABC
No	77 (58.8)	49 (19.3)	15 (5.6)	< 0.001
Weak	35 (26.7)	72 (28.3)	22 (8.1)
Strong	19 (14.5)	133 (52.4)	233 (86.3)
MxA
Low	116 (85.9)	171 (66.8)	123 (45.4)	< 0.001
High	19 (14.1)	85 (33.2)	148 (54.6)
PKR
Low	92 (69.2)	142 (55.5)	104 (38.4)	< 0.001
High	41 (30.8)	114 (44.5)	167 (61.6)
PERK
Low	87 (64.4)	132 (51.4)	138 (51.0)	0.012
High	48 (35.6)	125 (48.6)	133 (49.0)
p-eIF2a
Low	82 (62.1)	135 (52.9)	116 (43.0)	0.001
High	50 (37.9)	120 (47.1)	154 (57.0)
XBP1
Low	86 (64.7)	158 (62.5)	121 (44.8)	< 0.001
High	47 (35.3)	95 (37.5)	149 (55.2)
Cytoplasmic HMGB1
Low	79 (65.3)	162 (64.8)	125 (46.8)	< 0.001
High	42 (34.7)	88 (35.2)	142 (53.2)
Cytoplasmic HMGN1
Low	106 (79.7)	198 (78.0)	188 (69.9)	0.010
High	27 (20.3)	56 (22.0)	81 (30.1)

Values are presented as number (%). TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; LN, lymph node.

Table 3.

Univariate and multivariate disease-free survival analyses in positive lymph node metastases group of TNBC cohort

	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
	Hazard ratio (95% CI)	p-value	Hazard ratio (95% CI)	p-value
Histologic grade (1&2 vs. 3)	0.914 (0.474-1.762)	0.788	1.364 (0.696-2.685)	0.364
pT (3&4 vs. 1&2)	2.129 (1.009-4.492)	0.047	1.788 (0.828-3.860)	0.139
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (%)
< 10	1	0.003	1	0.014
10-30	0.815 (0.427-1.557)	0.536	0.874 (0.442-1.730)	0.699
30-60	0.630 (0.310-1.278)	0.200	0.635 (0.300-1.343)	0.235
> 60	0.198 (0.082-0.477)	< 0.001	0.231 (0.091-0.587)	0.002
Cytoplasmic LMP7 expression
None	1	0.107	1	0.726
Low	0.827 (0.444-1.542)	0.551	0.940 (0.487-1.813)	0.853
High	0.483 (0.239-0.978)	0.043	0.752 (0.355-1.594)	0.457

TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; CI, confidence interval.

Table 4.

Correlations between the gene expression levels among the proteasome, IP, and T-cell markers

		PSMB6	PSMB7	PSMB8	PSMB9	PSMB10	CD3D	CD3E	CD3G	CD8B
PSMB5	rho	0.021	0.064	–0.152	–0.194	–0.090	–0.236	–0.200	–0.253	–0.336
	p	0.853	0.566	0.167	0.077	0.417	0.031	0.069	0.020	0.002
PSMB6	rho		0.048	0.328	0.350	0.302	0.281	0.217	0.209	0.184
	p		0.662	0.002	0.001	0.005	0.010	0.048	0.056	0.094
PSMB7	rho			0.210	0.199	0.198	0.158	0.024	0.095	0.036
	p			0.056	0.070	0.071	0.150	0.825	0.390	0.747
PSMB8 (LMP7)	rho				0.911	0.822	0.695	0.562	0.641	0.551
	p				< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001
PSMB9	rho					0.839	0.782	0.659	0.738	0.595
	p					< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001
PSMB10	rho						0.829	0.706	0.800	0.559
	p						< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001
CD3D	rho							0.808	0.940	0.656
	p							< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001
CD3E	rho								0.781	0.527
	p								< 0.001	< 0.001
CD3G	rho									0.667
	p									< 0.001

IP, immunoproteasome.

REFERENCES

1. van Rooijen JM, Stutvoet TS, Schroder CP, de Vries EG. Immunotherapeutic options on the horizon in breast cancer treatment. Pharmacol Ther. 2015;156:90–101. Article PubMed
2. Kast J. Immunoproteasome deficiency in non-small cell lung cancer and its relevance to immunotherapy. J Thorac Dis. 2016;8:E1082–6. Article PubMed PMC
3. Shashova EE, Lyupina YV, Glushchenko SA, Slonimskaya EM, Savenkova OV, Kulikov AM, et al. Proteasome functioning in breast cancer: connection with clinical-pathological factors. PLoS One. 2014;9:e109933Article PubMed PMC
4. Kaur G, Batra S. Emerging role of immunoproteasomes in pathophysiology. Immunol Cell Biol. 2016;94:812–20. Article PubMed
5. Kim JY, Heo SH, Song IH, Park IA, Kim YA, Gong G, et al. Activation of the PERK-eIF2alpha pathway is associated with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in HER2-positive breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 2016;36:2705–11. PubMed
6. Lee HJ, Park IA, Song IH, Shin SJ, Kim JY, Yu JH, et al. Tertiary lymphoid structures: prognostic significance and relationship with tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2016;69:422–30. Article PubMed
7. Lee HJ, Song IH, Park IA, Heo SH, Kim YA, Ahn JH, et al. Differential expression of major histocompatibility complex class I in subtypes of breast cancer is associated with estrogen receptor and interferon signaling. Oncotarget. 2016;7:30119–32. Article PubMed PMC
8. Park IA, Heo SH, Song IH, Kim YA, Park HS, Bang WS, et al. Endoplasmic reticulum stress induces secretion of high-mobility group proteins and is associated with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7:59957–64. Article PubMed PMC
9. Kim YA, Lee HJ, Heo SH, Park HS, Park SY, Bang W, et al. MxA expression is associated with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and is a prognostic factor in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156:597–606. Article PubMed PDF
10. Lee HJ, Seo AN, Park SY, Kim JY, Park JY, Yu JH, et al. Low prognostic implication of fibroblast growth factor family activation in triple-negative breast cancer subsets. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1561–8. Article PubMed
11. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:e48–72. Article PubMed PDF
12. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138:241–56. Article PubMed
13. Torigoe T, Asanuma H, Nakazawa E, Tamura Y, Hirohashi Y, Yamamoto E, et al. Establishment of a monoclonal anti-pan HLA class I antibody suitable for immunostaining of formalin-fixed tissue: unusually high frequency of down-regulation in breast cancer tissues. Pathol Int. 2012;62:303–8. Article PubMed
14. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2012;490:61–70. Article PubMed PMC PDF
15. Cabrera CM, Jimenez P, Cabrera T, Esparza C, Ruiz-Cabello F, Garrido F. Total loss of MHC class I in colorectal tumors can be explained by two molecular pathways: beta2-microglobulin inactivation in MSI-positive tumors and LMP7/TAP2 downregulation in MSI-negative tumors. Tissue Antigens. 2003;61:211–9. Article PubMed
16. Miller Z, Ao L, Kim KB, Lee W. Inhibitors of the immunoproteasome: current status and future directions. Curr Pharm Des. 2013;19:4140–51. Article PubMed PMC
17. Rouette A, Trofimov A, Haberl D, Boucher G, Lavallee VP, D'Angelo G, et al. Expression of immunoproteasome genes is regulated by cell-intrinsic and -extrinsic factors in human cancers. Sci Rep. 2016;6:34019.Article PubMed PMC PDF
18. Lee HJ, Seo JY, Ahn JH, Ahn SH, Gong G. Tumor-associated lymphocytes predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. J Breast Cancer. 2013;16:32–9. Article PubMed PMC
19. Lee SJ, Hwang CS, Kim YK, Lee HJ, Ahn SJ, Shin N, et al. Expression of myxovirus resistance A (MxA) is associated with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancers. Cancer Res Treat. 2017;49:313–21. Article PubMed PDF
20. Ma W, Vigneron N, Chapiro J, Stroobant V, Germeau C, Boon T, et al. A MAGE-C2 antigenic peptide processed by the immunoproteasome is recognized by cytolytic T cells isolated from a melanoma patient after successful immunotherapy. Int J Cancer. 2011;129:2427–34. Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Association of Proteasome Activity and Pool Heterogeneity with Markers Determining the Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancer
Irina Kondakova, Elena Sereda, Evgeniya Sidenko, Sergey Vtorushin, Valeria Vedernikova, Alexander Burov, Pavel Spirin, Vladimir Prassolov, Timofey Lebedev, Alexey Morozov, Vadim Karpov
Cancers.2025; 17(1): 159. CrossRef
Multikinase inhibitors modulate non-constitutive proteasome expression in colorectal cancer cells
Alexander Burov, Ekaterina Grigorieva, Timofey Lebedev, Valeria Vedernikova, Vladimir Popenko, Tatiana Astakhova, Olga Leonova, Pavel Spirin, Vladimir Prassolov, Vadim Karpov, Alexey Morozov
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Upregulation of MHC I antigen processing machinery gene expression in breast cancer cells by Trichostatin A
A. H. Murtadha, N. A. Sharudin, I. I.M. Azahar, A. T. Che Has, N. F. Mokhtar
Молекулярная биология.2024; 58(1): 121. CrossRef
Immunoproteasome acted as immunotherapy ‘coffee companion’ in advanced carcinoma therapy
Shaoyan Shi, Xuehai Ou, Chao Liu, Hao Wen, Ke Jiang
Frontiers in Immunology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Immunoediting in acute myeloid leukemia: Reappraising T cell exhaustion and the aberrant antigen processing machinery in leukemogenesis
Ching-Yun Wang, Shiuan-Chen Lin, Kao-Jung Chang, Han-Ping Cheong, Sin-Rong Wu, Cheng-Hao Lee, Ming-Wei Chuang, Shih-Hwa Chiou, Chih-Hung Hsu, Po-Shen Ko
Heliyon.2024; 10(21): e39731. CrossRef
ONX0914 inhibition of immunoproteasome subunit LMP7 ameliorates diabetic cardiomyopathy via restraining endothelial–mesenchymal transition
Mengwen Wang, Yujian Liu, Lei Dai, Xiaodan Zhong, Wenjun Zhang, Yang Xie, Hesong Zeng, Hongjie Wang
Clinical Science.2023; 137(16): 1297. CrossRef
The dichotomous role of immunoproteasome in cancer: Friend or foe?
Boya Chen, Haiying Zhu, Bo Yang, Ji Cao
Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B.2023; 13(5): 1976. CrossRef
Cancer Immunology: Immune Escape of Tumors—Expression and Regulation of HLA Class I Molecules and Its Role in Immunotherapies
Yuan Wang, Simon Jasinski-Bergner, Claudia Wickenhauser, Barbara Seliger
Advances in Anatomic Pathology.2023; 30(3): 148. CrossRef
Increased expression of the immunoproteasome subunits PSMB8 and PSMB9 by cancer cells correlate with better outcomes for triple-negative breast cancers
Karen Geoffroy, Bruna Araripe Saraiva, Melissa Viens, Delphine Béland, Marie-Claude Bourgeois-Daigneault
Scientific Reports.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Adaptation of the Tumor Antigen Presentation Machinery to Ionizing Radiation
Mi-Heon Lee, Duang Ratanachan, Zitian Wang, Jacob Hack, Lobna Adbulrahman, Nicholas P. Shamlin, Mirna Kalayjian, Jean Philippe Nesseler, Ekambaram Ganapathy, Christine Nguyen, Josephine A. Ratikan, Nicolas A. Cacalano, David Austin, Robert Damoiseaux, Ben
The Journal of Immunology.2023; 211(4): 693. CrossRef
Upregulation of MHC I Antigen Processing Machinery Gene Expression in Breast Cancer Cells by Trichostatin A
A. H. Murtadha, N. A. Sharudin, I. I. M. Azahar, A. T. Che Has, N. F. Mokhtar
Molecular Biology.2023; 57(6): 1212. CrossRef
Emodin alleviates high glucose-induced oxidative stress, inflammation and extracellular matrix accumulation of mesangial cells by the circ_0000064/miR-30c-5p/Lmp7 axis
Li Sun, Yanquan Han, Chuqiao Shen, Huan Luo, Zhuo Wang
Journal of Receptors and Signal Transduction.2022; 42(3): 302. CrossRef
Methylation of Immune-Related Genes in Peripheral Blood Leukocytes and Breast Cancer
Tian Tian, JinMing Fu, DaPeng Li, YuPeng Liu, HongRu Sun, Xuan Wang, XianYu Zhang, Ding Zhang, Ting Zheng, Yashuang Zhao, Da Pang
Frontiers in Oncology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Analysis on methylation and expression of PSMB8 and its correlation with immunity and immunotherapy in lung adenocarcinoma
Tongji Xie, Guangyu Fan, Liling Huang, Ning Lou, Xiaohong Han, Puyuan Xing, Yuankai Shi
Epigenomics.2022; 14(22): 1427. CrossRef
A few good peptides: MHC class I-based cancer immunosurveillance and immunoevasion
Devin Dersh, Jaroslav Hollý, Jonathan W. Yewdell
Nature Reviews Immunology.2021; 21(2): 116. CrossRef
Expression of the immunoproteasome subunit β5i in non-small cell lung carcinomas
Takayuki Kiuchi, Utano Tomaru, Akihiro Ishizu, Makoto Imagawa, Sari Iwasaki, Akira Suzuki, Noriyuki Otsuka, Yoshihito Ohhara, Ichiro Kinoshita, Yoshihiro Matsuno, Hirotoshi Dosaka-Akita, Masanori Kasahara
Journal of Clinical Pathology.2021; 74(5): 300. CrossRef
High immunoproteasome concentration in the plasma of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated with bortezomib is predictive of longer OS
Wioletta Breczko, Dorota Lemancewicz, Janusz Dzięcioł, Janusz Kłoczko, Łukasz Bołkun
Advances in Medical Sciences.2021; 66(1): 21. CrossRef
Methods for the Discovery of Small Molecules to Monitor and Perturb the Activity of the Human Proteasome
Marianne E Maresh, Andres F Salazar-Chaparro, Darci J Trader
Future Medicinal Chemistry.2021; 13(2): 99. CrossRef
Immunoproteasome Function in Normal and Malignant Hematopoiesis
Nuria Tubío-Santamaría, Frédéric Ebstein, Florian H. Heidel, Elke Krüger
Cells.2021; 10(7): 1577. CrossRef
Integrated genomic analysis of proteasome alterations across 11,057 patients with 33 cancer types: clinically relevant outcomes in framework of 3P medicine
Na Li, Xianquan Zhan
EPMA Journal.2021; 12(4): 605. CrossRef
The Functional and Mechanistic Roles of Immunoproteasome Subunits in Cancer
Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, Disha Vedpathak, Edwin Justin Ostrin
Cells.2021; 10(12): 3587. CrossRef
The Immunoproteasome: An Emerging Target in Cancer and Autoimmune and Neurological Disorders
Breanna L. Zerfas, Marianne E. Maresh, Darci J. Trader
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.2020; 63(5): 1841. CrossRef
Differential prognostic impact of CD8+ T cells based on human leucocyte antigen I and PD-L1 expression in microsatellite-unstable gastric cancer
Yoonjin Kwak, Jiwon Koh, Yujun Park, Yun Ji Hong, Kyoung Un Park, Hyung-Ho Kim, Do Joong Park, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Woo Ho Kim, Hye Seung Lee
British Journal of Cancer.2020; 122(9): 1399. CrossRef
Tradeoff between metabolic i-proteasome addiction and immune evasion in triple-negative breast cancer
Alaknanda Adwal, Priyakshi Kalita-de Croft, Reshma Shakya, Malcolm Lim, Emarene Kalaw, Lucinda D Taege, Amy E McCart Reed, Sunil R Lakhani, David F Callen, Jodi M Saunus
Life Science Alliance.2020; 3(7): e201900562. CrossRef
Targeting purine synthesis in ASS1-expressing tumors enhances the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors
Rom Keshet, Joo Sang Lee, Lital Adler, Muhammed Iraqi, Yarden Ariav, Lisha Qiu Jin Lim, Shaul Lerner, Shiran Rabinovich, Roni Oren, Rotem Katzir, Hila Weiss Tishler, Noa Stettner, Omer Goldman, Hadas Landesman, Sivan Galai, Yael Kuperman, Yuri Kuznetsov,
Nature Cancer.2020; 1(9): 894. CrossRef
Proteasomes and Several Aspects of Their Heterogeneity Relevant to Cancer
Alexey V. Morozov, Vadim L. Karpov
Frontiers in Oncology.2019;[Epub] CrossRef
Protein Barcodes Enable High-Dimensional Single-Cell CRISPR Screens
Aleksandra Wroblewska, Maxime Dhainaut, Benjamin Ben-Zvi, Samuel A. Rose, Eun Sook Park, El-Ad David Amir, Anela Bektesevic, Alessia Baccarini, Miriam Merad, Adeeb H. Rahman, Brian D. Brown
Cell.2018; 175(4): 1141. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Expression of Immunoproteasome Subunit LMP7 in Breast Cancer and Its Association with Immune-Related Markers

Cancer Res Treat. 2019;51(1):80-89. Published online February 26, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2017.500

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
NOTES
REFERENCES

Expression of Immunoproteasome Subunit LMP7 in Breast Cancer and Its Association with Immune-Related Markers

Fig. 1. Immunohistochemical staining of LMP7 in breast cancer tissues. Representative images are shown (×200).

Fig. 2. Heat map plot for LMP7 expression with interferon-associated molecules, endoplasmic reticulum stress-associated molecules, damage-associated molecular patterns, and amount of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.

Fig. 3. Relationship between LMP7 expression and disease-free survival in the triple-negative breast cancer cohort. Kaplan-Meier survival curves are shown for disease-free survival in the group of positive lymph node (LN) metastases and in the group of negative LN metastases.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Expression of Immunoproteasome Subunit LMP7 in Breast Cancer and Its Association with Immune-Related Markers

	HR+/HER2– (n=362)				HR+/HER2+ (n=42)				HR–/HER2+ (n=80)				TNBC (n=184)
	Cytoplasmic LMP7				Cytoplasmic LMP7				Cytoplasmic LMP7				Cytoplasmic LMP7
	None	Low	High	p-value	None	Low	High	p-value	None	Low	High	p-value	None	Low	High	p-value
Histologic grade
1&2	89 (86.4)	94 (79.7)	108 (76.6)	0.156	6 (54.5)	11 (73.3)	10 (62.5)	0.608	12 (52.2)	13 (50.0)	10 (32.3)	0.254	18 (40.9)	16 (27.1)	18 (22.2)	0.088
3	14 (13.6)	24 (20.3)	33 (23.4)		5 (45.5)	4 (26.7)	6 (37.5)		11 (47.8)	13 (50.0)	21 (67.7)		26 (59.1)	43 (72.9)	63 (77.8)
pT
1	43 (41.7)	42 (35.6)	58 (41.1)	0.495	5 (45.5)	5 (33.3)	3 (18.8)	0.487	6 (26.1)	5 (19.2)	7 (22.6)	0.375	13 (29.5)	13 (22.0)	23 (28.4)	0.084
2	51 (49.5)	64 (54.2)	72 (51.1)		4 (36.4)	8 (53.3)	11 (68.8)		11 (47.8)	17 (65.4)	21 (67.7)		20 (45.5)	37 (62.7)	50 (61.7)
3	6 (5.8)	10 (8.5)	11 (7.8)		2 (18.2)	1 (6.7)	2 (12.5)		6 (26.1)	4 (15.4)	2 (6.5)		5 (11.4)	8 (13.6)	6 (7.4)
4	3 (2.9)	2 (1.7)	0		0	1 (6.7)	0		0	0	1 (3.2)		6 (13.6)	1 (1.7)	2 (2.5)
Lymph node metastasis
Negative	52 (51.0)	49 (42.2)	68 (49.6)	0.355	6 (54.5)	4 (26.7)	4 (25.0)	0.246	10 (43.5)	10 (38.5)	13 (41.9)	0.959	18 (42.9)	30 (50.8)	42 (53.8)	0.522
Positive	50 (49.0)	67 (57.8)	69 (50.4)		5 (45.5)	11 (73.3)	12 (75.0)		13 (56.5)	16 (61.5)	18 (58.1)		24 (57.1)	29 (49.2)	36 (46.2)
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (%)
< 10	88 (85.4)	96 (81.4)	91 (64.5)	< 0.001	9 (81.8)	8 (53.3)	10 (62.5)	0.041	13 (56.5)	11 (42.3)	7 (22.6)	0.003	22 (50.0)	22 (37.3)	16 (19.8)	< 0.001
10-30	12 (11.7)	14 (11.9)	30 (21.3)		2 (18.2)	7 (46.7)	2 (12.5)		6 (26.1)	12 (46.2)	7 (22.6)		15 (34.1)	16 (27.1)	16 (19.8)
30-60	3 (2.9)	7 (5.9)	9 (6.4)		0	0	4 (25.0)		2 (8.7)	3 (11.5)	7 (22.6)		5 (11.4)	11 (18.6)	18 (22.2)
> 60	0	1 (0.8)	11 (7.8)		0	0	0		2 (8.7)	0	10 (32.3)		2 (4.5)	10 (16.9)	31 (38.3)
HLA-ABC
No	90 (91.8)	81 (69.2)	36 (25.5)	< 0.001	8 (72.7)	7 (46.7)	1 (6.3)	0.007	18 (78.3)	15 (57.7)	5 (16.1)	< 0.001	37 (86.0)	16 (27.1)	8 (9.9)	< 0.001
Weak	5 (5.1)	22 (18.8)	43 (30.5)		2 (18.2)	5 (33.3)	8 (50.0)		3 (13.0)	8 (30.8)	6 (19.4)		2 (4.7)	17 (28.8)	7 (8.6)
Strong	3 (3.1)	14 (12.0)	62 (44.0)		1 (9.1)	3 (20.0)	7 (43.8)		2 (8.7)	3 (11.5)	20 (64.5)		4 (9.3)	26 (44.1)	66 (81.5)
MxA
Low	89 (87.3)	92 (78.0)	73 (51.8)	< 0.001	9 (90.0)	8 (53.3)	8 (50.0)	0.100	22 (95.7)	18 (69.2)	14 (45.2)	< 0.001	34 (81.0)	37 (62.7)	32 (39.5)	< 0.001
High	13 (12.7)	26 (22.0)	68 (48.2)		1 (10.0)	7 (46.7)	8 (50.0)		1 (4.3)	8 (30.8)	17 (54.8)		8 (19.0)	22 (37.3)	49 (60.5)
p-eIF2a
Low	56 (55.4)	64 (55.7)	54 (38.6)	0.008	6 (54.5)	5 (33.3)	3 (18.8)	0.171	10 (43.5)	9 (34.6)	12 (38.7)	0.772	23 (53.5)	28 (47.5)	28 (34.6)	0.092
High	45 (44.6)	51 (44.3)	86 (61.4)		5 (45.5)	10 (66.7)	13 (81.3)		13 (56.5)	17 (65.4)	19 (61.3)		20 (46.5)	31 (52.5)	53 (65.4)
Cytoplasmic HMGB1
Low	57 (73.1)	65 (73.0)	78 (66.7)	0.543	5 (62.5)	6 (50.0)	10 (66.7)	0.681	12 (63.2)	11 (52.4)	18 (72.0)	0.400	17 (56.7)	31 (64.6)	31 (45.6)	0.130
High	21 (26.9)	24 (27.0)	39 (33.3)		3 (37.5)	6 (50.0)	5 (33.3)		7 (36.8)	10 (47.6)	7 (28.0)		13 (43.3)	17 (35.4)	37 (54.4)
Cytoplasmic HMGN1
Low	88 (87.1)	97 (83.6)	113 (80.1)	0.343	9 (81.8)	10 (66.7)	13 (81.3)	0.654	18 (78.3)	16 (64.0)	20 (64.5)	0.464	38 (86.4)	38 (64.4)	50 (61.7)	0.010
High	13 (12.9)	19 (16.4)	28 (37.9)		2 (18.2)	5 (33.3)	3 (18.8)		5 (21.7)	9 (36.0)	11 (35. 5)		6 (13.6)	21 (35.6)	31 (38.3)

	Cytoplasmic LMP7
	None	Low	High	p-value
Histologic grade
1&2	45 (32.8)	64 (24.9)	50 (18.5)	0.001
3	92 (67.2)	285 (72.3)	221 (81.5)
pT
1	62 (45.3)	111 (43.9)	115 (42.4)	0.454
2	69 (50.4)	204 (51.8)	148 (54.6)
3	6 (4.4)	10 (3.9)	8 (33.3)
4	0	1 (0.3)	0
LN metastasis
Negative	91 (66.4)	174 (67.7)	195 (72.0)	0.116
Positive	46 (33.6)	83 (32.3)	76 (28.0)
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (%)
< 10	68 (49.6)	64 (24.9)	29 (18.0)	< 0.001
10-30	36 (26.3)	71 (27.6)	44 (29.3)
30-60	16 (11.7)	61 (23.7)	70 (47.6)
> 60	17 (12.4)	61 (23.7)	128 (62.1)
HLA-ABC
No	77 (58.8)	49 (19.3)	15 (5.6)	< 0.001
Weak	35 (26.7)	72 (28.3)	22 (8.1)
Strong	19 (14.5)	133 (52.4)	233 (86.3)
MxA
Low	116 (85.9)	171 (66.8)	123 (45.4)	< 0.001
High	19 (14.1)	85 (33.2)	148 (54.6)
PKR
Low	92 (69.2)	142 (55.5)	104 (38.4)	< 0.001
High	41 (30.8)	114 (44.5)	167 (61.6)
PERK
Low	87 (64.4)	132 (51.4)	138 (51.0)	0.012
High	48 (35.6)	125 (48.6)	133 (49.0)
p-eIF2a
Low	82 (62.1)	135 (52.9)	116 (43.0)	0.001
High	50 (37.9)	120 (47.1)	154 (57.0)
XBP1
Low	86 (64.7)	158 (62.5)	121 (44.8)	< 0.001
High	47 (35.3)	95 (37.5)	149 (55.2)
Cytoplasmic HMGB1
Low	79 (65.3)	162 (64.8)	125 (46.8)	< 0.001
High	42 (34.7)	88 (35.2)	142 (53.2)
Cytoplasmic HMGN1
Low	106 (79.7)	198 (78.0)	188 (69.9)	0.010
High	27 (20.3)	56 (22.0)	81 (30.1)

	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
	Hazard ratio (95% CI)	p-value	Hazard ratio (95% CI)	p-value
Histologic grade (1&2 vs. 3)	0.914 (0.474-1.762)	0.788	1.364 (0.696-2.685)	0.364
pT (3&4 vs. 1&2)	2.129 (1.009-4.492)	0.047	1.788 (0.828-3.860)	0.139
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (%)
< 10	1	0.003	1	0.014
10-30	0.815 (0.427-1.557)	0.536	0.874 (0.442-1.730)	0.699
30-60	0.630 (0.310-1.278)	0.200	0.635 (0.300-1.343)	0.235
> 60	0.198 (0.082-0.477)	< 0.001	0.231 (0.091-0.587)	0.002
Cytoplasmic LMP7 expression
None	1	0.107	1	0.726
Low	0.827 (0.444-1.542)	0.551	0.940 (0.487-1.813)	0.853
High	0.483 (0.239-0.978)	0.043	0.752 (0.355-1.594)	0.457

		PSMB6	PSMB7	PSMB8	PSMB9	PSMB10	CD3D	CD3E	CD3G	CD8B
PSMB5	rho	0.021	0.064	–0.152	–0.194	–0.090	–0.236	–0.200	–0.253	–0.336
	p	0.853	0.566	0.167	0.077	0.417	0.031	0.069	0.020	0.002
PSMB6	rho		0.048	0.328	0.350	0.302	0.281	0.217	0.209	0.184
	p		0.662	0.002	0.001	0.005	0.010	0.048	0.056	0.094
PSMB7	rho			0.210	0.199	0.198	0.158	0.024	0.095	0.036
	p			0.056	0.070	0.071	0.150	0.825	0.390	0.747
PSMB8 (LMP7)	rho				0.911	0.822	0.695	0.562	0.641	0.551
	p				< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001
PSMB9	rho					0.839	0.782	0.659	0.738	0.595
	p					< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001
PSMB10	rho						0.829	0.706	0.800	0.559
	p						< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001
CD3D	rho							0.808	0.940	0.656
	p							< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001
CD3E	rho								0.781	0.527
	p								< 0.001	< 0.001
CD3G	rho									0.667
	p									< 0.001

Table 1. Comparison of pathological variables according to LMP7 expression in the first consecutive breast cancer cohort

Values are presented as number (%). HR, hormone receptor, HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer.

Table 2. Comparison of pathological variables and various immune-related markers according to LMP7 expression in the second TNBC cohort

Values are presented as number (%). TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; LN, lymph node.

Table 3. Univariate and multivariate disease-free survival analyses in positive lymph node metastases group of TNBC cohort

TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; CI, confidence interval.

Table 4. Correlations between the gene expression levels among the proteasome, IP, and T-cell markers