Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Toxicol Pathol. 2016 Sep 9;44(7):1021–1033. doi: 10.1177/0192623316655222

Differences in the Rate of In Situ Mammary Gland Development and Other Developmental Endpoints in Three Strains of Female Rat Commonly Used in Mammary Carcinogenesis Studies: Implications for Timing of Carcinogen Exposure

Jason P Stanko 1, Grace E Kissling 2, Vesna A Chappell 1, Suzanne E Fenton 1
PMCID: PMC5035587  NIHMSID: NIHMS790729  PMID: 27613105

Abstract

The potential of chemicals to alter susceptibility to mammary tumor formation is often assessed using a carcinogen-induced study design in various rat strains. The rate of mammary gland development must be considered so that the timing of carcinogen administration is impactful. In this study, in situ mammary gland (MG) development was assessed in females of the Harlan Sprague Dawley (Hsd:SD), Charles River Sprague Dawley (Crl:SD), and Charles River Long Evans (Crl:LE) rat strains at postnatal day (PND) 25, 33, and 45. Development was evaluated by physical assessment of growth parameters, developmental scoring, and quantitative morphometric analysis. Though body weight was consistently lower and day of vaginal opening (VO) occurred latest in female Hsd:SD rats, they exhibited accelerated pre-and peripubertal MG development compared to other strains. Glands of Crl:SD and Crl:LE rats exhibited significantly more terminal end buds (TEBs) and TEB/mm than Hsd:SD rats around the time of VO. These data suggest a considerable difference in rate of MG development across commonly used strains, which is independent of body weight and timing of VO. In mammary tumor induction studies employing these strains, administration of the carcinogen should be timed appropriately, based on strain, to specifically target the peak of TEB occurrence.

Keywords: Mammary gland, Carcinogenesis, Female reproduction, Development, Epithelium, Animal Models, Rat

Introduction

The mammary gland (MG) is the defining characteristic of mammalians and breast or MG development is a crucial part of pubertal progression in all mammals. Aside from skin cancers, breast cancer is the most common cancer among American women and the American Cancer Society estimates about 246,660 cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in U.S. women in 2016 (American Cancer Society 2016). The World Health Organization estimates that, excluding non-melanoma skin cancers, breast cancer was the most common cancer in women and was second only to lung cancer worldwide (GLOBOCAN 2012). While roughly 30% of breast cancer cases can be linked to established risk factors, including genetics, the remaining 70% are associated with exogenous components such as environmental chemical exposures (Davis et al. 1993; Fenton 2006; Moller et al. 2015).

An important premise with respect to both laboratory studies in rodents and observational studies of human populations is that there are periods of mammary development, known as “windows of susceptibility” (WOS), during which the gland is particularly sensitive to environmental exposures that could influence mammary development and cancer risk in women (Barcellos-Hoff 2013; Birnbaum and Fenton 2003; Cohn et al. 2015; Forman et al. 2015; Monks and Henson 2009). These WOS can be characterized by three stages of growth during which the MG undergoes significant developmental changes: prenatal (formation), pubertal (differentiation), and adult (lactation) (Gjorevski and Nelson 2011; Watson and Khaled 2008). In the rat, the rudimentary structure of the MG forms prenatally between gestation days (GD) 15-19 as the primary duct extends from the epithelial bud and begins to branch into the fat pad. Development of the gland is essentially dormant from parturition until puberty as the epithelium continues to grow isometrically. Ductal elongation is initiated at puberty and is comprised of proliferating terminal end buds (TEBs), followed by extensive branching and active differentiation of the TEBs into alveolar buds, lobules, and terminal ducts. Largely under control of ovarian hormones and growth factors signaled by these hormones, the progression of female MG development is accentuated with each reproductive cycle until the epithelial tree has extended to the limits of the fat pad. During pregnancy, lobuloalveolar units mature to form milk-producing glands which continue to produce and secrete milk components until the end of lactation, when involution and post-lactational remodeling of the gland occurs. Although few studies have examined the effects of life course exposures or exposure during lactation, the effects on MG development following exposure during the gestational and peripubertal stages have been well researched and demonstrate the importance of the timing of these exposures for impaired function or disease risk across the life span (Forman et al. 2015; Saad et al. 2011).

Though mammary morphogenesis is regulated by a vast array of signaling networks, it is primarily under the control of ovarian hormones (Gjorevski and Nelson 2011; Russo and Russo 1996; Shyamala 1997). Studies utilizing ovariectomized and estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) deficient mice have demonstrated that estrogen and progesterone are required for normal ductal morphogenesis and lobuloalveolar formation (Bocchinfuso and Korach 1997; Cheng et al. 2004; Shyamala 1997) and the impaired mammary development observed in mice with these transcript deficiencies can be rescued by the administration of exogenous estrogen or progesterone (Bocchinfuso et al. 2000; Hennighausen and Robinson 1998). Because steroid hormones play such a critical role in MG development, it is reasonable to presume that exposure to hormonally active chemicals, known as endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs), can impact mammary development. EDCs can interfere with endogenous receptor signaling either directly by competing for or interfering with endogenous receptor binding, indirectly through transcription factor perturbation (aryl hydrocarbon receptor; AhR), or by altering enzymes involved in steroid biosynthesis (Shanle and Xu 2011). EDC-induced effects on normal MG development can subsequently alter the susceptibility of the gland to carcinogenesis and potentially increase the risk of mammary cancer over a lifetime (Osborne et al. 2015). For example, a single prenatal oral exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) resulted in stunted mammary growth in rats (Fenton et al. 2002; Lewis et al. 2001) and early life exposure has been shown to alter breast developmental timing in populations of girls (Markey et al. 2003) and also increase risk for breast cancer later in life (Warner et al. 2011). Exposure to a number of other EDCs has been shown to adversely affect MG development. An increased risk of breast cancer following prenatal/perinatal exposure to dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) or its metabolites has been indicated in both humans and rodents (Fenton and Birnbaum 2015; Cohn et al. 2015; Cohn et al. 2007), with age at exposure and growth factor receptor status shown to be a critical factors for disease risk. Delayed MG development has been observed in mice exposed to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in utero (Macon et al. 2011; White et al. 2009). Interestingly, a recent study by Pinney et al. (Pinney et al. 2014) reported an association between duration of breast feeding and elevated serum levels of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in a cohort of girls from the Greater Cincinnati and San Francisco Bay Areas. A related study revealed an association between breastfeeding (versus formula-fed) and delayed MG development in the same cohort (Kale et al. 2015). While neither study suggested causality, these data present another potential example of the impact of EDC exposure on mammary development and warrant further examination as to the relationship between PFC exposure and adverse effects on breast development in humans.

Due to the heightened concern regarding the impact of environmental factors on breast cancer risk and early breast development during puberty, the use of the MG as an evaluated endpoint in rodent toxicity testing has recently increased (Fenton 2009; National Toxicology Program 2011; OECD 2012). The rat has long been used as a model for examining the initiation and progression of mammary carcinogenesis due to the etiological and developmental similarities to human breast cancer (Christakos et al. 1976; Daniel and Prichard 1964; Gould 1995; Howell 1961; Russo and Russo 1996; Russo et al. 1983; Thompson and Singh 2000). The potential of chemicals to alter susceptibility to mammary cancer can be assessed using a “two-hit” induced breast cancer model and a common method for inducing mammary tumors in the rat is the administration of a single dose of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 7,12-dimethylbenz[α]anthracene (DMBA). The target site for the induction of mammary adenocarcinomas is the actively proliferating epithelium of undifferentiated TEBs and the highest incidence of carcinomas occurs when DMBA is administered at the time when the maximum number of TEBs are present (Russo and Russo 1978). If the carcinogen is administered when more differentiated structures are present (alveolar buds, alveoli, terminal ducts), the result is the formation of benign lesions, such as fibromas and fibroadenomas (Russo 2015). Therefore, understanding the normal physiological pace of MG development to properly time the carcinogenic administration (second hit) is critical when assessing whether exposure to an EDC (first hit) can alter the susceptibility to mammary tumorigenesis.

A wide variety of rat strains have been employed in studies based upon their susceptibility or resistance to mammary cancer (Szpirer and Szpirer 2007). One of the most widely used rat strains in mammary carcinogenicity studies is the Sprague-Dawley, an outbred strain which exhibits a high degree of spontaneous tumor formation and is highly susceptible to chemically-induced tumorigenesis (Szpirer and Szpirer 2007; Tennekes et al. 2004). The Long-Evans rat is another outbred strain commonly used in studies examining mammary gland development. Females of this strain form spontaneous mammary tumors at roughly the same rate as females of the Sprague-Dawley strain (Sommer 1997) but are about one-third less sensitive to chemical induction of mammary tumors (Daniel and Joyce 1984; Moore et al. 1983). The collective use of these two strains in mammary tumorigenicity studies may well provide an effective model for a comparative evaluation of the mechanisms involved in chemically-induced carcinogenesis or when assessing the effect of an early-life chemical exposure on mammary tumor susceptibility.

The present work examines the natural development of the MG in three strains of rat; the Harlan Sprague-Dawley (Hsd:SD), the Charles River Sprague-Dawley (Crl:SD), and the Charles River Long-Evans (Crl:LE). The Hsd:SD rat is the current rat model for National Toxicology Program (NTP) studies and the Crl:SD and Crl:LE are two rat strains commonly used in toxicity studies where the MG is an endpoint. Previous studies in our laboratory led to the observation that MG development in these strains may occur at different rates. It is worth noting that two other rat strains commonly used in spontaneous and DMBA-induced tumor studies to assess risk following chemical exposures were not evaluated: the Wistar Han (Dhimolea et al. 2014) and the Fisher 344/N, formerly the model of the NTP (Thayer and Foster 2007). Wistar Han females demonstrate asymmetric growth of the fourth gland and the males are often missing the fifth gland (Mandrup et al. 2012), making it difficult to interpret chemical-induced changes in mammary development. The Fisher 344/N rat has a high spontaneous rate of benign mammary tumors supposedly driven by changes in prolactin, making it difficult to determine the effects of chemicals on the breast in this strain (Thayer and Foster 2007).

Though many studies have examined the effects of chemical exposures on MG development, there is no standardized method for evaluating developmental changes. Davis and Fenton (Davis 2013) describe various approaches for physical, biochemical, and morphological evaluation of mammary toxicity. Morphological evaluation includes routine assessment of histological sections, qualitative assessments of mammary whole mounts, and quantitative morphometric analysis. Qualitative assessment of mammary whole mounts employs a set of established recommended criteria to assign a developmental score to the gland based on visual observation in a manner similar to severity scoring in pathology studies (Davis 2013; Macon et al. 2011; Mandrup et al. 2012; Tucker et al. 2015). Quantitative assessments of mammary whole mounts describe morphometric parameters including the number of primary ducts, lateral and longitudinal growth, epithelial area, branching density, and the number of TEBs (Davis 2013; Hovey et al. 2011; Kass et al. 2015; Mandrup et al. 2012; Stanko et al. 2015). It is important to bear in mind that while the aforementioned parameters can be utilized collectively to assess MG development, single parameters may not indicate developmental shifts.

The goal of this study was to describe the characteristics of in situ MG development so that data generated from carcinogen-induced studies utilizing these strains can be appropriately interpreted. Qualitative and quantitative morphological evaluation methods were utilized to assess MG development in these strains at pre-, peri-, and post-pubertal life stages in this study. Innate differences in the timing of MG development across strains may result in inconsistent outcomes in mammary tumor induction studies that follow a protocol for administering the carcinogen based on age versus stage of development.

Materials and Methods

Animal Housing

Timed-pregnant Crl:LE and Crl:SD rats (n=12 each, 9-15 weeks old, sperm positive = Day 0) were obtained from Charles River Breeding Laboratories (Raleigh, NC) and timed-pregnant Hsd:SD rats (n=12, 9-15 weeks old, sperm positive = Day 0) were obtained from Harlan Laboratories (Indianapolis, IN). Females were housed in clear plastic cages containing heat-treated pine shavings (Beta Chips, North Eastern Products Inc., Warrensburg, NY) and given food (Purina 5008 Rodent Chow, Ralston Purina Co., St. Louis, MO) and water ad libitum. In the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care accredited facility, rooms were maintained at 20-24° C and 40-50% relative humidity, with a 14:10-hour light/dark cycle (2100 hour lights out). Female offspring were fed Purina 5001 chow ad libitum after weaning. All animals were treated humanely as approved by the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Experimental Design and Necropsy

Length of gestation and litter data was recorded at parturition and all but two litters were culled to six females and three males on PND4. Two litters of Crl:SD pups were culled to five females and three males due to litter sex ratios. There were a total of 72 Crl:LE, 70 Crl:SD, and 66 Hsd:SD female pups. All pups were weaned on PND21. At weaning, females were housed three/cage (two/cage in two Crl:SD cases) and four-six males of each strain were housed individually on the same rack in order to provide pheromonal cues required for normal estrous cycling in the females. Necropsy of 1-2 females/dam/strain was conducted on PND25 (n=24 Crl:LE, 22 Crl:SD, and 22 Hsd:SD), PND33 (n=24 Crl:LE, 24 Crl:SD, and 22 Hsd:SD), and PND45 (n=13 Crl:LE, 14 Crl:SD, and 14 Hsd:SD). Only animals in the estrus stage of the estrous cycle were selected for necropsy on PND45. Those animals not in estrus at PND45 were allowed to age for assessment of estrous cyclicity (n=10, 11, and 8 for Crl:LE, Crl:SD, and Hsd:SD, respectively). Stage of estrous could not be assessed prior to necropsy at PND25 or PND33 because those animals had not yet achieved vaginal opening. At necropsy, BW was recorded, the fourth and fifth inguinal MGs were collected for whole mount, and the fourth contralateral MG was collected for estrogen receptor-α (ERα) and progesterone receptor (PR) immunohistochemistry.

Pubertal Endpoints and Estrous Cyclicity

Puberty was determined by assessing the day of vaginal opening (VO) in the female offspring. Beginning on PND29, all females were examined for VO, determined by the presence of a fully opened vagina. On PND33, all animals were examined for VO prior to necropsy. Those animals that were included in the necropsy, but had not achieved VO were not included in the VO data set. Observation was continued until all remaining animals being examined had achieved VO, when day of VO and BW at day of VO were recorded. Stage of estrous cycle was assessed by wet mount analysis of vaginal lavage, which was conducted daily for 21 days (as described by (Goldman et al. 2007) from PND58 to PND78. Vaginal cells were observed by light microscopy and classified as diestrus (D; high concentration of leukocytes), proestrus (P; clusters of round, nucleated epithelial cells), estrus (E; high concentration of keratinized epithelial cells), or metestrus (M; a combination of keratinized and rounded epithelial cells) according to Goldman et al. (2007). For statistical purposes, normal cycling was defined as ≤2 days in diestrus, ≤1 day in proestrus, ≤1 day in estrus, and ≤1 day in metestrus.

Mammary Gland Whole Mounts and Physical Growth Parameters

The fourth and fifth inguinal MGs were unilaterally removed as a single piece of tissue , fixed, and stained in Carmine as previously described (Fenton et al. 2002). Whole mounts were examined under a Leica Z16 APO macroscope and images were captured using a Leica DFC295 digital camera and Leica Application Suite version 3.1 imaging software. Mammary gland physical parameters were measured using ImageJ imaging software (v1.49n, NIH, USA). A ductal end was determined to be a terminal end bud (TEB) if the diameter measured greater than or equal to 100 μm (Brown et al. 1998). The gland perimeter was measured as the shortest distance around the outer edge of the gland from the leftmost TEB to the rightmost TEB. Mammary gland area was calculated using a best-fit polygon traced around the epithelial tree beginning at the base of the primary duct. The distance between MG4 and MG5 (4-5 distance) was measured as the shortest distance between the closest distal edges of MG4 and MG5. Occasionally, MGs can become distorted or misshapen during the whole mount process. While this does not affect the capacity for visual assessment of mammary gland development, some physical parameters cannot be measured accurately in those instances. Since only glands where all parameters could be measured were used for obtaining quantitative data, the n varied slightly between quantitative and qualitative endpoints.

Mammary Gland Developmental Scoring

Mammary gland whole mounts were visually assessed within each respective strain at each time point by two independent scorers from our laboratory (S.F. and V.C.) and development was scored on a scale of 1-4 (1=poorly developed, 4=well developed, half scores as needed) using developmental criteria as defined in Davis and Fenton (Davis 2013). These criteria include primary and secondary branching, gland outgrowth, TEB development, and alveolar bud and lobule density. Both MG4 and MG5 were assessed at PND25. At PND33 and PND45, only MG4 was assessed as MG5 was not entirely present in all samples following removal of the gland. The slides were reviewed by the scorers and those that differed by a score of >1 were re-evaluated by both scorers, taking into consideration all other slides within that score. These scores were then averaged to obtain the final developmental score. For intrastrain scoring, the most developed gland was assigned a value of 4, the least developed gland was assigned a value of 1, and all other glands within that strain were scored according to that range of development. Consequently, this range of score was not equivalent developmentally across strains due to inherent differences in MG development. Therefore, it was necessary to standardize the developmental scores across strains (interstrain scores). This was done by comparing glands with a mean score greater than 3.3 within each strain (selected to provide an n≥3 for each strain) against each other. The intrastrain scores for each respective strain were then adjusted by the difference between the mean score of the >3.3 glands for that strain and the mean score of those same glands were compared interstrain.

Sholl Analysis

Quantitative morphometric analysis was conducted using the Sholl analysis method as previously described (Ferreira et al. 2014; Stanko et al. 2015). This method provides a measure of MG branching density. Briefly, whole mount images were thresholded and skeletonized using ImageJ. Branching intersections in the skeletonized image were measured using the Sholl analysis plugin (v3.4.3, available at http://fiji.sc/Sholl_Analysis#). The Sholl parameter settings for the definition of shells were 0.0 mm as the starting radius and 0.1 mm for the radius step size. The ending radius was defined as the distance from the point of attachment of the mammary gland to the most distal intersection in the glandular epithelium as determined by the Sholl analysis. The default settings were used for all other Sholl parameters. The sample data metrics used in this study include total intersections (N), mammary epithelial area (MEA), intersections/mammary epithelial area (N/MEA) and the Sholl regression coefficient (k). Total intersections and Sholl regression coefficient were determined using the Sholl analysis. The Sholl regression coefficient (k) is a measure of the rate of decay of mammary branching density and describes the distal “fullness” of epithelial branching. Lower values of k denote a lower rate of decay and, thus, more uniform distal branching. Mammary epithelial area was measured using ImageJ and was determined by tracing the shortest distance around the glandular epithelium.

Immunohistochemistry

Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections (5 μm) were deparaffinized and rehydrated through graded alcohols. Endogenous peroxidase activity was quenched with 3% H2O2 followed by heat-induced antigen retrieval using a 10mM citrate buffer solution, pH 6.0 (Biocare Medical, Concord, CA) in a Decloaker® pressure chamber for 5 min at 120 C°. Non-specific binding was blocked with 10% normal horse serum (Jackson Immunoresearch, West Grove, PA) for 20 min followed by the Avidin/Biotin blocking kit (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA). Sections were incubated with monoclonal mouse anti-ERα or anti-PR (Beckman Coulter Inc., Fullerton, CA) at a 1:50 dilution for 60 min at room temperature. Sections were then incubated with biotinylated horse anti-mouse IgG (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA) at a 1:500 dilution for 30 min at room temperature for ERα or at a 1:1000 dilution for 60 min at room temperature for PR. The antigen- ERα antibody complex was detected using peroxidase-conjugated streptavidin SS label (Biogenex Laboratories, San Ramon, CA) and 3,3-diaminobenzidine (Dake, Carpinteria, CA) and the antigen-PR antibody complex was detected using R.T.U. Vectastain Elite ABC reagent (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA) and 3,3-diaminobenzidine (Dake, Carpinteria, CA). Slides were then counterstained with hematoxylin, dehydrated through graded ethanol, cleared in xylene, and coverslipped. Antibodies were validated for positive binding using a section of rat uterus and ovaries and for background binding (negative control) by incubating the same tissue with mouse IgG1 isotype control serum and secondary antibody prior to detection reagents.

Steroid Hormone Receptor Quickscore Analysis

Immunohistochemical evaluation of ERα- and PR-labeled epithelial cells was determined using light microscopy (20× objective). All epithelial cells per mammary section were evaluated. A semi-quantitative assessment of the immunolabeling was done using a modified quickscore grading method (Detre et al. 1995) as previously described in uterine myometrial cells (Dixon et al. 2000). Briefly, an individual quickscore was obtained for each animal by assigning a value to the intensity of the nuclear antibody label (0 = no staining; 1 = weak staining; 2 = intermediate staining; and 3 = strong staining) and to the percentage of epithelial cell nuclei labeling positive for the particular hormone receptor (1 = 0–4%; 2 = 5–19%; 3 = 20–39%; 4 = 40–59%; 5 = 60–79%; and 6 = 80–100%)and then taking the product of the two. Quickscores for ER-α and PR, respectively, were determined for each animal by a board-certified veterinary pathologist (D.D.) and two other scorers from our laboratory (J.S. and V.C.) and those values were averaged for the overall quickscore. Nonspecific staining of mast cells for ERα and PR antibody was occasionally present, as well as in both positive and negative control slides, and this staining was not included in the quickscore assessment.

Statistical Analysis

All data are reported as mean ± standard error (SEM) unless otherwise indicated and two-sided p<0.05 was used to indicate statistically significant differences. Data were analyzed for strain-related effects by analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the general linear model or mixed model with Tukey post-hoc test in SAS Enterprise Guide 4.3 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). Dam was utilized as a random effects variable and body weight was utilized as a covariate where appropriate. Incident outcomes were examined by chi-square analysis. Mammary gland developmental scores were analyzed by non-parametric one-way ANOVA using the Kruskal-Wallis test on Wilcoxon rank sums for both intrastrain and interstrain scores. Analysis of estrous cycle data was conducted using an approach based on the Markov transition matrix analysis, modified from Girard and Sager (Girard and Sager 1987), to compare strains regarding departures from “normal” cycling. For ERα and PR comparisons of epithelial cell expression, the Mann-Whitney U test with a two-sided p-value was used to compare the mean interstrain quickscores.

Results

Body Weight

The BW of female Hsd:SD rats was consistently lower than female CRL rats across all ages (Figure 1). At PND25, the mean BW of Crl:SD females was significantly greater than both Crl:LE females (7.5%, p<0.01) and Hsd:SD females (13%, p<0.0001). There were no differences in mean BW between Crl:LE and Crl:SD females at either PND33 or PND45. The mean BW of both Crl:LE females and Crl:SD females was significantly greater than that of Hsd:SD females at both PND33 (each approximately 12%; p<0.0001) and at PND45 (13%, p<0.01; 15%, p<0.0001, respectively).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Body weight data. a p<0.01 from Crl:LE; b p<0.0001 from Hsd:SD; c p<0.01 from Hsd:SD by ANOVA with Tukey multiple comparison post-hoc test. n=24, 24, 13 (Crl:LE); 22, 24, 14 (Crl:SD); 22, 22, 14 (Hsd:SD) by PND, respectively.

Vaginal Opening and Body Weight at Vaginal Opening

Vaginal opening was assessed as an indicator of puberty. Because there was a significant effect of BW at VO on day of VO, the least squares means are shown for the day of VO. The mean day of VO occurred approximately 5 days later in Hsd:SD rats (p<0.0001) than in Crl:LE and Crl:SD rats (Figure 2). The mean BW at day of VO was significantly greater for Crl:SD rats than for both Crl:LE and Hsd:SD rats (10%, p<0.01; 15%, p<0.0001, respectively).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Female vaginal opening (VO) timing. A) Least squares mean for day of VO and B) true mean for body weight on the day of VO. There was a significant effect of BW on day of VO. a p<0.0001 from Crl:LE and Crl:SD; b p<0.001 from Crl:LE; c p<0.0001 from Hsd:SD by ANOVA with Tukey multiple comparison post-hoc test. n=28, 24, 21 (Crl:LE, Crl:SD, Hsd:SD).

Mammary Gland Development PND25

Criteria for describing the extent of MG development include longitudinal and lateral growth, alveolar budding, branching density, and degree of TEB formation, as well as the data provided in Tables 1 and 2. Figure 3 depicts MG whole mounts from each strain at PND25 and PND33 that are representative of mammary development of that strain at the respective time point. At PND25, Crl:LE rats exhibited the least developed glands while Hsd:SD rats exhibited the most developed glands. Significantly more TEBs were observed in MGs of both Crl:SD and Hsd:SD rats than in MGs of Crl:LE rats (p<0.01 and p<0.05, respectively) (Table 1). The mean perimeter of mammary epithelium from Hsd:SD rats (p<0.05) was significantly greater than Crl:LE rats and the difference in the number of TEB/mm was significant between Crl:SD (p<0.05) and Crl:LE MGs. As early as 25 days old, inguinal MGs had converged (MG 4-5 convergence) in 33% of Hsd:SD rats (p<0.01), while this had not occurred in any of the Crl:LE or Crl:SD rats. Additionally, the mean distance between MG4 and MG5 in those animals where convergence had not occurred was significantly greater in Crl:LE rats (p<0.01 and p<0.0001, respectively) compared to both Crl:SD and Hsd:SD rats. The mean MG 4-5 distance was also significantly greater in Crl:SD rats (p<0.0001) compared to Hsd:SD rats.

Table 1.

Physical Parameters of Mammary Gland Growth

Strain (n) TEB Perimeter (mm) TEB/mm MG 4-5 convergence 4-5 distance (mm)
PND25
Crl:LE (20) 31.3 ± 3.1 23.1 ± 1.0 1.39 ± 0.14 0% 6.4 ± 0.7cg
Crl:SD (18) 48.1 ± 3.7a 24.9 ± 1.0 1.95 ± 0.14b 0% 4.1 ± 0.4c
Hsd:SD (19) 44.5 ± 4.2b 27.1 ± 1.2b 1.65 ± 0.15 33%h 1.4 ± 0.4
PND33
Crl:LE (20) 88.2 ± 4.7e 30.7 ± 1.1 2.95 ± 0.20d 23% 1.7 ± 0.4e
Crl:SD (19) 89.2 ± 5.6d 33.0 ± 1.4 2.74 ± 0.18f 45% 1.3 ± 0.6f
Hsd:SD (19) 58.3 ± 5.1 29.6 ± 1.1 1.99 ± 0.18 100%i 0
PND45
Crl:LE (11) 84.0 ± 5.3 24.8 ± 1.1 3.39 ± 0.15 100% 0
Crl:SD (14) 86.4 ± 5.6f 23.8 ± 1.2 3.66 ± 0.18f 100% 0
Hsd:SD (13) 70.5 ± 2.9 23.5 ± 1.3 3.06 ± 0.14 100% 0
Open in a new tab

TEB = terminal end buds; perimeter = shortest distance around the outer edge of the gland from leftmost TEB to rightmost TEB; MG 4-5 contact is percentage of animals where inguinal glands had converged; 4-5 distance = the mean shortest distance from the right most distal edge of MG4 to left most distal edge of MG5 in glands that had not converged.

a

p<0.01 from Crl:LE;

b

p<0.05 from Crl:LE;

c

p<0.0001 from Hsd:SD;

d

p<0.001 from Hsd:SD;

e

p<0.01 from Hsd:SD;

f

p<0.05 from Hsd:SD;

g

p<0.01 from Crl:SD by ANOVA with Tukey multiple comparison post-hoc test.

h

p<0.01 from Crl:LE and Crl:SD;

i

p<0.0001 from Crl:LE and Crl:SD by chi-square analysis. Values reported are means ± SEM.

Table 2.

Quantitative Morphometric Analysis

Strain (n) Encl. Rad. (mm) N MEA (mm2) N/MEA CV% (N/MEA) k
PND25
Crl:LE (14) 7.06 ± 0.26 1586 ± 130 52.9 ± 3.6 29.8 ± 0.9 11.3 0.667 ± 0.020
Crl:SD (16) 7.18 ± 0.35 2067 ± 140 64.3 ± 4.3 32.3 ± 0.7 9.2 0.582 ± 0.025
Hsd:SD (15) 8.75 ± 0.36c 2545 ± 137ab 76.1 ± 4.0c 33.6 ± 1.0d 10.9 0.554 ± 0.019ac
PND33
Crl:LE (21) 11.7 ± 0.3 3834 ± 150 136.0 ± 6.18 28.5 ± 0.5 8.6 0.389 ± 0.012
Crl:SD (15) 11.5 ± 0.4 4365 ± 247 146.6 ± 8.60 29.9 ± 0.6 7.4 0.383 ± 0.017
Hsd:SD (8) 12.7 ± 0.5 4888 ± 266c 161.5 ± 10.8 30.5 ± 1.0 9.1 0.356 ± 0.016
Open in a new tab

Encl. Rad. = Enclosing Radius measured as the distance from point of attachment to most distal point of the epithelial tree; N = total intersections; MEA = MG Area determined by outline of the shortest distance around the entire gland; CV% (N/MEA) = coefficient of variation; k = regression coefficient, smaller values of k are indicative of fuller distal epithelial branching.

a

p < 0.05 from Crl:SD;

b

p < 0.0001 from Crl:LE;

c

p < 0.01 from Crl:LE;

d

p < 0.05 from Crl:LE by ANOVA with Tukey multiple comparison post-hoc test. Values reported are means ± SEM. PND45 was not evaluated due to limitations of the analysis.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Mammary gland whole mount images at PND 25 and PND33. Images are of MG4 and are representative of the intrastrain developmental scores at each time point. Distance between MG4 and MG5 is denoted by arrows. Scale bars are 1mm.

Mammary Gland Development PND33

At PND33 there were significantly more TEBs in MGs of Crl:LE rats (p<0.01) and Crl:SD rats (p<0.001) than in MGs of Hsd:SD rats (Table 3). Though there was no difference in the mean perimeter between strains, the number of TEB/mm was also greater in MGs of Crl:LE rats (p<0.001) and Crl:SD rats (p<0.05) compared to those of Hsd:SD rats. Convergence of inguinal glands had occurred in 100% of Hsd:SD rats (p<0.0001), which was significantly more than in both Crl:SD and Crl:LE rats, and the mean distance between MG 4-5 in both Crl:LE rats (p<0.01) and Crl:SD rats (p<0.05) was significantly greater than in Hsd:SD rats. There was no significant difference in the mean MG 4-5 distance between Crl:LE and Crl:SD rats.

Mammary Gland Development PND45

Mammary glands of Hsd:SD rats exhibited accelerated development early on, but by PND45 MG development was similar in all strains. The mammary epithelial perimeter was similar and convergence of inguinal glands had occurred in all rats of each strain. The only significant differences observed at PND45 were in the number of TEBs and number of TEB/mm in MGs of Crl:SD rats (p<0.05) compared to MGs of Hsd:SD rats (Table 1). The number of TEBs had peaked by PND33 in MGs of CRL rats, while the number continued to rise in MGs of Hsd:SD rats as they aged. As the number of TEB/mm also continued to increase in MGs of Hsd:SD rats across all three ages, it is not clear from these data what the peak age of TEB occurrence is in the Hsd:SD.

Scoring of Mammary Gland Development

Mammary glands of Hsd:SD rats exhibited characteristics of more advanced epithelial development than MGs of the other strains at the respective time points, such as MG4-5 convergence, greater epithelial area, greater alveolar budding, and higher branching density. Mammary gland developmental scores are shown in Figure 4. There were no differences in the mean intrastrain developmental scores at any time point. At PND 25, the mean standardized interstrain developmental score of Hsd:SD MGs (p<0.0001) was significantly higher than the mean interstrain score of both Crl:LE MGs and Crl:SD MGs. Additionally, the mean interstrain score of Crl:SD MGs (p<0.001) was significantly higher than the mean interstrain score of Crl:LE MGs. At PND33, the mean standardized interstrain developmental score of Hsd:SD MGs (p<0.0001 and p<0.01, respectively) was again significantly higher than the mean interstrain score of both Crl:LE MGs and Crl:SD MGs. The mean interstrain score of Crl:SD MGs (p<0.05) also remained significantly higher than that of Crl:LE MGs. At PND45, there was no longer a significant difference in the mean developmental scores between strains.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Mammary gland developmental scores. A) No differences in MG development were observed when glands were compared within strain. B) When adjusted for across strain comparison, at PND25 and PND33 MG scores for Hsd:SD rats were significantly greater than MG scores for Crl:LE and Crl:SD rats and MG scores of Crl:SD rats were significantly greater than MG scores for Crl:LE rats. ap<0.0001 from Crl:LE; bp<0.001 from Crl:SD; cp<0.005 from Crl:SD; dp<0.001 from Crl:LE; ep<0.05 from Crl:LE by nonparametric one-way ANOVA using the Kruskal-Wallis test on Wilcoxon rank sums. n=24, 22, 12 (Crl:LE); 22,23, 14 (Crl:SD); 22, 22, 13 (Hsd:SD) by PND, respectively.

Sholl Analysis

While there was a significantly greater mean total branching intersections (N) in MGs of Hsd:SD rats (p<0.05 and p<0.0001, respectively) compared to MGs of both Crl:SD and Crl:LE rats at PND25, the mean mammary epithelial area (MEA) of Hsd:SD rats (p<0.01) and the mean N/MEA of Hsd:SD rats (p<0.05) were significantly greater compared to MGs of Crl:LE rats (Table 2). However, the mean Sholl regression coefficient (k) was significantly lower for MGs of Hsd:SD rats (p<0.01 and p<0.05, respectively) than for MGs of both Crl:LE and Crl:SD rats, indicating fuller development throughout the entire epithelial area in Hsd:SD MGs. At PND33, the mean N was significantly greater in MGs of Hsd:SD rats (p<0.01) compared to MGs of Crl:LE rats. Although MEA and N/MEA remained higher and k remained lower in Hsd:SD than other strains, no other significant differences in Sholl metrics between strains were observed at this time point.

Estrous Cyclicity

Overall, there were no significant differences in estrous cyclicity between Crl:LE (n=11) and Crl:SD (n=10) rats, but there were significant differences between Crl:LE and Hsd:SD (n=8) rats and between Crl:SD and Hsd:SD rats (data not shown). The lengths of estrus and of metestrus were similar among the three strains. Diestrus was extended in Hsd:SD rats more frequently than in Crl:LE rats (p<0.01) and in Crl:SD rats (p<0.01). To characterize differences in extended diestrus among strains, Hsd:SD rats had more than two consecutive days of diestrus 14.0% of the days, while Crl:SD rats had more than two consecutive days of diestrus 4.6% of the days and Crl:LE rats had more than two consecutive days of diestrus 5.8% of the days, based on cytology.

Immunohistochemistry

Estrogen receptor-α was expressed in the epithelial nuclei of all glands. Nuclear ERα expression was significantly greater in MGs of Hsd:SD rats at both PND25 (p<0.0001 and p<0.0005, respectively) and at PND33 (p<0.005 and p<0.0005, respectively) than in MGs of Crl:LE and Crl:SD rats based on mean quickscores (Figure 5). This is consistent with precocious maturation of the Hsd:SD MGs compared to the other strains. Nuclear ERα staining was similar in MGs of all strains at PND45. Nuclear PR was expressed in all glands and staining increased with age. Relative PR expression was significantly greater in MGs of Crl:LE rats than in MGs of Crl:SD rats on PND33 (p<0.05) (Figure 5). Staining was similar in each strain on PND25 and PND45.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Relative estrogen receptor-α (ER-α) and progesterone receptor (PR) expression quickscore. A)Nuclear ER-α quickscore was significantly greater in mammary glands of Hsd:SD rats than that of Crl:LE and Crl:SD rats at PND25 and PND33. a p<0.0001 from Crl:LE; b p<0.0005 from Crl:SD; c p<0.005 from Crl:LE; d p=0.05 from Crl:SD by ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc comparison. B) Though the quickscore for nuclear PR increased across time points, the only significant difference observed was between Crl:LE and Crl:SD at PND33 (p=0.05 by ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc comparison). n=10 for all strains and time points.

Discussion

This study evaluated the natural MG development in three strains of rat commonly used in toxicity testing studies. As no single standard protocol currently exists, this study employed three different methods for assessing MG development; physical measurement of various developmental parameters, developmental scoring based on visual observation, and quantitative morphometric analysis. Mammary glands of Hsd:SD rats consistently exhibited visual characteristics of more well-developed glands, such as greater lobuloalveolar budding, than MGs of their Crl:SD and Crl:LE counterparts at PND25, PND33, and PND45. The inguinal glands had converged in 33% of Hsd:SD rats by PND25 and in 100% by PND33, whereas none had converged at PND25 and less than half had converged by PND33 in the Charles River (CRL) strains. At PND25, quantitative morphometric analysis recorded significantly more branching intersections in glands of Hsd:SD rats than in glands of both Crl:LE and Crl:SD rats, a greater epithelial area and a greater epithelial branching density than glands of Crl:LE rats, and fuller distal epithelial branching (as indicated by a significantly lower Sholl regression coefficient) than glands of both Crl:LE and Crl:SD rats. By PND45, only observational scoring indicated any remaining differences in glandular development between strains. Taken together, these observations suggest that the mammary epithelium of Hsd:SD rats develops earlier, or at least at a faster pace, than that of both Crl:SD and Crl:LE rats. We also observed that the mammary epithelium of Crl:SD rats develops at a faster pace than that of Crl:LE rats. While MGs of Hsd:SD rats were larger and exhibited greater branching at PND25 and PND33, MGs of Crl:SD and Crl:LE rats exhibited both a greater total number of TEBs and TEB/mm.

Developmental scoring of mammary whole mounts is a useful method for evaluating changes in MG development by visual assessment rather than by the more tedious and time-consuming manner of counting and measuring. Glands are scored based on a set of predetermined criteria, similar to a pathologist’s evaluation, and reflect a well- or poorly-developed gland. A handful of examples of developmental scoring exist in the literature. Rayner et al. (Rayner et al. 2004; Rayner et al. 2005), and Enoch et al. (Enoch et al. 2007) used this method to evaluate MG development in Long Evans rats. White et al. (White et al. 2007), Macon et al. (Macon et al. 2011), and Tucker et al. (Tucker et al. 2015) each utilized developmental scoring to evaluate MG development in mice. Significant differences in developmental scores of untreated/vehicle groups compared to treated groups were reported in each of these studies, demonstrating the effectiveness of this method. Utilizing the criteria described in Davis and Fenton (Davis 2013) for developmental scoring in the current study, MGs from all three strains were scored similarly (2.4-2.6) within the respective strain at PND25, PND33, and PND45 (Table 4). Similar intrastrain scores are to be expected as one would expect little variation in MG development within a strain. In order to adjust for interstrain comparisons, a subset of the best developed glands from each strain were evaluated for strain differences and scored against each other. The scores of the remaining glands from each strain were then adjusted accordingly. The adjusted developmental scores for MGs of Hsd:SD rats were significantly higher than one or both of the other strains, depending on age, indicating that Hsd:SD rats exhibited more well-developed glands than their Crl:SD or Crl:LE counterparts and a trend in rate of development of Hsd:SD > Crl:SD > Crl:LE was observed. These observations are consistent with those of the other methods of evaluation applied in this study.

Advanced development of MGs of Hsd:SD rats was further substantiated by significant differences in quantitative morphometric data at PND25 (Table 2). Stanko et al. (Stanko et al. 2015) suggested using this quantitative method for the evaluation of MGs from rats at PND25 only. However, in this study we were able to apply it to MGs from rats at PND33 as well. While statistical differences were observed only in the mean number of intersections at PND33, the means of all parameters measured trended in a manner that supported advanced development of Hsd:SD glands. However, no differences in development between the CRL strains at either PND25 or PND33 were observed using this method. Although, to our knowledge, use of this quantitative method of assessment has not been reported elsewhere in the literature, these data demonstrate that this method is effective for detecting differences in longitudinal growth, branching density, epithelial area, and distal epithelial development in MGs of peripubertal rats. It is the only automated and low cost method that we are aware of for assessing the degree of branching density in mouse and rat mammary tissue.

Relative nuclear ERα expression in MGs of the Harlan rats was significantly higher than in MGs of the CRL rats at both PND25 and PND33. By PND45, ERα expression was similar in all three strains, suggesting that all strains had reached their maximum expression levels by that time. Mammary gland development is under strong hormonal regulation and ERα and PR are essential for proper epithelial branching and lobular growth (Cheng et al. 2004; Shyamala 1997; Shyamala et al. 2002). The observed changes in receptor expression are in line with the respective developmental changes occurring in the gland at these ages. Mammary branching is ERα-mediated and accelerates peripubertally (PND25-33) (Gjorevski and Nelson 2011), whereas differentiation of buds and lobules is not augmented until closer to adulthood (PND45) (Russo and Russo 1996). The elevated nuclear ERα expression observed in this study correlates with the significant differences observed in both the quantitative morphometric analyses and physical parameters in the Harlan strain at PND25 and PND33. Though a significant difference in PR expression was observed between Crl:LE and Crl:SD rats at PND33, interstrain PR expression was generally similar at PND25 and PND45 and expression increased progressively across the life stages in all three strains.

Although these data indicate that MGs of Hsd:SD rats generally develop earlier than the CRL strains, it is important to note that they do not appear to develop TEBs at the same rate as the other strains. Because the undifferentiated TEB is the target site for induction of mammary carcinomas, the gland is most susceptible to tumorigenicity when the number of TEBs is at a maximum and, therefore, this is the ideal time to administer the tumor-inducing chemical. Exposure to EDCs that alter mammary gland development subsequently alter the glands’ susceptibility to tumorigenesis by either affecting the number of TEBs present or shifting the time at which the maximum number of TEBs are present. In order to accurately assess changes in the WOS, it is important to identify the life stage at which the maximum number of TEBs are present in the various strains of untreated rat models that are utilized in tumorigenicity studies. It has been suggested that the number of TEBs reaches a maximum at PND 20-21 (Russo and Russo 1996; Mandrup 2012), after which time the TEBs begin to differentiate into alveolar buds. Our data demonstrate that the number of TEBs is maximal at or around PND33 in the CRL strains while the number continues to increase through PND45 in the Harlan strain. The decrease in number at PND45 in the CRL strains can be explained by the fact that by this time the inguinal glands had converged, thereby reducing the epithelial perimeter, and contact inhibition had taken place, causing existing TEBs to differentiate into lobules or terminal ends. However, this pattern of development was not observed in the Harlan strain. In fact, TEBs continued to develop in all three strains as evidenced by the increase in TEB/mm from PND25 to PND45. This is important as tumor type and incidence are directly related to the number of TEBs present at the time of carcinogen administration in tumor inducing studies (Russo 2015). The administration of DMBA while undifferentiated TEBs are present induces excessive proliferation of TEBs into intraductal proliferations which leads to the formation of ductal carcinomas (Russo 2015). This is attributed to the high rate of cell proliferation and DNA synthetic activity that is characteristic of TEBs, allowing them to take up more DMBA and produce more epoxides (Russo 2015). In contrast, alveolar buds and lobules exhibit lower proliferation rates, produce fewer polar metabolites, and also possess a greater capacity for repairing DMBA-DNA adducts, resulting in more benign lesions such as cysts and fibroadenomas (Russo 2015). The observed differences in the number of TEBs emphasize the importance of the timing of carcinogen administration in order to properly interpret susceptibility to mammary tumorigenesis in these strains.

This study also examined other developmental endpoints including BW, day of VO, and estrous cyclicity. These other aspects of puberty and reproductive development seemed to have little association with MG development in the Harlan strain. The Hsd:SD rats consistently weighed less at each life stage and VO occurred significantly later than their CRL counterparts. The later occurrence of VO is correlated with the lower BW in the Harlan rats as the onset of puberty is known to be proportional to BW (Cheung et al. 1997). Similarly, mammary gland development is generally considered to be isometric from parturition until puberty, when it then develops allometrically until early adulthood (Hovey et al. 2002; McNally and Martin 2011; Musumeci et al. 2015). However, the fact that Hsd:SD rats exhibited more developed MGs using three different sets of criteria than the CRL strains at PND25 and PND33, yet weighed less, suggests that mammary development is not well correlated with body weight or timing of VO, especially not in the Hsd:SD strain. Though the association between mammary growth and puberty are not completely understood, it is possible that allometric development is stimulated by peripubertal increases in circulating estrogen and Hsd:SD rat mammary tissue is more sensitive to these increases. Although serum estrogen levels were not measured in the present study, we suggest that this response is happening at the level of the MG, as evidenced by significantly greater ERα expression in the Harlan rats at PND25 and PND33. Further studies are needed to determine if during the postnatal to early post-pubertal period of development there is an effect of endocrine or paracrine factors on the MGs in the Hsd:SD that accelerate mammary gland growth in this strain.

In summary, the data presented here indicate that MGs of Hsd:SD rats develop at a faster pace than MGs of both Crl:SD and Crl:LE rats. Additionally, we report age-dependent differences in the absolute number and trends in TEB counts and in relative ERα expression in these strains. Throughout this study, we have used the term “development” to describe the overall growth of the gland. This term takes into consideration all aspects of growth collectively, including longitudinal and lateral growth, epithelial area and convergence of adjacent glands, branching density, alveolar budding, and the number of TEBs. It is important to realize that while a gland with fewer TEBs may be less differentiated, it may not necessarily be less developed with respect to other aspects. As MGs of Hsd:SD rats developed earlier (taking into account all aspects of development collectively) compared to those of their CRL counterparts, it would be interesting to ascertain precisely when TEBs first appear in each of these strains. If, as one would expect from the preceding data, TEB formation began earlier in MGs of the Harlan strain, this strain would exhibit an earlier WOS toward estrogenic compounds. Although the maximum number of TEBs in the Harlan strain was observed at PND45, it is difficult to estimate whether this would be the equivalent time in the CRL strains, as the number of TEBs had peaked at PND33 in those strains. The trend of fewer TEBs suggests that the Harlan strain may, in fact, be less sensitive to chemically-induced tumorigenesis, or at least may exhibit a lower rate of tumor formation. Therefore, while the Harlan strain may be a useful model for mammary tumor-induction studies when utilized independently, caution should be exercised when comparing tumorigenicity data to that of other strains. The data provided herein also demonstrate that the Hsd:SD should be a useful tool for evaluating the response of the mammary gland following endocrine disrupting chemical exposures in juvenile toxicity testing; we have documented VO timing, expected body weights over time, mammary epithelial nuclear receptor appearance (and peaks), and the tempo of mammary development for future reference and comparison.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the CMPB Immunohistochemistry core laboratory for their expertise, Dr. Darlene Dixon for assistance with immunohistochemistry scoring, Ms. Beth Mahler for assistance with images and figures, and Drs. Alex Merrick and Mark Hoenerhoff for their technical assistance in reviewing this manuscript.

References

  1. American Cancer Society. [2-2016];What are the key statistics about breast cancer? 2016 http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-key-statistics.
  2. Barcellos-Hoff MH. New Biological Insights on the Link Between Radiation Exposure and Breast Cancer Risk. J Mammary Gland Biol. 2013;18:3–13. doi: 10.1007/s10911-013-9272-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Birnbaum LS, Fenton SE. Cancer and developmental exposure to endocrine disruptors. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111:389–394. doi: 10.1289/ehp.5686. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bocchinfuso WP, Korach KS. Mammary gland development and tumorigenesis in estrogen receptor knockout mice. Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia. 1997;2:323–334. doi: 10.1023/a:1026339111278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bocchinfuso WP, Lindzey JK, Hewitt SC, Clark JA, Myers PH, Cooper R, Korach KS. Induction of mammary gland development in estrogen receptor-alpha knockout mice. Endocrinology. 2000;141:2982–2994. doi: 10.1210/endo.141.8.7609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown NM, Manzolillo PA, Zhang JX, Wang J, Lamartiniere CA. Prenatal TCDD and predisposition to mammary cancer in the rat. Carcinogenesis. 1998;19:1623–1629. doi: 10.1093/carcin/19.9.1623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cheng G, Weihua Z, Warner M, Gustafsson JA. Estrogen receptors ER alpha and ER beta in proliferation in the rodent mammary gland. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2004;101:3739–3746. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0307864100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cheung CC, Thornton JE, Kuijper JL, Weigle DS, Clifton DK, Steiner RA. Leptin is a metabolic gate for the onset of puberty in the female rat. Endocrinology. 1997;138:855–858. doi: 10.1210/endo.138.2.5054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Christakos S, Sinha D, Dao TL. Neonatal modification of endocrine functions and mammary carcinogenesis in the rat. British journal of cancer. 1976;34:58–63. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1976.122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohn BA, La Merrill M, Krigbaum NY, Yeh G, Park JS, Zimmermann L, Cirillo PM. DDT Exposure in Utero and Breast Cancer. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism. 2015;100:2865–2872. doi: 10.1210/jc.2015-1841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohn BA, Wolff MS, Cirillo PM, Sholtz RI. DDT and breast cancer in young women: new data on the significance of age at exposure. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115:1406–1414. doi: 10.1289/ehp.10260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Daniel FB, Joyce NJ. 7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene--DNA adducts in Sprague-Dawley and Long-Evans female rats: the relationship of DNA adducts to mammary cancer. Carcinogenesis. 1984;5:1021–1026. doi: 10.1093/carcin/5.8.1021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Daniel PM, Prichard MM. Three Types of Mammary Tumour Induced in Rats by Feeding with Dmba. British journal of cancer. 1964;13:513–520. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1964.58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Davis BJaF, S E. The Mammary Gland. In: Haschek WM, Rousseaux CG, Wallig MA, editors. Haschek and Rousseaux’s Handbook of Toxicologic Pathology. Elsevier, Inc., Academic Press; USA: 2013. pp. 2665–2694. [Google Scholar]
  15. Davis DL, Bradlow HL, Wolff M, Woodruff T, Hoel DG, Anton-Culver H. Medical hypothesis: xenoestrogens as preventable causes of breast cancer. Environ Health Perspect. 1993;101:372–377. doi: 10.1289/ehp.93101372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Detre S, Saclani Jotti G, Dowsett M. A “quickscore” method for immunohistochemical semiquantitation: validation for oestrogen receptor in breast carcinomas. J Clin Pathol. 1995;48:876–878. doi: 10.1136/jcp.48.9.876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dhimolea E, Wadia PR, Murray TJ, Settles ML, Treitman JD, Sonnenschein C, Shioda T, Soto AM. Prenatal exposure to BPA alters the epigenome of the rat mammary gland and increases the propensity to neoplastic development. PLoS One. 2014;9:e99800. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dixon D, He H, Haseman JK. Immunohistochemical localization of growth factors and their receptors in uterine leiomyomas and matched myometrium. Environ Health Perspect. 2000;108(Suppl 5):795–802. doi: 10.1289/ehp.00108s5795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Enoch RR, Stanko JP, Greiner SN, Youngblood GL, Rayner JL, Fenton SE. Mammary gland development as a sensitive end point after acute prenatal exposure to an atrazine metabolite mixture in female Long-Evans rats. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115:541–547. doi: 10.1289/ehp.9612. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fenton SE. Endocrine-disrupting compounds and mammary gland development: early exposure and later life consequences. Endocrinology. 2006;147:S18–24. doi: 10.1210/en.2005-1131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fenton SE. The mammary gland: a tissue sensitive to environmental exposures. Reviews on environmental health. 2009;24:319–325. doi: 10.1515/reveh.2009.24.4.319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fenton SE, Birnbaum LS. Timing of Environmental Exposures as a Critical Element in Breast Cancer Risk. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism. 2015;100:3245–3250. doi: 10.1210/jc.2015-2848. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fenton SE, Hamm JT, Birnbaum LS, Youngblood GL. Persistent abnormalities in the rat mammary gland following gestational and lactational exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Toxicol Sci. 2002;67:63–74. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/67.1.63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferreira TA, Blackman AV, Oyrer J, Jayabal S, Chung AJ, Watt AJ, Sjostrom PJ, van Meyel DJ. Neuronal morphometry directly from bitmap images. Nature methods. 2014;11:982–984. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Forman MR, Winn DM, Collman GW, Rizzo J, Birnbaum LS. Environmental exposures, breast development and cancer risk: Through the looking glass of breast cancer prevention. Reprod Toxicol. 2015;54:6–10. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2014.10.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Girard DM, Sager DB. The Use of Markov-Chains to Detect Subtle Variation in Reproductive Cycling. Biometrics. 1987;43:225–234. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gjorevski N, Nelson CM. Integrated morphodynamic signalling of the mammary gland. Nature reviews Molecular cell biology. 2011;12:581–593. doi: 10.1038/nrm3168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. GLOBOCAN. Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012 2012 [Google Scholar]
  29. Goldman JM, Murr AS, Cooper RL. The rodent estrous cycle: characterization of vaginal cytology and its utility in toxicological studies. Birth defects research Part B, Developmental and reproductive toxicology. 2007;80:84–97. doi: 10.1002/bdrb.20106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gould MN. Rodent models for the study of etiology, prevention and treatment of breast cancer. Seminars in cancer biology. 1995;6:147–152. doi: 10.1006/scbi.1995.0023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hennighausen L, Robinson GW. Think globally, act locally: the making of a mouse mammary gland. Genes & development. 1998;12:449–455. doi: 10.1101/gad.12.4.449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hovey RC, Coder PS, Wolf JC, Sielken RL, Jr, Tisdel MO, Breckenridge CB. Quantitative assessment of mammary gland development in female Long Evans rats following in utero exposure to atrazine. Toxicol Sci. 2011;119:380–390. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hovey RC, Trott JF, Vonderhaar BK. Establishing a framework for the functional mammary gland: from endocrinology to morphology. Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia. 2002;7:17–38. doi: 10.1023/a:1015766322258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Howell JS. Intranasal administration of 9,10-dimethyl-1, 2-benzanthracene to rats: the development of breast and lung tumours. British journal of cancer. 1961;15:263–269. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1961.33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kale A, Deardorff J, Lahiff M, Laurent C, Greenspan LC, Hiatt RA, Windham G, Galvez MP, Biro FM, Pinney SM, Teitelbaum SL, Wolff MS, Barlow J, Mirabedi A, Lasater M, Kushi LH. Breastfeeding versus formula-feeding and girls’ pubertal development. Matern Child Health J. 2015;19:519–527. doi: 10.1007/s10995-014-1533-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kass L, Durando M, Altamirano GA, Manfroni-Ghibaudo GE, Luque EH, Munoz-de-Toro M. Prenatal Bisphenol A exposure delays the development of the male rat mammary gland. Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y) 2015;54:37–46. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2014.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lewis BC, Hudgins S, Lewis A, Schorr K, Sommer R, Peterson RE, Flaws JA, Furth PA. In utero and lactational treatment with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin impairs mammary gland differentiation but does not block the response to exogenous estrogen in the postpubertal female rat. Toxicol Sci. 2001;62:46–53. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/62.1.46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Macon MB, Villanueva LR, Tatum-Gibbs K, Zehr RD, Strynar MJ, Stanko JP, White SS, Helfant L, Fenton SE. Prenatal Perfluorooctanoic Acid Exposure in CD-1 Mice: Low-Dose Developmental Effects and Internal Dosimetry. Toxicol Sci. 2011;122:134–145. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfr076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mandrup KR, Hass U, Christiansen S, Boberg J. Perinatal ethinyl oestradiol alters mammary gland development in male and female Wistar rats. International journal of andrology. 2012;35:385–396. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2012.01258.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Markey CM, Coombs MA, Sonnenschein C, Soto AM. Mammalian development in a changing environment: exposure to endocrine disruptors reveals the developmental plasticity of steroid-hormone target organs. Evol Dev. 2003;5:67–75. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2003.03011.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. McNally S, Martin F. Molecular regulators of pubertal mammary gland development. Annals of medicine. 2011;43:212–234. doi: 10.3109/07853890.2011.554425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Moller S, Mucci LA, Harris JR, Scheike T, Holst K, Halekoh U, Adami HO, Czene K, Christensen K, Holm NV, Pukkala E, Skytthe A, Kaprio J, Hjelmborg JB. The Heritability of Breast Cancer among women in the Nordic Twin Study of Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Monks J, Henson PM. Differentiation of the mammary epithelial cell during involution: implications for breast cancer. Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia. 2009;14:159–170. doi: 10.1007/s10911-009-9121-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Moore CJ, Bachhuber AJ, Gould MN. Relationship of mammary tumor susceptibility, mammary cell-mediated mutagenesis, and metabolism of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in four types of rats. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1983;70:777–784. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Musumeci G, Castrogiovanni P, Szychlinska MA, Aiello FC, Vecchio GM, Salvatorelli L, Magro G, Imbesi R. Mammary gland: From embryogenesis to adult life. Acta histochemica. 2015;117:379–385. doi: 10.1016/j.acthis.2015.02.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. National Toxicology Program. [5-2014];Specifications for the Conduct of Studies to Evaluate the Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of Chemical, Biological, and Physical Agents in Laboratory Animals for the National Toxicology Progam (NTP) 2011 http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/test_info/finalntp_reprospecsmay2011_508.pdf.
  47. OECD. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4. OECD Publishing; Paris: 2012. Test No. 443: Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264185371-en. [Google Scholar]
  48. Osborne G, Rudel R, Schwarzman M. Evaluating chemical effects on mammary gland development: A critical need in disease prevention. Reprod Toxicol. 2015;54:148–155. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2014.07.077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Pinney SM, Biro FM, Windham GC, Herrick RL, Yaghjyan L, Calafat AM, Succop P, Sucharew H, Ball KM, Kato K, Kushi LH, Bornschein R. Serum biomarkers of polyfluoroalkyl compound exposure in young girls in Greater Cincinnati and the San Francisco Bay Area, USA. Environ Pollut. 2014;184:327–334. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.09.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Rayner JL, Enoch RR, Fenton SE. Adverse effects of prenatal exposure to atrazine during a critical period of mammary gland growth. Toxicol Sci. 2005;87:255–266. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfi213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Rayner JL, Wood C, Fenton SE. Exposure parameters necessary for delayed puberty and mammary gland development in Long-Evans rats exposed in utero to atrazine. Toxicology and applied pharmacology. 2004;195:23–34. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2003.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Russo IH, Russo J. Developmental stage of the rat mammary gland as determinant of its susceptibility to 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1978;61:1439–1449. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Russo IH, Russo J. Mammary gland neoplasia in long-term rodent studies. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104:938–967. doi: 10.1289/ehp.96104938. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Russo J. Significance of rat mammary tumors for human risk assessment. Toxicol Pathol. 2015;43:145–170. doi: 10.1177/0192623314532036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Russo J, Tay LK, Ciocca DR, Russo IH. Molecular and cellular basis of the mammary gland susceptibility to carcinogenesis. Environ Health Perspect. 1983;49:185–199. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8349185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Saad HE, Meduri G, Phrakonkham P, Berges R, Vacher S, Djallali M, Auger J, Canivenc-Lavier MC, Perrot-Applanat M. Abnormal peripubertal development of the rat mammary gland following exposure in utero and during lactation to a mixture of genistein and the food contaminant vinclozolin. Reprod Toxicol. 2011;32:15–25. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Shanle EK, Xu W. Endocrine disrupting chemicals targeting estrogen receptor signaling: identification and mechanisms of action. Chemical research in toxicology. 2011;24:6–19. doi: 10.1021/tx100231n. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Shyamala G. Roles of estrogen and progesterone in normal mammary gland development insights from progesterone receptor null mutant mice and in situ localization of receptor. Trends in endocrinology and metabolism: TEM. 1997;8:34–39. doi: 10.1016/s1043-2760(96)00207-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Shyamala G, Chou YC, Louie SG, Guzman RC, Smith GH, Nandi S. Cellular expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in mammary glands: regulation by hormones, development and aging. The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology. 2002;80:137–148. doi: 10.1016/s0960-0760(01)00182-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Sommer MM. Spontaneous skin neoplasms in Long-Evans rats. Toxicol Pathol. 1997;25:506–510. doi: 10.1177/019262339702500513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Stanko JP, Easterling MR, Fenton SE. Application of Sholl analysis to quantify changes in growth and development in rat mammary gland whole mounts. Reprod Toxicol. 2015;54:129–135. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2014.11.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Szpirer C, Szpirer J. Mammary cancer susceptibility: human genes and rodent models. Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society. 2007;18:817–831. doi: 10.1007/s00335-007-9073-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Tennekes H, Gembardt C, Dammann M, van Ravenzwaay B. The stability of historical control data for common neoplasms in laboratory rats: adrenal gland (medulla), mammary gland, liver, endocrine pancreas, and pituitary gland. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP. 2004;40:18–27. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2004.04.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Thayer KA, Foster PM. Workgroup report: National Toxicology Program workshop on Hormonally Induced Reproductive Tumors - Relevance of Rodent Bioassays. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115:1351–1356. doi: 10.1289/ehp.10135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Thompson HJ, Singh M. Rat models of premalignant breast disease. Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia. 2000;5:409–420. doi: 10.1023/a:1009582012493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Tucker DK, Macon MB, Strynar MJ, Dagnino S, Andersen E, Fenton SE. The mammary gland is a sensitive pubertal target in CD-1 and C57Bl/6 mice following perinatal perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) exposure. Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y) 2015;54:26–36. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2014.12.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Warner M, Mocarelli P, Samuels S, Needham L, Brambilla P, Eskenazi B. Dioxin exposure and cancer risk in the Seveso Women’s Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119:1700–1705. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1103720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Watson CJ, Khaled WT. Mammary development in the embryo and adult: a journey of morphogenesis and commitment. Development. 2008;135:995–1003. doi: 10.1242/dev.005439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. White SS, Calafat AM, Kuklenyik Z, Villanueva L, Zehr RD, Helfant L, Strynar MJ, Lindstrom AB, Thibodeaux JR, Wood C, Fenton SE. Gestational PFOA exposure of mice is associated with altered mammary gland development in dams and female offspring. Toxicol Sci. 2007;96:133–144. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfl177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. White SS, Kato K, Jia LT, Basden BJ, Calafat AM, Hines EP, Stanko JP, Wolf CJ, Abbott BD, Fenton SE. Effects of perfluorooctanoic acid on mouse mammary gland development and differentiation resulting from cross-foster and restricted gestational exposures. Reprod Toxicol. 2009;27:289–298. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2008.11.054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES