Eloise Parrish
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Eloise Parrish.
Breast Cancer Research | 2005
Kathleen Conway; Eloise Parrish; Sharon N. Edmiston; Dawn Tolbert; Chiu Kit Tse; Joseph Geradts; Chad A. Livasy; Harsharan K. Singh; Beth Newman; Robert C. Millikan
IntroductionEvidence suggests that alterations in estrogen signaling pathways, including estrogen receptor-α (ER-α), occur during breast cancer development. A point mutation in ER-α (nucleotide A908G), producing an amino acid change from lysine to arginine at codon 303 (K303R) results in receptor hypersensitivity to estrogen. This mutation was initially reported in one-third of hyperplastic benign breast lesions, although several recent studies failed to detect it in benign or malignant breast tissues.MethodsWe screened 653 microdissected, newly diagnosed invasive breast tumors from patients in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, a population-based case-control study of breast cancer in African American and white women in North Carolina, for the presence of the ER-α A908G mutation by using single-strand conformational polymorphism (SSCP) analysis and 33P-cycle sequencing.ResultsWe detected the ER-α A908G mutation in 37 of 653 (5.7%) breast tumors. The absence of this mutation in germline DNA confirmed it to be somatic. Three tumors exhibited only the mutant G base at nucleotide 908 on sequencing, indicating that the wild-type ER-α allele had been lost. The ER-α A908G mutation was found more frequently in higher-grade breast tumors (odds ratio (OR) 2.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 7.34, grade II compared with grade I), and in mixed lobular/ductal tumors (OR 2.10; 95% CI 0.86 to 5.12) compared with ductal carcinomas, although the latter finding was not statistically significant.ConclusionThis population-based study, the largest so far to screen for the ER-α A908G mutation in breast cancer, confirms the presence of the mutant in invasive breast tumors. The mutation was associated with higher tumor grade and mixed lobular/ductal breast tumor histology.
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention | 2015
Brionna Y. Hair; Melissa A. Troester; Sharon N. Edmiston; Eloise Parrish; Whitney R. Robinson; Michael C. Wu; Andrew F. Olshan; Theresa Swift-Scanlan; Kathleen Conway
Background: Although obesity is associated with breast cancer incidence and prognosis, the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. Identification of obesity-associated epigenetic changes in breast tissue may advance mechanistic understanding of breast cancer initiation and progression. The goal of this study, therefore, was to investigate associations between obesity and gene methylation in breast tumors. Methods: Using the Illumina GoldenGate Cancer I Panel, we estimated the association between body mass index (BMI) and gene methylation in 345 breast tumor samples from phase I of the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, a population-based case–control study. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify sites that were differentially methylated by BMI. Stratification by tumor estrogen receptor (ER) status was also conducted. Results: In the majority of the 935 probes analyzed (87%), the average beta value increased with obesity (BMI ≥ 30). Obesity was significantly associated with differential methylation (FDR q < 0.05) in just two gene loci in breast tumor tissue overall and in 21 loci among ER-positive tumors. Obesity was associated with methylation of genes that function in immune response, cell growth, and DNA repair. Conclusions: Obesity is associated with altered methylation overall, and with hypermethylation among ER-positive tumors in particular, suggesting that obesity may influence the methylation of genes with known relevance to cancer. Some of these differences in methylation by obese status may influence levels of gene expression within breast cells. Impact: If our results are validated, obesity-associated methylation sites could serve as targets for prevention and treatment research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(3); 580–6. ©2015 AACR.
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention | 2015
Kathleen Conway; Sharon N. Edmiston; Chiu Kit Tse; Christopher Bryant; Pei Fen Kuan; Brionna Y. Hair; Eloise Parrish; Ryan May; Theresa Swift-Scanlan
Background: African American (AA) women are diagnosed with more advanced breast cancers and have worse survival than white women, but a comprehensive understanding of the basis for this disparity remains unclear. Analysis of DNA methylation, an epigenetic mechanism that can regulate gene expression, could help to explain racial differences in breast tumor clinical biology and outcomes. Methods: DNA methylation was evaluated at 1,287 CpGs in the promoters of cancer-related genes in 517 breast tumors of AA (n = 216) or non-AA (n = 301) cases in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study (CBCS). Results: Multivariable linear regression analysis of all tumors, controlling for age, menopausal status, stage, intrinsic subtype, and multiple comparisons [false discovery rate (FDR)], identified seven CpG probes that showed significant (adjusted P < 0.05) differential methylation between AAs and non-AAs. Stratified analyses detected an additional four CpG probes differing by race within hormone receptor–negative (HR−) tumors. Genes differentially methylated by race included DSC2, KCNK4, GSTM1, AXL, DNAJC15, HBII-52, TUSC3, and TES; the methylation state of several of these genes may be associated with worse survival in AAs. TCGA breast tumor data confirmed the differential methylation by race and negative correlations with expression for most of these genes. Several loci also showed racial differences in methylation in peripheral blood leukocytes (PBL) from CBCS cases, indicating that these variations were not necessarily tumor-specific. Conclusions: Racial differences in the methylation of cancer-related genes are detectable in both tumors and PBLs from breast cancer cases. Impact: Epigenetic variation could contribute to differences in breast tumor development and outcomes between AAs and non-AAs. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(6); 921–30. ©2015 AACR.
Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research | 2014
Nancy E. Thomas; Nathaniel A. Slater; Sharon N. Edmiston; Xin Zhou; Pei Fen Kuan; Pamela A. Groben; Craig Carson; Honglin Hao; Eloise Parrish; Stergios J. Moschos; Marianne Berwick; David W. Ollila; Kathleen Conway
DNA methylation studies have elucidated a methylation signature distinguishing primary melanomas from benign nevi and provided new insights about genes that may be important in melanoma development. However, it is unclear whether methylation differences among primary melanomas are related to tumor pathologic features with known clinical significance. We utilized the Illumina GoldenGate Cancer Panel array to investigate the methylation profiles of 47 primary cutaneous melanomas. Arraywide methylation patterns revealed a positive association of methylation with Breslow thickness and mutated BRAF, a negative association with mitotic rate, and a weak association with ulceration. Hierarchical clustering on CpG sites exhibiting the most variable methylation (n = 235) divided the melanoma samples into three clusters, including a highly methylated cluster that was positively associated with Breslow thickness and an intermediately methylated cluster associated with Breslow thickness and mitotic rate. Our findings provide support for the existence of methylation‐defined subsets in melanomas with increased methylation associated with Breslow thickness.
Clinical Cancer Research | 2015
Craig Carson; Stergios J. Moschos; Sharon N. Edmiston; David B. Darr; Nana Nikolaishvili-Feinberg; Pamela A. Groben; Xin Zhou; Pei Fen Kuan; Shaily Pandey; Keefe T. Chan; Jamie L. Jordan; Honglin Hao; Jill S. Frank; Dennis A. Hopkinson; David C. Gibbs; Virginia D. Alldredge; Eloise Parrish; Sara C. Hanna; Paula Berkowitz; David S. Rubenstein; C. Ryan Miller; James E. Bear; David W. Ollila; Norman E. Sharpless; Kathleen Conway; Nancy E. Thomas
Purpose: IL2 inducible T-cell kinase (ITK) promoter CpG sites are hypomethylated in melanomas compared with nevi. The expression of ITK in melanomas, however, has not been established and requires elucidation. Experimental Design: An ITK-specific monoclonal antibody was used to probe sections from deidentified, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor blocks or cell line arrays and ITK was visualized by IHC. Levels of ITK protein differed among melanoma cell lines and representative lines were transduced with four different lentiviral constructs that each contained an shRNA designed to knockdown ITK mRNA levels. The effects of the selective ITK inhibitor BI 10N on cell lines and mouse models were also determined. Results: ITK protein expression increased with nevus to metastatic melanoma progression. In melanoma cell lines, genetic or pharmacologic inhibition of ITK decreased proliferation and migration and increased the percentage of cells in the G0–G1 phase. Treatment of melanoma-bearing mice with BI 10N reduced growth of ITK-expressing xenografts or established autochthonous (Tyr-Cre/Ptennull/BrafV600E) melanomas. Conclusions: We conclude that ITK, formerly considered an immune cell–specific protein, is aberrantly expressed in melanoma and promotes tumor development and progression. Our finding that ITK is aberrantly expressed in most metastatic melanomas suggests that inhibitors of ITK may be efficacious for melanoma treatment. The efficacy of a small-molecule ITK inhibitor in the Tyr-Cre/Ptennull/BrafV600E mouse melanoma model supports this possibility. Clin Cancer Res; 21(9); 2167–76. ©2015 AACR.
Journal of Investigative Dermatology | 2004
Nancy E. Thomas; Audrey Alexander; Sharon N. Edmiston; Eloise Parrish; Robert C. Millikan; Marianne Berwick; Pamela A. Groben; David W. Ollila; Dianne Mattingly; Kathleen Conway
JAMA Oncology | 2015
Nancy E. Thomas; Sharon N. Edmiston; Audrey Alexander; Pamela A. Groben; Eloise Parrish; Anne Kricker; Bruce K. Armstrong; Hoda Anton-Culver; Stephen B. Gruber; Lynn From; Klaus J. Busam; Honglin Hao; Irene Orlow; Peter A. Kanetsky; Li Luo; Anne S. Reiner; Susan Paine; Jill S. Frank; Jennifer I. Bramson; Lorraine D. Marrett; Richard P. Gallagher; Roberto Zanetti; Stefano Rosso; Terence Dwyer; Anne E. Cust; David W. Ollila; Colin B. Begg; Marianne Berwick; Kathleen Conway
Mutation Research-genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis | 2004
Robbert J.C. Slebos; Ruth E. Little; David M. Umbach; Yurij Antipkin; Tamara D Zadaorozhnaja; Nikola A Mendel; Courtney A Sommer; Kathleen Conway; Eloise Parrish; Sara E. Gulino; Jack A. Taylor
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy | 1990
Lola V. Stamm; Eloise Parrish
Gynecologic Oncology | 1998
Joanna M. Watson; Eloise Parrish; Clifford A. Rinehart