Table 1.
List of antibodies for immunofluorescent and immunohistochemical staining.
Fig 1.
Dual IF staining for BRCA1 and CK8/18 and corresponding digital annotation for BRCA1 in a representative core.
A: Composite image where green fluorescent staining if for epithelial CK8/18, red is for BRCA1, and blue is for nuclear DAPI stain. B: Tissue segmentation. C: Nuclear score map. D: Cytoplasmic score map. The attached legend to the right indicates what each color stands for in the tissue segmentation and score maps.
Fig 2.
IHC staining and corresponding digital annotation for BRCA1 in a representative core.
A: IHC staining utilizes MS110 mouse monoclonal antibody to assess the level of BRCA1 protein expression. B: Tissue segmentation where the epithelial compartment is pink and the stromal compartment is yellow. C: Nuclear segmentation. D: nuclear score map. Definition of the digital image annotation intensity score: blue = 0, yellow = 1, orange = 2 and red = 3. The attached legend to the right indicates what each color stands for in the tissue segmentation and score map.
Fig 3.
Dual IF staining for BRCA1 and CK8/18 in representative cases of invasive breast cancer and normal breast tissues.
A and B: Normal breast ducts and glands with positive red IF for BRCA1 in myoepithelial cells (arrowheads) and luminal cells (arrows). C: BRCA1 positive ductal carcinoma. D: BRCA1 negative ductal carcinoma. E: BRCA1 positive lobular carcinoma. F: BRCA1 negative lobular carcinoma.
Table 2.
Distribution of the demographic and tumor-related factors for patients included in this tissue microarray study.
Fig 4.
Summary of the nuclear and cytoplasmic BRCA1 staining.
A: A plot of pairwise nuclear versus cytoplasmic continuous digital H-score for BRCA1 showing a good correlation between the two locations. B: Percentage of cases that exhibit weak (H-score = <100), Intermediate (H-score > 100 and <200), and strong (H-score >200) cytoplasmic BRCA1 staining. C: Percentage of cases that exhibit weak, Intermediate, and strong nuclear BRCA1 staining.
Table 3.
Summary of nuclear, cytoplasmic and N/C ratio of BRCA1 expression in normal vs. invasive breast tissue.
Fig 5.
Dual IF vs IHC staining for BRCA1 analysis.
Plot of pairwise dual IF versus IHC digital H-score for BRCA1 showing a good correlation between the two staining methods for cytoplasmic scores (A), nuclear scores (B), and nuclear/cytoplasmic ratios (C). Figures D to G demonstrate the correlation between the IHC staining (Figs. D and F) and the dual IF staining (Figs. E and G) in the corresponding cores.
Table 4.
Summary of nuclear, cytoplasmic and N/C ratio of BRCA1 expression among invasive breast cancer samples (IF staining).
Fig 6.
Association between BRCA1 and other prognostic markers.
A: Positive BRCA1 staining in an invasive ductal carcinoma core. B, C, and D: Positive Her2, CK5/6 and AR staining in corresponding sections of the same core.
Table 5.
Associations between nuclear, cytoplasmic, and nuclear/cytoplasmic ratio of BRCA1 expression (IF staining) and clinicopathologic features in breast cancer.
Table 6.
Summary of nuclear, cytoplasmic and N/C ratio of BRCA1 expression among invasive breast cancer samples (IHC staining).
Table 7.
Associations between nuclear, cytoplasmic, and nuclear/cytoplasmic ratio of BRCA1 expression (IHC staining) and clinicopathologic features in breast cancer.