Tumor-suppressor genes (TSG) are often deleted or transcriptionally suppressed in cancer. PGR codes for progesterone receptor (PR), a transcription factor whose function depends on its ligand. Although PR expression is often undetectable in cervical cancer, its relevance to the endocrine-related etiology of this prevalent gynecological disease remains unclear. In this study, we show that the deletion of one Pgr allele in cervical epithelium promoted spontaneous cervical cancer in human papilloma viral oncogene-expressing transgenic mice as efficiently as the ablation of both Pgr alleles. We also show that tumors arising in the transgenic mice with one or both Pgr alleles did not express PR or expressed at the reduced levels compared with the normal epithelium. PR status correlated with estrogen receptor α (ERα) status in the mouse model and the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset. TCGA data analyses revealed that PGR expression significantly decreased in cervical cancer and that the biallelic deletion of PGR was rare. Furthermore, low PGR expression was associated with poor prognosis in young patients with cervical cancer. These discoveries point to PGR as a haploinsufficient TSG in the uterine cervix. They also raise the possibility that the restoration of PGR expression may improve the survival rate.

Implications:

The decreased expression of PR may increase the risk of cervical cancer in human papillomavirus–infected women.

Visual Overview:

http://mcr.aacrjournals.org/content/molcanres/19/1/42/F1.large.jpg.

This article is featured in Highlights of This Issue, p. 1

Genetically engineered mouse models have been a powerful tool to discover novel tumor-suppressor genes (TSG) and define their molecular mechanisms. Functions of TSGs are frequently impaired in cancers by mutations or transcriptional repression. The removal of one allele of many haploinsufficient TSGs, such as Dicer1, Fbw7, and Pten, is sufficient to promote cancers in mice, and they have similar mono-allelic mutations in human cancers (1). Unlike TSGs with biallelic deletions, re-expression or reactivation of haploinsufficient TSGs may be exploited as therapeutic targets.

Cervical cancer remains the third most frequent cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women worldwide (2). Although human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines and the Pap test are effective in preventing cervical cancer, they are not readily available to women in low-income countries and those of low socioeconomic status in developed countries. Multiple full-term pregnancies and the use of oral contraceptives for longer than 5 years increases the risk of cervical cancer in HPV-infected women (3, 4). Although these results implicate female sex hormones in cervical cancer, retrospective studies attempting to determine individual roles of estrogen (E2) and progesterone (P4) have been inconclusive (5). E2 and P4 activate estrogen receptor α (ERα) and progesterone receptor (PR), respectively. Both receptors are ligand-dependent transcription factors that belong to the nuclear receptor superfamily.

HPV16 E6 and E7 oncoproteins are responsible for cervical cancer. HPV transgenic mice expressing these oncoproteins develop cervical cancer at high penetrance when treated with E2 for 6 months (6). We have previously shown that the cancer-promoting action of E2 depends on stromal ERα rather than epithelial ERα (7, 8). In contrast, we discovered that P4 inhibits proliferation and induces apoptosis in the cervical epithelium in an epithelial PR-dependent manner (9). Activation of PR by synthetic progesterone medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) was effective in treating and preventing cervical cancer in the HPV transgenic mouse model (10). In the present study, we show that the deletion of one PR-coding Pgr allele sensitizes HPV transgenic mice to cervical cancer without E2 treatment. Our analyses of cervical cancer tissues from the mouse model and the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database reveal that PR is expressed at the lower level in cancer than normal epithelium. Furthermore, PGR heterozygosity is common in human cervical cancer, and low PGR expression is associated with poor overall survival in young patients with cervical cancer. Our results support that PGR is a haploinsufficient TSG in the uterine cervix and a promising cervical cancer therapeutic target.

Animals and reagents

Experimental mice were generated by mating K14E7/Pgrf/f males with K14E6/Wnt7aCre/Pgrf/+ females. All mouse strains were previously described and summarized in Supplementary Table S1. Cervical tissues were harvested at 8 to 9 months of age without any treatment. The University of Houston Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved all procedures performed on mice. Antibodies and chemicals are described in Supplementary Table S2.

Tissue processing, histological staining, and analyses

Mouse cervical tissues were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde, paraffin-embedded, and serially sectioned throughout the cervix at a 5-μm thickness. Every tenth slide was stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). Blinded histopathological analyses with the help of a pathologist and cancer measurement were carried out as described in Supplementary Materials and Methods.

IHC and apoptosis assay

Antigens were retrieved by incubating slides in pepsin solution for 5 minutes for p16Ink4a or microwaving sections for 20 minutes in 10 mmol/L sodium citrate buffer (pH 6.0) for the others. Slides were incubated with primary antibodies diluted in the blocking buffer, as described in Supplementary Table S2. After extensive washes in PBS, slides were subsequently incubated with a secondary antibody. Nuclei were stained with Hoechst 33258 solution (10 μg/mL) for 30 seconds. Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay was carried out with ApopTag Fluorescein in situ apoptosis detection kit according to the manufacturer's instruction. Slides were mounted with a gelvatol mounting medium.

Clinical data analysis

TCGA-Cervical Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Endocervical Adenocarcinoma (CESC) data were used for survival analysis and the expression of PGR and ESR1 mRNA as described in Supplementary Materials and Methods. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Cervix cohort was also used for the latter.

The deletion of one or both Pgr alleles sensitizes HPV transgenic mice to spontaneous cervical carcinogenesis

Although PR activation by MPA suppresses cervical cancer, E2 treatment results in similar cancer incidences in K14E7/Pgr+/+ and K14E7/Pgr−/− (10). We reasoned that it was due to the low level of P4 (i.e., minimal PR activation) because the treatment with exogenous E2 keeps mice at a continuous estrus-like stage (i.e., no P4 surges; ref. 11). We sought to determine whether cervical cancer would arise at a high frequency without E2 treatment if the PR signaling pathways were inactive. We used the Wnt7aCre transgene (referred to as Cre hereafter), which deletes Pgr specifically in the cervical epithelium (9). We generated K14E6/K14E7 (E6/E7) double transgenic or K14E7 (E7) single transgenic mice on the Pgrf/+, Cre/Pgrf/+, and Cre/Pgrf/f background and aged them without any treatments. As expected, cervical cancer did not occur in non-transgenic (NTG)/Pgrf/+ and NTG/Cre/Pgrf/f control mice that did not express any HPV oncogenes (Table 1). Cervical cancer incidence was significantly higher in E7/Pgrf/+ (33.3%) and E6/E7/Pgrf/+ (28.6%) than NTG/Pgrf/+ control (P < 0.002). Notably, the incidence of cervical cancer significantly increased in E7/Cre/Pgrf/f (61.7%) and E6/E7/Cre/Pgrf/f (78.6%) compared with E7/Pgrf/+ and E6/E7/Pgrf/+, respectively (P < 0.009; Table 1). Unexpectedly, the incidence of cervical cancer significantly increased in E7/Cre/Pgrf/+ (62.0%) and E6/E7/Cre/Pgrf/+ (64.3%) compared with E7/Pgrf/+ and E6/E7/Pgrf/+, respectively (P < 0.05; Table 1). Also, cancer incidences in E7/Cre/Pgrf/+ and E6/E7/Cre/Pgrf/+ were not significantly different from those of E7/Cre/Pgrf/f and E6/E7/Cre/Pgrf/f (Table 1). These results indicated that the deletion of only one Pgr allele was sufficient to inhibit the tumor-suppressive activity of PR in the cervix.

Table 1.

Summary of the worst cervical neoplastic diseases.

GenotypesHPV oncogenesEpithelial Pgr statusGroup size, nNo DiseaseCINCancerCancer incidence (%)
E6/E7/Cre/Pgrf/f E6 and E7 null 14 11 78.6a 
E6/E7/Cre/Pgrf/+  het 14 64.3a 
E6/E7/Pgrf/+  wt 28 16 28.6b 
E7/Cre/Pgrf/f E7 null 60 23 37 61.7a 
E7/Cre/Pgrf/+  het 50 19 31 62.0a 
E7/Pgrf/+  wt 42 22 14 33.3b 
NTG/Cre/Pgrf/f None null 22 22 
NTG/Cre/Pgrf/+  het 20 17 
NTG/Pgrf/+  wt 29 28 
GenotypesHPV oncogenesEpithelial Pgr statusGroup size, nNo DiseaseCINCancerCancer incidence (%)
E6/E7/Cre/Pgrf/f E6 and E7 null 14 11 78.6a 
E6/E7/Cre/Pgrf/+  het 14 64.3a 
E6/E7/Pgrf/+  wt 28 16 28.6b 
E7/Cre/Pgrf/f E7 null 60 23 37 61.7a 
E7/Cre/Pgrf/+  het 50 19 31 62.0a 
E7/Pgrf/+  wt 42 22 14 33.3b 
NTG/Cre/Pgrf/f None null 22 22 
NTG/Cre/Pgrf/+  het 20 17 
NTG/Pgrf/+  wt 29 28 

Note: NTG/Pgrf/+ and NTG/Pgrf/f were pooled and shown as NTG/Pgrf/+. E7/Cre/Pgrf/− and E7/Cre/Pgrf/f showed the similar disease burden. They were pooled and shown as E7/Cre/Pgrf/f. E7/Pgrf/− and E7/Cre/Pgrf/+ showed the similar disease burden. They were pooled and shown as E7/Cre/Pgrf/+.

Abbreviations: Het, heterozygote; wt, wild-type.

a

P < 0.05 compared with cancer incidence in E6/E7/Pgrf/+ or E7/Pgrf/+.

bP < 0.002 compared with cancer incidence in NTG/Pgrf/+.

PR is not expressed in the majority of cervical cancers arising in Pgr-sufficient mice

Next, we asked whether the level of PR expression in cancers correlated with the Pgr genotype. We analyzed all cancers for PR expression by IHC. As expected, PR was not expressed in all cancers in E7/Cre/Pgrf/f and E6/E7/Cre/Pgrf/f mice (Fig. 1A). To our surprise, PR was undetectable in the majority of cancers arising in E7/Pgrf/+ (58.8%, n = 17), E7/Cre/Pgrf/+ (56.9%, n = 51), E6/E7/Pgrf/+ (61.5%, n = 13), and E6/E7/Cre/Pgrf/+ (83.3%, n = 18; Fig. 1A; see PR cancer). The percentage of PR-negative cancer was highest in E6/E7/Cre/Pgrf/+ mice, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. The remaining cancers expressed PR (Fig. 1A; see PR+ cancer). Cancer-associated stroma was positive for PR in all mice. Like cancers arising in E2-treated mice (6), all cervical cancers were microscopic and well-differentiated regardless of genotypes and PR status (Supplementary Fig. S1A). Dysplastic epithelia adjacent to PR-negative cancers did not express PR in both E7/Pgrf/+ and E7/Cre/Pgrf/+ (Fig. 1B). PR expression was similar in PR-positive cancer and nearby dysplastic epithelium, but it was reduced compared with the normal epithelium distant from cancer (Fig. 1B). H&E staining of corresponding epithelia is shown in Supplementary Fig. S1B. These results supported that PR expression was lost or downregulated in a precancer stage. ERα is necessary for the expression PR in the cervix (9). ERα expression was undetectable in 29 of 33 (87.9%) PR-negative cancers (Fig. 1C). The remaining PR-negative cancers and all PR-positive cancers (n = 20) expressed ERα (Fig. 1C). There was a strong positive correlation between the PR and ERα status (rϕ = 0.86, P = 5.25 × 10−11). These results suggested that ERα-dependent and -independent mechanisms were involved in PR downregulation.

Figure 1.

PR is not expressed in most cervical cancers. A, The majority of cancers developed on the Pgrf/+ and Cre/Pgrf/+ backgrounds are negative for PR. Cervical cancer sections were stained for PR (green). Nuclei are pseudo-colored red. Dotted lines separate cervical cancer (cc) and epithelium (ep) from stroma (st). Numbers are percentages of PR and PR+ cancer in each genotype. A Pgr−/− cervical section was used as a negative control; scale bar, 50 μm. B, Cancer-associated epithelium has lower PR expression than normal epithelium. Cervical cancer–containing sections were stained for PR (green) and nuclei (red). H&E staining of corresponding regions are shown in Supplementary Fig. S1B; scale bar, 50 μm. C, ER is undetectable in most PR cancers. Randomly selected PR (33 of 62) and PR+ cancers (20 of 37) from Pgrf/+ and Cre/Pgrf/+ genotypes were stained for ER (green) and nuclei (red). Dotted lines separate cervical cancer (cc) from stroma (st). An Esr1−/− cervical section was used as a negative control; scale bar, 50 μm.

Figure 1.

PR is not expressed in most cervical cancers. A, The majority of cancers developed on the Pgrf/+ and Cre/Pgrf/+ backgrounds are negative for PR. Cervical cancer sections were stained for PR (green). Nuclei are pseudo-colored red. Dotted lines separate cervical cancer (cc) and epithelium (ep) from stroma (st). Numbers are percentages of PR and PR+ cancer in each genotype. A Pgr−/− cervical section was used as a negative control; scale bar, 50 μm. B, Cancer-associated epithelium has lower PR expression than normal epithelium. Cervical cancer–containing sections were stained for PR (green) and nuclei (red). H&E staining of corresponding regions are shown in Supplementary Fig. S1B; scale bar, 50 μm. C, ER is undetectable in most PR cancers. Randomly selected PR (33 of 62) and PR+ cancers (20 of 37) from Pgrf/+ and Cre/Pgrf/+ genotypes were stained for ER (green) and nuclei (red). Dotted lines separate cervical cancer (cc) from stroma (st). An Esr1−/− cervical section was used as a negative control; scale bar, 50 μm.

Close modal

PR-negative cancers are larger than PR-positive cancers

The expression of p16Ink4a and Mcm7, biomarkers for HPV+ cervical cancer, was increased in both PR and PR+ cervical cancer in E7 and E6/E7 mice compared with a cancer in NTG/Cre/Pgrf/+ (Supplementary Fig. S2A and S2B). To assess an effect of PR on cancer growth, we divided cancers in each genotype according to the PR status. In both E7/Pgrf/+ and E7/Cre/Pgrf/+, the largest and total cancer areas were significantly larger for PR than PR+ cervical cancer (Fig. 2A). The size of PR cancer in these mice was not different from that in E7/Cre/Pgrf/f, indicating that the PR status rather than the Pgr genotype was predictive of cancer size. We observed a similar trend in E6/E7/Pgrf/+ and E6/E7/Cre/Pgrf/+ mice, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (Supplementary Fig. S3A). When pooled from all genotypes, however, PR cancers had significantly greater individual and total cancer areas than PR+ cancers (Supplementary Fig. S3B). Larger cancers could be due to either earlier development (i.e., growth for a longer period) and/or faster growth. We could not evaluate the former possibility because diseases were diagnosed at end points. To test the latter, we determined proliferation and apoptosis rate in PR and PR+ cancer. To control for hormonal conditions, we compared a PR carcinoma with a PR+ cancer in the same mouse. A fraction of Ki67+ cells was always higher in PR than PR+ cancer (Fig. 2B). In all five paired comparisons, the rate of TUNEL+ cells was lower in PR than PR+ cervical cancer (Fig. 2C). These findings suggested that, albeit the decreased expression in PR+ cancers and failure to inhibit cancer development, PR was still active in suppressing tumor growth.

Figure 2.

The low level of PR expression inhibits the growth of cervical cancer. A, PR cancers are larger than PR+ cancers. The largest cancer area and total cancer area in each mouse are shown in boxandwhisker plots. The group sizes were as the following: PR (n = 8) and PR+ cancer (n = 7) in Pgrf/+, PR (n = 23) and PR+ cancer (n = 20) in Cre/Pgrf/+, and PR cancer (n = 37) in Cre/Pgrf/f. *, P < 0.05. **, P < 0.01 (one-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test). B, PR cancer is more proliferative than PR+ cancer. Five cervical tissues bearing both PR and PR+ cancer were selected from K14E7/Cre/Pgrf/+ mice. Top, Cancer sections were stained for Ki67 (green) and nuclei (red). Dotted lines separate cancers (cc) from stroma (st); scale bar, 50 μm. Bottom, Results shown in the top panel were quantified. Approximately 400–600 cells per cancer were counted. A pair of cancers from the same mouse are shown in the same color. *, P = 0.006 (paired one-sided t test). C, PR cancer is less apoptotic than PR+ cancer. Cancers shown in (B) were subjected to TUNEL assay. TUNEL+ cells are green, and nuclei are pseudo-colored red. White dotted lines separate cancers (cc) from stroma (st); scale bar, 50 μm. Results shown in the images were quantified and analyzed as described in (B). *, P = 0.03 (paired one-sided t test).

Figure 2.

The low level of PR expression inhibits the growth of cervical cancer. A, PR cancers are larger than PR+ cancers. The largest cancer area and total cancer area in each mouse are shown in boxandwhisker plots. The group sizes were as the following: PR (n = 8) and PR+ cancer (n = 7) in Pgrf/+, PR (n = 23) and PR+ cancer (n = 20) in Cre/Pgrf/+, and PR cancer (n = 37) in Cre/Pgrf/f. *, P < 0.05. **, P < 0.01 (one-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test). B, PR cancer is more proliferative than PR+ cancer. Five cervical tissues bearing both PR and PR+ cancer were selected from K14E7/Cre/Pgrf/+ mice. Top, Cancer sections were stained for Ki67 (green) and nuclei (red). Dotted lines separate cancers (cc) from stroma (st); scale bar, 50 μm. Bottom, Results shown in the top panel were quantified. Approximately 400–600 cells per cancer were counted. A pair of cancers from the same mouse are shown in the same color. *, P = 0.006 (paired one-sided t test). C, PR cancer is less apoptotic than PR+ cancer. Cancers shown in (B) were subjected to TUNEL assay. TUNEL+ cells are green, and nuclei are pseudo-colored red. White dotted lines separate cancers (cc) from stroma (st); scale bar, 50 μm. Results shown in the images were quantified and analyzed as described in (B). *, P = 0.03 (paired one-sided t test).

Close modal

The level of PGR expression decreases in cervical cancer

We sought to determine whether our findings in the mouse model were relevant to patients. Using publicly available GTEx and TCGA datasets, we first analyzed PGR expression in cancerous and normal cervical tissues. The mean log-normalized transcripts per million (TPM) value of PGR indicated an approximately 55-fold reduction in the cancer tissue compared with the normal tissue (Fig. 3A). A similar analysis showed an 11-fold decrease in ESR1 mRNA levels in cervical cancer compared with the normal cervix (Supplementary Fig. S4A). Decreased expression of ESR1 and PGR in cervical cancer has been observed in an independent cohort (12). There was a modest, significant positive correlation between transcript levels of ESR1 and PGR in the TCGA dataset (Fig. 3B). To determine whether PGR copy number correlated with the expression level, we analyzed GISTIC-thresholded copy-number variation (CNV) data from TCGA. Notably, PGR expression levels were not significantly different among all CNV groups (Fig. 3C). Although homozygous deletion was infrequent (5 of 292 cancers), 47.3% and 37.0% had no copy-number change and heterozygous PGR deletion, respectively, and 41 cancers (14.1%) had an increased copy number (Supplementary Fig. S4B).

Figure 3.

PGR downregulation is associated with poor prognosis in patients with cervical cancer. A,PGR is downregulated in cervical cancer. PGR transcript levels were compared between cervical cancer (n = 306) and normal cervical tissues (n = 13). *, P = 1.5 × 10−6 (Welch's t test). TPM, transcripts per million. B, Expression of ESR1 and PGR are positively correlated in patients with cervical cancer. Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.65. P = 2.2 × 10−16. C, CNV does not correlate with PGR expression levels. A box–and–whisker plot was used to show PGR mRNA levels in each CNV group. D, Low PGR expression is associated with poor prognosis in young patients. Patients in TCGA dataset were divided into young (31–50 years old) and old (50+ years old) age groups. They are further grouped on the basis of the median expression levels of PGR and analyzed for overall survival using the Kaplan–Meier method. P = 0.024 (log-rank test), high versus low PGR in the young age group; P = 0.38, high versus low PGR in the old age group.

Figure 3.

PGR downregulation is associated with poor prognosis in patients with cervical cancer. A,PGR is downregulated in cervical cancer. PGR transcript levels were compared between cervical cancer (n = 306) and normal cervical tissues (n = 13). *, P = 1.5 × 10−6 (Welch's t test). TPM, transcripts per million. B, Expression of ESR1 and PGR are positively correlated in patients with cervical cancer. Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.65. P = 2.2 × 10−16. C, CNV does not correlate with PGR expression levels. A box–and–whisker plot was used to show PGR mRNA levels in each CNV group. D, Low PGR expression is associated with poor prognosis in young patients. Patients in TCGA dataset were divided into young (31–50 years old) and old (50+ years old) age groups. They are further grouped on the basis of the median expression levels of PGR and analyzed for overall survival using the Kaplan–Meier method. P = 0.024 (log-rank test), high versus low PGR in the young age group; P = 0.38, high versus low PGR in the old age group.

Close modal

Low PGR expression is associated with poor prognosis in cervical cancer

Menopause is diagnosed after women have gone one year without a menstrual period. The average age of menopause is 51 in the United States. Because progesterone levels are low without a menstrual cycle, we divided TCGA patients into two age groups, 31 to 50 years of age (young) and 50+ years of age (old) for survival analyses. In the young cohort, patients with high PGR expression had a better 18-month overall survival than those with low PGR expression (hazard ratio = 0.203; Fig. 3D). On the contrary, the survival benefit of high PGR status was absent in the old patient group (hazard ratio = 0.639). These results suggest that a progesterone surge during the menstrual cycle protects patients with cervical cancer with high PGR expression.

We showed that the deletion of one Pgr allele promoted cervical cancer (Table 1) and that more than one third of TCGA patient samples had heterozygous deletion of PGR (Fig. 3C). Regardless of the PR-coding gene copy number, levels of PR decreased in cervical cancer compared with the normal epithelium in both mouse models and clinical samples (Fig. 1A and B; Fig. 3C). These results strongly support that PGR is a dose-dependent, haploinsufficient TSG in cervical cancer. PR similarly suppresses endometrial cancer (13). It would be interesting to see whether PGR is also haploinsufficient in this malignancy.

Dose-dependent TSGs fail to suppress tumorigenesis when expression drops below a threshold level, and nullizygotes for most of them are more susceptible to cancer than heterozygotes (1). However, Pgr null and heterozygotes had similar cancer incidence (Table 1). In this regard, Pgr was similar to a handful of haploinsufficient TSGs. Dmp1+/− and Dmp1−/− mice display similarly accelerated Kras-driven lung tumorigenesis (14). The deletion of either one or both Trp53bp1 alleles augments tumorigenesis to a similar degree in a glioma mouse model (15). In E7/Cre/Pgrf/+ (i.e., epithelial Pgr heterozygote) mice, PR expression was lower in cancer than the normal epithelium (Fig. 1A and B). We postulate that a threshold level for Pgr is just below 50% of the normal level.

The expression of PR is undetectable in 60% to 80% of cervical cancer (10, 16, 17). In our spontaneous cervical cancer models, 57%–83% of cancers arising in Pgr-sufficient mice did not express PR (Fig. 1A). TCGA data analyses showed that PGR expression decreased in cervical cancer (Fig. 3A). Multiple mechanisms could be responsible for the reduced expression of PR. The promoter of PGR is hypermethylated in cervical cancer tissues compared with normal tissues (18). PGR is a direct transcriptional target of ERα (19), and the expression of ESR1 and PGR are correlated (Fig. 1C and Fig. 3B). Overexpression of ERα restores the expression of PGR mRNA in HeLa cervical cancer cells (20). These observations support that transcriptional repression contributes, at least in part, to the reduced PGR expression in cervical cancer. Although we cannot rule out post-transcriptional and post-translational mechanisms, we do not favor the mechanism of loss of heterozygosity because percentages of PR-negative cancers were similar between Pgrf/+ and Cre/Pgrf/+ mice (Fig. 1A) and because one or more PGR copies were retained in 98.4% of human cancers (Fig. 3C). High stromal PR expression is associated with better survival of patients with cervical cancer (21), suggesting that stromal PR also has the anti-cervical cancer activity and that PR signaling in cervical cancer is more complex than currently appreciated.

In summary, our results demonstrate that PGR is downregulated in cervical cancer and suggest that reactivation of PGR expression may improve the survival rate of patients with cervical cancer. Our spontaneous cervical cancer model demonstrated the development of PR-negative cervical cancer for the first time. Further studies are warranted to better understand the mechanism of PGR downregulation during cervical carcinogenesis in vivo, and our mouse model provides a valuable tool for such studies.

No disclosures were reported.

Y. Park: Conceptualization, data curation, investigation, visualization, methodology, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing. S. Baik: Investigation, visualization, methodology. C. Ho: Data curation, investigation, visualization, methodology, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing. C.-Y. Lin: Data curation, investigation, methodology, writing-review and editing. S.-H. Chung: Conceptualization, data curation, supervision, funding acquisition, investigation, visualization, methodology, writing-review and editing.

We thank Dr. Roger E. Price for consultation on histopathology. We also thank Drs. Richard Behringer and John Lydon for providing us with Wnt7aCre and Pgrf/f mice, respectively. This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grant R01 CA188646, Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas grant RP180275, and University of Houston Large Core Equipment grants (to S.-H. Chung).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Berger
AH
,
Knudson
AG
,
Pandolfi
PP
. 
A continuum model for tumour suppression
.
Nature
2011
;
476
:
163
9
.
2.
Ferlay
J
,
Colombet
M
,
Soerjomataram
I
,
Mathers
C
,
Parkin
DM
,
Pineros
M
, et al
Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods
.
Int J Cancer
2019
;
144
:
1941
53
.
3.
Moreno
V
,
Bosch
FX
,
Munoz
N
,
Meijer
CJ
,
Shah
KV
,
Walboomers
JM
, et al
Effect of oral contraceptives on risk of cervical cancer in women with human papillomavirus infection: the IARC multicentric case–control study
.
Lancet
2002
;
359
:
1085
92
.
4.
Munoz
N
,
Franceschi
S
,
Bosetti
C
,
Moreno
V
,
Herrero
R
,
Smith
JS
, et al
Role of parity and human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: the IARC multicentric case-control study
.
Lancet
2002
;
359
:
1093
101
.
5.
Chung
SH
. 
Targeting female hormone receptors as cervical cancer therapy
.
Trends Endocrinol Metab
2015
;
26
:
399
401
.
6.
Riley
RR
,
Duensing
S
,
Brake
T
,
Munger
K
,
Lambert
PF
,
Arbeit
JM
. 
Dissection of human papillomavirus E6 and E7 function in transgenic mouse models of cervical carcinogenesis
.
Cancer Res
2003
;
63
:
4862
71
.
7.
Chung
SH
,
Shin
MK
,
Korach
KS
,
Lambert
PF
. 
Requirement for stromal estrogen receptor alpha in cervical neoplasia
.
Horm Cancer
2013
;
4
:
50
9
.
8.
Son
J
,
Park
Y
,
Chung
SH
. 
Epithelial oestrogen receptor alpha is dispensable for the development of oestrogen-induced cervical neoplastic diseases
.
J Pathol
2018
;
245
:
147
52
.
9.
Mehta
FF
,
Son
J
,
Hewitt
SC
,
Jang
E
,
Lydon
JP
,
Korach
KS
, et al
Distinct functions and regulation of epithelial progesterone receptor in the mouse cervix, vagina, and uterus
.
Oncotarget
2016
;
7
:
17455
67
.
10.
Yoo
YA
,
Son
J
,
Mehta
FF
,
DeMayo
FJ
,
Lydon
JP
,
Chung
SH
. 
Progesterone signaling inhibits cervical carcinogenesis in mice
.
Am J Pathol
2013
;
183
:
1679
87
.
11.
Elson
DA
,
Riley
RR
,
Lacey
A
,
Thordarson
G
,
Talamantes
FJ
,
Arbeit
JM
. 
Sensitivity of the cervical transformation zone to estrogen-induced squamous carcinogenesis
.
Cancer Res
2000
;
60
:
1267
75
.
12.
den Boon
JA
,
Pyeon
D
,
Wang
SS
,
Horswill
M
,
Schiffman
M
,
Sherman
M
, et al
Molecular transitions from papillomavirus infection to cervical precancer and cancer: Role of stromal estrogen receptor signaling
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2015
;
112
:
E3255
64
.
13.
Yang
S
,
Thiel
KW
,
Leslie
KK
. 
Progesterone: the ultimate endometrial tumor suppressor
.
Trends Endocrinol Metab
2011
;
22
:
145
52
.
14.
Mallakin
A
,
Sugiyama
T
,
Taneja
P
,
Matise
LA
,
Frazier
DP
,
Choudhary
M
, et al
Mutually exclusive inactivation of DMP1 and ARF/p53 in lung cancer
.
Cancer Cell
2007
;
12
:
381
94
.
15.
Squatrito
M
,
Vanoli
F
,
Schultz
N
,
Jasin
M
,
Holland
EC
. 
53BP1 is a haploinsufficient tumor suppressor and protects cells from radiation response in glioma
.
Cancer Res
2012
;
72
:
5250
60
.
16.
Fonseca-Moutinho
JA
,
Cruz
E
,
Carvalho
L
,
Prazeres
HJ
,
de Lacerda
MM
,
da Silva
DP
, et al
Estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and bcl-2 are markers with prognostic significance in CIN III
.
Int J Gynecol Cancer
2004
;
14
:
911
20
.
17.
Kwasniewska
A
,
Postawski
K
,
Gozdzicka-Jozefiak
A
,
Kwasniewski
W
,
Grywalska
E
,
Zdunek
M
, et al
Estrogen and progesterone receptor expression in HPV-positive and HPV-negative cervical carcinomas
.
Oncol Rep
2011
;
26
:
153
60
.
18.
Widschwendter
A
,
Muller
HM
,
Fiegl
H
,
Ivarsson
L
,
Wiedemair
A
,
Muller-Holzner
E
, et al
DNA methylation in serum and tumors of cervical cancer patients
.
Clin Cancer Res
2004
;
10
:
565
71
.
19.
Lim
E
,
Palmieri
C
,
Tilley
WD
. 
Renewed interest in the progesterone receptor in breast cancer
.
Br J Cancer
2016
;
115
:
909
11
.
20.
Jang
ER
,
Lim
SJ
,
Lee
ES
,
Jeong
G
,
Kim
TY
,
Bang
YJ
, et al
The histone deacetylase inhibitor trichostatin A sensitizes estrogen receptor alpha-negative breast cancer cells to tamoxifen
.
Oncogene
2004
;
23
:
1724
36
.
21.
Hong
MK
,
Wang
JH
,
Su
CC
,
Li
MH
,
Hsu
YH
,
Chu
TY
. 
Expression of estrogen and progesterone receptor in tumor stroma predicts favorable prognosis of cervical squamous cell carcinoma
.
Int J Gynecol Cancer
2017
;
27
:
1247
55
.