| Literature DB >> 20727170 |
Asa Ehlén1, Donal J Brennan, Björn Nodin, Darran P O'Connor, Jakob Eberhard, Maria Alvarado-Kristensson, Ian B Jeffrey, Jonas Manjer, Jenny Brändstedt, Mathias Uhlén, Fredrik Pontén, Karin Jirström.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We recently demonstrated that increased expression of the RNA-binding protein RBM3 is associated with a favourable prognosis in breast cancer. The aim of this study was to examine the prognostic value of RBM3 mRNA and protein expression in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and the cisplatin response upon RBM3 depletion in a cisplatin-sensitive ovarian cancer cell line.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20727170 PMCID: PMC2936876 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5876-8-78
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Figure 1Specificity of the RBM3 antibody tested in A2780 ovarian cancer cells and immunohistochemical RBM3 expression in primary ovarian tumors. RBM3 protein expression was significantly decreased after transfection with siRNA against RBM3 in A2780 cells as shown by (A) immunocytochemistry 48 hrs post-transfection and (B) Western blot 48 and 72 hrs post-transfection. (C) Staining of RBM3 was denoted as (i) negative (nuclear score = 0), (ii) intermediate (nuclear score = 1-2) and (iii) strong (nuclear score > 2).
Correlations between clinicopathological characteristics and RBM3 mRNA (Cohort I) levels and protein expression (Cohort II)
| Cohort I | Cohort II | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RBM3 score | low | high | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| n (% for columns) | 120 (45.6) | 143 (54.4) | p-value | 74 (49.0) | 50 (33.1) | 27 (17.9) | p-value |
| Histological subtype | |||||||
| mucinuos | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0.887† | 4 (5.4) | 4 (8.0) | 3 (11.1) | 0.395† |
| serous | 111 (92.5) | 133 (93.0) | 42 (56.8) | 31 (62.0) | 16 (59.3) | ||
| endometroid | 9 (7.5) | 9 (6.3) | 17 (23.0) | 12 (24.0) | 5 (18.5) | ||
| clear cell | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 6 (8.1) | 1 (2.0) | 2 (7.4) | ||
| Brenner | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.7) | ||
| adenocarcinoma nos | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.7) | 5 (6.8) | 2 (4.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Differentiation grade | |||||||
| high | 3 (2.5) | 14 (9.8) | 0.079 | 2 (2.7) | 2 (4.0) | 3 (11.1) | 0.084 |
| intermediate | 40 (33.3) | 48 (33.6) | 17 (23.0) | 13 (26.0) | 9 (33.3) | ||
| low | 77 (64.2) | 78 (54.5) | 55 (74.3) | 35 (70.0) | 15 (55.6) | ||
| missing | 0 (0.0) | 3 (2.1) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Stage | |||||||
| I | 9 (7.5) | 15 (10.5) | 0.070 | 14 (18.9) | 7 (14.0) | 5 (18.5) | 0.760 |
| II | 3 (2.5) | 15 (10.5) | 5 (6.8) | 9 (18.0) | 3 (11.1) | ||
| III | 101 (84.2) | 104 (72.7) | 40 (54.1) | 26 (52.0) | 8 (29.6) | ||
| IV | 7 (5.8) | 9 (6.3) | 9 (12.2) | 6 (12.0) | 7 (25.9) | ||
| missing | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 6 (8.1) | 2 (4.0) | 4 (14.8) | ||
Correlations were calculated using Spearman correlation test unless other specified.
†Kruskal-Wallis test (two-sided).
Figure 2Increased mRNA (Cohort I) and protein expression (Cohort II) of RBM3 are associated with a prolonged survival. Kaplan Meier analysis of recurrence free survival (A) and overall survival (B) according to RBM3 mRNA levels in Cohort I. Kaplan Meier analysis of overall survival according to immunohistochemical RBM3 staining in Cohort II in strata defined as (C) negative, intermediate and strong expression and (D) negative versus positive expression.
Cox uni- and multivariate analysis of recurrence free and overall survival according to RBM3 mRNA levels (Cohort I) and protein expression (Cohort II)
| Recurrence free survival | Overall survival | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | p-value | HR (95% CI) | p-value | |||||
| Cohort I | ||||||||
| Univariate | Univariate | |||||||
| low | (n = 115, nevent = 85) | 1.00 | (n = 115, nevent = 54) | 1.00 | ||||
| high | (n = 142, nevent = 89) | 0.64 (0.47-0.86) | 0.003 | (n = 139, nevent = 50) | 0.64 (0.44-0.95) | 0.024 | ||
| Multivariate | Multivariate | |||||||
| low | (n = 103, nevent = 77) | 1.00 | (n = 103, nevent = 51) | 1.00 | ||||
| high | (n = 119, nevent = 71) | 0.61 (0.44-0.84) | 0.003 | (n = 117, nevent = 50) | 0.62 (0.41-0.95) | 0.028 | ||
| Cohort II | ||||||||
| Univariate | ||||||||
| negative | x | x | x | x | (n = 74, nevent = 33) | 1.00 | ||
| positive | x | x | x | x | (n = 77, nevent = 44) | 0.53 (0.35-0.79) | 0.002 | |
| Multivariate | ||||||||
| negative | x | x | x | x | (n = 68, nevent = 29) | 1.00 | ||
| positive | x | x | x | x | (n = 71, nevent = 42) | 0.61 (0.40-0.92) | 0.017 | |
Multivariate analysis included adjustment for age (continuous) stage (I-II vs III-IV), grade (I-II vs III) and residual disease (none vs any, only available for Cohort I).
Figure 3Expression of RBM3 in the cisplatin-sensitive A2780 ovarian cancer cell line compared to the cisplatin-resistant cell line A2780-Cp70 and the effects of cisplatin treatment on viability, cell cycle phase distribution and apoptosis in A2780 and A2780-Cp70 cell lines. (A) Immunocytochemical staining and (B) immunoblotting of RBM3 showing substantially lower RBM3 protein expression in the cisplatin-resistant A2780-Cp70 cell line compared to its parental cisplatin-sensitive A2780 cell line. (C) Relative mRNA expression was also reduced in the A2780-Cp70 cells compared to A2780 cells as shown by qRT-PCR analysis. Data shown are mean ± SEM of a representative experiment of two independent experiments performed in triplicate. (D) Cell growth illustrated as viability ratio 48:24 and 72:24 hrs measured by WST-1 demonstrating no difference between A2780 and A2780-Cp70 cells. Data shown are mean ± SEM of a representative experiment of three independent experiments performed in triplicate (E) Cell viability was evaluated by WST-1 assay in A2780 and A2780-Cp70 cells treated with cisplatin (1, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 μM) for 1 h followed by 48 hrs culture in fresh drug-free media. Data are presented as mean values from four independent experiments performed in triplicates presented as percentage of viable cells as compared with untreated cells. Error bars represent SEM. (F-G) A2780 and A2780-Cp70 cells were treated with 50 μM cisplatin for 1 h followed by 48 hrs culture in fresh drug-free media followed by flow cytometric analysis of (F) cell cycle phase distribution and (G) fraction of apoptotic cells. Data are presented as mean value from three independent experiments presented as fold change of cisplatin treatment. Error bars represent SEM.
Figure 4Down-regulation of RBM3 significantly reduces cisplatin sensitivity in ovarian cancer cells. siRBM3 transfected A2780 cells were, 24 hrs post-transfection, treated with various concentrations of cisplatin for 1 h followed by 48 hrs culture in fresh drug-free media. (A) Cell viability was evaluated by WST-1 assay in siRBM3 transfected A2780 cells treated with cisplatin (1, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 μM). Data are presented as mean values from six independent experiments performed in triplicates presented as percentage of viable cells as compared with untreated cells. Error bars represent SEM. (B) Cell cycle phase distribution and (C) fraction of apoptotic cells were analysed by flow cytometry in siRBM3 transfected A2780 cells treated with 50 μM cisplatin. Data are presented as mean value from four independent experiments presented as fold change of cisplatin treatment. Error bars represent SEM.