| Literature DB >> 21352519 |
Fajun Xie1, Haibo Liu, Ying-Hui Zhu, Yan-Ru Qin, Yongdong Dai, Tingting Zeng, Leilei Chen, Changjun Nie, Hong Tang, Yan Li, Li Fu, Xin-Yuan Guan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: By using cDNA microarray analysis, we identified a G protein-coupled receptor, GPR39, that is significantly up-regulated in ESCC. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of GPR39 in human esophageal cancer development, and to examine the prevalence and clinical significance of GPR39 overexpression in ESCC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21352519 PMCID: PMC3053269 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-86
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Figure 1Overexpression of GPR39 in ESCC. GPR39 was frequently overexpressed in primary ESCCs (A) and ESCC cell lines (B) detected by RT-PCR. For primary ESCCs, expression of GPR39 in tumor tissues (T) was compared with their paired non-tumorous tissues (N). Normal esophageal tissue was used as a normal control. 18S rRNA was used as an internal control. (C) Representative of GPR39 expression in a pair of ESCC (right) and adjacent normal tissue (left) detected by immunostaining with anti-GPR39 antibody (brown). The slide was counterstained with hematoxylin (original magnification × 200).
Association between GPR39 expression and clinical characteristics of ESCC patients (n = 207)
| Clinicopathologic characteristics | GPR39 expression no. (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Overexpression | Low expression | ||
| Age (y) | |||
| ≤60 | 69 (59.5) | 47 (40.5) | 0.735 |
| >60 | 52 (57.1) | 39 (42.9) | |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 68 (57.6) | 50 (42.4) | 0.887 |
| Female | 53 (59.6) | 36 (40.4) | |
| Tumor location | |||
| Upper | 22 (53.7) | 19 (46.3) | 0.762 |
| Middle | 82 (59.4) | 56 (40.6) | |
| Lower | 16 (61.5) | 10 (38.5) | |
| Tumor cell differentiation | |||
| Well | 15 (53.6) | 13 (46.4) | 0.846 |
| Moderate | 76 (58.9) | 53 (41.1) | |
| Poor | 30 (60.0) | 20 (40.0) | |
| Tumor invasion (T) | |||
| T1 | 2 (25) | 6 (75) | 0.085 |
| T2 | 44 (65.7) | 23 (34.3) | |
| T3 | 75 (57.3) | 56 (42.7) | |
| T4 | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | |
| Lymph node metastasis (N) | |||
| N0 | 59 (50.4) | 58 (49.8) | 0.008* |
| N1 | 62 (68.9) | 28 (31.1) | |
| TNM stage | |||
| I | 1 (14.3) | 6 (85.7) | 0.004* |
| IIa | 57 (52.3) | 52 (47.7) | |
| IIb | 15 (75.0) | 5 (25.0) | |
| III-IV | 48 (67.6) | 23 (32.4) | |
* Statistically significant (P < 0.05)
Figure 2Tumorigenic function of GPR39 in ESCC cells. (A) Expression of GPR39 in GPR39-transfected KYSE30 cells was confirmed by RT-PCR (left) and Western blot analysis (right). c1 and c4 are two independent GPR39-expressing clones. Vec-30 represents empty vector-transfected KYSE30 cells. (B) Representative of foci formation in monolayer culture. Quantitative analyses of foci numbers were shown in the right panel. Values were the mean ± SD of at least three independent experiments. **P < 0.01; independent Student's t-test. (C) Representative of colony formation in soft agar. Percentage of colonies formed was summarized in the right panel. Values were the mean ± SD of at least three independent experiments. **P < 0.01. (D) Growth curves of GPR39-expressing cells were compared with Vec-30 cells by cell growth assay. The results were expressed as mean ± SD of at least three independent experiments. **P < 0.01. (E) Tumor growth curves of GPR39-expressing cells in nude mice were compared with Vec-30 cells by tumor xenograft experiment. The average tumor volume of GPR39-expressing cells vs Vec-30 cells was expressed as mean ± SD in 10 inoculated sites for each group of cells. **P < 0.01. (F) Representative examples of tumors formed in nude mice following injection of GPR39-expressing KYSE30 cells (right) and Vec-30 cells (left).
Figure 3GPR39 promotes G1/S transition and enhances cell motility. (A) DNA content between GPR39-expressing cells and control Vec-30 cell were compared by Flow-cytometry. Untreated, cells were cultured in DMEM medium with 10% FBS; Withdraw serum, cells were cultured in DMEM medium without serum for 3 days; Add serum, cells were cultured again in DMEM medium with 10% FBS for 8 hr. (B) Expression of p21, cyclin D1, CDK4, and CDK6 were compared between GPR39-expressing cells (c4) and control Vec-30 cells by Western blot analyses. GAPDH was used as loading control. (C) The effect of GPR39 on cell migration was determined by wound-healing assay. During a period of 16 hr, the spreading speed of GPR39-expressing cells along the wound edge was faster than that in control Vec-30 cells. (D) Representative images showed the GPR39-expressing cells and Vec-30 cells that invaded through the matrigel. Number of invaded tumor cells was quantified in the right panel. Columns, mean of triplicate experiments; **P < 0.01.
Figure 4GPR39 promotes cell mobility and invasion by inducing partial EMT and remodeling cytoskeleton. (A) Representatives of cell morphology of GPR39-expressing cells and Vec-30 cells (original magnification × 200). (B) Expressions of epithelial markers E-cadherin and mesenchymal markers fibronectin, N-cadherin, and vimentin, were compared by RT-PCR or Western blotting analysis between GPR39-expressing cells and Vec-30 cells. GAPDH was used as loading control. (C) Representative images of F-actin staining. Formation of lamellipodia (indicated by arrows) was stimulated by GPR39 compared to control cells (magnification × 400).
Figure 5Silencing of GPR39 expression suppresses tumorigenic ability of GPR39. (A) GPR39 expression was efficiently decreased by the treatment of siGPR39 by RT-PCR. Relative expression level was measured by densitometer and summarized in the right panel. **P < 0.01. (B) Growth curve of KYSE180 cells treated with GPR39 siRNA was compared with control siRNA treated cells by cell growth assay. **P < 0.01. (C) Cell migration assay was used to compare the frequency of migratory cells between KYSE180 cells treated with control siRNA and GPR39 siRNA. (D) DNA content between control siRNA and GPR39 siRNA treated cells were compared by Flow-cytometry. *P < 0.05.