BACKGROUND: Improved detection methods for diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) are essential for early and reliable detection as well as treatment. Since recent data point to abnormal levels of microRNAs (miRNAs) in tumors, we hypothesized that a profile of deregulated miRNAs may be a marker of MPM and that the levels of specific miRNAs may be used for monitoring its progress. METHODS AND RESULTS: miRNAs isolated from fresh-frozen biopsies of MPM patients were tested for the expression of 88 types of miRNA involved in cancerogenesis. Most of the tested miRNAs were downregulated in the malignant tissues compared with the normal tissues. Of eight significantly downregulated, three miRNAs were assayed in cancerous tissue and adjacent non-cancerous tissue sample pairs collected from 27 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded MPM tissues by quantitative RT-PCR. Among the miRNAs tested, only miR-126 significantly remained downregulated in the malignant tissues. Furthermore, the performance of the selected miR-126 as biomarker was evaluated in serum samples of asbestos-exposed subjects and MPM patients and compared with controls. MiR-126 was not affected by asbestos exposure, whereas it was found strongly associated with VEGF serum levels. Levels of miR-126 in serum, and its levels in patients' serum in association with a specific marker of MPM, SMRPs, correlate with subjects at high risk to develop MPM. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: We propose miR-126, in association with SMRPs, as a marker for early detection of MPM. The identification of tumor biomarkers used alone or, in particular, in combination could greatly facilitate the surveillance procedure for cohorts of subjects exposed to asbestos.
BACKGROUND: Improved detection methods for diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) are essential for early and reliable detection as well as treatment. Since recent data point to abnormal levels of microRNAs (miRNAs) in tumors, we hypothesized that a profile of deregulated miRNAs may be a marker of MPM and that the levels of specific miRNAs may be used for monitoring its progress. METHODS AND RESULTS: miRNAs isolated from fresh-frozen biopsies of MPMpatients were tested for the expression of 88 types of miRNA involved in cancerogenesis. Most of the tested miRNAs were downregulated in the malignant tissues compared with the normal tissues. Of eight significantly downregulated, three miRNAs were assayed in cancerous tissue and adjacent non-cancerous tissue sample pairs collected from 27 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded MPM tissues by quantitative RT-PCR. Among the miRNAs tested, only miR-126 significantly remained downregulated in the malignant tissues. Furthermore, the performance of the selected miR-126 as biomarker was evaluated in serum samples of asbestos-exposed subjects and MPMpatients and compared with controls. MiR-126 was not affected by asbestos exposure, whereas it was found strongly associated with VEGF serum levels. Levels of miR-126 in serum, and its levels in patients' serum in association with a specific marker of MPM, SMRPs, correlate with subjects at high risk to develop MPM. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: We propose miR-126, in association with SMRPs, as a marker for early detection of MPM. The identification of tumor biomarkers used alone or, in particular, in combination could greatly facilitate the surveillance procedure for cohorts of subjects exposed to asbestos.
Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive tumor with poor prognosis,
mostly linked to asbestos exposure [1]. Although the inhalation of asbestos fibers is a well
known risk factor, the lack of clinical symptoms in the early stages of the disease
as well as the lack of useful diagnostic markers makes early diagnosis very
difficult [2].
Current challenge in the management of MPM includes the identification of sensitive
and specific biomarkers that can be exploited to detect early neoplastic changes
preferentially in a non-invasive manner thus facilitating the detection of MPM at an
early stage, as well as for monitoring the progress of patients with MPM and their
response to the treatments. A number of circulating tumour markers have been
evaluated, but their sensitivity is low [3], [4]. Recently, soluble
mesothelin-related peptides (SMRPs) have been suggested as promising biomarkers for
MPM [5]. The
level of SMRP of 1 nM was recommended as the best cut-off value to distinguish MPMpatients from controls. However, this approach does not discriminate
asbestos-exposed individuals from healthy controls. Thus, the levels of SMRPs in the
blood have be proposed as a biomarker suitable for the diagnosis of existing MPM but
not to identify high-risk subjects [6], [7]; neither is it useful as a screening tool.MPM is characterized by a long latency period from the time of asbestos exposure to
clinical diagnosis, suggesting that multiple somatic changes may be required for the
tumorigenic conversion of normal mesothelial cells [8]. In this long
promotion/propagation phase (typically >10 years), chromosomal rearrangement,
aberrations and deletions as well as epigenetic changes have been proposed to
occur.It is known that epigenetic mechanisms are involved in the regulation of microRNAs
(miRNAs) [9],
[10], a class
of naturally occurring small non-coding RNAs of 19–25 nucleotides in length.
About 700 miRNAs have been identified in humans, with each miRNA affecting up to 200
target genes by blocking the translation of individual proteins [11]. These molecules
are involved in the regulation of up to one-third of all human genes by promoting
the degradation of target messenger RNA.Aberrant expression of miRNAs has been shown to contribute to the pathogenesis of
several human diseases [12]–[14] including cancer [15]–[17], and may serve as a valuable
diagnostic or prognostic marker for a variety of pathologies. Therefore, the
identification of a specific miRNA profile may be utilized for better identification
of cancer types [18], [19]. We hypothesize that a profile of deregulated miRNAs may
be used for the detection of MPM and that the levels of expression of specific miRNA
species could help monitoring the disease development.In this study, the miRNA profile associated with the development of MPM was evaluated
by quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) analysis
of biopsies freshly collected from patients with MPM and from healthy subjects used
as controls. Certain deregulated miRNA species were selected and subjected to
further analysis in a larger series of samples. Among the miRNAs analyzed, the
miR-126 was found to be significantly downexpressed in malignant tissues. Next, we
tested the applicability of the selected miR-126 as a circulating biomarker for
early detection of MPM and risk-disease prediction. Thus, the miR-126 levels were
evaluated in serum samples of asbestos-exposed subjects, defined as high-risk
population to develop the disease, and MPMpatients, correlated with the level of
the angiogenic factor VEGF and SMRPs, and compared with healthy subjects. Our
results indicate that the miR-126 expression, in particular in combination with
SMRPs, may be used as a marker to help diagnose of the neoplastic disease and could
greatly facilitate the surveillance procedure for cohorts of subjects exposed to
asbestos.
Results
MiRNA expression profile distinguishes MPM from normal mesothelium
To determine the miRNA species differently expressed in the MPM tissue compared
with the normal mesothelial tissue, we used a customized miRNA PCR array with 88
human miRNAs that are known to play a role in cancer. By comparing miRNAs from
freshly collected MPM biopsies with pooled miRNAs from normal controls, a miRNA
‘signature’ was obtained. Most of the miRNAs were downregulated in
the malignant tissue compared to the healthy control samples (Fig. 1). The most
significantly downregulated miRNA species were miR-335 (fold change
−17.8±1.9, p<0.009), miR-130a (fold change
−9.3±3.3, p<0.047), miR193b (fold change −5.2±1.1,
p<0.012), miR-30c (fold change −6.8±1.1, p<0.02), miR-212
(fold change −10.7±1.9, p<0.018), miR-126 (fold change
−18.0±1.7, p<0.036), miR-32 (fold change −76.6±2.4,
p<0.039), and miR-181c (fold change −14.3±2.4, p<0.046).
Correlations were found between the levels of individual miRNA species, while no
correlation was detected between miRNAs and the tumor stage (data not
shown).
Figure 1
Hierarchical cluster analysis of miRNAs.
miRNA expression of 10 MPM tissues is shown with respect to the pooled
miRNAs from 5 normal tissues. MiRNAs were considered differentially
expressed if their levels were increased or decreased by more than
2-fold. Relative normalized expression for each miRNA is represented by
color intensity (green, downregulation; yellow, no change in expression;
red, increased expression; black, miRNA not detected).
Hierarchical cluster analysis of miRNAs.
miRNA expression of 10 MPM tissues is shown with respect to the pooled
miRNAs from 5 normal tissues. MiRNAs were considered differentially
expressed if their levels were increased or decreased by more than
2-fold. Relative normalized expression for each miRNA is represented by
color intensity (green, downregulation; yellow, no change in expression;
red, increased expression; black, miRNA not detected).Three miRNA species most consistently downregulated, with fold change of >15,
were selected for a larger-scale analysis using the paraffin-embedded tissue
sections. We therefore analyzed the expression of miR-335, miR-126 and miR-32 in
the pairs of the cancerous and the adjacent non-malignant tissue. The ROC curves
were generated to analyze the diagnostic value of individual miRNA. When the
number of samples was increased, miR-335 lost its significance to discriminate
the pathological tissue (MPM group) from the normal, control tissue (NM group),
accuracy to 42% (26–58%, p = 0.312).
Therefore, only miR-126, accuracy to 70% (54–85%,
p = 0.024), and, to a lower extent, miR-32, accuracy to
65% (50–80%, p = 0.050), were
significantly downregulated in the MPM group compared to the NM group allowing
to discriminate between cancerous and non-malignant tissues (Fig. 2).
Figure 2
Box plot and ROC curves of miR-335, miR-126 and miR-32 expression
levels.
Distribution of miR-335, miR-126 and miR-32 expression levels
(ΔCT) in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and
normal mesothelial (NM) tissue (left panels). The areas under the
receiver operating curves (AUC) were determined for miR-335, miR-126 and
miR-32, discriminating cancerous and non-malignant tissues. Differences
with p<0.05 were considered statistically
significant. *MPM vs. NM.
Box plot and ROC curves of miR-335, miR-126 and miR-32 expression
levels.
Distribution of miR-335, miR-126 and miR-32 expression levels
(ΔCT) in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and
normal mesothelial (NM) tissue (left panels). The areas under the
receiver operating curves (AUC) were determined for miR-335, miR-126 and
miR-32, discriminating cancerous and non-malignant tissues. Differences
with p<0.05 were considered statistically
significant. *MPM vs. NM.The MPM group was then divided into two sub-groups according to the stage of the
disease. The MPM tumors staged S-Ia, S-Ib, or S-II without lymph nodes and
metastases involvement were included in the S1 group, while the MPM tumors
staged S-III or S-IV with lymph nodes and metastases were included in the S2
group. We then compared the expression of miR-335, miR-126 and miR-32 in these
two groups. Although without reaching statistical significance, all miRNAs were
more downregulated in the advanced S2 group (Fig. 3).
Figure 3
Box plot of miR-335, miR-126 and miR-32 expression levels according
to tumor staging.
Distribution of miR-335, miR-126 and miR-32 expression levels
(ΔCT) in S1, MPMs staged S-Ia, S-Ib, S-II without
lymph nodes and metastases involvement and S2, MPMs staged S-III, S-IV
with lymph nodes and metastases involvement. *S1
vs. S2, p<0.05.
Box plot of miR-335, miR-126 and miR-32 expression levels according
to tumor staging.
Distribution of miR-335, miR-126 and miR-32 expression levels
(ΔCT) in S1, MPMs staged S-Ia, S-Ib, S-II without
lymph nodes and metastases involvement and S2, MPMs staged S-III, S-IV
with lymph nodes and metastases involvement. *S1
vs. S2, p<0.05.
Circulating miR-126 differentiates asbestos-exposed subjects from MPM
patients and healthy controls
Recently, the expression profile of circulating miRNAs in the serum has been
suggested as a potential biomarker for cancer detection [22]–[24]. It is widely
accepted that asbestos inhalation is the predominant cause of MPM, with
∼80% of cases associated with documented asbestos exposure [1]. We
hypothesized that the levels of specific miRNAs in the blood may be used to
diagnose possible pathological changes associated with inhalation of asbestos
fibres.MiR-126, the most important marker in our previous screening (see above), was
evaluated in a cohort of asbestos-exposed subjects defined as high-risk
subjects, in MPMpatients and in healthy controls.MiR-126 was correlated with the serum levels of the angiogenic factor VEGF and
the SMRPs, a specific marker of MPM [5], [6]. Multivariate logistic
regression analysis was performed to estimate the influence of independent
factors on the level of miR-126. Among the various factors, such as
asbestos-related diseases (fibrosis and pleural plaques), duration of asbestos
exposure, cumulative fibre doses and markers of the disease (VEGF and SMRPs),
only VEGF levels were found to strongly correlate with miR-126
(R = 0.659,
p = 0.02). As shown in Fig. 4A,B, MPMpatients showed
higher serum VEGF and SMRP levels relative to the asbestos-exposed subjects and
controls. On the other hand, miR-126 can significantly differentiate the
high-risk individuals from the healthy controls and cancer group (Fig. 4C). Using ROC analysis,
cut-off values of miR-126 were determined to discriminate asbestos-exposed
subjects from controls (ΔCT = −3.5;
sensitivity 60% and specificity 74%) and from MPMpatients
(ΔCT = −4.5; sensitivity
73% and specificity 74%).
Figure 4
Box plots showing VEGF, SMRPs and miR-126 serum levels.
Distribution of VEGF (A), SMRPs (B), miR-126 (C) levels and SMRPs-miR-126
association (D) in asbestos-exposed subjects (Exp); MPM patients and
healthy controls (Ctrl) are shown. Based on the percentile analysis, a
cut-off for SMRPs was determined to discriminate asbestos-exposed
subjects and healthy controls from MPM patients. Two cut-offs were
calculated for miR-126 to discriminate asbestos-exposed subjects from
healthy controls (ΔCT = −3.5)
and from MPM patients
(ΔCT = −4.5) *Ctrl
vs. Exp and MPM; Exp vs. MPM,
p<0.05.
Box plots showing VEGF, SMRPs and miR-126 serum levels.
Distribution of VEGF (A), SMRPs (B), miR-126 (C) levels and SMRPs-miR-126
association (D) in asbestos-exposed subjects (Exp); MPMpatients and
healthy controls (Ctrl) are shown. Based on the percentile analysis, a
cut-off for SMRPs was determined to discriminate asbestos-exposed
subjects and healthy controls from MPMpatients. Two cut-offs were
calculated for miR-126 to discriminate asbestos-exposed subjects from
healthy controls (ΔCT = −3.5)
and from MPMpatients
(ΔCT = −4.5) *Ctrl
vs. Exp and MPM; Exp vs. MPM,
p<0.05.To evaluate whether a combination of individual markers may increase the
predictive value for early detection of MPM, SMRP levels, that can distinguish
MPMpatients from asbestos-exposed subjects and controls with a cut-off of 1 nM,
have been found to correlate with serum miR-126 (Fig. 4D). The probability of the risk to
develop the disease was higher with decreasing expression of miR-126, when
correlated with increasing levels of SMRPs.
Discussion
The prognosis of MPMpatients is dismal despite current therapeutic modalities that
include surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation of the thoracic drainage site [2], [25], [26]. In the early
stage, surgery may offer a chance for prolonged survival, but patients need to be
carefully selected, since less then 10% of the patients are eligible for this
therapeutic option [27]. In advanced stages, chemotherapy with novel antifolates
combined with cisplatin offers a rather small, albeit significant survival advantage
[28]. Early
and accurate diagnosis is important for appropriate therapeutic intervention, which
may result in prolonged survival of MPMpatients or, in the ideal case, their
complete recovery.Focus has been on finding tumor markers that can be used in association with
radiography for MPM detection [29]. Several rather promising approaches have been suggested.
For example, patients with MPM show increased serum levels of the MPM-specific
peptide mesothelin and related peptides [5], [30], [31]. We have recently identified
the combination of SMRPs and the level of expression of the vascular endothelial
growth factor (VEGF) together with 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (a marker of
oxidative stress) as a potential indicator of early and advanced MPM [6]. Although these
reports are encouraging, we decided to explore a relatively different avenue to MPM
diagnosis, based on the use of miRNA profiling.Accumulating reports strongly indicate the potential diagnostic applications of miRNA
in humancancers, also suggesting their possible use in therapeutic applications
[19], [32], [33]. Therefore, miRNA
expression profiles can be utilized to discriminate normal from malignant tissue, to
identify the tissue origin in poorly differentiated tumors, or to distinguish
cancers of unknown origin as well as their sub-types.To identify a specific miRNA signature, we first analyzed human miRNAs with a
potential role in malignant tissue freshly obtained from MPMpatients, which was
compared with corresponding samples of normal human mesothelium. This approach
revealed differences in the expression profile of miRNAs in MPM samples and in the
controls. We found that most miRNA species were expressed at lower levels in the MPM
samples compared to the controls (cf
Fig. 1). This result is in
agreement with several studies that reported an overall downregulation of miRNAs in
tumors compared to the corresponding normal tissue [34], [35].An miRNA profile was previously identified by analyzing 17 biopsies freshly collected
from MM patients for 723 human and 76 viral miRNAs [36]. Twelve miRNAs were highly
expressed, whereas nine were found to be downregulated. More recently, Busacca and
colleagues [37]
evaluated miRNA expression profile in cultured mesothelioma cells. The significantly
deregulated miRNAs were then further assessed by qRT-PCR and subsequently analyzed
in 24 MM specimens, representative of three tumor histotypes (epithelioid, biphasic,
and sarcomatoid). A pattern of deregulated miRNAs was found in these samples.
Although well carried out, these two studies reported different profiles of miRNA
expression, suggesting that both the selection of the samples and the applied
methodological approaches could have affected the results. Gee and colleagues have
recently suggested that miRNA analysis can be used to distinguish MM from lung
carcinomas [38],
which gives the potential application of miRNA profiling yet another level of
importance.In this study, the miRNA profile was determined using biopsies collected from MPMpatients before the diagnosis and, therefore, the enrolled patients did not receive
any adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy that could affect expression of the
individual miRNAs. Also, the qRT-PCR array we used allowed quantification of miRNA
expression. Using this approach, we identified eight significantly downregulated
miRNAs. Of these, three most consistently deregulated miRNAs were analyzed in 27
cancerous and adjacent non-malignant tissue sample pairs, resulting in the
identification of miR-126 as promising markers that may be potentially utilized to
distinguish cancerous and normal tissue. More specifically, we observed low levels
of miR-126 in MPM samples, with their expression independent of tumour staging
(cf
Fig. 2,3).The expression of miR-126 has been recently found to be low in humanlung cancer
cells. More specifically, miR-126 has a binding site in the 3′-untranslated
region (3′-UTR) of the VEGF-A mRNA, and its upregulation resulted in decreased
expression of VEGF-A. These results suggest a tumor suppressor function of miR-126
in the context of lung cancer [39], which is strongly dependent on the production of
angiogenic factors. VEGF, which is secreted by tumor cells and is essential for
tumour vascularization [40], is predicted to be a target for a variety of miRNA
species [41],
including miR-126 [39]. Collectively, miRNAs in cancer cells are likely to
contribute to the regulation of tumor angiogenesis by affecting the paracrine
signalling between cancer cells and endothelial cells of the vasculature.One of the major challenges in MM is the identification of biomarkers for early
detection of the disease, which can be routinely measured in surrogates. Recently,
circulating miRNAs have been shown as promising biomarkers for detection of humancancers [42].
Here, we estimated the risk of MPM in an asbestos-exposed population via assessment
of serum miR-126 in relation to asbestos exposure parameters, the angiogenic
mediator VEGF and the tumor marker SMRPs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis
revealed that miR-126 was not affected by asbestos exposure, whereas it was found
strongly associated with VEGF levels. Low expression of miR-126 was correlated with
high levels of VEGF (data not shown). High VEGF levels and SMRPs were found in the
serum of MPMpatients compared with asbestos-exposed subjects and healthy controls
(cf
Fig. 4A, B). As previously
reported, SMRP levels can distinguish MPMpatients from both asbestos-exposed
subjects and controls with an estimated cut-off of 1 nM. Thus, the level of SMRPs
have been proposed as a biomarker suitable for the diagnosis of existing MPM but not
to predict the disease [6]. Conversely, miR-126 levels can significantly
differentiate the high-risk individuals from healthy controls and the cancer group
(cf
Fig. 4C). Using ROC analysis, we
calculated the cut-offs for clinical significance, resulting in dot plots of the
combination of markers that were used to stratify the studied population. When
combined with SMRPs, miR-126 indicates a better performance for the discrimination
of subjects with high-risk to develop tumors, suggesting a potential diagnostic
indicator for patients in the early stages of MPM (cf
Fig. 4D).In this study, we have identified miRNAs whose expression differs in the MPM tissue
when compared to the corresponding healthy tissue. Of the various differentially
expressed miRNAs, miR-126 was found to be significantly downregulated in the
malignant tissue. Further, expression of miR-126 can be easily evaluated in the
serum, and its level in association with a specific marker of MPM, SMRPs, can be
used to identify subjects with high risk to develop the disease. The identification
of tumor biomarkers used alone or, in particular, in combination could greatly
facilitate the surveillance procedure for cohorts of subjects exposed to asbestos, a
relatively common phenomenon in different areas of industrialized countries.
Materials and Methods
Ethics statement
All subjects filled a questionnaire including their informed consent. The study
was carried out according to the Helsinki Declaration and the samples were
processed under approval of the written consent statement by Ethical Committee
of the University Hospital of Marche, Italy.
Specimens
To obtain biopsy specimens, 22 subjects (aged 69.8±10.1 years; 20 males, 2
females) who underwent thoracoscopy or thoracotomy for suspected MPM were
enrolled. The collected tissue was divided into two parts; one was immediately
suspended in the RNALater solution (Ambion, Austin, TX, USA) and stored at
−80°C until RNA extraction. The other tissue portion was used for
histological examination by the Pathological Anatomy Unit of the Hospital
University of Ancona, Italy. According to the diagnosis, the individuals were
classified as subjects with MPM (the MPM group) and as healthy subjects with
normal mesothelium (the NM group). The MPM group included tissue with clear
signs of the pathology (n = 10), while the NM group
included non-malignant tissue (n = 5). The exclusion
criteria were the presence or suspicion of any infectious disease and other
malignancies. Tumors were classified as epithelioid, sarcomatoid, biphasic, and
the tumor stage evaluated based on the recommendation by the International
Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) [20]. The demographic and
pathological characteristics of the subjects are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Demographic and pathological characteristics of individual
subjects.
Biopsies
Age(years)
Sex(M/F)
Smoking(yes/ex/no)
Histotype(EP/BI/SA)
Stage
MPM-1
68
M
ex
EP
S-Ib
MPM-2
63
M
no
EP
S-Ia
MPM-3
66
M
no
EP
S-Ia
MPM-4
75
M
yes
EP
S-IV
MPM-5
81
F
yes
EP
S-III
MPM-6
70
M
ex
EP
S-Ia
MPM-7
75
M
ex
EP
S-III
MPM-8
66
M
no
EP
S-III
MPM-9
83
M
no
SA
-
MPM-10
77
M
no
EP
-
NM-1
80
F
yes
-
-
NM-2
58
M
yes
-
-
NM-3
83
M
no
-
-
NM-4
60
M
no
-
-
NM-5
61
M
no
-
-
EP, epithelioid; SA, sarcomatoid; S-Ia (any T1a); S-Ib (any T1b);
S-II (any T2); S-III (any T3, any N); S-IV (any T4, any N, any
M).
EP, epithelioid; SA, sarcomatoid; S-Ia (any T1a); S-Ib (any T1b);
S-II (any T2); S-III (any T3, any N); S-IV (any T4, any N, any
M).Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue of the subjects affected by MPM
(n = 27) was collected from the Archive of the Pathological
Anatomy Unit of the Hospital University of Ancona, Italy. The FFPE samples were
cut into 5 µm sections and stored at room temperature until analysis. The
adjacent non-cancerous tissue was used as a control. The clinical data were
obtained retrospectively and included information on the gender, age, histology,
neoadjuvant chemoradiation and therapy administration (before surgery), smoking
status and the pathologic staging. The MPM sub-types were as follows: 23
epithelioid, 1 sarcomatoid and 3 biphasic. The demographic and pathological
characteristics of the subjects are summarized in Table 2. The patients were not treated with
any adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy.
Table 2
Demographic and pathological characteristics of MPM patients.
FFPE tissues
Age(years)
Sex(M/F)
Smoking(yes/ex/no)
Histotype(EP/BI/SA)
Stage
MPM-1
70
M
no
EP
S-IV
MPM-2
66
M
yes
EP
S-III
MPM-3
71
M
yes
EP
S-III
MPM-4
66
M
ex
EP
S-III
MPM-5
72
M
ex
EP
S-I
MPM-6
59
M
ex
EP
S-III
MPM-7
62
M
no
BI
S-I
MPM-8
80
M
no
EP
S-II
MPM-9
57
F
no
SA
S-I
MPM-10
78
M
ex
EP
S-III
MPM-11
70
M
yes
EP
S-III
MPM-12
75
M
yes
EP
S-III
MPM-13
75
M
no
EP
S-I
MPM-14
69
F
yes
EP
S-II
MPM-15
74
M
ex
EP
S-II
MPM-16
74
M
no
EP
S-I
MPM-17
68
M
no
EP
S-I
MPM-18
63
M
yes
EP
-
MPM-19
70
F
no
EP
-
MPM-20
45
M
no
EP
-
MPM-21
67
M
ex
EP
S-I
MPM-22
70
M
no
BI
S-I
MPM-23
75
M
yes
EP
S-I
MPM-24
44
M
no
EP
S-I
MPM-25
77
M
no
EP
-
MPM-26
78
M
ex
BI
S-III
MPM-27
73
M
ex
EP
S-I
EP, epithelioid; SA, sarcomatoid; BI, Biphasic; S-I (any T1a, any
T1b); S-II (any T2); S-III (any T3, any N); S-IV (any T4, any N, any
M).
EP, epithelioid; SA, sarcomatoid; BI, Biphasic; S-I (any T1a, any
T1b); S-II (any T2); S-III (any T3, any N); S-IV (any T4, any N, any
M).
Study population
Asbestos-exposed subjects
From November 2004 to April 2010, 196 subjects (mean age 60.9±9.6
years, 188 males, 8 females) with a history of asbestos exposure were
enrolled at the Institute of Occupational Medicine, Polytechnic University
of Marche, Ancona, Italy. The participants were interviewed by trained
personnel and answered a detailed questionnaire on duration of asbestos
exposure, smoking and occupational tasks. Each subject underwent lung
function analysis, chest radiography, and high-resolution computed
tomography. A ‘fiber-year’ exposure metric was calculated for
each subject, assigning to each person an arbitrary coefficient of
‘inhalated fibers (ff)’ indicating the occupational hazard. The
‘cumulative fibers’ (Cf) are interpreted as the
cumulative dose of asbestos fibers in the workplace of
(ff/cm3)×yrs [21]. The subjects had been
exposed to asbestos fibers on average for 23.3±10.7 years with a
Cf of 28.8±50.4 (ff/cm3)×yrs. Smokers
87/196 (44%), ex-smokers 31/196 (16%) and non-smokers 78/196
(40%) were examined. Evidence of asbestos-related diseases (fibrosis
and pleural plaques) was found in 56/196 (29%) subjects.
MPM patients
44 patients (mean age 63±10; 37 males, 7 females) diagnosed for MPM,
were recruited, from November 2004 to January 2010, at the Oncology Clinic
of the University Hospital of Ancona, Italy, and included smokers 18/44
(41%), ex-smokers 7/44 (16%) and non-smokers 19/44
(43%). Exclusion criteria were the presence or suspicion of any
infectious disease, previous radical surgery, radiotherapy, as well as
chemotherapy for MPM. Pathological diagnosis was performed on pleural
biopsies obtained by thoracoscopy or thoracotomy. Tumors were classified as
epithelial in 30, mixed in 8 and sarcomatoid in 6 patients, and the tumor
stage was evaluated.
Healthy-controls
The control group consisted of 50 healthy subjects (mean age 68±8
years; 40 males, 10 females) recruited from November 2004 to January 2010,
and included smokers 27/50 (54%), ex-smokers 4/50 (8%) and
non-smokers 19/50 (38%). The subjects were undergoing screening
radiography for chemoprevention at the Pneumology Clinic of the University
Hospital of Ancona, Italy. None of them had ever been occupationally exposed
to asbestos as documented by their occupational histories, and they
presented with normal chest radiographs. Venous blood was collected from
each subject at the time of clinical examination and serum prepared.
Quantitative RT-PCR analysis
Total RNA was extracted from biopsies using Tri-Reagent (Sigma, St Louis, MO,
USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. MiRNAs were isolated
from total RNA by the RT2 qPCR-grade miRNA isolation kit
(SABiosciences, Frederick, MD, USA), and the cDNA synthesized using the
RT2 miRNA First Strand kit (SABiosciences) according to the
manufacturer's instructions. The expression of 88 miRNA species involved in
humancancer development (array MAH-102A, SABiosciences) was assessed by qRT-
PCR (Mastercycler EP Realplex, Eppendorf, Milano, Italy) using RT2
SYBR Green qPCR Master Mix (SABiosciences).Total RNA from the FFPE tissue samples (10 µg) was obtained using the
RecoverAll total nucleic acid isolation kit (Ambion, Austin, TX, USA) according
to the manufacturer's instructions. Expression of selected miRNA species
was quantified by qRT-PCR (Mastercycler EP Realplex) using the TaqMan MicroRNA
Assay (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA).Circulating RNA was isolated by adding to 250 µl of serum an equal volume
of Tri-Reagent BD (Sigma, St Louis, MO), the phase lock gel (Eppendorf) was used
to improve RNA recovery. The miRNA isolation kit (SABiosciences) was used for
miRNA purification. miRNAs were eluted in a final volume of 40 µl RNase
free water and 4 µl were reverse-transcribed to cDNA using individual
TaqMan MicroRNA Assay and the expression quantified by qRT-PCR.To normalize the expression levels of target miRNA, the U6 small nuclear RNA was
used as a control (housekeeping).
Soluble mesothelin-related peptide (SMRP) assay
The level of SMRPs was assessed using a sandwich-type ELISA assay (Mesomark,
Schering, Milano, Italy) according to the manufacture's instructions, and
the results are expressed in nmol/l. Briefly, 100 µl of standard and
plasma samples (1∶100 dilution) were added to each well of a 96-well
microtitre plate coated with specific antibodies against SMRPs and incubated at
room temperature for 60 min. After washing, the plate was incubated with a
secondary HRP-conjugated antibody. The detection process included the addition
of 100 µl of the TMB (3,3′,5,5′-Tetramethylbenzidine)
substrate to each well and the absorbance was read at 405 nm using an ELISA
plate reader (Sunrise, Tecan, Milano, Italy). Concentrations of SMRPs were
extrapolated from the standard curve, and expressed in nM.
Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) assay
HumanVEGF ELISA kit (EuroClone, Paignton, UK) was used according to the
manufacturer's instructions to assess levels of the cytokine in serum
samples. The results are expressed in pg/ml.
Statistical analysis
The results were expressed as mean±S.D. of ΔCT
(CT of miRNA - CT of housekeeping) and high miRNA
ΔCT value corresponded to low miRNA expression. The fold
changes in relative miRNA expression were calculated using the equation
2−Δ(ΔCt). MiRNA species that were not detected in
any of samples or with a CT value >35 were excluded from the
comparison. Differences with p<0.05 were considered
statistically significant.The miRNA species with at least a two-fold expression change between groups were
considered differentially expressed. The cluster analysis was performed on the
basis of the ΔΔCT log values, and the resulting expression
map was visualized with Treeview using the average-linkage clustering algorithms
(Eisen Lab, Stanford University, CA, USA). The miRNA species with increased
expression are indicated by red color, those with decreased expression are shown
in green color. Yellow color indicates miRNAs whose expression was similar in
the MPM and NM groups. Black color indicates miRNAs that were not detected.Statistical significance of different expression between two groups was
determined by means of the t-test and paired t-test. Multiple comparisons were
determined by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by the Post-hoc LSD test.
Correlations were performed according to Pearson. Receiver operating
characteristics (ROC) curves were plotted to quantify the marker performance.
The area under curve (AUC) indicates the average sensitivity of a marker over
the entire ROC curve. The robustness of the models was evaluated using bootstrap
techniques. The best statistical cut-offs were calculated by minimizing the
distance between the point with sensitivity = 1 and
specificity = 1 and the intercept on the ROC curve.
Multivariate logistic regression model was used to estimate the influence of
independent variables such as asbestos-related diseases (fibrosis and pleural
plaques), duration of asbestos exposure, cumulative fibre doses, VEGF and SMRP
levels on the selected miRNA.The data were analyzed by the Statistical Package Social Sciences (version 15)
software (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).
Authors: Gretchen V Gee; Devin C Koestler; Brock C Christensen; David J Sugarbaker; Donatella Ugolini; Giovanni P Ivaldi; Murray B Resnick; E Andres Houseman; Karl T Kelsey; Carmen J Marsit Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Nozomu Yanaihara; Natasha Caplen; Elise Bowman; Masahiro Seike; Kensuke Kumamoto; Ming Yi; Robert M Stephens; Aikou Okamoto; Jun Yokota; Tadao Tanaka; George Adrian Calin; Chang-Gong Liu; Carlo M Croce; Curtis C Harris Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Bruce W S Robinson; Jenette Creaney; Richard Lake; Anna Nowak; A William Musk; Nick de Klerk; Pernilla Winzell; Karl Erik Hellstrom; Ingegerd Hellstrom Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-11-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bogdan D Grigoriu; Bachar Chahine; Anil Vachani; Thomas Gey; Massimo Conti; Daniel H Sterman; Genevieve Marchandise; Henri Porte; Steven M Albelda; Arnaud Scherpereel Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2009-02-06 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: A Truini; S Coco; A Alama; C Genova; C Sini; M G Dal Bello; G Barletta; E Rijavec; G Burrafato; F Boccardo; F Grossi Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci Date: 2014-02-23 Impact factor: 9.261
Authors: Marco Tomasetti; Linda Nocchi; Sara Staffolani; Nicola Manzella; Monica Amati; Jacob Goodwin; Katarina Kluckova; Maria Nguyen; Elisabetta Strafella; Martina Bajzikova; Martin Peterka; Sandra Lettlova; Jaroslav Truksa; Wan Lee; Lan-Feng Dong; Lory Santarelli; Jiri Neuzil Journal: Antioxid Redox Signal Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 8.401
Authors: Michaela B Kirschner; Yuen Yee Cheng; Nicola J Armstrong; Ruby C Y Lin; Steven C Kao; Anthony Linton; Sonja Klebe; Brian C McCaughan; Nico van Zandwijk; Glen Reid Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Alberto Izzotti; Stefano Carozzo; Alessandra Pulliero; Dinara Zhabayeva; Jean Louis Ravetti; Rakhmet Bersimbaev Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 6.166