| Literature DB >> 23091414 |
Yuan-fang Li1, Dan-dan Wang, Bai-wei Zhao, Wei Wang, Chun-yu Huang, Yong-ming Chen, Yan Zheng, Rajiv Prasad Keshari, Jian-chuan Xia, Zhi-wei Zhou.
Abstract
COP1 (constitutive photomorphogenic 1, also known as RFWD2) is a p53-targeting E3 ubiquitin ligase containing RING-finger, coiled-coil, and WD40-repeat domains. Recent studies have identified that COP1 is overexpressed in several cancer types and that increased COP1 expression promotes cell proliferation, cell transformation, and tumor progression. In the present study, we investigated the expression and prognostic value of COP1 in primary gastric cancer. To investigate the role of the COP1 gene in primary gastric cancer pathogenesis, real-time quantitative PCR and western blotting were performed to examine COP1 expression in paired cancerous and matched adjacent noncancerous gastric tissues. The results revealed high COP1 mRNA (P=0.030) and protein (P=0.008) expression in most tumor-bearing tissues compared with the matched adjacent non-tumor tissues. The correlated protein expression analysis revealed a negative correlation between COP1 and p53 in gastric cancer samples (P=0.005, r=-0.572). Immunohistochemical staining of gastric cancer tissues from the same patient showed a high COP1 expression and a low p53 expression. To further investigate the clinicopathological and prognostic roles of COP1 expression, we performed immunohistochemical analysis of 401 paraffin-embedded gastric cancer tissue blocks. The data revealed that high COP1 expression was significantly correlated with T stage (P=0.030), M stage (P=0.048) and TNM stage (P=0.022). Consistent with these results, we found that high expression of COP1 was significantly correlated with poor survival in gastric cancer patients (P<0.001). Cox regression analyses showed that COP1 expression was an independent predictor of overall survival (P<0.001). Our data suggest that COP1 could play an important role in gastric cancer and might serve as a valuable prognostic marker and potential target for gene therapy in the treatment of gastric cancer.Entities:
Keywords: COP1; expression; gastric cancer; immunohistochemistry; prognosis.
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23091414 PMCID: PMC3477686 DOI: 10.7150/ijbs.4778
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Biol Sci ISSN: 1449-2288 Impact factor: 6.580
Figure 1Increased mRNA expression of COP1 in gastric cancer tissues as assessed by real time quantitative RT-PCR (n=40, P=0.030). Horizontal lines represent the mean.
Figure 2Increased protein expression of COP1 in gastric cancer as assessed by Western blotting. (A) Relative COP1 protein expression levels in gastric cancer tissues and noncancerous tissues (COP1/GAPDH, n=22, P=0.008). Horizontal lines represent the mean. (B) Representative result of COP1 protein expression in 3 paired gastric tumorous and the matched adjacent nontumorous tissues (C, gastric cancer tissues; N, matched noncancerous gastric mucosa).
Figure 3Correlated protein expression of COP1 and p53 in gastric cancer samples. (A) Representative result of COP1 and p53 protein expression in 3 paired gastric tumors and the matched adjacent nontumorous tissues (C, gastric cancer tissues; N, matched noncancerous gastric mucosa). (B) Correlated protein expression of COP1 and p53 in 22 cases of primary gastric cancer samples. Data revealed a negative correlation between COP1 and p53 protein expression in the relevant gastric cancer samples (P=0.005, r=-0.572). (C) Immunohistochemical staining of gastric cancer tissues from the same patient showed a high COP1 expression and a low p53 expression. a: Immunohistochemical staining of COP1 (40×magnification); b: Immunohistochemical staining of p53 (40×magnification); c: Immunohistochemical staining of COP1 (200×magnification); d: Immunohistochemical staining of p53 (200×magnification).
Figure 4COP1 protein expression in gastric cancer surgical specimens shown by immunohistochemistry. (A) Weak COP1 staining was observed in noncancerous gastric mucosa. (B) Weak COP1 staining was observed in well-differentiated gastric cancer. (C) Strong COP1 staining was observed in moderately differentiated gastric cancer. (D) Strong COP1 staining was observed in poorly differentiated gastric cancer. All of these four pictures were taken under the same magnification (200×).
Correlation between COP1 expression and clinicopathological variables of 401 gastric cancer cases
| Clinicopathological parameters | COP1 expression | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Low | |||
| 401 | 208(51.9%) | 193(48.1%) | ||
| 0.546 | ||||
| <55 | 174 | 87(21.7%) | 87(21.7%) | |
| ≥55 | 227 | 121(30.2%) | 106(26.4%) | |
| 0.465 | ||||
| Male | 261 | 139(34.7%) | 122(30.4%) | |
| Female | 140 | 69(17.2%) | 71(17.7%) | |
| 0.783 | ||||
| <3 cm | 62 | 31(7.7%) | 31(7.7%) | |
| ≥3 cm | 339 | 177(44.2%) | 162(40.4%) | |
| 0.030* | ||||
| T1 | 47 | 27(6.7%) | 20(5.0%) | |
| T2 | 38 | 13(3.2%) | 25(6.2%) | |
| T3 | 41 | 16(4.0%) | 25(6.2%) | |
| T4a | 213 | 112(27.9%) | 101(25.2%) | |
| T4b | 62 | 40(10.0%) | 22(5.5%) | |
| 0.081 | ||||
| N0 | 133 | 64(16.0%) | 69(17.2%) | |
| N1 | 71 | 35(8.7%) | 36(9.0%) | |
| N2 | 71 | 34(8.5%) | 37(9.2%) | |
| N3 | 126 | 75(18.7%) | 51(12.7%) | |
| 0.048* | ||||
| M0 | 357 | 179(44.6%) | 178(44.4%) | |
| M1 | 44 | 29(7.2%) | 15(3.7%) | |
| 0.022* | ||||
| 1 | 52 | 31(7.7%) | 21(5.2%) | |
| 2 | 138 | 59(14.7%) | 79(19.7%) | |
| 3 | 164 | 87(21.7%) | 77(19.2%) | |
| 4 | 47 | 31(7.7%) | 16(4.0%) | |
a Numbers of cases in each group. * Statistically significant (P<0.05).
Figure 5Kaplan-Meier survival curves of gastric cancer patients (n=401) after gastrectomy. The survival rate of patients in the COP1-high group was significantly lower than that of patients in the COP1-low group (log-rank test, P<0.001).
Univariate and multivariate analyses of overall survival of gastric cancer patients
| Variables | Univariate analyses | Multivariate analyses | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | (95% CI) | HR | (95% CI) | ||||
| 0.101 | |||||||
| <55 | 174 | 1.000 | |||||
| ≥55 | 227 | 1.293 | 0.951-1.759 | ||||
| 0.991 | |||||||
| Female | 140 | 1.000 | |||||
| Male | 261 | 1.002 | 0.734-1.368 | ||||
| <0.001* | 0.627 | ||||||
| <3 cm | 62 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||
| ≥3 cm | 339 | 4.419 | 2.172-8.990 | 1.196 | 0.564-2.537 | ||
| <0.001* | 0.104 | ||||||
| T1 | 47 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||
| T2 | 38 | 6.279 | 0.756-52.171 | 4.554 | 0.534-38.823 | ||
| T3 | 41 | 20.700 | 2.743-156.202 | 5.964 | 0.740-48.056 | ||
| T4a | 213 | 26.147 | 3.648-187.423 | 6.278 | 0.814-48.423 | ||
| T4b | 62 | 54.086 | 7.450-392.660 | 8.956 | 1.139-70.410 | ||
| <0.001* | 0.927 | ||||||
| N0 | 133 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||
| N1 | 71 | 2.537 | 1.525-4.220 | 0.934 | 0.519-1.680 | ||
| N2 | 71 | 2.588 | 1.544-4.338 | 0.938 | 0.515-1.711 | ||
| N3 | 126 | 4.425 | 2.857-6.854 | 1.052 | 0.603-1.837 | ||
| <0.001* | 0.736 | ||||||
| M0 | 357 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||
| M1 | 44 | 4.556 | 3.121-6.651 | 1.142 | 0.528-2.470 | ||
| <0.001* | <0.001* | ||||||
| 1 | 52 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||
| 2 | 138 | 14.387 | 1.971-105.030 | 6.912 | 0.862-55.396 | ||
| 3 | 164 | 40.292 | 5.616-289.072 | 16.184 | 1.974-132.656 | ||
| 4 | 47 | 115.650 | 15.876-842.473 | 35.159 | 3.848-320.385 | ||
| <0.001* | <0.001* | ||||||
| Low | 193 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||
| High | 208 | 2.274 | 1.654-3.126 | 2.175 | 1.571-3.012 | ||
HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; a Numbers of cases in each group; * Statistically significant (P < 0.05).