| Literature DB >> 23155457 |
Elisa Giovannetti1, Arjan van der Velde, Niccola Funel, Enrico Vasile, Vittorio Perrone, Leticia G Leon, Nelide De Lio, Amir Avan, Sara Caponi, Luca E Pollina, Valentina Gallá, Hiroko Sudo, Alfredo Falcone, Daniela Campani, Ugo Boggi, Godefridus J Peters.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Only a subset of radically resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients benefit from chemotherapy, and identification of prognostic factors is warranted. Recently miRNAs emerged as diagnostic biomarkers and innovative therapeutic targets, while high-throughput arrays are opening new opportunities to evaluate whether they can predict clinical outcome. The present study evaluated whether comprehensive miRNA expression profiling correlated with overall survival (OS) in resected PDAC patients. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23155457 PMCID: PMC3498320 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049145
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Clinical characteristics of the PDAC patients.
| Characteristic | Patients for the miRNA profiling n (%) | Patients of the validation cohort n (%) | |
| Short-OS | Long-OS | ||
|
| 13 | 13 | 60 |
|
| 64 (37–71) | 63 (56–79) | |
| ≤65 | 8 (61.5) | 6 (46.2) | 36 (60.0) |
| >65 | 5 (38.5) | 7 (53.8) | 24 (40.0) |
|
| |||
| Male | 7 (53.8) | 3 (23.1) | 28 (46.7) |
| Female | 6 (46.2) | 10 (76.9) | 32 (53.3) |
|
| |||
| pancreatico-duodenectomy | 11 (84.6) | 9 (69.2) | 46 (76.7) |
| total pancreatectomy | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (5.0) |
| distal pancreatectomy | 2 (15.4) | 4 (30.8) | 11 (18.3) |
|
| |||
| pT3 N0 Mx | 0 (0.0) | 1 (7.7) | 0 (0.0) |
| pT3 N1 Mx | 13 (100.0) | 12 (92.3) | 60 (100.0) |
|
| |||
| N0 | 0 (0.0) | 1 (7.7) | 0 (0.0) |
| N1 | 13 (100.0) | 12 (92.3) | 60 (100.0) |
|
| |||
| G1 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (5.00) |
| G2 | 8 (61.5) | 9 (69.2) | 27 (45.0) |
| G3 | 5 (38.5) | 4 (30.8) | 30 (50.0) |
| Unknown | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| |||
| R0 | 12 (92.2) | 12 (92.2) | 54 (90.0) |
| R1 | 1 (7.8) | 1 (7.8) | 6 (10.0) |
|
| |||
| Yes | 4 (30.8) | 3 (23.1) | 23 (38.3) |
| No | 9 (69.2) | 10 (76.9) | 37 (31.7) |
|
| |||
| Yes | 7 (53.8) | 9 (69.2) | 31 (51.7) |
| No | 6 (46.2) | 4 (30.8) | 29 (48.3) |
Figure 1Heatmap of the clustering of 170 miRs filtered based on t-test p-value<0.05.
In order to perform hierarchical cluster analysis we constructed a distance matrix using the two-tailed Spearman correlation test, due to the non-normal distribution of expression within samples. The cluster analysis shows a good separation between the two groups of samples, based on the significantly different miRNAs. The microRNA expression data were centered by 2 directions (i.e., by miRNA and patients). Red and yellow represent low and high miRNA expression, respectively.
Top-10 most discriminative miRNAs, based on RELIEF score.
| Number | miRNA | RELIEF score | Iterative score |
| 1 | miR-211 | 0.372 | 86 |
| 2 | miR-4321 | 0.332 | 76 |
| 3 | miR-1207-3p | 0.330 | 81 |
| 4 | miR-326 | 0.321 | 78 |
| 5 | miR-1914* | 0.297 | 53 |
| 6 | miR-3610 | 0.269 | 32 |
| 7 | miR-197 | 0.260 | 7 |
| 8 | let-7b* | 0.253 | 43 |
| 9 | miR-1296 | 0.250 | 29 |
| 10 | miR-4290 | 0.248 | 34 |
Figure 2Cluster analysis based on the top 4 most discriminative miRNAs performed with the RELIEF algorithm.
The colors are normalized and can only be compared left to right.
Identity, chromosomal localization, and number of the predicted target gens of the top-4 most discriminative miRNAs, as predicted with TargetScan and miRDB.
| Number | miRNA | Chromosome |
|
|
| 1 | miR-211 | 15q13.3 | 702 | 669 |
| 2 | miR-1207-3p | 8q24.21 | 217 | 488 |
| 3 | miR-326 | 11q13.4 | 309 | 441 |
| 4 | miR-4321 | chr19:2250638–2250717 | 14 | 161 |
Notes:
miRDB, release January, 2012;
TargetScan, release March 2012;
Coordinates from the Genome Reference Consortium Human genome build 37 (GRCh37).
Figure 3Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and DFS according to (A–B) miR-211 above and below median expression (e.g., low vs. high expression), and to (C–D) k-means clustering.
Factors associated with OS and DFS in the multivariate analysis.
| Multivariate analysis | ||||
| Covariates for OS | Hazard ratio (95%CI) | df |
| |
|
| G1–2 | 0.6 (0.3–1.1) | 1 |
|
| G3 | 1 (ref.) | |||
|
| Low | 2.0 (1.1–4.1) | 1 |
|
|
| High | 1 (ref.) | ||
|
| #1 | 2.8 (1.3–5.8) | 1 |
|
|
| #2 | 1 (ref.) | ||
| Covariates for DFS | Hazard ratio (95%CI) | df |
| |
|
| G1–2 | 1 (ref.) | 1 |
|
| G3 | 2.23 (1.03–4.85) | |||
|
| Low | 1 (ref.) | 1 |
|
|
| High | 2.08 (0.61–7.04) | ||
|
| #1 | 2.30 (1.16–4.56) | 1 |
|
|
| #2 | 1 (ref.) | ||
Abbreviations: df, degrees of freedom; DFS, Disease Free Survival; OS, Overall Survival.
Figure 4In vitro studies validating the role of miR-211 in gemcitabine chemosensitivity.
(A) MiR-211 expression in 9 PDAC cell lines and 5 primary tumor cultures. Expression was determined by quantitative PCR, using RNU6 as reference, and the values are in a.u. (B) MiR-211 expression in MIA PaCa-2 and LPc028 cells transfected with negative controls, pre-miR-21 or anti-miR-21 oligos. MiR-211 expression was calculated with the 2−ΔΔCT method with respect to the expression in cells transfected with negative miRNA controls, set as 1, as represented by the dotted line (C) Gemcitabine antiproliferative effects in MIA PaCa-2 and LPc028 cells transfected with miRNA negative controls, pre-miR-21 or anti-miR-21 oligos. *Significantly different from control transfected cells, which were not treated with gemcitabine, set at 100% (P<0.05). (D) RRM2 mRNA expression in MIA PaCa-2 and LPc028 cells transfected with negative controls, pre-miR-21 or anti-miR-21 oligos. RRM2 expression was calculated with the 2−ΔΔCT method with respect to the expression in cells transfected with miRNA negative controls, set as 1, as represented by the dotted line. Columns, mean values obtained from three independent experiments; bars, SE. *Significantly different from control (P<0.05).