| Literature DB >> 23875825 |
Xu-dong Gao, Jian-hui Qu, Xiu-juan Chang, Yin-ying Lu, Wen-lin Bai, Hong Wang, Zhong-xian Xu, Lin-jing An, Chun-ping Wang, Zhen Zeng, Yong-ping Yang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epigenetic alterations are well documented in hepatocarcinogenesis. However, hypomethylation of long interspersed nuclear element 1(LINE-1) promoter and its relationship with clinicopathological features in hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC) remain unknown.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 23875825 PMCID: PMC4238827 DOI: 10.1111/liv.12264
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Liver Int ISSN: 1478-3223 Impact factor: 5.828
Figure 1Schematic diagram of LINE-1. LINE-1 DNA fragments comprise a 5′-untranslated region (5′-UTR) with internal promoter activity. The sequence shown represents a 247-base pair fragment (base pairs 117–364) in the promoter of LINE-1. Numbers 1–19 refer to locations of the CpG site within the LINE-1 elements tested.
The clinicopathological characteristics of 243 patients with HCC
| Variable | Cohort 1 ( | Cohort 2 ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | |||||
| Age (Mean age ± SD)(y),range | 49.08 ± 7.73 (18–62) | 46.28 ± 8.87 (28–71) | ||||
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 54 | 76.06 | 150 | 87.21 | ||
| Female | 17 | 23.94 | 22 | 12.79 | ||
| Viral infection | ||||||
| HBV DNA-positive | 46 | 64.79 | 105 | 61.05 | ||
| HBeAg-positive | 28 | 39.44 | 66 | 38.37 | ||
| Child-Pugh classification | ||||||
| Class A | 62 | 87.32 | 161 | 93.60 | ||
| Class B | 9 | 12.68 | 11 | 6.40 | ||
| Tumour size | ||||||
| <3.8 cm | 33 | 46.47 | 93 | 54.07 | ||
| ≥3.8 cm | 38 | 53.52 | 79 | 45.93 | ||
| Number of nodules | ||||||
| Single | 63 | 88.73 | 144 | 83.72 | ||
| ≥2 | 8 | 11.26 | 28 | 16.28 | ||
| Tumour differentiation | ||||||
| well | 10 | 14.08 | 35 | 20.35 | ||
| mediately | 18 | 25.35 | 58 | 33.72 | ||
| poorly | 43 | 60.56 | 79 | 45.93 | ||
| BCLC stage | ||||||
| stage A | 36 | 50.7 | 81 | 47.09 | ||
| stage B | 35 | 49.29 | 91 | 52.91 | ||
| AFP | ||||||
| ≤400 ng/ml | 48 | 67.61 | 96 | 55.81 | ||
| >400 ng/ml | 23 | 32.39 | 76 | 44.19 | ||
Figure 2Methylation Level of long interspersed nucleotide element-1(LINE-1) promoter and expression of LINE-1 in liver tissue. (A) Representative bisulfite sequencing analysis of the LINE-1 promoter in normal liver, cirrhosis and liver cancer. The methylated and unmethylated CpG sites corresponding to the 19 CpG sites are underlined in parallel, methylated CpGs were CG, whereas unmethylated CpGs were TG. (B) Methylation levels of all CpG sites in LINE-1 promoter were compared between samples from subjects with HCC or cirrhosis and normal liver control. *P < 0.05, relative to the respective control. (C) HeatMap showing unsupervised clustering of normal, cirrhosis and HCC samples (x-axis) between the methylation of all CpG (y-axis). Green corresponds to low methylation and Red to high methylation. (D) Representative samples of immunostaining for LINE-1 and quantitative analysis results for LINE-1-positive dots in HCC and corresponding non-tumourous liver tissues. LINE-1 staining in HCC showed nuclear positivity (arrows), but negative in non-tumourous liver tissues (× 400).
Figure 3Unsupervised clustering based on LINE-1 promoter methylation level of HCC and outcomes of post-resection in cohort 1. (A) HeatMap showing unsupervised clustering of all HCC samples (x-axis) between the methylation of all CpG (y-axis). Green corresponds to low methylation and Red to high methylation. (B) TFS or OS curves of cluster 1 and cluster 2. TFS was significantly longer in cluster 1 than that of cluster 2 (P < 0.05). OS was significantly longer in cluster 1 than that of cluster 2 (P < 0.05). (C and D)The predictive ability of the CpG sites in LINE-1 promoter for TFS(C) and OS(D) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (*P < 0.001, compared with the other CpG sites).
Comparison of baseline characteristics according to methylation level of site 7 and site 18 in cohort 2
| Variable | Site 7 | Site 18 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hyper- methylation | Hypo- methylation | Hyper- methylation | Hypo- methylation | |||
| Age (Mean age ± SD)(y) | 45.71 ± 8.71 | 46.92 ± 9.48 | 0.3835 | 46.17 ± 9.62 | 46.47 ± 8.59 | 0.8306 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 72 | 78 | 0.9181 | 80 | 70 | 0.4699 |
| Female | 13 | 9 | 7 | 15 | ||
| Tumour characteristics | ||||||
| Tumour diameter | ||||||
| <3.8 cm | 63 | 30 | <0.0001 | 62 | 31 | 0.0003 |
| ≥3.8 cm | 22 | 57 | 25 | 54 | ||
| Number of nodules | ||||||
| Single | 74 | 70 | 0.8487 | 78 | 66 | 0.3368 |
| Multinoduar | 11 | 17 | 89 | 19 | ||
| BCLC Stage | ||||||
| Stage A | 56 | 25 | <0.0001 | 57 | 24 | <0.0001 |
| Stage B | 29 | 62 | 30 | 61 | ||
| Tumour differentiation | ||||||
| Well | 26 | 9 | 0.0022 | 24 | 11 | 0.0174 |
| moderate | 34 | 24 | 35 | 23 | ||
| poorly | 25 | 54 | 26 | 51 | ||
| AFP | ||||||
| ≤400 ng/m | 56 | 40 | 0.1409 | 50 | 46 | 0.9955 |
| >400 ng/ml | 29 | 47 | 37 | 39 | ||
Figure 4Kaplan–Meier analysis of the correlation between methylation level of CpG site7 or CpG site 18 and outcomes of 172 HCC patients. Patients with CpG site 7 hypermethylation had significantly longer OS (A) or TFS (B) than those with CpG site 7 hypomethylation, and patients with CpG site 18 hypermethylation had significantly longer OS (C) or TFS (D) than those with CpG site 18 hypomethylation. Patients with both CpG site 7 and site 18 hypomethylation had a much shorter median OS (E) or TFS (F) than those with both sites hypermethylation or only one site hypomethylation.
Multivariate analysis of factors associated with survival and recurrence in cohort 2
| Variable | TFS | OS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | |||
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||||
| Age | 0.965 | 0.488 | ||||
| Gender (male vs. female) | 0.420 | 0.960 | ||||
| Child-Pugh (class A vs. class B) | 0.346 | 0.965 | ||||
| AFP (≤400 ng/ml vs. >400 ng/ml) | 0.454 | 0.638 | ||||
| Tumour diameter (<3.8 cm vs. ≥3.8 cm) | 0.000 | 2.605 (1.313 to 3.247) | 0.002 | 0.000 | 2.228 (1.429 to 3.625) | 0.001 |
| Number of nodules (single vs. multinodular) | 0.035 | 1.149 (0.709 to 1.860) | 0.573 | 0.054 | 1.313 (0.811 to 2.127) | 0.269 |
| BCLC Stage (stage A vs. stage B) | 0.012 | 1.565 (0.958 to 2.559) | 0.074 | 0.005 | 1.622 (1.027 to 2.562) | 0.038 |
| Tumour differentiation (well/mediately vs. poorly) | 0.000 | 0.314 (0.130 to 0.756) | 0.010 | 0.000 | 0.416 (0.277 to 0.627) | 0.021 |
| Site 7 methylation (<0.53 vs. ≥0.53) | 0.001 | 0.435 (0.239 to 0.789) | 0.038 | 0.002 | 0.672 (0.416 to 1.085) | 0.025 |
| Site 18 methylation (<0.52 vs. ≥0.52) | 0.000 | 0.461 (0.256 to 0.832) | 0.010 | 0.001 | 0.550 (0.330 to 0.916) | 0.022 |
Univariate analysis, Cox proportional hazards regression model.
OS, overall survival; TFS, Tumour-free survival.
P < 0.05.
| Methylated primers | Unmethylated primers | |
|---|---|---|
| Site7 | F:5′- AGGAATAGTTTYGGTTTATAG -3′ | F:5′- AGGAATAGTTTYGGTTTATAG -3′ |
| R:5′-ACAATACCTCRCCCTACTTCG-3′ | R:5′-ACAATACCTCRCCCTACTTCA-3′ | |
| Site18 | F:5′-TAGGGAGTGTTAGATAGTGA-3′ | F:5′-TAGGGAGTGTTAGATAGTGA-3′ |
| R:5′-ATAAAATATAATCTCRTAATACG-3′ | R:5′-ATAAAATATAATCTCRTAATACA-3′ |