Literature DB >> 24204164

Low expression of mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein is associated with poor prognosis in ovarian cancer patients.

Ling He1, Kuan Peng, Yizhi Liu, Jing Xiong, Fu-Fan Zhu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein (MLKL) was initially identified as a key receptor interacting protein 3 downstream component of tumor-necrosis-factor-induced necrosis. In this study, we characterized the expression of MLKL in ovarian carcinomas and evaluated the prognostic value of MLKL in patients with ovarian cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ovarian cancer tissue specimens were collected from 153 patients diagnosed as primary ovarian cancer after operation at The Second Xiangya Hospital from January 2005 to December 2008. Immunohistochemistry was performed for MLKL and the protein expression score was quantified using an established scoring system. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for all patients. MLKL expression levels were correlated with DFS and OS using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis.
RESULTS: Seventy-five patients (49%) were defined as having high MLKL expression and 67 patients (43.7%) had >80% of cells staining for MLKL. Remarkably, low MLKL expression was significantly associated with decreased DFS (median 40 months versus 25 months, P=0.0282) and OS (median 43 months versus 28 months, P=0.0032). In multivariate analysis, retained significance was also observed.
CONCLUSION: Low MLKL expression was significantly associated with both decreased DFS and OS in patients with primary ovarian cancer. MLKL expression may serve as a potential prognostic marker in patients with ovarian cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MLKL; ovarian cancer; prognostic value

Year:  2013        PMID: 24204164      PMCID: PMC3817086          DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S52805

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Onco Targets Ther        ISSN: 1178-6930            Impact factor:   4.147


Introduction

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer deaths in women, and it is the third most common gynecological cancer.1 In the People’s Republic of China, the age-standardized incidence and mortality rates of ovarian cancer are 3.4 and 1.6 per 100,000, respectively.2 Despite advances in surgical resections and systemic chemotherapies, the prognosis of ovarian cancer remains poor and the 5-year survival rate is only approximately 30% after the initial diagnosis.3 The main reason for the poor rate of survival is that early symptoms of malignant ovarian tumors are silent and most of the patients have an advanced stage of the disease at diagnosis. In addition, primary or secondary multidrug resistances also account for failure in treatment of ovarian cancer.4 Thus, identifying novel molecular markers with prognostic value is important for improving therapeutic methods and extending survival of ovarian cancer patients. Necrosis is a type of cell death and is morphologically characterized by a gain in cell volume, swelling of organelles, plasma membrane rupture, and subsequent loss of intracellular contents.5 Necrosis is often observed in solid tumors with overgrowth and many cancer treatments can induce necrotic cell death.6,7 Necrosis can occur in a controlled and regulated manner, which is called necroptosis.8 The initiation of necroptosis can be induced through death receptors including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor 1, TNF receptor 2, and cluster of differentiation 95 (FasR). The serine/threonine kinases, receptor-interacting protein 1 (RIP1), and receptor-interacting protein 3 (RIP3) are key regulators of necrotic signaling.8 The mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein (MLKL) has been recently identified as a key RIP3 downstream component of TNF-induced necrosis.9,10 MLKL is phosphorylated by RIP3 and is recruited to the necrosome through its interaction with RIP3. In addition, it has been shown that prolonged c-Jun N terminal kinase activation contributes to TNF-induced necrosis.11 Several studies demonstrated that the activation of c-Jun N terminal kinase is associated with poor prognosis in cancer patients.12,13 However, the prognostic values of RIP1 and RIP3, the key components of the necroptosis pathway, have not been evaluated in cancer patients. Interestingly, a recent study suggested that MLKL expression can serve as a potential prognostic biomarker for patients with early-stage resected pancreatic cancer.14 However, the prognostic value of MLKL in other types of cancers and the role of MLKL in cancer necroptosis is unknown. In this study, we investigate the expression and prognostic value of MLKL in patients with ovarian cancer.

Materials and methods

Patients

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of The Second Xiangya Hospital, Hunan, People’s Republic of China. Informed consent was obtained from all of the patients. The ovarian cancer tissue samples were collected from 153 patients diagnosed with primary ovarian cancer after operation at The Second Xiangya Hospital from January 2005 to December 2008. All of the ovarian cancer patients received cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapies following cytoreduction. Briefly, the patients were treated with paclitaxel (135 mg/m2, intravenous [IV] for 3 hours) plus cisplatin (70 mg/m2, IV for 1 hour) and repeated every 21 days for six cycles. Surgical staging was established according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) system. Histopathological classification, including the stage, grade, and tumor type, was performed by an experienced pathologist (Table 1). Disease-free survival (DFS) was calculated from the date of the first cycle of first-line chemotherapy to the first radiological evidence of recurrence. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of histological diagnosis to the date of cancer-caused death or to the date of the last follow-up examination.
Table 1

Clinic pathological characteristics and results of MLKL immunohistochemistry

CharacteristicsNumber of patientsMLKL expression
P-value
Low or noHigh
Ages0.1412
 ≤60622735
 >60915140
Histologic type0.0782
 Serous934251
 Mucinous422814
 Endometrioid1257
 Clear cell633
Pathological grade0.1353
 125178
 2441925
 3844242
FIGO stage0.0906
 I–II572433
 III–IV965442

Abbreviations: FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; MLKL, mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein.

Immunohistochemistry

Paraffin-embedded tissues were stained with anti-MLKL antibody (1:60 dilution, ab118348; Abcam, Cambridge, MA, USA) at 4°C overnight. Rabbit immunoglobulin G was used as a negative control. After washing three times with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), the slides were incubated with biotinylated secondary antibody (1:200 dilution; Vector Laboratories Inc, Burlingame, CA, USA) at room temperature for 30 minutes. After washing three times with PBS, the slides were stained with the ABC Elite kit (Vector Laboratories Inc). Finally, the slides were counterstained with hematoxylin, dehydrated, cleared, and then mounted with Permount mounting medium (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Histological images were captured from the microscope (Carl Zeiss AX10; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) with an objective magnification of X40, and high-resolution digital images were acquired and processed with Axionvision software (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG). MLKL staining was scored independently by two pathologists and was calculated using a previously defined scoring system.15,16 Briefly, the proportion of positive tumor cells was scored as: 0= less than 5%; 1+=5%–20%; 2+=21%–50%; and 3+>50%. The intensity was arbitrarily scored as 0= weak (no color or light blue), 1= moderate (light yellow), 2= strong (yellow brown), and 3= very strong (brown). The overall score was calculated by multiplying the two scores obtained from each sample. A score of ≥4 was defined as high MLKL expression and a score of <4 was defined low MLKL expression.

Statistical analysis

The relationship between the expression of MLKL and patient’s age, histological type, pathologic grade, and FIGO stage were analyzed using the χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. OS curves and DFS curves were generated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using a log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox regression models. P-values less than 0.05 were regarded as statistically significant. Data were analyzed using the SPSS (version 20.0; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) software program.

Results

In this study, we collected a total of 153 ovarian cancer samples from patients with a median age of 66 years. Patient characteristics of the population are summarized in Table 1. A total of 60.7% of the cases had a serous histology (93/153); 27.4% of the cases had a mucinous histology (42/153); whereas endometrioid and clear cell histotypes were less represented. The median follow-up for survivors was 37 months (range, 3–102 months). At the time of the last follow-up, 71.8% of the patients had died and 15.4% had no evidence of disease. All of the patients in this study were treated with cisplatin-based first-line chemotherapy after surgery. We examined the expression of MLKL in ovarian tumor samples by immunohistochemical analysis. As shown in Figure 1, MLKL positive staining was localized to the cytoplasm in tumor cells. According to established criteria for high-expression and low-expression groups, 75 patients (49%) were defined as having high MLKL expression (Table 1) and 67 patients (43.7%) had >80% of cells staining for MLKL. We further analyzed the association of MLKL expression with clinic pathological characteristics in the patients. We found no statistical associations between the expression of MLKL and patient age, histological type, pathologic grade, or FIGO stage (Table 1).
Figure 1

Representative images of MLKL immunohistochemical staining in ovarian cancer tissues.

Notes: (A) High MLKL expression in serous ovarian cancer tissue. (B) Low MLKL expression in serous ovarian cancer tissue. (C) High MLKL expression in mucinous ovarian cancer tissue. (D) Low MLKL expression in mucinous ovarian cancer tissue. (E) High MLKL expression in endometrioid ovarian cancer tissue. (F) Low MLKL expression in endometrioid ovarian cancer tissue. Magnification, ×400.

Abbreviation: MLKL, mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein.

We then evaluated the prognostic significance of MLKL expression in ovarian cancer patients. Interestingly, we found that high MLKL expression was significantly associated with increased DFS (median 40 months versus 25 months, P=0.0282) and showed a trend towards longer OS (median 43 months versus 28 months, P=0.0032) (Figure 2A and B). Furthermore, a multivariate Cox regression analysis was applied to all of the clinicopathologic characteristics with MLKL expression levels. As shown in Table 2, low MLKL expression levels were independently associated with the poor prognosis of patients with ovarian cancer.
Figure 2

Kaplan–Meier log-rank survival analysis for (A) disease-free survival and (B) overall survival of ovarian cancer patients according to MLKL expression.

Abbreviations: MLKL, mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein; n, number.

Table 2

Multivariate analyses for all patients (n=153)

CharacteristicsDFS
OS
HR (95% CI)P-valueHR (95% CI)P-value
Ages (≤60 years vs >60 years)1.2 (0.8–2.1)0.12811.3 (0.9–1.8)0.4586
Histologic type (serous vs mucinous vs endometrioid vs clear cell)1.5 (0.4–1.5)0.09260.8 (0.2–1.7)0.8192
Pathological grade (grade 1 vs grade 2 vs grade 3)1.3 (0.9–2.0)0.25651.0 (0.8–1.4)0.1328
FIGO stage (I–II vs III–IV)0.8 (0.6–1.9)0.27340.6 (0.2–1.7)0.0937
Level of MLKL expression (high vs low)3.5 (0.5–7.1)0.02114.2 (1.3–11.5)0.0038

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DFS, disease-free survival; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; HR, hazard ratio; MLKL, mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein; OS, overall survival; vs, versus.

Discussion

MLKL was initially identified as a key mediator in TNF-induced necroptosis. In cancer cells, RIP3 interacts with and phosphorylates MLKL to promote necroptosis.9,10 Interestingly, one recent study suggested that MLKL expression can be served as a prognostic biomarker in patients with early-stage resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.14 In this study, Colbert et al identified that low MLKL expression was significantly associated with both decreased DFS and OS in the patients receiving adjuvant therapy. This study provides the first evidence that a necroptosis protein has prognostic value in cancer patients. In our current study, by using a relatively large cohort of ovarian carcinoma specimens, we identified that ovarian cancer patients with low MLKL expression showed a worse DFS and OS, which is similar to the pattern described by Colbert et al.14 It has been shown that cisplatin can induce both apoptosis and necrosis in cancer cells, which is dependent on the profile of proteins involved in cell death and cell cycle.17,18 Because MLKL was a key mediator in necroptosis signaling, low expression of MLKL may suggest decreased necroptosis signaling in patients with chemotherapy. Thus, one possible underlying mechanism for the association of low MLKL expression with poor prognosis in ovarian cancer patients may be a result of decreased necroptosis signaling in these patients. In the future, it would be interesting to examine the necroptosis-specific phosphorylation level of MLKL in cancer patients in order to validate the role of MLKL in necroptosis in cancer patients with chemotherapy. As all of the patients in our study received cisplatin-based chemotherapy, our study provides a potential biomarker for clinicians to better select chemotherapies based on MLKL expression. Patients with low MLKL expression in tumor tissues may be less likely to benefit from the regular cisplatin-based chemotherapy. However, these patients may benefit from combination chemotherapy or participation in clinical trials. Thus, future studies should examine the role of MLKL in predicting response to different therapies for better treatment selection. Recently, there have been reports of several other proteins that may serve as a prognosis biomarker for ovarian cancer patients such as steroid receptor coactivator-3, high-mobility group AT-hook 2, c-Abl, and centromere protein A.16,19–21 These proteins have been shown to be involved in cell cycle regulation, apoptosis, invasion, and metastasis in cancer. Our study demonstrated that expression of a protein involved in necroptosis exhibits prognostic value in ovarian cancer patients, suggesting that necroptosis may play an important role in determining cancer cell death and patient outcome with chemotherapy. Future studies need to evaluate the association between MLKL and other prognostic biomarkers and may identify a prognostic panel including multiple prognostic biomarkers in ovarian cancer patients. In conclusion, our study first explored the expression of MLKL in the context of ovarian cancer and suggests that low MLKL expression is associated with decreased DFS and OS in patients with ovarian cancer. This study suggests that MLKL may serve as a potential therapeutic target in ovarian cancer patients. However, since relatively little is known about the detailed role of MLKL in necroptosis or in other signaling pathways, future studies need to elucidate the molecular mechanisms of MLKL in cancer cell death with chemotherapy.
  21 in total

1.  Mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein mediates necrosis signaling downstream of RIP3 kinase.

Authors:  Liming Sun; Huayi Wang; Zhigao Wang; Sudan He; She Chen; Daohong Liao; Lai Wang; Jiacong Yan; Weilong Liu; Xiaoguang Lei; Xiaodong Wang
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 41.582

2.  Overexpression of c-Abl predicts unfavorable outcome in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Suiyang Zhou; Liangdan Tang; Haixia Wang; Jiemin Dai; Jing Zhang; Liyuan Shen; Shu-Wing Ng; Ross S Berkowitz
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-06-29       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Activation of c-jun N-terminal kinase is associated with cell proliferation and shorter relapse-free period in superficial spreading malignant melanoma.

Authors:  Kjersti Jørgensen; Ben Davidson; Viví Ann Flørenes
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 7.842

Review 4.  First-line therapy in ovarian cancer trials.

Authors:  Tate Thigpen; Andreas duBois; Jessica McAlpine; Philip DiSaia; Keiichi Fujiwara; William Hoskins; Gunnar Kristensen; Robert Mannel; Maurie Markman; Jacobus Pfisterer; Michael Quinn; Nick Reed; Ann Marie Swart; Jonathan Berek; Nicoletta Colombo; Gilles Freyer; Dolores Gallardo; Marie Plante; Andres Poveda; Lawrence Rubinstein; Monica Bacon; Henry Kitchener; Gavin C E Stuart
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.437

Review 5.  Molecular mechanisms of necroptosis: an ordered cellular explosion.

Authors:  Peter Vandenabeele; Lorenzo Galluzzi; Tom Vanden Berghe; Guido Kroemer
Journal:  Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2010-09-08       Impact factor: 94.444

6.  DNA damage induces two distinct modes of cell death in ovarian carcinomas.

Authors:  H Vakifahmetoglu; M Olsson; C Tamm; N Heidari; S Orrenius; B Zhivotovsky
Journal:  Cell Death Differ       Date:  2007-12-07       Impact factor: 15.828

7.  Inhibition of apoptosis facilitates necrosis induced by cisplatin in gastric cancer cells.

Authors:  Lin Jie Zhang; Yuan Zhang Hao; Chun Song Hu; Yan Ye; Qi Peng Xie; Rick F Thorne; Peter Hersey; Xu Dong Zhang
Journal:  Anticancer Drugs       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.248

8.  Prognostic role of c-Jun activation in patients with areca quid chewing-related oral squamous cell carcinomas in Taiwan.

Authors:  Ru-Cheng Kuo; Chiao-Ying Lin; Mark Yen-Ping Kuo
Journal:  J Formos Med Assoc       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.282

9.  The Ripoptosome, a signaling platform that assembles in response to genotoxic stress and loss of IAPs.

Authors:  Tencho Tenev; Katiuscia Bianchi; Maurice Darding; Meike Broemer; Claudia Langlais; Fredrik Wallberg; Anna Zachariou; Juanita Lopez; Marion MacFarlane; Kelvin Cain; Pascal Meier
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2011-07-07       Impact factor: 17.970

10.  Expression of steroid receptor coactivator 3 in ovarian epithelial cancer is a poor prognostic factor and a marker for platinum resistance.

Authors:  C Palmieri; O Gojis; B Rudraraju; C Stamp-Vincent; D Wilson; S Langdon; C Gourley; D Faratian
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-05-07       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  49 in total

1.  Association of Mixed Lineage Kinase Domain-Like Protein Expression With Prognosis in Patients With Colon Cancer.

Authors:  Xian Li; Jing Guo; Ai-Ping Ding; Wei-Wei Qi; Pei-Hua Zhang; Jing Lv; Wen-Sheng Qiu; Zhen-Qing Sun
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-07-18

Review 2.  Relevance of necroptosis in cancer.

Authors:  Najoua Lalaoui; Gabriela Brumatti
Journal:  Immunol Cell Biol       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 5.126

3.  Necroptosis, the Other Main Caspase-Independent Cell Death.

Authors:  Larissa C Zanetti; Ricardo Weinlich
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 2.622

4.  Prognostic value of mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein expression in the survival of patients with gastric caner.

Authors:  Zhai Ertao; Chen Jianhui; Wang Kang; Ye Zhijun; Wu Hui; Chen Chuangqi; Qin Changjiang; Chen Sile; He Yulong; Cai Shirong
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2016-07-29

Review 5.  Initiation and execution mechanisms of necroptosis: an overview.

Authors:  Sasker Grootjans; Tom Vanden Berghe; Peter Vandenabeele
Journal:  Cell Death Differ       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 15.828

Review 6.  The Microenvironment of Tongue Cancer.

Authors:  Want Tao; Zeng Li-Juan; Li Kan; Li Jing-Yuan; Liu Xiang-Qi; Liang Yu-Jie
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 2.622

Review 7.  Chromodomain-helicase-DNA binding protein 5, 7 and pronecrotic mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein serve as potential prognostic biomarkers in patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  Crystal S Seldon; Lauren E Colbert; William A Hall; Sarah B Fisher; David S Yu; Jerome C Landry
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2016-04-15

Review 8.  Necroptosis: Mechanisms and Relevance to Disease.

Authors:  Lorenzo Galluzzi; Oliver Kepp; Francis Ka-Ming Chan; Guido Kroemer
Journal:  Annu Rev Pathol       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 23.472

Review 9.  Cancer and necroptosis: friend or foe?

Authors:  Stephan Philipp; Justyna Sosna; Dieter Adam
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 9.261

10.  Mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein is a prognostic biomarker for cervical squamous cell cancer.

Authors:  Jiaying Ruan; Ling Mei; Qian Zhu; Gang Shi; He Wang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2015-11-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.