| Literature DB >> 24484537 |
Lisa Evers1, Pedro A Perez-Mancera2, Elizabeth Lenkiewicz1, Nanyun Tang3, Daniela Aust4, Thomas Knösel5, Petra Rümmele6, Tara Holley1, Michelle Kassner3, Meraj Aziz1, Ramesh K Ramanathan7, Daniel D Von Hoff7, Holly Yin3, Christian Pilarsky8, Michael T Barrett1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is a highly lethal cancer characterized by complex aberrant genomes. A fundamental goal of current studies is to identify those somatic events arising in the variable landscape of PDA genomes that can be exploited for improved clinical outcomes.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24484537 PMCID: PMC3971348 DOI: 10.1186/gm526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genome Med ISSN: 1756-994X Impact factor: 11.117
Figure 1Homozygous deletion of in metastatic PDA. A 4.5 N aneuploid population was detected and sorted in biopsies from the (A) primary and (B,C) two metastatic sites from rapid autopsy specimen UNMC 12R. (D) aCGH analysis of the sorted diploid (2.0 N; bottom) and the sorted 4.5 N (top) populations. Chromosome Xq25 CGH plots of (E) sorted 2.0 N population and (F) clonal homozygous deletion of STAG2 in the 4.5 N populations sorted from the pancreas (top panel), omentum (middle panel), and lung (bottom panel). Shaded areas in (E,F) denote ADM2 step gram defined genomic intervals.
Figure 2Somatic mutation of in metastatic PDA. (A) Flow cytometry analysis and sorting of a 3.2 N aneuploid population in primary pancreas tissue from rapid autopsy specimen UNMC 11R. (B) Whole genome aCGH plot of the 3.2 N population. (C) Detection of somatic mutation in forward (3.2 N-F) and reverse (3.2 N-R) sequences in the 3.2 N genome. Mutation was not detected in the matching 2.0 N population sorted from the same tissue.
Figure 3Immunohistochemical staining of STAG2 in pancreatic cancer. Near ubiquitous staining in (A) ductal cells of normal tissue, (B) the primary cancer cell line PaCaDD161, and (D) pancreatic cancer. (C) The cell line PaCaDD135 displays a heterogeneous staining pattern, whereas in (E) a minor fraction of pancreatic cancer STAG2 expression is lost. Magnification 200× (insets 100×).
Figure 4STAG2 expression and overall survival in patients with PDA. Tissue microarray (TMA) analysis of STAG2 protein expression in PDA samples from 344 patients. Cumulative survival (y-axis) of patients with intact versus deficient STAG2 expression levels is plotted versus time (x-axis). Mo, months.
Figure 5STAG2 expression and response to adjuvant therapy. Cumulative survival (y-axis) plotted versus time (x-axis) is compared for the 229 STAG2-deficient patients who received (n = 61) or did not receive (n = 168) adjuvant chemotherapy. Mo, months.
Multivariate analysis of tissue microarray cohort
| A. Clinical pathology and STAG2 | STAG2 (< 95%) | 0.017 | 1.421 (1.064-1.898) |
| | T stage (1/2) | 0.729 | 1.066 (0.743-1.529) |
| | N stage (N0) | 0.196 | 0.826 (0.618-1.104) |
| | Grade (1/2) | 0.013 | 0.711 (0.544-0.93) |
| | Sex (female) | 0.865 | 1.023 (0.785-1.333) |
| | Margin involvement (negative) | 0.297 | 0.852 (0.63-1.151) |
| | M stage (M0) | 0.132 | 1.487 (0.887-2.492) |
| B. Clinical pathology and STAG2 | STAG2 (< 95%) | 0.017 | 1.415 (1.064-1.883) |
| | T stage (1/2) | 0.719 | 1.068 (0.746-1.531) |
| | N stage (N0) | 0.195 | 0.825 (0.618-1.103) |
| | Grade (1/2) | 0.013 | 0.713 (0.546-0.931) |
| | Margin involvement (negative) | 0.3 | 0.853 (0.631-1.152) |
| | M stage (M0) | 0.126 | 1.494 (0.894-2.497) |
| C. Clinical pathology and STAG2 | STAG2 (< 95%) | 0.016 | 1.42 (1.068-1.888) |
| | N stage (N0) | 0.198 | 0.827 (0.619-1.105) |
| | Grade (1/2) | 0.014 | 0.717 (0.55-0.934) |
| | Margin involvement (negative) | 0.321 | 0.861 (0.64-1.158) |
| | M stage (M0) | 0.131 | 1.484 (0.889-2.478) |
| D. Clinical pathology and STAG2 | STAG2 (< 95%) | 0.014 | 1.428 (1.074-1.898) |
| | N stage (N0) | 0.185 | 0.822 (0.616-1.098) |
| | Grade (1/2) | 0.011 | 0.709 (0.545-0.924) |
| | M stage (M0) | 0.086 | 1.556 (0.94-2.574) |
| E. Clinical pathology and STAG2 (final model) | STAG2 (< 95%) | 0.021 | 1.394 (1.051-1.849) |
| | Grade (1/2) | 0.007 | 0.697 (0.536-0.906) |
| M stage (M0) | 0.061 | 1.615 (0.979-2.665) |
CI, confidence interval.
Figure 6Synthetic lethal analysis of STAG2 knockdown and exposure to chemotherapeutic agents in PDA cells. (A) Synthetic lethal response of PANC-1 cells and (B) Panc 04.03 cells in the presence of oxaliplatin. (C) Absence of response of PANC-1 cells in the presence of gemcitabine. Asterisks indicate that all four siRNA sequences at drug concentrations of 3.7 and 11.1 μM have P < 0.01 when compared to GFP control. Error bars in (A-C) represent standard deviations. (D) Western blot of STAG2 expression in PANC1 cells in the presence of control (GFP) and four STAG2 siRNAs. (E) Drugs used in siRNA synthetic lethal screen.