Tiffany Doucette1, Khatri Latha1, Yuhui Yang1, Gregory N Fuller1, Arvind Rao1, Ganesh Rao1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (T.D., L.K., Y.Y., G.R.); Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (G.N.F.); Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (A.R.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The influence of survivin isoforms on outcome in glioblastoma is poorly understood. We analyzed the dominant anti-apoptotic transcript variants of survivin using expression data and modeled them in vivo to determine their impact on glioma formation and progression. METHODS: Using data from low- and high-grade glioma knowledge bases, we expressed the anti-apoptotic isoforms of survivin (transcript variants 1 and 2) in vivo using the RCAS/Ntv-a model of murine glioma. RESULTS: In low-grade gliomas, survivin RNA expression was increased in 22 of 167 (13.2%) of cases and was associated with shortened survival (P = .005). Survivin RNA was preferentially expressed in proneural (PN) relative to mesenchymal high-grade gliomas (P < .0001). In proneural gliomas, survivin was expressed in 94 of 141 (67%) of cases and was associated with shorter disease-free survival (P = .04). In a platelet-derived growth factor subunit B-dependent murine model of PN glioma, ectopic expression of variant 1 yielded tumors in 28 of 30 (93%) of mice, of which 25% were high-grade tumors, whereas ectopic expression of variant 2 yielded tumors in 27 of 28 (96%), of which 81% were high-grade tumors (P < .0001). Microvascular proliferation was significantly more prominent (P < .0001), and tumor-free survival was shorter in mice with variant 2 than variant 1-derived tumors (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Survivin expression in low-grade gliomas is associated with poor survival and is preferentially expressed in PN gliomas. Compared with variant 1, variant 2 was associated with poorer survival and promoted malignant progression, angiogenesis, and shorter tumor-free survival in the PN murine model. Inhibiting survivin transcript variant 2, rather than variant 1 (the common isoform), may be an effective treatment strategy for glioma.
BACKGROUND: The influence of survivin isoforms on outcome in glioblastoma is poorly understood. We analyzed the dominant anti-apoptotic transcript variants of survivin using expression data and modeled them in vivo to determine their impact on glioma formation and progression. METHODS: Using data from low- and high-grade glioma knowledge bases, we expressed the anti-apoptotic isoforms of survivin (transcript variants 1 and 2) in vivo using the RCAS/Ntv-a model of murineglioma. RESULTS: In low-grade gliomas, survivin RNA expression was increased in 22 of 167 (13.2%) of cases and was associated with shortened survival (P = .005). Survivin RNA was preferentially expressed in proneural (PN) relative to mesenchymal high-grade gliomas (P < .0001). In proneural gliomas, survivin was expressed in 94 of 141 (67%) of cases and was associated with shorter disease-free survival (P = .04). In a platelet-derived growth factor subunit B-dependent murine model of PN glioma, ectopic expression of variant 1 yielded tumors in 28 of 30 (93%) of mice, of which 25% were high-grade tumors, whereas ectopic expression of variant 2 yielded tumors in 27 of 28 (96%), of which 81% were high-grade tumors (P < .0001). Microvascular proliferation was significantly more prominent (P < .0001), and tumor-free survival was shorter in mice with variant 2 than variant 1-derived tumors (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS:Survivin expression in low-grade gliomas is associated with poor survival and is preferentially expressed in PN gliomas. Compared with variant 1, variant 2 was associated with poorer survival and promoted malignant progression, angiogenesis, and shorter tumor-free survival in the PN murine model. Inhibiting survivin transcript variant 2, rather than variant 1 (the common isoform), may be an effective treatment strategy for glioma.
Authors: Jennifer Tran; Zubin Master; Joanne L Yu; Janusz Rak; Daniel J Dumont; Robert S Kerbel Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-03-26 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Olivier P Blanc-Brude; Mehdi Mesri; Nathan R Wall; Janet Plescia; Takehiko Dohi; Dario C Altieri Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: B Ryan; N O'Donovan; B Browne; C O'Shea; J Crown; A D K Hill; E McDermott; N O'Higgins; M J Duffy Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2005-01-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: A Krieg; C Mahotka; T Krieg; H Grabsch; W Müller; S Takeno; C V Suschek; M Heydthausen; H E Gabbert; C D Gerharz Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2002-03-04 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Loyola V Gressot; Tiffany A Doucette; Yuhui Yang; Gregory N Fuller; Amy B Heimberger; Oliver Bögler; Arvind Rao; Khatri Latha; Ganesh Rao Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 7.396