| Literature DB >> 24887090 |
Ryoichi Fujii, Yorihisa Imanishi1, Katsushi Shibata, Nobuya Sakai, Koji Sakamoto, Seiji Shigetomi, Noboru Habu, Kuninori Otsuka, Yoichiro Sato, Yoshihiro Watanabe, Hiroyuki Ozawa, Toshiki Tomita, Kaori Kameyama, Masato Fujii, Kaoru Ogawa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) accompanied by the downregulation of E-cadherin has been thought to promote metastasis. Cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2) is presumed to contribute to cancer progression through its multifaceted function, and recently its inverse relationship with E-cadherin was suggested. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether selective Cox-2 inhibitors restore the expression of E-cadherin in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) cells, and to examine the possible correlations of the expression levels of EMT-related molecules with clinicopathological factors in HNSCC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24887090 PMCID: PMC4030015 DOI: 10.1186/1756-9966-33-40
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res ISSN: 0392-9078
Figure 1Baseline mRNA expression of Cox-2, CDH-1 and its transcriptional repressors in HNSCC cells. The mRNA expression levels of each gene in the HNSCC cell lines were assessed by quantitative real-time PCR. The relative expression levels were normalized by dividing each value by that of SAS as a calibrator for convenience. A: Cox-2 and CDH-1. B: SIP1, Snail, and Twist. While a trend toward an inverse correlation was found between Cox-2 and CDH-1 (rs = −0.714, p = 0.055), SIP1 was shown to significantly correlate with Cox-2 (rs = 0.771, p = 0.042) and to inversely correlate with CDH-1 (rs = −0.886, p = 0.024) by Spearman rank correlation coefficient.
Figure 2Alterations in the mRNA expression of CDH-1 and its transcriptional repressors by Cox-2 inhibition. The effect of Cox-2 inhibition on the mRNA expressions of CDH-1 and its transcriptional repressors (SIP1, Snail, and Twist) was examined by quantitative real-time PCR using three different selective Cox-2 inhibitors: celecoxib, NS-398, and SC-791. A: In HSC-2 cells, Cox-2 inhibition upregulated the CDH-1 expression compared to DMSO treatment as the control. B: In HSC-4 cells, Cox-2 inhibition resulted in relatively less upregulation of CDH-1 expression. C: In HSC-2 cells, all three transcriptional repressors were clearly downregulated by each of the Cox-2 inhibitors. D: In HSC-4 cells, Cox-2 inhibition led to relatively less downregulation of these transcriptional repressors.
Figure 3Restoration of membranous E-cadherin expression by Cox-2 inhibition. The alteration of E-cadherin protein expression following Cox-2 inhibition was evaluated using the selective Cox-2 inhibitors: celecoxib, NS-398, and SC-791. A: Western blot displayed that Cox-2 inhibition remarkably upregulated the protein expression of E-cadherin in HSC-2 cells compared to DMSO treatment as the control, whereas relatively less upregulation of E-cadherin was shown in HSC-4 cells. (Lane 1, DMSO; 2, Celecoxib 25 μM; 3, NS-398 40 μM; 4, SC-791 10 μM) B: E-cadherin expression on the cell surface was analyzed by flowcytometry. In HSC-2 cells, Cox-2 inhibition elevated the membranous expression of E-cadherin compared to DMSO treatment as the control. C: Cox-2 inhibition in HSC-4 cells resulted in a slight increase of E-cadherin expression. D: Histograms of the membranous expression of E-cadherin in HSC-2 cells with or without Cox-2 inhibition. E: Phase contrast images and immunofluorescent E-cadherin staining of HSC-2 cells. Cox-2 inhibition with celecoxib resulted in the restoration of the epithelial morphology to a polygonal shape, and enhanced intercellular expression of E-cadherin. Scale bar: 20 μm.
Comparison of gene expression levels between TSCC and corresponding noncancerous tissues
| Cox-2 | median | 5.865 | 3.707 | 0.018* |
| | (range) | (0.427 - 52.766) | (0.394 - 24.626) | |
| CDH-1 | median | 11.249 | 17.639 | 0.024* |
| (range) | (0.048 - 24.494) | (2.321 - 36.348) |
aWilcoxon signed rank sum test.
*Statistically significant.
TSCC = tongue squamous cell carcinoma.
Correlation between gene expression levels and clinicopathological factors
| Agea | < 60 | 25 | median | 3.964 | 0.583 | 3.191 | 0.773 | 1.071 | 0.273 | 12.469 | 0.119 | 13.681 | 0.878 |
| | | | (range) | (0.640 - 61.171) | | (0.035 - 17.376) | | (0.020 - 6.229) | | (0.000 - 64.312) | | (0.100 - 45.381) | |
| | ≧ 60 | 15 | median | 4.443 | | 2.926 | | 0.936 | | 6.947 | | 13.881 | |
| | | | (range) | (0.427 - 52.766) | | (0.059 - 9.482) | | (0.099 - 2.361) | | (0.936 - 20.548) | | (0.841 - 24.494) | |
| Gendera | Male | 35 | median | 4.037 | 0.817 | 3.200 | 0.247 | 0.986 | 0.611 | 9.794 | 0.746 | 12.670 | 0.379 |
| | | | (range) | (0.427 - 61.171) | | (0.035 - 17.376) | | (0.020 - 6.229) | | (0.000 - 64.312) | | (0.100 - 45.381) | |
| | Female | 5 | median | 4.331 | | 1.454 | | 1.191 | | 9.102 | | 19.520 | |
| | | | (range) | (3.223 - 6.581) | | (0.677 - 7.218) | | (0.562 - 2.361) | | (5.989 - 12.900) | | (5.367 - 23.448) | |
| T classificationb | 1 | 2 | coefficient | rs = -0.264 | 0.114 | rs = 0.089 | 0.583 | rs = -0.017 | 0.919 | rs = 0.223 | 0.170 | rs = -0.327 | 0.041* |
| | 2 | 10 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | 3 | 22 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | 4 | 6 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| LN metastasisa | N (-) | 15 | median | 2.399 | 0.037* | 2.926 | 0.964 | 0.983 | 0.800 | 6.947 | 0.226 | 18.801 | 0.020* |
| | | | (range) | (0.427 - 6.092) | | (0.059 - 11.250) | | (0.193 - 5.137) | | (0.000 - 42.360) | | (0.841 - 45.381) | |
| | N (+) | 25 | median | 4.443 | | 3.602 | | 1.094 | | 12.037 | | 10.688 | |
| | | | (range) | (1.379 - 61.171) | | (0.035 - 17.376) | | (0.020 - 6.229) | | (0.936 - 64.312) | | (0.100 - 23.697) | |
| Histological gradeb | I | 21 | coefficient | rs = 0.155 | 0.338 | rs = 0.462 | 0.004* | rs = 0.374 | 0.021* | rs = 0.381 | 0.019* | rs = -0.026 | 0.873 |
| | II | 12 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | III | 7 | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Vascular invasiona | Negative | 32 | median | 3.478 | 0.133 | 3.393 | 0.360 | 1.006 | 0.608 | 9.369 | 0.913 | 14.999 | 0.085 |
| | | | (range) | (0.640 - 61.171) | | (0.035 - 17.376) | | (0.020 - 5.538) | | (0.000 - 64.312) | | (0.100 - 45.381) | |
| | Positive | 8 | median | 10.759 | | 2.250 | | 1.264 | | 9.794 | | 7.799 | |
| | | | (range) | (0.427 - 43.355) | | (0.059 - 6.356) | | (0.193 - 6.229) | | (1.246 - 29.053) | | (0.841 - 23.697) | |
| Lymphatic invasiona | Negative | 22 | median | 4.037 | 0.800 | 3.939 | 0.195 | 0.936 | 0.554 | 9.027 | 0.554 | 15.966 | 0.192 |
| | | | (range) | (0.640 - 61.171) | | (0.035 - 11.250) | | (0 020 - 5.137) | | (0.000 - 64.312) | | (1.373 - 38.234) | |
| | Positive | 18 | median | 4.733 | | 2.155 | | 1.104 | | 10.915 | | 10.694 | |
| | | | (range) | (0.427 - 60.921) | | (0.059 - 17.376) | | (0.086 - 6.229) | | (0.936 - 31.933) | | (0.100 - 45.381) | |
| Perineural invasiona | Negative | 30 | median | 4.128 | 0.841 | 2.212 | 0.016* | 1.006 | 0.286 | 7.720 | 0.008* | 14.891 | 0.617 |
| | | | (range) | (0.427 - 61.171) | | (0.035 - 11.250) | | (0.020 - 5.137) | | (0.000 0 64.312) | | (0.100 - 38.234) | |
| | Positive | 10 | median | 5.247 | | 6.345 | | 1.114 | | 13.886 | | 11.907 | |
| (range) | (0.640 - 60.921) | (2.250 - 17.376) | (0.458 - 6.229) | (9.027 - 31.933) | (2.089 - 45.381) |
aMann-Whithey U test, bSpearman rank correlation coefficient.
*Statistically significant.
LN = lymph node, rs = correlation coefficient.
Univariate analysis of clinicopathological factors predictive of lymph node metastasis
| Agea | < 60 | 25 | 9 | (36.0%) | 16 | (64.0%) | 0.724 |
| | ≧ 60 | 15 | 6 | (40.0%) | 9 | (60.0%) | |
| Gendera | Male | 35 | 15 | (42.9%) | 20 | (57.1%) | 0.081 |
| | Female | 5 | 0 | (0.0%) | 5 | (100.0%) | |
| T classificationb | 1 | 2 | 1 | (50.0%) | 1 | (50.0%) | 0.036* |
| | 2 | 10 | 7 | (70.0%) | 3 | (30.0%) | |
| | 3 | 22 | 4 | (18.2%) | 18 | (81.8%) | |
| | 4 | 6 | 3 | (50.0%) | 3 | (50.0%) | |
| Histological gradeb | I | 21 | 7 | (33.3%) | 14 | (66.7%) | 0.551 |
| | II | 12 | 6 | (50.0%) | 6 | (50.0%) | |
| | III | 7 | 2 | (28.6%) | 5 | (71.4%) | |
| Vascular invasiona | Negative | 32 | 13 | (40.6%) | 19 | (59.4%) | 0.350 |
| | Positive | 8 | 2 | (25.0%) | 6 | (75.0%) | |
| Lymphatic invasiona | Negative | 22 | 11 | (50.0%) | 11 | (50.0%) | 0.069 |
| | Positive | 18 | 4 | (22.2%) | 14 | (77.8%) | |
| Perineural invasiona | Negative | 30 | 13 | (43.3%) | 17 | (56.7%) | 0.174 |
| Positive | 10 | 2 | (20.0%) | 8 | (80.0%) | ||
aFisher’s exact test, bChi-square test.
*Statistically significant.
LN = lymph node.
Multivariate analysis of factors predictive of lymph node metastasis
| T-classification | 1.119 | 0.418 - 2.993 | 0.823 |
| Cox-2 | 1.011 | 0.965 - 1.060 | 0.648 |
| CDH-1 | 0.905 | 0.822 - 0.996 | 0.041* |
aMultiple logistic regression model.
*Statistically significant.