| Literature DB >> 24937671 |
H Fukui1, X Zhang2, C Sun3, K Hara1, S Kikuchi4, T Yamasaki1, T Kondo1, T Tomita1, T Oshima1, J Watari1, J Imura5, T Fujimori5, M Sasako4, H Miwa1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interleukin-22 (IL-22) has been recently highlighted owing to its biological significance in the modulation of tissue responses during inflammation. However, the role of IL-22 in carcinogenesis has remained unclear. Here, we investigated the pathophysiological significance of IL-22 expression in gastric cancer tissues and examined the mechanism by which IL-22 promotes gastric cancer cell invasion.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24937671 PMCID: PMC4134496 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.336
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Figure 1Immunohistochemical localisation of IL-22 and IL-22R1 in normal gastric (A and B) and gastric cancer tissues (C and D). (E) Double immunostaining of IL-22 (green in left panel) and αSMA (red in right panel) at the invasive front of a gastric cancer lesion. The section was counterstained with DAPI (blue signal). IL-22 is co-expressed in the αSMA-positive stromal cells (yellow in the middle panel). (F) Immunoreactivity of p-STAT3 in the nuclei of invasive gastric cancer cells. (G) Detection of IL-22R1 and IL-10R2 protein expression in gastric cancer cells by western blotting. (H) Expression of IL-22R1 in surgically resected gastric cancers (CA; n=4) and normal gastric mucosa biopsied from controls without cancers (NC; n=8). All the results are presented as the mean±s.e.m. Significantly greater than NC group: *P<0.05. Abbreviation: DAPI, 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole.
Relationship between clinicopathological features and IL-22 or IL-22R1 expression in patients with gastric cancer
| Tumour location | | 0.8975 | | 0.4784 |
| Lower | 7/9 (77.8%) | 9/9 (100%) | ||
| Mid | 11/13 (84.6%) | 12/13 (92.3%) | ||
| Upper | 11/14 (78.6%) | | 12/14 (85.7%) | |
| Lauren's classification | | 0.5515 | | > 0.9999 |
| Intestinal type | 9/12 (75.0%) | 11/12 (91.7%) | ||
| Diffuse type | 20/24 (83.3%) | | 22/24 (91.7%) | |
| Stage | | | 0.3729 | |
| I | 3/8 (37.5%) | 7/8 (87.5%) | ||
| II | 5/5 (100%) | 5/5 (100%) | ||
| III | 12/12 (100%) | 12/12 (100%) | ||
| IV | 9/11 (81.1%) | | 9/11 (81.1%) | |
| Lymphatic invasion | | | ||
| None | 0/2 (0.0%) | 1/2 (50.0%) | ||
| Present | 29/34 (85.3%) | | 32/34 (94.1%) | |
| Venous invasion | | 0.3464 | | 0.4185 |
| None | 4/6 (66.7%) | 5/6 (83.3%) | ||
| Present | 25/30 (83.3%) | | 28/30 (93.3%) | |
| Lymph node metastasis | | | 0.7277 | |
| None | 4/9 (44.4%) | 8/9 (88.9%) | ||
| Present | 25/27 (92.6%) | 25/27 (92.6%) |
Abbreviations: IL-22=interleukin-22; IL-22R1=IL-22 receptor 1. P-values <0.05 are indicated by bold entries.
Comparison of the clinicopathological features between p-STAT3-positive and -negative gastric cancer patients
| | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumour location | | | 0.5642 |
| Lower | 4 | 4 | |
| Mid | 4 | 8 | |
| Upper | 6 | 5 | |
| Lauren's classification | | | 0.9809 |
| Intestinal type | 5 | 6 | |
| Diffuse type | 9 | 11 | |
| Stage | | | 0.1102 |
| I | 5 | 2 | |
| II | 1 | 4 | |
| III | 6 | 4 | |
| IV | 2 | 7 | |
| Lymphatic invasion | | | 0.1071 |
| None | 2 | 0 | |
| Present | 12 | 17 | |
| Venous invasion | | | 0.0874 |
| None | 4 | 1 | |
| Present | 10 | 16 | |
| Lymph node metastasis | | | |
| None | 6 | 2 | |
| Present | 8 | 15 | |
| IL-22 expression | | | |
| Negative | 5 | 1 | |
| Positive | 9 | 16 | |
| IL-22R1 expression | | | 0.4310 |
| Negative | 2 | 1 | |
| Positive | 12 | 16 | |
Abbreviations: IL-22=interleukin-22; IL-22R1=IL-22 receptor 1. P-values <0.05 are indicated by bold entries.
Figure 2Effect of IL-22 treatment on intracellular signalling in gastric cancer cells. (A) Phosphorylation of STAT3, ERK and Akt in AGS and MKN28 cells treated with IL-22. (B) Expression of p50 and p60 in AGS and MKN28 cells treated with IL-22. AGS cells (1 × 106) and MKN28 cells (1 × 106) were cultured in 6-cm dishes, treated with IL-22 (10 ng ml−1) for the indicated time, and extracted protein was analysed using western blotting. (C) Effect of anti-IL-22 antibody on IL-22-induced STAT3 and ERK phosphorylation in AGS and MKN28 cells. AGS and MKN28 cells were pretreated with IL-22 antibody (20 μg ml−1) for 45 min and then stimulated with IL-22 (10 ng ml−1) for 30 min.
Figure 3Effect of IL-22 on the invasive potential of gastric cancer cells. (A) Changes in the number of invasive AGS and MKN28 cells under IL-22 stimulation. A representative image showing that IL-22 stimulation promotes AGS and MKN28 cell invasion. Effect of anti-IL-22 antibody on IL-22 (10 ng ml−1)-induced invasion of AGS (B) and MKN28 cells (C). A representative image showing control AGS cells, IL-22-treated (10 ng ml−1) cells, IL-22-treated (10 ng ml−1) cells in the presence of anti-IL-22 antibody (10 μg ml−1) and cells cultured with anti-IL-22 antibody alone. (D) Effect of IL-22 on MMP7 and MMP13 expression in gastric cancer cells. All the results are presented as the mean±s.e.m. of four independent experiments. Significantly greater than control: *P<0.05, **P<0.01. Significantly lower than the IL-22-treated group: #P<0.01.
Figure 4Effect of STAT3 siRNA treatment (A and B) and MEK inhibitor (B and D) on the IL-22-induced invasive potential of gastric cancer cells. AGS and MKN28 cells were transfected with STAT3 siRNA (or non-silencing siRNA as a control) for 48 h and used for invasion assay (A and B). The transfected AGS (5 × 104) and MKN28 (5 × 105) were seeded in the upper invasion chamber, stimulated by IL-22 (10 ng ml−1) for 36 h, and evaluated as described in Materials and Methods. Similarly, AGS and MKN28 cells were cultured in the medium with or without PD98059 (20 μM) in the upper invasion chamber and stimulated by IL-22 (10 ng ml−1; C and D). All the results are presented as the mean±s.e.m. of four independent experiments. Significantly different between two groups: *P<0.05, **P<0.01.
Figure 5CAF cells promote AGS cell invasion via IL-22. (A) IL-22 production from CAF cells. CAF culture supernatant and serum from healthy control (HC) and UC patients were analysed by ELISA. (B) Expression of IL-22 in NGF and CAF cells (n=4). (C) Effect of IL-22 on the link between CAF and AGS cells (n=4). CAF1 (1 × 105) cells were cultured in the lower chamber for 24 h. After washing with serum-free medium, upper invasion chambers were placed above the lower chambers and AGS cells (5 × 104) were then placed there in serum-free medium with or without anti-IL-22 antibody (10 μg ml−1). After an additional 30 h of co-culture, the number of invaded AGS cells was evaluated as described in Materials and Methods. Photographs showing invasive gastric cancer cells in each group. All the results are presented as the mean±s.e.m. Significantly greater than the control group: *P<0.05, **P<0.01. Significantly lower than the CAF1 co-cultured group: #P<0.01.