| Literature DB >> 25097786 |
L Michael Carastro1, Hui-Yi Lin2, Hyun Y Park3, Donghwa Kim4, Selina Radlein3, Kaia K Hampton1, Ardeshir Hakam5, Babu Zachariah6, Julio Pow-Sang7, Jong Y Park3.
Abstract
Background. Molecular markers for prostate cancer (PCa) risks are currently lacking. Here we address the potential association of a dinucleotide polymorphism (DNP) in exon 2 of the p73 gene with PCa risk/progression and discern any disruption of p73 protein isoforms levels in cells harboring a p73 DNP allele. Methods. We investigated the association between p73 DNP genotype and PCa risk/aggressiveness and survival by fitting logistic regression models in 1,292 incident cases and 682 controls. Results. Although we detected no association between p73 DNP and PCa risk, a significant inverse relationship between p73 DNP and PCa aggressiveness (AT/AT + GC/AT versus GC/GC, OR = 0.55, 95%Cl = 0.31-0.99) was detected. Also, p73 DNP is marginally associated with overall death (dominant model, HR = 0.76, 95%Cl = 0.57-1.00, P = 0.053) as well as PCa specific death (HR = 0.69, 95%Cl = 0.45-1.06, P = 0.09). Western blot analyses for p73 protein isoforms indicate that cells heterozygous for the p73 DNP have lower levels of ∆Np73 relative to TAp73 (P < 0.001). Conclusions. Our findings are consistent with an association between p73 DNP and low risk for PCa aggressiveness by increasing the expressed TAp73/∆Np73 protein isoform ratio.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25097786 PMCID: PMC4109114 DOI: 10.1155/2014/129582
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prostate Cancer ISSN: 2090-312X
Characteristics of study subjects by disease status and data source.
| Caucasians, | African Americans, | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases, ( | Controls, ( | Cases, ( | Controls, ( | ||
| Age1 | Mean ± SD | 60.0 ± 7.4 | 61.3 ± 9.6 | 56.4 ± 7.4 | 57.3 ± 9.2 |
|
| |||||
| Gleason score | ≤6 | 628 (60.6) | N/A | 34 (60.6) | N/A |
| 7 | 348 (33.6) | 19 (33.9) | |||
| 8–10 | 60 (5.8) | 3 (5.3) | |||
|
| |||||
| Stage | 1 | 55 (4.5) | N/A | 2 (3.4) | N/A |
| 2 | 955 (78.3) | 48 (81.4) | |||
| 3 | 201 (16.5) | 9 (15.2) | |||
| 4 | 9 (0.7) | 0 (0.0) | |||
|
| |||||
| PSA level | 7.5 ± 9.1 | 1.1 ± 1.1 | 5.1 ± 3.1 | 1.3 ± 1.4 | |
|
| |||||
| Recurrence | No | 905 (73.6) | N/A | 43 (71.7) | N/A |
| Yes | 325 (26.4) | 17 (28.3) | |||
|
| |||||
| Death | Alive | 975 (79.9) | 54 (90.0) | ||
| PCa death | 106 (8.7) | 2 (3.3) | |||
| Other death cases | 139 (11.4) | 4 (6.7) | |||
|
| |||||
| Marital status | Divorced | 80 (6.6) | 5 (8.3) | ||
| Married | 1057 (87.0) | 49 (81.7) | |||
| Separated | 4 (0.3) | 1 (1.7) | |||
| Widowed | 21 (1.7) | 0 (0) | |||
| Single | 53 (4.4) | 5 (8.3) | |||
|
| |||||
| Weight (kg) | 88.4 ± 14.6 | 93.6 ± 21.6 | 90.5 ± 14.2 | 92.5 ± 18.7 | |
|
| |||||
| Height (m) | 1.76 ± 0.07 | 1.76 ± 0.18 | 1.77 ± 0.06 | 1.75 ± 0.21 | |
1Age at diagnosis for cases and age at enrolment for controls.
Associations of genotypes with prostate cancer risk, aggressiveness, and survival.
| Factors | Race | GC/GC | GC/AT | AT/AT | Dom1
|
| Additive1
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case/control | White | 750/357 | 417/202 | 65/27 | 1.00 (0.82–1.23) | 0.995 | 1.02 (0.86–1.21) | 0.82 |
| Black | 49/68 | 9/16 | 2/1 | 0.87 (0.37–2.04) | 0.75 | 1.00 (0.49–2.07) | 0.99 | |
| Recurrence | White | 205/544 | 100/316 | 20/45 | 0.86 (0.66–1.12) | 0.25 | 0.92 (0.74–1.15) | 0.48 |
| Black | 14/35 | 3/6 | 0/2 | 0.97 (0.21–4.36) | 0.97 | 0.76 (0.22–2.69) | 0.68 | |
| Gleason | White | 44/589 | 14/336 | 2/51 |
|
| 0.61 (0.37–1.02) | 0.06 |
| Black | 2/43 | 1/8 | 0/2 | 2.16 (0.17–26.99) | 0.55 | 1.36 (0.19–9.92) | 0.76 | |
| Stage | White | 129/615 | 70/342 | 11/53 | 0.97 (0.71–1.31) | 0.83 | 0.98 (0.76–1.26) | 0.85 |
| Black | 8/40 | 1/8 | 0/2 | 0.46 (0.05–4.63) | 0.51 | 0.43 (0.06–3.07) | 0.40 | |
|
| ||||||||
| HR (95% CI)3 |
| HR (95% CI)3 |
| |||||
|
| ||||||||
| Overall death | White | 160/590 | 68/348 | 17/48 |
|
| 0.87 (0.68–1.10) | 0.24 |
| Black | 5/44 | 1/8 | 0/2 | — | — | — | — | |
| Specific death | White | 88/72/590 | 40/28/338 | 11/6/47 | 0.84 (0.58–1.21)4 | 0.35 | 0.93 (0.67–1.28)4 | 0.64 |
| 0.69 (0.45–1.06)5 | 0.09 | 0.81 (0.55–1.20)5 | 0.29 | |||||
| Black | 3/2/44 | 1/0/8 | 0/0/2 | — | — | — | — | |
1Dom: dominant (AT/AT + GC/AT versus GC/GC); add: log-additive (per AT/AT).
2OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; logistic model adjusted for age.
3HR: hazard ratio; for overall death, Cox model; for specific death, competing risk regression; all models adjusted for age.
4Other death cases versus alive.
5PCa death versus alive.
Figure 1Association between rs1801173 and overall survival (a) and prostate cancer specific survival (b). A role of p73 DNP in prostate cancer progression and aggressiveness was investigated. p73 DNP is marginally associated with overall death (dominant model, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.57–1.00, P = 0.053 by Cox regression adjusted for age) as well as PCa specific death (HR = 0.69, 95%CI = 0.45–1.06, P = 0.09 by the competing risk regression adjusted for age).
p73 DNP genotypes and p73 isoform expression ratios for cancer cell lines.
| Cell line |
| TAp73/ΔNp73* |
|---|---|---|
| HCT116 | GC/GC | 0.68 |
| HeLa | GC/GC | 0.95 |
| H460 | GC/GC | 0.74 |
| HEK293 | GC/GC | 0.72 |
| MCF7 | GC/GC | 0.97 |
| H1299 | GC/GC | 0.69 |
| JEKO-1 | GC/GC | 0.84 |
| BEAS-2B | GC/GC | 0.86 |
| Jurkat | GC/AT | 1.40 |
| HepG2 | GC/AT | 1.39 |
| CaCO-2 | AT/AT | N/A |
Cell lines were used for genotyping for p73 DNP status and western analyses for p73 protein N-terminal isoforms and beta-actin. ∗TAp73/ΔNp73 protein isoform levels were determined from the western data in Figures 2(a) and 2(b) by quantifying protein bands using ImageJ64. Relative TAp73/ΔNp73 protein isoform ratios were corrected for using actin levels as loading controls and were calculated using the formula: TAp73/ΔNp73 = ((TAp73/actin)/(ΔNp73/actin)).
Figure 2Western analyses of p73 protein N-terminal isoforms in cancer cell lines. Proteins from cancer cell line lysates in Figure 2(a) (1.25 μg/well) and Figure 2(b) (7.50 μg/well) were resolved on 10% SDS-PAGE gels and the resolved proteins were electrotransferred onto PVDF membranes and then immunoblotted (IB) with a p73 isoform-specific monoclonal antibody against TAp73 or ΔNp73. As a positive loading control, actin was immunoblotted with a goat polyclonal antibody. Primary antibodies were detected using appropriate secondary antibody-horseradish peroxidase conjugates and an enhanced chemoluminescence method followed by fluorography (IB = primary western antibody).
Figure 3Relative TAp73/ΔNp73 protein isoform ratios in cancer cell line lysates with GC/GC and GC/AT genotype. The TAp73/ΔNp73 protein isoform levels were determined from the western blotting data in Figures 2(a) and 2(b). These p73 protein isoform levels were used to calculate the relative ratio values reported in Table 3. The mean of TAp73/ΔNp73 protein isoform ratio values is box-plotted.
Summary of association studies of p73 DNP in various cancer sites1.
| Site | Population | Case/control | OR (95% CI) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bladder | Indian | 200/200 |
| [ |
|
| ||||
| Breast | Chinese | 170/178 | 0.77 (0.50–1.19) | [ |
| Breast | Chinese | 170/0 |
| [ |
| Breast | Japanese | 200/282 | 0.82 (0.57–1.19) | [ |
| Breast | France white | 59/34 | 2.46 (0.92–6.58) | [ |
|
| ||||
| Cervical | Portuguese | 176/141 | 1.01 (0.63–1.62) | [ |
| Cervical | Japanese | 112/442 |
| [ |
|
| ||||
| Colorectal | Japanese | 147/235 | 0.85 (0.56–1.29) | [ |
| Colorectal | Tunisian | 150/204 | 1.09 (0.71–1.66) | [ |
| Colorectal | Korean | 383/469 |
| [ |
| Colorectal | Swedish | 179/260 | 0.92 (0.53–1.53) | [ |
|
| ||||
| Endometrial | Japanese | 114/442 | 1.36 (0.90–2.06) | [ |
|
| ||||
| Esophageal | Chinese | 348/630 | 1.02 (0.78–1.34) | [ |
| Esophageal | Japanese | 102/235 | 0.64 (0.40–1.04) | [ |
| Esophageal | UK whites | 84/152 | 0.90 (0.53–1.53) | [ |
| H&N | US white | 708/1229 |
| [ |
| H&N | Italian | 283/295 | 1.36 (0.95–1.93) | [ |
| H&N | US whites | 326/349 | 1.06 (0.78–1.45) | [ |
| Oral | Indian | 303/319 |
| [ |
| Oropharyngeal | US mixed | 309/0 |
| [ |
|
| ||||
| Gastric | Italian | 114/295 | 0.94 (0.58–1.54) | [ |
| Gastric | Japanese | 144/235 | 0.88 (0.58–1.34) | [ |
|
| ||||
| Liver | Chinese | 476/526 |
| [ |
|
| ||||
| Lung | Chinese | 293/380 |
| [ |
| Lung | US white | 1054/1139 |
| [ |
| Lung | Chinese | 425/588 |
| [ |
| Lung | Korean | 582/582 | 1.13 (0.90–1.43) | [ |
| Lung | US white | 863/852 |
| [ |
| Lung | Japanese | 189/235 | 0.91 (0.62–1.34) | [ |
|
| ||||
| Lymphoma | Japanese | 103/440 |
| [ |
|
| ||||
| Melanoma | Whites | 805/838 | 1.05 (0.86–1.28) | [ |
|
| ||||
| Ovary | Chinese | 257/257 | 0.81 (0.95–1.18) | [ |
|
| ||||
| Prostate | Indian | 177/265 | 1.21 (0.80–1.86) | [ |
1Analysis is based on dominant model (AT/AT + GC/AT versus GC/GC).
2Cases only.
3HPV16+ versus HPV16−.
4HbsAg-positive individuals.