| Literature DB >> 26266941 |
Chung-Ta Chang1, Chien-Yun Hsiang2, Tin-Yun Ho3, Ching-Zong Wu4, Hsiang-Hsi Hong5, Yi-Fang Huang6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy plays an important role in current cancer therapy; however, several problems remain unsolved on the issue of host-therapeutics interaction. The purpose of this study was to investigate the host responses after 5-flurouracil (5-FU) administration and to find the target genes and their relationship with other cytokines in the 5-FU-induced oral mucositis (OM) mouse model through transcriptomic analysis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26266941 PMCID: PMC4534454 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Macroscopic and microscopic examinations of the oral mucosa following 5-FU administration.
BALB/c mice were intraperitoneally administered with PBS (mock, the control group) or 5-FU and investigated at indicated periods. (A) Macroanalysis. Oral mucositis was induced via intraperitoneal administration of 5-FU. The oral cavity of each mouse was evaluated. Erythema and hyperemia of oral mucosa were significantly observed in the second week after 5-FU administration (p<0.05). During the third to seventh week period, the significant difference between 5-FU-induced oral mucositis and the control group (mock) persisted (p<0.01). (B) Microscopic features of the oral mucosa. In the fifth week, three mock mice and four 5-FU-treated mice were sacrificed and the sections were stained with H&E and observed using light microscope. Magnification 100×. Photos are representative images. Histopathologically, the oral mucosa of mice subjected to 5-FU-induced oral mucositis showed accentuated vasodilatation, intense cellular infiltration with neutrophil prevalence, hemorrhagic areas, edema, and extensive ulcers, compared with the control group (mock). (C) According to the oral mucositis microscopic analysis scoring system, a significant difference was noted in the third week for the first time (p<0.05), and the peak influence was noted in the fifth week (p<0.01). Then the inflammatory condition was relieved in the seventh week investigation (red column: 5-FU treatment; green column: mock, the control group). Values are mean ± standard error. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, compared with the control group (mock).
The expression levels of significantly changed genes induced by 5-FU in oral mucositis.
| Accession | Gene Symbol | Gene Description | Fold changes |
|---|---|---|---|
| NM_031368.4 | Bglap-rs1 | Bone gamma-carboxyglutamate protein, related sequence 1 | -12.69 |
| NM_145126 | Chi3l4 | Chitinase 3-like 4 | -6.35 |
| NM_011468 | Sprr2a | Small proline-rich protein 2A | -2.66 |
| NM_026576 | Etaa1 | Ewing's tumor-associated antigen 1 homolog. | -2.59 |
| NM_207547 | V1rd21 | Vomeronasal 1 receptor, D21 | -2.48 |
| NM_026046 | Zfp329 | Zinc finger protein 329 | -2.27 |
| NM_008648 | Mup4 | Major urinary protein 1 | -2.17 |
| NM_133239 | Crb1 | Crumbs homolog 1 (Drosophila) | -2.01 |
| NM_010733 | Lrrn3 | Leucine rich repeat protein 3, neuronal | 2.02 |
| NM_031255 | Rshl1 | Radial spokehead-like 1 | 2.09 |
| NM_023371 | Pin1 | Protein (peptidyl-prolyl cis/trans isomerase) NIMA-interacting 1 | 2.11 |
| NM_026334 | Lipf | Lipase, gastric | 2.11 |
| NM_007832 | Dck | Deoxycytidine kinase | 2.14 |
| NM_009499 | Vasp | Vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein | 2.35 |
| NM_021435 | Slc35b4 | Solute carrier family 35, member B4 | 2.43 |
| NM_026132 | Txndc8 | Thioredoxin domain containing 8 | 2.58 |
| NM_030749 | Sil1 | Nucleotide exchange factor SIL1 precursor. | 2.62 |
| NM_178408 | Arrdc1 | Arrestin domain containing 1 | 2.85 |
| NM_008190 | Guca2a | Guanylate cyclase activator 2a (guanylin) | 11.55 |
KEGG pathway analysis of genes in oral mucosa at the 5th week after intraperitoneally administered with 5-FU.
| KEGG pathway |
|
|---|---|
| EGF Signaling Pathway | 0.007233 |
| Arginine and proline metabolism | 0.007258 |
| Regulation of actin cytoskeleton | 0.008047 |
| IFN-β Signaling Pathway | 0.009013 |
| Citrate cycle (TCA cycle) | 0.01004 |
| Glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism | 0.013511 |
| Nef Mediated Pathway | 0.013886 |
| Steroid Hormone Signaling Pathway | 0.016138 |
| G-CSF Signaling Pathway | 0.016483 |
| One carbon pool by folate | 0.021077 |
| Farnesyltransferase Signaling Pathway | 0.023384 |
| Antigen processing and presentation | 0.023434 |
| Cell Communication | 0.028426 |
| Angiotensin Signaling Pathway | 0.031787 |
| CCR2 Mediated Pathway | 0.033148 |
| Limonene and pinene degradation | 0.033356 |
| B Cell Antigen Receptor Signaling Pathway | 0.034871 |
| EPO Signaling Pathway | 0.03591 |
| TGF-β1 Signaling Pathway | 0.038104 |
| PRL Signaling Pathway | 0.039095 |
| Leukotriene Signaling Pathway | 0.039145 |
| DHT Signaling Pathway | 0.040799 |
| Urea cycle and metabolism of amino groups | 0.046441 |
a Genes with fold changes >2.0 or ≤-2.0 were analyzed by KEGG pathways
b p values were calculated by the geneSetTest function implemented in the limma package
The expression levels of Bglap-rs1 and Chi3l4 genes by qPCR.
| Sample | Average CT of target | Average CT of GAPDH | ΔCT
| ΔΔCT
| Relative to Mock |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bglap-rs1 | |||||
| Mock | 22.81±0.09 | 18.80±0.03 | 4.00±0.09 | 0.00±0.09 | 1.00 |
| 5-FU administered | 22.95±0.02 | 18.26±0.04 | 4.68±0.05 | 0.67±0.05 | 0.62 |
| Chi314 | |||||
| Mock | 18.91±0.07 | 18.80±0.03 | 0.10±0.07 | 0.00±0.07 | 1.00 |
| 5-FU administered | 21.21±0.08 | 18.26±0.04 | 2.95±0.10 | 2.84±0.10 | 0.13 |
a The ΔCT value is determined by subtracting the average GAPDH CT value from the average target gene CT value. The standard deviation of the difference is calculated from the standard deviations of the target gene and GAPDH
b The calculation of ΔΔCT involves subtraction by the ΔCT calibrator value. This is a subtraction of an arbitrary constant, so the standard deviation of ΔΔCT is the same as the standard deviation of the ΔCT value
**p<0.01, compared with the control group (mock)
Fig 2Immunohistochemical staining of 5-FU-treated oral mucosa.
Mice were treated with 5-FU and oral mucosa was collected 5 weeks later. Sections of oral mucosa were stained with antibodies against CD11b, IL-1β, TNF-α, or Bglap-rs1. (A) Immunohistochemical staining (200× magnification). Photos are representative images (n = 5 /group). (B) Quantitation of photos. Results are expressed as area (%). Values are mean ± standard error (n = 5 /group). *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, compared with the control group (mock).