| Literature DB >> 26483189 |
Noboru Habu1,2, Yorihisa Imanishi3, Kaori Kameyama4, Masayuki Shimoda5, Yutaka Tokumaru6, Koji Sakamoto7, Ryoichi Fujii8, Seiji Shigetomi9, Kuninori Otsuka10, Yoichiro Sato11, Yoshihiro Watanabe12, Hiroyuki Ozawa13, Toshiki Tomita14, Masato Fujii15, Kaoru Ogawa16.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The side population (SP) of cancer cells is reportedly enriched with cancer stem cells (CSCs), however, the functional role and clinical relevance of CSC marker molecules upregulated in the SP of head and neck squamous carcinoma (HNSCC) cells are yet to be elucidated. Patients with clinical stage I/II (T1-2N0M0) tongue squamous cell carcinoma (TSCC) typically undergo partial glossectomy; however, development of delayed neck metastasis (DNM) tends to reduce their survival. In the present study, we aimed to determine the CSC markers in the SP of HNSCC cells along with their functions in cellular behaviors, and to clarify the association of these markers with DNM.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26483189 PMCID: PMC4610045 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1732-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Identification of SP cells in the three HNSCC cell lines. HNSCC cells were stained with Hoechst 33342 dye and sorted using flow cytometry. The presence of the SP, which was gated and shown as a percentage of the entire viable cell population for each cell line, was confirmed in the SCC4 (a), SAS (b), and HSC4 cells (c). In each cell line, the SP was obviously abolished in the presence of reserpine, indicating that each population was truly an SP (d–f)
Fig. 2Expression of stem cell markers in SP and MP cells. a: The mRNA expressions of Oct3/4, Nanog, Sox2, Notch1, Bmi-1, ABCG2, and GAPDH in both SP and MP cells were separately analyzed using RT-PCR. b: The PCR products visualized under UV-light were semi-quantified using ImageJ. The relative expression levels of the genes were compared after normalization using those of GAPDH. Gene expression levels in the MP cells were defined as 1.0 in each comparison for convenience. c and d: The protein expressions of Oct3/4 and Nanog in both SP and MP cells were separately evaluated using immunofluorescent staining in the SCC4 (c) and SAS (d) cells. Nuclei were stained with DAPI. Scale bar: 100 μm
Fig. 3Proliferation, migration, and invasion activity of SP and MP cells. a: An in vitro cell proliferation assay was conducted using the SCC4 cells that exhibited the highest percentage of SP cells. The data of the SP and MP cells were separately presented as the fold increase in the respective OD values of the absorbance measured at 450 nm compared to those measured on day 1. b and c: An in vitro migration assay (b) and Matrigel invasion assay (c) were conducted using the SCC4 cells. Top graphs: the data were presented as the fold difference between the SP and MP cells in the number of migrated or invaded cells. The values represent the mean ± standard deviation. Bottom panels: the representative microscopic photographs from each assay are displayed
Fig. 4Immunohistochemistry of Oct3/4 and Nanog in TSCC specimens. In the representative cases shown, positive staining of Oct3/4 (a) or Nanog (b) was observed in the nuclei of the tumor cells (arrows). Original magnification: ×200. Scale bar: 100 μm
Association between immunohistochemical expression of Oct3/4 and Nanog
| Immunohistochemical markers | Nanog | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive ( | Negative ( | |||
| Oct3/4 | Positive ( | 6 | 6 | 0.007* |
| Negative ( | 4 | 34 | ||
*Statistically significant according to Fisher’s exact test
Univariate analysis of predictive factors for DNM
| Variable |
| DNM− ( | DNM+ ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinicopathological factors | |||||||
| Age | >60 | 21 | 17 | (80.9 %) | 4 | (19.1 %) | 0.267 |
| ≦60 | 29 | 20 | (69.0 %) | 9 | (31.0 %) | ||
| T classification | T1 | 34 | 28 | (82.4 %) | 6 | (17.6 %) | 0.055 |
| T2 | 16 | 9 | (56.2 %) | 7 | (43.8 %) | ||
| Differentiation | Well | 42 | 32 | (76.2 %) | 10 | (23.8 %) | 0.891 |
| Moderate, Poor | 8 | 5 | (62.5 %) | 3 | (37.5 %) | ||
| Depth of invasion | <4 mm | 35 | 28 | (80.0 %) | 7 | (20.0 %) | 0.963 |
| ≧4 mm | 15 | 9 | (60.0 %) | 6 | (40.0 %) | ||
| Mode of invasion | Grade 1, 2 | 24 | 21 | (87.5 %) | 3 | (12.5 %) | 0.036* |
| Grade 3, 4 | 26 | 16 | (61.5 %) | 10 | (38.5 %) | ||
| Nest shape | A | 26 | 21 | (80.8 %) | 5 | (19.2 %) | 0.208 |
| B | 24 | 16 | (66.7 %) | 8 | (33.3 %) | ||
| Vascular invasion | Negative | 43 | 35 | (81.4 %) | 8 | (18.6 %) | 0.009* |
| Positive | 7 | 2 | (28.6 %) | 5 | (71.4 %) | ||
| Lymphatic invasion | Negative | 44 | 32 | (72.7 %) | 12 | (27.3 %) | 0.502 |
| Positive | 6 | 5 | (83.4 %) | 1 | (16.6 %) | ||
| Perineural invasion | Negative | 48 | 36 | (75.0 %) | 12 | (25.0 %) | 0.456 |
| Positive | 2 | 1 | (50.0 %) | 1 | (50.0 %) | ||
| Muscular invasion | Negative | 23 | 21 | (91.3 %) | 2 | (8.7 %) | 0.010* |
| Positive | 27 | 16 | (59.3 %) | 11 | (40.7 %) | ||
| Immunohistochemical markers | |||||||
| Oct3/4 | Negative | 38 | 33 | (86.8 %) | 5 | (13.2 %) | 0.001* |
| Positive | 12 | 4 | (33.3 %) | 8 | (66.7 %) | ||
| Nanog | Negative | 40 | 34 | (85.0 %) | 6 | (15.0 %) | 0.001* |
| Positive | 10 | 3 | (30.0 %) | 7 | (70.0 %) | ||
*Statistically significant according to Fisher’s exact test
Multivariate logistic regression model of predictive risk factors for DNM
| Step | Variable | Odds ratio | 95 % confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | ||||
| Oct3/4 | 8.378 | 1.243–56.486 | 0.029* | |
| Nanog | 6.092 | 0.688–53.953 | 0.104 | |
| Vascular invasion+ | 6.135 | 0.585–64.284 | 0.130 | |
| Mode of invasion, grade 3,4 | 2.843 | 0.326–24.785 | 0.344 | |
| Muscular invasion+ | 1.773 | 0.196–16.049 | 0.610 | |
| Step 2 | ||||
| Oct3/4 | 8.207 | 1.223–55.057 | 0.030* | |
| Nanog | 6.747 | 0.818–55.645 | 0.076 | |
| Vascular invasion+ | 7.550 | 0.819–69.634 | 0.075 | |
| Mode of invasion, grade 3,4 | 3.636 | 0.510–25.934 | 0.198 | |
| Step 3 | ||||
| Oct3/4 | 10.872 | 1.765–66.963 | 0.010* | |
| Nanog | 5.397 | 0.750–38.852 | 0.094 | |
| Vascular invasion+ | 10.151 | 1.018–101.262 | 0.048* | |
| Step 4 (The final step) | ||||
| Oct3/4 | 14.781 | 2.694–81.102 | 0.002* | |
| Vascular invasion+ | 12.934 | 1.568–106.684 | 0.017* | |
*Statistically significant
Diagnostic performance of the risk factors in predicting DNM
| Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Positive predictive value | Negative predictive value | Odds ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct3/4 | 0.820 | 0.615 | 0.892 | 0.667 | 0.868 | 13.200 |
| (95 % aCI) | (0.709–0.900) | (0.402–0.769) | (0.817–0.946) | (0.436–0.833) | (0.796–0.921) | (3.006–58.268) |
| Nanog | 0.820 | 0.538 | 0.919 | 0.700 | 0.850 | 13.222 |
| (95 % aCI) | (0.715–0.891) | (0.336–0.676) | (0.848–0.967) | (0.437–0.879) | (0.784–0.895) | (2.817–61.514) |
| Vascular invasion | 0.800 | 0.385 | 0.946 | 0.714 | 0.814 | 10.937 |
| (95 % aCI) | (0.708–0.856) | (0.208–0.492) | (0.884–0.984) | (0.387–0.913) | (0.761–0.846) | (2.003–57.951) |
aConfidence interval