| Literature DB >> 26785325 |
Naoko Minatani1, Mina Waraya1, Keishi Yamashita1, Mariko Kikuchi1, Hideki Ushiku1, Ken Kojo1, Akira Ema1, Hiroshi Nishimiya2, Yoshimasa Kosaka1, Hiroshi Katoh1, Norihiko Sengoku1, Hirokazu Tanino1, David Sidransky3, Masahiko Watanabe1.
Abstract
Using pharmacological unmasking microarray, we identified promoter DNA methylation of cysteine dioxygenase 1 (CDO1) gene in human cancer. In this study, we assessed the clinicopathological significance of CDO1 methylation in primary breast cancer (BC) with no prior chemotherapy. The CDO1 DNA methylation was quantified by TaqMan methylation specific PCR (Q-MSP) in 7 BC cell lines and 172 primary BC patients with no prior chemotherapy. Promoter DNA of the CDO1 gene was hypermethylated in 6 BC cell lines except SK-BR3, and CDO1 gene expression was all silenced at mRNA level in the 7 BC cell lines. Quantification of CDO1 methylation was developed using Q-MSP, and assessed in primary BC. Among the clinicopathologic factors, CDO1 methylation level was not statistically significantly associated with any prognostic factors. The log-rank plot analysis elucidated that the higher methylation the tumors harbored, the poorer prognosis the patients exhibited. Using the median value of 58.0 as a cut-off one, disease specific survival in BC patients with CDO1 hypermethylation showed significantly poorer prognosis than those with hypomethylation (p = 0.004). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards model identified that CDO1 hypermethylation was prognostic factor as well as Ki-67 and hormone receptor status. The most intriguingly, CDO1 hypermethylation was of robust prognostic relevance in triple negative BC (p = 0.007). Promoter DNA methylation of CDO1 gene was robust prognostic indicator in primary BC patients with no prior chemotherapy. Prognostic relevance of the CDO1 promoter DNA methylation is worthy of being paid attention in triple negative BC cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26785325 PMCID: PMC4718689 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144862
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1CDO1 methylation and expression in BC cell line.
A, CDO1 mRNA expression in BC cell lines was assessed by semi-quantitative reverse transcribed PCR (RT-PCR). B, Representative direct bisulfite sequence results in CRL cells (methylation) and SK-BR3 cells (unmethylation). C, CDO1 mRNA expression in BC cell lines was assessed by Q-MSP. (D) CDO1 mRNA expression in BC tissues was assessed by RT-PCR.
Fig 2Quantitative assessment of CDO1 methylation in primary BC tissues.
A, TaqMeth value of 172 BC tissues.Median is median 58.0 (0–351.1). B, p value and relative risk were plotted according to the Log rank test. Note that the p value is constantly below 0.05, suggesting that the higher methylation value of CDO1 gene is, poorer prognosis the patients exhibited in primary BC.
Fig 3CDO1 gene methylation and prognosis according to BC subtypes.
A, Kaplan-Meier curve for DSS is shown in total primary BC. The cut-off value was median value (58). Patients with CDO1 hypermethylation exhibited significantly poorer prognosis than those with CDO1 hypomethylation in primary BC (p = 0.004). B, Kaplan-Meier curves for DSS are shown according to subtypes.
Univariate and multivariate analysis for disease specific survival (DSS).
| DSS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
| Factors | patient number | DSS (%) | HR | 95%CI | ||
| Age | 0.03 | |||||
| 51> | 86 | 70 | ||||
| 51< | 86 | 83 | ||||
| Gender | 0.61 | |||||
| Female | 171 | 77 | ||||
| Male | 1 | 100 | ||||
| pT factor | <0.0001 | |||||
| T1,2 | 154 | 82 | ||||
| T3,4 | 18 | 35 | ||||
| pN | 0.002 | |||||
| negative | 88 | 87 | ||||
| positive | 84 | 67 | ||||
| pStage (7th UICC) | <0.0001 | |||||
| 1 | 51 | 87 | Reference | |||
| 2 | 76 | 85 | 1.0 | 0.4–3.0 | 1.0 | |
| 3 | 45 | 51 | 2.8 | 1.2–7.9 | 0.02 | |
| Ki-67 | <0.0001 | 5.2 | 2.7–10.2 | <0.0001 | ||
| negative | 141 | 87 | ||||
| positive | 31 | 38 | ||||
| Hormone receptor | 0.0006 | 3.2 | 1.4–7.5 | 0.006 | ||
| negative | 54 | 62 | ||||
| positive | 118 | 84 | ||||
| TaqMeth value | 0.004 | 2.4 | 1.2–5.4 | 0.01 | ||
| 58< | 86 | 87 | ||||
| 58> | 86 | 67 | ||||
| HER2 receptor | 0.03 | 1.4 | 0.6–3.1 | 0.45 | ||
| positive | 38 | 65 | ||||
| negative | 134 | 80 | ||||
| Subtype | 0.0004 | |||||
| Luminal type | 100 | 88 | ||||
| HER2 type | 38 | 65 | ||||
| Triple negative type | 34 | 60 | ||||
* HR: Hazard Ratio
Correlation of clinicopathologic characterestics and CDO1 methylation.
| low (< 58.0) | high (> 58.0) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 86) | (n = 86) | ||||
| Factors | No. | % | No. | % | |
| Age (median) | 51.1 (22–77) | 51.1 (29–84) | 0.48 | ||
| Operation method | 0.31 | ||||
| Lumpectomy | 28 | 56.0 | 22 | 44.0 | |
| Mastectomy | 58 | 47.5 | 64 | 52.5 | |
| pT factor | 0.29 | ||||
| T1 | 47 | 57.3 | 35 | 42.7 | |
| T2 | 30 | 41.7 | 42 | 58.3 | |
| T3 | 7 | 50.0 | 7 | 50.0 | |
| T4 | 2 | 50.0 | 2 | 50.0 | |
| pN factor | 0.01 | ||||
| pN0 | 52 | 59.1 | 36 | 40.9 | |
| pN1 | 21 | 50 | 21 | 50.0 | |
| pN2 | 5 | 21.7 | 18 | 78.3 | |
| pN3 | 8 | 42.1 | 11 | 57.9 | |
| pStage | 0.02 | ||||
| 1 | 31 | 60.8 | 20 | 39.2 | |
| 2 | 40 | 52.6 | 36 | 47.4 | |
| 3 | 15 | 33.3 | 30 | 66.7 | |
| Pathological type | 0.55 | ||||
| Invasive ductal carcinoma | 79 | 49.4 | 81 | 50.6 | |
| Others | 7 | 58.3 | 5 | 41.7 | |
| Hormonal receptor (IHC) | 0.32 | ||||
| Positive | 56 | 47.5 | 62 | 52.5 | |
| Negative | 30 | 55.6 | 24 | 44.4 | |
| HER 2 (IHC) | 0.14 | ||||
| Positive | 15 | 39.5 | 23 | 60.5 | |
| Negative | 71 | 53.0 | 63 | 47.0 | |
| Ki-67 (IHC) | 0.32 | ||||
| Positive | 13 | 41.9 | 18 | 58.1 | |
| Negative | 73 | 51.8 | 68 | 48.2 | |
| Subtype | 0.25 | ||||
| Luminal type | 51 | 51.0 | 49 | 49.0 | |
| HER2 type | 15 | 39.5 | 23 | 60.5 | |
| Triple negative type | 20 | 58.8 | 14 | 41.2 | |
*: 7th edition of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC)