| Literature DB >> 27549330 |
Pei-Yu Huang1,2, Ting-Ting Zeng1, Xiaojiao Ban1, Meng-Qing Li1, Bao-Zhu Zhang1, Ying-Hui Zhu1, Wen-Feng Hua1, Hai-Qiang Mai1,2, Li Zhang1,3, Xin-Yuan Guan4,5,6, Yan Li7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a type of head-neck cancer with a distinguishable geographic and racial distribution worldwide. Increasing evidence supports that the accumulation of additional genetic and epigenetic abnormalities is important in driving the NPC tumorigenic process. In this study, we aim to investigate the association between EIF5A2 (Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 5A2) expression status and NPC clinical outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: EIF5A2; Gene amplification; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27549330 PMCID: PMC4994420 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2714-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1EIF5A2 expression was associated with poorer survival in NPC. a The EIF5A2 protein level was determined in immortalized nasopharyngeal epithelial cell line NP69 and NPC cell lines (C666, CNE2 and HONE1). Actin was used as the loading control. b Representative pictures of immunostaining of EIF5A2 in non-tumor nasopharyngeal tissue and in NPC tumor tissues (original magnification, 40 × objective). c Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of EIF5A2 expression in patients with NPC: EIF5A2 expression and the probability of OS of NPC patients (P = 0.066), FFS (P = 0.040), D-FFS (P = 0.048), and LR-FFS (P = 0.277) in NPC patients
Association of EIF5A2 expression with clinicopathologic characteristics of NPC patients
| EIF5A2 expression | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Total cases | EIF5A2 (−) | EIF5A2 (+) |
|
| Age | 0.486 | |||
| Mean(range) | 45.6(21–75) | 47 (33–59) | 45.3 (21–75) | |
| Gender | 0.692 | |||
| Male | 103 | 14 (13.6 %) | 89 (86.4 %) | |
| Female | 20 | 4 (20.0 %) | 16 (80.0 %) | |
| T stage | 0.616 | |||
| T1 | 3 | 0 (0) | 3 (100 %) | |
| T2 | 19 | 4 (21.1 %) | 15 (78.9 %) | |
| T3 | 59 | 9 (15.3 %) | 50 (84.7 %) | |
| T4 | 42 | 5 (11.9 %) | 37 (88.1 %) | |
| N stage | 0.551 | |||
| N0 | 10 | 1 (10.0 %) | 9 (90.0 %) | |
| N1 | 45 | 6 (13.3 %) | 39 (86.7 %) | |
| N2 | 43 | 5 (11.6 %) | 38 (88.4 %) | |
| N3 | 25 | 6 (24.0 %) | 19 (76.0 %) | |
| Staging | 0.391 | |||
| II | 2 | 1 (50.0 %) | 1 (50.0 %) | |
| III | 59 | 7 (11.9 %) | 52 (88.1 %) | |
| IV | 62 | 10 (16.1 %) | 52 (83.9 %) | |
| WHO classification | 1.0 | |||
| II | 7 | 1 (14.3 %) | 6 (85.7 %) | |
| III | 116 | 17 (14.7 %) | 99 (85.3 %) | |
aChi-square test
Univariate and multivariate analyses of different prognostic variables on patients’ overall survival (OS)
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95 % CI) |
| HR (95 % CI) |
| |
| Age | 1.028 (1.000–1.056) | 0.049 | 1.042 (1.010–1.075) | 0.011 |
| Gender | 0.681 (0.348–1.335) | 0.263 | 0.866(0.383–1.957) | 0.730 |
| T stage | 1.084 (0.789–1.490) | 0.619 | 1.303(0.869–1.954) | 0.200 |
| N stage | 1.12 (0.835–1.500) | 0.450 | 1.381(0.990–1.927) | 0.058 |
| EIF5A2 expression | 2.549(0.908–7.158) | 0.076 | 2.949(1.046–8.313) | 0.041 |
aCox regression model; HR, Hazards ratio; CI, confidence interval
Cox multivariate analyses of EIF5A2 on NPC patients’ survival
| Significant factors | Hazards ratio | 95 % CI |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OS | Age, per year increase | 1.042 | 1.010–1.075 | 0.011 |
| EIF5A2(+) vs. EIF5A2(−) | 2.949 | 1.046–8.313 | 0.041 | |
| FFS | EIF5A2(+) vs. EIF5A2(−) | 3.128 | 1.122–8.715 | 0.029 |
| D-FFS | EIF5A2(+) vs. EIF5A2(−) | 3.375 | 1.040–10.954 | 0.043 |
| LR-FFS | none |
OS overall survival, FFS failure free survival, D-FFS distant failure-free survival, LR-FFS localregional failure-free survival
aThe covariables: age, gender, T and N categories of NPC tumor, and EIF5A2 expression
Fig. 2EIF5A2 increased cells’ motility. a EIF5A2 protein level was determined in the CNE2 and HONE1 cells transduced with lenti-eIF5A2 and vector control. Tubulin or actin was used as loading control. b Representative pictures and summary of cell migration assay demonstrated that cell motility was increased in EIF5A2 overexpressed cells compared with vector control cells. c EIF5A2 was knocked down by siRNA in CNE2 and HONE1 cells. The protein level was determined by WB. Actin was used as loading control. d Representative pictures and summary of cell migration assay demonstrated that knock-down of EIF5A2 decreased cells’ motility. Original magnification: 10× objective
Fig. 3EIF5A2 promoted tumor cell growth. a Representative pictures and summary of foci formation assay performed with CNE2-EIF5A2 and vector control cells (CNE2-Vec). b Representative pictures and summary of colony formation in soft-agar assay performed with CNE2-EIF5A2 and CNE2-Vec cells. c Representative pictures and summary of foci formation assay demonstrated that more foci were formed in HONE1-EIF5A2 than HONE1-Vec cells
Fig. 4Silencing EIF5A2 decreased tumor cell growth ability. a Representative pictures and summary of foci formation assay demonstrated that knock-down EIF5A2 decreased foci numbers in CNE2 cells. b Representative pictures and summary of soft agar assay demonstrated that colony number decreased in EIF5A2 knock-down CNE2 cells. c Representative pictures and summary of foci formation assay demonstrated that knock-down EIF5A2 decreased foci numbers in HONE1 cells
Fig. 5EIF5A2 overexpression induced chemoresistance to 5-Fu in NPC cells. a CNE2-EIF5A2 cells are more chemoresistant than CNE2-Vec cells at individual doses of 5-Fu (μM), as shown by XTT assay. b HONE1-EIF5A2 cells are more chemoresistant than HONE1-Vec cells at individual doses of 5-Fu (μM), as shown by XTT assay. (*, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01)