| Literature DB >> 27549611 |
Hana Mlcochova1,2, Tana Machackova1, Anja Rabien3,4, Lenka Radova1, Pavel Fabian5, Robert Iliev1, Katerina Slaba2, Alexandr Poprach2, Ergin Kilic6, Michal Stanik7, Martina Redova-Lojova1, Marek Svoboda1,2, Jan Dolezel7, Rostislav Vyzula2, Klaus Jung3,4, Ondrej Slaby1,2.
Abstract
Clear-cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCCs) are genetically heterogeneous tumors presenting diverse clinical courses. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a crucial process involved in initiation of metastatic cascade. The aim of our study was to identify an integrated miRNA/mRNA signature associated with metastasis and prognosis in ccRCC through targeted approach based on analysis of miRNAs/mRNAs associated with EMT. A cohort of 230 ccRCC was included in our study and further divided into discovery, training and validation cohorts. EMT markers were evaluated in ccRCC tumor samples, which were grouped accordingly to EMT status. By use of large-scale miRNA/mRNA expression profiling, we identified miRNA/mRNA with significantly different expression in EMT-positive tumors and selected 41 miRNAs/mRNAs for training phase of the study to evaluate their diagnostic and prognostic potential. Fifteen miRNAs/mRNAs were analyzed in the validation phase, where all evaluated miRNA/mRNA candidates were confirmed to be significantly deregulated in tumor tissue. Some of them significantly differed in metastatic tumors, correlated with clinical stage, with Fuhrman grade and with overall survival. Further, we established an EMT-based stage-independent prognostic scoring system enabling identification of ccRCC patients at high-risk of cancer-related death. Finally, we confirmed involvement of miR-429 in EMT regulation in RCC cells in vitro.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27549611 PMCID: PMC4994011 DOI: 10.1038/srep31852
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1A flow chart of the study design.
RP (renal parenchyma), RCC (renal cell carcinoma).
Clinical characteristics of the patients.
| Discovery phase | Training phase | Validation phase | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| microRNA | mRNAs | microRNA | mRNAs | microRNA | mRNAs | |
| Patients included | 29 | 13 | 75 | 47 | 126 | 135 |
| Tumor tissue samples | 29 | 13 | 75 | 47 | 126 | 135 |
| Renal parenchyma | — | — | 10 | 8 | 40 | 41 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 17 (58.6) | 8 (61.5) | 51 (68) | 34 (72.3) | 84 (66.7) | 88 (65.2) |
| Female | 12 (41.4) | 5 (38.5) | 24 (32) | 13 (27.7) | 42 (33.3) | 47 (34.8) |
| Age at surgery | ||||||
| Median | 66 | 66 | 64 | 61 | 65 | 65 |
| range | 35–80 | 35–80 | 31–84 | 31–82 | 34–86 | 33–86 |
| pT-stage | ||||||
| T1a | 7 (24.1) | 4 (30.8) | 15 (20) | 12 (25.5) | 45 (35.7) | 48 (35.6) |
| T1b | 3 (10.3) | 1 (7.7) | 23 (30.7) | 14 (29.8) | 24 (19) | 28 (20.7) |
| T2 | 3 (10.3) | 1 (7.7) | 9 (12) | 5 (10.6) | 15 (11.9) | 18 (13.3) |
| T3a | 9 (31) | 3 (23.1) | 12 (16) | 8 (17) | 21 (16.7) | 20 (14.8) |
| T3b | 4 (13.8) | 2 (15.4) | 13 (17.3) | 6 (12.8) | 13 (10.3) | 15 (11.1) |
| T4 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.3) | 1 (2.1) | 8 (6.3) | 6 (4.4) |
| NA | 3 (10.3) | 2 (15.4) | 2 (2.7) | 1 (2.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| pN-stage | ||||||
| N0 | 26 (89.7) | 11 (84.6) | 65 (86.7) | 41 (87.2) | 106 (84.1) | 115 (85.2) |
| N1 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4 (5.3) | 3 (6.4) | 13 (10.3) | 15 (11.1) |
| NA | 3 (10.3) | 2 (15.4) | 6 (8) | 3 (6.4) | 7 (5.6) | 5 (3.7) |
| Metastasis | ||||||
| M0 | 25 (86.2) | 11 (84.6) | 58 (77.3) | 38 (80.9) | 88 (69.8) | 97 (71.9) |
| M1 | 1 (3.4) | 0 (0) | 15 (20) | 8 (17) | 37 (29.4) | 37 (27.4) |
| NA | 3 (10.3) | 2 (15.4) | 2 (2.7) | 1 (2.1) | 1 (0.8) | 1 (0.7) |
| TNM Stage | ||||||
| I | 10 (34.5) | 5 (38.5) | 34 (45.3) | 24 (51.1) | 63 (50) | 67 (49.6) |
| II | 3 (10.3) | 1 (7.7) | 8 (10.7) | 5 (10.6) | 12 (9.5) | 14 (10.4) |
| III | 12 (41.4) | 5 (38.5) | 15 (20) | 8 (17) | 12 (9.5) | 15 (11.1) |
| IV | 1 (3.4) | 0 (0) | 15 (20) | 8 (17) | 36 (28.6) | 36 (26.7) |
| NA | 3 (10.3) | 2 (15.4) | 3 (4) | 2 (4.3) | 3 (28.6) | 3 (2.2) |
| Fuhrman grade | ||||||
| 1 | 5 (17.2) | 3 (23.1) | 13 (17.3) | 9 (19.1) | 24 (19) | 25 (18.5) |
| 2 | 17 (58.6) | 8 (61.5) | 34 (45.3) | 21 (44.7) | 51 (40.5) | 56 (41.5) |
| 3 | 5 (17.2) | 1 (7.7) | 22 (29.3) | 14 (29.8) | 37 (29.4) | 40 (29.6) |
| 4 | 1 (3.4) | 0 (0) | 5 (6.7) | 2 (4.3) | 13 (10.3) | 13 (9.6) |
| NA | 1 (3.4) | 1 (7.7) | 1 (1.3) | 1 (2.1) | 1 (0.8) | 1 (0.7) |
N/A–not available.
Percentage is presented in brackets.
Figure 2Expression levels of the EMT-associated miRNAs/mRNAs in renal parenchyma, tumors (all TNM stages), non-metastatic tumors (stage I + II), metastatic tumors (stage III + IV) and metastasis (validation phase of the study).
All comparisons are between two groups by use of Mann-Whitney test. RP (renal parenchyma), RCC (renal cell carcinoma), st.I + II (TNM stage I + II), st.III + IV (TNM stage III + IV), MET (metastasis).
Figure 3EMT-associated miRNAs/mRNAs in relationship to the overall survival of ccRCC patients in validation phase of the study (cut-off values for prognostic stratification were adapted from training phase of the study).
Summary of the validation of EMT-associated miRNAs/mRNAs (A) and COX multivariate analysis of RCC prognostic factors and EMT-based prognostic score (B).
**FC = fold change, M = metastatic primary tumors (stage III-pN+/IV), NM = non-metastatic primary tumors (stage I/II).
***Kruskal–Wallis test.
OS, overall survival.
Figure 4Integrated EMT-based miRNAs/mRNAs prognostic model.
The best model for the prediction of 5-year overall survival consisted of 5 miRNAs (miR-200a, miR-200b, miR-200c, miR-429, miR-30a-3p) and 3 genes (C3orf52, CDH1, PAPSS2) (A,B). Independent validation of the integrated miRNA/mRNA EMT-signature by use of The Cancer Genome Atlas dataset KIRC (C). The predicted survival was assessed for the model without EMT-based miRNA/mRNA signature (D) and the model based only on the EMT-based miRNA/mRNA signature (age, gender, stage were fixed values) (E).
Figure 5MiR-429 restores TGF-β-induced CDH1 suppression in renal cell carcinoma cell lines.
(* means p < 0.05).