| Literature DB >> 28168205 |
Haijun Li1, E Bai2, Yong Zhang1, Zhuoqi Jia1, Shicai He3, Junke Fu1.
Abstract
Nampt including eNampt and iNampt may contribute to mediating obesity-associated cancers. This study investigated the role of Nampt in esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGA), a cancer strongly correlated with obesity. Visceral adiposity was defined by waist circumference or VFA. eNampt in sera were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. iNampt expression in EGA was determined by PCR, western blot, and immunohistochemistry. Sera eNampt were significantly elevated in these overweight and obese patients, especially for viscerally obese patients, and positively correlated with BMI, waist circumference, VFA, and also primary tumor, regional lymph nodes, and TNM stage (P < 0.05). iNampt expression in both the mRNA and protein levels was upregulated in EGAs (P < 0.05). iNampt staining was found primarily in the cytoplasm and nuclei and significantly associated with tumor, lymph nodes, and TNM stage and also correlated positively with serum eNampt, BMI, total fat area, VFA, superficial fat area, and waist circumference (P < 0.05). iNampt, eNampt, tumor, lymph nodes, and TNM stage correlated to the survival of EGAs, and iNampt expression and TNM stage affected the prognosis independently (P < 0.05). This study highlighted the association of eNampt/iNampt with visceral obesity and a potential impact on the biology of EGA.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28168205 PMCID: PMC5266808 DOI: 10.1155/2017/3970605
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunol Res ISSN: 2314-7156 Impact factor: 4.818
Figure 1iNampt expression in EGAs tissues and their adjacent nontumor tissues (n = 5; 3 of 5 representative images were shown). Compared to these adjacent nontumor specimens, EGA had upregulated iNampt expression in the mRNA level ((a) and (b), 16.66 ± 3.74% versus 4.14 ± 1.79%, P = 0.001 < 0.05) and protein level ((c) and (d), 54.34 ± 17.05% versus 9.32 ± 4.69%, P = 0.003 < 0.05).
Figure 2The protein expression of iNampt in these EGA specimens was analyzed by immunohistochemical staining (×400). iNampt expression was significantly upregulated in these tumors from obese patients, especially visceral obesity (a), compared to those nonobese patients (b) (7.31 ± 3.04 versus 4.34 ± 2.64, P < 0.001).
Clinical correlation of iNampt protein expression in EGA.
| Clinicopathological features | Categories | iNampt expression |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| − | + | ||||
| Gender | Male | 31 | 39 | 0.21 | 0.89 |
| Age (years) | <60 | 27 | 23 | 2.99 | 0.08 |
| Siewert types | I | 8 | 19 | 3.41 | 0.18 |
| Differentiation | G1 & G2G3 & G4 | 25 | 33 | 0.14 | 0.71 |
| Tumor | T1 & T2T3 & T4 | 38 | 25 | 13.38 | <0.001 |
| Lymph nodes | N0 | 39 | 13 | 34.69 | <0.001 |
| TNM stage | I | 18 | 4 | 35.35 | <0.001 |
TNM: tumor node metastasis.
Statistically significant.
Correlations between relative quantification values for iNampt and measures of obesity.
| Measures of obesity | iNampt expression | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| Body mass index | 0.25 | 0.007 |
| Waist circumference | 0.40 | <0.001 |
| Visceral fat area | 0.49 | <0.001 |
| Superficial fat area | 0.33 | <0.001 |
| Total fat area | 0.46 | <0.001 |
Statistically significant.
Differences in obesity status between tumors with lowest- versus highest-quartile iNampt expression.
| Obesity status | iNampt expression |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lowest-quartile | Highest-quartile | ||
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 24.00 ± 1.76 | 25.38 ± 2.26 | 0.018 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 81.26 ± 4.01 | 87.87 ± 4.45 | <0.001 |
| Total fat area (cm2) | 184.70 ± 22.16 | 215.56 ± 17.11 | <0.001 |
| Visceral fat area (cm2) | 118.50 ± 14.62 | 141.18 ± 9.65 | <0.001 |
| Superficial fat area (cm2) | 66.20 ± 9.74 | 74.39 ± 9.78 | 0.004 |
Statistically significant.
Figure 3Kaplan-Meier analysis of disease-specific survival of patients with EGA relative to iNampt expression.
Cox regression analysis of factors associated with death from EGA.
| Univariable analysis | Multivariable analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) |
| HR (95% CI) |
| |
| iNampt (positive versus negative expression) | 6.78 (1.81–25.33) | 0.002 | 3.00 (1.03–8.69) | 0.043 |
| eNampt (below versus above the median) | 0.15 (0.04–0.55) | 0.002 | 0.38 (0.14–1.01) | 0.052 |
| Tumor (T1 & T2 versus T3 & T4) | 0.14 (0.03–0.64) | 0.004 | 0.76 (0.46–1.25) | 0.759 |
| Lymph nodes (N0 versus N1 & N2) | 0.09 (0.02–0.41) | <0.001 | 0.63 (0.34–1.19) | 0.156 |
| TNM stage (I & II versus III & IV) | 0.06 (0.01–0.46) | <0.001 | 0.20 (0.09–0.43) | <0.001 |
TNM: tumor node metastasis.
Statistically significant.