| Literature DB >> 28173828 |
Hao-Wei Cheng1, Yi-Fang Chen2, Jau-Min Wong1,3, Chia-Wei Weng4, Hsuan-Yu Chen5, Sung-Liang Yu6, Huei-Wen Chen7, Ang Yuan8,9, Jeremy J W Chen10,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is a hallmark of cancer and plays a critical role in lung cancer progression, which involves interactions between cancer cells, endothelial cells and the surrounding microenvironment. However, the gene expression profiles and the changes in the biological phenotype of vascular endothelial cells after interactions with lung cancer cells remain unclear.Entities:
Keywords: Angiogenesis; Apoptosis; Endothelial cell; Lung cancer; PI3K/Akt
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28173828 PMCID: PMC5296960 DOI: 10.1186/s13046-017-0495-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res ISSN: 0392-9078
Primer sequences used in real-time PCR experiments
| Gene name | Primer sequence (5' → 3') |
|---|---|
| ACTN1 | Forward: AACTGTCACTTGGCGGGCAGGG |
| Reverse: AAGGGCATCAGCCAGGAGCAGAT | |
| AKT3 | Forward: CCTTCCAGACAAAAGACCGTTT |
| Reverse: ATGTAGATAGTCCAAGGCAGAGACAA | |
| CTNNB1 | Forward: AGCTAAAATGGCAGTGCGTTTAG |
| Reverse: ACTAGCCAGTATGATGAGCTTGCTT | |
| CXCL8 | Forward: TTGGCAGCCTTCCTGATTTC |
| Reverse: AACTTCTCCACAACCCTCTGCA | |
| ICAM1 | Forward: CGATGACCATCTACAGCTTTCCGG |
| Reverse: GCTGCTACCACAGTGATGATGACAA | |
| ITGAV | Forward: CTTCCAATTGAGGA ATCACCAACT |
| Reverse: CAATCCTGCTAGAACTGCTAAAATGA | |
| ITGB3 | Forward: CGACCGAAAAGAATTCGCTAAA |
| Reverse: GGTACGTGATATTGGTGAAGGTAGAC | |
| PIK3CA | Forward: AACACTCAAAGAGTACCTTGTTCCAA |
| Reverse: TAGCACCCTTTCGGCCTTTA | |
| PIK3R1 | Forward: GCGAGATGGCACTTTTCTTGT |
| Reverse: TACTTCGCCGTCCACCACTAC | |
| PIK3R3 | Forward: GATGCCCTATTCGACAGAACTGA |
| Reverse: TTGGAACTGCTGAAGTCATTGG | |
| PTGS2 | Forward: CCCTTGGGTGTCAAAGGTAA |
| Reverse: GCCCTCGCTTATGATCTGTC | |
| RAC1 | Forward: AAGCTGACTCCCATCACCTATCCG |
| Reverse: CGAGGGGCTGAGACATTTACAACA | |
| VCAM1 | Forward: GGGAAGATGGTCGTGATCCTT |
| Reverse: TCTGGGGTGGTCTCGATTTTA |
Fig. 1Phenotype changes of HUVECs after co-culture with CL1-5 cells. a Cell morphology of HUVECs co-cultured with or without CL1-5 cells, as determined by Giemsa Staining. Scale: 50 μm. b Migration ability and (d) apoptotic percentage of HUVECs after co-culture with CL1-5 cells, as measured by transwell and TUNEL assays, respectively. Green: TUNEL-positive nuclei. Red: all nuclei. *P < 0.05 compared with HUVECs only. c Phase contrast micrographs of the capillary-like tubular structures of HUVECs on Matrigel when cultured with or without CL1-5 cells for 1, 2, 6, 12, and 24 h. Bar graphs revealed the tube (upper panel) and node (lower panel) numbers (*P < 0.05). The data are presented as the mean ± SD. Experiments were performed in triplicate. Magnification, x100. H: HUVECs alone; H/C: HUVECs co-cultured with CL1-5 cells
Fig. 2Increased expression of survival-, migration- and angiogenesis-related genes in HUVECs after co-culture with CL1-5 cells. The mRNA expression levels of the selected genes from microarray analysis were detected by QPCR. The fold changes of survival-related genes (a), migration-related genes (b) and angiogenesis-related genes (c) in HUVECs co-cultured with CL1-5 cells were calculated relative to the HUVECs alone group and normalized to internal control TBP. The data are presented as the mean ± SD. Experiments were performed in triplicate. Gene name versus protein name: CTNNB1 vs. β–catenin; ITGAV vs. integrin alpha 3; ITGB3 vs. integrin beta 3; ACTN1 vs. α-actinin; RAC1 vs. Rac-1; PTGS2 vs. COX-2; CXCL8 vs. IL-8
Fig. 3Protein changes and the F-actin distribution of HUVECs after co-culture with CL1-5 cells. a-c Immunoblots of the indicated proteins in HUVECs after interactions with CL1-5 cells for 24 h. The active Rac-1 was determined by the Active Rac1 Pull-Down and Detection Kit. β-actin or α-tubulin was used as the loading control. d Fluorescence images of lamellipodia and filopodia of HUVECs by F-actin staining. Scale: 20 μm and 10 μm (zoom in part). Red: F-actin. Blue: nuclear staining with DAPI. e The quantified number of filopodia of HUVECs co-cultured with CL1-5 cells (*P < 0.05) (n = 5). H: HUVECs alone; H/C: HUVECs co-cultured with CL1-5 cells. The data are presented as the mean ± SD. Experiments were performed in triplicate
Fig. 4PI3K and COX-2 involved phenotype changes of HUVECs. a Phase contrast micrographs of capillary-like tubular structures on Matrigel. Magnification, x100. Graph bars showed the tube (left panel) and node (right panel) numbers of HUVECs treated with LY294002 or celecoxib in a co-culture system (*P < 0.05). b Apoptotic percentage of HUVECs with LY294002 treatment in the co-culture system as measured by TUNEL assay. Green: TUNEL-positive nuclei. Red: all nuclei. Bar graphs revealed the apoptotic percentage of HUVECs with LY294002 treatment after co-culture with CL1-5 cells (*P < 0.05). The data are presented as the mean ± SD. Experiments were performed in triplicate. c Immunoblot of cleaved Caspase 3 and PARP of HUVECs; α-tubulin was used as the loading control
Fig. 5Kaplan–Meier estimates of NSCLC patient survival according to the stimulated endothelial cell gene signatures. a, b Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival (n = 293) (a) and disease-free survival (n = 278) (b) of the subjects who were categorized based on the 11-gene signature derived from the differentially expressed genes of HUVECs co-cultured with cancer cells. c, d Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival (n = 293) (c) and disease-free survival (n = 278) (d) of the subjects who were categorized based on the 5-gene signature derived from the differentially expressed genes of HUVECs co-cultured with cancer cells. The datasets were obtained from GSE30219. The survival curve was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was performed to test the difference between the survival curves
Multivariate Cox regression analysis of two gene set signatures for the overall survival of patients with NSCLC
| Variable | Hazard ratio | 95% HR C.I. |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11-gene set, overall survival | ||||
| Median of risk score | 1.425 | 1.073 | 1.892 | 0.0143 |
| Gender | 1.460 | 0.926 | 2.300 | 0.1031 |
| Age | 1.037 | 1.022 | 1.052 | <0.0001 |
| Stage (0.1.2 vs. 3.4) | 2.990 | 2.185 | 4.092 | <0.0001 |
| 11-gene set, disease-free survival | ||||
| Median of risk score | 1.341 | 0.997 | 1.803 | 0.0521 |
| Gender | 1.485 | 0.930 | 2.371 | 0.0974 |
| Age | 1.036 | 1.020 | 1.051 | <0.0001 |
| Stage (0.1.2 vs. 3.4) | 2.941 | 2.116 | 4.087 | <0.0001 |
| 5-gene set, overall survival | ||||
| Median of risk score | 1.414 | 1.063 | 1.882 | 0.0172 |
| Gender | 1.455 | 0.923 | 2.293 | 0.1060 |
| Age | 1.037 | 1.022 | 1.052 | <0.0001 |
| Stage (0.1.2 vs. 3.4) | 2.922 | 2.134 | 3.999 | <0.0001 |
| 5-gene set, disease-free survival | ||||
| Median of risk score | 1.356 | 1.009 | 1.823 | 0.0435 |
| Gender | 1.489 | 0.933 | 2.375 | 0.0950 |
| Age | 1.036 | 1.021 | 1.051 | <0.0001 |
| Stage (0.1.2 vs. 3.4) | 2.903 | 2.087 | 4.037 | <0.0001 |