| Literature DB >> 28874138 |
Jianxin Ye1,2, Jinsheng Huang1, Jie Xu1, Qiang Huang1, Jinzhou Wang2, Wenjing Zhong3, Xinjian Lin1, Yun Li4, Xu Lin5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer (GC) accounts for the fourth most occurring malignancy and the third major cause of cancer death. Identifying novel molecular signaling pathways participating in gastric tumorigenesis and progression is pivotal for rational design of targeted therapies to improve advanced GC outcome. Recently, the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) protein 29 (ERp29) has been shown to inversely associate with primary tumor development and function as a tumor suppressor in breast cancer. However, the role of ERp29 in GC patients' prognosis and its function in GC progression is unknown.Entities:
Keywords: AKT; ERp29; Epithelial-mesenchymal transition; Gastric cancer; PI3K
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28874138 PMCID: PMC5585903 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-017-3613-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1ERp29 was downregulated in gastric carcinoma and inversely correlated with prognosis. (a) Representative images of IHC staining of GC tissues and adjacent normal tissues (40 × magnification; scale bar: 50 μm; 200 × magnification; scale bar: 20 μm). (b) Western blot analysis of ERp29 expression in 8 pairs of gastric tumor (T) and adjacent non-tumorous mucosa (N). (c) ERp29 mRNA expression level in the eight pairs of gastric tumor (T) and adjacent normal mucosa (N). *P < 0.05. (d) Representative HE and ERp29 immunohistochemical staining of different clinical stages of gastric cancers (100 × magnification; scale bar: 50 μm). (E) Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showing that downregulation of ERp29 in GC was associated with the patients’ poorer overall survival
Clinicopathological characteristics of 148 GC patients according to ERp29 expression
| Characteristic | ERp29 |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low expression ( | High expression ( | |||
| Normal vs cancer | ||||
| Normal | 47 | 101 | <0.001 | −0.331# |
| Cancer | 96 | 52 | ||
| Age(years) | ||||
| <60 | 36 | 16 | 0.413 | 0.059 |
| ≥ 60 | 60 | 36 | ||
| Gender | ||||
| Females | 31 | 8 | 0.026 | - |
| Males | 65 | 44 | ||
| TNM stage | ||||
| II | 21 | 27 | 0.001 | −0.286# |
| III | 66 | 22 | ||
| IV | 9 | 3 | ||
| TNM stage | ||||
| I, II | 21 | 27 | <0.001 | −0.306# |
| III, IV | 75 | 25 | ||
| T classification | ||||
| T2 | 6 | 5 | 0.011 | −0.237# |
| T3 | 32 | 29 | ||
| T4 | 58 | 18 | ||
| N classification | ||||
| N0 | 13 | 12 | 0.007 | −0.257# |
| N1 | 15 | 18 | ||
| N2 | 20 | 8 | ||
| N3 | 48 | 14 | ||
| Lymphatic metastasis | ||||
| Yes | 83 | 40 | 0.139 | −0.121 |
| No | 13 | 12 | ||
| Distant metastases | ||||
| Yes | 9 | 3 | 0.541 | −0.063 |
| No | 87 | 49 | ||
| Venous invasion | ||||
| Yes | 48 | 20 | 0.179 | −0.066 |
| No | 87 | 49 | ||
| Locattion | ||||
| Up | 24 | 13 | 0.179 | 0.134 |
| Middle | 34 | 8 | ||
| Lower | 30 | 26 | ||
| Pathological differentiation | ||||
| Un−/Poorly | 70 | 33 | 0.233 | −0.111 |
| Moderrately/Well | 26 | 19 | ||
| Perineural invasion | ||||
| Yes | 26 | 19 | 0.233 | 0.111 |
| No | 70 | 33 | ||
*P value was determined using Pearson’s chi-square test; r s value was determined by Spearman’s rank-order correlation, #: P < 0.05
Fig. 2ERp29 had no effect on GC cell proliferation. (a) Western blot analysis confirming expression of ERp29 in ERp29 overexpressed or knocked down MGC803 and SGC7901 stable cell lines. (b) CCK-8 assay. (c) Colony formation assay. (d) Soft agar colony formation assay
Fig. 3ERp29 regulated GC cell migration, invasion and metastatic potential. (a) Relative migration of the GC cells through an uncoated filter toward serum-containing medium in a Boyden chamber assay. (b) Relative motility as determined by the ability of the GC cells to close a wound made by creating a scratch through a lawn of confluent cells. (c) Relative invasion of cells through a layer of Matrigel coated on the filter of a Boyden chamber. (d) Quantification of liver and lung metastatic burden in mice 10 weeks after tail vein injection of the GC cells by counting the number of micrometastases per section. (e) Hematoxylin and eosin staining of fixed and paraffin-embedded tissues confirmed the presence of micrometastases in the liver (40 × magnification; scale bar: 50 μm) and lungs (100 × magnification; scale bar: 20 μm) of mice injected with the GC cells. *P < 0.05
Fig. 4ERp29 regulated the expression of EMT markers in the GC cells. (a) qRT-PCR analysis of the expression of EMT markers in the ERp29 over-expressed or knockdown MGC803 and SGC7901 cells. (b) Western blot analysis of the expression of EMT markers in the ERp29 over-expressed or knockdown MGC803 and SGC7901 cells. (c) Immunofluorescent staining of E-cadherin and Vimentin expression in the ERp29 over-expressed or knockdown MGC803 and SGC7901 cells (400 × magnification; scale bar: 25 μm). *P < 0.05
Fig. 5Regulation of EMT by ERp29 was dependent on PI3K/Akt pathway. (a) GSEA plot showing that ERp29 expression negatively correlated with Akt-activated gene signatures (REACTOME_PI3K_AKT_ACTIVATION) and positively correlated with GSK3β-pathway (BIOCARTA_GSK3_PATHWAY) (left panel). Western blot analysis of total Akt, pAKT(Ser473), pAKT(Thr308), GSK-3β and pGSK3β(Ser9) expression in the indicated gastric cancer cell lines. (b) GSEA plot showing that ERp29 expression negatively correlated with Akt/mTOR pathway (MTOR_UP.N4.V1_UP, MTOR_UP.N4.V1_DN). Western blot analysis of mTOR, p-mTOR expression in indicated gastric cancer cell lines. (c) LY294002 and rapamycin reversed the effect of ERp29 overexpression on the cell migratory and invasive abilities. (d) CHIR99021 reversed the effect of ERp29 knockdown on the cell migratory and invasive abilities. *P < 0.05