| Literature DB >> 28881752 |
Hongzhe Li1,2,3, Xinjing Wang1,2,3, Yuan Fang1,2,3, Zhen Huo1,2, Xiongxiong Lu1,3, Xi Zhan1,3, Xiaxin Deng1,3, Chenghong Peng1,3, Baiyong Shen1,2,3.
Abstract
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most lethal human malignant tumor, with a dismal 5-year survival rate of less than 5%. The lack of specific symptoms at early tumor stages and the paucity of biomarkers contribute to the poor diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. To improve prognosis, a screening biomarker for early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is in urgent need. We searched the databases of expression profiling by array on GEO, aiming at comparing gene expression profile of matched pairs of pancreatic tumor and adjacent non-tumor tissues, and we screen out 4 suitable series of gene expression microarray data ("GSE15471", "GSE18670", "GSE28735" and "GSE58561"). After carefully analyzing, 13 DEGs (MYOF, SLC6A6, S100P, HK2, IFI44L, OSBPL3, IGF2BP3, PDK4, IL1R2, ERO1A, EGLN3, PLAC8 and ACSL5) are significantly differentially expressed in four microarray databases in common. After analyzing mRNA expression data and clinical follow-up survey provided in the TCGA database and clinicopathological data of 137 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients, we carefully demonstrated that three of these differentially expressed genes (ERO1A, OSBPL3 and IFI44L) are correlated with poor prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients. In addition, we revealed that cell-matrix adhesion and extracellular matrix were top significantly regulated pathways in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and depicted two protein-protein interactions networks of extracellular matrix related Genes which are dysregulated according to 4 gene expression microarray data mentioned above ("GSE15471", "GSE18670", "GSE28735" and "GSE58561"), hoping to shed light on the etiology of PDAC and mechanisms of drug resistance in PDAC in this study.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; cell-matrix adhesion; microarray databases; pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; prognosis
Year: 2017 PMID: 28881752 PMCID: PMC5581051 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.16732
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
The main features of 4 selected studies of gene expression microarray data
| GEO Datasets | Platform | Samples in total | regions | Submission date | Citation(s) on |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GSE18670 | GPL570 | 24 | Belgium | 21-Oct-09 | BMC Cancer 2012 Nov 16;12:527. PMID:23157946 [ |
| GSE15471 | GPL570 | 78 | Romania | 31-Mar-09 | Hepatogastroenterology 2008 Nov-Dec;55(88):2016-27. PMID:19260470 [ |
| GSE28735 | GPL6244 | 90 | USA | 20-Apr-11 | Clin Cancer Res 2013 Sep 15;19(18):4983-93. PMID: 23918603 [ |
| GSE58561 | GPL14550 | 15 | Norway | 17-Jun-14 | PLoS One 2014 Aug 22;9(8):e103873. PMID: 25148029 [ |
Figure 1Venn diagram for 4 gene expression microarray data (“GSE15471”, “GSE18670”, “GSE28735” and “GSE58561”)
Each oval represents a study. Numbers in each overlapped area means numbers of differently expression genes in each area. The brown intersection in the middle represents genes which is significantly differentially expressed in four microarray databases consistently.
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival, disease-free survival and median month's survival
Patients were categorized according to DGEs expression levels. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***p<0.001.
Overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS) and median month's survival of ERO1A, OSBPL3 and IFI44L
| Overall Survival Kaplan-Meier Estimate | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| total cases | cases deceased | median months survival | Logrank Test P-Value | |
| ERO1A upregulated | 59 | 41 | 15.11 | p=0.0004894 |
| ERO1A downregulated | 118 | 51 | 22.7 | |
| OSBPL3 upregulated | 96 | 61 | 17.02 | p= 0.00397 |
| OSBPL3 downregulated | 81 | 31 | 29.99 | |
| IFI44L upregulated | 55 | 34 | 17.48 | p= 0.0155 |
| IFI44L downregulated | 122 | 58 | 21.88 | |
| ERO1A upregulated | 45 | 34 | 11.93 | p=0.0005923 |
| ERO1A downregulated | 93 | 47 | 20.37 | |
| OSBPL3 upregulated | 71 | 52 | 13.67 | p= 0.00121 |
| OSBPL3 downregulated | 67 | 29 | 25.89 | |
| IFI44L upregulated | 40 | 25 | 13.04 | p= 0.0814 |
| IFI44L downregulated | 98 | 56 | 17.28 | |
Figure 3Characterization of ERO1A, OSBPL3 and IFI44L protein expression in human PDAC tissues and paired adjacent non-tumor tissues by immunohistochemistry staining and classified as strong expression (++), moderate expression (+), weak positive or negative expression (± or -)
Original magnification: 200×.
Correlation between ERO1A, OSBPL3 and IFI44L expression and clinicopathological characteristics of PDAC patients (n=137). *P<0.05,**P<0.01,***p<0.001
| Variables | Number of cases | ERO1A immunostaining | P value | OSBPL3 immunostaining | P value | IFI44L immunostaining | P value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| “++or+” n=89 | “±or-” n=48 | “++or+” n=98 | “±or-” n=39 | “++or+” n=88 | “±or-” n=49 | |||||
| Gender | ||||||||||
| male | 76 | 48 | 28 | 0.621 | 53 | 23 | 0.603 | 46 | 30 | 0.312 |
| female | 61 | 41 | 20 | 42 | 19 | 45 | 16 | |||
| Age(years) | ||||||||||
| <60 | 45 | 25 | 20 | 0.106 | 31 | 14 | 0.631 | 34 | 11 | 0.053 |
| ≥60 | 92 | 64 | 28 | 67 | 25 | 54 | 38 | |||
| Tumor size(cm) | ||||||||||
| <5 | 56 | 55 | 26 | 0.386 | 52 | 29 | 0.022* | 55 | 26 | 0.281 |
| ≥5 | 81 | 34 | 22 | 46 | 10 | 33 | 23 | |||
| Differentiation | ||||||||||
| Poorly, undifferentiated (G3+G4) | 39 | 24 | 15 | 0.596 | 27 | 12 | 0.706 | 20 | 19 | 0.046* |
| Well, moderately (G1+G2) | 98 | 65 | 33 | 71 | 27 | 68 | 20 | |||
| T stage | ||||||||||
| T1+T2 | 32 | 13 | 19 | 0.001** | 28 | 4 | 0.022* | 15 | 17 | 0.019* |
| T3+T4 | 105 | 76 | 29 | 70 | 35 | 73 | 32 | |||
| Lymphnode metastasis | ||||||||||
| Negative | 45 | 30 | 15 | 0.77 | 28 | 17 | 0.091 | 29 | 16 | 0.971 |
| Positive | 92 | 59 | 33 | 70 | 22 | 59 | 33 | |||
| Distant metastasis | ||||||||||
| Negative | 134 | 87 | 47 | 0.95 | 96 | 38 | 0.85 | 87 | 47 | 0.259 |
| Positive | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| TNM stage | ||||||||||
| I+II | 43 | 35 | 8 | 0.006** | 22 | 21 | 0.00 035*** | 35 | 8 | 0.005** |
| III+IV | 94 | 54 | 40 | 76 | 18 | 53 | 41 | |||
Figure 4Survival analysis of PDAC patients by Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank tests
Patients were categorized by high and low expression of ERO1A, OSBPL3 and IFI44L respectively based on IHC staining scores. *p<0.05, **p<0.01.
Figure 5Pathway analysis of 4 microarray databases selected (GSE15471, GSE18670, GSE28735 and GSE58561)
Figure 5A: KEGG pathway analyses of genes significantly differentially expressed in at least 3 of microarray databases. The most significant pathways were ECM-receptor interaction and focal adhesion; Figure 5B: The top dysregulated cellular components in PDAC is the cluster of extracellular matrix (ECM); Figure 5C: the top significant GO biological process enrichments included cell adhesion, collagen metabolic process and collagen fibril organization. Figure 5D: GO enrichment analysis of molecular function are mostly associated to extracellular matrix metabolism and extracellular matrix structural organization. Figure 5E: sixteen DEGs involved in ECM-receptor interaction and focal adhesion pathways and their interactions between each other. Figure 5F: Functionally enrichment of genes participate in pathways of ECM-receptor interaction and focal adhesion.