| Literature DB >> 29291001 |
Koichiro Mori1, Yuji Toiyama1, Kohei Otake1, Shozo Ide1, Hiroki Imaoka1, Masato Okigami1, Yoshinaga Okugawa1, Hiroyuki Fujikawa1, Susumu Saigusa1, Junichiro Hiro1, Minako Kobayashi1, Masaki Ohi1, Koji Tanaka1, Yasuhiro Inoue1, Yuhko Kobayashi2, Yasuhiko Mohri1, Issei Kobayashi2, Ajay Goel3, Masato Kusunoki1.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC)-associated mortality is primarily caused by lymph node (LN) and distant metastasis, highlighting the need for biomarkers that predict LN metastasis and facilitate better therapeutic strategies. We used an Isobaric Tags for Relative and Absolute Quantification (iTRAQ)-based comparative proteomics approach to identify novel biomarkers for predicting LN metastasis in CRC patients. We analyzed five paired samples of CRC with or without LN metastasis, adjacent normal mucosa, and normal colon mucosa, and differentially expressed proteins were identified and subsequently validated at the protein and/or mRNA levels by immunohistochemistry and qRT-PCR, respectively. We identified 55 proteins specifically associated with LN metastasis, from which we selected ezrin for further analysis and functional assessment. Expression of ezrin at both the protein and mRNA levels was significantly higher in CRC tissues than in adjacent normal colonic mucosa. In univariate analysis, high ezrin expression was significantly associated with tumor progression and poor prognosis, which was consistent with our in vitro findings that ezrin promotes the metastatic capacity of CRC cells by enabling cell invasion and migration. In multivariate analysis, high levels of ezrin protein and mRNA in CRC samples were independent predictors of LN metastasis. Our data thus identify ezrin as a novel protein and mRNA biomarker for predicting LN metastasis in CRC patients.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; colorectal cancer; ezrin; iTRAQ-based quantitative proteomic analysis; lymph node metastasis
Year: 2017 PMID: 29291001 PMCID: PMC5739786 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.22149
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Summary of the workflow used for identification, validation, and functional analysis of a biomarker for CRC with LN metastasis
Figure 2Ezrin protein and mRNA expression in screening and validation sets of colonic tissue
(A) Ezrin mRNA levels in a subset of specimens from normal mucosa (N = 17), CRC without LN metastasis (N = 14), and CRC with LN metastasis (N = 14). (B) Representative photomicrographs showing IHC analysis of ezrin expression in adjacent normal mucosa and CRC. (C) IHC scores for ezrin expression in CRC and adjacent normal mucosal samples from 195 patients. (D) IHC scores for ezrin protein expression in 195 CRC samples subdivided by TNM staging. (E) Ezrin mRNA expression levels in colon samples from 66 healthy patients and 170 patients with CRC. (F) Ezrin mRNA levels in specimens from 170 CRC patients subdivided by TNM staging. Bars represent the SEM; the internal horizontal line indicates the median value. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon, Kruskal–Wallis, and Student’s t tests. Images were captured at ×100 magnification.
Correlations between expression of ezrin and clinicopathological features in CRC
| Cohort 1: protein analysisa | Ezrin protein expressionb | Cohort 2: mRNA analysisc | Ezrin mRNA expressionb | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | high ( | low ( | Variables | high | low ( | ||||
| Age (years) | Age (years) | ||||||||
| <67 | 83 | 44 | 39 | 0.432 | <67 | 72 | 17 | 55 | 0.0804 |
| ≥67 | 112 | 53 | 59 | ≥67 | 98 | 13 | 85 | ||
| Sex | Sex | ||||||||
| male | 113 | 68 | 45 | 0.3635 | male | 99 | 15 | 84 | 0.3135 |
| female | 82 | 44 | 38 | female | 71 | 15 | 56 | ||
| Histology | Histology | ||||||||
| undifferentiated | 15 | 13 | 2 | undifferentiated | 13 | 5 | 8 | ||
| differentiated | 176 | 96 | 80 | differentiated | 157 | 25 | 132 | ||
| Tumor size (mm) | Tumor size (mm) | ||||||||
| <41 | 83 | 53 | 30 | 0.1186 | <45 | 90 | 29 | 61 | 0.1661 |
| ≥41 | 112 | 59 | 53 | ≥45 | 80 | 34 | 46 | ||
| T classification | T classification | ||||||||
| Tis, T1, T2 | 70 | 36 | 34 | 0.2042 | Tis, T1, T2 | 48 | 9 | 39 | 0.813 |
| T3, T4 | 125 | 76 | 49 | T3, T4 | 122 | 21 | 101 | ||
| Lymph node metastasis | Lymph node metastasis | ||||||||
| present | 82 | 56 | 26 | present | 63 | 16 | 47 | ||
| absent | 113 | 56 | 57 | absent | 107 | 14 | 93 | ||
| Lymphatic invasion | Lymphatic invasion | ||||||||
| present | 140 | 82 | 58 | 0.6089 | present | 149 | 26 | 123 | 0.8573 |
| absent | 55 | 30 | 25 | absent | 21 | 4 | 17 | ||
| Venous invasion | Venous invasion | ||||||||
| present | 67 | 40 | 27 | 0.6434 | present | 133 | 24 | 109 | 0.7963 |
| absent | 128 | 72 | 56 | absent | 37 | 6 | 31 | ||
| Hepatic metastasis | Hepatic metastasis | ||||||||
| present | 20 | 18 | 2 | present | 26 | 7 | 19 | 0.1776 | |
| absent | 175 | 94 | 81 | absent | 144 | 23 | 121 | ||
| Peritoneal metastasis | Peritoneal metastasis | ||||||||
| present | 16 | 14 | 2 | present | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0.3488 | |
| absent | 179 | 98 | 81 | absent | 166 | 30 | 136 | ||
| Distant metastasis | Distant metastasis | ||||||||
| present | 25 | 23 | 2 | present | 20 | 7 | 13 | ||
| absent | 170 | 89 | 81 | absent | 150 | 23 | 127 | ||
| Stage | Stage | ||||||||
| I | 48 | 22 | 26 | I | 41 | 6 | 35 | 0.1698 | |
| II | 56 | 27 | 29 | II | 51 | 5 | 46 | ||
| III | 53 | 28 | 25 | III | 40 | 9 | 31 | ||
| IV | 38 | 35 | 3 | IV | 38 | 10 | 28 | ||
aFor Cohort 1 protein analysis, the average patient age and tumor size was 66.7 years and 40.8 mm, respectively.
bThe cut-off values for high/low ezrin expression were 2.0 for protein and 0.71for mRNA.
cFor Cohort 2 mRNA analysis, the average patient age and tumor size was 67.3 years and 44.6mm, respectively.
dStatistically significant associations are shown in bold (P < 0.05).
Univariate and multivariate analyses of associations with CRC with LN metastasis (logistic regression model).
| Cohort 1: protein analysisa | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | ||
| Age (≥67 vs. <67 years) | 1.009 | 0.5708-1.7858 | 0.9750 | - | - | - |
| Gender (female vs. male) | 1.4765 | 0.8302-2.6343 | 0.1846 | - | - | - |
| Tumor size (≥41 vs. <41 mm) | 2.8722 | 1.6013-5.2229 | 1.9018 | 0.9069-4.0139 | 0.0888 | |
| T classification (T3,4 vs. T1,2) | 3.7754 | 1.9878-7.4742 | 1.2865 | 0.5369-3.0795 | 0.5699 | |
| Pathology (poor or mucinous vs. mod/well differentiated) | 4.1643 | 1.3640-15.4991 | 1.4951 | 0.4417-5.9988 | 0.529 | |
| Lymphatic invasion (present vs. absent) | 22.4481 | 7.7765-95.2478 | 14.6851 | 4.7346-64.9051 | ||
| Venous invasion (present vs. absent) | 3.696 | 2.0040-6.9515 | 1.574 | 0.7425-3.3472 | 0.2359 | |
| Ezrin expression (≥2 vs. <2)c | 2.1923 | 1.2191-4.0077 | 2.3088 | 1.1513-4.7120 | ||
aFor Cohort 1 protein analysis, the average patient age and tumor size was 66.7 years and 40.8 mm, respectively.
bStatistically significant associations are shown in bold (P < 0.05).
cThe cut-off values for high/low ezrin expression were 2.0 for protein and 0.71 for mRNA.
dFor Cohort 2 mRNA analysis, the average patient age and tumor size was 67.3 years and 44.6 mm, respectively.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of associations with overall survival of CRC patients (Cox proportional hazards regression model).
| Cohort 1: protein analysisa | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | ||
| Age (≥67 vs. <67 years) | 1.0221 | 0.5392–1.9513 | 0.9464 | - | - | - |
| Sex (female vs. male) | 1.1388 | 0.5899–2.1703 | 0.6940 | - | - | - |
| Tumor size (≥41 vs. <41 mm) | 2.1199 | 0.2450–0.8953 | 1.2909 | 0.5778–2.9105 | 0.5320 | |
| T classification (T3,4 vs. Tis,1,2) | 4.2072 | 1.7953–12.3012 | 3.5129 | 1.2079–12.7563 | ||
| Lymph node metastasis | 3.0386 | 1.5791–6.1326 | 1.8401 | 0.9048–3.8839 | 0.0927 | |
| Distant metastasis | 5.0544 | 2.3611–10.1594 | 5.5591 | 2.2504–13.6501 | ||
| Pathology (poor or mucinous vs. mod/well differentiated) | 4.7735 | 1.9072–10.4208 | 2.962 | 1.1080–7.0463 | ||
| Lymphatic invasion (present vs. absent) | 1.7639 | 0.7896–4.6936 | 0.1765 | - | - | - |
| Venous invasion (present vs. absent) | 2.8751 | 1.5170–5.5277 | 1.2484 | 0.6071–2.6074 | 0.5470 | |
| Ezrin expression (≥5 vs. <5)c | 2.7459 | 1.2651–5.4878 | 2.3125 | 1.0214–4.8337 | ||
aFor Cohort 1 protein analysis, the average patient age and tumor size was 66.7 years and 40.8 mm, respectively.
bStatistically significant associations are shown in bold (P < 0.05).
cThe cut-off values for high/low Ezrin expression were 5.0 for protein and 0.58 for mRNA.
dFor Cohort 2 mRNA analysis, the average patient age and tumor size was 67.3 years and 44.6 mm, respectively.
Figure 3Survival curves of CRC patients after curative surgery according to their ezrin expression status
(A) CRC patients (N = 157) were stratified by ezrin protein expression prior to curative surgery. Patients with high preoperative expression had poorer OS than those with low expression (P = 0.0044, log-rank test; cutoff value 5). (B) CRC patients (N = 135) were stratified by ezrin mRNA expression prior to curative surgery. Patients with high preoperative expression had poorer OS than those with low expression (P = 0.0178, log-rank test; cutoff value 0.58).
Figure 4Reduction of ezrin expression inhibits CRC cell migration and invasion in vitro
(A, C) Wound healing assays of DLD1 (A) and LoVo (C) CRC cells transfected with control or ezrin-specific siRNA. Representative images were acquired at 0 h and 48 h after wounding. (B, D) Quantitation of migration in the assays represented in A and C. The y-axis represents migration rates relative to control cells. (E, G) Transwell invasion assays of DLD1 (E) and LoVo (G) cells transfected with control or ezrin-specific siRNA. Phase contrast micrographs at ×40 magnification. (F, H) Quantitation of invasion in the assays represented in E and G. The y-axis represents the ratio of the number of invading cells per control chamber cells. All assays were replicated and the results are presented as the mean ± SEM.