| Literature DB >> 29482578 |
Bo Hu1,2, Guang-Yu Ding1,2, Pei-Yao Fu1,2, Xiao-Dong Zhu1,2, Yuan Ji3, Guo-Ming Shi1,2, Ying-Hao Shen1,2, Jia-Bin Cai1,2, Zhen Yang4, Jian Zhou1,2, Jia Fan1,2, Hui-Chuan Sun1,2, Ming Kuang5, Cheng Huang6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was performed to investigate the role of nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain (NOD)-like receptor X1 (NLRX1) in regulating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progression.Entities:
Keywords: Epithelial-mesenchymal-transition; Hepatocellular carcinoma; NLRX1; Senescence; Transition; Tumor suppressor
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29482578 PMCID: PMC5828065 DOI: 10.1186/s13045-018-0573-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hematol Oncol ISSN: 1756-8722 Impact factor: 17.388
Fig. 1NLRX1 serves as a tumor suppressor in HCC. a RT-PCR results for paired tumor and adjacent normal liver tissues. b Western blot results for 18 paired tumor and adjacent normal liver tissues. c Typical IHC images. d Kaplan–Meier analysis for OS of patients with HCC according to NLRX1 expression status. e Kaplan–Meier analysis for RFS of patients with HCC according to NLRX1 expression status
Correlation between clinicopathologic parameters and NLRX1 expression status
| Clinical and pathologic indexes | High NLRX1 | Low NLRX1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % |
| ||||
| Age, years | ≤ 50 | 149 | 36.3 | 70 | 33.7 | 0.586 |
| > 50 | 293 | 63.7 | 123 | 66.3 | ||
| Gender | Male | 382 | 86.5 | 167 | 86.4 | 1.000 |
| Female | 60 | 13.5 | 26 | 13.6 | ||
| HBsAg | Negative | 87 | 28.0 | 54 | 19.7 | 0.023 |
| Positive | 355 | 72.0 | 139 | 80.3 | ||
| With liver cirrhosis | No | 7 | 1.60 | 3 | 1.60 | 1.000 |
| Yes | 435 | 98.4 | 190 | 98.4 | ||
| GGT (U/L) | ≤ 54 | 141 | 31.1 | 60 | 31.9 | 0.853 |
| > 54 | 301 | 68.9 | 133 | 68.1 | ||
| AFP (ng/mL) | ≤400 | 280 | 50.8 | 98 | 63.3 | 0.004 |
| > 400 | 162 | 49.2 | 95 | 36.7 | ||
| Tumor number | Single | 323 | 75.6 | 146 | 73.1 | 0.556 |
| Multiple | 119 | 24.4 | 47 | 26.9 | ||
| Tumor size, cm | ≤ 5 | 216 | 40.9 | 79 | 48.9 | 0.070 |
| > 5 | 226 | 59.1 | 114 | 51.1 | ||
| Tumor encapsulation | Complete | 219 | 56.0 | 108 | 49.5 | 0.143 |
| None | 223 | 44.0 | 85 | 50.5 | ||
| Edmondson stage | I-II | 333 | 62.7 | 121 | 75.3 |
|
| II-IV | 109 | 37.3 | 72 | 24.7 | ||
| BCLC stage | 0-A | 279 | 77.1 | 111 | 77.1 | 1.000 |
| B-C | 83 | 22.9 | 33 | 22.9 | ||
| PVTT | None | 278 | 48.2 | 93 | 62.9 |
|
| Yes | 164 | 51.8 | 100 | 37.1 | ||
Abbreviations: AFP α-fetoprotein, BCLC Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, GGT gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, HBsAg hepatitis B virus surface antigen, NLRX1 nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-like receptor X1, PVTT portal vein tumor thrombus
Univariate analyses of factors associated with survival and recurrence
| Clinical and pathologic indexes | OS | RFS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%CI) | P | HR (95%CI) |
| ||
| Age, years | (≤ 50 vs. > 50) | 0.98 (0.78,1.23) | 0.873 | 0.82 (0.66,1.00) | 0.055 |
| Gender | (Male vs. female) | 1.21 (0.87,1.69) | 0.235 | 1.14 (0.85,1.53) | 0.389 |
| HBsAg | (Positive vs. negative) | 2.95 (2.35,3.71) |
| 2.83 (2.27,3.53) |
|
| Liver cirrhosis | (No vs. yes) | 0.52 (0.17,1.63) | 0.210 | 0.37 (0.119,1.154) | 0.087 |
| GGT (U/L) | (≤ 54 vs. > 54) | 0.95 (0.76,1.20) | 0.666 | 0.94 (0.76,1.16) | 0.540 |
| AFP (ng/mL) | (> 400 vs. ≤400) | 1.23 (0.99,1.53) | 0.064 | 1.33 (1.09,1.63) |
|
| Tumor number | (Multiple vs. single) | 1.33 (1.05,1.69) |
| 1.64 (1.32,2.04) |
|
| Tumor size, cm | (> 5 vs. ≤ 5) | 1.09 (0.88,1.35) | 0.436 | 1.11 (0.90,1.35) | 0.328 |
| Tumor encapsulation | (Complete vs. none) | 0.58 (0.46,0.72) |
| 0.67 (0.55,0.82) |
|
| Edmondson stage | (I-II vs. II-IV) | 0.73 (0.58,0.92) |
| 0.67 (0.54,0.82) |
|
| BCLC stage | (0-A vs. B-C) | 0.57 (0.43,0.76) |
| 0.49 (0.38,0.64) |
|
| PVTT | (None vs. yes) | 0.47 (0.34,0.58) |
| 0.56 (0.46,0.68) |
|
| NLRX1 | (Positive vs. negative) | 0.55 (0.44,0.67) |
| 0.47 (0.38,0.59) |
|
Abbreviations: AFP α-fetoprotein, BCLC Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio, GGT gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, HBsAg hepatitis B virus surface antigen, NLRX1 nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-like receptor X1, OS overall survival, PVTT portal vein tumor thrombus, RFS recurrence-free survival
Multivariate analyses of factors associated with survival and recurrence
| Clinical and pathologic indexes | OS | RFS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) |
| HR (95% CI) |
| ||
| HBsAg | (Positive vs. negative) | 2.26 (1.16,4.41) |
| 1.14 (0.53,2.43) | 0.740 |
| AFP (ng/mL) | (> 400 vs. ≤ 400) | – | – | 1.12 (0.88,1.43) | 0.360 |
| Tumor number | (Multiple vs. single) | 0.97 (0.49,1.91) | 0.923 | 1.73 (1.02,2.95) |
|
| Tumor encapsulation | (Complete vs. none) | 0.77 (0.59,0.99) | 0.050 | 0.85 (0.67,1.09) | 0.199 |
| Edmondson stage | (I-II vs. II-IV) | – | – | 0.73 (0.56,0.95) |
|
| BCLC stage | (0-A vs. B-C) | 0.57 (0.28,1.14) | 0.112 | 0.83 (0.48,1.46) | 0.523 |
| PVTT | (None vs. yes) | 0.72 (0.55,0.94) |
| 0.90 (0.70,1.17) | 0.439 |
| NLRX1 | (Positive vs. negative) | 0.51 (0.39,0.67) |
| 0.58 (0.45,0.76) |
|
Abbreviations: AFP α-fetoprotein, BCLC Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio, GGT gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, HBsAg hepatitis B virus surface antigen, NLRX1 nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-like receptor X1, OS overall survival, PVTT portal vein tumor thrombus, RFS recurrence-free survival
Fig. 2In vitro and in vivo functions of NLRX1 in HCC. a Expression of NLRX1 in 6 HCC cell lines determined by RT-PCR and WB. b Validation of NLRX1 modulation by RT-PCR and WB. c Immunofluorescent staining for NLRX1 in Huh7 cells. d Effect of NLRX1 on cell apoptosis as assessed by flow cytometry. e Evaluation of the effects of NLRX1 on HCC invasion by Transwell assays. f Evaluation of the effects of NLRX1 on tumor proliferation in vitro by CCK-8 assays. g Effect of NLRX1 on tumor proliferation in vivo. All in vitro experiments were conducted triplicate; one asterisk and three asterisks indicate P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively
Fig. 3NLRX1 suppresses EMT via the AKT-Snail1 axis. a Typical images of HCC cells receiving NLRX1 modulation. b Expression of E-cadherin, N-cadherin, Vimentin, Snail1, and Twist1 after NLRX1 modulation in Huh7 and HCCLM3 cells detected by RT-PCR. c Expression of E-cadherin, N-cadherin, Vimentin, Snail1, and Twist1 after NLRX1 modulation in Huh7 and HCCLM3 cells detected by WB. d Results of Cignal Finder RTK signaling 10-Pathway Reporter array conducted in Huh7 and HCCLM3 cell lines. e Phosphorylation of AKT and mTOR after NLRX1 OE in Huh7 cells detected by WB. f Evaluation of Snail1 expression level and phosphorylation level of AKT after treating NLRX1-OE HCCLM3 cells with an AKT activator, SC79, by WB assays. g Evaluation of E-cadherin and N-cadherin expression levels after treating NLRX1-OE HCCLM3 cells with an AKT activator, SC79, by RT-PCR. Asterisk indicates P < 0.05
Fig. 4NLRX1 induces cell senescence via a P21-dependent pathway. a P21 expression after NLRX1 OE in HCCLM3 cells detected by WB. b Evaluation of the expression levels of two downstream targets of P21, CDK1, and CDK2, after NLRX1 modulation. c Validation of NLRX1 and P21 modulations in HCCLM3 cells by WB assays. d β-galactosidase activity experiments for HCCLM3 cells after different treatments
Fig. 5Fragment 556–974 is required for the suppression function of NLRX1. a Depictions of full-length and R1 and R2 fragments of NLRX1. b β-galactosidase activity experiments for HCCLM3 cells transfected with different NLRX1 fragments. c Transwell invasion assays for HCCLM3 cells transfected with different NLRX1 fragments. Asterisk indicates P < 0.05