| Literature DB >> 29532228 |
Abulajiang Abudureheman1, Julaiti Ainiwaer1, Zhichao Hou1, Madiniyat Niyaz2, Abdugheni Turghun1, Ayshamgul Hasim3, Haiping Zhang1, Xiaomei Lu2, Ilyar Sheyhidin4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: MLL2 has been identified as one of the most frequently mutated genes in a variety of cancers including esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, its clinical significance and prognostic value in ESCC has not been elucidated. In the present study, we aimed to investigate the expression and role of MLL2 in ESCC.Entities:
Keywords: EMT; Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC); MLL2/KMT2D; Prognosis; TGF-β/Smad
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29532228 PMCID: PMC5948284 DOI: 10.1007/s00432-018-2625-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol ISSN: 0171-5216 Impact factor: 4.553
Fig. 1MLL2 expression in ESCC. a MLL2 mRNA expression was examined in 42 ESCC (tumor) and paired adjacent normal tissues (non-tumor) by qRT-PCR and MLL2 expression was up-regulated in ESCC (P < 0.001). b MLL2 expression in ESCC and adjacent normal tissues by IHC (× 200). All samples stained for MLL2 additionally displayed low-to-moderate levels of cytoplasmic immunoreactivity. Positive staining of MLL2 in ESCC tissues: a high expression of MLL2 in ESCC (> 50% positive nuclear staining); b low expression of MLL2 in ESCC (≤ 50% positive nuclear staining). c Negative MLL2 staining in ESCC tissues. d Low expression of MLL2 in adjacent normal tissues. e Negative staining of MLL2 in adjacent normal tissues. f Negative control
The correlation between MLL2 expression and clinicopathological characteristics of Kazakh ESCC patients
| Characteristics |
| MLL2 expression | χ2 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High (%) | Low (%) | ||||
| Specimen | 16.465 | < 0.001* | |||
| Adjacent normal tissue | 67 | 8 (11.9) | 59 (88.1) | ||
| ESCC | 67 | 29 (43.3) | 38 (56.7) | ||
| Gender | 0.448 | 0.348 | |||
| Female | 19 | 7 (36.8) | 12 (63.2) | ||
| Male | 48 | 22 (45.8) | 26 (54.2) | ||
| Age (years) | 2.417 | 0.095 | |||
| > 60 | 35 | 12 (34.3) | 23 (65.7) | ||
| ≤ 60 | 32 | 17 (53.1) | 15 (46.9) | ||
| TNM stage | 4.424 | 0.037* | |||
| I–II | 54 | 20 (37.0) | 34 (63.0) | ||
| III | 13 | 9 (69.2) | 4 (30.8) | ||
| T classification | 1.123 | 0.209 | |||
| T1–T2 | 28 | 10 (35.7) | 18 (64.3) | ||
| T3–T4 | 39 | 19 (48.7) | 20 (51.3) | ||
| 0.781 | 0.264 | ||||
| No | 41 | 16 (39.0) | 25 (61.0) | ||
| Yes | 26 | 13 (50.0) | 13 (50.0) | ||
| Differentiation | 4.447 | 0.032* | |||
| Well | 18 | 4 (22.2) | 14 (77.8) | ||
| Moderately/poorly | 49 | 25 (51.0) | 24 (49.0) | ||
| Tumor size | 4.195 | 0.035* | |||
| < 4 | 35 | 11 (31.4) | 24 (68.6) | ||
| ≥ 4 | 32 | 18 (56.3) | 14 (43.8) | ||
| Vascular invasion | 2.2 | 0.118 | |||
| Negative | 52 | 20 (38.5) | 32 (61.5) | ||
| Positive | 15 | 9 (60.0) | 6 (40.0) | ||
*Statistically significant (P < 0.05); n number of cases; MLL2 Expression cases (Ratio); Χ2 Chi-square value
Fig. 2Kaplan–Meier analysis of overall survival for Kazakh ESCC patients. Patients with low MLL2 expression had a better overall survival than those with high MLL2 expression (P = 0.011, Log-rank test)
Univariate and multivariate analysis of the overall survival in ESCC
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Gender | ||||
| Female vs. male | 0.713 (0.369–1.377) | 0.314 | ||
| Age | ||||
| < 60 vs. ≥ 60 | 0.604 (0.337–1.081) | 0.090 | ||
| Lymph node metastasis | ||||
| Negative vs. positive | 0.377 (0.206–0.687) | 0.001* | 0.425 (0.225–0.802) | 0.008* |
| Depth of invasion | ||||
| T1–T2 vs. T3–T4 | 0.531 (0.287–0.981) | 0.043* | 0.513 (0.274–0.960) | 0.051 |
| Differentiation | ||||
| Well vs. moderately/poorly | 3.425 (1.546–7.586) | 0.002* | 0.403 (0.173–0.940) | 0.035* |
| Tumor size | ||||
| < 4 cm vs. ≥ 4 cm | 1.564 (0.869–2.815) | 0.136 | ||
| Vascular invasion | ||||
| Negative vs. positive | 2.011 (0.967–4.050) | 0.058 | ||
| MLL2 expression | ||||
| Low vs. high | 2.085 (1.163–3.736) | 0.014* | 0.601 (0.324–1.115) | 0.089 |
*Statistically significant (P < 0.05)
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval
Fig. 3Effect of MLL2 knockout on cell proliferation in Eca109. a, b MTT assay and colony formation assay showed that knockout of MLL2 significantly reduced the proliferation ability of Eca109 cells. c Effect of MLL2 knockout on cell cycle in Eca109. Knockout of MLL2 arrested cell cycle at G1 phase. d Effect of MLL2 knockout on cell apoptosis. Knockout of MLL2 did not significantly affected cell apoptosis in Eca109 (P > 0.05). NC, negative control. KO, MLL2 knockout group. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01
Fig. 4Effect of MLL2 knockout on cell migration and EMT in Eca109. a Scratch wound-healing assay and b tranwell migration assay showed that knockout of MLL2 significantly attenuated the migration ability of Eca109 cells. c, d Western blot analysis showed that knockout of MLL2 suppressed EMT in Eca109 cells. NC, negative control. KO, MLL2 knockout group. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01
Fig. 5Representative immunohistochemical staining for E-cadherin (a, b); Vimentin (c, d); and Smad7 (e, f) in ESCC and adjacent normal tissues (ANT) (× 200)
The expression of E-Cadherin, Vimentin, Smad7 and their correlation with MLL2 expression in ESCC
| ESCC | ANT |
| MLL2 expression (Cases) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High (11) | Low (15) | |||||
| E-cadherin | 2.84 ± 1.37 | 5.60 ± 2.12 | 1.91 ± 0.83 | 3.57 ± 1.28 | ||
| Vimentin | 5.32 ± 2.13 | 1.76 ± 1.30 | 6.82 ± 2.23 | 4.14 ± 1.09 | ||
| Smad7 | 3.36 ± 1.58 | 4.52 ± 1.50 | 2.72 ± 1.35 | 3.86 ± 1.61 | ||
*Statistically significant (P < 0.05)
ANT adjacent normal tissues