| Literature DB >> 29568352 |
Xiao Zhu1,2,3, Qingming Kong4, Liwei Xie5, Zhihong Chen1, Hongmei Li1, Zhu Zhu1, Yongmei Huang1,6, Feifei Lan7, Haiqing Luo1,8, Jingting Zhan1,6, Hongrong Ding1, Jinli Lei1,6, Qin Xiao9, Weiming Fu10, Wenguo Fan11, Jinfang Zhang12, Hui Luo1,6.
Abstract
Previous studies showed that the low expressions of chromodomain-helicase-DNA-binding protein 5 (CHD5) were intensively associated with deteriorative biologic and clinical characteristics as well as outcomes in many tumors. The aim of this study is to determine whether CHD5 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) contribute to the prognosis of hepatocellular carcima (HCC). The SNPs were selected according to their linkage disequilibrium (LD) in the targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) and then genotyped with TaqMan probers. We revealed a rare haplotype AG in CHD5 (SNPs: rs12564469-rs9434711) was markedly associated with HCC prognosis. The univariate and multivariate regression analyses revealed the patients with worse overall survival time were those with tumor metastasis and haplotype AG, as well as cirrhosis, poor differentiation and IV-TNM stage. Based on the available public databases, we discovered the significant association between haplotype AG and CHD5 mRNA expressions only existed in Chinese. These data proposed that the potentially genetic haplotype might functionally contribute to HCC prognosis and CHD5 mRNA expressions.Entities:
Keywords: chromodomain-helicase-DNA-binding protein 5; hepatocellular carcinoma; linkage disequilibrium; prognosis; single-nucleotide polymorphisms
Year: 2017 PMID: 29568352 PMCID: PMC5862573 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.23812
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Kaplan-Meier survival curves according to haplotypes (block 3) in the discovery, replication and combined studies
P value was calculated using a log-rank test.
Clinical and laboratory features of the subjects and univariate analysis for overall survival
| Variables | Discovery study | Replication study | Combined study | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5-years survival rates % | Log-rank | 5-years survival rates % | Log-rank | 5-years survival rates % | Log-rank | ||||
| Age (years) | |||||||||
| < 55 | 98 | 5.10 | 213 | 4.23 | 311 | 4.50 | |||
| ≥ 55 | 182 | 8.79 | 0.087 | 336 | 11.01 | 0.036 | 518 | 10.23 | 0.013 |
| Gender | |||||||||
| Females | 53 | 9.43 | 125 | 9.60 | 178 | 9.55 | |||
| Males | 227 | 7.05 | 0.405 | 424 | 8.02 | 0.747 | 651 | 7.68 | 0.584 |
| Smoking | |||||||||
| No | 176 | 7.95 | 296 | 10.47 | 472 | 9.53 | |||
| yes | 99 | 7.07 | 0.942 | 231 | 6.49 | 0.183 | 330 | 6.67 | 0.297 |
| Drinking | |||||||||
| No | 177 | 8.47 | 311 | 11.25 | 488 | 10.25 | |||
| Yes | 95 | 6.32 | 0.401 | 210 | 5.24 | 0.059 | 305 | 5.57 | 0.131 |
| HBV | |||||||||
| HBsAg (-) | 56 | 10.71 | 130 | 12.30 | 186 | 11.83 | |||
| HBsAg(+) | 224 | 6.70 | 0.141 | 419 | 7.16 | 0.131 | 643 | 7.00 | 0.136 |
| Serum AFP | |||||||||
| < 25 ng/ml | 47 | 6.38 | 118 | 10.17 | 165 | 9.09 | |||
| ≥ 25 ng/ml | 233 | 7.73 | 0.869 | 431 | 7.89 | 0.495 | 664 | 7.83 | 0.623 |
| Tumor size (cm) | |||||||||
| ≤ 5 | 65 | 10.77 | 139 | 11.51 | 204 | 11.27 | |||
| > 5, ≤ 10 | 93 | 8.60 | 0.538 | 273 | 7.33 | 0.169 | 366 | 7.65 | 0.215 |
| >10 | 122 | 4.92 | 0.037 | 137 | 7.30 | 0.104 | 259 | 6.18 | 0.058 |
| Cirrhosis | |||||||||
| No | 16 | 25.00 | 38 | 15.79 | 54 | 18.52 | |||
| Yes | 260 | 6.54 | 0.005 | 504 | 7.94 | 0.027 | 764 | 7.46 | < 0.001 |
| Tumor morphology | |||||||||
| No residual tumor | 19 | 15.79 | 43 | 13.95 | 62 | 14.52 | |||
| Uninodular tumor | 55 | 9.09 | 0.192 | 89 | 8.99 | 0.744 | 144 | 9.03 | 0.376 |
| Multinodular | 107 | 7.48 | 0.111 | 228 | 7.02 | 0.078 | 335 | 7.16 | 0.090 |
| tumor | |||||||||
| Massive tumor | 92 | 5.43 | 0.035 | 168 | 9.52 | 0.301 | 260 | 8.08 | 0.124 |
| Differentiation | |||||||||
| Well | 31 | 48.39 | 77 | 25.97 | 108 | 32.41 | |||
| Moderate | 78 | 3.85 | < 0.001 | 195 | 7.69 | < 0.001 | 273 | 6.59 | < 0.001 |
| Poor | 171 | 1.75 | < 0.001 | 277 | 3.97 | < 0.001 | 448 | 3.13 | < 0.001 |
| Metastasis | |||||||||
| Abscent | 81 | 22.22 | 189 | 19.58 | 270 | 20.37 | |||
| Present | 193 | 1.55 | < 0.001 | 347 | 2.59 | < 0.001 | 540 | 2.22 | < 0.001 |
| TNM stage | |||||||||
| I | 53 | 16.98 | 148 | 14.86 | 201 | 15.42 | |||
| II | 95 | 7.37 | 0.039 | 230 | 6.52 | 0.051 | 325 | 6.77 | 0.025 |
| III | 64 | 4.69 | 0.006 | 110 | 5.45 | 0.025 | 174 | 5.17 | 0.004 |
| IV | 68 | 2.94 | < 0.001 | 61 | 4.92 | 0.001 | 129 | 3.88 | < 0.001 |
AFP, alpha fetoprotein; TNM, tumor, node, metastasis-classification.
Cox multivariate regression of potential prognostic factors for overall survival
| Variables | Discovery study | Replication study | Combined study | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | ||||
| Age (years) ≥ 55 vs. < 55 | / | / | 0.95 (0.86–1.07) | 0.197 | 0.87 (0.77–0.98) | 0.047 |
| Tumor size > 10 cm vs. ≤ 5 cm | 1.02 (0.83–1.23) | 0.563 | / | / | / | / |
| Cirrhosis Yes vs. No | 1.32 (1.16–1.49) | 0.016 | 1.10 (1.01–1.28) | 0.049 | 1.82 (1.19–2.72) | 0.008 |
| Tumor morphology | ||||||
| Massive tumor vs. No residual tumor | 1.06 (0.86–1.2 8) | 0.404 | / | / | / | / |
| Differentiation | ||||||
| Moderate vs. Well | 1.03 (0.75–1.44) | 0.585 | 1.74 (0.96–1.25) | 0.133 | 1.34 (0.83–1.60) | 0.127 |
| Poor vs. Moderate | 6.09 (3.71–8.85) | 8.062 × 10-4 | 2.57 (1.37–3.92) | 0.009 | 5.94 (2.11–9.52) | 0.002 |
| Metastasis Present vs. Abscent | 8.52 (3.19–16.37) | 1.990 × 10-4 | 5.76 (2.54–10.71) | 9.175 × 10-4 | 14.08 (2.88–31.38) | 2.636 × 10-5 |
| TNM stage | ||||||
| II vs. I | 1.09 (0.90–1.34) | 0.179 | / | / | 1.15 (0.96–1.28) | 0.064 |
| III vs. I | 1.17 (0.97–1.41) | 0.074 | 1.12 (0.92–1.29) | 0.124 | 1.45 (0.95–1.80) | 0.093 |
| IV vs. I | 3.35 (1.23–5.69) | 0.006 | 2.95 (1.25–4.73) | 0.017 | 3.72 (1.45–5.95) | 0.009 |
| Haplotype (block 3) | ||||||
| AG vs. AA+GG | 6.58 (3.56–9.55) | 7.827 × 10-4 | 5.21 (2.34–8.17) | 0.003 | 11.86 (3.37–21.14) | 8.569 × 10-5 |
Figure 2CHD5 structure, mutations and expressions in silico
(A) CHD5 in chromosome 1p36.31 and its transcriptional direction from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). (B) CHD5 gene mutations from TCGA (https://cancergenome.nih.gov/). The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) hepatocellular carcinoma datasets and the related clinicopathologic information of the included patients were obtained from the cBioPortal (http://www.cbioportal.org/) for Cancer Genomics generated by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. (C) CHD5 gene ECR generated from the UCSC Genome Browser (https://genome.ucsc.edu/). (D) the deletions of CHD5 from TCGA in silico analysis. (E) copy-number alterations from GISTIC (https://software.broadinstitute.org/software/cprg/?q = node/31). By separating somatic copy-number alterations (SCNAs) profiles into underlying arm-level and focal alterations, GISTIC estimates the background rates for each category as well as defines the boundaries of SCNA regions. (F) CHD5 expressions in HCC samples and matched normal samples comparing of average beta value from TCGA.
Figure 3Correlation between CHD5 mRNA expressions and haplotypes (block 3) from EBV-transformed B lymphoblastoid cell lines from different populations available by SNPexp