| Literature DB >> 29862272 |
Jing Yang1, Yuan-Yuan Sheng2, Jin-Wang Wei2, Xiao-Mei Gao2, Ying Zhu1, Hu-Liang Jia1, Qiong-Zhu Dong2, Lun-Xiu Qin1.
Abstract
MicroRNAs play significant roles in the development of cancer and may serve as promising therapeutic targets. In our previous work, miR-219-5p was identified as one of the important metastasis-related microRNAs in HCC. Here we demonstrated that miR-219-5p expression was elevated in HCC tissues and was associated with vascular invasion and dismal prognosis. In multivariate analysis, miR-219-5p was identified as an independent prognostic indicator for HCC patients. Functional mechanism analyses showed that miR-219-5p promoted HCC cell proliferation and invasion in in vitro, as well as in vivo, tumor growth and metastasis in nude mice models bearing human HCC tumors. In addition, cadherin 1 (CDH1) was revealed to be a downstream target of miR-219-5p in HCC cells. In conclusion, miR-219-5p promotes tumor growth and metastasis of HCC by regulating CDH1 and can serve as a prognostic marker for HCC patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29862272 PMCID: PMC5976989 DOI: 10.1155/2018/4793971
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1The association of miR-219-5p upregulation with metastasis and prognosis of HCC. (a) Relative expressions of miR-219-5p in 191 paired liver cancer tissues and paracancerous tissue samples. (b) The comparison of miR-219-5p levels between metastatic and nonmetastatic HCC tissues. Patients with high miR-219-5p level had a trend of worse overall survival (c) and significantly high recurrence rates compared with those with low miR-219-5p (d). Data are shown as mean ± SD. P < 0.001 versus the control.
Relationship between miR-219-5p level and clinicopathologic features.
| Variables | miR-219-5p expression |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | ||
| Sex | |||
| Female | 18 | 13 | 0.342 |
| Male | 78 | 82 | |
| Age (years) | |||
| ≥50 | 32 | 30 | 0.796 |
| <50 | 64 | 65 | |
| HBV status | |||
| Yes | 94 | 43 | 0.599 |
| No | 9 | 15 | |
| Cirrhosis | |||
| Yes | 16 | 55 |
|
| No | 80 | 40 | |
| AFP (ng/mL) | |||
| >20 | 64 | 63 | 0.959 |
| ≤20 | 32 | 32 | |
| Tumor size (cm) | |||
| >5 | 40 | 43 | 0.616 |
| ≤5 | 56 | 52 | |
| Tumor number | |||
| Multiple | 4 | 9 | 0.145 |
| Single | 92 | 86 | |
| Tumor encapsulation | |||
| Yes | 52 | 45 | 0.347 |
| No | 44 | 50 | |
| Vascular invasion | |||
| Yes | 31 | 51 |
|
| No | 65 | 44 | |
| Tumor differentiation | |||
| I~II | 65 | 48 |
|
| III~IV | 31 | 47 | |
Univariate and multivariate analyses of factors associated with overall survival (OS) inpatients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
| Features | Overall survival | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
| HR | 95% CI |
| ||
| Sex | ||||
| Male versus female | 0.537 | NA | ||
| Age | ||||
| >50 versus ≤50 | 0.404 | NA | ||
| HBsAg | ||||
| Positive versus negative | 0.112 | NA | ||
| AFP | ||||
| 20 ng/ml versus ≤20 ng/ml | 0.069 | NA | ||
| Liver cirrhosis | ||||
| Yes versus no | 0.307 | NA | ||
| Tumor size | ||||
| >5 cm versus ≤5 cm |
| 2.620 | 1.675~4.099 |
|
| Tumor encapsulation | ||||
| Yes versus no |
| 1.084 | 0.666~1.764 | 0.746 |
| Tumor number | ||||
| Multiple versus single | 0.065 | |||
| Vascular invasion | ||||
| Yes versus no |
| 1.833 | 1.179~2.848 |
|
| Tumor differentiation | ||||
| I~II versus III~IV | 0.113 | |||
| miR-219-5p | ||||
| High versus low |
|
|
|
|
Univariate and multivariate analyses of factors associated with recurrence in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
| Features | Recurrence | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
| HR | 95% CI |
| ||
| Sex | NA | |||
| Male versus female | 0.331 | NA | ||
| Age | NA | |||
| >50 versus ≤50 | 0.832 | NA | ||
| HBsAg | NA | |||
| Positive versus negative |
| 0.761 | 0.392~1.476 | 0.419 |
| AFP | NA | |||
| 20 ng/ml versus ≤20 ng/ml | 0.615 | NA | ||
| Liver cirrhosis | NA | |||
| Yes versus no | 0.065 | NA | ||
| Tumor size | NA | |||
| >5 cm versus ≤5 cm |
| 1.744 | 1.274~2.388 |
|
| Tumor encapsulation | NA | |||
| Yes versus no | 0.671 | NA | ||
| Tumor number |
| |||
| Multiple versus single |
| 1.579 | 0.751~3.318 | 0.228 |
| Vascular invasion | NA | |||
| Yes versus no |
| 1.870 | 1.205~2.902 |
|
| Tumor differentiation | NA | |||
| I~II versus III~IV | 0.539 | NA | ||
| miR-219-5p | NA | |||
| High versus low |
|
|
|
|
Abbreviations. HBsAg: hepatitis B surface antigen; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 2The effects of miR-219-5p on in vitro proliferation and invasion of HCC cells. (a) The alterations in cell proliferation of HepG2 cells after upregulation of miR-219-5p by mimic transfection (left) and MHCC-97H cells after knockdown of miR-219-5p by antagomir (right) were detected by CCK8 assay. (b) The cell cycle distribution of HepG2 and MHCC-97H cells after transfection with miR-219-5p mimic or antagomir. (c) Representative pictures of apoptosis of HepG2 and MHCC-97H cells after transfection with miR-219-5p mimic or antagomir detected by flow cytometry. (d) Migration and invasion of cells were determined by transwell assay in HepG2 and MHCC-97H cells treated with miR-219-5p mimic/antagomir and the corresponding negative control (magnification ×100). Data are shown as mean ± SD. P < 0.05, P < 0.001 versus the control.
Figure 3Effects of miR-219-5p on in vivo tumor growth and lung metastasis of HCC. (a, b) The differences in tumor size and volume of the subcutaneous implantation models of MHCC-97H cells after transfection with miR-219-5p antagomir or antagomir NC. (c) Comparison of the tumor volumes in the orthotopic implantation models of MHCC-97H cells after transfection with antagomir to knockdown miR-219-5p. (d) Representative images of lung metastasis (left) and comparison of the numbers of lung metastatic nodes in orthotopic implantation nude mice models of MHCC-97H cells after transfected with miR-219-5p antagomir or antagomir NC (magnification ×200). Data are shown as mean ± SD. P < 0.05, P < 0.01.
Figure 4CDH1 is identified as a downstream target of miR-219-5p. (a) Sequences of CDH1 3′UTR and miR-219-5p according to the prediction of microRNA.org. Wild-type and mutated-type binding sequences of CDH1 3′UTR are shown. (b) Relative luciferase activity in HEK293T cells transfected with reporter vector containing wild-type or mutated-type binding sequence along with miR-219-5p mimic or negative control. CDH1 protein (c) and mRNA levels (d) in HCC cells treated with miR-219-5p mimic or antagomir. (e) Linear regression analysis between miR-219-5p and CDH1 in HCCs. (f) Working model for the role of miR-219-5p in regulation of CDH1 in HCC. Data are shown as mean ± SD. P < 0.05, P < 0.01.