| Literature DB >> 30816478 |
Vahinipriya Manoharan1, Eric Hamilton Karunanayake1, Kamani Hemamala Tennekoon1, Sumadee De Silva1, Kanishka De Silva2, Preethika Angunawela3, John Lunec4.
Abstract
Head and neck cancer (HNC) is the leading cancer in Sri Lankan males and second most common cancer among Sri Lankan females. This is the first study, to the best of our knowledge, that has focused on investigating the association between TP53 somatic DNA variants, with p53 protein expression and risk factors in a cohort of Sri Lankan patients with HNC. A total of 44 patients with cancer and 20 healthy controls were studied. In total, 36 genomic DNA sequence variants were found, including several novel variants (two deletions in exons 4 and 6, two in the 3' untranslated region and several intronic variants). A total of 14 tumour samples carried pathogenic TP53 mutations. A random selection of 24 samples was analysed immunohistochemically for p53 protein expression. All the samples with point missense variants were strongly immuno‑positive, whereas, samples with nonsense and frameshift TP53 variants were immuno‑negative for p53 immunohistochemical staining. Although, the human papilloma virus is a known risk factor for HNC, results from the present study identified an absence or lower level of infection in the Sri Lankan cohort.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30816478 PMCID: PMC6423636 DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2019.9948
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Med Rep ISSN: 1791-2997 Impact factor: 2.952
Nucleotide sequence of primers used for amplification of TP53, amplicon size and annealing temperature.
| Exon | Primer sequence, 5′-3′ | Amplicon size (bp) | Annealing temperature (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 and 3 | CAGCCATTCTTTTCCTGCTC | 497 | 62 |
| GGGGACTGTAGATGGGTGAA | |||
| 4 | CCTGGTCCTCTGACTGCTCT | 361 | 64 |
| GCCAGGCATTGAAGTCTCAT | |||
| 5 and 6 | GTTTCTTTGCTGCCGTCTTC | 500 | 64 |
| CTTAACCCCTCCTCCCAGAG | |||
| 7 | GAGCTTGCAGTGAGCTGAGA | 444 | 63 |
| TCCCAAAGCCAGAGAAAAGA | |||
| 8 and 9 | CAAGGGTGGTTGGGAGTAGA | 532 | 65 |
| TGTCTTTGAGGCATCACTGC | |||
| 10 | TGCATGTTGCTTTTGTACCG | 299 | 56 |
| GAAGGCAGGATGAGAATGGA | |||
| 11 | TGTCATCTCTCCTCCCTGCT | 438 | 61 |
| AAGTGGGCCCCTACCTAGAA |
Baseline characteristics of the patients, tumour type and possible risk factors the patients were exposed to.
| Characteristics | Total number of patients | Patients with wild-type | Patients with mutated | Total number of healthy controls | Two-tailed P-value between patient and healthy controls[ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 33 | 23 | 10 | 10 | 0.1176 |
| Female | 11 | 7 | 4 | 10 | |
| Ethnicity | |||||
| Sinhalese | 35 | 23 | 12 | 13 | 0.0888 |
| Sri Lankan Tamil | 3 | 3 | 0 | 5 | |
| Indian Tamil | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| Muslims | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| Burghers | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Age at study entry | |||||
| <30 years | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.0007 |
| 30–60 years | 24 | 14 | 10 | 18 | |
| >61 years | 18 | 14 | 4 | 0 | |
| Tumour type | |||||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 25 | 13 | 12 | N/A | N/A |
| Adenocarcinoma | 4 | 3 | 1 | N/A | |
| Papillary carcinoma | 4 | 4 | 0 | N/A | |
| Others | 11 | 10 | 1 | N/A | |
| Smoking history | |||||
| Yes | 17 | 11 | 6 | 0 | 0.0005 |
| No | 25 | 17 | 8 | 20 | |
| Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| Alcohol consumption | |||||
| Yes | 13 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 0.0251 |
| No | 29 | 20 | 9 | 19 | |
| Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| Betel-quid chewing | |||||
| Yes with tobacco | 21 | 12 | 9 | 0 | <0.0001 |
| Yes without tobacco | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| No | 19 | 14 | 5 | 20 | |
| Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| Roofing | |||||
| Asbestos | 21 | 14 | 7 | 1 | <0.0001 |
| Tile | 15 | 11 | 4 | 5 | |
| Concrete | 1 | 1 | 0 | 12 | |
| Metal | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
| Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| Codon 72 polymorphism | 0.6225 | ||||
| Arginine | 10 | 6 | 4 | 7 | |
| Proline | 19 | 12 | 7 | 7 | |
| Arginine/proline | 15 | 12 | 3 | 6 | |
Fisher's exact test was done to examine the significance of the associations between patients and healthy controls. A P-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
In silico and functional analysis of identified variants.
| HGVS Nomenclature | No. of carriers in the study cohort | Prediction of functional activity | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | cDNA | Protein | Location | Mutation type | Patients (n=44) | Controls (n=20) | Code reported in databases | Splice site | CpG site | Align GVGD | Mutation taster | Provean | SIFT | Poly Phen 2 | NCBI | Transcriptional activity [21] | Functional activity prediction [22] | Dominant negative effect | Conclusion |
| 1 | c.298delC | p.Gln100Argfs*23 | E4 | FS | 1 | 0 | Novel | – | – | – | DC | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | Path |
| 2 | c.383delC | p.Pro128Leufs*42 | E5 | FS | 1 | 0 | COSM5198771 | – | – | – | DC | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | Path |
| 3 | c.626_637del | p.Asn210_Arg213 | E6 | IF | 1 | 0 | Novel | – | – | – | DC | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | Path |
| GAAACAC | del | ||||||||||||||||||
| TTTTC | |||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | c.493C>T | p.Gln165* | E 5 | NS | 1 | 0 | rs730882001, COSM43632 | – | – | – | DC | D | – | – | Path | – | – | – | Path |
| 5 | c.637C>T | p.Arg213* | E 6 | NS | 1 | 0 | rs397516436 | – | Yes | – | – | – | – | – | Path | – | – | – | Path |
| 6 | c.422G>T | p.Cys141Phe | E 5 | M | 1 | 0 | COSM44911 | – | – | C65 | DC | D | D | PRB | – | PF | F | – | Path |
| 7 | c.455C>T | p.Pro152Leu | E5 | M | 1 | 0 | rs587782705 | – | Yes | C65 | DC | D | D | POB | Path | NF | NF | ND | Path |
| 8 | c.524G>A | p.Arg175His | E 5 | M | 2 | 0 | rs28934578, COSM10648 | – | Yes | C25 | DC | D | D | POB | Path | NF | NF | DN | Path |
| 9 | c.578A>G | p.His193Arg | E 6 | M | 1 | 0 | rs786201838, COSM10742 | – | – | C25 | DC | D | D | PRB | LP | NF | NF | MD | Path |
| 10 | c.583A>T | p.Ile195Phe | E6 | M | 1 | 0 | COSM44633 | – | – | C0 | DC | D | D | PRB | – | NF | NF | – | Path |
| 11 | c.646G>C | p.Val216Leu | E 6 | M | 1 | 0 | rs730882025 | – | – | C25 | DC | – | D | – | LP | NF | NF | – | Path |
| 12 | c.659A>G | p.Tyr220Cys | E6 | M | 1 | 0 | rs121912666, COSM10758 | – | – | C65 | DC | D | D | PRB | Path | NF | NF | MD | Path |
| 13 | c.747G>T | p.Arg249Ser | E7 | M | 1 | 0 | rs28934571, COSM10817 | – | – | C65 | DC | D | D | PRB | Path | NF | NF | DN | Path |
| 14 | c.818G>A | p.Arg273His | E 8 | M | 1 | 0 | rs28934576, COSM10660 | – | Yes | C25 | DC | – | D | – | Path | NF | NF | DN | Path |
| 15 | c.844C>T | p.Arg282Trp | E 8 | M | 1 | 0 | rs28934574, COSM10704 | – | Yes | C65 | DC | D | D | PRB | Path | NF | NF | MD | Path |
| 16 | c.467G>A | p.Arg156His | E 5 | M | 1 | 0 | rs371524413, COSM43739 | – | Yes | C0 | P | N | T | POB | LP | PF | NF | ND | LP |
| 17 | c.576G>C | p.Gln192His | E 6 | M | 2 | 0 | COSM44554 | – | – | C0 | DC | N | T | B | – | F | F | – | LB |
| 18 | c.648G>C | p.Val216Val | E 6 | S | 1 | 0 | rs199693249 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 19 | c.63C>T | p.Asp21Asp | E 2 | S | 0 | 1 | rs1800369 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 20 | c.459C>T | p.Pro153Pro | E 5 | S | 0 | 1 | rs72661116 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB | – | – | – | LB |
| 21 | c.-140G>A | – | E 1 | 3′UTR | 4 | 0 | Novel | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 22 | c.-159delT | – | E 2 | 3′UTR | 1 | 0 | Novel | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 23 | c.97-29C>A | – | I 3 | I | 4 | 2 | rs17883323 | Al | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | US |
| 24 | c.994-95 delT | – | I 9 | I | 4 | 0 | Novel | Al | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | US |
| 25 | c.74+16G>C | – | I 2 | I | 2 | 0 | Novel | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 26 | c.74+38C>G | – | I 2 | I | 25 | 12 | rs1642785 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 27 | c.96+41_96+56 | – | I 3 | I | 39 | 19 | rs59758982 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| delACCTGG | |||||||||||||||||||
| AGGGCTG | |||||||||||||||||||
| GGG | |||||||||||||||||||
| 28 | c.97-52G>A | – | I 3 | I | 1 | 0 | rs540683791 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 29 | c.375+37C>A | – | I 4 | I | 1 | 0 | Novel | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 30 | c.782+72C>T | – | I 7 | I | 22 | 9 | rs12947788 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 31 | c.782+92T>G | – | I 7 | I | 22 | 9 | rs12951053 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 32 | c.993+12T>C | – | I 9 | I | 1 | 0 | rs1800899 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 33 | c.1100+76T>A | – | I 10 | I | 2 | 0 | Novel | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 34 | c.75-42G>A | – | I 2 | I | 0 | 1 | Novel | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 35 | c.782+79C>T | – | I 7 | I | 0 | 1 | Novel | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | LB |
| 36 | c.673-36G>C | – | I 6 | I | 2 | 0 | rs17880604 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | B | – | – | – | B |
Variants were classified as ‘non-functional’ if the median is ≤20, ‘Partially functional’ if the median is >20 and ≤75, ‘functional’ if the median is >75 and ≤140, and ‘supertrans’ if the median is >140 based on the median of 8 promoter-specific activities, expressed as percent of wild-type protein and were categorized as ‘DNE’ if they were Dominant Negative on both p21WAF1 and RGC promoters or on all other promoters, ‘moderate-DNE’ if they were Dominant Negative on some promoters and not on others, and ‘non-DNE’ if they were not Dominant Negative on both WAF1 and RGC promoters, or none of the promoters [23, 24]. DC, disease causing; P, polymorphism; N, neutral; t, tolerated; PRB, probably damaging; POB, possibly damaging; path, pathogenic; LP, likely pathogenic; US, variant with uncertain significance; LB, likely benign; B, benign; FS, frameshift; IF, in-frame; M, missense; NS, nonsense; S, silent; I, intron; E, exon; 3′UTR, 3′ untranslated region; F, functional; PF, partially functional; D, deleterious; NF, non-functional; Al, alter the splice site; DN, dominant negative effect; MD, moderate dominant negative effect; ND, non dominant negative effect.
Figure 1.Novel frameshift variant c.298delC/p.Gln100Argfs*23 detected in Exon 4. (A) Mutation Surveyor®V4.0.9 image indicating the one base pair heterozygous deletion point; R indicates the reference TP53 sequence and S indicates the study sample TP53 sequence. (B) p53 immunohistochemical staining of the tumour sample with the above mutation. Magnification, ×20. (C) Protein prediction using Mutalyzer 2.0.26.
Figure 2.Novel in-frame deletion c.626_637delGAAACACTTTTC/p.Asn210_Arg213del detected in exon 6. (A) Mutation Surveyor®V4.0.9 image indicating the 12-base pair heterozygous deletion; R indicates the reference TP53 sequence and S indicates the study sample TP53 sequence. (B) Protein prediction using Mutalyzer 2.0.26.
Figure 3.IHC characterization of p53 detected by DO7 antibody. (A) Pattern A with wide spread IHC positive nuclei-IHC score >20. (B) Pattern B with rare positive single tumour nuclei-IHC score from ≥1 to ≤20; arrows indicate the rare positive cells. (C) Pattern C with no IHC positive nuclei-IHC score from 0 to <1. Magnification, ×20. IHC, immunohistochemistry.
Figure 4.Detection of p16 expression using Ventana Benchmark XT Automated immunohistochemistry/in situ hybridization slide staining system. (A) Positive control showing positive staining of nuclei and cytoplasm. (B) A study sample with negative staining. Magnification, ×20.