| Literature DB >> 31089395 |
Yao Xiao1, Hao Li1, Lei-Lei Yang1, Liang Mao1, Cong-Cong Wu1, Wen-Feng Zhang2, Zhi-Jun Sun1,2.
Abstract
Human endogenous retrovirus-H long terminal repeat-associating protein 2 (HHLA2) and transmembrane and immunoglobulin domain containing 2 (TMIGD2) are new immune checkpoint molecules of the B7:CD28 family; however, little research has been performed on these immune checkpoint molecules. In this study, we used oral squamous cells carcinoma (OSCC) tissue microarrays and immunohistochemistry methods to investigate the expression patterns of HHLA2 and TMIGD2 in OSCC. After comparing the HHLA2 and TMIGD2 expression levels in OSCC, dysplasia, and mucosa, we found increased HHLA2 expression in OSCC and dysplasia, while the TMIGD2 expression was decreased in OSCC and dysplasia. Using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test, we found that higher HHLA2 or TMIGD2 expression levels in OSCC indicate poor prognosis. Furthermore, two-tailed Pearson's statistical analysis revealed that the HHLA2 expression levels in OSCC, dysplasia, and mucosa were positively correlated with the T cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain containing-3 (TIM3), lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG3), B7 homolog 3 protein (B7-H3), B7 homolog 4 protein (B7H4), and V-domain Ig suppressor of T cell activation (VISTA) levels, while the TMIGD2 expression levels in OSCC, dysplasia, and mucosa were inversely correlated with the TIM3, LAG3, and B7H3 levels. Our current study demonstrates that HHLA2 may serve as an immune target for OSCC therapy and that the TMIGD2 expression level in OSCC could forecast patient prognosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31089395 PMCID: PMC6476002 DOI: 10.1155/2019/5421985
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dis Markers ISSN: 0278-0240 Impact factor: 3.434
Figure 1HHLA2 was overexpressed, while the TMIGD2 expression level was decreased in oral squamous cell carcinoma. (a) Hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining and HHLA2 as well as TMIGD2 immunostaining of oral mucosa and oral squamous cell carcinoma. Scale bar: 50 μm. (b) Continuously and significantly increased levels of HHLA2 expression from oral mucosa (MUC, n = 42) to dysplasia (DYS, n = 69) to OSCC (OSCC, n = 210). All data are presented as the mean ± standard error of the mean and analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test. ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001; ∗∗∗∗ p < 0.0001. (c) Continuously and significantly increased levels of TMIGD2 expression from oral mucosa (MUC, n = 42) to dysplasia (DYS, n = 69) to OSCC (OSCC, n = 210). (d) The overall survival rate of the group of patients with lower HHLA2 expression (n = 68) was significantly different from that of the group of patients with higher HHLA2 expression (n = 138, p = 0.0314, cutoff = 85.4). (e) The overall survival rate of the group of patients with lower TMIGD2 expression (n = 100) was significantly different from that of the group of patients with higher TMIGD2 expression (n = 101, p = 0.0081; the median expression of TMIGD2 was used as the cutoff).
TMIGD2 could offer as an independent factor to predict prognosis at median cutoff.
| Parameters | HR (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.900 (0.404-2.006) | 0.796 |
| Age | 1.813 (0.983-3.341) | 0.057 |
| Pathological grade | ||
| II vs. I | 20.260 (2.733-150.209) | 0.003∗ |
| III vs. I | 12.586 (1.599-99.072) | 0.016∗ |
| Tumor size | ||
| T2 vs. T1 | 1.097 (0.440-2.734) | 0.842 |
| T3 vs. T1 | 1.817 (0.672-4.909) | 0.239 |
| T4 vs. T1 | 2.164 (0.716-6.542) | 0.171 |
| Node stage | ||
| N1+N2 vs. N0 | 1.129 (0.628-2.029) | 0.685 |
| TMIGD2 | 1.924 (1.069-3.464) | 0.029∗ |
Cox proportional hazards regression model. HR: hazard ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval. ∗ p < 0.05.
Figure 2The HHLA2 and TMIGD2 expression levels were independent of OSCC pathology grade, tumor size, and lymph node metastasis. (a) No significant difference in HHLA2 expression was observed among the three pathology grades (I–III: I = 53, II = 121, and III = 36) of OSCC. (b) No significant difference in TMIGD2 expression was observed among the three pathology grades (I–III: I = 53, II = 121, and III = 36) of OSCC. (c) The expression levels of HHLA2 in the four stages (T1, T2, T3, and T4: T1 = 32, T2 = 113, T3 = 44, and T4 = 21) of tumor size showed no significant differences with each other. (d) The expression levels of TMIGD2 in the four stages (T1, T2, T3, and T4: T1 = 32, T2 = 113, T3 = 44, and T4 = 21) of tumor size showed no significant differences with each other. (e) There was no significant difference between the HHLA2 expression levels in OSCC cases with different lymph node metastasis status (negative: N0, n = 138; positive: N1+N2, n = 72). (f) There was no significant difference between the TMIGD2 expression levels in OSCC cases with different lymph node metastasis status (negative: N0, n = 138; positive: N1+N2, n = 72).
Figure 3The TMIGD2 expression level was increased in recurrent OSCC. (a) Hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining with TMIGD2 immunostaining of primary OSCC and recurrent OSCC. (b) There was no significant difference in the HHLA2 expression levels between primary OSCC and recurrent OSCC. (c) The TMIGD2 expression level was significantly increased in recurrent OSCC compared with primary OSCC. (d) There was no significant difference in the HHLA2 expression levels between primary OSCC and OSCC after TPF therapy. (e) There was no significant difference in the TMIGD2 expression levels between primary OSCC and OSCC after TPF therapy. (f) There was no significant change in the HHLA2 expression level in OSCC after radiotherapy compared with primary OSCC. (g) There was no significant change in the TMIGD2 expression level in OSCC after radiotherapy compared with primary OSCC.
Figure 4