| Literature DB >> 31367252 |
Zhengang Qiu1,2, Weiliang Zhu1, Hui Meng1, Lihua Tong1,3, Xi Li1, Peng Luo1, Lilan Yi1, Xiaoli Zhang1, Linlang Guo4, Ting Wei1, Jian Zhang1.
Abstract
Rationale: Chemoresistance frequently occurs in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and leads to a dismal prognosis. However, the mechanisms underlying this process remain largely unclear.Entities:
Keywords: CDKN1C; CDYL; H3K27me3; chemoresistance; small cell lung cancer
Year: 2019 PMID: 31367252 PMCID: PMC6643436 DOI: 10.7150/thno.33680
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theranostics ISSN: 1838-7640 Impact factor: 11.556
Figure 1CDYL levels and the clinical effect of CDYL on SCLC. (A) Representative samples showing high and low intensity CDYL staining in 82 SCLC tissues. (B) Percentages of CDYL-high and CDYL-low samples among 45 chemosensitive and 37 chemoresistant SCLC tissues. Scale bar, 50 μm. Clinical data are presented in Table 1. (C) Kaplan-Meier analysis of the overall survival of 82 patients stratified by CDYL levels. n, number of patients, P = 0.0207.
CDYL expression in 82 patients with SCLC and the associations with clinicopathological factors
| Clinicopathological features | N | Expression of CDYL | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| + | - | |||
| Gender | 0.641 | |||
| Male | 67 | 33 | 34 | |
| Female | 15 | 9 | 6 | |
| Age | 0.808 | |||
| <60 | 45 | 22 | 23 | |
| ≥60 | 37 | 20 | 17 | |
| Clinical Stages | 0.0257 | |||
| Limited disease | 44 | 17 | 27 | |
| Extensive disease | 38 | 25 | 13 | |
-, low expression; +, high expression of CDYL. P-values were calculated using Pearson's χ2-test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of potential prognostic factors associated with the overall survival of patients with SCLC
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Hazard ratio | 95%CI | Hazard ratio | 95%CI | |||
| Gender | 0.962 | 0.514-1.802 | 0.904 | 0.854 | 0.444-1.641 | 0.635 | |
| Age | 0.879 | 0.562-1.376 | 0.573 | 0.778 | 0.489-1.237 | 0.288 | |
| Clinical stages | 1.935 | 1.224-3.058 | 0.005 | 1.951 | 1.164-3.272 | 0.011 | |
| Chemoresistance | 1.856 | 1.173-2.936 | 0.008 | 1.792 | 1.091-2.945 | 0.021 | |
| CDYL expression | 2.491 | 1.558-3.982 | 0.000 | 1.880 | 1.139-3.105 | 0.014 | |
CI, confidence interval. P-values were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Figure 2Effect of CDYL on chemoresistance in SCLC in vitro and in vivo. (A) Western blot showing CDYL levels in pairs of sensitive and resistant SCLC cell lines. (B) Western blot showing CDYL levels in H69 cells transfected with a LV5-CDYL lentivirus (left panel), H69AR cells transfected with shRNA-CDYL (right panel) and the corresponding control vectors. (C, D1 and D2) Comparison of IC50 values for cytotoxic agents [(DDP: cisplatin, 5 μg/ml; VP-16: etoposide, 200 μg/ml) for 24 h] in the SCLC cells shown in (B). (E) Summary of the cumulative data showing the percentage of apoptotic SCLC cells following 24 h of exposure to cytotoxic agents shown in (B). (F) Xenograft growth in nude mice injected with the cells shown in (B) and treatment with or without cytotoxic drugs (n = 5 mice per group). (G) Growth curve for tumour volumes in the mice shown in (F). ** P < 0.01.
Figure 3CDYL directly targets CDKN1C in SCLC. (A) Volcano plot showing the differentially expressed genes between H69AR-shCDYL cells and H69AR-shNC cells. Significantly differentially expressed genes were determined based on a |fold change| ≥ 2. (B) -Log2 transformations of the P-values of the top 10 significantly upregulated pathways. (C) Heat maps showing all 68 differentially expressed genes (left panel) and the 4 differentially expressed CDKIs (right panel) in a pathway that negatively regulates protein modifications between H69AR-shCDYL cells and control cells (fold enrichment > 2). (D) RT-qPCR analysis of CDKN1C, CDKN1A, CDKN2A, and CDKN2D expression in H69AR-shCDYL cells and control cells. (E) Western blot showing CDKN1C levels in SCLC cells with different CDYL levels. (F) Representative samples showing high and low intensity CDKN1C staining in 82 SCLC tissues. (G) Spearman's correlation analysis of the IHC staining for CDYL and CDKN1C (r: correlation coefficient; P = 0.038). (H) Predicted CDYL binding site and the qPCR primer location in the CDKN1C promoter region. (I) CDYL ChIP-qPCR assessing CDYL enrichment at the CDKN1C promoter. (J) CDYL EMSA assessing the binding of recombinant CDYL to the CDKN1C promoter.
Figure 4CDKN1C repression mediates CDYL-induced chemoresistance in SCLC. (A) RT-qPCR and Western blot analyses of CDKN1C levels in paired H69-H69AR and H446-H446DDP SCLC cells. (B) Comparison of CDKN1C expression in chemosensitive SCLC cell lines (n = 11) and chemoresistant SCLC cell lines (n = 40) (P = 0.0476) from the GDSC datasets. (C) Comparison of IC50 values following exposure of H69AR-CDKN1C (left panel) or H69-siCDKN1C (right panel) cells and corresponding controls to cytotoxic agents. (D) A summary of the cumulative data showing the percentage of apoptotic H69AR-CDKN1C (D1) and H69-siCDKN1C (D2) SCLC cells and corresponding controls. (E) Cell cycle progression was determined in CDKN1C-overexpressing and CDKN1C knockdown SCLC cells after exposure to chemotherapeutic drugs using flow cytometry. (F) Western blot showing CDKN1C levels in H69AR cells transfected with shCDYL, siRNA-CDKN1C and the corresponding control vectors. (G) CCK8 analysis of the IC50 values for cytotoxic agents in the cells shown in (E). ** P < 0.01 and *** P < 0.001.
Figure 5The EZH2-mediated H3K27me3 pathway regulates CDYL-induced CDKN1C repression. (A) RT-qPCR analysis of CDKN1C expression in shCDYL cells and control cells. (B) H3K27me3 ChIP-qPCR assessing H3K27me3 enrichment at the CDKN1C promoter, *** P < 0.001. (C) EZH2 ChIP-qPCR assessing the binding of EZH2 to the CDKN1C promoter; CDYL knockdown reduced the binding of EZH2 to the CDKN1C promoter and increased CDKN1C expression. *** P < 0.001. (D) Co-immunoprecipitation analysis of CDYL and EZH2 in H69AR SCLC cells. (E) GST pull down assay testing the interaction between the CDYL and EZH2 proteins.
Figure 6Effect of the EZH2 inhibitor on CDYL-induced chemoresistance. (A) Western blots showing EZH2 and CDKN1C levels in H69 cells and CDYL-overexpressing H69 cells treated with or without GSK126 (left panel) and quantification of CDKN1C levels (right panel). (B) CCK8 analysis of IC50 values in the H69 cells shown in (A). * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, and *** P < 0.001. (C) Effects of chemotherapy with or without GSK126 on tumour growth in mice injected with H69 cells and CDYL-overexpressing H69 cells (n = 5 animals per group). (D) Tumour growth curve for the mice shown in (D). * P < 0.05. (E) Western blots showing CDYL, EZH2 and CDKN1C levels in xenograft tumours.