| Literature DB >> 31687275 |
Shuming Zhang1, Shichao Guo1, Zhangfu Li1, Dan Li1, Qimin Zhan1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) is a highly conserved chaperone with an approximate molecular weight of 90-kDa. It plays a critical role in maintaining stability and homeostasis of oncoproteins, helping cancer cells living in the unsuitable environmental conditions. The current study aims to inquire the difference of HSP90 expression in tumor tissues and normal tissues, analyze the correlation between HSP90 expression and the prognoses of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), and investigate its role in CRC preliminarily.Entities:
Keywords: Base excision repair; Colorectal cancer; HSP90; Immunohistochemistry; Outcomes; Overall survival; Prognosis; Proteasome
Year: 2019 PMID: 31687275 PMCID: PMC6825748 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7946
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Analysis of HSP90 genes expression level s from online database.
HSP90 gene expression profile (mRNA level) across all tumor samples and normal tissues were analyzed in GEPIA and these results were shown in bar plot (A) and dot plot (B) separately. (C) Expression levels of HSP90 gene in rectal cancers (READ), colon cancers (COAD) and normal tissues were analyzed using TCGA data. The statistical analysis was performed by using the Student's t test. *P < 0.05. Abbreviations: ACC, Adrenocortical carcinoma; BLCA, bladder urothelial carcinoma; BRCA, breast invasive carcinoma; CESC, cervical squamous cell carcinoma and endocervical adenocarcinoma; CHOL, cholangio carcinoma; COAD, colon adenocarcinoma; DLBC, lymphoid neoplasm diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; ESCA, esophageal carcinoma; GBM, glioblastoma multiforme; HNSC, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; KICH, kidney chromophobe; KIRC, kidney renal clear cell carcinoma; KIRP, kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma; LAML, acute myeloid leukemia; LGG, brain lower grade glioma; LIHC, liver hepatocellular carcinoma; LUAD, lung adenocarcinoma; LUSC, lung squamous cell carcinoma; OV, ovarian serous cystadenocarcinoma; PAAD, pancreatic adenocarcinoma; PCPG, pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma; PRAD, prostate adenocarcinoma; SARC, sarcoma; SKCM, skin cutaneous melanoma; STAD, stomach adenocarcinoma; TGCT, testicular germ cell tumors; THCA, thyroid carcinoma; THYM, thymoma;) UCEC, uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma; UCS, uterine carcinosarcoma; READ, rectum adenocarcinoma.
Figure 2Immunohistochemistry and statistical results of HSP90 expression.
(A–H) The expression of HSP90 in colonic cancer and matched adjacent normal epithelial tissues was detected by immunohistochemistry. Original magnification: 40× and 200×. (I) Statistical analysis was done by comparing the final scores in colon cancer and adjacent normal epithelial tissues. Colon cancer tissues had a significant higher expression than matched adjacent normal epithelial tissues. The statistical analysis was performed by using the Student’s t-test. ***P < 0.001.
Association between HSP90 expression and clinicopathological characteristics of patients.
| Characteristics | Total cases (%) | HSP90 expression | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low (%) | High (%) | |||
| Gender | 0.223 | |||
| Male | 54 (54.5%) | 27 (50.0%) | 27 (50.0%) | |
| Female | 45 (45.5%) | 17 (37.8%) | 28 (62.2%) | |
| Age (year) | 0.438 | |||
| <65 | 31 (31.3%) | 12 (38.7%) | 19 (61.3%) | |
| ≥65 | 68 (68.7%) | 32 (47.1%) | 36 (52.9%) | |
| Location | 0.604 | |||
| Ascending colon | 35 (35.4%) | 17 (48.6%) | 18 (51.4%) | |
| Transverse colon | 25 (25.3%) | 9 (36.0%) | 16 (64.0%) | |
| Descending-Sigmoid colon | 39 (39.4%) | 18 (46.2%) | 21 (53.8%) | |
| T category | 0.505 | |||
| T1 + T2 | 10 (10.1%) | 3 (30.0%) | 7 (70.0%) | |
| T3 + T4 | 89 (89.9%) | 41 (46.1%) | 48 (53.9%) | |
| N category | 0.608 | |||
| N0 | 59 (59.6%) | 27 (45.8%) | 32 (54.2%) | |
| N1 | 29 (29.3%) | 11 (37.9%) | 18 (62.1%) | |
| N2 | 11 (11.1%) | 6 (54.5%) | 5 (45.5%) | |
| Differentiation | 0.621 | |||
| Well to moderate | 49 (49.5%) | 23 (46.9%) | 26 (53.1%) | |
| Low | 50 (50.5%) | 21 (42.0%) | 29 (58.0%) | |
| AJCC stage | 0.749 | |||
| I, II | 59 (59.6%) | 27 (45.8%) | 32 (54.2%) | |
| III, IV | 40 (40.4%) | 17 (42.5%) | 23 (57.5%) | |
| Overall survival | 0.039 | |||
| Death | 59 (59.6%) | 21 (35.6%) | 38 (64.4%) | |
| Alive | 40 (40.4%) | 23 (57.5%) | 17 (42.5%) | |
Figure 3Kaplan–Meier survival analysis in subsets of CRC patients.
(A) Kaplan–Meier survival analysis of CRC patients according to lymph node metastasis. (B) Kaplan–Meier survival analysis of CRC patients according to AJCC stage. (C) Kaplan–Meier survival analysis of CRC patients according to pathological differentiation grade. (D) Kaplan–Meier survival analysis of CRC patients according to HSP90 expression.
Cox proportional hazards model analysis of variables affecting overall survival in colorectal cancer patients.
| Variable | Categories | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Gender | Male vs. Female | 1.004 [0.600–1.679] | 0.988 | 0.620 [0.344–1.119] | 0.113 |
| Age (years) | <65 vs. ≥65 | 1.542 [0.858–2.773] | 0.148 | 1.756 [0.957–3.221] | 0.069 |
| Differentiation | Poor vs. Well + moderate | 1.737 [1.035–2.915] | 0.037 | 1.749 [1.017–3.007] | 0.043 |
| T category | T1 + T2 vs. T3 + T4 | 1.288 [0.515–3.221] | 0.589 | 1.128 [0.416–3.058] | 0.813 |
| N category | N0 vs. N1 vs. N2 | 2.192 [1.544–3.112] | 0.000 | 2.459 [1.652–3.661] | 0.000 |
| Location | Ascending vs. Transverse vs. Descending-Sigmoid | 0.773 [0.576–1.037] | 0.086 | 0.899 [0.658–1.227] | 0.501 |
| HSP90 | High vs. Low | 1.738 [1.018–2.966] | 0.043 | 1.930 [1.113–3.349] | 0.019 |
Note:
HR, hazard ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.
Figure 4Forest graphs of Cox proportional hazards model analysis of variables affecting overall survival in colorectal cancer patients.
(A) Univariate analysis results; (B) Multivariate analysis results.
Figure 5Enriched GO analysis of identified genes.
(A) The results are summarized in three main categories: biological processes, molecular functions and cellular components. (B) The top 20 enriched GO biological processes terms. (C) The top 20 enriched GO molecular functions terms. (D) The top 20 enriched GO cellular components terms.
Figure 6KEGG pathway classification of identified genes.
(A) Distribution of the KEGG pathways of identified genes is shown as a bar chart. The horizontal axis is the number of genes, whereas the vertical ordinates are the terms of the KEGG pathways. Q < 0.05 was used as the thresholds in selecting significant KEGG pathways. (B) The significant pathways of KEGG enrichment.