| Literature DB >> 31856851 |
Felix Rühlmann1, Indra Maria Windhof-Jaidhauser2, Cornelius Menze2, Tim Beißbarth3, Hanibal Bohnenberger4, Michael Ghadimi2, Sebastian Dango2,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CREB-binding protein (CBP) and p300 represent histone acetyltransferases (HATs) and transcriptional coactivators that play essential roles in tumour initiation and progression. Both proteins are generally thought to function as tumour suppressors, although their distinct roles in colorectal cancer (CRC) remain inconsistent and ambiguous. Thus, we analysed the expression of these two HATs in human tissue samples from patients with locally advanced rectal cancer via immunohistochemistry and evaluated their potential impacts on future CRC diagnosis and treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarkers; Colorectal cancer; Histone acetyltransferase; Targeted therapy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31856851 PMCID: PMC6923994 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-019-1764-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Fig. 1Immunohistochemical staining for CBP expression in CRC cells. a Very weak CBP staining (intensity 0). b Weak CBP staining (intensity I), c Strong CBP staining (II) d Very strong CBP staining (III)
Fig. 2Immunohistochemical staining for p300 expression in CRC cells. a Very weak p300 staining (intensity 0). b Weak p300 staining (intensity I), c Strong p300 staining (II). d Very strong p300 staining (III)
Correlations between CBP/p300 expression and clinicopathological parameters
| Variable | No. of patients | CBP expression | p300 expression | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Medium | High | Low | Medium | High | |||
| Total | 93 | 28 (30.1%) | 33 (35.5%) | 32 (34.4%) | 31 (33.3%) | 30 (32.3%) | 32 (34.4%) | 0.86 |
| Female | 30 | 7 (23.3%) | 11 (36.7%) | 12 (40.0%) | 7 (23.3%) | 10 (33.3%) | 13 (43.3%) | 0.96 |
| Male | 63 | 21 (33.3%) | 22 (34.9%) | 20 (31.7%) | 24 (38.1%) | 20 (31.7%) | 19 (30.2%) | 0.85 |
| Age (years) | ||||||||
| < 60 | 68 | 25 (36.8%) | 21 (30.9%) | 22 (32.4%) | 25 (36.8%) | 19 (27.9%) | 24 (35.3%) | 0.91 |
| ≥ 60 | 25 | 3 (12.0%) | 12 (48.0%) | 10 (40.0%) | 6 (24.0%) | 11 (44.0%) | 8 (32.0%) | 0.53 |
| Tumour infiltration | ||||||||
| pT1 | 3 | 2 (66.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (33.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (33.3%) | 2 (66.6%) | 0.19 |
| pT2 | 18 | 6 (33.3%) | 5 (27.8%) | 7 (38.9%) | 4 (22.2%) | 6 (33.3%) | 8 (44.4%) | 0.76 |
| pT3 | 61 | 18 (29.5%) | 23 (37.7%) | 20 (32.8%) | 23 (37.7%) | 22 (36.1%) | 16 (26.2%) | 0.58 |
| pT4 | 11 | 2 (18.2%) | 5 (45.5%) | 4 (36.3%) | 4 (36.4%) | 1 (9.1%) | 6 (54.5%) | 0.15 |
| Lymph node status | ||||||||
| pN0 | 53 | 15 (28.3%) | 18 (34.0%) | 20 (37.7%) | 16 (30.2%) | 18 (34.0%) | 19 (35.8%) | 0.97 |
| pN1 | 22 | 7 (31.8%) | 9 (40.9%) | 6 (27.3%) | 8 (36.4%) | 8 (36.4%) | 6 (27.3%) | 0.94 |
| pN2 | 18 | 6 (33.3%) | 6 (33.3%) | 6 (33.3%) | 7 (38.9%) | 4 (22.2%) | 7 (38.9%) | 0.76 |
| Lymphatic vessel invasion | ||||||||
| L0 | 68 | 20 (29.4%) | 24 (35.3%) | 24 (35.3%) | 20 (29.4%) | 24 (35.3%) | 24 (35.3%) | 1 |
| L1 | 23 | 7 (30.4%) | 9 (39.1%) | 7 (30.4%) | 10 (43.5%) | 6 (26.1%) | 7 (30.4%) | 0.57 |
| LX | 2 | 1 (50.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (50.0%) | n/a |
| Vein invasion | ||||||||
| V0 | 80 | 24 (30.0%) | 27 (33.8%) | 29 (36.2%) | 26 (32.5%) | 25 (31.2%) | 29 (36.2%) | 0.92 |
| V1 | 12 | 4 (33.3%) | 6 (50.0%) | 2 (16.7%) | 5 (41,7%) | 5 (41.7%) | 2 (16.7%) | 0.9 |
| VX | 1 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (100.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (100%) | n/a |
| Grade | ||||||||
| G1 | 0 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | n/a |
| G2 | 67 | 20 (30.0%) | 25 (37.2%) | 22 (32.8%) | 23 (34.3%) | 21 (31.3%) | 23 (34.3%) | 0.75 |
| G3 | 25 | 8 (32.0%) | 8 (32.0%) | 9 (36.0%) | 8 (32.0%) | 9 (36.0%) | 8 (32.0%) | 0.94 |
| GX | 1 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (100.0%) | n/a |
| Resection boundaries | ||||||||
| R0 | 89 | 28 (31.5%) | 31 (34.8%) | 30 (33.7%) | 30 (33.7%) | 30 (33.7%) | 29 (32.6%) | 0.95 |
| R1 | 4 | 0 (0%) | 2 (50.0%) | 2 (50.0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (75.0%) | 0.2 |
| UICC | ||||||||
| pUICC I | 14 | 6 (42.9%) | 1 (7.1%) | 7 (50.0%) | 3 (21.4%) | 5 (35.7%) | 6 (42.9%) | 0.15 |
| pUICC II | 39 | 9 (23.0%) | 17 (43.7%) | 13 (33.3%) | 13 (33.3%) | 13 (33.3%) | 13 (33.3%) | 0.53 |
| pUICC III | 38 | 13 (34.2%) | 14 (36.9%) | 11 (28.9%) | 15 (39.5%) | 12 (31.6%) | 11 (28.9%) | 0.86 |
| pUICC IV | 2 | 0 (0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (100.0%) | n/a |
The expression patterns of both enzymes were grouped according to the expression intensity as indicated below. pT histological tumour size, pN histological lymph node status, L invasion in lymphatic vessels, V invasion in venous vessels, G grade, R resection boundaries, and pUICC (Union Internationale Contre le Cancer) histological classification for malignant tumours. p values were determined using the chi-squared test
Fig. 3Immunohistochemical expression of CBP. No correlations were found between protein expression and localization within the nucleus
Fig. 4Correlation between the expression of CBP and CCS. High expression of CBP was significantly associated with prolonged cancer-specific survival (p = 0.002)
Fig. 5Distribution of nuclear p300 expression. Correlations between the localization of CBP within the nucleus and the intensity of CBP expression
Fig. 6Correlation between the expression of p300 and CCS. Low expression of p300 was non-significantly correlated with poor cancer-specific survival (p = 0.093)