| Literature DB >> 31969973 |
Jingjing Hou1, Yuyu Tan2, Chen Su1, Tao Wang3, Zhixing Gao4, Dan Song5, Jiabao Zhao1, Yueting Liao6, Xiaotian Liu6, Ying Jiang7, Qian Feng8, Zhong Wan9, Yongsheng Yu10.
Abstract
The small molecule drug 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is widely used in the treatment for gastric cancer (GC), however, it exerts poor efficacy and is associated with acquired and intrinsic resistance. Focal adhesion kinase (FAK), a non-receptor tyrosine kinase, plays a key role in adhesion, migration, and proliferation of gastric carcinoma cells, suggesting that this kinase may be a promising therapeutic target. Differentially expressed FAK in GC tissue was detected by RT-qPCR and TCGA database analysis. To investigate the biological functions of FAK, loss-of-function experiments were performed. CCK-8 assay, colony formation assay, flow cytometry, dual-luciferase reporter assays, and western blot assays were conducted to determine the underlying mechanisms of FAK in 5-FU chemosensitivity in GC. FAK is overexpressed in GC patients, and positively correlated with poor prognosis. The use of shRNA interference to target FAK decreased proliferation and increased apoptosis of GC cells in vitro. Importantly, FAK silencing enhanced the therapeutic efficacy of 5-FU, leading to reduced tumor growth in vivo. We further demonstrated that FAK silencing increased 5-FU-induced caspase-3 activity, and promoted p53 transcriptional activities. Clinical data also has shown that patients with higher levels of FAK had significantly shorter overall survival (OS) and time to first progression (FP) than those with lower levels of FAK. These findings indicate that FAK plays a critical role in 5-FU chemosensitivity in GC, and the use of FAK inhibitors as an adjunct to 5-FU might be an effective strategy for patients who undergo chemotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: 5-FU; 5-FU, 5-fluorouracil; Chemosensitivity; FAK; FAK, Focal adhesion kinase; FP, first progression; GC, gastric cancer; Gastric carcinoma; OS, Overall survival; RNA interference; shRNA, small hairpin RNA
Year: 2019 PMID: 31969973 PMCID: PMC6961071 DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2019.12.010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Struct Biotechnol J ISSN: 2001-0370 Impact factor: 7.271
Fig. 1FAK is significantly upregulated in GC clinical samples. (A) qPCR assay. The mRNA expression levels of FAK in 20 clinical samples were examined by qPCR assay. (B) Upregulated mRNA expression levels of FAK in the 20 gastric cancer cases shown in A. (C) Significant upregulation of FAK was observed in gastric cancer samples available in TCGA RNA-Seq dataset (p < 0. 001, Wilcoxon signed rank test). The expression of FAK was increased by 1.97-fold in gastric cancer compared with NT gastric tissue. Data are presented as RSEM (RNA-Seq expression estimation by Expectation-Maximization) normalized count. (D) Immunohistochemical analysis of FAK expression in gastric cancer tissue (Test Group) and adjacent noncancerous gastric tissue (Control Group). Typical representative immunohistochemical results are shown. Scale bar, 100 μm. (E) A bar graph representing the relative expression level of FAK in the GCT and ANLT groups, as evaluated by positive staining points (a paired-sample t-test was used to compare the data from the two groups).
The baseline characteristics of GC patients included in the analysis (n = 40).
| Clinicopathological parameters | FAK-expression | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Low | High | ||
| Age (years) | ||||
| >=50 | 22 | 8 | 14 | 0.6582 |
| <50 | 18 | 4 | 16 | |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 22 | 7 | 16 | 0.5423 |
| Female | 18 | 5 | 13 | |
| Tumor size (diameter/cm) | ||||
| >=4 | 16 | 4 | 12 | 0.1217 |
| <4 | 24 | 8 | 16 | |
| TNM stage | ||||
| T1–T2 | 16 | 5 | 11 | |
| T3–T4 | 24 | 7 | 17 | |
| 12 | 28 | |||
p < 0.05 represents significant differences.
Bold type indicates statistically significant difference.
The detailed description of the GC patient tissues information (n = 40).
| Number | Gender | Age | Tumor size (diameter) | TNM stage | Pathological typing | Pathological typing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Female | 74 | ≥4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 2 | Male | 45 | <4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Low adhesion adenocarcinoma |
| 3 | Female | 78 | <4 cm | Ⅱ | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 4 | Male | 39 | ≥4 cm | Ⅱ | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 5 | Female | 68 | <4 cm | IV | adenocarcinoma | Low adhesion adenocarcinoma |
| 6 | Male | 57 | ≥4 cm | Ⅱ | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 7 | Female | 50 | <4 cm | IV | adenocarcinoma | mucosal adenocarcinoma |
| 8 | Male | 58 | <4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 9 | Male | 80 | <4 cm | IV | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 10 | Male | 57 | <4 cm | Ⅰ | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 11 | Male | 43 | ≥4 cm | IV | adenocarcinoma | Low adhesion adenocarcinoma |
| 12 | Male | 76 | <4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Low adhesion adenocarcinoma |
| 13 | Male | 43 | <4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 14 | Male | 66 | <4 cm | Ⅱ | adenocarcinoma | Low adhesion adenocarcinoma |
| 15 | Female | 49 | <4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 16 | Female | 44 | ≥4 cm | Ⅱ | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 17 | Male | 57 | <4 cm | IV | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 18 | Female | 74 | <4 cm | Ⅱ | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 19 | Male | 48 | <4 cm | IV | adenocarcinoma | Low adhesion adenocarcinoma |
| 20 | Male | 64 | ≥4 cm | Ⅱ | adenocarcinoma | Low adhesion adenocarcinoma |
| 21 | Male | 44 | <4 cm | IV | adenocarcinoma | Low adhesion adenocarcinoma |
| 22 | Male | 68 | ≥4 cm | Ⅱ | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 23 | Female | 47 | ≥4 cm | IV | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 24 | Female | 70 | ≥4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 25 | Male | 46 | ≥4 cm | Ⅱ | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 26 | Female | 47 | <4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Papillary adenocarcinoma |
| 27 | Male | 60 | <4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Mucosal adenocarcinoma |
| 28 | Female | 49 | <4 cm | Ⅱ | adenocarcinoma | Mucosal adenocarcinoma |
| 29 | Female | 82 | ≥4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 30 | Male | 63 | ≥4 cm | Ⅱ | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 31 | Female | 73 | ≥4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Papillary adenocarcinoma |
| 32 | Female | 43 | ≥4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 33 | Male | 67 | <4 cm | Ⅱ | Adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 34 | Male | 59 | <4 cm | Ⅰ | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 35 | Male | 49 | ≥4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 36 | Female | 41 | <4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Mucosal adenocarcinoma |
| 37 | Female | 62 | ≥4 cm | IV | adenocarcinoma | Papillary adenocarcinoma |
| 38 | Female | 47 | <4 cm | Ⅱ | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 39 | Female | 45 | <4 cm | Ⅱ | adenocarcinoma | Tubular adenocarcinoma |
| 40 | Male | 46 | <4 cm | III | adenocarcinoma | Mucosal adenocarcinoma |
Fig. 2FAK is a prognostic marker for survival of patients with gastric cancer. Kaplan-Meier curves stratified by the indicated mRNA levels, and tested by a log-rank test. High levels of FAK correlated with poor overall survival (OS). (A) and poor time to first progression (FP). (B) in gastric cancer. Overall survival (OS). (C) and poor time to first progression (FP). (D) in gastric cancer samples treatment with 5-FU.
Fig. 3FAK suppression inhibits proliferation in BGC823 cells. (A) mRNA expression levels of FAK measured by qPCR. (B) Protein expression of FAK by western blot. (C) Statistical analysis of B. (D) The viability of BGC823 cells was determined using CCK-8. (E) Colony-formation assay performed with BGC823-control and BGC823-shFAK cells. (F) Statistical analysis of E. Results are representative of three independent experiments, and the error bars represent the standard deviation (SD). *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Fig. 4FAK silencing enhances 5-FU chemosensitivity in BGC823 cells. BGC823 cells were infected with lentivirus expressing control or FAK-shRNA plasmids, and the cells were untreated or treated with 5-FU for an additional 24 h. (A) Flow cytometry to determine cell apoptosis. (B) Statistical analysis of the apoptosis ratio in the various groups as indicated. (C) Western blot analysis of the indicated proteins. The Cle-PARP expression was quantify and statistically analyzed using image analyzer. Results are representative of three independent experiments, and the error bars represent the SD. *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Fig. 5Downregulation of FAK increases 5-FU-induced apoptosis. BGC823 cells were infected with the lentivirus expressing control or FAK-shRNA plasmids, and the cells were untreated or treated with 5-FU for an additional 24 h. (A). Cell viability was determined by CCK-8. (B) Caspase-3 activation assay. (C) Luciferase reporter assays of p53RE, p21, and Bax. (D) qPCR analysis of Bax, p21, and PUMA mRNA expression. Results are representative of three independent experiments, and the error bars represent the SD. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Fig. 6FAK inhibition suppresses tumor growth in nude mice. (A) Time-dependent tumor growth alterations in nude mice. (B and C) Statistical analysis of the tumor weight of each group. (D) Expression of apoptosis-associated proteins in the tumors in each group. The Cle-PARP expression was quantify and statistically analyzed using image analyzer. (E) Measurement index of xenografts in nude mice. Results are representative of three independent experiments, and the error bars represent the SD. *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Fig. 7Suppressed-FAK promotes 5-FU-induced cell proliferation inhibition in vivo. (A) The tumor growth curves for various groups of nude mice treated as indicated. (B) Photographs of dissected xenograft tumors from various groups of nude mice treated as indicated. (C) Statistical analysis of the tumor weight of each group.. (D) Expression of apoptosis-associated proteins in the tumors in each group. (E) Measurement index of xenograft for various groups of nude mice. Results are representative of three independent experiments, and the error bars represent the SD. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.