| Literature DB >> 32054470 |
Xin Yin1, Jinghua Xia2, Ying Sun3, Zhipei Zhang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CHCHD2 was identified a novel cell migration-promoting gene, which could promote cell migration and altered cell adhesion when ectopically overexpressed in NIH3T3 fibroblasts, and it was identified as a protein necessary for OxPhos function as well. However, the clinic relevance of CHCHD2 expression in NSCLC remains unclear. Here we assumed that CHCHD2 expression would accompanies the expression of HIF-1α to response hypoxia in the occurrence of NSCLC.Entities:
Keywords: CHCHD2; HIF-1α; Non-small cell lung cancer; Prognostic
Year: 2020 PMID: 32054470 PMCID: PMC7020603 DOI: 10.1186/s12890-020-1079-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pulm Med ISSN: 1471-2466 Impact factor: 3.317
Association between CHCHD2 and HIF-1α protein expressions and clinicopathological features in NSCLC patients
| Clinicopathologic features | CHCHD2 expression | HIF-1α expression | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | + | ++ | +++ | – | + | ++ | +++ | ||||||
| Gender | |||||||||||||
| Male | 157 | 11 | 63 | 70 | 12 | −1.478 | 0.139 | 8 | 39 | 94 | 16 | −1.371 | 0.170 |
| Female | 52 | 0 | 18 | 29 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 36 | 6 | ||||
| Age (years) | |||||||||||||
| ≥62 | 107 | 7 | 37 | 56 | 7 | −0.573 | 0.567 | 5 | 23 | 66 | 13 | −0.599 | 0.549 |
| < 62 | 102 | 4 | 45 | 45 | 8 | 4 | 25 | 64 | 9 | ||||
| Smoking | |||||||||||||
| Yes | 132 | 10 | 54 | 61 | 7 | −2.001 | 8 | 36 | 74 | 14 | −2.114 | ||
| No | 77 | 1 | 28 | 40 | 8 | 1 | 12 | 56 | 8 | ||||
| Tumor position | |||||||||||||
| Periphery type | 73 | 3 | 34 | 31 | 5 | −1.024 | 0.306 | 4 | 14 | 50 | 5 | −0.162 | 0.871 |
| Central type | 136 | 8 | 48 | 70 | 10 | 5 | 34 | 80 | 17 | ||||
| Tumor size (cm) | |||||||||||||
| >5 | 109 | 5 | 27 | 69 | 8 | −3.916 | 5 | 23 | 68 | 13 | −0.692 | 0.489 | |
| ≤5 | 100 | 6 | 55 | 32 | 7 | 4 | 25 | 62 | 9 | ||||
| Tumor category | |||||||||||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 82 | 2 | 29 | 44 | 7 | −1.738 | 0.082 | 2 | 12 | 59 | 9 | −2.213 | |
| Squamous caner | 127 | 9 | 53 | 57 | 8 | 7 | 36 | 71 | 13 | ||||
| Differentiation degree | |||||||||||||
| Well/ Moderate | 152 | 8 | 66 | 70 | 8 | −2.122 | 7 | 42 | 91 | 12 | −2.939 | ||
| Poor | 57 | 3 | 16 | 31 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 39 | 10 | ||||
| TNM Stage | |||||||||||||
| Ia-IIa | 116 | 9 | 68 | 38 | 1 | −7.279 | 8 | 33 | 66 | 9 | −3.093 | ||
| IIb -IIIb | 93 | 2 | 14 | 63 | 14 | 1 | 15 | 64 | 13 | ||||
| Lymph metastasis | |||||||||||||
| metastasis | 116 | 4 | 33 | 65 | 14 | −4.468 | 3 | 20 | 77 | 16 | −2.967 | ||
| Non-metastasis | 93 | 7 | 49 | 36 | 1 | 6 | 28 | 53 | 6 | ||||
Fig. 1CHCHD2 and HIF-1α overexpressed in NSCLC tissue. a Expression of CHCHD2 mRNA was higher in tumor tissue than that in paired normal tissue. b Expression of HIF-1α mRNA was higher in tumor tissue than that in normal tissue. c Expression of CHCHD2 and HIF-1α protein were higher in tumor tissues (T) than those in pair normal tissues (N), and β-actin was used as an internal control. d A meta-analysis of CHCHD2 mRNA expression from Oncomine databases where colored squares indicate comparative analysis of CHCHD2 expression in specific data subsets. (1) LCC vs. Normal, Hou Lung [19], (2) ADC vs. Normal, Hou Lung [19], (3) SCC vs. Normal, Hou Lung [19], (4) ADC vs. Normal, Okayama Lung [20], (5) ADC vs. Normal, Su Lung [21], e Expression of CHCHD2 mRNA was higher in tumor tissue than that in normal tissue
The difference expression levels of CHCHD2 and HIF-1α protein in NSCLC and normal tissue
| Normal | CHCHD2 | Normal | HIF-1α | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | + | ++ | +++ | total | Wilcoxon ( | – | + | ++ | +++ | total | Wilcoxon ( | |||
| NSCLC | – | 11 | 79 | 85 | 11 | 186 | – | 8 | 20 | 32 | 5 | 65 | ||
| + | 0 | 3 | 16 | 4 | 23 | + | 1 | 22 | 83 | 9 | 115 | |||
| ++ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ++ | 0 | 6 | 15 | 8 | 29 | |||
| total | 11 | 82 | 101 | 15 | 209 | total | 9 | 48 | 130 | 22 | 209 | |||
Fig. 2Representative immunohistochemistry staining of CHCHD2 and HIF-1αin NSCLC and normal tissue samples. a-j were CHCHD2 staining in NSCLC and normal tissues. a-d were squamous cell carcinoma, f-i were adenocarcinoma, e, j were normal tissues, a, f were negative staining, b, g were weak positive staining, c, h were moderate positive staining, d, i were strong positive staining; e was negative staining in normal tissue, and j was positive staining in normal tissue. Figure k-t were HIF-1α staining in NSCLC and normal tissues. k-n were squamous cell carcinoma, p-s were adenocarcinoma, o, t were normal tissues, k, p were negative staining, l, q were weak positive staining, m, r were moderate positive staining, n, s were strong positive staining; o was negative staining in normal tissue, t was positive staining in normal tissue. (All images are magnified at × 100)
Fig. 3Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the NSCLC patients. The P-value was determined using the log-rank test. a Comparison of the overall survival (OS) between tumor size ≥5 cm and < 5 cm NSCLC patients. b Comparison of the OS of patients between well/moderately differentiated and poorly differentiated NSCLC tissues. c Comparison of OS between TNM Ia-IIa and IIb -IIIb NSCLC patients. d Comparison of the OS between lymph node metastasis and non-lymph node metastasis NSCLC patients. e Comparison of the OS between low CHCHD2 expression (−/+) and high CHCHD2 expression (++/+++) NSCLC patients. f Comparison of the OS between low HIF-1αexpression (−/+) and high HIF-1αexpression (++/+++) NSCLC patients
Cox proportional hazards model analysis of variables affecting survival in NSCLC patients
| Variables | Categories | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR(95% CI) | HR(95% CI) | ||||
| Sex | Male/Female | 1.268 (0.885–1.816) | 0.196 | ||
| Age (years) | <61/≥61 | 1.012 (0.734–1.395) | 0.940 | ||
| Smoking history | Smoking/Non-smoking | 1.200 (0.864–1.665) | 0.277 | ||
| Tumor position | Periphery type/Central type | 0.937 (0.670–1.309) | 0.702 | ||
| Tumor size (cm) | ≤5/>5 | 1.511 (1.094–2.087) | 0.808 (0.561–1.164) | 0.252 | |
| Histological type | Adenocarcinoma/Squamous | 0.931 (0.671–1.291) | 0.669 | ||
| Grade of differentiation | Well+moderate/poor | 1.814 (1.294–2.542) | 0.668 (0.468–0.952) | ||
| TNM Stage | Ia~IIa/IIb~IIIb | 2.204 (1.592–3.052) | 1.076 (0.674–1.781) | 0.760 | |
| Lymph metastasis | Metastasis/Non-metastasis | 0.491 (0.351–0.688) | 1.661 (1.110–2.486) | ||
| CHCHD2 expression | -~+/++~+++ | 2.966 (2.100–4.188) | 0.492 (0.321–0.752) | ||
| HIF-1α expression | -~+/++~+++ | 2.866 (1.859–4.421) | 0.549 (0.338–0.891) | ||
Fig. 4The co-localization of CHCHD2 and HIF-1α protein expressions were observed by Immunofluorescence. ADC: adenocarcinoma; SCC: squamous cell carcinoma (All images are magnified at × 400)
The correlation of CHCHD2 with HIF-1α protein expression in NSCLC
| Group | CHCHD2 | HIF-1α | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | + | ++ | +++ | rs | ||||
| NSCLC | – | 7 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0.526 | 0.000 | |
| + | 1 | 35 | 43 | 3 | ||||
| ++ | 1 | 11 | 80 | 9 | ||||
| +++ | 0 | 0 | 5 | 10 | ||||
| Histological type | ||||||||
| Adenocarcinoma | – | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.447 | 0.000 | |
| + | 1 | 9 | 18 | 1 | ||||
| ++ | 0 | 4 | 37 | 4 | ||||
| +++ | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | ||||
| Squamous caner | – | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0.548 | 0.000 | |
| + | 0 | 26 | 25 | 2 | ||||
| ++ | 1 | 8 | 43 | 5 | ||||
| +++ | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | ||||
| Differentiation | ||||||||
| High/ Moderate | – | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0.550 | 0.000 | |
| + | 1 | 31 | 34 | 0 | ||||
| ++ | 1 | 9 | 54 | 6 | ||||
| +++ | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | ||||
| Poor | – | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.380 | 0.004 | |
| + | 0 | 4 | 9 | 3 | ||||
| ++ | 0 | 2 | 26 | 3 | ||||
| +++ | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | ||||
| Lymph node metastasis | ||||||||
| Lymph metastasis | – | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.515 | 0.000 | |
| + | 1 | 12 | 18 | 2 | ||||
| ++ | 0 | 7 | 53 | 5 | ||||
| +++ | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 | ||||
| Non-Lymph metastasis | – | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.494 | 0.000 | |
| + | 0 | 23 | 25 | 1 | ||||
| ++ | 1 | 4 | 27 | 4 | ||||
| +++ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||