| Literature DB >> 32143590 |
Wen-Ping Song1,2, Si Zheng3, Hong-Juan Yao2, Xiao-Fei Zhou2, Rui Li2, Cheng-Yue Zhang4, Jun-Yang Zhao4, Lie-Wei Wang5, Rong-Guang Shao6, Liang Li7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retinoblastoma (RB) is the most frequent pediatric retinal tumor. In the present study, to elucidate chemoresistance mechanisms and identify potential biomarkers in RB, we utilized RNA sequencing (RNAseq) technological platforms to reveal transcriptome profiles and identify any differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between an etoposide drug-resistant subline (Y79/EDR) and parental Y79 cells.Entities:
Keywords: Chemoresistance; Differentially expressed genes (DEGs); RNA sequencing (RNAseq); Retinoblastoma; Transcriptome profile; Y79/EDR resistant subline
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32143590 PMCID: PMC7060629 DOI: 10.1186/s12886-020-01348-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ophthalmol ISSN: 1471-2415 Impact factor: 2.209
Fig. 1Y79/EDR cells showed significant resistance to etoposide, carboplatin and vincristine compared to parental Y79 cells. Cytotoxicity was detected by CCK-8 assays. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM
Comparison of drug sensitivity between Y79/EDR and Y79 cells
| Drug | IC50 (nmol/L, mean ± SEM) | RI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Y79 | Y79/EDR | ||
| Etoposide | 195.84 ± 16.44 | 28,609.55 ± 24.0211 | 148.36 |
| Carboplatin | 10,755.82 ± 1694.46 | 56,022.36 ± 3639.34 | 5.21 |
| Vincristine | 5.08 ± 0.74 | 125.02 ± 32.60 | 24.61 |
RI Resistance index.
The data from RNA sequencing analysis of Y79 and Y79/EDR
| Sample ID | Clean reads | Mapped reads | Unique mapped reads | Multiple mapped reads | GC content (%) | % ≥ Q30 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y79 | 135,821,250 | 112,001,603 (82.46%) | 103,505,931 (76.21%) | 8,495,672 (6.26%) | 53.32 | 95.77 |
| Y79/EDR | 109,849,280 | 91,258,763 (83.08%) | 88,208,898 (80.30%) | 3,049,865 (2.78%) | 52.94 | 95.72 |
Fig. 2DEGs between parental Y79 and Y79/EDR cells. a Volcano plot of DEGs. FDR: false discovery rate, FC: fold change. The green and red dots indicated down and up-regulated genes, respectively. The black dots expressed genes without significantly differential expression. b Heatmap of 20 downregulated and 20 upregulated genes with top log2FC. Color indicated expression level of DEGs with log2 (FPKM+ 1)
Fig. 3The 30 most enriched GO terms of DEGs between parental Y79 and Y79/EDR cells. The terms of molecular function, cellular component and biological process were marked as green, orange and blue bars, respectively
Fig. 4The top 50 pathways of KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of DEGs. X-axis: percentage of DEGs in the same pathway, Y-axis: functional pathways
The 7 genes selected from DEGs with criteria
| Gene ID | Gene symbol | Y79_FPKM | Y79/EDR_FPKM | FDR | log2FC | Alteration by Y79 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ENSG00000158406 | 8.60 | 1.90 | 1.11E-06 | −2.16 | Down | |
| ENSG00000189056 | 13.04 | 4.27 | 0 | −1.67 | Down | |
| ENSG00000123329 | 1.55 | 0.63 | 1.88E-09 | −1.67 | Down | |
| ENSG00000168209 | 51.26 | 346.84 | 0 | 2.76 | Up | |
| ENSG00000159399 | 22.64 | 161.80 | 0 | 2.81 | Up | |
| ENSG00000159167 | 2.74 | 18.93 | 0 | 2.83 | Up | |
| ENSG00000114268 | 1.72 | 19.31 | 0 | 3.54 | Up |
Fig. 5Validation of DEGs by real time QRT-PCR. a Relative expression levels of DEGs from real time QRT-PCR compared with RNAseq. Blue bars: real time QRT-PCR, red line: RNAseq, Y-axis (left): log2 FC (fold change) calculated by the equation of log2[2-ΔΔCt(Y79/EDR)/ 2-ΔΔCt(Y79)](real time QRT-PCR), Y-axis (right): log2FC(RNAseq). b Heatmap of the expression patterns of the 7 selected DEGs obtained from real time QRT-PCR and RNAseq. Color indicated expression levels of DEGs
Fig. 6ARHGAP9 is associated with the sensitivities of parental Y79 cells to carboplatin and etoposide. a Knockdown of ARHGAP9 in parental Y79 cells with siRNA detected by real time QRT-PCR. b Cellular sensitivities of parental Y79 cells to etoposide and carboplatin after downregulation of ARHGAP9 by CCK-8 assays. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. c Relative expression levels of ARHGAP9 in parental Y79 and Y79/EDR cells after treated with carboplatin and etoposide. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01