| Literature DB >> 32201508 |
Ronghua Zhang1, Qiaofei Liu1, Junya Peng2, Mengyi Wang1, Tong Li1, Jingkai Liu1, Ming Cui1, Xiang Zhang1, Xiang Gao1, Quan Liao1, Yupei Zhao1.
Abstract
Background: C-X-C motif chemokine 5 (CXCL5) is an important attractant for immune cell accumulation in tumor tissues. Recent evidence has shown that CXCL5 could promote carcinogenesis and cancer progression in a variety of cancer types. However, the relationships between CXCL5, immune cell infiltration and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remain largely unknown. This study aimed to explore the role and regulative mechanism of CXCL5 in PDAC carcinogenesis. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: CXCL5; immune cell infiltration; pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; prognosis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32201508 PMCID: PMC7065995 DOI: 10.7150/jca.40517
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Figure 1Expression of CXCL5 in PDAC tissues. (A) Expression of CXCL5 in tumor and normal tissues in multiple cancer types using the GEPIA database based on TCGA and GTEx data. (B) The differences of CXCL5 expression in PDAC and normal pancreas tissues using the Oncomine and GEO databases. (C) Expression of CXCL5 in pancreatic tumor tissues and adjacent nontumor tissues in the GSE62452 database. (D) Expression of CXCL5 in paired tumor tissues and adjacent nontumor tissues from seven PDAC patients (E) Expression of CXCL5 in one normal pancreatic ductal epithelial cell line and six pancreatic cancer cell lines detected by Western blot analysis. (F) Representative images of CXCL5 in tumor tissues and the adjacent nontumor tissues.
Relationship between CXCL5 expression and clinicopathologic features of PDAC
| Variables | Number | Tumoral CXCL5 expression | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | |||
| Age | ||||
| ≤60 y | 43 | 22 | 21 | 0.580 |
| >60 y | 47 | 24 | 23 | |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 57 | 28 | 29 | 0.391 |
| Female | 33 | 18 | 15 | |
| T stage | ||||
| T1-2 | 75 | 42 | 33 | 0.036* |
| T3 | 15 | 4 | 11 | |
| N stage | ||||
| N0-1 | 36 | 24 | 12 | 0.014* |
| N2 | 54 | 22 | 32 | |
| Differentiation | ||||
| Well/moderate | 66 | 40 | 26 | 0.003* |
| Poor | 24 | 6 | 18 | |
| Perineural invasion | ||||
| Negative | 71 | 39 | 32 | 0.127 |
| Positive | 19 | 7 | 12 | |
| CA19-9 | ||||
| <34 U/ml | 26 | 15 | 11 | 0.287 |
| ≥34 U/ml | 64 | 31 | 33 | |
| CA242 | ||||
| <20 U/ml | 42 | 22 | 20 | 0.494 |
| ≥20 U/ml | 48 | 24 | 24 | |
Figure 2Correlation between CXCL5 expression and clinicopathological features and prognosis. (A-C) Expression of CXCL5 in tumor tissues with different T stages, N stages and differentiation statuses. (D) The influence of tumoral CXCL5 expression on OS (p=0.001, log-rank test). (E) The multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that CXCL5 expression was an independent factor in the high CA242 subgroup (HR=2.047, p=0.004). (F) PDAC patients with high CA242 levels had worse OS than those with low CA242 levels (p=0.006). (G) The combination of CXCL5 expression and CA242 was a good prognostic factor (p<0.0001). (H) The results from SurvExpress, showed that high CXCL5 expression was associated with poor OS in PDAC patients (p=0.00022). (I) Comparison of CXCL5 expression between patients in the “High Risk” group and those in the “Low Risk” group through the SurvExpress program (p=3.32e-32). (J) The prognostic value of CXCL5 mRNA expression in the Kaplan-Meier plotter dataset (HR=1.6, p=0.02664).
Univariate and multivariate analyses of CXCL5 expression and clinicopathological parameters
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95%CI | P value | HR | 95%CI | P value | |
| CXCL5 expression | ||||||
| High vs Low | 2.366 | 1.405-3.983 | 0.001* | 1.565 | 0.889-2.754 | 0.120 |
| Age (years) | ||||||
| ≤60 vs >60 | 0.683 | 0.411-1.135 | 0.141 | |||
| Gender | ||||||
| Male vs Female | 1.017 | 0.601-1.720 | 0.951 | |||
| T stage | ||||||
| T3 vs T1-2 | 2.524 | 1.342-4.747 | 0.004* | 2.536 | 1.286-5.001 | 0.007* |
| N stage | ||||||
| N2 vs N0-1 | 2.69 | 1.548-4.674 | 0.000* | 2.144 | 1.179-3.898 | 0.012* |
| Differentiation | ||||||
| Poor vs Well/moderate | 2.518 | 1.472-4.307 | 0.001* | 2.342 | 1.312-4.182 | 0.004* |
| Perineural invasion | ||||||
| Positive va Negative | 1.373 | 0.740-2.548 | 0.315 | |||
| CA19-9 (U/ml) | ||||||
| ≥34 vs <34 | 3.282 | 1.611-6.684 | 0.001* | 2.495 | 1.092-5.703 | 0.030* |
| CA242 (U/ml) | ||||||
| ≥20 vs <20 | 2.056 | 1.204-3.510 | 0.008* | 1.304 | 0.706-2.409 | 0.397 |
Figure 3Representative cases of immunohistochemical staining of 12 immune cell populations. (red: high level of immune cell infiltration; green: low level of immune cell infiltration)
Figure 4Correlation between CXCL5 expression and immune cell infiltration in PDAC samples. (A) Macrophages (p=0.0893); (B) M2 polarized macrophages (p=0.0248); (C) Neutrophils (p=0.0068); (D) Dendritic cells (p=0.0935); (E) T lymphocytes (p=0.5211); (F) Helper T lymphocytes (p=0.8654); (G) Cytotoxic T lymphocytes (p=0.5970); (H) Tregs (p=0.4833); (I) Natural killer cells (p=0.2382); (J) B lymphocytes (p=0.5447); (K) IgG+ plasma cells (p=0.0133); (L) IgG4+ plasma cells (p=0.0705).
Figure 5Validation of correlation between CXCL5 expression and infiltration of M2 polarized macrophages, neutrophils and IgG (A) Correlation analysis between CXCL5 and CD163 (R=0.26, p=0.00046, Spearman correlation analysis); (B) Correlation analysis between CXCL5 and CD15 (R=0.46, p=8.1× e-7, Spearman correlation analysis). (C) Correlation analysis between CXCL5 and IGHG1 (R=0.21, p=0.0039, Spearman correlation analysis). (D) Correlation analysis between CXCL5 and IGHG2 (R=0.2, p=0.0086, Spearman correlation analysis). Data was obtained from the GEPIA (http://gepia.cancer-pku.cn/).