| Literature DB >> 32922082 |
Ding-Ping Sun1,2, Chih-Chan Lin3, Shih-Ting Hung3, Yi-Yu Kuang3, You-Cheng Hseu4,5,6, Chia-Lang Fang7,8, Kai-Yuan Lin3,9.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gastric cancer (GC), one of the most prevalent malignancies, is the third-leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. The aim of this study is to investigate the involvement of non-structural maintenance of chromosomes condensin I complex subunit G (NCAPG) in the prognosis of GC.Entities:
Keywords: NCAPG; gastric cancer; invasion; prognosis; proliferation
Year: 2020 PMID: 32922082 PMCID: PMC7457733 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S248318
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Figure 1NCAPG expression in gastric tissues and cell lines. (A) GC analyzed by immunostaining with an antibody against NCAPG. Left panel shows a nontumor sample without NCAPG expression; middle panel shows a tumor sample with low NCAPG expression; right panel shows a tumor sample with high NCAPG expression. Magnification: 200×. (B) Endogenous NCAPG protein expression was remarkably increased in GC cell lines and tissues. (C) The representative NCAPG staining for different clinicopathologic characteristics. Magnification: 200×.
NCAPG Expression in GC and Its Correlation with Clinicopathologic Characteristics
| Variables | n | NCAPG Expression | P* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score = 0 or 1 (n = 64) | Score = 2 or 3 (n = 71) | |||
| Age | 0.3334 | |||
| ≥66 | 92 | 41 | 51 | |
| <66 | 43 | 23 | 20 | |
| Gender | 0.6259 | |||
| Male | 90 | 44 | 46 | |
| Female | 45 | 20 | 25 | |
| Lauren classification | 0.2479 | |||
| Intestinal | 97 | 49 | 48 | |
| Diffuse | 38 | 15 | 23 | |
| Depth of invasion | 0.4583 | |||
| T1 + T2 | 32 | 17 | 15 | |
| T3 + T4 | 103 | 47 | 56 | |
| Nodal status | 0.0378 | |||
| N0 | 43 | 26 | 17 | |
| N1 + N2 + N3 | 92 | 38 | 54 | |
| Distant metastasis | 0.0088 | |||
| Absent | 121 | 62 | 59 | |
| Present | 14 | 2 | 12 | |
| Stage | 0.0230 | |||
| I + II | 60 | 35 | 25 | |
| III + IV | 75 | 29 | 46 | |
| Degree of differentiation | 0.2145 | |||
| Poor | 56 | 23 | 33 | |
| Well to moderate | 79 | 41 | 38 | |
| Vascular invasion | 0.0012 | |||
| Absent | 39 | 27 | 12 | |
| Present | 96 | 37 | 59 | |
Notes: *All statistical tests were 2-sided. Significance level: P < 0.05.
Figure 2Survival analysis of GC patients stratified by NCAPG immunoreactivity. Panel (A) Shows the disease-free survival. Panel (B) Shows the overall survival. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Significance level: P < 0.05.
Univariate and Multivariate Cox Regression Analyses of Prognostic Biomarkers and Survival in 135 GC Patients
| Variables | Univariate | Multivariate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | Pa | HR (95% CI) | P | |
| NCAPG | ||||
| Low expression vs High expression | 2.033 (1.232–3.352) | 0.005 | 1.418 (0.832–2.416) | 0.199 |
| Age | ||||
| ≥66 vs <66 | 1.304 (0.764–2.224) | 0.331 | ||
| Gender | ||||
| Male vs Female | 0.731 (0.428–2.245) | 0.249 | ||
| Lauren classification | ||||
| Intestinal vs Diffuse | 1.187 (0.696–2.024) | 0.528 | ||
| Depth of invasion | ||||
| T1 + T2 vs T3 + T4 | 3.248 (1.482–7.121) | 0.003 | 1.427 (0.572–3.563) | 0.446 |
| Nodal status | ||||
| N0 vs N1 + N2 + N3 | 4.143 (2.103–8.161) | < 0.001 | 1.704 (0.633–4.590) | 0.292 |
| Distant metastasis | ||||
| Negative vs Positive | 12.429 (5.080–30.405) | < 0.001 | 7.652 (3.045–19.230) | < 0.001 |
| Stage | ||||
| I + II vs III + IV | 4.351 (2.433–7.781) | < 0.001 | 2.004(0.794–5.060) | 0.141 |
| Degree of differentiation | ||||
| Well to moderate vs Poor | 0.674 (0.415–1.096) | 0.112 | ||
| Vascular invasion | ||||
| Negative vs Positive | 2.706 (1.443–5.075) | 0.002 | 1.165 (0.573–2.369) | 0.672 |
Notes: aAll of the statistical tests were 2-sided. Significance level: P < 0.05.
Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 3Verification of NCAPG knockdown in AGS and HGC-27 cells, and the effect of stable NCAPG knockdown on cell growth and cell cycle distribution. The Western blotting results (A) Indicate NCAPG was efficiently knockdown by shRNA treatment. (B) Stable NCAPG knockdown resulted in remarkedly decreased colony formation. (C) Stable NCAPG knockdown resulted in a sustained accumulation of cells in the G0/G1 phase. Cellular distribution (as percentages) in different phases of the cell cycle (G0/G1, S, and G2/M) is presented. (D) Stable NCAPG knockdown resulted in dysregulated expressions of G0/G1-related molecules. A typical result from three independent experiments is shown.
Abbreviations: WT, non-transduced AGS and HGC-27 cells; Scrambled con, scrambled control AGS and HGC-27 cells; NCAPG shRNA, NCAPG knockdown AGS and HGC-27 cells.
Figure 4Effect of NCAPG knockdown in HGC-27 cells on cell migration and invasion. (A) Stable NCAPG knockdown markedly decreased cell migration. (B) Stable NCAPG knockdown markedly decreased cell invasion. (C) Stable NCAPG knockdown resulted in dysregulated expressions of EMT-related molecules. A typical result from three independent experiments is shown.
Abbreviations: WT, non-transduced AGS and HGC-27 cells; Scrambled con, scrambled control AGS and HGC-27 cells; NCAPG shRNA, NCAPG knockdown AGS and HGC-27 cells.