| Literature DB >> 34032716 |
Guihong Dai1, Zhongying Guo2, Huiping Chen3, Min Jiang1, Huilin Zhou1, Jingjing Bao1, Hong Yu1, Junxing Huang4.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Guanine nucleotide-binding protein-like-3-like (GNL3L) is required for processing ribosomal pre-rRNA and cell proliferation and is upregulated in many types of cancer. This study is aimed to investigate the clinical significance of GNL3L in esophageal cancer. The mRNA and protein expression levels of GNL3L were determined by using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction and immunohistochemistry, respectively. GNL3L was localized in both cytoplasm and nucleus. The expression levels of GNL3L in esophageal cancer tissues were significantly higher than those in adjacent nonmalignant tissues. High GNL3L expression was associated with pathologic type and poor differentiation. Patients with high GNL3L expression had shorter overall survival (OS) than those with low GNL3L expression. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that GNL3L expression was an independently predictive factor for the OS of patient with esophageal cancer. The Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis (GEPIA) databases also showed that GNL3L was upregulated in esophageal cancer, which was closely associated with an unfavorable prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer. Taken together, our findings suggest that GNL3L is upregulated in esophageal cancer, which is linked to the progression of the disease. As a result, GNL3L could be used as a biomarker for esophageal cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34032716 PMCID: PMC8154413 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025993
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Figure 1GNL3L was upregulated in esophageal cancer. (A) relative expression levels of GNL3L in esophageal cancer and adjacent nonmalignant tissues. (B) relative expression of GNL3L in esophageal cancer with different grades of differentiation. (C) the GEPIA database showed that GNL3L was significantly upregulated in esophageal cancer tissues (n = 182) compared with normal esophageal tissues (n = 286). ∗P < .05.
Figure 2Representative images of immunohistochemical staining in esophageal cancer. (A) weak staining of GNL3L in normal esophageal tissue. (B) weak staining of GNL3L in esophageal cancer tissue. (C) strong staining of GNL3L in esophageal cancer tissue.
Association of GNL3L expression with clinico-pathologic parameters.
| GNL3L expression | |||
| Variables | High | Low | |
| Age (years) | |||
| < 65 | 54 (49.5) | 54 (49.5) | 1.000 |
| ≥ 65 | 55 (50.5) | 55 (50.5) | |
| Sex | |||
| male | 85 (78.0) | 86 (78.9) | 1.000 |
| female | 24 (22.0) | 23 (21.1) | |
| Pathologic type∗ | |||
| ulcerative | 65 (65.7) | 46 (48.4) | .020 |
| others | 34 (34.3) | 49 (51.6) | |
| Histologic grade | |||
| 1 + 2 | 68 (62.4) | 87 (79.8) | .007 |
| 3 | 41 (37.6) | 22 (20.2) | |
| Tumor size (cm)∗ | |||
| ≤ 4 | 36 (34.6) | 51 (48.6) | .050 |
| > 4 | 68 (65.4) | 54 (51.4) | |
| Clinical response∗ | |||
| sensitivity | 40 (40.0) | 36 (36.7) | .663 |
| resistance | 60 (60.0) | 62 (63.3) | |
| pT categories∗ | |||
| T1 + T2 | 21 (20.0) | 18 (18.4) | .859 |
| T3 + T4 | 84 (80.0) | 80 (81.6) | |
| LNM∗ | |||
| non-LNM | 24 (22.0) | 25 (23.1) | .872 |
| LNM | 85 (78.0) | 83 (76.9) | |
| TNM stage∗ | |||
| I + II | 45 (41.3) | 51 (50.5) | .213 |
| III + IV | 64 (58.7) | 50 (49.5) | |
Figure 3Kaplan–Meier survival curves. (A) OS curves stratified by GNL3L expression in 218 patients with esophageal cancer. (B) PFS curves stratified by GNL3L expression based on the GEPIA database. (C) OS curves stratified by GNL3L expression based on the GEPIA database.
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis of overall survival in 218 esophageal cancer cases.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
| Variables | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | ||
| Age (years), < 65 vs ≥ 65 | 1.279 (0.939–1.744) | .119 | ||
| Sex, male vs female | 0.707 (0.479–1.043) | .081 | ||
| Pathologic type, ulcerative vs others | 1.238 (0.888–1.726) | .208 | ||
| Histologic grade, 1 + 2 vs 3 | 1.058 (0.753–1.487) | .746 | ||
| Clinical response, resistance vs sensitivity | 1.331 (0.956–1.851) | .090 | ||
| Tumor size (cm), > 4 vs ≤ 4 | 1.244 (0.902–1.716) | .092 | ||
| pT categories, T3 + T4 | 1.977 (1.244–3.142) | .004 | 1.563 (0.939–2.602) | .086 |
| LNM, positive vs negative | 2.349 (1.528–3.611) | <.001 | 1.868 (1.118–3.122) | .017 |
| TNM stage, III + IV vs I + II | 2.050 (1.479–2.840) | <.001 | 1.243 (0.823–1.878) | .300 |
| GNL3L expression, low vs high | 1.504 (1.102–-2.053) | .010 | 1.483 (1.066–2.063) | .019 |
Figure 4PPI network analysis of GNL3L. Top 10 candidate genes might have an interaction with GNL3L.