| Literature DB >> 34154626 |
Meng Zhang1,2,3, Senlin Zhao3,4, Cong Tan1,2,3, Yanzi Gu2,3,5, Xuefeng He3,4, Xiang Du6,7,8, Dawei Li9,10, Ping Wei11,12,13,14.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: MEK1/ERK signaling pathway plays an important role in most tumor progression, including colorectal cancer (CRC), however, MEK1-targeting therapy has little effective in treating CRC patients, indicating there may be a complex mechanism to activate MEK1/ERK signaling pathway except RAS activated mechanism.Entities:
Keywords: Colorectal Cancer; IMP3; MEK1/ERK pathway; MEKK1
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34154626 PMCID: PMC8215736 DOI: 10.1186/s13046-021-01994-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res ISSN: 0392-9078
Fig. 1IMP3 is upregulated in human CRC patients and predicted poor prognosis. (A) Heatmap of differentially expressed mRNAs related to RNA binding proteins between adjacent normal mucosa (N), cancer tissue (T), and liver metastases tissue (M) from 8 paired colon cancer tissues. (B) IMP3 mRNA expression level in adjacent normal mucosa (N), cancer tissue (T), and liver metastases tissue (M) from 8 paired colon cancer tissues. (C) Expression of IMP3 in the TCGA CRC RNAseq dataset (Normal n = 51, Tumor n = 647). (D) Expression of IMP3 in the FUSCC dataset (Normal n = 61, Tumor n = 72). (E) IMP3 expression in 59 paired CRC tissues and its adjacent normal mucosa. (F-H) The expression of IMP3 in CRC tissue microarrays by IHC. (F) IMP3 was overexpressed in CRC tissues (p < 0.05). (G) IMP3 overexpression was associated with AJCC stage (p < 0.05). (H) MP3 overexpression was associated with tumor distal metastasis (p < 0.05). (I) Representative images of IMP3 expression in CRC tissues by Western blot analysis. (J) High IMP3 expression predicted shorter DFS than that of patients with low IMP3 expression. (K) High IMP3 expression predicted shorter OS than that of patients with low IMP3 expression
Expression of IMP3, MEKK1, MEK1 and p-ERK in 114 cases of colorectal cancer and adjacent normal mucosa tissues.
| Markers | CRC tissues | Adjacent normal mucosa tissues | |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMP3 | |||
| Positive | 71 | 30 | <0.001* |
| Negative | 43 | 84 | |
| MEKK1 | |||
| Positive | 84 | 37 | <0.001* |
| Negative | 30 | 77 | |
| MEK1 | |||
| Positive | 73 | 32 | <0.001* |
| Negative | 41 | 82 | |
| p-ERK | |||
| Positive | 81 | 31 | <0.001* |
| Negative | 33 | 83 |
Fig. 2Colon-specific knockout of IMP3 decreased AOM/DSS induced colon carcinogenesis. (A) Scheme of Villin-Cre-mediated recombination of IMP3 floxed allele. (B) PCR amplification of genomic DNA. Villin-Cre IMP3−/− colon shows a 666 base pair band specific to recombination allele. (C) The quantitative real-time RT-PCR analysis of Villin-Cre IMP3−/−colon tissues shows an approximately 90% decrease of IMP3 mRNA levels compared with the IMP3fl/fl colon tissues. (D) Six- to 8-week-old IMP3fl/fl (n = 9) and Villin-Cre IMP3−/−mice (n = 9) were subjected to a single intraperitoneal injection of AOM (10 mg/kg/body weight) followed by 3 cycles of 1 week of administration of 2.5% DSS in the drinking water, each cycle separated by a 2-week period. Mice were killed at 12 weeks after AOM/DSS exposure. (E) HE staining of representative colon tissue image of Villin-Cre IMP3−/− and IMP3fl/fl mice. (F) Prevalence of low-grade adenomas, highgrade adenomas, and adenocarcinomas of Villin-Cre IMP3−/− and IMP3fl/fl mice. (G) Macroscopic finding of Villin-Cre IMP3−/− and IMP3fl/fl mouse colons. (H)Tumor areas, Villin-Cre IMP3−/− mice showed a significant reduction in the total tumor areas compared with IMP3fl/fl mice. (I) Tumor numbers, Villin-Cre IMP3−/− mice showed a significant reduction in the total tumor numbers(left) and per mouse tumor number(right) compared with IMP3fl/fl mice. (J) Villin-Cre IMP3−/− mouse colons showed a decreased total tumor numbers or per mouse tumor numbers in which the diameter was larger than 3.0 mm, while no significant difference was found in tumor diameter was smaller than 3.0 mm
Fig. 3IMP3 promoted CRC cell proliferation, migration and invasion in vitro. (A) The baseline RNA level of IMP3 in eight CRC cell lines detected by RT-qPCR. (B) The baseline protein level of IMP3 in eight CRC cell lines detected by western blot. (C) Efficiencies of IMP3 knockdown was detected in indicated cells transfected with siRNAs by RT-qPCR (* p < 0.05). (D) Efficiencies of IMP3 overexpression was detected in indicated cells transfected with plasmids by RT-qPCR (* p < 0.05). (E) Efficiencies of IMP3 knockdown or overexpression was detected in indicated cells transfected with siRNAs or plasmids by western blot. (F) CCK8 assays showed that knockdown of IMP3 reduced cell viabilty in RKO and HCT116 cell line (* p < 0.05), and upregulation of IMP3 increased cell viability in LOVO and SW480 cell line (* p < 0.05). (G) Colony formation assays for indicated cells after transfection with siRNAs or plasmids (* p < 0.05). (H) Representative images (40×) of wound healing assays for indicated cells (* p < 0.05). (I) Representative images (200×) of transwell invasion assay for indicated cells (* p < 0.05)
Fig. 4IMP3 directly binds to MEKK1 and activates MEK/ERK pathway. (A) Flow chart of bioinformatics analysis predicting candidate RNAs regulated by IMP3. (B) MAPK cascades were enriched in IMP3 regulated targets. (C) RIP assay showing that MEKK1 interacted with IMP3 in RKO cells. The RT-qPCR products were analyzed by electrophoresis (below) (*p < 0.05), CD44 was used as a positive control. (D) The schematic diagram of IMP3 potential binding site in MEKK1 UTR area. E-F. Luciferase reporter assay, (E1)293T cell was transfected with IMP3, (E2) RKO cell was transfected with IMP3 siRNAs, (F)LOVO cell was co-transfected with IMP3 and MEKK1 3’UTR wt and indicated mutations. The luciferase assay data were normalized to firefly luciferase activity. (*p < 0.05). (G)GEPIA analyzed the expression of IMP3 and MEKK1 in CRC tissues. (H) Representative images of IHC staining of IMP3 and MEKK1 in the colon tissues from Villin-Cre IMP3−/− and IMP3fl/fl mice treated with AOM/DSS. (I) The mRNA level of MEKK1 in indicated cells (* p < 0.05). (J) The protein level of MEKK1 and its downstream pathways in indicated cells. MEK1: mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1; ERK: extracellular-signal-regulated kinase; JNK: c-Jun N-terminal kinase; MAPK: mitogen-activated protein kinase; The prefix p represents its phosphorylation. (K) RT-qPCR analysis of MEKK1 mRNA stability in actinomycin D treated CRC cells (* p < 0.05). (L) CCK-8 results showed that knockdown of MEKK1 or using MEK/ERK inhibitor U0126 attenuated the enhanced cell viability induced by overexpression of IMP3 in LOVO cells (* p < 0.05). Representative images of (M) wound healing assays and (N) transwell assays showed that MEKK1 repression or U0126 rescued the enhanced invasion and migration ability by overexpression of IMP3 (* p < 0.05)
Fig. 5IMP3 promotes CRC cell proliferation and metastasis in vivo. (A-B) 2 × 106 stable cells were injected subcutaneously into the groin of nude mice (n = 5 for either group). (A) Knockdown of IMP3 declined tumor growth and tumor weights compared with those control cells in HCT116 (B) Overexpression of IMP3 promoted tumor growth and tumor weights compared with those control cells in LOVO. (C) Representative images of IHC staining for IMP3, MEKK1, MEK1 and p-ERK. (D) Representative images of lung metastasis in nude mice with HE staining. (left) Knockdown of IMP3 reduced the number of lung metastasis nodular compared with those control cells in HCT116, (right) Overexpression of IMP3increased the number of lung metastasis nodular compared with those control cells in LOVO (* p < 0.05). (E) Representative image of nude mice bearing tumors formed by overexpression of IMP3 in LOVO and their control cells after U0126 treatment. The average tumor volume and tumor weight of nude mice bearing tumors formed by overexpression of IMP3 in LOVO and their control cells after U0126 treatment. (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.05) (F) Representative image of nude mice bearing tumors formed by stable knockdown of IMP3 in HCT116 and their control cells after U0126 treatment. The average tumor volume and tumor weight of nude mice bearing tumors formed by stable knockdown of IMP3 in HCT116 and their control cells after U0126 treatment. (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.05)
Fig. 6Expression of IMP3 and MEKK1/MEK/ERK in clinical CRC samples. (A) Representative images and the number of IMP3, MEKK1, MEK1 and p-ERK detected by IHC in CRC tissue microarrays. (B) IMP3, MEKK1, MEK1 and p-ERK expression in adjacent normal colon mucosa (n = 114, up panel) and colorectal cancer tissue (n = 282, lower panel). (C)Correlation of IMP3 expression with MEKK1, MEK1 and p-ERK. (D) KaplaneMeier analyses for the FUSCC dataset. Patients were divided into three groups based on the expression of IMP3 and MEKK1 (negative or positive). Both positive groups had the poorest prognosis with the lowest DFS and OS. (E)Schematic model showing the role of IMP3 in regulating MEKK1/MEK1/ERK Signaling Pathway in the Progression of Colorectal Cancer
Correlation between IMP3, MEKK1, MEK1, p-ERK expression and clinicopathologic features in 282 cases of CRC tissues.
| Parameters | n | IMP3 | MEKK1 | MEK1 | p-ERK | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | + | P value | - | + | P value | - | + | P value | - | + | P value | ||
| Age(years) | |||||||||||||
| <57 | 133 | 60 | 73 | 0.411 | 35 | 98 | 0.470 | 34 | 99 | 0.785 | 58 | 75 | 0.908 |
| ≥57 | 149 | 60 | 89 | 45 | 104 | 36 | 113 | 66 | 83 | ||||
| Gender | |||||||||||||
| Male | 165 | 66 | 99 | 0.303 | 50 | 115 | 0.392 | 37 | 128 | 0.268 | 71 | 94 | 0.705 |
| Female | 117 | 54 | 63 | 30 | 87 | 33 | 84 | 53 | 64 | ||||
| AJCC stage | |||||||||||||
| I+II | 102 | 54 | 48 | 0.008* | 37 | 65 | 0.027* | 28 | 74 | 0.442 | 54 | 48 | 0.022* |
| III+IV | 180 | 66 | 114 | 43 | 137 | 42 | 138 | 70 | 110 | ||||
| T stage | |||||||||||||
| T1+T2 | 47 | 27 | 20 | 0.024* | 17 | 30 | 0.194 | 12 | 35 | 0.902 | 25 | 22 | 0.163 |
| T3+T4 | 235 | 93 | 142 | 63 | 172 | 58 | 177 | 99 | 136 | ||||
| N stage | |||||||||||||
| N0 | 117 | 60 | 57 | 0.013* | 41 | 76 | 0.036* | 33 | 84 | 0.268 | 58 | 59 | 0.111 |
| N1+N2 | 165 | 60 | 105 | 39 | 126 | 37 | 128 | 66 | 99 | ||||
| M stage | |||||||||||||
| Yes | 46 | 14 | 32 | 0.069 | 12 | 34 | 0.707 | 10 | 36 | 0.597 | 17 | 29 | 0.295 |
| No | 236 | 106 | 130 | 68 | 168 | 60 | 176 | 107 | 129 | ||||
| Differentiation | |||||||||||||
| Poor | 69 | 33 | 36 | 0.308 | 21 | 48 | 0.661 | 17 | 52 | 0.967 | 31 | 38 | 0.854 |
| Well and moderate | 213 | 87 | 126 | 59 | 154 | 53 | 160 | 93 | 120 | ||||