| Literature DB >> 34277426 |
Duo Wang1,2,3,4, Xiujuan Qu1,2,3,4, Wenqing Lu1,2,3,4, Yizhe Wang5, Yue Jin1,2,3,4, Kezuo Hou1,2,3,4, Bowen Yang1,2,3,4, Ce Li1,2,3,4, Jianfei Qi6, Jiawen Xiao7, Xiaofang Che1,2,3,4, Yunpeng Liu1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Abnormal RNA m6A methylation is known to lead to the occurrence and progression of multiple cancers including gastric cancer (GC). However, the integrative effects of all m6A methylation regulators on GC prognosis are unclear. Our research aimed to globally analyze the prognosis values of all 33 m6A RNA methylation regulators in GC by univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Among all 33 m6A RNA methylation regulators, fat mass and obesity-associated protein (FTO), an m6A demethylase, was identified as a key prognostic risk factor on overall survival (OS) of GC patients. It was found that FTO could promote GC cell migration and invasion abilities, and we predicted that ITGB1 was a demethylated target of FTO. Knockdown (KD) of FTO significantly down-regulated ITGB1 expression at both mRNA and protein levels and augmented ITGB1 mRNA m6A modification level. Moreover, overexpression (OE) of ITGB1 could partially reverse FTO-KD-inhibited migration and invasion of GC cells. Our study found that FTO was an independent risk factor for overall survival (OS) of GC patients and FTO could promote GC metastasis by upregulating the expression of Integrin β1(ITGB1) via decreasing its m6A level. These results indicated that FTO can be a potent GC biomarker for prognosis prediction as well as a potential target in GC treatment.Entities:
Keywords: FTO; ITGB1; gastric cancer; m6A; metastasis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34277426 PMCID: PMC8282183 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.681280
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
The univariate Cox regression analysis of m6A RNA methylation regulators for OS in GC.
| Gene | Coef | HR | 95% CI |
| Gene | Coef | HR | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AGO2 | -0.16 | 0.85 | 0.61-1.2 | 0.34 | METTL16 | -0.46 | 0.63 | 0.37-1.1 | 0.093 |
| ALKBH5 | -0.5 | 0.61 | 0.39-0.94 | 0.026 | METTL3 | -0.3 | 0.74 | 0.46-1.2 | 0.2 |
| EIF3A | -0.099 | 0.91 | 0.61-1.3 | 0.62 | METTL5 | -0.09 | 0.91 | 0.63-1.3 | 0.63 |
| EIF3B | 0.11 | 1.1 | 0.8-1.6 | 0.53 | RBM15 | -0.5 | 0.61 | 0.4-0.93 | 0.021 |
| EIF3C | 0.18 | 1.2 | 0.79-1.8 | 0.39 | RBM15B | -0.13 | 0.88 | 0.57-1.4 | 0.56 |
| EIF3H | -0.098 | 0.91 | 0.62-1.3 | 0.61 | RBMX | -0.066 | 0.94 | 0.59-1.5 | 0.78 |
| ELAVL1 | -0.23 | 0.79 | 0.48-1.3 | 0.37 | TRMT112 | -0.012 | 0.99 | 0.74-1.3 | 0.94 |
| FMR1 | -0.076 | 0.93 | 0.66-1.3 | 0.66 | VIRMA | 0.059 | 1.1 | 0.7-1.6 | 0.78 |
| FTO | 0.48 | 1.6 | 1.1-2.5 | 0.027 | WTAP | -0.42 | 0.65 | 0.39-1.1 | 0.11 |
| HNRNPA2B1 | -0.3 | 0.74 | 0.5-1.1 | 0.13 | YTHDC1 | -0.31 | 0.74 | 0.41-1.3 | 0.31 |
| HNRNPC | -0.22 | 0.8 | 0.5-1.3 | 0.36 | YTHDC2 | 0.014 | 1 | 0.7-1.5 | 0.94 |
| IGF2BP1 | 0.085 | 1.1 | 0.95-1.2 | 0.21 | YTHDF1 | -0.089 | 0.91 | 0.66-1.3 | 0.6 |
| IGF2BP2 | -0.014 | 0.99 | 0.83-1.2 | 0.87 | YTHDF2 | -0.45 | 0.64 | 0.38-1.1 | 0.089 |
| IGF2BP3 | -0.0061 | 0.99 | 0.82-1.2 | 0.95 | YTHDF3 | -0.033 | 0.97 | 0.65-1.4 | 0.87 |
| LRPPRC | -0.085 | 0.92 | 0.67-1.3 | 0.6 | ZC3H13 | -0.047 | 0.95 | 0.71-1.3 | 0.75 |
| MBNL1 | 0.12 | 1.1 | 0.83-1.6 | 0.44 | ZCCHC4 | -0.25 | 0.78 | 0.43-1.4 | 0.39 |
| METTL14 | -0.3 | 0.74 | 0.41-1.4 | 0.33 |
The univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis of m6A RNA methylation regulators for OS in GC.
| Gene | Univariate Cox | Multivariate Cox | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef | HR | 95% CI |
| Coef | HR | 95% CI |
| |
| ALKBH5 | -0.5 | 0.61 | 0.39-0.94 | 0.026 | -0.75 | 0.47 | 0.28-0.80 | 0.005 |
| FTO | 0.48 | 1.6 | 1.1-2.5 | 0.027 | 0.84 | 2.32 | 1.43-3.77 | <0.001 |
| RBM15 | -0.5 | 0.61 | 0.4-0.93 | 0.021 | ||||
Figure 1High expression of FTO indicated poor prognosis in gastric cancer. (A) Univariate Cox regression analyses of the association between clinicopathological factors (including FTO) and overall survival of patients in the TCGA datasets. (B) Multivariate Cox regression analyses of the association between clinicopathological factors (including FTO) and overall survival of patients in the TCGA datasets. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001.
Figure 2FTO promoted GC cell migration and invasion. (A) The relative mRNA and protein expression of FTO in different gastric cancer cell lines were detected by qRT-PCR and Western blot. (B) The knockdown efficiency of FTO in BGC823 and MGC803 cells was detected by qRT-PCR. (C, D) The migration and invasion ability of BGC823 and MGC803 cells after transfected with siNC or FTO siRNAs was examined by transwell assay (original magnification, 100×). The columns on the right are quantified by counting 3 fields, and presented as the mean ± standard deviation. (E, F) The proliferation ability of BGC823 and MGC803 cells after transfected with siNC or FTO siRNAs was examined by MTT and colony-formation assay. The columns are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. Data are presented as the mean ± SD of three independent experiments. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. 18S was used as an internal control for all qRT-PCR experiments. GAPDH was used as an internal control for all western blot assays.
Figure 3Construction of weight co-expression modules of gastric cancer with FTO expression. (A) The clustering was based on the expression data from TGCA. (B) The left figure showed the correlation of various soft-thresholding power and scale independence. The right figure showed the effect of soft threshold power values on mean connectivity. (C) Similar gene modules were merged according to the MEDissThres 0.25 (Red line) by calculating eigengenes of each module. (D) A hierarchical clustering dendrogram was conducted by the Dynamic Tree Cutting method. The first color band indicates the modules detected by dynamic tree cut. The second color band indicates the modules after merging similar modules.
Figure 4Functional enrichment analysis of FTO-related key module. (A) Heat map of the correlation between module eigengenes (ME) and the expression level of FTO. The turquoise module was the most positively correlated with FTO high expression. (B) Scatter plot of the correlation between genes in turquoise module and the expression level of FTO. (C) Significantly enriched KEGG pathways of turquoise module. (D) Significantly enriched GO annotations of turquoise module. (E) FTO high expression group enriched signaling pathways were analyzed using GSEA.
Figure 5Screening of FTO demethylated target genes involved in GC metastasis. (A) The coexpression genes in “FOCAL ADHESION (FA)” and “ECM-RECEPTOR INTERACTION” pathways were screened by Venn diagram analysis. (B) The correlation between the expression of the top five coexpression genes and FTO was based on TCGA dataset. (C) Overall Survival (OS) of ITGB1 and LAMC1 in TCGA dataset was analyzed by Kaplan–Meier analysis.
m6A methylation sites prediction.
| Gene | Whistle | m6AVar |
|---|---|---|
| ITGA1 | None | Low |
| ITGA7 | None | MeRIP-Seq (Medium) |
| ITGA9 | None | Low |
| ITGB1 | two | MeRIP-Seq (Medium) |
| LAMC1 | seven | miCLIP (High) |
Figure 6Identification of ITGB1 as FTO demethylated target gene in GC cells. (A, B) The relative mRNA and protein expression level of ITGB1 and LAMC1 in BGC823 and MGC803 cells after transfected with siNC or FTO siRNAs were detected by qRT-PCR and Western blot. (C) The m6A modification level of ITGB1 in BGC823 cell transfected with siNC or FTO siRNAs was detected by MeRIP-qRT-PCR. (D, E) The relative expression of ITGB1 in MGC803 and BGC823 cells after added with cycloleucine were detected by qRT-PCR and Western blot. (F) The relative expression of ITGB1 in BGC823 and MGC803 cells after co-transfected with siNC or FTO siRNAs and ITGB1 plasmids or empty vectors was detected by qRT-PCR. (G, H) The migration and invasion ability of BGC823 and MGC803 cells after co-transfected with siNC or FTO siRNAs and ITGB1 plasmids or empty vectors was examined by transwell assay (original magnification, 100×). The columns on the right are quantified by counting 3 fields, and presented as the mean ± standard deviation. Data are presented as the mean ± SD of three independent experiments. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ns, not statistically significant. 18S was used as an internal control for all qRT-PCR experiments. GAPDH was used as an internal control for all western blot assays.