| Literature DB >> 34461927 |
Hua-Fu Zhao1, Xiu-Ming Zhou1,2, Jing Wang3,4,5, Fan-Fan Chen1, Chang-Peng Wu1,6, Peng-Yu Diao1, Lin-Rong Cai1, Lei Chen1, Yan-Wen Xu1, Jing Liu7, Zong-Yang Li1, Wen-Lan Liu1, Zhong-Ping Chen3,4,5, Guo-Dong Huang8, Wei-Ping Li9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and lanthionine synthetase C-like 2 (LanCL2) genes locate in the same amplicon, and co-amplification of EGFR and LANCL2 is frequent in glioblastoma. However, the prognostic value of LANCL2 and EGFR co-amplification, and their mRNA and protein expression in glioblastoma remain unclear yet.Entities:
Keywords: Amplification; EGFR; Glioblastoma; LANCL2; Overall survival; Overexpression
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34461927 PMCID: PMC8404333 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-021-02979-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Fig. 1Amplification and co-amplification of LANCL2 and EGFR were frequent in GBM specimens of TCGA database, and LANCL2 amplification were associated with poor OS in younger GBM patients. A, B Genetic alteration frequencies of LANCL2 and EGFR in 32 different cancers of TCGA Pan-Cancer Atlas database. The diagrams showed the top 22 cancers with the highest frequencies. C Amplification frequencies of LANCL2 and EGFR in two TCGA studies of Glioblastoma Multiforme (n = 592) and Brain Lower Grade Glioma (n = 514). D Amplification frequencies of LANCL2 and EGFR in different pathological types of gliomas. E Co-amplification frequencies of LANCL2 and EGFR in total or EGFR-amplified GBM samples. F Chi-square test (Fisher’s exact test) showed the CNVs of LANCL2 and EGFR in GBM were significantly associated. G The top 10 genes with the highest amplification frequencies in LANCL2- or EGFR-amplified GBM samples. H Chi-square test showed that CNVs of LANCL2 and EGFR were significantly correlated with IDH1/2 mutation status in GBM. I Forest plot showing the univariate analysis for OS in GBM patients of TCGA database. J Forest plot showing the univariate analysis for OS in younger (< 60 years) GBM patients of TCGA database. P values and hazard ratios were determined by log-rank test
Univariate analysis for OS and PFS in GBM patients of TCGA database
| Variable | No. (%) | Median OS (months) | Median PFS (months) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | < 0.001 | 0.007 | |||
| ≥ 60 | 152 (52.96) | 11.28 | 5.82 | ||
| < 60 | 135 (47.04) | 17.79 | 7.86 | ||
| Gender | 0.009 | 0.145 | |||
| Male | 169 (58.89) | 13.35 | 7.04 | ||
| Female | 118 (41.11) | 15.65 | 7.36 | ||
| Ethnicity | 0.954 | 0.686 | |||
| Hispanic or Latino | 5 (2.21) | 14.22 | 5.98 | ||
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 221 (97.79) | 14.01 | 7.04 | ||
| LANCL2 gene status | 0.023 | 0.123 | |||
| Amplification | 157 (27.12) | 13.78 | 6.67 | ||
| No alteration | 422 (72.88) | 14.50 | 7.20 | ||
| EGFR gene status | 0.042 | 0.230 | |||
| Amplification | 252 (43.52) | 14.01 | 6.84 | ||
| No alteration | 327 (56.48) | 14.50 | 7.66 | ||
| LANCL2 and EGFR genes status | 0.013 | 0.509 | |||
| Co-amplification | 156 (26.94) | 13.78 | 6.67 | ||
| No alteration | 423 (73.06) | 14.53 | 7.30 | ||
| LANCL2 mRNA status | 0.224 | 0.664 | |||
| Overexpression | 56 (36.36) | 13.78 | 7.04 | ||
| No alteration | 98 (63.64) | 13.61 | 5.98 | ||
| EGFR mRNA status | 0.778 | 0.136 | |||
| Overexpression | 75 (48.70) | 14.93 | 6.41 | ||
| No alteration | 79 (51.30) | 12.95 | 6.90 | ||
| LANCL2 and EGFR mRNA status | 0.930 | 0.689 | |||
| Concurrent overexpression | 42 (27.27) | 15.39 | 6.41 | ||
| No alteration | 112 (72.73) | 13.12 | 6.84 |
Multivariate analysis by the Cox proportional hazard regression model for OS in GBM patients of TCGA database
| Variable | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||
| ≥ 60 vs < 60 | 2.221 (1.667–2.961) | < 0.001 |
| Gender | ||
| Male vs female | 1.382 (1.034–1.848) | 0.029 |
| LANCL2 gene status | ||
| Amplification vs no alteration | NA | 0.351 |
| EGFR gene status | ||
| Amplification vs no alteration | NA | 0.799 |
| LANCL2 and EGFR genes status | ||
| Co-amplification vs no alteration | NA | 0.553 |
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, NA not applicable
Univariate analysis for OS in younger GBM patients (age < 60 yrs) of TCGA database
| Variable | No.(%) | Median OS (months) | Median PFS (months) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.002 | 0.131 | |||
| Male | 78 (57.78) | 15.39 | 7.86 | ||
| Female | 57 (42.22) | 22.49 | 8.48 | ||
| LANCL2 gene status | 0.054 | 0.177 | |||
| Amplification | 33 (24.44) | 15.02 | 5.85 | ||
| No alteration | 102 (75.56) | 18.08 | 8.48 | ||
| EGFR gene status | 0.128 | 0.795 | |||
| Amplification | 56 (41.48) | 17.49 | 8.12 | ||
| No alteration | 79 (58.52) | 17.79 | 7.63 | ||
| LANCL2 and EGFR genes status | 0.054 | 0.177 | |||
| Co-amplification | 33 (24.44) | 15.02 | 5.85 | ||
| No alteration | 102 (75.56) | 18.08 | 8.48 |
Multivariate analysis by the Cox proportional hazard regression model for OS in younger GBM patients (age < 60 yrs) of TCGA database
| Variable | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male vs female | 2.029 (1.286–3.201) | 0.002 |
| LANCL2 gene status | ||
| Amplification vs no alteration | 1.657 (1.017–2.699) | 0.043 |
| EGFR gene status | ||
| Amplification vs no alteration | NA | 0.624 |
| LANCL2 and EGFR gene status | ||
| Co-amplification vs no alteration | NA | NA |
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, NA not applicable
Fig. 2mRNA overexpression of LANCL2 and EGFR was common in GBM specimens of TCGA database, but was not associated with prognosis of GBM patients. A, B mRNA expression levels of LANCL2 and EGFR in 32 different cancers of TCGA Pan-Cancer Atlas database. C Frequencies of LANCL2 and EGFR mRNA overexpression in two TCGA studies of GBM and LGG. D Frequencies of LANCL2 and EGFR mRNA overexpression in different pathological types of gliomas. E, F The correlations between CNVs and mRNA expression of LANCL2 or EGFR in GBM. P values were determined by Kruskal–Wallis One-Way ANOVA and Dunn’s multiple comparisons. ***p < 0.001. G Frequencies of concurrent mRNA overexpression of LANCL2 and EGFR in total or EGFR-overexpressed GBM samples. H A significant association between the mRNA expression levels of LANCL2 and EGFR in GBM. I Forest plot showing the univariate analysis for OS according to the mRNA expression of LANCL2 and EGFR in GBM patients of TCGA database. P values and hazard ratios were determined by log-rank test
Fig. 3Amplification, co-amplification and their prognostic values of LANCL2 and EGFR were verified in GBM samples of tumor banks. A, B Copy numbers of LANCL2 and EGFR in GBM samples of our tumor banks. Normal brain tissues and grade I gliomas were used for comparison. P values were determined by Kruskal–Wallis One-Way ANOVA and Dunn’s multiple comparisons. ***p < 0.001. C Amplification frequencies of LANCL2 and EGFR in GBM samples of tumor banks. D Co-amplification frequencies of LANCL2 and EGFR in total or EGFR-amplified GBM samples. E, F Copy numbers of LANCL2 and EGFR in newly diagnosed and relapsing GBM samples. Normal brain tissues and grade I gliomas were used for comparison. P values were determined by Kruskal–Wallis One-Way ANOVA and Dunn’s multiple comparisons. *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001. G Pearson’s correlation analysis showed that the copy numbers of LANCL2 and EGFR in GBM were significantly correlated. H Kaplan–Meier survival analysis of LANCL2 or EGFR amplification, and their co-amplification for OS in GBM patients (*p < 0.05). I Forest plot showing the univariate analysis for OS in GBM patients. P values and hazard ratios were determined by log-rank test. J Kaplan–Meier survival analysis of LANCL2 or EGFR amplification, and their co-amplification for OS in younger (< 60 years) GBM patients (*p < 0.05)
Multivariate analysis by the Cox proportional hazard regression model for OS in GBM patients from tumor banks
| Variable | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||
| ≥ 60 vs < 60 | NA | 0.117 |
| LANCL2 gene status | ||
| Amplification vs no alteration | 2.319 (1.306–4.115) | 0.004 |
| EGFR gene status | ||
| Amplification vs no alteration | NA | 0.605 |
| LANCL2 and EGFR genes status | ||
| Co-amplification vs no alteration | NA | 0.656 |
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, NA not applicable
Multivariate analysis by the Cox proportional hazard regression model for OS in younger GBM patients (age < 60 years) from tumor banks
| Variable | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male vs female | NA | 0.791 |
| LANCL2 gene status | ||
| Amplification vs no alteration | 2.199 (1.142–4.236) | 0.018 |
| EGFR gene status | ||
| Amplification vs no alteration | NA | 0.805 |
| LANCL2 and EGFR genes status | ||
| Co-amplification vs no alteration | NA | 0.845 |
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, NA not applicable
Fig. 4Protein expression profiles and prognostic values of LanCL2 and EGFR in GBM samples of tumor banks. A Frequencies of LanCL2 and EGFR protein overexpression in GBM samples of our tumor banks. B, C Relative expression of LanCL2 and EGFR in GBM samples was evaluated by measurement of density of immunoblotting bands. P values were determined by Mann–Whitney U test. ***p < 0.001. D, E Relative expression of LanCL2 and EGFR in newly diagnosed and relapsing GBM samples. Grade I gliomas were used for comparison, and GAPDH was served as the endogenous control. P values were determined by Kruskal–Wallis One-Way ANOVA and Dunn’s multiple comparisons. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. F Representative immunoblots of LanCL2 and EGFR protein expression in newly diagnosed and relapsing GBM specimens. G Person’s correlation analysis showed that protein expression of LanCL2 and EGFR was not significantly correlated. H Chi-square test showed the correlations between the protein expression of LanCL2 & EGFR and IDH1/2 mutation, MGMT methylation and TERT promoter mutation. I, J Protein overexpression of LanCL2 and EGFR was not significantly correlated with OS of GBM patients
Fig. 5Protein expression and intracellular localization of LanCL2 was correlated with the grade of gliomas. A Immunohistochemistry analysis of LanCL2 in representative sections of grade I to IV gliomas. Sections of white matter and cortex were used for comparison. Bar = 20 μm. B IHC staining scores of LanCL2 in tumor sections. C Immunohistochemistry analysis of EGFR in representative sections of grade I to IV gliomas. Bar = 20 μm. D IHC staining scores of EGFR in tumor sections. P values were determined by Kruskal–Wallis One-Way ANOVA and Dunn’s multiple comparisons. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01