| Literature DB >> 34629107 |
Arash Adamnejad Ghafour1,2, Demet Akdeniz Odemis1, Seref Bugra Tuncer1, Busra Kurt1, Mukaddes Avsar Saral3, Seda Kilic Erciyas1, Ozge Sukruoglu Erdogan1, Betul Celik1, Pinar Saip4, Hulya Yazici5,6.
Abstract
The most common gynecologic cancers detected in women in Turkey are uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and cervical cancer. These data reported that a mean of 3800 individuals were diagnosed with uterine cancer, 2790 were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and 1950 were diagnosed with cervical cancer, and 400 individuals were diagnosed with other gynecologic cancers each year in Turkey. A mean of 14.270 individuals were detected to have been diagnosed with gynecologic cancers each year in the United States of America (USA). Ovarian cancer treatment is generally composed of chemotherapy, and surgery. In general, chemotherapy is administered after surgery. The identification of the molecular pathogenesis of ovarian cancer, and discovery of new moleculer biomarkers which facilitate the ovarian cancer treatment are required for an effective ovarian cancer treatment in clinics. miRNAs are reported to be the possible biologic indicators for various cancer types. We aimed to investigate 2 miRNAs which were suggested to have effect in ovarian cancer in our (previous) monozygotic twin study from miR-1260 microRNA family whose association with ovarian cancer yet has not been reported in the literature. We investigated the expression levels of miR-1260a, and miR-1260b miRNAs, in the peripheral blood lymphocytes of 150 familial and sporadic ovarian cancer patients, and of 100 healthy individuals of the control group who were matched for age, sex, and ethnicity with the patient group, and investigated their possible property of being a biologic indicator for ovarian cancer. The expression results of ovarian cancer patients were evaluated by comparison of the results of the control group in the study. The expression levels of miR-1260a, and miR-1260b in ovarian cancer patients were found highly increased compared with the levels in the control group. miR-1260a expression level in ovarian cancer patients was detected to have increased approximately 17 fold compared with the control group, and miR-1260b expression level in ovarian cancer patients was detected to have increased approximately 33 fold compared with the levels in the control group. The String Analyses showed that the miR-1260a was associated with the ribosomal protein family which was known to be effective in the translation stage of cell and that miR-1260b was associated with CHEK2 protein which was a member of the serine/threonine-protein kinase family. It should be investigated for larger cohorts in benign ovarian diseases and in different stages of patients receiving ovarian cancer treatment whether these two molecules are a noninvasive biomarker and therapeutic target to be used especially in the early diagnosis and prognosis of ovarian cancer in future.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarker; Familial and Sporadic Ovarian Cancer; miRNA expression
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34629107 PMCID: PMC8504092 DOI: 10.1186/s13048-021-00878-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ovarian Res ISSN: 1757-2215 Impact factor: 4.234
ANOVA test results
| Dependent Variable | Group 1 | Group 2 | Mean Difference | Standard Error | p Value | %95 Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| .000* | |||||||
| 1.37500* | .09612 | .000* | 1.1106 | 1.6394 | |||
| 1.35922* | .05031 | .000* | 1.2209 | 1.4976 | |||
| 1.50000* | .25464 | .000* | .7996 | 2.2004 | |||
| 1.00000* | .14993 | .000* | .5876 | 1.4124 | |||
| .000* | |||||||
| 125000* | .08968 | .000* | 1.0033 | 1.4967 | |||
| 1.28155* | .04693 | .000* | 1.1525 | 1.4106 | |||
| 1.50000* | .23756 | .000* | .8466 | 2.1534 | |||
| 1.00000* | .13987 | .000* | .6153 | 1.3847 | |||
*; statistically significant (p<0.05)
Fig. 1Graphic Representation of Proportional Differences of miR-1260a Expression in all Patients with Ovarian Carcinoma and Subgroups According to Healthy Controls
Fig. 2Graphic Representation of Proportional Differences of miR-1260b Expression in Total Patients with ovarian carcinoma and Subgroups According to Healthy Controls
Distribution of miR-1260a, and miR-1260b expression levels in patients with ovarian cancer
| Diagnosis | miR-1260a Expression | Total | miR-1260b Expression | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Increased | Decreased | Total | Increased | Decreased | Total | |
| 66(64.1%) | 37(35.9%) | 103(81.1%) | 74(71.8%) | 29(28.2%) | 103(81.1%) | |
| 10(62.5%) | 6(37.5%) | 16(12.6%) | 12(75.0%) | 4(25.0%) | 16(12.6%) | |
| 1 (50.0%) | 1(50.0%) | 2(1.6%) | 1 (50.0%) | 1(50.0%) | 2(1.6%) | |
| 6(100.0%) | 0(00.0%) | 6(4.7%) | 6(100.0%) | 0(0.0%) | 6(4.7%) | |
| 83(65.3%) | 44(34.7%) | 127 | 93(73.2%) | 34(26.8%) | 127 | |
Comparison of miR-1260a, and miR-1260b expression levels, and the clinical features of patients
| Features | miR-1260a | Expression | miR-1260b | Expression | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expression Level | Increased | Decreased | Increased | Decreased | Total |
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n(%) | |
| 11 (8.7%) | 5 (3.9%) | 13 (10.2%) | 3 (2.4%) | 16 (12.5%) | |
| 72 (56.7%) | 39 (30.7%) | 31 (24.4%) | 80 (63%) | 111 (87.5%) | |
| 83 (65.3%) | 44 (34.7%) | 44 (34.7%) | 83 (65.3%) | 127 | |
| 12 (9.4%) | 10 (7.9%) | 14 (11.0%) | 8 (9.3%) | 22 (17.3%) | |
| 13 (10.2%) | 1 (0.8%) | 13 (10.2%) | 1 (0.8%) | 14 (11%) | |
| 49 (38.6%) | 27 (21.3%) | 56 (44.1%) | 20 (15.7%) | 76 (59.9%) | |
| 9 (7.1%) | 6 (4.7%) | 10 (7.9%) | 5 (%3.9) | 15 (11.8%) | |
| 83 (65.3%) | 44 (34.7%) | 93 (73.2%) | 34(26.8%) | 127 | |
| 11 (8.7%) | 11 (8.7%) | 16 (12.6%) | 6 (%4.7) | 22 (17.3%) | |
| 14 (11.0%) | 5 (3.9%) | 14 (11.0%) | 5 (3.9%) | 19 (15%) | |
| 58 (45.7%) | 28 (22.0%) | 63 (49.6%) | 23 (18.1%) | 86 (67.7%) | |
| 83 (65.3%) | 44 (34.6%) | 93 (73.2%) | 34 (26.8%) | 127 | |
| 12 (9.4%) | 13 (10.2%) | 16 (12.6%) | 9 (7.1%) | 25 (19.6%) | |
| 13 (10.2%) | 11 (8.7%) | 17 (13.4%) | 7 (%5.5) | 24 (18.9%) | |
| 58 (45.7%) | 20 (15.7%) | 60 (47.2%) | 18 (14.2%) | 78 (61.5%) | |
| 83 (65.3%) | 44 (34.6%) | 93 (73.2%) | 34 (26.8%) | 127 | |
| 18 (14.2%) | 10 (7.9%) | 20 (15.7%) | 8 (6.3%) | 28 (22%) | |
| 65 (51.2%) | 34 (26.8%) | 73 (57.5%) | 26 (20.5%) | 99 (78%) | |
| 83 (65.3%) | 44 (34.6%) | 93 (73.2%) | 34 (26.8%) | 127 | |
| 78 (63.9%) | 44 (32.1%) | 87 (69.0%) | 34 (27.0%) | 122 (96%) | |
| 5 (4.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (4.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (4%) | |
| 83 (65.3%) | 44 (34.6%) | 93 (73.2%) | 34 (26.8%) | 127 | |
| 78 (66.1%) | 40 (25.9%) | 86 (68.3%) | 30 (23.8%) | 118 (92.9%) | |
| 5 (4.0%) | 5 (4.0%) | 6 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 10 (7.1%) | |
| 83 (65.3%) | 44 (34.6%) | 93 (73.2%) | 34 (26.8%) | 127 | |
| 10 (7.9%) | 5 (4.0%) | 10 (7.9%) | 5 (%4.0%) | 15 (11.8%) | |
| 73 (57.4%) | 39 (30.7%) | 82 (65.1%) | 29 (23.0%) | 112 (88.2%) | |
| 83 (65.3%) | 44 (34.6%) | 93 (73.2%) | 34 (26.8%) | 127 | |
| 52 (40.9%) | 31 (24.4%) | 59 (46.5%) | 24 (%18.8%) | 83 (65.3%) | |
|
| 31 (24.4%) | 13 (10.3%) | 34 (26.8%) | 10 (7.9%) | 44 (34.7%) |
| 83 (65.3%) | 44 (34.7%) | 93 (73.2%) | 34 (26.8%) | 127 | |
Correlations Between miRNAs Expression Levels, and Survival
| miR-1260a Expression | Total N | N of Events | Censored | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Percent | |||
| Decreased | 44 | 26 | 18 | 40.9% |
| Increased | 83 | 52 | 31 | 37.3% |
| Ovarian all | 127 | 78 | 49 | 38.6% |
| miR-1260b Expression | ||||
| Decreased | 34 | 20 | 14 | 41.2% |
| Increased | 93 | 58 | 35 | 37.6% |
| Ovarian all | 127 | 78 | 49 | 38.6% |
Fig. 3Survival Analysis for both miR-1260a, and miR-1260b
Fig. 4Graph of ROC-AUC values of miRNAs in separation of ovarian cancer patients and healthy groups. Blue line: miR-1260a; Green line: miR-1269b
ROC-AUC Values of miRNAs in the Separation of Ovarian Cancer Patients, and Healthy Groups
| miRNAs | ROC-AUC | 95% CI | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| miR-1260a | 0.660 | 0.588 - 0.733 | .000 |
| miR-1260b | 0.704 | 0.635 - 0.773 | .000 |
Correlation Statistics Between miRNA Expression levels, and CA-125 Variables
| p Values | CA-125 value on | CA-125 value after treatment |
|---|---|---|
| 0.076 | 0.263 | |
| 0.094 | 0.122 |
Fig. 5String analysis demonstrating the Gene/Protein interaction of miR-1260a
Fig. 6String analysis demonstrating the Gene/Protein interaction of miR-1260b