| Literature DB >> 34831008 |
Cosimo Di Raimondo1,2, Zhen Han1,3, Chingyu Su1,3, Xiwei Wu4,5, Hanjun Qin4,5, James F Sanchez3,6, Yate-Ching Yuan7,8, Xochiquetzal Martinez1, Farah Abdulla1, Jasmine Zain6, Chun-Wei Chen3,9, Steven T Rosen3,6, Christiane Querfeld1,3,6,10.
Abstract
Large cell transformation of mycosis fungoides (LCT-MF) occurs in 20-50% of advanced MF and is generally associated with poor response and dismal prognosis. Although different mechanisms have been proposed to explain the pathogenesis, little is known about the role of microRNAs (miRs) in transcriptional regulation of LCT-MF. Here, we investigated the miR and mRNA expression profile in lesional skin samples of patients with LCT-MF and non-LCT MF using RNA-seq analysis. We found miR-146a and miR-21 to be significantly upregulated, and miR-708 the most significantly downregulated miR in LCT-MF. Integration of miR and mRNA expression profiles revealed the miR-regulated networks in LCT-MF. Ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA) demonstrated the involvement of genes for ICOS-ICOSL, PD1-PDL1, NF-κB, E2F transcription, and molecular mechanisms of cancer signaling pathways. Quantitative real time (qRT)-PCR results of target genes were consistent with the RNA-seq data. We further identified the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) in LCT-MF. Moreover, our data indicated that miR-146a, -21 and -708 are associated with the immunosuppressive TME in LCT-MF. Collectively, our results suggest that the key LCT-MF associated miRs and their regulated networks may provide insights into its pathogenesis and identify promising targets for novel therapeutic strategies.Entities:
Keywords: cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL); large cell transformation of mycosis fungoides (LCT-MF); miR regulatory network; mycosis fungoides (MF); tumor immune microenvironment
Year: 2021 PMID: 34831008 PMCID: PMC8616450 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13225854
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Clinical features of 28 patients with mycosis fungoides with and without large cell transformation (there is little or no prior past therapies).
| Characteristic | Non-LCT | LCT |
|---|---|---|
| Patients/Skin biopsy specimens | 17/20 | 11/14 |
| Age (years), median (range) | 58.4 (30.8–85.4) | 68 (41.3–82.8) |
| Gender | ||
|
Male | 14 (82.4%) | 6 (54.5%) |
|
Female | 3 (17.6%) | 5 (45.5%) |
| Race/Ethnicity | ||
|
Caucasian | 8 (47.1%) | 3 (27.3%) |
|
African American | 2 (11.8%) | 6 (54.5%) |
|
Hispanic | 5 (29.4%) | 1 (9.1%) |
|
Asian | 2 (11.8%) | 1 (9.1%) |
| Clinical stage | ||
|
IA | 3 (17.6%) | 0 |
|
IB | 5 (29.4%) | 3 (27.3%) |
|
IIB | 8 (47.1%) | 5 (45.5%) |
|
IVA | 1 (5.9%) | 3 (27.3%) |
| MF histologic subtype | ||
|
Classic | 11 (64.7%) | 9 (81.8%) |
|
Folliculotropic | 6 (35.3%) | 2 (18.2%) |
LCT, large cell transformation; MF, mycosis fungoides.
Figure 1Kaplan–Meier analysis shows significantly decreased survival of patients with LCT-MF compared to non-LCT-MF. (A) The overall survival of early non-LCT (green) or early LCT-MF (purple) patients was compared to advanced non-LCT (blue) or advanced LCT-MF patients (magenta) and determined by Mantel–Cox test with p value < 0.05 considered significant (n = 28). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. (B) Circular charts show the distribution of demographic characteristics including stage, MF subtype, gender, race, and survival status of LCT and non-LCT patients. (C) Clinical presentation of patients with LCT-MF and Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) staining of the LCT-MF lesional skin. Scale bar = 50 μm. (D) Representative multiplex immunofluorescence images of CTCL skin biopsy with LCT-MF and non-LCT-MF. CD4 is stained red; CD8 is blue; PD1 is magenta; PD-L1 is green. Scale bar = 20 μm.
Figure 2miR signatures in LCT-MF. (A) Heatmap of unsupervised two-way hierarchical clustering based on global miR analysis. (B) qRT-PCR-based analysis of miR expression in LCT-MF and non-LCT lesional skin samples. The 2ˆ (-delta delta CT) method was used as a relative quantification strategy for data analysis. Results are shown as means ± SD, and differences were tested for significance using Student’s t test (* p < 0.05).
Up- and downregulated miRNAs MF-LCT vs. non-LCT.
| Genes | Log FC | Log CPM | F | lFDR | Non-LCT | LCT | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hsa-miR-146a-3p | 1.71 | 4.97 | 11.81 | 0.001717 | 0.174221 | 16 | 49 | Up |
| hsa-miR-21-3p | 1.05 | 7.56 | 10.12 | 0.003353 | 0.202974 | 105 | 288 | Up |
| hsa-miR-136-5p | 0.89 | 5.21 | 9.07 | 0.005179 | 0.227844 | 32 | 42 | Up |
| hsa-miR-889 | 0.88 | 6.39 | 8.56 | 0.006415 | 0.242032 | 72 | 96 | Up |
| hsa-miR-539-3p | 0.80 | 3.14 | 8.50 | 0.006581 | 0.243816 | 7 | 10 | Up |
| hsa-miR-708-5p | −1.45 | 8.83 | 12.76 | 0.001194 | 0.163057 | 592 | 290 | Down |
| hsa-miR-744-5p | −0.81 | 7.40 | 11.97 | 0.001618 | 0.172186 | 207 | 122 | Down |
| hsa-miR-3653 | −0.97 | 2.99 | 9.94 | 0.003613 | 0.206878 | 9 | 5 | Down |
| hsa-let-7g-5p | −0.64 | 13.97 | 9.91 | 0.003657 | 0.20753 | 18189 | 13575 | Down |
| hsa-let-7b-5p | −0.71 | 12.52 | 9.17 | 0.004964 | 0.225185 | 7078 | 4459 | Down |
| hsa-miR-664-5p | −0.87 | 3.25 | 8.85 | 0.005685 | 0.233856 | 11 | 7 | Down |
| hsa-miR-5701 | −1.02 | 3.59 | 8.42 | 0.006808 | 0.246205 | 13 | 9 | Down |
Controlling Age, Gender and Stage. p value < 0.01 and fold change > 1.5. FDR: false discovery rate; miR: miRNA; Log FC: log fold change; Log CPM: log counts per million; LCT: large cell transformation.
Figure 3Transcriptional profiles of LCT-MF and non-LCT MF. (A) Unsupervised clustering of mRNA seq data of plaques and tumor lesions of LCT-MF segregated from non-LCT MF. (B) Hallmark pathway analysis of genes that correlate with miRNA-21 and miR-146a. (C) qRT-PCR-based analysis of mRNA expression in MF-LCT and non-LCT lesional skin samples. The data are presented as means ± SD. Differences between means were analyzed using Student’s t test (* p < 0.05).
Figure 4Identification of signaling network of upregulated mRNAs that positively correlate with miR-21 and miR-146a. (A) Functional interaction network of upregulated genes in LCT-MF. The 130 genes that are upregulated in LCT-MF and positively associated with miR-146a and miR-21 were subjected to network analysis using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA). The nodes are colored based on their associated canonical pathways. (B) Heatmap visualization of differential expression key genes in MF-LCT vs. non-LCT. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. (C) qRT-PCR validation of key genes of the targeted signaling in LCT-MF and non-LCT lesional skin samples. Data are shown as means ± SD. Variables were analyzed using Student’s t test (* p < 0.05); ns, no significant difference.
Figure 5Immune cell gene signatures in the microenvironment of LCT-MF vs. non-LCT. Heatmap visualization of RNA-Seq data: Th1, CD8+ TILs, and B cells (A) Th2, Tregs, TAMs, MDSCs and DCs signature (B) in the microenvironment of MF-LCT vs. non-LCT. (C) RNA-Seq analysis with genes scored by −log2 (RPKM) to evaluate the genetic expression of iTregs, MDSCs, PD-L1+ M2, PD1+ M2, B cells, and mature DCs in MF-LCT vs. non-LCT. “limma” was used with p-value < 0.05 and fold change > 1.5 as the cutoff values.
Figure 6The correlation analysis of miR expression and the immune cell gene score in MF-LCT. (A) Correlation analysis of miR-21-3p with iTregs and MDSCs in MF-LCT. (B) Correlation analysis of miR-146a-3p with iTregs and MDSCs in MF-LCT. (C) Correlation analysis of miR-708-5p with iTregs, MDSCs, TAM (M2) and immature DCs in MF-LCT. Pearson’s correlation coefficient.