| Literature DB >> 34944486 |
Yawei Sun1, Shuai Wang1, Xingwei Zhang1, Zhuhao Wu1, Zihui Li1, Zhuang Ding1, Xiaofeng Huang2, Sheng Chen2, Yue Jing1, Xiaoxin Zhang1, Liang Ding1, Yuxian Song1, Guowen Sun3, Yanhong Ni1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Procollagen-lysine, 2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 2 (PLOD2), a key enzyme that catalyzes the hydroxylation of lysine, plays a crucial role in the progression of several solid tumors. However, its spatial expression profile and prognostic significance in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) have not been revealed. MATERIALS: Mass spectrometry was used to explore amino acid perturbations between OSCC tumor tissues and paired normal tissues of 28 patients. Then, PLOD2 mRNA and protein levels were assessed using several public databases and 18 pairs of OSCC patients' tissues. Additionally, PLOD2 spatial expression profiles were investigated in 100 OSCC patients by immunohistochemistry and its diagnostic and prognostic values were also evaluated. Lastly, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was used to investigate the potential functions of PLOD2 in OSCC.Entities:
Keywords: PLOD2; epithelial–mesenchymal transformation; metabolomics; oral squamous cell carcinoma; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34944486 PMCID: PMC8699216 DOI: 10.3390/biom11121842
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomolecules ISSN: 2218-273X
Figure 1Differential lysine levels in tumor and adjacent normal tissues of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). (a) Heat map of differential amino acids in tumor and paired normal tissues of 8 OSCC patients. (b) Nine amino acids significantly up–regulated in OSCC tumor tissues compared with matched normal tissues using UHPLC–MS/MS–based quantitative analysis (n = 20). (c) ROC curve and fold change of lysine between tumor and normal group (AUC = 0.859, p = 0.0035). (d) The level of lysine between tumor and normal tissues of OSCC patients (n = 20).
Figure 2The expression level of PLOD2 in tumor and normal tissues of HNSCC and OSCC. (a) PLOD2 expression in HNSCC using Oncomine database, cell color is determined by the best gene rank percentile for the analyses within the cell. (b) PLOD2 expression levels in all tumors and adjacent normal tissues across TIMER2 online database. (c) The difference in PLOD2 protein expression levels between OSCC tumor tissues and normal controls was investigated by western blot. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 compared to normal tissues.
Figure 3PLOD2 spatial expression in different cell types of OSCC patients. (a) Representative immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining of PLOD2 in tumor cells (TCs), fibroblast-like cells (FLCs), and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). (b) Representative high and low expression of PLOD2 in FLCs and TCs. *** p < 0.001.
Association between PLOD2 expression and clinicopathological characteristics in OSCC patients.
| FILs | TCs | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | N | Low (%) | High (%) | χ2 | N | Low (%) | High (%) | χ2 | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| Male | 58 | 31 (53.4%) | 27 (46.6%) | 0.369 | 0.543 | 58 | 32 (51.7%) | 26 (48.3%) | 0.095 | 0.758 |
| Female | 42 | 19 (45.2%) | 23 (54.8%) | 42 | 21 (65.9%) | 21 (34.1%) | ||||
|
| ||||||||||
| <60 | 43 | 22 (51.2%) | 21 (48.8%) | 0 | 1 | 43 | 26 (58.1%) | 17 (41.9%) | 1.203 | 0.273 |
| ≥60 | 57 | 28 (49.1% | 29 (50.9%) | 57 | 27 (57.1%) | 30 (42.9%) | ||||
|
| ||||||||||
| NO | 60 | 26 (43.3%) | 34 (56.7%) | 2.042 | 0.153 | 60 | 27 (50.8%) | 33 (49.1%) | 3.093 | 0.079 |
| YES | 40 | 24 (60%) | 16 (40%) | 40 | 19 (57.5%) | 22 (42.5%) | ||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Ⅰ-Ⅱ | 59 | 31 (52.5%) | 28 (47.5%) | 0.165 | 0.684 | 59 | 34 (57.6%) | 25 (42.4%) | 0.825 | 0.364 |
| Ⅲ-Ⅳ | 41 | 19 (46.3%) | 22 (53.7%) | 41 | 19 (57.5%) | 22 (42.5%) | ||||
|
| ||||||||||
| NO | 46 | 34 (73.9%) | 12 (26.1%) | 17.754 |
| 46 | 28 (66.7%) | 18 (33.3%) | 1.573 | 0.21 |
| YES | 54 | 16 (29.6%) | 38 (70.4%) | 54 | 25 (50%) | 29 (50%) | ||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Well | 61 | 41 (67.2%) | 20 (32.8%) | 16.814 |
| 61 | 38 (67.8%) | 23 (32.2%) | 4.51 |
|
| Moderate to poor | 39 | 9 (23.1%) | 30 (76.9%) | 39 | 15 (42.5%) | 24 (57.5%) | ||||
|
| ||||||||||
| 1~3 | 57 | 40 (70.2%) | 17 (29.8%) | 19.747 |
| 57 | 43 (75%) | 14 (25%) | 24.739 |
|
| 4~5 | 43 | 10 (23.3%) | 33 (76.7%) | 43 | 10 (34.9% | 33 (65.1%) | ||||
TCs, tumor cells; FLCs, fibroblast-like cells; LNM, lymph node metastasis; WPOI, worst pattern of invasion; χ2, Pearson’s chi-squared test. * Represented those differences were considered statistically significant with p < 0.05.
Figure 4PLOD2 expression with different clinical characteristics. (a–c) PLOD2 with different differentiations, WPOI and lymph node metastasis in FLCs. (d,e) PLOD2 with different differentiations and WPOI in TCs. Correlation between PLOD2 expression and metastasis (f) or recurrence (g) status in TCs and TILs. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 5Survival analysis results. KM survival curves for OS, DFS, MFS, and RFS of OSCC patients according to the expression of PLOD2 in TCs (a–d) and FLCs (e–h), respectively. TCGA database was used to evaluate the relationships between PLOD2 expression and patient survival. High expression of PLOD2 has poor OS (i) and DFS (j) in HNSCC patients.
Cox-regression analysis of OS and DFS in OSCC patients.
| Variables | Univariate Analysis |
| Multivariate Analysis |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95%CI | HR | 95%CI | |||
|
| ||||||
| 1.647 | 0.779–3.482 | 0.192 | ||||
| 2.194 | 1.014–4.745 |
| 2.219 | 1.005–4.903 |
| |
| 0.751 | 0.362–1.560 | 0.443 | ||||
| 0.881 | 0.430–1.802 | 0.728 | ||||
| 1.119 | 0.556–2.252 | 0.752 | ||||
| 2.214 | 1.099–4.460 |
| 1.528 | 0.736–3.169 | 0.255 | |
| 2.257 | 1.110–4.588 |
| 0.833 | 0.370–1.876 | 0.659 | |
| 0.951 | 0.391–2.314 | 0.913 | ||||
| 0.862 | 0.262–2.839 | 0.807 | ||||
| 8.131 | 2.841–23.273 |
| 6.127 | 2.046–18.347 |
| |
| 3.141 | 1.514–6.520 |
| 2.202 | 0.975–4.974 | 0.057 | |
|
| ||||||
| 1.336 | 0.648–2.756 | 0.433 | ||||
| 2.121 | 1.006–4.715 |
| 2.167 | 0.988–4.744 | 0.056 | |
| 0.604 | 0.292–1.250 | 0.174 | ||||
| 0.813 | 0.399–1.657 | 0.569 | ||||
| 1.158 | 0.582–2.301 | 0.676 | ||||
| 2.289 | 1.136–4.554 |
| 1.367 | 0.685–2.868 | 0.45 | |
| 2.912 | 1.435–6.134 |
| 1.168 | 0.548–2.865 | 0.654 | |
| 1.428 | 0.712–3.865 | 0.189 | ||||
| 1.452 | 0.654–4.658 | 0.356 | ||||
| 8.639 | 3.125–26.354 |
| 6.425 | 2.068–19.267 |
| |
| 3.462 | 1.625–7.159 |
| 2.065 | 0.954–4.769 | 0.068 | |
TCs, tumor cells; FLCs, fibroblast-like cells; OS, overall survival time; DFS, disease-free survival time; LNM, lymph node metastasis; WPOI, worst pattern of invasion; CI, confidence interval. * Represented those differences were considered statistically significant with p < 0.05.
Cox-regression analysis of RS and MFS in OSCC patients.
| Variables | Univariate Analysis |
| Multivariate Analysis |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95%CI | HR | 95%CI | |||
|
| ||||||
| 1.703 | 0.805–3.604 | 0.164 | ||||
| 2.227 | 1.029–4.819 |
| 2.149 | 0.973–4.475 | 0.058 | |
| 0.684 | 0.329–1.420 | 0.308 | ||||
| 0.9 | 0.439–1.842 | 0.773 | ||||
| 1.183 | 0.588–2.380 | 0.638 | ||||
| 2.269 | 1.126–4.574 |
| 1.438 | 0.693–2.987 | 0.33 | |
| 2.547 | 1.253–5.180 |
| 0.943 | 0.409–2.173 | 0.891 | |
| 0.881 | 0.362–2.141 | 0.779 | ||||
| 1.97 | 0.589–6.584 | 0.271 | ||||
| 8.559 | 2.990–24.501 |
| 6.024 | 1.975–18.373 |
| |
| 3.248 | 1.564–6.745 |
| 1.972 | 0.847–4.593 | 0.115 | |
|
| ||||||
| 1.448 | 0.686–3.059 | 0.332 | ||||
| 2.207 | 1.021–4.773 |
| 2.176 | 0.994–4.764 | 0.052 | |
| 0.721 | 0.347–1.500 | 0.381 | ||||
| 0.839 | 0.410–1.720 | 0.632 | ||||
| 1.175 | 0.583–2.366 | 0.652 | ||||
| 2.298 | 1.141–4.626 |
| 1.287 | 0.609–2.720 | 0.5 | |
| 3.41 | 1.622–7.168 |
| 1.365 | 0.593–3.143 | 0.465 | |
| 2.326 | 0.910–5.944 | 0.078 | ||||
| 0.762 | 0.231–2.512 | 0.655 | ||||
| 9.933 | 3.340–28.768 |
| 6.796 | 2.244–20.582 |
| |
| 3.587 | 1.722–7.472 |
| 2.222 | 0.990–4.986 | 0.053 | |
TCs, tumor cells; FLCs, fibroblast-like cells; RFS, recurrence-free survival time; MFS, metastasis-free survival; LNM, lymph node metastasis; WPOI, worst pattern of invasion; CI, confidence interval. * Represented those differences were considered statistically significant with p < 0.05.
Gene sets enriched in the high PLOD2 expression phenotype.
| TERM | ES | NES | NOM p-val | FDR q-val | FWER p-val |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HALLMARK_EPITHELIAL_MESENCHYMAL_TRANSITION | 0.74 | 3.51 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HALLMARK_UV_RESPONSE_DN | 0.62 | 2.83 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HALLMARK_MITOTIC_SPINDLE | 0.54 | 2.55 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HALLMARK_G2M_CHECKPOINT | 0.52 | 2.47 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HALLMARK_TGF_BETA_SIGNALING | 0.61 | 2.36 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HALLMARK_HYPOXIA | 0.49 | 2.31 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HALLMARK_ANGIOGENESIS | 0.62 | 2.21 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HALLMARK_PROTEIN_SECRETION | 0.51 | 2.19 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HALLMARK_HEDGEHOG_SIGNALING | 0.6 | 2.16 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HALLMARK_INFLAMMATORY_RESPONSE | 0.45 | 2.13 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HALLMARK_E2F_TARGETS | 0.44 | 2.11 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HALLMARK_KRAS_SIGNALING_UP | 0.44 | 2.08 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HALLMARK_TNFA_SIGNALING_VIA_NFKB | 0.42 | 2.01 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HALLMARK_ANDROGEN_RESPONSE | 0.46 | 1.99 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 |
| HALLMARK_IL6_JAK_STAT3_SIGNALING | 0.45 | 1.91 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.003 |
| HALLMARK_APICAL_JUNCTION | 0.4 | 1.91 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.003 |
| HALLMARK_GLYCOLYSIS | 0.4 | 1.9 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.003 |
| HALLMARK_COAGULATION | 0.41 | 1.87 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.004 |
| HALLMARK_IL2_STAT5_SIGNALING | 0.36 | 1.7 | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.035 |
| HALLMARK_COMPLEMENT | 0.35 | 1.66 | <0.001 | 0.003 | 0.054 |
ES, Enrichment score; NES, Normalized Enrichment Score; NOM p-val, Nominal p Value; FDR q-val, False Discovery Rate q Value; FWER p-val, Family-wise Error Rate p Value.
Figure 6GSEA plots of PLOD2 ranked in the top 8 associated with signaling pathways in hallmark datasets. The red color indicates a strong correlation, and the blue color indicates a negative correlation.