| Literature DB >> 35948981 |
Mitsuru Sugimoto1, Rei Suzuki2, Yoshihiro Nozawa3, Tadayuki Takagi2, Naoki Konno2, Hiroyuki Asama2, Yuki Sato2, Hiroki Irie2, Jun Nakamura2,4, Mika Takasumi2, Minami Hashimoto2,4, Tsunetaka Kato2,4, Ryoichiro Kobashi2, Osamu Suzuki5, Yuko Hashimoto5, Takuto Hikichi4, Hiromasa Ohira2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) has a poor prognosis; therefore, useful biomarkers and treatments are needed. Serum levels of macrophage inhibitory cytokine-1 (MIC-1), a member of the TGF-β superfamily, are elevated in patients with pancreaticobiliary cancers. However, the effect of MIC-1 on BTC is unknown. Therefore, we investigated the effect of MIC-1 on BTC and assessed whether MIC-1 is a biomarker of or therapeutic target for BTC.Entities:
Keywords: Apoptosis; Biliary tract cancer; Diagnostic marker; M30; Macrophage inhibitory cytokine-1
Year: 2022 PMID: 35948981 PMCID: PMC9367137 DOI: 10.1186/s12935-022-02668-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Cell Int ISSN: 1475-2867 Impact factor: 6.429
Fig. 1Histological immunostaining, TMA, western blot and RT–PCR analyses of MIC-1 expression. MIC-1 immunostaining was performed on tumour specimens from two patients with BTC (magnification: A × 20, B × 200, D × 20, E × 100). MIC-1 expression was observed in specimens from both patients. C MIC-1 expression was also observed in normal bile duct epithelial cells from the first patient (magnification: × 100). F The intensity of TMA immunostaining is shown (0: none, 1: weakly positive, 2: moderately positive, and 3: strongly positive) (magnification × 200). G MIC-1 expression was higher in BTC tissues than in normal tissues in the TMA. H MIC-1 was more expressed at higher levels in tumour cell lines (HuCCT-1 and TFK-1) than in a normal bile duct epithelial cell line (MMNK-1), as determined using western blotting. I MIC-1 expression was also more frequently detected in tumour cell lines using RT–PCR
Fig. 2Results of the cell culture experiments (n = 3). A Cell proliferation assay. The proliferation of both BTC cell lines was significantly accelerated by MIC-1. At three days, the minimum effective concentration of MIC-1 was 50 ng/ml in HuCCT-1 cells and 6.25 ng/ml in TFK-1 cells. These concentrations were applied in the other cell culture experiments. B Cell invasion assay. BTC cell invasion was accelerated by MIC-1. C Apoptosis assay. A higher level of apoptosis was observed in cell lines not treated with MIC-1 than in those treated with MIC-1. D Anticancer drug sensitivity assay. The effective concentration of GEM was 100 nM in both tumour cell lines (left two figures). MIC-1 inhibited the anticancer effect of GEM (right two figures). * P < 0.05 and ** P < 0.01
Comparison of clinical and demographic characteristics and serum markers in patients with benign disease (control) or BTC
| Control | BTC | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| N | 62 | 56 | |
| Age, y, mean ± SD | 72.3 ± 11.8 | 72.5 ± 8.4 | 0.93 |
| Male/female, n | 38/24 | 39/17 | 0.45 |
| The location of BTC | |||
| Intrahepatic | 6 | ||
| Peri-hilar | 23 | ||
| Extrahepatic | 27 | ||
| UICC stage | |||
| I | 16 | ||
| II | 14 | ||
| III | 12 | ||
| IV | 14 | ||
| AST, U/L, mean ± SD | 115.7 ± 203.0 | 126.5 ± 200.4 | 0.77 |
| ALT, U/L, mean ± SD | 133.4 ± 240.1 | 128.9 ± 146.9 | 0.90 |
| CRP, mg/dL, mean ± SD | 2.4 ± 4.7 | 3.3 ± 4.0 | 0.27 |
| CA19-9, U/ml, mean ± SD | 561.6 ± 2475.8 | 6719.1 ± 36,162.6 | 0.21 |
| M30, U/L, mean ± SD | 212.5 ± 133.5 | 464.2 ± 305.7 | < 0.01 |
| MIC-1, 10–2 ng/ml, mean ± SD | 228.2 ± 149.2 | 379.0 ± 204.5 | < 0.01 |
Fig. 3Correlation between serum MIC-1 levels and several clinical parameters in patients with BTC. A Serum MIC-1 levels were significantly higher in patients with stage IV BTC than in patients with stage I/II/III BTC (526.6 (231.1–788.4) vs. 288.1 (42.7–720.2) × 10–2 ng/ml, P < 0.01). B Serum MIC-1 levels and UICC stage showed a significant positive correlation. C Serum MIC-1 and ALT levels did not show a significant correlation. D Serum M30 levels were significantly higher in patients with stage III/IV BTC than in patients with stage I/II BTC (558.0 (105.4–1128.2) vs. 277.0 (100.6–1110.6) U/L, p = 0.015). E Serum M30 levels and the UICC stage showed a significant positive correlation. F Serum M30 and MIC-1 levels showed a significant positive correlation. * P < 0.05 and ** P < 0.01
Fig. 4Ability to diagnose BTC using serum markers. A The AUCs of M30 and MIC-1 were higher than that of CA19-9. The AUC of the combination of CA19-9 and M30 was significantly higher than that of CA19-9. Furthermore, the combination of MIC-1 and M30 resulted in the highest AUC. B The ability to diagnose BTC was significantly greater using a combination of MIC-1 and M30 than using bile cytology or biliary brush cytology. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01
Comparison of clinical and demographic characteristics and serum markers in patients with benign disease (control) or early BTC
| Control | Early BTC | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| N | 62 | 30 | |
| Age, y, mean ± SD | 72.3 ± 11.8 | 73.3 ± 9.0 | 0.70 |
| Male/female | 38/24 | 24/6 | 0.12 |
| The location of BTC | |||
| Intrahepatic | 1 | ||
| Peri-hilar | 12 | ||
| Extrahepatic | 17 | ||
| UICC stage | |||
| I | 16 | ||
| II | 14 | ||
| AST, U/L, mean ± SD | 115.7 ± 203.0 | 137.9 ± 259.4 | 0.69 |
| ALT, U/L, mean ± SD | 133.4 ± 240.1 | 144.5 ± 184.6 | 0.84 |
| CRP, mg/dL, mean ± SD | 2.4 ± 4.7 | 3.2 ± 4.4 | 0.40 |
| CA19-9, U/ml, mean ± SD | 561.6 ± 2475.8 | 479.1 ± 1935.6 | 0.88 |
| M30, U/L, mean ± SD | 212.5 ± 133.5 | 386.3 ± 300.6 | < 0.01 |
| MIC-1, 10–2 ng/ml, mean ± SD | 228.2 ± 149.2 | 338.7 ± 196.7 | < 0.01 |
Fig. 5Ability to diagnose early BTC using serum markers. A The AUCs of MIC-1 and M30 were higher than that of CA19-9. The AUC was highest for the combination of MIC-1 and M30, indicating a greater ability to diagnose early BTC. The AUC of the combination of MIC-1 and M30 was significantly higher than that of CA19-9 (P value < 0.05). B Although the difference was not significant, the ability to diagnose BTC was improved using the combination of MIC-1 and M30 levels compared with biliary cytology or brush cytology. * P < 0.05
Fig. 6DFS, OS of BTC patients evaluated based on M30 or MIC-1. A The DFS was not significantly different between the patients with serum M30 ≥ the median and the patients with serum M30 < the median. B The DFS was not significantly different between the patients with serum MIC-1 ≥ the median and the patients with serum MIC-1 < the median. C The OS was not significantly different between the patients with serum M30 ≥ the median and the patients with serum M30 < the median. D The OS was significantly longer in the patients with serum MIC-1 < the median than in the patients with serum MIC-1 ≥ the median
Reported functions of MIC-1 in several cancer types
| Cancer | Author, year | Experimental | Function |
|---|---|---|---|
Neck Oesophagus | Li et al | In vitro | Increases the number of invasive cells |
| Urakawa et al | In vitro | Associated with cancer growth | |
| Dong et al | In vitro In vivo | Induces invasion and metastasis | |
| Okamoto et al | In vitro | Increases proliferation, migration, and invasion | |
| Lung | Duan et al | In vitro In vivo | Inhibits proliferation, migration, and invasion |
| Breast | Kim et al | In vitro | Participates in malignant progression |
| Sasahara et al | In vitro | Maintains cancer stem cell properties | |
| Wang et al | In vitro In vivo | Represses metastatic potential | |
| Huang et al | In vitro In vivo | Facilitates cancer progression via the GDF15–AKT pathway | |
| Gkretsi et al | In vitro | Suppresses tumour cell invasion | |
| Liver | Wang et al | In vitro | Increases viability, invasion, migration, and angiogenesis |
| Xu et al | In vitro | Promotes metastasis | |
| Stomach | Lee et al | In vitro | Contributes to cancer progression |
| Jang et al | In vitro | Promotes the apoptosis of gastric cancer cells | |
| Kim et al | In vitro | Participates in malignant progression | |
| Han et al | In vitro | Activates apoptosis | |
| Pancreas | Guo et al | In vitro In vivo | Promotes cancer progression |
| Prostate | Liu et al | In vitro | Reduces cell adhesion and induces apoptosis |
| Senapati et al | In vitro In vivo | Induces metastasis | |
| Huang et al | In vitro In vivo | Promotes cancer progression | |
| Husaini et al | In vitro In vivo | Promotes local invasion and metastatic spread | |
| Zhang et al | In vitro In vivo | Inhibits cell proliferation and induces apoptosis | |
| Huang et al | In vitro In vivo | Increases IL-8 and IL-6 levels and promotes cancer progression | |
| Blatter | Tsui et al | In vitro In vivo | Inhibits cell proliferation, invasion and tumorigenesis |
| Uterus | Li et al | In vitro | Enhances cervical cancer cell proliferation |
| Ovary | Griner et al | In vitro | Promotes cancer cell growth |
| Colon | Baek et al | In vitro | Reduces tumorigenicity |
| Li et al | In vitro In vivo | Promotes the epithelial–mesenchymal transition and metastasis | |
| Zheng et al | In vitro | Induces metastasis | |
| Skin | Boyle et al | In vitro In vivo | Facilitates the development of more aggressive melanoma |