| Literature DB >> 36011276 |
Justina Bekampytė1, Aistė Savukaitytė1, Agnė Bartnykaitė1, Rasa Ugenskienė1,2, Eglė Žilienė3, Arturas Inčiūra3, Elona Juozaitytė3.
Abstract
Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in women worldwide, which is typically caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Usually, the toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling pathways eliminate the virus from the organism, but in some cases, persistent infection may develop. Unfortunately, the mechanism of immune tolerance is still unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze TIRAP rs8177376, rs611953, rs3802814, and rs8177374 polymorphisms and to identify their impact on cervical cancer phenotype and prognosis. This study included 172 cervical cancer patients. Genotyping was performed using the PCR-RFLP assay. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression and Cox's regression models were applied for statistical analysis. The results revealed that older age at the time of diagnosis was statistically linked with the rs8177376 T allele (OR = 2.901, 95% Cl 1.750-4.808, p = 0.000) and the rs611953 G allele (OR = 3.258, 95% Cl 1.917-5.536, p = 0.000). Moreover, the T allele of rs8177376 (OR = 0.424, 95% Cl 0.220-0.816, p = 0.010) was found to be statistically associated with the lower tumor grade. Thus, TIRAP polymorphisms might be employed in the future as potential biomarkers for determining the phenotype and prognosis of cervical cancer.Entities:
Keywords: TIRAP; cervical cancer; phenotype; polymorphisms; prognosis; survival; toll-like receptors
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36011276 PMCID: PMC9407394 DOI: 10.3390/genes13081365
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genes (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4425 Impact factor: 4.141
Reaction conditions for PCR-RFLP assay.
| SNP | PCR | RFLP | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primer Sequences | Annealing Temperature (°C) | Number of Cycles | Fragment Size of PCR Product (bp) | Restriction Enzyme | Incubation Temperature (°C) | Fragment Size (bp) | |
| rs8177376 | F: 5′-GGTTTGGGAG | 58.0 | 30 | 245 | TasI | 65 | T: 158, 87 |
| GTGTGACAAC-3′ 1 | |||||||
| R: 5′-ATGGTCTTCTT | |||||||
| AGGGAGCCC-3′ 1 | |||||||
| rs611953 | F: 5′-GTGACAACGC | 57.6 | 30 | 223 | BseXI | 65 | A: 223 |
| TGTGATTGGT-3′ 1 | |||||||
| R: 5′-TAGGGAGCCC | |||||||
| ACAGTAATGG-3′ 1 | |||||||
| rs3802814 | F: 5′-AGCCTCAGCT | 58.4 | 30 | 153 | Eco47I | 37 | G: 126, 27 |
| CAGTCACGTC-3′ 1 | |||||||
| R: 5′-GCTGCCTTCCA | |||||||
| AGTAGGAGA-3′ 1 | |||||||
| rs8177374 | F: 5′-AGTGCTGTACC | 64.4 | 40 | 161 | Eam1150I | 37 | C: 141, 20 |
| ATCGACCTGCTG-3′ 2 | |||||||
| R: 5′-TTCCCCTTCTCCC | |||||||
| TCCTGTAGTAG-3′ 2 | |||||||
F—forward primer; R—reverse primer; 1—primer sequences were generated using https://primer3.ut.ee (accessed on 23 September 2020); 2—primer sequences were described by Zhang et al. [19]; 3—the restriction enzymes were selected using http://nc2.neb.com/NEBcutter2/program (accessed on 25 September 2020).
Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients with cervical cancer (n = 172).
| Clinicopathological Characteristics | Subgroups | |
|---|---|---|
| Age group | ≤50 years old | 65 (37.8) |
| >50 years old | 107 (62.2) | |
| Tumor size (T) | T1 + T2 | 110 (64.0) |
| T3 + T4 | 62 (36.0) | |
| Lymph node involvement (N) | N0 | 95 (55.2) |
| N1 | 77 (44.8) | |
| Metastasis (M) | M0 | 162 (94.2) |
| M1 | 10 (5.8) | |
| Tumor grade (G) | G1 + G2 | 125 (72.7) |
| G3 | 45 (26.2) | |
| Presence of disease progression | No | 121 (70.3) |
| Yes | 51 (29.7) | |
| Death | No | 132 (76.7) |
| Yes | 40 (23.3) |
X1—missing data; T—tumor size; T1 + T2—smaller tumor size; T3 + T4—larger tumor size; N—lymph node involvement; N0—no regional lymph node metastasis; N1—regional lymph node metastasis; M—metastasis; M0—no distant metastasis; M1—distant metastasis; G—tumor grade; G1—low grade (well-differentiated); G2—intermediate grade (moderately differentiated); G3—high grade (poorly differentiated).
Multivariate logistic regression analysis for associations between TIRAP rs8177376, rs611953 and clinicopathological characteristics.
| SNP | Dependent | Covariates | Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model No. 2 | Model No. 3 | |||||||
| OR | 95% Cl |
| OR | 95% Cl |
| |||
| rs8177376 | Older age at the time of diagnosis (>50 years old) | Carrier of T allele vs. non-carrier | - | - | - | 2.901 | 1.750–4.808 |
|
| Age group | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| T (T3 + T4 vs. T1 + T2) | 1.777 | 0.831–3.802 | 0.138 | |||||
| N (positive vs. negative) | 0.288 | 0.143–0.581 | 0.000 | |||||
| G (G3 vs. G1 + G2) | 0.659 | 0.320–1.357 | 0.258 | |||||
| G3 tumor grade | Carrier of T allele vs. non-carrier | 0.519 | 0.307–0.875 | 0.014 | 0.424 | 0.220–0.816 |
| |
| Age group | 0.276–1.028 | 0.060 | 0.501 | 0.255–0.983 | 0.045 | |||
| T (T3 + T4 vs. T1 + T2) | 2.094 | 0.976–4.496 | 0.058 | |||||
| N (positive vs. negative) | 0.869 | 0.426–1.770 | 0.698 | |||||
| G (G3 vs. G1 + G2) | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| rs611953 | Older age at the time of diagnosis (>50 years old) | Carrier of G allele vs. non-carrier | - | - | - | 3.258 | 1.917–5.536 |
|
| Age group | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| T (T3 + T4 vs. T1 + T2) | 1.799 | 0.840–3.852 | 0.131 | |||||
| N (positive vs. negative) | 0.242 | 0.117–0.501 | 0.000 | |||||
| G (G3 vs. G1 + G2) | 0.581 | 0.276–1.223 | 0.153 | |||||
| Disease progression | Carrier of G allele vs. non-carrier | 0.555 | 0.332–0.929 | 0.025 | 0.383 | 0.110–1.341 | 0.134 | |
| Age group | 0.325–1.224 | 0.173 | 0.574 | 0.267–1.234 | 0.155 | |||
| T (T3 + T4 vs. T1 + T2) | 7.587 | 3.367–17.092 | 0.000 | |||||
| N (positive vs. negative) | 0.731 | 0.321–1.667 | 0.457 | |||||
| G (G3 vs. G1 + G2) | 0.856 | 0.516–1.420 | 0.547 | |||||
OR—odds ratio; Cl—confidence interval; vs.—versus; Age group (age at the time of diagnosis): >50 years old vs. ≤50 years old; T—tumor size: T3 + T4 (larger) vs. T1 + T2 (smaller); N—lymph node involvement: N1 (regional lymph node metastasis) vs. N0 (no regional lymph node metastasis); G—tumor grade: G3 (high grade (poorly differentiated)) vs. G1 + G2 (low grade (well-differentiated) or intermediate grade (moderately differentiated), respectively). Statistically significant p values are marked in bold (Bonferroni-corrected p < 0.013).
Figure 1Kaplan–Meier survival curve for the association between the A allele of rs3802814 and OS.
Figure 2Kaplan–Meier survival curve for the association between the T allele of rs8177374 and OS.
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis between the rs3802814 A allele and rs8177374 T allele and OS.
| Variables | Univariate | Multivariate (Model No. 1) | Multivariate (Model No. 2) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% Cl |
| HR | 95% Cl |
| HR | 95% Cl |
| |
| rs3802814 A allele | 1.967 | 1.024–3.777 |
| 1.967 | 1.024–3.779 |
| 1.241 | 0.627–2.458 | 0.536 |
| 1.019 | 0.537–1.934 | 0.955 | 1.442 | 0.727–2.861 | 0.295 | ||||
| 7.897 | 3.383–18.433 | 0.000 | |||||||
| 1.667 | 0.793–3.502 | 0.177 | |||||||
| rs8177374 T allele | 2.212 | 1.172–4.177 |
| 2.212 | 1.172–4.178 |
| 1.502 | 0.776–2.907 | 0.227 |
| 0.995 | 0.524–1.889 | 0.988 | 1.451 | 0.729–2.887 | 0.289 | ||||
| 7.743 | 3.327–18.025 | 0.000 | |||||||
| 1.639 | 0.776–3.460 | 0.195 | |||||||
| 0.681 | 0.335–1.386 | 0.289 | |||||||
HR—hazard ratio; Cl—confidence interval; OR—odds ratio; Age group (age at the time of diagnosis): >50 years old vs. ≤50 years old; T—tumor size: T3 + T4 (larger) vs. T1 + T2 (smaller); N—lymph node involvement: N1 (regional lymph node metastasis) vs. N0 (no regional lymph node metastasis); G—tumor grade: G3 (high grade (poorly differentiated)) vs. G1 + G2 (low grade (well-differentiated) or intermediate grade (moderately differentiated), respectively). Statistically significant p values are marked in bold (p < 0.05).