| Literature DB >> 36157109 |
Wen-Dan Chen1, Xin Zhang1, Meng-Jiao Zhang1, Ya-Ping Zhang1, Zi-Qi Shang1, Yi-Wei Xin1, Yi Zhang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As one of the most common tumors, gastric cancer (GC) has a high mortality rate, since current examination approaches cannot achieve early diagnosis. Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn) primarily colonized in the oral cavity, has been reported to be involved in the development of gastrointestinal tumor. Until now, little is known about the relationship between salivary Fn and GC. AIM: To determine whether salivary Fn could be a biomarker to diagnose GC and explore the influence of Fn on GC cells.Entities:
Keywords: Epithelial-mesenchymal transition; Fusobacterium nucleatum; Gastric cancer; Metastasis; Prognosis; Saliva
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36157109 PMCID: PMC9403436 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i30.4120
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.374
Figure 1A: Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn) levels in normal control, atrophic gastritis (AG), non-AG, gastric polyps, and gastric cancer (GC) groups; B: Fn levels in different TNM stages of GC patients. Red lines represent the median. aP < 0.001, bP < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney U test). NC: Normal controls; NAG: Non-atrophic gastritis; GP: Gastric polyps; AG: Atrophic gastritis; GC: Gastric cancer; Fn: Fusobacterium nucleatum.
Association of Fusobacterium nucleatum levels in saliva with clinicopathologic features
|
|
|
|
|
| Age (yr) | 0.780 | ||
| < 61 | 56 | 153.00 (39.20-542.00) | |
| ≥ 61 | 64 | 204.00 (57.30-566.00) | |
| Gender | 0.961 | ||
| Male | 99 | 161.00 (53.52-620.60) | |
| Female | 21 | 213.60 (46.63-335.90) | |
| Tumor size (cm) | 0.450 | ||
| < 5 | 76 | 152.90 (52.21-443.80) | |
| ≥ 5 | 44 | 239.90 (47.31-846.80) | |
| Pathological differentiation | 0.658 | ||
| Well | 77 | 147.50 (33.98-543.90) | |
| Moderate | 33 | 155.80 (84.94-754.60) | |
| Poor | 10 | 280.80 (78.46-518.70) | |
| Invasion depth | 0.227 | ||
| T1 | 29 | 124.60 (32.21-415.80) | |
| T2 | 60 | 298.30 (76.58-666.90) | |
| T3 | 21 | 102.10 (68.62-385.70) | |
| T4 | 10 | 223.00 (66.99-790.30) | |
| Lymph nodes metastasis | < 0.001 | ||
| N0 | 43 | 80.14 (23.98-241.80) | |
| N1 | 25 | 324.50 (72.43-549.10) | |
| N2 | 22 | 239.60 (79.36-501.70) | |
| N3 | 30 | 478.00 (96.09-1054.00) |
Figure 2Diagnostic significance analysis of Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the detection of gastric cancer. A: Fusobacterium nucleatum; B: Carcinoembryonic antigen; C: Carbohydrate antigen 72-4; D: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9; E: Ferritin; F: Sialic acid.
Characteristics and levels of biomarkers among different subjects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cases | 20 | 31 | 35 | 26 | 120 |
| Gender (male/female) | 13/7 | 17/14 | 19/16 | 15/11 | 73/47 |
| Age (yr) | 56.90 ± 16.02 | 62.13 ± 10.56 | 60.80 ± 14.54 | 58.17 ± 15.26 | 61.38 ± 10.31 |
| CEA (mg/L) | 2.03 (1.22-2.56) | 1.95 (1.49-53.37) | 1.72 (1.44-2.60) | 1.36 (1.10-1.85) | 2.46 (1.38-4.63) |
| CA19-9 (pg/mL) | 6.38 (3.61-11.39) | 10.67 (8.68-16.35) | 10.30 (7.09-15.07) | 9.20 (5.68-12.09) | 11.46 (6.75-20.28) |
| CA72-4 (U/mL) | 2.86 (0.98-6.48) | 0 (0-3.18) | 2.41 (1.50-4.65) | 1.71 (0.15-4.63) | 2.58 (0-5.69) |
| Ferritin (ng/mL) | 143.15 (97.04-273.98) | 96.98 (69.33-206.55) | 126.70 (74.49-245.30) | 182.95 (101.13-263.88) | 86.20 (25.99-165.75) |
| Sialic acid (g/L) | 54.30 (51.45-56.75) | 52.50 (46.50-55.30) | 53.70 (48.25-60.55) | 56.2 (50.53-59.65) | 59.55 (53.28-65.33) |
|
| 16.70 (2.4-26.10) | 28.611 (5.99-61.50) | 12.18 (0.74-35.55) | 16.32 (1.59-122.234) | 177.09 (53.09-547.11) |
Data are presented as the mean ± SD.
Data are presented as the median (interquartile range).
Date are compared using Kruskal-Wallis test, P < 0.05.
Date are compared using Kruskal-Wallis test, P < 0.001.
CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CA72-4: Carbohydrate antigen 72-4.
Diagnostic performance of Fusobacterium nucleatum, carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, carbohydrate antigen 72-4, ferritin, and sialic acid for gastric cancer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fn | 0.813 | 67.58 copies/μL | 73.33 | 82.14 | 81.48 | 74.19 |
| CEA | 0.620 | 5 ng/mL | 55.00 | 69.64 | 66.00 | 59.09 |
| CA19-9 | 0.570 | 69.2 pg/mL | 26.67 | 86.61 | 68.09 | 52.43 |
| CA72-4 | 0.541 | 6.9 U/mL | 67.50 | 44.64 | 56.64 | 56.18 |
| Ferritin | 0.648 | 400 ng/mL | 51.67 | 23.21 | 41.89 | 30.95 |
| Sialic acid | 0.693 | 75.4 mg/dL | 60.83 | 70.54 | 68.87 | 62.70 |
AUC: Area under curve; PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value; Fn: Fusobacterium nucleatum; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CA72-4: Carbohydrate antigen 72-4.
Figure 3Transwell assay of AGS and MKN-28 cells was performed 48 h after coculture with Fusobacterium nucleatum. The cells in the control group were treated with phosphate buffer solution. Fn: Fusobacterium nucleatum.
Figure 4Wound-healing assay of AGS and MKN-28 cells was performed 48 h after coculture with Fusobacterium nucleatum. The cells in the control group were treated with phosphate buffer solution. Fn: Fusobacterium nucleatum.
Figure 5Fn: Fusobacterium nucleatum; PBS: Phosphate buffer solution; GAPDH: Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase.