Prognostic Significance and Gene Expression Profiles of p53 Mutations in Microsatellite-Stable Stage III Colorectal Adenocarcinomas

Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.23). 01/2012; 7(1):e30020. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030020
Source: PubMed


Although the prognostic value of p53 abnormalities in Stage III microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancers (CRCs) is known, the gene expression profiles specific to the p53 status in the MSS background are not known. Therefore, the current investigation has focused on identification and validation of the gene expression profiles associated with p53 mutant phenotypes in MSS Stage III CRCs. Genomic DNA extracted from 135 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues, was analyzed for microsatellite instability (MSI) and p53 mutations. Further, mRNA samples extracted from five p53-mutant and five p53-wild-type MSS-CRC snap-frozen tissues were profiled for differential gene expression by Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 arrays. Differentially expressed genes were further validated by the high-throughput quantitative nuclease protection assay (qNPA), and confirmed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Survival rates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. A higher incidence of p53 mutations was found in MSS (58%) than in MSI (30%) phenotypes. Both univariate (log-rank, P = 0.025) and multivariate (hazard ratio, 2.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-5.08) analyses have demonstrated that patients with MSS-p53 mutant phenotypes had poor CRC-specific survival when compared to MSS-p53 wild-type phenotypes. Gene expression analyses identified 84 differentially expressed genes. Of 49 down-regulated genes, LPAR6, PDLIM3, and PLAT, and, of 35 up-regulated genes, TRIM29, FUT3, IQGAP3, and SLC6A8 were confirmed by qNPA, qRT-PCR, and IHC platforms. p53 mutations are associated with poor survival of patients with Stage III MSS CRCs and p53-mutant and wild-type phenotypes have distinct gene expression profiles that might be helpful in identifying aggressive subsets.

Download full-text


Available from: Upender Manne,

Click to see the full-text of:

Article: Prognostic Significance and Gene Expression Profiles of p53 Mutations in Microsatellite-Stable Stage III Colorectal Adenocarcinomas

586.16 KB

See full-text
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Genomic instability (IN) is a common feature of many human cancers. The TP53 tumour suppressor gene is mutated in approximately half of human cancers. Here, we show that BRCA1 and RAD17 genes, whose derived proteins play a pivotal role in DNA damage repair, are transcriptional targets of gain-of-function mutant p53 proteins. Indeed, high levels of mutp53 protein facilitate DNA damage accumulation and severely impair BRCA1 and RAD17 expression in proliferating cancer cells. The recruitment of mutp53/E2F4 complex onto specific regions of BRCA1 and RAD17 promoters leads to the inhibition of their expression. BRCA1 and RAD17 mRNA expression is reduced in HNSCC patients carrying TP53 mutations when compared to those bearing wt-p53 gene. Furthermore, the analysis of gene expression databases for breast cancer patients reveals that low expression of DNA repair genes correlates significantly with reduced relapse free survival of patients carrying TP53 gene mutations. Collectively, these findings highlight the direct involvement of transcriptionally active gain of function mutant p53 proteins in genomic instability through the impairment of DNA repair mechanisms.
    Oncotarget 10/2014; 6(8). DOI:10.18632/oncotarget.2587 · 6.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Nef-M1 peptide competes effectively with the natural ligand of CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4), stromal cell-derived factor 1-alpha, to induce apoptosis and inhibit growth in colon cancer (CRC) and breast cancer (BC). Its role in tumor angiogenesis, and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) regulation, key steps involved in tumor growth and metastasis, are unknown. We evaluated the angioinhibitory effect of Nef-M1 peptide and examined its role in the inhibition of EMT in these cancers.Colon (HT29) and breast (MDA-MB231) cancer cells expressing CXCR4 were studied in vitro and in xenograft tumors propagated in severe combined immunodeficient mice. The mice were treated intraperitoneally with Nef-M1 or scrambled amino acid sequence of Nef-M1 (sNef-M1) peptide, a negative control, starting at the time of tumor implantation. Sections from tumors were evaluated for tumor angiogenesis, as measured by microvessel density (MVD) based on immunostaining of endothelial markers. In vitro tumor angiogenesis was assessed by treating human umbilical vein endothelial cells with conditioned media from the tumor cell lines. A BC cell line (MDA-MB 468) which does not express CXCR4 was used to study the actions of Nef-M1 peptide. Western blot and immunofluorescence analyses assessed the effect of Nef-M1 on tumor angiogenesis and EMT in both tumors and cancer cells.Metastatic lesions of CRC and BC expressed more CXCR4 than primary lesions. It was also found that tumors from mice treated with sNef-M1 had well established vascularity, while Nef-M1 treated tumors had very poor vascularization. Indeed, the mean MVD was lower in tumors from Nef-M1 treated mice than in sNef-M1 treated tumors. Nef-M1 treated tumor has poor morphology and loss of endothelial integrity. Although conditioned medium from CRC or BC cells supported HUVEC tube formation, the conditioned medium from Nef-M1 treated CRC or BC cells did not support tube formation. Western blot analyses revealed that Nef-M1 effectively suppressed the expression of VEGF-A in CRC and BC cells and tumors. This suggests that Nef-M1 treated CRC and BC cells are more consistent with E-cadherin signature, and thus appears more epithelial in nature.Our data indicate that Nef-M1 peptide inhibits tumor angiogenesis and the oncogenic EMT process. Targeting the chemokine receptor, CXCR4, mediated pathways using Nef-M1 may prove to be a novel therapeutic approach for CRC and BC.
    Oncotarget 07/2015; 6(29). DOI:10.18632/oncotarget.4615 · 6.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Colon cancers develop adaptive mechanisms to survive under extreme conditions and display hallmarks of unlimited proliferation and resistance to cell death. The deregulation of cell death is a key factor that contributes to chemoresistance in tumors. In a physiological context, balance between cell proliferation and death, and protection against cell damage are fundamental processes for maintaining gut epithelial homeostasis. The mechanisms underlying anti-death cytoprotection and tumor resistance often bear common pathways, and although distinguishing them would be a challenge, it would also provide an opportunity to develop advanced anti-cancer therapeutics. This review will outline cell death pathways (i.e. , apoptosis, necrosis, and necroptosis), and discuss cytoprotective strategies in normal intestinal epithelium and death resistance mechanisms of colon tumor. In colorectal cancers, the intracellular mechanisms of death resistance include the direct alteration of apoptotic and necroptotic machinery and the upstream events modulating death effectors such as tumor suppressor gene inactivation and pro-survival signaling pathways. The autocrine, paracrine and exogenous factors within a tumor microenvironment can also instigate resistance against apoptotic and necroptotic cell death in colon cancers through changes in receptor signaling or transporter uptake. The roles of cyclooxygenase-2/ prostaglandin E2, growth factors, glucose, and bacterial lipopolysaccharides in colorectal cancer will be highlighted. Targeting anti-death pathways in the colon cancer tissue might be a promising approach outside of anti-proliferation and anti-angiogenesis strategies for developing novel drugs to treat refractory tumors.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 11/2015; 21(41):11777-11792. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v21.i41.11777 · 2.37 Impact Factor