Correlations of Human Epithelial Growth Factor Receptor 2 Overexpression with MUC2, MUC5AC, MUC6, p53, and Clinicopathological Characteristics in Gastric Cancer Patients with Curative Resection. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2015;2015:946359. [PMID: 26060493 PMCID: PMC4427822 DOI: 10.1155/2015/946359]

The Role of Mucin Expression in the Diagnosis of Oesophago-Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

Survival in oesophago-gastric cancer (OGC) is poor due to early diagnostic challenges. Non-invasive risk stratification may identify susceptible patients with pre-malignant or benign disease. Following diagnostic confirmation with endoscopic biopsy, early OGC may be treated sooner. Mucins are transmembrane glycoproteins implicated in OGC with potential use as biomarkers of malignant transformation. This systematic review defines the role of mucins in OGC diagnosis. A literature search of MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed following PRISMA protocols for studies published January 1960-December 2022. Demographic data and data on mucin sampling and analysis methods were extracted. The review included 124 studies (n = 11,386 patients). Gastric adenocarcinoma (GAc) was the commonest OG malignancy (n = 101) followed by oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAc, n = 24) and squamous cell carcinoma (OSqCc, n = 10). Mucins MUC1, MUC2, MUC5AC and MUC6 were the most frequently implicated. High MUC1 expression correlated with poorer prognosis and metastases in OSqCc. MUC2 expression decreases during progression from healthy mucosa to OAc, causing reduced protection from gastric acid. MUC5AC was upregulated, and MUC6 downregulated in GAc. Mucin expression varies in OGC; changes may be epigenetic or mutational. Profiling upper GI mucin expression in OGC, with pre-malignant, benign and healthy controls may identify potential early diagnostic biomarkers.

Evolution of predictive and prognostic biomarkers in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer

Despite new therapeutic options, advanced gastric cancer remains associated with a poor prognosis compared with other cancers. Recent gains in the treatment of gastric cancer were accompanied by the identification of novel biomarkers associated with various cellular pathways and corresponding diagnostic technologies. It is expected that the standardization of clinical workflow and technological refinements in biomarker assessment will support greater personalization and further improve treatment outcomes. In this article, we review the current state of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in gastric cancer.

Regulation of MUC6 Methylation Correlates with Progression of Gastric Cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the mechanistic downregulation of mucin 6 (MUC6) and its influence on the progression of gastric cancer (GC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The expression of MUC6 was examined in 40 GC patients. The methylation status of the MUC6 promoter region was investigated using GC cell lines and GC tissue specimens by immunohistochemistry and/or quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). MUC6 was knocked down in the gastric epithelial cells (GES-1) cell and overexpressed in the SGC7901 cell. The effects of MUC6 knockdown and overexpression on cell migration and invasion were examined using Transwell assays. The effects of demethylation and methylation on MUC6 expression were examined by western blot, qPCR, or double luciferase reporter assays.

RESULTS

The expression of MUC6 in GC with lymph node metastasis and poor pathological stage was significantly lower than that in GC without lymph node metastasis and good pathological stage, respectively. While cell migration and invasion were significantly decreased after overexpression of MUC6, these abilities significantly increased after the knockdown of MUC6. The methylation levels of MUC6 in GC tissues and GC cell lines were significantly higher than those in para-cancerous tissues and normal GES. Promoter methylation could significantly reduce the binding of related transcription factors to the MUC6 promoter. The expression of MUC6 increased with the concentration and time of action of demethylation drugs.

CONCLUSION

Expression of MUC6 was regulated by promotor methylation. This methylation of the MUC6 promoter may lead to significant downregulation of MUC6 in GC and promote the progression of GC.

Identification of novel biomarkers, MUC5AC, MUC1, KRT7, GAPDH, CD44 for gastric cancer

Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common malignant tumors in the world, and it is also the third largest cause of cancer-related death in the world. As far as we know, no biomarker has been widely accepted for early diagnosis and prognosis prediction of gastric cancer. The purpose of this study is to find potential biomarkers to predict the prognosis of GC. The gene expression profiles of GSE2685 were downloaded from GEO database. Morpheus was used to calculate the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between primary advanced gastric cancer tissues and noncancerous gastric tissues. The gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathway (KEGG) enrichment analyses were performed, and protein-protein interaction (PPI) network of DEGs was constructed. Kaplan-Meier Plotter was used to determine the overall survival (OS) outcomes of UC5AC, MUC1, KRT7, GAPDH, CD44, and GEPIA was used to determine the Pearson correlation analysis. In total, 710 DEGs were identified in GC, including 396 upregulated genes and 314 downregulated genes. GO enrichment revealed that they were mainly enriched in binding, catalytic activity, cellular process and cell. KEGG pathway revealed that they were mainly enriched in metabolic pathways, pathways in cancer and PI3K-Akt signaling pathway. MUC5AC, MUC1, KRT7, GAPDH, CD44 were identified from the PPI network. MUC5AC, MUC1, KRT7, GAPDH, CD44 were demonstrated to have prognostic value for patients with GC. MUC5AC, MUC1 exhibited low expression levels in GC tissues, KRT7, GAPDH, CD44 presented high expression levels in GC tissues. In particular, KRT7 is hardly expressed in normal gastric tissues. MUC5AC and MUC1 were negatively correlated with GAPDH, CD44, respectively; and GAPDH was positively correlated with CD44 and KRT7, respectively. Moreover. MUC5AC, MUC1, KRT7, GAPDH, and CD44 are not only related to GC but also to apoptosis pathway. Results from the present study suggested that MUC5AC, MUC1, KRT7, GAPDH, CD44 may represent novel prognostic biomarkers for GC.

The Pattern of Signatures in Gastric Cancer Prognosis

Gastric cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide and it is a fourth leading cause of cancer-related death. Carcinogenesis is a multistage disease process specified by the gradual procurement of mutations and epigenetic alterations in the expression of different genes, which finally lead to the occurrence of a malignancy. These genes have diversified roles regarding cancer development. Intracellular pathways are assigned to the expression of different genes, signal transduction, cell-cycle supervision, genomic stability, DNA repair, and cell-fate destination, like apoptosis, senescence. Extracellular pathways embrace tumour invasion, metastasis, angiogenesis. Altered expression patterns, leading the different clinical responses. This review highlights the list of molecular biomarkers that can be used for prognostic purposes and provide information on the likely outcome of the cancer disease in an untreated individual.

Clinical significance of expression of proliferating cell nuclear antigen and E-cadherin in gastric carcinoma

AIM

to investigate the expression of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) and E-cadherin in gastric carcinoma and to analyze their clinical significance.

METHODS

A total of 146 patients were selected for this study, including 38 patients with intestinal metaplasia, 42 with dysplasia, and 66 with primary gastric cancer. In addition, 40 patients with normal gastric tissues were selected as controls. The expression of PCNA and E-cadherin was detected by immunohistochemistry. Differences in PCNA and the E-cadherin labeling indexes among normal gastric mucosa, intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and gastric carcinoma were compared. Subjects with normal gastric tissues were assigned to a normal group, while gastric cancer patients were assigned to a gastric cancer group. The difference in PCNA and E-cadherin expression between these two groups was compared. The relationship between expression of PCNA and E-cadherin and clinicopathological features was also explored in gastric cancer patients. Furthermore, prognosis-related factors, as well as the expression of PCNA and E-cadherin, were analyzed in patients with gastric cancer to determine the 3-year survival of these patients.

RESULTS

The difference in PCNA and the E-cadherin labeling indexes among normal gastric mucosa, intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and gastric carcinoma was statistically significant (P < 0.05). During the transition of normal gastric mucosa to gastric cancer, the PCNA labeling index gradually increased, while the E-cadherin labeling index gradually decreased (P < 0.05). The PCNA labeling index was significantly higher and the E-cadherin labeling index was significantly lower in gastric cancer than in dysplasia (P < 0.05). The expression of PCNA was significantly higher in the gastric cancer group than in the normal group, but E-cadherin was weaker (P < 0.05). There was a negative correlation between the expression of PCNA and E-cadherin in gastric carcinoma (r = -0.741, P = 0.000). PCNA expression differed significantly between gastric cancer patients with and without lymph node metastasis and between patients at different T stages. E-cadherin expression also differed significantly between gastric cancer patients with and without lymph node metastasis (P < 0.05). High T stage and positive PCNA expression were risk factors for the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer (RR > 1), while the positive expression of E-cadherin was a protective factor (RR < 1). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PCNA positivity in predicting the 3-year survival of patients with gastric cancer were 93.33%, 38.89%, and 0.64, respectively; while these values for E-cadherin negativity were 80.0%, 41.67%, and 0.59, respectively. When PCNA positivity and E-cadherin negativity were combined, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 66.67%, 66.67%, and 0.67, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Combined detection of PCNA and E-cadherin can improve the accuracy of assessing the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer.