4.6 Article

Identification of novel enriched recurrent chimeric COL7A1-UCN2 in human laryngeal cancer samples using deep sequencing

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4161-8

关键词

Laryngeal cancer; Transcription-induced chimera; Gene fusion; COL7A1; UCN2

类别

资金

  1. China National Science Foundation [81670946]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: As hybrid RNAs, transcription-induced chimeras (TICs) may have tumor-promoting properties, and some specific chimeras have become important diagnostic markers and therapeutic targets for cancer. Methods: We examined 23 paired laryngeal cancer (LC) tissues and adjacent normal mucous membrane tissue samples (ANMMTs). Three of these pairs were used for comparative transcriptomic analysis using high-throughput sequencing. Furthermore, we used real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for further validation in 20 samples. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model were used for the survival analysis. Results: We identified 87 tumor-related TICs and found that COL7A1-UCN2 had the highest frequency in LC tissues (13/23; 56.5%), whereas none of the ANMMTs were positive (0/23; p < 0.0001). COL7A1-UCN2, generated via alternative splicing in LC tissue cancer cells, had disrupted coding regions, but it down-regulated the mRNA expression of COL7A1 and UCN2. Both COL7A1 and UCN2 were down-expressed in LC tissues as compared to their paired ANMMTs. The COL7A1: beta-actin ratio in COL7A1-UCN2-positive LC samples was significantly lower than that in COL7A1-UCN2-negative samples (p = 0.019). Likewise, the UCN2: beta-actin ratio was also decreased (p = 0.21). Furthermore, COL7A1-UCN2 positivity was significantly associated with the overall survival of LC patients (p = 0.032; HR, 13.2 [95% CI, 1.2-149.5]). Conclusion: LC cells were enriched in the recurrent chimera COL7A1-UCN2, which potentially affected cancer stem cell transition, promoted epithelial-mesenchymal transition in LC, and resulted in poorer prognoses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据