A comparative study of Long Interspersed Element-1 Protein Immunoreactivity in Cutaneous Malignancies

doi:10.21203/rs.2.13181/v2

Download PDF

Research article

A comparative study of Long Interspersed Element-1 Protein Immunoreactivity in Cutaneous Malignancies

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.13181/v2

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 17 Jun, 2020

Read the published version in BMC Cancer →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Skin cancer is the most common cancer worldwide and commonly classified into malignant melanoma (MM) and Nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs), which mainly include basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The extent to which Long Interspersed Element-1 (LINE-1, L1) ORF1p is expressed in cutaneous malignancies remains to be evaluated. This study aimed to assess LINE-1 ORF1p immunoreactivity in various skin cancer subtypes.

Method:The expression level of LINE-1 ORF1p was evaluated in 95 skin cancer specimens comprising 36 (37.9%) BCC, 28 (29.5%) SCC, and 31 (32.6%) melanoma using the tissue microarray (TMA) technique. Then the association between expression of LINE-1 encoded protein and clinicopathological parameters was analyzed.

Results: We showed that LINE-1 ORF1p expression level was substantially higher in BCC and SCC patients compared with melanoma samples (p < 0.001). BCC cases had a higher LINE-1 histochemical score (H-score) compared with SCC cases (p = 0.004). In SCC samples, a lower level of LINE-1 ORF1p expression was associated with age younger than the mean (p = 0.041). At the same time, no significant correlation was found between LINE-1 ORF1p expression and other clinicopathological parameters (all p > 0.05).

Conclusions: According to our observation, LINE-1 ORF1p immunoreactivity in various skin tumor subtypes extends previous studies of LINE-1 expression in different cancers. LINE-1ORF1p overexpression in NMSCs compared with MM can be considered with caution as a tumor-specific antigen for NMSCs.

Cancer Biology

Oncology

Skin Neoplasms

Retroelements

LINE-1 ORF1p

Immunohistochemistry

Tissue microarray

Biomarker

Cutaneous malignancy is one of the most common tumors involving millions of humans around the world and, unfortunately, on the rise. Skin cancers are generally classified as malignant melanoma (MM), which represents only 4% of skin cancer cases and non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC). NMSC includes two major subtypes of BCC and SCC, amongst others [1, 2]. The incidence rate of NMSC is 18-20 times higher than that MM; however, it constitutes a relatively small percentage of skin cancer deaths [3]. BCC and SCC are rarely fatal, whereas 65-74 % of deaths due to cutaneous cancer are caused by malignant melanoma [4]. The high cure rate is associated with BCC and SCC, especially when the lesion is small and diagnosed in early stages [1, 5]. The early-stage melanoma may be hard to detect but is curable, whereas advanced melanoma has a poor prognosis and a few median survival time [6].

Several risk factors including individual fair skin, blond hair/red hair, freckling, age, gender, personal or family histories, exposure to environmental UVR, high levels of arsenic in drinking water, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, smoking, genetic syndromes and taking immunosuppression are known to induce cutaneous malignancies [7, 8]. Skin cancer is a multistep process with the accumulation of mutations that can result in genomic instability, which is the hallmark feature of most cancers, such as melanoma [9]. One of the mechanisms that are associated with genomic instability is the activation of Transposable Elements (TEs).

TEs are categorized into two subgroups of DNA transposons and RNA transposons or retrotransposons [10]. Retrotransposons can propagate themselves through the human genome using RNA mediators. Long Interspersed Element-1 (LINE-1, L1) accounts for about 17% of the human genome; however, their ability to construct eukaryotic genome structure is a key factor throughout the evolution [11]. Most of these elements are 5′-truncated and incapable of retrotransposition, but intact and full-length L1 elements are still potent and active sequences in the human genome [12]. A full-length L1 element is ∼6 kbp in length and divided into three parts including 1) a 5′ untranslated region (UTR) comprises an internal RNA polymerase II promoter; 2) two open reading frames (ORF1 and ORF2); 3) a 3′ UTR which is finished with a variable polyA tail. ORF1 and ORF2 are translated into an RNA-binding protein (40-kDa) that has chaperone activity and a protein with endonuclease and reverse-transcriptase activities (150- kDa), respectively [10]. ORF1p trimers have a prominent role than ORF2p in retrotransposition events such that ORF1p is generated more than the ORF2p [13, 14]. The function of these elements is intrinsically silenced in their promoters by epigenetic modification and several trans-acting factors. L1 activation in germ cells is silenced through PIWI-interacting RNAs pathway and in somatic cells the SWI/SNF2-related, matrix-associated, actin-dependent regulator of chromatin, subfamily A, member 6 (SMARCA6) helicase and p53 are predominant factors for L1 repression [14, 15].

In normal somatic cells, methylation is a powerful mechanism of control over the activation of the retrotransposable elements to avoid genomic instability, chromosomal defects, and other genomic rearrangements [16]. Global hypomethylation of genomic DNA is a critical feature of human cancers; it may be due to the transcriptional inactivation of LINE-1 elements [17]. LINE-1 promoter hypomethylation has been described in various tumors, including lung cancer, colorectal cancers, breast cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, ovarian cancer, and esophageal cancer [14].

In non-small cell lung cancer, L1 promoter hypomethylation is associated with genomic instability and unfavorable prognosis [18, 19], and in colorectal cancer emerges as an early specific marker [20]. Both invasive and in situ lesions of breast cancer have shown incomplete methylation of LINE-1 promoter resulting in reduced overall survival and therapy resistance in younger patients [21, 22]. In a recent study, LINE-1 hypomethylation levels have been observed in melanoma tumors thicker >4 mm compared with normal melanocyte primary cell cultures [23]

It has revealed that the production of ORF1p due to the LINE-1 expression in in vitro transfected cells is 1,000- to 10,000-fold higher levels compare to ORF2p [24]. More than half of human cancers express LINE-1 ORF1p so that it could be considered as a highly specified tumor marker [17]. Up to now, there is no data regarding the expression of LINE-1 ORF1p in various skin cancer subtypes. A higher level of genomic instability and heterogenicity in MM compared with BCC and SCC subtypes arouse our curiosity to come up with this hypothesis that what extent LINE-1 ORF1p expression is different among skin neoplasm or not. In order to achieve immunohistochemically expression data of LINE‑1 ORF1p, the present study was performed to explore the LINE‑1 ORF1p expression levels by tissue microarray (TMA) in a well-defined series of skin cancer specimens comprising BCC, SCC, and melanoma.

Patient characteristics and cancerous samples

A total of 139 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) from various skin cancer samples were included in this study. These archival tissue samples were collected from patients with primary skin cancer diagnosed in the Razi and Imam Khomeini Hospitals of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Patients' tumors were diagnosed between 2013 and 2016. Medical records were reviewed in order to collect – clinicopathological parameters comprising age, gender, lesion type, tumor size, ulceration, metastasis, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), perineural invasion (PNI), Breslow thickness and Clark level (in melanoma), and histological grade (in SCC). Not only the patient's data have no interference in their diagnosis and treatment, but they also were completely kept anonymous. All the study procedure authorized by the Research Ethics Committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences (Ref no: IR.TUMS.REC.1394.1733).

Construction of TMA

The entire skin cancer TMAs were constructed as described previously [25-28]. All hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides were reviewed and the most representative areas in different parts of the tumor were marked by a well-experienced pathologist (A-K). Tissue Microarray samples of 0.6 mm diameter were punched out from the selected regions of each tumor samples per single block and precisely transferred into a new recipient paraffin block. The TMA blocks were constructed in 3 copies, each containing 1 sample from a different region of the tumor using tissue-arraying equipment (MiniCore; ALPHELYS, Plaisir, France). Then 4µm sections were cut from the completed array blocks and transferred to adhesion microscope slides. These glass slides were used for immunohistochemically staining of LINE-1 ORF1p antigenicity. Mean H-score value of three cores was calculated as a final score.

Immunohistochemistry

Briefly, all the TMA sections were deparaffinized at 60 °C for 20 min and dehydrated with two different alcohol in grade. Endogenous peroxides and non-reactive staining were blocked with 3% H₂O₂ for 20 min at room temperature. After washing the tissue sections for three times, antigen retrieval was performed by immersing the tissues in citrate buffer (pH 6.0) for 10 min in an autoclave. The tissue sections were incubated with the primary monoclonal antibody (1:500 dilution), Anti-LINE 1 ORF1 (EMD Millipore, Cat. No MABC1152, CA, USA) overnight at 4°C. TMA slides were then incubated with anti-rabbit/antimouse Envision (Dako, Denmark) as a secondary antibody for 30 min. Staining patterns were visualized by exposure to 3, 3'-diaminobenzidine (DAB; Dako) followed by counterstaining with hematoxylin visualize antigen (Dako, Denmark). Finally, the slides were dehydrated in alcohol, cleared in xylene (Dako), and mounted for examination.

As mentioned, colorectal samples are positive for LINE-1 ORF1p expression. We used them as a positive control for confirming the immunolabeling of Anti-LINE 1 ORF1. We also used skin normal samples as a negative control. Then we optimized and validated antibody titer and dilution on CRC samples as positive control and ten normal skin samples as a negative control. To simultaneously compare immunoreactivity of sample, all experiments were run with the same experimental set-up.

Immunostaining assessment

Immunostaining of LINE-1 ORF1p was independently evaluated by two well-experienced pathologists (AK and AG) who were blinded to the patients' outcome and pathological information. A consensus was achieved for all samples. The intensity of staining was scored by applying a semi-quantitative system, ranging from negative to strong as follows: 0, negative; 1, weak; 2, moderate; and 3, strong. The percentage of positive cells was categorized according to the positive tumor cells as follows: Group 1, less than 25% positive cells; Group 2, 25–50% positive cells; Group 3, 51–75% positive cells; and Group 4, more than 75% positive cells. To compare all the available data, we assigned an overall histochemical score (H-score) to each case by multiplying the intensity score by the percentage of positive cells, which yielded a range from 0 to 300. In this study, mean H-score was chosen to categorize samples as with high or low LINE-1 ORF1p expression.

Statistical analysis

For comparison of LINE-1 staining scores in various skin cancer subtypes, we used a two-sided Student's t-test for pairwise comparison between groups. Moreover, Pearson's chi-square and Pearson's R tests were used to analyzing the significance of association and correlation between LINE-1 ORF1p expression and clinicopathological parameters. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Following tissue processing and immunohistochemistry staining of skin tumors, samples with missing one or two cores were excluded from the study. A total of 95 samples were included in this study. Of 95 cases, 28 (29.5%) were SCC, 36 (37.9%) BCC, and 31 (32.6%) MM. The present study comprises 67 and 28 male & female, respectively. There was a male predominance in 3 groups and male to female ratio in SCC, BCC, and MM were as follows: SCC (23 males and five females: 4.6), BCC (26 males and ten females: 2.6) MM (18 males and 13 females: 1.38). The mean age of patients in BCC, SCC, and MM subtypes of skin cancers were calculated as 70.44±10.2, 67.23± 12.6, and 65.1 ± 14.2 years, respectively. Seven (19.4 %), 2 (7.1 %), and 6 (19.4) patients of BCC, SCC and MM subtypes of skin cancer had ulceration in pathological reports. In terms of invasive and in situ forms in SCC, 2 (7.14) patients had in situ, whereas 12 (42.8%) had invasive form, and for remaining of SCC patients, it was not available. Margin involvement was seen in 1 (2.8%), 2 (7.1 %), and 7 (23.3%) patients of BCC, SCC, and MM patients. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes as a prognostic factor and PNI was found in 1 (3.6%) and 1 (3.6%) patients of SCC and 6 (19.4%) and 3 (9.7%) MM patients, respectively. Tumor size was available for 8 (28.6%) SCC cases with a mean value of 4-mm. Metastasis and local recurrence were available for 12 (38.7%) and 17 (54.8%) of MM patients, respectively. Moreover 7 (22.6 %) MM patients had lymphovascular invasion. Melanoma lesions are categorized with Breslow thickness into ≤1 (thin melanoma) and >1 mm (thick melanoma) [29]. Thin melanoma was found in 2 (6.5%) cases and thick melanoma in 8 (25.8%). The Clark levels in melanoma were also divided into two groups: group 1 (Clark levels I and II) and group 2 (Clark levels III through V). Seven (22.6%) melanoma samples were categorized as group 2, and 6 (19.4%) as group 1 (Table 3), for the remaining it was not available. The clinicopathological features of skin cancer subtypes are summarized in Table 1, 2, and 3.

Analysis of LINE-1 ORF1p expression and its correlation with clinicopathological features

LINE-1 ORF1p is expressed with variable intensities in the nucleus and cytoplasm of tumor cells. We first tested LINE-1 ORF1p immunoreactivity on normal skin tissue and colorectal tissues (Fig. 1). Following optimization and validation of antibody titration and dilution on CRC and normal skin tissues as a positive and negative control, we did all controls and patients tests simultaneously. Mean H-score value of three cores was calculated as a final score. Each tumor type was divided into either lower (≤ mean of H-score) or higher (> mean of H-score) LINE-1 ORF1p expression. The mean H-score in BCC and SCC samples were 170.4 and 111.84, respectively, whereas the mean H-score in melanoma cases was 46.27. Twenty of 36 BCC samples (55.6%) expressed lower levels of LINE-1 ORF1p, while 16 (44.4%) cases expressed higher levels (Fig. 2). Low expression of LINE-1 ORF1p was seen in 19 (67.9%) of 28 SCC samples, while high expression was found in 9 (32.1%) cases (Fig. 2). Of the 31 melanoma samples, 22 (71%) had a low expression, and 9 (29%) showed a high expression of LINE-1 ORF1p (Fig. 2). We found a highly significant difference between mean H-score of LINE-1 ORF1p expression among the three tumor subtypes (all p<0.01). Box plot diagram of LINE-1 ORF1p expression has been shown in (Fig. 3). Moreover, the Mann-Whitney U test indicated a significant difference in LINE-1 ORF1p expression between BCC and SCC (p = 0.004) and melanomas (p<0.0001). Also, there was a significant difference between the expression of LINE-1 ORF1p in SCC and melanoma (p = 0.002). Whereas, we could not find a significant correlation between studied clinicopathological parameters and LINE-1 ORF1p expression in BCC and melanoma samples (all p>0.05) (Table 1 & 3). A trend was evident between LINE-1 ORF1p expression and ulceration (p = 0.07). In SCC samples lower level of LINE-1 ORF1p expression was associated with age lower than the mean (p = 0.041), while no significant correlation was found between LINE-1 ORF1p expression and other clinicopathological parameters (all p>0.05) (Table 2)

In this study, we found LINE-1 ORF1p ORF1p immunoreactivity in various skin tumor subtypes that are in line with previous studies of LINE-1 expression in different cancers. As previously reported [30], ORF1p is expressed 200-fold than ORF2p, so tracking ORF1p throughout disease progression can provide valuable insights regarding retrotransposition events or the impact of LINE-1 expression on the genome.

Overall, LINE‑1 ORF1p overexpression can be used as a specific hallmark for diagnosing human malignancies [17]. In the vast majority tumors including approximately 90% of breast, ovarian, pancreatic cancers, more than half of tubular gastrointestinal tract cancers comprising esophageal and colon cancers and also 50% of lung cancers and 40% of prostate tumors, ORF1p can be detected by immunohistochemistry [14, 17]. As mentioned, LINE-1 activation/expression is associated with genomic instability that is a hallmark and characteristics in malignant tumors, including melanoma. Because of this, we expected to get a wide range of LINE-1 expression in MM patients. In the current study, we found a significant expression of ORF1p in BCC samples in comparison to SCC and melanoma. ORF1p immunolabeling in BCC samples was higher than those of melanoma samples in contrary to our hypothesis. The reason why the ORF1p expression in NMSC was higher than malignant melanoma requires more attention.

Carcinogenesis in skin tissues is associated with exposure to different environmental factors. Previous reports have shown that some environmental factors like Gamma irradiation and X- rays some environmental triggers like benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P), organochlorine pesticides, food-borne carcinogens, extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) and some heavy metals like mercury, arsenic, aluminum increase L1 retrotransposition events [31-33]. Since the skin is the first line of defense for mentioned factors, so the higher expression of the level of ORF1 due to the exposure to agents is plausible.

Melanoma tumors have higher levels of genomic instability [9] and are associated with hypomethylation of genomic LINE-1 sequences [23, 34]. However, we expected to get more expression level of ORF1p in melanoma, what caused to observe such a decreased level in comparison to other subtypes remains a mystery for us. Likely, the monoclonal LINE-1 ORF1p antibody referenced in this study that recognizes the sequence corresponding to amino acids 35 to 44 of LINE-1 ORF1p (MENDFDELRE) has not the capability for targeting those sequences in melanoma. It seems that conventional antigen retrieval pathways are not sufficient for retrieving LINE1 ORF1p immunolabelling. In SCC cases, a trend towards increasing the correlation of ORF1p expression with age was observed, which supports the evidence that age can play a role in developing SCC.

We observed both cytoplasmic and nuclear pattern of LINE-1ORF1p expression in all of the samples, while the cytoplasmic pattern has been predominantly represented in some cancers [17]. In breast cancers, local relapse, as well as distal metastases and poorer overall survival with tumors displaying nuclear L1-ORF1p in contrast to cytoplasmic L1-ORF1p group, have been observed [35]. Distinguishing and quantification between cytoplasmic and nuclear expression can be highlighted in skin tumor subtypes in future studies.

Each genome harbors a different complement of 80–100 potentially active L1 elements, and this partly explains the variability in somatic insertions of L1 elements within tumors [36]. How many full length - potentially active elements contribute to immunoreactivity for LINE-1 ORF1p and whether observed heterogeneity in these subsets of skin tumor subtypes is related to differences in the inherited complement of active genomic LINE-1 sequences or not remains to be robustly evaluated. Evaluating such heterogeneity in melanoma cases may pave finding the reason for such differences. Since the tumor microenvironment plays an important role in cutaneous malignancies progression, studying L1 hypomethylation of functional L1 promoters and their genomic sequences in precancerous lesions can offer a genuine reservoir for finding novel targets for both therapeutic purposes and risk assessments in skin cancers.

In this context and according to our findings, clinical information on the potential utility of LINE-1 ORF1p expression and activation as biomarkers in skin cancer are, however, limited, and future investigations directed towards finding a correlation between LINE-1 activation and histopathological or diagnostic implication for practitioners is needed. If the value of ORF1p expression in SCC and BCC patients is validated in this front, it can help clinicians to make better decisions for prognosis and plan treatment and follow-up of patients.

Evidence from basic and translational science indicate an association between LINE-1 induction and tumorigenesis, cancer progression, and response to therapy. Despite ample evidence, the complete picture and mechanistic links between LINE-1ORF1p expression and progression of different cancers is still unraveled. According to our observation, LINE-1 ORF1p immunoreactivity in various skin tumor subtypes confirms previous studies of LINE-1 expression in different cancers. LINE-1 ORF1p overexpression in NMSCs compared with MM can be considered with caution as a tumor-specific antigen for NMSCs.

NMSCs: Nonmelanoma skin cancers; LINE-1, L1: Long Interspersed Element-1; ORF1p: open reading frame 1 protein; MM: malignant melanoma; BCC: basal cell carcinoma; SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; TMA: tissue microarray; H-score: histochemical score; UVR: ultraviolet radiation; TEs: Transposable Elements; UTR: untranslated region; ORF: open reading frame; FFPE: formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded; TILs: tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes; PNI: perineural invasion; IHC: immunohistochemistry

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present study was performed in accordance with the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki. All experiments are approved by the Tehran University of Medical Sciences Research Ethics Committee in Iran (Ref no: IR.TUMS.REC.1394.1570)

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [AK], upon reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest to disclose regarding funding from industrial sources or other disclosures concerning this manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by Deputy of Research and Technology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, Grant/Award Number: 94-03-30- 29952. The funding source had no involvement in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Authors' contributions

All authors have read and approved the manuscript. MAZ, EK, ARK, ARG, AK performed the research. AK and ZM designed the research study. ZM, NE, AN-ER, KK contributed essential reagents or tools. AK analyzed the data. MAZ and AK wrote the paper.

Acknowledgment

We are thankful to the staff of the Oncopathology Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Gordon R: Skin cancer: an overview of epidemiology and risk factors. Seminars in oncology nursing 2013, 29(3):160-169.
Fahradyan A, Howell AC, Wolfswinkel EM, Tsuha M, Sheth P, Wong AK: Updates on the Management of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (NMSC). Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) 2017, 5(4).
Apalla Z, Lallas A, Sotiriou E, Lazaridou E, Ioannides D: Epidemiological trends in skin cancer. Dermatology practical & conceptual 2017, 7(2):1-6.
Cummins DL, Cummins JM, Pantle H, Silverman MA, Leonard AL, Chanmugam A: Cutaneous malignant melanoma. Mayo Clinic proceedings 2006, 81(4):500-507.
Nerad JA: All skin cancers are not created equal. The British journal of ophthalmology 2007, 91(3):276-277.
Rigel DS, Russak J, Friedman R: The evolution of melanoma diagnosis: 25 years beyond the ABCDs. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2010, 60(5):301-316.
Netscher DT, Leong M, Orengo I, Yang D, Berg C, Krishnan B: Cutaneous malignancies: melanoma and non-melanoma types. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 2011, 127(3):37e-56e.
Fabbrocini G, Triassi M, Mauriello MC, Torre G, Annunziata MC, De Vita V, Pastore F, D'Arco V, Monfrecola G: Epidemiology of skin cancer: role of some environmental factors. Cancers 2010, 2(4):1980-1989.
Kaufmann WK, Carson CC, Omolo B, Filgo AJ, Sambade MJ, Simpson DA, Shields JM, Ibrahim JG, Thomas NE: Mechanisms of chromosomal instability in melanoma. Environmental and molecular mutagenesis 2014, 55(6):457-471.
Cordaux R, Batzer MA: The impact of retrotransposons on human genome evolution. Nature reviews Genetics 2009, 10(10):691-703.
Lander ES, Linton LM, Birren B, Nusbaum C, Zody MC, Baldwin J, Devon K, Dewar K, Doyle M, FitzHugh W et al: Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 2001, 409(6822):860-921.
Chen L, Dahlstrom JE, Chandra A, Board P, Rangasamy D: Prognostic value of LINE-1 retrotransposon expression and its subcellular localization in breast cancer. Breast cancer research and treatment 2012, 136(1):129–142.
Sokolowski M, Chynces M, deHaro D, Christian CM, Belancio VP: Truncated ORF1 proteins can suppress LINE-1 retrotransposition in trans. Nucleic acids research 2017, 45(9):5294-5308.
Ardeljan D, Taylor MS, Ting DT, Burns KH: The Human Long Interspersed Element-1 Retrotransposon: An Emerging Biomarker of Neoplasia. Clinical chemistry 2017, 63(4):816-822.
Gong J, Zhang Q, Wang Q, Ma Y, Du J, Zhang Y, Zhao X: Identification and verification of potential piRNAs from domesticated yak testis. Reproduction (Cambridge, England) 2018, 155(2):117-127.
Kerachian MA, Kerachian M: Long interspersed nucleotide element-1 (LINE-1) methylation in colorectal cancer. Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry 2019, 488:209-214.
Rodic N, Sharma R, Sharma R, Zampella J, Dai L, Taylor MS, Hruban RH, Iacobuzio-Donahue CA, Maitra A, Torbenson MS et al: Long interspersed element-1 protein expression is a hallmark of many human cancers. The American journal of pathology 2014, 184(5):1280-1286.
Daskalos A, Nikolaidis G, Xinarianos G, Savvari P, Cassidy A, Zakopoulou R, Kotsinas A, Gorgoulis V, Field JK, Liloglou T: Hypomethylation of retrotransposable elements correlates with genomic instability in non-small cell lung cancer. International journal of cancer 2009, 124(1):81-87.
Saito K, Kawakami K, Matsumoto I, Oda M, Watanabe G, Minamoto T: Long interspersed nuclear element 1 hypomethylation is a marker of poor prognosis in stage IA non-small cell lung cancer. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 2010, 16(8):2418-2426.
Sunami E, de Maat M, Vu A, Turner RR, Hoon DS: LINE-1 hypomethylation during primary colon cancer progression. PloS one 2011, 6(4):e18884.
van Hoesel AQ, van de Velde CJ, Kuppen PJ, Liefers GJ, Putter H, Sato Y, Elashoff DA, Turner RR, Shamonki JM, de Kruijf EM et al: Hypomethylation of LINE-1 in primary tumor has poor prognosis in young breast cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study. Breast cancer research and treatment 2012, 134(3):1103-1114.
Park SY, Seo AN, Jung HY, Gwak JM, Jung N, Cho NY, Kang GH: Alu and LINE-1 hypomethylation is associated with HER2 enriched subtype of breast cancer. PloS one 2014, 9(6):e100429.
Pramio DT, Pennacchi PC, Maria-Engler SS, Campos AH, Duprat JP, Carraro DM, Krepischi AC: LINE-1 hypomethylation and mutational status in cutaneous melanomas. Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research 2016, 64(4):899-904.
Taylor MS, LaCava J, Mita P, Molloy KR, Huang CR, Li D, Adney EM, Jiang H, Burns KH, Chait BT et al: Affinity proteomics reveals human host factors implicated in discrete stages of LINE-1 retrotransposition. Cell 2013, 155(5):1034-1048.
Kononen J, Bubendorf L, Kallioniemi A, Barlund M, Schraml P, Leighton S, Torhorst J, Mihatsch MJ, Sauter G, Kallioniemi OP: Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens. Nature medicine 1998, 4(7):844-847.
Ronald Simon MM, and Guido Sauter: Tissue microarrays. BioTechniques 2004:36:98-105.
Sabet MN, Rakhshan A, Erfani E, Madjd Z: Co-expression of putative cancer stem cell markers, CD133 and Nestin, in skin tumors. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP 2014, 15(19):8161-8169.
Erfani E, Roudi R, Rakhshan A, Sabet MN, Shariftabrizi A, Madjd Z: Comparative expression analysis of putative cancer stem cell markers CD44 and ALDH1A1 in various skin cancer subtypes. The International journal of biological markers 2016, 31(1):e53-61.
Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, Thompson JF, Atkins MB, Byrd DR, Buzaid AC, Cochran AJ, Coit DG, Ding S et al: Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2009, 27(36):6199-6206.
Martin SL: Nucleic acid chaperone properties of ORF1p from the non-LTR retrotransposon, LINE-1. RNA biology 2010, 7(6):706-711.
Karimi A, Madjd Z, Habibi L, Akrami SM: Exposure of hepatocellular carcinoma cells to low-level As(2)O(3) causes an extra toxicity pathway via L1 retrotransposition induction. Toxicology letters 2014, 229(1):111-117.
Karimi A, Madjd Z, Habibi L, Akrami SM: Evaluating the extent of LINE-1 mobility following exposure to heavy metals in HepG2 cells. Biological trace element research 2014, 160(1):143-151.
Del Re B, Marcantonio P, Gavoci E, Bersani F, Giorgi G: Assessing LINE-1 retrotransposition activity in neuroblastoma cells exposed to extremely low-frequency pulsed magnetic fields. Mutation research 2012, 749(1-2):76-81.
Hoshimoto S, Kuo CT, Chong KK, Takeshima TL, Takei Y, Li MW, Huang SK, Sim MS, Morton DL, Hoon DS: AIM1 and LINE-1 epigenetic aberrations in tumor and serum relate to melanoma progression and disease outcome. The Journal of investigative dermatology 2012, 132(6):1689-1697.
Harris CR, Normart R, Yang Q, Stevenson E, Haffty BG, Ganesan S, Cordon-Cardo C, Levine AJ, Tang LH: Association of nuclear localization of a long interspersed nuclear element-1 protein in breast tumors with poor prognostic outcomes. Genes Cancer 2010, 1(2):115-124.
Doucet-O'Hare TT, Rodic N, Sharma R, Darbari I, Abril G, Choi JA, Young Ahn J, Cheng Y, Anders RA, Burns KH et al: LINE-1 expression and retrotransposition in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal carcinoma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2015, 112(35):E4894-4900.

[Please see the supplementary files section to view the tables.]

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 17 Jun, 2020

Read the published version in BMC Cancer →

Review #1 received at journal
06 May, 2020
Reviewers invited by journal
24 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
24 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned by journal
22 Apr, 2020
Submission checks completed at journal
21 Apr, 2020
Editor invited by journal
21 Apr, 2020

You are reading this latest preprint version

A comparative study of Long Interspersed Element-1 Protein Immunoreactivity in Cutaneous Malignancies

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 2

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 2