Elevated expression of AGGF1 predicts poor prognosis and promotes the metastasis of colorectal cancer

doi:10.21203/rs.2.14319/v4

Download PDF

Research article

Elevated expression of AGGF1 predicts poor prognosis and promotes the metastasis of colorectal cancer

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.14319/v4

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 27 Dec, 2019

Read the published version in BMC Cancer →

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Background: Angiogenic factor with G-patch and FHA domains 1 (AGGF1) can promote angiogenesis and increasing evidence has highlighted the important roles of AGGF1 in tumorigenesis. However, the differential expression as well as the biological functions of AGGF1 in colorectal cancer (CRC) remain to be established. The purpose of the present study is therefore to identify the effect of AGGF1 on prognosis and metastasis in CRC patients. Methods: The expression level of AGGF1 in CRC was examined by qPCR, western blot and immunohistochemistry in a tissue microarray containing 236 CRC specimens and paired normal mucosae. And the effect of AGGF1 on CRC cell malignance was investigated in our established stable AGGF1 upregulated and knockdown CRC cell lines. Results: The expression level of AGGF1 in CRC tissue was not significantly different to that in adjacent normal mucosa at the mRNA level. However, at the protein level, AGGF1 expression in CRC tissues was significantly higher than in paired normal mucosa, which showed a clear association with TNM stage, AJCC stage, vascular invasion, and differentiation. Further, we revealed an apparent correlation between AGGF1 expression and poorer disease-free survival and overall survival of CRC patients. In addition, we discovered that AGGF1 significantly promoted CRC cell wound healing, migration, and invasion in vitro and distant metastasis in vivo. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the aberrant overexpression of AGGF1 in CRC and provides a basis on which to explore the application of AGGF1 as a potential therapeutic target for CRC patients, especially for CRC patients with distant metastasis.

Oncology

Cancer Biology

Colorectal cancer

AGGF1

Prognosis

Metastasis

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in males and the second in females around the world [1]. Attributed to CRC screening and/or a variety of therapies for advanced metastatic CRC being available, the mortality rates of CRC have decreased in recent years [1, 2]. However, outcomes remain suboptimal due to a lack of efficient targets for postponing, even preventing the invasion and metastasis of CRC [3]. Accordingly, discovering targets involved in CRC progression and elucidating the mechanism by which they induce metastasis appears to be particularly urgent.

Over the past decade, our understanding of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which is essential for both physiological and pathological angiogenesis, has increased at an explosive rate, leading to the approval of anti-angiogenic drugs for cancer [4, 5]. The angiogenic factor with G-patch and FHA domains 1 (AGGF1) protein is released outside endothelial cells when angiogenesis starts, promoting angiogenesis as strongly as VEGF [6, 7]. The full-length AGGF1 complementary DNA (4,049 base pairs) contains a long open reading frame and encodes a protein of 714 amino acids [8, 9]. AGGF1 ubiquitously expresses in human normal cells as well as cancer cells [6]. Numerous studies have reported the aberrant expression of AGGF1 in cancer tissues and its involvement in malignant progression, such as in gastric cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and serous ovarian cancer [10-12]. However, whether AGGF1 also promotes the progression of CRC and the underlying role of AGGF1 in CRC progression remains to be elucidated.

In the present study, we first identified the expression patterns of AGGF1 at both the mRNA and the protein level in CRC tissues. Then, by examining AGGF1 expression in a tissue microarray, we evaluated the association between its expression and clinicopathologic features of CRC patients. Further cell functional assays in vitro and in vivo were used to explore the roles of AGGF1 in CRC cell migration and invasion, aiming to reveal the promoting roles of AGGF1 in the development of CRC, especially in patients with distant metastasis.

Patients and tissue specimens

A total of 236 CRC patient samples were included at the time of diagnosis from patients treated at departments of general surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study and the research was carried out in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. All patient-derived specimens were collected and archived under protocols approved by the institutional review boards of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital. Procedures were carried out in accordance with approved guidelines. Cancer tissues and their paired adjacent normal mucosa were collected immediately after surgical resection, then frozen in liquid nitrogen for subsequent RNA extraction or formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded for immunohistochemical staining.

Quantitative PCR (qPCR)

The qPCR assays were performed as described previously [13-15]. The primers used for qPCR were: AGGF1, sense 5′-GGA CTA GTT TGC GAA AAC ATG GGT AGT G-3′ and antisense 5′-CCC AAG CTT TGC CTG CAA TGG TCT TTA TC-3′; GAPDH, sense 5′-GGG AAG GTG AAG GTC GGA GT-3′ and antisense 5′-GGG GTC ATT GAT GCRC AAC A-3′.

Western blot (WB) analysis

The WB assays were performed as described previously [13-15]. Primary antibodies specific to AGGF1 (1:500, # ab203680) and GAPDH (1:1000, # ab8245) were purchased from Abcam (Cambridge, UK).

Tissue microarray (TMA) construction and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining

TMA construction was undertaken as reported previously [15]. The expression of AGGF1 in the TMA was tested using standard IHC staining methods. The staining intensity for AGGF1 was scored as follows: 0 (negative), 1 (weak), 2 (moderate), 3 (strong); and staining extent, based on the percentage of positively stained cells, was scored as follows: 0 (0%), 1 (1%–25%), 2 (26%–50%), 3 (51%–75%), 4 (76%–100%). The sum of intensity and extent score were used as the final staining score: 0–2, negative expression; 3–4, weak expression; and 5–7, strong expression [16, 17]. The corresponding primary antibodies were: AGGF1 (1:100, Abcam, Cambridge, UK).

Cell culture and transfection

Human CRC cell lines (SW480, SW620, HT-29, RKO, HCT-8, HCT-116, and LoVo) and a normal colon epithelial cell line (FHC) were purchased from the American Type Culture Collection. All cell lines were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (Gibco BRL, Grand Island, USA) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, under a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO₂ at 37 °C.

For gene expression manipulation studies, both small interfering RNA (siRNA) specially targeting AGGF1 and pcDNA3.1-AGGF1 plasmid and their control sequences were obtained from Obio Technology Co., Ltd (Shanghai, China). CRC cells were transfected using Lipofectamine 2000 following the manufacturer’s instructions.

Colony formation assays

Colony formation assays were used to evaluate the colony formation abilities of CRC cells and colony formation was determined by preparing single cell suspension solutions and seeding in 6-well plate with 800 cells/well. After a 14-day incubation, the cell colonies were fixed in methyl alcohol for 15 min and dyed with crystal violet for 15 min. Colonies were then counted, and the plates were photographed.

Wound healing assays

Transfected cells were trypsinized and seeded into 6-well plates (1.0×10⁵ cells/well). Upon reaching the exponential growth phase, cells were wounded with a sterile pipette tip and then washed with PBS. Images were captured at 0, 12, 24, and 36 h intervals, and wound widths were quantified and compared with baseline values. Experiments were carried out in triplicate.

Transwell assays

The transwell 24-well Boyden chamber (Corning, USA) with an 8.0 μm pore size polycarbonate membrane was used for the cell migration (without Matrigel) and invasion (with Matrigel) assays according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Briefly, each group of cells (5×10⁴/chamber) was plated in the upper chambers in 200 µl serum-free media for 36 h, while the bottom chambers contained 600 µl media supplemented with 10% FBS as a chemoattractant. Cells that migrated and invaded to the reverse side of chamber inserts were fixed by methyl alcohol and stained with 0.1% crystal violet.

Animal assays

To further investigate the metastatic effect of AGGF1 in vivo, we utilized a CRC metastasis model in four-week-old male, specific pathogen-free BALB/C nude mice, which were purchased from Shanghai Research Center for Model Organisms and housed under pathogen-free conditions in the animal experiment center of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital. A total of 1×10⁶(200 μl) HCT-116/Lv-AGGF1 and RKO/si-AGGF1 as well as their control cells were transfected with lenti-LUC virus and injected into the tail veins of grouped nude mice (n=5), respectively. At weekly intervals, after ether inhalation, mice were subjected to i.p. injection with D-luciferin (150 mg/kg), then imaged 10 min later using the IVIS Illumina System (Caliper Life Sciences). After six weeks, the mice were euthanized by cervical dislocation. The lung and liver tissue samples were obtained, weighed, and embedded in paraffin. The in vivo assay using nude mice was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital. All animal protocols were approved by Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital Animal Care.

Statistical analysis

The Student’s t-test was used to determine the differences in AGGF1 mRNA expression between CRC tissues and adjacent normal mucosa. The statistical significance of differences between AGGF1 expression and clinicopathological variables was estimated by the χ² test or Fisher’s exact test. Survival curves were calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method with the log-rank test. The hazard ratio with a 95% confidence interval in Cox proportional hazards regressions were applied to estimate the hazard risk of individual factors for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). p < 0.05 with a two-sided test was considered to be statistically significant. All statistical analyses were carried out using the SPSS 22.0 statistical software package (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).

AGGF1 protein rather than mRNA showed aberrant expression in CRC.

Using qPCR, we first detected the expression level of AGGF1 in 30 pairs of randomly selected CRC specimens. However, no clear difference was observed between CRC tissues and paired normal mucosa at the mRNA level (Supplementary Fig S1). Consistent with this, upon further analysis of four public databases from Oncomine (https://www.oncomine.org/resource/main.html) we did not find significantly different AGGF1 mRNA expression between CRC tissues and normal mucosa (Supplementary Fig S2). Subsequently, we examined the protein level of AGGF1 in eight samples randomly selected from the 30 paired specimens mentioned above by WB assay and found that the expression of AGGF1 protein was significantly upregulated in CRC tissues compared to paired normal mucosa (Fig 1a). Taken together, these data suggest that aberrant expression of AGGF1 in CRC tumorigenesis and development may play significant roles at the protein level rather than at the mRNA level.

Correlations between AGGF1 protein expression and clinicopathological features in CRC.

To clarify the correlations between AGGF1 protein expression and clinicopathological features of CRC patients, we first examined the expression of AGGF1 in a TMA by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. As summarized in Supplementary Table S1, of the 236 normal specimens in the TMA, 129 (54.7%) showed negative AGGF1 expression (Fig 1b, f and control experiments were showed in supplementary Fig S3), 68 (28.8%) had weak positive staining, and 39 (16.5%) displayed strong positive staining. In contrast, the immunoreactive patterns of AGGF1 were predominantly positive in the majority of CRC specimens, with 76 (32.2%) cases showing weak positive staining and 114 (48.3%) exhibiting strong positive staining (Fig 1c-e and g-i). These results further confirm that the expression levels of AGGF1 in CRC tissues were higher than those in adjacent normal mucosa (p < 0.001).

The correlation between AGGF1 expression and clinicopathologic features of CRC patients is summarized in Table 1. Aberrant upregulated expression of AGGF1 was highly correlated with tumor invasion (p < 0.001), LNM (p < 0.001), distant metastasis (p = 0.012), advanced AJCC stage (p < 0.001), and tumor recurrence (p = 0.004). On the other hand, no significant association was found between AGGF1 expression and age, gender, tumor location, or differentiation (p > 0.05 for all, Table 1). All of these data further reveal the aberrant expression of AGGF1 in CRC tissues and its association with a more malignant CRC phenotype.

High expression of AGGF1 predicted poorer prognosis in CRC.

Using Kaplan–Meier curves with a log-rank test for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), we assessed the predictive role of AGGF1 in CRC patient survival and found that patients with AGGF1-positive tumors had poorer DFS and OS rates than those with AGGF1-negative tumors (p < 0.05 for both, Fig 2a-b). More interestingly, in CRC patients at AJCC stage III-IV, higher AGGF1 expression was significantly associated with poorer OS (p = 0.001, Fig 2d), while no significant difference between higher and lower AGGF1 expression was observed for OS in patients at AJCC stage I- II, (p = 0.2248, Fig 2c). Additionally, univariate and multivariate survival analyses for DFS and OS were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model and the results demonstrated that AGGF1 expression (p < 0.05, Table 2 and Table 3) could serve as an independent prognostic factor for DFS and OS in CRC patients. Interestingly, we also analyzed the impact of aberrant AGGF1 mRNA expression on CRC patient survival by using the public dataset from TCGA and discovered that there was no significant association between the expression of AGGF1 and OS (Supplementary Fig S4), which further demonstrates that AGGF1 plays significant roles in tumorigenesis and the progression of CRC at the protein level rather than the mRNA level.

AGGF1 promotes CRC cell migration and invasion in vitro and distant metastasis in vivo.

To further investigate the roles of AGGF1 on CRC progression, we first detected the expression of AGGF1 in seven CRC cell lines and one healthy colorectal cell line at the protein level. Then, according to the discrepant expression levels of AGGF1, we selected HCT-116 and RKO, which showed the lowest and highest expression level of AGGF1, respectively, to further investigate the effect of AGGF1 on CRC biological processes (Fig 3a). Subsequently, by viral transfection, we generated a stable AGGF1-overexpressing HCT-116 cell line and an AGGF1-knockdown RKO cell line, with the ideal efficiency evaluated by WB (Fig 3b).

Firstly, we performed cell colony formation assays to explore the underlying roles of AGGF1 on CRC cells’ proliferation, and found that overexpression or knockdown of AGGF1 expression showed no significant promotion or inhibition on CRC cells’ proliferation, respectively (Supplementary Fig S5). Then, in vitro wound healing assays showed that ectopic overexpression or knockdown of AGGF1 could significantly accelerate or delay the wound healing ability of CRC cells, respectively, as compared with the control groups (p < 0.05 for all, Fig 3c). Transwell assays further demonstrated that upregulated or downregulated expression of AGGF1 could also strengthen or attenuate the migration and invasion ability, respectively, of CRC cells in vitro (p < 0.05 for all, Fig 3d). To investigate the functional impact of AGGF1 on distant metastasis of CRC in vivo, in vivo fluorescence imaging of mice was performed to test the lung and liver metastasis of CRC (Fig 3e). Then, hematoxylin-eosin (HE) staining was used to count the number of tumor colonies in mice lung and liver tissues (Fig 3f). We found that AGGF1 overexpression or knockdown significantly aggrandized or weakened the formation of in vivo metastatic colonies compared with the control groups in both the lungs and livers of mice (Fig 3g, p < 0.001). Taken together, these data indicate that AGGF1 could facilitate the wound healing, migration, and invasion abilities of CRC cell in vitro and also promote distant metastasis in vivo.

The prognosis for primary CRC is always favorable after curable surgical resection; however, the five-year OS rate of CRC patients with distant metastasis dramatically declines due to a lack of efficient drugs or treatment targets for postponing, even preventing the progression of CRC [18, 19]. Thus, the identification of novel targets for CRC and further elucidation the mechanisms involved in the distant metastasis appears to be vitally important. In the present study, we demonstrated that the expression of AGGF1 was elevated in CRC tissues compared with corresponding normal mucosae, but only at the protein level. Aberrant overexpression of AGGF1 predicted poorer DFS and OS in CRC patients after radical surgery. Further, we verified that AGGF1 could accelerate CRC cell wound healing, migration, and invasion in vitro as well as distant metastasis in vivo. All of these findings support the hypothesis that ectopic expression of AGGF1 promotes CRC metastasis, serving as a potential therapeutic target for CRC patients, especially for patients with lung and liver metastasis.

Located on human chromosome 5q13.3, the AGGF1 mRNA gene encodes a protein consisting of 714 amino acids that shows strong expression in blood vessels and is secreted as vessel formation initiates [6, 20]. A series of studies have also reported that the expression level of AGGF1 in cancer tissues was clearly higher than in adjacent normal tissues, predicting poor prognosis [10-12]. In the present study, at the mRNA level, we found no difference in the AGGF1 expression between the CRC tissues and paired normal tissues, a result which was consistent with public databases from Oncomine. However, at the protein level, the expression level of AGGF1 in CRC tissues/cells was much higher than in corresponding normal mucosa/cells. Further results from IHC staining in a TMA revealed that positive AGGF1 protein expression was significantly correlated with poorer DFS and OS in CRC patients. However, public data from TCGA showed no obvious correlation between aberrant AGGF1 expression and OS, suggesting that AGGF1 is vitally importance in CRC malignant progression at the protein level rather than at the mRNA level.

As reported, AGGF1 is released outside endothelial cells when angiogenesis starts, promoting angiogenesis [6, 7], and increased angiogenesis is involved in the growth, metastasis, and survival of various tumors [21, 22]. Reduced expression of AGGF1 resulted in endothelial cell apoptosis and inhibition of endothelial capillary vessel formation and cell migration, which could be rescued by purified recombinant human AGGF1 protein [7]. To further elucidate the role of AGGF1 in CRC progression, we built the CRC cell lines HCT-116 and RKO with AGGF1 stable overexpression and knockdown, respectively. In vitro, we determined that AGGF1 promoted CRC cell wound healing, migration, and invasion, which indicates the potential involvement of AGGF1 in CRC metastasis and is consistent with the results of studies in gastric cancer [10] and hepatocellular carcinoma [11]. Additionally, results from the in vivo assay in nude mice showed that up- or downregulation of AGGF1 expression also led to a significant increase or reduction, respectively, in metastatic colonies formed in lungs and livers compared with the control groups. These in vivo and vitro data suggest that the elevated expression of AGGF1 is likely correlated with tumor invasion.

Tumor is known as a multi-gene/multi-step process. There is no doubt about the importance of TNM-stage in tumor, however, even patients with the same TNM-stage may have different prognosis. Therefore, other molecules are still needed to supplement the TNM-stage to predict the prognosis and achieve accuracy study. For example, the immune scoring system can improve the assessment of the risk of CRC recurrence by introducing immune parameters for tumor staging [23]. The aberrant overexpression of AGGF1 in CRC can be detected by preoperative biopsy or postoperative immunohistochemistry, facilitating it served as a supplement to TNM staging. When patients with the same TNM-stage are accompanied by high expression of AGGF1, further intensive treatment should be specified to improve the prognosis of patients. Pre-operative radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy is frequently used prior to CRC surgery to improve local control and survival [24]. The study on the clinical significance of AGGF1 in CRC patients with distant metastasis is conducive to the designation of personalized treatment strategy for CRC patients. Neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy could be adopted according to the patients' personal conditions, so as to achieve the degraded treatment of CRC and improve the postoperative outcomes of CRC patients.

We demonstrated that AGGF1 expression was aberrantly elevated in CRC tissues and showed significant correlations with poor DFS and OS in CRC patients. In addition, we clarified that AGGF1 could promote CRC cell wound healing, migration, and invasion in vitro and distant metastasis in vivo, which indicates that AGGF1 may function as a potential therapeutic target for CRC patients, especially for patients with distant metastasis. Future studies will focus on the mechanisms underlying the role of AGGF1 in the progression of CRC and the potential for targeting AGGF1 in CRC treatment.

AGGF1: Angiogenic factor with G-patch and FHA domains 1; CRC: Colorectal cancer; VEGF: Vascular endothelial growth factor; WB: Western blot; IHC: Immunohistochemical; TMA: Tissue microarray; DFS: Disease-free survival; OS: Overall survival;

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study and the research was carried out in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. All patient-derived specimens were collected and archived under protocols approved by the institutional review boards of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This work was supported by Zhejiang Medical Technology Plan Project (grant number 2017ZD003). The funding bodies played no role in the design of the study or the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript.

Authors' contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by XZ and HMS. The first draft of the manuscript was written by XZ and HMS, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87-108.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5-29.
Sadeghi MR, Jeddi F, Soozangar N, Somi MH, Shirmohamadi M, Khaze V, et al. Nrf2/P-glycoprotein axis is associated with clinicopathological characteristics in colorectal cancer. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018;104(458-464.
Potente M, Gerhardt H, Carmeliet P. Basic and therapeutic aspects of angiogenesis. Cell. 2011;146(6):873-87.
Carmeliet P, Jain RK. Molecular mechanisms and clinical applications of angiogenesis. Nature. 2011;473(7347):298-307.
Tian XL, Kadaba R, You SA, Liu M, Timur AA, Yang L, et al. Identification of an angiogenic factor that when mutated causes susceptibility to Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome. Nature. 2004;427(6975):640-5.
Fan C, Ouyang P, Timur AA, He P, You SA, Hu Y, et al. Novel roles of GATA1 in regulation of angiogenic factor AGGF1 and endothelial cell function. J Biol Chem. 2009;284(35):23331-43.
Durocher D, Henckel J, Fersht AR, Jackson SP. The FHA domain is a modular phosphopeptide recognition motif. Mol Cell. 1999;4(3):387-94.
Guglielmi B, Werner M. The yeast homolog of human PinX1 is involved in rRNA and small nucleolar RNA maturation, not in telomere elongation inhibition. J Biol Chem. 2002;277(38):35712-9.
Yao HH, Zhao YJ, He YF, Huang DB, Wang W. Knockdown of AGGF1 inhibits the invasion and migration of gastric cancer via epithelial-mesenchymal transition through Wnt/beta-catenin pathway. Cancer Cell Int. 2019;19:41.
Li W, Fu Q, Man W, Guo H, Yang P. LncRNA OR3A4 participates in the angiogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma through modulating AGGF1/akt/mTOR pathway. Eur J Pharmacol. 2019;849:106-14.
Zhao H, Sun Q, Li L, Zhou J, Zhang C, Hu T, et al. High Expression Levels of AGGF1 and MFAP4 Predict Primary Platinum-Based Chemoresistance and are Associated with Adverse Prognosis in Patients with Serous Ovarian Cancer. J Cancer. 2019;10(2):397-407.
Wang X, Luo G, Zhang K, Cao J, Huang C, Jiang T, et al. Hypoxic Tumor-Derived Exosomal miR-301a Mediates M2 Macrophage Polarization via PTEN/PI3Kgamma to Promote Pancreatic Cancer Metastasis. Cancer Res. 2018;78(16):4586-98.
Mi Y, Zhao S, Zhang W, Zhang D, Weng J, Huang K, et al. Down-regulation of Barx2 predicts poor survival in colorectal cancer. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2016;478(1):67-73.
Mi Y, Zhao S, Zhou C, Weng J, Li J, Wang Z, et al. Downregulation of homeobox gene Barx2 increases gastric cancer proliferation and metastasis and predicts poor patient outcomes. Oncotarget. 2016;7(37):60593-608.
Zhang J, Liu L, Sun Y, Xiang J, Zhou D, Wang L, et al. MicroRNA-520g promotes epithelial ovarian cancer progression and chemoresistance via DAPK2 repression. Oncotarget. 2016;7(18):26516-34.
Zhao S, Jiang T, Tang H, Cui F, Liu C, Guo F, et al. Ubiquitin D is an independent prognostic marker for survival in stage IIB-IIC colon cancer patients treated with 5-fluoruracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;30(4):680-8.
Liao F, He W, Jiang C, Yin C, Guo G, Chen X, et al. A high LDL-C to HDL-C ratio predicts poor prognosis for initially metastatic colorectal cancer patients with elevations in LDL-C. Onco Targets Ther. 2015;8:3135-42.
Notarnicola M, Lorusso D, Tutino V, De Nunzio V, De Leonardis G, Marangelli G, et al. Differential Tissue Fatty Acids Profiling between Colorectal Cancer Patients with and without Synchronous Metastasis. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(4).
Timur AA, Driscoll DJ, Wang Q. Biomedicine and diseases: the Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome, vascular anomalies and vascular morphogenesis. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2005;62(13):1434-47.
Xu Y, Zhou M, Wang J, Zhao Y, Li S, Zhou B, et al. Role of microRNA-27a in down-regulation of angiogenic factor AGGF1 under hypoxia associated with high-grade bladder urothelial carcinoma. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1842(5):712-25.
22. Folkman J, Shing Angiogenesis. J Biol Chem. 1992;267(16):10931-4.
Pages F, Mlecnik B, Marliot F, Bindea G, Ou FS, Bifulco C, et al. International validation of the consensus Immunoscore for the classification of colon cancer: a prognostic and accuracy study. Lancet. 2018;391(10135):2128-39.
Hammarstrom K, Imam I, Korsavidou Hult N, Ekstrom J, Sjoblom T, Glimelius B. Determining the use of preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy in primary rectal cancer according to national and international guidelines. Radiother Oncol. 2019;136:106-12.

Table 1. Associations between AGGF1 expression and clinicopathological characteristics in 236 CRC patients

Variable	n	AGGF1 expression			p value
		Negative (46)	Weak positive (76)	Strong positive (114)
Age (yr)					0.837
<57	112	22 (19.6%)	34 (30.4%)	56 (50.0%)
>=57	124	24 (19.4%)	42 (33.9%)	58 (46.8%)
Gender					0.359
Male	139	23 (16.5%)	45 (32.4%)	71 (51.1%)
Female	97	23 (23.7%)	31 (32.0%)	43 (44.3%)
Tumor location					0.381
Right	49	5 (10.2%)	15 (30.6%)	29 (59.2%)
Transverse	5	1 (20.0%)	2 (40.0%)	2 (40.0%)
Left	12	2 (16.7%)	3 (25.0%)	7 (58.3%)
Sigmoid Rectum	49 121	7 (14.3%) 31 (25.6%)	16 (32.7%) 40 (33.1%)	26 (53.1%) 50 (41.3%)
T classification					<0.001*
T 1	2	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
T 2	36	21 (58.3%)	7 (19.4%)	8 (22.2%)
T 3	44	7 (15.9%)	21 (47.7%)	16 (36.4%)
T 4	154	16 (10.4%)	48 (31.2%)	90 (58.4%)
N classification					<0.001*
N 0	108	36 (33.3%)	44 (40.7%)	28 (25.9%)
N 1	77	7 (9.1%)	18 (23.4%)	52 (67.5%)
N 2	51	3 (5.9%)	14 (27.5%)	34 (66.7%)
M classification					0.012*
M 0	204	44 (21.6%)	69 (33.8%)	91 (44.6%)
M 1	32	2 (6.3%)	7 (21.9%)	23 (71.9%)
AJCC stage					<0.001*
I	24	19 (79.2%)	5 (20.8%)	0 (0.0%)
II	76	15 (19.7%)	36 (47.4%)	25 (32.9%)
III	104	10 (9.6%)	28 (26.9%)	66 (63.5%)
IV	32	2 (6.3%)	7 (21.9%)	23 (71.9%)
Recurrence					0.004*
No	199	43 (21.6%)	69 (34.7%)	87 (43.7%)
Yes	37	3 (8.1%)	7 (18.9%)	27 (73.0%)
Differentiation					0.640
Well	50	8 (16.0%)	17 (34.0%)	25 (50.0%)
Moderate	173	34 (19.7%)	57 (32.92%)	82 (47.4%)
Poor	13	4 (30.8%)	2 (15.4%)	7 (53.8%)

*Significant difference

Table 2. Univariate and multivariate analysis of disease-free survival in 236 CRC patients

	Disease-free survival
	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
	HR (95%CI)	p Value	HR (95%CI)	p Value
Age (yr)	0.871 (0.476-1.595)	0.655
Gender	1.153 (0.628-2.117)	0.646
Tumor location	0.997 (0.816-1.220)	0.980
T classification	2.636 (1.415-4.911)	0.002*	2.773 (1.238-6.211)	0.013*
N classification	2.514 (1.480-3.136)	<0.001*	0.744 (0.415-1.334)	0.007*
M classification	6.733 (3.281-13.815)	<0.001*	9.195 (3.931-21.504)	<0.001*
AJCC stage (III -IV vs I- II)	6.160 (2.593-14.635)	<0.001*	3.968 (1.203-130.90)	0.024*
Recurrence	7.689 (4.112-14.375)	<0.001*	7.422 (3.701-14.884)	<0.001*
Differentiation	0.666 (0.368-1.206)	0.180
AGGF1	3.956 (2.179-7.182)	<0.001*	3.268 (1.779-6.002)	<0.001*

HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval

* Significant differences

Table 3. Univariate and multivariate analysis of overall survival in 236 CRC patients

		Overall survival
		Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
		HR (95%CI)	p Value		HR (95%CI)		p Value
Age (yr)		0.895 (0.530-1.512)	0.679
Gender		1.222 (0.723-2.066)	0.455
Tumor location		1.168 (1.000-1.364)	0.050*		1.190 (0.994-1.423)		0.058
T classification		3.182 (1.705-5.937)	<0.001*		2.938 (1.404-6.149)		0.004*
N classification		2.243 (1.615-3.115)	<0.001*		0.912 (0.586-1.419)		0.002*
M classification		9.412 (5.481-16.162)	<0.001*		9.385 (4.907-17.952)		<0.001*
AJCC stage (III -IV vs I- II)	7.927 (3.394-18.511)		<0.001*	3.369 (1.147-9.895)		0.027*
Recurrence		3.730 (2.144-6.488)	<0.001*		5.667 (2.882-11.140)		<0.001*
Differentiation		0.616 (0.370-1.025)	0.062
AGGF1		4.182 (2.384-7.333)	<0.001*		3.320 (1.814-6.077)		<0.001*

HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval

* Significant differences

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 27 Dec, 2019

Read the published version in BMC Cancer →

Editorial decision: Minor revision
12 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned by journal
10 Dec, 2019
Submission checks completed at journal
09 Dec, 2019
Editor invited by journal
09 Dec, 2019

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Elevated expression of AGGF1 predicts poor prognosis and promotes the metastasis of colorectal cancer

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 4

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 4