Negative correlation of cytoplasm TIMP3 with miR-222 indicates a good prognosis for NSCLC
Authors Lei Y, Liu Z, Yang W
Received 28 April 2018
Accepted for publication 10 July 2018
Published 6 September 2018 Volume 2018:11 Pages 5551—5557
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Sanjeev Srivastava
Yiyan Lei, Zhaoguo Liu, Weilin Yang
Department of General Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun-Yat Sen University, Guangzhou, Guandong, People’s Republic of China
Background: The aim of this study was to observe the expression of microRNA-222 (miR-222) and matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor 3 (TIMP3) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and discuss their significance.
Methods: A total of 230 patients with NSCLC were enrolled in the observation group during the operation. Ninety-eight normal adjacent tissues were used as the control group. Two groups of miR-222 and TIMP3 were detected by in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. The distribution of miR-222 and TIMP3 in A549/H358/PC9 cells was observed by immunofluorescence. Chi-squared and Spearman correlation tests were used to analyze the relationship among miR-222, TIMP3 expression, and clinicopathological parameters of NSCLC. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to analyze the prognostic impact of miR-222 and TIMP3.
Results: Immunohistochemistry showed that the expression of miR-222 in lung cancer tissue was significantly higher, but TIMP3 was lower than that in normal lung tissue (P = 0.0001 for the former and P = 0.0002 for the latter). Meanwhile, miR-222 and TIMP3 were mainly distributed in the cytoplasm. Among them, cTIMP3 accounted for 70.29% (72/101), cmiR-222 for 59.35% (92/155), 14.85% for nTIMP3 (15/101), and 18.06% for nmiR-222 (28/155). There was a significant difference in distribution (both P < 0.0001). The expression of miR-222 and TIMP3 were negatively correlated in lung cancer tissues (r = -0.43, P = 0.0219). With the progression of clinical stage, the positive intensity of cTIMP3 showed a decreasing trend, while the cmiR-222 showed a reverse trend (the former P = 0.0024 and the latter P < 0.0001). In the Kaplan–Meier prognostic analysis, we found that the high expression of cTIMP3 could predict a better prognosis (P = 0.0040), whereas cmiR-222 was the opposite (P = 0.0016). Multivariate analysis shows that both can be used as independent factors.
Conclusion: TIMP3 expression in lung cancer is relatively low and has a negative correlation with lung cancer staging and prognosis, suggesting that it may play a defensive function in the development of lung cancer, while miR-222 has the opposite effect, and the expression of both proteins is negatively correlated, suggesting that in lung cancer progresses, both proteins may play some role together.
Keywords: lung cancer,tumor markers, A549/h358/pc9, biological mechanism, immunofluorescence
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]