Background
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), one of the most notoriously invasive cancers, is among the top 10 most prevalent cancers worldwide, accounting for ~600,000 deaths annually [
1,
2]. At present, surgical resection/liver transplantation is the only treatment modality to confer survival benefit in HCC patients, and the overall 5-year survival rate for HCC patients is less than 5% [
3]. The most important reason leading to poor prognosis is intra hepatic metastasis [
4]. It is thus necessary to elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying HCC metastasis and identify novel therapeutic targets.
Recently, it has been manifested that the deregulation or dysfunction of miRNAs is involved in cancer development and related to clinical outcomes of cancer patients including HCC [
5‐
12]. Yu, et al reported
miR-182 was one of the most significantly up-regulated miRNA in HCC patients [
13]. Aberrant
miR-182 expression promotes melanoma metastasis by repressing
FOXO3 and microphthalmia-associated transcription factor [
14,
15], which indicates that
miR-182 may promote the metastasis of HCC through targeting on some genes. In both websites Target scan and Pictar, we found hundreds of target genes regulated by
miR-182. Among those genes with highly conserved binding sites, metastasis suppressor 1 (
MTSS1) brought us lots of concern as it has been demonstrated to have prognostic value and anti-metastatic properties in breast cancer [
16] and gastric cancer [
17].
We then tested the expressions of MTSS1 and miR-182 in paired normal liver and HCC tissues. Statistics analysis demonstrated the negative correlation between miR-182 and MTSS1 and the important clinicopathological significance of miR-182 in HCC patients. Experiments in vitro further confirmed that miR-182 can promote the metastasis of HCC cell lines and down-regulate MTSS1, which further elucidate the metastatic mechanism of HCC and may suggest novel findings for targeted treatment.
Methods
Patients and samples
Informed consent was obtained from all the patients for the collection of liver specimens, and the study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tianjin Medical University. The investigations were conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki Principles. The clinical pathological data were collected as described in our earlier study [
2]. Eighty-six primary HCC patients treated in Cancer Hospital of Tianjin Medical University between 2004 and 2007 were selected according to the following criteria: (1) The diagnosis of HCC was confirmed by pathology; (2) No preoperational chemotherapy or TAE were performed; (3) All of the samples were from the hepatectomy for the first time; (4) Incisal margins were negative; and (5) Clinicopathologic data of the cases could be collected. Among the 86 patients, there were 67 men (77.9%) and 19 women (22.1%). The mean age at diagnosis was 50.7 ± 9.7 years, ranging from 29 to 78 years. HBV was positive in 72 patients (83.7%). The percentage of AFP (>100 ng/ml) was 80.2%. Moreover, one tumor was detected in 79.1% (68/86) patients and multiple tumors (≥2) were found in 20.9% (18/86) patients with totally 29 metastatic leisions. The average tumor size was 5.8 ± 2.7 cm (0.4-16 cm). Histologically, 32.6% (28/86), 46.5% (40/86) and 20.9% (18/86) tumors were grade 1, 2 and 3, respectively. No chemotherapy was performed after radical resection. Patients were followed-up at the outpatient clinic with measurement of the serum alpha-fetoprotein level and hepatic ultrasonography every 2–4 months from the date of initial treatment. The mean time of follow-up was 28.3 months (range 3– 56 months). When recurrence was suspected, further evaluations were performed by abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan, if necessary, by ultrasound-guided biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. Recurrence was observed in 46.5% (40/86) patients. HCC and non-neoplastic tissues were collected and stored at −80°C until analysis. For every frozen tumor tissue, we cut frozen slide and did HE staining and evaluated the percentage of tumor cells. The percentage of tumor cells was about 90%. In addition, paraffin-embedded HCC tissues were also collected.
RNA extraction and quantitative RT-PCR for miR-182
Total RNA, including miRNA, was extracted using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Total RNA was reversely transcribed using the corresponding RT Primer and the TaqMan MicroRNA Reverse Transcription Kit (Applied Biosystems). The expression of miR-182 and its control RNU44 were detected using TaqMan miRNA assay system (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). The median miRNA intensity value of 86 patient samples was used as the threshold, and patients were divided into two groups (below median, group low miR-182 and above median, group high miR-182) according to the expression of miR-182.
Immunohistochemistry staining and evaluation for MTSS1
Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was used to detect MTSS1 expression in paraffin-embedded HCC tissues. Five-μm sections of paraffin-embedded HCC tissue were baked at 65°C for 2 h, followed by deparaffinization using standard procedures. After antigen retrieval, MTSS1 antibody (Cell Signaling Technology, Inc. Danvers, MA, USA) was applied to slides, followed by the secondary antibody conjugated with horseradish peroxidase. Signals were revealed by using the Histostain Plus kit (Invitrogen, Grand Island, NY, USA) according to the manufacturer's instruction. 3, 3-Diaminobenzidine (DAB) was used as a chromogen. The sections were counter-stained with hematoxylin. We prepared a negative control by substituting PBS for the antibody.
MTSS1 protein expression was evaluated by two pathologists. MTSS1-positive samples were defined as those with brown staining in the cytoplasm. The results of MTSS1 immunohistochemical analysis were estimated with semi-quantity method. The staining intensity was graded on a scale from 0 to 3 (0 for no staining, 1 for weak immunoreactivity, 2 for moderate immunoreactivity, and 3 for strong immunoreactivity) The percentage of immunoreactivity was scored on a scale from 0 to 4 (0, no positive cells; 1, <25% of cells positive; 2, 25%–50% of cells positive; 3, 50– 75% of cells positive; and 4, >75% cells positive). Finally, a total score (negative: 0; weak: 1–2; medium: 3–5; strong: 6–7) was obtained by adding the scores of staining intensity and percentage positivity.
Western blot for MTSS1
Cell lysates were harvested with 2% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)-125 mM Tris/HCl (pH 7.4). Cell lysates (25–30 ug of protein) were resolved in Tris/glycine SDS/PAGE gels and transferred to PVDF membranes. Membranes were probed with primary antibodies overnight at 4°C and incubated with horseradish-peroxidase-coupled secondary antibodies (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA, USA). The background was subtracted, and the signals of the detected bands were normalized to the amount of loading control β-actin (Cell Signaling Technology, Inc. Danvers, MA, USA) band. The protein levels were quantified using ImageJ software (National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij).
Cell culture and transfection
Human HCC cell lines HLE, HLF, HepG2, Hep3B and HUH-1 were obtained from American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA, USA) and cultured in DMEM (Invitrogen) except HepG2 (MEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated 10% fetal bovine serum (Invitrogen) at 37°C in a humidified incubator containing 5% CO2.
For transfection, 2 × 105 HLF or HUH-1 cells were seeded into each well of a 6-well plate and incubated overnight, then the cells were transfected with Pre-miR miRNA Precursor Molecule pre-182 (pre-miR-182) and anti-miR miRNA inhibitor anti-182 (anti-miR-182) (Applied Biosystems) at a final concentration of 100 nM using the Lipofectamine 2000 transfection reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The specificity of the transfection was verified using the Pre-miR miRNA Precursor Molecule Negative Control #1 (control pre-miR) and Anti-miR miRNA Inhibitors Negative Control #1 (control anti-miR) (Applied Biosystems). The expression levels of miR-182 and MTSS1 were quantified 24 h after transfection, and the cells were used for western blot analysis.
3’ UTR luciferase reporter assay
The human MTSS1 3’ UTR luciferase reporter construct (MTSS1-3’UTR WT) was generated by cloning MTSS1 mRNA 3’UTR sequence into downstream of pMIR-Report construct (Ambion, Foster City, CA, USA). The MTSS1 3’ UTR sequence was generated by PCR using primer MTSS1 3’UTR F SpeI: 5’-AAACTAGTTGATTTTTCTGAAGGT GCCAAATTCCATTTAA-3’ and primer MTSS1 3’UTR R SacI: 5’–GGGAGCTCTTTGGCAACATTTTATTTATTCA-3’. The miR-182 target site-mutation MTSS1 3’ UTR luciferase reporter 1 (MTSS1-3’UTR mutation 1) construct was generated by employing direct-site mutagenesis using mutation primers which mutate the miR-182 binding site from TCTGAAGGTGCCAA to GATGAAGGTCGGTA. miR-182 target site-mutation MTSS1 3’ UTR luciferase reporter (MTSS1-3’UTR mutation 2) was mutated from TTGCCAA to TAACGCT in the miR-182 binding site. MTSS1-3’UTR mutation 1, 2 was mutated in these two miR-182 binding sites.
HUH-1 cells were co-transfected with miR-182 plasmid and wild-type or mutant MTSS1 3’ UTR luciferase reporter construct and luciferase activities were measured using the Dual-Glo Luciferase. Data were normalized by dividing Firefly luciferase activity with that of Renilla luciferase.
In-vitro invasion assays
HLF and HUH-1 cell invasion assays were performed using 24-well Matrigel Invasion Chambers (BD Biosciences, CA, USA). The lower chambers were filled with 0.75 ml of DMEM medium containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS). A cell suspension of 2 × 105 in 0.5 ml DMEM medium was added into each well of the upper chamber. After the cells were incubated for 24 h at 37°C in a humidified incubator with 5% CO2, The invasive cells attached to the lower surface of the membrane insert were fixed in 10% formalin at room temperature for 5 min and stained with 0.05% crystal violet. The non-invading cells that remained on the upper surface of the membrane were removed by scraping. The number of invasive cells on the lower surface of the membrane was then counted under a microscope.
Statistical analysis
Differences in MTSS1 immunohistochemical staining between groups were compared using chi-square or Fisher exact tests in human samples. The correlation between MTSS1 expression and miR-182 was evaluated by calculating the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Moreover, mean ± SD of clinicopathological variables were calculated, and differences in the means were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance or Student’s t test. We also used the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test in univariate survival analysis, and we used the Cox proportional hazards regression model in our multivariate analysis. SPSS version 16.0 (IBM) was used to perform our statistical analysis. Two-tailed P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Discussions
Up-regulation of
miR-182 was suggested to exist in a large part of HCC tissues [
15]. In our HCC cases with complete clinical data, we also found the up-regulation of
miR-182 and its up-regulation was significantly associated with intrahepatic metastasis (tumor number ≥ 2) and early recurrence, which is an important clinical determinant for the prognosis of HCC patients. Up-regulation of
miR-182 was further suggested to correlate with reduced disease-free survival of HCC patients. Hence, determination of
miR-182 expression level in HCC tissues may be a novel approach to predict and identify the prognosis of HCC patients.
Although miRNA profile did reveal very prospective features in cancer, the functions and real targets of miRNAs were largely unknown. The predicted targets of the majority of microRNAs based on sequence homology remained to be comprehensively validated by in vitro and in vivo experiments. Target scan and Pictar showed metastasis suppressor 1 (MTSS1) is one important target of miR-182 with a high context score. Meanwhile, we found its expression in HCC decreased significantly compared to that of adjacent normal tissue and negatively correlated with the expression of miR-182, which indicated MTSS1 maybe the regulation target of miR-182.
MTSS1, also known as
MIM (missing in metastasis), was originally identified by Lee et al. [
18] as a potential metastasis suppressor gene that was present in non-metastatic bladder cancer cell lines, but was not expressed in a metastatic bladder cancer cell line [
19]. This gene, mapped to human chromosome 8q24.1, encodes a 5.3 kb mRNA and a polypeptide predicted to be an actin-binding protein of 356 amino acids with homology to the WASp (Wiscott-Aldrich Syndrome protein) family [
20]. Functional analyses of
MTSS1 have shown that
MTSS1 induced actin-rich protrusions resembling microspikes and lamellipodia at the plasma membrane and promoted disassembly of actin stress fibres [
21]. Actin filament assembly is associated with cytoskeletal structure organization and many forms of cell motility [
22]. These data have suggested that
MTSS1 protein may be important in regulating cytoskeletal dynamics, and as a consequence it would play a potential role in the invasion and metastatic behavior of cancer cells. Therefore, the down-regulation of
MTSS1 potentiated by the up-regulation of
miR-182 may further aggravate the epigenetic changes in HCC. We then focused on the mechanisms that whether the up-regulation of
miR-182 mediates the inhibition of
MTSS1 and induced epigenetic alterations in HCC pathogenesis.
miR-182 can bind to MTSS1 at two conserved sites with a high context score. Our luciferase assay in HCC cell lines demonstrated MTSS1 can be regulated directly by miR-182. The interesting results in HCC cell lines is that cells with high invasive ability showed higher expression level of miR-182 than those with low invasive potential, which is inversely related with the expression of MTSS1. Analyses on human samples reinforced the relevance of miR-182 regulation on MTSS1 in HCC by revealing an inverse correlation between their expressions. Considering the characteristic heterogeneity of HCC and that MTSS1 is regulated by additional mechanisms, a statistically significant association with miR-182 is especially remarkable. The ability of MTSS1 over-expression to counteract miR-182’s pro-invasion effects unequivocally shows the importance of this inverse relationship in HCC metastasis. The functional analysis of miR-182 together with MTSS1 in animal models will particularly further evaluate their metastatic role and show us the clinical treatment value for patients with HCC. That would be our future research aim.
Concerning the target of
miR-182, Miguel and et al. also reported that the microRNA promotes melanoma metastasis by repressing
FOXO3 and microphthalmia-associated transcription factor [
13]. Together with our study, it is consistent with current opinions that a single miRNA can target multiple mRNAs, named ‘targetome’, to post-transcriptionally regulate gene expression [
23]. Hence, it is probable that we are still far from unveiling the last target of
miR-182. According to this presumption, interesting future work may be carried out to identify the ‘targetome’ and the entire roles of
miR-182 in cancer development. Another important issue is why
miR-182 is up-regulated in HCC and other cancers [
15,
24]. The current view suggests that miRNA expression is mainly controlled at the transcriptional level. A large number of transcription regulators that influence the transcription and production of miRNAs have been identified including Myc, E2F, p53, and STAT3 [
25‐
27]. Another possible mechanism for the up-regulation of miRNAs in cancer may result from the amplification of DNA copy number. Such as
miR-182 is one member of a miRNA cluster in a chromosomal locus (7q31-34) frequently amplified in HCC [
13], the amplification may cause the up-regulation of
miR- 182. This is our future’s research field.
Competing interests
All authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
JW together with JL conceived of the study, and participated in its design and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript. JS carried out the molecular biological studies and drafted the manuscript. CW collected all the clinicopathological data. LY performed imunohistochemistry assay. XZ participated in the design of the study and performed the statistical analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.