Advertisement

Forkhead box protein O1 (FOXO1) and paired box gene 3 (PAX3) overexpression is associated with poor prognosis in patients with cervical cancer

  • Doo Byung Chay
  • Gwan Hee Han
  • Sanghee Nam
  • Hanbyoul ChoEmail author
  • Joon-Yong Chung
  • Stephen M. Hewitt
Original Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Forkhead box protein O1 (FOXO1) and paired box gene 3 (PAX3) have been reported to play an imported role in human cancers, but their role in cervical cancer has not yet been clarified. In this study, we evaluated the functional role of FOXO1 in cervical cancer cells and investigated the expression and clinical significance of FOXO1 and PAX3 in cervical lesions.

Methods

In vitro assessment of cell function by cell viability, migration, and invasion assays were performed on FOXO1-knockdown cervical cancer cells. Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining analyses of FOXO1 and PAX3 were performed with a tissue microarray (TMA). The clinical significance was evaluated by comparing the data with various clinicopathologic characteristics, including survival of patients with cervical cancer.

Results

In vitro results revealed that knockdown of FOXO1 is associated with decreased cell viability (p < 0.001), migration (p < 0.001), and invasion (p < 0.05), supporting the oncogenic role of FOXO1 in cervical cancer. FOXO1 and PAX3 expression was significantly higher in CIN (both p < 0.001) and cancer tissue (both p < 0.001) than in normal tissue. Multivariate analysis indicated that FOXO1 expression (hazard ratio 4.01 [95% CI 1.22–13.10], p = 0.021) and an advanced FIGO stage (hazard ratio 3.89 [95% CI 1.35–11.19], p = 0.012) were independent prognostic factors for overall survival.

Conclusions

This study reveals increased FOXO1 and PAX3 expression in cervical cancers and indicates an oncogenic role of FOXO1 in cervical cancer cells that correlates with poor patient survival.

Keywords

Cervical cancer FOXO1 PAX3 Biomarker Prognosis Tissue microarray 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL et al (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duenas-Gonzalez A, Campbell S (2016) Global strategies for the treatment of early-stage and advanced cervical cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 28:11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Small W Jr, Bacon MA, Bajaj A et al (2017) Cervical cancer: a global health crisis. Cancer 123:2404–2412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lea JS, Lin KY (2012) Cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 39:233–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xing YQ, Li A, Yang Y et al (2018) The regulation of FOXO1 and its role in disease progression. Life Sci 193:124–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang Y, Zhou Y, Graves DT (2014) FOXO transcription factors: their clinical significance and regulation. Biomed Res Int 2014:925350Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lu H, Huang H (2011) FOXO1: a potential target for human diseases. Curr Drug Targets 12:1235–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fu Z, Tindall DJ (2008) FOXOs, cancer and regulation of apoptosis. Oncogene 27:2312–2319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang B, Gui LS, Zhao XL et al (2015) FOXO1 is a tumor suppressor in cervical cancer. Genet Mol Res 14:6605–6616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang L, Huang Z, Fan Y et al (2017) FOXC1 promotes proliferation and epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cervical carcinoma through the PI3K-AKT signal pathway. Am J Transl Res 9:1297–1306Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boudjadi S, Chatterjee B, Sun W et al (2018) The expression and function of PAX3 in development and disease. Gene 666:145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang XD, Morgan SC, Loeken MR (2011) Pax3 stimulates p53 ubiquitination and degradation independent of transcription. PLoS ONE 6:e29379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu W, Sui F, Liu J et al (2016) PAX3 is a novel tumor suppressor by regulating the activities of major signaling pathways and transcription factor FOXO3a in thyroid cancer. Oncotarget 7:54744–54757Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD (2001) Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(−Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods 25:402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li R, Erdamar S, Dai H et al (2007) Forkhead protein FKHR and its phosphorylated form p-FKHR in human prostate cancer. Hum Pathol 38:1501–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang Y, Jia L, Zhang Y et al (2017) Higher expression of FOXOs correlates to better prognosis of bladder cancer. Oncotarget 8:96313–96322Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coomans de Brachene A, Demoulin JB (2016) FOXO transcription factors in cancer development and therapy. Cell Mol Life Sci 73:1159–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang Y, Gan B, Liu D et al (2011) FoxO family members in cancer. Cancer Biol Ther 12:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prasad SB, Yadav SS, Das M et al (2014) Down regulation of FOXO1 promotes cell proliferation in cervical cancer. J Cancer 5:655–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Crosbie EJ, Einstein MH, Franceschi S et al (2013) Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet 382:889–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Staron MM, Gray SM, Marshall HD et al (2014) The transcription factor FoxO1 sustains expression of the inhibitory receptor PD-1 and survival of antiviral CD8(+) T cells during chronic infection. Immunity 41:802–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen J, Xia L, Wu X et al (2012) Clinical significance and prognostic value of PAX3 expression in human glioma. J Mol Neurosci 47:52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang L, Xia L, Zhao L et al (2015) Activation of PAX3-MET pathways due to miR-206 loss promotes gastric cancer metastasis. Carcinogenesis 36:390–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xu Y, Shao QS, Yao HB et al (2014) Overexpression of FOXC1 correlates with poor prognosis in gastric cancer patients. Histopathology 64:963–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wei LX, Zhou RS, Xu HF et al (2013) High expression of FOXC1 is associated with poor clinical outcome in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Tumour Biol 34:941–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tothova Z, Kollipara R, Huntly BJ et al (2007) FoxOs are critical mediators of hematopoietic stem cell resistance to physiologic oxidative stress. Cell 128:325–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dasari S, Wudayagiri R, Valluru L (2015) Cervical cancer: biomarkers for diagnosis and treatment. Clin Chim Acta 445:7–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Park J, Ko YS, Yoon J et al (2014) The forkhead transcription factor FOXO1 mediates cisplatin resistance in gastric cancer cells by activating phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt pathway. Gastric Cancer 17:423–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Han CY, Cho KB, Choi HS et al (2008) Role of FoxO1 activation in MDR1 expression in adriamycin-resistant breast cancer cells. Carcinogenesis 29:1837–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goto T, Takano M, Hirata J et al (2008) The involvement of FOXO1 in cytotoxic stress and drug-resistance induced by paclitaxel in ovarian cancers. Br J Cancer 98:1068–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grunkin M, Raundahl J, Foged NT (2011) Practical considerations of image analysis and quantification of signal transduction IHC staining. Methods Mol Biol 717:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tawfik OW, Kimler BF, Davis M et al (2006) Comparison of immunohistochemistry by automated cellular imaging system (ACIS) versus fluorescence in-situ hybridization in the evaluation of HER-2/neu expression in primary breast carcinoma. Histopathology 48:258–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyGangnam Severance HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Experimental Pathology Laboratory, Laboratory of Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute (NCI)National Institutes of Health (NIH)BethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations