Advertisement

Whole Exome Sequencing Reveals a Novel Damaging Mutation in Human Fibroblast Activation Protein in a Family with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

  • Fatemeh Fardi Golyan
  • Morteza Moghaddassian
  • Mohammad Mahdi Forghanifard
  • Samaneh Talebi
  • Moein Farshchian
  • Reihaneh Alsadat Mahmoudian
  • Mohammad Reza AbbaszadeganEmail author
Original Research

Abstract

Purpose

Esophageal squamous cancer cell (ESCC), with late diagnosis and poor rate of survival, is a significant cause of mortality in the developing countries. The hypothesis of rare high penetrance with mutations in new genes may explain the underlying predisposition in some of these familial cases.

Methods

Exome sequencing was performed in the patients with ESCC with strong disease aggregation, two sisters with ESCC cancer, and one with breast cancer. Data analysis selected only very rare variants (0–0.1%) located in genes with a role compatible with cancer. In addition, the homology modeling of the novel mutation (A459D) discovered in FAP gene was performed by using the online Swiss-Prot server for automated modeling and the resulted structure has been modified and analyzed by using bioinformatics software to thoroughly study the structural deficiencies caused by the novel mutation.

Results

Ten final candidate variants were selected and six genes validated by Sanger sequencing. Correct family segregation and somatic studies were used to categorize the most interesting variants in FAP, BOD1L, RAD51, Gasdermin D, LGR5, and CERS4. A novel, human mutation C1367A encoding Ala459 Asp (accession number: KT988039), occurring in the blade of the β propeller domain, was identified in two sisters with ESCC.

Conclusions

We identified novel mutations in three drug delivery genes, a tumor suppressor and also a stem cell marker of esophageal that may have a role in cancer treatment and are involved in cellular pathways, which supports their putative involvement in germ-line predisposition to this neoplasm.

Keywords

FAP ESCC Homology modeling Structural analysis disease Genetic variant Next-generation sequencing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the grant number 910774 from the vice chancellor for research at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences and was part of the Master student’s dissertation.

Author Contributions

Conception or design of the experiment(s), or collection and analysis, or interpretation of data: F, M M, and M R. Drafting the manuscript or revising its intellectual content: F, M. Approval of the final version of the submitted manuscript: all authors.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

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. This study was approved by the ethics committee of MUMS.

Informed Consent

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

References

  1. 1.
    Zhang Y. Epidemiology of esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(34):5598–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Augoff K, et al. Upregulated expression and activation of membrane-associated proteases in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Oncol Rep. 2014;31(6):2820–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ellis V, Murphy G. Cellular strategies for proteolytic targeting during migration and invasion. FEBS Lett. 2001;506(1):1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Björklund M, Koivunen E. Gelatinase-mediated migration and invasion of cancer cells. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2005;1755(1):37–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poincloux R, Lizárraga F, Chavrier P. Matrix invasion by tumour cells: a focus on MT1-MMP trafficking to invadopodia. J Cell Sci. 2009;122(17):3015–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aoyama A, Chen W-T. A 170-kDa membrane-bound protease is associated with the expression of invasiveness by human malignant melanoma cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1990;87(21):8296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen D, Kennedy A, Wang JY, Zeng W, Zhao Q, Pearl M, et al. Activation of EDTA-resistant gelatinases in malignant human tumors. Cancer Res. 2006;66(20):9977–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henry LR, Lee HO, Lee JS, Klein-Szanto A, Watts P, Ross EA, et al. Clinical implications of fibroblast activation protein in patients with colon cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(6):1736–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O'Brien P, O'Connor BF. Seprase: an overview of an important matrix serine protease. Biochim Biophys Acta Protein Struct Mol Enzymol. 2008;1784(9):1130–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brennen WN, Isaacs JT, Denmeade SR. Rationale behind targeting fibroblast activation protein–expressing carcinoma-associated fibroblasts as a novel chemotherapeutic strategy. Mol Cancer Ther. 2012;11(2):257–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huber MA, Schubert RD, Peter RU, Kraut N, Park JE, Rettig WJ, et al. Fibroblast activation protein: differential expression and serine protease activity in reactive stromal fibroblasts of melanocytic skin tumors. J Investig Dermatol. 2003;120(2):182–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen W-T, Kelly T. Seprase complexes in cellular invasiveness. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2003;22(2–3):259–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosenblum JS, Kozarich JW. Prolyl peptidases: a serine protease subfamily with high potential for drug discovery. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2003;7(4):496–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamson EJ, Keane FM, Tholen S, Schilling O, Gorrell MD. Understanding fibroblast activation protein (FAP): substrates, activities, expression and targeting for cancer therapy. Proteomics Clin Appl. 2014;8(5–6):454–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee K, et al. Enhancement of fibrinolysis by inhibiting enzymatic cleavage of precursor α2-antiplasmin. J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9(5):987–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keane FM, Nadvi NA, Yao TW, Gorrell MD. Neuropeptide Y, B-type natriuretic peptide, substance P and peptide YY are novel substrates of fibroblast activation protein-α. FEBS J. 2011;278(8):1316–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yu DM, et al. The dipeptidyl peptidase IV family in cancer and cell biology. FEBS J. 2010;277(5):1126–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aertgeerts K, Levin I, Shi L, Snell GP, Jennings A, Prasad GS, et al. Structural and kinetic analysis of the substrate specificity of human fibroblast activation protein α. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(20):19441–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arnold K, Bordoli L, Kopp J, Schwede T. The SWISS-MODEL workspace: a web-based environment for protein structure homology modelling. Bioinformatics. 2006;22(2):195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weiner SJ, Kollman PA, Case DA, Singh UC, Ghio C, Alagona G, et al. A new force field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic acids and proteins. J Am Chem Soc. 1984;106(3):765–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li Z, Scheraga HA. Monte Carlo-minimization approach to the multiple-minima problem in protein folding. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1987;84(19):6611–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laskowski RA, MacArthur MW, Moss DS, Thornton JM. PROCHECK: a program to check the stereochemical quality of protein structures. J Appl Crystallogr. 1993;26(2):283–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vriend G. What IF: a molecular modeling and drug design program. J Mol Graph. 1990;8(1):52–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Page MJ, Di Cera E. Serine peptidases: classification, structure and function. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2008;65(7):1220–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Osborne B, Yao TW, Wang XM, Chen Y, Kotan LD, Nadvi NA, et al. A rare variant in human fibroblast activation protein associated with ER stress, loss of enzymatic function and loss of cell surface localisation. Biochim Biophys Acta Protein Struct Mol Enzymol. 2014;1844(7):1248–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keane FM, Chowdhury S, Yao TW, Nadvi NA, Gall MG, Chen Y, Osborne B, Ribeiro AJV, Church WB, McCaughan GW, Gorrell MD, Yu DMT (2012) Targeting dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) and fibroblast activation protein (FAP) for diabetes and cancer therapy. In Proteinases as Drug Targets. Royal Society of Chemistry Cambridge, Cambridge, pp 119–145Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liao Y, et al. Evaluation of the circulating level of fibroblast activation protein α for diagnosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2017;8(18):30050.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Higgs MR, Stewart GS. Protection or resection: BOD1L as a novel replication fork protection factor. Nucleus. 2016;7(1):34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Higgs MR, Reynolds JJ, Winczura A, Blackford AN, Borel V, Miller ES, et al. BOD1L is required to suppress deleterious resection of stressed replication forks. Mol Cell. 2015;59(3):462–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hannun YA, Obeid LM. Principles of bioactive lipid signalling: lessons from sphingolipids. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008;9(2):139–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pettus BJ, Chalfant CE, Hannun YA. Ceramide in apoptosis: an overview and current perspectives. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Biol Lipids. 2002;1585(2):114–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mojakgomo R, Mbita Z, Dlamini Z. Linking the ceramide synthases (CerSs) 4 and 5 with apoptosis, endometrial and colon cancers. Exp Mol Pathol. 2015;98(3):585–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen J, Li X, Ma D, Liu T, Tian P, Wu C. Ceramide synthase-4 orchestrates the cell proliferation and tumor growth of liver cancer in vitro and in vivo through the nuclear factor-κB signaling pathway. Oncol Lett. 2017;14(2):1477–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Walker R, Mejia J, Lee JK, Pimiento JM, Malafa M, Giuliano AR, et al. Personalizing gastric cancer screening with predictive modeling of disease progression biomarkers. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2017:1.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Saeki N, Usui T, Aoyagi K, Kim DH, Sato M, Mabuchi T, et al. Distinctive expression and function of four GSDM family genes (GSDMA-D) in normal and malignant upper gastrointestinal epithelium. Genes Chromosom Cancer. 2009;48(3):261–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shi J, Zhao Y, Wang K, Shi X, Wang Y, Huang H, et al. Cleavage of GSDMD by inflammatory caspases determines pyroptotic cell death. Nature. 2015;526(7575):660–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kurdistani SK, et al. Inhibition of tumor cell growth by RTP/rit42 and its responsiveness to p53 and DNA damage. Cancer Res. 1998;58(19):4439–44.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Saha S, Bardelli A, Buckhaults P, Velculescu VE, Rago C, St Croix B, et al. A phosphatase associated with metastasis of colorectal cancer. Science. 2001;294(5545):1343–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fatemeh Fardi Golyan
    • 1
  • Morteza Moghaddassian
    • 2
  • Mohammad Mahdi Forghanifard
    • 3
  • Samaneh Talebi
    • 1
  • Moein Farshchian
    • 4
  • Reihaneh Alsadat Mahmoudian
    • 1
  • Mohammad Reza Abbaszadegan
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Immunology research centerMashhad university of Medical SciencesMashhadIran
  2. 2.Division of Human Genetics, Immunology Research Center, Avicenna Research InstituteMashhad university of Medical SciencesMashhadIran
  3. 3.Department of Biology, Damghan BranchIslamic Azad UniversityDamghanIran
  4. 4.Molecular Medicine Research DepartmentACECRMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations