Advertisement

Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 127–138 | Cite as

Lysophosphatidic Acid Receptor 6 (LPAR6) Expression and Prospective Signaling Pathway Analysis in Breast Cancer

  • Kai Tao
  • Shipeng Guo
  • Rui Chen
  • Chengcheng Yang
  • Lei Jian
  • Haochen Yu
  • Shengchun LiuEmail author
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background and Objective

Lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) has widely been reported to participate in the numerous biological behaviors of tumors through its receptors. LPA receptor 6 (LPAR6) is a newly identified G protein-coupled receptor of LPA, and few studies have explored the role of LPAR6 in cancer. In breast cancer (BC), LPAR6 has not, as yet, been studied. This study aimed to evaluate LPAR6 expression in BC patients and to explore its possible role in BC.

Methods

A total of 98 pairs of clinical BC and para-cancer tissues were collected, and LPAR6 expression was evaluated by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Kaplan-Meier plots were employed for survival analysis. Human BC cell lines were cultured to study decitabine (5-aza-2ʹ-deoxycytidine [5-Aza]) intervention. Bioinformatic analyses were carried out to support the study conclusions and predictions.

Results

LPAR6 expression was significantly reduced in BC tissues (p < 0.001). In the analysis of clinical parameters, LPAR6 expression was related to BC molecular classification (p < 0.05). Furthermore, patients with higher LPAR6 expression had better prognoses (p < 0.001). The CpG islands of LPAR6 were hypermethylated in BC tissues relative to those in para-cancer tissues (p < 0.01). 5-Aza significantly upregulated LPAR6 expression in BC cell lines. Additionally, LPAR6 knockdown significantly promoted cell migration and proliferation in the ZR-75-1 cell line (p < 0.001). Finally, through Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA), LPAR6 was found to be negatively correlated with cancer-promoting factors and positively correlated with tumor-suppressing factors.

Conclusion

LPAR6 was downregulated in BC, and low LPAR6 expression was related to poor prognosis. The anti-tumor drug 5-Aza significantly upregulated LPAR6 expression in vitro, and LPAR6 might act as a tumor suppressor in BC.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Chongqing City Key Lab of Translational Medical Research in Cognitive Development and Disorders, Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China. We also thank the Chongqing Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Epigenetics, Chongqing Medical University First Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing, China. We express our gratitude to the members of the Department of Endocrine and Breast Surgery, Chongqing Medical University First Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing, China. We also thank all the patients for their consent to participate.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Kai Tao, Shipeng Guo, Rui Chen, Chengcheng Yang, Lei Jian, Haochen Yu, and Shengchun Liu declare no conflicts of interest related to this work.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC81472658, NSFC81772979 and cstc2015shmszx0269).

Ethical approval

This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocols were approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (no. 2017-16).

Informed consent

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

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7–30.  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21442.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lopane C, Agosti P, Gigante I, et al. Implications of the lysophosphatidic acid signaling axis in liver cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2017;1868(1):277–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2017.06.002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bailey KA, Klymenko Y, Feist PE, et al. Chemical analysis of morphological changes in lysophosphatidic acid-treated ovarian cancer cells. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):15295.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15547-7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shimomura Y, Wajid M, Ishii Y, et al. Disruption of P2RY5, an orphan G protein-coupled receptor, underlies autosomal recessive woolly hair. Nat Genet. 2008;40(3):335–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.100.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Takahashi K, Fukushima K, Onishi Y, et al. Lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) signaling via LPA4 and LPA6 negatively regulates cell motile activities of colon cancer cells. Biochem Biophys Res Comm. 2017;483(1):652–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.12.088.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katkoori VR, Shanmugam C, Jia X, et al. Prognostic significance and gene expression profiles of p53 mutations in microsatellite-stable stage III colorectal adenocarcinomas. PloS One. 2012;7(1):e30020.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030020.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mazzocca A, Dituri F, De Santis F, et al. Lysophosphatidic acid receptor LPAR6 supports the tumorigenicity of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2015;75(3):532–43.  https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-1607.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sokolov E, Eheim AL, Ahrens WA, et al. Lysophosphatidic acid receptor expression and function in human hepatocellular carcinoma. J Surg Res. 2013;180(1):104–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.10.054.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ketscher A, Jilg CA, Willmann D, et al. LSD1 controls metastasis of androgen-independent prostate cancer cells through PXN and LPAR6. Oncogenesis. 2014;3:e120.  https://doi.org/10.1038/oncsis.2014.34.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ishii S, Hirane M, Fukushima K, et al. Diverse effects of LPA4, LPA5 and LPA6 on the activation of tumor progression in pancreatic cancer cells. Biochem Biophys Res Comm. 2015;461(1):59–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.03.169.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aztopal N, Erkisa M, Erturk E, et al. Valproic acid, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, induces apoptosis in breast cancer stem cells. Chem Biol Interact. 2018;280:51–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2017.12.003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garmpis N, Damaskos C, Garmpi A, et al. Histone deacetylases as new therapeutic targets in triple-negative breast cancer: progress and promises. Cancer Genom Proteom. 2017;14(5):299–313.  https://doi.org/10.21873/cgp.20041.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Matkar S, Sharma P, Gao S, et al. An epigenetic pathway regulates sensitivity of breast cancer cells to HER2 inhibition via FOXO/c-Myc axis. Cancer Cell. 2015;28(4):472–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2015.09.005.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xing Z, Lin A, Li C, et al. lncRNA directs cooperative epigenetic regulation downstream of chemokine signals. Cell. 2014;159(5):1110–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.10.013.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mastoraki S, Strati A, Tzanikou E, et al. ESR1 methylation: a liquid biopsy-based epigenetic assay for the follow-up of patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving endocrine treatment. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(6):1500–10.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1181.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boyanapalli SS, Li W, Fuentes F, et al. Epigenetic reactivation of RASSF1A by phenethyl isothiocyanate (PEITC) and promotion of apoptosis in LNCaP cells. Pharmacol Res. 2016;114:175–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2016.10.021.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh AK, Chandra N, Bapat SA. Evaluation of epigenetic drug targeting of heterogenous tumor cell fractions using potential biomarkers of response in ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(22):5151–63.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0505.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Daly MB, Pilarski R, Berry M, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: genetic/familial high-risk Assessment: breast and ovarian, Version 2.2017. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017;15(1):9–20.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hanauer DA, Rhodes DR, Sinha-Kumar C, Chinnaiyan AM. Bioinformatics approaches in the study of cancer. Curr Mol Med. 2007;7(1):133–41.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barrett T, Troup DB, Wilhite SE, et al. NCBI GEO: archive for functional genomics data sets—10 years on. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(Database issue):D1005–10.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq1184.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schroeder MP, Gonzalez-Perez A, Lopez-Bigas N. Visualizing multidimensional cancer genomics data. Genome Med. 2013;5(1):9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/gm413.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102(43):15545–50.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0506580102.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jin H, Wang X, Ying J, et al. Epigenetic silencing of a Ca(2+)-regulated Ras GTPase-activating protein RASAL defines a new mechanism of Ras activation in human cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104(30):12353–8.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0700153104.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li L, Xu J, Qiu G, et al. Epigenomic characterization of a p53-regulated 3p22.2 tumor suppressor that inhibits STAT3 phosphorylation via protein docking and is frequently methylated in esophageal and other carcinomas. Theranostics. 2018;8(1):61–77.  https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.20893.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rhodes DR, Yu J, Shanker K, et al. ONCOMINE: a cancer microarray database and integrated data-mining platform. Neoplasia. 2004;6(1):1–6.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Penzvalto Z, Lanczky A, Lenart J, et al. MEK1 is associated with carboplatin resistance and is a prognostic biomarker in epithelial ovarian cancer. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:837.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-14-837.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gyorffy B, Lanczky A, Eklund AC, et al. An online survival analysis tool to rapidly assess the effect of 22,277 genes on breast cancer prognosis using microarray data of 1,809 patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;123(3):725–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0674-9.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dedeurwaerder S, Defrance M, Calonne E, et al. Evaluation of the infinium methylation 450K technology. Epigenomics. 2011;3(6):771–84.  https://doi.org/10.2217/epi.11.105.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tian Y, Morris TJ, Webster AP, et al. ChAMP: updated methylation analysis pipeline for Illumina BeadChips. Bioinformatics. 2017;33(24):3982–4.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx513.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morris TJ, Butcher LM, Feber A, et al. ChAMP: 450k chip analysis methylation pipeline. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(3):428–30.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt684.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liberzon A, Birger C, Thorvaldsdottir H, et al. The Molecular Signatures Database (MSigDB) hallmark gene set collection. Cell Syst. 2015;1(6):417–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2015.12.004.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhu J, Zhao C, Kharman-Biz A, et al. The atypical ubiquitin ligase RNF31 stabilizes estrogen receptor alpha and modulates estrogen-stimulated breast cancer cell proliferation. Oncogene. 2014;33(34):4340–51.  https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2013.573.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kretschmer C, Sterner-Kock A, Siedentopf F, et al. Identification of early molecular markers for breast cancer. Mol Cancer. 2011;10(1):15.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-4598-10-15.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Al Saleh S, Al Mulla F, Luqmani YA. Estrogen receptor silencing induces epithelial to mesenchymal transition in human breast cancer cells. PloS One. 2011;6(6):e20610.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020610.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Katkoori VR, Shanmugam C, Jia X, Vitta SP, Sthanam M, Callens T, et al. Prognostic significance and gene expression profiles of p53 mutations in microsatellite-stable stage III colorectal adenocarcinomas. PloS One. 2012.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030020.g001.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roberti MP, Barrio MM, Bravo AI, et al. IL-15 and IL-2 increase Cetuximab-mediated cellular cytotoxicity against triple negative breast cancer cell lines expressing EGFR. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;130(2):465–75.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1360-2.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marlind J, Kaspar M, Trachsel E, et al. Antibody-mediated delivery of interleukin-2 to the stroma of breast cancer strongly enhances the potency of chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(20):6515–24.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-5041.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stratikopoulos EE, Dendy M, Szabolcs M, et al. Kinase and BET inhibitors together clamp inhibition of PI3K signaling and overcome resistance to therapy. Cancer Cell. 2015;27(6):837–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2015.05.006.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mayer IA, Arteaga CL. The PI3K/AKT pathway as a target for cancer treatment. Ann Rev Med. 2016;67:11–28.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-062913-051343.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dang CV. MYC, metabolism, cell growth, and tumorigenesis. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2013.  https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a014217.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fallah Y, Brundage J, Allegakoen P, Shajahan-Haq AN. MYC-driven pathways in breast cancer subtypes. Biomolecules. 2017;7(3):53.  https://doi.org/10.3390/biom7030053.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Costa RLB, Han HS, Gradishar WJ. Targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway in triple-negative breast cancer: a review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169(3):397–406.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4697-y.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bahrami A, Khazaei M, Shahidsales S, et al. The therapeutic potential of PI3K/Akt/mTOR inhibitors in breast cancer: rational and progress. J Cell Biochem. 2018;119(1):213–22.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.26136.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pasculli B, Barbano R, Parrella P. Epigenetics of breast cancer: biology and clinical implication in the era of precision medicine. Semin Cancer Biol. 2018;51:22–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2018.01.007.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Connolly RM, Li H, Jankowitz RC, et al. Combination epigenetic therapy in advanced breast cancer with 5-azacitidine and entinostat: a phase II National Cancer Institute/Stand Up to Cancer Study. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(11):2691–701.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1729.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ferguson AT, Vertino PM, Spitzner JR, et al. Role of estrogen receptor gene demethylation and DNA methyltransferase. DNA adduct formation in 5-aza-2’deoxycytidine-induced cytotoxicity in human breast cancer cells. J Biol Chem. 1997;272(51):32260–6.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hostetter CL, Licata LA, Keen JC. Timing is everything: order of administration of 5-aza 2’ deoxycytidine, trichostatin A and tamoxifen changes estrogen receptor mRNA expression and cell sensitivity. Cancer Lett. 2009;275(2):178–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2008.10.005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Tao
    • 1
  • Shipeng Guo
    • 1
  • Rui Chen
    • 1
  • Chengcheng Yang
    • 1
  • Lei Jian
    • 1
  • Haochen Yu
    • 1
  • Shengchun Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Endocrine Breast SurgeryThe First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations