bims-mesote 2021-03-14 papers

Issue of 2021‒03‒14
three papers selected by
Laura Mannarino
Humanitas Research

Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2021 Feb 20. 39(2): 91-98

[Expression and clinical significance of SETD2 in maligant pleural mesothelioma].

Objective: To analyze the gene mutation profile in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and investigate the expression of high-frequency mutant genes and its relationship with clinicopathological parameters. To screen out key genes and clinicopathologic factors related to the prognosis of MPM patients. Methods: The second generation sequencing data, somatic mutation data and clinical pathological data of 86 MPM cases and gene chip expression data of 89 MPM cases were downloaded from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) in March 2020. Summarize the gene mutation profile of tissue samples in the TCGA database and analyze the relationship between the expression level of high-frequency mutation genes and the clinicopathological characteristics, asbestos exposure history and prognosis of MPM patients. The genes significantly related to MPM prognosis were screened out for gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) . Survival analysis and GSEA were performed for the selected key genes and clinicopathological features verification using the microarray expression data from the GEO database. Results: The top 10 genes with highest single nucleotide variations frequencies were BAP1, NF2, TP53, TTN, SETD2, LATS2, CCDC168, FAT4, PTCH1 and ZNF469. The high expression rates of NF2, TP53, SETD2 and CCDC168 genes in wild type were higher than those of mutated type, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05) . Cox multivariate analysis of TCGA data showed that MPM patients with epithelial type (HR=0.425, 95%CI: 0.235-0.767, P<0.01) and SETD2 low expression (HR=0.516, 95%CI: 0.307-0.868, P=0.011) had lower risk of death. The survival analysis of GEO data verified that patients with epithelial type MPM had longer survival time, while patients with sarcoma type MPM had shortest survival time (P<0.01) . GSEA showed that SETD2 was involved in G2M checkpoint, E2F targets, MYC signaling pathways, protein secretion, mitotic spindle, MTORC1 pathway, TGF-β pathway, androgen response and uv response. Conclusion: MPM is accompanied with higher frequency of gene mutations represented by BAP1, NF2, TP53, TTN, SETD2, LATS2 and so on. SETD2 expression level and epithelia type of MPM may be influential factors for MPM prognosis.

Keywords: GEO; Mesothelioma; Pleural; Prognosis; SETD2; TCGA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn121094-20200831-00505

Thorax. 2021 Mar 10. pii: thoraxjnl-2020-216602. [Epub ahead of print]

Use of preclinical models for malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Marie Shamseddin, Joanna Obacz, Mathew J Garnett, Robert Campbell Rintoul, Hayley Elizabeth Francies, Stefan John Marciniak.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive cancer most commonly caused by prior exposure to asbestos. Median survival is 12-18 months, since surgery is ineffective and chemotherapy offers minimal benefit. Preclinical models that faithfully recapitulate the genomic and histopathological features of cancer are critical for the development of new treatments. The most commonly used models of MPM are two-dimensional cell lines established from primary tumours or pleural fluid. While these have provided some important insights into MPM biology, these cell models have significant limitations. In order to address some of these limitations, spheroids and microfluidic chips have more recently been used to investigate the role of the three-dimensional environment in MPM. Efforts have also been made to develop animal models of MPM, including asbestos-induced murine tumour models, MPM-prone genetically modified mice and patient-derived xenografts. Here, we discuss the available in vitro and in vivo models of MPM and highlight their strengths and limitations. We discuss how newer technologies, such as the tumour-derived organoids, might allow us to address the limitations of existing models and aid in the identification of effective treatments for this challenging-to-treat disease.

Keywords: asbestos induced lung disease; mesothelioma; pleural disease

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-216602

J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2021 Mar 07. 1-9

Autoantibodies and cancer among asbestos-exposed cohorts in Western Australia.

Renee N Carey, Jean C Pfau, Marvin J Fritzler, Jenette Creaney, Nicholas de Klerk, Arthur W Bill Musk, Peter Franklin, Nita Sodhi-Berry, Fraser Brims, Alison Reid.

Asbestos exposure is associated with many adverse health conditions including malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer as well as production of autoantibodies. Autoantibodies may serve as biomarkers for asbestos exposure in patients with cancer, and autoimmune dysfunction has been linked to increased rates of various cancers. The aim of this study was to examine the hypothesis that autoantibodies are more frequent in asbestos-exposed individuals with either lung cancer or mesothelioma than those without these conditions. Asbestos-exposed individuals from Western Australia who had lung cancer (n = 24), malignant mesothelioma (n = 24), or no malignancy (n = 51) were tested for antinuclear autoantibodies (ANA) using indirect immunofluorescence and specific extractable nuclear autoantibodies (ENA) employing a multiplexed addressable laser bead immunoassay. Contrary to the hypothesis, data demonstrated that individuals without malignancy were more likely to be positive for ANA compared to those with cancer. However, autoantibodies to histone and Ro-60 were found to be associated with lung cancer. These results support a possible predictive value for specific autoantibodies in the early detection of lung cancer and/or in our understanding of the role of autoimmune processes in cancer. However, further studies are needed to identify specific target antigens for the antibodies.

Keywords: Asbestos; autoimmune antibodies; cancer; exposure; lung cancer; malignant mesothelioma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2021.1889424