Search

Background: As the most abundant epigenetic modification on mRNAs and long non‐coding RNAs, N6‐methyladenosine (m6A) modification extensively exists in mammalian cells. Controlled by writers (methyltransferases), readers (signal transducers), and erasers (demethylases), m6A influences mRNA structure, maturation, and stability, thus negatively regulating protein expression in a post‐translational manner. Nevertheless, current understanding of m6A's roles in tumorigenesis, especially in gastric cancer (GC) remains to be unveiled. In this study, we assessed m6A's clinicopathological relevance to GC and explored the underlying mechanisms. Methods: By referring to a proteomics‐based GC cohort we previously generated and the TCGA‐GC cohort, we merged expressions of canonical m6A writers (METTL3/METTL14), readers (YTHDF1/YTHDF2/YTHDF3), and erasers (ALKBH5/FTO), respectively, as W, R, and E signatures to represent m6A modification. We stratified patients according to these signatures to decipher m6A's associations with crucial mutations, prognosis, and clinical indexes. m6A's biological functions in GC were predicted by gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) and validated by in vitro experiments. Results: We discovered that W and R were potential tumor suppressive signatures, while E was a potential oncogenic signature in GC. According to W/R/E stratifications, patients with low m6A‐indications were accompanied with higher mutations of specific genes (CDH1, AR, GLI3, SETBP1, RHOA, MUC6, and TP53) and also demonstrated adverse clinical outcomes. GSEA suggested that reduced m6A was correlated with oncogenic signaling and phenotypes. Through in vitro experiments, we proved that m6A suppression (represented by METTL14 knockdown) promoted GC cell proliferation and invasiveness through activating Wnt and PI3K‐Akt signaling, while m6A elevation (represented by FTO knockdown) reversed these phenotypical and molecular changes. m6A may also be involved in interferon signaling and immune responses of GC. Conclusions: Our work demonstrated that low‐m6A signatures predicted adverse clinicopathological features of GC, while the reduction of RNA m6A methylation activated oncogenic Wnt/PI3K‐Akt signaling and promoted malignant phenotypes of GC cells. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are a subpopulation of cancer cells with self-renewal property and responsible for tumor malignancy, progression and drug resistance. Researches on CSC-specific markers in gastric cancer remain limited. Our current study explored the expression of voltage-dependent calcium channel α2δ1 subunit and the potential of using α2δ1 as a CSC marker in gastric cancer. We also compared the specificity of α2δ1 and CD44 in identifying gastric cancer stem cells (GCSCs). Materials and methods: Expression of α2δ1 was analyzed in gastric cancer cell lines, patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models and clinical samples of malignant ascites of gastric cancer patients. α2δ1+, gastric cancer cells were isolated from gastric cancer cell lines. CSC properties of α2δ1+, gastric cancer cells were then verified by subsequent tests both in vitro and in vivo. Results: The expression level of α2δ1 was found to differ drastically among gastric cancer cell lines, PDX models and clinical samples of malignant ascites. α2δ1+, gastric cancer cells sorted from HGC-27 and SGC-7901 cell lines demonstrated significant self-renewal properties, including tumorigenic capacity, sphere-formation capacity and asymmetric differentiation potential. Knockdown of α2δ1 in α2δ1+, HGC-27 significantly inhibited CSC properties and rendered HGC-27 more sensitive to chemotherapy. Flow cytometry showed that α2δ1+, gastric cancer cells accounted for a small fraction of CD44+, gastric cancer cells. Isolated CD44+,α2δ1+, HGC-27 cells displayed more significant tumorigenic capacity and sphere-forming capacity compared with their CD44+,α2δ1−, counterparts. Conclusion: α2δ1+, gastric cancer cells possessed CSC properties. α2δ1 could be a proper marker in identifying GCSCs with superior specificity than CD44. The combination of α2δ1 and CD44 could be used to identify GCSCs with improved accuracy. Knockdown of α2δ1 combined with chemotherapy displayed higher therapeutic efficacy on gastric cancer cells, suggesting that α2δ1 could be a potential target for anticancer treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We investigated antitumor activity and underlying mechanisms of DNA topoisomerase I (TopI) inhibitor gimatecan and irinotecan in gastric cancer (GC) in vitro cell lines and in vivo patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models.Methods: GC cell lines SNU-1, HGC27, MGC803 and NCI-N87 were used to evaluate cell viability and apoptosis after gimatecan or irinotecan treatment, using a cell proliferation assay and flow cytometry, respectively. DNA TopI expression and critical molecules of PI3K/AKT, MAPK and apoptosis signaling pathways were analyzed with western blot. For in vivo studies, five PDXs models were treated with gimatecan or irinotecan to assess its antitumor activity. Immunohistochemistry staining of Ki-67 was performed after mice were sacrificed.Results: Gimatecan inhibited the proliferation of GC cells in vitro in a dose- and time-dependent manner by inducing apoptosis, and gimatecan had greater inhibitory effects than irinotecan. In addition, both gimatecan and irinotecan demonstrated significant tumor growth inhibition in in vivo PDX models. Gimatecan treatment significantly inhibited the expression of DNA TopI, phosphorylated AKT (pAKT), phosphorylated MEK (pMEK) and phosphorylated ERK (pERK). Meanwhile, gimatecan could also activate the JNK2 and p38 MAPK pathway as indicated by upregulation of phosphorylated p38 MAPK (p-p38) and phosphorylated JNK2 (pJNK2).Conclusions: For the first time, we have shown that the antitumor activity of gimatecan in GC via suppressing AKT and ERK pathway and activating JNK2 and p38 MAPK pathway, which indicated that gimatecan might be an alternative to irinotecan in the treatment of GC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]