Next Article in Journal
A Comparative Study on the Carcass and Meat Chemical Composition, and Lipid-Metabolism-Related Gene Expression in Korean Hanwoo and Brindle Chikso Cattle
Next Article in Special Issue
Deregulation of Autophagy and Apoptosis in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes: Implications for Disease Development and Progression
Previous Article in Journal
Protective Effect of Curculigo orchioides Gaertn. Extract on Heat Stress-Induced Spermatogenesis Complications in Murine Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Inhibitory Effect of Phosphorothioate Oligonucleotide Complementary to G6PD mRNA on Murine Melanoma
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
CIMB
Volume 45
Issue 4
10.3390/cimb45040213
cimb-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

The Potential Association between E2F2, MDM2 and p16 Protein Concentration and Selected Sociodemographic and Clinicopathological Characteristics of Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

by
Agata Świętek
1,2,
Karolina Gołąbek
1,*,
Dorota Hudy
1,
Jadwiga Gaździcka
1,
Krzysztof Biernacki
1,
Katarzyna Miśkiewicz-Orczyk
3,
Natalia Zięba
3,
Maciej Misiołek
3 and
Joanna Katarzyna Strzelczyk
1
1
Department of Medical and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 19 Jordana St., 41-808 Zabrze, Poland
2
Silesia LabMed Research and Implementation Centre, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 19 Jordana St., 41-808 Zabrze, Poland
3
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Oncological Laryngology, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, 10 C Skłodowskiej St., 41-800 Zabrze, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2023, 45(4), 3268-3278; https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb45040213
Submission received: 6 March 2023 / Revised: 5 April 2023 / Accepted: 6 April 2023 / Published: 7 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Molecular Pathogenesis Regulation in Cancer)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: E2F transcription factor 2 (E2F2), murine double minute 2 (MDM2) and p16 are some of the key proteins associated with the control of the cell cycle. The aim of this study was to evaluate E2F2, MDM2 and p16 concentrations in the tumour and margin samples of oral squamous cell carcinoma and to assess their association with some selected sociodemographic and clinicopathological characteristics of the patients. Methods: The study group consisted of 73 patients. Protein concentrations were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the levels of E2F2, MDM2 or p16 in the tumour samples as compared to the margin specimens. We found that patients with N0 showed significantly lower E2F2 concentrations than patients with N1 in the tumour samples and the median protein concentration of E2F2 was higher in HPV-negative patients in the tumour samples. Moreover, the level of p16 in the margin samples was lower in alcohol drinkers as compared to non-drinkers. Similar observations were found in concurrent drinkers and smokers compared to non-drinkers and non-smokers. Conclusions: E2F2 could potentially promote tumour progression and metastasis. Moreover, our results showed a differential level of the analysed proteins in response to alcohol consumption and the HPV status.

1. Introduction

Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) accounts for approximately 90% of head and neck cancers (HNSCC) with nearly 400,000 new cases diagnosed worldwide in 2020 [1]. The known risk factors for the development of this type of cancer include primarily the mucosal exposure to tobacco smoke and alcohol. Other risk factors include air pollution, UV exposure and viral infections. Another potential group of risk factors is related to endogenous factors, such as genetic predisposition, including abnormalities in proliferation, apoptosis, differentiation, signal transduction, angiogenesis, cell cycle regulation and DNA repair [2,3,4,5,6]. E2F transcription factor 2 (E2F2), murine double minute (2 MDM2) and p16 (also known as cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A, CDKN2A) are some of the key proteins involved in the control of the cell cycle [7,8,9]. E2F2 is a member of the E2F family of proteins and plays a complex role in the body, mainly in the control of gene expression and hence, in the cell cycle control [10,11]. In addition, it is involved in apoptosis, inflammation, migration and cell invasion. Some studies have shown that E2F2 can presumably promote tumour development and progression in various types of cancer, including lung adenocarcinoma, breast cancer, ovarian cancer and colorectal cancer [12,13]. MDM2 is an oncoprotein with the ability to negatively regulate and maintain stability of the p53 tumour suppressor protein signalling pathway [9]. MDM2 and p53 form an autoregulatory feedback loop in which p53 elevates the MDM2 levels, while MDM2 inhibits the expression and activity of p53 [14]. It is known that MDM2 overexpressed in many types of cancer (lung cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, oesophagogastric cancer and colorectal cancer) can act as an oncogene [9,15,16]. Interestingly, the value of MDM2 as a prognostic marker remains unclear and dependent on the tumour type [17]. p16 is a tumour suppressor protein that plays an important function in the regulation of the cell cycle associated with the inhibition of the cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK4 and CDK6). It is essential in the inhibition of the cell transition from the G1 phase to the S phase of the cell cycle [18]. p16 cooperates with the retinoblastoma (Rb1) and the p53 tumour suppressor genes. Significant upregulation of p16 may result from inactivation of p53 or Rb1. This mechanism is strongly related to inactivation of Rb1 by the HPV E7 protein [19,20]. Not all mechanisms associated with p16 expression are known in cancers. Although many studies have reported on the prognostic role of the decreased or increased p16 expression, the results are often conflicting [20].
According to the “field cancerization” concept proposed by Slaughter et al. [21], histological changes are present in the epithelium surrounding a squamous cell tumour. This may indicate that, probably as a result of exposure to carcinogens, this area plays a key role in the development of numerous foci of malignant transformation, including second primary tumours after surgical intervention and locally recurrent tumours [21]. Many subsequent molecular discoveries have confirmed the proposed model of carcinogenesis, in which cancer does not arise in isolation but involves multiple cells simultaneously [22,23]. Therefore, it seems reasonable to analyse molecular changes in the tumour and the surrounding margin.
This is the first study to evaluate the levels of E2F2, MDM2 and p16 in the primary OSCC tumour and the matching margin samples and their association with the selected sociodemographic and clinicopathological characteristics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patient and Samples

This study included 73 Polish patients from whom the tumour (following the ICD-10 classification—C01: 42; C04.8: 24; C03.1: 7) and the matching margin tissue were obtained by surgical resection at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Oncological Laryngology, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice. All the samples were analysed based on the criteria of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC, version 2007) [24,25] and WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumours [26]. The margin tissues were confirmed as free from cancer by pathologists. The main inclusion criteria were as follows: the written informed consent to participate in the study, age over 18 years and the diagnosis of primary OSCC tumours. Patients with metabolic diseases (e.g., diabetes, hypertension), chronic inflammatory diseases and a history of preoperative radio- or chemotherapy were not included in the study. The project was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Medical University of Silesia (approval No. KNW/022/KB1/49/16 and No. KNW/002/KB1/49/II/16/17). The research protocol is presented in Figure 1. The characteristics of the study group are shown in Table 1. The mean age was 61 years (range: 54–68 years).

2.2. E2F2, MDM2 and p16 Protein Concentration Evaluation

All the analyses were performed at the Department of Medical and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice. The samples were transported on ice to the department and then frozen at −80 °C until analysis. In the first step of the study, 10% homogenate in cold PBS (EURx, Gdańsk, Poland) was obtained from the tumour and the margin tissues using a homogenizer Bio-Gen PRO200 (PRO Scientific Inc., Oxford, CT, USA) at the rate of 10,000 RPM (5 times 1 min at 2 min intervals). The suspensions were sonicated with the ultrasonic processor UP100H (Hilscher, Teltow, Germany).
The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used to determine E2F2 MDM2 and CDKN2A protein concentrations in sample homogenates (Assay ID: SEJ182Hu for E2F2; Assay ID: SEG790Hu for MDM2 and Assay ID: SEA794Hu for p16; Cloud-Clone Corp., Houston, TX, USA). All the tests were used according to the manufacturer’s protocols. The measurements of absorbances were taken with a Synergy H1 microplate reader (BioTek, Winooski, VT, USA) and the results were calculated with Gen5 2.06 software (BioTek, Winooski, VT, USA). The absorbance was read at the wavelength of 450 nm. The tests were characterized by the following sensitivities: 0.059 ng/mL for E2F2, 0.057 ng/mL for MDM2 and 0.262 ng/mL for p16. The intra-assay variation was below 10% and the inter-assays were below 12% for all the determined proteins. E2F2, MDM2 and p16 protein concentrations were normalized to the total amount of protein in the tissue homogenates and were expressed in ng/µg. The total protein was measured using an AccuOrange™ Protein Quantitation Kit (Biotium, Fremont, CA, USA) according to the standard instructions. The fluorescence was determined with excitation/emission at 480/598 nm (SYNERGY H1 microplate reader; BIOTEK, Winooski, VT, USA). The test detection was 0.1–15 µg/mL protein.

2.3. HPV 16 Detection

DNA was extracted from all the tissues with the use of a Gene Matrix Tissue DNA Purification Kit (EURx, Gdansk, Poland) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Following isolation, DNA concentration and quality were assessed using spectrophotometry in a Biochrom WPA Biowave DNA UV/Vis Spectrophotometer (Biochrom, Cambridge, UK). HPV was detected using an AmpliSens® HPV 16/18-FRT PCR kit (InterLabService, Moscow, Russia) according to the manufacturer’s protocol and the QuantStudio 5 RealTime PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). The PCR was performed in a volume of 25 µL using 7 µL of PCR-mix-1-FEP/FRT HPV; 8 µL mixture of PCR-buffer-FRT and TaqF polymerase and 10 µL of DNA. The amplification program was as follows: 95 °C for 20 s, followed by 45 cycles of 95 °C for 20 s and 60 °C for 1 min.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

The Shapiro–Wilk test evaluated the distribution of the variables. The median with interquartile range (25–75%) was used to describe protein concentrations. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and protein concentrations where p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The statistical software STATISTICA version 13 (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) was used to perform all the analyses.

3. Results

We found no statistically significant differences in E2F2, MDM2 or p16 protein levels in tumour samples as compared to the margin samples (Table 2). The median protein concentrations of E2F2, MDM2 and p16 were higher in the tumour tissue than in the margin samples.
No association was detected between the protein concentration, age, gender, smoking, alcohol consumption, HPV status and TNM and G in the analysed tissues except for E2F2 and p16. Patients with N0 had a significantly lower E2F2 concentration than patients with N1 (0.125 vs. 0.373; p-value = 0.02) in the tumour samples. Higher E2F2 protein concentrations were also noted in patients with N3 compared to N0 in tumour samples. However, it was not statistically significant (0.237 vs. 0.125; p-value = 0.15). The respective results are shown in Figure 2.
Moreover, the median protein concentration of E2F2 was higher in HPV-negative patients in the tumour tissues (0.193 vs. 0.056; p-value = 0.03) compared to HPV-positive patients. Furthermore, alcohol drinkers had a lower level of p16 in the margin compared to non-drinkers (0.737 vs. 2.65; p-value = 0.01). Similar observations were found in concurrent drinkers and smokers compared to non-drinkers and non-smokers (0.745 vs. 5.965; p-value = 0.01). The results are given in Table 3 and Table 4.

4. Discussion

E2F2, MDM2 and p16 are some of the key proteins associated with the control of the cell cycle [13,16,27]. However, the exact role of E2F2, MDM2 and p16 in prognosis and biological function has not been well established in OSCC. Our analysis showed no statistically significant differences in the expression levels of E2F2, MDM2 or p16 proteins in the tumour samples compared to the margin samples. Of note, patients with N0 had significantly lower E2F2 levels than patients with N1 nodal status (0.125 vs. 0.373; p-value = 0.02). Importantly, this observation was connected with the tumour tissues. Perhaps such results are related to the fact that E2F2 can promote cell division [28]. In addition, E2F family transcription factors are relevant components of the Rb suppressor protein pathway. The occurrence of alterations in the form of deletions, mutations, promoter methylation or amplification of genes encoding proteins from the E2F family of transcription factors is often reported in human cancers [29]. Some studies showed increased E2F2 expression in many cancer types at both mRNA and protein levels (hepatocellular carcinoma, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer and kidney cancer), which was often associated with a higher tumour grade, lymph node metastasis, lymph node invasion and a worse patient prognosis [29,30,31,32]. In addition, reduced E2F2 concentrations were observed in renal cell carcinoma, which was associated with decreased cell proliferation and invasion [33]. On the other hand, Shang et al. [34] reported that low E2F2 protein levels in colorectal cancer were correlated with the lymph node status, metastasis and pathological stage of the tumour [34]. Thus, it can be hypothesized that dysregulated E2F may mediate tumorigenic processes at multiple levels, including mediating DNA damage response, apoptosis, angiogenesis, genomic stabilisation and metabolism. The function of E2F family transcription factors is complicated as they can act as tumour suppressors or oncogenes, depending on the context or interaction environment. Liu et al. [35] demonstrated that E2F2 could have a role in pancreatic cancer cells by promoting the cell cycle transition from the G1 to the S phase, thereby increasing tumour cell proliferation [35]. Similar reports were confirmed in ovarian cancer, where E2F2 was identified as “a transcription factor that promotes proliferative processes” [31]. In the context of research on the potential use of the E2F2 protein as a biomarker of OSCC progression, it seems important to analyse the factors that could modify its concentration. In this study, we demonstrated that the median protein concentration of E2F2 was higher in HPV-negative patients in the tumour tissues (0.193 vs. 0.056; p-value = 0.03). These results are not related to the evidence that the HPV oncogene E7 can bind to retinoblastoma (Rb) family proteins and precisely control E2F2. Ubiquitination of the Rb protein leads to the release of E2F factors. These factors transcribe cyclin E, cyclin A and p16, an inhibitor of CDK4/6, forcing cells to prematurely enter the S phase [36]. Perhaps the findings of our analysis indicates the possible presence of other factors besides the E7 oncogene that could affect the level of E2F2.
The next protein we analysed was MDM2. The median protein concentrations of MDM2 were higher in the tumour tissue than in the margin samples. However, they were not statistically significant. No association was detected between MDM2 protein concentration, TNM and G in the analysed tissues. In non-transformed cells, MDM2 and p53 proteins are weakly expressed, while MDM2 upregulation in cancer cells can be, in many cases, induced not only by p53-independent factors but also caused by the induction of p53-independent pro-survival mechanisms, including inhibition of tumour suppressor activity of the Rb protein or E2F transcription factor 1 [37]. The elevated MDM2 level was found in many cancers, such as lung cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, oesophagogastric cancer, colorectal cancer, sarcomas, osteosarcomas, gliomas, melanomas and hematopoietic malignancies [16,38]. In human breast cancer, the MDM2 protein concentration was detected as a prognostic biomarker [37]. Importantly, MDM2 was more frequently overproduced in metastatic and recurrent tumours compared to primary tumours [39]. In most cancers, higher MDM2 concentrations were associated with a poorer clinical prognosis and a more advanced stage of the disease [40]. MDM2 overexpression protein has also been reported in HNSCC and laryngeal cancer [41,42,43]. Modification in MDM2 concentration is also related to a poorer prognosis in squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsillar region [44].
In this study, the median protein concentrations of p16 were higher in the tumour tissue than in the margin samples. However, they were not statistically significant. It was demonstrated that compared to non-drinkers, alcohol drinkers showed p16 protein expression lower in the margin (0.737 vs. 2.65; p-value = 0.01). Similar observations were found in concurrent drinkers and smokers compared to non-drinkers and non-smokers (0.745 vs. 5.965; p-value = 0.01). Changes in the gene expression profile are known to be crucial in the neoplastic transformation of healthy cells, and the best studied non-genetic risk factor is tobacco smoking. The components of tobacco smoke contain mutagenic substances, which may account for the altered expression of p16 protein in smokers. This is consistent with the results by Rungraungrayabkul et al. [45], who explained a change in p16 level due to stimulants, including smoking and/or alcohol consumption that could lead to changes in the form of deletion or methylation of the gene promoter and result in the loss of p16 expression [45]. In addition, there are prerequisites in smokers with p16 concentration pointing to tumours developing earlier than in non-smokers, and with a tendency for a higher tumour grade [46]. Contrary to our results, using immunohistochemistry (IHC), Belobrov et al. [47] examined p16 in formalin-fixed specimens (FFPE) to observe the significant overexpression of this protein in non-smokers and in non-alcohol drinkers [47]. These discrepancies could be due to such factors as differences in sampling techniques, preparation and detection methods. In our study, the median concentration of p16 in the study group was higher in the tumour tissue than in the margin samples, which seemed to confirm the results of studies carried out with the use of the bioinformatics instruments and IHC [48,49,50,51,52]. Interestingly, it has been speculated that the p16 concentration could be higher in OSCC patients with HPV infection [53]. The correlation is attributed to the effect of the viral protein E7 that is able to inhibit tumour suppressors, particularly Rb1 protein, which could result in an increased p16 level [47,54]. Consequently, multiple studies have attempted to evaluate the utility of p16 as a surrogate marker for HPV infection in OSCC. A large cross-sectional study found no HPV DNA or E6 mRNA in 1260 OSCC samples [51]. Similar to this study, other authors reported no association between the level of p16 and HPV infection, either during virus detection performed by ISH or PCR [45,47,55,56,57,58,59]. On the other hand, an Asian study suggested that the correlation between p16 and the HPV status in OSCC varied according to the tumour location [56]. This could be due to the fact that the oral cavity is anatomically a diverse region, and recent studies have identified OSCC as a heterogeneous group of cancers in terms of their anatomy, histology and microenvironment [56,60,61]. On the other hand, several research teams confirmed the usefulness of IHC p16 as a surrogate biomarker of HPV, while Berdugo et al. [62] emphasized that overexpression of the p16 protein could also be independent of the presence of the virus. However, it could also result from changes in Rb1 protein, p53 or CDK6 [62,63].
In summary, the small sample size is the main limitation of this study. Our results should be validated on larger and diverse cohorts. In addition, such an analysis should also include the cell lines to better understand the role of these proteins in oral carcinogenesis.

5. Conclusions

E2F2 could potentially promote tumour progression and metastasis. Moreover, our results showed a differential level of the analysed proteins in response to alcohol consumption and the HPV status.

Author Contributions

K.G. and A.Ś., writing of the article; K.G., research concept and design; K.M.-O. and N.Z., collection of samples; A.Ś., K.G. and J.G., protein level analyses; K.G., DNA extraction; K.B., D.H. and A.Ś., HPV detection; K.G. and D.H., data analysis and interpretation; M.M. and J.K.S., critical revision of the article. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded from the grant by the Medical University of Silesia (PCN-2-028/N/1/O).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Medical University of Silesia (approval No. KNW/022/KB1/49/16 and No. KNW/002/KB1/49/II/16/17).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of this study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 2096–2249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Pérez-Sayáns, M.; Somoza-Martín, J.M.; Barros-Angueira, F.; Reboiras-López, M.D.; Gándara Rey, J.M.; García-García, A. Genetic and molecular alterations associated with oral squamous cell cancer (Review). Oncol. Rep. 2009, 22, 1277–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Asthana, S.; Labani, S.; Kailash, U.; Sinha, D.N.; Mehrotra, R. Association of Smokeless Tobacco Use and Oral Cancer: A Systematic Global Review and Meta-Analysis. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2019, 21, 1162–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Chamoli, A.; Gosavi, A.S.; Shirwadkar, U.P.; Wangdale, K.V.; Behera, S.K.; Kurrey, N.K.; Kalia, K.; Mandoli, A. Overview of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: Risk factors, mechanisms, and diagnostics. Oral Oncol. 2021, 121, 105451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Hoes, L.; Dok, R.; Verstrepen, K.J.; Nuyts, S. Ethanol-Induced Cell Damage Can Result in the Development of Oral Tumors. Cancers 2021, 13, 3846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pignatelli, P.; Romei, F.M.; Bondi, D.; Giuliani, M.; Piattelli, A.; Curia, M.C. Microbiota and Oral Cancer as A Complex and Dynamic Microenvironment: A Narrative Review from Etiology to Prognosis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 8323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ausoni, S.; Boscolo-Rizzo, P.; Singh, B.; Da Mosto, M.C.; Spinato, G.; Tirelli, G.; Spinato, R.; Azzarello, G. Targeting cellular and molecular drivers of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Current options and emerging perspectives. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2016, 35, 413–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Fischer, M.; Müller, G.A. Cell cycle transcription control: DREAM/MuvB and RB-E2F complexes. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2017, 52, 638–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Wang, Y.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, C.; Wang, P.; Huang, C.; Peng, H. MDM2 promotes the proliferation and inhibits the apoptosis of pituitary adenoma cells by directly interacting with p53. Endokrynol. Pol. 2020, 71, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kent, L.N.; Leone, G. The broken cycle: E2F dysfunction in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2019, 19, 326–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Roskoski, R., Jr. Cyclin-dependent protein serine/threonine kinase inhibitors as anticancer drugs. Pharmacol. Res. 2019, 139, 471–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Li, L.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Pan, J. The E2F transcription factor 2: What do we know? Biosci. Trends. 2021, 15, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Du, K.; Sun, S.; Jiang, T.; Liu, T.; Zuo, X.; Xia, X.; Liu, X.; Wang, Y.; Bu, Y. E2F2 promotes lung adenocarcinoma progression through B-Myb- and FOXM1-facilitated core transcription regulatory circuitry. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 18, 4151–4170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Almeida, J.; Mota, I.; Skoda, J.; Sousa, E.; Cidade, H.; Saraiva, L. Deciphering the Role of p53 and TAp73 in Neuroblastoma: From Pathogenesis to Treatment. Cancers 2022, 14, 6212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ye, J.; Liang, R.; Bai, T.; Lin, Y.; Mai, R.; Wei, M.; Ye, X.; Li, L.; Wu, F. RBM38 plays a tumor-suppressor role via stabilizing the p53-mdm2 loop function in hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2018, 37, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hou, H.; Sun, D.; Zhang, X. The role of MDM2 amplification and overexpression in therapeutic resistance of malignant tumors. Cancer Cell Int. 2019, 22, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Onel, K.; Cordon-Cardo, C. MDM2 and prognosis. Mol. Cancer Res. 2004, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Agarwal, P.; Sandey, M.; DeInnocentes, P.; Bird, R.C. Tumor suppressor gene p16/INK4A/CDKN2A-dependent regulation into and out of the cell cycle in a spontaneous canine model of breast cancer. J. Cell Biochem. 2013, 114, 1355–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pinkiewicz, M.; Dorobisz, K.; Zatoński, T. Human Papillomavirus-Associated Head and Neck Cancers. Where are We Now? A Systematic Review. Cancer Manag. Res. 2022, 14, 3313–3324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. De Wispelaere, N.; Rico, S.D.; Bauer, M.; Luebke, A.M.; Kluth, M.; Büscheck, F.; Hube-Magg, C.; Höflmayer, D.; Gorbokon, N.; Weidemann, S.; et al. High prevalence of p16 staining in malignant tumors. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0262877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Slaughter, D.P.; Southwick, H.W.; Smejkal, W. Field cancerization in oral stratified squamous epithelium; clinical implications of multicentric origin. Cancer 1953, 6, 963–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Braakhuis, B.J.; Tabor, M.P.; Kummer, J.A.; Leemans, C.R.; Brakenhoff, R.H. A genetic explanation of Slaughter’s concept of field cancerization: Evidence and clinical implications. Cancer Res. 2003, 63, 1727–1730. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Angadi, P.V.; Savitha, J.K.; Rao, S.S.; Sivaranjini, Y. Oral field cancerization: Current evidence and future perspectives. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2012, 16, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Brunner, M.; Ng, B.C.; Veness, M.J.; Clark, J.R. Comparison of the AJCC N staging system in mucosal and cutaneous squamous head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 2014, 124, 1598–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rodrigues, P.C.; Miguel, M.C.; Bagordakis, E.; Fonseca, F.P.; De Aquino, S.N.; Santos-Silva, A.R.; Lopes, M.A.; Graner, E.; Salo, T.; Kowalski, L.P.; et al. Clinicopathological prognostic factors of oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma: A retrospective study of 202 cases. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014, 43, 795–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. El-Naggar, A.K.; Chan, J.K.C.; Grandis, J.R.; Takata, T.; Slootweg, P.J. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumours International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 4th ed.; IARC Publications: Lyon, France; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  27. Padhi, S.S.; Roy, S.; Kar, M.; Saha, A.; Roy, S.; Adhya, A.; Baisakh, M.; Banerjee, B. Role of CDKN2A/p16 expression in the prognostication of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2017, 73, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yang, H.L.; Xu, C.; Yang, Y.K.; Tang, W.Q.; Hong, M.; Pan, L.; Chen, H.Y. ZNF750 exerted its Antitumor Action in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma by regulating E2F2. J. Cancer. 2021, 12, 7266–7276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yang, C.; Zhang, Z.C.; Liu, T.B.; Xu, Y.; Xia, B.R.; Lou, G. E2F1/2/7/8 as independent indicators of survival in patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Cell Int. 2020, 12, 500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dong, Y.; Zou, J.; Su, S.; Huang, H.; Deng, Y.; Wang, B.; Li, W. MicroRNA-218 and microRNA-520a inhibit cell proliferation by downregulating E2F2 in hepatocellular carcinoma. Mol. Med. Rep. 2015, 12, 1016–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Xie, L.; Li, T.; Yang, L.H. E2F2 induces MCM4, CCNE2 and WHSC1 upregulation in ovarian cancer and predicts poor overall survival. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 21, 2150–2156. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhou, X.; Tao, H. Overexpression of microRNA-936 suppresses non-small cell lung cancer cell proliferation and invasion via targeting E2F2. Exp. Ther. Med. 2018, 16, 2696–2702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Gao, Y.; Ma, X.; Yao, Y.; Li, H.; Fan, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, C.; Wang, L.; Ma, M.; Lei, Z.; et al. miR-155 regulates the proliferation and invasion of clear cell renal cell carcinoma cells by targeting E2F2. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 20324–20337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Shang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, J.; Chen, L.; Yang, X.; Zhu, Z.; Li, D.; Deng, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Lu, B.; et al. Decreased E2F2 Expression Correlates with Poor Prognosis and Immune Infiltrates in Patients with Colorectal Cancer. J. Cancer. 2022, 13, 653–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Liu, Q.; Song, C.; Li, J.; Liu, M.; Fu, L.; Jiang, J.; Zeng, Z.; Zhu, H. E2F2 enhances the chemoresistance of pancreatic cancer to gemcitabine by regulating the cell cycle and upregulating the expression of RRM2. Med. Oncol. 2022, 39, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Szymonowicz, K.A.; Chen, J. Biological and clinical aspects of HPV-related cancers. Cancer Biol. Med. 2020, 17, 864–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Herok, M.; Wawrzynow, B.; Maluszek, M.J.; Olszewski, M.B.; Zylicz, A.; Zylicz, M. Chemotherapy of HER2- and MDM2-Enriched Breast Cancer Subtypes Induces Homologous Recombination DNA Repair and Chemoresistance. Cancers 2021, 13, 4501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Karni-Schmidt, O.; Lokshin, M.; Prives, C. The Roles of MDM2 and MDMX in Cancer. Annu. Rev. Pathol. 2016, 11, 617–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jeczen, R.; Skomra, D.; Cybulski, M.; Schneider-Stock, R.; Szewczuk, W.; Roessner, A.; Rechberger, T.; Semczuk, A. P53/MDM2 overexpression in metastatic endometrial cancer: Correlation with clinicopathological features and patient outcome. Clin. Exp. Metastasis 2007, 24, 503–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nag, S.; Zhang, X.; Srivenugopal, K.S.; Wang, M.H.; Wang, W.; Zhang, R. Targeting MDM2-p53 interaction for cancer therapy: Are we there yet? Curr. Med. Chem. 2014, 21, 553–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Carroll, P.E.; Okuda, M.; Horn, H.F.; Biddinger, P.; Stambrook, P.J.; Gleich, L.L.; Li, Y.Q.; Tarapore, P.; Fukasawa, K. Centrosome hyperamplification in human cancer: Chromosome instability induced by p53 mutation and/or Mdm2 overexpression. Oncogene 1999, 18, 1935–1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Valentin-Vega, Y.A.; Barboza, J.A.; Chau, G.P.; El-Naggar, A.K.; Lozano, G. High levels of the p53 inhibitor MDM4 in head and neck squamous carcinomas. Hum. Pathol. 2007, 38, 1553–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Mastronikolis, N.; Ragos, V.; Fotiades, P.; Papanikolaou, V.; Kyrodimos, E.; Chrysovergis, A.; Mastronikolis, S.; Tsiambas, E. mdm2 oncogene in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. J. BUON 2020, 25, 594–596. [Google Scholar]
  44. Friesland, S.; Kanter-Lewensohn, L.; Tell, R.; Munck-Wikland, E.; Lewensohn, R.; Nilsson, A. Expression of Ku86 confers favorable outcome of tonsillar carcinoma treated with radiotherapy. Head Neck 2003, 25, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Rungraungrayabkul, D.; Panpradit, N.; Lapthanasupkul, P.; Kitkumthorn, N.; Klanrit, P.; Subarnbhesaj, A.; Sresumatchai, V.; Klongnoi, B.; Khovidhunkit, S.P. Detection of Human Papillomavirus and p16INK4a Expression in Thai Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Head Neck Pathol. 2022, 16, 444–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Trinh, J.M.; Thomas, J.; Salleron, J.; Henrot, P. Differences in clinical and imaging characteristics between p16-positive non-smokers and p16-positive smokers or p16-negative patients in oropharyngeal carcinoma. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 3314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Belobrov, S.; Cornall, A.M.; Young, R.; Koo, K.; Angel, C.; Wiesenfeld, D.; Rischin, D.; Garland, S.M.; McCullough, M. The role of human papillomavirus in p16-positive oral cancers. J. Oral. Pathol. Med. 2018, 47, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Eder-Czembirek, C.; Sulzbacher, I.; Fuereder, T.; Selzer, E. P16 positivity and regression grade predict survival after neoadjuvant radiotherapy of OSCC. Oral diseases 2018, 24, 544–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jitani, A.K.; Raphael, V.; Mishra, J.; Shunyu, N.B.; Khonglah, Y.; Medhi, J. Analysis of Human Papilloma Virus 16/18 DNA and its Correlation with p16 Expression in Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma in North-Eastern India: A Chromogenic in-situ Hybridization Based Study. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2015, 9, EC04–EC07. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bouland, C.; Dequanter, D.; Lechien, J.R.; Hanssens, C.; De Saint Aubain, N.; Digonnet, A.; Javadian, R.; Yanni, A.; Rodriguez, A.; Loeb, I.; et al. Prognostic Significance of a Scoring System Combining p16, Smoking, and Drinking Status in a Series of 131 Patients with Oropharyngeal Cancers. Int. J. Otolaryngol. 2021, 2021, 8020826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shyamsundar, V.; Thangaraj, S.V.; Krishnamurthy, A.; Vimal, S.; Kesavan, P.; Babu, A.; Kmk, M.; Ramshankar, V. Exome Sequencing with Validations and Expression of p16/CDKN2A Shows no Association with HPV in Oral Cancers. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2022, 23, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhang, D.; Song, J.; Zhang, X.; Bi, H. The value of p16INK4a immunostaining for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in human papillomavirus-negative patients. BMC Womens Health. 2022, 22, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Allameh, A.; Moazeni-Roodi, A.; Harirchi, I.; Ravanshad, M.; Motiee-Langroudi, M.; Garajei, A.; Hamidavi, A.; Mesbah-Namin, S.A. Promoter DNA Methylation and mRNA Expression Level of p16 Gene in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Correlation with Clinicopathological Characteristics. Pathol. Oncol Res. 2019, 25, 1535–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. De Lima, M.A.P.; Cavalcante, R.B.; Da Silva, C.G.L.; Nogueira, R.L.M.; Macedo, G.E.C.; De Galiza, L.E.; Pinheiro, J.V.; Maia Filho, P.H.B.; Santos, S.F.; Rabenhorst, S.H.B. Evaluation of HPV and EBV in OSCC and the expression of p53, p16, E-cadherin, COX-2, MYC, and MLH1. Oral Dis. 2022, 28, 1104–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Emmett, S.; Jenkins, G.; Boros, S.; Whiteman, D.C.; Panizza, B.; Antonsson, A. Low prevalence of human papillomavirus in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma in Queensland, Australia. ANZ J. Surg. 2017, 87, 714–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Ni, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wan, Y.; Dun Tang, K.; Xiao, Y.; Jing, Y.; Song, Y.; Huang, X.; Punyadeera, C.; Hu, Q. Relationship between p16 expression and prognosis in different anatomic subsites of OSCC. Cancer Biomark. 2019, 26, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Sundberg, J.; Korytowska, M.; Burgos, P.M.; Blomgren, J.; Blomstrand, L.D.E.; Lara, S.; Sand, L.; Hirsch, J.M.; Holmberg, E.; Giglio, D.; et al. Combined Testing of p16 Tumour-suppressor Protein and Human Papillomavirus in Patients With Oral Leukoplakia and Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Anticancer Res. 2019, 39, 1293–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yang, L.Q.; Xiao, X.; Li, C.X.; Wu, W.Y.; Shen, X.M.; Zhou, Z.T.; Fan, Y.; Shi, L.J. Human papillomavirus genotypes and p16 expression in oral leukoplakia and squamous cell carcinoma. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 2019, 12, 1022–1028. [Google Scholar]
  59. Tokuzen, N.; Nakashiro, K.I.; Tojo, S.; Goda, H.; Kuribayashi, N.; Uchida, D. Human papillomavirus-16 infection and p16 expression in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oncol. Lett. 2021, 22, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Frohwitter, G.; Buerger, H.; Van Diest, P.J.; Korsching, E.; Kleinheinz, J.; Fillies, T. Cytokeratin and protein expression patterns in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity provide evidence for two distinct pathogenetic pathways. Oncol. Lett. 2016, 12, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Zafereo, M.E.; Xu, L.; Dahlstrom, K.R.; Viamonte, C.A.; El-Naggar, A.K.; Wei, Q.; Li, G.; Sturgis, E.M. Squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity often overexpresses p16 but is rarely driven by human papillomavirus. Oral Oncol. 2016, 56, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Berdugo, J.; Rooper, L.M.; Chiosea, S.I. RB1, p16, and Human Papillomavirus in Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Head Neck Pathol. 2021, 15, 1109–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Sritippho, T.; Chotjumlong, P.; Iamaroon, A. Roles of Human Papillomaviruses and p16 in Oral Cancer. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2015, 16, 6193–6200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Cimb 45 00213 g001 550
Figure 1. Diagram of the study protocol.
Figure 1. Diagram of the study protocol.
Cimb 45 00213 g001
Cimb 45 00213 g002 550
Figure 2. E2F2 protein concentration in the tumour samples according to N0, N1, N2 and N3.
Figure 2. E2F2 protein concentration in the tumour samples according to N0, N1, N2 and N3.
Cimb 45 00213 g002
Table
Table 1. Parameters characterizing OSCC patients.
Table 1. Parameters characterizing OSCC patients.
ParametersPatients, n (%)
Gender
Men56 (76.7)
Women17 (23.3)
Smoking
Smokers49 (67.1)
Non-smokers24 (32.9)
Alcohol consumption
Drinker46 (63)
Non-drinker27 (37)
HPV status
HPV-positive18 (24.7)
HPV-negative47 (64.4)
No data8 (10.9)
Histological grading
G1 (Well differentiated)15 (20.6)
G2 (Moderately differentiated)38 (52)
G3 (Poorly differentiated)20 (27.4)
T classification
T112 (16.4)
T227 (37)
T324 (32.9)
T410 (13.7)
Nodal status
N036 (49.3)
N19 (12.3)
N222 (30.2)
N36 (8.2)
Table
Table 2. E2F2, MDM2 and p16 protein concentrations in tumour samples compared to margin samples.
Table 2. E2F2, MDM2 and p16 protein concentrations in tumour samples compared to margin samples.
Protein Concentrations [ng/µg Protein]
Me (Q1–Q3)
TumourMarginp-Value
E2F20.129 (0.056–0.247)0.082 (0.045–0.252)0.64
MDM20.103 (0.033–0.215)0.049 (0.013–0.1930.09
p161.08 (0.714–1.51)0.859 (0.377–1.91)0.845
Me Median, Q1 lower quartile, Q3 upper quartile.
Table
Table 3. E2F2, MDM2 and p16 protein concentration analyses in HPV-positive patients compared to HPV-negative patients.
Table 3. E2F2, MDM2 and p16 protein concentration analyses in HPV-positive patients compared to HPV-negative patients.
Protein Concentrations [ng/µg Protein]
Me (Q1–Q3)
HPV-PositiveHPV-Negativep-Value
E2F2Tumour0.056 (0.016–0.227)0.193 (0.107–0.330)0.03
Margin0.079 (0.025–0.18)0.0845 (0.05–0.394)0.37
MDM2Tumour0.079 (0.033–0.254)0.104 (0.032–0.198)0.8
Margin0.052 (0.01–0.149)0.049 (0.014–0.198)0.82
p16Tumour0.975 (0.379–1.576)1.094 (0.733–1.366)1.0
Margin1.0205 (0.426–1.513)0.752 (0.376–2.193)1.0
Me Median, Q1 lower quartile, Q3 upper quartile.
Table
Table 4. E2F2, MDM2 and p16 protein concentration analyses in smokers vs. non-smokers; drinkers vs. non-drinkers; smokers and drinkers vs. non-smokers and non-drinkers.
Table 4. E2F2, MDM2 and p16 protein concentration analyses in smokers vs. non-smokers; drinkers vs. non-drinkers; smokers and drinkers vs. non-smokers and non-drinkers.
Protein Concentrations [ng/µg Protein]
Me (Q1–Q3)
SmokersNon-Smokersp-Value
E2F2Tumour0.193 (0.065–0.365)0.12 (0.039–0.163)0.09
Margin0.075 (0.039–0.191)0.132 (0.059–0.356)0.31
MDM2Tumour0.106 (0.035–0.234)0.079 (0.015–0.23)0.41
Margin0.033 (0.012–0.114)0.15 (0.021–0.285)0.23
p16Tumour1.098 (0.716–1.687)1.094 (0.498–1.472)0.7
Margin0.755 (0.386–1.404)1.652 (0.329–5.265)0.23
DrinkersNon-drinkersp-value
E2F2Tumour0.151 (0.062–0.249)0.125 (0.049–0.503)0.78
Margin0.072 (0.028–0.249)0.12 (0.068–0.267)0.35
MDM2Tumour0.104 (0.0342–0.210)0.095 (0.019–0.237)0.62
Margin0.033 (0.011–0.159)0.15 (0.036–0.322)0.08
p16Tumour0.967 (0.533–1.504)1.36 (1.072–2.548)0.09
Margin0.737 (0.338–1.219)2.65 (0.867–5.89)0.01
Smokers and drinkersNon-smokers and non-drinkersp-value
E2F2Tumour0.177 (0.062–0.249)0.075 (0.031–0.122)0.05
Margin0.083 (0.035–0.297)0.298 (0.128–0.376)0.12
MDM2Tumour0.104 (0.034–0.219)0.079 (0.010–0.30)0.6
Margin0.02 (0.011–0.080)0.152 (0.025–0.357)0.08
p16Tumour0.975 (0.676–1.565)1.36 (1.153–1.51)0.29
Margin0.745 (0.387–1.159)5.965 (1.50–11.854)0.01
Me Median, Q1 lower quartile, Q3 upper quartile.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Świętek, A.; Gołąbek, K.; Hudy, D.; Gaździcka, J.; Biernacki, K.; Miśkiewicz-Orczyk, K.; Zięba, N.; Misiołek, M.; Strzelczyk, J.K. The Potential Association between E2F2, MDM2 and p16 Protein Concentration and Selected Sociodemographic and Clinicopathological Characteristics of Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2023, 45, 3268-3278. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb45040213

AMA Style

Świętek A, Gołąbek K, Hudy D, Gaździcka J, Biernacki K, Miśkiewicz-Orczyk K, Zięba N, Misiołek M, Strzelczyk JK. The Potential Association between E2F2, MDM2 and p16 Protein Concentration and Selected Sociodemographic and Clinicopathological Characteristics of Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Current Issues in Molecular Biology. 2023; 45(4):3268-3278. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb45040213

Chicago/Turabian Style

Świętek, Agata, Karolina Gołąbek, Dorota Hudy, Jadwiga Gaździcka, Krzysztof Biernacki, Katarzyna Miśkiewicz-Orczyk, Natalia Zięba, Maciej Misiołek, and Joanna Katarzyna Strzelczyk. 2023. "The Potential Association between E2F2, MDM2 and p16 Protein Concentration and Selected Sociodemographic and Clinicopathological Characteristics of Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma" Current Issues in Molecular Biology 45, no. 4: 3268-3278. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb45040213

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop