
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Molecular Oncology, Markers, Clinical Correlates |
Departments of 1 Gynecologic Oncology, and 2 Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 3 Department of Pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa; and 4 MedImmune Inc., Gaithersburg, Maryland
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Experimental Design: Nontransformed (HIO-180) and ovarian cancer (EG, 222, SKOV3, and A2780-PAR) cell lines were evaluated for EphA2 by Western blot analysis. Five benign ovarian masses, 10 ovarian tumors of low malignant potential, and 79 invasive ovarian carcinomas were also evaluated for EphA2 expression by immunohistochemistry. All samples were scored in a blinded fashion. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine significant associations between EphA2 expression and clinicopathological variables.
Results: By Western blot analysis, EG, 222, and SKOV3 cell lines overexpressed EphA2, whereas A2780-PAR and HIO-180 had low to absent EphA2 expression. All of the benign tumors had low or absent EphA2 expression. Among the invasive ovarian carcinomas examined (mean age of patients was 59.2 years), 60 (75.9%) tumors overexpressed EphA2 and the other 19 tumors had negative or minimal EphA2 expression. There was no association of EphA2 overexpression with ascites, likelihood of nodal positivity, pathological subtype, and optimum surgical cytoreduction (residual tumor <1 cm). However, EphA2 overexpression was significantly associated with higher tumor grade (P = 0.02) and advanced stage of disease (P = 0.001). The median survival for patients with tumor EphA2 overexpression was significantly shorter (median, 3.1 years; P = 0.004); the median survival for patients with low or absent EphA2 tumor expression was at least 12 years and has not yet been reached. In multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model, only volume of residual disease (P < 0.04) and EphA2 overexpression (P < 0.01) were significant and independent predictors of survival.
Conclusions: EphA2 overexpression is predictive of aggressive ovarian cancer behavior and may be an important therapeutic target.
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Receptor tyrosine kinases are a diverse group of transmembrane proteins involved in signal transduction pathways that control cell shape, proliferation, differentiation, and migration (4, 5, 6) . Tyrosine kinase receptors therefore have important roles in normal physiology and in oncogenesis (7) . The Eph receptors are the largest family of tyrosine kinases. EphA1, the first receptor of this family, was originally isolated from an erythropoietin-producing hepatoma cell line (8) . At present, the Eph family comprises 14 Eph receptors and 8 ephrin ligands (9) . The Eph receptor family members share functional and structural similarities and are divided into two subfamilies, EphA or EphB, depending on ephrin ligand to which they bind. Similarly, the ephrin ligands are divided into either ephrinA ligands, which are linked to the cell membrane by a glycosylphosphatidyl-inositol linkage, or ephrinB ligands, which encode for a transmembrane domain (10 , 11) . For the most part, EphA receptors bind ephrinA ligands and EphB receptors bind ephrinB ligands (4 , 12, 13, 14) .
Unlike the other Eph kinases, which are predominantly expressed during embryogenesis, EphA2, a 130-kDa transmembrane protein, is primarily found in adult human epithelial cells and is located on chromosome 1p36.1 (15 , 16) . The role of EphA2 in normal epithelia is not well understood, but it is thought to negatively regulate cell growth and migration (9 , 17) . Interestingly, EphA2 is overexpressed in many cancers, including breast, prostate, melanoma, esophageal, and lung carcinomas, and functions as a powerful oncoprotein (17, 18, 19, 20, 21) . In nontransformed mammary epithelial cells, ectopic overexpression of EphA2 has been shown to result in a malignant phenotype in both in vitro and in vivo experiments (21) . Some studies have shown that EphA2 is involved in the regulation of tumor cell growth, migration, invasion, and angiogenesis (22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) . EphA2 does not require ligand binding for its tyrosine kinase activity (17 , 28) . However, EphA2 needs to be phosphorylated by the ligand binding to cause inactivation of the Ras/mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, dephosphorylation of focal adhesion kinase, suppression of integrin function, and activation of the ERK kinase signaling cascade (29, 30, 31, 32) . However, in malignant cells, EphA2 is not tyrosine phosphorylated in part because of the inability of EphA2 to bind its membrane-anchored ligand as a result of the unstable cell-cell contacts in malignant cells. Furthermore, low-molecular phosphatase (LMW-PTP) has been shown to negatively regulate EphA2 phosphorylation and confer transformation on nontransformed cells (33 , 34) . E-cadherin, which serves as a powerful suppressor of metastasis, may also regulate EphA2 ligand binding (28) .
To date, there have been no published reports evaluating the role of EphA2 expression in ovarian carcinomas, particularly with respect to clinical outcome. Thus, we undertook the present study with the following aims: (a) to evaluate EphA2 expression in ovarian cell lines, and (b) to determine the clinical relevance of EphA2 expression in ovarian carcinoma.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded Samples for EphA2 Immunohistochemical Staining.
All of the samples were collected in compliance with requirements of the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples were sectioned at 5 µm and stained by hematoxylin and eosin for identification. Sections adjacent to the hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections were used for immunohistochemical staining. All of the slides were deparaffinized by use of xylene, 100% ethanol, and 95% ethanol, followed by a thorough wash with deionized water. For 5 min, the deparaffinized slides were immersed in 0.5% pepsin (Dako) for proteolytic digestion of paraffin-embedded formalin tissue sections. Slides were treated with antigen retrieval buffer [0.1 M (pH 6.0) citrate buffer] with heat (120°C) under pressure for 10 min followed by immersion in hydrogen peroxidase (Lab Vision) for 5 min to inactivate the endogenous peroxidases. Sections were blocked with 10% normal goat serum in blocking reagent for 15 min at room temperature. Monoclonal EphA2 antibody (MedImmune Inc.) was diluted with Diluent Reagent Solution (Zymed), and the slides were incubated with the primary antibody overnight at 4°C. After washing with PBSTween 20, the appropriate biotinylated linked antimouse/antirabbit IgG secondary antibody (Dako) was applied, and the slides were incubated with the secondary antibody for 10 min at room temperature. After washing with PBSTween, horseradish peroxidase-conjugated streptavidin (Dako) was added and incubated with the sections for 10 min at room temperature. After extensive washing with PBSTween, DAB+Substrate+Chromogen (Dako) was added to the sections to visualize the antibody staining for 2 min. Slides were counterstained with hematoxylin (Richard-Allen Scientific) for 30 s.
All of the samples were reviewed by a board-certified pathologist (M. D.), who was blinded to the clinical outcome of these patients. EphA2 expression was determined semiquantitatively by assessing the percentage of stained tumor cells and the staining intensity. The percentage of positive cells was rated as follows: 0 points, 05%; 2 points, 650%; 3 points, >50%. The staining intensity was rated as follows: 1 point, weak intensity; 2 points, moderate intensity; 3 points, strong intensity. Points for expression and percentage of positive cells were added, and an overall score ranging between 0 and 3 was assigned. Tumors were categorized into four groups: negative (overall score = 0),
5% cells stained, regardless of intensity; weak expression (overall score = 1), 12 points; moderate expression (overall score = 2), 34 points; and strong expression (overall score = 3), 56 points.
Western Blot and Immunoprecipitation Analysis.
Cells were lysed with 1x modified RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris, 150 mM NaCl, 1% Triton X-100, and 0.5% deoxycholate) containing 25 µg/ml leupeptin (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO), 10 µg/ml aprotinin (Sigma Chemical Co.), 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, and 2 mM EDTA. Cells were removed from the dishes by cell scraping. The samples were then subjected to three cycles of freezingthawing and centrifuged at 12,500 rpm for 30 min. The protein concentration of the samples was determined by a bicinchoninic acid Protein Assay Reagent kit, and whole cell lysates were analyzed by 10% SDS-PAGE and stained with Coomassie BBR-250 (Sigma) to ensure equal loading (data not shown). Samples were transferred to nitrocellulose (Schleicher and Schuell, Keene, NH). Blots were blocked with 5% nonfat milk for 1 h at room temperature and then were incubated with the monoclonal EphA2 antibody (1:1000 dilution) for 1 h at room temperature with agitation, followed by incubation with a horseradish peroxidase-conjugated antimouse secondary antibody (1:5000; The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME). Blots were developed with use of an enhanced chemiluminescence detection kit (ECL; Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Piscataway, NJ). For protein loading analyses, a monoclonal actin antibody (1:1500; Chemicon International, Temecula, CA) was used.
For immunoprecipitation experiments, 300 µg of cell lysate were incubated with the EphA2 antibody for 1 h at 4°C. Proteinantibody complexes were incubated for 1 h at 4°C with protein A-Sepharose-conjugated beads (preincubated with rabbit antimouse IgG), collected by centrifugation, washed three times with the modified RIPA buffer, and boiled in Laemmli sample buffer. The proteins were resolved on SDS-PAGE gels, and immunoblotting was performed as described above.
Clinicopathological Variable Analysis.
All of the patients underwent surgical exploration and cytoreduction as the initial treatment. The treating gynecologic oncologist determined the adjuvant therapy. Diagnosis was verified by a pathology review at the institutional gynecologic oncology tumor board. All of the patients were staged according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics surgical staging system. A gynecologic pathologist reviewed all of the pathology results for all of the patients.
Statistical Analysis.
The
2 test was used to determine differences among variables by use of SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). KaplanMeier survival plots were generated, and comparisons between survival curves were made with the log-rank statistic. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
1, and 13 (16.5%) were considered negative. Sixty (76%) of the invasive tumors overexpressed EphA2 (overall score = 3).
|
|
|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Our work breaks new ground in linking EphA2 with ovarian cancer. These results are consistent with studies of other epithelial carcinomas, in which EphA2 is not phosphorylated and has been described as an oncoprotein that critically controls tumor cell growth, survival, migration, invasiveness, and angiogenesis (5 , 20, 21, 22, 23, 24) . Overexpression of EphA2 has been noted in multiple epithelial carcinomas, including breast, melanoma, prostate, non-small-cell lung, and esophageal cancers (17, 18, 19, 20, 21) . To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to evaluate the role of EphA2 in ovarian carcinoma, and its overexpression is predictive of aggressive ovarian cancer behavior. Interestingly, the EphA2 gene is located on chromosome 1p36.1, which is not only a genetic "hot spot" in cancer (15 , 16) , but also the second most common site of complex karyotypic abnormalities in ovarian cancer (36) . Thus, future studies should address the potential significance of this link.
Overexpression of EphA2 was associated with a significantly worse survival (P = 0.004) and remained a predictor of poor outcome in multivariate analysis. EphA2 is therefore an independent adverse prognostic factor in ovarian carcinoma. The mortality rate for ovarian cancer remains high among gynecological malignancies because of the advanced stage at presentation in most patients. Thus, our present findings have implications for the application of EphA2 to identify some of the more deadly forms of the disease.
EphA2 may also be a novel therapeutic target in ovarian carcinoma, and indeed we are actively developing strategies to target the EphA2 receptor. In normal cells, EphA2 is expressed at low levels and is phosphorylated (34) . However, in malignant cells EphA2 is not tyrosine-phosphorylated (17 , 28 , 34) . Because of unstable cell-cell contacts in malignant cells (37, 38, 39) , EphA2 cannot bind to its membrane-anchored ligand ephrinA1 (28) . Notably, the E-cadherin adhesion protein is a powerful suppressor of metastasis, and E-cadherin has been shown to regulate the ability of EphA2 to bind its ligand (40) . In the context of our present findings, this link between EphA2 and E-cadherin is particularly intriguing because E-cadherin has been linked to mesenchymal-to-epithelial transitions in human ovarian surface epithelium (41) . In normal ovarian surface epithelium cells, E-cadherin is rarely expressed. However, E-cadherin is expressed in metaplastic ovarian surface epithelium and primary ovarian carcinoma, but not in metastasis (41) . In breast cancer cell lines, lack of proper expression and function of E-cadherin leads to EphA2 being localized in membrane ruffles of aggressive tumor cells and ultimately to its nonphosphorylation (28) . We are continuing to investigate the role of E-cadherin and EphA2 in ovarian carcinoma.
In a recent study, Dohn et al. (42) showed that EphA2 transcription is regulated by p53, which is a known tumor suppressor protein and is frequently mutated in ovarian cancer (43, 44, 45) . Wild-type p53 seems to regulate EphA2 through a response element in the EphA2 promoter, which appears to be involved in the regulation of cell survival (42) . The positive regulation of EphA2 by p53 may seem inconsistent with the high levels of EphA2 seen in many epithelial types of cancer. However, mutations in p53 are common in cancer and contribute to aggressive phenotypes. Further study is necessary to determine the role of p53 mutations in regulating EphA2 levels (43 , 44) . If that is the case, then EphA2 may be a therapeutic target to treat ovarian carcinoma patients who have p53 mutations (45) . We are actively evaluating the role of p53 mutations and EphA2 overexpression in ovarian carcinoma.
Tyrosine-phosphorylated EphA2 interacts with a multitude of downstream proteins and pathways, such as Shc, Grb2, SLAP, focal adhesion kinase, ERK, and phosphatidylinositol 3'-kinase (24 , 29, 30, 31, 32 , 46 , 47) . The downstream consequences of these interactions are numerous and, in brief, include negative regulation of tumor cell proliferation, improved survival, decreased migration and invasion, and rapid signal transduction from the cell surface to the nucleus via Grb2 (17 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 48) . In addition, Hendrix et al. (49) and Hess et al. (50) have shown that EphA2 may play a role in vasculogenic mimicry. We have previously demonstrated that aggressive ovarian cancer cells acquire the ability to engage in vasculogenic mimicry (35 , 51 , 52) . Therefore, targeting EphA2 may have direct antitumor and antivascular effects.
Because of the prevalence of EphA2 overexpression in many cancers, including ovarian cancer as well as its many downstream effects, EphA2 is an attractive therapeutic target. To date, antiephrin monoclonal antibodies and peptide-based mimetics to ephrins produced by phage display have been used to mimic the effects of EphA2 ligand binding in vitro (47 , 53) , and early studies provide promising evidence that EphA2 antibodies can selectively inhibit malignant growth both in vitro and in vivo (48 , 54) . The potential application of these approaches for the treatment of ovarian carcinoma is not known at present and is the subject of ongoing research in our laboratory.
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Requests for reprints: Anil K. Sood, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 440, Houston, TX 77030. Phone: (713) 745-5266; Fax (713) 792-7586; E-mail: asood{at}mdanderson.org
Received 11/14/03; revised 4/23/04; accepted 5/ 7/04.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
-induced angiogenesis. Science (Wash DC), 268: 567-9, 1995.This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
W. M. Merritt, Y. G. Lin, W. A. Spannuth, M. S. Fletcher, A. A. Kamat, L. Y. Han, C. N. Landen, N. Jennings, K. De Geest, R. R. Langley, et al. Effect of Interleukin-8 Gene Silencing With Liposome-Encapsulated Small Interfering RNA on Ovarian Cancer Cell Growth J Natl Cancer Inst, March 5, 2008; 100(5): 359 - 372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. N. Landen Jr, M. J. Birrer, and A. K. Sood Early Events in the Pathogenesis of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., February 20, 2008; 26(6): 995 - 1005. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Wykosky, D. M. Gibo, and W. Debinski A novel, potent, and specific ephrinA1-based cytotoxin against EphA2 receptor expressing tumor cells Mol. Cancer Ther., December 1, 2007; 6(12): 3208 - 3218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R Holm, S Knopp, Z Suo, C Trope, and J M Nesland Expression of EphA2 and EphrinA-1 in vulvar carcinomas and its relation to prognosis J. Clin. Pathol., October 1, 2007; 60(10): 1086 - 1091. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. N. Landen Jr., Y. G. Lin, A. Immaneni, M. T. Deavers, W. M. Merritt, W. A. Spannuth, D. C. Bodurka, D. M. Gershenson, W. R. Brinkley, and A. K. Sood Overexpression of the Centrosomal Protein Aurora-A Kinase is Associated with Poor Prognosis in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients Clin. Cancer Res., July 15, 2007; 13(14): 4098 - 4104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. A. Hammond, R. Lutterbuese, S. Roff, P. Lutterbuese, B. Schlereth, E. Bruckheimer, M. S. Kinch, S. Coats, P. A. Baeuerle, P. Kufer, et al. Selective Targeting and Potent Control of Tumor Growth Using an EphA2/CD3-Bispecific Single-Chain Antibody Construct Cancer Res., April 15, 2007; 67(8): 3927 - 3935. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. B. Larsen, M. W. Pedersen, M.-T. Stockhausen, M. V. Grandal, B. v. Deurs, and H. S. Poulsen Activation of the EGFR Gene Target EphA2 Inhibits Epidermal Growth Factor-Induced Cancer Cell Motility Mol. Cancer Res., March 1, 2007; 5(3): 283 - 293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Castellano, J. F. Reid, P. Alberti, M. L. Carcangiu, A. Tomassetti, and S. Canevari New Potential Ligand-Receptor Signaling Loops in Ovarian Cancer Identified in Multiple Gene Expression Studies Cancer Res., November 15, 2006; 66(22): 10709 - 10719. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Liu, P. J. Park, W. Lai, E. Maher, A. Chakravarti, L. Durso, X. Jiang, Y. Yu, A. Brosius, M. Thomas, et al. A Genome-Wide Screen Reveals Functional Gene Clusters in the Cancer Genome and Identifies EphA2 as a Mitogen in Glioblastoma Cancer Res., November 15, 2006; 66(22): 10815 - 10823. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. N. Landen Jr., C. Lu, L. Y. Han, K. T. Coffman, E. Bruckheimer, J. Halder, L. S. Mangala, W. M. Merritt, Y. G. Lin, C. Gao, et al. Efficacy and Antivascular Effects of EphA2 Reduction With an Agonistic Antibody in Ovarian Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst, November 1, 2006; 98(21): 1558 - 1570. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Wykosky, D. M. Gibo, C. Stanton, and W. Debinski EphA2 as a Novel Molecular Marker and Target in Glioblastoma Multiforme Mol. Cancer Res., October 1, 2005; 3(10): 541 - 551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. N. Landen Jr., A. Chavez-Reyes, C. Bucana, R. Schmandt, M. T. Deavers, G. Lopez-Berestein, and A. K. Sood Therapeutic EphA2 Gene Targeting In vivo Using Neutral Liposomal Small Interfering RNA Delivery Cancer Res., August 1, 2005; 65(15): 6910 - 6918. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. J. Herrem, T. Tatsumi, K. S. Olson, K. Shirai, J. H. Finke, R. M. Bukowski, M. Zhou, A. L. Richmond, I. Derweesh, M. S. Kinch, et al. Expression of EphA2 is Prognostic of Disease-Free Interval and Overall Survival in Surgically Treated Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2005; 11(1): 226 - 231. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |