| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Regular Articles |
Departments of Pediatric Urology [M. A. G., M. H. A. O., M. A. N., R. M. N., G. J. V. S.] and Pathology [T. H. V. d. K., J. C. D. H.], Josephine Nefkens Institute, and The Netherlands Institute for Health Sciences [M. K. S.], Erasmus University, 3000 DR Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Pediatric Oncology, University Hospital, 3015 GD Rotterdam, the Netherlands [M. M. V. d. H.]; and Urology Department, Menoufiya University, Shebin El-Kom, Egypt [S. M. N.]
ABSTRACT
Wilms’ tumor is one of the most common solid tumors of children. The protein product of the tumor-suppressor gene, Wilms’ tumor 1 (WT-1), binds to the same DNA sequences as the protein product of the early growth response 1 (EGR-1) gene. There is experimental evidence that EGR-1 is involved in controlling cell growth. The expression of both genes in Wilms’ tumor was studied by others, mainly at the mRNA level. The present study evaluates the prognostic value of WT-1 and EGR-1 in 61 Wilms’ tumors of chemotherapeutically treated patients at the protein level, using an immunohistochemical approach. WT-1 was expressed in normal kidney tissues and in the blastemal and epithelial component of Wilms’ tumor, whereas stromal tissue was negative. EGR-1 was expressed in normal kidney tissues and in the three main cell types of Wilms’ tumor. In 59 and 56% of Wilms’ tumor, the blastemal cells stained for WT-1 and EGR-1, respectively. The blastemal expression of WT-1 and EGR-1 and the epithelial expression of WT-1 were statistically significantly correlated with clinical stage. WT-1 immunoreactivity correlated with EGR-1 expression. Univariate analysis showed that blastemal WT-1 and EGR-1 expression were indicative for clinical progression and tumor-specific survival, whereas epithelial staining was of no prognostic value. Multivariate analysis showed that blastemal WT-1 expression is an independent prognostic marker for clinical progression other than stage. We conclude that a relationship exists between WT-1 and EGR-1 expression in clinical nephroblastomas. Blastemal WT-1 and EGR-1 expression is related to prognosis.
INTRODUCTION
Wilms’ tumor is a pediatric malignancy of the kidney and one of the most common solid tumors in children (1) . At present, the prediction of outcome is based mainly on histology and stage at the time of resection (2) . Despite remarkable advances in elucidating molecular events involved in the pathogenesis of Wilms’ tumor, an independent prognosticator has not been identified as yet (3) .
The genetic basis of this tumor is highly complex, and several loci have been shown to be associated with tumor formation. The WT-12 gene (tumor suppressor gene) is localized at human chromosome 11p13. Estimates of the frequency of WT-1 mutations are sometimes difficult to interpret because of varying methods of detection. The percentage of Wilms’ tumors that have been shown to contain homozygous or heterozygous WT-1 mutations is relatively low, however, and may be <25% and perhaps as little as 5% (4 , 5) . The WT-1 protein has been implicated in many processes, such as proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis (6) . Comparison of the amino acid sequence of the zinc fingers of WT-1 with the amino acid sequences of other zinc finger proteins revealed a high degree of similarity of WT-1 and early growth response genes such as EGR-1 (7) . EGR-1 expression is induced during the G0-G1 transition of the cell cycle in a variety of cell lines upon mitogenic stimulation, suggesting that EGR-1 is involved in controlling cellular proliferation. However, the effect of EGR-1 on cell growth may also be cell type specific (8) .
The results of a number of transient transfection studies demonstrated that WT-1 represses transcription of promoters responsive to EGR-1 (9 , 10) . These results suggest that there may be a reciprocal expression between these two proteins: WT-1 may act as an antagonist of EGR-1 or may be a tissue-specific factor that is involved in maintaining a particular differentiated phenotype. The balance in the levels of EGR-1 and WT-1 proteins in the nucleus may therefore be critical, and inactivation of WT-1 could result in the onset of neoplasia. In the present study, the immunohistochemical expression patterns of WT-1 and EGR-1 were studied in Wilms’ tumor tissues, and the prognostic value was determined in patients treated by preoperative chemotherapy and radical nephrectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients.
During the period 1987–1999, 61 patients with nephroblastoma were
treated by neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and, subsequently, with tumor
nephrectomy. After treatment, the patients were followed regularly, and
all data concerning diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up were stored in
a database. Clinical progression was defined as histologically or
cytologically proven local recurrence or the appearance of distant
metastases. Tumor death was defined as death as a result of the direct
effect of metastases.
Sample Selection.
All nephrectomy specimens were fixed in 10% buffered formalin and
embedded in paraffin. The H&E-stained slides were reviewed by an
experienced pediatric pathologist (J. C. D. H.) to assess the stage
according to the TNM classification (11)
. Among the tissue
blocks available for individual patients, tumor samples containing the
three different cell types of Wilms’ tumor were selected. In addition,
adjacent normal kidney tissue was taken from each patient.
Immunohistochemistry.
The following primary antibodies were used: F-6, a mouse
monoclonal antibody against WT-1; and 588, rabbit polyclonal antibody
against EGR-1, both from Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Santa Cruz, CA). The
specificities and characteristics of these antibodies have been
published elsewhere (7
, 8)
. The peroxidase-antiperoxidase
technique was used. Serial sections (5 µm) from all samples were
mounted on 3-aminopropyle-trietoxysilane (Sigma Co., St. Louis,
MO)-coated glass slides, which were incubated overnight, in a 60°C
incubator. After dewaxing in fresh xylene for 10 min and rehydration in
100% methanol for 10 min, the sections were rinsed in methanol
containing 3% hydrogen peroxide for 20 min to block endogenous
peroxidase activity. The slides then were rinsed with distilled water.
To enhance antigen exposure, the slides were microwaved at 700 W in 0.1
M citrate buffer (pH 6.0) for 15 min. After being cooled
and rinsed with PBS, the slides were placed in a Sequenza
immunostaining system (Shandon, Uncorn, United Kingdom). Sections were
incubated with 10% normal rabbit serum if the monoclonal antibody was
to be used or normal goat serum if the polyclonal antibody was to be
used (DAKO A/S, Glostrup, Denmark). Slides were incubated in PBS-5%
BSA for 15 min and subsequently overnight with the primary antibody at
4°C. The antibodies were diluted in PBS-5% BSA at 1:100 for WT-1 and
1:300 for EGR-1. Subsequently, the slides were rinsed with PBS-0.1%
Tween, incubated for 30 min with rabbit antimouse antibody for the
monoclonal antibody or goat antirabbit antibody for the polyclonal
antibody (DAKO), and then rinsed with PBS containing 0.1%
Tween. The peroxidase-antiperoxidase complex (PAP; DAKO) was diluted in
PBS-5% BSA at 1:300, incubated for 30 min, and then rinsed with PBS.
The antigen-antibody complex was visualized with
diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride dihydrate (Fluka, Neu-Ulm,
Germany) as chromogen. The sections were lightly counterstained with
hematoxylin. Negative controls were included by replacing the primary
antibody by PBS- 5% BSA. Normal kidney tissue, which was present in
all clinical specimens, served as positive control.
Immunostaining Analysis (Quantification).
The slides were examined at x25 magnification without knowledge of the
clinical outcome of the patients. Semiquantitative evaluation was
performed by one of the authors (T. H. V. d. K.). The
percentage of WT-1- and EGR-1-positive cells in a particular area was
scored semiquantitatively as <10, 10–25, 25–50, and >50%. The
specimens were regarded as positive when the percentage of positive
cells was >10%. In addition, the amount of blastema was estimated by
counting the number of low-power magnification fields of blastema.
Statistical Analysis.
Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 9 software package.
The association between WT-1 and EGR-1 expression and
clinico-pathological features was analyzed using the Pearson
2
test. For analysis of survival data,
Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed and the log-rank test for trend
was performed. Multivariate analysis was performed using Cox’s
proportional hazards model, with P < 0.05 considered
statistically significant.
Protein Extraction and Western Blot.
To confirm the WT-1 and EGR-1 immunohistochemical data, Western
analysis was performed with tissues from Wilms’ tumor xenografts. Six
different xenograft tissues were analyzed in total. Tissues 1–3 (see
Fig. 6
) originated from transplants of three individual patients,
resulting in xenografts WT-7, WT-9, and WT-11, respectively, whereas
tissues 4–6 (WT-15, WT-15LN, and WT-16) were from one individual
patient, being specimens of a primary tumor in the right kidney
(WT-15), lymph node metastasis (WT-15LN), and a primary tumor in the
left kidney (WT-16), respectively. Morphologically, all six tissues
contained the blastemal and stromal component, whereas in tissues 1 and
3, epithelial cells were also present.
|
RESULTS
Clinicopathological Findings.
The T-stage distribution was T1 in 21,
T2 in 20, and T3 in 20
patients. Clinical progression occurred in 14 patients (23%).
Twenty-five patients (41%) had large amounts of blastema. The patient
distribution was 29 (48%) females and 32 (53%) males. The mean
overall follow-up period was 5.7 years, and the mean age at operation
was 4.2 years. Eight patients (13%) died from their tumors. At the end
of the follow-up period, 53 patients were alive.
WT-1 Expression in Wilms’ Tumor Tissues.
WT-1 immunohistochemistry of normal kidney showed a very intense
nuclear staining of glomerular visceral epithelial cells but faint
staining of the tubules (Fig. 1
A). WT-1 immunoreactive
blastemal and epithelial cells were found in 59 and 57% of patients,
respectively, whereas no expression was found in the stromal component.
Immunostaining was localized in the nucleus (Fig. 1
, C and
E). A statistically significant correlation was found
between WT-1 protein and pathological stage, both for blastema and
epithelium (Tables 1
and 2)
. There was variability in the
intensity of WT-1 staining in the same component and among the tumors
having the same stage. Epithelial differentiation in tumors was
accompanied by clear WT-1 expression (Fig. 1
E).
|
|
|
B). EGR-1
immunoreactivity was found in the blastemal, epithelial, and stromal
components of nephroblastoma tumors. EGR-1-immunoreactive blastema and
epithelium were found in 56 and 87% of patients, respectively.
Immunostaining was cytoplasmic (Fig. 1
, D and F).
The nephroblastoma sections showed intense expression of the epithelium
with little expression in the stromal components (Fig. 1
F).
In contrast to WT-1, EGR-1 expression was more widely distributed and
more intense. The blastemal expression of EGR-1 protein correlated with
the pathological stage (Table 1)
. A statistically significant
correlation was found between blastemal WT-1 and EGR-1 expression
(Table 3)
.
|
; Figs. 2
and 3
). The epithelial expression of
EGR-1 and WT-1 did not show any prognostic value (Table 4
; Figs. 4
and 5
).
To test whether WT-1 and EGR-1 have any prognostic impact, a
multivariate Cox’s regression analysis was done that included the
parameters pT stage and WT-1 and EGR-1 expression. The parameters that
were not dichotomic were dichotomized as follows: pT1–2
versus pT3; and immunoreactive score <10%
versus >10%. In that analysis, blastemal WT-1 could be
identified as an independent prognostic marker for clinical progression
other than stage (Table 5)
. Regarding the
amount of blastema, no prognostic value was found (data not shown).
|
|
|
|
|
|
. Morphologically, all six tissues
contained blastemal and stromal components, whereas in tissues 1 and 3,
epithelial cells were also present. WT-1 was detected as a single band
corresponding to a molecular size of 52 kDa, whereas EGR-1 was detected
as a single 80-kDa band. Among this relatively small group of tissues,
heterogeneous patterns of WT-1 and EGR-1 expression were found. As
expected, the majority of tissues showed expression of WT-1, although
it is remarkable that two tissues were devoid of any WT-1 protein.
Interestingly enough, both of these tumors had relatively low EGR-1
expression. Clearly, there is no correlation between the expression of
the proteins and the morphological characteristics of the tissues. DISCUSSION
The interaction of the related proteins WT-1 and EGR-1 has been studied during recent years. The expression of both genes in Wilms’ tumor was examined by others mainly at the mRNA level and was compared with clinical, histological, and molecular features (12, 13, 14) . The present study was carried out to investigate whether the expression of WT-1 and EGR-1 at the protein level has a prognostic value in specimens of clinical nephroblastoma, using paraffin-embedded tissue sections. All of the patients received chemotherapy before nephrectomy. In the present study, the clear expression of both WT-1 and EGR-1 in normal kidney suggests that the interaction of WT-1 with EGR-1 occurs well after the inductive events of the ureteral epithelial and metanephric blastema (15) . Because normal kidney tissue was present in almost all sections, this could serve as an internal control for the immunostaining procedure.
WT-1 expression is restricted to certain cell types and to a
specific stage of differentiation. Thus, the level of WT-1 expression
in neoplasia would be expected to correlate with the relative amount of
the specific cell type present. Tumors that exhibit primarily blastemal
and epithelial differentiation show higher levels of WT-1 expression
than those in which stroma is predominantly present (16
, 17)
. In our present study, no correlation was found between the
amount of blastema and prognosis. There was some heterogeneity in the
intensity of signals both between cases and in tumors of similar stage.
Variability in the intensity of immunostaining may be explained by the
wide variation in the levels of WT-1 transcripts that has been noted in
Wilms’ tumors by Northern blot analysis (12
, 16
, 18)
.
Epithelial differentiation in tumors was accompanied by diffuse WT-1
expression (Fig. 1
E).
Stromal areas of the tumor did not express WT-1 (Fig. 1
C). The negative stromal elements included differentiated
mesenchymal tissue, in which adipose tissue and smooth muscle were
seen. WT-1 mRNA has not been detected in the stromal component of
Wilms’ tumors, nor have recent morphological studies demonstrated the
WT-1 protein in the stroma (19)
. These results suggest
that there is pathogenetic heterogeneity in Wilms’ tumors, with
stromal-predominant tumors having complete loss of expression the gene.
WT-1 has been investigated in several human tumors other than Wilms’ tumor. Testicular cancer has been demonstrated to produce decreased expression of WT-1 (20 , 21) . On the other hand, the WT-1 gene was found to be overexpressed in leukemia (22) , and ovarian cancer (23) , in which WT-1 mRNA levels appeared to be much higher than in normal tissues. WT-1 expression was much lower in benign prostatic hyperplasia than in normal prostatic tissues, but no changes were seen in prostatic adenocarcinoma (24) . In addition, altered expression of the WT-1 gene was demonstrated in human breast cancer (25) . These phenomena may be related to the ability of WT-1 to enhance transcription of growth factors and other genes when present in a mutated form (26) or in the presence of modulating factors (21) . A correlation exists between the levels of WT-1 expression and poor prognosis in human hematopoietic malignancies (27 , 28) .
Very recent studies, using RNA slot blot analysis, showed expression of EGR-1 during murine nephrogenesis and overexpression in some clinical Wilms’ tumor (14 , 15) . In the present study, at the protein level EGR-1 was expressed in the three components of Wilms’ tumor (blastema, epithelium, and stroma). EGR-1 is expressed in a high percentage of the epithelial component of nephroblastoma specimens. Our study demonstrated a significant increase in the expression of EGR-1 in aggressive tumors. These observations support the hypothesis that EGR-1 plays a role in tumor cell proliferation and/or tumor formation.
EGR-1 expression has been shown to correlate with the transformed
phenotype of B-lymphocytes immortalized with EBV, causing Burkitt
lymphoma (29)
. Low expression of EGR-1 has been
demonstrated in human breast cancer cells and tumor tissues, as well as
in human lung cancer compared with normal lung tissues (30
, 31)
, whereas EGR-1 is overexpressed in prostate cancer
(32)
. The apparent contradictory role of EGR-1 in
different human carcinomas could be attributable to the influence of
the intracellular milieu and the presence of other proteins in a
certain cell type (33
, 34) . EGR-1 expression in
nephroblastoma was found to be of prognostic value in predicting
clinical progression and tumor-specific death (Fig. 3)
. Increased
expression of EGR-1 was associated with an increased risk.
Multivariate analysis showed that blastemal WT-1 expression independently predicted clinical progression. Furthermore, both WT-1 and EGR-1 bind to the same DNA response element, suggesting the possibility of stimulation of nephroblastoma growth via competition of EGR-1 with WT-1-binding elements on target DNA (12 , 35) . Although the mechanism by which EGR-1 counteracts the effect of WT-1 is unknown, WT-1 and EGR-1 may have the ability to stimulate carcinogenesis in the kidney through one or more pathways suggested above.
Our findings suggest that a relationship exists between WT-1 and EGR-1 proteins in clinical nephroblastoma. Expression in the blastema, which rather than the epithelium is the most malignant component of Wilms’ tumor, is predictive of poor prognosis. Univariate analysis showed that WT-1 and EGR-1 blastemal expression is related to prognosis. WT-1 blastemal expression is an independent predictor for clinical progression other than stage.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Rejiv B. Mathoera for assistance and Frank van der Panne for the photography.
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.
1 To whom requests for reprints should be
addressed, at Josephine Nefkens Institute, Room Be 430, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, the
Netherlands. Phone: 31-10-4088368; Fax: 31-10-4088365; E-mail: steenbrugge{at}path.azr.nl 
2 The abbreviations used are: WT-1, Wilms’ tumor
1; EGR-1, early growth response 1.
Received 5/22/00; revised 9/ 7/00; accepted 9/12/00.
REFERENCES
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Jones, K. Pritchard-Jones, M. A. Ghanem, T. H. Van der Kwast, R. M. Nijman, and G. J. van Steenbrugge MIB-1 and p27Kip1 Expression in Nephroblastoma Clin. Cancer Res., November 15, 2004; 10(22): 7785 - 7786. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. M. Kong, N. M. Martin, K. L. Smith, J. V. Gardiner, I. P. Connoley, D. A. Stephens, W. S. Dhillo, M. A. Ghatei, C. J. Small, and S. R. Bloom Triiodothyronine Stimulates Food Intake via the Hypothalamic Ventromedial Nucleus Independent of Changes in Energy Expenditure Endocrinology, November 1, 2004; 145(11): 5252 - 5258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Takahashi, X. J. Yang, T. T. Lavery, K. A. Furge, B. O. Williams, M. Tretiakova, A. Montag, N. J. Vogelzang, G. G. Re, A. J. Garvin, et al. Gene Expression Profiling of Favorable Histology Wilms Tumors and Its Correlation with Clinical Features Cancer Res., November 15, 2002; 62(22): 6598 - 6605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Amendt, A. Mann, P. Schirmacher, and M. Blessing Resistance of keratinocytes to TGF{beta}-mediated growth restriction and apoptosis induction accelerates re-epithelialization in skin wounds J. Cell Sci., May 15, 2002; 115(10): 2189 - 2198. [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 |
