Independent of ErbB1 gene copy number, EGF stimulates migration but is not associated with cell proliferation in non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract Background Lung cancer often exhibits molecular changes, such as the overexpression of the ErbB1 gene. ErbB1 encodes epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), a tyrosine kinase receptor, involved mainly in cell proliferation and survival. EGFR overexpression has been associated with more aggressive disease, poor prognosis, low survival rate and low response to therapy. ErbB1 amplification and mutation are associated with tumor development and are implicated in ineffective treatment. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the ErbB1 copy number affects EGFR expression, cell proliferation or cell migration by comparing two different cell lines. Methods The copies of ErbB1 gene was evaluated by FISH. Immunofluorescence and Western blotting were performed to determine location and expression of proteins mentioned in the present study. Proliferation was studied by flow cytometry and cell migration by wound healing assay and time lapse. Results We investigated the activation and function of EGFR in the A549 and HK2 lung cancer cell lines, which contain 3 and 6 copies of ErbB1, respectively. The expression of EGFR was lower in the HK2 cell line. EGFR was activated after stimulation with EGF in both cell lines, but this activation did not promote differences in cellular proliferation when compared to control cells. Inhibiting EGFR with AG1478 did not modify cellular proliferation, confirming previous data. However, we observed morphological alterations, changes in microfilament organization and increased cell migration upon EGF stimulation. However, these effects did not seem to be consequence of an epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Conclusion EGFR expression did not appear to be associated to the ErbB1 gene copy number, and neither of these aspects appeared to affect cell proliferation. However, EGFR activation by EGF resulted in cell migration stimulation in both cell lines.

Exome analysis of HIV patients submitted to dendritic cells therapeutic vaccine reveals an association of CNOT1 gene with response to the treatment

INTRODUCTION: With the aim of searching genetic factors associated with the response to an immune treatment based on autologous monocyte-derived dendritic cells pulsed with autologous inactivated HIV, we performed exome analysis by screening more than 240,000 putative functional exonic variants in 18 HIV-positive Brazilian patients that underwent the immune treatment. METHODS: Exome analysis has been performed using the ILLUMINA Infinium HumanExome BeadChip. zCall algorithm allowed us to recall rare variants. Quality control and SNP-centred analysis were done with GenABEL R package. An in-house implementation of the Wang method permitted gene-centred analysis. RESULTS: CCR4-NOT transcription complex, subunit 1 (CNOT1) gene (16q21), showed the strongest association with the modification of the response to the therapeutic vaccine (p=0.00075). CNOT1 SNP rs7188697 A/G was significantly associated with DC treatment response. The presence of a G allele indicated poor response to the therapeutic vaccine (p=0.0031; OR=33.00; CI=1.74-624.66), and the SNP behaved in a dominant model (A/A vs. A/G+G/G p=0.0009; OR=107.66; 95% CI=3.85-3013.31), being the A/G genotype present only in weak/transient responders, conferring susceptibility to poor response to the immune treatment. DISCUSSION: CNOT1 is known to be involved in the control of mRNA deadenylation and mRNA decay. Moreover, CNOT1 has been recently described as being involved in the regulation of inflammatory processes mediated by tristetraprolin (TTP). The TTP-CCR4-NOT complex (CNOT1 in the CCR4-NOT complex is the binding site for TTP) has been reported as interfering with HIV replication, through post-transcriptional control. Therefore, we can hypothesize that genetic variation occurring in the CNOT1 gene could impair the TTP-CCR4-NOT complex, thus interfering with HIV replication and/or host immune response. CONCLUSIONS: Being aware that our findings are exclusive to the 18 patients studied with a need for replication, and that the genetic variant of CNOT1 gene, localized at intron 3, has no known functional effect, we propose a novel potential candidate locus for the modulation of the response to the immune treatment, and open a discussion on the necessity to consider the host genome as another potential variant to be evaluated when designing an immune therapy study