Inactivation of COX-2, HMLH1 and CDKN2A Gene by Promoter Methylation in Gastric Cancer: Relationship with Histological Subtype, Tumor Location and Helicobacter pylori Genotype

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the inactivation of COX-2, HMLH1 and CDKN2A by promoter methylation and its relationship with the infection by different Helicobacter pylori strains in gastric cancer. Methods: DNA extracted from 76 H. pylori-positive gastric tumor samples was available for promoter methylation identification by methylation-specific PCR and H. pylori subtyping by PCR. Immunohistochemistry was used to determine COX-2, p16(INK4A) and HMLH1 expression. Results: A strong negative correlation was found between the expression of these markers and the presence of promoter methylation in their genes. Among cardia tumors, negativity of p16(INK4A) was a significant finding. on the other hand, in noncardia tumors, the histological subtypes had different gene expression patterns. In the intestinal subtype, a significant finding was HMLH1 inactivation by methylation, while in the diffuse subtype, CDKN2A inactivation by methylation was the significant finding. Tumors with methylated COX-2 and HMLH1 genes were associated with H. pylori vac A s1 (p = 0.025 and 0.047, respectively), and the nonmethylated tumors were associated with the presence of the gene flaA. Conclusions: These data suggest that the inactivation of these genes by methylation occurs by distinct pathways according to the histological subtype and tumor location and depends on the H. pylori genotype. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

No Relationship between the Amount of DNA Damage and the Level of hMLH1 and RASSF1A Gene Expression in Bladder Cancer Cells Treated with Cisplatin and Gemcitabine

Tumor response to antineoplastic drugs is not always predictable. This is also true for bladder carcinoma, a highly recurrent neoplasia. Currently, the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine is well accepted as a standard protocol for treating bladder carcinoma. However, in some cases, this treatment protocol causes harmful side effects. Therefore, we investigated the roles of the genes TP53, RASSF1A (a tumor suppressor gene) and hMLH1 (a gene involved in the mismatch repair pathway) in cell susceptibility to cisplatin/gemcitabine treatment. Two bladder transitional carcinoma cell (TCC) lines, RT4 (wild-type TP53) and 5637 (mutated TP53), were used in this study. First, we evaluated whether the genotoxic potential of cisplatin/gemcitabine was dependent on TP53 status. Then, we evaluated whether the two antineoplastic drugs modulated RASSF1A and hMLH1 expression in the two cell lines. Increased DNA damage was observed in both cell lines after treatment with cisplatin or gemcitabine and with the two drugs simultaneously, as depicted by the comet assay. A lack of RASSF1A expression and hypermethylation of its promoter were observed before and after treatment in both cell lines. On the other hand, hMLH1 downregulation, unrelated to methylation status, was observed in RT4 cells after treatment with cisplatin or with cisplatin and gemcitabine simultaneously (wild-type TP53); in 5637 cells, hMLH1 was upregulated only after treatment with gemcitabine. In conclusion, the three treatment protocols were genotoxic, independent of TP53 status. However, cisplatin was the most effective, causing the highest level of DNA damage in both wild-type and mutated TP53 cells. Gemcitabine was the least genotoxic agent in both cell lines. Furthermore, no relationship was observed between the amount of DNA damage and the level of hMLH1 and RASSF1A expression. Therefore, other alternative pathways might be involved in cisplatin and gemcitabine genotoxicity in these two bladder cancer cell lines.