Significance of the vascular endothelial growth factor and the macrophage migration inhibitory factor in the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma
- Authors:
- Published online on: December 23, 2013 https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2013.2946
- Pages: 1199-1204
Abstract
Introduction
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide and nearly half of all HCC cases occur in China (1). Despite improvements in surgical techniques and the development of novel therapies during the past few decades, the clinical prognosis of HCC patients is still poor due to recurrence and metastasis. The molecular mechanisms involved in HCC development remain obscure. Therefore, it is of great clinical value to further identify malignant factors in order to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying the progression of HCC.
Tumor angiogenesis plays an important role in tumor growth and metastasis (2). Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has been implicated as an invasion and tumor progression promoter molecule (3). VEGF is a potent mitogen that contributes to both physiological and pathological angiogenesis (4). VEGF is believed to secrete homodimeric glycoprotein that stimulates proliferation and migration of endothelial cells and enhances vascular permeability (5). An increasing number of studies have demonstrated a strong association between overexpression of VEGF and advanced disease or poor prognosis in various types of cancers (6–8). VEGF was recently found to be upregulated in HCC, and it was also shown to be associated with the carcinogenesis, metastasis, recurrence and prognosis of HCC (9,10). However, further investigation is needed to confirm the molecular mechanisms underlying the effects of VEGF on the development of HCC.
Several mechanisms have been reported to participate in the regulation of VEGF gene expression. Among these, several cytokines or growth factors play a major role. VEGF mRNA expression is rapidly and reversibly induced by epidermal growth factor (EGF), transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β), or keratinocyte growth factor (11). Ren et al (12) reported that macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) can stimulate the secretion of VEGF from tumor cells. The cytokine MIF is regarded as a major regulator of inflammation and a key mediator that operates as a cytokine and an enzyme (13). Many studies have confirmed the use of MIF as a biomarker for different diseases that have an inflammatory component (14). Moreover, recent studies have demonstrated a role of MIF in tumor growth, such as control of cell proliferation and promotion of angiogenesis (15). MIF also plays an important role in the invasion and metastasis of prostate cancer, lung adenocarcinoma and neuroblastoma cells (15,16). Ren et al (17) found that MIF mRNA was upregulated in HCC tissues when compared with normal liver tissues, suggesting that MIF acts as a regulator of tumor progression in HCC.
The above studies suggest that both VEGF and MIF may be involved in the tumorigenesis of HCC. An examination of whether the aberrant expression of these two proteins is associated with clinicopathological characteristics of HCC patients is therefore warranted. However, to date there has been no report on the clinical relevance of combined VEGF and MIF expression in HCC tissues. To address this problem, the aim of the present study was to further investigate the potential association of the co-expression of VEGF and MIF in HCC tissues with clinicopathologic findings.
Patients and methods
Patients and tissue specimens
One hundred and fifty pairs of matched HCC and adjacent non-cancer liver tissues were histopathologically and clinically diagnosed at The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University from January 2004 to June 2006. Plasma samples from a peripheral vein were also collected from the 150 HCC patients. Plasma samples were obtained from healthy volunteers who underwent physical examination at the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University. The 150 patients included 95 males and 55 females. The mean age of the patients was 58 years (range, 20–78 years). Clinicopathological classification and staging were carried out according to the 6th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM classification system. Another independent 48 patients with histologically proven HCC were included in this study. These 48 pairs of tumor tissues from HCC patients and paired adjacent non-cancer specimens were collected for real-time RT-PCR analysis as previously described (18). The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University. Informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to surgery. All patients were recruited into this study after providing informed consent.
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
All peripheral blood samples were acquired following a standard collection protocol. Briefly, samples were collected and anticoagulated by ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) and centrifuged for 10 min at 3000 rpm. The serum fractions were aliquoted and stored at −80°C until analysis. The concentrations of serum MIF were measured by quantitative sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits (Quantikine, R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocols. The levels of serum VEGF were determined using ELISA kits (Genzyme Corp., USA).
Tissue microarray construction
The representative areas of each HCC specimen or paired adjacent non-cancer liver tissue were punched with a tissue cylinder (1 mm in diameter) from formalin-fixed/paraffin-embedded tumor tissues or paired adjacent non-cancer tissue blocks. The selected tissue cores were precisely arrayed into a new recipient microarray block using a tissue arrayer (Beecher Instrument, Silver Spring, MD, USA). Each sample was arrayed in triplicate.
Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemical analysis was performed to study MIF and VEGF expression in 150 human HCC tissues and paired adjacent non-cancer tissues. Briefly, paraffin-embedded tissue-microarray blocks of HCC tissues and paired adjacent non-cancer tissues were consecutively cut into 4-μm sections. Slides were baked at 60°C for 1–2 h and then deparaffinized and rehydrated. Endogenous peroxidase activity was blocked by incubation with 3% hydrogen peroxide for 20 min at room temperature. Slides were incubated overnight at 4°C with primary antibodies (Abcam, Cambridge, UK; catalog no. ad55445; 1:500 dilution) and VEGF (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA, USA; 1:200 dilution) diluted in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). After washing, the tissue slides were subsequently treated with the secondary antibody (anti-Rb or mouse IgG/HRP; Zhongshan, 1:2000) for 1 h at room temperature, and then with 3,3′-diaminobenzidine (DAB) solution followed by counterstaining with hematoxylin. Analysis was performed with a Zeiss Axioscope 2 microscope at a ×400 magnification, respectively. The degree of immunohistochemical staining was semi-quantitatively assessed and scored independently by two observers. For levels of MIF and VEGF expression, staining intensity was scored according to the following criteria: no staining, 0; weak staining, 1; moderate staining, 2; and strong staining, 3.
RNA extraction and real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
Total RNA was extracted from the tissue samples using Trizol (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Real-time PCR amplifications were performed in ABI PRISM 7900 Sequence Detection System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) using EvaGreen™ qPCR Master Mix (Biotium, Hayward, CA, USA). The primers for human VEGF were 5′-TCGAGACCCTGGTGGACATC-3′ (forward) and 5′-TGTTGGACTCCTCAGTGGGC-3′ (reverse). MIF primers were 5′-CAGAACCGCTCCTACAGCAAG-3′ (forward) and 5′-CGGCTCTTAGGCGAAGGTG-3′ (reverse) and β-actin primers were 5′-ACAATGTGGCCGAGGACTTT-3′ (forward) and 5′-GGAGAGGACTGGGCCATTCT-3′ (reverse). The optimal PCR amplification for VEGF and MIF was 95°C for 30 sec followed by 40 cycles (95°C for 5 sec, 60°C for 30 sec). The expression of β-actin was used as the internal control. The relative expression levels of VEGF and MIF mRNA were calculated according to the comparative Ct method, and the expression of target genes was normalized to β-actin expression levels in each sample.
Statistical analysis
Data are presented as means ± standard deviation (SD). All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 13.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test was used for comparisons between immunohistochemical and serum results and clinicopathological parameters. Spearman’s bivariate correlation test was used to evaluate the correlation between VEGF and MIF. Differences in VEGF mRNA and MIF mRNA expression between the groups were analyzed by the Student’s t-test. A P-value <0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant result.
Results
Upregulation of VEGF and MIF in serum samples of patients with HCC
Using ELISA, the levels of serum VEGF and MIF were evaluated in 150 patients with HCC and 30 normal volunteers. The serum VEGF and MIF levels were significantly higher in patients with HCC when compared with their levels in the normal controls (Table I). Overexpression of serum VEGF and MIF was significantly associated with tumor size, intrahepatic metastasis, vascular invasion and TNM stage (Table II). Furthermore, the high levels of VEGF in the serum were positively related with serum MIF expression in HCC (r=0.579, P<0.05).
Table IICorrelation between serum VEGF and MIF levels and the clinicopathological characteristics of the HCC patients. |
Overexpression of VEGF and MIF in archived HCC tissues
In subsequent studies, we detected the role of VEGF and MIF in the clinical progression of HCC. We examined 150 paraffin-embedded, archived HCC tissues, including 30 cases of stage I, 80 cases of stage II and 40 cases of stage III tumors, using immunohistochemical staining. High levels of VEGF were present in the cytoplasm of the malignant cells in 75% (112/150) of HCC tissues (Fig. 1b and c). In contrast, VEGF was negatively or only weakly detectable in adjacent non-cancer tissues (Fig. 1a). In addition, the index values of VEGF staining were significantly increased with the progression of tumor grades I to III (P=0.028). Moreover, VEGF expression was strongly correlated with tumor size (P=0.027), vascular invasion (P=0.032), and serum AFP levels (P=0.043). However, our analyses did not show significant associations between VEGF expression and other clinical features including age, gender, history of hepatitis, liver cirrhosis and tumor multiplicity (Table III).
Table IIICorrelation between VEGF and MIF expression and the clinicopathological characteristics of the HCC patients. |
MIF was localized in the cytoplasm of positive staining HCC cells (Fig. 1d–f). MIF was detected in 81% (121/150) of HCC cases (P<0.001). Our studies showed that high levels of MIF expression were associated with tumor size (P=0.022), tumor grade (P=0.013), presence of intrahepatic metastasis (P=0.039) and vascular invasion (P=0.027) and TNM stage (P=0.013). There were no further associations with other clinicopathological parameters (Table III). Spearman correlation analysis confirmed that VEGF expression was positively correlated with MIF protein expression (r=0.619, P=0.022) in the HCC tissues.
VEGF and MIF mRNA expression in HCC and correlations between VEGF and MIF mRNA expression
To confirm the effect of VEGF and MIF on the progression of HCC and their correlation, we examined their mRNA levels in 48 HCCs and paired adjacent non-tumor tissues by real-time RT-PCR. The mRNA level of VEGF was significantly increased in the HCC tissues when compared with the level in the paired adjacent non-tumor tissues (P<0.01) (Fig. 2A). In HCC tissues, VEGF mRNA expression increased according to increasing TNM stage (Fig. 2C). The mRNA level of VEGF was significantly increased in metastatic HCC tissues when compared with the level in the nonmetastatic tissues (Fig. 2B). Consistent with VEGF, the MIF mRNA level was markedly higher in the HCC tissues when compared with the level in the adjacent non-tumor tissues (P<0.001) (Fig. 2A). MIF mRNA expression was significantly elevated in later TNM stages (P<0.001) (Fig. 2C). MIF mRNA was higher in the metastatic HCC tissues when compared with that in the nonmetastatic tissues (Fig. 2B). A positively correlation was noted between VEGF and MIF mRNA expression (r=0.72, P=0.066).
Discussion
In the present study, we analyzed the expression of VEGF and MIF in HCC and evaluated the levels of VEGF and MIF with the clinicopathological parameters in 150 cases. We measured the concentration of VEGF and MIF in a series of 150 serum samples from HCC patients. Additionally, a series of 30 serum samples from healthy volunteers was selected as controls. Moreover, we assessed the relationship between the levels of VEGF and MIF and the clinicopathological factors of the HCC cases. In the present study, we found that the serum levels of VEGF and MIF were markedly increased in the HCC group when compared to levels in the control group. Overexpression of serum VEGF and MIF was significantly associated with tumor size, tumor grade, intrahepatic metastasis, vascular invasion and TNM stage. Furthermore, high levels of VEGF in the serum were positively co-related with serum MIF expression in HCC. These results were consistent with the expression of VEGF and MIF in HCC tissue samples.
VEGF is known as one of the most potent pro-angiogenic factors (19). Several studies (20–23) have demonstrated that VEGF promotes the growth of local foci of malignant tumors and facilitates metastasis and invasion. VEGF, upregulated in various solid tumors, is closely correlated with pathological characteristics, metastasis and prognosis of tumors. Silencing of MMP-9 and VEGF decreases the recurrence and metastasis of HCC after TACE (24,25). Therefore, VEGF plays an important role in the tumorigenesis of tumors. Our results showed that enhanced VEGF was associated with intrahepatic metastasis, vascular invasion and later tumor stage. In addition, VEGF expression was positively correlated with MIF expression in the serum of patients with HCC. Furthermore, quantitative PCR verified that VEGF mRNA was significantly upregulated in HCC tissues when compared with that in adjacent non-tumor tissues; there was a correlation between the upregulation of VEGF mRNA with tumor TNM stage and metastasis in HCC.
MIF was initially found to contribute to the inhibition of the random migration of macrophages (26). Recent studies have extablished that MIF plays an important role in carcinogenesis by promoting cell proliferation, tumor angiogenesis and metastasis (27). He et al (28) demonstrated that epithelial and serum MIF expression was progressively increased in gastric cancer. Bando et al (29) found that MIF was overexpressed in 93 breast cancer tissues as detected by ELISA. In esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, MIF expression was found to be correlated with lymph node status (12). In the present study, the immunohistochemical and ELISA results showed that MIF expression was correlated with increasing tumor grade, intrahepatic metastasis and vascular invasion. Moreover, MIF expression was positively correlated with VEGF expression. Thus, these results suggest that activated MIF/VEGF is involved in proliferation, invasion and metastasis in HCC. Choudhary et al (30) reported that treatment with inhibitors of MIF increased mRNA expression and protein secretion of VEGF in bladder cancer. Bondza et al (31) indicated that MIF markedly stimulates the secretion of VEGF, which is in accordance with the findings of the present study.
MIF and VEGF were overexpressed in patients with HCC in our study and their expression was correlated with tumor size, intrahepatic metastasis and vascular invasion. MIF stimulation may induce an increase in VEGF secretion, which contributes to angiogenesis and tumor growth. Therefore, VEGF and MIF may be markers of more aggressive HCC and they could be therapeutic targets for patients with HCC.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81071871, 81108162, 81172079), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China (S2013010016831), the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China (2010b060500007; 2011B060300012), and the Foundation for Youth Teachers by Sun Yat-Sen University (11ykpy16).
References
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E and Forman D: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 61:69–90. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar | |
Hanahan D and Folkman J: Patterns and emerging mechanisms of the angiogenic switch during tumorigenesis. Cell. 86:353–364. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Amini A, Masoumi Moghaddam S, Morris DL and Pourgholami MH: The critical role of vascular endothelial growth factor in tumor angiogenesis. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 12:23–43. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Arcondéguy T, Lacazette E, Millevoi S, Prats H and Touriol C: VEGF-A mRNA processing, stability and translation: a paradigm for intricate regulation of gene expression at the post-transcriptional level. Nucleic Acids Res. 41:7997–8010. 2013.PubMed/NCBI | |
Ferrara N and Davis-Smyth T: The biology of vascular endothelial growth factor. Endocr Rev. 18:4–25. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar | |
Koukourakis MI, Papazoglou D, Giatromanolaki A, Bougioukas G, Maltezos E and Sivridis E: VEGF gene sequence variation defines VEGF gene expression status and angiogenic activity in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 46:293–298. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Jin Q, Hemminki K, Enquist K, Lenner P, Grzybowska E, Klaes R, Henriksson R, Chen B, Pamula J, Pekala W, Zientek H, Rogozinska-Szczepka J, Utracka-Hutka B, Hallmans G and Försti A: Vascular endothelial growth factor polymorphisms in relation to breast cancer development and prognosis. Clin Cancer Res. 11:3647–3653. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Celen O, Kahraman I, Yildirim E and Berberoglu U: Correlation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and CEA with clinicopathological variables in colorectal cancer patients. Neoplasma. 51:293–299. 2004.PubMed/NCBI | |
Shen YC, Hsu C and Cheng AL: Molecular targeted therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: current status and future perspectives. J Gastroenterol. 45:794–807. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Chen L, Shi Y, Jiang CY, Wei LX, Lv YL, Wang YL and Dai GH: Coexpression of PDGFR-alpha, PDGFR-beta and VEGF as a prognostic factor in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Biol Markers. 26:108–116. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Ferrara N, Gerber HP and LeCouter J: The biology of VEGF and its receptors. Nat Med. 9:669–676. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Ren Y, Law S, Huang X, Lee PY, Bacher M, Srivastava G and Wong J: Macrophage migration inhibitory factor stimulates angiogenic factor expression and correlates with differentiation and lymph node status in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Surg. 242:55–63. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Greven D, Leng L and Bucala R: Autoimmune diseases: MIF as a therapeutic target. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 14:253–264. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Grieb G, Merk M, Bernhagen J and Bucala R: Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF): a promising biomarker. Drug News Perspect. 23:257–264. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Meyer-Siegler KL, Iczkowski KA, Leng L, Bucala R and Vera PL: Inhibition of macrophage migration inhibitory factor or its receptor (CD74) attenuates growth and invasion of DU-145 prostate cancer cells. J Immunol. 177:8730–8739. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Ren Y, Chan HM, Fan J, Xie Y, Chen YX, Li W, Jiang GP, Liu Q, Meinhardt A and Tam PK: Inhibition of tumor growth and metastasis in vitro and in vivo by targeting macrophage migration inhibitory factor in human neuroblastoma. Oncogene. 25:3501–3508. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Ren Y, Tsui HT, Poon RT, Ng IO, Li Z, Chen Y, Jiang G, Lau C, Yu WC, Bacher M and Fan ST: Macrophage migration inhibitory factor: roles in regulating tumor cell migration and expression of angiogenic factors in hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Cancer. 107:22–29. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Yang XW, Zhang LJ, Huang XH, Chen LZ, Su Q, Zeng WT, Li W and Wang Q: miR-145 suppresses cell invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma cells: miR-145 targets ADAM17. Hepatol Res. Apr 28–2013.(Epub ahead of print). View Article : Google Scholar | |
Namisaki T, Yoshiji H, Noguchi R, Ikenaka Y, Kitade M, Kaji K, Shirai Y, Aihara Y, Yoshii J, Yanase K, Tsujimoto T, Kawaratani H and Fukui H: The vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor-2 is a major regulator of VEGF-mediated salvage effect in murine acute hepatic failure. J Angiogenes Res. 2:162010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Hu J, Chen C, Su Y, Du J, Qian X and Jin Y: Vascular endothelial growth factor promotes the expression of cyclooxygenase 2 and matrix metalloproteinases in Lewis lung carcinoma cells. Exp Ther Med. 4:1045–1050. 2012.PubMed/NCBI | |
Li C, Liu B, Dai Z and Tao Y: Knockdown of VEGF receptor-1 (VEGFR-1) impairs macrophage infiltration, angiogenesis and growth of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CRCC). Cancer Biol Ther. 12:872–880. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Yu W, Chen L, Yang YQ, Falck JR, Guo AM, Li Y and Yang J: Cytochrome P450 ω-hydroxylase promotes angiogenesis and metastasis by upregulation of VEGF and MMP-9 in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 68:619–629. 2011. | |
Amano H, Ito Y, Suzuki T, Kato S, Matsui Y, Ogawa F, Murata T, Sugimoto Y, Senior R, Kitasato H, Hayashi I, Satoh Y, Narumiya S and Majima M: Roles of a prostaglandin E-type receptor, EP3, in upregulation of matrix metalloproteinase-9 and vascular endothelial growth factor during enhancement of tumor metastasis. Cancer Sci. 100:2318–2324. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar | |
Deng G, Zhao DL, Li GC, Yu H and Teng GJ: Combination therapy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and arterial administration of antiangiogenesis on VX2 liver tumor. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 34:824–832. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Janani P, Sivakumari K, Geetha A, Yuvaraj S and Parthasarathy C: Bacoside A downregulates matrix metalloproteinases 2 and 9 in DEN-induced hepatocellular carcinoma. Cell Biochem Funct. 28:164–169. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
David JR: Delayed hypersensitivity in vitro: its mediation by cell-free substances formed by lymphoid cell-antigen interaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 56:72–77. 1966. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Chesney J, Metz C, Bacher M, Peng T, Meinhardt A and Bucala R: An essential role for macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) in angiogenesis and the growth of a murine lymphoma. Mol Med. 5:181–191. 1999.PubMed/NCBI | |
He XX, Yang J, Ding YW, Liu W, Shen QY and Xia HH: Increased epithelial and serum expression of macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) in gastric cancer: potential role of MIF in gastric carcinogenesis. Gut. 55:797–802. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Bando H, Matsumoto G, Bando M, Muta M, Ogawa T, Funata N, Nishihira J, Koike M and Toi M: Expression of macrophage migration inhibitory factor in human breast cancer: association with nodal spread. Jpn J Cancer Res. 93:389–396. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
Choudhary S, Hegde P, Pruitt JR, Sielecki TM, Choudhary D, Scarpato K, Degraff DJ and Pilbeam CC: Macrophage migratory inhibitory factor promotes bladder cancer progression via increasing proliferation and angiogenesis. Carcinogenesis. Aug 2–2013.(Epub ahead of print). | |
Bondza PK, Metz CN and Akoum A: Macrophage migration inhibitory factor up-regulates alpha(v)beta(3) integrin and vascular endothelial growth factor expression in endometrial adenocarcinoma cell line Ishikawa. J Reprod Immunol. 77:142–151. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar |