Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Browse Articles Search Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 307
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
Previous article Browse articles Next article 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
J Res Med Sci 2021,  26:3

Correlation of –160C > A and –347GA > G polymorphisms in E-cadherin gene and gastric cancer in north of Iran


1 Department of Hematology and Oncology, Gastrointestinal Cancer Research Center, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
2 Gastrointestinal Cancer Research Center, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
3 Department of Internal Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
4 Immunogenetic Research Center, Cell and Molecular Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran

Date of Submission04-Feb-2019
Date of Decision26-Mar-2020
Date of Acceptance31-Aug-2020
Date of Web Publication28-Jan-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mohammad Bagher Hashemi-Soteh
Immunogenetic Research Center, Cell and Molecular Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_50_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: E-cadherin (CDH1 gene) is a protein involved in cell-cell adhesion. There are reports on the association of –160C > A (rs16260) and –347GA > G (rs5030625) polymorphisms in the 5′-promoter region of the CDH1 gene with tumor development and progression of gastric cancer. This study aimed to examine the potential relationship between these two polymorphisms and gastric cancer in patients from Mazandaran province, Northern Iran. Materials and Methods: A case–control study was conducted to test 97 patients and 95 healthy controls. Genomic DNA was extracted from peripheral blood followed by polymerase chain reaction amplification. Genotyping analysis was carried out using restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis for two potentially functional polymorphisms. Results: Heterozygous genotype GA/G versus GA/GA of rs5030625 (–347 GA > G) was found to be associated with increased risk of gastric cancer in the people studied (odds ratio = 5.73, 95% confidence interval = 2.11–15.56, P = 0.001). Furthermore, AA or CA genotype in –160C > A polymorphism did not show any increased risk of gastric cancer (P = 0.559). Conclusion: The present study revealed that GA/G genotype of rs5030625 (–347 GA > G) polymorphism is associated with gastric cancer in Northern Iran.

Keywords: CDH1 protein, E-cadherin, gastric cancer, genotype, polymorphism, restriction fragment length polymorphism


How to cite this article:
Shekarriz R, Alikhani R, Ghasemi M, Navaei RA, Hashemi-Soteh MB. Correlation of –160C > A and –347GA > G polymorphisms in E-cadherin gene and gastric cancer in north of Iran. J Res Med Sci 2021;26:3

How to cite this URL:
Shekarriz R, Alikhani R, Ghasemi M, Navaei RA, Hashemi-Soteh MB. Correlation of –160C > A and –347GA > G polymorphisms in E-cadherin gene and gastric cancer in north of Iran. J Res Med Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 24];26:3. Available from: https://www.jmsjournal.net/text.asp?2021/26/1/3/308229




  Introduction Top


According to the estimates from the International Agency for Research on Cancer GLOBOCAN project, gastric carcinoma is the fifth most common cancer worldwide (1,033,701 new cases per year in 2018) and remains the third most common cause of death (782,685 death per year in 2018) of all cancers worldwide.[1] More than two-thirds of gastric cancer occur in developing countries.[2] High-risk areas are located in East Asia (China and Japan), Eastern Europe, and Central and South America and the low-risk areas are located in Southern Asia, North and East Africa, North America, Australia, and New Zealand.[3] Gastric cancer (GC) is the first and the third most common cancer among males and females in Iran, respectively.[4] The north and northwestern regions of Iran including Guilan, Mazandaran, and Ardabil provinces are high-risk areas for gastric cancer.[5] A previous study on the E-cadherin gene (CDH1) reported mutations in three large Maori families from New Zealand with diffuse early-onset gastric cancer.[6]

CDH1 gene is located on chromosome 16q22.1 and consists of 16 exons.[7] It encodes a 120 kDa glycoprotein with a large extracellular domain, a single transmembrane segment, and a short cytoplasmic domain, which interacts with the actin cytoskeleton through linker molecules, alpha-, beta-, and gamma-catenin.[8] E-cadherin is a Ca2+-dependent cell–cell adhesion molecule that acts as a tumor suppressor.[9] Loss of E-cadherin function during tumor progression, associated with CDH1 mutations, is observed in hereditary diffuse-type gastric cancer, invasive lobular breast cancer,[10] and colorectal and prostate carcinomas.[10],[11]

Promoter-related polymorphisms of CDH1 gene (-160C > A and-347GA > G) alter promoter activity, gene transcription, mRNA stability, and translation.[12] The − 160C > A polymorphism is located upstream of the transcriptional start site of the gene. The − 160A allele is reported to decrease the transcription efficiency of the CDH1 gene.[13] Many studies have been conducted to investigate the associations between − 160C > A polymorphism and different including gastric cancer.[13] -347GA > G is a functional polymorphism, the GA-allele cause downregulation of the CDH1 gene and low expression of E-cadherin compared with the G-allele.[14] Furthermore, GA-allele decreases the transcriptional efficiency of the CDH1 gene and is also reported to be associated with an increased risk of gastric, colon, and esophageal cancers.[11],[13],[15],[16] This study aimed to examine the potential relationship between these two polymorphisms and gastric cancer in patients from Mazandaran province, Northern Iran.


  Materials and Methods Top


The study population

The present study included 97 patients who were diagnosed with gastric cancer (78 males and 19 females, mean age 66.1 ± 9.1) and had blood samples collected from January 2009 to September 2011 in Sari Imam Khomeini Hospital. Furthermore, 95 blood samples were collected as control from healthy individuals (65 males and 30 females, mean age 61.4 ± 10.8) who referred to Sari Cardiology Hospital, Fatemeh Zahra, for other reasons except gastric diseases [Table 1].
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the cases and controls

Click here to view


Patients were diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma by the pathology report of endoscopic samples and surgical resection. Blood samples were taken before any specific oncological intervention (chemotherapy and radiation therapy). Diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma and tumor infiltration rate (T), involvement of lymph nodes (nodal status), and determination of tumor grade in all patients were confirmed by two pathologists. To determine the stage of the tumor and lymph nodes (T, N) and the presence of metastasis (M), ultrasound endoscopic imaging techniques (endoscopic ultrasound), spiral chest, and abdomino-pelvic computed tomography scan with contrast were used, respectively.

Tumor characteristics of the patients studied are summarized in [Table 2]. This research was approved by the Ethics Committee in the Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences (IR.MAZUMS.IMAMHOSPITAL.REC.1398.059). Blood Samples were taken from patients before starting chemotherapy and from controls after age/gender match with patients.
Table 2: Tumor characteristics, including tumor site, tumor grade, lymphatic invasion, perineural invasion, and tumor stage or tumor type (n=95)

Click here to view


DNA extraction

Peripheral venous blood (5 ml) was collected in an ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid containing tube and stored at −80°C until analysis. Blood samples from patients were taken before initiation of chemotherapy. Total genomic DNA was extracted using a standard salting out methods from blood using DNA extraction kit from Dena Zist company (Denazist, Iran) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The extracted DNA was maintained at −20°C until further study.

Genotyping using polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism method

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-restriction fragment length polymorphism method was applied to analyze -160C > A and -347GA > G polymorphisms separately. A 447 bp PCR product containing both -160C > A and -347GA > G polymorphisms was achieved from CDH1 gene promoter amplification. Two primers: 5'-GCCCCGACTTGTCTCTCTAC-3' (forward) and 5'-TACCGCTGATTGGCTGAGGG-3' (reverse) were applied. The PCR amplification was carried out in a 25 μl reaction mixture containing 2 μl template DNA, 12 μl ready ×2 PCR Master Mix (Amplicon, Denmark), 10 μl distilled water, and 0.5 μl of each forward and reverse primer. The amplification was performed under the following conditions: 1 cycle of 95°C for 2 min; 35 cycles of 95°C for 30 s, 65°C for 30 s, and 72°C for 30 s; and a final cycle of 72°C for 5 min. The PCR product was digested with HincII and BanII (Thermo Fisher Scientific) at 37°C overnight in two separate tubes, respectively [Table 3].
Table 3: Polymerase chain reaction size and restriction fragment length polymorphism fragments using HincII restriction enzymes for -160C>A (rs16260) and BanII restriction enzyme for 347GA>G (rs5030625) polymorphisms, respectively

Click here to view


To detect the –160C > A and –347GA > G polymorphisms, PCR products were digested with HincII restriction enzymes for –160C > A (rs16260) and BanII restriction enzyme (Thermo Fisher Scientific) for -347GA > G (rs5030625) polymorphisms, respectively [Table 3]. After digestion, the products were separated by 3% agarose gel electrophoresis and stained with Green Viewer™ DNA Staining Dye [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Part (a) 447 bp polymerase chain reaction product from CDH1 gene promoter digestion for -160 C/A polymorphism using HincII restriction enzyme. Lane M shows 50 bp DNA marker, lane 1 shows homozygous CC (367,110 bp); lanes 2, 4, and 5 show heterozygous AC (477,367,110 bp, respectively) and lane 3 shows homozygous AA genotype (477 bp) respectively. Part (b) Restriction enzyme map of the 477bp polymerase chain reaction fragment for -347GA > G polymorphism using BanII restriction enzyme. Lane M shows 50bp DNA marker, lanes 1, 3, and 4 show homozygous G/G (293,115,68 bp), lane 2 shows homozygous GA/GA (362, 115 bp) and lane 5 shows heterozygous GA/G genotype (362,293,15,68 bp) respectively. A 3% agarose gel electrophoresis was applied to separate polymerase chain reaction fragments

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

Chi-square test was used to evaluate differences in the distributions of demographic characteristics. The expected frequency of control genotypes was tested against the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a logistic regression model. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Otherwise, the pooled ORs and 95% CIs without adjustments were calculated for the –160 C > A and –347 GA >G alleles and genotypes frequencies, respectively. The statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 19 software package (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).


  Results Top


Ninety-seven patients with gastric cancer and 95 normal individuals were analyzed in this study. Tumor characteristics of the patients with gastric cancer are summarized in [Table 2]. Demographic characteristics of the patients and normal control are summarized in [Table 3]. The cases and controls were sex/age-matched and there were no significant differences in sex or age distribution between the two groups (P = 0.069). The genotype and allele frequency of CDH1 –160C > A and –347GA > G from patients and healthy controls are shown in [Table 4]. When homozygous CC genotype (wild type) for –160C > A polymorphism was considered as reference, no significant difference was seen between two groups (P = 0.559) [Table 4]. Similarly, there was no significant difference in allele frequency for either –160C > A or –347GA > G polymorphisms between patients and controls respectively [Table 4]. Furthermore, the genotype frequency of GA/GA, GA/G, and G/G was 8.2%, 40.2%, and 51.5% in patients and 21.1%, 17.9%, and 61.1% in healthy individuals, respectively.
Table 4: Genotype and allele frequencies of CDH1-160C>A and -347G>GA polymorphisms in gastric cancer patients and healthy controls

Click here to view


For –347GA > G polymorphism, when GA/GA (wild type) was considered as reference, a significant difference was revealed between GA/G genotype frequencies in patients and controls (P = 0.001). Logistic regression suggested a 5.73-fold higher risk (95% CI: 2.11–15.56) of gastric cancer for GA/G carrier individuals. Furthermore, GA/G carrier showed 5.56-fold higher risk (95% CI: 2.11–15.56) of developing gastric cancer when age and sex were not included [Table 5]. No significant difference was identified when associations of –160C > A or –347GA > G genotypes with sex, tumor size, tumor grade, tumor site, lymphatic invasion, perineural invasion, tumor stage, and tumor type were tested [Table 6].
Table 5: Comparison of genotype frequencies of CDH1 -347GA>G gene polymorphisms using Chi-square analysis in gastric cancer patients and normal controls

Click here to view
Table 6: Distribution of genotypes -160C>A and -347GA>G polymorphisms in the CDH1 gene by sex and tumor characteristics

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Gastric cancer (GC) is the fourth most common malignancy worldwide, although its incidence and mortality rates have decreased in recent decades. Despite this, patients with GC still have a poor prognosis.[3] Gastric cancer is a multifactorial disease, and some environmental factors such as high dietary intake of salt, Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and gastroesophageal reflux disease are reported as environmental factors for this disease in Iran.[15],[16] Mazandaran, Golestan, and Ardabil provinces are among the high-risk provinces for gastric cancer.[5] E-cadherin germline mutations were first identified in New Zealand Maori families with early-onset diffuse gastric cancer.[17] The calcium-dependent cell adhesion molecule (E-cadherin) plays a key role in cell–cell adhesion and maintenance of cell architecture in the epithelium.[18]

Associations between CDH1-160C > A and-347GA > G polymorphism with various cancers have also been reported previously. Mutant allele A in -160C/A position is found to decrease the transcriptional activity of the CDH1 gene by 68% compared with the C allele.[19] Furthermore, Chen et al. showed that the-347GA > G polymorphism in the CDH1 promoter decreases the binding affinity for a transcription factor, leading to a 10-fold decrease in the transcriptional efficiency of the GA-allele compared with the G allele, respectively.[20]

There are some conflicting results regarding the association between the rs16260 (-160 C > A) and rs5030625 (-347GA > G) polymorphisms with gastric cancer in different ethnicities. Zhang et al. in a study about –347GA > G and –160C > A along with three other polymorphisms in the CDH1 gene in patients with sporadic gastric carcinoma (SGC) from Northeast China showed that the –347G/G genotype may increase the susceptibility to SGC among males in high-risk areas. They also reported no association between –160C > A and the risk of SGC among subjects either in high-risk or low-risk areas.[21] In another study, the GA/GA genotypes of –347GA were found increasing the risk of gastric cardia adenocarcinomas (GCA).[12] Moreover, a significant association of CDH1-160C/–347G and–160C/–347GA haplotypes was reported with the development of GCA, while -160A allele was not found to be associated with an increase risk of gastric cancer.[12] A meta-analysis that reviewed 17 different studies (3511 GC cases and 4826 normal controls) suggests that CDH1-160C > A polymorphism may be associated with risk of GC among Caucasians, but not among Asians.[20] Another meta-analysis carried out by Wang et al. reported that –160C > A polymorphism may be associated with gastric cancer among Asians but not Europeans.[22] Other studies from China, young Mexican population, and people from Oman observed that –160 AA genotype is associated with an increased risk of GC.[19],[23],[24] On the other hand, a meta-analysis of Caucasian and Asian ethnicities failed to confirm any association between the CDH1-160C > A polymorphism and risk of gastric cancer.[25] An analysis in the Iranian Kurdish population showed that gastric cancer susceptibility was not influenced by-160(C > A) CDH1 polymorphism, regardless of the presence or absence of H. pylori.[26]

In the present study, no difference was observed between -160 C or A allele as well as the different genotypes of -160C > A among GC patients and normal controls (P = 0.559) [Table 4], which is in concordance with many results achieved from previous studies. Logistic regression analysis suggested that GA/G genotype carriers had a 5.73–fold higher risk (95% CI: 2.11–15.56) of developing gastric cancer. Our findings did not show any statistical correlation between the genotype distribution of -160C > A or -347GA > G with sex, tumor site, tumor grade, lymphatic invasion, perineural invasion, tumor stage, and tumor type in gastric cancer patients. A significant difference was found in the frequency of E-cadherin-347GA > G genotype between GC patients and normal individuals, instead (P = 0.001) [Table 4].


  Conclusion Top


Results from this study suggest that –347GA > G polymorphism may increase the chance of developing GC in the population from Northern Iran, and –160C > A polymorphism did not raise the risk of gastric cancer. Our findings support previous researches that reported the -160A allele as an ethnicity-dependent risk factor for GC.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences for financial support and all the volunteers who participated in this study.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Thrift AP, El-Serag HB. Burden of Gastric Cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;18:534-42.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Lyons K, Le LC, Pham YT, Borron C, Park JY, Tran CT, et al. Gastric cancer: Epidemiology, biology, and prevention: A mini review. Eur J Cancer Prev 2019;28:397-412.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Sitarz R, Skierucha M, Mielko J, Offerhaus GJ, Maciejewski R, Polkowski WP. Gastric cancer: Epidemiology, prevention, classification, and treatment. Cancer Manag Res 2018;10:239-48.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Rastaghi S, Jafari-Koshki T, Mahaki B, Bashiri Y, Mehrabani K, Soleimani A. Trends and risk factors of gastric cancer in Iran (2005-2010). Int J Prev Med 2019;10:79.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
5.
Ghaffari HR, Yunesian M, Nabizadeh R, Nasseri S, Sadjadi A, Pourfarzi F, et al. Environmental etiology of gastric cancer in Iran: A systematic review focusing on drinking water, soil, food, radiation, and geographical conditions. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2019;26:10487-95.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Jakubowska A, Lawniczak M, Wojnarska B, Cybulski C, Huzarski T, Byrski T, et al. CDH1 gene mutations do not contribute in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer in Poland. Fam Cancer 2010;9:605-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Garziera M, Canzonieri V, Cannizzaro R, Geremia S, Caggiari L, De Zorzi M, et al. Identification and characterization of CDH1 germline variants in sporadic gastric cancer patients and in individuals at risk of gastric cancer. PLoS One 2013;8:e77035.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Corso G, Roviello F. Spotlight on Familial and Hereditary Gastric Cancer. Switzerland, Springer Nature; 2013.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Krempely K, Karam R. A novel de novo CDH1 germline variant aids in the classification of carboxy-terminal E-cadherin alterations predicted to escape nonsense-mediated mRNA decay. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud 2018;4: a003012.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Keller G, Vogelsang H, Becker I, Hutter J, Ott K, Candidus S, et al. Diffuse type gastric and lobular breast carcinoma in a familial gastric cancer patient with an E-cadherin germline mutation. Am J Pathol 1999;155:337-42.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Imtiaz H, Afroz S, Hossain MA, Bellah SF, Rahman MM, Kadir MS, et al. Genetic polymorphisms in CDH1 and Exo1 genes elevate the prostate cancer risk in Bangladeshi population. Tumour Biol 2019;41:1010428319830837.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Zhang XF, Wang YM, Ge H, Cao YY, Chen ZF, Wen DG, et al. Association of CDH1 single nucleotide polymorphisms with susceptibility to esophageal squamous cell carcinomas and gastric cardia carcinomas. Dis Esophagus 2008;21:21-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Li G, Pan T, Guo D, Li LC. Regulatory variants and disease: The E-Cadherin -160C/A SNP as an example. Molecular biology international 2014 (2014).  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Zou XP, Dai WJ, Cao J. CDH1 promoter polymorphism (-347G → GA) is a possible prognostic factor in sporadic colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:5340-5.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Malekzadeh R, Derakhshan MH, Malekzadeh Z. Gastric cancer in Iran: Epidemiology and risk factors. Arch Iran Med 2009;12:576-83.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Pourfarzi F, Whelan A, Kaldor J, Malekzadeh R. The role of diet and other environmental factors in the causation of gastric cancer in Iran-A population based study. Int J Cancer 2009;125:1953-60.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Shin Y, Kim IJ, Kang HC, Park JH, Park HR, Park HW, et al. The E-cadherin- 347 G->GA promoter polymorphism and its effect on transcriptional regulation. Carcinogenesis 2004;25:895-9.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Berx G, Staes K, van Hengel J, Molemans F, Bussemakers MJ, van Bokhoven A, et al. Cloning and characterization of the human invasion suppressor gene E-cadherin (CDH1). Genomics 1995;26:281-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Zhan Z, Wu J, Zhang JF, Yang YP, Tong S, Zhang CB, et al. CDH1 gene polymorphisms, plasma CDH1 levels and risk of gastric cancer in a Chinese population. Mol Biol Rep 2012;39:8107-13.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Chen B, Zhou Y, Yang P, Liu L, Qin XP, Wu XT. CDH1- 160C>A gene polymorphism is an ethnicity-dependent risk factor for gastric cancer. Cytokine 2011;55:266-73.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Zhang B, Pan K, Liu Z, Zhou J, Gu L, Ji J, et al. Genetic polymorphisms of the E-cadherin promoter and risk of sporadic gastric carcinoma in Chinese populations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:2402-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Wang Q, Gu D, Wang M, Zhang Z, Tang J, Chen J. The E-cadherin (CDH1) −160C>A polymorphism associated with gastric cancer among Asians but not Europeans. DNA Cell Biol 2011;30:395-400.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Medina-Franco H, Ramos-De la Medina A, Vizcaino G, Medina-Franco JL. Single nucleotide polymorphisms in the promoter region of the E-cadherin gene in gastric cancer: Case-control study in a young Mexican population. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:2246-9.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Al-Moundhri MS, Al-Khanbashi M, Al-Kindi M, Al-Nabhani M, Burney IA, Al-Farsi A, et al. Association of E-cadherin (CDH1) gene polymorphisms and gastric cancer risk. World J Gastroenterol 2010;16:3432-6.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Jiang B, Zhu K, Shao H, Bao C, Ou J, Sun W. Lack of association between the CDH1 polymorphism and gastric cancer susceptibility: A meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2015;5:7891.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Menbari MN, Rahmani SA, Ahmadi A, Zandi F, Bagheri N, Jalili A, et al. Evaluation of E-cadherin (CDH1) gene polymorphism related to gastric cancer in Kurdish population. Molecular biology international 2014 (2014).  Back to cited text no. 26
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
Previous article  Next article
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed72    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded13    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal