Comparing gene expression in deep infiltrating endometriosis with adenomyosis uteri: evidence for dysregulation of oncogene pathways.
Adenomyosis
Deep infiltrating endometriosis
Gene expression analysis
PI3K pathway
RAS pathway
Journal
Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E
ISSN: 1477-7827
Titre abrégé: Reprod Biol Endocrinol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153627
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2023
01 Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
22
02
2023
accepted:
21
03
2023
medline:
4
4
2023
entrez:
3
4
2023
pubmed:
4
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The pathogenesis of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) is poorly understood. It is considered a benign disease but has histologic features of malignancy, such as local invasion or gene mutations. Moreover, it is not clear whether its invasive potential is comparable to that of adenomyosis uteri (FA), or whether it has a different biological background. Therefore, the aim of this study was to molecularly characterize the gene expression signatures of both diseases in order to gain insight into the common or different underlying pathomechanisms and to provide clues to pathomechanisms of tumor development based on these diseases. In this study, we analyzed formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue samples from two independent cohorts. One cohort involved 7 female patients with histologically confirmed FA, the other cohort 19 female patients with histologically confirmed DIE. The epithelium of both entities was microdissected in a laser-guided fashion and RNA was extracted. We analyzed the expression of 770 genes using the nCounter expression assay human PanCancer (Nanostring Technology). In total, 162 genes were identified to be significantly down-regulated (n = 46) or up-regulated (n = 116) in DIE (for log2-fold changes of < 0.66 or > 1.5 and an adjusted p-value of < 0.05) compared to FA. Gene ontology and KEGG pathway analysis of increased gene expression in DIE compared to FA revealed significant overlap with genes upregulated in the PI3K pathway and focal adhesion signaling pathway as well as other solid cancer pathways. In FA, on the other hand, genes of the RAS pathway showed significant expression compared to DIE. DIE and FA differ significantly at the RNA expression level: in DIE the most expressed genes were those belonging to the PI3K pathway, and in FA those belonging to the RAS pathway.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The pathogenesis of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) is poorly understood. It is considered a benign disease but has histologic features of malignancy, such as local invasion or gene mutations. Moreover, it is not clear whether its invasive potential is comparable to that of adenomyosis uteri (FA), or whether it has a different biological background. Therefore, the aim of this study was to molecularly characterize the gene expression signatures of both diseases in order to gain insight into the common or different underlying pathomechanisms and to provide clues to pathomechanisms of tumor development based on these diseases.
METHODS
METHODS
In this study, we analyzed formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue samples from two independent cohorts. One cohort involved 7 female patients with histologically confirmed FA, the other cohort 19 female patients with histologically confirmed DIE. The epithelium of both entities was microdissected in a laser-guided fashion and RNA was extracted. We analyzed the expression of 770 genes using the nCounter expression assay human PanCancer (Nanostring Technology).
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 162 genes were identified to be significantly down-regulated (n = 46) or up-regulated (n = 116) in DIE (for log2-fold changes of < 0.66 or > 1.5 and an adjusted p-value of < 0.05) compared to FA. Gene ontology and KEGG pathway analysis of increased gene expression in DIE compared to FA revealed significant overlap with genes upregulated in the PI3K pathway and focal adhesion signaling pathway as well as other solid cancer pathways. In FA, on the other hand, genes of the RAS pathway showed significant expression compared to DIE.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
DIE and FA differ significantly at the RNA expression level: in DIE the most expressed genes were those belonging to the PI3K pathway, and in FA those belonging to the RAS pathway.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37005590
doi: 10.1186/s12958-023-01083-9
pii: 10.1186/s12958-023-01083-9
pmc: PMC10067221
doi:
Substances chimiques
Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinases
EC 2.7.1.-
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
33Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:2593674
pubmed: 28280729
Genes (Basel). 2022 Feb 26;13(3):
pubmed: 35327987
Cell. 2014 Nov 6;159(4):844-56
pubmed: 25417160
Oncol Rep. 2016 Aug;36(2):803-10
pubmed: 27373314
Hum Reprod Update. 2016 Apr;22(3):382-403
pubmed: 26740585
Hum Reprod Update. 2003 Mar-Apr;9(2):139-47
pubmed: 12751776
Fertil Steril. 2008 Aug;90(2):415-24
pubmed: 17919609
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Feb 06;12(2):
pubmed: 35204508
Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Jan;37(1):1-13
pubmed: 19033363
Reprod Sci. 2020 Sep;27(9):1698-1706
pubmed: 32253735
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2020 May;36(5):436-440
pubmed: 31637941
Trends Biochem Sci. 2016 Apr;41(4):311-323
pubmed: 26874923
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2015;79(3):195-200
pubmed: 25721338
Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Jul 14;23(14):
pubmed: 35887137
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Feb;31(3):364-369
pubmed: 28110584
Genome Biol. 2002 Jun 18;3(7):RESEARCH0034
pubmed: 12184808
Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2007;34(3):163-7
pubmed: 17937092
Hum Reprod. 2003 Jan;18(1):157-61
pubmed: 12525459
Nat Protoc. 2009;4(1):44-57
pubmed: 19131956
Hum Reprod Update. 2016 Jan-Feb;22(1):104-15
pubmed: 26395640
N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376(19):1835-1848
pubmed: 28489996
Methods Mol Biol. 2009;590:295-306
pubmed: 19763512
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006 Aug;20(4):465-77
pubmed: 16563868
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Apr 20;43(7):e47
pubmed: 25605792
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jun 24;362(25):2389-98
pubmed: 20573927
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Jan;97(1):E35-43
pubmed: 22072736
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 27;104(13):5569-74
pubmed: 17376864
Fertil Steril. 2018 Mar;109(3):371-379
pubmed: 29566849
Fertil Steril. 2017 Dec;108(6):872-885.e1
pubmed: 29100623
Bioinformatics. 2013 Nov 1;29(21):2810-1
pubmed: 23958726
Hum Reprod Update. 2021 Oct 18;27(6):1086-1097
pubmed: 34131719
Fertil Steril. 2009 Jul;92(1):68-74
pubmed: 18684448
Cell Biol Int. 2013 Jul;37(7):643-52
pubmed: 23733271
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018 May;15(5):273-291
pubmed: 29508857
Nat Commun. 2019 Dec 19;10(1):5785
pubmed: 31857578
J Immunother Cancer. 2015 Dec 15;3:42
pubmed: 26674611
Fertil Steril. 1990 Jun;53(6):978-83
pubmed: 2140994
Hum Reprod. 2017 Jul 1;32(7):1393-1401
pubmed: 28510724
Cancer Cell Int. 2021 Apr 8;21(1):199
pubmed: 33832493
Hum Reprod. 1997 Jun;12(6):1275-9
pubmed: 9222017
Fertil Steril. 2019 Feb;111(2):327-340
pubmed: 30527836
Cell Rep. 2018 Aug 14;24(7):1777-1789
pubmed: 30110635
Nature. 2020 Apr;580(7805):640-646
pubmed: 32350471
Reprod Sci. 2015 Sep;22(9):1143-52
pubmed: 25850899