Open AccessTES functions as a Mena‐dependent tumor suppressor in gastric cancer carcinogenesis and metastasis
Author(s) -
Wang Dandan,
Chen Yibing,
Zhao Jingjing,
Zhang Xiaofei,
Zhu Guangchao,
Weng Desheng,
Pan Ke,
Lv Lin,
Pan Qiuzhong,
Jiang Shanshan,
Wang Leilei,
Xia Jianchuan
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
cancer communications
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.119
H-Index - 53
ISSN - 2523-3548
DOI - 10.1186/s40880-019-0347-y
Subject(s) - carcinogenesis , metastasis , cell migration , cell growth , cancer research , cell adhesion , cell cycle , cell , biology , cancer cell , chemistry , cancer , microbiology and biotechnology , biochemistry , genetics
Background In our previous study, we identified a candidate tumor suppressor gene, testin LIM domain protein ( TES ), in primary gastric cancer (GC). TES contains three LIM domains, which are specific interacting regions for the cell adhesion and cytoskeleton regulatory proteins. Mena is a known cytoskeleton regulator that regulates the assembly of actin filaments and modulates cell adhesion and motility by interacting with Lamellipodin (Lpd). Therefore, we hypothesized that TES plays a role as tumor suppressor in GC through interacting with Mena. This study aimed to investigate the tumor suppressive functions of TES in GC. Methods We explored the tumor suppressive effect of TES in GC by in vitro cell proliferation assay, colony formation assay, cell cycle analysis, Transwell assays, and in vivo tumorigenicity and metastasis assays. The interaction of TES and Mena was investigated through immunoprecipitation‐based mass spectrometry. We also analyzed the expression of TES and Mena in 172 GC specimens using immunohistochemistry and investigated the clinicopathological and prognostic significance of TES and Mena in GC. Results TES suppressed GC cell proliferation and colony formation, induced cell cycle arrest, and inhibited tumorigenicity in vitro. Additionally, it inhibited GC cell migration and invasion in vitro and suppressed metastasis in vivo. TES interacted with Mena, and inhibited the interaction of Mena with Lpd. Transwell assays suggested that TES suppressed migration and invasion of GC cells in a Mena‐dependent fashion. In GC patients with high Mena expression, the expression of TES was associated with tumor infiltration ( P = 0.005), lymph node metastasis ( P = 0.003), TNM stage ( P = 0.003), and prognosis ( P = 0.010). However, no significant association was observed in GC patients with low Mena expression. Conclusions We believe that TES functions as a Mena‐dependent tumor suppressor. TES represents a valuable prognostic marker and potential target for GC treatment.