Open access peer-reviewed chapter

CBX4 Expression and AFB1-Related Liver Cancer Prognosis

Written By

Qun-Ying Su, Jun Lu, Xiao-Ying Huang, Jin-Guang Yao, Xue-Min Wu, Bing-Chen Huang, Chao Wang, Qiang Xia and Xi-Dai Long

Reviewed: 10 May 2018 Published: 05 November 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.78580

From the Edited Volume

Cancer Prognosis

Edited by Guy-Joseph Lemamy

Chapter metrics overview

1,202 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Background: Previous studies have shown that chromobox 4 (CBX4) expression may involve in the progression of liver cancer, however, it is unclear whether it affects the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) related to aflatoxin B1 (AFB1).

Keywords

  • CBX4
  • AFB1
  • HCC
  • prognosis

1. Introduction

Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is a type of secondary metabolite of Aspergillus parasiticus and Aspergillus flavus, and frequently contaminates a series of staple foods, such as ground nuts, and maize [1, 2, 3]. Once this type foods contaminated by AFB1 entered into human bodies, it is metabolized into its epoxides consisting of AFB1–8,9-exo-epoxide (AFBEX) and AFB1–8,9-endo-epoxide (AFBEN) by cytochrome P450 (CYP) metabolic system [3]. These products of AFB1, especially AFBEX, are characterized by high reaction, genic toxicity, and carcinogenicity [3]. Evidence from molecular epidemiology and animal models has shown that AFB1 is an important carcinogen inducing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Mechanically, the carcinogenesis of AFB1-related HCC mainly involves in the formation of DNA damage (including AFB1-DNA adducts, DNA single-strand breaks, DNA double-strands breaks, and gene mutations), the inactivation of such tumor suppressor gene as TP53, and the activation of cancer genes such as Ras [3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. Although some advance in the pathogenesis of AFB1-related HCC has obtained in the past decades [16, 17, 18], it is still far for us to elucidate more detailed mechanisms.

The chromobox 4 (Cbx4) (GenBank accession NO. 8535) consists of six exons and spans about 6.26 kb on chromosome 17q25.3. This gene encodes a 560-amino acid protein which is the important component of polycomb repressive complex 1 (PRC1) [19, 20, 21, 22]. Functionally, CBX4 involves in PRC1-regulated transcription repression and post-translation modification [19, 20, 21, 22]. Recently, increasing evidence has exhibited that the dysregulation of this gene may affect the carcinogenic process of some tumors such as HCC, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and so on, and may be a significant prognostic biomarker [19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. However, it is not clear whether CBX4 modify the prognosis of AFB1-related HCC. Here, we conducted a hospital-based retrospective study to investigate whether the CBX4 expression in the cancerous tissues is associated with the outcome of HCC related to AFB1 expression in the Guangxi Region, a high AFB1 exposure area.

Advertisement

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study population

Between January 2009 and December 2012, 428 consecutive patients with histopathologically confirmed hepatocarcinoma were recruited at the Divisions of Oncology and Pathology, the affiliated Hospitals of Guangxi Medical University and Youjiang Medical University for Nationalities. During the recruitment phase, only 5 cases refused to participate in the study (response rate 98.8%). All cases were from high AFB1 exposure areas, including Nanning, Bose, Tiandong, and Tianyang. After informed consent was obtained, surgically removed tumor samples were collected to analyze the amounts of AFB1-DNA adducts and CBX4 protein in the cancerous tissues. Additionally, all corresponding clinicopathological and survival following-up data were also collected in the hospitals as previously described methods [30-32]. In this study, the status of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection was evaluated using serum hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and anti-HCV, respectively; whereas the grade and stage of tumor was elucidated using the Edmondson and Steiner (ES) grading system and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, respectively. For survival analyses, the last follow-up day was set on December 31, 2017. The study protocol was carried out according to the approved guidelines by the Institutional Ethics Committee from the Affiliated Hospitals of Youjiang Medical University for Nationalities and Guangxi Medical University.

2.2. Microvessel density (MVD) assay

MVD in the cancerous tissues was assessed using the immunohistochemistry staining of CD31 as our previously descripted [30]. In this study, positive status of MVD was defined as microvessel counts more than 50 per ×200 magnifications.

2.3. AFB1 exposure data

AFB1 exposure levels were evaluated using the amounts of AFB1-DNA adducts in the cancerous tissues as our previously descripted [31, 32]. The amounts of AFB1-DNA adduct were tested using the competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In this study, a value than less 1.00 μmol/mol DNA was considered as negative status for AFB1 exposure.

2.4. CBX4 expression assays

The level of CBX4 protein expression in cancerous tissues was elucidated using our previously published immunohistochemistry method [33, 34]. Briefly, the amounts of CBX4 protein were tested using anti-CBX4 antibody and calculated using immunoreactive score system (IRS). In the present study, positive CBX4 protein in cancerous tissues was define as IRS > 4.

2.5. Statistical analysis

Logistic regression model with enter method for variables (including all known clinicopathological features) was used for statistical comparison between groups. The odd ratios (ODs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in this model for evaluating the association between clinicopathological features of HCCs and either AFB1 exposure or CBX4 expression. Kaplan–Meier survival method with log-rank test was used for statistical comparisons between different levels of AFB1 expression and CBX4 expression. Multivariate Cox regression model (with retread method based on likelihood ratio test) analyses were performed to calculate the risk strength of independent variates and prognostic values. In this study, all analyses were finished using the SPSS soft version 18.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL), and a P-value less than 0.05 was defined as statistical significance.

Advertisement

3. Results

3.1. The clinicopathological and survival features of HCC cases

Table 1 gave the clinicopathological characteristics of all cases, and a total of 428 patients with HCC were included in the final analyses. All cases were followed-up more than 5 years to obtain median survival time. During the follow-up period, 261 patients with HCC featured cancer recurrences with 30.00 (22.20–37.80) months of median recurrence-free survival time (MRT), and 270 died with 45.00 (38.98–51.02) months of median overall survival time (MST).

Variables n %
Total 428 100.0
Age, years
Mean ± SE 47.9 ± 10.1
Range 30–75
Sex
Man 290 68.9
Female 138 32.8
Ethnicity
Han 229 54.4
Zhuang 199 47.3
HBV status
HBsAg (−) 113 26.8
HBsAg (+) 315 74.8
HCV status
anti-HCV (−) 378 89.8
anti-HCV (+) 50 11.9
Smoking status
No 315 74.8
Yes 113 26.8
Drinking status
No 304 72.2
Yes 124 29.5
AFP (ng/mL)
≤ 20 154 36.6
> 20 274 65.1
Liver cirrhosis
No 104 24.7
Yes 324 77.0
BCLC stage
A 167 39.7
B 121 28.7
C 140 33.3
Tumor size
≤ 3 cm 211 50.1
> 3 cm 217 51.5
MVD
Negative 192 45.6
Positive 236 56.1
ES grade
Low 226 53.7
High 202 48.0

Table 1.

The clinic-pathological features of cases with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Abbreviations: AFP, α-fetoprotein; BCLC, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system; ES, Edmondson and Steiner grading system; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; MVD, microvessel density.

3.2. The effects of AFB1 exposure on the clinicopathological features and the prognosis of HCC cases

In this study, the status of AFB1 exposure was elucidated using the amount of AFB1-DNA adducts in the cancerous tissues. Results from competitive ELISA exhibited the patients with HCC featured a 2.82 ± 1.60 μmol/mol DNA of AFB1 exposure level. To investigate the effects of AFB1 exposure on the clinicopathological features of HCC cases, we defined the amount of AFB1-DNA adducts ≤1.00 μmol/mol DNA as negative AFB1 exposure according to our previous published results [31, 32]. Our results showed that these patients with positive AFB1 status (AFB1-DNA adducts: > 1.00 μmol/mol DNA) had higher BCLC stage (adjusted OR = 2.09 and adjusted 95% CI = 1.04–4.24), bigger tumor size (adjusted OR = 69.06 and adjusted 95% CI = 33.62–141.86), and higher MVD (adjusted OR = 2.56 and adjusted 95% CI = 1.36–4.81) compared with those without positive AFB1 status (OR = 1) (Table 2). Additionally, we also found that the levels of AFB1 exposure were significantly associated with the age of patients with hepatocarcinoma (adjusted OR = 1.80, adjusted 95% CI = 1.22–2.66, and P = 3.07×10−3). However, AFB1 exposure was not correlated with other clinicopathological features of HCCs (Table 2).

AFB1 (−) AFB1 (+)
Variables n % n % OR (95% CI) Ptrend
Total 244 100.0 184 100.0
Age (years)
≤ 48 148 60.7 86 46.7 Reference
> 48 96 39.3 98 53.3 1.80 (1.22–2.66) 3.07 × 10−3
Sex
Man 160 65.6 130 70.7 Reference
Female 84 34.4 54 29.3 1.13 (0.59–2.13) 0.72
Ethnicity
Han 124 50.8 105 57.1 Reference
Zhuang 120 49.2 79 42.9 0.99 (0.55–1.78) 0.98
HBsAg
Negative 65 26.6 48 26.1 Reference
Positive 179 73.4 136 73.9 1.19 (0.60–2.34) 0.61
anti-HCV
Negative 217 88.9 161 87.5 Reference
Positive 27 11.1 23 12.5 1.25 (0.51–3.09) 0.62
Smoking status
No 181 74.2 134 72.8 Reference
Yes 63 25.8 50 27.2 0.48 (0.12–1.85) 0.28
Drinking status
No 174 71.3 130 70.7 Reference
Yes 70 28.7 54 29.3 2.61 (0.69–9.89) 0.27
AFP (ng/mL)
≤ 20 82 33.6 72 39.1 Reference
> 20 162 66.4 112 60.9 1.00 (0.55–1.82) 0.99
Liver cirrhosis
No 58 23.8 46 25.0 Reference
Yes 186 76.2 138 75.0 0.84 (0.42–1.69) 0.63
BCLC stage
A 113 46.3 54 29.3 Reference
B 69 28.3 52 28.3 1.27 (0.61–2.61) 0.52
C 62 25.4 78 42.4 2.09 (1.04–4.24) 0.04
Tumor size
≤ 3 cm 197 80.7 14 7.6 Reference
> 3 cm 47 19.3 170 92.4 69.06 (33.62–141.86) 9.36 × 10−31
MVD
Negative 118 48.4 74 40.2 Reference
Positive 126 51.6 110 59.8 2.56 (1.36–4.81) 3.46 × 10−3
ES grade
Low 129 52.9 97 52.7 Reference
High 115 47.1 87 47.3 1.52 (0.64–2.07) 0.64

Table 2.

The association between AFB1 exposure and clinic-pathological features of hepatocellular carcinoma cases.

Abbreviations: AFP, α-fetoprotein; BCLC, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system; ES, Edmondson and Steiner grading system; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; MVD, microvessel density.

Next, we investigated the effects of AFB1 exposure on the HCC prognosis using Kaplan–Meier survival model (Figure 1A). Results exhibited that HCC cases with negative AFB1 status (AFB1-DNA adducts: ≤ 1.00 μmol/mol DNA) featured longer median overall survival time (MST) [69.00 (55.41–82.59) months] and median tumor reoccurrence-free survival time (MRT) [70.00 (44.93–95.07) months] compared with those with positive AFB1 status [20.00 (13.04–26.96) months for MST and 13.00 (9.54–16.46) months for MRT, respectively].

Figure 1.

Both AFB1 exposure and CBX4 expression significantly correlating with hepatocellular carcinoma. AFB1 exposure levels were elucidated using the amount of AFB1-DNA adducts in the cancerous tissues. The CBX4 expression in cancerous tissues from 428 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma was tested using immunohistochemistry technique based on immunoreactive score system (IRS). To analyze, the levels of CBX4 expression were divided into two groups: Negative group (IRS ≤ 4) and positive group (IRS > 4). AFB1 exposure (A) and CBX4 expression (B) are associated with overall survival (left) and tumor recurrence-free survival (right) of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cumulative hazard function was plotted by Kaplan–Meier’s methodology, and P value was calculated with two-sided log-rank tests. Abbreviations: CBX4, chromobox 4; MST, median overall survival time; MRT, median tumor recurrence-free survival time; CI, confidence interval.

3.3. The effects of CBX4 expression on the clinicopathological features and the prognosis of HCC cases

In the present, the levels of CBX4 protein in the cancerous tissues were amounted using immunohistochemistry technique with IRS counting system and the median IRS value was 5.58 for all cases with hepatocarcinoma. According to the results from the CBX4 expression in cancerous tissues based on a large sample, IRS > 4 was regarded as positive CBX4 status. Table 3 summarized the association between CBX4 expression in the cancerous tissues and the clinicopathological features, and results from multivariable logistic regression models proved that the levels of CBX4 expression were significantly related to increasing risk of liver cirrhosis (OR = 1.75 and 95% CI = 1.07–2.88), higher tumor stage (OR = 2.02 and 95% CI = 1.23–3.33), and increasing MVD (OR = 2.66 and 95% CI = 1.74–4.07). However, CBX4 expression levels did not affect other clinicopathological features such as tumor size, grade, AFP, and so on.

CBX4 (−) CBX4 (+)
Variables n % n % OR (95% CI) Ptrend
Total 233 100.0 195 100.0
Age (years)
≤ 48 136 58.4 98 50.3 Reference
> 48 97 41.6 97 49.7 1.35 (0.89–2.05) 0.67
Sex
Man 160 68.7 130 66.7 Reference
Female 73 31.3 65 33.3 1.14 (0.73–1.78) 0.57
Ethnicity
Han 121 51.9 108 55.4 Reference
Zhuang 112 48.1 87 44.6 0.96 (0.63–1.46) 0.85
HBsAg
Negative 65 27.9 48 24.6 Reference
Positive 168 72.1 148 75.9 1.17 (0.73–1.89) 0.51
anti-HCV
Negative 209 89.7 169 86.7 Reference
Positive 24 10.3 26 13.3 1.43 (0.74–2.75) 0.29
Smoking status
No 176 75.5 139 71.3 Reference
Yes 57 24.5 56 28.7 1.04 (0.37–2.93) 0.94
Drinking status
No 172 73.8 132 67.7 Reference
Yes 61 26.2 63 32.3 1.40 (0.51–3.83) 0.51
AFP (ng/mL)
≤ 20 84 36.1 70 35.9 Reference
> 20 149 63.9 125 64.1 1.11 (0.72–1.70) 0.64
Liver cirrhosis
No 69 29.6 35 17.9 Reference
Yes 164 70.4 160 82.1 1.75 (1.07–2.88) 0.03
BCLC stage
A 112 48.1 55 28.2 Reference
B 58 24.9 63 32.3 1.94 (1.16–3.24) 0.01
C 63 27.0 77 39.5 2.02 (1.23–3.33) 5.79×10−3
Tumor size
≤ 3 cm 121 51.9 90 46.2 Reference
> 3 cm 112 48.1 105 53.8 1.24 (0.81–1.88) 0.33
MVD
Negative 131 56.2 61 31.3 Reference
Positive 102 43.8 134 68.7 2.66 (1.74–4.07) 6.65×10−6
ES grade
Low 132 56.7 94 48.2 Reference
High 101 43.3 101 51.8 1.39 (0.92–2.11) 0.12

Table 3.

The correlation between CBX4 expression and clinical pathological features of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Abbreviations: AFP, α-fetoprotein; BCLC, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system; CBX4, chromobox 4; ES, Edmondson and Steiner grading system; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; MVD, microvessel density.

Results from Kaplan–Meier survival analyses further displayed that HCC patients with positive status of CBX4 protein expression had short MST [22.00 (18.00–26.00) months] and MRT [16.00 (10.88–21.12) months] compared with those with negative-status CBX4 protein [69.00 (52.75–85.25) months for MST and 48.00 (23.69–72.31) months for MRT, respectively] (Figure 1B). Taken together, CBX4 expression in the cancerous might be an important biomarker for HCC prognosis.

3.4. The joint effects of AFB1 exposure and CBX4 expression on HCC prognosis

Given that both AFB1 exposure and CBX4 expression modified HCC outcome, we questioned whether CBX4 expression interacted with AFB1 expression, and whether this interaction affected the prognosis of hepatocarcinoma. First, we analyzed the joint effects of AFB1 exposure and CBX4 expression on the prognosis of patients with HCC using Kaplan–Meier survival model (Figure 2). In this model, the combination of AFB1 exposure and CBX4 expression was divided into four groups: cases with negative-AFB1 and negative-CBX4 status (AC-1), cases with negative-AFB1 and positive-CBX4 status (AC-2), cases with positive-AFB1 and negative-CBX4 status (AC-3), and cases with positive-AFB1 and positive-CBX4 status (AC-4). We found MST and MRT gradually decreased from AC-1 to AC-4 (89.00–11.00 months for MST and more than 125.00–7.00 months for MRT, respectively) (Figure 2A and B).

Figure 2.

Survival analysis of CBX4 expression binding AFB1 exposure levels. The combination of CBX4 expression and AFB1 exposure was divided into 4 strata: Cases with negative-AFB1 and negative-CBX4 status (AC-1), cases with negative-AFB1 and positive-CBX4 status (AC-2), cases with positive-AFB1 and negative-CBX4 status (AC-3), and cases with positive-AFB1 and positive-CBX4 status (AC-4). This kind of joint analyses showed that interactive effects on the overall survival (A) and tumor recurrence-free survival (B) of patients with hepatocarcinoma. Cumulative hazard function was plotted by Kaplan–Meier’s methodology, and P value was calculated with two-sided log-rank tests. Abbreviations: CBX4, chromobox 4; MST, median overall survival time; MRT, median tumor recurrence-free survival time; CI, confidence interval.

We next finished multivariable Cox regression analyses based on the retread method with likelihood ratio test (including significant variables and all kinds of possible interactive variables) (Table 4), and found both AFB1 exposure and CBX4 expression in the cancerous tissues were independent prognostic factors. Furthermore, we also observed that AFB1 exposure significantly and multiplicatively interacted with CBX4 protein expression (interactive values, 1.98 for overall survival and 1.94 for tumor reoccurrence-free survival, respectively).

OS RFS
Variables HR (95%CI) Ptrend HR (95%CI) Ptrend
AFB1 2.09 (1.64–2.65) 2.34 × 10−9 2.29 (1.79–2.93) 3.82 × 10−11
CBX4 1.76 (1.38–2.24) 4.66 × 10−6 1.80 (1.41–2.30) 3.12 × 10−6
AFB1 × CBX4 1.98 (1.61–2.59) 9.43 × 10−7 1.94 (1.58–2.54) 8.17 × 10−5

Table 4.

The effects of AFB1 and CBX4 expression on the prognosis of cases with hepatocellular carcinoma.

HR and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using multivariable Cox regression model (with retread method based on likelihood ratio test). Abbreviations: AFB1, aflatoxin B1; CBX4, chromobox 4; OS, overall survival; RFS, tumor reoccurrence-free survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Advertisement

4. Discussion

In Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, HCC is the most malignant disease. In the past decades, the annual incidence and death rate (AIR and ADR) of hepatocarcinoma in this area has been reported to remarkably increase (up to about 100–200 per 10,000 for AIR about 50 per 10,000 for ADR) [1]. Lots of epidemiological studies have shown that AFB1 exposure is the most important cause for this high AIR and ADR [1]. AFB1 is a known I-type chemical carcinogen produced by Aspergillus parasiticus and Aspergillus flavus, and has been proved to involve in the carcinogenesis and progression of HCC [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. This carcinogenicity of AFB1 mainly results from its metabolic product binding to DNA and inducing DNA damage. Among DNA damage types induced by AFB1, AFB1-DNA adducts are very important, because of its non-enzymatic, time-dependent, and apparent persistent characteristics in the genomic DNA strands [3, 35]. Our previous studies have exhibited that AFB1-DNA adducts, especially from liver tissues, are highly associated not only with increasing HCC risk, but with the poor prognosis of HCC [2, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39]. Here, our data displayed that increasing levels of AFB1 exposure significantly correlated with higher tumor stage, increasing tumor size, and higher MVD; furthermore, AFB1 was also poor prognostic marker for HCC. Taken together, these data suggest that AFB1 may involve in the startup and progression of HCC.

Because several previous studies have exhibited that CBX4 can progress tumorigenesis via several signal pathways, including CBX4/HIF-1α/VEGF pathway [20, 25, 26, 34], CBX4/HDAC3/Runx2 pathway [21], CBX4/P63 pathway [22], CBX4/miR-195 pathway [40], CBX4/CtIP pathway [41], and CBX4/P53 pathway [42, 43], here we investigated the effects of CXB4 expression on HCC outcome. We not only found that increasing CBX4 expression in the cancerous tissues is a poor prognostic biomarker for HCC, but this increasing expression is associated with clinicopathological features such as tumor size, tumor stage, and angiogenesis. Supporting our findings, several recent reports further prove that CBX4 can govern the several biofunctions of HCC, including proliferation, invasion and metastasis, angiogenesis, and metastasis [20, 25, 26, 34, 40, 44].

Noticeably, some evidence of the joint effects of CBX4 and AFB1 on HCC outcome was observed in the prognostic analyses based on the gene-environmental joint effects. Our results showed that CBX4 expression significantly and multiplicatively interacted with AFB1 exposure levels, and that this multiplicative interaction remarkably increased the death risk and tumor reoccurrence risk of patients with HCC. Recently, two studies from high AFB1 exposure areas have also reported that the dysregulation of CBX4 in the cancerous tissues from patients with hepatocarcinoma increases MVD, promotes angiogenesis, and increases sensitivity of HCC cells on anti-cancer drugs [33, 34]. Altogether, these results are indicative of the angiogenesis induced by CBX4 involving in the progression of AFB1-related HCC.

In summary, our present study proposes that CBX4 expression in the cancerous tissues can act as a valuable biomarker for AFB1-related HCC. However, several limitations confine the value of this study. First, because of the hospital-based retrospective design, selective bias may take place. Second, because liver damage itself affects AFB1 metabolite and may increase the amount of AFB1-DNA adducts, the prognostic and interactive values of AFB1 and CBX4 may be underestimated. Finally, we did not do functional and mechanical analyses. Therefore, detailed functional analyses deserve further evaluation on the basis of the foresighted design and the combination of AFB1 and CBX4.

Conflicts of interest and source of funding

The authors declare no competing financial interests. This study was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 81,760,502, 81,572,353, 81,372,639, 81,472,243, 81,660,495, and 81,460,423), the Innovation Program of Guangxi Municipal Education Department (Nos. 201204LX674 and 201204LX324), Innovation Program of Guangxi Health Department (No. Z2013781), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi (Nos. 2017GXNSFAA198002, 2017GXNSFGA198002, 2016GXNSFDA380003, 2015GXNSFAA139223, 2013GXNSFAA019251, 2014GXNSFDA118021, and 2014GXNSFAA118144), Research Program of Guangxi “Zhouyue Scholar” (No. 2017–2038), Research Program of Guangxi Specially invited Expert (No. 2017-6th), Research Program of Guangxi Clinic Research Center of Hepatobiliary Diseases (No.AD17129025), and Open Research Program from Molecular Immunity Study Room Involving in Acute & Severe Diseases in Guangxi Colleges and Universities (Nos. kfkt20160062 and kfkt20160063).

Abbreviations

AFB1

aflatoxin B1

AFBEX

AFB1–8,9-exo-epoxide

AFBEN

AFB1–8,9-endo-epoxide

BCLC

The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer

CBX4

chromobox 4

CI

confidence interval

CYP

cytochrome P450

ES

The Edmondson and Steiner

HBV

hepatitis B virus

HCC

hepatocellular carcinoma

HCV

hepatitis C virus

HBsAg

hepatitis B surface antigen

IRS

immunoreactive score system

MRT

median tumor reoccurrence-free survival time

MST

median overall survival time

MVD

microvessel density

OD

odd ratio.

References

  1. 1. Wu XM, Xi ZF, Lu J, Wang XZ, Zhang TQ, Huang XY, Yao JG, Wang C, Wei ZH, Luo CY, Huang BC, Xu QQ, Yang WP, Xia Q, Long XD. Genetic single nucleotide polymorphisms (GSNPs) in the DNA repair genes and hepatocellular carcinoma related to aflatoxin B1 among Guangxiese population. In: Parine NR, editor. Genetic Polymorphisms. Vol. 1. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2017. pp. 97-119. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.69530
  2. 2. Long XD, Yao JD, Yang Q, Huang CH, Liao P, Nong LG, Tang YJ, Huang XY, Wang C, Wu XM, Huang BC, Ban FZ, Zeng LX, Ma Y, Zhai B, Zhang JQ, Xue F, Lu CX, Xia Q. Polymorphisms of DNA repair genes and toxicological effects of aflatoxin B1 exposure. In: Faulkner AG, editor. Aflatoxins: Food Sources, Occurrence and Toxicological Effects. 1st ed. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2014. pp. 125-156. DOI: 978-1-63117-298-4
  3. 3. Kew MC. Aflatoxins as a cause of hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases. 2013;22:305-310
  4. 4. Rushing BR, Selim MI. Adduction to arginine detoxifies aflatoxin B1 by eliminating genotoxicity and altering in vitro toxicokinetic profiles. Oncotarget. 2018;9:4559-4570. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.23382
  5. 5. Xiang X, Qin HG, You XM, Wang YY, Qi LN, Ma L, Xiang BD, Zhong JH, Li LQ. Expression of P62 in hepatocellular carcinoma involving hepatitis B virus infection and aflatoxin B1 exposure. Cancer Medicine. 2017;6:2357-2369. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1176
  6. 6. Weng MW, Lee HW, Choi B, Wang HT, Hu Y, Mehta M, Desai D, Amin S, Zheng Y, Tang MS. AFB1 hepatocarcinogenesis is via lipid peroxidation that inhibits DNA repair, sensitizes mutation susceptibility and induces aldehyde-DNA adducts at p53 mutational hotspot codon 249. Oncotarget. 2017;8:18213-18226. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15313
  7. 7. Narkwa PW, Blackbourn DJ, Mutocheluh M. Aflatoxin B1 inhibits the type 1 interferon response pathway via STAT1 suggesting another mechanism of hepatocellular carcinoma. Infectious Agents and Cancer. 2017;12:17. DOI: 10.1186/s13027-017-0127-8
  8. 8. Maurya BK, Trigun SK. Fisetin attenuates AKT associated growth promoting events in AflatoxinB1 induced hepatocellular carcinoma. Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry. 2017. DOI: 10.2174/1871520618666171229223335. E-pub Ahead of Print
  9. 9. Huang MN, Yu W, Teoh WW, Ardin M, Jusakul A, Ng AWT, Boot A, Abedi-Ardekani B, Villar S, Myint SS, Othman R, Poon SL, Heguy A, Olivier M, Hollstein M, Tan P, Teh BT, Sabapathy K, Zavadil J, Rozen SG. Genome-scale mutational signatures of aflatoxin in cells, mice, and human tumors. Genome Research. 2017;27:1475-1486. DOI: 10.1101/gr.220038.116
  10. 10. Chu YJ, Yang HI, Wu HC, Liu J, Wang LY, Lu SN, Lee MH, Jen CL, You SL, Santella RM, Chen CJ. Aflatoxin B1 exposure increases the risk of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B virus carriers. International Journal of Cancer. 2017;141:711-720. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30782
  11. 11. Chawanthayatham S, Valentine CC, 3rd, Fedeles BI, Fox EJ, Loeb LA, Levine SS, Slocum SL, Wogan GN, Croy RG, Essigmann JM. Mutational spectra of aflatoxin B1 in vivo establish biomarkers of exposure for human hepatocellular carcinoma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2017;114:E3101-E3109. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1700759114
  12. 12. Umesha S, Manukumar HM, Chandrasekhar B, Shivakumara P, Shiva Kumar J, Raghava S, Avinash P, Shirin M, Bharathi TR, Rajini SB, Nandhini M, Vinaya Rani GG, Shobha M, Prakash HS. Aflatoxins and food pathogens: Impact of biologically active aflatoxins and their control strategies. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2017;97:1698-1707. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.8144
  13. 13. Sarma UP, Bhetaria PJ, Devi P, Varma A. Aflatoxins: Implications on health. Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry. 2017;32:124-133. DOI: 10.1007/s12291-017-0649-2
  14. 14. Kowalska A, Walkiewicz K, Koziel P, Muc-Wierzgon M. Aflatoxins: Characteristics and impact on human health. Postȩpy Higieny i Medycyny Doświadczalnej (Online). 2017;71:315-327. DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0010.3816
  15. 15. Woloshuk CP, Shim WB. Aflatoxins, fumonisins, and trichothecenes: A convergence of knowledge. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2013;37:94-109. DOI: 10.1111/1574-6976.12009
  16. 16. Khlangwiset P, Shephard GS, Wu F. Aflatoxins and growth impairment: A review. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 2011;41:740-755. DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2011.575766
  17. 17. Wu Q, Jezkova A, Yuan Z, Pavlikova L, Dohnal V, Kuca K. Biological degradation of aflatoxins. Drug Metabolism Reviews. 2009;41:1-7. DOI: 10.1080/03602530802563850
  18. 18. Villar S, Ortiz-Cuaran S, Abedi-Ardekani B, Gouas D, Nogueira da Costa A, Plymoth A, Khuhaprema T, Kalalak A, Sangrajrang S, Friesen MD, Groopman JD, Hainaut P. Aflatoxin-induced TP53 R249S mutation in hepatocellular carcinoma in Thailand: Association with tumors developing in the absence of liver cirrhosis. PLoS One. 2012;7:e37707. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037707
  19. 19. Zeng JS, Zhang ZD, Pei L, Bai ZZ, Yang Y, Yang H, Tian QH. CBX4 exhibits oncogenic activities in breast cancer via Notch1 signaling. The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology. 2018;95:1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocel.2017.12.006
  20. 20. Yang J, Cheng D, Zhu B, Zhou S, Ying T, Yang Q. Chromobox homolog 4 is positively correlated to tumor growth, survival and activation of HIF-1alpha signaling in human osteosarcoma under normoxic condition. Journal of Cancer. 2016;7:427-435. DOI: 10.7150/jca.13749
  21. 21. Wang X, Li L, Wu Y, Zhang R, Zhang M, Liao D, Wang G, Qin G, Xu RH, Kang T. CBX4 suppresses metastasis via recruitment of HDAC3 to the Runx2 promoter in colorectal carcinoma. Cancer Research. 2016;76:7277-7289. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-2100
  22. 22. Cohen I, Ezhkova E. Cbx4: A new guardian of p63's domain of epidermal control. The Journal of Cell Biology. 2016;212:9-11. DOI: 10.1083/jcb.201512032
  23. 23. Liang YK, Lin HY, Chen CF, Zeng. Prognostic values of distinct CBX family members in breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8:92375-92387. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.21325
  24. 24. Lin FM, Kumar S, Ren J, Karami S, Bahnassy S, Li Y, Zheng X, Wang J, Bawa-Khalfe T. SUMOylation of HP1alpha supports association with ncRNA to define responsiveness of breast cancer cells to chemotherapy. Oncotarget. 2016;7:30336-30349. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.8733
  25. 25. Mei Z, Jiao H, Wang W, Li J, Chen G, Xu Y. Polycomb chromobox 4 enhances migration and pulmonary metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma cell line MHCC97L. Science China. Life Sciences. 2014;57:610-617. DOI: 10.1007/s11427-014-4663-9
  26. 26. Li J, Xu Y, Jiao H, Wang W, Mei Z, Chen G. Sumoylation of hypoxia inducible factor-1alpha and its significance in cancer. Science China. Life Sciences. 2014;57:657-664. DOI: 10.1007/s11427-014-4685-3
  27. 27. Oh Y, Chung KC. Small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) modification of zinc finger protein 131 potentiates its negative effect on estrogen signaling. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2012;287:17517-17529. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M111.336354
  28. 28. Ismail IH, Gagne JP, Caron MC, McDonald D, Xu Z, Masson JY, Poirier GG, Hendzel MJ. CBX4-mediated SUMO modification regulates BMI1 recruitment at sites of DNA damage. Nucleic Acids Research. 2012;40:5497-5510. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks222
  29. 29. Vandamme J, Volkel P, Rosnoblet C, Le Faou P, Angrand PO. Interaction proteomics analysis of polycomb proteins defines distinct PRC1 complexes in mammalian cells. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics. 2011;10:M110-M002642. DOI: 10.1074/mcp.M110.002642
  30. 30. Liu YX, Long XD, Xi ZF, Ma Y, Huang XY, Yao JG, Wang C, Xing TY, Xia Q. MicroRNA-24 modulates aflatoxin B1-related hepatocellular carcinoma prognosis and tumorigenesis. BioMed Research International. 2014;2014:482926. DOI: 10.1155/2014/482926
  31. 31. Long XD, Yao JG, Zeng Z, Ma Y, Huang XY, Wei ZH, Liu M, Zhang JJ, Xue F, Zhai B, Xia Q. Polymorphisms in the coding region of X-ray repair complementing group 4 and aflatoxin B1-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2013;58:171-181. DOI: 10.1002/hep.26311
  32. 32. Long XD, Ma Y, Huang HD, Yao JG, Qu de Y, Lu YL. Polymorphism of XRCC1 and the frequency of mutation in codon 249 of the p53 gene in hepatocellular carcinoma among Guangxi population, china. Molecular Carcinogenesis. 2008;47:295-300. DOI: 10.1002/mc.20384
  33. 33. Jiao HK, Xu Y, Li J, Wang W, Mei Z, Long XD, Chen GQ. Prognostic significance of Cbx4 expression and its beneficial effect for transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cell Death & Disease. 2015;6:e1689. DOI: 10.1038/cddis.2015.57
  34. 34. Li J, Xu Y, Long XD, Wang W, Jiao HK, Mei Z, Yin QQ, Ma LN, Zhou AW, Wang LS, Yao M, Xia Q, Chen GQ. Cbx4 governs HIF-1alpha to potentiate angiogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma by its SUMO E3 ligase activity. Cancer Cell. 2014;25:118-131. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.12.008
  35. 35. Kensler TW, Roebuck BD, Wogan GN, Groopman JD. Aflatoxin: A 50-year odyssey of mechanistic and translational toxicology. Toxicological Sciences. 2011;120(Suppl 1):S28-S48. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq283
  36. 36. Yao JG, Huang XY, Long XD. Interaction of DNA repair gene polymorphisms and aflatoxin B1 in the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology. 2014;7:6231-6244. DOI: 10.2016/1936-2625.25337275
  37. 37. Long XD, Zhao D, Wang C, Huang XY, Yao JG, Ma Y, Wei ZH, Liu M, Zeng LX, Mo XQ, Zhang JJ, Xue F, Zhai B, Xia Q. Genetic polymorphisms in DNA repair genes XRCC4 and XRCC5 and aflatoxin B1-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Epidemiology. 2013;24:671-681. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31829d2744
  38. 38. Long XD, Yao JG, Zeng Z, Huang CH, Huang ZS, Huang YZ, Ban FZ, Huang XY, Yao LM, Fan LD, Fu GH. DNA repair capacity-related to genetic polymorphisms of DNA repair genes and aflatoxin B1-related hepatocellular carcinoma among Chinese population. In: Kruman I, editor. DNA Repair. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2011. pp. 505-524. DOI: 10.5772/20792
  39. 39. Long XD, Ma Y, Zhou YF, Ma AM, Fu GH. Polymorphism in xeroderma pigmentosum complementation group C codon 939 and aflatoxin B1-related hepatocellular carcinoma in the Guangxi population. Hepatology. 2010;52:1301-1309. DOI: 10.1002/hep.23807
  40. 40. Zheng C, Li J, Wang Q, Liu W, Zhou J, Liu R, Zeng Q, Peng X, Huang C, Cao P, Cao K. microRNA-195 functions as a tumor suppressor by inhibiting CBX4 in hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncology Reports. 2015;33:1115-1122. DOI: 10.3892/or.2015.3734
  41. 41. Soria-Bretones I, Cepeda-Garcia C, Checa-Rodriguez C, Heyer V, Reina-San-Martin B, Soutoglou E, Huertas P. DNA end resection requires constitutive sumoylation of CtIP by CBX4. Nature Communications. 2017;8:113. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-00183-6
  42. 42. Peuget S, Bonacci T, Soubeyran P, Iovanna J, Dusetti NJ. Oxidative stress-induced p53 activity is enhanced by a redox-sensitive TP53INP1 SUMOylation. Cell Death and Differentiation. 2014;21:1107-1118. DOI: 10.1038/cdd.2014.28
  43. 43. Pelisch F, Pozzi B, Risso G, Munoz MJ, Srebrow A. DNA damage-induced heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein K sumoylation regulates p53 transcriptional activation. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2012;287:30789-30799. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M112.390120
  44. 44. Wang B, Tang J, Liao D, Wang G, Zhang M, Sang Y, Cao J, Wu Y, Zhang R, Li S, Ding W, Zhang G, Kang T. Chromobox homolog 4 is correlated with prognosis and tumor cell growth in hepatocellular carcinoma. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2013;20(Suppl 3):S684-S692. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-013-3171-7

Written By

Qun-Ying Su, Jun Lu, Xiao-Ying Huang, Jin-Guang Yao, Xue-Min Wu, Bing-Chen Huang, Chao Wang, Qiang Xia and Xi-Dai Long

Reviewed: 10 May 2018 Published: 05 November 2018