Fathy, R., Muawia, S., Sakr, M., Elshal, M. (2019). Epidermal growth factor polymorphism (rs4444903) predicts hepatocellular carcinoma in Egyptian population. Research Journal of Applied Biotechnology, 5(2), 32-40. doi: 10.21608/rjab.2019.273778
Rasha Fathy; Shaden Muawia; Moustafa Sakr; Mohamed Elshal. "Epidermal growth factor polymorphism (rs4444903) predicts hepatocellular carcinoma in Egyptian population". Research Journal of Applied Biotechnology, 5, 2, 2019, 32-40. doi: 10.21608/rjab.2019.273778
Fathy, R., Muawia, S., Sakr, M., Elshal, M. (2019). 'Epidermal growth factor polymorphism (rs4444903) predicts hepatocellular carcinoma in Egyptian population', Research Journal of Applied Biotechnology, 5(2), pp. 32-40. doi: 10.21608/rjab.2019.273778
Fathy, R., Muawia, S., Sakr, M., Elshal, M. Epidermal growth factor polymorphism (rs4444903) predicts hepatocellular carcinoma in Egyptian population. Research Journal of Applied Biotechnology, 2019; 5(2): 32-40. doi: 10.21608/rjab.2019.273778
Epidermal growth factor polymorphism (rs4444903) predicts hepatocellular carcinoma in Egyptian population
1Molecular Biology Dept., Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology Research Institute (GEBRI), University of Sadat City (USC), Egypt
2Molecular Biology Department, Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Research Institute (GEBRI), University of Sadat City, Egypt
3professor of molecular genetics and molecular diagnosis, Molecular Diagnostics and Therapeutics Department, Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Research Institute (GEBRI), University of Sadat City, Egypt
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary hepatic malignancy in the world, with an increasing worldwide prevalence. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer and thethird leading cause of cancer related mortality worldwide. Epidermal growth factor (EGF) and its receptor play critical roles in carcinogenesis. A functional polymorphism in the EGF gene has been linked to increased cancer susceptibility. This study was aimed to investigate the association between both the EGF +61A/G polymorphism & its serum level and the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Egyptian patients. Methods: We analyzed 140 (HCC) & 100 chronic hepatitis patients without any focal lesion. In addition to 110 subjects as a control group. All were subjected to PCR and genotyping of EGF +61A/G polymorphism was assessed by PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism. Results: We found a significant difference between patients with HCC and those with chronic hepatitis versus controls in terms of the G allele. Conclusion: EGF +61GG genotype might be correlated with development of HCC as a risk factor in Egyptian patients with chronic liver disease.
Hepatocellular carcinoma is one of the five most common cancers worldwide, with a particularly high prevalence in Asian countries due to endemic hepatitis B virus infection (Parkin et al., 2001). The incidence of HCC is also rising in Western countries as a result of increasing hepatitis C virus infection (El-Serag et al., 2003). More than 80% of patients with HCC have associated cirrhosis and impaired liver function, making treatment of HCC more difficult than many other cancers.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is highly endemic in Africa (Patel et la., 2015). There is a general anecdotal consensus that persons with HCC induced by viral hepatitis or other causes in Africa present at younger ages than in other regions of the World. This has resulted in recommended guidelines that surveillance of African born persons at risk for HCC should begin at the age of 20 years (Boespflug et al., 2015)
EGF was discovered by Dr. Stanley Cohen more than half a century ago (Cohen 1962). EGF was isolated, purified, and characterized. It is a single-chain polypeptide consisting of 53 amino acids that is derived from the cleavage of a large precursor, prepro-EGF. Urogastrone, an inhibitor of gastric acid secretion, was independently isolated from human urine and was subsequently found to be structurally and functionally identical to mouse EGF and was proven to be human EGF (Gregory1975). EGF is now known as the prototype of the group I EGF family that also includes transforming growth factor- α (TGF- α), heparin-binding EGF (HB-EGF), amphiregulin, betacellulin, epiregulin and epigen (Schneider & Wolf 2009).
EGF expression EGF has been detected in a variety of body fluids, such as milk (Nojiri et al., 2012), saliva (Carpenter & Cohen 1979), urine (Fisher et al., 1989), plasma (Carpenter & Cohen 1979), intestinal fluid (Nair et al., 2008) , amniotic fluid (Hofmann et al., 1990), and others (Fisher et al., 1990), which is locally produced and secreted by the lactating breast, sub maxillary gland, kidney, Brunner’s glands of the duodenum, and placenta, respectively. Sub-maxillary gland is the major EGF producing site in mice, where it is synthesized, processed and stored in granules of the tubular duct cells. Consequently, EGF concentrations are high in mouse saliva (Carpenter & Cohen 1979).
The epidermal growth factor (EGF) rs4444903 A > G polymorphism, involving an A > G transition at position 61 of the 50 untranslated region of the EGF gene, is associated with several types of cancer (Zhang et al., 2010), including malignant melanoma (Randerson-Moor et al., 2004), esophageal cancer (Lanuti et al., 2008), gastric cancer (Hamai et al., 2005), breast cancer (Araujo et al ., 2009) and colorectal cancer (Wu et al., 2009). Carriers of the G allele, especially those with the G/G genotype, may have an increased risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as shown in a series of European (Tanabe et al., 2008), American (Abu Dayyeh et al., 2011) and Asian studies (Chen etal., 2011). The association with HCC, however, was not confirmed by all studies (Qi et al., 2009). So. The aim of this study is to investigate the association of the EGF +61A/G polymorphism & its risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Egyptian patients.
Materials and methods
2.1 Patients
The study included 140 consecutive Egyptian patients with HCC. The majority of the patients had been referred to National Liver Institute Hospital, Menoufia University, Egypt for the diagnosis and treatment of HCC. Approximately two thirds of patients had chronic hepatitis. The diagnosis was confirmed in all cases by the histological evaluation of a liver biopsy specimen and laboratory findings such as hypo-albuminemia, INR increase and low platelets count. The control group consisted of 110 healthy Egyptians, Control subjects did not have any clinical and/or laboratory evidence of liver disease or of any other major pathological condition. The median age was 56 years for HCC group, 57 for Chronic Hepatitis group and 55 for healthy group.
2.2 Biochemical parameters
Liver function tests were done for all patients including ALT, AST, Albumin, Bilirubin Total and Direct. Creatinine, AFP, Prothrombin time with INR. In addition to hematological parameters including Hb%, platelets and total leucocytes count.
2.3 Molecular biology
Genotyping of the EGF rs4444903 A > G polymorphism was performed using a polymerase chain reaction-based restriction fragment length polymorphism assay. Genomic DNA was extracted from whole blood samples using ABIOpure TM Total DNA (Version 2.0) Blood / Cell / Tissue Extraction Alliance Bio. According to the manufacturer’s instructions. And with elution in 200 µl with elution buffer DNA abtained then was ready to use. A 242 base pair (bp) product was obtained by polymerase chain reaction technique by using specific primer as follow: 5´- TGT CAC TAA AGG AAA GGA GGT-3, (forward) 5´-TTCACAGAGTTTAACAGCCC-3 (reverse), which were designed using NCBI Primer-Blast Tool (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/tools/primer-blast/).
PCR amplification was carried out in a total volume of 25 µL. Samples containing 10 ng of genomic DNA were subjected to pre denaturation at 95ºC for 10 min followed by 35 cycles of denaturation (at 95 ºC for 30 s), annealing (at 58 ºC for 45 s) and elongation (at 72 ºC for 60 s). In a total volume of 30 µL, 10 µL of the amplicons were digested with 1 unit of the Alu-I fast digest restriction enzyme (#FD0014-Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.) at 37 ◦C for one hour. The digested fragments were 102, 94, 34 and 15 bp for the A allele and 193, 34 and 15 bp for the G allele variant. The fragments were resolved by electrophoresis on 2.5% agarose gels after staining with ethidium bromide dye.
2.4 Statistical analysis of the data
Data were fed to the computer and analyzed using IBM SPSS software package version 20.0. (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp) Qualitative data were described using number and percent. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to verify the normality of distribution Quantitative data were described using range (minimum and maximum), mean, standard deviation and median. Significance of the obtained results was judged at the 5% level.
2.5 The used tests were
1 - Chi-square test
For categorical variables, to compare between different groups
2 - F-test (ANOVA)
For normally distributed quantitative variables, to compare between more than two groups, and Post Hoc test (Tukey) for pairwise comparisons.
3 – Kruskal Wallis test
For abnormally distributed quantitative variables, to compare between more than two studied groups, and Post Hoc (Dunn's multiple comparisons test) for pairwise comparisons.
4– Hardy-Weinberg
The population of the studied sample was explored to find its equilibrium with Hardy-Weinberg equation.
Results
There were no statistically significant differences (P>0.05) between all groups in terms of age and sex distributions (table1).
3.1 Biochemical parameters results
The serum levels of AFP, albumin, Prothrombin, INR, platelets, bilirubin total &direct, alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase were significantly higher in HCC and CH compared to control groups (P < 0.001) (Table). Whereas Serum creatinine levels were significantly higher in HCC compared to the controls (P < 0.001) than CH patients compared to the controls (P < 0.006) (table2).
3.2 EGF genotyping of patients
RFLP was used to determine the EGF SNP genotype in 140 patients with HCC and 100 patients with either hepatitis or liver cirrhosis. The ratios of A/A, A/G, and G/G genotypes were 12.1%, 35.7%, and 52.1%, respectively, in the 140 patients with HCC, whereas in the 100 patients with either hepatitis or liver cirrhosis were 17.0 % , 38.0% , 45.0% respectively. The frequencies of the EGF polymorphism in this study population were consistent with Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (P=0.077)(table4).
Discussion
Hepatocarcinogenesis is thought to be deeply associated with chronic HBV or HCV infection, and in fact, a certain proportion of chronically infected HBV and HCV individuals will develop HCC. Thus, multiple genetic and epigenetic factors may affect HCC development in this background (Liovet et al., 2008). Among the genetic alteration, the dysregulation of EGF/EGFR signaling pathway is thought to be one of the most important factors in early Hepatocarcinogenesis(Komuves et al., 2000).
More over some patients without known risk factors eventually develop HCC (El-Serag & Mason 2000). Therefore genetic predisposition may contribute to the process ofhepatocarcinogenesis. Some studies have reported an association between EGF 61*A/g and HCC risk (Abu Dayyeh et al ., 2011). The EFGR signaling pathway is thought to be an important mediator of hepatocyte proliferative capacity and liver regeneration as a result of chronic liver injury (Natarajan et al., 2007). Dysregulation of the EGF receptor signaling pathway plays an important role in early hepatocarcinogenesis and another tumorigenesis (Ettinger 2006). Modulating EGF levels by which the EGF gene polymorphism may lead to increased risk of HCC. Other studies of the EGF 61*A/G polymorphism and HCC risk failed to find an association (Table 3).
The most likely reason for the inconsistencies among these studies is that most are single case control studies with small sample sizes. To help resolve these conflicting results using a larger sample size. Our results for the total population suggest an increased HCC risk for subjects carrying the EGF 61*G/G genotype, and a protective effect for the A/A genotype. The 61*G allele was highly associated with increased risk of HCC based on allelic contrast, homozygote comparison and the recessive genetic model.
Our findings are in line with those of a recently published meta-analysis showing that the EGF 61*G/G genotype in Caucasians is associated with increased risk of glioma (Tan et al., 2010), and recurrence of liver metastases (Kovar et al., 2009).
EGF up regulations are a characteristic of cirrhotic liver disease (Feren et al., 2000). EGF is a mitogen for adult and fetal hepatocytes grown in culture and its expression is up regulated during liver regeneration (Mullhaupt et al., 1994). Mounting evidence supports a role for EGF in malignant transformation and tumor progression (Stoscheck & King 1986).
The mechanism by which increased EGF expression is associated with the polymorphism of the 5-untranslated region of the EGF gene is currently unknown. One plausible explanation is the proximity of the – 61G locus to a region involved in EGF gene regulation (Bhowmick et al., 2004). To date, the role of EGF genetic variants in HCC susceptibility of Egyptian patients with chronic liver diseases has not been reported. Therefore, the association between the functional EGF 61A/G polymorphism in the promoter region and the risk of HCC in patients with chronic liver diseases was investigated in this study.
Table (1): Comparison between the three studied groups according to demographic data
Group I (n = 140)
Group II (n = 100)
Group III (n = 110)
Test of Sig.
p
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Sex
Male
Female
78
62
55.7
44.3
57
43
57.0
43.0
53
57
48.2
51.8
χ2= 2.014
0.365
Age (years)
Mean ± SD.
55.62 ± 6.78
56.69 ± 8.78
54.85 ± 6.04
F= 1.727
0.179
c2: Chi square test F: F for ANOVA test
p: p value for comparison between the three group
Group I: HCC patients Group II: Chronic Hepatitis Group III: Control
Table (2) Biochemical data of all studied group (mean ±SD)
parameters
Group I
Control
(n=110)
Group II
Chronic hepatitis
(n=100)
Group III
HCC
(n=140)
P
Mean ±SD
Mean ±SD
Mean ±SD
TLC
5.82±0.55
5.97±1.66
5.82±2.13
0.162
Hemoglobin
12.81±0.89
12.44±1.53
12.67±1.64
0.168
Platelets
193.5±49.53
140.0±58.66
131.8±57.81
<0.001*
Alpha-fetoprotein
1.19±1.57
5.48±5.25
690.33±125.30
<0.001*
Total bilirubin
0.82±0.19
1.16±0.55
1.26±0.63
<0.001*
Direct bilirubin
0.17±0.03
0.58±0.94
0.55±0.63
<0.001*
Albumin
4.57±0.49
3.56±0.74
3.40±0.63
<0.001*
Prothrombin (%)
98.29±2.29
67.64±12.91
75.36±15.47
<0.001*
ALT
24.06±6.29
49.78±37.78
44.4±32.47
<0.001*
AST
28.45±5.24
57.74±35.88
58.77±46.8
<0.001*
Creatinine
0.891±0.19
0.89±0.23
0.92±0.23
<0.001*
P:P value for comparison between the three groups
*: statistically significant at p≤0.05
Table (3):Comparison between the three studied groups according to RFLP
Group I (n = 140)
Group II (n = 100)
Group III (n = 110)
c2
p
Post hoc test
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
I vs. II
I vs. III
II vs. III
RFLP
AA
17
12.1
17
17.0
39
35.5
31.285*
<0.001*
0.436
<0.001*
0.001*
AG
50
35.7
38
38.0
46
41.8
GG
73
52.1
45
45.0
25
22.7
Allele
A
84
30.0
72
36.0
124
56.4
37.545*
<0.001*
0.166
<0.001*
<0.001*
G
196
70.0
128
64.0
96
43.6
c2: Chi square test p: p value for comparison between the three group
Group I: HCC patients Group II: Chronic Hepatitis Group III: Control
Table (4): A simple calculator to determine whether observed genotype frequencies are consistent with Hardy-Weinberg
RFLP
Observed
Expected
ᵪ2
P
HCC patients (n=140)
AA
AG
GG
17
50
73
12.6
58.8
68.6
3.136
0.077
Chronic Hepatitis (n=100)
AA
AG
GG
17
38
45
13.0
46.1
41.0
3.075
0.079
Control (n=110)
AA
AG
GG
39
46
25
34.9
54.1
20.9
2.471
0.116
If P < 0.05 - not consistent with HWE.
Not accurate if
Fig 1: Electrophoresis on 2 % agarose Gel for EGF gene showing band in 242bp.
Fig 2: 242 pb PCR /RFLP product electrophoresis on 2.5% agarose gel For HCC patients show that bands for G allele were 193.34and 15 and for A allele were 102 ,91,34 and 15.
Fig 3: 242 pb PCR /RFLP product electrophoresis on 2.5% agarose gel For Chronic Hepatitis patients show that bands for G allele were 193.34and 15 and for A allele were 102 ,91,34 and 15.
Fig 4: 242 pb PCR /RFLP product electrophoresis on 2.5% agarose gel For healthy control show that bands for G allele were 193.34and 15 and for A allele were 102 ,91,34 and 15..
References
Abu Dayyeh BK, Yang M, Fuchs BC, Karl DL, Yamada S, et al. (2011). A functional polymorphism in the epidermal growth factor gene is associated with risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 141: 141–149.
Araujo AP, Ribeiro R, Pinto D, Pereira D, Sousa B, Mauricio J, et al. (2009). Epidermal growth factor genetic variation, breast cancer risk, and waiting time to onset of disease. DNA Cell Biol. 28:265–9.
Bhowmick DA, Zhuang Z, Wait SD. (2004). A functional polymorphism in the EGF gene is found with increased frequency in glioblastoma multiforme patients and is associated with more aggressive disease. Cancer Res. 64:1220 –1223.
Boespflug A, G Uerra J, D alle S, et al. (2015). Enhancement of customary dermoscopy education with spaced education e-learning: A prospective controlled trial. J AMA Dermatol. 1 51: 847 – 53.
Carpenter G and Cohen S. (1979). Epidermal growth factor. Annu Rev Biochem. 48:193–216.
Chen K, Wei Y, Yang H, Li B. (2011). Epidermal growth factor +61 G/A polymorphism and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in a Chinese population. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 15:251–5.
Cohen S. (1962). Isolation of a mouse submaxillary gland protein acceleratingincisor eruption and eyelid opening in the new-born animal. J Biol Chem. 237:1555–62.
El-Serag HB, Mason AC. (2000). Risk factors for the rising rates of primary liver cancer in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 160: 3227–3230.
El-Serag HB, J.A. Davila, N.J. Petersen, K.A. McGlynn. (2003). The continuing increase in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States: an update, Ann. Intern. Med. 139 (2003) 817–823.
Ettinger DS. (2006). Clinical implications of EGFR expression in the development and progression of solid tumors: focus on non-small cell lung cancer. Oncologist. 11: 358–373.
Feren A, Jones AL, Fodor E, Komuves LG. (2000). Expression of Epidermal growth factor and its receptor in cirrhotic liver disease. J Histochem Cytochem. 48:821–830.
Fisher DA, Salido EC, Barajas L. (1989). Epidermal growth factor and the kidney. AnnuRev Physiol. 51:67–80.
Fisher DA, Lakshmanan J. Metabolism. (1990). Effects of epidermal growth factorand related growth factors in mammals. Endocr Rev. 11:418–42.
Gregory H. (1975). Isolation and structure of urogastrone and its relationship to epi-dermal growth factor. Nature. 257:325–7.
Hamai Y, Matsumura S, Matsusaki K, Kitadai Y, Yoshida K, Yamaguchi Y, et al. (2005). A single nucleotide polymorphism in the 50 untranslated region of the EGF gene is associated with occurrence and malignant progression of gastric cancer. Pathobiology. 72:133–8.
Hofmann GE and Abramowicz JS. (1990). Epidermal growth factor (EGF) concentrationsin amniotic fluid and maternal urine during pregnancy. Acta Obstet GynecolScand. 69:217–21.
Komuves LG, FarenA, Jones AL, Fodor E. (2000). Expression of epidermal growth factor and its receptor in cirrhotic liver disease. J Histochem Cytochem. 48(6):821-830.
Kovar FM, Thallinger C, Marsik CL, Perkmann T, Puhalla H, et al. (2009). The EGF 61A/G polymorphism - a predictive marker for recurrence of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 121: 638–643.
Lanuti M, Liu G, Goodwin JM, Zhai R, Fuchs BC, Asomaning K, et al. (2008). A functional epidermal growth factor (EGF) polymorphism, EGF serum levels, and esophageal adenocarcinoma risk and outcome. Clin Cancer Res. 14:3216–22.
Mullhaupt B, Feren A, Fodor E, Jones A. (1994). Liver expression of epidermal growth factor RNA: rapid increases in immediate-early phase of liver regeneration. J Biol Chem. 269:19667–19670.
Nair RR, Warner BB, Warner BW. (2008). Role of epidermal growth factor and othergrowth factors in the prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis. Semin Perinatol. 32:107–13.
Natarajan A, Wagner B, Sibilia M. (2007). The EGF receptor is required for efficient liver regeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 104: 17081–17086.
Nojiri T, Yoshizato T, Fukami T, Obama H, Yagi H, Yotsumoto F, et al. (2012). Clinicalsignificance of amphiregulin and epidermal growth factor in colostrum. ArchGynecol Obstet. 286:643–7.
Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, et al. (2001). Estimating the world cancer burden: Globocan 2000. Int J Cancer. 94:153-6.
Patel SG , Keswani R , Elta G, et al. (2015). Status of competency-based medical education in endoscopy training: A Nationwide Survey of US ACGME-Accredited Gastroenterology Training Programs. Am J Gastroenterol. 110: 956 – 62.
Qi P, Wang H, Chen YM, Sun XJ, Liu Y, Gao CF. (2009). No association of EGF 5’UTRvariant A61G and hepatocellular carcinoma in Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection. Pathology. 41:555–60.
Randerson-Moor JA, Gaut R, Turner F, Whitaker L, Barrett JH, Silva Idos S, et al. (2004). The relationship between the epidermal growth factor (EGF) 5’UTR variant A61G and melanoma/nevus susceptibility. J Invest Dermatol. 123:755–9.
Schneider MR, Wolf E. (2009). The epidermal growth factor receptor ligands at aglance. J Cell Physiol. 218:460–6.
Stoscheck CM, King LE. (1986). Role of epidermal growth factor in carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 46:1030–1037.
Tanabe KK, Lemoine A, Finkelstein DM, Kawasaki H, Fujii T, Chung RT, et al. (2008). Epidermal growth factor gene functional polymorphism and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Jama. 299:53–60.
Tan D, Xu J, Li Y, Lai R. (2010). Association between +61G polymorphism of the EGF gene and glioma risk in different ethnicities: a meta-analysis. Tohoku J Exp Med. 222: 229–235.
Wu GY, Hasenberg T, Magdeburg R, Bonninghoff R, Sturm JW, Keese M. (2009). Association between EGF, TGF-beta1, VEGF gene polymorphism and colorectal cancer. World J Surg. 33:124–9.
Zhang YM, Cao C, Liang K. (2010). Genetic polymorphism of epidermal growth factor 61A>G and cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol. 34:150–6.