Prognostic significance of Fas (CD95/APO-1) positivity in patients with primary nodal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

FAS gene expression, prognostic significance and molecular interactions in lung cancer

Introduction

FAS has been implicated in the development of various cancers, but its involvement in lung cancer has not been systematically characterized. In this study, we performed data mining in online tumor databases to investigate the expression, methylation, alterations, protein interactions, co-expression and prognostic significance of FAS in lung cancer.

Method

The expression, prognostic significance and molecular interactions of FAS in lung cancer was mined and analyzed using GENT2, GEPIA2, UALCAN, cBioPortal, STRING, GeneMANIA, UCSC Xena, Enrichr, and OSluca databases. FAS expression was subsequently investigated at the protein level in samples from 578 lung cancer patients to understand its protein-level expression. In vitro validation of FAS gene expression was performed on H1299, H1993, A549 and HBE cell lines.

Result

We found that the expression of FAS was significantly downregulated in both lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) and lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC) compared to normal lung tissue. In addition, we observed a higher level of FAS promoter methylation in LUSC tissue than in normal tissue. FAS alterations were rare (1.9%) in lung cancer samples, with deep deletions being more common than missense mutations, which occurred mainly in the TNFR-like cysteine-rich domain and the death domain. We also identified a list of proteins interacting with FAS and genes co-expressed with FAS, with LUAD having 11 co-expressed genes and LUSC having 90 co-expressed genes. Our results also showed that FAS expression has limited prognostic significance (HR=1.302, 95% CI=0.935-1.139, P=0.530). Protein level investigation revealed that FAS expression varied among individuals, with nTPM values ranging from 5.2 to 67.2.

Conclusion

This study provides valuable insights into the involvements and characteristics of FAS in lung cancer. Further studies are needed to investigate the clinical significance of FAS alterations in lung cancer and to explore the potential of targeting FAS for therapeutic intervention.

Hide or defend, the two strategies of lymphoma immune evasion: potential implications for immunotherapy

Evading immune eradication is a prerequisite for neoplastic progression and one of the hallmarks of cancer. Here, we review the different immune escape strategies of lymphoma and classify them into two main mechanisms. First, lymphoma cells may “hide” to become invisible to the immune system. This can be achieved by losing or downregulating MHC and/or molecules involved in antigen presentation (including antigen processing machinery and adhesion molecules), thereby preventing their recognition by the immune system. Second, lymphoma cells may “defend” themselves to become resistant to immune eradication. This can be achieved in several ways: by becoming resistant to apoptosis, by expressing inhibitory ligands that deactivate immune cells and/or by inducing an immunosuppressive (humoral and cellular) microenvironment. These immune escape mechanisms may have therapeutic implications. Their identification may be used to guide “personalized immunotherapy” for lymphoma.

The importance of CD39, CD43, CD81, and CD95 expression for differentiating B cell lymphoma by flow cytometry

BACKGROUND

B cell lymphomas' (BCL) current diagnosis is usually based on a combination of morphology, immunophenotype, recurrent cytogenetic aberration and clinical features. However, even with these diagnostic tools, a definitive diagnosis can be difficult to achieve. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the profile of CD39, CD43, CD81, and CD95 expressions in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and Burkitt lymphoma (BL) cases.

METHODS

To address this issue, we investigated the expression of CD39, CD43, CD81, and CD95 by eight-color flow cytometry in retrospective cases from 2014 to 2016.

RESULTS

The study included 27 adult patients diagnosed with DLBCL, FL, and BL during the study period. Four patients were diagnosed with germinal center B cell-like DLBCL (GCB DLBCL), seven with non-GCB DLBCL, nine with FL, and seven with BL. CD39 seems to be especially relevant to differentiate non-GCB DLBCL from BL and from FL. BL showed stronger expression of CD43 when compared to FL and GCB DLBCL. Moreover, CD43 may help to distinguish non-GCB DLBCL from GCB DLBCL. CD81 expression was much stronger in BL when compared to the other three groups of patients. Lastly, CD95 may also help to distinguish BL from the other subtypes, as BL cells expressed this antigen at low levels.

CONCLUSIONS

In combination, CD39, CD43, CD81, and CD95 expressions appear to be helpful to distinguish CD10⁺ BCL, particularly BL. Phenotypic distinction between FL and GCB DLBCL remains challenging and requires further studies. © 2017 International Clinical Cytometry Society.

The role of CD95 and CD95 ligand in cancer

CD95 (Fas/APO-1) and its ligand, CD95L, have long been viewed as a death receptor/death ligand system that mediates apoptosis induction to maintain immune homeostasis. In addition, these molecules are important in the immune elimination of virus-infected cells and cancer cells. CD95L was, therefore, considered to be useful for cancer therapy. However, major side effects have precluded its systemic use. During the last 10 years, it has been recognized that CD95 and CD95L have multiple cancer-relevant nonapoptotic and tumor-promoting activities. CD95 and CD95L were discovered to be critical survival factors for cancer cells, and were found to protect and promote cancer stem cells. We now discuss five different ways in which inhibiting or eliminating CD95L, rather than augmenting, may be beneficial for cancer therapy alone or in combination with standard chemotherapy or immune therapy.

Heat shock factor 1 is a transcription factor of Fas gene

In mammalian cells, stress-induced expression of heat shock protein is controlled by heat shock factor 1 (HSF1). However, HSF1 functions as a regulator of additional genes. In this study, we observed that heat treatment effectively induced expression of Fas. Using bioinformatics, a high affinity and functional HSF1-binding element within the -1996/-1985 oligonucleotide of the 5'-flanking region of the Fas gene was found, and was determined by electrophoretic mobility shift assay and chromatin immunoprecipitation assay. Exogenous expression of a constitutively activative HSF1, induced Fas gene transcription and protein synthesis in the absence of heat stress. Moreover, RNA interference-mediated HSF1 gene-silencing attenuated Fas expression in a heat-induced model. Our results suggested that HSF1 is an important transcription factor of Fas gene.

Up-regulation of Fas (CD95) expression in tumour cells in vivo

Both the function and regulation of Fas expression in tumours is poorly understood. Our laboratory has reported that cultured, low Fas-expressing tumours undergo massive, yet reversible, up-regulation of cell surface Fas expression when injected into mice. The present study was aimed at determining what causes this enhanced Fas expression and whether the newly expressed Fas functions as a death receptor. Newly expressed Fas is indeed capable of inducing apoptosis. Based on our observation that Fas induction is reduced when tumour cells are injected into immune-deficient mice, we propose that Fas up-regulation in vivo involves the host's immune system. Accordingly, Fas up-regulation occurs in vitro when low Fas-expressing tumour cells are cocultured with lymphoid cells. Furthermore ascitic fluid extracted from tumour-bearing mice trigger Fas up-regulation in low Fas expressing tumours. This last finding suggests that a soluble factor(s) mediates induction of Fas expression. The best candidate for this soluble factor is nitric oxide (NO) based on the following observations: the factor in the ascites is unstable; Fas expression is induced to a lesser degree after injection into inducible NO synthase (NOS)-deficient (iNOS(-/-)) mice when compared to control mice; similarly, coculture with iNOS(-/-) splenocytes induces Fas less effectively than coculture with control splenocytes; and finally, the NO donor SNAP induces considerable Fas up-regulation in tumours in vitro. Our model is that host lymphoid cells in response to a tumour increase NO synthesis, which in turn causes enhanced Fas expression in the tumour.