Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Promoter methylation of Wnt-antagonists in polypoid and nonpolypoid colorectal adenomas

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 4,
  • 5,
  • 6,
  • 7,
  • 2, 3,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1Email author
BMC Cancer201313:603

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-603

  • Received: 3 June 2013
  • Accepted: 9 December 2013
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Nonpolypoid adenomas are a subgroup of colorectal adenomas that have been associated with a more aggressive clinical behaviour compared to their polypoid counterparts. A substantial proportion of nonpolypoid and polypoid adenomas lack APC mutations, APC methylation or chromosomal loss of the APC locus on chromosome 5q, suggesting the involvement of other Wnt-pathway genes. The present study investigated promoter methylation of several Wnt-pathway antagonists in both nonpolypoid and polypoid adenomas.

Methods

Quantitative methylation-specific PCR (qMSP) was used to evaluate methylation of four Wnt-antagonists, SFRP2, WIF-1, DKK3 and SOX17 in 18 normal colorectal mucosa samples, 9 colorectal cancer cell lines, 18 carcinomas, 44 nonpolypoid and 44 polypoid adenomas. Results were integrated with previously obtained data on APC mutation, methylation and chromosome 5q status from the same samples.

Results

Increased methylation of all genes was found in the majority of cell lines, adenomas and carcinomas compared to normal controls. WIF-1 and DKK3 showed a significantly lower level of methylation in nonpolypoid compared to polypoid adenomas (p < 0.01). Combining both adenoma types, a positive trend between APC mutation and both WIF-1 and DKK3 methylation was observed (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Methylation of Wnt-pathway antagonists represents an additional mechanism of constitutive Wnt-pathway activation in colorectal adenomas. Current results further substantiate the existence of partially alternative Wnt-pathway disruption mechanisms in nonpolypoid compared to polypoid adenomas, in line with previous observations.

Keywords

  • qMSP
  • Colon
  • Superficial elevated
  • Flat adenoma
  • CpG-island
  • Epigenetic
  • Hypermethylation
  • Wnt-signaling pathway
  • APC

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) results from the accumulation of multiple alterations in the (epi) genome of the epithelial cells that line the large intestine. These events first give rise to an adenoma that, in a minority of cases progresses into an invasive and potentially metastasizing adenocarcinoma.

The terms polyp and adenoma have long been used as synonyms. However, more recently it was recognized that other phenotypes exist besides the traditional polypoid colorectal adenomas. Already in 1985 Muto et al. described a lesion in the large intestine that was termed ‘small flat adenoma’ [1]. These nonpolypoid adenomas were, until quite recently, considered rare in Western countries. In Japan, on the other hand, they have been reported to represent up to 40% of all colorectal adenomas or early carcinomas [2, 3]. Current studies in Western countries, using advanced endoscopic imaging techniques, have reported similar incidences of nonpolypoid lesions as in the East [47]. Nonpolypoid lesions have been associated with a more aggressive behavior, are considered more likely to contain advanced histology [7, 8] and are expected to have a different tumor biology [3, 9].

Well known events during the progression of adenoma to carcinoma are the loss of tumor suppressor TP53, and constitutive activation of KRAS and the Wnt-pathway [10]. Wnt-pathway activation represents a critical early event in colorectal tumorigenesis and primarily results from inactivating mutations in its gatekeeper APC[11, 12]. Recently, we found that nonpolypoid adenomas display less APC mutations and simultaneously more frequent chromosome 5q loss (locus of APC) compared to polypoid adenomas [13, 14]. APC silencing by promoter hypermethylation occurred at similar frequencies in both phenotypes (Voorham et al., submitted). However, in a substantial part of adenomas of both phenotypes no direct APC disruption was observed. Next to activation of the Wnt-signalling pathway via inactivation of the APC gene (e.g. by mutation, deletion or hypermethylation), methylation-mediated silencing of other upstream Wnt-signal regulating genes may present an alternative mechanism of constitutive Wnt-pathway activation in CRC [15, 16]. Methylation plays an important role in CRC development and many genes have altered methylation patterns in the tumor compared to normal colon mucosa.

We aimed to investigate the contribution of methylation of a number of Wnt-regulators other than APC in both nonpolypoid and polypoid adenomas. To this end, four genes were selected known to have an antagonistic effect on the Wnt-pathway, which have been described before to be frequently methylated in CRC; Secreted Frizzled-Related Protein-2 (SFRP2), Wnt Inhibitory Factor-1 (WIF-1), Dickkopf-3 (DKK3) and SRY-Box-17 (SOX17) [1724]. Promoter methylation of these four genes was determined using quantitative methylation-specific PCR (qMSP) [25] in a well-characterized series of both nonpolypoid and polypoid adenomas, and findings were related to previously obtained data on APC mutation, APC promoter methylation and genomic loss of the APC locus in the same adenomas.

Methods

Cell cultures

A panel of 9 CRC cell lines (Caco2, Colo205, Colo320, HCT116, HT29, SW480, SW620, LS174T and LS513) was used in this study. Colo205, Colo320, HCT116, HT29, SW480, SW620, LS174T and LS513 were cultured in DMEM (Lonza Biowhittaker, Verviers, Belgium) supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS) (Hyclone, Perbio, Etten-Leur, The Netherlands). Caco2 was cultured in RPMI1640 (Lonza Biowhittaker) supplemented with 20% FCS. Both cell culture media were supplemented with 2 mM L-Glutamine, 100 IU/ml sodium-penicillin (Astellas Pharma B.V., Leiderdorp, The Netherlands) and 100 μg/ml streptomycin (Fisiopharma, Palomonta (SA), Italy). The cervical cancer cell line CaSki was used as positive control and cultured as described before [26]. All cell lines were cultured using coated flasks and dishes (Greiner Bio-One, Frickenhausen, Germany).

Ethical statement

Collection, storage and use of archival tissue and patient data were performed in compliance with the “Code for Proper Secondary Use of Human Tissue in the Netherlands” (http://www.fmwv.nl and http://www.federa.org). This study was approved by the VU University medical center (2011-03), the Leeds University (CA02/014 Leeds (West)) and the Hospital Vitkovice (EK/140/10).

This study followed the ethical guidelines of the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB waived the need for consent for use of the archive samples, and the samples were analyzed anonymously.

Patient and sample selection

Formaldehyde-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) colorectal tissue samples were collected at three different institutes; Leeds General Infirmary in Leeds, UK, Hospital Vitkovice in Ostrava, Czech Republic and VU University medical center in Amsterdam, The Netherlands [5, 13, 27]. Patients with a hereditary form of CRC, inflammatory bowel disease were excluded. The final series contained 44 nonpolypoid adenomas, 44 polypoid adenomas and 18 carcinomas. Normal colorectal mucosa was collected from age matched non-cancerous patients. Classification of the adenomas was performed using the Paris classification [28]. A summary of all clinical characteristics is listed in Table 1.
Table 1

Clinical characteristics of the patients used in this study

 

Normal colorectal mucosa (n = 18)

Nonpolypoid adenomas (n = 44)

Polypoid adenomas (n = 44)

Carcinomas (n = 18)

Gender M/F

6/12

24/20

22/22

8/10

Age (years)

71.33 (49-84)

70.77 (50-87)

70.98 (40-90)

71.50 (51-91)

Location

    

 Left colon

 

14

40

7

 Right colon

 

30

4

10

Size

 

17.30 (5-100)

19.39 (6-64)

N/A

Paris classification

    

 0-IIa

 

18

  

 LST-G

 

7

  

 LST-NG

 

19

  

 0-Ip

  

44

 

Histology/AC-stage

    

 Tubular/B1

 

21

22

2

 Tubulovillous/B2

 

20

18

9

 Villous/B3

 

2

4

1

 Serrated/C2

 

1

 

5

 C3

   

1

Dysplasia

    

 Mild (LGD)

 

2

1

 

 Moderate (LGD)

 

38

36

 

 Severe (HGD)

 

4

7

 

Chromosome 5q loss

 

8/38

1/30

 

APC methylation

 

34/41

29/44

 

APC mutation

 

16/44

26/44

 

Right colon includes caecum, ascending and transverse colon; Left colon includes sigmoid, descending and splenic flexure; 0-IIa, slightly elevated adenoma; LST-G, Granular lateral spreading type adenoma; LST-NG, Non-granular lateral spreading type adenoma; 0-Ip, polypoid adenoma; AC-stage, Astler-Coller stage; LGD, low grade dysplasia; HGD, high grade dysplasia.

DNA and RNA isolation

DNA and RNA from cell lines was isolated using TRIzol Reagent (Life Technologies, Breda, The Netherlands) according to the manufacturers’ instructions [29]. DNA from FFPE material was isolated after macro-dissection as described before [14].

Quantitative methylation specific PCR (qMSP)

DNA methylation analysis of SFRP2, WIF-1, DKK3 and SOX17 was performed using quantitative methylation specific PCR (qMSP) as described before [25, 30]. All samples were tested in duplicate and average Ct values were used for further analysis. Samples with delta Ct values between duplicates more than 1.5 were excluded.

In addition, the modified, unmethylated sequence of the housekeeping gene B-actin (ACTB) was amplified as a reference to verify sufficient DNA quality and successful DNA modification [31]. Samples with Ct-values > 32 for ACTB were excluded from further analysis. In all qMSP runs, a negative (non-bilsulfite-treated cell line DNA (CaSki)) and a positive (bisulfite-treated CaSki DNA) control were included. For all samples the delta Ct ratio between the gene of interest and ACTB was calculated using the 2-ΔCt method [32]. The upper limit of the 99% confidence interval of normal controls was used as cut-off value to determine methylation positivity. The reproducibility of these assays has been demonstrated previously [25].

Relation between methylation and gene expression

CaSki cells were incubated with 0.2 and 5 μM 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine (DAC; Sigma Chemical Co, St Louis, MO, USA) diluted in PBS for five days. All incubations were performed in duplicate, and cells were directly harvested for DNA and RNA isolation. Gene expression was evaluated by RT-PCR as previously described [30].

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 20. We used a significance level of p < 0.013 (0.05/4 genes), to adjust for multiple testing according to the correction suggested by Bonferroni [33]. Comparisons between the methylation levels in CRC cell lines and normal colon were done using a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. After that, a positivity score was performed using a cut off level based on the upper limit of the 99% confidence interval of the normal controls. All group comparisons were performed using two-sided chi-square or Fisher exact test when expected values in the cross table are below 10. In the overview tables it is indicated which test was applied.

Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between WIF-1 methylation and the independent variables phenotype, location, APC methylation, 5q loss and APC mutation. First the univariate relationships between gene methylation and the dependent variables were examined. Multivariate analyses were performed including all variables with a univariate p-value of less than 0.1. Next, we used a stepwise procedure and removed the variable with the largest p-value in each step, until only variables with a p-value < 0.05 remained in the multivariate model.

Results

Promoter methylation in normal colon and CRC cell lines

Comparison of the SFRP2, WIF-1, DKK3 and SOX17 promoter methylation levels between nine CRC cell lines and eighteen normal colon mucosa samples revealed significantly elevated methylation levels in CRC cells for all four genes (p = 0.00001, p = 3.1*10-5, p = 3.1*10-5 and p = 0.001 for SFRP2, WIF-1, DKK3 and SOX17, respectively). For SFRP2, WIF-1 and DKK3 increased methylation levels were observed in all nine CRC cell lines, whereas SOX17 showed higher methylation levels in all but two cell lines (LS513 and LS174T) (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Figure 1

Promoter methylation status in normal colon mucosa and in colorectal cancer cell lines. Scatter plots of the levels of SFRP2, WIF-1, DKK3, SOX17 methylation. On the y-axes levels of DNA methylation are shown. The median is indicated with a black line. Asterisks indicate a statistical significant difference.

Methylation lead to decreased expression, as upon treatment with demethylating agents, an increase in expression was observed for SFRP2, DKK3 and SOX17 but not for WIF-1 (Additional file 1: Figure S1).

Promoter methylation in carcinomas, polypoid and nonpolypoid adenomas

Since the findings in cell lines are supportive of a role of promotor methylation of these genes in colorectal carcinogenesis, we next investigated a series of tissue specimens consisting of 18 carcinomas, 44 nonpolypoid and 44 polypoid adenomas.

Increased methylation levels for all four genes were detectable in all carcinomas and in both polypoid and nonpolypoid adenomas (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Figure 2

Promoter methylation status in normal colon mucosa and different lesion types. Scatter plots of the levels of SFRP2, WIF-1, DKK3, SOX17 methylation. On the y-axis levels of DNA methylation are shown; On the x-axis normal colon mucosa (NC-M), nonpolypoid adenomas (NP-A), polypoid adenomas (P-A) and carcinomas (C) are indicated. The dotted line indicates the methylation cut off value based on the 99% CI of normal colorectal mucosa. Asterisks indicate a statistical significant difference.

Interestingly, methylation levels in nonpolypoid adenomas were more similar to those observed in carcinomas than those in polypoid adenomas. No relation in methylation levels of any of the four genes and the different carcinoma stages was observed (data not shown).

To dichotomize the qMSP results into positive or negative for methylation, a cut off was calculated for each gene based on the 99% confidence interval of the normal controls (Figure 3). Significantly increased positivity rates were observed for all four genes in both types of adenomas and in carcinomas compared to normal colorectal mucosa (p < 0.003, Additional file 2: Table S1). Interestingly, DKK3 and WIF-1 methylation frequencies were significantly higher in polypoid adenomas (DKK3; 97% (38/39), WIF-1; 87% (34/39)) compared to nonpolypoid adenomas (DKK3; 76% (32/42), WIF-1; 57% (24/42); p = 0.005 and p = 0.003, respectively). WIF-1 methylation was also significantly higher in polypoid adenomas compared to carcinomas (WIF-1; 47% (8/17), p = 0.003).
Figure 3
Figure 3

Overview of DNA promoter methylation results of SFRP2 , WIF-1 , DKK3 and SOX17 . Methylation results of SFRP2, WIF-1, DKK3 and SOX17 are shown in relation to previous results on chromosome 5q loss [14], APC mutation [13] and APC methylation (Voorham et al. submitted) in nonpolypoid and polypoid adenomas. Black box; event (methylation, 5q loss, APC mutation, White box; no event (no methylation, no chromosome 5q loss, APC wild type), Grey box; no results.

When the methylation results of the four Wnt-antagonists were combined into one value that was positive if all four markers were methylated 79% (31/39) of the polypoid adenomas were positive in comparison to only 40% (16/40) of the nonpolypoid adenomas (p = 0.0004), indicating a lower level of Wnt-antagonist methylation in nonpolypoid adenomas in general (Figure 3, Additional file 2: Table S1).

Promoter methylation in relation to anatomical location

To investigate the relation between methylation of SFRP2, WIF-1, DKK3 and SOX17 and the anatomical location of the adenoma, we divided all the adenomas into left- and right-sided adenomas. This showed no statistical difference for the investigated genes, except for WIF-1 methylation, which showed more methylation in the left colon 82% (40/49) compared to the right colon 56% (18/32), p = 0.01 (Table 2).
Table 2

Promoter methylation frequencies of SFRP2 , WIF-1 , DKK3 and SOX17 in relation to location

 

Left nonpolypoid adenomas

Right nonpolypoid adenomas

p-value

Left polypoid adenomas

Right polypoid adenomas

p-value

All adenomas left

All adenomas right

p-value

SFRP2

79% (11/14)

100% (29/29)

0.3**

93% (37/40)

100% (4/4)

1**

89% (48/54)

100% (33/33)

0.08**

WIF-1

69% (9/13)

52% (15/29)

0.3**

86% (31/36)

100% (3/3)

1**

82% (40/49)

56% (18/32)

0.013*

DKK3

64% (9/14)

82% (23/28)

0.3**

97% (35/36)

100% (3/3)

1**

88% (44/50)

84% (26/31)

0.7**

SOX17

86% (12/14)

97% (28/29)

0.2**

100% (36/36)

100% (3/3)

-

96% (48/50)

97% (31/32)

1**

All four combined

38% (5/13)

41% (11/27)

0.9*

78% (28/36)

100% (3/3)

1**

67% (33/49)

47% (14/30)

0.07**

Results are shown for polypoid adenomas, nonpolypoid adenomas and all adenomas together, divided into samples that were distal (left) or proximal (right).

All four combined; is considered positive if all four genes showed methylation. *chi-square based p-value **Fisher exact based p-value.

Promoter methylation combined with other molecular events

Methylation of the Wnt-antagonists may provide an alternative mechanism of Wnt-pathway activation next to APC mutations, methylation and loss of the APC locus on chromosome 5q. Therefore, we combined the promoter methylation results for SFRP2, WIF-1, DKK3 and SOX17, in polypoid and nonpolypoid adenomas, with previously obtained molecular data on APC mutation [13], APC methylation (Voorham et al., submitted) and chromosome 5q loss [14] in the same samples. For APC methylation as well as for chromosome 5q loss, no relation was found with the promoter methylation results for SFRP2, WIF-1, DKK3 and SOX17 when combining both adenomas types or in nonpolypoid adenomas or polypoid adenomas, separately (Tables 3 and 4). For APC mutation, a positive trend with WIF-1 as well as with DKK3 methylation was observed (Table 5). Of the APC mutated adenomas 83% (33/40) showed WIF-1 methylation and of the APC wild type adenomas 61% (25/41) showed WIF-1 methylation (p = 0.048). For DKK3, 95% (38/40) of the APC mutated samples showed DKK3 methylation whereas only 78% (32/41) showed DKK3 methylation in the APC wild type adenomas (p = 0.026) (Table 5). When we combined APC methylation, APC mutation and chromosome 5q loss together into one value called APC disrupting event, no significant difference was found (Additional file 2: Table S2).
Table 3

Promoter methylation frequencies of SFRP2 , WIF-1 , DKK3 and SOX17 in relation with APC methylation

 

Nonpolypoid APC methylated

Nonpolypoid APC unmethylated

p-value

Polypoid APC methylated

Polypoid APC unmethylated

p-value

All adenomas APC methylated

All adenomas APC unmethylated

p-value

SFRP2

91% (30/33)

100% (7/7)

1**

93% (27/29)

93% (14/15)

1**

92% (57/62)

96% (21/22)

1**

WIF-1

59% (19/32)

43% (3/7)

0.7**

93% (22/25)

93% (12/14)

1**

71% (41/57)

68% (15/21)

1*

DKK3

72% (23/32)

86% (6/7)

0.7**

96% (24/25)

100% (14/14)

1**

83% (47/57)

96% (20/21)

0.3**

SOX17

91% (30/33)

100% (7/7)

1**

100% (25/25)

100% (14/14)

-

95% (55/58)

100% (21/21)

0.6**

All four combined

37% (11/30)

43% (3/7)

1**

80% (20/25)

79% (11/14)

1**

56% (31/55)

67% (14/21)

0.4*

Results are shown for polypoid adenomas, nonpolypoid adenomas and all adenomas together, divided into samples that were APC methylated or APC unmethylated.

All four combined; is considered positive if all four genes showed methylation. *chi-square based p-value **Fisher exact based p-value.

Table 4

Promoter methylation frequencies of SFRP2 , WIF-1 , DKK3 and SOX17 in relation with chromosome 5q loss

 

Nonpolypoid 5q loss

Nonpolypoid no 5q loss

p-value

Polypoid 5q loss

Polypoid no 5q loss

p-value

All adenomas 5q loss

All adenomas no 5q loss

p-value

SFRP2

75% (6/8)

97% (28/29)

0.1**

100% (1/1)

90% (26/29)

1**

78% (7/9)

93% (54/58)

0.2**

WIF-1

50% (4/8)

60% (18/30)

0.7**

100% (1/1)

92% (22/24)

1**

56% (5/9)

74% (40/54)

0.3**

DKK3

63% (5/8)

82% (23/28)

0.3**

100% (1/1)

96% (23/24)

1**

67% (6/9)

89% (46/52)

0.1**

SOX17

88% (7/8)

97% (28/29)

0.4**

100% (1/1)

100% (24/24)

-

89% (8/9)

98% (52/53)

0.3**

All four combined

25% (2/8)

43% (12/28)

0.4**

100% (1/1)

66% (19/24)

1**

33% (3/9)

60% (31/52)

0.2**

Results are shown for polypoid adenomas, nonpolypoid adenomas and all adenomas together, divided into samples that had a chromosome 5q loss (locus of APC) or samples that had no chromosome 5q loss.

All four combined; is considered positive if all four genes showed methylation. **Fisher exact based p-value.

Table 5

Promoter methylation frequencies of SFRP2 , WIF-1 , DKK3 and SOX17 in relation with APC mutation

 

Nonpolypoid APC mutated

Nonpolypoid APC WT

p-value

Polypoid APC mutated

Polypoid APC WT

p-value

All adenomas APC mutated

All adenomas APC WT

p-value

SFRP2

94% (15/16)

93% (25/27)

1**

89% (23/26)

100% (18/18)

0.3**

91% (38/42)

96% (43/45)

0.4**

WIF-1

63% (10/16)

54% (14/26)

0.6**

96% (23/24)

73% (11/15)

0.06**

83% (33/40)

61% (25/41)

0.03*

DKK3

88% (14/16)

69% (18/26)

0.3**

100% (24/24)

93% (14/15)

0.4**

95% (38/40)

78% (32/41)

0.03*

SOX17

94% (15/16)

93% (25/27)

1**

100% (24/24)

100% (15/15)

-

98% (39/40)

95% (40/42)

1**

All four combined

50% (8/16)

33% (8/24)

0.3*

88% (21/24)

67% (10/15)

0.2**

73% (29/40)

46% (18/39)

0.017*

Results are shown for polypoid adenomas, nonpolypoid adenomas and all adenomas together, divided into samples that were APC mutated or APC wild type.

All four combined; is considered positive if all four genes showed methylation. *chi-square based p-value **Fisher exact based p-value.

Multivariate analyses

To investigate the possible interaction between the different variables (phenotype, location, APC mutation, APC methylation and chromosome 5q loss), a multivatiate analysis was performed for WIF-1 methylation. For the genes SFRP2, DKK3 and SOX17, we were unable to perform a valid multivariate analysis, due to the limited number of unmethylated samples[34].

For the WIF-1 gene, we first performed univariate analyses showing that phenotype (p-value = 0.004), location (p-value = 0.016) and APC mutation (p = 0.035) were related to WIF-1 methylation. In the multivariate analysis, location and APC mutation were removed from the model (due to high p-values), leaving only phenotype in the model. This suggests that phenotype is the major contributor to the observed difference in WIF-1 methylation in our samples.

Discussion

The present study focussed on promoter methylation of four known Wnt-pathway antagonists (SFRP2, WIF-1, DKK3 and SOX17), in polypoid and nonpolypoid adenomas, and its possible association with other molecular events that can play a role in Wnt-pathway activation. All four Wnt-antagonists showed significant increased methylation in CRC cell lines, carcinomas as well as in nonpolypoid and polypoid adenomas compared to normal colon mucosa. A functional relation between methylation and gene silencing was shown for SFRP2, DKK3 and SOX17.

To the best of our knowledge methylation of SFRP2, DKK3 and SOX17 has not been described in nonpolypoid adenomas before. Consistent with our findings, WIF-1 was described to be less frequent methylated in nonpolypoid lesions compared to polypoid ones [9, 35].

The higher methylation of all four Wnt-antagonists in CRC cell lines as well as carcinomas, compared to normal colon mucosa, confirms current literature [17, 1923].

Interestingly, we found lower WIF-1 methylation frequencies in carcinomas compared to polypoid adenomas (WIF-1; 47% versus 87%) but not compared to nonpolypoid adenomas. Lower levels of methylation in carcinomas compared to adenomas have been described before for WIF-1[17] but also for other genes, such as p14 [36] and ESR1[17]. This may suggest that methylation of WIF-1 is less important in carcinomas or that silencing of these genes in carcinomas is achieved by other changes to the DNA [15]. We did not find a relation between methylation and mRNA expression for WIF-1, indicating that WIF-1 gene expression might be regulated by more complex regulatory mechanisms, potentially including histone modification.

For DKK3 methylation a positive relation with higher CRC stages was described [37]. This could not be confirmed in our study, which may be explained by the limited number of carcinomas investigated. For WIF-1 methylation no relation with CRC stage was observed by either Aguilera et al.[37] or us.

Analysis of the relation of methylation of all four genes with previously published results on APC disrupting events (APC mutation, APC methylation and chromosome 5q loss, including the locus of APC) revealed a positive trend between WIF-1 and DKK3 methylation and APC mutation. Although, the role of WIF-1 and DKK3 in the Wnt-signaling pathway is still poorly understood, these data may suggest that methylation of these Wnt-antagonists is complementing APC disruption and acts synergistically [11, 38].

Left and right CRCs have been suggested to be different clinicopathological entities [39, 40] Right CRCs occur at an older age, predominantly in women and are characterized by a high frequency of microsatellite instability and hypermethylation, whereas left CRCs occur predominantly in men and are characterized by chromosomal instability [40]. A recent study revealed a (partly) distinct methylation pattern in left- and right-sided adenomas [41]. However, for some genes methylation levels were higher in right-sided adenomas whereas for others methylation levels were higher in left-sided adenomas. In the current study we observed more frequent WIF-1 methylation in left-sided adenomas compared to right-sided adenomas. All other three genes were location-independent.

Next to the above mentioned observation that WIF-1 methylation was more frequent in adenomas from the left colon, WIF-1 methylation was also higher in polypoid adenomas compared to nonpolypoid adenomas. This could introduce a bias in our analysis, since it is reported that nonpolypoid adenomas occur more frequently in the right colon compared to the left colon [42]. To further investigate this, we performed a multivariate analysis including phenotype and location but also APC mutation, APC methylation and chromosome 5q loss. From this analysis it became clear that phenotype was the main contributor to the observed difference between polypoid and nonpolypoid adenomas.

In the current study we had to restrict our analysis to a candidate gene approach, given the fact that the nonpolypoid adenomas studied are very small and concerned FFPE material, as of which only a few methylation events could be studied. A genome-wide methylation profiling approach may reveal further distinctions between both types of adenomas.

Conclusion

Methylation of SFRP2, WIF-1, DKK3 and SOX17 was significantly higher in carcinomas as well as both types of adenomas compared to normal colorectal mucosa. We found higher levels of methylation for WIF-1 and DKK3 in polypoid adenomas compared to nonpolypoid adenomas. These results further substantiate differences in Wnt-pathway disruption as already observed previously for APC mutation rate and APC loss in nonpolypoid adenomas compared to polypoid adenomas.

Abbreviations

APC: 

Adenomatous polyposis coli

CRC: 

Colorectal cancer

FFPE: 

Formaldehyde-fixed, paraffin-embedded

qMSP: 

Quantitive methylation specific PCR

MSP: 

Methylation specific PCR.

Declarations

Acknowledgment

This work was financially supported by the Dutch Cancer Society grant KWF2006-3513.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
(2)
Department of Pathology, University Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
(3)
GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
(4)
Pathology and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
(5)
Gastroenterology, Hospital Vitkovice, Ostrava, Czech Republic
(6)
Centre for Digestive Diseases, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK
(7)
Departmentt of Gastro-enterology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

References

  1. Muto T, Kamiya J, Sawada T, Konishi F, Sugihara K, Kubota Y, Adachi M, Agawa S, Saito Y, Morioka Y: Small “flat adenoma” of the large bowel with special reference to its clinicopathologic features. Dis Colon Rectum. 1985, 28: 847-851. 10.1007/BF02555490.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Kudo S, Tamura S, Hirota S, Sano Y, Yamano H, Serizawa M, Fukuoka T, Mitsuoka H, Nakajima T, Kusaka H: The problem of de novo colorectal carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 1995, 31A: 1118-1120.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Kudo S, Lambert R, Allen JI, Fujii H, Fujii T, Kashida H, Matsuda T, Mori M, Saito H, Shimoda T, Tanaka S, Watanabe H, Sung JJ, Feld AD, Inadomi JM, O’Brien MJ, Lieberman DA, Ransohoff DF, Soetikno RM, Triadafilopoulos G, Zauber A, Teixeira CR, Rey JF, Jaramillo E, Rubio CA, Van GA, Jung M, Vieth M, Jass JR, Hurlstone PD: Nonpolypoid neoplastic lesions of the colorectal mucosa. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008, 68: S3-S47. 10.1016/j.gie.2008.07.052.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bianco MA, Cipolletta L, Rotondano G, Buffoli F, Gizzi G, Tessari F: Prevalence of nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasia: an Italian multicenter observational study. Endoscopy. 2010, 42: 279-285.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Rembacken BJ, Fujii T, Cairns A, Dixon MF, Yoshida S, Chalmers DM, Axon AT: Flat and depressed colonic neoplasms: a prospective study of 1000 colonoscopies in the UK. Lancet. 2000, 355: 1211-1214. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02086-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Rondagh EJ, Masclee AA, van der Valk ME, Winkens B, de Bruine AP, Kaltenbach T, Soetikno RM, Sanduleanu S: Nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms: gender differences in prevalence and malignant potential. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2012, 47: 80-88. 10.3109/00365521.2011.638395.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Soetikno RM, Kaltenbach T, Rouse RV, Park W, Maheshwari A, Sato T, Matsui S, Friedland S: Prevalence of nonpolypoid (flat and depressed) colorectal neoplasms in asymptomatic and symptomatic adults. JAMA. 2008, 299: 1027-1035. 10.1001/jama.299.9.1027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hurlstone DP, Cross SS, Adam I, Shorthouse AJ, Brown S, Sanders DS, Lobo AJ: A prospective clinicopathological and endoscopic evaluation of flat and depressed colorectal lesions in the United Kingdom. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003, 98: 2543-2549. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07679.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Voorham QJM, Rondagh EJA, Knol DL, van Engeland M, Carvalho B, Meijer GA, Sanduleanu S: Tracking the molecular features of nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013, 108: 1042-1056. 10.1038/ajg.2013.126.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fearon ER, Vogelstein B: A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell. 1990, 61: 759-767. 10.1016/0092-8674(90)90186-I.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B: Lessons from hereditary colorectal cancer. Cell. 1996, 87: 159-170. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81333-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Logan CY, Nusse R: The Wnt signaling pathway in development and disease. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2004, 20: 781-810. 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.20.010403.113126.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Voorham QJ, Carvalho B, Spiertz AJ, Claes B, Mongera S, van Grieken NC, Grabsch H, Kliment M, Rembacken B, van de Wiel MA, Quirke P, Mulder CJ, Lambrechts D, van Engeland M, Meijer GA: Comprehensive mutation analysis in colorectal flat adenomas. PLoS One. 2012, 7: e41963-10.1371/journal.pone.0041963.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Voorham QJ, Carvalho B, Spiertz AJ, van Grieken NC, Mongera S, Rondagh EJ, van de Wiel MA, Jordanova ES, Ylstra B, Kliment M, Grabsch H, Rembacken BJ, Arai T, de Bruine AP, Sanduleanu S, Quirke P, Mulder CJ, van Engeland M, Meijer GA: Chromosome 5q loss in colorectal flat adenomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2012, 18: 4560-4569. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2385.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Baylin SB, Ohm JE: Epigenetic gene silencing in cancer - a mechanism for early oncogenic pathway addiction?. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006, 6: 107-116. 10.1038/nrc1799.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pinto D, Clevers H: Wnt control of stem cells and differentiation in the intestinal epithelium. Exp Cell Res. 2005, 306: 357-363. 10.1016/j.yexcr.2005.02.022.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Belshaw NJ, Elliott GO, Foxall RJ, Dainty JR, Pal N, Coupe A, Garg D, Bradburn DM, Mathers JC, Johnson IT: Profiling CpG island field methylation in both morphologically normal and neoplastic human colonic mucosa. Br J Cancer. 2008, 99: 136-142. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604432.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Kawano Y, Kypta R: Secreted antagonists of the Wnt signalling pathway. J Cell Sci. 2003, 116: 2627-2634. 10.1242/jcs.00623.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Qi J, Zhu YQ, Luo J, Tao WH: Hypermethylation and expression regulation of secreted frizzled-related protein genes in colorectal tumor. World J Gastroenterol. 2006, 12: 7113-7117.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Sato H, Suzuki H, Toyota M, Nojima M, Maruyama R, Sasaki S, Takagi H, Sogabe Y, Sasaki Y, Idogawa M, Sonoda T, Mori M, Imai K, Tokino T, Shinomura Y: Frequent epigenetic inactivation of DICKKOPF family genes in human gastrointestinal tumors. Carcinogenesis. 2007, 28: 2459-2466. 10.1093/carcin/bgm178.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Suzuki H, Gabrielson E, Chen W, Anbazhagan R, van Engeland M, Weijenberg MP, Herman JG, Baylin SB: A genomic screen for genes upregulated by demethylation and histone deacetylase inhibition in human colorectal cancer. Nat Genet. 2002, 31: 141-149. 10.1038/ng892.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Suzuki H, Watkins DN, Jair KW, Schuebel KE, Markowitz SD, Chen WD, Pretlow TP, Yang B, Akiyama Y, van Engeland M, Toyota M, Tokino T, Hinoda Y, Imai K, Herman JG, Baylin SB: Epigenetic inactivation of SFRP genes allows constitutive WNT signaling in colorectal cancer. Nat Genet. 2004, 36: 417-422. 10.1038/ng1330.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhang W, Glockner SC, Guo M, Machida EO, Wang DH, Easwaran H, Van NL, Herman JG, Schuebel KE, Watkins DN, Ahuja N, Baylin SB: Epigenetic inactivation of the canonical Wnt antagonist SRY-box containing gene 17 in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 2008, 68: 2764-2772. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-6349.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Zorn AM, Barish GD, Williams BO, Lavender P, Klymkowsky MW, Varmus HE: Regulation of Wnt signaling by Sox proteins: XSox17 alpha/beta and XSox3 physically interact with beta-catenin. Mol Cell. 1999, 4: 487-498. 10.1016/S1097-2765(00)80200-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. van der Meide WF, Snellenberg S, Meijer CJ, Baalbergen A, Helmerhorst TJ, van der Sluis WB, Snijders PJ, Steenbergen RD: Promoter methylation analysis of WNT/beta-catenin signaling pathway regulators to detect adenocarcinoma or its precursor lesion of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 2011, 123: 116-122. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.06.015.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Steenbergen RD, Kramer D, Braakhuis BJ, Stern PL, Verheijen RH, Meijer CJ, Snijders PJ: TSLC1 gene silencing in cervical cancer cell lines and cervical neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004, 96: 294-305. 10.1093/jnci/djh031.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Urban O, Vitek P, Fojtik P, Kliment M, Janik D, Chalupa J, Albin A: Laterally spreading tumors–experience based on 138 consecutive cases. Hepatogastroenterology. 2008, 55: 351-355.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Endoscopic Classification Review Group: The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003, 58: S3-S43. 10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02159-X.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilting SM, Snijders PJ, Meijer GA, Ylstra B, van den Ijssel PR, Snijders AM, Albertson DG, Coffa J, Schouten JP, van de Wiel MA, Meijer CJ, Steenbergen RD: Increased gene copy numbers at chromosome 20q are frequent in both squamous cell carcinomas and adenocarcinomas of the cervix. J Pathol. 2006, 209: 220-230. 10.1002/path.1966.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Overmeer RM, Henken FE, Bierkens M, Wilting SM, Timmerman I, Meijer CJ, Snijders PJ, Steenbergen RD: Repression of MAL tumour suppressor activity by promoter methylation during cervical carcinogenesis. J Pathol. 2009, 219: 327-336. 10.1002/path.2598.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Harden SV, Guo Z, Epstein JI, Sidransky D: Quantitative GSTP1 methylation clearly distinguishes benign prostatic tissue and limited prostate adenocarcinoma. J Urol. 2003, 169: 1138-1142. 10.1097/01.ju.0000049627.90307.4d.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmittgen TD, Livak KJ: Analyzing real-time PCR data by the comparative C(T) method. Nat Protoc. 2008, 3: 1101-1108. 10.1038/nprot.2008.73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Bland JM, Altman DG: Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ. 1995, 310: 170-10.1136/bmj.310.6973.170.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR: A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996, 49: 1373-1379. 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Nosho K, Yamamoto H, Takahashi T, Mikami M, Taniguchi H, Miyamoto N, Adachi Y, Arimura Y, Itoh F, Imai K, Shinomura Y: Genetic and epigenetic profiling in early colorectal tumors and prediction of invasive potential in pT1 (early invasive) colorectal cancers. Carcinogenesis. 2007, 28: 1364-1370. 10.1093/carcin/bgl246.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Derks S, Postma C, Moerkerk PT, van den Bosch SM, Carvalho B, Hermsen MA, Giaretti W, Herman JG, Weijenberg MP, de Bruine AP, Meijer GA, van Engeland M: Promoter methylation precedes chromosomal alterations in colorectal cancer development. Cell Oncol. 2006, 28: 247-257.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Aguilera O, Fraga MF, Ballestar E, Paz MF, Herranz M, Espada J, Garcia JM, Munoz A, Esteller M, Gonzalez-Sancho JM: Epigenetic inactivation of the Wnt antagonist DICKKOPF-1 (DKK-1) gene in human colorectal cancer. Oncogene. 2006, 25: 4116-4121. 10.1038/sj.onc.1209439.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Gregorieff A, Clevers H: Wnt signaling in the intestinal epithelium: from endoderm to cancer. Genes Dev. 2005, 19: 877-890. 10.1101/gad.1295405.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Distler P, Holt PR: Are right- and left-sided colon neoplasms distinct tumors?. Dig Dis. 1997, 15: 302-311. 10.1159/000171605.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Iacopetta B: Are there two sides to colorectal cancer?. Int J Cancer. 2002, 101: 403-408. 10.1002/ijc.10635.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Koestler DC, Li J, Baron JA, Tsongalis GJ, Butterly LF, Goodrich M, Lesseur C, Karagas MR, Marsit CJ, Moore JH, Andrew AS, Srivastava A: Distinct patterns of DNA methylation in conventional adenomas involving the right and left colon. Mod Pathol. 2013, doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2013.104Google Scholar
  42. Rondagh EJ, Bouwens MW, Riedl RG, Winkens B, Rondagh EJ, Bouwens MW, Riedl RG, Winkens B, de Ridder R, Kaltenbach T, Soetikno RM, Masclee AA, Sanduleanu S: Endoscopic appearance of proximal colorectal neoplasms and potential implications for colonoscopy in cancer prevention. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012, 75: 1218-1225. 10.1016/j.gie.2012.02.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/13/603/prepub

Copyright

Advertisement