High expression of CPNE5 and CPNE9 predicts positive prognosis in multiple myeloma

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

CPNEs are significant biomarkers which can affect the progression and prognosis of various tumor diseases. However, the prognosis role of CPNEs in multiple myeloma (MM) is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES:

To investigate the prognosis role of CPNEs in MM.

METHODS:

Seven hundred and thirty-five samples from two independent data sets were involved to analyze the clinical and molecular characteristics, and prognosis role of the expression of CPNE1-9 in MM.

RESULTS:

MM patients with higher expressions of CPNE5 and CPNE9 had longer event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with CPNE5 ${}^{\text{low}}$ and CPNE9 ${}^{\text{low}}$ expression groups (EFS: $P=$ 0.0054, 0.0065; OS: $P=$ 0.015, 0.016, respectively). Multivariate regression analysis showed that CPNE5 was an independent favorable predictor for EFS and OS (EFS: $P=$ 0.005; OS: $P=$ 0.006), and CPNE9 was an independent positive indicator for EFS ( $P=$ 0.002). Moreover, the survival probability and the cumulative event of EFS and OS in CPNE5 ${}^{\text{high}}$ CPNE9 ${}^{\text{high}}$ group were significantly longer than other groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

High expressions of CPNE5 and CPNE9 might be used as positive indicators for MM, and their combination was a better predictor for the survival of MM patients.

Keywords

Multiple myeloma CPNE5 CPNE9 prognosis

1. Introduction

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a common malignant tumor disease of blood system, which is characterized by abnormal proliferation of clonal plasma cells. It is estimated that there were 176,404 new MM patients in 2020, accounting for 0.9% of all cancer patients, and 117,077 deaths of MM patients, accounting for 1.2% of all cancer deaths [1]. Although the prognosis of MM patients has improved with the improvement of MM diagnosis and treatment, only 45% of patients have an overall survival (OS) of 6 years [2]. It is currently believed that genetic changes, bone marrow microenvironmental effects and epigenetic modifications play an important role in the occurrence and development of MM [3, 4, 5]. Although genetic abnormalities have made great progress in the assessment of MM progression and prognosis, there is still an urgent need to find more effective prognostic biomarkers, which are of great clinical significance for optimizing the personalized treatment plan and improving the clinical efficacy of MM patients. It is also a current research hotspot.

CPNEs are highly conserved intracellular calcium-dependent lipid-binding proteins originally identified by Creutz et al. [6] from the extracts of paramecium tetraurelia, which play a fundamental role in eukaryotic cell biology. The N-terminal of CPNEs contains two C2 domains and a domain similar to the A domain, in which the C2 domain plays a role in membrane transport and the A-like domain mediates the interaction between integrins and extracellular ligands. The HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee has identified nine homologues of CPNEs in humans, namely CPNE1-9. Jiang et al. [7] found that the down-regulation of CPNE1 can inhibit the proliferation and metastasis potential of osteosarcoma cells and reduce the expression of a variety of tumor-related genes. In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), inhibition of CPNE1 expression can effectively reduce the proliferation and movement of cancer cells [8]. In addition, CPNE3 is also highly expressed in a variety of cancer cells and can regulate ErbB2 signaling pathway-mediated movement and migration of cancer cells [9, 10, 11]. Genetic variants in CPNE5 have been found to be associated with alcohol dependence and obesity [12]. As a protein specifically expressed in the brain, CPNE6 has a high degree of homology with human CPNE1, and is closely related to synaptic plasticity and memory formation [13, 14]. A recent study found that Ca ${}^{2+}$ -dependent CPNE6 can interact with synaptobrevin2, thereby selectively inhibiting spontaneous neurotransmission [15]. CPNE7 is mainly involved in the differentiation and formation of odontoblasts [16, 17]. The invasive acute myeloid leukemia with t(12;21) translocation may be closely related to the fusion of CPNE8 and AML1/Runx1 [18].

The CPNEs have been deeply researched in a variety of diseases, especially for the pathogenesis, treatment and prognosis of malignant tumors. However, the prognostic value of CPNEs in MM is still unclear. This study explored the asscociation between the expression levels of CPNEs and survival of MM patients.

2. Subjects and methods

2.1 Patients

In this study, two independent microarray data sets (GSE39754 and GSE24080) were selected to analyze prognosis role of the expression of CPNEs in MM. The GSE39754 data set used Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST Array to analyze the gene expression profiles of 6 healthy donors and 170 newly diagnosed MM patients [19, 20, 21]. The GSE24080 data set collected high-purity bone marrow plasma cell gene expression profiles of 559 newly diagnosed MM patients, and used Affymetrix human genome U133 Plus 2.0 array to analyze the expression level of CPNEs in MM patients [22, 23, 24]. All information related to the patients’ clinical and molecular data, as well as microarray data sets comes from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO). All experimental design, quality control and data standardization are in compliance with the standard Affymetrix protocol. The study was conducted in accordance with the “Declaration of Helsinki”, and all patients had obtained written informed consent.

Figure 1.

Survival analysis of CPNE2, CPNE5 and CPNE9 in GSE24080. (A) There wasn’t any significant difference in EFS between CPNE2 ${}^{\text{High}}$ and CPNE2 ${}^{\text{Low}}$ patients ( $P=$ 0.91). (B) There wasn’t any significant difference in EFS between CPNE2 ${}^{\text{High}}$ and CPNE2 ${}^{\textit{Low}}$ patients ( $P=$ 0.28). (C) CPNE5 ${}^{\text{High}}$ patients had a significantly longer EFS ( $P=$ 0.0054) than CPNE5 ${}^{\text{Low}}$ patients. (D) CPNE5 ${}^{\text{High}}$ patients had a significantly longer OS ( $P=$ 0.015) than CPNE5 ${}^{\text{Low}}$ patients. (E) CPNE9 ${}^{\text{High}}$ patients had a significantly longer EFS ( $P=$ 0.0065) than CPNE5 ${}^{\text{Low}}$ patients. (F) CPNE9 ${}^{\text{High}}$ patients had a significantly longer OS ( $P=$ 0.016) than CPNE5 ${}^{\text{Low}}$ patients.

Figure 2.

Survival analysis of combined expression of CPNE5 and CPNE9. (A) CPNE5 ${}^{\text{High}}$ CPNE9 ${}^{\text{High}}$ expression group had longer EFS of the survival probability than other groups ( $P=$ 0.0011). (B) CPNE5 ${}^{\text{High}}$ CPNE9 ${}^{\text{High}}$ expression group had longer OS of the survival probability than other groups ( $P=$ 0.0016). (C) CPNE5 ${}^{\text{High}}$ CPNE9 ${}^{\text{High}}$ expression group had lower EFS of the cumulative events than other groups ( $P=$ 0.0011). (D) CPNE5 ${}^{\text{High}}$ CPNE9 ${}^{\text{High}}$ expression group had lower OS of the cumulative events than other groups ( $P=$ 0.0016).

2.2 Statistical analysis

The event-free survival (EFS) and OS were used as the study endpoints. EFS refers to the time from the diagnosis of the disease to the first event such as relapse and death. OS refers to the time from the diagnosis of the disease to the final death of the patient. In GSE39754 ( $n=$ 176), Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to analyze the expression differentiation of CPNE1-9 between healthy donors ( $n=$ 6) and MM patients ( $n=$ 170). In GSE24080 ( $n=$ 559), numerical data were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test, and categorical data were compared using Fisher’s exact test, Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used for survival analysis, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models of EFS and OS were established with a confidence interval of 95%. All statistical analyses were performed using r3.5.0.

3. Results

3.1 The expression of CPNE1-9

In this study, GSE39754 was used to explore the expression levels of CPNE1-9 in healthy donors and MM patients. And we found that the expression levels of CPNE1 and CPNE5 in the MM group were significantly higher than that in the healthy group (CPNE1: $P=$ 0.006; CPNE5: $P=$ 0.002), while the expression of CPNE4 in the MM group was significantly lower than that in the healthy group (CPNE4: $P=$ 0.016, Fig. S1).

Table 1
Comparison of EFS and OS between the high and low expression levels of CPNE family

	EFS		OS
	$\chi^{2}$	$P$ -Value	$\chi^{2}$	$P$ -Value
CPNE1 (High vs. Low)	0.093	0.761	0.237	0.627
CPNE2 (High vs. Low)	0.00	1.000	5.379	0.020
CPNE3 (High vs. Low)	0.188	0.665	1.353	0.245
CPNE4 (High vs. Low)	1.839	0.175	0.092	0.762
CPNE5 (High vs. Low)	5.447	0.020	5.379	0.020
CPNE6 (High vs. Low)	0.00	1.000	2.516	0.113
CPNE7 (High vs. Low)	0.454	0.501	0.00	1.000
CPNE8 (High vs. Low)	1.372	0.241	2.340	0.126
CPNE9 (High vs. Low)	8.337	0.004	7.213	0.007

EFS event-free survival, OS overall survival.

Table 2

Patients’ characteristics of 559 MM patients in GSE24080

	CPNE5			CPNE9
	Low ( $n=$ 279)	High ( $n=$ 280)	$P$ -value	Low ( $n=$ 279)	High ( $n=$ 280)	$P$ -value
AGE (mean (range))	57.10 (24.83–75.94)	57.26 (29.7–76.50)	0.480	57.21 (24.83–76.50)	57.15 (35.23–75.00)	0.680
Gender, no, (%)			0.247			0.904
Female	118 (42.29)	104 (37.14)		112 (40.14)	110 (39.29)
Male	161 (57.71)	176 (62.86)		167 (59.86)	170 (60.71)
Race, no, (%)			0.675			1.000
White	246 (88.17)	251 (89.64)		248 (88.89)	249 (88.93)
Other	33 (11.83)	29 (10.36)		31 (11.11)	31 (11.07)
ISS, no, (%)			0.155			0.559
I	148 (52.86)	170 (60.93)		165 (58.93)	153 (54.84)
II	68 (24.29)	54 (19.35)		60 (21.43)	62 (22.22)
III	64 (22.86)	55 (19.71)		55 (19.64)	64 (22.94)
Isotype, no, (%)			0.223			0.002
FLC	35 (12.5)	49 (17.56)		37 (13.21)	47 (16.85)
IgA	62 (22.14)	71 (25.45)		84 (30)	49 (17.56)
IgD	2 (0.71)	1 (0.36)		0 (0)	3 (1.08)
IgG	170 (60.71)	143 (51.25)		142 (50.71)	171 (61.29)
B2M (mean (sd))	4.701 (5.379)	4.776 (5.35)	0.870	5.204 (6.42)	4.275 (3.99)	0.041
CRP (mean (sd))	12.781 (25.172)	10.491 (20.40)	0.238	13.687 (27.46)	9.58 (17.04)	0.034
CREAT (mean (sd))	1.332 (1.296)	1.315 (1.25)	0.874	1.408 (1.44)	1.238 (1.076)	0.114
LDH (mean (sd))	181.509 (74.44)	162.479 (54.70)	0.001	177.849 (68.15)	166.125 (63.23)	0.035
ALB (mean (sd))	4.109 (0.533)	3.989 (0.62)	0.014	4.028 (0.64)	4.07 (0.52)	0.398
HGB (mean (sd))	11.325 (1.807)	11.181 (1.82)	0.349	11.165 (1.74)	11.341 (1.88)	0.252
MRI (mean (sd))	11.5 (14.186)	10.583 (13.91)	0.441	11.547 (14.49)	10.51 (13.59)	0.383
High CCND1, no.(%)	140 (50.18)	140 (50)	0.510	146 (52.33)	134 (47.86)	0.182
High LIG4, no. (%)	123 (44.09)	157 (56.07)	0.195	137 (49.1)	143 (51.07)	0.863
High TP53, no. (%)	132 (47.31)	148 (52.86)	0.564	139 (49.82)	141 (50.36)	0.938
High CDK4, no. (%)	150 (53.76)	130 (46.43)	0.023	138 (49.46)	142 (50.71)	0.421
High FGFR3, no. (%)	153 (54.84)	127 (45.36)	0.031	126 (45.16)	154 (55)	0.700
High CDK5, no. (%)	132 (47.31)	148 (52.86)	0.472	140 (50.18)	140 (50)	0.976
High HK2, no. (%)	157 (56.27)	123 (43.93)	0.059	142 (50.9)	138 (49.29)	0.018

AGE: age at registration (years); B2M: beta-2 microglobulin (mg/l); CRP: C-reactive protein (mg/l); CREAT: creatinine (mg/dl); LDH: lactate dehydrogenase (U/l); ALB: albumin (35 g/l); HGB: hemoglobin (g/dl); MRI: number of magnetic resonance imaging (MGI)-defined focal lesions (skull, spine, pelvis); no.: number of patients.

Table 3

Univariate and multivariate cox regression analyses of EFS and OS

Characteristics	HR (95%CI)	$P$	HR (95%CI)	$P$	HR (95%CI)	$P$	HR (95%CI)	$P$
	Univariate cox regression				Multivariate cox regression
	EFS		OS		EFS		OS
CPNE1 (High vs. Low)	1.00 (0.74–1.35)	0.991	0.98 (0.73–1.32)	0.901	1.09 (0.80–1.50)	0.582	1.05 (0.77–1.43)	0.753
CPNE2 (High vs. Low)	0.98 (0.73–1.33)	0.911	0.74 (0.55–1.00)	0.049	0.91 (0.66–1.25)	0.554	0.63 (0.46–0.87)	0.005
CPNE3 (High vs. Low)	1.03 (0.76–1.40)	0.845	1.13 (0.84–1.53)	0.415	0.96 (0.70–1.33)	0.811	1.11 (0.80–1.52)	0.536
CPNE4 (High vs. Low)	1.20 (0.88–1.62)	0.249	0.89 (0.66–1.20)	0.455	1.20 (0.87–1.66)	0.264	0.97 (0.71–1.33)	0.845
CPNE5 (High vs. Low)	0.65 (0.48–0.88)	0.006	0.71 (0.52–0.96)	0.025	0.63 (0.46–0.87)	0.005	0.63 (0.46–0.87)	0.006
CPNE6 (High vs. Low)	0.98 (0.72–1.32)	0.889	0.77 (0.57–1.04)	0.091	1.13 (0.81–1.58)	0.478	0.95 (0.68–1.33)	0.773
CPNE7 (High vs. Low)	0.97 (0.71–1.31)	0.829	1.04 (0.77–1.40)	0.817	0.99 (0.72–1.35)	0.927	1.10 (0.81–1.50)	0.549
CPNE8 (High vs. Low)	1.19 (0.88–1.62)	0.253	1.24 (0.92–1.67)	0.166	1.07 (0.77–1.49)	0.680	1.09 (0.79–1.51)	0.602
CPNE9 (High vs. Low)	0.65 (0.48–0.89)	0.007	0.72 (0.53–0.97)	0.031	0.61 (0.44–0.84)	0.002	0.74 (0.54–1.02)	0.065
AGE ( $\geqslant$ 60 vs. $<$ 60)	0.97 (0.71–1.32)	0.839	1.40 (1.04–1.89)	0.028	0.85 (0.61–1.17)	0.313	1.30 (0.95–1.77)	0.096
Gender	1.05 (0.77–1.43)	0.750	0.97 (0.72–1.32)	0.850	1.28 (0.92–1.78)	0.137	1.21 (0.88–1.66)	0.244
ALB	0.72 (0.53–0.97)	0.033	0.48 (0.35–0.64)	$<$ 0.001	0.74 (0.54–1.02)	0.067	0.48 (0.35–0.67)	$<$ 0.001
B2M	1.72 (1.27–2.33)	$<$ 0.001	2.21 (1.64–3.00)	$<$ 0.001	1.40 (0.97–2.00)	0.069	1.81 (1.27–2.57)	0.001
HGB	0.54 (0.39–0.74)	$<$ 0.001	0.62 (0.45–0.84)	0.002	0.70 (0.49–1.01)	0.059	1.09 (0.76–1.56)	0.654
LDH	2.58 (1.65–4.05)	$<$ 0.001	3.68 (2.53–5.37)	$<$ 0.001	2.27 (1.41–3.68)	0.001	2.90 (1.92–4.37)	$<$ 0.001
CCND1	0.65 (0.48–0.88)	0.006	0.74 (0.55–1.00)	0.053	0.78 (0.45–1.36)	0.386	1.14 (0.66–1.99)	0.636
CDK4	1.22 (0.90–1.66)	0.197	1.36 (1.01–1.84)	0.043	1.18 (0.84–1.65)	0.347	1.37 (0.98–1.93)	0.065
CDK5	0.88 (0.65–1.19)	0.396	1.09 (0.81–1.47)	0.572	0.76 (0.54–1.08)	0.127	0.84 (0.60–1.17)	0.304
FGFR3	0.90 (0.67–1.22)	0.508	0.80 (0.59–1.08)	0.150	0.82 (0.58–1.15)	0.249	0.87 (0.62–1.21)	0.396
LIG4	0.84 (0.62–1.14)	0.268	0.84 (0.63–1.14)	0.269	0.98 (0.71–1.37)	0.918	1.04 (0.75–1.45)	0.800
TP53	1.06 (0.78–1.44)	0.700	0.85 (0.63–1.15)	0.284	1.21 (0.87–1.68)	0.254	0.84 (0.61–1.17)	0.306

EFS: event-free survival; OS: overall survival; CR: complete remission; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; ALB: Albumin, 35 g/l; B2M: Beta-2 microglobulin, mg/l; HGB: Haemoglobin, g/dl; LDH: Lactate dehydrogenase, U/l.

3.2 Survival analysis of CPNE2, CPNE5 and CPNE9

We analyzed the association between expression levels of CPNEs and survival of MM patients in GSE24080. According to the median expression level of each CPNE member, all patients were divided into high and low expression groups. EFS and OS were compared between the two groups in Table 1, the OS and EFS between high and low CPNE5/9 expression were significantly different (OS: $P=$ 0.020, 0.007; EFS: $P=$ 0.020, respectively). The OS of CPNE2 high expression group and low expression group was significantly different ( $P=$ 0.020). In the GSE24080 data set, the effects of CPNE2, CPNE5, and CPNE9 expression on the prognosis of MM patients were analyzed, and it was found that there was no significant difference between CPNE2 high expression group and low expression group in OS and EFS (OS: $P=$ 0.28; EFS: $P=$ 0.91). Patients with high expression of CPNE5 or CPNE9 had longer OS and EFS than those with CPNE5 ${}^{\text{low}}$ or CPNE9 ${}^{\text{low}}$ (OS: $P=$ 0.00554, 0.0065; EFS: $P=$ 0.015, 0.016, respectively, Fig. 1).

3.3 Clinical and molecular characteristics

The clinical and molecular characteristics were shown in Table 2. Compared with the CPNE5 ${}^{\text{low}}$ , the lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and albumin (ALB) in the CPNE5 ${}^{\text{high}}$ group were significantly lower ( $P=$ 0.001, $P=$ 0.014, respectively). And the expression of CDK4 and FGFR3 in the CPNE5 high expression group were significantly lower than in the CPNE5 low expression group ( $P=$ 0.023, $P=$ 0.031, respectively). Beta-2 microglobulin (B2M), CRP (C-reactive protein), LDH, and HK2 expression were lower in the CPNE9 high expression group than in the CPNE9 low expression group ( $P=$ 0.041, $P=$ 0.034, $P=$ 0.035, $P=$ 0.018, respectively), and the CPNE9 high expression group may also be associated with isotype ( $P=$ 0.002).

3.4 Univariate and multivariate analysis of EFS and OS

To further assess the prognostic significance of CPNE expression, univariate and multivariate COX proportional hazard regression models were constructed (Table 3). Univariate analysis showed that ALB, B2M, HGB, LDH, CPNE5 and CPNE9 were closely related to EFS and OS (all $P<$ 0.05). AGE, CPNE2 and CDK4 were closely related to OS ( $P=$ 0.028, 0.049, 0.043, respectively), and CCND1 was closely related to EFS ( $P=$ 0.006). In addition, in multivariate analysis, we found that LDH and CPNE5 were independent prognostic factors for EFS and OS (OS: $P<$ 0.001, $P=$ 0.006; EFS: $P=$ 0.001, $P=$ 0.005, respectively). Meanwhile, ALB, B2M and CPNE2 were independent prognostic factors for OS ( $P<$ 0.001, $P=$ 0.001, $P=$ 0.005), and CPNE9 was an independent prognostic factor for EFS ( $P=$ 0.002).

3.5 Co-expression of CPNE1-9

Correlations between the expression levels of CPNE members were analyzed in our study. As shown in Fig. S2, the expressions of CPNE members were not significantly associated with each other (all $P<$ 0.001, $|R_{\textit{pearson}}|\leqslant$ 0.25).

3.6 Survival analysis of combined expression of CPNE5 and CPNE9

The effect of the combination of CPNE5 and CPNE9 on prognosis was further explored in MM, the results showed that patients with CPNE5 ${}^{\text{High}}$ CPNE9 ${}^{\text{High}}$ have significantly higher survival probability on EFS and OS compared with other groups ( $P=$ 0.0011, $P=$ 0.0016, Fig. 2A and B). Meanwhile, EFS and OS of the cumulative events of CPNE5 ${}^{\text{High}}$ CPNE9 ${}^{\text{High}}$ were also significantly lower than other groups ( $P=$ 0.0011, $P=$ 0.0016, Fig. 2C and D).

4. Discussion

In our study, a total of 729 patients were enrolled to explore the prognosis role of CPNE1-9 in MM. High expression of CPNE5 and CPNE9 were proved to be positive prognosis indicators. CPNE5 was an independent favorable predictor for EFS and OS, and CPNE9 was an independent positive indicator for EFS. Combination of high expressions of CPNE5 and CPNE9 might be a better predictor for the survival of MM patients.

CPNE5 mainly exists in cytoplasm of human cells and can be detected in the heart, stomach, spleen, lymph nodes and testis [25]. In esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the expression of CPNE5 in cancer tissues is lower than that in adjacent tissues, and patients with low CPNE5 expression have shorter OS. Moreover, low expression of CPNE5 may promote the local growth of esophageal cancer and increase the resistance of chemotherapy drugs [26]. These findings suggest that CPNE5 is closely related to tumorigenesis and may affect the prognosis of cancer patients. In our study, MM patients with high expression of CPNE5 had longer OS and EFS. And the clinical and molecular characteristics analysis found that LDH, ALB and the expressions of CDK4 and FGFR3 in the CPNE5 ${}^{\text{high}}$ group were lower than that in the CPNE5 ${}^{\text{low}}$ group. All these factors are related to MM progression or prognosis. For instance, LDH is an independent poor prognostic factor for MM, which promotes tumor growth, increases tumor burden and chemotherapy drug resistance [27]. ALB is an important indicator for evaluating the prognosis of MM in the International Staging System (ISS), when ALB $\geqslant$ 3.5 g/dL and B2M $<$ 3.5 mg/L, the patients in stage I have the longest median survival time [28]. As a target gene in MM, inhibition of CDK4 can promote apoptosis of cells, thereby exerting an anti-cancer effect in MM cells [29]. FGFR3 is an oncogene and plays an essential role in the progression of MM [30]. Therefore, the positive prognosis effect of CPNE5 may be partly due to the association of CPNE5 with these prognostic factors. To this end, we further conducted a multivariate analysis and revealed that CPNE5 is an independent prognosis indicator for MM patients. Collectively, high expression of CPNE5 might be an independent positive indicator in MM.

A study by Liu et al. [31] found that CPNE9 is specifically expressed in pancreatic tumor tissues, which indicates that CPNE9 is related to cancer progression. Moreover, CPNE9 was the top five of the prognostic 14-gene signatures that constructed the prognostic model with a high predictive ability for glioblastoma [32]. This suggests that CPNE9 has important clinical significance for the prognosis assessment of glioblastoma patients. In our study, MM patients with high expression of CPNE9 had longer OS and EFS. At the same time, the CPNE9 ${}^{\text{high}}$ group had lower expressions of B2M, CRP, LDH and HK2 compared with the CPNE9 ${}^{\text{low}}$ group. In R-ISS, patients with B2M $\geqslant$ 5.5 mg/L, high-risk chromosomal abnormalities and/or high LDH levels are in stage III and have the worst prognosis [33]. Elevated CRP can promote osteoclast differentiation and accelerate bone destruction mechanism, which also has a negative impact on the prognosis of MM [34, 35]. Meanwhile, the level of HK2 is negatively correlated with EFS and OS, and may become a potential therapeutic target for MM [36]. These clinical and molecular characteristics negatively correlated with CPNE9 expression are all poor prognostic factors for MM, which are consistent with our findings and further confirm that the high expression of CPNE9 is related to the positive prognosis of MM.

Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that LDH and CPNE5 were independent prognostic factors for EFS and OS. ALB, B2M and CPNE2 were independent prognostic factors for OS, and CPNE9 was an independent prognostic factor for EFS. These results further confirmed that high expressions of CPNE5 and CPNE9 were positive prognostic factors in MM patients. The co-expression analysis of CPNE1-9 in MM showed that there was no obvious expression correlation between CPNE family members, indicating that there was no mutual regulation mechanism between CPNE5 and CPNE9. In addition, the survival analysis of the combined expression of CPNE5 and CPNE9 found that the survival probabilities and cumulative events of CPNE5 ${}^{\text{High}}$ CPNE9 ${}^{\text{High}}$ group were significantly higher than other groups. Therefore, the combination of CPNE5/CPNE9 may become a better positive prognostic factor for MM patients.

5. Conclusion

In summary, we have shown that high expressions of CPNE5 and CPNE9 are positive prognostic factors in MM patients, especially for the combination of CPNE5 and CPNE9, and they may be potential targets for MM therapy. But the specific molecular mechanisms of CPNE5 and CPNE9 in the development of MM are still unclear. Further studies with larger sample size are needed to validate our findings, and the pathogenesis of CPNE5 and CPNE9 in MM also needs additional exploration.

Footnotes

Supplementary data

The supplementary files are available to download from http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/CBM-203108.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from Xinjiang Joint Fund of National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1903117) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81500118).

The results shown here are in whole or part based upon data generated by GEO database: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author contributions

Lin Fu, Chaozeng Si were responsible for the conception. Chaozeng Si, Tiansheng Zeng, Pei Zhu, Yan Liu, Longzhen Cui, Wenhui Huang participated in the interpretation or analysis of data. Pei Zhu, Tingting Qian, Tiansheng Zeng, Cong Deng were responsible for preparation of the manuscript, and participated in drafting and revision of the manuscript. Tiansheng Zeng, Cong Deng, Lin Fu was responsible for supervision of the manuscript.

References

Sung

Ferlay

Siegel

R.L.

Laversanne

Soerjomataram

Jemal

and Bray

, Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries, CA Cancer J Clin (2021).

Kumar

S.K.

Dispenzieri

Lacy

M.Q.

Gertz

M.A.

Buadi

F.K.

Pandey

Kapoor

Dingli

Hayman

S.R.

Leung

Lust

McCurdy

Russell

S.J.

Zeldenrust

S.R.

Kyle

R.A.

and Rajkumar

S.V.

, Continued improvement in survival in multiple myeloma: changes in early mortality and outcomes in older patients, Leukemia 28 (2014), 1122–1128.

Gupta

V.A.

Matulis

S.M.

Conage-Pough

J.E.

Nooka

A.K.

Kaufman

J.L.

Lonial

and Boise

L.H.

, Bone marrow microenvironment-derived signals induce Mcl-1 dependence in multiple myeloma, Blood 129 (2017), 1969–1979.

Robiou du Pont Cleynen

Fontan

Attal

Munshi

Corre

and Avet-Loiseau

, Genomics of multiple myeloma, J Clin Oncol 35 (2017), 963–967.

Alzrigat

Parraga

A.A.

and Jernberg-Wiklund

, Epigenetics in multiple myeloma: from mechanisms to therapy, Semin Cancer Biol 51 (2018), 101–115.

Creutz

C.E.

Tomsig

J.L.

Snyder

S.L.

Gautier

M.C.

Skouri

Beisson

and Cohen

, The copines, a novel class of C2 domain-containing, calcium-dependent, phospholipid-binding proteins conserved from Paramecium to humans, J Biol Chem 273 (1998), 1393–1402.

Jiang

Zhao

Yang

Wang

Guo

Deng

Wang

and Wang

, CPNE1 silencing inhibits the proliferation, invasion and migration of human osteosarcoma cells, Oncol Rep 39 (2018), 643–650.

Tang

Zhu

Liu

Zeng

Ding

Zhang

Wang

Liu

and Huang

, CPNE1 is a target of miR-335-5p and plays an important role in the pathogenesis of non-small cell lung cancer, J Exp Clin Cancer Res 37 (2018), 131.

Heinrich

Keller

Boulay

Vecchi

Bianchi

Sack

Lienhard

Duss

Hofsteenge

and Hynes

N.E.

, Copine-III interacts with ErbB2 and promotes tumor cell migration, Oncogene 29 (2010), 1598–1610.

10.

Choi

H.Y.

Park

J.B.

E.S.

Park

J.Y.

and Yoo

J.C.

, Direct binding of Copine3 with Jab1 activates downstream ErbB2 signaling and motility in SKBr3 breast cancer cells, Oncol Rep 35 (2016), 1147–1152.

11.

Lin

Zhang

Liao

Pan

Liu

Kong

Sun

Yan

and Yao

, CPNE3 promotes migration and invasion in non-small cell lung cancer by interacting with RACK1 via FAK signaling activation, J Cancer 9 (2018), 4215–4222.

12.

Wang

K.S.

Zuo

Pan

Xie

and Luo

, Genetic variants in the CPNE5 gene are associated with alcohol dependence and obesity in Caucasian populations, J Psychiatr Res 71 (2015), 1–7.

13.

Nakayama

Yaoi

Yasui

and Kuwajima

, N-copine: a novel two C2-domain-containing protein with neuronal activity-regulated expression, FEBS Lett 428 (1998), 80–84.

14.

Nakayama

Yaoi

and Kuwajima

, Localization and subcellular distribution of N-copine in mouse brain, J Neurochem 72 (1999), 373–379.

15.

Liu

Khvotchev

Y.C.

Chanaday

N.L.

and Kavalali

E.T.

, Copine-6 Binds to SNAREs and selectively suppresses spontaneous neurotransmission, J Neurosci 38 (2018), 5888–5899.

16.

Seo

Y.M.

Park

S.J.

Lee

H.K.

and Park

J.C.

, Copine-7 binds to the cell surface receptor, nucleolin, and regulates ciliogenesis and Dspp expression during odontoblast differentiation, Sci Rep 7 (2017), 11283.

17.

Park

S.H.

Lee

Y.S.

Lee

D.S.

Park

J.C.

Kim

and Shon

W.J.

, CPNE7 induces biological dentin sealing in a dentin hypersensitivity model, J Dent Res 98 (2019), 1239–1244.

18.

Ramsey

Zhang

D.E.

Richkind

Burcoglu-O’Ral

and Hromas

, Fusion of AML1/Runx1 to copine VIII, a novel member of the copine family, in an aggressive acute myelogenous leukemia with t(12;21) translocation, Leukemia 17 (2003), 1665–1666.

19.

Chauhan

Tian

Nicholson

Kumar

K.G.

Zhou

Carrasco

McDermott

J.L.

Leach

C.A.

Fulcinniti

Kodrasov

M.P.

Weinstock

Kingsbury

W.D.

Hideshima

Shah

P.K.

Minvielle

Altun

Kessler

B.M.

Orlowski

Richardson

Munshi

and Anderson

K.C.

, A small molecule inhibitor of ubiquitin-specific protease-7 induces apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells and overcomes bortezomib resistance, Cancer Cell 22 (2012), 345–358.

20.

Kang

Y.J.

Zeng

Song

Reinhold

Choi

Brusic

Yamashita

Munshi

Minvielle

Anderson

K.C.

Munshi

Reinherz

E.L.

and Sasada

, Identification of human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-A*0201-restricted cytotoxic T lymphocyte epitopes derived from HLA-DObeta as a novel target for multiple myeloma, Br J Haematol 163 (2013), 343–351.

21.

Song

Ray

Das

D.S.

Samur

M.K.

Tai

Y.T.

Munshi

Carrasco

R.D.

Chauhan

and Anderson

K.C.

, Blockade of deubiquitylating enzyme Rpn11 triggers apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells and overcomes bortezomib resistance, Oncogene 36 (2017), 5631–5638.

22.

Popovici

Chen

Gallas

B.G.

Hatzis

Shi

Samuelson

F.W.

Nikolsky

Tsyganova

Ishkin

Nikolskaya

Hess

K.R.

Valero

Booser

Delorenzi

Hortobagyi

G.N.

Shi

Symmans

W.F.

and Pusztai

, Effect of training-sample size and classification difficulty on the accuracy of genomic predictors, Breast Cancer Res 12 (2010), R5.

23.

Shi

Campbell

Jones

W.D.

Campagne

Wen

Walker

S.J.

Chu

T.M.

Goodsaid

F.M.

Pusztai

Shaughnessy

J.D.

, Jr. Oberthuer

Thomas

R.S.

Paules

R.S.

Fielden

Barlogie

Chen

Fischer

Furlanello

Gallas

B.D.

Megherbi

D.B.

Symmans

W.F.

Wang

M.D.

Zhang

Bitter

Brors

Bushel

P.R.

Bylesjo

Chen

Cheng

Chou

Davison

T.S.

Delorenzi

Deng

Devanarayan

Dix

D.J.

Dopazo

Dorff

K.C.

Elloumi

Fan

Fang

Gonzaludo

Hess

K.R.

Hong

Huan

Irizarry

R.A.

Judson

Juraeva

Lababidi

Lambert

C.G.

Lin

S.M.

Liu

Lobenhofer

E.K.

Luo

McCall

M.N.

Nikolsky

Pennello

G.A.

Perkins

R.G.

Philip

Popovici

Price

N.D.

Qian

Scherer

Shi

Sung

Thierry-Mieg

Thodima

Trygg

Vishnuvajjala

Wang

S.J.

Xie

Yousef

W.A.

Zhang

Zhong

Zhou

Zhu

Arasappan

Bao

Lucas

A.B.

Berthold

Brennan

R.J.

Buness

Catalano

J.G.

Chang

Chen

Cheng

Cui

Czika

Demichelis

Deng

Dosymbekov

Eils

Feng

Fostel

Fulmer-Smentek

Fuscoe

J.C.

Gatto

Goldstein

D.R.

Guo

Halbert

D.N.

Han

Harris

S.C.

Hatzis

Herman

Huang

Jensen

R.V.

Jiang

Johnson

C.D.

Jurman

Kahlert

Khuder

S.A.

Kohl

Q.Z.

Liu

Meng

Madera

Martinez-Murillo

Medina

Meehan

Miclaus

Moffitt

R.A.

Montaner

Mukherjee

Mulligan

G.J.

Neville

Nikolskaya

Ning

Page

G.P.

Parker

Parry

R.M.

Peng

Peterson

R.L.

Phan

J.H.

Quanz

Ren

Riccadonna

Roter

A.H.

Samuelson

F.W.

Schumacher

M.M.

Shambaugh

J.D.

Shi

Shippy

Smalter

Sotiriou

Soukup

Staedtler

Steiner

Stokes

T.H.

Sun

Tan

P.Y.

Tang

Tezak

Thorn

Tsyganova

Turpaz

Vega

S.C.

Visintainer

von Frese

Wang

Westermann

Willey

J.C.

Woods

Xiao

Yang

Zeng

Zhang

Zhao

Puri

R.K.

Scherf

Tong

Wolfinger

R.D.

and Consortium

, The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC)-II study of common practices for the development and validation of microarray-based predictive models, Nat Biotechnol 28 (2010), 827–838.

24.

Mitchell

J.S.

Weinhold

Forsti

Ali

van Duin

Thorleifsson

Johnson

D.C.

Chen

Halvarsson

B.M.

Gudbjartsson

D.F.

Kuiper

Stephens

O.W.

Bertsch

Broderick

Campo

Einsele

Gregory

W.A.

Gullberg

Henrion

Hillengass

Hoffmann

Jackson

G.H.

Johnsson

Joud

Kristinsson

S.Y.

Lenhoff

Lenive

Mellqvist

U.H.

Migliorini

Nahi

Nelander

Nickel

Nothen

M.M.

Rafnar

Ross

F.M.

, da Silva Filho Swaminathan

Thomsen

Turesson

Vangsted

Vogel

Waage

Walker

B.A.

Wihlborg

A.K.

Broyl

Davies

F.E.

Thorsteinsdottir

Langer

Hansson

Kaiser

Sonneveld

Stefansson

Morgan

G.J.

Goldschmidt

Hemminki

Nilsson

and Houlston

R.S.

, Genome-wide association study identifies multiple susceptibility loci for multiple myeloma, Nat Commun 7 (2016), 12050.

25.

Cowland

J.B.

Carter

Bjerregaard

M.D.

Johnsen

A.H.

Borregaard

and Lollike

, Tissue expression of copines and isolation of copines I and III from the cytosol of human neutrophils, J Leukoc Biol 74 (2003), 379–388.

26.

Umeda

Kanda

Koike

Tanaka

Miwa

Tanaka

Kobayashi

Suenaga

Hayashi

Yamada

Nakayama

and Kodera

, Copine 5 expression predicts prognosis following curative resection of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, Oncol Rep 40 (2018), 3772–3780.

27.

Dimopoulos

M.A.

Barlogie

Smith

T.L.

and Alexanian

, High serum lactate dehydrogenase level as a marker for drug resistance and short survival in multiple myeloma, Ann Intern Med 115 (1991), 931–935.

28.

Greipp

P.R.

San Miguel

Durie

B.G.

Crowley

J.J.

Barlogie

Blade

Boccadoro

Child

J.A.

Avet-Loiseau

Kyle

R.A.

Lahuerta

J.J.

Ludwig

Morgan

Powles

Shimizu

Shustik

Sonneveld

Tosi

Turesson

and Westin

, International staging system for multiple myeloma, J Clin Oncol 23 (2005), 3412–3420.

29.

Cao

Shi

Liu

and Ai

, MicroRNA-338-3p inhibits proliferation and promotes apoptosis of multiple myeloma cells through targeting cyclin-dependent kinase 4, Oncol Res 27 (2018), 117–124.

30.

Chesi

Brents

L.A.

Ely

S.A.

Bais

Robbiani

D.F.

Mesri

E.A.

Kuehl

W.M.

and Bergsagel

P.L.

, Activated fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 is an oncogene that contributes to tumor progression in multiple myeloma, Blood 97 (2001), 729–736.

31.

Liu

X.X.

and Liu

F.J.

, Novel bioinformatic identification of differentially expressed tissue-specific and cancer-related proteins from the Human Protein Atlas for biomarker discovery, Genet Mol Res 14 (2015), 4557–4565.

32.

Hou

Yang

Wang

Liu

and Zhang

, A potential prognostic gene signature for predicting survival for glioblastoma patients, Biomed Res Int 2019 (2019), 9506461.

33.

Palumbo

Avet-Loiseau

Oliva

Lokhorst

H.M.

Goldschmidt

Rosinol

Richardson

Caltagirone

Lahuerta

J.J.

Facon

Bringhen

Gay

Attal

Passera

Spencer

Offidani

Kumar

Musto

Lonial

Petrucci

M.T.

Orlowski

R.Z.

Zamagni

Morgan

Dimopoulos

M.A.

Durie

B.G.

Anderson

K.C.

Sonneveld

San Miguel

Cavo

Rajkumar

S.V.

and Moreau

, Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report from international myeloma working group, J Clin Oncol 33 (2015), 2863–2869.

34.

Bataille

Boccadoro

Klein

Durie

and Pileri

, C-reactive protein and beta-2 microglobulin produce a simple and powerful myeloma staging system, Blood 80 (1992), 733–737.

35.

Yang

Liu

Yang

Lin

Wang

Yin

Davis

Orlowski

R.Z.

Hou

and Yi

, C-reactive protein promotes bone destruction in human myeloma through the CD32-p38 MAPK-Twist axis, Sci Signal 10 (2017).

36.

Caillot

Bourgeais

Dakik

Coste

Mazure

N.M.

Lelievre

Coqueret

Herault

Mazurier

and Sola

, Cyclin D1 targets hexokinase 2 to control aerobic glycolysis in myeloma cells, Oncogenesis 9 (2020), 68.

High expression of CPNE5 and CPNE9 predicts positive prognosis in multiple myeloma

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

OBJECTIVES:

METHODS:

RESULTS:

CONCLUSIONS:

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Subjects and methods

2.1 Patients

3. Results

3.1 The expression of CPNE1-9

Table 1 Comparison of EFS and OS between the high and low expression levels of CPNE family

3.3 Clinical and molecular characteristics

3.4 Univariate and multivariate analysis of EFS and OS

3.5 Co-expression of CPNE1-9

3.6 Survival analysis of combined expression of CPNE5 and CPNE9

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

Footnotes

Supplementary data

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

Author contributions

References

Table 1
Comparison of EFS and OS between the high and low expression levels of CPNE family