Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer cells exhibit an altered metabolism, which is characterized by a preference for aerobic glycolysis more than mitochondrial oxidation of pyruvate. Mitochondrial pyruvate carrier 1 (MPC1) and mitochondrial pyruvate carrier 2 (MPC2) play a bottleneck role by transporting pyruvate into mitochondrial through the mitochondrial inner membrane. Therefore, their protein expression in cancers may be of clinical consequences. There are studies showing low levels of MPC1 expression in colon, kidney and lung cancers, and the expression of MPC1 correlates with poor prognosis. However, the expression status of MPC1 and MPC2 in prostate cancer (PCA) is unclear. METHODS: In this study, expression of MPC1 and MPC2 in LNCaP and DU145 prostate cancer cell lines was examined by immunocytochemistry (ICC) and Western blotting. Compared to the LNCaP cells, lower levels of MPC1 and MPC2 expression in the DU145 cell line was identified. We then extended our study to 88 patients with prostate cancer who underwent transurethral electro-vaporization of prostate or radical prostatectomy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China. Patient-derived paraffin embedded PCA specimens were collected for immunohistochemistry (IHC). Correlations with clinicopathologic factors were evaluated by Chi-square or Fisher´s exact probability tests. Overall survival (OS) rates were determined using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used in univariate analysis and multivariate analysis to identify factors significantly correlated with prognosis. RESULTS: Linear regression analysis revealed that MPC1 expression level was positively correlated with MPC2 expression (r = 0.375, P = 0.006) in the prostate cancers. MPC1 expression was negatively associated with UICC stage (P = 0.031). While UICC stage (P < 0.001) and lymph node metastasis (P = 0.002) were negatively associated with MPC2 expression. Positive MPC1 or MPC2 expression in cancer tissues was significantly associated with higher OS (P < 0.05). The multivariate analysis showed that both MPC1 and MPC2 expressions in PCA were independent prognostic factors for higher OS (For MPC1: RR = 0.654, 95% CI: 0.621-0690, P < 0.001; For MPC2: RR = 0.696, 95% CI: 0.660-0.734, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that MPC1 and MPC2 expressions are of prognostic values in PCAs and that positive expression of MPC1 or MPC2 is a predictor of favorable outcome.