Results
1. Glioma cell line TMZ resistance verification
T98G and U118 cells were selected. The drug concentration of the starting TMZ is set with each cell line IC50, the culture medium containing TMZ is changed every two days, and the same concentration of TMZ is maintained for two weeks. Then calculate the new IC50, increase the TMZ concentration, and TMZ is maintained for two weeks, using the same method to change the culture medium. Repeat this until IC50 increases to 500 μM. After the successful preparation of TMZ-resistant cells, the culture is maintained at a low concentration of TMZ (different cell concentrations vary). The control cells were treated with the same concentration of DMSO, and the processing time and procedure were the same plus TMZ. The cell line is established and expanded, including breed conservation.
The CCK8 cell viability assay was used to examine the TMZ tolerance of the cells. Both the control group (transfected with NC plasmid) and the experimental group (TMZ-resistance cell line) of T98G and U118 cell lines were tested. Raw data from the cell viability assay was normalized and listed below in Table 1.
Table 1. The left column lists represent different shRNA concentrations, varying from 0-800 μM. T98G and U118 represent the control group. T98G-R and U118-R are the experimental groups.
T98G T98G-R
0 μM 99.71424 95.15717 105.1286 106.2187 88.18571 105.5956
50 μM 93.75846 84.68943 94.14198 92.83445 98.89799 94.46365
100 μM 61.81381 56.39495 53.963 85.97434 90.26267 86.27367
200 μM 40.81757 50.4142 53.10573 86.81124 72.16249 74.94807
400 μM 26.39495 31.26786 20.84524 88.23946 69.41845 79.48076
800 μM 14.13716 9.741315 6.88946 62.37019 66.14539 74.58155
U118 U118-R
0 μM 104.924 95.81989 99.25614 102.8273 102.9316 94.24102
200 μM 88.38738 80.564 81.64222 97.39861 89.6976 90.34763
400 μM 78.38556 70.02831 65.39635 91.79606 86.28042 81.37891
800 μM 37.89191 53.59028 45.89368 87.6825 73.69641 78.31982
1600 μM 22.42354 15.71259 12.30861 70.20858 65.61993 75.28621
3200 μM 0.243256 0.71806 1.35164 65.33604 53.77752 57.18424
We can observe that TMZ-treated cells have significantly higher viability than the control group (Figure 1). This illustrates that we successfully screened TMZ-tolerance cell lines.
Figure 1. The line charts of CCK8 assay for A) U118 and B) T98G cell line. The black line represents the data from the control group transfected with NC plasmid. The red line represents the TMZ-resistance cell line we screened. T-test was done to measure the significant difference between the control and experimental group start to show up (ns: P>0.05, *: P≤0.05, **: P≤0.01, ***: P≤0.001).
2. Screen for target genes in a bioinformatic way
Through extensive literature review, we found that PDRG1, the down-regulated differential gene, was up-regulated in various tumor tissues, such as colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, and endometrial cancer. At the same time, PDRG1 down-regulation can enhance the radiosensitivity of nasopharyngeal cancer (Figure 2A).
Therefore, PDRG1 was preliminarily identified as a potential target gene, and the function of PDRG1 was verified by using glioma-related data from TCGA and GTEx databases. Firstly, the expression of PDRG1 in glioma tumor samples and normal samples was analyzed, and the expression of PDGR1 in normal samples was lower than that in tumor samples. Secondly, whether PDRG1 affects the prognosis of glioma was analyzed, and patients with low expression of PDRG1 had a better prognosis and longer survival time (Figure 2B). What’s more, we observed that the expression of PDRG1 in GBM and LGG was lower in normal samples than in tumor samples. And in GBM and LGG, the survival time of samples with low PDRG1 expression was significantly higher than that of samples with high PDRG1 expression (Figure 2C). Both OS and RFS can reach the same conclusion. So again, it verifies our hypothesis. In conclusion, PDRG1 was taken as the target gene for further verification by cell assay.
Figure 2. PDRG1 plays an important role in tumors. A. the expression level of PDRG1 in different kinds of cancer, B. the survival time of patients with the different expression levels of PDRG1, C. the survival time of GBM and LGG patients with the different expression levels of PDRG1.
3. PDRG-1 knockdown cell-line construction
In order to verify if knockdown of the PDRG1 gene could decrease the TMZ-resistance cells’ lifespan, we transfected T98G cells and U118 cells with Lentivirus packaged plasmids containing siRNAs and screened them using purine. The fluorescence microscope can be used to check if the plasmids have been transfected successfully by detecting the green fluorescence (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Detection of green fluorescent protein expression in the stable knockdown cell using fluorescence microscopy. The green fluorescence proves successful plasmid transfection.
To get more reliable and quantitative results, fluorescence real-time quantitative PCR was done to test the mRNA expression of PDRG1 in the transfection cell line (Figure 4). As shown below, the mRNA expression level of PDRG-1 is significantly lower in shRNA treated group (Table 2).
Figure 4. Bar graph of mRNA level of the control group and PDRG-1 knockdown group.
Table 2. Data of relative expression of PDRG-1 from qPCR.
4. PDRG-1 knockdown cell line PDRG1 protein expression level measurement
In addition, the Western blot was done to further confirm PDRG-1 expression on the protein level in each group. The thickness of the protein band indicates the amount of the expressed protein. GAPDH was used as a control group, as it is a common housekeeper gene. It can be easily observed that in the PDRG-1 group, the protein band of Lv-sh1 and Lv-sh2 are thinner than the Lv-shNC, showing the lowered expression of PDRG-1 in the experimental group (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Western blot result of PDRG-1 and GAPDH.
5. TMZ tolerance test 5. TMZ tolerance test
The control group and the PDRG-1 knockdown group are treated with TMZ. The relative cell viability was recorded over 72 hours for U118 (Figure 6A) as well as T98G (Figure 6B). In both groups, there are significant differences between the control group and the PDRG-1 knockdown group. Comparatively, the PDRG-1 knockdown groups show lower cell viability over time and lower TMZ tolerance, which is our expected result.
Figure 6. TMZ tolerance of different glioma cell lines over time. The significance is indicated near the data point using the same abbreviation as listed above. A. the result of the U118 cell line, B. the result of the T98G cell line