Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Oct 14;16(10):e0258187. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258187

Meta-Analysis illustrates possible role of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced tissue injury in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) pathogenesis

David Z Allen 1,*, Jihad Aljabban 2, Dustin Silverman 3, Sean McDermott 1, Ross A Wanner 1, Michael Rohr 4, Dexter Hadley 5, Maryam Panahiazar 6
Editor: Srinivas Mummidi7
PMCID: PMC8516236  PMID: 34648530

Abstract

Background

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a cancer of epithelial origin with a high incidence in certain populations. While NPC has a high remission rate with concomitant chemoradiation, recurrences are frequent, and the downstream morbidity of treatment is significant. Thus, it is imperative to find alternative therapies.

Methods

We employed a Search Tag Analyze Resource (STARGEO) platform to conduct a meta-analysis using the National Center for Biotechnology’s (NCBI) Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) to define NPC pathogenesis. We identified 111 tumor samples and 43 healthy nasopharyngeal epithelium samples from NPC public patient data. We analyzed associated signatures in Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA), restricting genes that showed statistical significance (p<0.05) and an absolute experimental log ratio greater than 0.15 between disease and control samples.

Results

Our meta-analysis identified activation of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced tissue injury in NPC tissue. Additionally, interleukin-1 (IL-1) and SB203580 were the top upstream regulators. Tumorigenesis-related genes such as homeobox A10 (HOXA10) and prostaglandin-endoperoxide synthase 2 (PTGS2 or COX-2) as well as those associated with extracellular matrix degradation, such as matrix metalloproteinases 1 and 3 (MMP-1, MMP-3) were also upregulated. Decreased expression of genes that encode proteins associated with maintaining healthy nasal respiratory epithelium structural integrity, including sentan-cilia apical structure protein (SNTN) and lactotransferrin (LTF) was documented. Importantly, we found that etanercept inhibits targets upregulated in NPC and LPS induction, such as MMP-1, PTGS2, and possibly MMP-3.

Conclusions

Our analysis illustrates that nasal epithelial barrier dysregulation and maladaptive immune responses are key components of NPC pathogenesis along with LPS-induced tissue damage.

Introduction

Since the first published case in 1901, nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) has been a well-known entity in otorhinolaryngology [1, 2]. Of epithelial origin, NPC is most commonly found in the fossa of Rosenmüller and can be a challenging and debilitating diagnosis [2, 3]. While relatively rare in the Western Hemisphere, the incidence of NPC increases with age and is most prevalent among Southeast Asian and Mediterranean populations [4]. In the United States, incidence of NPC is low and disproportionately affects African Americans under the age of 20 [5]. Moreover, risk factors for NPC include occupational hazards such as cotton dust and dye in addition to salted fish [6, 7]. Importantly, infection of the nasopharynx with the Epstein Barr Virus (EBV) confers the greatest risk for developing NPC and represents the majority of pediatric NPC cases [8, 9]. In general, treatment for NPC primarily consists of radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy, which are effective in prolonging survival. However, despite favorable outcomes, relapse rates are relatively high and late effects of these treatment modalities can cause consequential morbidity [10, 11].

Typically, NPC is poorly differentiated and presents at a more advanced stage in children when compared to adult onset NPC [10, 12]. Even in general, a challenging characteristic of NPC is that it does often present in an advanced stage due to its anatomical origin [13]. There are three types of NPC characterized by histological features [14, 15]; type 1 (squamous cell), type 2 (non-keratinizing), and type 3 (undifferentiated) [16]. While most evidence suggests EBV is associated with types 2 and 3 NPC tumors, recent studies suggest a prominent role in type 1 tumors. The pathophysiology of EBV leading to the oncogenesis of NPC has not been completely elucidated; however, some have suggested that its tumorigenesis is triggered by latent membrane proteins (LMP1, LMP2A, and LMP2B) and EBV-determined nuclear antigens (EBNA1 and EBNA2) [17].

Specifically, LMP has been shown to promote NPC tumor development in mouse models and is thought to be driving factor in human NPC [18]. LMP has been shown to inhibit apoptosis and induce epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in NPC cells, and together with p16 expression, was associated with poorer outcomes and overall prognosis [15, 19]. However, canonical pathways associated with NPC pathogenesis are not entirely established. In particular, the wnt pathway is important for NPC development as it facilitates nuclear accumulation of β-catenin and coordinates cellular EMT and tumor oncogenesis [15, 20, 21]. There are also a variety of other factors that play a role in the development of NPC. Of note, homeobox A10 (HOXA10), activating transcription factor 1 (ATF1), and Interleukin 1-B (IL-1B) polymorphisms have been reported to be associated with NPC, among a multitude of others [2224].

Further studies are required to better understand molecular mechanisms involved in NPC pathophysiology, such as the roles of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and general inflammation on nasopharyngeal tissue injury, HOXA10 and matrix metalloproteinases 1 and 3 (MMP1, MMP3) pathways. LPS is a bacterial endotoxin on gram negative bacteria and makes contact with the nasopharynx through normal airflow and eating that can lead to the induction of numerous pathological pathways associated with immune defense [25, 26]. As such, it has been hypothesized that LPS could be a leading driver and inducer of tumorigenesis of NPC, possibly through inflammation [26]. However, the relationship has not been completely elucidated to date and needs more investigation. As such, bioinformatics and performing large scale analysis on publicly available tissue samples is a reasonable avenue to pursue to shed light on this potential relationship.

Meta-analysis of transcriptome data permits more accurate investigation of disease-wide associations between different genes or gene sets. Unearthing common genetic contributions may provide new targets for existing therapeutic interventions while highlighting potential prognostic biomarkers that could be integrated in the management of NPC to improve outcomes and reduce recurrence rates.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information’s (NCBI) Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) is an open-access library consisting of thousands of biological samples from experimentation [2729]. The Search Tag Analyze Resource for GEO (STARGEO) was developed by authors of this investigation to aggregate and perform meta-analyses on GEO transcriptomic data and has been validated based on similarity to The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Pan-Cancer dataset [28]. This study aims to use this technology to elaborate on purported mediators of NPC pathophysiology and determine potential alternative avenues for therapeutic targeting.

Materials and methods

We employed the STARGEO platform to conduct a meta-analysis using the NCBI GEO repository to define NPC pathogenesis. More information on Gene Expression Omnibus can be found in the original reporting [27]. STARGEO is a robust tool to easily tag samples from studies on GEO and perform the appropriate statistical measures for users. Additionally, the large dataset of NPC samples made STARGEO, along with its user-friendliness, the ideal tool to investigate NPC. More information can be found in our previous paper [28]. Briefly, we used a random effect model for meta-analysis was used to produce effect sizes and meta p-values. We used a variation of the inverse-variance method to incorporate an assumption that the different studies are estimating different, yet related, intervention effects. To undertake a random-effects meta-analysis, the standard errors of the study-specific estimates are adjusted to incorporate a measure of the extent of variation, or heterogeneity, among the intervention effects observed in different studies (this variation is often referred to as tau-squared (τ2, or Tau2)). The amount of variation, and hence the adjustment, can be estimated from the intervention effects and standard errors of the studies included in the meta-analysis [30]. Additionally, we scaled the fold change of each gene’s effect by the significance (−log10(P-value) × fold change) and used this score to rank genes by their differential expression and estimate the overlap among the top 200 (1%) of genes shared between the two datasets (NPC/control).

We tagged 111 NPC samples and 43 samples of healthy nasopharyngeal epithelium as controls across five independent studies. We used samples from the GSE12452 [31], GSE13597 [32], GSE53819 [33], GSE40290 [34], and GSE64634 [35] series (Fig 1). More information on the samples tagged within the studies can be found at http://stargeo.org/analysis/612/. NPC samples were taken at time of diagnosis and prior to any treatment. Tagged samples were from EBV-associated NPC tumor samples.

Fig 1. Modified PRISMA diagram of STARGEO sample selection.

Fig 1

We extracted 21,534 genes from our meta-analysis that was then analyzed through the Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) software. We restricted analyzed genes that showed statistical significance (p<0.05) and an absolute experimental log ratio, base of 2, greater than 0.15 between disease and control samples. IPA allows users to bring biological context to omics data, identify canonical pathways in a dataset, and build experimental models to better understand disease. The utility of IPA is expanded on here [36]. A total of 1,510 genes were included in the IPA analysis. This ultimately allowed us to expound upon the process of NPC and potential signatures and theorize on potential drug targets (Table 1). IPA identifies biological “entities” including canonical pathways, curated pathways of well-established metabolic pathways, and top upstream regulators, genes that IPA identifies as having the most influence on effecting the up or downregulation of genes in the inputted dataset. IPA calculates the p-values for these entities using the Fisher’s Exact Test that compares the inputted dataset to the ~52,000 “entities” in IPA’s database. IPA also produces a z-score, which predicts both significance and activation state [36]. Z-score is ultimately calculated using the equation z=N+-N-N where N represent the entity, N+ correctly matching entities between the inputted dataset and the “entities” in IPA’s database and N- representing the incorrect matches. The White Paper goes into greater detail on how IPA calculates p- and z-values for canonical pathways and upstream regulators [37]. We used IPA upstream analysis to screen for drugs that could have potential use in NPC. No IRB approval was deemed necessary for this study as there was no direct involvement of human subjects or patient-protected information.

Table 1. Top upregulated and downregulated genes between normal and NPC tissue along with their corresponding experimental log ratios.

Upregulated Genes in NPC (log ratio) Downregulated Genes in NPC (log ratio)
HOX A10 0.814 SNTN -0.619
CSAG 2/3 0.610 LTF -0.613
FERMT1 0.474 c7orf57 -0.609
PKP1 0.449 MUC16 -0.527
IGF2 B3 0.427 c9orf135 -0.483
MMP3 0.395 EFCAB1 -0.483
MMP1 0.375 TMEM232 -0.475
PTG S2 0.372 c11orf97 -0.457
MMP12 0.192 ADH 1B -0.453
VEGFA 0.127 CFAP 52 -0.449

Results

Top up and down regulated genes

We conducted meta-analysis using STARGEO on a total of 111 NPC tumor samples, using 43 control samples as control, to identify key gene and disease pathways in NPC pathogenesis. Results were processed in Ingenuity Pathway Analysis to provide biological context to our raw data. From IPA analysis, we identified the hepatic stellate cell activation and fibrosis as the top canonical pathway (p = 1.62E-08). Additionally, granulocyte adhesion and diapedesis (p = 4.11E-08), agranulocyte adhesion and diapedesis (p = 1.30E-07), glycoprotein VI (GP6) signaling pathway (p = 1.53E-07), and atherosclerosis signaling (p = 3.54E-07) were other top canonical pathways.

We next focused on the top upregulated genes from our analysis. We identified overexpression of fermitin family homolog 1 (FERMT1, experimental log ratio = 0.474), plakophilin-1 (PKP1, experimental log ratio = 0.449), and matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3, Fig 2). The highest up-regulated gene related to NPC tumorigenesis was transcription factor HOXA10 (experimental log ratio = 0.814), which is known to promote NPC development through interaction with the ZIC2 promoter [22].

Fig 2. LPS associated with the activity of many genes upregulated in NPC.

Fig 2

Image of the downstream analysis of etanercept by STARGEO platform showing inhibition of many LPS-mediated gene dysregulation.

Genes associated with extracellular matrix degradation were identified as important factors of NPC tumorigenesis. Specifically, the metalloproteinases MMP-1 and MMP-3 were upregulated (experimental log ratio = 0.395 and 0.375, respectively). MMP-1 has been extensively studied and is reported to be an essential factor in NPC development, primarily due to its interaction with the LMP-1 gene [16]. Likewise, MMP-3, an activator of MMP-1, has strong associations with NPC development and LPS-induced tissue injury, according to our analysis (Fig 2) [38]. Other oncogenic factors implicated in NPC development were also found to be upregulated including insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA binding protein 3 (IGF2BP3, experimental log ratio = 0.427) and PTSGS2 (COX-2, experimental log ratio = 0.372).

Among the most downregulated genes in NPC tissue were those associated with having differentiated nasal epithelial cells in the tissue sample, indicating possible functional and structural mucosal integrity loss. Of these, sentan-cilia apical structure protein (SNTN) and lactotransferrin (LTF) were the most downregulated (experimental log ratio = -0.619 and -0.613, respectively).

Causal analysis and upstream regulators

IPA Upstream Regulator Analysis recognizes molecules that best explain the observed gene expression in our dataset based on current knowledge of these molecules’ effects on their target genes [36]. IPA examines the direction of change of target genes in our dataset compared to what is known and will either predict that the upstream regulator is activated (gene expression is mostly congruent with the regulator’s known effects) or inhibited (gene expression is mostly incongruent with what is known). The z-score is a measure of the degree of activation, positive score, or inhibition, negative score. IPA identified lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced tissue injury as the top upstream regulator (p = 3.03E-14, activation Z-score = 4.507). LPS is a proxy for inflammation and is associated with NPC carcinogenesis [32, 33]. For example, LPS stimulates multiple inflammatory pathways through toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), leading to expression of prostaglandin E2 along with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and IL-1B, as shown in our analysis (Fig 2). In keeping with these results, we found interluekin-1B (IL-1B, p = 1.18E-11, activation Z-score = 3.553), chromobox protein homolog 5 (CBX5, p = 1.38E-11, activation Z-score = 2.646), and interferon-gamma (IFN-G, p = 3.39E-11, activation Z-score = 2.890) were strongly activated whereas the small molecular inhibitor SB203580 (p = 1.64E-12, activation Z-score = -4.673) was predicted to be inhibited. As expected, these upstream regulators are all associated with NPC pathogenesis [24, 3942]. Importantly, through IPA we found a link between LPS and IL-1B activation (Fig 2).

Therapeutic target analysis

IPA Upstream Regulator can also be used to propose potential new drug candidates. IPA identifies drugs as upstream regulators, as described above. A negative z-score would entail that the genes in the dataset are incongruent with the direction that the drug would have on those genes. Thus, a drug with a negative z-score can potentially “correct” the genetic aberrations identified in our dataset. In search of new indications of existing drugs for the treatment of NPC we screened drug candidates with the highest negative z-scores. After we identified candidate drugs, we looked at the downstream genes known by IPA and looked at the total number of genes in that set that were upregulated in our analysis but would be downregulated by the drug. Infliximab and etanercept had the highest negative activation Z-score, indicating that it could downregulate its downstream genes that were upregulated in our analysis (Tables 2 and 3). Therefore, these drugs may serve as potential candidates for treating NPC, especially as it relates to inflammation-induced injury. Of note, etanercept demonstrated marked inhibition of genes involved in LPS-mediated tissue injury and possibly a role in the process of transformation of normal epithelial cells to cancer cells, such as MMP-1 and PTGS2 (Fig 3). Additionally, infliximab was predicted to inhibit multiple Akt pathway signaling components as well as downstream mediators including PTGS2 and IL-1B (Fig 3).

Table 2. IPA analysis table of upregulated genes both in LPS-induced damage, NPC and inhibited by etanercept.

Upregulated in NPC Upregulated in LPS Inhibited by Etanercept
HOX A10 *
CSAG 2/3 * *
FERMT1 *
PKP1 *
IGF2 B3 * *
MMP3 *Possible
COL 11A1 * *
KREMEN2 * *
MMP1
PTG S2

Table 3. IPA analysis table of gene names that are upregulated in LPS-induced damage, NPC tissue, and inhibited by infliximab.

Upregulated in NPC Upregulated in LPS Inhibited by Infliximab
IL1B
PTGS2 (COX-2)
VEGFA
MMP12

Fig 3.

Fig 3

a-b. IPA analysis and mapping of Etanercept (a) and Infliximab (b).

Discussion

Canonical pathways

Through meta-analysis of publicly available patient samples via STARGEO and IPA, we identified hepatic stellate cell activation and fibrosis as the top canonical pathway. Induction of Wnt pathway components result in nuclear accumulation of B-catenin, an important mediator of EMT and NPC tumorigenesis [43].

Common genes

In support of prior literature, we found similar overexpression in NPC tissue compared to normal nasal epithelium in multiple different genes (Fig 4) such as HOXA10, which was the most upregulated gene in NPC tissue. HOXA10 has been shown to promote development of NPC through its interaction with ZIC2, a protein closely tied to NPC development, potentially through inhibiting apoptosis of cancerous cell lines [44]. In addition, this analysis shows an overexpression of MMP-1, which has a strong role in the development of NPC, potentially by interacting with LMP1 [45, 46]. We also found overexpression of PTSG2, VEGFA, IL1B (Fig 4). Similarly, our analysis found decreased expression of genes that have been supported by NPC studies such as LTF, which has been shown to have an anti-tumor and anti-metastasis effects in NPC through suppressing Akt [47]. In addition, we found under-expression of C7orf57, a gene that is expressed in ciliated nasal epithelial cells and has been downregulated with head and neck cancer and specifically NPC [48].

Fig 4. A volcano plot illustrating the up and downregulated genes in NPC tissue versus normal tissue.

Fig 4

The y-axis is the -Log10(P-Value) illustrating significance while the x-axis is the Log change in expression, illustrating the effect difference between NPC tissue and normal tissue.

Upstream regulators

As stated earlier, this meta-analysis predicted activation of LPS as a proxy for inflammation in NPC tissue. Inflammation has long been known to be associated with tumorigenesis–either as a response to tumor growth or a driver [49]. Specifically, multiple theories exist regarding LPS-induced inflammation and NPC oncogenesis, one of which involving repression of a protective gene; the short palate, lung and nasal epithelium clone 1 (SPLUNC1) [50]. LPS is also a known inducer of the mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway which enhances cellular proliferation in response to interleukin-1 (IL-1), another oncogenic factor for NPC [51]. Additionally, the nasopharynx anatomic location results in constant exposure to metabolites like LPS from the host microbiome. Thus, LPS-containing gram negative bacteria are thought to stimulate TLR4-dependent inflammation by resident macrophages, resulting in the secretion of cytokines (such as TNF and IL-1), which irritates the mucosa and induces MAPK-mediated cellular proliferation and tumorigenesis [52]. Indeed, LPS is a key aspect in our analysis, as it activates TNF, IL-1B, and prostaglandin E2, all three of which are known contributors to NPC pathogenesis [40, 53]. Additionally, our analysis relates LPS activity to induction of FERMT1, PKP1, HOXA10, and MMP-3, a protein inseparably responsible for extracellular matrix breakdown and NPC development. Thus, inhibitors that mitigate LPS-induced damage of the nasopharyngeal epithelium or target downstream components such as TNF and MMP-3 could be beneficial for preventing possible inflammation-triggered tumorigenesis.

In addition to its pro-inflammatory properties, LPS is known to directly interact with IL-1B, a cytokine important for NPC development, which was profoundly upregulated in our analysis. For Chinese populations, there exists a reported association between IL-1B polymorphisms and NPC development [24]. In addition, NPC-infiltrating T cells acquire IL-1 secretory function, further driving tumorigenesis [54]. Furthermore, IL-1 has been shown to be produced by EBV-infected epithelial cells, inducing cellular growth via MAPK in a paracrine and autocrine fashion [55]. In particular, MAPK demonstrated strong associations in our analysis. In fact, we found that many MAPK-associated signaling components were upregulated in NPC samples while SB203580, a small molecule MAPK inhibitor, was predicted to be inhibited; activity of these factors are known mediators of NPC tumorigenesis [56]. Specifically, SB203580 has been shown to down-regulate the p38 MAPK pathway, resulting in MMP-2 inhibition, another protein important for extracellular matrix breakdown, ultimately limiting NPC invasion [57, 58].

Similar to IL-1, interferon-gamma (IFN-G) also stimulates the MAPK pathway and was upregulated in our analysis [59]. It is of note that depending on the cancer, IFN-G activity can either be oncogenic or tumor suppressive [60]. In the context of NPC, IFN-G polymorphisms (13-CA repeats) is linked with enhanced metastatic potential in some Northern Chinese populations [42]. In addition, targeting IFN-G has been posed as a potential therapeutic strategy for NPC, but warrants further investigation [61]. Our analysis suggests that IFN-G upregulation could be related to NPC tumorigenesis, possibly due to its promotion of MAPK signaling.

Top up-regulated genes

As mentioned previously, MMP-1 and MMP-3 are involved in the physiologic breakdown of extracellular matrix which is essential for embryonic development, reproduction, and tissue remodeling. However, aberrant expression of these metalloproteinases is associated with various disease processes, including metastasis through enabling ease of spread and invasion. We show these aspects are highly elevated in our analysis. Specifically, our results support previous findings and suggests that in addition to MMP-1, MMP-3 could be involved in NPC tumorigenesis, thus supporting the clinical utility of anti-MMP therapeutic agents for NPC.

Our analysis also found FERMT1 highly upregulated in NPC samples. This protein is involved with integrin signaling and actin-extracellular matrix interactions. As with the other genes mentioned, FERMT1 has reported associations with cancer, likely through B-catenin regulation [62]. Similarly, we found upregulation of PKP1, an integrin involved with cell desmosomes linking cadherins to cytoskeletal intermediate filaments. Interestingly, PKP1 is reported to be a tumor suppressor but not yet been described in NPC [63].

Top downregulated genes

The most downregulated genes, SNTN, MUC16 and ADH1B, are those associated with nasal epithelium maintenance, suggesting that a decrease in the epithelial barrier integrity could be involved in NPC development. Specifically, SNTN, a gene that encodes the protein sentan, was decidedly downregulated in our analysis. Sentan has been shown to be a part of the ciliary tip, connecting cell membrane with microtubules, and thus potentially associated with airway clearance [64, 65]. Normally, sentan is pointedly expressed in healthy nasopharyngeal tissue [64]. To date, its relationship with oncogenesis has not been well established however there have been fewer differentiated cells in a tumor than in a normal cell in prior investigations [65].

MUC16 is a mucin for which CA-125 is a repeating peptide. CA-125 is a well-known tumor marker in ovarian cancer and it is known to support proliferation and tumorigenesis [66]. However, MUC16 is also expressed in respiratory epithelial cells [67]. MUC16 has been a reported target for cancer therapy [68]. It has a reported association with NPC likely through EBV infection and has been theorized to be a tumor marker for NPC [69].

Last, ADH1B is a member of the alcohol dehydrogenase family and it is a gene that codes for proteins that metabolize a wide variety of substrates, including ethanol, retinol, other aliphatic alcohols, hydroxysteroids, and lipid peroxidation products. Polymorphisms of ADH1B have been associated with decreased risk of head and neck cancer in patients of Asian descent [70]. However, few studies have looked at deregulation of ADH1B expression or activity in the context of NPC. This analysis suggests that it is downregulated in NPC tissue compared to normal nasal epithelium.

Therapeutic targets

Given what is known about the LPS pathway, it can be mapped out to further understand how it could possibly be related to oncogenesis through mediating inflammation. This would potentially provide alternatives for non-radiotherapy or chemotherapies such as etanercept and infliximab. Etanercept is a fusion protein that inhibits TNF and has been successfully used to treat a variety of inflammatory disorders, namely severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [71]. Of note, LPS-induced tissue injury is thought to be a major factor in the development of RA and possibly even osteoarthritis (OA), thus a common pathway for NPC and RA/OA exists [72, 73]. Despite its clinical efficacy in treating inflammatory-based diseases, little research into the possible effect of etanercept has been conducted in treating head and neck cancer such as NPC, which has an abject pro-inflammatory basis. Indeed, IPA analysis illustrated that common upregulated factors in NPC pathogenesis, especially those involved in LPS-mediated tissue damage such as MMP-1 and COX-2, are strongly inhibited by etanercept. Our analysis suggests that etanercept is known to lead to changes of expression in genes that were found to differentiate NPC tissue from normal epithelium.

Infliximab is another anti-TNF medication and poses an alternative possible therapeutic option through inhibition of the LPS pathway. Not only does it inhibit a multitude of pathways that were upregulated in NPC tissue, such as IL-1B and COX-2, it may also modulate IFN-G (as reported in the literature and in our analysis) and Akt-mediated signaling, both of which are related to poor prognosis in NPC [74]. Importantly, VEGFA has been shown to be upregulated in NPC invasion in our analysis (log ratio of 0.127) and in previous studies. Thus an inhibition of that, such as shown here by infliximab, may prove to be beneficial [75]. Another target of interest is MMP-12, which, while shown in preceding research and in our analysis (log ratio 0.192) to be upregulated in NPC tissue, was also potently inhibited by infliximab in our analysis.

To our knowledge, this is the first time etanercept and infliximab have been suggested as a possible treatment for NPC. However, their effectiveness requires clinical correlation and prospective evidence.

Risk of oncogenic potential of etanercept and infliximab

There has been much discussion and controversy about the possibility of anti-TNF medications causing cancer [76, 77]. Specifically, TNF has been known to have multiple associations with carcinogenesis as both a possible enhancer of tumor growth and tumorigenesis in addition to possibly exerting an anti-tumorigenic effect [78].

A meta-analysis from Askling et al. in 2011 [79] suggests that other than non-melanoma skin cancer, both etanercept and infliximab (in addition to Adalimumab) did not lead to an increased risk of cancer. However, with non-melanoma skin cancer, the risk was increased. Another meta-analysis, this time from Leombruno et al. 2008, found no increased risk of lymphoma or non-melanoma skin cancer [77]. In both papers, the authors discussed in great length the difficulty of analyzing the available data (due to variations of reporting by the authors in the studies analyzed and differential grouping of cancers) and to take prudence when interpretating conclusions. In 2012, a review of the epidemiological studies into anti-TNF therapies was undertaken to shed light on the available evidence at that time [80]. The authors recommended more observational studies into the risks of anti-TNF therapy. Specifically, they found that only 11 studies at that time met their classification for observational studies and those that did differed significantly in methodology and allotment. Since then, a recent large cohort study from Sweden, completed by Raaschou et al. 2018 [81] also showed no increased risk of cancer in patients who were treated with adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab. Another study, this time by Waljee et al. 2020 [82], investigated the risk of developing cancer with anti-TNF therapy in patients who had a history of cancer. This study found no increased risk of utilizing anti-TNF therapy [82]. Additionally the European Congress of Rheumatology published the findings of an investigation in 2019 that also found no increased risk of malignancy in patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with anti-TNF therapy in 4 nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden) [83]. In conclusion, with recent data suggesting a relatively low risk of increased risk of developing cancer due to anti-TNF therapy, patients and care providers should feel assured when prescribing these medicines however stay vigilant of any future investigations into this topic.

Limitations

Given that the data incorporated into this analysis is from a public source, our investigation is limited by patient characteristics such as co-morbidities, age, gender, and others. Thus, there is an inherent obstacle when evaluating heterogeneity in the gene effects given the technology.

Conclusions

Through our analysis of over 150 pooled normal and NPC samples, we found that NPC tissue was associated with an overexpression of genes associated with degradation of the nasal epithelial barrier and LPS-induced inflammation and tissue damage compared to healthy nasal epithelium. Overall, crosstalk involving LPS, cytokines, and MMPs converge on inflammation, resulting in predicted inhibition by etanercept and infliximab. Further characterization of downstream targets of etanercept and infliximab may clarify its therapeutic role in the management of NPC. Ultimately, this analysis supports a hypothesis investigating whether or not LPS induces NPC initiation and oncogenesis and future prospective analyses should evaluate this topic given the potential for therapeutic advances.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge multiple people for their assistance in this project. Specifically, we would like to acknowledge Dr. Edmund Mroz, Dr. Ricardo Carrau, Dr. Dukagjin Blakaj for their insights and helpful advice in preparation of this manuscript.

Data Availability

We used samples from the GSE12452 [74], GSE13597[75], GSE53819[76], GSE40290[77], and GSE64634[78] series. More information on the samples tagged within the studies and the raw data can be found at http://stargeo.org/analysis/612/.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Jackson C. Primary carcinoma of the nasopharynx. a table of cases. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1901, XXXVII, 371–377, doi: 10.1001/jama.1901.62470320015001b [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jia W.H.; Qin H. De Non-viral environmental risk factors for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A systematic review. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2012, 22, 117–126. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2012.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sham J.S.T.; Choy D.; Wei W.I.; Ng M.H.; Y-S Z.; Y-Q G. et al. Detection of subclinical riasopharyngeal carcinoma by fibreoptic endoscopy and multiple biopsy. Lancet 1990, 335, 371–374, doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)90206-k [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Yu M.C.; Yuan J.M. Epidemiology of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. In Proceedings of the Seminars in Cancer Biology; Academic Press, 2002; Vol. 12, pp. 421–429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Richey L.M.; Olshan A.F.; George J.; Shores C.G.; Zanation A.M.; Cannon T., et al. Incidence and survival rates for young blacks with nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the United States. Arch. Otolaryngol.—Head Neck Surg. 2006, 132, 1035–1040, doi: 10.1001/archotol.132.10.1035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Li W.; Ray R.M.; Gao D.L.; Fitzgibbons E.D.; Seixas N.S.; Camp J.E., et al. Occupational risk factors for nasopharyngeal cancer among female textile workers in Shanghai, China. Occup. Environ. Med. 2006, 63, 39–44, doi: 10.1136/oem.2005.021709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Armstrong R.W.; Yu M.C.; Henderson B.E. Salted Fish and Inhalants as Risk Factors for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma in Malaysian Chinese. Cancer Res. 1983, 43, 2967–2970. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hjalgrim H.; Friborg J.; Melbye M. The epidemiology of EBV and its association with malignant disease. In Human Herpesviruses: Biology, Therapy, and Immunoprophylaxis; Cambridge University Press, 2007; pp. 929–959 ISBN 9780511545313. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ingersoll L.; Woo S.Y.; Donaldson S.; Giesler J.; Maor M.H.; Goffinet D., et al. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the young: A combined M.D. Anderson and Stanford experience. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1990, 19, 881–887, doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(90)90008-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ayan I.; Kaytan E.; Ayan N. Childhood nasopharyngeal carcinoma: From biology to treatment. Lancet Oncol. 2003, 4, 13–21. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(03)00956-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chang E.T.; Adami H.O. The enigmatic epidemiology of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15, 1765–1777. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0353 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Richards M.K.; Dahl J.P.; Gow K.; Goldin A.B.; Doski J.; Goldfarb M., et al. Factors associated with mortality in pediatric vs adult nasopharyngeal carcinoma. JAMA Otolaryngol.—Head Neck Surg. 2016, 142, 217–222, doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2015.3217 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Abdullah B.; Alias A.; Hassan S. Challenges in the management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A review. Malaysian J. Med. Sci. 2009, 16, 50–54. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Histological Typing of Tumours of the Upper Respiratory Tract and Ear—K. Shanmugaratnam—Google Books https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=z43cBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT12&ots=-jEt69-Ivx&sig=32gnNfndHb8MTJt7s0cBNeiwjm4#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on Apr 9, 2020).
  • 15.Chou J.; Lin Y.C.; Kim J.; You L.; Xu Z.; He B. et al. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma—Review of the molecular mechanisms of tumorigenesis. Head Neck 2008, 30, 946–963. doi: 10.1002/hed.20833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Brennan B. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2006, 1, 23. doi: 10.1186/1750-1172-1-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Brooks L.; Yao Q.Y.; Rickinson A.B.; Young L.S. Epstein-Barr virus latent gene transcription in nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells: coexpression of EBNA1, LMP1, and LMP2 transcripts. J. Virol. 1992, 66, 2689–97. doi: 10.1128/JVI.66.5.2689-2697.1992 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wang D.; Liebowitz D.; Kieff E. An EBV membrane protein expressed in immortalized lymphocytes transforms established rodent cells. Cell 1985, 43, 831–840, doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(85)90256-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rosales-Pérez S.; Cano-Valdez A.M.; Flores-Balcázar C.H.; Guedea-Edo F.; Lino-Silva L.S.; Lozano-Borbalas A. et al. Expression of Epstein-Barr Virus-encoded Latent Membrane Protein (LMP-1), p16 and p53 Proteins in Nonendemic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (NPC): AClinicopathological Study. Arch. Med. Res. 2014, 45, 229–236, doi: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2014.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Allali J.; Chauve C.; Denise A.; Drevet C.; Ferraro P.; Gautheret D., et al. BRASERO: A resource for benchmarking RNA secondary structure comparison algorithms. Adv. Bioinformatics 2012, 2012, 5, doi: 10.1155/2012/893048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zeng Z.Y.; Zhou Y.H.; Zhang W.L.; Xiong W.; Fan S.Q.; Li X.L., et al. Gene expression profiling of nasopharyngeal carcinoma reveals the abnormally regulated Wnt signaling pathway. Hum. Pathol. 2007, 38, 120–133, doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2006.06.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Shen Z.H.; Zhao K.M.; Du T. HOXA10 promotes nasopharyngeal carcinoma cell proliferation and invasion via inducing the expression of ZIC2. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2017, 21, 945–952. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Peng S.; Huang G.; Xu N.; Lu Y.; Zeng L.; Li X., et al. The human ATF 1 rs11169571 polymorphism associated with risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Southern Chinese populations. Cancer Med. 2019, 8, 1893–1898, doi: 10.1002/cam4.2022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zhu Y.; Xu Y.; Wei Y.; Liang W.; Liao M.; Zhang L. Association of IL-1B Gene Polymorphisms with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma in a Chinese Population. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 20, 207–211, doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2008.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Borghini L.; Hibberd M.; Davila S. Changes in H3K27ac following lipopolysaccharide stimulation of nasopharyngeal epithelial cells. BMC Genomics 2018, 19, 969, doi: 10.1186/s12864-018-5295-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yang Y.; Zhou H.; Yang Y.; Li W.; Zhou M.; Zeng Z., et al. Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) regulates TLR4 signal transduction in nasopharynx epithelial cell line 5-8F via NFκB and MAPKs signaling pathways. Mol. Immunol. 2007, 44, 984–992, doi: 10.1016/j.molimm.2006.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Barrett T.; Wilhite S.E.; Ledoux P.; Evangelista C.; Kim I.F.; Tomashevsky M., et al. NCBI GEO: archive for functional genomics data sets—update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41, D991–5, doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hadley D.; Pan J.; El-Sayed O.; Aljabban J.; Aljabban I.; Azad T.D., et al. Precision annotation of digital samples in NCBI’s gene expression omnibus. Sci. Data 2017, 4, doi: 10.1038/sdata.2017.125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Edgar R. Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30, 207–210, doi: 10.1093/nar/30.1.207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.DerSimonian R.; Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control. Clin. Trials 1986, 7, 177–188, doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dodd L.E.; Sengupta S.; Chen I.H.; Den Boon J.A.; Cheng Y.J.; Westra W., et al. Genes involved in DNA repair and nitrosami ne metabolism and those located on chromosome 14q32 are dysregulated in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15, 2216–2225, doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bose S.; Yap L.F.; Fung M.; Starzcynski J.; Saleh A.; Morgan S., et al. The ATM tumour suppressor gene is down-regulated in EBV-associated nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J. Pathol. 2009, 217, 345–352, doi: 10.1002/path.2487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bao Y.N.; Cao X.; Luo D.H.; Sun R.; Peng L.X.; Wang L., et al. Urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor signaling is critical in nasopharyngeal carcinoma cell growth and metastasis. Cell Cycle 2014, 13, 1958–1969, doi: 10.4161/cc.28921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Peng H.; Gong P.G.; Li J.B.; Cai L.M.; Yang L.; Liu Y. yi, et al. The important role of the receptor for activated C kinase 1 (RACK1) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma progression. J. Transl. Med. 2016, 14, doi: 10.1186/s12967-016-0885-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bo H.; Gong Z.; Zhang W.; Li X.; Zeng Y.; Liao Q., et al. Upregulated long non-coding RNA AFAP1-AS1 expression is associated with progression and poor prognosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 20404–20418, doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.4057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Krämer A.; Green J.; Pollard J.; Tugendreich S. Causal analysis approaches in ingenuity pathway analysis. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 523–530, doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tugendreich S.P.D. Understanding biological mechanisms in transcriptomics or proteomics datasets with Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) and Analysis Match. White Pap. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kondo S.; Wakisaka N.; Schell M.J.; Horikawa T.; Sheen T.-S.; Sato H. et al. Epstein-Barr virus latent membrane protein 1 induces the matrix metalloproteinase-1 promoter via an Ets binding site formed by a single nucleotide polymorphism: Enhanced susceptibility to nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int. J. Cancer 2005, 115, 368–376, doi: 10.1002/ijc.20849 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hou T.; Yin S.; Zhu Z.; Long J.; Huang Z.; Huang Q. Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) regulates peroxide to affect the development of nasopharyngeal carcinoma by suppressing Act1 expression; 2017; Vol. 10;. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Huang Y.T.; Sheen T.S.; Chen C.L.; Lu J.; Chang Y.; Chen J.Y. et al. Profile of cytokine expression in nasopharyngeal carcinomas: a distinct expression of interleukin 1 in tumor and CD4+ T cells. Cancer Res. 1999, 59, 1599–605. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Liu M.; Zhu K.; Qian X.; Li W. Identification of miRNA/mRNA-negative regulation pairs in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Med. Sci. Monit. 2016, 22, 2215–2234, doi: 10.12659/msm.896047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hao K.; Yan Z.; Shuang Y.; Sun J.; Tao S.; Fu W., et al. Association between interferon gamma 13-CA-repeats polymorphism and metastasis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in a population of Northern China. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 2015, 8, 7409–7414. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Fan H.; Cao H.; Sun Y.; Chen K.; Diao Y.; Zhou N. et al. Endotracheal intubation in elective cervical surgery. Med. (United States) 2017, 96, doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007817 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Yi W.; Wang J.; Yao Z.; Kong Q.; Zhang N.; Mo W., et al. The expression status of ZIC2 as a prognostic marker for nasopharyngeal carcinoma; 2018; Vol. 11;. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ben Nasr H.; Chahed K.; Remadi S.; Zakhama A.; Chouchane L. Expression and Clinical Significance of Latent Membrane Protein-1, Matrix Metalloproteinase-1 and Ets-1 Transcription Factor in Tunisian Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients. Arch. Med. Res. 2009, 40, 196–203, doi: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2009.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Yang R.; Xu Y.; Li P.; Zhang X.; Wang J.; Gu D., et al. Combined upregulation of matrix metalloproteinase-1 and proteinase-activated receptor-1 predicts unfavorable prognosis in human nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Onco. Targets. Ther. 2013, 6, 1139–1146, doi: 10.2147/OTT.S50389 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Deng M.; Zhang W.; Tang H.; Ye Q.; Liao Q.; Zhou Y., et al. Lactotransferrin acts as a tumor suppressor in nasopharyngeal carcinoma by repressing AKT through multiple mechanisms. Oncogene 2013, 32, 4273–4283, doi: 10.1038/onc.2012.434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Uhlen M.; Zhang C.; Lee S.; Sjöstedt E.; Fagerberg L.; Bidkhori G., et al. A pathology atlas of the human cancer transcriptome. Science (80-.). 2017, 357, doi: 10.1126/science.aan2507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Coussens L.M.; Werb Z. Inflammation and cancer. Nature 2002, 420, 860–867. doi: 10.1038/nature01322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Zhang H.; Li X.; Liao S.; Wang H.; Chen P.; Zhu G., et al. SPLUNC1 knockout enhances LPS-induced lung injury by increasing recruitment of CD11b+Gr-1+ cells to the spleen of mice. Oncol. Rep. 2018, 39, 358–366, doi: 10.3892/or.2017.6063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Neuder L.E.; Keener J.M.; Eckert R.E.; Trujillo J.C.; Jones S.L. Role of p38 MAPK in LPS induced pro-inflammatory cytokine and chemokine gene expression in equine leukocytes. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2009, 129, 192–199, doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2008.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Yang Y.; Liao Q.; Wei F.; Li X.; Zhang W.; Fan S., et al. LPLUNC1 Inhibits Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Cell Growth via Down-Regulation of the MAP Kinase and Cyclin D1/E2F Pathways. PLoS One 2013, 8, e62869, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Siegler G.; Meyer B.; Dawson C.; Brachtel E.; Lennerz J.; Koch C., et al. Expression of tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated factor 1 in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Possible upregulation by Epstein-Barr virus latent membrane protein 1. Int. J. Cancer 2004, 112, 265–272, doi: 10.1002/ijc.20367 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Yip W.K.; Abdullah M.A.; Yusoff S.M.; Seow H.F. Increase in tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes with regulatory T cell immunophenotypes and reduced ζ-chain expression in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 2009, 155, 412–422, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2008.03793.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Busson P.; Braham K.; Ganem G.; Thomas F.; Grausz D.; Lipinski M., et al. Epstein-Barr virus-containing epithelial cells from nasopharyngeal carcinoma produce interleukin 1α. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1987, 84, 6262, doi: 10.1073/pnas.84.17.6262 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Farhat F.; Daulay E.R.; Chrestella J.; Asnir R.A.; Yudhistira A.; Susilo R.R. Correlation of P38 mitogen-activated protein kinase expression to clinical stage in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 2018, 6, 1982–1985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Lin M.-L.; Lu Y.-C.; Chung J.-G.; Wang S.-G.; Lin H.-T.; Kang S.-E., et al. Down-regulation of MMP-2 through the p38 MAPK-NF-κB-dependent pathway by aloe-emodin leads to inhibition of nasopharyngeal carcinoma cell invasion. Mol. Carcinog. 2010, 49, n/a–n/a, doi: 10.1002/mc.20652 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Jittreetat T.; Shin Y.S.; Hwang H.S.; Lee B.S.; Kim Y.S.; Sannikorn P., et al. Tolfenamic acid inhibits the proliferation, migration, and invasion of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Involvement of p38-mediated down-regulation of slug. Yonsei Med. J. 2016, 57, 588–598, doi: 10.3349/ymj.2016.57.3.588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Valledor A.F.; Sánchez-Tilló E.; Arpa L.; Park J.M.; Caelles C.; Lloberas J., et al. Selective Roles of MAPKs during the Macrophage Response to IFN-γ. J. Immunol. 2008, 180, 4523–4529, doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.180.7.4523 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Castro F.; Cardoso A.P.; Gonçalves R.M.; Serre K.; Oliveira M.J. Interferon-gamma at the crossroads of tumor immune surveillance or evasion. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00847 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Dimery I.W.; Jacobs C.; Tseng A.; Saks S.; Pearson G.; Hong W.K., et al. Recombinant interferon-gamma in the treatment of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J. Biol. Response Mod. 1989, 8, 221–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Liu C.C.; Cai D.L.; Sun F.; Wu Z.H.; Yue B.; Zhao S.L., et al. FERMT1 mediates epithelial-mesenchymal transition to promote colon cancer metastasis via modulation of β-catenin transcriptional activity. Oncogene 2017, 36, 1779–1792, doi: 10.1038/onc.2016.339 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Haase D.; Cui T.; Yang L.; Ma Y.; Liu H.; Theis B., et al. Plakophilin 1 is methylated and has a tumor suppressive activity in human lung cancer. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 2019, 108, 73–79, doi: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2019.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Kubo A.; Yuba-Kubo A.; Tsukita S.; Tsukita S.; Amagai M. Sentan: A novel specific component of the apical structure of vertebrate motile cilia. Mol. Biol. Cell 2008, 19, 5338–5346, doi: 10.1091/mbc.e08-07-0691 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Tissue expression of SNTN—Staining in nasopharynx—The Human Protein Atlas https://www.proteinatlas.org/ENSG00000188817-SNTN/tissue/nasopharynx (accessed on Apr 15, 2020).
  • 66.Felder M.; Kapur A.; Gonzalez-Bosquet J.; Horibata S.; Heintz J.; Albrecht R., et al. MUC16 (CA125): Tumor biomarker to cancer therapy, a work in progress. Mol. Cancer 2014, 13, 1–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Uhlén M.; Fagerberg L.; Hallström B.M.; Lindskog C.; Oksvold P.; Mardinoglu A., et al. Tissue-based map of the human proteome. Science (80-.). 2015, 347, doi: 10.1126/science.1260419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Aithal A.; Rauth S.; Kshirsagar P.; Shah A.; Lakshmanan I.; Junker W.M., et al. MUC16 as a novel target for cancer therapy. Expert Opin. Ther. Targets 2018, 22, 675–686. doi: 10.1080/14728222.2018.1498845 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Zhao, H.; Ju, J. The Role of MUC16 in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting North American Skull Base Society; Georg Thieme Verlag KG, 2019; Vol. 80, p. A162.
  • 70.Tan B.; Ning N. Association of ADH1B Arg47His polymorphism with the risk of cancer: A meta-analysis. Biosci. Rep. 2019, 29, doi: 10.1042/BSR20181915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Jarvis B.; Faulds D. Ethanercept: A review of its use in rheumatoid arthritis. Drugs 1999, 57, 945–966, doi: 10.2165/00003495-199957060-00014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Yoshino S.; Ohsawa M. The role of lipopolysaccharide injected systemically in the reactivation of collagen-induced arthritis in mice. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2000, 129, 1309–1314, doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0703166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Huang Z.; Kraus V.B. Does lipopolysaccharide-mediated inflammation have a role in OA? Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 2016, 12, 123–129. doi: 10.1038/nrrheum.2015.158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Agnholt J.; Kaltoft K. Infliximab downregulates interferon-γ production in activated gut T-lymphocytes from patients with Crohn’s disease. Cytokine 2001, 15, 212–222, doi: 10.1006/cyto.2001.0919 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Chen J.; Lu F.; Hu C. MicroRNA-299 targets VEGFA and inhibits the growth, chemosensitivity and invasion of human nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells. J. BUON. 24, 2049–2055. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Wu C.-Y.; Chen D.-Y.; Shen J.-L.; Ho H.J.; Chen C.-C.; Kuo K.N., et al. The risk of cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tumor necrosis factor antagonists: a nationwide cohort study. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2014, 16, 449, doi: 10.1186/s13075-014-0449-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Leombruno J.P.; Einarson T.R.; Keystone E.C. The safety of anti-tumour necrosis factor treatments in rheumatoid arthritis: Meta and exposure-adjusted pooled analyses of serious adverse events. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2009, 68, 1136–1145, doi: 10.1136/ard.2008.091025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Wang X.; Lin Y. Tumor necrosis factor and cancer, buddies or foes? Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 2008, 29, 1275–1288. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7254.2008.00889.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Askling J.; Fahrbach K.; Nordstrom B.; Ross S.; Schmid C.H.; Symmons D. Cancer risk with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) inhibitors: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab using patient level data. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2011, 20, 119–130, doi: 10.1002/pds.2046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Solomon D.H.; Mercer E.; Kavanaugh A. Observational studies on the risk of cancer associated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: A review of their methodologies and results. Arthritis Rheum. 2012, 64, 21–32. doi: 10.1002/art.30653 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Raaschou P.; Söderling J.; Turesson C.; Askling J., for the A.S. Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors and Cancer Recurrence in Swedish Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis. 10.7326/M17-2812 2018, 169, 291–299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Waljee A.K.; Higgins P.D.R.; Jensen C.B.; Villumsen M.; Cohen-Mekelburg S.A.; Wallace B.I., et al. Anti-tumour necrosis factor-α therapy and recurrent or new primary cancers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, or psoriasis and previous cancer in Denmark: a nationwide, population-based cohort study. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 5, 276–284, doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30362-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Ballegaard C.; Hellgren K.; Cordtz R.; Delcoigne B.; Gudbjornsson B.; Love T.J., et al. OP0005 INCIDENCE OF OVERALL AND SITE-SPECIFIC CANCERS IN TNF INHIBITOR TREATED PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: A POPULATION-BASED COHORT STUDY FROM 4 NORDIC COUNTRIES. In Proceedings of the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases; BMJ, 2019; Vol. 78, pp. 67.3–68. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Srinivas Mummidi

27 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-37466

Meta-Analysis illustrates possible role of lipopolysaccharide

(LPS)-induced tissue injury in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) pathogenesis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Allen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers raised some pertinent and important issues that are related to description of the methodology used and heterogeneity of samples among others which need to be addressed.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by 07/01/2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Srinivas Mummidi, D.V.M., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

  1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

  1. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”.

4. We note that Figures 2-3 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1.              You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2-3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.              If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Allen et al. carried out a meta-analysis pointing to a possible role of LPS-induced tissue injury in NPC pathogenesis. The authors also performed sophisticated IPA analysis. The statistical analysis was very poorly described. My criticisms are intended to increase the quality of the paper by presenting more detailed information regarding the statistical methods.

1) On page 3 at line 95 the authors stated “. . . standard and random fixed effects models for meta-analysis was used to produce effect sizes and meta p-values.” Prior to this statement the authors indicated that the STARGEO platform was used to conduct the meta-analysis and they also cited a previous paper from their group by Hadley et al. (2017) for more information (their reference 27). There are several problems in this regard that should be addressed:

A) It is unclear what “standard and random fixed effects models” means. Do the authors mean both effects together as in a mixed effects model or one or the other as dictated by the data across studies?

B) Citing the STARGEO platform does not suffice as a description of the meta-analysis approach. Inspection of the STARGEO website did not reveal any mention of exactly how the meta-analysis is carried out. Moreover, citing Hadley et al. (2017) for more information also does not suffice because that paper does not adequately describe the meta-analysis approach.

C) How is heterogeneity (if a random or mixed effects model was used) modeled?

D) How are effect sizes combined? The authors mentioned that the Dersimonian-Laird inverse variance method was used to study weight percentages. Was this used to combine effect sizes? How is error in the combined effect size estimated?

2) The authors quoted a number of p-values as being obtained from IPA analysis (e.g., page 4 at lines 125 to 127). Please describe the specifics of the test used by the IPA software to compute these p-values.

3) On page 5 at line 159, the authors mention the use of z-scores to measure the degree of activation (if positive) or inhibition (if negative). Is this a meta-analysis z-score? If so, the answer to 1D is relevant because it involves the standard error of the meta-analysis combined effect. If not, then please describe how this z-score is obtained.

Reviewer #2: This meta-analysis examined lipopolysaccharides (LPS) as an effector of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The authors contrasted 111 tumor samples with 43 samples of normal epithelium. The study is original, including a very common (almost ubiquitous) risk: the exposure to LPS as a possible etiology for the disease. Nevertheless, the researchers have weak points that must be addressed to strengthen the manuscript:

1. In the introduction section, the authors briefly mentioned LPS. The authors must clarify mechanistic LPS paths to reach the nasopharynx and plausible physiopathology. Should NPC be related to local microbiota?

2. The analysis did not give any clue regarding the heterogeneity between samples in the STARGEO dataset. Can the authors compute the variance attributable to the tissue samples? Do they have access to clinical features of the tissue samples? The differentiation of the histological type of NPC is relevant due to its relation with the Epstein Barr virus. The NPC type can be a source of heterogeneity and limitation for the analysis.

3. It is essential to have a correct interpretation of the contrast between pathological vs healthy tissue. The authors should clarify which type of log-ratio function was computed. As this function is a binary form, some researchers divide the log2(NPC/control) by two, others no. If the authors used the straight log2 ratio, what was the rationale to use a cutoff point of 0.15? The highest value was less than 1, therefore the researchers worked with tiny effect sizes, meanwhile, large values on z-score came from the Ingenuity analysis.

4. The researchers used a standard (perhaps "fixed") and randomized meta-analysis. How did they adjust by confounders? Or they did not consider these adjustments? (Perhaps due to restriction from the original dataset). Please comment on the discussion.

5. The use of Etanercept or Infliximab can induce some cancers and both have constraints as therapeutic agents for tumors. The authors should comments in deep on the pros and cons.

6. A call for prudence regarding the reference on alcohol as a risk factor for NPC. The cited study gave weak evidence to this statement: It was a retrospective design, smoking was a big confounder (except for heavy drinkers) associated with alcohol consumption, and finally, the calculated HR showed a small effect. Looks that there are few commonalities between drinking molecular pathways (large effects) and the NPC (small support from the meta-analysis).

7. Finally, the described findings are common to many other pathologies and the proposed etiology, and the suggestion that there was a common risk factor between NPC and hepatic cirrhosis is alcohol does not have strong support.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 14;16(10):e0258187. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258187.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0


22 Aug 2021

Please see attached document, to be honest I am unsure what this question is asking/how it differs from the official response to the reviewers document that was uploaded.

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you for your comments. We did our best to respond to all of them. We made the new manuscript reflect the changes by using red font. Please let me know if we need to alter anything.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Thank you, we made the appropriate changes.

PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

We linked an ORCID iD account.

We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”.

We created a PRISMA guidance and attached it into the Supporting Information.

4. We note that Figures 2-3 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2-3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Thank you for this comment, we have an IPA license and as such, we have a right to use their images. Please email me at davidzallen614@gmail.com if I can provide anymore assistance in this matter.

Reviewer #1: Allen et al. carried out a meta-analysis pointing to a possible role of LPS-induced tissue injury in NPC pathogenesis. The authors also performed sophisticated IPA analysis. The statistical analysis was very poorly described. My criticisms are intended to increase the quality of the paper by presenting more detailed information regarding the statistical methods.

1) On page 3 at line 95 the authors stated “. . . standard and random fixed effects models for meta-analysis was used to produce effect sizes and meta p-values.” Prior to this statement the authors indicated that the STARGEO platform was used to conduct the meta-analysis and they also cited a previous paper from their group by Hadley et al. (2017) for more information (their reference 27). There are several problems in this regard that should be addressed:

A) It is unclear what “standard and random fixed effects models” means. Do the authors mean both effects together as in a mixed effects model or one or the other as dictated by the data across studies?

Thank you for asking this question, though STARGEO generates produces both random and fixed effects, we only used the random model for our analysis and made the clarification.

B) Citing the STARGEO platform does not suffice as a description of the meta-analysis approach. Inspection of the STARGEO website did not reveal any mention of exactly how the meta-analysis is carried out. Moreover, citing Hadley et al. (2017) for more information also does not suffice because that paper does not adequately describe the meta-analysis approach.

C) How is heterogeneity (if a random or mixed effects model was used) modeled?

We designed a simple analytical where more advanced curators could design, compute and visualize standard genomic meta-analysis of both random and fixed effects across tagged and annotated digital samples. We also used spearman rank correlation across all comparisons of differentially expressed genes between STARGEO.org (random versus fixed effects) meta-analyses.

D) How are effect sizes combined? The authors mentioned that the Dersimonian-Laird inverse variance method was used to study weight percentages. Was this used to combine effect sizes? How is error in the combined effect size estimated?

This used to calculate the weight for estimation of the “random effects”. Specifically, we used inverse variance weighting for pooling of the data across studies with different sizes , and calculated weights for estimates of random effects with continuous outcome data via the DerSimonian-Laird estimate. A variation on the inverse-variance method is to incorporate an assumption that the different studies are estimating different, yet related, intervention effects. To undertake a random-effects meta-analysis, the standard errors of the study-specific estimates are adjusted to incorporate a measure of the extent of variation, or heterogeneity, among the intervention effects observed in different studies (this variation is often referred to as tau-squared (τ2, or Tau2)). The amount of variation, and hence the adjustment, can be estimated from the intervention effects and standard errors of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

2) The authors quoted a number of p-values as being obtained from IPA analysis (e.g., page 4 at lines 125 to 127). Please describe the specifics of the test used by the IPA software to compute these p-values.

Thank you for pointing this out as it was not clear. The canonical pathways and top upstream regulators are calculated by IPA in the cited paper in line 112. We added some clarification and the appropriate citations.

3) On page 5 at line 159, the authors mention the use of z-scores to measure the degree of activation (if positive) or inhibition (if negative). Is this a meta-analysis z-score? If so, the answer to 1D is relevant because it involves the standard error of the meta-analysis combined effect. If not, then please describe how this z-score is obtained.

Thank you for this comment, IPA calculates the z-score with this software and we added how it is done in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: This meta-analysis examined lipopolysaccharides (LPS) as an effector of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The authors contrasted 111 tumor samples with 43 samples of normal epithelium. The study is original, including a very common (almost ubiquitous) risk: the exposure to LPS as a possible etiology for the disease.

Nevertheless, the researchers have weak points that must be addressed to strengthen the manuscript:

1. In the introduction section, the authors briefly mentioned LPS. The authors must clarify mechanistic LPS paths to reach the nasopharynx and plausible physiopathology. Should NPC be related to local microbiota?

Thank you for this comment. We added more information regarding the background of LPS and its exposure into the nasopharynx.

2. The analysis did not give any clue regarding the heterogeneity between samples in the STARGEO dataset. Can the authors compute the variance attributable to the tissue samples? Do they have access to clinical features of the tissue samples? The differentiation of the histological type of NPC is relevant due to its relationship with the Epstein Barr virus. The NPC type can be a source of heterogeneity and limitation for the analysis.

Thank you for this comment. After looking through the underlying research, these NPC samples were all EBV-related.

3. It is essential to have a correct interpretation of the contrast between pathological vs healthy tissue. The authors should clarify which type of log-ratio function was computed. As this function is a binary form, some researchers divide the log2(NPC/control) by two, others no. If the authors used the straight log2 ratio, what was the rationale to use a cutoff point of 0.15? The highest value was less than 1, therefore the researchers worked with tiny effect sizes, meanwhile, large values on z-score came from the Ingenuity analysis.

We scaled the fold change of each gene’s effect by the significance (−log10(P-value) × fold change), and used this score to rank genes by their differential expression and estimate the overlap among the top 200 (1%) of genes shared between the two datasets (NPC/control).

4. The researchers used a standard (perhaps "fixed") and randomized meta-analysis. How did they adjust by confounders? Or they did not consider these adjustments? (Perhaps due to restriction from the original dataset). Please comment on the discussion.

Thank you for this comment. We clarified with reviewer comments that a random model was used. We were limited by the original dataset so could not adjust for confounding variables such as co-morbidities.

5. The use of Etanercept or Infliximab can induce some cancers and both have constraints as therapeutic agents for tumors. The authors should comments in deep on the pros and cons.

Thank you for the comment. We discussed in detail the existing literature into the oncogenic potential of etanercept and infliximab.

6. A call for prudence regarding the reference on alcohol as a risk factor for NPC. The cited study gave weak evidence to this statement: It was a retrospective design, smoking was a big confounder (except for heavy drinkers) associated with alcohol consumption, and finally, the calculated HR showed a small effect. Looks that there are few commonalities between drinking molecular pathways (large effects) and the NPC (small support from the meta-analysis).

Thank you for this comment. Given the underlying literature, we removed from paper.

7. Finally, the described findings are common to many other pathologies and the proposed etiology, and the suggestion that there was a common risk factor between NPC and hepatic cirrhosis is alcohol does not have strong support.

Thank you for this comment. Given the underlying literature, we removed from paper.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Srinivas Mummidi

22 Sep 2021

Meta-Analysis illustrates possible role of lipopolysaccharide

(LPS)-induced tissue injury in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) pathogenesis

PONE-D-20-37466R1

Dear Dr. Allen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Before your final submission, I would recommend addressing the suggestion of the second reviewer.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Srinivas Mummidi, D.V.M., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The clarifications incorporated in the revised version have made the paper stronger and acceptable for publication. Congratulations on the outstanding work!

Reviewer #2: The authors accomplished the requested clarifications in concepts like LPS, EBV-related samples. The authors made a good analysis of the potential oncogenicity of the recommended drugs.

The authors dropped the concept of alcohol pathogenesis because it did not have support according to the current scientific literature.

The authors have problems dealing with the sources of heterogeneity of the sample. This is concerning the scarce information on data confounders in the specific platform they used. Like any other gene repository, it has its constraints. Strictly speaking, this paper is not like a literature Meta-Analysis. The PRISMA must be modified for making this specific genetic analysis.

The authors addressed the questions I had. The paper can be published with a minor clarification on the difficulty to analyze the source of heterogeneity in the gene effects, this difficulty is inherent to the platform limitation on including confounders, and then con not be implement the used statistical methodology.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Srinivas Mummidi

28 Sep 2021

PONE-D-20-37466R1

Meta-Analysis illustrates possible role of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced tissue injury in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) pathogenesis

Dear Dr. Allen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Srinivas Mummidi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

    (DOC)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PRISMA checklist.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    We used samples from the GSE12452 [74], GSE13597[75], GSE53819[76], GSE40290[77], and GSE64634[78] series. More information on the samples tagged within the studies and the raw data can be found at http://stargeo.org/analysis/612/.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES