Skip to main content
Download PDF

Association between colorectal cancer, the frequency of Bacteroides fragilis, and the level of mismatch repair genes expression in the biopsy samples of Iranian patients

BMC Gastroenterology volume 24, Article number: 82 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Deficient DNA mismatch repair (MMR) can cause microsatellite instability (MSI) and is more common in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Understanding the carcinogenic mechanism of bacteria and their impact on cancer cells is crucial. Bacteroides fragilis (B. fragilis) has been identified as a potential promoter of tumorigenesis through the alteration of signaling pathways. This study aims to assess the expression levels of msh2, msh6, mlh1, and the relative frequency of B. fragilis in biopsy samples from CRC patients.

Materials and methods

Based on the sequence of mlh1, msh2, and msh6 genes, B. fragilis specific 16srRNA and bacterial universal 16srRNA specific primers were selected, and the expression levels of the target genes were analyzed using the Real-Time PCR method.

Results

Significant increases in the expression levels of mlh1, msh2, and msh6 genes were observed in the cancer group. Additionally, the expression of these MMR genes showed a significant elevation in samples positive for B. fragilis presence. The relative frequency of B. fragilis in the cancer group demonstrated a significant rise compared to the control group.

Conclusion

The findings suggest a potential correlation between the abundance of B. fragilis and alterations in the expression of MMR genes. Since these genes can play a role in modifying colon cancer, investigating microbial characteristics and gene expression changes in CRC could offer a viable solution for CRC diagnosis.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent malignancies afflicting both men and women [1]. Globally, CRC ranks as the second cause of cancer-related deaths, claiming the lives of many, and is the third most common cancer worldwide. Fortunately, the incidence of CRC in Iranian individuals is comparatively lower than in Western countries [2]. As of 2020, reports indicate that 1.9 million people are diagnosed with CRC annually [3, 4]. Given its considerable lethality, swift and early diagnosis and intervention become imperative [5]. Individuals with CRC exhibit noticeable alterations in gut microbiota compared to healthy individuals. Notably, there is an increase in the presence of B. fragilis, Fusobacterium, Enterobacteriaceae, Campylobacter, Erysipelotrichaceae, Collinsella, and Peptostreptococcus in the faeces of CRC patients. Numerous studies underscore the significance of B. fragilis as an enterotoxin-producing bacterium, playing a pivotal role in the initiation and progression of CRC. This involvement occurs through modulation of the mucosal immune response, epithelial cell modification, and the induction of adenoma in the primary stages of CRC [6,7,8,9].

Recent investigations confirm the increase of toxigenic B. fragilis species in CRC patients. Furthermore, the presence of toxigenic B. fragilis markers has been validated in the colon and terminal ileum of patients with ulcerative colitis, a population prone to developing colon cancer [10, 11]. It is demonstrated that B. fragilis is a predominant and consistent pathogen in stool mucosa and colon tissue samples of CRC patients [12].

While CRC primary diagnosis conventionally relies on colonoscopy, molecular markers such as carcinoembryonic antigen in serum are employed in clinical settings for CRC diagnosis [13]. However, identifying markers indicative of the transformation from adenomatous polyp to adenocarcinoma in the disease’s early stages remains elusive [14]. Addressing this gap, the identification of diagnostic markers could expedite CRC diagnosis and impede its progression.

The Mismatch Repair (MMR) system, integral to DNA homeostasis, is among the enzyme systems crucial for maintaining genomic stability. MMR loss leads to the rapid accumulation of potential mutations, predisposing individuals to specific cancer types [15].

Mutations in MMR proteins result in Microsatellite Instability (MSI), a genomic instability syndrome implicated in Lynch syndrome and gastrointestinal cancers. Lynch syndrome primarily arises from germ cell mutations, predominantly in mlh1 or msh2, and to a lesser extent in msh6 and rarely pms2 [13]. MMR genes encode proteins that recognize and repair errors that occur during cell replication. In individuals with mutations in MMR genes, such as msh2, msh6, and mlh1, the risk of CRC is significantly increased [14].

Scientific evidence indicates a substantial increase or decrease in the relative expression of MMR system genes in various human cancers [16]. Recent studies underscore a significant elevation in the relative expression of MMR system genes in CRC patients. Consequently, evaluating the extent to which their expression fluctuates in different diseases can serve as a biomarker for cancer diagnosis and treatment, particularly in the context of colorectal cancer. In this study, the expression of mlh1, msh2, and msh6 genes and the relative presence of B. fragilis in biopsy specimens of patients with CRC and healthy individuals were investigated by Real-Time PCR to determine whether the presence of this bacterium affects the expression of selected genes that are involved in CRC development.

Method

Sampling

In this study, two separate groups of individuals were evaluated. The first group consisted of twenty healthy individuals suspected of CRC who underwent a colonoscopy, while the second group included a total of 40 patients with CRC. Colonoscopy biopsies were got from the right (from the cecum to transverse colon) and left (from descending colon to the rectum) colons of patients. Tissue biopsies were collected in Transystem tubes containing normal saline and RNA-later, and were kept at − 20 °C until analysis.

DNA and RNA extraction and cDNA synthesis

Biopsy samples have been extracted using special DNA and RNA extraction kits (ROJE Company- Iran) to analyze tissue samples. In the following step, a spectrophotometer (Nano Drop, 2000) was used to measure the concentration and purity of the extracted DNA. As well, cDNAs were synthesized using a cDNA synthesis kit (RT-Roset, ROJE Company- Iran).

Real-time PCR

In order to run Real-Time PCR, specific primers mentioned in Table 1 were utilized to assess the selected genes expression modification and the relative abundance of B. fragilis. Quantitative PCR reactions were performed on Real-Time PCR Applied Biosystems 7900 using SYBR® select Master Mix in 20 µl reactions. Cycle conditions for the mlh1, msh2, and msh6 genes were as follows: 95 ° C for 10 min and 40 cycles at 95 ° C for 20 s, 55 ° C for 30 s and 72 ° C for 30 s. Cycle conditions for the detection of B. fragilis were as follows: 95 ° C for 10 min, and 40 cycles at 95 ° C for 20 s, 56 ° C for 30 s, and 72 ° C for 30 s.

Table 1 Primers used in this study
Full size table

Reference gene for qPCR

The gapdh cellular gene was applied to normalize the target genes expression in biopsy samples. Also, the bacterial universal 16srRNA gene was used as a reference gene to investigate the relative abundance of B. fragilis (Table 1). In order to ensure the accuracy of the results, all qPCR reactions were conducted in duplicate for controls and tests.

Statistical analysis

Biopsy samples from the control group (n = 20) and cancer group (n = 40) in terms of presence, relative frequency of B. fragilis, and relative expression of mlh1, msh2, and msh6 genes were analyzed. The formula 2−ΔΔCt was used to determine the relative expression of each mentioned MMR genes to gapdh RNA.

ΔΔCt = ΔCt (Target)– ΔCt (Reference).

The following formula was used to calculate the fold change in the expression of target genes.

2−(ct target − ct reference) Tumor/ 2−(ct target − ct reference) normal

Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 21 and PRISM software version 8. Quantitative data were summarized as mean and reaction progression deviation. Quantitative data were checked for normal distribution, and if normality test was passed, analysis of variance (Non-parametric ANOVA) with a significant level (P value < 0.05) was used.

Results

Samples

According to demographic information, 52% of patients in cancer group were women and 48% of them were men. The age range of the women was between 50 and 60, while men ranged from 50 to 80 years. The individuals in the control group included 45% women and 55% men, with the highest age range between 30 and 40 and 30–50 years for women and men, respectively. The most common symptoms that led to colonoscopy in patients were anemia (34%), abdominal pain (31%), blood in the stool (19%), and rectal bleeding (16%). Figure 1 demonstrates the involvement of different parts of the colon in patients with CRC, obtained after gastroenterology examinations and pathology results. Based on morphological diversity, tissue samples included adenocarcinoma (87%) and adenoma (13%). The tissue samples obtained from the patients are related to the proximal and distal regions of the intestine. Also, Table 2 provides complete descriptions of cancer samples.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Types of cancer samples examined in this study

Full size image
Table 2 Pathological information of patients with CRC
Full size table

The expression level of target genes

The gapdh gene was utilized as a control to investigate the expression of mlh1, msh2, and msh6. Real-Time PCR was used in order to estimate gapdh gene expression levels in control and cancer groups. Based on obtained results, a comparison of mlh1 gene expression in control and cancerous groups indicates that the mlh1 gene in the cancer group significantly increased compared to the control group (P value = 0.0139) (Fig. 2). Moreover, msh2 gene significantly increased in cancer group compared to the control group (P value = 0.0128) (Fig. 2). Comparison of msh6 expression in healthy individuals and cancer patients presented a significant elevation in msh6 expression in the cancer group compared to the control one (P value = 0.0001) (Fig. 2). Figure 3 contains information about the expression of genes in the control and cancer groups. Based on fold change analysis of MMR genes, the level of mlh1 gene expression was 5 times higher in the cancer group in comparison with the control group (P value = 0.0139). Additionally, msh2 and msh6 genes expression increased by 6 and 7 times in cancer group compared to the control group, respectively (P value = 0.0128 and P value = 0.0001) (Fig. 4). The relative abundance of the bacterium was estimated using the 16srRNA gene primers specific for B. fragilis. The results showed that the frequency of B. fragilis in the cancer group was significantly higher compared to the control group (P value = 0.0378) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Real-Time PCR progression diagram for (A) mlh1, (B) msh2, and (C) msh6 genes in cancer and control groups

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of the expression level of (A) mlh1, (B) msh2, and (C) msh6 genes in cancer and control groups

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Fold change analysis of mlh11, msh2, and msh6 genes expression in the cancer group relative to the control groups

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

(A) Real-Time PCR progression diagram and (B) Comparison of the presence of B. fragilis- 16srRNA gene in cancer and control groups

Full size image

B. fragilis abundance in cancer and control groups

Real-time PCR was performed using 16s rRNA specific for B. fragilis for all samples. The relative frequency of B. fragilis was significantly higher (80%) in the cancer group compared to the control group (50%). The prevalence of B. fragilis in men with cancer was higher than in women, so that the presence of this bacterium was reported in 55% in men and 44% in women. The prevalence of B. fragilis varied among cancer patients of different genders and age groups, with a higher prevalence observed among men and women aged 50–60.

Relative abundance of B. Fragilis in different types of CRC samples

In another part of the study, the relationship between the location of the tumor and the frequency of B. fragilis was investigated, which showed that B. fragilis was observed in 68.8% of tumors located in the distal part of the colon and in 31.2% of tumors located in the proximal part of the colon and rectum. Consequently, tumors located in the distal part of the colon were more associated with B. fragilis. Results indicated B. fragilis was more prevalent in cancer specimens with adenocarcinoma morphology than in other morphologic types. B. fragilis was detected in 67.5% of cancer specimens with adenocarcinoma morphology and 4% with adenoma morphology. Results also showed different relative distribution of B. fragilis in various parts of the large intestine. Accordingly, the most abundance was observed in the rectum, sigmoid colon, cecum, ascending colon, descending colon, hepatic flexion, and transverse colon, respectively.

Changes in the relative expression levels of the selected genes in the presence and absence of B. fragilis

Specifically, the level of expression of mlh1, msh2, and msh6 was compared in the cancer group with and without the presence of B. fragilis. This indicated an increase in the expression of the mentioned genes in cancerous samples in the presence of B. fragilis compared to conditions where B. fragilis is not present. In order to evaluate the expression level of mlh1, msh2, and msh6 genes, a fold change analysis was done. Based on our results, msh2 and msh6 expression levels were raised approximately 6.5 times in the cancer group compared to the control group, and mlh1 expression levels by about 5 times (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Comparison of the relative presence of B. fragilis- 16srRNA and the expression level of (A) mlh1, (B) msh2, and (C) msh6 genes in cancer samples

Full size image

Discussion

CRC is one of the most common types of cancer diagnosed worldwide. The occurrence of CRC has been attributed to various factors, with the age of the affected individual being recognized as one of the most significant known risk factors [16]. Several reports indicate that the risk of CRC increases significantly during the fifth decade of life. Despite this, CRCs are rare in individuals under the age of 50 [17]. The age range of patients in this study was 50 to 80 years. A total of 48% of this population was male and 52% was female. In a study conducted by Mirzapoor Abbasabadi et al. in Iran, the age range of the patients was 59.5 years, and 59.6% of the subjects were men, which was different from our study [18]. The results of the current study also demonstrated a higher commonness of CRC in the left part of the colon than in the right part, which was similar to Raza et al., study [19]. In contrast to our study, Komiya et al. found a higher incidence of CRC in the ascending colon. Their results suggest that CRC occurs more frequently in the rectum [20]. Considering the importance of CRC, studying its causes is crucial. It is possible to provide effective prevention and treatment by understanding the causes of these diseases. There are several molecular methods for the early diagnosis of CRC, which can be mentioned as Germ-line APC mutations, mutant alleles of K-ras genes, and alteration in MMR genes [21, 22]. The findings of this study show a significant increase in the relative expression of msh2, msh6, and mlh1 genes in cancer samples compared to the control group. Many studies have investigated the mlh1 gene and its role in cancers, especially CRC [23,24,25]. Defects in MMR genes (mlh1, msh2, msh6) lead to MSI, which is characteristic of hereditary non-polyposis CRC. MSI is a state of genetic variability (prone to mutation) that results from impaired DNA mismatch repair. However, high-frequency MSI occurs in approximately 15% of CRC and other tumors, where MMR defects are caused by epigenetic inactivation of the mlh1 gene by DNA methylation [26]. A study conducted by Engel et al. in 2019 on tumor tissue stated that the risk of adenoma due to mutation of msh2 and msh6 genes is significantly higher compared to mlh1 [27]. According to the results of the present study, the expression level of the mlh1 gene in cancer samples increased about 5 times compared to the control group, but this increase was less compared to the other two genes. According to another study conducted by Wang et al. in 2019, the expression level of msh2 and mlh1 was examined in the tumor tissue of patients after surgery. In 91% of colorectal carcinomas, the mlh1 gene was not expressed [28]. Mutations in the mlh1 and msh2 genes are primarily responsible for the decrease in expression of these genes. Due to the dominance of these two genes in the MMR system, their detection is imperative to understanding the pathogenesis of sporadic CRC [29, 30]. An additional gene of the MMR system examined in this study is msh2, which encodes a protein vital to DNA repair. In a study conducted by Liccardo et al. in Italy in 2020, it was observed that msh2 gene expression in cancer samples was increased compared to the control group. It has also been mentioned that the overexpression of mlh1 or msh2 genes causes apoptosis or mutated and genetically unstable phenotype [31]. According to several studies, it was proven that the overexpression of mlh1 and msh2 genes potentially leads to adverse consequences. When these two genes were upregulated in vitro under the control of the cytomegalovirus promoter, apoptosis was induced in a human cell line [31]. In the results of the present study, it was observed that the expression level of the msh2 gene in cancer samples is almost 6 times higher than in the control group, which is in line with recent studies. In Ekundina et al., study, the mean percentage reactivity of msh2 in normal, colonic polyps, and colorectal carcinoma was 43.2%, 56.6%, and 90.1% respectively, while the mean percentage reactivity for msh6 was 40.5%, 56.2% and 92% respectively [32]. The level of msh2 and pms2 protein expression has a positive relationship with tumor size, the degree of tumor invasion to the depth of the tissue, and metastasis to the lymph nodes [33]. According to the studies, mutations related to the expression of the msh6 gene are associated with a lower risk of cancer compared to the mutations of the mlh1 or msh2 genes, and those who carry mutations in the expression of the msh6 gene at an older age are also more likely to develop CRC.

Several studies have emphasized the significance of the mlh1 and msh2 genes in the MMR system. Mutations in either of these genes lead to a loss of function and contribute to tumor formation, particularly in the proximal colon. Hyper methylation, a common occurrence in sporadic tumors, is notably more prevalent than in MSI-positive hereditary tumors. Additionally, multiple studies have indicated that the overexpression of the mlh1 gene and/or the msh2 gene is linked to tumor metastasis in various organs.

In addition to changes in MMR gene expression, alterations in the abundance of gut microbiota can also be seen in CRC patients, and identifying these two factors as biomarkers for diagnosis is crucial. The results of examining the expression of msh2, msh6, and mlh1 genes in comparison with the presence and absence of B. fragilis in cancer samples showed that in cancer samples with B. fragilis, there is a greater increase in expression than in cancer samples without this bacterium. B. fragilis is regarded as one of the most influential pathogens in the occurrence and spread of colon cancer [34]. According to the results of the present study, the relative frequency of B. fragilis in cancer samples has increased about 5 times compared to control samples. Dadgar-Zankbar et al. conducted a study in Iran and found B. fragilis was significantly higher in tumor tissues than in adjacent healthy samples (100% vs. 86% respectively) [35]. Several studies have stated that B. fragilis toxin is associated with various diseases, including CRC, which can be referred to the study conducted by Boleij et al. in 2015 on intestinal mucosa samples from patients with intestinal neoplasia [36]. These results indicated that CRC is associated with the B. fragilis toxin gene in the late stages. They also stated that exposure to B fragilis toxin is common, which may be a risk factor for developing CRC. Based on all of these findings, it is pertinent to investigate the abundance of this bacterium in CRC samples. This will enable us to predict cancer progression more quickly and prevent its development. Furthermore, because MMR genes play an important role in cancer development and progression, further studies may be able to establish their importance as factors in the proper diagnosis of cancer or its advanced stage. The limitations of the current study included low sample size, lack of access to samples of different stages of CRC to evaluate biomarkers’ expression in each stage, lack of investigation of fecal microbiota samples for further confirmation and in-depth verification of mechanisms by which B. fragilis lead to the damaging effect on the gastrointestinal tract.

Conclusion

This study reveals heightened expression of specific MMR genes in cancer samples compared to controls. Moreover, CRC biopsy samples exhibit increased bacterial frequency compared to healthy counterparts. Significantly elevated expression of the examined MMR genes is observed in B. fragilis-positive cancer samples versus those without this bacterium. Investigating B. fragilis presence in confirmed or suspected CRC samples is crucial for expedited cancer diagnosis and prevention. Positive molecular diagnostic tests or elevated risk marker expression potentially identify CRC patients eligible for surveillance or intervention.

Data availability

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Center MM, Jemal A, Ward E. International trends in colorectal cancer incidence rates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(6):1688–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. D’asheesh TiA, Hussen BM, Al-Marzoqi AH, Ghasemian A. Assessment of oncogenic role of intestinal microbiota in colorectal cancer patients. J Gastrointest cancer. 2021;52:1016–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anghel SA, Ioniță-Mîndrican C-B, Luca I, Pop AL. Promising epigenetic biomarkers for the early detection of colorectal cancer: a systematic review. Cancers. 2021;13(19):4965.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Liu W, Zhang X, Xu H, Li S, Lau HC-H, Chen Q, et al. Microbial community heterogeneity within colorectal neoplasia and its correlation with colorectal carcinogenesis. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(7):2395–408.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sepich-Poore GD, Zitvogel L, Straussman R, Hasty J, Wargo JA, Knight R. The microbiome and human cancer. Science. 2021;371(6536):eabc4552.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang X, Huycke MM. Extracellular superoxide production by Enterococcus faecalis promotes chromosomal instability in mammalian cells. Gastroenterology. 2007;132(2):551–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zheng J, Meng J, Zhao S, Singh R, Song W. Campylobacter-induced interleukin-8 secretion in polarized human intestinal epithelial cells requires Campylobacter-secreted cytolethal distending toxin-and toll-like receptor-mediated activation of NF-κB. Infect Immun. 2008;76(10):4498–508.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Kostic AD, Chun E, Robertson L, Glickman JN, Gallini CA, Michaud M, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis and modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment. Cell Host Microbe. 2013;14(2):207–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Shirazi MSR, Al-Alo K, Al-Yasiri MH, Lateef ZM, Ghasemian A. Microbiome dysbiosis and predominant bacterial species as human cancer biomarkers. J Gastrointest cancer. 2020;51:725–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zamani S, Hesam Shariati S, Zali MR, Asadzadeh Aghdaei H, Sarabi Asiabar A, Bokaie S, et al. Detection of enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis in patients with ulcerative colitis. Gut Pathogens. 2017;9(1):1–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Rashidan M, Azimirad M, Alebouyeh M, Ghobakhlou M, Aghdaei HA, Zali MR. Detection of B. Fragilis group and diversity of bft enterotoxin and antibiotic resistance markers cepA, cfiA and Nim among intestinal Bacteroides fragilis strains in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Anaerobe. 2018;50:93–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Xie X, Jiang D, Zhou X, Ye X, Yang P, He Y. Recombinant Bacteroides fragilis enterotoxin-1 (rBFT-1) promotes proliferation of colorectal cancer via CCL3-related molecular pathways. Open Life Sci. 2021;16(1):408–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Yamamoto H, Adachi Y, Taniguchi H, Kunimoto H, Nosho K, Suzuki H, Shinomura Y. Interrelationship between microsatellite instability and microRNA in gastrointestinal cancer. World J Gastroenterology: WJG. 2012;18(22):2745.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Dowty JG, Win AK, Buchanan DD, Lindor NM, Macrae FA, Clendenning M, et al. Cancer risks for MLH 1 and MSH 2 mutation carriers. Hum Mutat. 2013;34(3):490–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fukui K. DNA mismatch repair in eukaryotes and bacteria. Journal of nucleic acids. 2010;2010.

  16. Chakraborty U, Dinh TA, Alani E. Genomic instability promoted by overexpression of mismatch repair factors in yeast: a model for understanding cancer progression. Genetics. 2018;209(2):439–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Bond J, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(5):1570–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mirzapoor Abbasabadi Z, Hamedi Asl D, Rahmani B, Shahbadori R, Karami S, Peymani A, et al. KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation rates, clinicopathological association, and their prognostic value in Iranian colorectal cancer patients. J Clin Lab Anal. 2023;37(5):e24868.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Raza A, Rahman D, Israt T, Hossain N, Ahmed Z. Histopathological and clinical differences between Right Sided and Left Sided Colorectal Carcinoma (CRC) in a group of patients.

  20. Komiya Y, Shimomura Y, Higurashi T, Sugi Y, Arimoto J, Umezawa S, et al. Patients with colorectal cancer have identical strains of Fusobacterium nucleatum in their colorectal cancer and oral cavity. Gut. 2019;68(7):1335–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hou W, Yi C, Zhu H. Predictive biomarkers of colon cancer immunotherapy: Present and future. Front Immunol. 2022;13:1032314.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Srivastava S, Verma M, Henson DE. Biomarkers for early detection of colon cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7(5):1118–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bonadona V, Bonaïti B, Olschwang S, Grandjouan S, Huiart L, Longy M, et al. Cancer risks Associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch Syndrome. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2304–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Haraldsdottir S, Hampel H, Wu C, Weng DY, Shields PG, Frankel WL, et al. Patients with colorectal cancer associated with Lynch syndrome and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation have similar prognoses. Genet Sci. 2016;18(9):863–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hitchins MP, Dámaso E, Alvarez R, Zhou L, Hu Y, Diniz MA, et al. Constitutional MLH1 methylation is a major contributor to Mismatch Repair–Deficient, MLH1-Methylated colorectal Cancer in patients aged 55 years and younger. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2023;21(7):743–52. e11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vilkin A, Niv Y, Nagasaka T, Morgenstern S, Levi Z, Fireman Z, et al. Microsatellite instability, MLH1 promoter methylation, and BRAF mutation analysis in sporadic colorectal cancers of different ethnic groups in Israel. Cancer. 2009;115(4):760–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Engel C, Ahadova A, Seppälä TT, Aretz S, Bigirwamungu-Bargeman M, Bläker H, et al. Associations of pathogenic variants in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 with risk of colorectal adenomas and tumors and with somatic mutations in patients with Lynch Syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(5):1326–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang S-M, Jiang B, Deng Y, Huang S-L, Fang M-Z, Wang Y. Clinical significance of MLH1/MSH2 for stage II/III sporadic colorectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2019;11(11):1065.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Thibodeau SN, French AJ, Roche PC, Cunningham JM, Tester DJ, Lindor NM, et al. Altered expression of hMSH2 and hMLH1 in tumors with microsatellite instability and genetic alterations in mismatch repair genes. Cancer Res. 1996;56(21):4836–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang SM, Jiang B, Deng Y, Huang SL, Fang MZ, Wang Y. Clinical significance of MLH1/MSH2 for stage II/III sporadic colorectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2019;11(11):1065–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Liccardo R, Nolano A, Lambiase M, Della Ragione C, De Rosa M, Izzo P, Duraturo F. MSH2 overexpression due to an unclassified variant in 3’-Untranslated region in a patient with Colon cancer. Biomedicines. 2020;8(6):167.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Ekundina V, Oladele A, Omon AE, Aliyu A. Immunohistochemical expression of MSH6 and MSH2 in Colorectal Cancer. Archives Med Case Rep Case Study. 2023;7(2).

  33. Zhao L. Mismatch repair protein expression in patients with stage II and III sporadic colorectal cancer. Oncol Lett. 2018;15(5):8053–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Cheng WT, Kantilal HK, Davamani F. The mechanism of Bacteroides fragilis Toxin contributes to Colon cancer formation. Malaysian J Med Sciences: MJMS. 2020;27(4):9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dadgar-Zankbar L, Shariati A, Bostanghadiri N, Elahi Z, Mirkalantari S, Razavi S, et al. Evaluation of enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis correlation with the expression of cellular signaling pathway genes in Iranian patients with colorectal cancer. Infect Agent Cancer. 2023;18(1):48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Boleij A, Hechenbleikner EM, Goodwin AC, Badani R, Stein EM, Lazarev MG, et al. The Bacteroides fragilis toxin gene is prevalent in the colon mucosa of colorectal cancer patients. Clin Infect Diseases: Official Publication Infect Dis Soc Am. 2015;60(2):208–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.

Funding

The present study was financially supported by grant 82-4233 from the Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran

    Nooshin Nazarinejad, Farzaneh Firoozeh, Somayeh Yaslianifard & Masoud Dadashi

  2. Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Bahareh Hajikhani & Mehdi Goudarzi

  3. Department of Internal Medicine, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran

    Amir Abbas Vaezi

  4. Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

    Fatemeh Sameni

  5. Non-Communicable Diseases Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran

    Masoud Dadashi

Authors
  1. Nooshin Nazarinejad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bahareh Hajikhani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amir Abbas Vaezi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Farzaneh Firoozeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fatemeh Sameni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Somayeh Yaslianifard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mehdi Goudarzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Masoud Dadashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study design; M. Dadashi, Laboratory experiments; N. Nazarinejad, B. Hajikhani, and AA. Vaezi, Data analysis; M. Dadashi, and B. Hajikhani, writing of the manuscript; N. Nazarinejad, B. Hajikhani, M. Dadashi, and F. Firoozeh Assumes overall responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the manuscript; M. Dadashi, S. Yaslianifard, F. Sameni, and M. Goudarzi.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masoud Dadashi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol and ethical issue were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Alborz University of Medical Sciences (IR.ABZUMS.REC.1400.135). All methods were conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All participants were informed of the objectives of this study and signed a written consent form before their participation.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nazarinejad, N., Hajikhani, B., Vaezi, A.A. et al. Association between colorectal cancer, the frequency of Bacteroides fragilis, and the level of mismatch repair genes expression in the biopsy samples of Iranian patients. BMC Gastroenterol 24, 82 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03169-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03169-z

Keywords

BMC Gastroenterology

ISSN: 1471-230X

Contact us