Skip to main content
Download PDF

The role of heavy metals in the development of colorectal cancer

BMC Cancer volume 23, Article number: 616 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the relationship among 18 heavy metals, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, ERCC1, XRCC1 (rs25487), BRAF V600E and 5 tumor markers and their role in the development of colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

A total of 101 CRC patients and 60 healthy controls were recruited in the present study. The levels of 18 heavy metals were measured by ICP-MS. MSI status and the genetic polymorphism were determined by PCR (FP205-02, Tiangen Biochemical Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China) and Sanger sequencing. Spearman’s rank correlation was used to analyze the relationship among various factors.

Results

The level of selenium (Se) was lower in the CRC group compared with the control group (p < 0.01), while vanadium (V), arsenic (As), tin (Sn), barium (Ba) and lead (Pb) were higher (p < 0.05), chromium (Cr) and copper (Cu) were significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the CRC group than those in the control group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that Cr, Cu, As and Ba were the risk factors for CRC. In addition, CRC was positively correlated with V, Cr, Cu, As, Sn, Ba and Pb, but negatively correlated with Se. MSI was positively correlated with BRAF V600E, but negatively correlated with ERCC1. BRAF V600E was positively correlated with antimony (Sb), thallium (Tl), CA19-9, NSE, AFP and CK19. XRCC1 (rs25487) was found to be positively correlated with Se but negatively correlated with Co. The levels of Sb and Tl were significantly higher in the BRAF V600E positive group compared to the negative group. The mRNA expression level of ERCC1 was significantly higher (P = 0.035) in MSS compared to MSI. And there was a significant correlation between XRCC1 (rs25487) polymorphism and MSI status (P<0.05).

Conclusion

The results showed that low level of Se and high levels of V, As, Sn, Ba, Pb, Cr, and Cu increased the risk of CRC. Sb and Tl may cause BRAF V600E mutations, leading to MSI. XRCC1 (rs25487) was positively correlated with Se but negatively correlated with Co. The expression of ERCC1 may be related to MSS, while the XRCC1 (rs25487) polymorphism is related to MSI.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignant tumor of the digestive tract worldwide, and it is also the main cause of cancer-related deaths, posing a significant threat to human health [1, 2]. Researchers have found that some molecular markers, such as microsatellite instability (MSI) and B-type Raf kinase (BRAF) mutations, display associations with survival and are used as important prognostic factors for intrinsic CRC subtypes [3, 4].

MSI is caused by functional defects such as deletion or alteration of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) protein, and is considered as a prognostic marker for CRC [5, 6]. MSI occurs in about 15% of CRC patients, and generally associated with a better clinical outcome of CRC compared to microsatellite stable (MSS) [4].

BRAF is a member of the RAF family and an important component in the mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, usually activated by its mutations [4]. BRAF mutations are major carcinogenic factors in CRC [7]. 80% of BRAF mutations are missense mutations that occur in codon 600, and missense mutations are transitions from valine (V) to glutamic acid (E) at codon 600 caused by c. 1799T > A transposition (V600E) [8]. BRAF V600E mutations occur in 5–10% of CRC patients and are associated with poor prognosis [9, 10]. Studies have shown that the relative mortality rate of BRAF V600E mutations has increased nearly 2-fold higher than that of wild-type BRAF [10].

Genetic polymorphisms in DNA repair genes can impede DNA repair ability, potentially leading to the development of cancers such as CRC [11]. Among the identified polymorphisms of DNA repair genes, excision repair cross-complementing group 1 (ERCC1) and X-ray repair cross complementing group 1 (XRCC1) play an indispensable role in nucleotide excision repair and may be related to the incidence rate of some cancers [12, 13]. As a highly conserved enzyme, ERCC1 participates in the key steps of nucleotide excision repair, and its expression level is a major predictor of cancer response to platinum‑based chemotherapy [14, 15]. XRCC1 is associated with base-excision repair and single strand break repair [16]. As a common genetic polymorphism in the XRCC1 gene, substitution of XRCC1 Arg to Gln at codon 399 (rs25487) can contribute to impaired DNA repair activity by altering the function of the XRCC1 protein [17]. And results of Hosseini et al. showed that the polymorphism of XRCC1 (rs25487) may be associated with an increased risk of CRC [13].

Despite significant progress in treatment over the past few years, the prognosis of patients with metastatic CRC remains poor, with a 5-year overall survival rate (OS) of less than 15% [18]. With the increasing incidence rate of CRC, the World Health Organization recommends focusing on early detection and follow-up after surgery to prolong the survival of patients [19]. In recent years, serum tumor markers can not only be used for early screening and diagnosis of cancer, but also play an important role in evaluating treatment response, predicting recurrence, and assessing prognosis and survival [20]. The commonly used tumor markers for the diagnosis and evaluation of CRC patients include carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), cancer antigen (CA)19 − 9 and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) [21,22,23,24]. In addition, as an epithelial cytoskeleton marker, cytokeratin 19 (CK19) may serve as a prognostic indicator for cancer patients, but there are few relative studies in the context of CRC [25].

In addition, it is well known that cancer is a complex process influenced by multiple factors [26]. It is reported that 80% of cancer cases are caused by environmental factors, such as trace elements and heavy metals [27]. Although trace elements can enhance immunity, their deficiency or excess can lead to metabolic and cell growth disorders and tumorigenesis [27]. As early as 1975, Schwartz reviewed the role of trace elements including selenium (Se), zinc (Zn), and copper (Cu) in cancer, and discussed their potential utility as diagnostic or prognostic markers [28]. In addition, Nawi et al. reported that the concentrations of manganese (Mn), cadmium (Cd), Cu, magnesium (Mg), lead (Pb), chromium (Cr) and Zn in metastatic patients were increased compared to the general population [29]. Sohrabi et al. have also demonstrated that the levels of heavy metals and trace elements including thallium (Tl), Zn, Pb, Cr and Cu in CRC cancer tissues were significantly higher than those in healthy ones [30]. However, the mechanisms underlying role of heavy metals in the progression of CRC and the interactions among these heavy metals are not fully understood. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to elucidate the association among 18 heavy metals, MSI status, 5 tumor markers, and genetic polymorphisms and their role in the development of CRC.

Materials and methods

Study characteristics

A total of 101 CRC patients and 60 healthy controls were recruited at Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, from January 2020 to February 2021. The study was approved by the Ethics Committees of Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College (Approval number: 2,018,006), and was conducted in accordance with the standards of Declaration of Helsinki. Prior to participation, informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s).

Inclusion criteria: Clinically diagnosed patients with primary colorectal cancer.

Exclusion criteria: (1) Combined with other major diseases; (2) Incomplete clinical data or missing visits.

DNA extraction

Genomic DNA was extracted using the QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit (56,404, QIAGEN, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Nano Drop2000 UV-Vis Spectrophotometer (Thermo, USA) was used to measure the purity and concentration of DNA.

MSI, SNP genotyping and mutation analysis

MSI status was determined by PCR (FP205-02, Tiangen Biochemical Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China) using a panel of five microsatellite markers including three dinucleotide (D2S123, D5S346, D17S250) and two mononucleotide (BAT25, BAT26) repeats, and the PCR products after amplification were detected and analyzed by capillary electrophoresis with ABI 3730XL DNA Analyzer (ABI, USA) [31]. Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) was defined when there were two or more instability markers, MSI-L was defined when there was only one instability marker, and if there was no instability among the five markers, it was judged to be MSS.

The SNP of XRCC1 (rs25487) was determined by PCR and Sanger sequencing by ABI 3730XL DNA Analyzer (ABI, USA).

The human NRAS mutation detection kit (YZYMT-019-C, Wuhan YZY Medical Science & Technology Co., Ltd., Wuhan, China) and the human BRAF V600E detection kit (SMD-02-026, Beijing SinoMDgene Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China) were used to detect the relevant mutation sites.

Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR)

The mRNA expression level of ERCC1 was measured by qPCR using ABI‑7500 real‑time PCR system (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.). Thermocycling conditions were set as follows: Pre‑denaturation at 95˚C for 15 min; followed by 45 cycles of amplification for 15 s at 95 °C and 30 s at 60 °C; GAPDH was used as an internal standard for ERCC1 mRNA expression. The primer sequences were as follows: ERCC1 forward, 5´-GGGAATTTGGCGACGTAATTC-3´, and reverse, 5´-GCGGAGGCTGAGGAACAG-3´; GAPDH forward, 5´-GCCACATCGCTCAGACACC-3´, and reverse, 5´-GATGGCAACAATATCCACTTTACC-3´. The mRNA expression of ERCC1 was obtained by the comparative ΔCt method.

ICP-MS experiment

Approximately 2ml of whole blood was collected from each participant, centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min to separate the serum, and then stored at -20˚C until further analysis. According to the manufacturer’s instructions, the levels of 18 heavy metals including arsenic (As), barium (Ba), cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), gallium (Ga), mercury (Hg), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), selenium (Se), tin (Sn), strontium (Sr), thallium (Tl), vanadium (V) and zinc (Zn) were determined by ICP-MS (Agilent 7800) [32].

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0. Chi-square test was used to evaluate the distribution difference of categorical variables between groups and was expressed in numbers (percentages). Normal distribution of continuous variables was preliminarily analyzed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and the differences among groups were compared by Kruskal - Wallis H test or Mann - Whitney U as appropriate, and described as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Risk factors of CRC were analyzed by binary and multiple logistic regression analysis. And the relationship among various factors were analyzed with R studio and Spearman’s rank correlation. R studio, GraphPad Prism 6.0 and Adobe Illustrator 2020 were used to generate the graph. P-value < 0.05 (two- tailed) was deemed to be statistically significant.

Results

Clinical characteristics of the study population

A total of 161 participants, consisting of 101 CRC patients and 60 healthy controls were enrolled in this study, the clinical characteristics were shown in Table 1. There was no significant difference in the concentration of heavy metals (including Mn, Co, Ni, Zn, Ga, Sr, Cd, Sb, Hg and Tl) between CRC group and healthy group (p > 0.05). The level of Se was lower in the CRC group compared with the control group (p < 0.01), while V, As, Sn, Ba and Pb were higher (p < 0.05), Cr and Cu were significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the CRC group than those in the control group (Table 1; Fig. 1). The results showed that low level of Se and high levels of V, As, Sn, Ba, Pb, Cr and Cu increased the risk of CRC.

Table 1 Clinical characteristics of the CRC patients and controls
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Comparison of 18 heavy metals levels between the control group and CRC group. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001; ****, P < 0.0001

Full size image

Logistic regression analysis of risk factors in CRC development

Univariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors of CRC development to evaluate independent indicators related to CRC. In the unadjusted model, age (OR = 1.087, P < 0.001), gender (OR = 3.160, P = 0.001) and smoking (OR = 4.377, P < 0.001) were identified as the risk factors for CRC among clinical factors. For the heavy metals, V (OR = 2.747, P = 0.028), Cr (OR = 1.869, P < 0.001), Cu (OR = 1.006, P < 0.001), As (OR = 1.053, P = 0.046), Sn (OR = 9.188, P = 0.042), Ba (OR = 1.013, P = 0.012), and Pb (OR = 1.069, P = 0.049) were identified as the risk factors, while Se (OR = 0.991, P = 0.005) was considered as the protective factor (Table 2). Moreover, after adjusting the clinical influencing factors (including age, gender, smoking, drinking), the multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to further investigate the independent correlation between heavy metals and the development of CRC. Results showed that age (OR = 1.071, P < 0.001), smoking (OR = 14.517, P = 0.018), Cr (OR = 2.523, P < 0.001), Cu (OR = 1.005, P = 0.001), As (OR = 1.074, P = 0.039), and Ba (OR = 1.021, P = 0.003) were still the risk factors for CRC (Table 3).

Table 2 Risk factors of CRC by logistic regression analysis. CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio
Full size table
Table 3 Multivariate logistic regression analysis of the independent correlation between 18 heavy metals and CRC risk, by adjusting clinical risk factors. CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio
Full size table

Correlation analysis among CRC, clinical variables and 18 heavy metals

Spearman correlation analysis among CRC, clinical variables and 18 heavy metals were illustrated in Fig. 2. CRC was positively correlated with age (r = 0.5, p < 0.001), V (r = 0.18, p < 0.05), Cr (r = 0.36, p < 0.001), Cu (r = 0.37, p < 0.001), As (r = 0.16, p < 0.05), Sn (r = 0.16, p < 0.05), Ba (r = 0.2, p < 0.05), and Pb (r = 0.16, p < 0.05), but negatively correlated with Se (r = − 0.23, P < 0.01). Moreover, the correlation between these heavy metals showed that V was positively correlated with Cr (r = 0.33, P < 0.001), Ni (r = 0.43, P < 0.001), Pb (r = 0.28, P < 0.001), and Ga (r = 0.16, P < 0.05), but negatively correlated with Se (r = − 0.17, p < 0.05); Cr was positively correlated with Cu (r = 0.28, P < 0.001) and Ni (r = 0.19, P < 0.05); As was positively correlated with Ba (r = 0.63, P < 0.001), Tl (r = 0.4, P < 0.001), and Cd (r = 0.17, P < 0.05); Cd was positively correlated with Hg (r = 0.25, P < 0.01) and Pb (r = 0.18, P < 0.05). In addition to the above, other heavy metals also showed significant correlations, as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Spearman correlation among CRC, clinical variables and 18 heavy metals. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001

Full size image

Characteristics of CRC patients

According to the MSI test results, there were 30 MSI and 71 MSS in 101 patients with CRC, and the characteristics were shown in Table 4. There was no significant difference in age, sex, BMI, smoking, drinking, history of diabetes, history of hypertension, history of CAD, degree of tumor differentiation, family history of tumor, nerve invasion and distant metastasis between MSI and MSS. However, tumor stage (P = 0.016), tumor size (P = 0.028), vascular invasion (P = 0.035), lymph node metastasis (P = 0.016), BRAF V600E (P = 0.035) and NRAS Codon 12/13 (P = 0.021) were significantly different between the two groups. And the mRNA expression level of ERCC1 was significantly higher (P = 0.035) in MSS compared to MSI.

Table 4 Clinical characteristics of 101 CRC patients in this study
Full size table

Correlation analysis among MSI, BRAF V600E, ERCC1, XRCC1 (rs25487), 5 biomarkers, and 18 heavy metals

Spearman correlation analysis among MSI, BRAF V600E, ERCC1, 5 biomarkers, and 18 heavy metals were illustrated in Fig. 3. MSI was positively correlated with BRAF V600E (r = 0.25, p < 0.05) and XRCC1 (rs25487) (r = 0.22, p < 0.05), negatively correlated with ERCC1 (r = − 0.25, P < 0.05). BRAF V600E was positively correlated with Sb (r = 0.32, p < 0.01), Tl (r = 0.27, p < 0.01), CA19-9 (r = 0.55, p < 0.001), NSE (r = 0.41, p < 0.001), AFP (r = 0.49, p < 0.001) and CK19 (r = 0.66, p < 0.001). XRCC1 (rs25487) was positively correlated with Se (r = 0.24, p < 0.05), NSE (r = 0.38, p < 0.01) and CK19 (r = 0.52, p < 0.001), negatively correlated with Co (r = − 0.23, P < 0.05). For heavy metals, V was positively correlated with Cr (r = 0.32, P < 0.01), Ni (r = 0.5, P < 0.001) and Hg (r = 0.33, P < 0.001); Cr was positively correlated with Cu (r = 0.21, P < 0.05) and Hg (r = 0.35, P < 0.001); As was positively correlated with Ba (r = 0.77, P < 0.001), Tl (r = 0.49, P < 0.001) and Cd (r = 0.2, P < 0.05); In addition to the above, other heavy metals also showed significant correlations, as shown in Fig. 3. Moreover, there were also significant correlations between the 5 biomarkers. Specifically, CA19-9 was positively correlated with CEA (r = 0.33, P < 0.01), while NSE was positively correlated with AFP (r = 0.82, P < 0.001) and CK19 (r = 0.89, P < 0.001). In addition, AFP displayed a positive correlation with CK19 (r = 0.93, P < 0.001).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Spearman correlation among MSI, BRAF V600E, ERCC1, XRCC1 (rs25487), 5 biomarkers and 18 heavy metals. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001

Full size image

Distribution of XRCC1 (rs25487) polymorphism and its correlation with MSI status

The genotype and allele frequency distribution of XRCC1 (rs25487) polymorphism in MSI-L, MSI-H and MSS are shown in Table 5. Of the 101 CRC patients, 57 (56.44%) carried CC genotype, 39 (38.61%) carried CT genotype, and 5 (4.95%) with T/T genotype. The T and C allele frequencies of XRCC1 (rs25487) were 24.26% and 75.74%, respectively. Notably, there was a significant correlation between XRCC1 (rs25487) polymorphism and MSI status (P<0.05).

Table 5 Distribution of genotype and allelic frequency of polymorphisms of XRCC1 (rs25487) according to MSI level
Full size table

Relationship between BRAF mutation and heavy metal level in CRC patients

Then we explored the relationship between BRAF V600E mutation and the heavy metal levels, and the results showed that the levels of Sb and Tl were significantly higher in the positive group compared with the negative group (p < 0.01), while the concentrations of other heavy metals (including As, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Ga, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se, Sn, Sr, V and Zn) were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Comparison of 18 heavy metals levels between the BRAF V600E negative group and the BRAF V600E positive group. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001; ****, P < 0.0001

Full size image

Discussion

In the present study, the levels of 18 heavy metals were compared between 101 CRC patients and 60 healthy controls, and the results showed that patients in the CRC group had the significantly higher levels of Cr, Cu and higher levels of V, As, Sn, Ba, Pb but a significantly lower level of Se compared with the control group. Spearman correlation analysis further showed that CRC risk was positively correlated with the levels of V, Cr, Cu, As, Sn, Ba and Pb, but negatively correlated with Se. Moreover, the logistic regression analysis demonstrated that Cr, Cu, As and Ba were determined as the independent risk factors of CRC after adjusting different influencing factors (including age, gender, smoking, drinking). A meta-analysis showed that the International Agency for Research had identified As and Cr as carcinogens [33]. Study found that there was a higher level of Cu but a lower level of Se in thyroid cancer patients compared with the healthy controls, consistent with our results [34]. As an essential trace mineral, Se has a wide impact on human health, including the development of cancer [35]. It has been reported that Se plays a protective role in the development of thyroid cancer, while As will destroy its anticancer activity [34, 36, 37]. A study on the correlation between Se and cancer mortality, it was found that there was a strong negative correlation between the level of Se and cancer mortality such as CRC [26]. It is also reported that supplementation with Se plays an important role in resisting viral diseases, immune function and reducing inflammation [38]. As a category I human carcinogen, the exposure of As is associated with an increased risk of cancer, including lung, skin, liver, prostate and bladder cancer [39]. Cu is not only the key component of many essential enzymes, but also the key regulator of cell signal transduction pathway, and plays a role in many biological processes [40, 41]. High levels of Cu can lead to cancer progression including cancer proliferation, angiogenesis and metastasis [42]. Many studies have confirmed that the level of Cu in both tumor and serum of cancer patients was significantly higher than that of healthy people [43]. In addition, elevated Cu levels are associated with multiple cancers, including ovarian, bladder, breast, lung, cervical, oral, pancreatic, gastric, and thyroid cancer [42]. It is worth noting that the increase of serum Cu level is related to the cancer stage and progression of breast and CRC [44]. Several studies have shown that the level of toxic metals such as Cu increases in the whole blood of patients with CRC, while the level of Se decreases, and there was a significant correlation between various metal elements, consistent with our research, indicating that these elements and their interactions may play a role in the development of CRC [45, 46]. Besides, it was demonstrated that there was a significant positive correlation between Cu and the risk of gastric cancer (GC) [47]. Other studies found that the increase of blood Pb level not only significantly increased the risk of lung cancer mortality, but also positively correlated with the risk of urologic neoplasms or digestive tract cancer [48, 49]. Li et al. reported that plasma Cu, Cr, Pb, Mn and Ni were significantly associated with incident cancer risk in T2DM patients [49]. Some studies have shown that V has genotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, neurotoxicity, cardiotoxicity and carcinogenesis [50]. The increase of V level may be a risk factor for cancer development, and the frequency of neoplasia is positively correlated with the susceptibility to V-induced inflammation [50]. The above researches were consistent with our results.

Besides that, the characteristics of CRC patients in 30 patients with MSI and 71 patients with MSS were compared. Results showed that tumor stage, tumor size, vascular invasion, lymph node metastasis, B-RAF V600E and NRAS Codon 12/13 were significantly different between the two groups. Then Spearman correlation analysis among MSI, BRAF V600E, ERCC1, XRCC1 (rs25487), 5 biomarkers, and 18 heavy metals illustrated that MSI was positively correlated with BRAF V600E and XRCC1 (rs25487), while negatively correlated with ERCC1. For, BRAF V600E, it was positively correlated with Sb, Tl, CA19-9, NSE, AFP and CK19. XRCC1 (rs25487) was positively correlated with Se, NSE and CK19, negatively correlated with Co. ERCC1 has a critical function in the nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway and plays a vital role in DNA repair [14]. Jiang et al. proved that ERCC1 was highly expressed in CRC patients [51]. In addition, in the study of ERCC1 in postoperative non-small cell lung cancer, it was found that the expression of ERCC1 mRNA was negatively correlated with chemotherapy efficacy and survival time of patients [52]. Studies have shown that CRC patients with MSI have a better prognosis compared to MSS [31, 53]. BRAF is a downstream gene of RAS in the RAS-RAF-MAPK signaling pathway, BRAF V600E mutation leads to uncontrolled cell proliferation, migration, escape from apoptosis and angiogenesis [54, 55]. Research showed that BRAF is associated with poor prognosis in CRC patients, especially in BRAF V600E MSS patients [56,57,58]. MSI is one of the main carcinogenic pathways of CRC [59]. MSI features and BRAF V600E mutations often occur simultaneously in CRC, which means that there is a strong correlation between MSI status and BRAF V600E mutations in CRC [60, 61]. In the present study, MSI was positively correlated with BRAF V600E, and the mRNA expression level of ERCC1 was significantly higher in MSS compared to MSI. In addition, we explored the relationship between BRAF V600E mutation and the heavy metal levels, and the results showed that the levels of Sb and Tl were significantly higher in positive group compared with the negative group. CA19-9 and CEA are two weighty tumor markers commonly used in gastrointestinal malignant tumors, and their elevated levels are associated with CRC and advanced colorectal neoplasia [62]. CK19 is a suitable marker for detecting cancer cells and can be used as a prognostic indicator for cancer patients [25]. Recent research shows that CK19 can enhance the tumorous properties of colon cancer, breast cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma, proving that CK19 plays an important role in carcinogenesis [63]. The protein encoded by the XRCC1 gene plays an important role in the base excision repair pathway [64]. Studies have shown that XRCC1 (rs25487) polymorphism is associated with an increased risk of CRC [13]. Our results showed that there was a significant correlation between XRCC1 (rs25487) polymorphism and MSI status. The results of Iarmarcovai et al. showed that XRCC1 variant allele coding Gln amino acid at position 399 (rs25487) showed a higher number of DNA breaks in people who exposed to heavy metals such as Co [65]. However, until now, there has been very little research on the relationship between XRCC1 and heavy metals. In our research, XRCC1 (rs25487) was found to be positively correlated with Se but negatively correlated with Co.

However, current research still has some limitations. Firstly, the sample size of this study is relatively small, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Secondly, although we have adjusted for potential confounding factors to assess the risk of CRC, we cannot completely exclude the impact of unmeasured confounding factors or reverse causal relationships. Therefore, these results require further expansion of the sample size for large-scale validation.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the correlation between heavy metal elements, MSI, tumor markers, and genetic polymorphism in patients with CRC. We found that Cr, Cu, As and Ba were the risk factors for CRC. Low level of Se and high levels of V, As, Sn, Ba, Pb, Cr and Cu may increase the risk of CRC. MSI was positively correlated with BRAF V600E, negatively correlated with ERCC1, BRAF V600E was positively correlated with Sb, Tl, CA19-9, NSE, AFP and CK19, which indicated that Sb and Tl may cause BRAF V600E mutations, leading to MSI. XRCC1 (rs25487) was found to be positively correlated with Se but negatively correlated with Co. The expression of ERCC1 may be related to MSS, while the XRCC1 (rs25487) polymorphism is related to MSI. However, this observation needs to be confirmed in larger cohorts in future studies.

Data Availability

The data sets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(5):277–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fedewa SA, Ahnen DJ, Meester RGS, Barzi A, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(3):177–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Blaker H, Alwers E, Arnold A, Herpel E, Tagscherer KE, Roth W, et al. The Association between mutations in BRAF and Colorectal Cancer-Specific Survival depends on microsatellite status and Tumor Stage. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17(3):455–62. e6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yang Y, Wang D, Jin L, Wu G, Bai Z, Wang J, et al. Prognostic value of the combination of microsatellite instability and BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:3911–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bai W, Ma J, Liu Y, Liang J, Wu Y, Yang X, et al. Screening of MSI detection loci and their heterogeneity in east asian colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Med. 2019;8(5):2157–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Taieb J, Kourie HR, Emile JF, Le Malicot K, Balogoun R, Tabernero J, et al. Association of Prognostic Value of primary Tumor location in stage III Colon Cancer with RAS and BRAF Mutational Status. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(7):e173695.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nazemalhosseini-Mojarad E, Kishani Farahani R, Mehrizi M, Baghaei K, Yaghoob Taleghani M, Golmohammadi M, et al. Prognostic Value of BRAF and KRAS Mutation in Relation to Colorectal Cancer Survival in iranian patients: correlated to microsatellite instability. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2020;51(1):53–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zheng G, Tseng LH, Chen G, Haley L, Illei P, Gocke CD, et al. Clinical detection and categorization of uncommon and concomitant mutations involving BRAF. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:779.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Gong J, Cho M, Fakih M. RAS and BRAF in metastatic colorectal cancer management. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016;7(5):687–704.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Corcoran RB, Andre T, Atreya CE, Schellens JHM, Yoshino T, Bendell JC, et al. Combined BRAF, EGFR, and MEK Inhibition in patients with BRAF(V600E)-Mutant Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2018;8(4):428–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Wood RD, Mitchell M, Sgouros J, Lindahl T. Human DNA repair genes. Science. 2001;291(5507):1284–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dai Q, Luo H, Li XP, Huang J, Zhou TJ, Yang ZH. XRCC1 and ERCC1 polymorphisms are related to susceptibility and survival of colorectal cancer in the chinese population. Mutagenesis. 2015;30(3):441–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hosseini SM, Mohammadiasl J, Talaiezadeh A, Alidadi R, Bijanzadeh M. Influence of two DNA repair pathway polymorphisms in Colorectal Cancer Risk in Southwest Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2020;21(7):1919–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Li J, Sun P, Huang T, He S, Li L, Xue G. Individualized chemotherapy guided by the expression of ERCC1, RRM1, TUBB3, TYMS and TOP2A genes versus classic chemotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer: a comparative effectiveness study. Oncol Lett. 2021;21(1):21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wilson MD, Ruttan CC, Koop BF, Glickman BW. ERCC1: a comparative genomic perspective. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2001;38(2–3):209–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Salimzadeh H, Lindskog EB, Gustavsson B, Wettergren Y, Ljungman D. Association of DNA repair gene variants with colorectal cancer: risk, toxicity, and survival. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):409.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Lv H, Li Q, Qiu W, Xiang J, Wei H, Liang H, et al. Genetic polymorphism of XRCC1 correlated with response to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Pathol Oncol Res. 2012;18(4):1009–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Milano AF, Singer RB, The Cancer Mortality Risk Project - Cancer Mortality Risks by Anatomic Site. Part 1 - introductory overview; part II - carcinoma of the Colon: 20-Year Mortality follow-up derived from 1973–2013 (NCI) SEER*Stat Survival Database. J Insur Med. 2017;47(2):65–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang Y, Jiang X, Dong S, Shen J, Yu H, Zhou J, et al. Serum TK1 is a more reliable marker than CEA and AFP for cancer screening in a study of 56,286 people. Cancer Biomark. 2016;16(4):529–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Luo H, Shen K, Sun H, Li R, Wang Z, Xie Z. Correlation study between serum neuro-specific enolase and gastric and colorectal cancers. Med (Baltim). 2020;99(16):e19796.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Anzai H, Kazama S, Kiyomatsu T, Nishikawa T, Tanaka T, Tanaka J, et al. Alpha-fetoprotein-producing early rectal carcinoma: a rare case report and review. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:180.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Yu H. Reference intervals for gastrointestinal tumor markers (AFP, CEA, CA199 and CA724) in healthy adults of Han nationality in Chongqing by Roche ECLIA system. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2019;79(7):484–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dong D, Zhang L, Jia L, Ji W, Wang Z, Ren L, et al. Identification of serum periostin as a potential diagnostic and prognostic marker for Colorectal Cancer. Clin Lab. 2018;64(6):973–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cao Y, Gu J, Yan L, Deng S, Mao F, Cai W, et al. The value of haematological parameters and serum tumour markers for predicting KRAS mutations in 784 chinese colorectal cancer patients: a retrospective analysis. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):1099.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Yang X, Zhang D, Chong T, Li Y, Wang Z, Zhang P. Expression of CK19, CD105 and CD146 are associated with early metastasis in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Oncol Lett. 2018;15(4):4229–34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Kipp AP. Selenium in colorectal and differentiated thyroid cancer. Horm (Athens). 2020;19(1):41–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Turkdogan MK, Karapinar HS, Kilicel F. Serum trace element levels of gastrointestinal cancer patients in an endemic upper gastrointestinal cancer region. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2022;72:126978.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schwartz MK. Role of trace elements in cancer. Cancer Res. 1975;35(11 Pt 2):3481–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nawi AM, Chin SF, Azhar Shah S, Jamal R. Tissue and serum Trace Elements Concentration among colorectal patients: a systematic review of case-control studies. Iran J Public Health. 2019;48(4):632–43.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Sohrabi M, Gholami A, Azar MH, Yaghoobi M, Shahi MM, Shirmardi S, et al. Trace element and heavy metal levels in Colorectal Cancer: comparison between cancerous and non-cancerous tissues. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2018;183(1):1–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang L, Zhao J, Yu B, Song X, Sun G, Han L et al. Correlations between microsatellite instability, ERCC1/XRCC1 polymorphism and clinical characteristics, and FOLFOX adjuvant chemotherapy effect of colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Genet 2017;218–9:51 – 7.

  32. Wang L, Miao C, He Y, Li H, Zhang S, Li K, et al. The influence of Heavy Metals on gastric tumorigenesis. J Oncol. 2022;2022:6425133.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. van Gerwen M, Alerte E, Alsen M, Little C, Sinclair C, Genden E. The role of heavy metals in thyroid cancer: a meta-analysis. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2022;69:126900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shen F, Cai WS, Li JL, Feng Z, Cao J, Xu B. The Association between serum levels of selenium, copper, and magnesium with thyroid Cancer: a Meta-analysis. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2015;167(2):225–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yuan S, Mason AM, Carter P, Vithayathil M, Kar S, Burgess S, et al. Selenium and cancer risk: wide-angled mendelian randomization analysis. Int J Cancer. 2022;150(7):1134–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Stojsavljevic A, Rovcanin B, Krstic D, Borkovic-Mitic S, Paunovic I, Kodranov I, et al. Evaluation of trace metals in thyroid tissues: comparative analysis with benign and malignant thyroid diseases. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2019;183:109479.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zaichick V, Tsyb AF, Vtyurin BM. Trace elements and thyroid cancer. Analyst. 1995;120(3):817–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Alexander J, Tinkov A, Strand TA, Alehagen U, Skalny A, Aaseth J. Early nutritional interventions with zinc, selenium and vitamin D for raising Anti-Viral Resistance Against Progressive COVID-19. Nutrients 2020;12(8).

  39. Mandal P. Molecular insight of arsenic-induced carcinogenesis and its prevention. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2017;390(5):443–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Grubman A, White AR. Copper as a key regulator of cell signalling pathways. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2014;16:e11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Blockhuys S, Wittung-Stafshede P. Roles of copper-binding proteins in breast Cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2017;18(4).

  42. Li Y. Copper homeostasis: emerging target for cancer treatment. IUBMB Life. 2020;72(9):1900–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gupte A, Mumper RJ. Elevated copper and oxidative stress in cancer cells as a target for cancer treatment. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009;35(1):32–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Denoyer D, Masaldan S, La Fontaine S, Cater MA. Targeting copper in cancer therapy: ‘Copper that Cancer’. Metallomics. 2015;7(11):1459–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wang H, Liu H, Zhou M, Shi H, Shen M. Correlations between 13 Trace Elements and circulating Tumor cells in patients with colorectal Cancer in Guangzhou, China. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2020;198(1):58–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Nawi AM, Chin SF, Mazlan L, Jamal R. Delineating colorectal cancer distribution, interaction, and risk prediction by environmental risk factors and serum trace elements. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):18670.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Lin Y, Wu C, Yan W, Guo S, Liu B. Five serum Trace Elements Associated with risk of Cardia and Noncardia Gastric Cancer in a Matched Case-Control Study. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;12:4441–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Barry V, Steenland K. Lead exposure and mortality among U.S. workers in a surveillance program: results from 10 additional years of follow-up. Environ Res. 2019;177:108625.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Li Z, Long T, Wang R, Feng Y, Hu H, Xu Y, et al. Plasma metals and cancer incidence in patients with type 2 diabetes. Sci Total Environ. 2021;758:143616.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Scibior A, Pietrzyk L, Plewa Z, Skiba A, Vanadium. Risks and possible benefits in the light of a comprehensive overview of its pharmacotoxicological mechanisms and multi-applications with a summary of further research trends. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2020;61:126508.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Jiang H, Li B, Wang F, Ma C, Hao T. Expression of ERCC1 and TYMS in colorectal cancer patients and the predictive value of chemotherapy efficacy. Oncol Lett. 2019;18(2):1157–62.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Leng XF, Chen MW, Xian L, Dai L, Ma GY, Li MH. Combined analysis of mRNA expression of ERCC1, BAG-1, BRCA1, RRM1 and TUBB3 to predict prognosis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2012;31(1):25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Des Guetz G, Lecaille C, Mariani P, Bennamoun M, Uzzan B, Nicolas P, et al. Prognostic impact of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer patients treated with adjuvant FOLFOX. Anticancer Res. 2010;30(10):4297–301.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Li Y, Xiao J, Zhang T, Zheng Y, Jin H. Analysis of KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations, microsatellite instability, and relevant Prognosis Effects in patients with early colorectal Cancer: a Cohort Study in East Asia. Front Oncol. 2022;12:897548.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Taieb J, Lapeyre-Prost A, Laurent Puig P, Zaanan A. Exploring the best treatment options for BRAF-mutant metastatic colon cancer. Br J Cancer. 2019;121(6):434–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Bond CE, Whitehall VLJ. How the BRAF V600E mutation defines a distinct subgroup of Colorectal Cancer: molecular and clinical implications. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2018;2018:9250757.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Kirouac DC, Schaefer G, Chan J, Merchant M, Orr C, Huang SA, et al. Clinical responses to ERK inhibition in BRAF(V600E)-mutant colorectal cancer predicted using a computational model. NPJ Syst Biol Appl. 2017;3:14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Kasi PM, Kamatham S, Shahjehan F, Li Z, Johnson PW, Merchea A, et al. BRAF-V600E and microsatellite instability prediction through CA-19-9/CEA ratio in patients with colorectal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2020;11(2):236–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. De’ Angelis GL, Bottarelli L, Azzoni C, De’ Angelis N, Leandro G, Di Mario F, et al. Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Acta Biomed. 2018;89(9–S):97–101.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mauri G, Bonazzina E, Amatu A, Tosi F, Bencardino K, Gori V et al. The Evolutionary Landscape of Treatment for BRAF(V600E) mutant metastatic colorectal Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13(1).

  61. Taieb J, Svrcek M, Cohen R, Basile D, Tougeron D, Phelip JM. Deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite unstable colorectal cancer: diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Eur J Cancer. 2022;175:136–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kim NH, Lee MY, Park JH, Park DI, Sohn CI, Choi K, et al. Serum CEA and CA 19 – 9 levels are Associated with the Presence and Severity of Colorectal Neoplasia. Yonsei Med J. 2017;58(5):918–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Zhuo JY, Lu D, Tan WY, Zheng SS, Shen YQ, Xu X. CK19-positive Hepatocellular Carcinoma is a characteristic subtype. J Cancer. 2020;11(17):5069–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Karahalil B, Bohr VA, Wilson DM 3. Impact of DNA polymorphisms in key DNA base excision repair proteins on cancer risk. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2012;31(10):981–1005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Iarmarcovai G, Sari-Minodier I, Chaspoul F, Botta C, De Meo M, Orsiere T, et al. Risk assessment of welders using analysis of eight metals by ICP-MS in blood and urine and DNA damage evaluation by the comet and micronucleus assays; influence of XRCC1 and XRCC3 polymorphisms. Mutagenesis. 2005;20(6):425–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are particularly grateful to all the participants in the present study.

Funding

The project supported by Shanxi Province Service Industry Innovation Discipline Group Construction Plan (NO. 201809).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yongsheng Li and Jingwei Lou have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, 046000, China

    Yongsheng Li, Shaozhong Hong, Dengfeng Hou, Yandong Lv, Zhiqiang Guo, Kai Wang & Hongzhou Liu

  2. Shanghai Biotecan Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd, Shanghai, 201204, China

    Jingwei Lou, Yue Xu & Yufeng Zhai

Authors
  1. Yongsheng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jingwei Lou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shaozhong Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dengfeng Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yandong Lv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhiqiang Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kai Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yue Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yufeng Zhai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hongzhou Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YsL, JwL and YfZ: wrote the main manuscript text; SzH, DfH, YdL, ZqG and KW: generated and updated the figures and tables; YX and HzL: reviewed the manuscript. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yufeng Zhai or Hongzhou Liu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. All experimental protocols were approved by the Ethics Committees of Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College (Approval number: 2018006). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of 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

Li, Y., Lou, J., Hong, S. et al. The role of heavy metals in the development of colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 23, 616 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11120-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11120-w

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us