Exploring the prognostic significance of PKCε variants in cervical cancer

Abstract

Background Protein Kinase C-epsilon (PKCε) is a member of the novel subfamily of PKCs (nPKCs) that plays a role in cancer development. Studies have revealed that its elevated expression levels are associated with cervical cancer. Previously, we identified pathogenic variations in its different domains through various bioinformatics tools and molecular dynamic simulation. In the present study, the aim was to find the association of its variants rs1553369874 and rs1345511001 with cervical cancer and to determine the influence of these variants on the protein-protein interactions of PKCε, which can lead towards cancer development and poor survival rates. Methods The association of the variants with cervical cancer and its clinicopathological features was determined through genotyping analysis. Odds ratio and relative risk along with Fisher exact test were calculated to evaluate variants significance and disease risk. Protein-protein docking was performed and docked complexes were subjected to molecular dynamics simulation to gauge the variants impact on PKCε’s molecular interactions. Results This study revealed that genetic variants rs1553369874 and rs1345511001 were associated with cervical cancer. Smad3 interacts with PKCε and this interaction promotes cervical cancer angiogenesis; therefore, Smad3 was selected for protein-protein docking. The analysis revealed PKCε variants promoted aberrant interactions with Smad3 that might lead to the activation of oncogenic pathways. The data obtained from this study suggested the prognostic significance of PRKCE gene variants rs1553369874 and rs1345511001. Conclusion Through further in vitro and in vivo validation, these variants can be used at the clinical level as novel prognostic markers and therapeutic targets against cervical cancer.

Correction: Exploring the prognostic significance of PKCε variants in cervical cancer

“…After publication of this article [ 1 ], the authors reported that in this article the author name ‘Suhail Razak’ was incorrectly written as ‘F. Suhail Razak’.…”