JC Virus in Colorectal Cancer: Where do we Stand?

Abstract

AIm: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In 2008, CRC was ranked as the second most common cancer among all newly diagnosed cancers in Jordan. It was recently suggested that the JC virus (JCV) could be linked to the development of CRC. However, this topic remains highly controversial. JCV is a common human polyomavirus that first infects individuals during early childhood. Infection with JCV can occur due to intake of contaminated water and food. The vast majority of those infected have no symptoms; however, severe immunosuppression can trigger reactivation of the virus. The oncogenicity of JCV was suggested to be related to its large T-antigen (T-Ag). This study aimed to investigate the incidence of JCV in CRC tissue of patients from northern Jordan. Materials & methods: Paraffin-embedded tissues from cases previously diagnosed with CRC were used. Immunohistochemistry and PCR techniques were used to detect the presence of JCV. Results: In total, 15.6% of CRC samples were positive for JCV T-Ag protein, whereas none of the noncancer control samples were positive. In total, 43.5% of CRC samples contained the JCV T-Ag gene compared with 16.7% within control samples. All CRC samples expressing the JCV T-Ag protein harbored the JCV T-Ag gene. However, not all samples that harbored the T-Ag gene expressed the T-Ag protein. Conclusion: Our results are consistent with recently published data and raise the possibility of an association between JCV infection and CRC. These findings deserve further investigation in larger-scale studies in order to elucidate the possible molecular carcinogenesis pathways in JCV-infected colorectal neoplasms.

Prevalence of JC and BK viruses in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis

“…Sarvari et al, 2018;Haghi Navand et al, 2019) and five studies assessed the BK virus prevalence (Casini et al, 2005;Giuliani et al, 2008;Tseng et al, 2014;Jarzynski et al, 2017;Sarvari et al, 2018) Some studies had used several targets and diagnostic methods (Enam et al, 2002;Hori et al, 2005;Lin et al, 2008;Tsekov et al, 2011;Mou et al, 2012;Matalka et al, 2013;Tseng et al, 2014). One stydy used In Situ Hybridization (ISH) (Samaka et al, 2013), one study used real time PCR(Polymerase Chain Reaction) (Tsekov et al, 2011) and others used PCR, nested-PCR or Immunohistochemistry (IHC), (Enam et al, 2002;Casini et al, 2005;Hori et al, 2005;Theodoropoulos et al, 2005;Goel et al, 2006;Giuliani et al, 2008;Jung et al, 2008;Lin et al, 2008;Niv et al, 2010a;Niv et al, 2010b;Ramamoorthy et al, 2011;Tsekov et al, 2011;Mou et al, 2012;Coelho et al, 2013;Matalka et al, 2013;Ripple et al, 2014;Sinagra et al, 2014;Ksiaa et al, 2015;Jarzynski et al, 2017;Toumi et al, 2017;Sarvari et al, 2018;Haghi Navand et al, 2019). Most of the studies targeted DNA and T antigen (TAg) from the samples in order to diagnose the viruses …”

“…One stydy used In Situ Hybridization (ISH) (Samaka et al, 2013), one study used real time PCR(Polymerase Chain Reaction) (Tsekov et al, 2011) and others used PCR, nested-PCR or Immunohistochemistry (IHC), (Enam et al, 2002;Casini et al, 2005;Hori et al, 2005;Theodoropoulos et al, 2005;Goel et al, 2006;Giuliani et al, 2008;Jung et al, 2008;Lin et al, 2008;Niv et al, 2010a;Niv et al, 2010b;Ramamoorthy et al, 2011;Tsekov et al, 2011;Mou et al, 2012;Coelho et al, 2013;Matalka et al, 2013;Ripple et al, 2014;Sinagra et al, 2014;Ksiaa et al, 2015;Jarzynski et al, 2017;Toumi et al, 2017;Sarvari et al, 2018;Haghi Navand et al, 2019). Most of the studies targeted DNA and T antigen (TAg) from the samples in order to diagnose the viruses (Enam et al, 2002;Hori et al, 2005;Goel et al, 2006;Jung et al, 2008;Lin et al, 2008;Niv et al, 2010b;Tsekov et al, 2011;Mou et al, 2012;Vilkin et al, 2012;Matalka et al, 2013;Samaka et al, 2013;Ripple et al, 2014;Tseng et al, 2014;Haghi Navand et al, 2019), however, viral protein 1(VP1), noncoding control region (NCCR) and Agnoprotein were also used as target …”

“…Majority of included studies were cross-sectional, 28 studies assessed the prevalence of JC virus in CRC (Enam et al, 2002;Hori et al, 2005;Theodoropoulos et al, 2005;Goel et al, 2006;Giuliani et al, 2008;Jung et al, 2008;Lin et al, 2008;Niv et al, 2010a;Niv et al, 2010b;Ramamoorthy et al, 2011;Mou et al, 2012;Matalka et al, 2013;Samaka et al, 2013;Ripple et al, 2014;Ksiaa Lin,2008(Lin et al, 2008 Table 1. Continued…”

“…Overall 18 studies reported the JCV prevalence in colorectal cancer that were included in prevalence (Enam et al, 2002;Casini et al, 2005;Hori et al, 2005;Theodoropoulos et al, 2005;Goel et al, 2006;Giuliani et al, 2008;Lin et al, 2008;Niv et al, 2010a;Niv et al, 2010b;Tsekov et al, 2011;Mou et al, 2012;Coelho et al, 2013;Matalka et al, 2013;Sinagra et al, 2014;Ksiaa et al, 2015;Toumi et al, 2017;Sarvari et al, 2018;Haghi Navand et al, 2019). Nine studies used PCR (Enam et al, 2002;Casini et al, 2005;Goel et al, 2006;Giuliani et al, 2008;Niv et al, 2010b;Matalka et al, 2013;Ksiaa et al, 2015;Sarvari et al, 2018;Haghi Navand et al, 2019), seven studies used nested-PCR (Hori et al, 2005;Theodoropoulos et al, 2005;Lin et al, 2008;Mou et al, 2012;Coelho et al, 2013;Sinagra et al, 2014;Toumi et al, 2017) and seven studies used IHC methods for virus detection). The reported prevalence ranged from 0% to 94% and varied based on the target and diagnostic method (Figures 2-4).…”

“…There was also a variation in type of target detection in each method. Among studies that used PCR, seven studies used viral DNA (Casini et al, 2005;Giuliani et al, 2008;Niv et al, 2010b;Matalka et al, 2013, Ksiaa et al, 2015Sarvari et al, 2018;Haghi Navand et al, 2019), 4 studies used TAg (Enam et al, 2002;Goel et al, 2006;Niv et al, 2010b;Matalka et al, 2013) and 1 study used VP1 and Agnoprotein as the target (Enam et al, 2002). In subgroup analysis, the pooled prevalence of JCV in studies used PCR with the target of TAg was 62 % (38%-83%) which was higher than studies used DNA 36% (2%-80%).…”