Research article Special Issues

A potential role for metastasis-associated in colon cancer 1 (MACC1) as a pan-cancer prognostic and immunological biomarker


  • Background 

    Metastasis-Associated in Colon Cancer 1(MACC1) is a validated biomarker for metastasis and is linked to survival. Although extensive experimental evidence indicates an association between MACC1 and diverse cancers, no pan-cancer analyses have yet been performed for this marker, and the role of MACC1 in immunology remains unknown.

    Material and Methods 

    In our study, we performed the analysis of MACC1 expression and its influence on prognosis using multiple databases, including TIMER2, GEPIA2, Kaplan-Meier plotter. MACC1 promoter methylation levels were evaluated using the UALCAN database. Based on the TCGA database, we explored the relationship between MACC1 and tumor mutational burden (TMB), microsatellite instability (MSI), immune checkpoints using the R programming language. We evaluated the association between MACC1 and immune infiltration via TIMER and UALCAN.

    Results 

    Our results revealed that abnormal DNA methylation may be an important cause for the different expression of MACC1 across cancer types. Meanwhile, we explored the potential oncogenic roles of MACC1 and found significant prognostic value. MACC1 may be related to T-cell function and the polarization of tumor-associated macrophages, especially in STAD and LGG. Its expression was associated with immune infiltration and was found to be closely related to immune checkpoint-associated genes, especially CD274 and SIGLEC15, indicating that MACC1 may be a potential immune therapeutic target for several malignancies. Our paper reveals for the first time the relationship between MACC1 and cancer immunology.

    Conclusions 

    MACC1 might act as a predictor for the immune response in cancer patients, and could also represent a new potential immunotherapeutic target.

    Citation: Ye Hu, Meiling Wang, Kainan Wang, Jiyue Gao, Jiaci Tong, Zuowei Zhao, Man Li. A potential role for metastasis-associated in colon cancer 1 (MACC1) as a pan-cancer prognostic and immunological biomarker[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 8331-8353. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021413

    Related Papers:

    [1] Joanna Faber, Krzysztof Brodzik . Air quality inside passenger cars. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(1): 112-133. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.1.112
    [2] Pasquale Avino, Maurizio Manigrasso . Ozone formation in relation with combustion processes in highly populated urban areas. AIMS Environmental Science, 2015, 2(3): 764-781. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2015.3.764
    [3] B. Ravit, K. Cooper, G. Moreno, B. Buckley, I. Yang, A. Deshpande, S. Meola, D. Jones, A. Hsieh . Microplastics in urban New Jersey freshwaters: distribution, chemical identification, and biological affects. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(6): 809-826. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.6.809
    [4] Lars Carlsen . A posetic based assessment of atmospheric VOCs. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(3): 403-416. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.3.403
    [5] Dimitrios Kotzias . Built environment and indoor air quality: The case of volatile organic compounds. AIMS Environmental Science, 2021, 8(2): 135-147. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2021010
    [6] Tharwat Mokalled, Stéphane Le Calvé, Nada Badaro-Saliba, Maher Abboud, Rita Zaarour, Wehbeh Farah, Jocelyne Adjizian-Gérard . Atmospheric dispersion modelling of gaseous emissions from Beirutinternational airport activities. AIMS Environmental Science, 2022, 9(5): 553-572. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2022033
    [7] Sanjeev Sharma, Vinay Kandpal, Tanupriya Choudhury, Ernesto D.R. Santibanez Gonzalez, Naveen Agarwal . Assessment of the implications of energy-efficient technologies on the environmental sustainability of rail operation. AIMS Environmental Science, 2023, 10(5): 709-731. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023039
    [8] Aarce Tehupeiory, Iva Yenis Septiariva, I Wayan Koko Suryawan . Evaluating Community Preferences for Waste-to-Energy Development in Jakarta: An Analysis Using the Choice Experiment Method. AIMS Environmental Science, 2023, 10(6): 809-831. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023044
    [9] Adnane Moulim, Sid'Ahmed Soumbara, Ahmed El Ghini . Cointegration analysis of fundamental drivers affecting carbon price dynamics in the EU ETS. AIMS Environmental Science, 2025, 12(1): 165-192. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2025008
    [10] Patrick Wanjiru, Nancy Karuri, Paul Wanyeki, Paul Kioni, Josephat Tanui . Numerical simulation of the effect of diluents on NOx formation in methane and methyl formate fuels in counter flow diffusion flame. AIMS Environmental Science, 2020, 7(2): 140-152. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2020008
  • Background 

    Metastasis-Associated in Colon Cancer 1(MACC1) is a validated biomarker for metastasis and is linked to survival. Although extensive experimental evidence indicates an association between MACC1 and diverse cancers, no pan-cancer analyses have yet been performed for this marker, and the role of MACC1 in immunology remains unknown.

    Material and Methods 

    In our study, we performed the analysis of MACC1 expression and its influence on prognosis using multiple databases, including TIMER2, GEPIA2, Kaplan-Meier plotter. MACC1 promoter methylation levels were evaluated using the UALCAN database. Based on the TCGA database, we explored the relationship between MACC1 and tumor mutational burden (TMB), microsatellite instability (MSI), immune checkpoints using the R programming language. We evaluated the association between MACC1 and immune infiltration via TIMER and UALCAN.

    Results 

    Our results revealed that abnormal DNA methylation may be an important cause for the different expression of MACC1 across cancer types. Meanwhile, we explored the potential oncogenic roles of MACC1 and found significant prognostic value. MACC1 may be related to T-cell function and the polarization of tumor-associated macrophages, especially in STAD and LGG. Its expression was associated with immune infiltration and was found to be closely related to immune checkpoint-associated genes, especially CD274 and SIGLEC15, indicating that MACC1 may be a potential immune therapeutic target for several malignancies. Our paper reveals for the first time the relationship between MACC1 and cancer immunology.

    Conclusions 

    MACC1 might act as a predictor for the immune response in cancer patients, and could also represent a new potential immunotherapeutic target.



    BTEXBenzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylenes
    DMEAN, N-Dimethylethyl amine
    ESPElectrostatic precipitator
    FIDFlame ionization detector
    GC-FIDGas chromatography-flame ionization detector
    GC-PIDGas chromatography-photoionization detector
    GC-NSDGas chromatography-nitrogen sensitive detector
    GPAOGas-phase advanced oxidation
    HEPAHigh efficiency particulate filter
    HVHigh voltage
    NOxMono nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2)
    OUOdor unit
    PIDPhotoionization detector
    PMParticulate matter
    ppmParts per million, μmol/mol
    QairVolumetric flow rate of air
    RAryl and/or alkyl group
    TD-GC/MSThermal desorption-Gas chromatography/Mass spectrometry
    UV-CUltraviolet radiation (280-185 nm)
    VOCVolatile organic compound

    1. Introduction

    Anthropogenic (and natural) emissions into the atmosphere have a wide range of negative effects including those on air quality, human health, agricultural output and climate [1,2,3,4]. Air pollution gives rise to adverse health impacts including cardiorespiratory diseases, cancer, nervous system disorder and death [2,3,4,5,6,7]. Air pollutants include particulate matter (PM) and heavy metals, and gaseous compounds such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), SO2, NOx (NO and NO2), ozone and carbon monoxide [4].

    A variety of methods are available to improve indoor air quality and reduce industrial emissions. In this section we begin by reviewing the available technologies, and proceed by describing GPAO, an emerging technology. The key properties of the techniques are their initial and operational cost, energy use, sensitivity to conditions such as gas composition, pollution load, temperature, and relative humidity, range of applicable pollutants, long term performance, and the possible formation of unwanted products [8]. Techniques used to maintain indoor air quality include ventilation, particle filters, activated charcoal, electrostatic filters and ion air cleaners [9]. Ventilation, regardless of the costs of installation, operation and maintenance, is limited by outdoor air quality, particularly in heavily polluted areas [10]. With ventilation, pollution is not converted to less hazardous products, but rather, is exchanged and diluted with outdoor air. Particle filters can remove PM, but they are not designed to treat gaseous pollutants and require ongoing maintenance and replacement, and the filters themselves can be a source of odor and VOCs [11,12]. VOCs can be removed using activated charcoal at the expense of energy needed to overcome the pressure drop of the filter. Charcoal filters give rise to a material disposal problem, and can be a source of odor [9]. Electrostatic filters and ion cleaners remove particles, but may generate ozone, which is hazardous and gives rise to hazardous oxidation products [13,14,15,16]. Electrostatic filters charge particles and remove them from the airstream using electrical fields, but are inefficient at removing gaseous pollutants and have a limited effect on nanoparticles [16,17]. Table 1 summarizes technologies used for indoor air purification.

    Table 1. Comparison of GPAO and other indoor air control techniques.
    Air pollution control technologyTarget speciesAdvantagesDisadvantagesRef
    Catalytic OxidationGas-phase pollutionHighly reactive for wide range of pollutantsPrice of catalyst[8,18,19,20]
    Catalyst may contain rare and/or toxic elements
    Catalyst vulnerable to poisoning
    Generally not suited to complex or variable mixtures
    High energy input, high capital cost
    High pressure drop
    Potentially high temperature
    Electrostatic filters and ion cleanersParticles Low pressure drop Susceptible to arcing[19,21]
    Highly effectiveLimited efficiency for nanoparticles (0-50 nm)
    Source of ozone
    Require cleaning
    Fibrous particle filter (e.g. HEPA)Particles Removes particles (0.1-4 μm)With time filters generate odor[8,18,19,20,21,22]
    Economical and efficient Cannot remove VOCs
    Release secondary pollutants when in contact with ozone
    Source of contamination for microorganisms
    Enable growth of microorganism
    Pressure drop
    GPAOGas-phase pollutants (organic and inorganic), particles High reactivity of hydroxyl radical and ozone Removal efficiency depends on residence time of polluted airstream[9]
    Low pressure drop No recovery of pollutants
    Possible removal of biogenic pathogens such as bacteria and viruses due to UV radiation and strong oxidative environment Not equally efficient to all pollutants
    Source of nanoparticles (0-50 nm)
    Possible formation of unwanted reaction products such as carbon monoxide and formaldehyde
    Requires investigation of oxidation products
    Non-Thermal Plasma (NTP)Gas-phase pollutants (organic and inorganic) and airborne microbesRemoves odor and particlesProduces ozone, NOx, CO and other by-products. [8,18]
    Ozone Gas-phase pollutants (organic and inorganic) and airborne microbesReactive oxidantReacts slowly with many pollutants [8,19]
    Relatively cheapDoes not react with aliphatic hydrocarbons
    Incomplete oxidation leads to many byproducts including formaldehyde and carbon monoxide
    Generation of secondary organic aerosols
    Photocatalytic OxidationGas-phase pollutantsCan be activated by sunlight or UV lightLimited treatment capacity[8,18,19,20]
    High energy input to activate surfaces (if using artificial UV-light)
    Vulnerable to poisoning by particles and foreign species
    Variable effectiveness
    Not suited for treatment of very volatile species
    Generation of partially oxidized products
    Pressure drop
    Plasma with catalytic oxidation Gas-phase pollutants and particles Removes acetaldehyde and particles with an increased efficiency compared to catalytic oxidation alone Produces ozone, NOx and other harmful by-products. The catalyst decreases in efficiency with usage[23]
    Sorption (activated carbon, zeolite, activated alumina, silica gel and molecular sieves)Gas-phase pollutants (organic and inorganic), particlesGood efficiency for gas phase pollutantsNeeds regeneration[8,19]
    Does not generate harmful by-productsReleases airborne microorganisms, enables them to grow
    Allows capture and recycling of vapors, for example fumes to fuelInteraction with ozone as pollutant releases harmful secondary products
    Saturation may cause re-emission
    Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation Airborne microbes Inactivates airborne microorganisms May generate ozone and dioxin [8]
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Industrial and agricultural emission control techniques include biofiltration, absorption, adsorption and oxidation [24]. Biofiltration techniques are limited to a certain range of pollutants and are sensitive to environmental conditions such as moisture, temperature, acidity, flow rate and oxygen content, and media characteristics such as porosity [24,25,26,27]. Aqueous scrubbers are widespread and a multistage approach is required if both acidic and basic compounds are present in the airstream [27]. Adsorption techniques are dependent on the physicochemical characteristics of the adsorbent and become saturated at higher pollutant concentrations [27]. In addition, the adsorbent filter may be clogged by particles causing a pressure drop, and particles can coat the filter, degrading performance [27]. Combustion (thermal oxidation) techniques require higher temperature and further treatment may be required for nitrogen, sulfur and halogen containing pollutants [24,27,28,29]. Table 2 summarizes technologies used for treating air pollution in industrial and agricultural settings.

    Table 2. Summary of techniques used for pollution control in industrial and agricultural facilities.
    Technology Pollutant description and removal efficiencyAdvantage Limitation Ref
    Absorption/Qair < 1.7 × 105 m3 h-1Easy to maintainPhysicochemical characteristics of the VOC affects the removal efficiency [24,30]
    scrubbing500-15,000 ppmFinding proper solvent
    90-98%
    Concentration 100-5000 ppmReduces volumetric flow for downstream pollution controlThe VOC, inlet stream temperature, pressure and flow rate, and the adsorbent, affect the removal efficiency[24,30]
    Adsorption 80-96%Pollutant recovery possibleParticles may block they system and increase pressure drop
    Biofilter Qair < 1.7 × 105 m3 h-1Low operation cost Less effective at higher concentrations and for halogenated/aromatic compounds[24,28,29,31,32,33,34]
    Concentration < 1000 ppmLong media life Sensitive to environmental conditions including variations in concentration, temperature and humidity
    60-95%Large ground area
    May produce secondary pollutants which are more toxic
    Dependent on degradability of the compound
    Pollutants may be toxic to the microbe
    Catalytic oxidation Qair < 1.3 × 105 m3 h-1Requires less heat and fuel than thermal oxidation Overloading of catalyst with particles decreases efficiency [24,28,29]
    100-2000 ppmHigher removal efficiency at lower temperature due to the presence of catalyst
    90-98%Catalyst is sensitive to inlet stream concentrations and flow conditions
    Catalyst can be poisoned by sulfur, chlorinated compounds or heavy particle loadings
    Catalyst needs regular replacement,
    Halogenated and sulfur compounds converted to acids need further treatment
    Expensive rare elements used
    CondensationQair < 5.1 × 103 m3 h-1Solvent able to be re-usedHigh capital and operation cost[24,29,30]
    5000-10,000 ppmEfficient for compounds with boiling point above 311 KLess effective at low concentration
    70-85%Suitable for compounds which have high boiling point and high vapor phase concentration Higher cooling power required to recover volatile species
    Gas- phase advanced oxidation (GPAO)85-99%High reactivity of hydroxyl radical and ozone Removal efficiency depends on the flow rate and residence time of polluted airstream[9]
    1300-40,000 m3 h-1Low pressure dropRequires investigation of oxidation products
    Possible removal of biogenic pathogens such as bacteria and viruses due to UV radiation and strong oxidative environmentNo recovery of pollutants
    Not equally efficient for all pollutants
    Source of nanoparticles (0-50 nm)
    Possible formation of unwanted reaction products such as carbon monoxide and formaldehyde
    Non-thermal Plasma Qair < 200,000 m3 h-1Smaller volume relative to adsorption and absorption techniquesUndesirable side products (CO, NOx and O3)[35,36,37]
    Thermal oxidation Qair < 8.5 × 105 m3 h-1Treats a majority of pollutants Affected by turbulence (for mixing) and the amount of oxygen [24,28,29]
    Concentration Generates NOx, CO, CO2
    100-2000 ppmHalogenated compounds require additional treatment due to release of acids
    Residence time May require additional fuel to maintain combustion
    0.5-1.0 s
    95-99%
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The term gas-phase advanced oxidation (GPAO)is an extension of the traditional method of advanced oxidation which includes different techniques for generating the hydroxyl radical for water purification [30]. GPAO is an air pollution control technique based on the photochemical reaction mechanisms occurring in the atmosphere [6]. An overview of the technique is presented below, while the principles were detailed by Johnson et al. [9,38]. As shown in Figure 1, polluted air is blown or drawn into the system. Ozone is added and photolyzed by UV-C lamps, producing highly reactive singlet oxygen atoms (O1D), reaction R1. Singlet oxygen abstracts hydrogen from water, reaction R2, or VOCs, reaction R3, to generate reactive hydroxyl radicals (OH∙), reaction R2 [39].

    O3 + hv(λ < 328 nm) → O(1D) + O2 (R1)
    O(1D) + H2O → 2OH∙ (R2)
    O(1D) + R-CH3 → OH∙ + R-CH2 (R3)

    Figure 1. Schematic of pollution removal using GPAO.

    O(1D), due to its high reactivity, collides with molecules present in the air stream yielding ground state oxygen (O(3P)) (R4). The ground state oxygen reacts with molecular oxygen to generate ozone (R5) which can be photolysed again in (R1), restarting the production of OH; O(3P) could also react directly with unsaturated VOCs [6,9].

    O(1D) + M → O(3P) + M
    Where M = N2, O2, Ar, H2O, CO2, ... (R4)
    O(3P) + O2 + M → O3 + M (R5)
    The hydroxyl radical abstracts hydrogen from VOCs (R6) or it can add to unsaturated VOCs.
    OH∙ + R-CH3 → H2O+R-CH2 (R6)
    The radical R-CH2∙ will react further via one of three different mechanisms (addition, fragmentation and oligomerization) depending on the details of the chemistry in the GPAO system [9].

    The first mechanism is addition of oxygen to the organic radical (R-CH2∙) producing oxidized products including aldehydes and acids [40,41,42,43]. The peroxy radical (∙OOCH2-R) yields aldehydes reacting with hydrogen peroxide and hydroxyl radical (R8 and R9) or with other peroxy radicals (R10 and R11). Further oxygen addition and reaction with hydroxide with the aldehyde generates acids (R11-R16).

    R-CH2∙ + O2 + M → ∙OOCH2-R + M (R7)
    ∙OOCH2-R +∙ OOH → HOOCH2-R + O2 (R8)
    HOOCH2-R +∙ OH → HC(O)-R + OH∙ + H2O (R9)
    ∙OOCH2-R + ∙OOCH2-R → ∙OCH2-R + ∙OCH2-R + O2 (R10)
    ∙OCH2-R + O2 → OCH-R + ∙OOH (R11)
    OCH-R + OH∙ → ∙C(O)-R + H2O (R12)
    ∙C(O)-R + O2+ M → ∙OOC(O)-R + M (R13)
    ∙OOC(O)-R +∙OOH → HOOC(O)-R + O2 (R14)
    ∙OOC(O)-R +∙OOH → HOC(O)-R + O3 (R15)
    HOOC(O)-R +H2O → HOC(O)-R + H2O2 (R16)

    The GPAO method is able to treat compounds with an OH∙ reaction rate faster than ca. 5 × 10−13 cm3 s−1 in a matter of seconds provided that the oxidation capacity of the system is not saturated [9]. The oxidized products of the reactions initiated by OH∙ radicals are typically less volatile and more hygroscopic than their reduced counterparts [41] and the products will partition onto pre-existing particles (or form new particles) that will continue to grow by taking up additional pollution. The particles are charged using high voltage (HV) and removed, e.g. by an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) while excess ozone is removed from the airstream by a manganese dioxide catalyst.

    In the second mechanism, the organic radical may fragment in to smaller volatile fragments such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and formic acid which may pass through the system with the air stream, if they are not first oxidized by OH∙ [6,44,45,46]. The alkoxy radical (∙OCH2-R) will decompose to give formaldehyde and an organic radical (R17). The formaldehyde formed is either released with the air stream or may be converted to carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide (R17-R21) [6,45].

    ∙OCH2-R → CH2O + R∙ (R17)
    CH2O + hv + O2 → CHO + HO2 (R18)
    CH2O + OH∙ → CHO + H2O (R19)
    CH2O + hv → CO + H2 (R20)
    CO + OH∙ → CO2 + H∙ (R21)

    Finally, the third mechanism is oligomerization in which oxidation products join together to form low volatile products within particles.

    This study describes applications of gas phase advanced oxidation, a new and emerging pollution control technique, to indoor air pollution and to industrial and agricultural emissions control. The technology is presented in the context of earlier work (cf. Tables 1 and 2) in the field of waste air management. An earlier paper presented laboratory results [9], and in this study we present the results of a series of real-world tests, in addition to a laboratory test applying the technology to indoor air. The goal is to characterize the performance of GPAO towards a wide range of pollutants in the laboratory and to investigate the performance in commercial scale applications.

    2. Indoor air purification

    2.1. Laboratory testing

    The laboratory system is designed to characterize the effect of treatment variables such as air flow, ozone dose, lamp power, relative humidity and pollution concentration on GPAO removal efficiency. The laboratory testing is described in a previous publication [9] and is summarized here for comparison to the new applications detailed in the subsequent sections. Performance was quantified using propane, cyclohexane, benzene and isoprene as test compounds [9]. These compounds were selected as being representative of a wider range of VOCs. The first three, propane, cyclohexene and benzene, are often found in industrial exhaust streams; isoprene is a common biogenic VOC [6,47].

    In the experiment, ozone is generated using a plasma discharge ozone generator (ACP 3000, O3 Technology) and UV-C light is emitted by four 55 W fluorescent discharge lamps (Philips TUV 55W HO, G55 T8). Laboratory air is used as the bath gas and individual pollutants are supplied to the GPAO prototype via a saturated airstream using an impinger as a bubbler. The airstream went through the stages of GPAO treatment shown in Figure 1: ozonolysis, photolysis, particle growth and filtration. Finally the airstream passes a MnO2 catalyst (Tombo no. 8803-CZH2 from Nichias Corp., Tokushima, Japan) to remove residual ozone. Isoprene and cyclohexane are sampled by drawing air to Tenax TA adsorbent tubes (Markes International) and benzene is sampled using Chromosorb tubes. Outlet measurements are performed after the MnO2 catalyst in each of the experiments. Samples are analyzed using thermal desorption gas chromatography mass spectrometry (TD-GC/MS). Propane is analyzed using multipass infrared absorption cell [9,48]. Ozone concentrations are determined using a dual-beam UV photometer ozone monitor (model 930, BMT Messtechnik). The volumetric flow rate is quantified by measuring the airflow in and out of the prototype using a wind speed anemometer (Testo 405, Testo AG, Germany).

    Table 3 shows the experimental conditions and removal efficiency (, where [X] is pollutant concentration) for the laboratory scale experiments. GPAO enables removal with an efficiency of more than 98% with the exception of benzene, and a residence time of 12 to 31 s, a volumetric energy input of ca. 3 kJ m−3 and volumetric flow rate of ca. 170 to 400 m3 h−1. Given the reactor volume of 180 L, this implies a space velocity of 940 to 2200 reactor volumes treated per hour.

    Table 3. Summary of experimental conditions and resulting removal efficiencies (RE).
    CompoundInlet concentration /ppmSpeed of air /m s-1Residence time /sRE /%
    Laboratory scale prototype [9]Benzene 0.38-0.541.4 to113-1812±7-55±15
    Cyclohexane 0.4-1.11.4-0.613-3081±4-99±1
    Isoprene 2.4-5.91.4-0.613-3147±3-99±1
    Propane 3.8-0.641-0.618-3157±3-99±1
    Indoor prototypeα-pinene1.941.91280±0.6
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Table 3 lists ranges of inlet concentration, speed of air, residence time and removal efficiency. The range of inlet concentrations of propane for example spans from 3.8 to 0.64 ppm. Experiments at high concentrations were performed at 1 m s−1 corresponding to 18 s residence time, and a recorded removal efficiency of 57.3%.

    The removal efficiency of pollutants depends on their reaction rate constants with hydroxyl radicals e.g. the lower removal efficiency for benzene compared to other pollutants is due to its slower reaction rate constant with OH∙ [46,49,50,51,52,53,54]. The other factor affecting the removal efficiency of pollutants is residence time. As shown in Table 3, the higher the residence time, the higher the removal efficiency. A decrease in air speed from 1.4 to 0.6 m s1 corresponds to an increase in residence time from 13 to 30 seconds which increases the removal efficiency of isoprene from 47 to 99%. Residence time has a higher impact on removal efficiency than changes in inlet concentration as shown in Table 3 for isoprene, cyclohexane and benzene. This means that the oxidation capacity of the laboratory scale prototype is not saturated under these conditions. The optimal residence time for a specific operating condition depends on several factors including pollutant type and concentration, initial air flow rate, and dimensions of GPAO. In addition to OH∙ radical reactions, UV-C radiation may accelerate the removal of pollutants that have significant absorption cross sections. Some odorous pollutants including reduced sulfur compounds and oxygenates like aldehydes and esters have UV-active chromophores.

    2.2. Indoor applications

    An indoor prototype was built to study the efficiency of GPAO for indoor air pollution treatment. Figure 2 shows a schematic of this setup. The indoor laboratory scale prototype is smaller in size and has a rectangular cross section (with dimension of 1.52 m × 0.26 m × 0.24 m (length × width × height)) compared to the cylindrical laboratory scale prototype discussed above. The total volume is 95 L with a reaction chamber volume of 62.6 L. Monoterpenes are one of the most common VOC indoor air pollutants [55]. In this study α-pinene was chosen as a representative to study the efficiency of GPAO in controlling pollution due to monoterpenes since their atmospheric reactions are well investigated [56,57,58,59,60]. α-pinene was supplied to the GPAO prototype via a saturated airstream at a flow rate of 100 mL min−1 using an impinger as a bubbler. The volumetric flow rate was established by measuring the airflow in and out of the prototype using a wind speed anemometer (Testo 405, Testo AG, Germany). The total volumetric flow rate was maintained at 18.7 m3 h−1 corresponding to a residence time of 12 seconds and a space velocity of 300 h−1. The volumetric energy input of this prototype was ca. 4.6 kJ m−3. Ozone is generated using a plasma discharge ozone generator (ACP 500, O3 Technology) and 60 W flouorescent lamps (TUV PL-L 60W HO/4P UV) were used to generate UV-C light. Ozone concentrations were determined using an ozone monitor (Eco Sensor model UV-100). Laboratory air was used as the bath gas.

    Figure 2. Indoor prototype. 1) inlet fan, 2) O3 generator, 3) UV-C lamp, 4) reaction chamber, 5) HEPA (high-efficiency particulate) filter, 6) MnO2-catalyst, 7) clean air, 8) outlet fan.

    Analysis of α-pinene was performed using a photoionization detector (PID) (Procheck Tiger V1.9, Ion Science, USA) and the same TD-GC/MS system described by Johnson et al. [9]. Tests were performed in three scenarios: using only ozone with the UV-C light turned off, using only UV-C light without ozone supply, and using ozone in the presence of UV-C light. A removal efficiency of 60 ± 1.6% was observed using only ozone while UV-C lamps are turned off. UV-C light alone did not have an observable removal efficiency towards α-pinene. As shown in Table 3, a removal efficiency of 80% was observed at a residence time of 12 seconds using GPAO when both UV light and ozone were present.

    3. Industrial and agricultural pollution control

    The goal of this section is to describe several examples of GPAO systems used in commercial environments where there is significant variation in temperature, relative humidity and concentration of pollutants. The photochemical mechanism is the same as for the laboratory scale prototype but the dimensions of the system, air flow, dose of ozone, UV-C lamp power, and the possible addition of an aqueous scrubber are determined based on the specific case. Installations are designed based on the concentrations of pollutants determined using standard methods including TD-GC/MS, PID and flame ionization detectors (FID).

    Three types of industrial GPAO systems are presented: a “portable chimney” unit built into a standard 40-foot shipping container, a portable modular prototype, and commercial scale installations, called CLIMATIC (produced by Infuser ApS). Table 4 lists some of the installations and industries where GPAO has been tested. During tests, samples taken before the system are compared to those taken at the air exit after the electrostatic precipitator to determine the removal efficiency of the system. In all of the cases examined here GPAO achieved a removal efficiency greater than 89%.

    Table 4. Test details of selected industrial GPAO systems.
    SectorLocationGPAO systemTarget pollutionConcentrationQair/(m3 h-1)Residence time /sRE /%
    FiberglassJutland, DenmarkShipping container prototypeStyrene11 ppm1500112099
    Ferrous FoundrySaarbrücken, GermanyModular prototypeBTEX2, amines80 ppmVariableVariable>89
    Waste water treatment3Jutland, DenmarkCLIMATIC4Odor, VOC, oil mist200 to 1400 ppm14,00010-2092
    Animal fodder5Jutland DenmarkCLIMATIC4Odor, 10,000 OU610,0003095
    Acetic acid N/A10,0003099
    Food processing7Skåne, SwedenCLIMATIC4Odor, oil mist>100 ppm60001090
    1Tests were run at 1500,6200 and 10,400 m3/h
    2Carbon monoxide concentrations were variable. For some foundries there is enough CO to interfere with BTEX treatment.
    3Treatment of technical water from ships containing a mixture of heavy marine diesel oil (3% elemental sulfur by weight), fresh and salt water, engine waste, etc.
    4Commercial scale GPAO installation (Infuser ApS)
    5Production and dehydration of fermented plant material for pigs, a type of silage or sauerkraut.
    6OU means Odor Units.
    7Potato chip factory
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    3.1. Shipping container prototype to remove styrene emission from fiberglass

    Styrene vapor is produced during the production of fiberglass-reinforced plastics, used for example in fiberglass boats, airplanes, water containers and windmill blades. Styrene is regulated as an air pollutant; it is a suspected carcinogen [61]. A GPAO prototype was installed in a shipping container of dimensions 12.4 m × 2.4 m × 2.6 m (length × width × height). The container had two sets of 2.4 kW UV-C lamps and a total reaction volume of 50 m3. The shipping container was connected to the exhaust of a fiberglass factory. Ozone was generated using a plasma discharge ozone generator (ACP 3000, O3 Technology) and 60 W lamps (TUV PL-L, Phillips) were used to generate UV-C light. Measurements were performed at different ozone production rates (160, 80, 40 and 20 g O3 h−1) and with a total UV lamp power of 4.8, 2.4 and 1.2 kW). Ozone concentrations were determined using an ozone monitor (BMT Messtechnik model 930). Measurements were performed at a series of flow rates: 10, 400, 6200, and 1500 m3 h−1 with residence times of 17, 29, and 120 seconds respectively. The volumetric flow rate was established by measuring the airflow in and out of the prototype using a wind speed anemometer (Testo 405, Testo AG, Germany). Styrene was analyzed using a photoionization detector (PID) and by sampling on Tenax A tubes for analysis with TD-GC/MS. Acetone was observed in small concentrations at the inlet. The optimum removal efficiency (99%) of 11 ppm of styrene was achieved with an ozone production rate of 160 g O3 h−1 and UV-C lamp power of 4.8 kW with 120 s residence time [62].

    3.2. Modular prototype for treatment of VOCs emitted from foundry

    Waste air from a ferrous metal foundry was treated using a modular prototype. Ferrous metal foundries are sources of multiple VOCs including the group of compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and the xylenes, denoted BTEX [63,64]. In this prototype, polluted air enters an ozone-infused scrubber followed by two sets of modules with UV-C light and a module for particle growth. Finally, the air passes through an electrostatic precipitator and an MnO2 catalyst. The modular prototype was tested over the course of 3 months at a foundry in Saarbrücken, Germany. Table 5 shows experimental conditions and performance of the modular prototype used at the foundry. Ozone is generated using a plasma discharge ozone generator (ACP 3000, O3 Technology) and UV-C light by up to twelve 220 W fluorescent lamps. Ozone concentrations were determined using an ozone monitor (Eco Sensor model UV-100). The volumetric flow rate was measured by measuring the airflow out of the prototype using a wind speed anemometer (Testo 405, Testo AG, Germany). Analysis of BTEX was performed using GC-PID (Delta, Synspec, Groningen, The Netherlands) while total hydrocarbon concentrations (THC) and non-methane total hydrocarbon (NMTHC) concentrations were determined using GC-FID (Alpha, Synspec, Groningen, The Netherlands). In general, the modular prototype allowed removal of BTEX with an efficiency of 90-97% and other VOCs with an efficiency in the range of 85-90%.

    Table 5. Summary of experimental conditions and results for pollution control at foundry.
    Pollutant categoryCompoundInlet concentration /ppmOutlet concentration /ppmRE /%
    VOCs Benzene 9.262.0078
    Ethyl benzene 6.230.1997
    Phenol8.230.0599
    Toluene 7.570.1698
    m and p-Xylene 6.520.2296
    o-Xylene 6.060.1298
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    3.3. Modular prototype for treatment of amines from foundry emissions

    In addition to the VOCs including BTEX presented in the previous section, depending on the process, waste air from foundries may contain amines. In the cold box process, amines are used as a catalytic hardener in producing the sand cores. Amines are used to improve results and increase production capacity. Which amine or amines are present depends on the catalyst that the foundry uses. A modular GPAO prototype with three consecutive UV sections, one ozonized scrubber, an ESP and an MnO2 section with dimensions of 1 m × 1 m × 1 m for each section was installed. Polluted air was sampled using Dräger ADS sample tubes for amines (Drägerwerk AG, Germany) and analysis was performed by gas chromatography with a nitrogen selective detector (GC/NSD) (Agilent 5977A). The major amine emitted from the foundry was N, N-Dimethylethylamine (DMEA). Two ozone generators which produce 20 g h−1 ozone (ONY-20, Infuser, Denmark) and one ozone generator generating 80 g h−1 ozone (ONY-80, Infuser, Denmark). Ozone concentrations were determined using an ozone monitor (Eco Sensor model UV-100). A removal efficiency of >96% was achieved for DMEA and total amines with 13.5 kW lamp power and 120 g h−1 ozone supply at air flow rate of 4530 m3 h−1.

    3.4. Modular prototype for treatment of agricultural emissions

    Pig farms and other agricultural facilities are well known sources of malodorous compounds. In particular, the emission of reduced sulfur compounds, including H2S, gives rise to complaints due to the very low odor detection limits of such compounds [65,66]. Recently, the same modular prototype used in the foundry in Saarbrücken was used to test the removal of reduced sulfur compounds at concentrations typical for pig farm exhaust streams. Removal efficiencies of >90% were achieved for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), methane thiol (CH3SH) and dimethyl sulfide ((CH3)2S), with a volumetric energy input of ≤13.2 kJ m−3 [Meusinger et al., unpublished data].

    3.5. Commercial scale GPAO for odor removal

    Commercial scale GPAO units (CLIMATIC) have been installed at three factories: a waste water treatment plant, a food processing plant and a fermentation plant producing animal fodder. The first commercial scale GPAO was installed at a water treatment plant in Aarhus, Denmark which treats waste water and oil produced by container ships and industry. The factory generates a waste air stream of 15,000 m3 h−1. Chemical analysis of the untreated water shows that it is polluted with hydrocarbons (143-424 g kg−1) that contain 0.94-1.40% sulfur by weight. Such high sulfur levels are typical for heavy marine diesel oil. Due to the presence of sulfur and organic compounds, the emitted polluted air had a heavy unpleasant smell, giving rise to persistent complaints from residents in other areas of the city. Ventilation air analysis was performed using GC/MS and volatile organic compounds were observed including C4-C14 aliphatic alkanes, C7-C11 alkenes, and aromatic compounds (toluene, xylene, and other alkyl benzenes). While trace sulfur compounds were not observed in the chromatogram, likely due to the range and sensitivity of the system, traces of 1-propyl mercaptan and other sulfur compounds were observed from the chromatogram when using ion extraction. A scrubber was added to the shipping container described above and connected to the factory ventilation system. After successful tests with the shipping container a commercial scale GPAO was installed. The dimensions of the CLIMATIC are 10 m × 2.4 m × 2.4 m (length × width × height). Ozone is generated using a plasma discharge ozone generator (ACP 3000, O3 Technology) and mercury vapor discharge fluorescent lamps were used to generate UV-C light. An ozone-infused aqueous scrubber and two UV-C sections are used. Ozone concentrations were determined using ozone monitor (Eco Sensor model UV-100). The commercial scale GPAO installation reduced the smell by 92% with a residence time of 30 seconds at 160 g h−1 ozone supply, as assessed by a professional smell panel. The volumetric energy input of the installation is ca. 4 kJ m−3.

    The secondcommercial scale GPAO was installed at a potato chip factory in southern Sweden. The factory releases a mixture of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids and aldehydes that cause an unpleasant smell [67]. Ozone is generated using a plasma discharge ozone generator (ACP 3000, O3 Technology) and mercury vapor fluorescent discharge lamps were used to generate UV-C light. Ozone concentrations were determined using an ozone monitor (Eco Sensor model UV-100). The installation of a commercial scale GPAO solution of similar characteristics as described above yielded removal of 90% unpleasant odor. Odor was measured by a professional smell panel.

    The third commercial scale GPAO system was installed at a factory that produces fermented plant material as animal feed that is known to be a significant source of odor. During fermentation many compounds, in particular short chain fatty acids and esters, are produced that have strong odor. Ozone and UV light are generated as before. Ozone concentrations were determined using an ozone monitor (Eco Sensor model UV-100). GPAO removes 99% of acetic acid and 95% of odor.

    4. Discussion

    Table 1 shows the techniques that are most commonly used to control indoor air pollution, along with GPAO. Most of the techniques are specific to certain pollutant groups and some of them also emit toxic compounds. GPAO is advantageous compared to the techniques which are traditionally used to control indoor air pollution, since it covers a wide range of pollutants, has a low energy input, and is easy to maintain.

    VOC control techniques can either destroy or recover the pollutants. Destructive techniques include oxidation and bio-filtration, while recovery techniques include absorption, adsorption and condensation. Thermal oxidation and adsorption techniques are widely used to control VOC emissions [24]. In thermal oxidation pollutants are combusted at high temperature. The technique often requires natural gas to burn the pollutant when the concentration of emitted pollutants (i.e. the fuel concentration) is too small. This approach is associated with increased costs due to the added fuel and CO2 emissions. Thermal oxidation generates NOx and acids which can necessitate additional treatment systems if for example sulfur and halogen containing compounds are present in the airstream [24]. Adsorption is a technique where the pollutant is concentrated on the surface of the adsorbent material. Adsorption techniques are associated with relatively high capital and running costs [24]. The temperature of the desorption stage is commonly much higher than that of the adsorption stage, drawing power. If ozone is present in the airstream it will react with adsorbed molecules generating secondary pollution. If pollutants are emitted at low concentrations, adsorption techniques enable concentrating pollutants for subsequent economic treatment [24]. Adsorption techniques are less effective at higher pollutant concentrations due to saturation of adsorption sites. Adsorption is the most important method used when recovery of the organic pollutant is a major concern, while thermal oxidation is commonly used when only removal is required [24,68].

    In the systems we have tested, a number of limitations have been noted. For example there is a limit to the oxidation capacity of the systems. In certain situations the system may become saturated by high concentrations of NH3 or CO limiting the ability to treat other compounds. Gas phase advanced oxidation is not suitable for use at elevated temperatures when ozone is no longer stable. Nor is it suited to environments, due to excessive cold or heat, that are outside the operating range of the fluorescent lamps. Further, the method relies on oxygen in the atmosphere as an oxidant. Some waste gas streams, e.g. from combustion and agricultural sources, may not have enough oxygen. It is necessary to be aware of the possible formation of unwanted reaction products such as formaldehyde and ultrafine particles. Further studies should be performed to characterize the toxicity of the products. Additionally, the oxidation products in the treated air should be examined on a case by case basis to assure that unwanted products are not formed.

    Gas-phase advanced oxidation (GPAO) is an emerging technology for air pollution control. It enables removal of organic and inorganic pollutants which can be gaseous or particulate. The technology works well in controlling a range of air pollutants emitted from different sources. It shows efficient removal of indoor pollutants and industrial emissions. The removal efficiency of the technology depends on the residence time and the physicochemical properties of the pollutant. The technology was implemented in the market as an in situ pollution control technology to prevent undesired emission of pollutants and/or malodorous compounds. The technology is easy to maintain, applicable to a wide range of pollutants, energy efficient and suitable for a wide variety of pollution control situations including odor control for livestock and biogas production, wastewater treatment, and indoor air purification.

    Acknowledgments

    We thank Infuser ApS for their help with building and installing test prototypes and support during measurements. We also thank Jes Andersen, Andrew Butcher, Kristoffer Nannerup, Anders Brostrøm Bluhme and Jonas Ingemar for their collaboration during industrial scale testing. The authors thank Verena Rauchenwald, Nanna Sander and Kjertan Lyster for their help with indoor pollution control measurements. Finally we thank Denis Wistensen and Jørgen Jørgensen of the Niels Bohr Institute Workshop for designing and construction of laboratory scale and indoor prototypes. We thank the Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster, Innovation Fund Denmark, the Department of Chemistry and Infuser ApS for funding.

    Conflict of interest

    All authorsdeclare no conflict of interest in this paper other than the association of the technology with Infuser ApS, Airlabs, and the University of Copenhagen, as described in the text.



    [1] L. A. Salas, K. C. Johnson, D. C. Koestler, D. E. O'Sullivan, B. C. Christensen, Integrative epigenetic and genetic pan-cancer somatic alteration portraits, Epigenetics, 12 (2017), 561-574. doi: 10.1080/15592294.2017.1319043
    [2] S. Xie, C. Shen, M. Tan, M. Li, X. Song, C. Wang, Systematic analysis of gene expression alterations and clinical outcomes of adenylate cyclase-associated protein in cancer, Oncotarget, 8 (2017), 27216-27239. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.16111
    [3] M. W. Ball, M. A. Gorin, C. G. Drake, H. J. Hammers, M. E. Allaf, The Landscape of Whole-genome Alterations and Pathologic Features in Genitourinary Malignancies: An Analysis of the Cancer Genome Atlas, Eur. Urol. Focus, 3 (2017), 584-589. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.01.007
    [4] J. Fridlyand, A. M. Snijders, B. Ylstra, H. Li, A. Olshen, R. Segraves, et al., Breast tumor copy number aberration phenotypes and genomic instability, BMC Cancer, 6 (2016), 96.
    [5] U. Stein, W. Walther, F. Arlt, H. Schwabe, J. Smith, I. Fichtner, et al., MACC1, a newly identified key regulator of HGF-MET signaling, predicts colon cancer metastasis, Nat. Med., 15 (2009), 59-67.
    [6] A. Shirahata, W. Fan, K. Sakuraba, K. Yokomizo, T. Goto, H. Mizukami, et al., MACC 1 as a Marker for Vascular Invasive Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Anticancer Res., 31 (2011), 777-780.
    [7] G. Wang, M. X. Kang, W. J. Lu, Y. Chen, B. Zhang, Y. L. Wu, MACC1: A potential molecule associated with pancreatic cancer metastasis and chemoresistance, Oncol. Lett, 4 (2012), 783-791. doi: 10.3892/ol.2012.784
    [8] H. Shimokawa, H. Uramoto, T. Onitsuka, C. Guang, T. Hanagiri, T. Oyama, et al., Overexpression of MACC1 mRNA in lung adenocarcinoma is associated with postoperative recurrence, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc Surg., 141 (2011), 895-898. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.09.044
    [9] R. T. Zhang, H. R. Shi, Z. M. Chen, Q. H. Wu, F. Ren, H. L. Huang, Effects of metastasis-associated in colon cancer 1 inhibition by small hairpin RNA on ovarian carcinoma OVCAR-3 cells, J. Exp. Clin. Can. Res., 30 (2011), 83. doi: 10.1186/1756-9966-30-83
    [10] Y. B. Huang, H. Z. Zhang, J. C. Cai, L. S. Fang, J. H. Wu, C. S. Ye, et al., Overexpression of MACC1 and Its significance in human Breast Cancer Progression, Cell Biosci., 3 (2013), 16. doi: 10.1186/2045-3701-3-16
    [11] T. H. Yang, M. Kon, J. H. Hung, C. Delisi, Combinations of newly confirmed Glioma-Associated loci link regions on chromosomes 1 and 9 to increased disease risk, BMC Med. Genom., 4 (2011), 63. doi: 10.1186/1755-8794-4-63
    [12] J. Barbazan, Y. Dunkel, H. Y. Li, U. Nitsche, K. P. Janssen, K. Messer, et al., Prognostic Impact of Modulators of G proteins in Circulating Tumor Cells from Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer, Sci. Rep.-Uk, 6 (2016), 22112. doi: 10.1038/srep22112
    [13] A. Pichorner, U. Sack, D. Kobelt, I. Kelch, F. Arlt, J. Smith, et al., In vivo imaging of colorectal cancer growth and metastasis by targeting MACC1 with shRNA in xenografted mice, Clin. Exp. Metastas., 29 (2012), 573-583. doi: 10.1007/s10585-012-9472-6
    [14] Z. Wu, R. Zhou, Y. Su, S. Li, Y. Liao, W. Liao, Prognostic Value of MACC1 in Digestive System Neoplasms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis., BioMed. Res. Int., 2015 (2015), 252043.
    [15] G. Wang, Z. Fu, D. Li, MACC1 overexpression and survival in solid tumors: a meta-analysis, Tumour. Biol., 36 (2015), 1055-1065. doi: 10.1007/s13277-014-2736-9
    [16] Y. Jin, K. Zhou, W. Zhao, R. Han, X. Huo, F. Yang, et al., Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of metastasis-associated in colon cancer-1 in gastric cancer: A meta-analysis, Int. J. Biol. Markers, 34 (2019), 27-32. doi: 10.1177/1724600818813634
    [17] M. Uhlen, L. Fagerberg, B. M. Hallstrom, C. Lindskog, P. Oksvold, A. Mardinoglu, et al., Proteomics., Tissue-based map of the human proteome, Science, 347 (2015), 1260419. doi: 10.1126/science.1260419
    [18] T. Li, J. Fu, Z. Zeng, D. Cohen, J. Li, Q. Chen, et al., TIMER2.0 for analysis of tumor-infiltrating immune cells, Nucleic Acids Res., 48 (2020), W509-W514.
    [19] D. S. Chandrashekar, B. Bashel, S. A. Balasubramanya, C. J. Creighton, I. P. Rodrigues, B. V. Chakravarthi, et al., UALCAN: A Portal for Facilitating Tumor Subgroup Gene Expression and Survival Analyses, Neoplasia, 19 (2017), 649-658. doi: 10.1016/j.neo.2017.05.002
    [20] Z. Tang, B. Kang, C. Li, T. Chen, Z. Zhang, GEPIA2: an enhanced web server for large-scale expression profiling and interactive analysis, Nucleic Acids Res., 47 (2019), W556-W560. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz430
    [21] M. Yarchoan, A. Hopkins, E. M. Jaffee, Tumor Mutational Burden and Response Rate to PD-1 Inhibition, N Eng. J. Med., 377 (2017), 2500-2501. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1713444
    [22] T. Krieger, I. Pearson, J. Bell, J. Doherty, P. Robbins, Targeted literature review on use of tumor mutational burden status and programmed cell death ligand 1 expression to predict outcomes of checkpoint inhibitor treatment, Diagn. Pathol., 15 (2010), 6.
    [23] T. W. Li, J. Y. Fan, B. B. Wang, N. Traugh, Q. M. Chen, J. S. Liu, et al., TIMER: A Web Server for Comprehensive Analysis of Tumor-Infiltrating Immune Cells, Cancer Res., 77 (2019), E108-E110.
    [24] E. Cerami, J. Gao, U. Dogrusoz, B. E. Gross, S. O. Sumer, B. A. Aksoy, et al., The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data, Cancer Discov., 2 (2012), 401-404. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0095
    [25] J. Budczies, K. Kluck, W. Walther, Decoding and targeting the molecular basis of MACC1-driven metastatic spread: Lessons from big data mining and clinical-experimental approaches, Semin. Cancer Biol., 60 (2020), 365-379. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.08.010
    [26] D. W. Sun, Y. Y. Zhang, Y. Qi, G. Q. Liu, Y. G. Chen, J. Ma, et al., Prognostic and clinicopathological significance of MACC1 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a meta-analysis, Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med., 8 (2015), 4769-4777.
    [27] Y. Zhao, C. Dai, M. Wang, H. F. Kang, S. Lin, P. T. Yang, et al., Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of metastasis-associated in colon cancer-1 (MACC1) overexpression in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis, Oncotarget, 7 (2016), 62966-62975. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.11287
    [28] F. X. Schaub, V. Dhankani, A. C. Berger, M. Trivedi, A. B. Richardson, R. Shaw, et al., Pan-cancer Alterations of the MYC Oncogene and Its Proximal Network across the Cancer Genome Atlas, Cell Syst., 6 (2018), 282. doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2018.03.003
    [29] L. J. Wang, L. Y. Fan, H. Y. Xu, H. Y. Jiang, Prognostic significance of the expression of metastasis-associated in colon cancer-1 in gynecologic cancers and breast cancer A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis, Medicine, 100 (2021).
    [30] A. Shirahata, K. Shinmura, Y. Kitamura, K. Sakuraba, K. Yokomizo, T. Goto, et al., MACC1 as a Marker for Advanced Colorectal Carcinoma, Anticancer Res., 30(2010), 2689-2692.
    [31] A. Stewart, E. A. Coker, S. Palsterl, A. Georgiou, A. R. Minchom, S. Carreira, et al., Differences in Signaling Patterns on PI3K Inhibition Reveal Context Specificity in KRAS-Mutant Cancers, Mol. Cancer Ther., 18 (2019), 1396-1404. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-18-0727
    [32] P. B. Chapman, A. Hauschild, C. Robert, J. B. Haanen, P. Ascierto, J. Larkin, et al., Improved Survival with Vemurafenib in Melanoma with BRAF V600E Mutation., New Eng. J. Med., 364 (2011), 2507-2516. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1103782
    [33] U. J. M. Mey, C. Renner, R. von Moos, Vemurafenib in combination with cobimetinib in relapsed and refractory extramedullary multiple myeloma harboring the BRAF V600E mutation, Hematol. Oncol., 35 (2017), 890-893.
    [34] D. Subramaniam, R. Thombre, A. Dhar, S. Anant, DNA methyltransferases: a novel target for prevention and therapy, Front. Oncol., 4 (2014), 80.
    [35] H. Heyn, M. Esteller, DNA methylation profiling in the clinic: applications and challenges, Nat. Rev. Genet., 13 (2012), 679-692. doi: 10.1038/nrg3270
    [36] M. R. Hassler, W. Pulverer, R. Lakshminarasimhan, E. Redl, J. Hacker, G. D. Garland, et al., Insights into the Pathogenesis of Anaplastic Large-Cell Lymphoma through Genome-wide DNA Methylation Profiling, Cell Rep., 17 (2016), 596-608. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.09.018
    [37] T. Hinoue, D. J. Weisenberger, C. P. E. Lange, H. Shen, H. M. Byun, D. V. D. Berg, et al., Genome-scale analysis of aberrant DNA methylation in colorectal cancer, Genome Res., 22 (2012), 271-282. doi: 10.1101/gr.117523.110
    [38] N. Bethge, R. A. Lothe, H. Honne, K. Andresen, G. Troen, M. Eknaes, et al., Colorectal cancer DNA methylation marker panel validated with high performance in non-hodgkin lymphoma, Epigenetics, 9 (2014), 428-436. doi: 10.4161/epi.27554
    [39] D. Hanahan, R. A. Weinberg, Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation, Cell, 144 (2011), 646-674. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
    [40] U. P. Rohr, P. Herrmann, K. Ilm, H. Zhang, S. Lohmann, A. Reiser, et al., Prognostic value of MACC1 and proficient mismatch repair status for recurrence risk prediction in stage II colon cancer patients: the BIOGRID studies, Ann. Oncol., 28 (2017), 1869-1875. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx207
    [41] Z. Wang, K. Song, W. X. Zhao, Z. M. Zhao, Dendritic cells in tumor microenvironment promoted the neuropathic pain via paracrine inflammatory and growth factors, Bioengineered, 11 (2020), 661-678. doi: 10.1080/21655979.2020.1771068
    [42] S. Ostrand-Rosenberg, Immune surveillance: a balance between protumor and antitumor immunity, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev., 18 (2008), 11-18. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2007.12.007
    [43] C. Murdoch, M. Muthana, S. B. Coffelt, C. E. Lewis, The role of myeloid cells in the promotion of tumour angiogenesis, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 8 (2008), 618-631. doi: 10.1038/nrc2444
    [44] P. Sharma, S. Hu-Lieskovan, J. A. Wargo, A. Ribas, Primary, Adaptive, and Acquired Resistance to Cancer Immunotherapy, Cell, 168 (2017), 707-723. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.017
    [45] B. V. Kumar, T. J. Connors, D. L. Farber, Human T Cell Development, Localization, and Function throughout Life, Immunity, 48 (2018), 202-213.
    [46] G. Tong, B. Cheng, J. Li, X. Wu, Q. Nong, L. He, et al., MACC1 regulates PDL1 expression and tumor immunity through the c-Met/AKT/mTOR pathway in gastric cancer cells, Cancer Med., 8 (2019), 7044-7054. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2542
    [47] J. Wang, J. W. Sun, L. N. Liu, D. B. Flies, X. X. Nie, M. Toki, et al., Siglec-15 as an immune suppressor and potential target for normalization cancer immunotherapy, Nat. Med., 25 (2019), 656. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0374-x
  • mbe-18-06-413 - Supplementary.pdf
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Carl Meusinger, Anders B. Bluhme, Jonas L. Ingemar, Anders Feilberg, Sigurd Christiansen, Christina Andersen, Matthew S. Johnson, Treatment of reduced sulphur compounds and SO2 by Gas Phase Advanced Oxidation, 2017, 307, 13858947, 427, 10.1016/j.cej.2016.08.092
    2. Szymon Kwiatkowski, Merve Polat, Weijia Yu, Matthew Stanley Johnson, 2021, Chapter 1083, 978-1-0716-0595-0, 477, 10.1007/978-1-0716-0596-7_1083
    3. Changsong Zhou, Ben Wang, Zijian Song, Chuan Ma, Jie Yu, Zhiyue Zhang, Hongmin Yang, Lushi Sun, DFT studies of Hg0 oxidation by gaseous advanced oxidation method: H2O2/Fe3O4 (1 1 1) and hydroxyl pre-adsorbed Fe3O4 (1 1 1) surface, 2017, 202, 00162361, 318, 10.1016/j.fuel.2017.04.041
    4. Changsong Zhou, Zijian Song, Zhiyue Zhang, Hongmin Yang, Ben Wang, Jie Yu, Lushi Sun, DFT studies of elemental mercury oxidation mechanism by gaseous advanced oxidation method: Co-interaction with H 2 O 2 on Fe 3 O 4 (111) surface, 2017, 426, 01694332, 647, 10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.07.243
    5. Szymon Kwiatkowski, Merve Polat, Weijia Yu, Matthew S. Johnson, 2019, Chapter 1083-1, 978-1-4939-2493-6, 1, 10.1007/978-1-4939-2493-6_1083-1
    6. A.K. Priya, R. Suresh, P. Senthil Kumar, Saravanan Rajendran, Dai-Viet N. Vo, Matias Soto-Moscoso, A review on recent advancements in photocatalytic remediation for harmful inorganic and organic gases, 2021, 284, 00456535, 131344, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131344
    7. Serguei Alejandro-Martín, Héctor Valdés, Claudio A. Zaror, Catalytic Ozonation of Toluene over Acidic Surface Transformed Natural Zeolite: A Dual-Site Reaction Mechanism and Kinetic Approach, 2021, 11, 2073-4344, 958, 10.3390/catal11080958
    8. Marc Rovira, Klas Engvall, Christophe Duwig, Sensitivity analysis of an ammonium salt formation model applied to pollutant removal in marine diesel exhaust gases, 2023, 332, 00162361, 126001, 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126001
    9. N. Ramesh Reddy, N. Lakshmana Reddy, M.V. Shankar, 2023, 9780323918947, 155, 10.1016/B978-0-323-91894-7.00011-6
    10. Edvinas Krugly, Oleh Pitak, Darius Ciuzas, Martynas Tichonovas, Inga Stasiulaitiene, Tadas Prasauskas, Linas Kliucininkas, Dainius Martuzevicius, Removal of VOCs from wood processing ventilation air by advanced oxidation gas-to-particle prototype system, 2022, 161, 09575820, 520, 10.1016/j.psep.2022.03.043
    11. Edvinas Krugly, Oleh Pitak, Darius Ciuzas, Martynas Tichonovas, Inga Stasiulaitiene, Inga Urniezaite, Linas Kliucininkas, Dainius Martuzevicius, VOC removal from ventilation air by gas-to-particle conversion: Towords the Enhancement of process efficiency, 2022, 209, 03601323, 108647, 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108647
    12. Preeti Kumari, Aditya Kumar, ADVANCED OXIDATION PROCESS: A remediation technique for organic and non-biodegradable pollutant, 2023, 11, 26668459, 100122, 10.1016/j.rsurfi.2023.100122
    13. Parvez Mahbub, Mikel Duke, Scalability of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) in industrial applications: A review, 2023, 345, 03014797, 118861, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118861
    14. Tomáš Prostějovský, Alena Kulišťáková, Lukáš Sauer, Michal Přibyl, Martin Reli, Kamila Kočí, Improving reactor fluid dynamics enhances styrene degradation by advanced oxidation processes, 2024, 330, 13835866, 125536, 10.1016/j.seppur.2023.125536
    15. David Nugroho, Latiful Kabir, Young Jun Joo, Kwang Youn Cho, Suwat Nanan, Saksit Chanthai, Rachadaporn Benchawattananon, Won-Chun Oh, Photocatalytic performance with electrochemical effects for ZnO/Graphene Quantum Dots/CdSe nanocomposite toward ciprofloxacin antibiotics and paracetamol degradation under visible light, 2024, 42, 24685194, 102393, 10.1016/j.mtchem.2024.102393
    16. Niels Iversen, Peter Roslev, Mitigation of atmospheric and elevated methane by photochemical oxidation at ambient conditions, 2025, 976, 00489697, 179338, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179338
    17. Justinas Masionis, Darius Čiužas, Edvinas Krugly, Martynas Tichonovas, Tadas Prasauskas, Dainius Martuzevičius, Inactivation of Bioaerosol Particles in a Single-Pass Multi-Stage Non-Thermal Plasma and Ionization Air Cleaner, 2025, 8, 2571-6182, 22, 10.3390/plasma8020022
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5256) PDF downloads(312) Cited by(8)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(7)  /  Tables(2)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog