4.4 Article

Differences in the expression of five senescence markers in oral cancer, oral leukoplakia and control samples in humans

Journal

ONCOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 3, Issue 6, Pages 1319-1325

Publisher

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ol.2012.649

Keywords

senescence; oral cancer; oral leukoplakia; cyclin D1; maspin; Rb; p53; MDM2

Categories

Funding

  1. Fundacion Mutua Madrilena, Madrid, Spain [5251146]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Oncogene-induced senescence (OIS) may be a response to oncogenic activation, acting as a natural barrier against carcinogenesis at a premalignant stage. Thus, numerous cells in premalignant lesions enter senescence, but none or few in malignant tumours. This event could be due to the loss of senescence pathway effectors, including p16 (INK4a)-pRb or ARF-p53. The aim of this study was to characterize and compare the expression of certain senescent markers between oral precancer and cancer tissue samples. The expression of cyclin D1, Rb, maspin, p53 and mouse double minute 2 (MDM2) was analyzed in 20 paraffin-embedded tissue samples of normal oral mucosa (NOM), 14 samples of oral leukoplakia without dysplasia (OLD-), 11 samples of leukoplakia with dysplasia (OLD+) and 15 samples of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) by immunohistochemistry in tissue arrays. The expression of p16-pRb pathway markers, cyclin D1, maspin and Rb, was more frequent in OLD+ samples than in OSCC samples, although a statistical significance was only observed for maspin (P=0.036). Cycl in D1 expression was also significantly more frequent in OLD- samples vs. NOM samples. For the ARF-p53 pathway, the expression of p53 and MDM2 was significantly more frequent in the OLD- samples compared to in the NOM ones. These findings may indicate a role for cellular senescence in oral carcinogenesis, considering maspin as a reliable senescence marker and prognostic factor in oral premalignant lesions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available