3.9 Article

Enhanced expression of melanoma progression markers in mouse model of sleep apnea

Journal

REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE PNEUMOLOGIA
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 209-213

Publisher

ELSEVIER DOYMA SL
DOI: 10.1016/j.rppnen.2015.11.004

Keywords

Apnea; Melanoma; Biological markers

Funding

  1. Research Incentive Fund of the Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre (FIPE - HCPA), Porto Alegre, Brazil

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Obstructive sleep apnea has been associated with higher cancer incidence and Melanoma; mortality. Increased melanoma aggressivity was reported in obstructive sleep apnea patients. Biological markers Mice exposed to intermittent hypoxia (IH) mimicking sleep apnea show enhanced melanoma growth. Markers of melanoma progression have not been investigated in this model. Objective: The present study examined whether IH affects markers of melanoma tumor progression. Methods: Mice were exposed to isocapnic IH to a nadir of 8% oxygen fraction for 14 days. One million B16F10 melanoma cells were injected subcutaneously. Immunohistochemistry staining for K| b7. PCNA, S100-beta, HMB-45, Melan-A, TGF-beta, Caspase-1, and HIF-lalpha were quantified using Photoshop. Results: Percentage of positive area stained was higher in IH than sham IH group for Caspase-1, Ki-67, PCNA, and Metan-A. The greater expression of several markers of tumor aggressiveness, including markers of ribosomal RNA transcription (Ki-67) and of DNA synthesis (PCNA), in mice exposed to isocapnic IH than in controls provide molecular evidence for a apnea-cancer relationship. Conclusions: These findings have potential repercussions in the understanding of differences in clinical course of tumors in obstructive sleep apnea patients. Further investigation is necessary to confirm mechanisms of these descriptive results. (C) 2015 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available