4.6 Article

The type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor is over-expressed in bladder cancer

Journal

BJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume 100, Issue 6, Pages 1396-1401

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06931.x

Keywords

insulin-like growth factor; IGF receptor; bladder cancer; expression

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G0601061] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. MRC [G0601061] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0601061] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To analyse bladder cancer biopsies and investigate the pattern of expression of the type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF1R), a receptor tyrosine kinase that mediates tumour cell proliferation, motility and protection from apoptosis. Formalin-fixed specimens of bladder cancer (40 whole-mount, 80 cores on a tumour microarray) and normal bladder (15 samples) were stained immunohistochemically for the IGF1R. The IGF1R expression was also measured by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (Q-RT-PCR) on RNA extracted from fresh frozen bladder cancers (61) and benign bladder (12). Of the 15 samples of normal bladder, 14 showed negligible (1+) or light (2+) IGF1R immunostaining. By contrast moderate (3+) or heavy (4+) staining for IGF1R was detected in 89 (74%) of the 120 samples of malignant urothelium. Q-RT-PCR showed significantly higher levels of steady-state IGF1R mRNA in tumours (all cases, Ta-T4) than in normal bladder (P < 0.05), indicating up-regulation at the transcriptional level. This difference was particularly evident when comparing normal urothelium with superficial (Ta-T1) or invasive (T2-4) tumours; only the latter showed significant IGF1R over-expression at the RNA level (P < 0.05 vs normal bladder). The IGF1R is up-regulated in bladder cancer compared with non-malignant bladder, and might contribute to a propensity for invasion.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available