4.6 Article

Immunohistochemical analysis of P53, cyclinD1, RB1, c-fos and N-ras gene expression in hepatocellular carcinoma in Iran

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages 588-593

Publisher

W J G PRESS
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i4.588

Keywords

hepatocellular carcinoma; Iran; expression of p53; cyclinD1; RB1; c-fos and N-ras genes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To study the effect of some genes especially those involved in cell cycle regulation on hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: Paraffin-em bedded tissue samples of 25 patients (18 males and 7 females) with hepatocellular carcinoma were collected from 22 pathology centers in Tehran during 2000-2001, and stained using immunohistochemistry method (avidin-biotin-peroxidase) for detection of p53, cyclinD1, RB1, c-fos and N-ras proteins. RESULTS: Six (24%), 5 (20%), 12 (48%) and 2 samples (8%) were positive for p53, cyclinD1, C-fos and N-ras expression, respectively. Twenty-two (88%) samples had alterations in the G1 cell-cycle checkpoint protein expression (RB1 or cyclinD1). P53 positive samples showed a higher (9 times) risk of being positive for RB1 protein than p53 negative samples. Loss of expression of RB1 in association with p53 over-expression was observed in 4 (66.7%) of 6 samples. Loss of expression of RB1 was seen in all cyclinD1 positive, 20 (90.9%) N-ras negative, and 11 (50%) C-fos positive samples, respectively. CyclinD1 positive samples showed a higher (2.85 and 4.75 times) risk of being positive for c-fos and N-ras expression than cyclinD1 negative samples. CONCLUSION: The expression of p53, RB1 and c-fos genes appears to have a key role in the pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma in Iran. Simultaneous overexpression of these genes is significantly associated with their loss of expression during development of hepatocellular carcinoma. (c) 2007 The WJG Press. All rights reserved.

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