4.6 Article

Mutations and nuclear accumulation of β-catenin correlate with intestinal phenotypic expression in human gastric cancer

Journal

HISTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 6, Pages 612-621

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02560.x

Keywords

beta-catenin; adenomatous polyposis coli gene (APC); gastric cancer; intestinal phenotypic expression; nuclear accumulation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: Abnormal localization of beta-catenin is frequently observed in human gastric cancers. The aim of the present study was to evaluate relationships among gastrointestinal differentiation phenotypes, beta-catenin localization and mutations of Wnt signalling genes. Methods and results: Seventy-seven regions in 39 gastric adenocarcinomas were classified according to beta-catenin localization and gastric and intestinal phenotypes. Cases with membranous beta-catenin localization showed a gradual decrease from gastric (G) (55%=6/11) and gastric-and-intestinal-mixed (GI) (17% =5/29) to intestinal (I) (0% =0/21) phenotypes, while those with nuclear localization showed a concomitant increase: 18% (2/11), 41% (12/29), 95% (20/21) and 63% (10/16) for G, GI, I and null type (N), respectively (P < 0.001, membranous versus nuclear localization in G, GI through I). Mutations in exon 3 of the beta-catenin gene were found in G (50%=1/2), GI (67%=8/12), I (45%=9/20) and N (0%=0/10) regions with nuclear beta-catenin localization (GI versus N, P < 0.01; I versus N, P < 0.05). Adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene mutations were demonstrated only in GI, I and N types, irrespective of beta-catenin localization. Molecular analysis of these genes revealed 10 tumours to be heterogeneous out of 16 informative cases (62.5%). Conclusion: Intestinal phenotypic expression is accompanied by a shift from membranous to cytoplasmic/nuclear accumulation of beta-catenin. In contrast, N-type regions may progress along a different pathway.

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