4.7 Article

Uneven distribution of HPV 16 E6 prototype and variant (L83V) oncoprotein in cervical neoplastic lesions

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 83, Issue 3, Pages 307-310

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1247

Keywords

HPV16; E6 gene; polymorphism; cervical adenocarcinomas

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A previous Swedish study revealed that both prototype and variant HPV16 E6 oncoprotein, occur in about equal numbers in high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (HCIN), whereas Variant HPV16 predominates in invasive cervical squamous carcinoma. Most of the malignant HPV16 Variants contain a common mutation, L83V, in the E6 oncoprotein. in the present investigation, 28 HPV16 positive, invasive cervical adenocarcinomas were collected from a total number of 131 adenocarcinomas. These HPV-16-positive cases were evaluated with analysis of the E6 gene, using a recently described PCR-SSCP method for identification of the specific mutation (L83V) in the E6 gene. The results obtained were correlated to findings in 103 preinvasive, HCIN, and 31 invasive cervical squamous carcinomas also infected with HPV16. The HPV-16 E6 variant L83V was present in 40% of the HCIN lesions, in 54% of the invasive adenocarcinomas, in comparison to 81% of the invasive squamous carcinomas. The difference between HCIN and squamous carcinomas was statistically significant, P < 0.001, whereas the difference between HCIN and invasive adenocarcinomas was not statistically significant, P = 0.604. Prototype HPV16 and its E6 variant L83V are both prevalent in preinvasive and invasive cervical lesions in Swedish women. However, the obvious predominance of HPV16 variant in squamous carcinomas was not seen in adenocarcinomas. A single amino-acid shift in the HPV16 E6 gene appears to result in a different transforming potential in squamous and glandular cervical lesions. (C) 2000 Cancer Research Campaign.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available