4.5 Article

Evaluation of S100A10, annexin II and B-FABP expression as markers for renal cell carcinoma

Journal

CANCER SCIENCE
Volume 98, Issue 1, Pages 77-82

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2006.00355.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to analyze expression of S100A10, annexin II and B-FABP genes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and their potential value as tumor markers. Furthermore, any correlation between the gene expression and prognostic indicators of RCC was analyzed. Expression of each gene was estimated by RT-PCR in the non-neoplastic (normal) and tumorous parts of resected kidney samples. Also, each antigen was immunostained in RCC and normal kidney tissues. Expression of the S100A10 gene averaged 2.5-fold higher in the tumor than that in the normal tissues (n = 47), after standardization against that of beta-actin. However, expression of annexin II, a natural ligand of S100A10, was only 1.64-fold higher. In the tissue sections of RCC, S100A10 and annexin II were immunostained in membranes. In the normal renal epithelia, however, both antigens were stained in the Bowman's capsule and the tubules from Henle's loop through the collecting duct system, but not in the proximal tubules, from where most RCC are derived. In contrast, expression of the B-FABP gene was 20-fold higher in the tumor. No B-FABP was immunohistochemically detected in normal kidney sections, but it was stained in the cytoplasm of RCC tissue sections. S100A10 and B-FABP genes were overexpressed regardless of nuclear grade and stage of RCC. Immunopositivity in RCC tissues (n = 13) was 100% for S100A10 and annexin II, and 70% for B-FABP; however, no clear relationship was observed in either antigen with nuclear grade and stage. It was found that all three performed well as RCC markers. B-FABP was most specific to RCC, as it was expressed little in normal kidney tissues.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available