4.5 Article

Comparative proteomic study for profiling differentially expressed proteins between Chinese left- and right-sided colon cancers

Journal

CANCER SCIENCE
Volume 104, Issue 1, Pages 135-141

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/cas.12029

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [30770971, 30872463, 81070362, 81172470]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province [06JJ4119, 11JJ2049]
  3. Department of Science and Technology of Hunan Province [2009JT1052]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present study is to profile differentially expressed protein markers between left-sided colon cancer (LSCC) and right-sided colon cancer (RSCC). Fresh tumor tissue samples from LSCC (n = 7) and RSCC (n = 7) groups were analyzed by two-dimensional electrophoresis coupled with MALDI-TOF-MS, followed by Western blotting. In 50 paraffin embedded samples from each group, levels of four differentially expressed proteins (identified by proteomics analysis) were measured by tissue microarray with immunohistochemistry staining to compare the different protein markers between LSCC and RSCC. Sixteen proteins were found to be differentially expressed between LSCC and RSCC. Ten proteins including HSP-60 and PDIA1 were identified to be highly expressed in LSCC (P < 0.01 or P < 0.05), while the expression of six proteins including EEF1D and HSP-27 were higher in RSCC (P < 0.01 or P < 0.05). Virtually all of the indentified proteins were involved in cellular energy metabolism, protein folding/unfolding, and/or oxidative stress. Human colon tumors at various locations have different proteomic biomarkers. Differentially expressed proteins associated with energy metabolism, protein folding/unfolding and oxidative stress contribute to different tumorigenesis, tumor progression, and prognosis between left- and right-sided colon cancer. (Cancer Sci 2013; 104: 141135)

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