4.6 Article

In vivo HPV 16 E5 mRNA: Expression pattern in patients with squamous intra-epithelial lesions of the cervix

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 79-83

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2011.06.007

关键词

HPV 16; E5; LSIL; HSIL

类别

资金

  1. MIUR
  2. AIRC-Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro, Italy [IG 10272]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Human Papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 E5 is a small protein, which is reported to display transforming activity in vitro and in animal studies. The E5 transcriptional activity, however, has been rarely reported in vivo in literature. Objectives: (a) To detect the E5 transcripts in vivo in a population of HPV 16 positive patients with abnormal cytology and (b) to correlate the level of expression to the degree of the cytological lesion. Study design and methods: 250 cytological samples of HPV positive women were obtained and tested for the E6/E7 mRNA expression. Patients were selected if HPV 16 only mRNA positive and with a cytology consistent with low-grade/high-grade squamous intra-epithelial (LSIL/HSIL) lesions. Selected patients were tested for the E5 transcripts by reverse RT PCR, comparing the expression level in vivo with a transfected HPV 16 E5 HaCaT cell line. Results: 27 HPV 16 E6/E7 mRNA positive LSIL/HSIL patients were selected. 13 out of 17 LSIL patients were tested positive for the E5 mRNA, showing an ample range of positivity. In the HSIL group 7 out of 10 patients were tested positive, displaying lower and more homogeneous levels of expression if compared with the transfected cells. Conclusion: The HPV 16 E5 transcripts levels showed a broad distribution in vivo; the discrepancy was wider in LSIL patients, with HSIL patients displaying a more homogeneous profile. However, because of the limited number of patients, we could not draw a firm conclusion about the correlation between the E5 expression and the disease progression. (C) 2011 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据