4.7 Article

Co-expression and impact of prostate specific membrane antigen and prostate specific antigen in prostatic pathologies

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1756-9966-29-171

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research in Tunisia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The present study was undertaken to relate the co-expression of prostate-associated antigens, PSMA and PSA, with the degree of vascularization in normal and pathologic (hyperplasia and cancer) prostate tissues to elucidate their possible role in tumor progression. Methods: The study was carried out in 6 normal, 44 benign prostatic hyperplastic and 39 cancerous human prostates. Immunohistochemical analysis were performed using the monoclonal antibody CD34 to determine the angiogenic activity, and the monoclonal antibodies 3E6 and ER-PR8 to assess PSMA and PSA expression, respectively. Results: In our study we found that in normal prostate tissue, PSMA and PSA were equally expressed (3.7 +/- 0.18 and 3.07 +/- 0.11). A significant difference in their expression was see in hyperplastic and neoplastic prostates tissues (16.14 +/- 0.17 and 30.72 +/- 0.85, respectively) for PSMA and (34.39 +/- 0.53 and 17.85 +/- 1.21, respectively) for PSA. Study of prostate tumor profiles showed that the profile (PSA+, PSMA-) expression levels decreased between normal prostate, benign prostatic tissue and primary prostate cancer. In the other hand, the profile (PSA-, PSMA+) expression levels increased from normal to prostate tumor tissues. PSMA overexpression was associated with high intratumoral angiogenesis activity. By contrast, high PSA expression was associated with low angiogenesis activity. Conclusion: These data suggest that these markers are regulated differentially and the difference in their expression showed a correlation with malignant transformation. With regard to the duality PSMA-PSA, this implies the significance of their investigation together in normal and pathologic prostate tissues.

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

4.7
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