4.6 Article

Post-Treatment Recovery of Suboptimal DNA Repair Capacity and Gene Expression Levels in Colorectal Cancer Patients

期刊

MOLECULAR CARCINOGENESIS
卷 54, 期 9, 页码 769-778

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mc.22141

关键词

Colorectal cancer; DNA instability; DNA repair; biomarker; anti-cancer therapy; follow-up study

资金

  1. CZ GACR [GAP304/10/1286, GAP 304/12/1585, P304/11/P715]
  2. IGA [NT14329-3]
  3. BIOCEV [CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0109]
  4. ERDF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

DNA repair in blood cells was observed to be suboptimal in cancer patients at diagnosis, including colorectal cancer (CRC). To explore the causality of this phenomenon, we studied the dynamics of DNA repair from diagnosis to 1 yr follow-up, and with respect to CRC treatment. Systemic CRC therapy is targeted to DNA damage induction and DNA repair is thus of interest. CRC patients were blood-sampled three times in 6-mo intervals, starting at the diagnosis, and compared to healthy controls. DNA repair was characterized by mRNA levels of 40 repair genes, by capacity of nucleotide excision repair (NER), and by levels of DNA strand breaks (SBs). NER and base excision repair genes were significantly under-expressed (P<0.016) in patients at diagnosis compared to controls, in accordance with reduced NER function (P=0.008) and increased SBs (P-0.015). Six months later, there was an increase of NER capacity, but not of gene expression levels, in treated patients only. A year from diagnosis, gene expression profiles and NER capacity were significantly modified in all patients and were no longer different from those measured in controls. All patients were free of relapse at the last sampling, so we were unable to clarify the impact of DNA repair parameters on treatment response. However, we identified a panel of blood DNA repair-related markers discerning acute stage of the disease from the remission period. In conclusion, our results support a model in which DNA repair is altered as a result of cancer. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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