4.6 Article

Identification of Novel Molecular Markers for Prognosis Estimation of Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Over-Expression of PDCD7, FIS1 and Ang2 May Indicate Poor Prognosis in Pretreatment Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084150

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China [S20110100003807]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numerous factors impact on the prognosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), among which molecular genetic abnormalities are developed increasingly, however, accurate prediction for newly diagnosed AML patients remains unsatisfied. For further improving the prognosis evaluation system, we investigated the transcripts levels of PDCD7, FIS1, FAM3A, CA6, APP, KLRF1, ATCAY, GGT5 and Ang2 in 97 AML patients and 30 non-malignant controls, and validated using the published microarray data from 225 cytogenetically normal AML (CN-AML) patients treated according to the German AMLCG-1999 protocol. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction and western blot were carried out, and clinical data were collected and analyzed. High Ang2 and FIS1 expression discriminated the CR rate of AML patients (62.5% versus 82.9% for Ang2, P = 0.011; 61.4% versus 82.2% for FIS1, P = 0.029). In CN-AML, patients with high FIS1 expression were more likely to be resistant to two courses of induction (P = 0.035). Overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were shorter in CN-AML patients with high PDCD7 expression (P, < 000.01; P = 0.006), and PDCD7 was revealed to be an independent risk factor for OS in CN-AML (P = 0.004). In the analysis of published data from 225 CN-AML patients, PDCD7 remained independently predicting OS in CN-AML (P = 0.039). As a conclusion, Ang2 and FIS1 seem related to decreased CR rate of AML patients, and PDCD7 is associated with shorter OS and RFS in CN-AML. Hence, PDCD7, Ang2 and FIS1 may indicate a more aggressive form and poor prognosis of AML.

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