4.6 Article

CLCA4 inhibits cell proliferation and invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma by suppressing epithelial-mesencnymal transition via PI3K/AKT signaling

期刊

AGING-US
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 2570-2584

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/aging.101571

关键词

hepatocellular carcinoma; CLCA4; EMT; PI3K/AKT; prognosis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81502697, 81702767, 81301976]
  2. Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [2016CFB374, 2017CFB246]
  3. Hubei Province Health and Family Planning Scientific Research Project [WJ2017Q035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Calcium activated Chloride Channel A4 (CLCA4), as a tumor suppressor, was reported to contribute to the progression of several malignant tumors, yet little is known about the significance of CLCA4 in invasion and prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). CLCA4 expression was negatively correlated with tumor size, vascular invasion and TNM stage. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that CLCA4 was an independent predictor for overall survival (OS) and time to recurrence (TTR). In addition, CLCA4 status could act as prognostic predictor in different risk of subgroups. Moreover, combination of CLCA4 and serum AFP could be a potential predictor for survival in HCC patients. Furthermore, CLCA4 may inhibit cell migration and invasion by suppressing epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) via PI3K/ATK signaling. Knockdown of CLCA4 significantly increased the migration and invasion of HCC cells and changed the expression pattern of EMT markers and PI3K/AKT phosphorylation. An opposite expression pattern of EMT markers and PI3K/AKT phosphorylation was observed in CLCA4-transfected cells. Additionally, immunohistochemistry and RT-PCR results further confirmed this correlation. Taken together, CLCA4 contributes to migration and invasion by suppressing EMT via PI3K/ATK signaling and predicts favourable prognosis of HCC. CLCA4/AFP expression may help to distinguish different risks of HCC patients after hepatectomy.

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