4.7 Article

Identification of a panel of genes as a prognostic biomarker for glioblastoma

期刊

EBIOMEDICINE
卷 37, 期 -, 页码 68-77

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.10.024

关键词

CD44; ABCC3; Cancer stem cell; Glioblastoma multiforme; Brain tumor; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a fatal disease without effective therapy. Identification of new biomarkers for prognosis would enable more rational selections of strategies to cure patients with GBM and prevent disease relapse. Methods: Seven datasets derived from GBM patients using microarray or next generation sequencing in R2 online database (http://r2.amc.nl ) were extracted and then analyzed using JMP software. The survival distribution was calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method and the significance was determined using log-rank statistics. The sensitivity of a panel of GBM cell lines in response to temozolomide (TMZ), salinomycin, celastrol, and triptolide treatments was evaluated using MTS and tumor-sphere formation assay. Findings: We identified that CD44. ATP binding cassette subfamily C member 3 (ABCC3), and tumor necrosis factor receptor subfamily member IA (INFRSF1A) as highly expressed genes in GBMs are associated with patients' poor outcomes and therapy resistance. Furthermore, these three markers combined with MGMT, a conventional GBM marker, can classify GBM patients into five new subtypes with different overall survival time in response to treatment. The four-gene signature and the therapy response of GBMs to a panel of therapeutic compounds were confirmed in a panel of GBM cell lines. Interpretation: The data indicate that the four-gene panel can be used as a therapy response index for GBM patients and potential therapeutic targets. These results provide important new insights into the early diagnosis and the prognosis for GBM patients and introduce potential targets for GBM therapeutics. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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