4.4 Article

A Novel Expression Profile of Cell Cycle and DNA Repair Proteins in Nonfunctioning Pituitary Adenomas

期刊

ENDOCRINE PATHOLOGY
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 2-13

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12022-019-09598-x

关键词

Nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas; CHEK2; p73; RB; p16

资金

  1. Research Fund of the Istanbul University [2017-25404] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The molecular mechanisms underlying the formation of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFAs) are largely unknown. In this study, we aimed to understand the relationship between NFAs and functional pituitary adenomas and the possible role of proteins involved in cell cycle, senescence, and DNA damage control mechanisms in the etiology of NFA. We analyzed pATM-S1981, pRb-S608, Rb, pE2F1-S364, p16, E2F1, p73, cyclin D1, and CHEK2 protein expression (in a group of 20 patients with acromegaly, 18 patients with Cushing's disease (CD), and 29 NFA patients) by immunohistochemistry and their relevant mRNA expression by qRT-PCR (in a group of 7 patients with acromegaly, 7 patients with CD, and 7 NFA patients). The clinical and histopathological results on the patients were statistically evaluated. pE2F1-S364 protein expression in the CD group was significantly lower than that in the NFA and acromegaly groups (p = 0.025, p = 0.034, respectively). However, the expression of the p16 protein was lower than in the NFA group than in the CD and acromegaly groups (p = 0.030, p = 0.033, respectively), and E2F1 protein expression was significantly higher in the NFA group than in the CD group (p = 0.025). p73 protein expression in patients with acromegaly was significantly higher (p = 0.031) than that in the CD group. CHEK2 mRNA expression in the CD group was significantly higher than that in the acromegaly group (p = 0.012). The selective and tumor-specific associations between E2F1, pE2F1-S364, CHEK2, and p73 mRNA and protein levels indicate their involvement in pituitary adenoma formation in NFA, CD, and acromegaly patients.

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

4.4
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