4.5 Article

Calreticulin is highly expressed in pancreatic cancer stem-like cells

期刊

CANCER SCIENCE
卷 107, 期 11, 页码 1599-1609

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cas.13061

关键词

Biomarkers; calreticulin; cancer stem cells; pancreatic cancer; proteomics

类别

资金

  1. Yamaguchi University Hospital
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K10574] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer stem-like cells (CSLCs) in solid tumors are thought to be resistant to conventional chemotherapy or molecular targeting therapy and to contribute to cancer recurrence and metastasis. In this study, we aimed to identify a biomarker of pancreatic CSLCs (P-CSLCs). A P-CSLC-enriched population was generated from pancreatic cancer cell lines using our previously reported method and its protein expression profile was compared with that of parental cells by 2-D electrophoresis and tandem mass spectrometry. The results indicated that a chaperone protein calreticulin (CRT) was significantly upregulated in P-CSLCs compared to parental cells. Flow cytometry analysis indicated that CRT was mostly localized to the surface of P-CSLCs and did not correlate with the levels of CD44v9, another P-CSLC biomarker. Furthermore, the side population in the CRThigh/CD44v9(low) population was much higher than that in the CRTlow/CD44v9(high) population. Calreticulin expression was also assessed by immunohistochemistry in pancreatic cancer tissues (n = 80) obtained after radical resection and was found to be associated with patients' clinicopathological features and disease outcomes in the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Multivariate analysis identified CRT as an independent prognostic factor for pancreatic cancer patients, along with age and postoperative therapy. Our results suggest that CRT can serve as a biomarker of P-CSLCs and a prognostic factor associated with poorer survival of pancreatic cancer patients. This novel biomarker can be considered as a therapeutic target for cancer immunotherapy.

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

4.5
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