4.1 Article

A Dinucleotide Deletion in the CD24 Gene Is a Potential Risk Factor for Colorectal Cancer

期刊

AMERICAN SURGEON
卷 86, 期 5, 页码 480-485

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0003134820919737

关键词

colorectal cancer; CD24; polymorphism

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: CD24 is a sialoglycoprotein anchored to the cell surface via glycosylphosphatidylinositol and is involved in intracellular signaling processes. It plays an important role in the early stages of the multistep process of colorectal carcinogenesis. Several single nucleotide polymorphisms in the CD24 gene are reported to exert a diverse effect on cancer risk. We aimed to elucidate whether CD24 TG/del genetic variants are associated with susceptibility to colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: The study included 179 subjects, 36 with CRC (prior to surgery) and 143 healthy control subjects. Deoxyribonucleic acid was purified from peripheral blood leukocytes, and by using restriction fragment length poly-morphism analysis, the CD24 gene was genotyped for the specific genetic variant, TG deletion. Additionally, CD24 protein expression levels were determined by Western blotting analysis. Results: The incidence of the TG/del was higher among the CRC patients compared with healthy controls, 14% and 10%, respectively (P = .54). CD24 protein levels were significantly higher among CRC patients. There were no significant differences in CD24 expression between CRC patients at different stages of the disease or between patients who carry the mutation and those who did not. Conclusions: CD24 genetic variant might be of clinical value for risk assessment as part of cancer prevention programs. Further study on larger populations is needed to validate the importance of this dinucleotide deletion in CRC development. Overexpression of CD24 protein occurs early along the multistep process of CRC carcinogenesis, and a simple blood sample based on CD24 expression on peripheral blood leukocytes can contribute to early diagnosis.

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

4.1
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