4.5 Article

Associations between markers of colorectal cancer stem cells, mutation, microRNA and the clinical features of ulcerative colitis

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 O185-O193

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/codi.13371

关键词

Ulcerative colitis; colorectal cancer; cancer stem cells; miR-21; APC mutation; carcinogenesis

资金

  1. Veterans Administration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimSeveral factors have been implicated in the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer (CRC) associated with ulcerative colitis (UC). We investigated markers of cancer cell pluripotency, including CD44 and CD166, microRNA-21 (miR-21) and microRNA-215 (miR-215), and APC, K-ras and DCC mutations in biopsy specimens from patients with UC to evaluate any correlations with clinical risk factors. MethodWe observed 18 patients with UC and collected two biopsy specimens from each patient at diagnosis and at a follow-up end-point. We examined the expression of CD44, CD166, miR-21 and miR-215, and APC, K-ras and DCC mutations. We compared these markers at the two time points and assessed their associations with clinical characteristics, including the duration of colitis, histological alterations and the age of the patient at the onset of UC. ResultsMost (16/18) patients had alleviation of mucosal inflammation or remained stable during follow-up; one patient developed dysplasia and one had severe aggravation of the lesion during follow-up. Enhanced expression of CD44, CD166 and miR-21 with miR-215 was found in the specimens obtained at follow-up, despite alleviation of mucosal lesions. Coherence of cancer stem cell markers and miRNAs was seen in patients who had significant worsening of inflammation, dysplasia and a long duration of colitis. APC mutation occurred in only one patient; this patient had the longest duration of UC (23years). ConclusionEnhanced markers of CRC in follow-up colonic mucosal samples support the conclusion that the duration of UC plays the most important role in UC-related carcinogenesis.

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