4.4 Article

Coexpression of Smac/DIABLO and Estrogen Receptor in breast cancer

期刊

CANCER BIOMARKERS
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 429-446

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/CBM-200535

关键词

Smac/DIABLO; survivin; breast cancer; estrogen receptor

类别

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACyT) [87688, 79838]
  2. National Institute of Genomic Medicine [013/2008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In breast cancer patients, higher levels of Smac/DIABLO gene and protein are positively associated with estrogen receptor (ER) positive samples, though the exact regulation mechanism remains unknown. Experimental results demonstrate that Smac/DIABLO is not regulated by ER and does not participate in the modulation of ER expression.
BACKGROUND: Smac/DIABLO is a proapoptotic protein deregulated in breast cancer, with a controversial role as a tumor marker, possibly due to a lack of correlative mRNA and protein analyses. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of Smac/DIABLO gene and protein levels with clinical variables in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Smac/DIABLO mRNA expression was analyzed by qPCR in 57 frozen tissues, whereas protein levels were assessed by immunohistochemistry in 82 paraffin-embedded tissues. Survivin mRNA levels were also measured. In vitro assays were performed to investigate possible regulators of Smac/DIABLO. RESULTS: Higher levels of Smac/DIABLO mRNA and protein were found in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive samples (p = 0.0054 and p = 0.0043, respectively) in comparison to ER-negative tumors. A negligible positive association was found between Smac/DIABLO and survivin expression. In vitro assays showed that Smac/DIABLO is not regulated by ER and, conversely, it does not participate in ER expression modulation. CONCLUSIONS: mRNA and protein levels of Smac/DIABLO were increased in ER-positive breast tumors in comparison with ER-negative samples, although the mechanism of this regulation is still unknown. Public databases showed a possible clinical relevance for this association.

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