4.6 Article

Identification of oral squamous cell carcinoma markers MUC2 and SPRR1B downstream of TANGO

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-021-03568-9

关键词

TANGO; MUC20; SPRR1B; Oral cancer

类别

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Japan [17K11621]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K11621] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TANGO downstream proteins MUC20 and SPRR1B may serve as useful molecular markers for oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) due to their roles in tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis.
Purpose Transport and Golgi organization protein 1 (TANGO) promotes angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). To elucidate the underlying mechanisms, this study aims to identify and characterize elements downstream of TANGO that mediate its involvement in OSCC. Methods In this study, microarray analysis compared gene expression between control and TANGO-repressed HSC3 cells. Protein expression in 213 OSCC tissue samples was analyzed immunohistochemically. Results TANGO repression decreased or increased expression of Mucin 20 (MUC20) and small proline-rich protein 1B (SPRR1B), respectively. MUC20 increased the growth and invasiveness of OSCC cells via altered matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2 and E-cadherin expression and c-met phosphorylation. MUC20 induced angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis by activating vascular endothelial growth factors A and C. In well-differentiated OSCC, SPRR1B expression was high (P = 0.0091) and correlated with keratinization markers and promoted proliferation by inducing mitogen-activated protein kinase p38 phosphorylation. MUC20 expression correlated significantly with clinical stage (P = 0.0024), lymph node metastasis (P = 0.0036), and number of blood and lymph vessels (P < 0.0001). MUC20-expressing cases had a significantly worse prognosis than non-expressing cases (P < 0.0001). Conclusion MUC20 and SPRR1B located downstream of TANGO may be useful molecular markers for OSCC.

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

4.6
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