4.6 Review

The Isoforms of Estrogen Receptor Alpha and Beta in Thyroid Cancer

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.916804

关键词

ER alpha; ER beta; isoforms; splicing; thyroid cancer

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81972493]
  2. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [CUHK 14108921]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thyroid cancer is more common in women, suggesting a potential role of sex hormones in its development. Estrogen receptors alpha and beta have been found to play an important role in the pathogenesis of thyroid cancer. However, the expression and function of different isoforms of these receptors in thyroid cancer are still not well understood. This review aims to summarize the expression and roles of estrogen receptor alpha and beta isoforms in thyroid cancer, providing new insights into modulating their alternative RNA splicing against thyroid cancer.
The incidence of thyroid cancer was predominant in women, indicating that the sex hormone may have a role in thyroid cancer development. Generally, the sex hormone exerts its function by binding to the correspondent nuclear receptors. Therefore, aberrant of these receptors may be involved in the development of thyroid cancer. Estrogen receptor alpha (ER alpha) and beta (ER beta), two main estrogen receptors, have been reported to have an important role in the pathogenesis of thyroid cancer. When the ER alpha and ER beta genes undergo the alternative RNA splicing, some ER alpha and ER beta isoforms with incomplete functional domains may be formed. To date, several isoforms of ER alpha and ER beta have been identified. However, their expression and roles in thyroid cancer are far from clear. In this review, we summarized the expressions and roles of ER alpha and ER beta isoforms in thyroid cancer, aiming to provide the perspective of modulating the alternative RNA splicing of ER alpha and ER beta against thyroid cancer.

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