4.2 Article

Expression of USP7 and MARCH7 Is Correlated with Poor Prognosis in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

期刊

TOHOKU JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 239, 期 3, 页码 165-175

出版社

TOHOKU UNIV MEDICAL PRESS
DOI: 10.1620/tjem.239.165

关键词

epithelial ovarian cancer; lymph node metastasis; membrane associated RING-CH protein 7; prognosis; ubiquitin-specific protease 7

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is one of the worst malignancies in females with poor overall survival due to the rapid metastasis and the absence of ideal biomarkers. Ubiquitin-specific protease 7 (USP7), an important deubiquitinating enzyme, was reported to be upregulated in several cancers, including liver, prostate and colon cancers. Membrane associated RING-CH protein 7 (MARCH7) belongs to the member of the E3 ubiquitin ligases. In addition, MARCH7 regulates T cell proliferation and the neuronal development and participates in the membrane trafficking and protein degradation. Importantly, MARCH7 itself is ubiquitinated and acts as a potential substrate of USP7. However, the roles of USP7 and MARCH7 in EOC remain to be investigated. We collected 121 EOC patients and analyzed the expression levels of USP7 and MARCH7 in tumor tissues with immunohistochemical staining. We found that the high expression of the two proteins was correlated with lymph node metastasis in EOC patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that the patients with high expression of the two proteins showed poorer prognosis compared with other patients. Subsequently, using SKOV3 human ovarian adenocarcinoma cells, we showed that either USP7 or MARCH7 enhanced the proliferation and invasion abilities. Moreover, USP7 could regulate the expression levels of E-cadherin and beta-catenin through the MARCH7 signaling pathway. Our findings indicate that USP7 and MARCH7 are involved in the progression of EOC. In conclusion, analyzing the expression of USP7 and MARCH7 has high prognostic value in predicting EOC prognosis.

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

4.2
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