4.7 Article

Clinical Significance of Claudin Expression in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms231911234

关键词

oral squamous cell carcinoma; OSCC; oral cancer; prognosis; reduced survival; claudin; tight junction

资金

  1. Open Access Publication Fund of the Charite-Universitatsmedizin Berlin
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compares the expression of claudins in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and healthy oral epithelium, and finds that the expression levels of claudin-2, -4, and -7 are associated with the diagnosis and prognosis of OSCC.
A change in claudin expression has been demonstrated in various tumors. The present study specifically compares claudin expression in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) with healthy oral epithelium from the same individual and analyzes the association between claudin expression and the clinically relevant course parameters. Our study includes tissue samples and clinically relevant follow-up data from 60 patients with primary and untreated OSCC. The oral mucosa was analyzed via Western blot for the expression of claudin-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, and -7. Importantly, the tumor and healthy tissues were obtained pairwise from patients, allowing for intraindividual comparisons. Both the healthy and tumor epithelium from the oral cavity did not express the claudin-3 protein. The intraindividual comparison revealed that, in OSCC, claudin-2 expression was higher, and the expression of claudin-4, -5, and -7 was lower than in healthy epithelium. An association was found between increased claudin-2 expression and shorter relapse-free survival. In addition, the reduced expression of claudin-4 had a negative impact on relapse-free survival. Furthermore, associations between the reduced expression of claudin-7 and the stage of a tumor, or the presence of lymph node metastases, were found. Thus, the expression level of claudin-2, -4, and -7 appears to be predictive of the diagnosis and prognosis of 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

4.7
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