4.1 Article

Dysregulation of microRNAs in triple-negative breast cancer

期刊

GINEKOLOGIA POLSKA
卷 88, 期 10, 页码 530-536

出版社

VIA MEDICA
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2017.0097

关键词

TNBC; microRNA expression; biomarkers

资金

  1. National Science Centre, Poland [2011/01//B/NZ4/03345]
  2. Regional Operational Program for the Podkarpackie Province [UDA-RPPK.01.03.00-18-004/12-00]
  3. University of Rzeszow, Faculty of Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer with limited treatment options and poor prognosis. TNBC is usually diagnosed at a relatively young age and is characterized by high risk of developing metastases. Some epigenetic regulation of gene expression is associated with TNBC. Expression of microRNAs (miRNAs) can serve as a potential tool for identifying critical biomarkers in TNBC. The aim of our study is to examine expression of selected miRNAs in TNBC and to assess the relationship between miRNA expression and clinicopathological factors. Material and methods: Expression levels of 19 selected miRNAs were compared between cancerous and normal breast tissues by use of qPCR method. We have evaluated the relationship between the expression level of miRNAs and clinicopathological factors such as: age, tumor size and lymph node status. Results: We found that in TNBC tissues, when compared with normal breast tissues, the expression of miR-190a, miR-136-5p and miR-126-5p was significantly reduced (p = 0.0041, p = 0.0007, p = 0.0007, respectively) whereas expression of miR-135b-5p and miR-182-5p was significantly increased (p = 0.0194, p = 0.0041, respectively). We found a linear trend for tumor size and expression of miR-126-5p (p = 0.0296) and miR-135b-5p (p = 0.0241). Conclusions: Our study confirms that miRNA expression profile is dysregulated in TNBC patients compared to healthy controls. MiR-190a, miR-136-5p, miR-126-5p, miR-135b-5p and miR-182-5p may be associated with development and progression of TNBC.

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

4.1
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