4.3 Article

Prognostic significance of G6PD expression and localization in lung adenocarcinoma

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2018.05.005

关键词

Extracellular matrix; G6PD; Immunohistochemistry; Lung cancer; Predictive prognostic marker; Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [17K08729, 15K21359]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K08729, 15K21359] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Abnormal expressions of extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins are correlated with increased tumor progression, an advanced histologic grade, and metastasis. LCN1 cells derived from a pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma were grown to form an Aegagropila-shaped conglomeration on a suspension culture dish (LCN1-sus). In contrast, LCN1 cells cultured in a type I collagen dish were adherent and tended to grow as spindle-shaped individual cells (LCN1-co). In this study, aiming at the discovery of predictive markers for tumor invasion, we performed protein profiling between LCN1-sus and LCN1-co cells using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. Twenty-six protein spots with > 1.2-fold quantitative differences between LCN1-sus and LCN1-co cells were detected. Among the identified proteins, we focused on and immunohistochemically investigated G6PD in lung cancer. G6PD expression was significantly associated with a higher pathological TNM stage (p = 0.0024), lymph node metastasis (p = 0.0187), poorer differentiation (p = 0.0046), pleural invasion (p = 0.0197), vascular invasion (p < 0.0001), lymphatic invasion (p = 0.0200) and poorer prognosis (p = 0.0005) in adenocarcinoma. Especially, G6PD-positive patients with overexpression at the invasive front had significantly poorer survival than those without overexpression (p = 0.0058). Moreover, multivariable analysis revealed that G6PD expression was an independent adverse-prognostic factor. These results suggest that G6PD may be a novel predictive prognostic marker for lung adenocarcinoma.

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

4.3
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