4.5 Article

Human kallikrein-related peptidase 12 (KLK12) splice variants discriminate benign from cancerous breast tumors

期刊

CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 58, 期 -, 页码 78-85

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.05.017

关键词

KLK12sv1/2; KLK12sv3; Mammary malignancy; Molecular tumor markers; Prognostic biomarkers; Prognostic biomarkers; Reverse-transcription real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: As kallikrein-related peptidase 12 (KLK12) has been implicated in the cancer progression and alternative splicing plays significant role in this disease, the aim of this study was to examine the expression profile and the clinical impact of the KLK12 splice variants in breast cancer. Design and methods: Total RNA was isolated and reverse transcripted from 141 tissues. Afterwards, quantitative real-time PCR were conducted, followed by the performance of the comparative CT (2-AACT) method for relative quantification, whilst their correlation with the clinicopathological features of breast malignancies were assessed by statistical analysis. Results: Both KLK12sv1/2 and KLK12sv3 showed higher expression in non-cancerous than in cancerous samples. KLKsv1/2 (P = 0.001) upregulated and KLK12sv3 (P < 0.001) downregulated in the malignant compared to the benign tumors and their discriminative ability was verified by ROC curve analysis. Moreover, KLK12sv3 was associated with grade (P = 0.012) and hormonal receptor status (P = 0.001). Furthermore, Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses showed that patients with positive KLK12sv1/2 and KLK12sv3 levels presented a significantly longer disease-free survival (P = 0.014 and P = 0.013, respectively) and overall survival (P = 0.062 and P = 0.004, respectively). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the discriminative value of KLK12sv1/2 and KLK12sv3 between benign and malignant breast tumors as well as their potential favorable prognostic significance in breast 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

4.5
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