4.6 Article

Global and Targeted miRNA Expression Profiling in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Tissues Potentially Links miR-155-5p and miR-210-3p to both Tumorigenesis and Recurrence

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 188, 期 11, 页码 2487-2496

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2018.07.026

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01 CA170298]
  2. Center for Translational and Public Health Genomics, Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention
  3. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

About 30% of patients undergoing nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) experience disease recurrence. We profiled miRNAs dysregulated in clear-cell (cc) RCC tumor tissues and predictive of recurrence. The expression levels of 800 miRNAs were assessed in paired tumor and normal tissues from a discovery cohort of 18 ccRCC patients. miRNAs found to be differentially expressed were examined in a validation set of 205 patients, using real-time quantitative PCR. Tumor-normal data from 64 patients in The Cancer Genome Atlas were used for external validation. Twenty-eight miRNAs were consistently dysregulated in tumor tissues. On dichotomized analysis, patients with high levels of miR-155-5p and miR-210-3p displayed an increased risk for ccRCC recurrence (hazard ratio, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.49 to 4.70; P = 0.0009; and hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.12; P = 0.036, respectively) and a shorter median recurrence-free survival time than did patients with low levels [P < 0.01 (log rank test)]. A risk score was generated based on the expression levels of miR-155-5p and miR-210-3p, and the trend test was significant (P = 0.005). On pathway analysis, target genes regulated by miR-155-5p and miR-210-3p were mainly enriched in inflammation-related pathways. We identified and validated multiple miRNAs dysregulated in ccRCC tissues; miR-155-5p and miR-210-3p were predictive of ccRCC recurrence, pointing to potential utility as biomarkers and underlying biological mechanisms.

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

4.6
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