4.8 Article

Regulation of genes of the circadian clock in human colon cancer:: Reduced period-1 and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase transcription correlates in high-grade tumors

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 67, 期 16, 页码 7917-7922

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-0133

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Expression of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) displays a regular daily oscillation in nonmalignant cells. In colorectal cancer cells, the expression of this 5-fluorouracil-metabolizing enzyme is decreased, but the reason remains unclear. In this study, we analyzed by real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) the expression of DPD and of members of the cellular oscillation machinery, period I (Per1), period 2 (Per2), and CLOCK, in primary colorectal tumors and normal colon mucosa derived from the same patients. Analysis of tumors according to differentiation grade revealed a 0.46-fold (P = 0.005) decrease for DPD mRNA and a 0.49-fold (P = 0.004) decrease for pert mRNA in undifferentiated (G3) tumors compared with paired normal mucosa. In this tumor cohort, the correlation between DPD and pert levels was r = 0.64, P < 0.01. In moderately differentiated (G2) colon carcinomas, reduction of DPD and pert mRNA levels did not reach significance, but a significant correlation between the respective mRNA levels was detectable (r = 0.54; P < 0.05). The decrease and correlation of DPD and pert mRNA levels were even more pronounced in female (G3) patients (DPD: female, 0.35-fold, P < 0.001 versus male, 0.58-fold, P < 0.05; and Perl: female, 0.47-fold, P < 0.01 versus male, 0.52-fold, P < 0.01). The highly significant correlation of DPD mRNA with pert mRNA expression suggests control of DPD transcription by the endogenous cellular clock, which is more pronounced in women. Our results also revealed a disturbed transcription of Pert during tumor progression, which might be the cause for disrupted daily oscillation of DPD in undifferentiated colon carcinoma cells.

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

4.8
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