4.7 Article

HSP60 and HSP10 down-regulation predicts bronchial epithelial carcinogenesis in smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

期刊

CANCER
卷 107, 期 10, 页码 2417-2424

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22265

关键词

smoking; chaperone expression; lung obstruction; lung tumors

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND. The relation between smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and lung cancer (LC) is an open field of investigation. A higher frequency of adenocarcinoma has been reported in patients with COPD. Heat shock proteins (Hsps) are implicated in tumoral cell growth and differentiation. The aim of the present study was to investigate the expression of Hsp60 and Hsp10 in bronchial biopsies from smokers with COPD and in 10 lung cancer patients and to evaluate the association between Hsps expression and carcinogenetic steps of LC. METHODS. An immunohistochemical study was performed for Hsp60 and Hsp10 in bronchial biopsies from 35 COPD (postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]: 53 +/- 19% [mean SD]) patients with a history of smoking (53 +/- 34 pack/years) and in 10 patients with adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC). Immunopositivity was quantified in the bronchial epithelium and specimens with ASC. RESULTS. In smokers with COPD, 10 out of 35 patients had a normal bronchial epithelium (NBE), 12 showed basal cell hyperplasia (BCH), 5 squamous metaplasia (SM), and 8 dysplasia (Dy). It was found that 58 +/- 23% and 54 23% of NBE and 48 +/- 29% and 52 +/- 26% of BCH expressed Hsp60 and Hsp10, respectively; in contrast, only 3 +/- 3% and 3.6 +/- 2% of SM, 1.9 +/- 4% and 1.1 +/- 2% of Dy expressed Hsp60 and Hsp10, respectively ASC specimens were negative for Hsps proteins. Interestingly NBE also present at the edges of ASC specimens was negative for Hsps proteins. CONCLUSIONS. The loss of Hsp60 and Hsp10 immunopositivity is related to the development and progression of bronchial cancer in smokers with COPD.

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

4.7
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