4.6 Article

Potential clinical relevance of Eph receptors and ephrin ligands expressed in prostate carcinoma cell lines

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2006.02.099

关键词

Eph receptors; ephrin ligands; prostate cancer; invasion; prostate carcinoma cell lines; methylation; 5-aza-2 '-deoxycytidine; prostate biomarkers; diagnostic and prognostic markers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The family of Eph and ephrin receptors is involved in a variety of functions in normal cells, and the alterations in their expression profiles have been observed in several cancers. We have compared the transcripts for Eph receptors and ephrin ligands in cell lines established from normal prostate epithelium and several carcinoma cell lines isolated from prostate tumors of varying degree of metastasis. These cell lines included NPTX, CTPX, LNCaP, DU145, PC-3, and PC-3ML. The cell lines displayed characteristic pattern of expression for specific Eph receptors and cphrin ligands, thus allowing identification of Eph receptor signatures for a particular cell line. The sensitivity of these transcripts to genome methylation is also investigated by treating the cells with 5-aza-2'-deoxcytidine. The comparison of expression profiles revealed that normal prostate and primary prostate tumor cell lines differ in the expression of EphA3, EphB3, and ephrin A3 that are over-expressed in normal prostate. Furthermore, the transcript levels for EphA1 decrease progressively from normal prostate to primary prostate tumor cell line and metastatic tumor cells. A converse relationship was observed for ephrin B2. The treatment of cells with 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine revealed the sensitivity of EphA3, EphA10, EphB3, and EphB6 to methylation status of genomic DNA. The utility Of methylation specific PCR to identify prostate tumor cells and the importance of specific Eph receptors and ephrin ligands in initiation and progression of prostate tumor are discussed. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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