4.7 Article

Expression of the ELAV-like protein HuR is associated with higher tumor grade and increased cyclooxygenase-2 expression in human breast carcinoma

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 16, 页码 5580-5586

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0070

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The human ELAV (embryonic lethal abnormal vision)-like protein HuR stabilizes a certain group of cellular mRNAs that contain AU-rich elements in their 3'-untranslated region. Cell culture studies have shown that the mRNA of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 can be stabilized by HuR. Experimental Design: To investigate a possible contribution of dysregulation of mRNA stability to the progression of cancer and to overexpression of COX-2, we studied expression of HuR in 208 primary breast carcinomas by immunohistochemistry. Results: There were two different staining patterns of HuR in tumor tissue of breast carcinomas: nuclear expression was seen in 61 % of cases; and an additional cytoplasmic expression was seen in 30 % of cases. Expression of HuR was significantly associated with increased COX-2 expression; this association was particularly significant for cytoplasmic HuR expression (P < 0.0005). We further observed a significant association of cytoplasmic (P = 0.002) or nuclear HuR (P = 0.027) expression with increased tumor grade. Only 13% of the grade 1 carcinomas showed cytoplasmic expression of HuR, compared with 46% of the grade 3 carcinomas. There was no significant correlation between HuR expression and other clinicopathological parameters such as histological type, tumor size, or nodal status as well as patient survival. Conclusions: Our results suggest that overexpression of HuR in tumor tissue may be part of a regulatory pathway that controls the mRNA stability of several important targets in tumor biology, such as COX-2. Based on our results, additional studies are necessary to investigate whether HuR might be a potential target for molecular tumor therapy.

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