4.7 Article

Quantitative TP73 transcript analysis in hepatocellular carcinomas

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 626-633

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-0153-03

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The p53 family member p73 displays significant homology to p53, but data from primary tumors demonstrating increased expression levels of p73 in the absence of any gene mutations argue against a classical tumor suppressor function. A detailed analysis of the p73 protein in tumor tissues has revealed expression of two classes of p73 isoforms. Whereas the proapoptotic, full-length, transactivation-competent p73 protein (TA-p73) has a putative tumor suppressor activity similar to p53, the antiapoptotic, NH2-terminally truncated, transactivation-deficient p73 protein (DeltaTA-p73) has been shown to possess oncogenic activity. The oncogenic proteins can be generated by the following two different mechanisms: (a) aberrant splicing (p73Deltaex2, p73Deltaex2/3, DeltaN'-p73) and (b) alternative promoter usage of a second intronic promoter (DeltaN-p73). The purpose of our study was to elucidate the origin of DeltaTA-p73 isoforms in hepatocellular carcinomas. Experimental Design: We analyzed the underlying mechanisms of p73 overexpression in cancer cells by quantification of p73 transcripts from 10 hepatocellular carcinoma patients using isoform-specific real-time reverse transcription-PCR. Results: Our data demonstrate that only aberrantly spliced DeltaTA-p73 transcripts from the TA promoter show significantly increased expression levels in the tumor whereas the DeltaN-p73 transcript generated from the second promoter is not significantly up-regulated. Conclusions: Although we only analyzed 10 patient samples the results strongly suggest that the elevated activity of the first promoter (TA promoter) accounts for high-level expression of both full-length TA-p73 and aberrantly spliced DeltaTA-p73 isoforms in hepatocellular carcinoma tissues.

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