4.5 Article

Increased expression of high but not low molecular weight heat shock proteins in resectable lung carcinoma

期刊

LUNG CANCER
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 59-67

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5002(01)00184-2

关键词

lung cancer; heat shock proteins; ubiquitin; HSP-27; HSP-60; HSP-70

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Strong expression of high-molecular-weight (HMW) heat-shook proteins (HSP) by lung carcinoma has been documented using immunohistochemistry. Far less is known about the expression of low-molecular-weight (LMW) HSP in lung cancer. We compared the quantitative expression of HMW (HSP-60, HSP-70) and LMW (HSP-27, ubiquitin) HSP in tumor and non-tumor lung tissue obtained from 47 patients undergoing surgical resection of lung carcinoma. HSP levels were determined in cell lysates from tissue samples by ELISA using streptavidin-biotin technology. Results were normalized to total protein content measured by spectrophotometry. Compared to disease-free lung tissue, tumor tissue samples showed higher levels of both HSP-60 (median value: 227 pg versus 96 PS per mg protein (P < 0.001 by Wilcoxon Rank test for paired data) and HSP-70 (median value: 525 ng versus 401 ng per mg protein (P = 0.01 by Wilcoxon Rank test for paired data). Tumor and tumor-free tissues show similar levels of ubiquitin and HSP-27. Neither the survival rate nor the histologic type and extent of cancer are correlated with the observed differences in HSP-60 and HSP-70 expression (P > 0.1 by one way analysis of variance for repeated measures with one between subject factor). Our data confirm, on a quantitative basis, the increased expression of HSP-60 and HSP-70 in non-small-cell lung carcinoma. However, no prognostic value was found to be associated with this over-expression. In contrast, LMW stress proteins such as ubiquitin and HSP-27, although implicated in cellular processes potentially related to malignant transformation, show Ilo increased expression in lung carcinoma. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. 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

4.5
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