4.7 Article

Expression of aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH1) is associated with basal-like markers and features of aggressive tumours in African breast cancer

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 102, 期 2, 页码 369-375

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605488

关键词

ALDH1; BMI-1; basal-like; stem cells; African breast cancer

类别

资金

  1. Norwegian government (NUFU)
  2. University of Bergen
  3. Makerere University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Putative breast cancer stem cells might express surface markers such as aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH1) and BMI-1 proteins. The aim of this study was to explore the expression of these proteins in breast cancers from an African population and their associations with the basal-like phenotype (BLP) and other molecular characteristics. METHODS: We analysed 192 paraffin-embedded breast carcinoma samples by tissue microarrays and immunohistochemical methods. RESULTS: In total, 88 tumours (48%) expressed ALDH1, whereas 46 (25%) expressed BMI-1 protein. Expression of ALDH1 was associated with high histological grade (P<0.0005), high mitotic count (P<0.0005), high nuclear grade (P<0.0005), oestrogen receptor (ER) negativity (P<0.0005), progesterone receptor (PR) negativity (P=0.009), p53 expression (P=0.034), cytokeratin 5/6 positivity (P=0.008), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression (P=0.015) and the BLP (P<0.0005), whereas it was inversely associated with BMI-1 staining (P=0.009). On the other hand, BMI-1 expression was associated with low histological grade (P=0.004) and ER positivity (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: There was a high prevalence of ALDH1 expression among breast carcinomas and associations with basal markers and features of aggressive tumours. Studies are required to elucidate the importance of these findings for improved understanding of breast cancer biology. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 102, 369-375. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605488 www.bjcancer.com Published online 15 December 2009 (C) 2010 Cancer Research UK

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