4.6 Article

Differential expression of HDAC3, HDAC7 and HDAC9 is associated with prognosis and survival in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 150, 期 6, 页码 665-673

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08301.x

关键词

acute lymphoblastic leukaemia; childhood; histone deacetylase; prognosis; gene expression

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [2001/13206-9, 2002/03182-8, 2005/50731-5]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  3. FAEPA (Brazil)
  4. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [01/13206-9] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Altered expression of histone deacetylases (HDACs) is a common feature in several human malignancies and may represent an interesting target for cancer treatment, including haematological malignancies. We evaluated the mRNA gene expression profile of 12 HDAC genes by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction in 94 consecutive childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) samples and its association with clinical/biological features and survival. ALL samples showed higher expression levels of HDAC2, HDAC3, HDAC8, HDAC6 and HDAC7 when compared to normal bone marrow samples. HDAC1 and HDAC4 showed high expression in T-ALL and HDAC5 was highly expressed in B-lineage ALL. Higher than median expression levels of HDAC3 were associated with a significantly lower 5-year event-free survival (EFS) in the overall group of patients (P = 0.03) and in T-ALL patients (P = 0.01). HDAC7 and HADC9 expression levels higher than median were associated with a lower 5-year EFS in the overall group (P = 0.04 and P = 0.003, respectively) and in B-lineage CD10-positive patients (P = 0.009 and P = 0.005, respectively). Our data suggest that higher expression of HDAC7 and HDAC9 is associated with poor prognosis in childhood ALL and could be promising therapeutic targets for the treatment of refractory childhood ALL.

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