4.7 Article

p53-regulated GML gene expression in non-small cell lung cancer: a promising relationship to cisplatin chemosensitivity

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 489-495

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00261-0

关键词

GML; NSCLC; cisplatin; chemosensitivity; p53; CD-DST

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The GML gene (glycosylphosphatidylinositol-anchored molecule-like protein gene) is a novel gene specifically induced by wild-type p53. which may participate in cell cycle control or the cell apoptotic pathway. Recent experiments suggest that the expression of this never gene in cancer cells is closely associated with sensitivity to certain anticancer drugs. To elucidate the role of the gene expression in cisplatin (CDDP) chemosensitivity of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 30 surgically resected materials were examined by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). GML gene expression was detected in 9 (30%) samples. Its incidence was significantly higher in immunohistochemically p53-negative (P = 0.040) or wild-type p53 tissues (P = 0.041). On in vitro chemosensitivity testing using 29 primary tissues, six samples with GML gene expression showed good sensitivity to CDDP. In particular, in tissues with immunohistochemically p53-negative accumulation. those with GML gene expression showed significantly better in vitro sensitivity to CDDP (P = 0.012). Clinically a good response to CDDP-based chemo(thermo)therapy for NSCLC patients with tumour residue or recurrence, was observed only in those with p53-negative accumulation and GML gene expression, in agreement with br vitro results. Thus. although the number of tested samples was small, GML gene expression is commonly detected in immunohistochemically p53-negative NSCLCs in close association with good sensitivity to CDDP. GML gene expression analysis may serve as a predictor of CDDP-based chemotherapy for patients with NSCLC. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science 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

4.7
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