4.2 Article

Biochemical Evaluation of Hyaluronic Acid in Breast Cancer

期刊

CLINICAL LABORATORY
卷 60, 期 7, 页码 1115-1121

出版社

CLIN LAB PUBL
DOI: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2013.130413

关键词

breast cancer; extra cellular matrix; glucosamine; glucuronic acid; hyaluronic acid; hyaluronidase; N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosminidase and beta-glucuronidas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The latest experimental studies on human cancer diseases have observed the bioactive role of hyaluronic acid (HA) during carcinogenesis. HA is a component of the extra-cellular matrix (ECM). It is closely correlated with tumor cell growth, proliferation, and metastasis. The present study aimed to evaluate the biochemical role of HA and its degrading enzymes and products in breast cancer (BC) patients under therapy treatment. Methods: An ELISA method was used to determine HA levels and standard spectrophotometric techniques were used to estimate the activities of HA degrading enzymes hyaluronidase (HAS), N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosminidase (NAG), and beta-glucuronidase (beta-Gin) and the concentration of both glucoseamine (G-Amine) and glucuronic acid (GA) as degrading products in blood sera of 50 BC patients before and after chemotherapy treatment and in blood sera of 40 healthy women as controls. Statistical analyses were performed by a statistical package for social sciences (SPSS, version 15.0). Results: Elevated serum HA levels, increased HAS, NAG, and beta-Glu activities and high concentrations of G-Amine and GA were significantly found (p < 0.001) in patients before treatment compared to controls. After all BC patients had received the first chemotherapy course, HA and its previous degrading parameters were significantly decreased (p < 0.001) in post-treated patients compared to pre-treated patients. Conclusions: Hyaluronic acid and its degrading enzymes and products can be considered a biomarker for early detection of recurrent disease and also for monitoring the effective therapeutic follow up of BC patients.

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

4.2
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