4.7 Article

Expression and prognostic significance of the inhibitor of apoptosis protein (IAP) family and its antagonists in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 800-810

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.11.023

关键词

Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia; Apoptosis; Inhibitor of apoptosis protein family; Prognosis

类别

资金

  1. Polish Ministry of Science [NN402 078934]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Impaired apoptosis is still considered to be an important event in the development and progression of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). However, mechanisms of this defect have not been fully elucidated. In this study, expression of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins, IAPs (cIAP1, cIAP2, XIAP and survivin), and their antagonists (Smac/DIABLO and HtrA2/Omi) was comprehensively analysed in 100 untreated CLL patients, using flow cytometry and Western blot techniques. Expression of anti-apoptotic cIAP1 and cIAP2 in leukaemic cells was significantly higher than in non-tumour lymphocytes (p = 0.000001 and p = 0.014, respectively), whereas the IAP-antagonist, Smac/DIABLO, was decreased in CLL (p = 0.010). Higher expression of all analysed IAPs (cIAP1, p = 0.002; cIAP2, p = 0.026; XIAP, p = 0.002; survivin, p = 0.00006) and lower levels of Smac/DIABLO (p = 0.006) were found in patients with progressive disease, compared to those with stable CLL. High baseline expression of cIAP1 and survivin correlated with worse response to treatment. Co-expression of these proteins was associated with shorter overall survival of CLL patients (p = 0.005). In conclusion, CLL cells show the apoptosis-resistant profile of IAPs/IAP-antagonist expression. Upregulation of IAPs is associated with a progressive course of the disease. Co-expression of clAP1 and survivin seems to be an unfavourable prognostic factor in CLL patients. Further studies with longer follow up are warranted to confirm and expand these findings. (C) 2009 Elsevier 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