4.6 Article

Relative down-regulation of apoptosis and autophagy genes in colorectal cancer

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2010.02383.x

关键词

Gene expression; programmed cell death; RT-qPCR

资金

  1. Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan [CSMU-TTM-097-003]
  2. Tungs' Taichung Metro Harbor Hospital, Taichung County, Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Background Cancer is often caused by disturbance in the regulation and/or execution of programmed cell death (PCD, including apoptosis and autophagy). Our aim was to investigate these two pathways simultaneously in the same samples to understand further the pathological roles of PCDs in colorectal cancer. Materials and methods Real time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) array was used to analyse the mRNA levels of 22 apoptosis and autophagy-related genes involved in pro- and anti-action of the pathways in 15 paired (tumour and non-cancerous part) colorectal samples using Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) as the reference gene. Results GAPDH mRNA content was significantly higher (approximately 4 center dot 01 fold) in tumour tissue than that of paired non-cancerous part. The absolute mRNA levels for most of the 22 genes were higher in the tumour tissue also. However, after normalization with GAPDH Ct, the expressions of all the analysed genes were decreased in the tumour tissues, except for damage-regulated autophagy modulator (DRAM). The expression of most of the genes involved in the same pathway was closely correlated to each other in both tumour and non-cancerous tissues, and the correlation of tumour necrosis factor receptor (TNFR) and Akt to other genes in the same pathway was increased in tumour tissues. Conclusions The high level expression of GAPDH might reflect the metabolic state of cancer cells, and PCDs were down-regulated in the tumour tissues when metabolic state was taken into consideration. This relative suppression of PCDs in tumour tissue is supposed to be in favour of cancer cell survival.

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