4.6 Article

Vitamin D hydroxylases CYP2R1, CYP27B1 and CYP24A1 in renal cell carcinoma

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 43, 期 12, 页码 1282-1290

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/eci.12176

关键词

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma; CYP24A1; CYP27B1; CYP2R1; vitamin D

资金

  1. Goethe University Frankfurt (Fokus Programm, Forderlinie A)
  2. Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThere is increasing evidence that vitamin D metabolites influence carcinogenesis. Besides its role in mineral homoeostasis, calcitriol, the active metabolite of vitamin D (1,25(OH)(2)D-3), is known to possess antiproliferative, proapoptotic and immunomodulatory effects in cancer. Concerning the synthesis of vitamin D, the hydroxylases CYP2R1, CYP27B1 and CYP24A1 play a critical role, and the latter molecule determines the biological half-life of 1,25(OH)(2)D-3, which is synthesized in the proximal renal tubules. Materials and methodsThe adjacency of these two biological processes prompted us to investigate the gene expression of CYP2R1, CYP27B1 and CYP24A1 in patients with ccRCC. Using RT-PCR, we retrospectively compared mRNA expression profiles from human ccRCC tumour samples with those derived from the corresponding adjacent healthy tissues (n=30). ResultsWe observed that all three genes (CYP2R1, CYP27B1 and CYP24A1) were upregulated in tumours compared with normal tissue (P<00001). Moreover, CYP24A1 displayed a significantly higher expression in tumours than CYP27B1 (P<005) and CYP2R1 (P<00001), whereas no differences in the expression of these genes were found in healthy renal tissue. Gene expression of CYP2R1, CYP27B1 and CYP24A did not differ between pathological classifications (TNM, grading, presence of metastasis). ConclusionWe thus conclude that upregulated gene expression of the catabolizing CYP24A1 as well as the synthesizing CYP2R1 and CYP27B1 may lead to a misbalance of vitamin D metabolites in ccRCC and thus contributing to its pathogenesis.

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