4.4 Review

Helicobacter pylori virulence and cancer pathogenesis

期刊

FUTURE ONCOLOGY
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 1487-1500

出版社

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/FON.14.29

关键词

CagA product; DupA; gastric cancer; genetic instability; Helicobacter pylori; inflammation-associated malignancy; next-generation sequencers; OipA; VacA; vacuolating cytotoxin; virulence factors

类别

资金

  1. NIH [DK62813]
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) of Japan [22390085, 22659087]
  3. Special Coordination Funds for Promoting Science and Technology from MEXT of Japan
  4. Oita University
  5. Office of Research and Development Medical Research Service Department of Veterans Affairs, Public Health Service [DK067366, CA116845, DK56338]
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26640114, 24406015, 25293104] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Helicobacter pylori is human gastric pathogen that causes chronic and progressive gastric mucosal inflammation and is responsible for the gastric inflammation-associated diseases, gastric cancer and peptic ulcer disease. Specific outcomes reflect the interplay between host-, environmental- and bacterial-specific factors. Progress in understanding putative virulence factors in disease pathogenesis has been limited and many false leads have consumed scarce resources. Few in vitro-in vivo correlations or translational applications have proved clinically relevant. Reported virulence factor-related outcomes reflect differences in relative risk of disease rather than specificity for any specific outcome. Studies of individual virulence factor associations have provided conflicting results. Since virulence factors are linked, studies of groups of putative virulence factors are needed to provide clinically useful information. Here, the authors discuss the progress made in understanding the role of H. pylori virulence factors CagA, vacuolating cytotoxin, OipA and DupA in disease pathogenesis and provide suggestions for future studies.

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

4.4
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