4.3 Article

Prognostic Value of Copine 1 in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma

Journal

ANTICANCER RESEARCH
Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages 355-362

Publisher

INT INST ANTICANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15493

Keywords

Copine 1; renal cell carcinoma; immunohistochemistry; prognostic marker; bioinformatics

Categories

Funding

  1. College of Research and Graduate Studies, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates [1901090160]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study revealed a significant association between the expression of Copine 1 and the age, nuclear grade, and tumor stage of renal cell carcinoma patients. However, no significant association was found between Copine 3 expression and any parameters. Copine 1 may be used as an independent biomarker or in combination with EphA2 and Ki-67 to predict disease outcome.
Background/Aim: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is among the most common renal malignancies and requires reliable biomarkers for optimum diagnosis and prognosis. Copines are a family of calcium-dependent phospholipid-binding proteins that were reported to be associated with various cancers. We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of Copines 1 and 3 in RCC patients. Materials and Methods: Copines 1 and 3 bioinformatics analysis and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining were performed on patients with RCC. Results: The findings revealed significant association between Copine 1 expression and the patients' age, nuclear grade, and tumor stage. Bioinformatics analysis showed a similar trend for the mRNA expression of CPNE1, the gene that encodes Copine 1. Interestingly, results revealed a positive association between Copine 1 and both EphA and Ki-67 expression levels. Noteworthy, there was no significant association between Copine 3 expression and any parameters. Conclusion: Copine 1 may be used as an independent biomarker or in combination with both EphA2 and Ki-67 to predict disease outcome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available