4.5 Article

Prolyl Endopeptidase Activity Is Correlated with Colorectal Cancer Prognosis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 199-208

出版社

IVYSPRING INT PUBL
DOI: 10.7150/ijms.7178

关键词

Prolyl endopeptidase; PEP; colorectal cancer; prognosis; survival

资金

  1. Basque Government [IT8-11/13, S-PE12UN042]
  2. University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU [UFI 11/44]
  3. Gangoiti Barrera Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objective: Prolyl endopeptidase (PEP) (EC 3.4.21.26) is a serine peptidase involved in differentiation, development and proliferation processes of several tissues. Recent studies have demonstrated the increased expression and activity of this cytosolic enzyme in colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there are no available data about the impact of this peptidase in the biological aggressiveness of this tumor in patient survival. Methods: The activity of PEP in tissue (n=80) and plasma (n=40) of patients with CRC was prospectively analyzed by fluorimetric methods. Results were correlated with the most important classic pathological data related to aggressiveness, with 5-year survival rates and other clinical variables. Results: 1) PEP is more active in early phases of CRC; 2) Lower levels of the enzyme in tumors were located in the rectum and this decrease could be related with preoperative chemo-radiotherapy; 3) PEP activity in tissue was higher in patients with better overall and disease-free survival (log-rank p<0.01, Cox analysis p<0.01); 4) Plasmatic PEP activity was significantly higher in CRC patients than in healthy individuals and this was associated with distant metastases and with worse overall and disease-free survivals (log-rank p<0.05, Cox analysis p<0.05). Conclusions: PEP activity in tissue and plasma from CRC patients is an independent prognostic factor in survival. The determination of PEP activity in the plasma may be a safe, minimally invasive and inexpensive way to define the aggressiveness of CRC in daily practice.

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

4.5
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