4.5 Article

TRAIL receptors are differentially regulated and clinically significant in gallbladder cancer

期刊

PATHOLOGY
卷 52, 期 3, 页码 348-358

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.pathol.2019.12.001

关键词

Gallbladder cancer; TRAIL; death receptor; decoy receptor; prognostic factor

资金

  1. University Grants Commission, Government of India [43349/2014(SR)]
  2. DST-PURSE, Banaras Hindu University
  3. UGC-UPE, Banaras Hindu University
  4. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deregulation of the receptors of TNF-related apoptosis inducing ligand (TRAIL) has been reported in various cancers. In an effort to define the role of these receptors we profiled their expression in gallbladder cancer (GBC) and explored their clinical significance. Expression of TRAIL receptors' mRNA in GBC was analysed through reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and protein through western blotting, immunohistochemistry and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). mRNA data show frequent higher expression of TRAIL receptors in GBC samples. Death receptors DR4 and DR5 showed significant negative correlation with tumour stage, T stage and tumour grade; DcR1 transcript showed positive correlation with tumour stage, N stage, M stage and tumour grade. Similarly, IHC showed frequent positive staining for DR4, DR5 and DcR1 in GBC samples. Cytoplasmic and nuclear DR4 protein showed negative correlation with T stage and tumour grade, whereas cytoplasmic DcR1 protein showed positive correlation with tumour stage and N stage. Nuclear DcR1 showed positive correlation with N stage. ELISA results showed significantly higher expression of secretory DcR1 in GBC patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significantly decreased mean survival of patients with positive staining of cytoplasmic DcR1. High level of death receptors identified the patients with early gallbladder cancer, whereas high DcR1 expression served as a prognostic factor for poor outcome.

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