4.4 Article

Slit2 and Robo1 expression as biomarkers for assessing prognosis in brain glioma patients

期刊

SURGICAL ONCOLOGY-OXFORD
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 405-410

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2016.09.003

关键词

Slit2; Robo1; Brain gliomas; Survival proportion and prognosis of gliomas

资金

  1. Key Project of Hebei Medical Science Research [ZL20140147]
  2. Funded Project of The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University Scientific Research [2h2201425]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This study was conducted to investigate the clinical significance of Slit2 and Robo1 expression in prognosis of patients with brain gliomas. Methods: Human brain tissue samples were collected from normal glial tissues (control), low-and high-grade glioma tissues. Slit2 and Robo1 expression levels in cells were assessed by an immunohistochemistry (IHC), and population of the Slit2- and Robo1-presenting patients was examined. The Slit2 and Robo1 mRNA expression levels in three types of the brain cells was determined by RT-PCR. Results: Slit2(+) cell counts were decreased with increased Robo1(+) cells in the low-grade and high-grade glioma tissues as compared to the control. The percentage of cells expressing Slit2 decreased from the control to the high-grade glioma and the percentage of cells expressing Robo1 in low-and high-grade gliomas was increased as compared to the control (P < 0.01). The decrease in the Slit2 mRNA expression was associated with the increase in the Robo1 mRNA expression in the low-and high-grade gliomas (P < 0.01 or 0.05). Survival time for patients with Slit2(-)/Robo1(+) gliomas was shorter than patients with Slit2(+)/Robo1(+) gliomas in the investigated cohorts (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Slit2 and Robo1 expression levels serve as a biomarker with utility in grading gliomas as well as predicting patient survival. The change in Slit2 expression is more reliable and effective than Robo1 expression in predicting a poor prognosis of brain glioma patients. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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