Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2007
Embolization of an arterioportal fistula by injection of D-stat into the portal venous outflow.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ciregia Federica, Cetani Filomena, Pardi Elena, Soggiu Alessio, Piras Cristian, Zallocco Lorenzo, Borsari Simona, Ronci Maurizio, Caruso Vanni, Marcocci Claudio, Mazzoni Maria Rosa, Lucacchini Antonio, Giusti Laura
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: The lack of specific parathyroid carcinoma (PC) biomarkers in clinical practice points out the importance of analyzing the proteomic signature of this cancer. We performed a comparative proteomic analysis of PC and parathyroid adenoma (PA) co-existing in the same patient.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: PC and PA were taken from a 63-year-old patient. Using two-dimensional differential gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE) coupled to mass spectrometry we examined the differences between PC and PA proteins. For validation, additional PC and PA samples were obtained from 10 patients. Western blot analysis was used to validate the difference of expression observed with 2D-DIGE analysis. Bioinfomatic analysis was performed using QIAGEN's Ingenuity Pathways Analysis (IPA) to determine the predominant canonical pathways and interaction networks involved.
RESULTS: Thirty-three differentially expressed proteins were identified in PC compared to PA. Among these, ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) was highly overexpressed in PC. The result was confirmed by Western Blot analysis in additional PC samples.
CONCLUSION: Our comparative proteomic analysis of co-existing neoplasms allowed detecting specific and peculiar differences between PC and PA overcoming population biological variability.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: PC and PA were taken from a 63-year-old patient. Using two-dimensional differential gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE) coupled to mass spectrometry we examined the differences between PC and PA proteins. For validation, additional PC and PA samples were obtained from 10 patients. Western blot analysis was used to validate the difference of expression observed with 2D-DIGE analysis. Bioinfomatic analysis was performed using QIAGEN's Ingenuity Pathways Analysis (IPA) to determine the predominant canonical pathways and interaction networks involved.
RESULTS: Thirty-three differentially expressed proteins were identified in PC compared to PA. Among these, ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) was highly overexpressed in PC. The result was confirmed by Western Blot analysis in additional PC samples.
CONCLUSION: Our comparative proteomic analysis of co-existing neoplasms allowed detecting specific and peculiar differences between PC and PA overcoming population biological variability.