OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there is an association between high levels of telomerase and premalignant cervical disease and to provide a preliminary analysis of telomerase activity as a potential triage strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Premenopausal women were invited to participate in the study during routine gynecologic visits as well as visits where colposcopy was performed. Samples were taken from the cervix using a broom device and placed in cold phosphate-buffered saline. A total of 92 samples were evaluated. Cells were counted and lysed, and a semiquantitative measure of telomerase activity was determined using a commercially available telomerase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit. The presence of human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 was assessed by polymerase chain reaction analysis. One-way analysis of variance was used to test for the association of telomerase activity with cytology, HPV type 16 or 18 status, and colposcopy and/or biopsy findings. RESULTS: When telomerase levels were analyzed according to Pap smear results, there were no differences among four groups of cytology findings (normal, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion). When colposcopy and/or biopsy results were considered, significantly higher levels of telomerase were detected in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2,3 samples than in normal Pap smear samples and CIN 1 samples (p = .035). There was no significant difference in telomerase levels between samples that tested positive for HPV type 16 or 18 and those that did not (p = .111). CONCLUSIONS: Telomerase levels were significantly higher in cytologic samples from women with biopsy-proven CIN 2,3 than in samples from women with normal cytology results or CIN 1. These results warrant larger studies to determine whether telomerase activity may be a useful triage tool for abnormal cytologic findings.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there is an association between high levels of telomerase and premalignant cervical disease and to provide a preliminary analysis of telomerase activity as a potential triage strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Premenopausal women were invited to participate in the study during routine gynecologic visits as well as visits where colposcopy was performed. Samples were taken from the cervix using a broom device and placed in cold phosphate-buffered saline. A total of 92 samples were evaluated. Cells were counted and lysed, and a semiquantitative measure of telomerase activity was determined using a commercially available telomerase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit. The presence of human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 was assessed by polymerase chain reaction analysis. One-way analysis of variance was used to test for the association of telomerase activity with cytology, HPV type 16 or 18 status, and colposcopy and/or biopsy findings. RESULTS: When telomerase levels were analyzed according to Pap smear results, there were no differences among four groups of cytology findings (normal, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion). When colposcopy and/or biopsy results were considered, significantly higher levels of telomerase were detected in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2,3 samples than in normal Pap smear samples and CIN 1 samples (p = .035). There was no significant difference in telomerase levels between samples that tested positive for HPV type 16 or 18 and those that did not (p = .111). CONCLUSIONS: Telomerase levels were significantly higher in cytologic samples from women with biopsy-proven CIN 2,3 than in samples from women with normal cytology results or CIN 1. These results warrant larger studies to determine whether telomerase activity may be a useful triage tool for abnormal cytologic findings.
Authors: S Anderson; K Shera; J Ihle; L Billman; B Goff; B Greer; H Tamimi; J McDougall; A Klingelhutz Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: K Yashima; R Ashfaq; J Nowak; V Von Gruenigen; S Milchgrub; A Rathi; J Albores-Saavedra; J W Shay; A F Gazdar Journal: Cancer Date: 1998-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: T Saito; A Schneider; N Martel; H Mizumoto; M Bulgay-Moerschel; R Kudo; H Nakazawa Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 1997-02-24 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: N W Kim; M A Piatyszek; K R Prowse; C B Harley; M D West; P L Ho; G M Coviello; W E Wright; S L Weinrich; J W Shay Journal: Science Date: 1994-12-23 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: R C Allsopp; E Chang; M Kashefi-Aazam; E I Rogaev; M A Piatyszek; J W Shay; C B Harley Journal: Exp Cell Res Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 3.905
Authors: Abraham Pouliakis; Efrossyni Karakitsou; Charalampos Chrelias; Asimakis Pappas; Ioannis Panayiotides; George Valasoulis; Maria Kyrgiou; Evangelos Paraskevaidis; Petros Karakitsos Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 3.411