BACKGROUND: Some of the induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS cell)-inducing factors have been reported to be expressed in breast cancer. The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between the expression of iPS cell-inducing factors and the prognosis of breast cancer patients. METHODS: In 100 breast cancer patients, the expression of c-MYC, KLF4, NANOG, OCT4, and SOX2 was determined by immunohistochemistry using a tissue microarray analysis. RESULTS: Patients with strong expression of NANOG had significantly lower disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival rates than those with weak expression of NANOG (P = 0.004 and 0.033, respectively). In contrast, patients with strong expression of KLF4 had better DFS (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Strong expression of NANOG is an indicator of a poor prognosis for breast cancer patients, whereas KLF4 is a favorable prognostic indicator. Our results suggest that NANOG stimulates the growth and metastasis of breast cancer cells, whereas KLF4 inhibits these processes.
BACKGROUND: Some of the induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS cell)-inducing factors have been reported to be expressed in breast cancer. The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between the expression of iPS cell-inducing factors and the prognosis of breast cancerpatients. METHODS: In 100 breast cancerpatients, the expression of c-MYC, KLF4, NANOG, OCT4, and SOX2 was determined by immunohistochemistry using a tissue microarray analysis. RESULTS:Patients with strong expression of NANOG had significantly lower disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival rates than those with weak expression of NANOG (P = 0.004 and 0.033, respectively). In contrast, patients with strong expression of KLF4 had better DFS (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Strong expression of NANOG is an indicator of a poor prognosis for breast cancerpatients, whereas KLF4 is a favorable prognostic indicator. Our results suggest that NANOG stimulates the growth and metastasis of breast cancer cells, whereas KLF4 inhibits these processes.
Authors: Justin D Lathia; Ofer Reizes; Praveena S Thiagarajan; Masahiro Hitomi; James S Hale; Alvaro G Alvarado; Balint Otvos; Maksim Sinyuk; Kevin Stoltz; Andrew Wiechert; Erin Mulkearns-Hubert; Awad Jarrar; Qiao Zheng; Dustin Thomas; Thomas Egelhoff; Jeremy N Rich; Huiping Liu Journal: Stem Cells Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 6.277
Authors: D N Debruyne; L Turchi; F Burel-Vandenbos; M Fareh; F Almairac; V Virolle; D Figarella-Branger; N Baeza-Kallee; P Lagadec; V Kubiniek; P Paquis; D Fontaine; M-P Junier; H Chneiweiss; T Virolle Journal: Oncogene Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Chayanin Kiratipaiboon; Todd A Stueckle; Rajib Ghosh; Liying W Rojanasakul; Yi Charlie Chen; Cerasela Zoica Dinu; Yon Rojanasakul Journal: Environ Sci Nano Date: 2019-05-24