Literature DB >> 22864281

Effect of surgical procedures on prostate tumor gene expression profiles.

Jie Li1, Zhi-Hong Zhang, Chang-Jun Yin, Christian Pavlovich, Jun Luo, Robert Getzenberg, Wei Zhang.   

Abstract

Current surgical treatment of prostate cancer is typically accomplished by either open radical prostatectomy (ORP) or robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP). Intra-operative procedural differences between the two surgical approaches may alter the molecular composition of resected surgical specimens, which are indispensable for molecular analysis and biomarker evaluation. The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of different surgical procedures on RNA quality and genome-wide expression signature. RNA integrity number (RIN) values were compared between total RNA samples extracted from consecutive LRP (n=11) and ORP (n=24) prostate specimens. Expression profiling was performed using the Agilent human whole-genome expression microarrays. Expression differences by surgical type were analyzed by Volcano plot analysis and gene ontology analysis. Quantitative reverse transcription (RT)-PCR was used for expression validation in an independent set of LRP (n=8) and ORP (n=8) samples. The LRP procedure did not compromise RNA integrity. Differential gene expression by surgery types was limited to a small subset of genes, the number of which was smaller than that expected by chance. Unexpectedly, this small subset of differentially expressed genes was enriched for those encoding transcription factors, oxygen transporters and other previously reported surgery-induced stress-response genes, and demonstrated unidirectional reduction in LRP specimens in comparison to ORP specimens. The effect of the LRP procedure on RNA quality and genome-wide transcript levels is negligible, supporting the suitability of LRP surgical specimens for routine molecular analysis. Blunted in vivo stress response in LRP specimens, likely mediated by CO(2) insufflation but not by longer ischemia time, is manifested in the reduced expression of stress-response genes in these specimens.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22864281      PMCID: PMC3734993          DOI: 10.1038/aja.2012.54

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Asian J Androl        ISSN: 1008-682X            Impact factor:   3.285


  25 in total

Review 1.  ATF3 and stress responses.

Authors:  T Hai; C D Wolfgang; D K Marsee; A E Allen; U Sivaprasad
Journal:  Gene Expr       Date:  1999

Review 2.  AP-1 subunits: quarrel and harmony among siblings.

Authors:  Jochen Hess; Peter Angel; Marina Schorpp-Kistner
Journal:  J Cell Sci       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 5.285

3.  Changes in differential gene expression because of warm ischemia time of radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Atreya Dash; Ira P Maine; Sooryanarayana Varambally; Ronglai Shen; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Mark A Rubin
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.307

4.  Hemoglobin induction in mouse macrophages.

Authors:  L Liu; M Zeng; J S Stamler
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1999-06-08       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Comparative biomarker expression and RNA integrity in biospecimens derived from radical retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomies.

Authors:  Carmela Ricciardelli; Tina Bianco-Miotto; Shalini Jindal; Thomas J Dodd; Penelope A Cohen; Villis R Marshall; Peter D Sutherland; Hemamali Samaratunga; James G Kench; Ying Dong; Hong Wang; Judith A Clements; Gail P Risbridger; Robert L Sutherland; Wayne D Tilley; David J Horsfall
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Methods of radical prostatectomy specimen processing: a novel technique for harvesting fresh prostate cancer tissue and review of processing techniques.

Authors:  G S Bova; W M Fox; J I Epstein
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 7.842

7.  Metabolic and inflammatory responses after open or laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  M S Jakeways; V Mitchell; I A Hashim; S J Chadwick; A Shenkin; C J Green; F Carli
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  General stress response to conventional and laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  F Glaser; G A Sannwald; H J Buhr; C Kuntz; H Mayer; F Klee; C Herfarth
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Immune function in patients undergoing open vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  H P Redmond; R W Watson; T Houghton; C Condron; R G Watson; D Bouchier-Hayes
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1994-12

10.  Modulation of the human homeobox genes PRX-2 and HOXB13 in scarless fetal wounds.

Authors:  E J Stelnicki; J Arbeit; D L Cass; C Saner; M Harrison; C Largman
Journal:  J Invest Dermatol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 8.551

View more
  2 in total

1.  Biobanking of derivatives from radical retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy tissues as part of the prostate cancer biorepository network.

Authors:  Medha Darshan; Qizhi Zheng; Helen L Fedor; Nicolas Wyhs; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; Peng Lee; Jonathan Melamed; George J Netto; Bruce J Trock; Angelo M De Marzo; Karen S Sfanos
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2013-09-21       Impact factor: 4.104

2.  Gene panel model predictive of outcome in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Nadège Rabiau; Yann Dantal; Laurent Guy; Marjolaine Ngollo; Aslihan Dagdemir; Jean-Louis Kemeny; Benoît Terris; Annick Vieillefond; Jean-Paul Boiteux; Yves-Jean Bignon; Dominique Bernard-Gallon
Journal:  OMICS       Date:  2013-06-11
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.