| Literature DB >> 23561060 |
Li Song1, Su-Li Zhang, Ke-Hua Bai, Jie Yang, Hai-Yan Xiong, Xiao Li, Teng Liu, Hui-Rong Liu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although agonistic autoantibodies against type-1 angiotensin-II receptor (AT1-AA) are frequently detected in women with preeclampsia, the clinical significance of AT1-AA in association with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) has not been identified.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23561060 PMCID: PMC3626713 DOI: 10.1186/1757-2215-6-22
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ovarian Res ISSN: 1757-2215 Impact factor: 4.234
Patient characteristics
| Age at diagnosis | 51 + 8.2 |
| Weight (kg) | 62 + 8.9 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25 + 4.1 |
| Age at menarche | 15 + 2.0 |
| Age at menopause | 47 + 4.2 |
| Stage | |
| I | 6 (6.7%) |
| II | 56 (62.9%) |
| III | 23 (25.8%) |
| IV | 4 (4.4%) |
| Grade | |
| G1 | 20 (22.4%) |
| G2 | 27 (30.3%) |
| G3 | 42 (85.7%) |
| Residual tumor | |
| ≤2 cm | 18 (20.2%) |
| >2 cm | 71 (79.7%) |
| Ascites | |
| No | 31 (34.8%) |
| Yes | 58 (65.1%) |
| Diabetes Status | |
| No | 30 (33.7%) |
| Yes | 59 (66.2%) |
Values are mean ± SE; others represent the percentage of total patients.
Figure 1Level of AT-AA in EOC patients. Relative to the healthy normal subjects, AT1-AA titer was significantly increased in EOC patients (A). The number of AT1-AA positive patients was associated with clinical FIGO stage (B) and grade (C). Values are mean ± SE. *p < 0.05 vs. the normal subjects (Nor); † P < 0.05 vs. the stage I and grade I, respectively.
Figure 2VEGF level in EOC patients and healthy normal subjects. Increased level of VEGF was detected in advanced stage (A) and grade (B). Scatter plots showed a positive linear correlation between VEGF level and AT1-AA titer in EOC patients (C). Values are mean ± SE. *p < 0.05 vs. the normal subjects (Nor); † P < 0.05 vs. the stage I and grade I, respectively.
Figure 3Effect of AT-AA on migration of OVCAR3 cells. AT1-AA increased migration in a dose-dependent manner (top panel). Relative to the control (A), cell migration by AT1-AA was significantly enhanced (B), which is comparable to the level found in Ang II (C). Enhancement of migration by AT1-AA was blocked either by AT1-AA-ECII (D) or losartan (E). Values are mean ± SE. n = 3 for each group. *p < 0.05 vs. saline control (Nor); †P < 0.05 vs. AT1-AA and Ang II. HPF = high power field (x 400).
Figure 4Effect of AT-AA on angiogenesis of the CAM. Relative to the saline control (A), AT1-AA significantly increased microvascular density of the CAM (B) to a comparable level as did by Ang II (C). Enhancement of microvascular density by AT1-AA was blocked either by AT1-AA-ECII (D) or Ang II AT1 receptor antagonist, losartan (E). Values are mean ± SE. n = 6 for each group. *p < 0.05 vs. saline control (Nor); †P < 0.05 vs. AT1-AA and Ang II. HPF = high power field (x400).