PURPOSE: Urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor type 1 (PAI-1) are associated with tumour metabolism and are widely considered to be informative for the identification of cancer. We have analysed prostate tissue resections from patients with prostate cancer (PCa) and with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for protein levels of uPA and PAI-1, and searched for distinctions between these two clinical manifestations. METHODS: Prostate tissue was deep frozen in liquid N2 and homogenized in a stainless steel punch homogenizer. The tissue powder was extracted with a pH 8.5 TRIS/Triton X-100 buffer, and the extract analysed by FEMTELLE assay to generate uPA and PAI-1 readings in ng/mg protein. The uPA/PAI-1 ratio was calculated for each sample, and the mean ratios for the two diagnostic groups were compared. RESULTS: The concentration of uPA (mean ± SD) was found to be 0.19 ± 0.04 ng/mg protein (range 0.05-0.72 ng/mg) and 0.15 ± 0.02 ng/mg protein (range 0.03-0.78 ng/mg) in PCa and BPH samples, respectively. The concentration of PAI-1 was found to be 4.93 ± 0.90 ng/mg (range 1.10-11.80 ng/mg) and 5.87 ± 0.70 ng/mg (range 0.2-25.0 ng/mg) in PCa and BPH samples, respectively. A consistent finding being that PAI-1 concentrations exceed uPA concentrations by far giving rise to characteristic uPA/PAI-1 ratios. In BPH samples, there was a trend of PAI-1 to increase with uPA content, while in PCa samples, PAI-1 remained fairly constant. The mean uPA/PAI-1 ratio in PCa samples was found to be 0.06 ± 0.01 and was significantly higher than in BPH samples where the mean uPA/PAI-1 ratio was 0.03 ± 0.003 (p = 0.0028). R(2) = 0.1389. CONCLUSION: Using a contingent of 62 patients of which 46 were BPH and 16 were PCa, we report definitive concentrations of uPA and PAI-1 in tumour tissue extracts and show that the uPA/PAI-1 ratio emerges as a candidate marker to distinguish between BPH and PCa.
PURPOSE:Urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor type 1 (PAI-1) are associated with tumour metabolism and are widely considered to be informative for the identification of cancer. We have analysed prostate tissue resections from patients with prostate cancer (PCa) and with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for protein levels of uPA and PAI-1, and searched for distinctions between these two clinical manifestations. METHODS: Prostate tissue was deep frozen in liquid N2 and homogenized in a stainless steel punch homogenizer. The tissue powder was extracted with a pH 8.5 TRIS/Triton X-100 buffer, and the extract analysed by FEMTELLE assay to generate uPA and PAI-1 readings in ng/mg protein. The uPA/PAI-1 ratio was calculated for each sample, and the mean ratios for the two diagnostic groups were compared. RESULTS: The concentration of uPA (mean ± SD) was found to be 0.19 ± 0.04 ng/mg protein (range 0.05-0.72 ng/mg) and 0.15 ± 0.02 ng/mg protein (range 0.03-0.78 ng/mg) in PCa and BPH samples, respectively. The concentration of PAI-1 was found to be 4.93 ± 0.90 ng/mg (range 1.10-11.80 ng/mg) and 5.87 ± 0.70 ng/mg (range 0.2-25.0 ng/mg) in PCa and BPH samples, respectively. A consistent finding being that PAI-1 concentrations exceed uPA concentrations by far giving rise to characteristic uPA/PAI-1 ratios. In BPH samples, there was a trend of PAI-1 to increase with uPA content, while in PCa samples, PAI-1 remained fairly constant. The mean uPA/PAI-1 ratio in PCa samples was found to be 0.06 ± 0.01 and was significantly higher than in BPH samples where the mean uPA/PAI-1 ratio was 0.03 ± 0.003 (p = 0.0028). R(2) = 0.1389. CONCLUSION: Using a contingent of 62 patients of which 46 were BPH and 16 were PCa, we report definitive concentrations of uPA and PAI-1 in tumour tissue extracts and show that the uPA/PAI-1 ratio emerges as a candidate marker to distinguish between BPH and PCa.
Authors: N Harbeck; C Thomssen; U Berger; K Ulm; R E Kates; H Höfler; F Jänicke; H Graeff; M Schmitt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Isabell D Witzel; Karin Milde-Langosch; Ralph M Wirtz; Claudia Roth; Maike Ihnen; Sven Mahner; Christine Zu Eulenburg; Fritz Jänicke; Volkmar Müller Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Amit Gupta; Yair Lotan; Raheela Ashfaq; Claus G Roehrborn; Ganesh V Raj; Corinne C Aragaki; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-06-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Guoan Chen; Tarek G Gharib; Chiang-Ching Huang; Jeremy M G Taylor; David E Misek; Sharon L R Kardia; Thomas J Giordano; Mark D Iannettoni; Mark B Orringer; Samir M Hanash; David G Beer Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Eva Angenete; Marcus Langenskiöld; Ingrid Palmgren; Peter Falk; Tom Oresland; Marie-Louise Ivarsson Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2008-04-07 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Eva J Kantelhardt; Martina Vetter; Marcus Schmidt; Corinne Veyret; Doris Augustin; Volker Hanf; Christoph Meisner; Daniela Paepke; Manfred Schmitt; Fred Sweep; Gunter von Minckwitz; Pierre-Marie Martin; Fritz Jaenicke; Christoph Thomssen; Nadia Harbeck Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2011-04-16 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Ralf-Peter Czekay; Cynthia E Wilkins-Port; Stephen P Higgins; Jennifer Freytag; Jessica M Overstreet; R Matthew Klein; Craig E Higgins; Rohan Samarakoon; Paul J Higgins Journal: Int J Cell Biol Date: 2011-08-03
Authors: Jaideep S Dudani; Maria Ibrahim; Jesse Kirkpatrick; Andrew D Warren; Sangeeta N Bhatia Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Xiuju Li; Benjamin Buckley; Konstantin Stoletov; Yang Jing; Marie Ranson; John D Lewis; Mike Kelso; Larry Fliegel Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 5.923