Literature DB >> 31998552

Clinical characteristics and prognostic value of MEX3A mRNA in liver cancer.

Dingquan Yang1, Yan Jiao2, Yanqing Li3, Xuedong Fang1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: MEX3A is an RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) that promotes the proliferation, invasion, migration and viability of cancer cells. The aim of this study was to explore the clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic significance of MEX3A mRNA expression in liver cancer.
METHODS: RNA-Seq and clinical data were collected from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Boxplots were used to represent discrete variables of MEX3A. Chi-square tests were used to analyze the correlation between clinical features and MEX3A expression. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to confirm diagnostic ability. Independent prognostic ability and values were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox analysis.
RESULTS: We acquired MEX3A RNA-Seq from 50 normal liver tissues and 373 liver cancer patients along with clinical data. We found that MEX3A was up-regulated in liver cancer which increased according to histological grade (p < 0.001). MEX3A showed moderate diagnostic ability for liver cancer (AUC = 0.837). Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox analysis revealed that the high expression of MEX3A was significantly associated with poor survival (OS and RFS) (p < 0.001). Moreover, MEX3A was identified as an independent prognostic factor of liver cancer (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: MEX3A expression shows promise as an independent predictor of liver cancer prognosis. ©2020 Yang et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Liver cancer; MEX3A; Prognosis; RNA-binding proteins; The Cancer Genome Atlas

Year:  2020        PMID: 31998552      PMCID: PMC6979405          DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8252

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PeerJ        ISSN: 2167-8359            Impact factor:   2.984


Introduction

Liver cancer is a malignant cancer with poor prognosis that is responsible for more than 780,000 deaths annually, making it the second most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide (Bray et al., 2018). Although liver cancer can be alleviated or cured through hepatectomy, orthotopic liver transplantation, and/or ablative procedures (Hanouneh, Alkhouri & Singal, 2019). More than 65% of patients fail to be cured and frequent recurrence contributes to poor survival. Predicting the overall 1-year survival rates for liver cancer have remained a challenge (Galle et al., 2018; Hanouneh, Alkhouri & Singal, 2019). New biomarkers that can predict liver cancer recurrence are urgently required to improve prognosis. Liver cancer is influenced by post-transcriptional mechanisms that dynamically regulate protein expression (Wong, Tsang & Ng, 2018; Goldstrohm, Hall & McKenney, 2018). Cis-regulatory RNA elements and trans-acting factors (Gerstberger, Hafner & Tuschl, 2014; Moore, 2005) including RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) play an essential role in gene expression in cancer cells (Masuda & Kuwano, 2019). Recently, a group of RBPS termed MEX-3 RNA binding family member (MEX3) was identified in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans (Ciosk, DePalma & Priess, 2006) and revealed one of the few RBPs with carcinogenic or tumor suppressor activity (Kim, Hur & Jeong, 2009; Pereira et al., 2013a). MEX3 proteins are evolutionarily conserved RNA-binding proteins that consist of four homologous genes (MEX3A–D) (Buchet-Poyau et al., 2007; Courchet et al., 2008; Pereira et al., 2013a). They contained highly conservative one carboxy-terminal RING finger module and two K homology domains, the former mediating E3 ubiquitin ligase activity, the latter providing RNA-binding capacity (Buchet-Poyau et al., 2007). Available evidence implicates the MEX3 family in epithelial homeostasis, embryonic development, metabolism, immune responses and cancer, but the specific mechanisms of these effects require elucidation (Pereira et al., 2013a). MEX3A is a member of the MEX3 family (also known as RKHD4 or RNF162) that is expressed in endometrium tissue and the ovaries. MEX3A is a novel component of GW-182 or Dcp-containing bodies in mammals that represent cellular sites of mRNA degradation and the sequestration of non-translated transcripts (Cougot, Babajko & Seraphin, 2004; Eystathioy et al., 2002; Sheth & Parker, 2003). MEX3A mRNA was recently shown to be overexpressed in Wilms tumors (Krepischi et al., 2016), gastric cancer (Jiang et al., 2012), bladder cancer (Huang et al., 2017), and bladder urothelial carcinoma (Shi & Huang, 2017). MEX3A promotes cell proliferation in bladder (Huang et al., 2017) and gastric (Jiang et al., 2012) cancer and shows potential as a biomarker to predict carcinogenesis (Pereira et al., 2013a). In this study, we analyzed the expression of MEX3A in liver cancer and assessed its clinicopathological potential. We further investigated the potential of MEX3A as an independent predictor of liver cancer prognosis.

Methods

Clinical and RNA-Seq analysis

We downloaded the all RNA-Seq expression matrix from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database and obtained MEX3A mRNA expression data from liver cancer vs. normal liver tissue using the matrix. We further obtained corresponding clinical and pathological information from TCGA database. The basic clinical data included age, gender, histological grade, stage, T∕N∕M classification and vital status. MEX3A mRNA expression were estimated as log2(x+1) values and transformed RSEM normalized counts.

Statistical analyses

We retrospectively analyzed all data using R (version 3.5.1) (R Core Team, 2009). We used non-parametric rank sum tests to analyze MEX3A mRNA expression levels according to different variables and boxplots were visualized. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare the two subgroups, including disease, age, gender and vital status. Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for the comparison of three or more subgroups, including clinical stage, histologic grade and T∕N∕M classification. We used the pROC package to draw ROC curves for the evaluation of MEX3A diagnosis through the calculation of AUC values and the measurement of optimal cutoff point to divide samples into high and low MEX3A expression groups (Robin et al., 2011). Further, correlation between clinical features and MEX3A expression group were analyzed through chi-square tests with Fisher’s exact test. To evaluate prognosis, Kaplan–Meier curves were used based on log-rank tests to compare differences in survival status, including overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) between the high and low MEX3A expression groups using the survival package in R (Therneau, 1994; Therneau & Grambsch, 2000). Univariate Cox analysis was used to select factors associated with prognosis, with calculations of hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Independent prognostic values of OS and RFS in the patients were determined through Multivariate Cox analysis. P-values < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.

Results

Clinical characteristics and RNA-Seq analysis

A total of 423 tissue samples with MEX3A mRNA expression data, including 373 liver cancer and 50 normal liver tissues were obtained from the TCGA. All patients were diagnosed with primary liver cancer. Corresponding patient demographic and clinical characteristics such as age, gender, histologic grade, TNM stage, vital status, and radiation therapy were obtained. All patient data is shown in Table 1.
Table 1

MEX3A mRNA expression and clinical characteristics in liver cancer patients.

CharacteristicsNumber of pts(%)
Age
<55117(31.45)
>=55255(68.55)
NA1(0.00)
Gender
Female121(32.44)
Male252(67.56)
Histological_type
Fibrolamellar Carcinoma3(0.8)
Hepatocellular Carcinoma363(97.32)
Hepatocholangiocarcinoma (Mixed)7(1.88)
Histologic_grade
G155(14.75)
G2178(47.72)
G3123(32.98)
G412(3.22)
NA5(1.34)
Stage
I172(46.11)
II87(23.32)
III85(22.79)
IV5(1.34)
NA24(6.43)
T_classification
T1182(48.79)
T295(25.47)
T380(21.45)
T413(3.49)
TX1(0.27)
NA2(0.54)
N_classification
N0253(67.83)
N14(1.07)
NX115(30.83)
NA1(0.27)
M_classification
M0267(71.58)
M14(1.07)
MX102(27.35)
Radiation_therapy
No340(91.15)
Yes8(2.14)
NA25(6.7)
Residual_tumor
R0326(87.4)
R117(4.56)
R21(0.27)
RX22(5.9)
NA7(1.88)
Vital_status
Deceased130(34.85)
Living243(65.15)
Relapse
No179(55.94)
Yes141(44.06)
NA53(14.2)
MEX3A
High117(31.37)
Low256(68.63)

Notes.

NA, not available.

Notes. NA, not available.

MEX3A is highly expressed in liver cancer

In liver cancer, MEX3A mRNA expression level was significantly up-regulated compared to normal tissues (p = 1.1e−14; Fig. 1A) and increased with higher histological grades (p = 0.00016; Fig. 1C). MEX3A expression level was significantly associated with vital status (p = 0.032; Fig. 1I) and age (p = 0.0011; Fig. 1G).
Figure 1

Assessment of the relationship between MEX3A mRNA expression and clinical characteristics (A–I).

Comparison of MEX3A mRNA expression in 373 cases of liver cancer and 50 normal liver tissues (A). Comparison of MEX3A mRNA expression according to clinical parameters: clinical stage (I, II, III and IV) (B), histologic grade (G1, G2, G3 and G4) (C), T classification (T1, T2, T3 and T4) (D), N classification (N0, N1 and NX) (E), M classification (M0, M1 and MX) (F), age (<55 and ≥55) (G), gender (male and female) (H) and vital status (I).

Assessment of the relationship between MEX3A mRNA expression and clinical characteristics (A–I).

Comparison of MEX3A mRNA expression in 373 cases of liver cancer and 50 normal liver tissues (A). Comparison of MEX3A mRNA expression according to clinical parameters: clinical stage (I, II, III and IV) (B), histologic grade (G1, G2, G3 and G4) (C), T classification (T1, T2, T3 and T4) (D), N classification (N0, N1 and NX) (E), M classification (M0, M1 and MX) (F), age (<55 and ≥55) (G), gender (male and female) (H) and vital status (I).

MEX3A as a liver cancer diagnostic.

ROC curve analysis showed that MEX3A had moderate diagnostic ability in patients with liver cancer (AUC=0.837; Fig. 2A). The diagnostic ability of MEX3A was comparable in all clinical stages (stage I: AUC = 0.823, stage II: AUC = 0.844, stage III: AUC = 0.835, stage IV: AUC = 0.888; Figs. 2B–2E).
Figure 2

ROC analysis of the sensitivity and specificity of MEX3A to assess liver cancer.

ROC curve for MEX3A expression in normal liver tissue and tumor tissue: AUC = 0.837 (A). I stage patients: AUC = 0.823 (B). II stage patients: AUC = 0.844 (C). III stage patients: AUC = 0.835 (D). IV stage patients: AUC = 0.888 (E). Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; ROC, receiver-operating characteristics.

ROC analysis of the sensitivity and specificity of MEX3A to assess liver cancer.

ROC curve for MEX3A expression in normal liver tissue and tumor tissue: AUC = 0.837 (A). I stage patients: AUC = 0.823 (B). II stage patients: AUC = 0.844 (C). III stage patients: AUC = 0.835 (D). IV stage patients: AUC = 0.888 (E). Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; ROC, receiver-operating characteristics.

Relationship between MEX3A expression and clinical characteristics

Figure S1 showed that the cutoff point was 7.266 when samples were divided according to high and low MEX3A expression. Chi-square tests were used to analyze clinical variables between the two groups, in which high MEX3A expression was associated with cancer related mortality (p = 0.001; Table 2). High MEX3A expression was also associated with a deterioration in liver tumor histopathology (p < 0.001; Table 2).
Table 2

Association between MEX3A expression and clinical characteristics in liver cancer patients.

Clinical characteristicsMEX3A expression
VariableNo. of patientsHigh%Low%χ2p-value
Age<551175143.596625.8810.85730.001
>=552556656.4118974.12
GenderFemale1214336.757830.471.17410.279
Male2527463.2517869.53
Histological typeFibrolamellar Carcinoma30031.171.80060.547
Hepatocellular Carcinoma36311497.4424997.27
Hepatocholangiocarcinoma (Mixed)732.5641.56
Histologic gradeG155108.74517.7920.04340.000
G21784841.7413051.38
G31234841.747529.64
G41297.8331.19
stageI1724843.6412451.882.12160.512
II873027.275723.85
III853027.275523.01
IV521.8231.26
T classificationT11824941.8813352.364.96130.253
T2953529.916023.62
T3802723.085320.87
T41365.1372.76
TX10010.39
N classificationN02538673.516765.493.46880.135
N1421.7120.78
NX1152924.798633.73
M classificationM02678875.2117969.922.09530.304
M1421.7120.78
MX1022723.087529.3
radiation therapyNO34010698.1523497.501.000
Yes821.8562.5
Residual tumorR03269784.3522991.245.15330.134
R11776.09103.98
R210010.4
RX22119.57114.38
Vital statusDeceased1305547.017529.310.32810.001
Living2436252.9918170.7

Notes.

% represents the distribution of different clinical features in the single MEX3A expression group P-value in bold represent significant clinical significance (p < 0.05).

Notes. % represents the distribution of different clinical features in the single MEX3A expression group P-value in bold represent significant clinical significance (p < 0.05).

MEX3A is an independent prognostic to evaluate the survival of liver cancer patients

Kaplan–Meier curves showed that patients with high MEX3A expression were more likely to have a poor OS (p < 0.0001; Fig. 3A). Further subgroup analysis showed that high MEX3A expression was associated with poor OS for all variables: stage I/II (p = 0.0011; Fig. 3B), stage III/IV (p = 0.00022; Fig. 3C), stage G1/G2 (p < 0.0001; Fig. 3D), stage G3/G4 (p = 0.044; Fig. 3E), male (p < 0.0001; Fig. 3F), female (p = 0.0066; Fig. 3G), younger (p = 0.0026; Fig. 3H), older (p = 0.00022; Fig. 3I). Through Univariate and Multivariate Cox analysis of OS, MEX3A (HR = 2.26, 95% CI [1.58–3.23], p < 0.0001) was identified as an independent risk factor for the prognosis of liver cancer along with T stage (p < 0.0001) and residual tumors (p = 0.026; Table 3).
Figure 3

Analysis of OS between high and low expression groups of MEX3A according to the different clinical variables of liver cancer patients.

Kaplan-Meier curves of OS in all patients with liver cancer (A). Subgroup analysis was performed in stage I/II (B), stage III/IV (C), histological grade G1/G2 (D), histological grade G3/G4 (E), males (F), females (G), young patients (H) and old patients (I).

Table 3

Relationship between clinical parameters, MEX3A mRNA expression and overall survival in liver cancer patients.

Univariate analysisMultivariate analysis
ParametersHazard ratio95%CI (lower∼upper)P valueHazard ratio95%CI (lower–upper)P value
Age1.000.69–1.450.997
Gender0.800.56–1.140.220
Histological type0.990.27–3.660.986
Histologic grade1.040.84–1.30.698
Stage1.381.15–1.660.0010.860.69–1.070.163
T classification1.661.39–1.990.0001.881.48–2.380.000
N classification0.730.51–1.050.086
M classification0.720.49–1.040.077
Radiation therapy0.510.26–1.030.060
Residual tumor1.421.13–1.80.0031.331.03–1.710.026
MEX3A2.291.61–3.260.0002.261.58–3.230.000

Notes.

P-value in bold represent significant clinical significance (p < 0.05)

Analysis of OS between high and low expression groups of MEX3A according to the different clinical variables of liver cancer patients.

Kaplan-Meier curves of OS in all patients with liver cancer (A). Subgroup analysis was performed in stage I/II (B), stage III/IV (C), histological grade G1/G2 (D), histological grade G3/G4 (E), males (F), females (G), young patients (H) and old patients (I). Notes. P-value in bold represent significant clinical significance (p < 0.05) Based on the OS, we further explored the connection between RFS and MEX3A expression, and found that high MEX3A expression was associated with poor RFS (p < 0.0001; Fig. 4A). RFS was related to the expression of MEX3A for some variables, including stage I/II (p = 0.013; Fig. 4B), stage III/IV (p = 0.00027; Fig. 4C), stage G1/G2 (p < 0.0001; Fig. 4D), male (p = 0.0023; Fig. 4F), female (p = 0.0049; Fig. 4G), younger (p = 0.0025; Fig. 4H) and older (p = 0.0047; Fig. 4I). Univariate and Multivariate Cox analysis suggested that MEX3A (HR = 2.19, 95% CI [1.54–3.12], p < 0.0001) was an independent risk factor to evaluate the RFS for liver cancer along with T stage (p < 0.0001) and residual tumor status (p = 0.024; Table 4).
Figure 4

Analysis of RFS in high and low MEX3A expression groups according to the clinical variables of liver cancer patients.

Kaplan-Meier curves of RFS in all patients with liver cancer (A). Subgroup analysis was performed in stage I/II (B), stage III/IV (C), histological grade G1/G2 (D), histological grade G3/G4 (E), males (F), females (G), young patients (H) and old patients (I).

Table 4

Relationship between clinical parameters, MEX3A mRNA expression and relapse-free survival in liver cancer patients.

Univariate analysisMultivariate analysis
ParametersHazard ratio95%CI (lower∼upper)P valueHazard Ratio95%CI (lower–upper)P value
Age0.900.63–1.280.550
Gender0.990.7–1.410.966
Histological type2.020.66–6.240.220
Histologic grade0.980.8–1.210.883
Stage1.661.38–1.990.0001.130.87–1.460.358
T classification1.781.49–2.120.0001.691.29–2.210.000
N classification0.970.67–1.40.874
M classification1.170.79–1.740.432
Radiation therapy0.740.26–2.160.584
Residual tumor1.281.01–1.610.0421.321.04–1.670.024
MEX3A2.051.46–2.90.0002.191.54–3.120.000

Notes.

P-value in bold represent significant clinical significance (p < 0.05).

Analysis of RFS in high and low MEX3A expression groups according to the clinical variables of liver cancer patients.

Kaplan-Meier curves of RFS in all patients with liver cancer (A). Subgroup analysis was performed in stage I/II (B), stage III/IV (C), histological grade G1/G2 (D), histological grade G3/G4 (E), males (F), females (G), young patients (H) and old patients (I).

Discussion

Liver cancer is one of the deadliest tumors worldwide. The main risk factors for liver cancer include hepatitis B or C virus infections, the intake of aflatoxin, alcohol abuse and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (Zhang, Yang & Ericsson, 2019). Due to the lack of effective diagnostic and prognostic evaluation methods, the mortality rates of liver cancer patients have gradually increased. New molecular markers that can guide prognosis and improve the survival rates of liver cancer patients are urgently required. Our team has devoted to exploring diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in various cancers (Hou et al., 2019; Jiao et al., 2018; Jiao et al., 2019a; Jiao et al., 2019b; Jiao et al., 2019c; Jiao et al., 2019d; Li et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2019). In this study, MEX3A mRNA was identified as overexpressed in liver cancer tissue and could effectively evaluate the prognosis of liver cancer patients as an independent predictor. A strong correlation between high MEX3A expression and liver malignancy was also observed. MEX3A is known to be upregulated in Wilms renal cancer (Krepischi et al., 2016), gastric cancer (Jiang et al., 2012), bladder cancer (Huang et al., 2017) and bladder urothelial cancer (Shi & Huang, 2017). These results are consistent with our finding that MEX3A mRNA is overexpressed in liver cancer (p = 1.1e−14). Area under the ROC curves was 0.837, which provided evidence that MEX3A was a potential biomarker for liver cancer diagnosis. Interestingly, the expression of MEX3A was higher with increased histological grade (p < 0.0001), suggesting that MEX3A is related to tumor progression. The molecular mechanism underlying the oncogenic effects of MEX3A remain poorly understood. Huang et al. (2017) found that MEX3A silencing significantly inhibits the proliferation of bladder cancer cells and promotes apoptosis. Jiang et al. similarly reported that MEX3A silencing delays the cell cycle progression of gastric cancer cells. MEX3A silencing significantly inhibited cell migration and anchorage-independent growth (Jiang et al., 2012). In colorectal cells, MEX3A is a stemness-related gene (Barriga et al., 2017; Chatterji & Rustgi, 2018; Fernandez-Barral et al., 2019) that acts as a repressive factor through controlling the expression of CDX2. CDX2 inhibits colorectal tumor cells growth, invasion, progression and migration and plays an essential regulatory role in intestinal homeostasis (Bonhomme et al., 2003; Brabletz et al., 2004; Gross et al., 2008; Pereira et al., 2013b). If MEX3A is overexpressed in colonic cell lines, cell polarity and differentiation become impaired leading to carcinogenesis (Pereira et al., 2013b). Combined with our findings, the role of MEX3A in cancer progression explains its clinical links to poor histological grade and poor patient prognosis in liver cancer. It is therefore necessary to explore the relationship between MEX3A and survival. The MEX3 family shows promise as a biomarker for both cancer progression and prognosis (Pereira et al., 2013a). However, in studies by Huang et al. (Shi & Huang, 2017), no prognostic significance for cancer bladder urothelial carcinoma samples following MEX3A overexpression were observed. These results contrasted our findings and may highlight differential roles of MEX3A in cancer progression according to cancer-type. Of note, upon assessment of each sub-variable group, Kaplan–Meier curves revealed that the liver cancer patients with high MEX3A expression had a poor OS. RFS were evaluated according to MEX3A expression and showed a similar relationship with OS, excluding G3/G4 group. This highlights the unique superiority of MEX3A expression for the assessment of liver cancer survival. In particular, as shown in Tables 3 and 4, MEX3A may represent a prognostic marker for liver cancer survival (OS and RFS) under the strong confounding effects of clinicopathological features, providing useful references for clinicians to aid the development of individualized patient’s treatments. In summary, this is the first study to report the association between MEX3A mRNA and the clinical characteristics and survival of liver cancer patients. MEX3A has great potential to predict the prognosis of liver cancer patients. Future studies should explore the mechanisms by which MEX3A promotes liver cancer in vivo and in vitro. Further clinicopathological information and corresponding clinical tissue samples should be obtained to further validate these findings and to establish MEX3A as a novel prognostic for patients with liver cancer. Notes. P-value in bold represent significant clinical significance (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

This is the first study to investigate the expression of MEX3A mRNA in liver cancer, revealing its association with specific clinical features. Moreover, our results indicate that MEX3A plays a significant role in the prognosis of liver cancer and can be used as an independent factor to predict liver cancer progression. Click here for additional data file.
  36 in total

1.  Decapping and decay of messenger RNA occur in cytoplasmic processing bodies.

Authors:  Ujwal Sheth; Roy Parker
Journal:  Science       Date:  2003-05-02       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Down-regulation of the homeodomain factor Cdx2 in colorectal cancer by collagen type I: an active role for the tumor environment in malignant tumor progression.

Authors:  Thomas Brabletz; Simone Spaderna; Jochen Kolb; Falk Hlubek; Gerhard Faller; Christiane J Bruns; Andreas Jung; Jens Nentwich; Isabelle Duluc; Claire Domon-Dell; Thomas Kirchner; Jean-Noel Freund
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 3.  A census of human RNA-binding proteins.

Authors:  Stefanie Gerstberger; Markus Hafner; Thomas Tuschl
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  Mex3a Marks a Slowly Dividing Subpopulation of Lgr5+ Intestinal Stem Cells.

Authors:  Francisco M Barriga; Elisa Montagni; Miyeko Mana; Maria Mendez-Lago; Xavier Hernando-Momblona; Marta Sevillano; Amy Guillaumet-Adkins; Gustavo Rodriguez-Esteban; Simon J A Buczacki; Marta Gut; Holger Heyn; Douglas J Winton; Omer H Yilmaz; Camille Stephan-Otto Attolini; Ivo Gut; Eduard Batlle
Journal:  Cell Stem Cell       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 24.633

5.  A phosphorylated cytoplasmic autoantigen, GW182, associates with a unique population of human mRNAs within novel cytoplasmic speckles.

Authors:  Theophany Eystathioy; Edward K L Chan; Scott A Tenenbaum; Jack D Keene; Kevin Griffith; Marvin J Fritzler
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.138

6.  The Cdx2 homeobox gene has a tumour suppressor function in the distal colon in addition to a homeotic role during gut development.

Authors:  C Bonhomme; I Duluc; E Martin; K Chawengsaksophak; M-P Chenard; M Kedinger; F Beck; J-N Freund; C Domon-Dell
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  High miR-454-3p expression predicts poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Yanqing Li; Yan Jiao; Zhuo Fu; Zhangping Luo; Jing Su; Yang Li
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 3.989

Review 8.  Antimicrobial Peptides: Potential Application in Liver Cancer.

Authors:  Chunye Zhang; Ming Yang; Aaron C Ericsson
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2019-06-05       Impact factor: 5.640

9.  CDX2 regulation by the RNA-binding protein MEX3A: impact on intestinal differentiation and stemness.

Authors:  Bruno Pereira; Sofia Sousa; Rita Barros; Laura Carreto; Patrícia Oliveira; Carla Oliveira; Nicolas T Chartier; Michelina Plateroti; Jean-Pierre Rouault; Jean-Noël Freund; Marc Billaud; Raquel Almeida
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  Cytoplasmic foci are sites of mRNA decay in human cells.

Authors:  Nicolas Cougot; Sylvie Babajko; Bertrand Séraphin
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  2004-04-05       Impact factor: 10.539

View more
  15 in total

1.  Mex3a promotes oncogenesis through the RAP1/MAPK signaling pathway in colorectal cancer and is inhibited by hsa-miR-6887-3p.

Authors:  Haixia Li; Jinghui Liang; Jiang Wang; Jingyi Han; Shuang Li; Kai Huang; Chuanyong Liu
Journal:  Cancer Commun (Lond)       Date:  2021-02-27

Review 2.  The Role of the RNA-Binding Protein Family MEX-3 in Tumorigenesis.

Authors:  Simon Jasinski-Bergner; André Steven; Barbara Seliger
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-07-23       Impact factor: 5.923

3.  The Prediction and Prognostic Significance of INPP5K Expression in Patients with Liver Cancer.

Authors:  Ruobing Wang; Yan Jiao; Yanqing Li; Siyang Ye; Guoqiang Pan; Shanshan Qin; Fang Hua; Yahui Liu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-04-25       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  SOX11 promotes epithelial/mesenchymal hybrid state and alters tropism of invasive breast cancer cells.

Authors:  Erik Oliemuller; Richard Newman; Siu Man Tsang; Shane Foo; Gareth Muirhead; Farzana Noor; Syed Haider; Iskander Aurrekoetxea-Rodríguez; Maria dM Vivanco; Beatrice A Howard
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 8.140

5.  Evaluation of FGFR1 as a diagnostic biomarker for ovarian cancer using TCGA and GEO datasets.

Authors:  Huiting Xiao; Kun Wang; Dan Li; Ke Wang; Min Yu
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Systematic Construction and Validation of an RNA-Binding Protein-Associated Model for Prognosis Prediction in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Siyuan Tian; Jingyi Liu; Keshuai Sun; Yansheng Liu; Jiahao Yu; Shuoyi Ma; Miao Zhang; Gui Jia; Xia Zhou; Yulong Shang; Ying Han
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 6.244

7.  MicroRNA-139-5p Suppresses Cell Malignant Behaviors in Breast Cancer through Targeting MEX3A.

Authors:  Jian Chu; Tangya Li; Lei Li; Huiwen Fan
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2021-11-02       Impact factor: 2.238

8.  Comprehensive Analysis of Prognostic Value of MEX3A and Its Relationship with Immune Infiltrates in Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  Panpan Zhang; Tong Su; Shu Zhang
Journal:  J Immunol Res       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 4.818

Review 9.  Oncogenic Potential of the Dual-Function Protein MEX3A.

Authors:  Marcell Lederer; Simon Müller; Markus Glaß; Nadine Bley; Christian Ihling; Andrea Sinz; Stefan Hüttelmaier
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-07

10.  GPSM2 Serves as an Independent Prognostic Biomarker for Liver Cancer Survival.

Authors:  Dingquan Yang; Fujian Ji; Yanqing Li; Yan Jiao; Xuedong Fang
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.