| Literature DB >> 34052986 |
Jakub Włodarczyk1, Marcin Włodarczyk2, Marta Zielińska3, Bartłomiej Jędrzejczak2, Łukasz Dziki2, Jakub Fichna3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the fact that colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in men and women, its current treatment remains unsatisfactory and therefore novel studies proposing new approaches are necessary. A high sugar diet is believed to promote carcinogenesis. Fructose is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract by members of the glucose transporter family-GLUT. The aim of the study was to characterize the expression of GLUT5 at mRNA level in CRC patients. Moreover, our goal was to elucidate the molecular role of GLUT5 in CRC and assess whether GLUT5 inhibitor may affect the viability of colon cancer cells.Entities:
Keywords: Colorectal cancer; Fructose; GLUT5; N-[4-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrophenyl]-1,3-benzodioxol-5-amine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34052986 PMCID: PMC8180478 DOI: 10.1007/s43440-021-00281-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmacol Rep ISSN: 1734-1140 Impact factor: 3.024
Patients’ demography and cancer characteristics
| Age | 60.9 years |
| Sex | |
| Male | |
| Female | |
| Localization | |
| Sigmoid | |
| Descending colon | |
| Transverse colon | |
| Ascending colon | |
| Grade | |
| G1 | |
| G2 | |
| G3 | |
| Stage | |
| II | |
| III | |
| IV |
Fig. 1GLUT5 expression at the mRNA level in samples from CRC tissue and from healthy margin colon mucosa. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. *Significant difference at p < 0.001 relative to the healthy margin. Statistical significance was determined using unpaired t test
Correlation between GLUT5 relative expression in cancer tissue and tumor grade and stage assessed by Spearman’s rho correlation
| GLUT5 relative gene expression | Grade | Stage | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 ( | G2 ( | G3 ( | II ( | III ( | IV ( | |
| Mean ± SD | 130.84 ± 65.05 | 168.25 ± 103.19 | 277.59 ± 128.86 | 133.16 ± 62.05 | 189.89 ± 132.67 | 232.06 ± 119.00 |
| 0.0309 | 0.0663 | |||||
| Correlation rho | 0.3946 | 0.3396 | ||||
Fig. 2Cytotoxicity evaluation of MSNBA in HT-29 and CoN cells. Cells were exposed to MSNBA at various concentrations for 24 h, and then cell viability was detected by MTT assay. Data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6). Statistical significance from the two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc test: *p < 0.001 versus CoN control group; $p < 0.001 versus HT-29 control group
Fig. 3Cytotoxicity evaluation of MSNBA and fructose in HT-29. Cells were exposed to MSNBA and fructose at various concentrations for 24 h, and then cell viability was detected by MTT assay. Data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 4). Statistical significance from the two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc test: *p < 0.001 versus control group
Fig. 4Cytotoxicity evaluation of MSNBA and time of incubation in HT-29. Cells were exposed to MSNBA at various concentrations for 24 or 48 h, and then cell viability was detected by MTT assay. Data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6). Statistical significance from the two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test