A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Breast and renal cancer-Derived endothelial colony forming cells share a common gene signature. | LitMetric

Background: Neovascularisation supports the metastatic switch in many aggressive solid cancers. Tumour neovessels are mostly lined by endothelial cells sprouting from nearby capillaries, but they could also be contributed by circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs). However, scant information is available about tumour-derived EPCs.

Methods: We carried out the first thorough, unbiased comparison of phenotype, function and genotype of normal versus tumour-derived endothelial colony forming cells (ECFCs), a truly endothelial EPC subtype. We used healthy donors-derived ECFCs (N-ECFCs) as control for breast cancer (BC)- and renal cell carcinoma (RCC)-derived ECFCs.

Results: We found that both BC- and RCC-ECFCs belong to the endothelial lineage. Normal and tumour-derived ECFCs did not differ in terms of proliferative and tubulogenic rates. However, RCC-ECFCs were more resistant to rapamycin-induced apoptosis, whereas BC-ECFCs were more sensitive as compared with N-ECFCs. Gene expression profiling revealed 382 differentially expressed genes (DEGs; 192 upregulated and 150 downregulated) and 71 DEGs (33 upregulated, 38 downregulated) when comparing, respectively, BC- and RCC-ECFCs with N-ECFCs. Nonetheless, BC- and RCC-derived ECFCs shared 35 DEGs, 10 of which were validated by qRT-PCR; such 35 DEGs are organised in a gene network centred on FOS.

Conclusion: These results provide the first clear-cut evidence that BC- and RCC-derived ECFCs exhibit an altered gene expression profile as compared with N-ECFCs; yet, they share a common gene signature that could highlight novel and more specific targets to suppress tumour vascularisation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.01.025DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

endothelial colony
8
colony forming
8
forming cells
8
share common
8
common gene
8
gene signature
8
bc- rcc-ecfcs
8
compared n-ecfcs
8
gene expression
8
bc- rcc-derived
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!