31 research outputs found

    ECRG4 is a candidate tumor suppressor gene frequently hypermethylated in colorectal carcinoma and glioma

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cancer cells display widespread changes in DNA methylation that may lead to genetic instability by global hypomethylation and aberrant silencing of tumor suppressor genes by focal hypermethylation. In turn, altered DNA methylation patterns have been used to identify putative tumor suppressor genes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a methylation screening approach, we identified <it>ECRG4 </it>as a differentially methylated gene. We analyzed different cancer cells for <it>ECRG4 </it>promoter methylation by COBRA and bisulfite sequencing. Gene expression analysis was carried out by semi-quantitative RT-PCR. The <it>ECRG4 </it>coding region was cloned and transfected into colorectal carcinoma cells. Cell growth was assessed by MTT and BrdU assays. ECRG4 localization was analyzed by fluorescence microscopy and Western blotting after transfection of an <it>ECRG4-eGFP </it>fusion gene.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found a high frequency of <it>ECRG4 </it>promoter methylation in various cancer cell lines. Remarkably, aberrant methylation of <it>ECRG4 </it>was also found in primary human tumor tissues, including samples from colorectal carcinoma and from malignant gliomas. <it>ECRG4 </it>hypermethylation associated strongly with transcriptional silencing and its expression could be re-activated <it>in vitro </it>by demethylating treatment with 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine. Overexpression of <it>ECRG4 </it>in colorectal carcinoma cells led to a significant decrease in cell growth. In transfected cells, ECRG4 protein was detectable within the Golgi secretion machinery as well as in the culture medium.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p><it>ECRG4 </it>is silenced via promoter hypermethylation in different types of human cancer cells. Its gene product may act as inhibitor of cell proliferation in colorectal carcinoma cells and may play a role as extracellular signaling molecule.</p

    Rasterstereographic analysis of axial back surface rotation in standing versus forward bending posture in idiopathic scoliosis

    No full text
    The forward bending test according to Adams and rib hump quantification by scoliometer are common clinical examination techniques in idiopathic scoliosis, although precise data about the change of axial surface rotation in forward bending posture are not available. In a pilot study the influence of leg length inequalities on the back shape of five normal subjects was clarified. Then 91 patients with idiopathic scoliosis with Cobb-angles between 20° and 82° were examined by rasterstereography, a 3D back surface analysis system. The axial back surface rotation in standing posture was compared with that in forward bending posture and additionally with a scoliometer measurement in forward bending posture. The changes of back shape in forward bending posture were correlated with the Cobb-angle, the level of the apex of the scoliotic primary curve and the age of the patient. Averaged over all patients, the back surface rotation amplitude increased from 23.1° in standing to 26.3° in forward bending posture. The standard deviation of this difference was high (6.1°). The correlation of back surface rotation amplitude in standing with that in forward bending posture was poor (R2=0.41) as was the correlation of back surface rotation in standing posture with the scoliometer in forward bending posture measured rotation (R2=0.35). No significant correlation could be found between the change of back shape in forward bending and the degree of deformity (R2=0.07), likewise no correlation with the height of the apex of the scoliosis (R2=0.005) and the age of the patient (R2=0.001). Before forward bending test leg length inequalities have to be compensated accurately. Compared to the standing posture, forward bending changes back surface rotation. However, this change varies greatly between patients, and is independent of the type and degree of scoliosis. Furthermore remarkable differences were found between scoliometer measurement of the rib hump and rasterstereographic measurement of the vertebral rotation. Therefore the forward bending test and the identification of idiopathic scoliosis rotation by scoliometer can be markedly different compared to rasterstereographic surface measurement in the standing posture

    Does lateral vertebral translation correspond to Cobb angle and relate in the same way to axial vertebral rotation and rib hump index? A radiographic analysis on idiopathic scoliosis

    No full text
    The deformity in idiopathic scoliosis (IS) is three dimensional in nature and effective correction involves all three planes. Even though the vertebral translation (VT) is an accepted element in the deformity along with vertebral rotation(VR) as reported by Asher and Cook (Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(12):1386–1391, 1995), Kotwicki et al. (Study Health Technol Inf 123:164–168, 2006) and Kotwicki and Napiontek (Pediatr Orthop 28(2):225–229, 2008), rib hump (rib hump index (RI)) and Cobb angle as reported by Aaro and Dahlborn (Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 6(6):567–572, 1981), it was assumed that VT was represented by adequately by Cobb angle and it was not analysed individually. We hypothesized that the Cobb angle and the VT measured in axial plane on CT scan and may not represent the same measurement and factors like coronal plane vertebral tilt,VR and vertebral deformation might affect them in different ways. Hence, VT should be considered as a separate variable and its relationship with VR, RI and Cobb angle should be investigated. Since the newer implants depend on curve translation and derotation for correction studying the role of VT and the relationships is important. VT, VR and RI were measured in CT scans of 75 patients with IS and correlated with Cobb angle. Regression analysis was used to identify the influence of the variables on each other. All the variables significantly correlated with one another but the correlation of Cobb and VT is not perfectly linear and it cannot be used to represent VT. VT influences RI much more than Cobb angle or VR. VT, therefore, merits further study treating it as an independent variable
    corecore