Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0282612 (PIN)
 2,291 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Cell adhesion molecules have been suggested to function as tumor suppressor molecules. We have been studying one of the epithelial cell adhesion molecules (C-CAM), which belongs to the immunoglobulin gene superfamily. Transfection of a C-CAM cDNA expression vector into a highly tumorigenic human prostate cancer cell line (PC-3) suppresses tumor formation in nude mice. Alternatively, reducing C-CAM expression levels in the nontumorigenic rat prostate epithelial cell line NbE by the antisense expression vector markedly increases tumorigenicity of NbE cells in nude mice. These results suggest that C-CAM may be a tumor suppressor in prostate cancer. In this study, we examined the relationship between C-CAM expression during human prostate development and neoplastic progression by immunohistochemical staining of frozen sections. C-CAM predominantly localized on the plasma membrane of the basal cell layer in both the fetal and normal adult prostate gland. However, an overall decreased staining was seen in benign prostatic hyperplasia and high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Furthermore, C-CAM was not detected in prostate carcinomas. Thus, a decrease in C-CAM expression may be an early event in hyperplastic/neoplastic transformation. These observations support the suggestion that C-CAM is a tumor suppressor in prostate cancer progression.
 ...
PMID:Consistent expression of an epithelial cell adhesion molecule (C-CAM) during human prostate development and loss of expression in prostate cancer: implication as a tumor suppressor. 753 59

This paper reviews the current advances in molecular genetics and biology of prostate cancer development. Many genetic alterations in prostate cancer have been identified. Some of these changes are early events and occur in prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and primary cancer of prostate, some others occur in late stages of prostate cancer development. The significant genetic changes for prostate cancer include losses for chromosomes 8p, 5q, 13q, and so forth; gains for chromosomes 8q, 11p, 3q, and so forth; aneusomies of chromosomes 7 and 8; and allelic losses at chromosome regions 8p 12-21, 10q23-24, 16q22.1-24, and 7q31.1-31.2. The alteration of the p53 tumor-suppressor gene plays a role in a subset of advanced prostate cancer. Expressions of TGF-beta receptors, E-cadherin, C-CAM, KAI1, and some integrins have an inverse correlation with either prostatic carcinogenesis or progression of prostate cancer, or both. Protein expression of BCL-2 in prostate cancer is highly correlated with cancer progression and androgen-independent phenotype. More studies need to be performed to identify specific genes for those genetic alterations and to explore the clinical use of the known molecules in prostate cancer.
 ...
PMID:Molecular advances in prostate cancer. 909 May 1

Defense mechanisms in woody tissue are poorly understood, especially in vine colonized by trunk pathogens. However, several investigations suggest that molecular mechanisms in the central tissue of Vitis vinifera L. may be involved in trunk-defense reactions. In this work, the perception of Phaeoacremonium aleophilum and Phaeomoniella chlamydospora alone or together were investigated in cuttings of Cabernet Sauvignon trunks. Plant responses were analyzed at the tissue level via optical microscopy and at the cellular level via plant-gene expression. The microscopy results revealed that, 6 weeks after pathogen inoculation, newly formed vascular tissue is less developed in plants inoculated with P. chlamydospora than in plants inoculated with P. aleophilum. Co-inoculation with both pathogens resulted in an intermediate phenotype. Further analysis showed the relative expression of the following grapevine genes: PAL, PR10.3, TL, TLb, Vv17.3, STS, STS8, CWinv, PIN, CAM, LOX at 10, 24, 48, and 120 h post-inoculation (hpi). The gene set was induced by wounding before inoculation with the different pathogens, except for the genes CAM and LOX. This response generated significant noise, but the expression of the grapevine genes (PAL, PR10.3, TL, TLb, Vv17.3, STS, STS8, CWinv, and PIN) still differed due to perception of mycelium by the plant. Furthermore, at 48 hpi, the induction of PAL and STS8 differs depending on the pathogen, and a specific pattern emerges from the different inductions associated with the different treatments. Based on these results, we conclude that V. vinifera L. trunk perceives the presence of pathogens differently depending on the inoculated pathogen or even on the combination of co-inoculated pathogens, suggesting a defense orchestration in the perennial organs of woody plants.
...
PMID:Variations in Early Response of Grapevine Wood Depending on Wound and Inoculation Combinations with Phaeoacremonium aleophilum and Phaeomoniella chlamydospora. 2701 94