用SELDI技术预测吉非替尼治疗肺癌疗效的前瞻性研究报告

目的:介绍SELDL-TOF-MS技术预测吉非替尼治疗肺癌疗效观察,探索新的用药指征.方法:应用CM10弱阳离子芯片结合表面增强飞行时间质谱(SELDL-TOF-MS)技术检测9例晚期肺癌患者口服吉非替尼前血清样本的蛋白质谱,口服吉非替尼1个月后,根据实体瘤近期疗效标准分为服药有效组(CR PR)(4例)和无效组(SD PD)(5例),利用BiomarkerWizard软件比较各组间的血清蛋白质指纹图谱.结果:有效组与无效组相比有4个蛋白质峰有显著差异性,M/Z分别为4889,1576,1762和8693,与无效组相比.有效组上调的峰为2个,其M/Z为1576和1762,下调的峰为2个,其M/Z为4889和8693.结论:SELDI-TOF-MS技术可筛选出预测吉非替尼治疗疗效的相关蛋白质组指纹,此方法捕获的蛋白质组指纹,可作为一种选择用药的新指标.     

细胞自噬在吉非替尼治疗非小细胞肺癌中的作用及其机制研究

目的:观察吉非替尼对非小细胞肺癌细胞自噬的影响,并探讨其机制。方法:将BalB/CA-nu品系裸小鼠分成两组,各组20只,均造肺癌模型,其中吉非替尼治疗组小鼠在肺癌组模型的基础上给予吉非替尼25mg/kg 14d,停药后剖杀。取组织切片,通过免疫荧光、RT-PCR以及Western blot的试验方法检测自噬相关基因Beclin1和MAPLC3的表达。结果:免疫荧光、RT-PCR以及Western blot的试验方法检测均发现肺癌组小鼠组织中Beclin1和MAPLC3表达较低,而在吉非替尼处理组中,Beclin1和MAPLC3的表达明显升高,差异有统计学意义。结论:吉非替尼可以通过增强细胞自噬从而发挥对非小细胞肺癌的抑制作用。     

Mcl-1参与非小细胞肺癌对吉非替尼耐药的实验研究

目的:探究人髓细胞白血病基因-1(myeloid cell leukemia-1,Mcl-1)是否参与非小细胞肺癌对吉非替尼的耐药。方法:应用Western blot检测Mcl-1在吉非替尼敏感细胞PC-9和耐药细胞H1975表达差异;梯度浓度的吉非替尼作用于PC-9细胞后,Western blot实验检测B淋巴细胞瘤-2基因(B-cell lymphoma-2,Bcl-2)家族中抗凋亡蛋白的表达变化;应用Western blot实验检测Mcl-1在PC-9和H1975细胞内降解速度差异。结果:Mcl-1在PC-9细胞内的表达明显低于H1975细胞,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),并且随着吉非替尼作用浓度的升高,Mcl-1表达逐渐降低,而Bcl-2和Bcl-x L表达基本不变,并且PC-9细胞内Mcl-1降解更迅速,半衰期明显缩短。结论:非小细胞肺癌对吉非替尼耐药可能与Mcl-1的表达量上调,降解速度减慢,半衰期延长有关。     

ROR1激活AKT/FOXO1信号介导非小细胞肺癌吉非替尼耐药

EGFR-TKI靶向治疗在非小细胞肺癌（non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC）综合治疗中显示出重要作用;然而,耐药性却极大限制其临床治疗效果。受体酪氨酸激酶样孤儿受体（receptor tyrosine kinase-like orphan receptor 1, ROR1）是I型受体酪氨酸激酶家族中的成员,在肿瘤发生发展中发挥重要作用。本研究拟探讨ROR1介导非小细胞肺癌吉非替尼耐药的作用及机制。采用吉非替尼反复诱导非小细胞肺癌HCC827细胞,建立吉非替尼耐药细胞株HCC827/GR。应用荧光定量PCR和Western 印迹检测HCC827/GR内ROR1的表达。采用shRNA的方法体外检测ROR1敲除前后HCC827/GR对吉非替尼耐药的变化,采用体外检测ROR1过表达前后HCC827对吉非替尼耐药的变化。体内检测ROR1敲除前后HCC827/GR对吉非替尼耐药的变化。Western 印迹检测HCC827/GR内ROR1下游信号分子的活化。实时荧光定量PCR及Western 印迹结果显示,HCC827/GR耐药细胞中的ROR1 mRNA和蛋白质表达水平显著高于HCC827敏感细胞。体外干扰ROR1表达,可明显增强HCC827/GR耐药细胞对吉非替尼的敏感性 (IC50 15.3±3.69 vs. 4.2±1.38),增加吉非替尼诱导的细胞凋亡 (20.5±2.52 vs. 41.8±3.74)。体外过表达ROR1显著增强HCC827敏感细胞对吉非替尼的耐药性(IC50 0.8±0.52 vs. 2.2±0.87)。体内裸鼠移植瘤实验同样发现,干扰ROR1能增强HCC827/GR移植瘤对吉非替尼的敏感性。进一步研究发现,AKT/FOXO1信号在HCC827/GR耐药细胞中异常活化,而干扰ROR1能够抑制AKT的磷酸化,并上调FOXO1的表达。上述结果表明,ROR1参与非小细胞肺癌吉非替尼耐药,抑制ROR1能够逆转吉非替尼耐药,其机制与ROR1调控AKT/FOXO1信号有关。     

FGFR1通过调控PI3K/AKT/mTOR信号通路介导非小细胞肺癌对吉非替尼的耐药

目的:探讨成纤维细胞生长因子受体1(FGFR1)诱导非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)吉非替尼获得性耐药的机制。方法:用吉非替尼诱导PC9细胞构建耐药细胞株PC9/GR,用CCK-8、平板克隆形成、transwell技术检测细胞的增殖和迁移能力,用流式细胞术检测细胞的凋亡状况,qRT-PCR、免疫荧光和蛋白免疫印迹技术检测基因表达水平。进一步采用FGFR1抑制剂PD173074或si RNA-FGFR1处理PC9/GR细胞,检测细胞的增殖、迁移、克隆形成能力的变化及Akt、p-Akt、m TOR和p-mTOR表达的变化。结果:PC9/GR细胞的增殖、迁移及对吉非替尼的耐受能力显著增强;FGFR1在PC9/GR细胞中的表达水平显著升高;用PD173074处理PC9细胞后,其增殖、迁移能力及对吉非替尼的耐受能力显著下降;敲低FGFR1后Akt和m TOR的磷酸化水平显著下降。结论:FGFR1通过PI3K/AKT/mTOR信号通路介导非小细胞肺癌对吉非替尼的耐药。     

厚朴酚联合吉非替尼对A549非小细胞肺癌细胞的干预作用*

目的: 探讨厚朴酚与吉非替尼协同影响非小细胞肺癌A549细胞的作用。方法: 以浓度为6.25～500 μmol/L厚朴酚、0.625～100 μmol/L吉非替尼分别处理A549细胞24 h,CCK-8实验检测细胞活力 (n=3),选24 h及100 μmol/L厚朴酚与5 μmol/L吉非替尼作后续处理(n=3);采用对照组、厚朴酚组、吉非替尼组和厚朴酚+吉非替尼组的析因分析设计;克隆形成检测细胞增殖;蛋白印迹测蛋白表达;流式细胞术检测细胞凋亡及分选CD44⁺和CD133⁺细胞。结果: 与对照组比,厚朴酚和吉非替尼组的克隆形成率显著降低(P＜0.05);凋亡率显著升高(P＜ 0.05);CD44⁺和CD133⁺细胞数量显著减少(P＜0.05);Ki67和PCNA及干细胞标记蛋白SOX2和OCT4表达显著下调(P＜0.05);Bax/Bcl-2表达比例显著上调(P＜0.05)。与厚朴酚组或吉非替尼组比较,厚朴酚+吉非替尼组进一步促进了上述改变(P＜0.05),且凋亡率、Bax/Bcl-2、SOX2和OCT4等指标都存在厚朴酚和吉非替尼的交互作用(P＜ 0.05)。结论: 厚朴酚与吉非替尼促进A549细胞凋亡和抑制其干细胞样特性,且联合用药效果优于单一给药。二者对A549细胞的抑癌作用有交互影响。     

吉非替尼对中、晚期非小细胞肺癌患者血清MMP-7、MMP-9表达的影响

为了研究吉非替尼对中、晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者血清基质金属蛋白酶-7(MMP-7)、血清基质金属蛋白酶-9(MMP-9)表达的影响。本研究选取2014年9月至2015年8月本院收治的60例中、晚期NSCLC患者,根据随机数表法分为对照组30例和实验组30例。所有患者均采取营养、镇痛等对症支持治疗,对照组在此基础上采用GP方案,在第1~3天静脉滴注25 mg/m~2的顺铂,在第1天、第8天静脉滴注1 000 mg/m~2的吉西他滨;实验组在对症支持治疗基础上予以吉非替尼,口服,250 mg/次,1次/d,所有患者均以4周为1个治疗周期。观察患者治疗前和治疗1个周期后MMP-7、MMP-9表达情况,两组患者的不良反应率与临床疗效之间比较。通过治疗分析后,实验组的临床疗效率显著高于对照组,93.33%(28/30)比70.00%(21/30)(p0.05)。实验组的血清MMP-7、MMP-9表达显著低于对照组,(0.27±0.07)ng/m L比(0.64±0.04)ng/m L,(270.92±30.24)ng/m L比(335.88±31.01)ng/m L(p0.05)。实验组的不良反应率显著低于对照组,6.67%(2/30)比30.00%(9/30)(p0.05)。研究结果表明在治疗中、晚期NSCLC患者中,吉非替尼能明显降低MMP-7、MMP-9的表达,临床疗效显著,安全性高。     

“三两三”通过巨噬细胞发挥对吉非替尼所致皮疹的抗炎作用

吉非替尼所致的皮疹是治疗癌症中的难题,而中药验方三两三对于该皮疹具有较好的临床疗效。由于三两三治疗皮疹的机制尚不清楚,本文探究了该中药验方对吉非替尼所致皮疹的抗炎作用。将Brown Norway(BN)大鼠随机分为五组：野生型对照组、吉非替尼皮疹模型对照组、皮疹模型三两三低剂量组、中剂量组、高剂量组。采用吉非替尼(上午)和三两三(下午)同天给药4周。三两三低、中、高剂量组分别按照2 mg/kg/day、4 mg/kg/day、8 mg/kg/day 的剂量对BN模型大鼠进行灌胃,对照组给予纯净水。使用流式细胞仪对巨噬细胞进行分类;免疫组化检测蛋白质的表达;蛋白芯片检测与炎症相关的信号通路和炎症因子。结果表明,与野生型对照组相比,吉非替尼皮疹模型对照组中巨噬细胞炎症蛋白(MIP)-1、MIP-2、髓细胞触发受体-1 (TREM-1)和IL-17A的表达显著增加。三两三干预组与吉非替尼皮疹模型对照组相比,MIP-1、MIP-2、TREM-1和IL-17A的表达明显降低,且三两三对吉非替尼所致皮疹的抗炎作用与巨噬细胞的IL-17A信号通路密切相关。     

表面增强激光解吸离子化技术稳定性的分析

目的:表面增强激光解吸离子化(surface enhanced laser desorption/ionization,SELDI)技术的重复性和稳定性进行分析.方法:将17名患者分成A、B两组,A组12名肿瘤患者清晨空腹血,离心后分成两份:一份立即行SELDI技术检测,另一份-80℃保存一周后再行检测;B组5名肿瘤患者连续两天各采血一次,并于采血当天行SELDI技术检测.所捕获的指纹经Biomarker Wiz-ard3.1、ProteinChip 3.2和Biomarker Pattern软件分析有无差异指纹.结果:两种采样方法都发现了差异指纹,其中有部分差异指纹在两种采样方法的检测中都出现,所有差异指纹M/Z(质荷比)由731到1167.结论:SELDI技术的确存在有重复性差、系统不稳定因素,但都发生在M/Z小分子量位段,对大位段数据分析未发现有明显影响.     

恶性肿瘤患者病情恶化前后与持续稳定时蛋白质指纹的比较分析

目的:比较分析恶性肿瘤患者病情恶化前后与持续稳定时的蛋白质指纹.方法:选择应用CM10弱阳离子芯片结合表面增强飞行时间质谱(surface enhanced laser desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectrometry,SELDI-TOF-MS)技术检测的107例经手术治疗,且LGT指纹(指血清中出现质核比(M/Z):11000+H～12000+H的蛋白质指纹,设定为LGT阳性指纹,反之为阴性)在手术前为阴性的恶性肿瘤患者,随访1年,根据随访后LGT指纹仍为阴性组(95人)A组,和由阴性转变为阳性组(12人)B组.其中A组第1次检测结果设为A1组,第2次检测结果设为A2组;B组第1次检测结果设为B1组,第2次检测结果设为B2组.采用Protein Chip 3.2.0和Biomarker Wizard 3.1软件比较各组间有无差异指纹.结果:A1组-A2组:M/Z:2073、4116、2901、1558、4052、2048、1401、1298、1509、2888指纹上调,M/Z:3568、10050、2600、4629、9287、14822指纹下调;A1组-B1组:M/Z:8972、8460及8767指纹上调,M/Z:3192、3155、4326、4281、4381、3304、5448及2942指纹下调;A2组-B1组:M/Z:15851、15534、8460指纹上调,M/Z:3285、3304、3346、4178、3192、3266、951、5167、3930、4271、4052、4961、4259及2681指纹下调;B1组-B2组:M/Z:11648、11873、11489、11532及11405指纹上调,M/Z:8767指纹下调;A1组-B2组:M/Z:11618、11405、11648、11489、11532和11744指纹上调,无表达下调的指纹;A2组-B2组:M/Z:11489、11648、11405、11532、11318及11873指纹上调,无表达下调的指纹.结论:恶性肿瘤患者其LGT蛋白质指纹在疾病初期及持续稳定期均呈阴性时,LGT阳性表达是病情恶化的主要标识.本研究中,血清蛋白质指纹M/Z:8767上调和下调所表达的意义是不同的,尤其是在动态观察下,从有到消失及从无到出现,代表病情演变的两个不同结果,其意义仍需进一步研究证实.M/Z:8460蛋白质指纹表达上调,M/Z:3192、3304表达下调,可视为预示日后病情发生进展的蛋白质指纹.     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor