MMP11在肺鳞癌和腺癌组织中的表达及与预后的关系

MMP11属于MMPs家族,它与肿瘤的浸润转移密切相关.探讨MMP11在肺鳞癌和腺癌组织中的表达,及其与浸润转移和预后的关系.应用免疫组化检测50例肺鳞癌和38例肺腺癌组织中MMP11蛋白的表达.结果显示,MMP11在肺鳞癌和腺癌组织中的阳性率分别为68.0%(34/50)和73.7%(28/38)(P=0.563).MMP11的阳性率随着肺癌T分期的增加、淋巴结转移和TNM分期的增加而增加(P<0.05).Kaplan-meier单因素生存分析显示,MMP11表达(P=0.001)、T分期(P=0.009)、淋巴结转移(P<0.001)和TNM分期(P<0.001)对生存期的影响有统计学意义.Cox多因素分析显示,只有TNM分期(P=0.028)是肺癌的独立预后危险因素,MMP11(P=0.105)不是肺癌的独立预后危险因素.MMP11的表达与肺癌的浸润、转移及生存期密切相关.     

LPS的胞内受体Caspase-11的研究进展

以往的研究认为,TLR4是内毒素(LPS)的胞膜受体.新近的研究发现含半胱氨酸的天冬氨酸蛋白水解酶11(Caspase-11,Casp11)可能在胞内LPS的识别中发挥关键作用.Caspase-11与胞内LPS结合后被激活.活化的Casp-11一方面剪切下游gasdermin D分子进而介导细胞焦亡(pyroptosis),另一方面激活NLRP3/ASC-Casp-1通路,使细胞分泌促炎因子IL-1β和IL-18等.Casp-11还能通过促进吞噬体和溶酶体融合,增强细胞对革兰氏阴性菌的杀灭.在严重内毒素血症过程中,由于Casp-11过度活化,大量细胞发生焦亡,致使大量胞内促炎介质被释放到胞外,导致机体出现难以调控的炎症反应,最终发展成内毒素休克.Casp-11是内毒素休克发生的关键分子.本文对Casp-11在LPS的识别、活化及效应方面的最新进展进行综述.     

生长分化因子11：TGF-β超家族的新成员

生长分化因子11(growth differentiation factor 11,GDF11),是新近发现的TGF-β超家族成员,属于BMPs亚家族的一种分泌性蛋白.在早期胚胎发育中,GDF11通过负性调节作用,参与包括骨骼、肾脏、胰腺、视网膜、嗅神经等组织器官的形成和分化,是胚胎正常发育不可或缺的分子.近年来研究发现,GDF11有明显的改善大脑认知、逆转心肌肥厚、改善骨骼肌代谢等功能,显示出GDF11广泛的生物学活性和潜在的应用价值.然而,一项最新的研究报道得出与此相反的结果.本文从GDF11的发现、研究历程、结构、表达及表达调控、信号传导通路和功能方面概括GDF11的基本情况及研究现状,为今后的研究提供思路.     

白介素11拮抗剂对实验性小鼠肺纤维化的作用

目的:观察拮抗白介素11(IL-11)对博来霉素(BLM)诱导的实验性小鼠肺纤维化的作用.方法:将120只雄性C57BL/6小鼠随机分为正常对照组、IL-11拮抗剂组、BLM组和BLM+IL-11拮抗剂组(每组各30只).BLM组和BLM+IL-11拮抗剂组小鼠一次性气管注射BLM(1.5 mg/kg)诱导肺纤维化.于...     

核糖体蛋白L11及其功能

核糖体蛋白L11(ribosome protein L11)是一种高度保守的蛋白质,是蛋白质合成过程中所必需的.L11由N-末端和C-末端两个结构域组成.L11的N-末端在蛋白质合成中作为分子开关,在多肽链的延伸阶段与延伸因子EF-G相互作用,对EF-G依赖的迁移过程是必需的;在肽链终止阶段与肽链释放因子RF1相互作用,对RF1识别终止密码子UAG的功能是必需的.L11上有一个与噻唑类(thiazole)抗生素结合的靶位点,这种结合会抑制依赖延伸因子的核糖体的活性.     

高产紫杉醇内生真菌J11的鉴定

从南方红豆杉(Taxus chinensis var.mairei)的幼茎中分离出一株产紫杉醇内生真菌J11.菌株J11的发酵提取物经高分辨质谱分析,证实J11菌株可产紫杉醇.提取该菌株的基因组DNA,扩增核糖体internal transcribed spacer(ITS)和28S核糖体large subunit rRNA gene(LSU)序列,经测序获得该菌的ITS序列和LSU序列.序列比对和检索结果表明,J11菌株为葡萄座腔菌(Botryosphaeria ssp.)属中的一个新菌株.形态学鉴定符合葡萄座腔菌属特征,高效液相色谱分析表明,J11菌株的紫杉醇含量约为615.1μg/L.本研究首次证实葡萄座腔菌J11是一株高产紫杉醇野生型菌株,具有潜在的应用前景.     

高秆突变体Mh-11的株高遗传研究

Mh-11是从矮秆品种桂朝2号辐射诱变后代中产生的高秆突变体.用Mh-11与sd-11矮秆、非sd-11矮秆和普通高秆材料杂交,通过对F1、F2、F3 等世代以及测交后代的株高进行遗传分析,结果表明Mh-11的高秆特性是由1对隐性抑制基因控制的.该抑制基因能调节sd-11基因的表达,而对由非sd-11基因控制的矮秆没有抑制作用,这一隐性抑制基因暂时被定名为i-sd-11(t).还讨论了该基因的遗传学意义和可能的育种利用价值.     

介绍一道着重考查学生能力的习题

‘根据以下果蝇染色体及部分基因(图解),在各题所提供的备选答案中,选出一个正确的答案,将其代号填人括号内。 注:图(l)和图(2)中的I、11、111、Iv表示不同种类的染色体。图(1)中的B、b、E、e、v、v、w、w表示位于染色体上的不同的基因。 (一)比较图(l)和图(2),回答问题1一七 1.图(l)和图(2)中表示性染色体的是哪一对?()。 A .1和11 B.11和111 C.I和I C .1和IV E.nl和IV 2.图(l)可表示果蝇哪一类细胞中的染色体组成?()。 A.受精卵B.精原细胞B.体细胞 D.生殖细胞E.卵原细胞 3.从图(l)和图(2)中可看出,果蝇的性别决定是属于哪一种类型…     

兽类学报第11卷关健词索引

二 画 红细胞 11(3):200 氧化磷队化 11(1):61 。,_。。。。。、。 共存 门(2):8了 耗氧量二1(豆):4s人“””NuhN 玉蠢 二二 w。夏二二 沽 三 画 亚种1。(4):294 荒漠11(2):87 大熊猫11(1):11(4):246 H活率11(4):270 热值11(2):131 大灵猫 11(3):200 观察 11(4):2419汛行为 11(1):33大鼠二1(二)二 补体山受体11(3):200 递归群划分法11(2):118鸨Lx讣“芒’*** 七 画 泛丽市汀忘 小哺乳动物11(4):279‘7二巴—““““’““““小灵猫 11(3):200 低氧 11(1):56161W原鼠兔 11(1):56;61,(3):22口 .IL___.、。、。^^。、。。。亿登何刀11(且…     

大叶土蜜树化学成分及抗神经炎活性研究

为研究大叶土蜜树(Bridelia retusa)茎的化学成分及其抗神经炎活性,采用色谱技术从大叶土蜜树茎部分95%乙醇提取物中分离得到11个化合物。通过核磁共振波谱、质谱以及与文献数据比较,化合物结构鉴定为没食子酸(1)、木栓酮(2)、阿魏酸二十七烷脂(3)、芥子醛(4)、丁香醛(5)、丁香脂素(6)、补骨脂素(7)、补骨脂酚(8)、二十五烷酸(9)、亚油酸(10)和1-Linoleoylglycerol(11)。其中化合物3～11为首次从土蜜树属中分离得到。对化合物1～11的抗神经炎活性进行评价,发现化合物4、5、10和11对LPS诱导BV-2细胞NO生成具有显著抑制作用,其IC50分别为12. 57、8. 41、5. 86、5. 86μM。     

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