Expression of RAR beta 2 gene by real-time RT-PCR: Differential expression in normal subjects compared to cervical cancer patients normalised against GAPDH as a housekeeping gene

Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Nottingham University Hospitals, City Hospital Campus, Nottingham NG5 1PB, United Kingdom.
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (Impact Factor: 1.63). 07/2008; 140(2):295-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.04.009
Source: PubMed
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Scale-down of bioreactors is currently done based on matching one or more measurable parameters such as k(L) a and P/V, which could result in insufficient process comparability. Currently, there is a lack of genomic translational studies in cell culture scale-down, which could help delineate measurable cellular attributes for improved scale-down. In this study, we scaled-down from a typical bench-scale 5-L bioreactor to a novel high-throughput 35-mL minibioreactor based on matching oxygen transfer rate, which resulted in cell growth and product-related discrepancies using Sp2/0 cells. Performing DNA microarrays on time-course samples from both systems, we identified ∼200 differentially expressed transcripts, presumably because of bioreactor aeration and mixing differences with scale-down. Evaluating these transcripts for bioreactor-relevant cellular functions such as oxidative stress response and DNA damage response, we chose 18 sentinel genes based on their degree of difference and functionality, which we further verified by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Tracking the differential expression of Sod1, Apex1, and Odc1 genes, we were able to correlate sparging-related damage and poor mixing, as possible causes for physiological changes such as prolonged culture in minibioreactors. Additionally, to verify our sentinel gene findings, we performed follow-up improved scale-down studies based on gene analysis and measured transcriptomic changes. As a result, qRT-PCR-based genomic profiles and cell growth profiles showed better convergence between the improved minibioreactor conditions and the model 5-L bioreactor. Our results broadly show that based on the knowledge from transcriptomic changes of sentinel gene profiles, it is possible to improve bioreactor scale-down for more comparable processes. © 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 2012.
    Biotechnology Progress 09/2012; 28(5):1138-51. DOI:10.1002/btpr.1606 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Early detection of cervical cancer is critical for a favorable prognosis. Standard cytological detection methods, such as Pap smear, are highly subjective and HPV detection is not a reliable marker for predicting the malignancy potential of cervical lesions. As a result, there is a demand for a diagnostic assay capable of sensitive and specific detection of cervical cancer. In this preclinical exploratory study, qRT-PCR and western blotting were used to assess expression levels of CIP2A and p16INK4a in cervical tissue samples (n(normal adjacent) = 23, n(tumor) = 29). CIP2A was abundantly expressed in cervical cancer cell lines and was not expressed in normal epithelial cells. CIP2A mRNA levels were higher in cervical tumor tissues in comparison to the level of CIP2A mRNA in normal adjacent tissue from cervical cancer patients. CIP2A protein was specifically expressed in cervical tumor tissues at different cancer grades and stages, and was not observed in normal adjacent tissue. Elevated CIP2A mRNA levels in cervical tissues had a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 91% and CIP2A protein expression detection had a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 100%, similar to that of p16INK4a, with no correlation of CIP2A expression with HPV infection, age, race, or other patient characteristics. However the number of samples analyzed in this preliminary study is limited and a large prospective cohort study is necessary to further evaluate CIP2A as a biomarker for cervical cancer.
    Cancer biomarkers: section A of Disease markers 01/2010; 8(6):309-17. DOI:10.3233/CBM-2011-0220 · 1.19 Impact Factor