Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26186215›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Potential Cross-Talk between Alternative and Classical NF-κB Pathways in Prostate Cancer Tissues as Measured by a Multi-Staining Immunofluorescence Co-Localization Assay.

Ingrid Labouba, Cécile Le Page, Laudine Communal, Torbjoern Kristessen, Xiaotian You, Benjamin Péant, Véronique Barrès, Philippe O Gannon, Anne-Marie Mes-Masson, Fred Saad

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 2018 CUA Abstracts.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ingrid LaboubaInstitut du cancer de Montréal / Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), 900 rue St-Denis, Montreal, Canada.
Cécile Le PageInstitut du cancer de Montréal / Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), 900 rue St-Denis, Montreal, Canada.
Laudine CommunalInstitut du cancer de Montréal / Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), 900 rue St-Denis, Montreal, Canada.
Torbjoern KristessenVisiopharm, Argen Allé 3, Hoersholm, Denmark.
Xiaotian YouInstitut du cancer de Montréal / Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), 900 rue St-Denis, Montreal, Canada.
Benjamin PéantInstitut du cancer de Montréal / Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), 900 rue St-Denis, Montreal, Canada.
Véronique BarrèsInstitut du cancer de Montréal / Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), 900 rue St-Denis, Montreal, Canada.
Philippe O GannonInstitut du cancer de Montréal / Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), 900 rue St-Denis, Montreal, Canada.
Anne-Marie Mes-MassonInstitut du cancer de Montréal / Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), 900 rue St-Denis, Montreal, Canada; Department of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
Fred SaadInstitut du cancer de Montréal / Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), 900 rue St-Denis, Montreal, Canada; Division of Urology, CHUM and Department of Surgery, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CAUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile the classical NF-κB/p65 pathway is known to be involved in prostate cancer progression and is associated with poor patient outcome, the role of the NF-κB /RelB alternative protein is not well defined. Here we analyzed the activation of both NF-κB pathways in prostate cancer tissues and correlate this activation with clinical features of the disease.

methodsA multiple immunofluorescence technique was employed to concomitantly and quantitatively visualize the nuclear localization of p65 and RelB in 200 paraffin embedded samples. Epithelia were defined using appropriate fluorochrome markers and the resulting immunofluorescent signals were quantified with an automated scoring system.

resultsThe nuclear frequency of p65 was found to be significantly increased in tumor tissues as compared with normal adjacent tissue, whereas the frequency for RelB was decreased (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon test). As previously reported, p65 nuclear frequency was associated with a risk of biochemical recurrence. Although, RelB nuclear frequency alone did not predict recurrence, the presence of activated RelB reduced the risk of recurrence associated with the activation of p65.

conclusionFor the first time p65/RelB co-distribution was assessed in prostate cancer tissues and suggested a negative crosstalk between the two NF-κB pathways in prostate cancer progression.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticCell NucleusCohort StudiesDisease ProgressionFluorescent Antibody TechniqueHumansMaleMicrotomyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalParaffin EmbeddingPrognosisProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsSignal TransductionStaining and LabelingTissue Array AnalysisRELB protein, humanTranscription Factor RelATranscription Factor RelB

Identifiers

PMID26186215
PMCPMC4505937
OpenAlexW1454200793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.