PDA

View Full Version : decoy receptor (DcR) 3 protein


daw
08-23-2005, 12:23 PM
From American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Overexpression of Decoy Receptor 3 in Precancerous Lesions and Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus
Posted 08/12/2005

Huixiang Li, MD, PhD; Lurong Zhang, MD, PhD; Hong Lou, MD; Ivan Ding, MD; Sunghee Kim, PhD; Luping Wang, MD; Jiaoti Huang, MD, PhD; P. Anthony Di Sant'Agnese, MD; Jun-Yi Lei, MD, PhD

Abstract
Overexpression of decoy receptor (DcR) 3 protein, a recently discovered member of the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily, was examined in 40 esophagogastrectomy specimens containing areas of Barrett esophagus (n = 27), low-grade dysplasia (n = 27), high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma in situ (n = 22), and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC; n = 28) with immunohistochemical analysis. The results revealed significantly more overexpression of DcR3 in high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma in situ and EAC than in benign esophageal mucosa (both P < .0001), Barrett esophagus (both P < .001), and low-grade dysplasia (P < .01 and P = .033, respectively). Low-grade dysplasia also showed significant overexpression of DcR3 compared with benign esophagus (P < .05) but not with Barrett esophagus (P > .05). DcR3 overexpression seems to negatively correlate with the grade of EAC. Our results suggest that overexpression of DcR3 protein might aid in the diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma in situ and EAC and also might serve as a potential therapeutic target.

Introduction
Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is becoming more common worldwide, with its incidence tripling in the United States from 1976 to 1990 and an annual increase of approximately 10%.[1] More than 13,900 new cases with 13,000 deaths were anticipated in the United States in 2003.[2] Barrett esophagus is considered a key precancerous lesion with a strong association with the development of dysplasia and subsequent EAC,[3] but the pathogenic mechanisms of this process remain unclear.

Decoy receptor (DcR) 3 is a recently discovered member of the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily, which had 23 groupings and 30 members as of May 2005.[4] The DcR group consists of 4 members, DcR1, DcR2, and DcR3 and osteoprotegerin.[5,6] Although osteoprotegerin has very low physiologic affinity for TRAIL (tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand), DcR1 and DcR2 are capable of binding TRAIL but incapable of transducing the death signal because of lack of a death domain in their structures.[6,7] In fact, DcR1 and DcR2 compete with the TRAIL receptor for the li-gands and subsequently inhibit apoptosis. In addition, DcR can inhibit T-cell activation via the repression of actin polymerization and pseudopodium formation by T cells.[8]

DcR3 is a unique member in the DcR group because it is secreted rather than membrane-bound like DcR1 and DcR2. In addition, DcR3 binds to the Fas ligand, not the TRAIL, as other DcRs do.[9] DcR3 also can modulate immune cell interaction by down-regulating the functions of macrophages and T cells.[8,10] DcR's functions of blocking apoptosis and escaping immune surveillance are important in carcinogenesis. The gene amplification and overexpression of DcR3 messenger RNA (mRNA) and protein have been demonstrated in lymphoma, glioblastoma, and cancer of the lung, esophagus, colon, and pancreas.[9,11-14] The serum level of DcR3 also was significantly elevated in 56.2% of a variety of tumors, including cancers of the digestive system, thyroid, lung, and breast.[15] In the present study, we examined the expression of DcR3 in 40 cases of Barrett esophagus-associated lesions by immunohistochemical analysis. Association of DcR3 overexpression with the pathogenesis of EAC and the potential application of DcR3 overexpression in the diagnosis and treatment of EAC also are discussed.

complete article: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/510153?src=mp

Rcone
08-23-2005, 04:16 PM
Interesting finding. I have read that they are working on Biomarkers and some type of test that looks at the change/types of cells in Barrett's to see what risk people have and then decide how they should test them.

Advancements all around are good.

I am hoping for stability and then removal via something like the Barrx's Hal360 approach. Several have had that and things seem to be good without returning Barrett's or sub-gland growth of Barrett cells.

Ray

daw
08-23-2005, 04:46 PM
Hi Ray,
I looked back over the literature and found another 3 biomarkers mentioned so far. The P53 gene, Altered APC gene and Telomerese inhibitors. Hope we will see these being used.

I agree that the removal of the Barrett's is a good and prudent approach. Even though we posters complain about the inconsistancies of the medical world, we are truly lucky to have all these technological options available to us, if not right now, then at least in the near future.

Rcone
08-23-2005, 07:25 PM
Hi Daw,

I noticed your profile says, "beginning Barrett's." Is that spots, 1 cm or what exactly? I have 4cm but I believe that includes the branches up the esophagus. I need to ask my doctor for more information when we meet again.

I agree that the new technologies out there are moving in a positive direction. I hope they hit the jackpot on some of them soon. The BARRx approach seems to be very successful at this time and I think the even and consistent application of RF in the esophagus is the reason. The other methods have too many variables and depth issues/missing folds issues.

Ray

daw
08-23-2005, 07:53 PM
Hi Ray,
I guess my profile needs updating....but I didn't want to jinx myself. When I had my first endoscopy in 2001 (after only 9 months of mild to moderate heartburn) the pathology report mentioned "a minute focus of intestinal metaplasia" and my GI diagnosed me with short segment (0.5cm) Barrett's. Two follow up endoscopies and many biopsies later the intestinal metaplasia was never found again. So...I sent the first biopsy slides (my GI thought I was overreacting) to Johns Hopkins and they could find no IM and their pathology report was very thorough. So what the first pathologist saw we will never know. Even though I'd like to assume that I do not have Barrett's, I am still being monitored. My next endoscopy (2 years) will be this fall. If Barrett's is found again, I will send the slides off to Johns Hopkins again due to my loss of confidence in the local labs.

Rcone
08-23-2005, 08:34 PM
Glad to hear that things are on the positive and that you are being proactive to keep it that way.

I have only known for a couple of months and I am slowly getting over the shock. Lifestyle changes were immediately and now uncertainty of what to do or not do is on my mind.

I am hoping that some of these technology breakthroughs will be consistent so I will comfortable taking the risk to remove the Barrett's and then worry about my LES.

We will see.

Ray