RESUMEN
Objective To analyze the expression of targeting protein for xenopus kinesin-like protein 2(TPX2) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and its clinical prognostic significance. Methods First, the expression levels, survival prognosis and correlation of TPX2 in HCC were analyzed using UALCAN, K-PLOT and HPA databases. Secondly, the TIMER, GEPIA, and SangerBox databases were used to analyze the immune cell infiltration of TPX2, its correlation with TP53 mutation, and the mutation landscape map. Finally, the co-expressed genes of TPX2 in HCC and their prognostic value were analyzed by HCCDB database, and the co-expressed genes were analyzed by Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genome (KEGG) were analyzed by the HCCDB database. Results TPX2 was highly expressed in HCC and was not conducive to overall survival(OS), disease-specific survival(DSS), progression-free survival(PFS), and recurrence free survival(RFS) of HCC patients; and its presence in HCC was significantly correlated with tumor cell purity and multiple immune cells (B cells, CD4
RESUMEN
PURPOSES: The aim of this study was to clarify whether genetically modified organic (GMO) foods cause any allergic reactions in patients with food allergy, by means of their serum tests. In addition, it was also attempted to perform follow-up observation on targeting proteins contained in GMO food, using the serum of patients with food allergy, and to show the improvement for evaluating GMO food as allergens. METHODS: To identify the targeting proteins in GMO food and to evaluate their allergenic risks, several genes including CP4 EPSPS in genetically modified soybean, and Cry1f, Cry1Ab and Pat in genetically modified corn were cloned. The genes were transformed to synthesize proteins to induce protein expression of their target genes. The serums were divided allergy-positive and allergy-negative to soybean and corn, and SDS-PAGE and Western blotting were conducted, and finally allergenic risks were evaluated. RESULTS: This study showed that the allergenic risks of 4 targeting proteins were insignificant. Although some non-specific bands appeared, it was considered that they were not associated with allergenic risk as they often appeared in other proteins. Additionally, as a result of analyzing DNA sequences for each targeting protein with the intention of protein identification, they perfectly matched. CONCLUSION: As a way to evaluate the allergenic risk of GMO food, it is reasonable to use the purified serum proteins of allergic patients as performed in this study. However, this evaluation method is carefully applied to the future practice.