Regulatory effect and mechanism of gastrin and its antagonists on colorectal carcinoma

doi:10.3748/wjg.v5.i5.408

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 5, Issue 5

This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (2462)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Tables (1-8) series.

Item

Count

PDF

228

HTML

1975

Tables (1-8)

259

Sum=2462

Oct 15, 1999 (publication date) through Dec 23, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (19)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Original Articles

World J Gastroenterol. Oct 15, 1999; 5(5): 408-416
Published online Oct 15, 1999. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v5.i5.408

Table 1 Effect of PG, PGL and SMS on the volume and weight of transp lanted carcinoma (x^-± s, n = 5)

Group	Volume (mm³)	Weight (g)
Control	1766 ± 36	3.04 ± 0.13
PG	1926 ± 98^a	3.37 ± 0.21^a
PGL	1750 ± 53^d	2.98 ± 0.16^c
SMS	210 ± 13^b^d	0.90 ± 0.14^b^d^a^a
PG + PGL	1708 ± 59^d	2.91 ± 0.23^c
PG + SMS	224 ± 19^b^d	0.95 ± 0.12^b^d

^aP < 0.05,

^bP < 0.01 vs control group;

^cP < 0.05,

^dP < 0.01 vs PG group.

Table 2 Effect of PG, PGL and SMS on cAMP, DNA and protein content (x^-± s, n = 5)

Group	CAMP (pmol/mL)	DNA (dalton)	Protein (dalton)
Control	2.74 ± 0.14	947 ± 16	364 ± 12
PG	3.18 ± 0.23^b	1004 ± 17^b	675 ± 18^b
PGL	2.72 ± 0.15^d	940 ± 21^d	356 ± 9^d
SMS	1.87 ± 0.14^b^d	684 ± 13^b^d	272 ± 11^b^d
PG + PGL	2.82 ± 0.17^c	940 ± 25^d	369 ± 14^d
PG + SMS	1.86 ± 0.17^b^d	687 ± 21^b^d	274 ± 13^b^d

^bP < 0.01 vs control group;

^cP < 0.05,

^dP < 0.01 vs PG group.

Table 3 Effect of PG, PGL and SMS on cell cycle and proliferation index (PI)

Group	G₀/G₁ (%)	S (%)	G₂M (%)	PI (%)
Control	64.92 ± 1.72	18.24 ± 1.20	16.84 ± 2.35	35.08 ± 1.72
PG	59.22 ± 1.18^b	20.16 ± 1.06^a	20.62 ± 2.05^a	40.78 ± 1.81^b
PGL	67.18 ± 2.23^d	18.04 ± 1.43^c	14.78 ± 1.09^d	32.82 ± 2.27^d
SMS	80.04 ± 2.29^b^d	14.90 ± 1.46^b^d	5.06 ± 1.61^b^d	19.96 ± 2.39^b^d
PG + PGL	67.76 ± 2.41^d	18.10 ± 1.40^c	14.34 ± 0.66^d	32.24 ± 2.41^d
PG + SMS	80.26 ± 2.73^b^d	15.22 ± 1.78^b^d	4.54 ± 1.25^b^d	19.22 ± 2.73^b^d

^aP < 0.05,

^bP < 0.01vs control group;

^cP < 0.05,

^dP < 0.01 vs PG group.

Table 4 Effect of PG on VCC, IP₃, [Ca²⁺] and PKC activity (pmol/min per mg protein) (x^-± s, n = 5)

Group (mg/L)	VCC (A)	IP₃ (CPM)	[Ca²⁺] I(nM)	Plasma PKC	Membrane PKC
Control	1.554 ± 0.009	8.83 ± 1.33	26.36 ± 2.91	2.39 ± 1.30	1.07 ± 0.28
PG6.25	1.555 ± 0.005	10.16 ± 1.33	30.16 ± 2.16	2.36 ± 0.84	1.09 ± 0.16
12.50	1.563 ± 0.010^a	11.18 ± 0.75^a	50.69 ± 2.30^a	2.30 ± 0.45	1.15 ± 0.15
25.00	1.580 ± 0.011^b	16.17 ± 0.75^b	101.44 ± 2.49^b	0.91 ± 0.34^a	2.65 ± 1.21^a
50.00	1.579 ± 0.008^b	14.10 ± 1.60^b	70.63 ± 4.17^b	0.92 ± 0.26^a	2.65 ± 0.60^a
100.00	1.578 ± 0.010^b	13.00 ± 2.53^b	62.59 ± 2.59^b	0.91 ± 0.14^a	2.66 ± 0.68^a

^aP < 0.05,

^bP < 0.01 vs control group.

Table 5 Effect of PG + PGL on VCC, IP₃, [Ca²⁺]i and PKC acti-vity (pmol/min per mg protein) (x^-± s, n = 5)

Group	PG (mg/L)	PGL (mg/L)	VCC (A)	IP₃ (CPM)	[Ca²⁺]i(nM)	Plasma PKC	Membrane PKC
Control	0.00	0.00	1.554 ± 0.009	8.83 ± 1.33	26.36 ± 2.91	2.39 ± 1.30	1.07 ± 0.28
PG	25.00	0.00	1.580 ± 0.011^b	16.17 ± 0.75^b	101.44 ± 2.49^b	0.91 ± 0.34^a	2.65 ± 0.21^a
PG + PGL	25.00	8.00	1.553 ± 0.016^d
	25.00	16.00	1.551 ± 0.008^d	9.17 ± 1.47^d	32.63 ± 2.86^d	2.33 ± 0.29^c	1.05 ± 0.09^c
	25.00	32.00	1.546 ± 0.011^d	9.00 ± 1.58^d	31.79 ± 4.41^d	2.30 ± 0.61^c	1.05 ± 0.20^c
	25.00	64.00	1.549 ± 0.011^d	9.33 ± 1.97^d	32.45 ± 2.46^d	2.32 ± 0.17^c	1.09 ± 0.12^c
	25.00	128.00	1.549 ± 0.014^d

^aP < 0.05,

^bP < 0.01 vs control group;

^cP < 0.05,

^dP < 0.01 vs PG group.

Table 6 Expression of gastrin, c-myc, c-fos, rasp21 and AgNORs

Group	n	gastrin positive (%)	c-myc positive (%)	c-fos positive (%)	rasp21 positive (%)	AgNORs (%)
Carcinoma tissue	48	19 (39.6)^b	26 (54.2)^b	23 (47.9)^b	26 (54.2)^b	7.10 ± 1.48^b
3 cm mucosa	48	2 (4.2)	12 (25.0)	9 (18.8)	10 (20.8)	3.65 ± 1.04^c
6 cm mucosa	48	0 (0)	7 (14.6)	4 (803)	6 (12.5)	2.88 ± 0.73
Normal	10	0 (0)	1 (10.0)	1 (10.0)	2 (20.0)	2.85 ± 0.60

^bP < 0.01 vs 3 cm, 6 cm and normal mucosa group.

^cP < 0.05 vs 6 cm and normal mucosa group.

Table 7 Expression of gastrin, c-myc, c-fos, rasp21 and AgNORs in different pathological carcinoma tissue

Group	n	Gastrin positive (%)	c-myc positive (%)	c-fos positive (%)	rasp21 positive (%)	AgNORs
Highly-differentiated	26	14 (53.9)^a	15 (57.7)	13 (50.0)	15 (57.7)	7.12 ± 1.80
Moderately-differentiated	12	4 (33.3)	5 (41.7)	7 (58.3)	6 (50.0)	7.25 ± 0.86
Poorly- and mucinous	10	1 (10.0)	6 (60.0)	3 (30.0)	5 (50.0)	7.11 ± 1.20

^aP < 0.05 vs poorly-differentiated and mucinous group.

Table 8 Relation between gastrin and c-myc, c-fos, rasp21 and AgNORs

Group	n	c-myc positive (%)	c-fos positive (%)	rasp21 positive (%)	AgNORs
Gastrin-positive	19	15 (78.9)^a	14 (73.7)^b	11 (57.9)	7.84 ± 1.30^b
Gastrin-negative	29	11 (37.9)	9 (31.0)	15 (51.7)	6.22 ± 1.40

^aP < 0.05,

^bP < 0.01 vs gastrin-negative group.

Citation: He SW, Shen KQ, He YJ, Xie B, Zhao YM. Regulatory effect and mechanism of gastrin and its antagonists on colorectal carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 1999; 5(5): 408-416
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v5/i5/408.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v5.i5.408