pr 8757 cell signaling technology danvers ma Search Results


progesterone receptor isoform a b d8q2j xp r rabbit mab  (Cell Signaling Technology Inc)
96
Cell Signaling Technology Inc progesterone receptor isoform a b d8q2j xp r rabbit mab
Progesterone Receptor Isoform A B D8q2j Xp R Rabbit Mab, supplied by Cell Signaling Technology Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/progesterone receptor isoform a b d8q2j xp r rabbit mab/product/Cell Signaling Technology Inc
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
progesterone receptor isoform a b d8q2j xp r rabbit mab - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
her2  (Proteintech)
95
Proteintech her2
Analysis of the correlation between the expression level of PNPO and the overall survival (OS) of patients with IDC. PNPO expression was classified into two groups: PNPO low and PNPO high. The OS rate of 127 IDC patients was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The survival plots of IDC patients are shown. ( A ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO. a vs . b: P=0.2575. ( B ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in age low (≤60 years) and high (>60 years) groups. a vs . b: P=0.6034; c vs . d: P=0.5127; a vs . c: P=0.5514; b vs . d: P=0.9694; a vs . d: P=0.5215; b vs . c: P=0.5442. ( C ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in non-metastasis and metastasis groups. a vs s. b: P=1.0000; c vs . d: P=0.3299; a vs . c: P=0.2024; b vs . d: P=0.0128; a vs . d: P=0.0385; b vs . c: P=0.1782. ( D ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in small (≤2 cm) and large (>2 cm) tumor groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; vs. d: P=0.3339; a vs. c: P=0.3527; b vs. d: P=0.0459; a vs. d: P=0.1953; b vs. c: P=0.3173. ( E ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in low grade (1+2) and high grade (3) groups. a vs. b: P=0.1169; c vs. d: P=0.4070; a vs. c: P=0.2024; b vs. d: P=0.2542; a vs. d: P=1.0000; b vs. c: P=0.6708. ( F ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in early (I+II) and later (III+IV) stage groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; c vs. d: P=0.5600; a vs. c: P=0.0253; b vs. d: P=0.0009; a vs. d: P=0.0112; b vs. c: P=0.0223. ( G ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in ER low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4315; c vs. d: P=0.4520; a vs. c: P=0.4328; b vs. d: P=0.4912; a vs. d: P=0.7461; b vs. c: P=0.3919. ( H ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in PR low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.6074; c vs. d: P=0.6547; a vs. c: P=0.5514; b vs. d: P=0.4993; a vs. d: P=0.3594; b vs. c: P=1.0000. ( I ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in <t>HER2</t> low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4549; c vs. d: P=0.9261; a vs. c: P=0.3404; b vs. d: P=0.8380; a vs. d: P=0.3404; b vs. c: P=0.9143. ( J ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in less (≤10) and more (>10) Ki-67 positive groups. a vs. b: P=0.9372; c vs. d: P=0.6048; a vs. c: P=0.4096; b vs. d: P=0.7686; a vs. d: P=0.9474; b vs. c: P=0.3711.
Her2, supplied by Proteintech, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 95/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/her2/product/Proteintech
Average 95 stars, based on 1 article reviews
her2 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
95/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
pr 8757 cell signaling technology danvers ma  (Cell Signaling Technology Inc)
99
Cell Signaling Technology Inc pr 8757 cell signaling technology danvers ma
Analysis of the correlation between the expression level of PNPO and the overall survival (OS) of patients with IDC. PNPO expression was classified into two groups: PNPO low and PNPO high. The OS rate of 127 IDC patients was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The survival plots of IDC patients are shown. ( A ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO. a vs . b: P=0.2575. ( B ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in age low (≤60 years) and high (>60 years) groups. a vs . b: P=0.6034; c vs . d: P=0.5127; a vs . c: P=0.5514; b vs . d: P=0.9694; a vs . d: P=0.5215; b vs . c: P=0.5442. ( C ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in non-metastasis and metastasis groups. a vs s. b: P=1.0000; c vs . d: P=0.3299; a vs . c: P=0.2024; b vs . d: P=0.0128; a vs . d: P=0.0385; b vs . c: P=0.1782. ( D ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in small (≤2 cm) and large (>2 cm) tumor groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; vs. d: P=0.3339; a vs. c: P=0.3527; b vs. d: P=0.0459; a vs. d: P=0.1953; b vs. c: P=0.3173. ( E ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in low grade (1+2) and high grade (3) groups. a vs. b: P=0.1169; c vs. d: P=0.4070; a vs. c: P=0.2024; b vs. d: P=0.2542; a vs. d: P=1.0000; b vs. c: P=0.6708. ( F ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in early (I+II) and later (III+IV) stage groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; c vs. d: P=0.5600; a vs. c: P=0.0253; b vs. d: P=0.0009; a vs. d: P=0.0112; b vs. c: P=0.0223. ( G ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in ER low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4315; c vs. d: P=0.4520; a vs. c: P=0.4328; b vs. d: P=0.4912; a vs. d: P=0.7461; b vs. c: P=0.3919. ( H ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in PR low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.6074; c vs. d: P=0.6547; a vs. c: P=0.5514; b vs. d: P=0.4993; a vs. d: P=0.3594; b vs. c: P=1.0000. ( I ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in <t>HER2</t> low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4549; c vs. d: P=0.9261; a vs. c: P=0.3404; b vs. d: P=0.8380; a vs. d: P=0.3404; b vs. c: P=0.9143. ( J ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in less (≤10) and more (>10) Ki-67 positive groups. a vs. b: P=0.9372; c vs. d: P=0.6048; a vs. c: P=0.4096; b vs. d: P=0.7686; a vs. d: P=0.9474; b vs. c: P=0.3711.
Pr 8757 Cell Signaling Technology Danvers Ma, supplied by Cell Signaling Technology Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 99/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/pr 8757 cell signaling technology danvers ma/product/Cell Signaling Technology Inc
Average 99 stars, based on 1 article reviews
pr 8757 cell signaling technology danvers ma - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
99/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
her2  (Cell Signaling Technology Inc)
99
Cell Signaling Technology Inc her2
Analysis of the correlation between the expression level of PNPO and the overall survival (OS) of patients with IDC. PNPO expression was classified into two groups: PNPO low and PNPO high. The OS rate of 127 IDC patients was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The survival plots of IDC patients are shown. ( A ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO. a vs . b: P=0.2575. ( B ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in age low (≤60 years) and high (>60 years) groups. a vs . b: P=0.6034; c vs . d: P=0.5127; a vs . c: P=0.5514; b vs . d: P=0.9694; a vs . d: P=0.5215; b vs . c: P=0.5442. ( C ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in non-metastasis and metastasis groups. a vs s. b: P=1.0000; c vs . d: P=0.3299; a vs . c: P=0.2024; b vs . d: P=0.0128; a vs . d: P=0.0385; b vs . c: P=0.1782. ( D ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in small (≤2 cm) and large (>2 cm) tumor groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; vs. d: P=0.3339; a vs. c: P=0.3527; b vs. d: P=0.0459; a vs. d: P=0.1953; b vs. c: P=0.3173. ( E ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in low grade (1+2) and high grade (3) groups. a vs. b: P=0.1169; c vs. d: P=0.4070; a vs. c: P=0.2024; b vs. d: P=0.2542; a vs. d: P=1.0000; b vs. c: P=0.6708. ( F ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in early (I+II) and later (III+IV) stage groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; c vs. d: P=0.5600; a vs. c: P=0.0253; b vs. d: P=0.0009; a vs. d: P=0.0112; b vs. c: P=0.0223. ( G ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in ER low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4315; c vs. d: P=0.4520; a vs. c: P=0.4328; b vs. d: P=0.4912; a vs. d: P=0.7461; b vs. c: P=0.3919. ( H ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in PR low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.6074; c vs. d: P=0.6547; a vs. c: P=0.5514; b vs. d: P=0.4993; a vs. d: P=0.3594; b vs. c: P=1.0000. ( I ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in <t>HER2</t> low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4549; c vs. d: P=0.9261; a vs. c: P=0.3404; b vs. d: P=0.8380; a vs. d: P=0.3404; b vs. c: P=0.9143. ( J ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in less (≤10) and more (>10) Ki-67 positive groups. a vs. b: P=0.9372; c vs. d: P=0.6048; a vs. c: P=0.4096; b vs. d: P=0.7686; a vs. d: P=0.9474; b vs. c: P=0.3711.
Her2, supplied by Cell Signaling Technology Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 99/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/her2/product/Cell Signaling Technology Inc
Average 99 stars, based on 1 article reviews
her2 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
99/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
pgr  (Cell Signaling Technology Inc)
97
Cell Signaling Technology Inc pgr
Analysis of the correlation between the expression level of PNPO and the overall survival (OS) of patients with IDC. PNPO expression was classified into two groups: PNPO low and PNPO high. The OS rate of 127 IDC patients was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The survival plots of IDC patients are shown. ( A ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO. a vs . b: P=0.2575. ( B ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in age low (≤60 years) and high (>60 years) groups. a vs . b: P=0.6034; c vs . d: P=0.5127; a vs . c: P=0.5514; b vs . d: P=0.9694; a vs . d: P=0.5215; b vs . c: P=0.5442. ( C ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in non-metastasis and metastasis groups. a vs s. b: P=1.0000; c vs . d: P=0.3299; a vs . c: P=0.2024; b vs . d: P=0.0128; a vs . d: P=0.0385; b vs . c: P=0.1782. ( D ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in small (≤2 cm) and large (>2 cm) tumor groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; vs. d: P=0.3339; a vs. c: P=0.3527; b vs. d: P=0.0459; a vs. d: P=0.1953; b vs. c: P=0.3173. ( E ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in low grade (1+2) and high grade (3) groups. a vs. b: P=0.1169; c vs. d: P=0.4070; a vs. c: P=0.2024; b vs. d: P=0.2542; a vs. d: P=1.0000; b vs. c: P=0.6708. ( F ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in early (I+II) and later (III+IV) stage groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; c vs. d: P=0.5600; a vs. c: P=0.0253; b vs. d: P=0.0009; a vs. d: P=0.0112; b vs. c: P=0.0223. ( G ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in ER low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4315; c vs. d: P=0.4520; a vs. c: P=0.4328; b vs. d: P=0.4912; a vs. d: P=0.7461; b vs. c: P=0.3919. ( H ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in PR low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.6074; c vs. d: P=0.6547; a vs. c: P=0.5514; b vs. d: P=0.4993; a vs. d: P=0.3594; b vs. c: P=1.0000. ( I ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in <t>HER2</t> low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4549; c vs. d: P=0.9261; a vs. c: P=0.3404; b vs. d: P=0.8380; a vs. d: P=0.3404; b vs. c: P=0.9143. ( J ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in less (≤10) and more (>10) Ki-67 positive groups. a vs. b: P=0.9372; c vs. d: P=0.6048; a vs. c: P=0.4096; b vs. d: P=0.7686; a vs. d: P=0.9474; b vs. c: P=0.3711.
Pgr, supplied by Cell Signaling Technology Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 97/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/pgr/product/Cell Signaling Technology Inc
Average 97 stars, based on 1 article reviews
pgr - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
97/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

Image Search Results


Analysis of the correlation between the expression level of PNPO and the overall survival (OS) of patients with IDC. PNPO expression was classified into two groups: PNPO low and PNPO high. The OS rate of 127 IDC patients was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The survival plots of IDC patients are shown. ( A ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO. a vs . b: P=0.2575. ( B ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in age low (≤60 years) and high (>60 years) groups. a vs . b: P=0.6034; c vs . d: P=0.5127; a vs . c: P=0.5514; b vs . d: P=0.9694; a vs . d: P=0.5215; b vs . c: P=0.5442. ( C ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in non-metastasis and metastasis groups. a vs s. b: P=1.0000; c vs . d: P=0.3299; a vs . c: P=0.2024; b vs . d: P=0.0128; a vs . d: P=0.0385; b vs . c: P=0.1782. ( D ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in small (≤2 cm) and large (>2 cm) tumor groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; vs. d: P=0.3339; a vs. c: P=0.3527; b vs. d: P=0.0459; a vs. d: P=0.1953; b vs. c: P=0.3173. ( E ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in low grade (1+2) and high grade (3) groups. a vs. b: P=0.1169; c vs. d: P=0.4070; a vs. c: P=0.2024; b vs. d: P=0.2542; a vs. d: P=1.0000; b vs. c: P=0.6708. ( F ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in early (I+II) and later (III+IV) stage groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; c vs. d: P=0.5600; a vs. c: P=0.0253; b vs. d: P=0.0009; a vs. d: P=0.0112; b vs. c: P=0.0223. ( G ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in ER low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4315; c vs. d: P=0.4520; a vs. c: P=0.4328; b vs. d: P=0.4912; a vs. d: P=0.7461; b vs. c: P=0.3919. ( H ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in PR low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.6074; c vs. d: P=0.6547; a vs. c: P=0.5514; b vs. d: P=0.4993; a vs. d: P=0.3594; b vs. c: P=1.0000. ( I ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in HER2 low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4549; c vs. d: P=0.9261; a vs. c: P=0.3404; b vs. d: P=0.8380; a vs. d: P=0.3404; b vs. c: P=0.9143. ( J ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in less (≤10) and more (>10) Ki-67 positive groups. a vs. b: P=0.9372; c vs. d: P=0.6048; a vs. c: P=0.4096; b vs. d: P=0.7686; a vs. d: P=0.9474; b vs. c: P=0.3711.

Journal: Aging (Albany NY)

Article Title: Pyridoxine 5′-phosphate oxidase is correlated with human breast invasive ductal carcinoma development

doi: 10.18632/aging.101908

Figure Lengend Snippet: Analysis of the correlation between the expression level of PNPO and the overall survival (OS) of patients with IDC. PNPO expression was classified into two groups: PNPO low and PNPO high. The OS rate of 127 IDC patients was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The survival plots of IDC patients are shown. ( A ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO. a vs . b: P=0.2575. ( B ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in age low (≤60 years) and high (>60 years) groups. a vs . b: P=0.6034; c vs . d: P=0.5127; a vs . c: P=0.5514; b vs . d: P=0.9694; a vs . d: P=0.5215; b vs . c: P=0.5442. ( C ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in non-metastasis and metastasis groups. a vs s. b: P=1.0000; c vs . d: P=0.3299; a vs . c: P=0.2024; b vs . d: P=0.0128; a vs . d: P=0.0385; b vs . c: P=0.1782. ( D ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in small (≤2 cm) and large (>2 cm) tumor groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; vs. d: P=0.3339; a vs. c: P=0.3527; b vs. d: P=0.0459; a vs. d: P=0.1953; b vs. c: P=0.3173. ( E ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in low grade (1+2) and high grade (3) groups. a vs. b: P=0.1169; c vs. d: P=0.4070; a vs. c: P=0.2024; b vs. d: P=0.2542; a vs. d: P=1.0000; b vs. c: P=0.6708. ( F ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in early (I+II) and later (III+IV) stage groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; c vs. d: P=0.5600; a vs. c: P=0.0253; b vs. d: P=0.0009; a vs. d: P=0.0112; b vs. c: P=0.0223. ( G ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in ER low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4315; c vs. d: P=0.4520; a vs. c: P=0.4328; b vs. d: P=0.4912; a vs. d: P=0.7461; b vs. c: P=0.3919. ( H ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in PR low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.6074; c vs. d: P=0.6547; a vs. c: P=0.5514; b vs. d: P=0.4993; a vs. d: P=0.3594; b vs. c: P=1.0000. ( I ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in HER2 low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4549; c vs. d: P=0.9261; a vs. c: P=0.3404; b vs. d: P=0.8380; a vs. d: P=0.3404; b vs. c: P=0.9143. ( J ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in less (≤10) and more (>10) Ki-67 positive groups. a vs. b: P=0.9372; c vs. d: P=0.6048; a vs. c: P=0.4096; b vs. d: P=0.7686; a vs. d: P=0.9474; b vs. c: P=0.3711.

Article Snippet: The membrane was blocked with 5% non-fat milk or 5% BSA for 1 h at room temperature and incubated overnight at 4°C with primary antibodies diluted in blocking buffer: rabbit-anti GAPDH (1:5000, Cat# D110016, Shenggong), rabbit-anti PNPO (1:2000; Cat# SAB1411034, Sigma), rabbit-anti caspase3, Bax, Bcl2, ERa, PR, and HER2 (1:1000; Cat #9662, #2772, #15071, #8644, #8757, #2165, respectively; Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA, USA) and mouse-anti β-actin (1:5000; Cat# 60008-1-Ig, Proteintech Group, Inc., Wuhan, Hubei, China).

Techniques: Expressing

Correlation of PNPO expression with progesterone receptor (PR) expression. ( A ) Detection of the correlation of PNPO mRNA expression with the expression of ER, PR and HER2 mRNA in breast IDC tissues by qRT-PCR (n = 30 each). ( B ) Expression of PR and PNPO proteins in IDC tissues of two patients with a low level of PNPO (left sample) and the high level of PNPO (right sample) detected by Western blot. ( C ) Correlation of PNPO protein expression with PR protein expression in IDC tissues (n =30). ( D ) Effect of PNPO knockdown by shRNA on PR mRNA expression detected by qRT-PCR. Breast non-cancerous cells (MCF-12A) and cancerous cells (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231) were treated with PNPO-shRNA (shPNPO) and its negative control (NC). A total PR (PR-A/B) and a B-type PR (PR-B) were detected by qRT-PCR (n = 3). * P < 0.05. ( E ) Effect of PNPO knockdown by shRNA on PR protein expression detected by Western blot in MCF-12A, MCF-7, and MDA-MB-231 cells.

Journal: Aging (Albany NY)

Article Title: Pyridoxine 5′-phosphate oxidase is correlated with human breast invasive ductal carcinoma development

doi: 10.18632/aging.101908

Figure Lengend Snippet: Correlation of PNPO expression with progesterone receptor (PR) expression. ( A ) Detection of the correlation of PNPO mRNA expression with the expression of ER, PR and HER2 mRNA in breast IDC tissues by qRT-PCR (n = 30 each). ( B ) Expression of PR and PNPO proteins in IDC tissues of two patients with a low level of PNPO (left sample) and the high level of PNPO (right sample) detected by Western blot. ( C ) Correlation of PNPO protein expression with PR protein expression in IDC tissues (n =30). ( D ) Effect of PNPO knockdown by shRNA on PR mRNA expression detected by qRT-PCR. Breast non-cancerous cells (MCF-12A) and cancerous cells (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231) were treated with PNPO-shRNA (shPNPO) and its negative control (NC). A total PR (PR-A/B) and a B-type PR (PR-B) were detected by qRT-PCR (n = 3). * P < 0.05. ( E ) Effect of PNPO knockdown by shRNA on PR protein expression detected by Western blot in MCF-12A, MCF-7, and MDA-MB-231 cells.

Article Snippet: The membrane was blocked with 5% non-fat milk or 5% BSA for 1 h at room temperature and incubated overnight at 4°C with primary antibodies diluted in blocking buffer: rabbit-anti GAPDH (1:5000, Cat# D110016, Shenggong), rabbit-anti PNPO (1:2000; Cat# SAB1411034, Sigma), rabbit-anti caspase3, Bax, Bcl2, ERa, PR, and HER2 (1:1000; Cat #9662, #2772, #15071, #8644, #8757, #2165, respectively; Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA, USA) and mouse-anti β-actin (1:5000; Cat# 60008-1-Ig, Proteintech Group, Inc., Wuhan, Hubei, China).

Techniques: Expressing, Quantitative RT-PCR, Western Blot, Knockdown, shRNA, Negative Control

Analysis of the correlation between the expression level of PNPO and the overall survival (OS) of patients with IDC. PNPO expression was classified into two groups: PNPO low and PNPO high. The OS rate of 127 IDC patients was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The survival plots of IDC patients are shown. ( A ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO. a vs . b: P=0.2575. ( B ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in age low (≤60 years) and high (>60 years) groups. a vs . b: P=0.6034; c vs . d: P=0.5127; a vs . c: P=0.5514; b vs . d: P=0.9694; a vs . d: P=0.5215; b vs . c: P=0.5442. ( C ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in non-metastasis and metastasis groups. a vs s. b: P=1.0000; c vs . d: P=0.3299; a vs . c: P=0.2024; b vs . d: P=0.0128; a vs . d: P=0.0385; b vs . c: P=0.1782. ( D ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in small (≤2 cm) and large (>2 cm) tumor groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; vs. d: P=0.3339; a vs. c: P=0.3527; b vs. d: P=0.0459; a vs. d: P=0.1953; b vs. c: P=0.3173. ( E ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in low grade (1+2) and high grade (3) groups. a vs. b: P=0.1169; c vs. d: P=0.4070; a vs. c: P=0.2024; b vs. d: P=0.2542; a vs. d: P=1.0000; b vs. c: P=0.6708. ( F ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in early (I+II) and later (III+IV) stage groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; c vs. d: P=0.5600; a vs. c: P=0.0253; b vs. d: P=0.0009; a vs. d: P=0.0112; b vs. c: P=0.0223. ( G ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in ER low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4315; c vs. d: P=0.4520; a vs. c: P=0.4328; b vs. d: P=0.4912; a vs. d: P=0.7461; b vs. c: P=0.3919. ( H ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in PR low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.6074; c vs. d: P=0.6547; a vs. c: P=0.5514; b vs. d: P=0.4993; a vs. d: P=0.3594; b vs. c: P=1.0000. ( I ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in HER2 low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4549; c vs. d: P=0.9261; a vs. c: P=0.3404; b vs. d: P=0.8380; a vs. d: P=0.3404; b vs. c: P=0.9143. ( J ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in less (≤10) and more (>10) Ki-67 positive groups. a vs. b: P=0.9372; c vs. d: P=0.6048; a vs. c: P=0.4096; b vs. d: P=0.7686; a vs. d: P=0.9474; b vs. c: P=0.3711.

Journal: Aging (Albany NY)

Article Title: Pyridoxine 5′-phosphate oxidase is correlated with human breast invasive ductal carcinoma development

doi: 10.18632/aging.101908

Figure Lengend Snippet: Analysis of the correlation between the expression level of PNPO and the overall survival (OS) of patients with IDC. PNPO expression was classified into two groups: PNPO low and PNPO high. The OS rate of 127 IDC patients was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The survival plots of IDC patients are shown. ( A ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO. a vs . b: P=0.2575. ( B ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in age low (≤60 years) and high (>60 years) groups. a vs . b: P=0.6034; c vs . d: P=0.5127; a vs . c: P=0.5514; b vs . d: P=0.9694; a vs . d: P=0.5215; b vs . c: P=0.5442. ( C ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in non-metastasis and metastasis groups. a vs s. b: P=1.0000; c vs . d: P=0.3299; a vs . c: P=0.2024; b vs . d: P=0.0128; a vs . d: P=0.0385; b vs . c: P=0.1782. ( D ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in small (≤2 cm) and large (>2 cm) tumor groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; vs. d: P=0.3339; a vs. c: P=0.3527; b vs. d: P=0.0459; a vs. d: P=0.1953; b vs. c: P=0.3173. ( E ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in low grade (1+2) and high grade (3) groups. a vs. b: P=0.1169; c vs. d: P=0.4070; a vs. c: P=0.2024; b vs. d: P=0.2542; a vs. d: P=1.0000; b vs. c: P=0.6708. ( F ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in early (I+II) and later (III+IV) stage groups. a vs. b: P=1.0000; c vs. d: P=0.5600; a vs. c: P=0.0253; b vs. d: P=0.0009; a vs. d: P=0.0112; b vs. c: P=0.0223. ( G ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in ER low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4315; c vs. d: P=0.4520; a vs. c: P=0.4328; b vs. d: P=0.4912; a vs. d: P=0.7461; b vs. c: P=0.3919. ( H ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in PR low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.6074; c vs. d: P=0.6547; a vs. c: P=0.5514; b vs. d: P=0.4993; a vs. d: P=0.3594; b vs. c: P=1.0000. ( I ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in HER2 low and high expression groups. a vs. b: P=0.4549; c vs. d: P=0.9261; a vs. c: P=0.3404; b vs. d: P=0.8380; a vs. d: P=0.3404; b vs. c: P=0.9143. ( J ) Patients with low and high expression of PNPO in less (≤10) and more (>10) Ki-67 positive groups. a vs. b: P=0.9372; c vs. d: P=0.6048; a vs. c: P=0.4096; b vs. d: P=0.7686; a vs. d: P=0.9474; b vs. c: P=0.3711.

Article Snippet: The membrane was blocked with 5% non-fat milk or 5% BSA for 1 h at room temperature and incubated overnight at 4°C with primary antibodies diluted in blocking buffer: rabbit-anti GAPDH (1:5000, Cat# D110016, Shenggong), rabbit-anti PNPO (1:2000; Cat# SAB1411034, Sigma), rabbit-anti caspase3, Bax, Bcl2, ERa, PR, and HER2 (1:1000; Cat #9662, #2772, #15071, #8644, #8757, #2165, respectively; Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA, USA) and mouse-anti β-actin (1:5000; Cat# 60008-1-Ig, Proteintech Group, Inc., Wuhan, Hubei, China).

Techniques: Expressing

Correlation of PNPO expression with progesterone receptor (PR) expression. ( A ) Detection of the correlation of PNPO mRNA expression with the expression of ER, PR and HER2 mRNA in breast IDC tissues by qRT-PCR (n = 30 each). ( B ) Expression of PR and PNPO proteins in IDC tissues of two patients with a low level of PNPO (left sample) and the high level of PNPO (right sample) detected by Western blot. ( C ) Correlation of PNPO protein expression with PR protein expression in IDC tissues (n =30). ( D ) Effect of PNPO knockdown by shRNA on PR mRNA expression detected by qRT-PCR. Breast non-cancerous cells (MCF-12A) and cancerous cells (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231) were treated with PNPO-shRNA (shPNPO) and its negative control (NC). A total PR (PR-A/B) and a B-type PR (PR-B) were detected by qRT-PCR (n = 3). * P < 0.05. ( E ) Effect of PNPO knockdown by shRNA on PR protein expression detected by Western blot in MCF-12A, MCF-7, and MDA-MB-231 cells.

Journal: Aging (Albany NY)

Article Title: Pyridoxine 5′-phosphate oxidase is correlated with human breast invasive ductal carcinoma development

doi: 10.18632/aging.101908

Figure Lengend Snippet: Correlation of PNPO expression with progesterone receptor (PR) expression. ( A ) Detection of the correlation of PNPO mRNA expression with the expression of ER, PR and HER2 mRNA in breast IDC tissues by qRT-PCR (n = 30 each). ( B ) Expression of PR and PNPO proteins in IDC tissues of two patients with a low level of PNPO (left sample) and the high level of PNPO (right sample) detected by Western blot. ( C ) Correlation of PNPO protein expression with PR protein expression in IDC tissues (n =30). ( D ) Effect of PNPO knockdown by shRNA on PR mRNA expression detected by qRT-PCR. Breast non-cancerous cells (MCF-12A) and cancerous cells (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231) were treated with PNPO-shRNA (shPNPO) and its negative control (NC). A total PR (PR-A/B) and a B-type PR (PR-B) were detected by qRT-PCR (n = 3). * P < 0.05. ( E ) Effect of PNPO knockdown by shRNA on PR protein expression detected by Western blot in MCF-12A, MCF-7, and MDA-MB-231 cells.

Article Snippet: The membrane was blocked with 5% non-fat milk or 5% BSA for 1 h at room temperature and incubated overnight at 4°C with primary antibodies diluted in blocking buffer: rabbit-anti GAPDH (1:5000, Cat# D110016, Shenggong), rabbit-anti PNPO (1:2000; Cat# SAB1411034, Sigma), rabbit-anti caspase3, Bax, Bcl2, ERa, PR, and HER2 (1:1000; Cat #9662, #2772, #15071, #8644, #8757, #2165, respectively; Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA, USA) and mouse-anti β-actin (1:5000; Cat# 60008-1-Ig, Proteintech Group, Inc., Wuhan, Hubei, China).

Techniques: Expressing, Quantitative RT-PCR, Western Blot, Knockdown, shRNA, Negative Control