Skip to main content
. 2017 Jun 23;24(9):1502–1517. doi: 10.1038/cdd.2017.74

Figure 4.

Figure 4

LncRNA-SARCC was inversely correlated with AR, AKT, MMP-13, K-RAS and P-ERK in ccRCC tissues. (a) LncRNA-SARCC expression in human RCC tissues and paired adjacent non-cancerous renal tissues. (b) Relative LncRNA-SARCC expression levels in RCC tumors are presented as fold change=2(△Ct normal−△Ct tumor) of tumor versus matched normal tissues. The 0.5-fold change threshold was defined as differentially expressed. (c) IHC staining revealed the location of AR expression in ccRCC specimens (× 200, × 400) versus adjacent normal tissues. (d) The correlation between LncRNA-SARCC expression and AR protein levels in ccRCC tissues. (e) LncRNA-SARCC expression in a series of RCC cell lines (A498, SW839, 769-P, ACHN, 786-O, OSRC-2, Caki-1 and Caki-2). For (a) and (e), the expression level of LncRNA-SARCC were analyzed by qRT-PCR. (f) LncRNA-SARCC expression in metastatic (meta) ccRCC tissues and non-meta ccRCC tissues. (g) The expression of AR protein was determined by western blot analysis in eight pairs of metastatic ccRCC tissues (M1-M8) and non-metastatic ccRCC tissues (N1-N8). (h–k) Immunohistochemical staining revealed the location of AKT (h), MMP-13 (i), K-RAS (j) or P-ERK (k) expression in ccRCC specimens (× 200, × 400). Two representative cases are shown. (l) The correlation between LncRNA-SARCC expression and AKT, MMP-13, K-RAS or P-ERK protein levels in ccRCC tissues. (m) Kaplan–Meier analyses of the correlations between LncRNA-SARCC expression level and overall survival of 66 patients with RCC. The median expression level was used as the cutoff. Patients with LncRNA-SARCC expression values below the 50th percentile were classified as having lower LncRNA-SARCC levels. Patients with LncRNA-SARCC expression values above the 50th percentile were classified as having higher LncRNA-SARCC levels. The horizontal lines in the box plots represent the medians, the boxes represent the interquartile range, and the whiskers represent the 2.0th and 97.5th percentiles. The significant differences between samples were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test