METHODS: Eighteen pairs of colorectal cancerous tissues in addition to tissues from normal mucosa were analysed. Hydrophobic proteins were extracted from the tissues, separated using 2-D gel electrophoresis and analysed using Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Statistical analysis of the proteins was carried out in order to determine the significance of each protein to colorectal cancer (CRC) and also their relation to CRC stages, grades and patients' gender.
RESULTS: Thirteen differentially expressed proteins which were expressed abundantly in either cancerous or normal tissues were identified. A number of these proteins were found to relate strongly with a particular stage or grade of CRC. In addition, the association of these proteins with patient gender also appeared to be significant.
CONCLUSION: Stomatin-like protein 2 was found to be a promising biomarker for CRC, especially in female patients. The differentially expressed proteins identified were associated with CRC and may act as drug target candidates.
METHODS: Colon tissues (normal and cancerous) were homogenized and the proteins were extracted using three protein extraction buffers. The extraction buffers were used in an orderly sequence of increasing extraction strength for proteins with hydrophobic properties. The protein extracts were separated using the SDS-PAGE method and the images were captured and analyzed using Quantity One software. The target protein bands were subjected to in-gel digestion with trypsin and finally analyzed using an ESI-ion trap mass spectrometer.
RESULTS: A total of 50 differentially expressed proteins in colonic cancerous and normal tissues were identified.
CONCLUSION: Many of the identified proteins have been reported to be involved in the progression of similar or other types of cancers. However, some of the identified proteins have not been reported before. In addition, a number of hypothetical proteins were also identified.
METHODS: The specific PIO questions were as follows: Population: Patients with periapical periodontitis either before or after non-surgical endodontic therapy.
INTERVENTION: IR performed with retrograde preparation and retrograde filling.
OUTCOMES: the healing, treatment complications, and the factors influencing these outcomes after IR. Electronic and hand searches were performed in the Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility. The risk of bias was performed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool, and each study was rated as "Good", "Fair" or "Poor". The analyses were performed on the treatment outcome (healing and complications), and the factors influencing the outcome of the procedure.
RESULTS: Fourteen articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses. One was a prospective cohort study, and the other 13 were retrospective cohort studies. Overall, the evidence of this review was of poor-to-fair quality. The pooled healing rate was 80.2%, and there was a 21.7% of complication rate. Longer follow-up period, the presence of perio-endo disease, the use of non-bioceramic material as retrograde filling, longer extraoral time, and maxillary molar were found to be associated with lower healing rates. However, the differences between the subgroups were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: The present review showed IR yielded a good overall healing rate with a low complication rate. Taking the quality of evidence into account, more high-quality studies are required to evaluate the validity of the factors that may influence the treatment outcome of IR.