Table 1.
Association between ATG-5 expression and clinicopathological characteristics of GC patients.
Figure 1.
Representative images showing immunohistochemical staining for ATG-5 in non-tumorous and GC tumor tissues.
(A) ATG-5 staining in non-cancerous gastric tissues scored 285(×200); (B) ATG-5 staining in GC tumor tissues scored 50(×400); (C) ATG-5 staining in GC tumor tissues scored 270(×400); (D) ATG-5 staining in GC tumor tissues scored 400(×200).
Figure 2.
Kaplane-Meier statistical analyses showing OS and DFS in different subgroups of GC patients.
(A and B) Patients were divided into four following subgroups based on ATG-5 immunostaining: scored 0–99 (curve a), scored 100–199 (curve b), scored 200–299 (curve c) and scored 300–400 (curve d). The difference among different subgroups was statistically significant as evaluated by overall Log-rank comparisons (OS: P<0.001, DFS: P = 0.003). Pairwise Log-rank comparisons showed that the subgroup D exhibited the poorest survival rates as compared to other subgroups (OS: P<0.05, DFS: P<0.01). (C and D) Patients were divided into four following subgroups based on MRP-1 immunostaining: scored 0–99 (curve a), scored 100–199 (curve b), scored 200–299 (curve c) and scored 300–400 (curve d). The difference among various subgroups was statistically significant by overall Log-rank comparisons (OS: P = 0.001, DFS: P = 0.018). Pairwise Log-rank comparisons showed that the subgroup A had the most favorable prognosis among the four subgroups (OS: P<0.05, DFS: P<0.001). (E and F) Patients were divided into four subgroups according to different TNM stages. The difference among different subgroups was statistically significant by overall Log-rank comparisons (OS: P<0.001, DFS: P<0.001). Pairwise Log-rank comparisons showed that subgroups III or IV exhibited poorer survival rates than that of subgroups IB and II (OS: P<0.01, DFS: P<0.001).
Table 2.
Association between MRP-1 expression and clinicopathological characteristics of GC patients.
Table 3.
The multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis of prognostic factors for OS and DFS rates of 135 GC patients.
Figure 3.
ATG-5 was upregulated in chemoresistant cells.
(A) The level of ATG5 was detected in cell lines using western blot analysis. β -actin was used as internal controls.(B) The IC 25, IC50 and IC75 of SGC-7901 and SGC-7901/DDP cells were tested using the MTT assays after DPP treatment.
Figure 4.
Silencing ATG-5 sensitized chemoresistant cells to drug treatment.
(A) The mRNA level of ATG-5 was detected by real time PCR after treatment with siRNAs. GAPDH was used as internal controls. (B) The protein level of ATG-5 was detected by western blot after treatment with siRNAs. β -actin was used as internal controls. (C) The proliferation ability was tested using MTT assay 48 hours or 72 hours after different treatment.
Figure 5.
Autophagy was involved in the drug resistant of DC cells.
(A) The autophagy was detected by immunofluorescence assay of LC3B in the cells 48 hours after different treatment. (B) The protein levels of LC3A and LC3B were tested by western blot. β-actin was used as internal controls.