<p><em>Background:</em> UC is the most common urogenital cancer, comprising up to 2% of all naturally occurring neoplasia in dogs and can be challenging to diagnose. With early diagnosis, the disease can be controlled in most dogs with a good quality of life. MiRNAs are small non-coding RNAs that function by post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression. Their abundant presence and stability in the body make them promising tools for disease diagnosis. </p> <p><em>Hypothesis:</em> A microRNA (miRNA) signature can be used to differentiate canine urothelial carcinoma (UC) from other lower urinary tract diseases.</p> <p><em>Literature review:</em> There is an overlap of miRNA expression changes between normal physiologic processes, non-infectious and non-inflammatory conditions, infectious and/or inflammatory conditions, and neoplasia. Additionally, the mechanism of action of these overlapping miRNAs varies depending on the disease process. There is a lack of standardization of miRNA evaluation and consistency within a single evaluation method. Herein we evaluate three papers on miRNA expression in canine UC and compared the reported expression profile to human UC literature and identified experimentally validated targets of the dysregulated miRNA. </p> <p><em>Methods and results:</em> <strong>(Aim 1)</strong> Using reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR), we assessed the effects of sample handling on miRNA expression in formalin-fixed Paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue and urine sediment. We showed that the time of tissue fixation in formalin does not alter the detection of miRNA expression, but the inclusion of the muscularis layer altered the miRNA expression profile in bladder tissue. Additionally, miRNAs in urine sediment were proven to be stable despite the storage temperature for up to two weeks. <strong>(Aim 2)</strong> Using Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) with validation of findings via RT-qPCR, we evaluated differential miRNA expression in bladder tissue collected from normal canine urothelium and the invasive type of UC (iUC) to elucidate the dysregulated pathways. We found that twenty-eight miRNAs were differentially expressed (DE). The DE miRNAs were most often associated with gene silencing by miRNA, miRNAs in cancer, and miRNAs involved in DNA damage responses. Proteins involved include HRAS, KRAS, ARAF, RAF1, MAPK1, MAP2K1, MAPK3, FGFR3, EGFR, HBEGF, RASSF1, E2F2, E2F3, ERBB2, SRC, MMP1, and UP3KA. <strong>(Aim 3)</strong> Using RT-qPCR, expression of miR-214, miR-181a, miR-361, and miR-145 were evaluated. We failed to reject the null hypothesis that the relative gene expression in all groups was the same for any miRNA, nor did we find any multivariate summary that could effectively differentiate UC from inflammatory and non-neoplastic transitional cells. </p> <p><em>Conclusions:</em>   The findings within this thesis highlight the need for standardized methods for miRNA evaluation, support the use of stored samples for miRNA expression analysis, and show the importance of isolating the tissue of interest in FFPE. We defined the miRNome of iUC and investigated numerous protein pathways affected by dysregulation of differentially expressed miRNA in urothelial carcinoma. While we failed to reject our null hypothesis that the miRNA signature we evaluated could be utilized as a diagnostic tool for canine urothelial carcinoma, we showed the promise of miRNA as diagnostic tools and highlight several novel pathways that miRNA regulation affects in this disease. </p>

No description available.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-06-02T19:22:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 3116.pdf: 11974848 bytes, checksum: d69698c04f669985473e9e441c532444 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-12-11 / Universidade Federal de Sao Carlos / In innate or learned threatening situations, animals display a set of defensive behaviors specie-specific such as autonomic alterations, flight, fight and antinociception. Exposure of mice to open elevated plus-maze (oEPM: four open arms), an aversive situation, elicits antinociception of high magnitude. However, mechanisms involved in this kind of antinociception are not clear yet. This study investigated whether antinociception induced by exposure to an oEPM shows cross-tolerance with morphine (Exp. I and II); is attenuated by repetead exposure to the oEPM (Exp. III); is blocked by systemic treatment with naltrexone (Exp. IV); is prevented by adrenalectomy (Exp. V); persists after animal removal from the oEPM and if there are sex-related differences in this factor (Exp. VI); is mediated by CB1 cannabinoid receptor (Exp. VII). Rats were daily treated with morphine (M, 5 mg/kg, i.p.) or distilled water (DW) for 5 consecutive days (antinociceptive tolerance assessed by the tailflick test). Next day, rats received formalin 2.5% injection (50 &#956;L) into the right hind paw and, after first phase of formalin test, they were treated with M or DW. 25 minutes after formalin injection into the paw, time spent licking the injected paw was recorded for 10 minutes (Exp. 1). Similar procedure was followed in the Experiment II, except that time spent licking the paw was recorded during exposure to the oEPM or enclosed EPM (eEPM: four arms enclosed) in undrugged rats. In Experiment III, nociception was evaluated in rats submitted to 1, 2, 3, 4 or 6 exposures to either eEPM or oEPM (formalin was injected only during the last exposure). Experiment IV investigated the effects of naltrexone (0 and 2.5 mg/kg; s.c.) on nociception during eEPM or oEPM exposure. Nociception was also assessed during the eEPM or oEPM exposure in sham and adrenalectomized rats (exp. V). In experiment VII, rats were treated with vehicle (DMSO 60%) or AM251 (1 mg/kg, i.p., CB1 receptor antagonist). Fifteen minutes later, animals received formalin injection into the paw and, 25 minutes after, they were exposed to the eEPM or oEPM. In experiment VI, male and female rats were exposed to eEPM or oEPM (with no noxious stimulus during exposure) and imediately after they were tested on the hot plate test (52.4 °C). Results showed that antinociception induced by oEPM does not display cross-tolerance to morphine; was not altered for at least 6 exposures to the maze; failed to be reversed by naltrexone; was not prevented by adrenalectomy and was not blocked by AM251. In addition, this antinociception does not persist after animal removal of the apparatus, by contrast, it occurs a hyperalgesia (as assessed by hot plate test), a response that does not depend on sex-related differences. Results suggest that antinociception induced by oEPM: is not mediated by opioid system or CB1 cannabinoid receptors and it is not sensitive to corticosterone. Furthermore, animal removal of aversive environment alters nociceptive response from antinociception to hyperalgesia, a phenomenon that is independent of the gender. / Em situações ameaçadoras de natureza inata ou aprendida, animais exibem um conjunto de comportamentos defensivos espécie-específicos, tais como alterações autonômicas, fuga, luta e antinocicepção. A exposição de camundongos ao labirinto em cruz elevado aberto (LCEa: quatro braços abertos), uma situação aversiva, induz antinocicepção de alta magnitude. Todavia, os mecansimos envolvidos em tal antinocicepção ainda não estão elucidados. O presente estudo investigou se a antinocicepção induzida por exposição ao LCEa: mostra tolerância cruzada a morfina (experimentos I e II); é atenuada por exposição repetida ao LCEa (experimento III); é revertida por tratamento sistêmico com naltrexona (experimento IV); é impedida por adrenalectomia (experimento V); persiste após remoção do animal do LCEa e se há diferenças relacionadas ao sexo neste fator (experimento VI); é mediada pelo receptor canabinóide, CB1 (experimento VII). Ratos foram diariamente tratados com morfina (M, 5 mg/Kg, i.p.) ou água destilada (AD) por 5 dias consecutivos (tolerância antinociceptiva avaliada pelo teste de retirada da cauda). No dia seguinte, os ratos receberam injeção de formalina 2,5% (50&#61549;L) na pata traseira direita e, após a primeira fase do teste de formalina, foram tratados com M ou AD. Vinte e cinco minutos após injeção de formalina na pata, o tempo de lambidas na pata foi registrado por 10 minutos (experimento I). Procedimento semelhante foi utilizado no experimento II, exceto que o tempo de lambidas na pata foi registrado durante exposição ao LCEa ou LCE fechado (LCEf: quatro braços fechados). No experimento III, nocicepção foi avaliada em ratos submetidos a 1, 2, 3, 4 ou 6 exposições ao LCEf ou LCEa (formalina injetada somente durante a última exposição). O experimento IV investigou os efeitos de naltrexona (2,5 mg/kg; s.c.) sobre a nocicepção durante exposição ao LCEf ou LCEa. A nocicepção também foi avaliada durante exposição ao LCEf ou LCEa em ratos sham operados e adrenalectomizados (experimento V). No experimento VII, os ratos foram tratados com veículo (DMSO 60%) ou AM251 (1 mg/kg, i.p., antagonista CB1). Quinze minutos após, os animais receberam formalina na pata e, após 25 minutos, foram expostos ao LCEf ou LCEa. Já no experimento VI, ratos machos e fêmeas foram expostos ao LCEf ou LCEa, sem nenhum estímulo nociceptivo aplicado durante exposição e, imediatamente após, foram testados no teste da placa quente (52,4 °C). Os resultados mostraram que a antinocicepção induzida pelo LCEa não exibe tolerância cruzada a morfina; não foi alterada por ao menos 6 exposições ao labirinto; mostrou-se insensível à naltrexona; não foi impedida por adrenalectomia e não foi bloqueada por AM251. Ainda, tal antinocicepção não perdura após remoção dos animais do aparelho, pelo contrário, ocorre uma hiperalgesia (conforme avaliado pelo teste de placa quente), uma resposta que independe de diferenças relacionadas ao sexo. Os resultados sugerem que a antinocicepção induzida pelo LCEa: não é mediada por sistema opióide ou receptores canabinóides CB1 e não é sensível a corticosterona. Além disso, a retirada dos animais do ambiente aversivo altera a resposta nociceptiva de antinocicepção para hiperalgesia, um fenômeno que independe do gênero.