880, 0.863, 0.729, 0.699, and 0.799 respectively, and all these comparisons were statistically

significant at p ≤ 0.0001 (Figure 4A–E). Figure 3 Representative example of human breast cancer specimens from TMA3 that expressed either low (left panel) or high (right panel) eIF4E. Matching specimens from the same patient are shown for c-Myc, cyclin D1, ODC, TLK1B, and VEGF (200 × magnification). Figure 4 this website Correlation of immunohistochemical C646 purchase expression of eIF4E vs c-Myc [A], cyclin D1 [B], ODC [C], TLK1B [D], VEGF [E] from TMA3. Figures represent the integrated optical density (IOD) of immunohistochemical staining intensity normalized to cytokeratin. Protein expression of eIF4E and TLK1B were also compared by western blot analysis [F], in which values represent expression of eIF4E and TLK1B as fold- over benign. All comparisons were done using Spearman’s rank correlation. Rho- and p- values for each comparison are displayed in each panel. Western blot analysis: Correlation of eIF4E with TLK1B We have previously shown by western blot analysis that the expression of eIF4E correlated with that of TLK1B [23]. As further validation of our TMA results, we also compared eIF4E with TLK1B using the corresponding fresh-frozen specimens from the same tumors as those used for TMA3 (Figure 4F). Due to limited

amounts of fresh-frozen specimens, the other proteins were not analyzed. Protein expressions of eIF4E to TLK1B were positively correlated (rho value 0.485, p

value 0.0054). Non-correlation to independent markers We have previously demonstrated that western blot analysis AZD4547 cost of eIF4E did not correlate with node status, ER, PR, or HER-2/neu [18, 19]. In the current study, expression of eIF4E (by both TMA-IHC and western blot) was also compared to ER, PR, and HER-2/neu expression. There was no correlation of eIF4E on TMA3 with any of these independent markers by either TMA-IHC or western blot analysis of eIF4E (Table 2). Table 2 Lack of correlation of ER, PR, or HER-2/neu with eIF4E     95% Confidence Interval       Rho Value Lower Upper n P TMA expression of eIF4E a eIF4E and ER -0.137 -0.469 0.228 31 0.452 eIF4E and PR -0.069 -0.413 0.293 31 0.707 eIF4E and HER-2/neu -0.013 -0.406 0.384 25 0.949 Western blot expression of eIF4E b eIF4E and ER -0.192 -0.479 0.132 39 0.237 eIF4E and PR -0.295 -0.558 0.023 39 0.069 eIF4E and Urocanase HER-2/neu -0.143 -0.469 0.216 32 0.425 a For the first three rows, comparisons were made of immunohistochemical staining of each protein normalized to cytokeratin to ER, PR, and HER-2/neu.bLast three rows, comparison of protein expression of eIF4E assayed by western blot (fold- over benign) to ER, PR, and HER-2/neu. All comparisons were done using Spearman’s Rank Correlation. Discussion In the current study, we have analyzed the expression of eIF4E along with 5 of its downstream effector proteins in human breast carcinoma specimens using immunohistochemical analysis of TMAs.