No abstract

In the present study we examined the expression and release of the extracellular matrix glycoprotein fibronectin (FN) in a prostate cancer cell line (LNCaP) and in primary prostatic stromal cells using the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Perturbation experiments in vitro using antibodies directed against FN and the FN receptor were also performed. Immunohistochemistry was used to show the in vivo distribution of FN and the FN receptor in tissue sections of normal human prostate, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and prostate carcinoma. The expression of the oncofetal FN ED-B segment in benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate carcinoma tissue was investigated by RT-PCR. The FN mRNA was expressed by LNCaP and primary prostatic stromal cells, respectively. Both cell types released FN into the medium in a time-dependent manner, whereby FN secretion was about 2.5-fold higher in cultures of stromal cells relative to LNCaP cells. Blocking FN with anti-FN antibodies resulted in a significant decrease in cell adhesion for LNCaP cells and a change in morphology for the primary stromal cells. FN was located mainly in the stromal compartment of the prostate, showing a distinct distribution pattern in prostate carcinoma, whereas the FN receptor was detectable only in the prostate epithelia. RT-PCR experiments showed the expression of the oncofetal FN ED-B segment in benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate carcinoma tissue, with a 3.5-fold higher expression in the prostate carcinoma probes. Our data point to an important role for FN in cell adhesion of prostatic cells and show that an alternatively spliced FN mRNA is upregulated in the pathologically altered human prostate.

No abstract

Research in remote locations is more expensive than similar activities at sites with easier access, but these costs have rarely been compared. Using examples from seabird research, we show that conducting research in the Arctic is typically eight times more expensive than pursuing similar studies at a southern location. The differences in costs are related principally to the much higher expenses of travel and shipping (typically 4–10× higher for Arctic work), as well as the good practice of meaningful engagement with northern communities (4%–25% of project costs). Although there is some variation in costs among Arctic countries, we hope that the consistent pattern of relatively higher Arctic costs allows policy-makers and funding agencies to better plan for research support, especially for this region that is experiencing rapid environmental change.