No abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to review the literature related to salivary biomarkers used to diagnose breast cancer or predict response to therapy and its prognosis. Methods: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they had compared salivary diagnostics for breast cancer with the gold standard or other biomarkers. Seven databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid, and Google Scholar) were searched for pertinent literature using specific search terms: breast cancer, diagnosis, prognosis saliva, and salivary biomarker. From the 513 studies screened, 110 were selected for inclusion in this review. Different salivary biomarkers were classified and discussed. Results: Our analysis indicated that the sensitivity and specificity of salivary biomarkers, such as c-erb-B2 and sialic acid in BC detection are comparable with serum values. Salivary levels of autoantibodies against MUC1, CA 15-3 and adiponectin, had a better correlation with breast cancer than serum levels. Assessment of biomarkers, such as HER-2, helps develop a treatment plan and evaluates response to treatment. Conclusion: Our study confirms an increasing significance for salivary biomarkers in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment planning, as well as predicting therapeutic response and prognosis. Salivary biomarkers such as c-erb-B2 in association with traditional criteria offer the promise of use as a noninvasive screening method for breast cancer. Additional studies are warranted to determine the most sensitive and specific salivary biomarkers for this purpose.

Background and Aims All components of the immune system are involved in alleviating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection. Further research is required to provide detailed insights into COVID‐19‐related immune compartments and pathways. In addition, a significant percentage of hospitalized COVID‐19 patients suspect bacterial infections and antimicrobial resistance occurs following antibiotics treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible effects of antibiotics on the response of neutrophil‐related genes in SARS‐CoV‐2 patients by an experimental in silico study. Methods The two data sets GSE1739 and GSE21802 including 10 SARS positive patients and 35 influenza A (H1N1) patients were analyzed, respectively. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between these two data sets were determined by GEO2R analysis and the Venn diagram online tool. After determining the hub genes involved in immune responses, the expression of these genes in 30 COVID‐19 patients and 30 healthy individuals was analyzed by real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). All patients received antibiotics, including levofloxacin, colistin, meropenem, and ceftazidime. Results GEO2R analysis detected 240 and 120 DEGs in GSE21802 and GSE1739, respectively. Twenty DEGs were considered as enriched hub genes involved in immune processes such as neutrophil degranulation, neutrophil activation, and antimicrobial humoral response. The central nodes were attributed to the genes of neutrophil elastase (ELANE), arginase 1 (ARG‐1), lipocalin 2 (LCN2), and defensin 4 (DEFA4). Compared to the healthy subjects, the expression of LCN2 and DEFA4 were significantly reduced in COVID‐19 patients. However, no significant differences were observed in the ELANE and AGR‐1 levels between COVID‐19 subjects and the control group. Conclusions Activation and degranulation of neutrophils were observed mainly in SARS, and H1N1 infection processes and antibiotics administration could affect neutrophil activity during viral infection. It can be suggested that antibiotics can decrease inflammation by restoring the expression of neutrophil‐related genes in COVID‐19 patients.

Background: Breast cancer (BC) is considered the most malignant and central cancer-related death among women worldwide. There is an essential need to discover new methods for developing noninvasive and low-cost diagnoses. The present study examines the expression of KCNJ3 which acts as a biomarker for detecting BC in the saliva of BC patients compared to controls. Methods: The mRNA expression level of KCNJ3 has been evaluated. Forty-three unstimulated whole saliva samples from BC patients and forty-three salivary samples from healthy controls were collected. The mRNA level was measured using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Furthermore, the protein-protein interaction network in which KCNJ3 is involved was obtained. In silico analysis was applied to predict the possible molecular mechanisms of KCNJ3 in BC development. Results: Differentially expressed KCNJ3 was statistically significant between BC patients and controls (p<0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of KCNJ3 mRNA in BC detection were 76.74% and 94.95%, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of KCNJ3 mRNA revealed that Area under the curve (AUC) was 0.923 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.866-0.979). AUCs of ROC curve analysis were 0.743 (95% CI: 0.536-0.951), 0.685 (95% CI: 0.445-0.925), and 0.583(95% CI: 0.343-0.823) for differentiation stage I from stage III, stage I to stage II and finally stage II from stage III, respectively. Furthermore, the GABAergic synapse signaling pathway was suggested as a potential pathway involved in BC development. Conclusion: Salivary levels of KCNJ3 could be considered a potential diagnostic biomarker with high sensitivity and specificity for BC detection.