5). This melanocytic nevus was the only one to exhibit increased cyclin D1 expression as compared to ROC1 expression. In the majority of melanomas with amplification, protein expressions Duvelisib cost were proportional (40% of the cases) or cyclin D1 expression was increased when compared with ROC1 expression (40% of the samples). Among non-amplified melanomas, 50% of those with >50% cyclin D1 positivity exhibited ROC1 expression in <25% of cells (Fig. 6), and 43.7% showed ROC1 expression

in >50% of cells. No correlation between the amplification of the CCND1 gene and the relationship between protein expression levels was found (p = 0.500). The ROC1 RING finger protein (RING of Cullins), also called Rbx1 and Hrt1, is a highly stable protein that belongs to the C3H2C3 (or RING-2) subclass of RING finger proteins and acts as an essential subunit Caspase activity assay of ubiquitin-ligase SCF protein [13] and [19]. It was first isolated in yeast [21] and was biochemically purified as a common component of both the human and yeast SCF complexes [16], [28] and [30], as well as of the von Hippel-Lindau tumor-suppressor complex (CBCVHL or Cul2-Elongin BC-VHL) [7] and [15] (for review, see Nai and Marques – [20]).

ROC1 protein is encoded by the human gene Rbx1, which contains five exons and is located on chromosome 22q13 [22]. Point mutations in a single amino acid in the ROC1 protein domain can completely disrupt ubiquitin-ligase activity [13], [19], [21] and [26]. It mediates the degradation of substrate proteins required for cell cycle progression, signal transduction, and tumor-suppressing Erlotinib cost activities [7]. It plays an important role in labeling cyclin D1 for proteosomal degradation [19], [24] and [32]. In this study, the expression of ROC1 correlated with neoplasia type (benign or malignant). In the melanocytic nevus group, ROC1 was expressed in >50% of cells in most cases, and

in <25% of cells in only one case. However, in the melanoma group, low ROC1 levels (<25%) were seen in a large number of cases, demonstrating a ROC1 deficiency in this group. Nonetheless, no correlations of ROC1 expression with Breslow’s thickness or melanoma histological type were found. Cyclin D1 expression also correlated with neoplasia type. Moreover, in the melanoma group, cyclin D1 expression showed no correlation with Breslow thickness or melanoma histological type. Although no significant correlations of Breslow thickness with ROC1 and cyclin D1 expressions were detected, increased ROC1 positivity predominated in melanomas of 1.01–2 mm thickness while higher cyclin D1 levels were seen in melanomas thicker than 4 mm. In melanomas with a Breslow thickness between 1.01 and 2 mm, it is possible to observe the beginning of a neoplasia vertical growth phase. The increased ROC1 expression found in tumors of this thickness may reflect an attempt of the host to restrain the progression of the lesion.