Hippo signaling is one of the signal transduction pathways revealed in Drosophila and mammalian. This signaling is known to control proliferation and growth of normal cells or cancer cells, in which many signaling proteins form a network. In this network, tumor suppressor kinases include MST and LATS while YAP and TAZ exist as oncoproteins. Combined with transcription factor, YAP the oncoprotien starts to secrete growth factors such as CTGF, FGF, and Cry61 regulating the growth of cells or the organ sizes. The YAP is also associated with the development of early embryo and the regeneration of the skin wound as well as abnormal growth of cancers in case of over-expression. Although many previous studies have found various tumors with YAP over-expressed, the expression of YAP is not yet clearly identified in oral cancer. The aim of this study was to check the expression level of YAP in oral squamous cell carcinoma. So we performed PCR and Western blot to check YAP expression in mRNA and protein level respectively. In result, all of the 13 cell lines examined has presented the expression of YAP, and especially in HSC2 and KOSCC11 cell lines has been observed the remarkable level of expression. In conclusion, we confirmed the overexpression of YAP cell line in oral squamous cell carcinoma, it will be a great help to the study carried out in the future. Once you understand the mechanism of oncoprotien YAP in oral cancer cells, it seems possible to research and development of targeted tumor therapy agents in oral cancer.

Although China has been an active ‘treaty-maker’ in the realm of international investment arbitration as evidenced by its more than 120 bilateral investment treaties, the utility of these BITs has been very limited. Substantive standards such as expropriation and compensation have never been comprehensively tested with respect to these BITs. This article scrutinizes the concept of expropriation by reference to Chinese investment treaty jurisprudence, in particular, the final award of Tza Yap Shum v. The Republic of Peru and China’s free trade agreement with Peru, the only Chinese BIT-related ICSID case. This article critically examines, in a comparative context, the treaty interpretation methodologies employed by the tribunal in interpreting expropriation under the China-Peru BIT, which is one of the earlier Chinese BITs. A thorough study of this subject is of great significance to interpreting the terms of indirect expropriation and compensation in Chinese BITs, thereby offering more concrete foreign investment protections based on investment treaties.