4.1 Article

Oncogenic relevant defensins: expression pattern and proliferation characteristics of human tumor cell lines

Journal

TUMOR BIOLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages 7959-7966

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13277-015-4701-7

Keywords

Human defensins; Carcinoma; Glioma; Neuroblastoma; Expression pattern

Categories

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation [KFO 208 TP10]
  2. Medical Faculty of the University of Bonn
  3. BONFOR program of the Medical Faculty of the University of Bonn

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to investigate gene expression levels of oncogenic relevant human defensins and their impact on proliferation rates of 29 cell lines derived from main types of different tumor origins. Differential gene expression analysis of human defensins was performed by real-time PCR experiments. The proliferation rate of tumor cells that had been cultivated in the absence or presence of biologically active peptides was analyzed with a lactate dehydrogenase assay kit. At least one member of the defensin family was expressed in each tumor cell line, whereby alpha-defensin (DEFA1), DEFA2, or DEFA3 transcripts could be ubiquitously detected. Cell lines of neural origin (glioma, neuroblastoma, and small-cell lung carcinoma) expressed far less human beta-defensins (hBDs) in comparison to other tumor types. The expression level of a specific defensin in various cell lines could vary by more than five orders of magnitude. Compensatory mechanisms on the expression levels of the different defensins could not be strictly observed. Only in 3 out of 29 tumor cell lines the proliferation rate was affected after defensin stimulation. The variable appearance of defensins, as well as the cell line-restricted functional activity, argues for the integration of defensins in complex cellular and molecular networks that tolerate rather flexible expression patterns.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available