4.6 Article

Paradoxical Impact of Two Folate Receptors, FRα and RFC, in Ovarian Cancer: Effect on Cell Proliferation, Invasion and Clinical Outcome

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047201

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. American Institute for Cancer Research
  2. University of Hong Kong

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite being an essential vitamin, folate has been implicated to enhance tumor growth, as evidenced by reports on overexpression of folate receptor alpha (FR alpha) in carcinomas. The role of another folate transporter, reduced folate carrier (RFC), is largely unknown. This study investigated the roles of folate, FR alpha and RFC in ovarian cancers. We demonstrated FR alpha mRNA and protein overexpression and reduced RFC expression in association with FR alpha gene amplification and RFC promoter hypermethylation, respectively. FRa overexpression was associated with tumor progression while RFC expression incurred a favorable clinical outcome. Such reciprocal expression pattern was also observed in ovarian cancer cell lines. Folate was shown to promote cancer cell proliferation, migration and invasion in vitro, and down-regulate E-cadherin expression. This effect was blocked after either stable knockdown of FR alpha or ectopic overexpression of RFC. This hitherto unreported phenomenon suggests that, RFC can serve as a balancing partner of FR alpha and confer a protective effect in patients with high FR alpha-expressing ovarian carcinomas, as evidenced by their prolonged overall and disease-free survivals. In conclusion, we report on the paradoxical impact of FR alpha (putative oncogenic) and RFC (putative tumor suppressive) in human malignancies. FR alpha and RFC may potentially be explored as therapeutic target or prognostic marker respectively. We recommend caution and additional research on folate supplements in cancer patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available