4.8 Article

Cell-Cycle Regulation Accounts for Variability in Ki-67 Expression Levels

Journal

CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 77, Issue 10, Pages 2722-2734

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-0707

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. GEFLUC LR
  2. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-09-BLAN-0252]
  3. Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer
  4. Worldwide Cancer Research [16-0006]
  5. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale
  6. Fondation ARC pour la Recherche sur le Cancer [PJA 20141201975]
  7. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-09-BLAN-0252] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The cell proliferation antigen Ki-67 is widely used in cancer histopathology, but estimations of Ki-67 expression levels are inconsistent and understanding of its regulation is limited. Here we show that cell-cycle regulation underlies variable Ki-67 expression in all situations analyzed, including nontransformed human cells, normal mouse intestinal epithelia and adenomas, human cancer cell lines with or without drug treatments, and human breast and colon cancers. In normal cells, Ki-67 was a late marker of cell-cycle entry; Ki-67 mRNA oscillated with highest levels in G(2) while protein levels increased throughout the cell cycle, peaking in mitosis. Inhibition of CDK4/CDK6 revealed proteasome-mediated Ki-67 degradation in G(1). After cell-cycle exit, low-level Ki-67 expression persisted but was undetectable in fully quiescent differentiated cells or senescent cells. CDK4/CDK6 inhibition in vitro and in tumors in mice caused G1 cell-cycle arrest and eliminated Ki-67 mRNA in RB1-positive cells but had no effect in RB1-negative cells, which continued to proliferate and express Ki-67. Thus, Ki-67 expression varies due to cell-cycle regulation, but it remains a reliable readout for effects of CDK4/CDK6 inhibitors on cell proliferation. (C) 2017 AACR.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available