4.6 Article

Expression of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins in small- and non-small-cell lung carcinoma cells

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL CELL RESEARCH
Volume 279, Issue 2, Pages 277-290

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/excr.2002.5608

Keywords

lung cancer; inhibitor of apoptosis protein; ionizing radiation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cells both initiate apoptotic signaling, resulting in caspase activation, after treatment with anti-cancer agents. However, in contrast to SCLC cells, NSCLC cells do not fully execute apoptosis. The apoptotic process in NSCLC cells seems to be blocked downstream of caspase activation, thus the failure of NSCLC cells to execute apoptosis could result from inhibition of active caspases by inhibitor of apoptosis proteins (IAPs). Here we investigate the mRNA and protein expression of IAPs in a panel of SCLC and NSCLC cell lines. The NSCLC cell lines had a stronger cIAP-2 expression at both mRNA and protein levels, while the SCLC cell lines had a higher level of XIAP protein. Expression of cIAP-1, cIAP-2, and XIAP, the most potent caspase inhibitors, was further investigated in three lung carcinoma cell lines after treatment with 8 Gy of ionizing radiation or etoposide (VP16). In response to treatment, the level of LAPS was not altered in a way that explained the differences in cellular chemo- and radiosensitivity. The intracellular localization of IAPs was analyzed in untreated and treated lung cancer cells. Surprisingly, we found that cIAP-2 was mainly detected in the mitochondrial fraction, although the function of this protein in mitochondria is unknown. No major relocalization of UPS was observed after treatment. Taken together, these results indicate that UPS alone are not the main factor responsible for the resistance of NSCLC cells to treatment. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science (USA).

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