4.6 Article

N-terminal truncation mutations of adenomatous polyposis coli are associated with primary cilia defects

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocel.2014.08.010

关键词

Adenomatous polyposis coli; Tumor-associated N-terminal APC fragments; Primary cilia; Ciliogenesis; Gardner's syndrome

资金

  1. National Natural Sciences Foundation of China [31271516, 21207084]
  2. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20111401110011]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2012M521178]
  4. Natural Sciences Foundation of Shanxi [2014011027-5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene is a tumor suppressor gene and its truncated mutations cause a few cilia-related diseases such as Gardner's syndrome. However, little is known about the mechanism that links APC mutations and cilia disorder. APC mutations lead to the expression of N-terminal fragments, which have dominant effects in tumors owing to loss of the C-terminal region or a gain of function. The present study investigated the impact of tumor-associated N-terminal APC fragments on primary cilia assembly and the possible molecular mechanism involved. We discovered that expression of tumor-associated N-terminal APC fragments (APC-N, APC-N1, APC-N2, and APC-N3, which contain amino acids 1-1018, 1-448,449-781, and 782-1018 respectively), resulted in primary cilia defects. We found that a beta-catenin/PI3K/AKTIGSK-3 beta feedback signal cascade is responsible for causing N-terminal APC fragment-induced cilia defects. In this cascade, dysfunctions of both p-catenin and GSK-3 beta were involved in the up-regulation of HDAC6 and subsequent decreased acetylated tubulin levels, which thereby led to cilia defects. These data suggest a mechanism for linking N-terminal APC fragments and cilia loss, thus accelerating our understanding of human cilia-related diseases such as Gardner's syndrome and their cause due to APC mutations. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据