4.4 Article

Heat shock proteins in prostate cancer: from tumorigenesis to the clinic

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYPERTHERMIA
卷 26, 期 8, 页码 737-747

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02656731003776968

关键词

heat shock proteins; prostate cancer; predictive factors; prognostic factors

资金

  1. National Research Council (CONICET) [PIP2428]
  2. National Agency for Scientific and Technological Promotion of Argentina, (Prestamo BID) [PICT 1047]
  3. Argentina Foundation for Cancer Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The heat shock proteins (HSP) constitute a superfamily of chaperone proteins present in all cells and in all cell compartments, operating in a complex interplay with synergistic/overlapping multiplicity of functions, even though the common effect is cell protection. Several reasons explain the need for investigating HSP in prostate cancer: (1) these molecules function as chaperones of tumorigenesis accompanying the emergence of prostate cancer cells, (2) they appear as useful molecular markers associated with disease aggressiveness and with resistance to anticancer therapies including hormone therapy, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and hyperthermia, and (3) they can be used as targets for therapies. The latter can be accomplished by: (i) interrupting the interaction of HSP (mainly HSPC1) with various client proteins that are protected from degradation when chaperoned by the HSP; (ii) using the chaperone and adjuvant capabilities of certain HSP to present antigenic peptides to the immune system, so this system can recognise the prostate tumour cells as foreign to mount an effective antitumoral response; and (iii) using treatment planning models taking into account the HSP expression levels to obtain more effective therapies. In summary, the study of the HSP during tumorigenesis as well as during cancer progression, and the inclusion of treatment designs targeting HSP combined with other treatment modalities, should improve prostate cancer survival in the near future.

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

4.4
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