4.6 Article

Differential effects of MAPKs signaling on the growth of invasive bladder cancer cells

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 1557-1564

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ijo_00000285

关键词

bladder cancer; mitogen activated protein kinase; cell cycle; cell death

类别

资金

  1. NIH [NCI-P20 CA 103680]
  2. University of Colorado Cancer Center Flow Cytometry Core

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) is the most common form of bladder cancer. In bladder cancer, which in terms of its origins and genetics, is a representative of invasive tumors, the differing clinical course and the limited value of established prognostic markers compelled many researchers to look for new molecular parameters in predicting the prognosis and treatment of patients with bladder cancer. Activation of mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) is a frequent event in tumor progression and metastasis. In the current study, we investigated the role of two different MAPKs (ERK1/2 and p38) by using their specific inhibitors PD98059 and SB203580 respectively, on bladder cancer growth in two cell lines derived from different tumor stages. Our preliminary work showed that ERK1/2 and p38 MAP kinase are active during the log phase growth of bladder cancer, and inhibition of these pathways could reduce proliferation and growth. Moreover, treatment with these inhibitors hinders DNA synthesis, and has differential effects on the progression of cell cycle. ERK1/2 inhibitor caused cyclin B-1-dependent G(2)/M arrest in both HTB5 and HTB9 bladder cancer cell lines, where as p38 MAPK inhibitor showed G(2)/M arrest in HTB9 and G(1) arrest in HTB5 cell line. Furthermore, decreased proliferation and growth arrest 9 caused by MAPK inhibitors was found to be a reflection of apoptotic induction by these inhibitors in bladder cancer cells. Thus, these studies establish MAPKs as a molecular target in bladder cancer growth which could provide new molecular modalities in clinical application.

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