4.6 Article

Xanthohumol-Mediated Suppression of Notch1 Signaling Is Associated with Antitumor Activity in Human Pancreatic Cancer Cells

期刊

MOLECULAR CANCER THERAPEUTICS
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 1395-1403

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0915

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIH [R03 CA 155691]
  2. Institutional Research Grant from the American Cancer Society [86-004-26]
  3. MCW Cancer Center grant
  4. Medical College of Wisconsin Dean's Program Development
  5. Froedtert Hospital Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pancreatic cancer remains a lethal disease with limited treatment options. At the time of diagnosis, approximately 80% of these patients present with unresectable tumors caused by either locally advanced lesions or progressive metastatic growth. Therefore, development of novel treatment strategies and new therapeutics is needed. Xanthohumol (XN) has emerged as a potential compound that inhibits various types of cancer, but the molecular mechanism underlying the effects of XN remains unclear. In the present study, we have assessed the efficacy of XN on pancreatic cancer cell lines (AsPC-1, PANC-1, L3.6pl, MiaPaCa-2, 512, and 651) against cell growth in real time and using colony-forming assays. Treatment with XN resulted in reduction in cellular pro-liferation in a dose- and time-dependent manner. The growth suppression effect of XN in pancreatic cancer cell lines is due to increased apoptosis via the inhibition of the Notch1 signaling pathway, as evidenced by reduction in Notch1, HES-1, and survivin both at mRNA as well as protein levels. Notch1 promoter reporter analysis after XN treatment indicated that XN down-regulates Notch promoter activity. Importantly, overexpression of active Notch1 in XN-treated pancreatic cancer cells resulted in negation of growth suppression. Taken together, these findings demonstrate, for the first time, that the growth suppressive effect of XN in pancreatic cancer cells is mainly mediated by Notch1 reduction. (C)2015 AACR.

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