4.6 Article

Pathway crosstalk between Ras/RAF and PI3K in promotion of M-CSF-induced MEK/ERK-mediated osteoclast survival

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 104, 期 4, 页码 1439-1451

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcb.21719

关键词

osteoclast; apoptosis; MEK; ras; PI3K; M-CSF

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01 DE014680, R01 DE14680] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While M-CSF-mediated MEK/ERK activation promotes osteoclast survival, the signaling pathway by which M-CSF activates MEK/ERK is unresolved. Functions for PI3K, Ras, and Raf have been implicated in support of osteoclast survival, although interaction between these signaling components has not been examined. Therefore, the interplay between PI3K, Ras and Raf in M-CSF-promoted MEK/ERK activation and osteoclast survival was investigated. M-CSF activates Ras to coordinate activation of PI3K and Raf/MEK/ERK, since Ras inhibition decreased P13 K activation and PI3K inhibition did not block M-CSF-mediated Ras activation. As further support for Ras-mediated signaling, constitutively active (ca) Ras promoted MEK/ERK activation and osteoclast survival, which was blocked by inhibition of PI3K or Raf. Moreover, PI3K-selective or Raf-selective caRaswere only partially able to promote osteoclast survival when comparedto parental caRas. We then examined whether PI3K and Rat function linearly or in parallel downstream of Ras. Expression of caP13K increased MEK/ERK activation and promoted osteoclast survival downstream of M-CSF, supporting this hypothesis. Blocking Raf did not decrease osteoclast survival and MEK/ERK activation promoted by caPI3K. In addition, PI3K-selective Ras-mediated survival was not blocked by Raf inhibition. Taken together, our data support that Raf signaling is separate from Ras/PI3K signaling and PI3K signaling is separate from Ras/Raf signaling. These data therefore support a role for Ras in coordinate activation of PI3K and Raf acting in parallel to mediate MEK/ERK-promoted osteoclast survival induced by M-CSF.

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