4.7 Article

Dihydroartemisinin induces apoptosis preferentially via a Bim-mediated intrinsic pathway in hepatocarcinoma cells

期刊

APOPTOSIS
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 1072-1086

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10495-015-1132-2

关键词

Dihydroartemisinin; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Bak; Bim; Puma; Apoptosis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61178078, 81471699, 61308111]
  2. Guangzhou science and technology plan project [2014J4100055]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This report is designed to dissect the detail molecular mechanism by which dihydroartemisinin (DHA), a derivative of artemisinin, induces apoptosis in human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells. DHA induced a loss of the mitochondrial transmemberane potential (Delta Im), release of cytochrome c, activation of caspases, and externalization of phosphatidylserine indicative of apoptosis induction. Compared with the modest inhibitory effects of silencing Bax, silencing Bak largely prevented DHA-induced Delta Im collapse and apoptosis though DHA induced a commensurable activation of Bax and Bak, demonstrating a key role of the Bak-mediated intrinsic apoptosis pathway. DHA did not induce Bid cleavage and translocation from cytoplasm to mitochondria and had little effects on the expressions of Puma and Noxa, but did increase Bim and Bak expressions and decrease Mcl-1 expression. Furthermore, the cytotoxicity of DHA was remarkably reduced by silencing Bim, and modestly but significantly reduced by silencing Puma or Noxa. Silencing Bim or Noxa preferentially reduced DHA-induced Bak activation, while silencing Puma preferentially reduced DHA-induced Bax activation, demonstrating that Bim and to a lesser extent Noxa act as upstream mediators to trigger the Bak-mediated intrinsic apoptosis pathway. In addition, silencing Mcl-1 enhanced DHA-induced Bak activation and apoptosis. Taken together, our data demonstrate a crucial role of Bim in preferentially regulating the Bak/Mcl-1 rheostat to mediate DHA-induced apoptosis in HCC cells.

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

4.7
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