4.5 Article

Anti-tumor Effect of Polysaccharides From Scutellaria Barbata D. Don on the 95-D Xenograft Model via Inhibition of the C-Met Pathway

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 125, 期 3, 页码 255-263

出版社

JAPANESE PHARMACOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1254/jphs.13276FP

关键词

polysaccharides Scutellaria barbata (PSB); c-Met; 95-D cell line; lung cancer; receptor tyrosine kinase

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31170924]
  2. National 863 Plant Projects Foundation of China [2012AA020504-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polysaccharides isolated from Scutellaria barbata (PSB) have been reported to have anti-tumor effects. To investigate the underlying mechanism, a highly invasive, metastatic and phospho-c-Met overexpression lung carcinoma cell, 95-D cell line was used. The results showed that in vitro, PSB not only could inhibit the proliferation of 95-D cell line (IC50 = 35.2 mu g/mL), but also down-regulated the expression of phospho-c-Met and its downstream signaling molecules including phospho-Erk and phospho-Akt. In vivo, PSB inhibited tumor growth in the 95-D subcutaneous xenograft model in a dose-dependent manner; after once-daily intraperitoneal injection for 3 weeks, tumor growth inhibition T/C ratio for 100 and 200 mg/kg treatments was 42.72% and 13.6%, respectively. In the end of the in vivo study, tumor tissues were harvested for further evaluation of the phosphorylation level of c-Met, AKT, and ERK. Ex vivo results demonstrated that the phosphorylation of c-Met and its downstream signaling molecules were also significantly inhibited by PSB. Immunohistochemistry analysis showed dose-dependent inhibition of tumor cell proliferation (Ki67) and reduction of microvessel density (CD31). In summary, the results indicated that PSB exerted anti-tumor growth activity on human lung cancer 95-D in vitro and in vivo by directly regulating the c-Met signaling pathway and the anti-tumor effects were mainly based on its anti-proliferation and anti-angiogenesis action.

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

4.5
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