4.5 Article

The (+)- and (-)-gossypols potently inhibit both 3 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase and 17 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase 3 in human and rat testes

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2009.02.004

关键词

Steroids; Testosterone; Competitive inhibition; Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase

资金

  1. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [R01HD050570] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [HD050570] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Androgen deprivation is commonly used in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. The (-)-gossypol enantiomer has been demonstrated as an effective inhibitor of Bcl-2 in the treatment of prostate cancer. However, the mechanism of gossypol as an inhibitor of androgen biosynthesis is not clear. The present study compared (+)- and (-)-gossypols in the inhibition of 3 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (3 beta-HSD)and 17 beta-HSD isoform 3 (17 beta-HSD3) in human and rat testes. Gossypol enantiomers were more potent inhibitors of rat 3 beta-HSD with IC(50)s of similar to 0.2 mu M compared to 3-5 mu M in human testes. However, human 17 beta-HSD3 was more sensitive to inhibition by gossypol enantiomers, with IC(50)s of 0.36 +/- 0.09 and 1.13 +/- 0.12 for (-)- and (+)-gossypols, respectively, compared to 3.43 +/- 0.46 and 10.93 +/- 2.27 in rat testes. were species- and enantiomer-specific differences in the sensitivity of the inhibition of 17 beta-HSD3. Gossypol enantiomers competitively inhibited both 3 beta-HSD and 17 beta-HSD3 by competing for the cofactor binding sites of these enzymes. Gossypol enantiomers, fed orally to rats (20 mg/kg), inhibited 3 beta-HSD but not 17 beta-HSD3. This finding was consistent with the in vitro data, in which rat 30-HSD was more sensitive to gossypol inhibition than rat 17 beta-HSD3. As the reverse was true for the human enzymes, gossypol might be useful for treating metastatic prostate cancer. (c) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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