4.6 Article

Effects of stable knockdown of Aurora kinase A on proliferation, migration, chromosomal instability, and expression of focal adhesion kinase and matrix metalloproteinase-2 in HEp-2 cells

期刊

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 357, 期 1-2, 页码 95-106

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11010-011-0879-1

关键词

Aurora kinase; Laryngeal neoplasms; Mitotic spindle checkpoint; Chromosomal instability; Focal adhesion kinase; Matrix metalloproteinase-2; Cell migration

资金

  1. Shanghai Science and Technology Committee [09411950600]
  2. Chinese National Natural Science Foundation [30670939]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Overexpression of Aurora kinase A (AURKA) is frequently observed in various cancers, including laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC). We investigated the effects of knockdown of AURKA on laryngeal cancer HEp-2 cells both in vitro and in vivo. A plasmid containing short hairpin (sh)RNA against AURKA was constructed and transfected into HEp-2. Measurements included the CCK-8 assay for viability and proliferation, flow cytometry for apoptosis and effects on the mitotic checkpoint, a trans-well assay for migration, immunofluorescence for assessment of genomic instability, and western blotting for protein expression. AURKA knockdown inhibited proliferation, migration, and colony formation in vitro and tumorigenicity in vivo. The knockdown induced the accumulation of cells in G2-M phase and eventual apoptosis. Knockdown of AURKA caused delayed entry into mitosis after treatment with nocodazole, reduced chromosomal instability, and decreased expression of focal adhesion kinase (FAK), phosphorylated FAK, and matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2), key regulators in cell adhesion and invasion. Knockdown of AURKA inhibits the growth and invasiveness of this LSCC cell line both in vitro and in vivo. These effects may partially result from the reduced expression of FAK and MMP-2. Knockdown of AURKA expression may represent a promising therapeutic strategy for the treatment of LSCC.

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