4.8 Article

SHARP1 suppresses breast cancer metastasis by promoting degradation of hypoxia-inducible factors

期刊

NATURE
卷 487, 期 7407, 页码 380-384

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature11207

关键词

-

资金

  1. FIRC (Federazione Italiana Ricerca Cancro)
  2. Cariparo PhD fellowship
  3. AIRC (Italian Association for Cancer Research)
  4. Italian Welfare Ministry
  5. AIRC (Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro)
  6. Fondazione Citta della Speranza
  7. MIUR (Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Universita e della Ricerca Italia)
  8. PRIN grants
  9. AIRC
  10. HSFP
  11. University of Padua
  12. IIT Excellence grant
  13. CNR-Miur Epigenetics Flagship project
  14. Comitato Promotore Telethon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The molecular determinants of malignant cell behaviours in breast cancer remain only partially understood(1). Here we show that SHARP1 (also known as BHLHE41 or DEC2) is a crucial regulator of the invasive and metastatic phenotype in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), one of the most aggressive types of breast cancer. SHARP1 is regulated by the p63 metastasis suppressor and inhibits TNBC aggressiveness through inhibition of hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1 alpha) and HIF-2 alpha (HIFs). SHARP1 opposes HIF-dependent TNBC cell migration in vitro, and invasive or metastatic behaviours in vivo. SHARP1 is required, and sufficient, to limit expression of HIF-target genes. In primary TNBC, endogenous SHARP1 levels are inversely correlated with those of HIF targets. Mechanistically, SHARP1 binds to HIFs and promotes HIF proteasomal degradation by serving as the HIF-presenting factor to the proteasome. This process is independent of pVHL (von Hippel-Lindau tumour suppressor), hypoxia and the ubiquitination machinery. SHARP1 therefore determines the intrinsic instability of HIF proteins to act in parallel to, and cooperate with, oxygen levels. This work sheds light on the mechanisms and pathways by which TNBC acquires invasiveness and metastatic propensity.

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

4.8
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