4.6 Article

Ethacrynic Acid Exhibits Selective Toxicity to Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Cells by Inhibition of the Wnt/β-Catenin Pathway

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 4, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008294

关键词

-

资金

  1. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society SCOR [CA81534-06]
  2. National Cancer Institute-Drug Development Group [CA113318-01]
  3. National Institutes of Health [PO1-CA081534]
  4. Vassiliadis Family Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Aberrant activation of Wnt/beta-catenin signaling promotes the development of several cancers. It has been demonstrated that the Wnt signaling pathway is activated in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cells, and that uncontrolled Wnt/beta-catenin signaling may contribute to the defect in apoptosis that characterizes this malignancy. Thus, the Wnt signaling pathway is an attractive candidate for developing targeted therapies for CLL. Methodology/Principal Findings: The diuretic agent ethacrynic acid (EA) was identified as a Wnt inhibitor using a cell-based Wnt reporter assay. In vitro assays further confirmed the inhibitory effect of EA on Wnt/beta-catenin signaling. Cell viability assays showed that EA selectively induced cell death in primary CLL cells. Exposure of CLL cells to EA decreased the expression of Wnt/beta-catenin target genes, including LEF-1, cyclin D1 and fibronectin. Immune co-precipitation experiments demonstrated that EA could directly bind to LEF-1 protein and destabilize the LEF-1/beta-catenin complex. N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC), which can react with the a, beta-unsaturated ketone in EA, but not other anti-oxidants, prevented the drug's inhibition of Wnt/beta-catenin activation and its ability to induce apoptosis in CLL cells. Conclusions/Significance: Our studies indicate that EA selectively suppresses CLL survival due to inhibition of Wnt/beta-catenin signaling. Antagonizing Wnt signaling in CLL with EA or related drugs may represent an effective treatment of this disease.

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