4.6 Article

FKBP5 as a Selection Biomarker for Gemcitabine and Akt Inhibitors in Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036252

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. National Institutes of Health [K22 CA130828, R01 CA138461, P50 CA102701, U19 GM61388]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have recently shown that the immunophilin FKBP5 (also known as FKBP51) is a scaffolding protein that can enhance PHLPP-AKT interaction and facilitate PHLPP-mediated dephosphorylation of Akt Ser473, negatively regulating Akt activation in vitro. Therefore, FKBP5 might function as a tumor suppressor, and levels of FKBP5 would affect cell response to chemotherapy. In the current study, we have taken a step forward by using a pancreatic cancer xenograft mice model to show that down regulation of FKBP5 in shFKBP5 xenograft mice promotes tumor growth and resistance to gemcitabine, a phenomenon consistent with our previous findings in pancreatic cell lines. In addition, we also found that inhibitors targeting the Akt pathway, including PI3K inhibitor, Akt inhibitor and mTOR inhibitor had a different effect on sensitization to gemcitabine and other chemotherapeutic agents in cell lines, with a specific Akt inhibitor, triciribine, having the greatest sensitization effect. We then tested the hypothesis that addition of triciribine can sensitize gemcitabine treatment, especially in shFKBP5 pancreatic cancer xenograft mice. We found that combination treatment with gemcitabine and triciribine has a better effect on tumor inhibition than either drug alone (p<0.005) and that the inhibition effect is more significant in shFKBP5 xenograft mice than wt mice (p<0.05). These effects were correlated with level of Akt 473 phosphorylation as well as proliferation rate, as indicated by Ki67 staining in xenograft tumor tissues. These results provide evidence in support of future clinical trials designed to tailor therapy based on our observations.

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