4.6 Article

MicroRNA-301a promotes pancreatic cancer invasion and metastasis through the JAK/STAT3 signaling pathway by targeting SOCS5

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 502-514

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgz121

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Key project of Natural Sciences Foundation of Hubei Province [2015CFA078]
  2. Science and technology support program (foreign scientific and technological cooperation) of Hubei Province [2015BHE022]
  3. Yellow CraneTalent Plan Foundation
  4. Research Fund of Wuhan Public Health Bureau [WX19Q14, WX18Y11, WX14B10]
  5. Youth Foundation of Wuhan Central Hospital [YQ14A01, YQ15A03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal digestive malignant tumors. We had previously found that microRNA-301a (miR-301a) is a oncogenic microRNA whose recognized conduce to nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kappa B) activation in pancreatic cancer, yet the underlying mechanisms of miR-301a in promoting pancreatic cancer invasion and migration is obscure. In this work we found that high expression of miR-301a in human pancreatic cancer patients is related to poor survival. Overexpression of miR-301a enhances pancreatic cancer cell invasion, angiogenesis and migration, whereas inhibition of miR-301a suppresses pancreatic cancer cell invasion and reduces orthotopic pancreatic tumor growth and metastasis. Furthermore, suppressor of cytokine signaling 5 (SOCS5) is identified as a target gene of miR-301a. We found that miR-301a suppressed the expression of SOCS5 leads to janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (JAK/STAT3) activation and is related to poor overall survival of pancreatic cancer patients. Taken together, our data show for the first time that the feedback loop between miR-301a and JAK/STAT3 pathway may play a significant role in pancreatic cancer invasion and metastasis. Targeting the loop may prove beneficial to prevent metastasis and provide a more effective therapeutic strategy for pancreatic cancer.

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