4.6 Article

miR-520g and miR-520h overcome bortezomib resistance in multiple myeloma via suppressing APE1

期刊

CELL CYCLE
卷 18, 期 14, 页码 1660-1669

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15384101.2019.1632138

关键词

DNA repair; homologous recombination; multiple myeloma; APE1; cell viability; bortezomib resistance

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province [162300410287]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Nowadays, microRNAs (miRNAs) attract much attention in regulating anticancer drug resistance in cancers including multiple myeloma (MM). Bortezomib is the first-line choice in MM treatment, and bortezomib resistance caused by aberrant DNA repair leads to the recurrence and therapeutic failure of MM. Objective: Our study aims to identify a miRNA that overcomes bortezomib resistance in MM. Methods: We established bortezomib-resistant MM cell lines, and screened several miRNAs that have aberrant expressions in MM cell lines. The expression of DNA-repair-related proteins were assessed by western blot, and cell viability was determined by the MTT assay in bortezomib-resistant cell lines. The binding between miRNAs and 3MODIFIER LETTER PRIME-UTR of APE1 mRNA was confirmed by luciferase reporter assay. The mouse bortezomib-resistant xenograft was established to verify the therapeutic effect of miRNA overexpression. Results: miR-520g and miR-520h were significantly downregulated in bortezomib-resistant MM cell lines, and overexpression of miR-520g and miR-520h together inhibited expression of homologous recombination-related protein Rad51 and cell viability of bortezomib-resistant MM cells in vitro by binding with 3MODIFIER LETTER PRIME-UTR of APE1 mRNA. Combined overexpression of miR-520g and miR-520h inhibited bortezomib-resistant MM tumor growth in vivo. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrated that combined overexpression of miR-520g and miR-520h overcomes bortezomib resistance in MM through inhibition of DNA repair, offering a promising therapeutic target for MM treatment.

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