4.7 Article

Precision-engineered reporter cell lines reveal ABCG2 regulation in live lung cancer cells

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 175, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bcp.2020.113865

关键词

ABCG2 regulation; CRISPR-Cas9; Reporter cell lines; Glucocorticoids; Lung cancer

资金

  1. OTKA-NKFIH [NK 115375, K128011]
  2. NKFIH [K104903]
  3. National Research, Development and Innovation Office [NVKP_16-1-2016-0005]
  4. Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences through the New National Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Resources [HA: BO/00579/17/5, HA: UNKP-18-4-SE-11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Expression of the ABCG2 multidrug transporter is a marker of cancer stem cells and a predictor of recurrent malignant disease. Understanding how human ABCG2 expression is modulated by pharmacotherapy is crucial in guiding therapeutic recommendations and may aid rational drug development. Genome edited reporter cells are useful in investigating gene regulation and visualizing protein activity in live cells but require precise targeting to preserve native regulatory regions. Here, we describe a fluorescent reporter assay that allows the noninvasive assessment of ABCG2 regulation in human lung adenocarcinoma cells. Using CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing coupled with homology-directed repair, we targeted an EGFP coding sequence to the translational start site of ABCG2, generating ABCG2 knock-out and in situ tagged ABCG2 reporter cells. Using the engineered cell lines, we show that ABCG2 is upregulated by a number of anti-cancer medications, HDAC inhibitors, hypoxia-mimicking agents and glucocorticoids, supporting a model in which ABCG2 is under the control of a general stress response. To our knowledge, this is the first description of a fluorescent reporter assay system designed to follow the endogenous regulation of a human ABC transporter in live cells. The information gained may guide therapy recommendations and aid rational drug design.

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

4.7
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