4.7 Article

RACK1 promotes cancer progression by increasing the M2/M1 macrophage ratio via the NF-κB pathway in oral squamous cell carcinoma

期刊

MOLECULAR ONCOLOGY
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 795-807

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/1878-0261.12644

关键词

macrophage polarization; NF-kappa B; oral squamous cell carcinoma; RACK1; tumor-associated macrophages

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81672675, 81872211, 81621062, 81302371, 81771081]
  2. 111 Project of MOE China [B14038]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Receptor for activated C kinase 1 (RACK1) has been shown to promote oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) progression, and RACK1 expression levels have been negatively correlated with prognosis in patients with OSCC. Here, we investigated the impact of RACK1 OSCC expression on the recruitment and differentiation of tumor-associated macrophages. High RACK1 expression in OSCC cells correlated with increased M2 macrophage infiltration in tumor samples from a clinical cohort study. Moreover, the combination of RACK1 expression and the M2/M1 ratio could successfully predict prognosis in OSCC. OSCC cells with high RACK1 expression inhibited the migration of THP-1 cells, promoted M2-like macrophage polarization in vitro, and increased the proportion of M2-like macrophages in a xenograft mouse model. Moreover, both M1- and M2-like macrophage polarization-associated proteins were induced in macrophages cocultured with RACK1-silenced cell supernatant. A mechanistic study revealed that the expression and secretion of C-C motif chemokine 2 (CCL2), C-C motif chemokine 5 (CCL5), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and interleukin-1 (IL-1) are closely related to RACK1 expression. In addition, blocking nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kappa B) could promote M2-like macrophage polarization. These results indicate that RACK1 and the M2/M1 ratio are predictors of a poor prognosis in OSCC. RACK1 promotes M2-like polarization by regulating NF-kappa B and could be used as a potential therapeutic target for antitumor immunity.

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