4.6 Article

Agonist Effects of Propranolol on Non-Tumor Human Breast Cells

期刊

CELLS
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells9041036

关键词

propranolol; beta-blocker; biased agonism; MCF-10A; cell adhesion

资金

  1. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica from Argentina [PICT 2016-0193]
  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET) from Argentina
  3. Fundacion Rene Baron from Argentina
  4. Fundacion Williams from Argentina
  5. Fundacion Roemmers from Argentina
  6. Instituto Nacional del Cancer from Argentina

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The beta-blocker propranolol (PROP) has been proposed as a repurposed treatment for breast cancer. The similarity of action between beta-agonists and antagonists found on breast cells encouraged us to compare PROP and isoproterenol (ISO, agonist) signaling pathways on a human breast cell line. Cell proliferation was measured by cell counting and DNA-synthesis. Cell adhesion was measured counting the cells that remained adhered to the plastic after different treatments. Changes in actin cytoskeleton were observed by fluorescence staining and Western Blot. ISO and PROP caused a diminution of cell proliferation and an increase of cell adhesion, reverted by the pure beta-antagonist ICI-118551. ISO and PROP induced a reorganization of actin cytoskeleton increasing F-actin, p-COFILIN and p-LIMK. While ISO elicited a marked enhancement of cAMP concentrations and an increase of vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) and cAMP response element-binding protein (CREB) phosphorylation, PROP did not. Clathrin-mediated endocytosis inhibition or beta-arrestin1 dominant-negative mutant abrogated PROP-induced cell adhesion and COFILIN phosphorylation. The fact that PROP has been proposed as an adjuvant drug for breast cancer makes it necessary to determine the specific action of PROP in breast models. These results provide an explanation for the discrepancies observed between experimental results and clinical evidence.

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