4.8 Article

Tumor genotype dictates radiosensitization after Atm deletion in primary brainstem glioma models

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 131, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI142158

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [F30 CA206424, R35 CA197616]
  2. Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation
  3. Hannah's Heroes St. Baldrick's Research Grant
  4. Leon Levine Foundation
  5. National Cancer Institute (Duke Brain) [SPORE P50-CA19099]
  6. Fly A Kite Foundation
  7. Cristian Rivera Foundation
  8. Rory David Deutsch Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study suggests that deleting Atm in DIPG models can enhance tumor radiosensitivity, especially in the absence of p53. Mice with p53 wild-type tumors also showed improved survival after radiotherapy, regardless of Atm deletion. Tumor genotype may determine whether inhibiting ATM during radiotherapy is an effective approach.
Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) kills more children than any other type of brain tumor. Despite clinical trials testing many chemotherapeutic agents, palliative radiotherapy remains the standard treatment. Here, we utilized Cre/loxP technology to show that deleting Ataxia telangiectasia mutated (Atm) in primary mouse models of DIPG can enhance tumor radiosensitivity. Genetic deletion of Atm improved survival of mice with p53-deficient but not p53 wild-type gliomas after radiotherapy. Similar to patients with DIPG, mice with p5.3 wild-type tumors had improved survival after radiotherapy independent of Atm deletion. Primary p53 wild-type tumor cell lines induced proapoptotic genes after radiation and repressed the NRF2 target, NAD(P)H quinone dehydrogenase 1 (Nqo1). Tumors lacking p53 and Ink4a/Arf expressed the highest level of Nqca and were most resistant to radiation, but deletion of Atm enhanced the radiation response. These results suggest that tumor genotype may determine whether inhibition of ATM during radiotherapy will be an effective clinical approach to treat DIPGs.

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

4.8
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