4.6 Article

A Positive Feedback Loop of Long Noncoding RNA LINC00152 and KLF5 Facilitates Breast Cancer Growth

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.619915

关键词

lncRNA LINC00152; KLF5; breast cancer; positive feedback loop; cell proliferation

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [82003236, 81802626, 81972854, 82003215]
  2. Zhejiang Provincial Nature Science Foundation of China [LQ20H160030, LQ20H160063]
  3. Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital Scientific Research Returned Foundation for the Excellent Youth [ZRY2018C009, ZRY2018B002]
  4. Shanghai Jiao Tong University Medical Engineering Cross Fund [YG2017QN49]
  5. Nurturing Fund of Renji Hospital [PYZY16-018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed that LINC00152 is significantly upregulated in breast cancer, serving as an indicator of poor prognosis. Knockdown of LINC00152 suppresses cell proliferation and tumorigenicity, and its interaction with KLF5 promotes tumor progression.
The long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) LINC00152, also known as CYTOR, displays aberrant expression in various cancers. However, its clinical value and functional mechanisms in breast cancer remain insufficiently understood. Our study found that LINC00152 is significantly upregulated in breast cancer, and that it acts as an indicator of poor survival prognosis. Further studies revealed that LINC00152 knockdown suppresses cell proliferation and tumorigenicity in vitro and in vivo. Mechanistic analyses demonstrated that LINC00152 directly binds to KLF5 protein and increases KLF5 stability. Moreover, LINC00152 is also a KLF5-responsive lncRNA, and KLF5 activates LINC00152 transcription by directly binding to its promoter. Our study suggests that LINC00152 promotes tumor progression by interacting with KLF5. LINC00152 may be a valuable prognostic predictor for breast cancer, and the positive feedback loop of LINC00152-KLF5 could be a therapeutic target in pharmacological strategies.

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