4.7 Article

Rigosertib and Cholangiocarcinoma: A Cell Cycle Affair

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23010213

关键词

Rigosertib; PLK1 inhibitor; cholangiocarcinoma; EGI-1 cells; cell cycle; p53; Cyclin B; CDK1; EMI1

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the mechanism of action of Rigosertib on cholangiocarcinoma cells EGI-1 using Western blotting technique. The results showed an increase in EMI1 and Cyclin B protein levels and a significant reduction in CDK1 phosphorylation after Rigosertib treatment. The expression of PLK1 increased after 24 hours of treatment and decreased after 48 hours. Additionally, p53 levels increased and its activity was found to be necessary for the effects of Rigosertib on cell viability in EGI-1 cells.
Rigosertib is multi-kinase inhibitor that could represent an interesting therapeutic option for non-resectable patients with cholangiocarcinoma, a very aggressive hepatic cancer with limited effective treatments. The Western blotting technique was used to evaluate alterations in the expression of proteins involved in the regulation of the cell cycle of cholangiocarcinoma EGI-1 cells. Our results show an increase in EMI1 and Cyclin B protein levels after Rigosertib treatment. Moreover, the phosphorylation of CDK1 is significantly reduced by Rigosertib, while PLK1 expression increased after 24 h of treatment and decreased after 48 h. Finally, we evaluated the role of p53. Its levels increase after Rig treatment, and, as shown in the cell viability experiment with the p53 inhibitor Pifithrin, its activity is necessary for the effects of Rigosertib against the cell viability of EGI-1 cells. In conclusion, we hypothesized the mechanism of the action of Rigosertib against cholangiocarcinoma EGI-1 cells, highlighting the importance of proteins involved in the regulation of cell cycles. The CDK1-Cyclin B complex and p53 play an important role, explaining the Block in the G2/M phase of the cell cycle and the effect on cell viability

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