4.6 Article

Activation of PAX3-MET pathways due to miR-206 loss promotes gastric cancer metastasis

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 36, 期 3, 页码 390-399

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgv009

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81172288, 81372388, 81272652, 81101689]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are thought to have an important role in tumor metastasis by regulating diverse cellular pathways. Here, we describe the function and regulation network of miR-206 in gastric cancer (GC) metastasis. MiR-206 expression was downregulated in GC cells especially in high metastatic potential cells and was also significantly decreased in metastatic lesions compared with their corresponding primary tumor samples. Both gain-and loss-of-function studies confirmed that miR-206 significantly suppressed GC cell invasion and metastasis both in vitro and in vivo. Mechanistically, paired box gene 3 (PAX3) was identified as a functional target of miR-206 in GC cells. MiR-206 inhibited GC metastasis by negatively regulating expression of PAX3. In addition, PAX3 expression was markedly higher in GC tissues than in adjacent non-cancerous tissues. GC patients with positive PAX3 expression had shorter overall survival times. Transwell assays and in vivo metastasis assays demonstrated that overexpression of PAX3 significantly promoted the invasiveness and pulmonary metastasis of GC cells. On the other hand, downregulation of PAX3 markedly reduced cell metastatic potential. Mechanistic investigations indicated that prometastasis function of PAX3 was mediated by upregulating downstream target MET. Moreover, we found that levels of PAX3 and MET were positively correlated in matched human GC specimens, and their coexpression was associated with poor prognoses. In conclusion, our results reveal that miR-206-PAX3-MET signaling is critical to GC metastasis. Targeting the pathway described here may open new therapeutic prospects to restrict the metastatic potential of GC.

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