4.8 Article

Axitinib blocks Wnt/β-catenin signaling and directs asymmetric cell division in cancer

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1604520113

关键词

axitinib; beta-catenin; asymmetric cell division; SHPRH

资金

  1. Tordis and Fritz C. Rieber's Foundation
  2. Bergen Medical Research Foundation
  3. Helse Vest Grants [911778, 911626, 911747, 912062]
  4. Centre for Cancer Biomarkers
  5. Research Council of Norway Grant [223250/F50]
  6. South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority Grant (Regional Core Facility for Structural Biology) [2015095]
  7. Norwegian Cancer Society Grant [803148]
  8. Natural Science Foundation of China Grant [81230090]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oncogenic mutations of the Wnt (wingless)/beta-catenin pathway are frequently observed in major cancer types. Thus far, however, no therapeutic agent targeting Wnt/beta-catenin signaling is available for clinical use. Here we demonstrate that axitinib, a clinically approved drug, strikingly blocks Wnt/beta-catenin signaling in cancer cells, zebrafish, and Apc(min/+) mice. Notably, axitinib dramatically induces Wnt asymmetry and nonrandom DNA segregation in cancer cells by promoting nuclear beta-catenin degradation independent of the GSK3 beta (glycogen synthase kinase3 beta)/APC (adenomatous polyposis coli) complex. Using a DARTS (drug affinity-responsive target stability) assay coupled to 2D-DIGE (2D difference in gel electrophoresis) and mass spectrometry, we have identified the E3 ubiquitin ligase SHPRH (SNF2, histone-linker, PHD and RING finger domain-containing helicase) as the direct target of axitinib in blocking Wnt/beta-catenin signaling. Treatment with axitinib stabilizes SHPRH and thereby increases the ubiquitination and degradation of beta-catenin. Our findings suggest a previously unreported mechanism of nuclear beta-catenin regulation and indicate that axitinib, a clinically approved drug, would provide therapeutic benefits for cancer patients with aberrant nuclear beta-catenin activation.

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