4.6 Article

Low-level internalization of cystatin E/M affects legumain activity and migration of melanoma cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 292, 期 35, 页码 14413-14424

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M117.776138

关键词

-

资金

  1. Faculty of Medicine and BioCARE at Lund University
  2. national 'ALF' program grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ratio between proteases and their inhibitors is unbalanced in cancer. The cysteine protease inhibitor cystatin C is internalized by some cancer cells, which affects cellular properties. Here we aimed to investigate if uptake of cystatin C and the related inhibitor cystatin E/M occur in melanoma cell lines and to evaluate to what extent the uptake affects the legumain activity that is typically increased in melanoma. First we studied the basic expression, secretion, and intracellular content of all type 2 cystatins as well as expression and activity of their possible target enzymes legumain and cathepsin B in MDA-MB-435S, A375, and C8161 melanoma cells. Legumain activity was measureable in all cell lines, and of the potential legumain inhibitors, cystatin C, E/M, and F, cystatin C was the one mainly produced. All cells internalized cystatin C added to culture media, leading to increased intracellular cystatinClevels by 120-200%. Cystatin E/M was internalized as well but at a modest rate. The effects on intracellular legumain activity were nevertheless pronounced, probably because the cells lacked this inhibitor, and its affinity for legumain is 100-fold higher than that of cystatin C. Likewise, the low-degree uptake resulted in reduced migration and invasion of A375 cells in Matrigel to an extent comparable with the W106F variant of cystatin C with optimal uptake properties and resulting in much higher intracellular levels. Thus, cystatin E/M appears to be a good candidate to efficiently downregulate the increased legumain activity, possibly important for the malignant phenotype of melanoma cells.

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