4.7 Article

Upregulation of LYAR induces neuroblastoma cell proliferation and survival

期刊

CELL DEATH AND DIFFERENTIATION
卷 24, 期 9, 页码 1645-1654

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/cdd.2017.98

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council
  2. National Institutes of Health [NIH-R00-HL094709, GM106392]
  3. Australian Research Council Future Fellowship
  4. Cancer Institute New South Wales Early Career Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The N-Myc oncoprotein induces neuroblastoma by regulating gene transcription and consequently causing cell proliferation. Paradoxically, N-Myc is well known to induce apoptosis by upregulating pro-apoptosis genes, and it is not clear how N-Myc overexpressing neuroblastoma cells escape N-Myc-mediated apoptosis. The nuclear zinc finger protein LYAR has recently been shown to modulate gene expression by forming a protein complex with the protein arginine methyltransferase PRMT5. Here we showed that N-Myc upregulated LYAR gene expression by binding to its gene promoter. Genome-wide differential gene expression studies revealed that knocking down LYAR considerably upregulated the expression of oxidative stress genes including CHAC1, which depletes intracellular glutathione and induces oxidative stress. Although knocking down LYAR expression with siRNAs induced oxidative stress, neuroblastoma cell growth inhibition and apoptosis, co-treatment with the glutathione supplement N-acetyl-L-cysteine or co-transfection with CHAC1 siRNAs blocked the effect of LYAR siRNAs. Importantly, high levels of LYAR gene expression in human neuroblastoma tissues predicted poor event-free and overall survival in neuroblastoma patients, independent of the best current markers for poor prognosis. Taken together, our data suggest that LYAR induces proliferation and promotes survival of neuroblastoma cells by repressing the expression of oxidative stress genes such as CHAC1 and suppressing oxidative stress, and identify LYAR as a novel co-factor in N-Myc oncogenesis.

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