4.7 Article

Negative control of the HGF/c-MET pathway by TGF-β: a new look at the regulation of stemness in glioblastoma

期刊

CELL DEATH & DISEASE
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41419-017-0051-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. HSM-II program of the Canton of Zurich

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple target inhibition has gained considerable interest in combating drug resistance in glioblastoma, however, understanding the molecular mechanisms of crosstalk between signaling pathways and predicting responses of cancer cells to targeted interventions has remained challenging. Despite the significant role attributed to transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta family and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/c-MET signaling in glioblastoma pathogenesis, their functional interactions have not been well characterized. Using genetic and pharmacological approaches to stimulate or antagonize the TGF-beta pathway in human glioma-initiating cells (GIC), we observed that TGF-beta exerts an inhibitory effect on c-MET phosphorylation. Inhibition of either mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)/extracellular signalregulated kinase (ERK) or phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (PKB/AKT) signaling pathway attenuated this effect. A comparison of c-MET-driven and c-MET independent GIC models revealed that TGF-beta inhibits stemness in GIC at least in part via its negative regulation of c-MET activity, suggesting that stem cell (SC) maintenance may be controlled by the balance between these two oncogenic pathways. Importantly, immunohistochemical analyses of human glioblastoma and ex vivo single-cell gene expression profiling of TGF-beta and HGF confirm the negative interaction between both pathways. These novel insights into the crosstalk of two major pathogenic pathways in glioblastoma may explain some of the disappointing results when targeting either pathway alone in human glioblastoma patients and inform on potential future designs on targeted pharmacological or genetic intervention.

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