4.7 Article

Proteomic analysis of proteome and histone post-translational modifications in heat shock protein 90 inhibition-mediated bladder cancer therapeutics

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-00143-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) inhibition is an attractive strategy for cancer treatment. Several HSP90 inhibitors have shown promising effects in clinical oncology trials. However, little is known about HSP90 inhibition-mediated bladder cancer therapy. Here, we report a quantitative proteomic study that evaluates alterations in protein expression and histone post-translational modifications (PTMs) in bladder carcinoma in response to HSP90 inhibition. We show that 5 HSP90 inhibitors (AUY922, ganetespib, SNX2112, AT13387, and CUDC305) potently inhibited the proliferation of bladder cancer 5637 cells in a dose-and time-dependent manner. Our proteomic study quantified 518 twofold up-regulated and 811 twofold down-regulated proteins common to both AUY922 and ganetespib treatment. Bioinformatic analyses revealed that those differentially expressed proteins were involved in multiple cellular processes and enzyme-regulated signaling pathways, including chromatin modifications and cell death-associated pathways. Furthermore, quantitative proteome studies identified 14 types of PTMs with 93 marks on the core histones, including 34 novel histone marks of butyrylation, citrullination, 2-hydroxyisobutyrylation, methylation, O-GlcNAcylation, propionylation, and succinylation in AUY922-and ganetespib-treated 5637 cells. Together, this study outlines the association between proteomic changes and histone PTMs in response to HSP90 inhibitor treatment in bladder carcinoma cells, and thus intensifies the understanding of HSP90 inhibition-mediated bladder cancer therapeutics.

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