4.4 Article

Snail acetylation by histone acetyltransferase p300 in lung cancer

期刊

THORACIC CANCER
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 131-137

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.12408

关键词

Acetylation; lung cancer; p300; Snail

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81572288]
  2. TMUGH Funding [ZYYFY2014002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundEpithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a complex and dynamic molecular event in lung cancer metastasis that has not yet been thoroughly investigated. EMT transcriptional factors, such as Snail, play a central role in regulation of the EMT process. In this study, we sought to identify an association between p300 and Snail in lung cancer, as well as the engagement of p300 in Snail acetylation. MethodsWe transfected p300 small interfering RNA into lung cancer cells to detect Snail and E-cadherin expression levels by real time-PCR. Immunoprecipitation assay was conducted to determine Snail acetylation in vivo. Bacteria-expressed Snail was purified to analyze Snail acetylation in vitro. We further mutated lysine 187 for identifying acetylated residue in Snail. Results Snail transcription in lung cancer cells was repressed by p300 knockdown. E-cadherin expression was increased by transfection of p300 small interfering RNA in a dose-dependent manner. Immunoprecipitation and Western blot assay with anti-acetylated lysine antibody were used to confirm that Snail was acetylated by p300. A sequence coding snail gene was cloned into glutathione S-transferase-tagged vector and the fusion protein was purified using glutathione. We observed Snail acetylation in vitro by incubation of recombinant Snail and p300 histone acetyltransferase domain with acetyl coenzyme A. The reduced Snail acetylation level was related to lysine mutation at position 187 of Snail. ConclusionThere was a correlation between Snail and p300 expressions in lung cancer. Moreover, p300 acetylates Snail both in vivo and in vitro, and K187 may be involved in this modification.

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

4.4
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