4.6 Article

ZBP-89 and Sp1 contribute to Bak expression in hepatocellular carcinoma cells

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4349-y

关键词

Sp1; Sp3; ZBP-89; Bak; Hepatocellular carcinoma

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81572782, 81502411]
  2. Special Talent Supportive Grant [4TZ160001G]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Kruppel family member zinc binding protein 89 (ZBP-89), also known as ZNF148, regulates Bak expression via binding to GC-rich promoter domain. It is not clear if other GC-rich binding factors, such as Sp family members, can interact with ZBPp-89 on Bak expression. This study aims to elucidate the mechanism of Bak expression regulation by ZBP-89 and Sp proteins, based on in vitro experiment and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) data cohort. Methods: We downloaded TCGA hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cohort data to analysis the association of Bak transcription level with ZBP-89 and Sp proteins transcription level. HCC cell lines and liver immortal non-tumour cell lines were used for mechanism study, including western blotting analysis, expression vector mediated gene expression and siRNA interference. Results: Results showed that cancer tissues have higher Bak transcription level compared with adjacent non-cancer tissues. Bak transcription level was correlated with Sp1 and Sp3 expression level, while no correlation was found in ZBP-89 and Bak, neither Sp2 nor Sp4. Mithramycin A (MMA) induced Bak expression in a dose-dependent manner. Western blotting results showed Sp1 overexpression increased Bak expression both in liver immortal non-tumour cells and HCC cells. Interference Sp1 expression could inhibit Bak expression alone. ZBP-89 siRNA suppressed Bak expression even in the presence of MMA treatment and S1 overexpression. Additionally, Bak and Sp1 level were associated with HCC patient survival. Conclusions: Bak expression required ZBP-89 and Sp1 cooperative regulation simultaneously.

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