4.7 Article

MnSOD overexpression confers cisplatin resistance in lung adenocarcinoma via the NF-κB/Snail/Bcl-2 pathway

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 79, 期 -, 页码 127-137

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2014.12.001

关键词

MnSOD; IKK beta/NF-kappa B; Cisplatin; Lung adenocarcinoma; Free radicals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD) has been shown to be associated with doxorubicin resistance in gastric cancer cells, but the underlying mechanism of MnSOD in drug resistance remains unclear. A recent study indicated that NF-kappa B activation by MnSOD promoted tumor malignancy in lung adenocarcinoma. Therefore, we hypothesized that MnSOD-mediated NF-kappa B activation might confer cisplatin resistance in lung adenocarcinoma via the NF-kappa B/Bcl-2/Snail pathway. Here, the inhibition concentration of cisplatin with 50% cell viability (IC50) was positively correlated with MnSOD expression and its activity in a panel of lung adenocarcinoma cells. The IC50 value was markedly increased and decreased by MnSOD overexpression and knockdown, respectively, in lung cancer cells. Mechanistically, an increase in Bcl-2 by MnSOD-mediated NF-kappa B activation confers greater cisplatin resistance than cIAP2, Bcl-xL, Mcl-1, and Snail. MnSOD-mediated cisplatin resistance can be overcome by a Bcl-2 antagonist (ABT-199) or IKK beta inhibitor (curcumin) in cells and xenograft tumors. MnSOD expression was positively correlated with nuclear p65 protein and Bcl-2 mRNA expression in tumors from patients with lung adenocarcinomas. A retrospective study indicated that it was more common for MnSOD-positive, nuclear p65-positive, or high Bcl-2 mRNA tumors to have an unfavorable response to cisplatin-based chemotherapy than their counterparts. Therefore, we suggest that ABT-199 or curcumin may be potentially useful to improve tumor regression and chemotherapeutic response in patients with MnSOD/Bcl-2-positive tumors. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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