4.6 Article

(-)-Epigallocatechin 3-Gallate Synthetic Analogues Inhibit Fatty Acid Synthase and Show Anticancer Activity in Triple Negative Breast Cancer

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules23051160

关键词

triple-negative breast cancer; fatty acid synthase; FASN inhibition; polyphenolic FASN inhibitors; (-)-epigallocatechin 3-gallate; synthetic analogues; apoptosis; anticancer activity

资金

  1. Fundacion Ramon Areces and Instituto de Salud Carlos III [PI1400329]
  2. Catalonian government [2017SGR00385]
  3. Institute of Nutrition and Food Safety of the University of Barcelona (INSA-UB) [FRI2016]
  4. University of Girona [MPCUdG2016/036]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

(-)-Epigallocatechin 3-gallate (EGCG) is a natural polyphenol from green tea with reported anticancer activity and capacity to inhibit the lipogenic enzyme fatty acid synthase (FASN), which is overexpressed in several human carcinomas. To improve the pharmacological profile of EGCG, we previously developed a family of EGCG derivatives and the lead compounds G28, G37 and G56 were characterized in HER2-positive breast cancer cells overexpressing FASN. Here, diesters G28, G37 and G56 and two G28 derivatives, monoesters M1 and M2, were synthesized and assessed in vitro for their cytotoxic, FASN inhibition and apoptotic activities in MDA-MB-231 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells. All compounds displayed moderate to high cytotoxicity and significantly blocked FASN activity, monoesters M1 and M2 being more potent inhibitors than diesters. Interestingly, G28, M1, and M2 also diminished FASN protein expression levels, but only monoesters M1 and M2 induced apoptosis. Our results indicate that FASN inhibition by such polyphenolic compounds could be a new strategy in TNBC treatment, and highlight the potential anticancer activities of monoesters. Thus, G28, G37, G56, and most importantly M1 and M2, are anticancer candidates (alone or in combination) to be further characterized in vitro and in vivo.

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