4.6 Article

Down-Regulation of DUSP6 Expression in Lung Cancer Its Mechanism and Potential Role in Carcinogenesis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 175, 期 2, 页码 867-881

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.2353/ajpath.2009.080489

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Science (Tokyo, Japan)
  2. Smoking Research Foundation
  3. Yokohama Medical Facility (Yokohama, Japan)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our preliminary studies revealed that oncogenic ICRAS (KRAS/V12) dramatically suppressed the growth of immoritalized airway epithelial cells (NHBE-T, with viral antigen-inactivated P53 and RB proteins). This process appeared to be a novel event, different from the so-called premature senescence that is induced by either P53 or RB, suggesting the existence of a novel tumor suppressor that functions downstream of oncogenic KRAS. After a comprehensive search for genes whose expression levels were modulated by KRAS/V12, we focused on DUSP6, a pivotal negative feedback regulator of the RAS-ERK pathway. A dominant-negative DUSP6 mutant, however, failed to rescue KRAS/V12-induced growth suppression, but conferred a stronger anchorage-independent growth activity to die surviving subpopulation of cells generated from KRAS/V12-transduced NHBE-T. DUSP6 expression levels were found to be weaker in most lung cancer cell fines than in NHBE-T, and DUSP6 restoration suppressed cellular growth. In primary lung cancers, DUSP6 expression levels decreased as both growth activity and histological grade of the tumor increased. Loss of heterozygosity of the DUSP6 locus was found in 17.7% of cases and was associated with reduced expression levels. These results suggest that DUSP6 is a growth suppressor whose inactivation could promote the progression of lung cancer. We have here identified an important factor involved in carcinogenesis through a comprehensive search for downstream targets of oncogenic KRAS. (Am J Pathol 2009,175:867-881; DOI: 10.2353/ajpath.2009.080489)

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