4.8 Article

KIT oncogenic signaling mechanisms in imatinib-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumor: PI3-kinase/AKT is a crucial survival pathway

期刊

ONCOGENE
卷 26, 期 54, 页码 7560-7568

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.onc.1210558

关键词

KIT; oncogenic signaling; sarcoma; gastrointestinal; neoplasm; PI3-K

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients respond to KIT inhibition with imatinib, yet will eventually exhibit resistance. Imatinib-resistance mechanisms are heterogeneous, and little is known about KIT functional roles in imatinib-resistant GIST. Biological consequences of biochemical inhibition of KIT, phospha-tidyl-inositol- 3-kinase (PI3-K), PLC gamma, MAPK/ERK kinase/mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK/MAPK), mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and JAK were determined by immunoblotting for protein activation, and by cell proliferation and apoptosis assays in GIST cell lines from imatinib-sensitive GIST (GIST882), imatinib-resistant GISTs (GIST430 and GIST48) and KIT-negative GIST (GIST62). KIT activation was 3- to 6-fold higher in GIST430 and GIST48 than in GIST882, whereas total KIT expression was comparable in these three GIST lines. In addition to the higher set point for KIT activation, GIST430 and GIST48 had intrinsic imatinib resistance. After treatment with 1 mu M imatinib, residual KIT activation was 6- and 2.8-fold higher in GIST430 and GIST48, respectively, compared to GIST882. In all GIST lines, cell growth arrest resulted from PI3-K inhibition, and - to a lesser extent - from MEK/MAPK and mTOR inhibition. Inhibition of JAK/STAT or PLC gamma did not affect cell proliferation. Similarly, only PI3-K inhibition resulted in substantial apoptosis in the imatinib-resistant GISTs. We conclude that GIST secondary KIT mutations can be associated with KIT hyperactivation and imatinib resistance. Targeting critical downstream signaling proteins, such as PI3-K, is a promising therapeutic strategy in imatinib-resistant GISTs.

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

4.8
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