4.6 Article

The EP4 receptor antagonist, L-161,982, blocks prostaglandin E2-induced signal transduction and cell proliferation in HCA-7 colon cancer cells

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL CELL RESEARCH
卷 313, 期 14, 页码 2969-2979

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2007.06.004

关键词

PGE(2); colon cancer; ERK1/2; L-161,982; egr-1

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA097383, R01 CA097383-02, CA 097383] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accumulating evidence indicates that elevated levels of prostaglandin E-2 (PGE(2)) can increase intestinal epithelial cell proliferation, and thus play a role in colorectal tumorigenesis. PGE2 exerts its effects through four G-protein -coupled PGE receptor (EP) subtypes, named the EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4. Increased phosphorylation of extracellular regulated kinases (ERK1/2) is required for PGE2 to stimulate cell proliferation of human colon cancer cells. However, the EP receptor(s) that are involved in this process remain unknown. We provide evidence that L-161,982, a selective EP4 receptor antagonist, completely blocks PGE(2)-induced ERK phosphorylation and cell proliferation of HCA-7 cells. In order to identify downstream target genes of ERK1/2 signaling, we found that PGE2 induces expression of early growth response gene-1 (EGR-1) downstream of ERK1/2 and regulates its expression at the level of transcription. PGE2 treatment induces phosphorylation of cyclic AMP response element binding protein (CREB) at Ser133 residue and CRE-mediated luciferase activity in HCA-7 cells. Studies with dominant- negative CREB mutant (ACREB) provide clear evidence for the involvement of CREB in PGE2 driven egr-1 transcription in HCA-7 cells. in conclusion, this study reveals that egr-1 is a target gene of PGE2 in HCA-7 cells and is regulated via the newly identified EP4/ERK/CREB pathway. Finally our results support the notion that antagonizing EP4 receptors may provide a novel therapeutic approach to the treatment of colon cancer. (c) 2007 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

4.6
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