4.8 Article

The Forkhead Box M1 transcription factor contributes to the development and growth of mouse colorectal cancer

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 132, 期 4, 页码 1420-1431

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.01.036

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: In this study, we used Forkhead Box m1b (Foxm1b) transgenic mice and conditional Foxm1 knock-out mice to examine the role of Foxm1 in colon cancer development and proliferation. Methods: To induce mouse colorectal cancer, we used a single intraperitoneal injection of azoxymethane (AOM) followed by three 1-week cycles of 2.5% dextran sodium sulfate (DSS) water, each cycle separated by 2 weeks. For these colon tumor studies, we used either Rosa26-Foxm1b transgenic mice that ubiquitously expressed the human Foxm1b complementary DNA or mice in which the Foxm1 fl/fl targeted allele was deleted in colonic epithelial cells using the gut-specific Villin-Cre recombinase transgene (Villin-Cre). Colorectal tumor number and bromodeoxyuridine labeling were determined in Rosa26-Foxm1b mice, Villin-Cre Foxm1(-/-), mice and wild-type mice after 12 weeks of AOM/DDS exposure. We also used Foxm1 small interfering RNA-depleted human DLD1 and mouse CT26 colon cancer cell lines to examine DNA replication and anchorage-independent growth. Results: After 12 weeks of treatment with AOM/DSS, Rosa26 Foxm1b transgenic mice showed an increase in the number and size of colorectal tumors compared with wild-type mice. Likewise, a significant reduction in the development and growth of colorectal tumors was found in Villin-Cre Foxm1(-/-) mice compared with Foxm1 fl/fl mice after AOM/DSS treatment, which was associated with decreased expression of cyclin A2, cyclin B1, survivin, and T-cell factor 4 genes. Moreover, Foxm1-depleted colon cancer cell lines showed reduced DNA replication and anchorage-independent growth. Conclusions: These studies suggest that Foxm1 is critical for the proliferation and growth of colorectal cancer.

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