4.4 Article

Pasireotide, a multiple somatostatin receptor subtypes ligand, reduces cell viability in non-functioning pituitary adenomas by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor secretion

期刊

ENDOCRINE-RELATED CANCER
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 91-102

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1677/ERC-06-0026

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Somatostatin (SRIF) analogs have been employed in medical therapy of non-functioning pituitary adenomas (NFA), with contrasting results. Previous evidence showed that SRIF can exert its antiproliferative effects by reducing vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) secretion and action, and that VEGF expression may be related to pituitary tumor growth. The aim of our study was to clarify the possible effects of a multireceptor SRIF ligand on VEGF secretion and cell proliferation in human NFA primary cultures. We assessed the expression of SRIF receptors (SSTR1 -5), the in vitro effects on VEGF secretion, and on cell viability of SRIF and of the stable SRIF analog pasireotide (SOM230), which activates SSTR1, 2, 3, and 5. Twenty-five NFA were examined by RT-PCR for expression of a-subunit, SSTR, VEGF, and VEGF receptors 1 (VEGF-R1) and 2 (VEGF-R2). Primary cultures were tested with SRIF and with pasireotide. All NFA samples expressed a-sub, VEGF and VEGFR-1 and 2, while SSTR expression pattern was highly variable. Two different groups were identified according to VEGF secretion inhibition by SRIF. VEGF secretion and cell viability were reduced by SRIF and pasireotide in the 'responder' group, but not in the 'non-responder' group, including NFA expressing SSTR5. SRIF and pasireotide completely blocked forskolin-induced VEGF secretion. In addition, SRIF and pasireotide completely abrogated the promoting effects of VEGF on NFA cell viability. Our data demonstrate that pasireoticle can inhibit NFA cell viability by inhibiting VEGF secretion, and suggest that the multireceptor-SSTR agonist pasireotide might be useful in medical therapy of selected NFA.

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

4.4
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