4.8 Article

Tumor-specific p73 up-regulation mediates p63 dependence in squamous cell carcinoma

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 66, 期 19, 页码 9362-9368

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1619

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01 DE015945, R01 DE15945] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

p63 is essential for normal epithelial development and is overexpressed in the vast majority of squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). Recent work had shown that ANp63eL is essential for survival of SCC cells, raising the possibility that the p63 pathway may be an attractive therapeutic target in these tumors. Nevertheless, it is unknown whether a therapeutic window exists for inhibiting p63 in tumor cells versus normal epithelia. Here, we show that SCC cells are uniquely dependent on Delta Np63 alpha for survival, unlike normal p63-expressing epithelial cells, and that dependence is mediated through tumor-specific up-regulation of the related protein p73. In normal primary human keratinocytes, we find that inhibition of endogenous p63 by RNA interference (RNAi) induces p21(CIP1) expression, inhibits cell cycle progression, and ultimately promotes cellular senescence. In contrast, p63 inhibition in SCC cells induces proapoptotic bcl-2 family members and rapidly triggers apoptosis. Expression of p73 is low in uncultured basal keratinocytes but is markedly up-regulated in both SCC cell lines and primary tumors in vivo. Whereas p21(CIP1) induction following loss of p63 in normal cells is independent of p53 and p73, both proapoptotic gene induction and cell death following p63 RNAi in tumor cells are p73 dependent. Finally, ectopic p73 expression in primary keratinocytes does not affect baseline cell proliferation but is sufficient to trigger cell death following loss of p63. Together, these findings define a specific molecular mechanism of p63 dependence through p73 up-regulation, and they provide a rationale for targeting the p63 pathway as a therapeutic strategy in SCCs.

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