4.8 Article Proceedings Paper

The synthetic triterpenoids, CDDO and CDDO-imidazolide, are potent inducers of heme oxygenase-1 and Nrf2/ARE signaling

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 65, 期 11, 页码 4789-4798

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-4539

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [K22 CA99990-02, R01 CA78814] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL068157] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK59600] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The synthetic triterpenoid 2-cyano-3,12-dioxooleana-1,9(11)-dien-28-oic acid (CDDO) and its derivative 1-[2-cyano-3-,12-dioxooleana-1,9(11)-dien-28-oyl]imidazole (CDDO-Im) are multifunctional molecules with potent antiproliferative, differentiating, and anti-inflammatory activities. At nano-molar concentrations' these agents rapidly increase the expression of the cytoprotective heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) enzyme in vitro and in vivo. Transfection studies using a series of reporter constructs show that activation of the human HO-1 promoter by the triterpenoids requires an antioxidant response element (ARE), a cyclic AMP response element, and an E Box sequence. Inactivation of one of these response elements alone partially reduces HO-I induction, but mutations in all three sequences entirely eliminate promoter activity in response to the triterpenoids. Treatment with CDDO-Im also elevates protein levels of Nrf2, a transcription factor previously shown to bind ARE sequences, and increases expression of a number of antioxidant and detoxification genes regulated by Nrf2. The triterpenoids also reduce the formation of reactive oxygen species in cells challenged with tert-butyl hydroperoxide, but this cytoprotective activity is absent in Nrf2 deficient cells. These studies are the first to investigate the induction of the HO-1 and Nrf2/ARE pathways by CDDO and CDDO-Im, and our results suggest that further in vivo studies are needed to explore the chemopreventive and chemotherapeutic potential of the triterpenoids.

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