4.6 Article

Decreased n-6/n-3 fatty acid ratio reduces the invasive potential of human lung cancer cells by downregulation of cell adhesion/invasion-related genes

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 779-784

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgi019

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have shown opposing effects of n-6 and n-3 fatty acids on the development of cancer and suggest a role for the ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids in the control of cancer. However, whether an alteration in the n-6/n-3 fatty acid ratio of cancer cells affects their invasive potential has not been well investigated. We recently developed a genetic approach to modify the n-6/n-3 ratio by expression of the Caenorhabditis elegans fat-1 gene encoding an n-3 desaturase that converts n-6 to n-3 fatty acids in mammalian cells. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of alteration in the n-6/n-3 fatty acid ratio on the invasive potential of human lung cancer A549 cells. Adenovirus-mediated gene transfer of the n-3 desaturase resulted in a marked reduction of the n-6/n-3 fatty acid ratio, particularly the ratio of arachidonic acid to eicosapentaenic acid. Cell adhesion assay showed that the cells expressing fat-1 gene had a delayed adhesion and retarded colonization. Matrigel assay for invasion potential indicated a 2-fold reduction of cell migration in the fat-1 transgenic cells when compared with the control cells. An increased apoptosis was also observed in the fat-1 transgenic cells. Microarray and quantitative polymerase chain reaction revealed a downregulation of several adhesion/invasion-related genes (MMP-1, integrin-alpha 2 and nm23-H4) in the fat-1 transgenic cells. These results demonstrate that a decreased n-6/n-3 fatty acid ratio reduces the invasion potential of human lung cancer cells by probably downregulating the cell adhesion/invasion-related molecules, suggesting a role for the ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids in the prevention and treatment of 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

4.6
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