4.7 Article

Induction of proteasome expression in skeletal muscle is attenuated by inhibitors of NF-κB activation

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 91, 期 9, 页码 1742-1750

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602165

关键词

cancer cachexia; muscle wasting; NF-kappa B; proteasome expression

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The potential for inhibitors of nuclear factor-kappaB (NF-kappaB) activation to act as inhibitors of muscle protein degradation in cancer cachexia has been evaluated both in vitro and in vivo. Activation of NF-kappaB is important in the induction of proteasome expression and protein degradation by the tumour factor, proteolysis-inducing factor (PIF), since the cell permeable NF-kappaB inhibitor SN50 (18 muM) attenuated the expression of 20S proteasome alpha-subunits, two subunits of the 19S regulator MSS1 and p42, and the ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme, E2(14k), as well as the decrease in myosin expression in murine myotubes. To assess the potential therapeutic benefit of NF-kappaB inhibitors on muscle atrophy in cancer cachexia, two potential inhibitors were employed; curcumin (50 muM) and resveratrol (30 muM). Both agents completely attenuated total protein degradation in murine myotubes at all concentrations of PIF, and attenuated the PIF-induced increase in expression of the ubiquitin-proteasome proteolytic pathway, as determined by the 'chymotrypsin-like' enzyme activity, proteasome subunits and E2(14k). However, curcumin (150 and 300 mg kg(-1)) was ineffective in preventing weight loss and muscle protein degradation in mice bearing the MAC16 tumour, whereas resveratrol (1 mg kg(-1)) significantly attenuated weight loss and protein degradation in skeletal muscle, and produced a significant reduction in NF-kappaB DNA-binding activity. The inactivity of curcumin was probably due to a low bioavailability. These results suggest that agents which inhibit nuclear translocation of NF-kappaB may prove useful for the treatment of muscle wasting in cancer cachexia.

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

4.7
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