4.6 Article

Expression of kinase-defective mutants of c-Src in human metastatic colon cancer cells decreases Bcl-xL and increases oxaliplatin- and Fas-induced apoptosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 279, 期 44, 页码 46113-46121

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M408550200

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tumor resistance to current drugs prevents curative treatment of human colon cancer. A pressing need for effective, tumor-specific chemotherapies exists. The non-receptor-tyrosine kinase c-Src is overexpressed in >70% of human colon cancers and represents a tractable drug target. KM12L4A human metastatic colon cancer cells were stably transfected with two distinct kinase-defective mutants of c-src. Their response to oxaliplatin, to SN38, the active metabolite of irinotecan ( drugs active in colon cancer), and to activation of the death receptor Fas was compared with vector control cells in terms of cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. Both kinase-defective forms of c-Src co-sensitized cells to apoptosis induced by oxaliplatin and Fas activation but not by SN38. Cells harboring kinase-defective forms of c-Src carrying function blocking point mutations in SH3 or SH2 domains were similarly sensitive to oxaliplatin, suggesting that reduction in kinase activity and not a Src SH2-SH3 scaffold function was responsible for the observed altered sensitivity. Oxaliplatin-induced apoptosis, potentiated by kinase-defective c-Src mutants, was dependent on activation of caspase 8 and associated with Bid cleavage. Each of the stable cell lines in which kinase-defective mutants of c-Src were expressed had reduced levels of Bcl-x(L). However, inhibition of c-Src kinase activity by PP2 in vector control cells did not alter the oxaliplatin response over 72 h nor did it reduce Bcl-x(L) levels. The data suggest that longer term suppression of Src kinase activity may be required to lower Bcl-x(L) levels and sensitize colon cancer cells to oxaliplatin-induced apoptosis.

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