4.8 Article

Invasive potential induced under long-term oxidative stress in mammary epithelial cells

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 64, 期 20, 页码 7464-7472

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-1725

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the causal relationship between chronic inflammation and carcinogenesis has long been discussed, the molecular basis of the relation is poorly understood. In the present study, we focused on reactive oxygen species (ROS) and their signals under inflammatory conditions leading to the carcinogenesis of epithelial cells and found that repeated treatment with a low dose of H2O2 (0.2 mmol/L) for periods of 2 to 4 days caused a phenotypic conversion of mouse NMuMG mammary epithelial cells from epithelial to fibroblast-like as in malignant transformation. The phenotypic conversion included the dissolution of cell-cell contacts, redistribution of E-cadherin in the cytoplasm, and up-regulation of a set of integrin family members (integrin alpha2, alpha6, and beta3) and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs; MMP-3, -10, and -13), as analyzed using Northern blot analysis and quantitative reverse transcription-PCR. Gelatin zymography indicated post-transcriptional activation of gelatinases, including MMP-2 and -9. In parallel, p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 were activated, which contributed to the induction of MMP-13, and a glutathione S-transferase pull-down assay showed the activation of a small GTPase, Rac1. Surprisingly, the prolonged oxidative treatment was sufficient to induce all of the aforementioned events. Most importantly, depending on the MMP activities, the epithelial cells exposed to oxidative conditions eventually acquired invasiveness in a reconstituted model system with a Matrigel invasion chamber containing normal fibroblasts at the bottom, providing the first substantial evidence supporting the direct role of ROS signals in the malignant transformation of epithelial cells.

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