4.8 Article

Deregulation of the Rho GTPase, Rac1, suppresses cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p21CIP1 levels in androgen-independent human prostate cancer cells

期刊

ONCOGENE
卷 23, 期 32, 页码 5513-5522

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.onc.1207708

关键词

Rho GTPases; Rac1; Cdc42; cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor; p21; cell cycle

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 87668] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Abnormally suppressed levels of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (CKIs) are associated with aggressive androgen-independent prostate cancer and contribute to uncontrolled proliferation. The androgen-independent human prostate cancer cell lines, LNCaP-104R1, ALVA31 and PC-3, express low levels of the CKI, p21(CIP1), compared to the less-malignant, androgen-dependent LNCaP cells. We investigated the mechanism underlying this suppression by examining the role of Rho GTPases, signaling proteins that play important roles in cell cycle progression, at least in part through regulation of CKIs. Inhibition of Rac1 induced p21 expression in androgen-independent lines but had no effect on the higher p21 levels characteristic of LNCaP cells. This induction of p21 was functionally significant as evidenced by inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinase 2 activity and decreased cell proliferation. Conversely, overexpression of constitutively active Rac1 suppressed the higher p21 levels seen in LNCaP cells. Thus, Rac1 activity is both necessary and sufficient for suppression of p21 in prostate cancer cells. Furthermore, Rac1 Activity was significantly higher in all three androgen-independent cell lines compared to LNCaP cells. Thus in three models of aggressive human prostate cancer, hyperactivity of Rac1 corresponds to suppressed levels of p21. These results are unique in describing a role for Rac1 in p21 regulation and may implicate the Rac1 signaling pathway as a potential therapeutic target for controlling prostate cancer cell growth following progression to androgen independence.

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