4.8 Article

Kruppel-Like factor 6 (KLF6) is a tumor-suppressor gene frequently inactivated in colorectal cancer

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 126, 期 4, 页码 1090-1103

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.01.005

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [5 P30 HD28822] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK37340] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: Kruppel-like factor 6 (KLF6) is a ubiquitous zinc finger tumor suppressor that is often mutated in prostate cancer. Our aims were to establish the frequency of KLF6 inactivation in sporadic and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-associated colorectal cancers (CRC); to correlate these abnormalities with mutation and/or loss of TP53, APC, and K-RAS; and to characterize the behavior of mutant KLF6 in colon-derived cell lines. Methods: We analyzed DNA isolated from 50 microdissected CRC cases, including 35 sporadic and 15 IBD-associated tumors. Microsatellite analysis and direct sequencing were used to establish the incidence of microsatellite instability, KLF6 and TP53 allelic imbalance, and KLF6, K-RAS, TP53, and APC mutation. Loss of growth suppressive function of the CRC-derived KLF6 mutants was characterized by in vitro thymidine incorporation assays and Western blotting. Results: KLF6 was inactivated by loss and/or mutation in most sporadic and IBD-related CRCs. The KLF6 locus was deleted in at least 55% of tumors, and mutations were identified in 44%. Rates of KLF6 loss and mutation were similar to those of TP53 and K-RAS in the same samples. KLF6 mutations were present in tumors with either microsatellite or chromosomal instability and were more common, particularly in the IBD-related cancers, in the presence of wild-type APC. Unlike wild-type KLF6, cancer-derived KLF6 mutants neither suppressed growth nor induced p21 following transfection into cultured cells. Conclusions: Deregulation of KLF6 by a combination of allelic imbalance and mutation may play a role in the development of CRC.

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