4.6 Article

Sox2 is translationally activated by eukaryotic initiation factor 4E in human glioma-initiating cells

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2010.06.015

关键词

Glioma; Glioma-initiating cell; Sox2; Self-renewal; eIF4E

资金

  1. Shanghai Rising-Star Program [08QA14013]
  2. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-08-0128]
  3. National Natural Scientific Foundation of China [30930025, 30900248, 30870542]
  4. Development of Science and Technology of Shanghai [09ZR140340]
  5. Shanghai Educational Development Foundation [2007CG02]
  6. Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project [B110]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sox2, a master transcription factor, contributes to the generation of induced pluripotent stern cells and plays significant roles in sustaining the self-renewal of neural stem cells and glioma-initiating cells. Understanding the functional differences of Sox2 between glioma-initiating cells and normal neural stem cells would contribute to therapeutic approach for treatment of brain tumors. Here, we first demonstrated that Sox2 could contribute to the self-renewal and proliferation of glioma-initiating cells. The following experiments showed that Sox2 was activated at translational level in a subset of human glioma-initiating cells compared with the normal neural stem cells. Further investigation revealed there was a positive correlation between Sox2 and eukaryotic initiation factor 4E (eIF4E) in glioma tissues. Down-regulation of eIF4E decreased Sox2 protein level without altering its mRNA level in glioma-initiating cells, indicating that Sox2 was activated by eIF4E at translational level. Furthermore, eIF4E was presumed to regulate the expression of Sox2 by its 5' untranslated region (5' UTR) sequence. Our results suggest that the eIF4E-Sox2 axis is a novel mechanism of unregulated self-renewal of glioma-initiating cells, providing a potential therapeutic target for glioma. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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