4.7 Article

Adenoviral-mediated transfer of Escherichia coli uracil phosphoribosyltransferase (UPRT) gene to modulate the sensitivity of the human colon cancer cells to 5-fluorouracil

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 36, 期 18, 页码 2403-2410

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00338-5

关键词

uracil phosphoribosyltransferase; gene therapy; adenoviral vector; 5-fluorouracil

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) has been used as a chemotherapeutic drug for colorectal cancer. Escherichia coli uracil phosphoribosyltransferase (UPRT), a pyrimidine salvage enzyme, converts 5-FU into 5-fluorouridine monophosphate (5-FUMP) at the initial step of 5-FU activation. WI: investigated the effects of adenoviral-mediated transfer of the E. coli UPRT gene into human colon cancer cells on 5-FU metabolism and 5-FU chemosensitivity. Three cell lines were used (HT29, KM12 and SW1116). The intracellular levels of 5-fluorodeoxyuridine monophosphate (5-FdUMP) and 5-FU incorporated into RNA after 5-FU treatment in cells infected with adenovirus containing the UPRT gene (AdCA-UPRT) were significantly higher than those of non-infected cells. This was accompanied by marked inhibition of thymidylate synthase (TS) in all cell lines. Furthermore, HT29, KM12 and SW1116 infected with AdCA-UPRT were, respectively, 13.1-, 30.2- and 70.5-fold more sensitive to 5-FU than non-infected cells. Most importantly, treatment with AdCA-UPRT and 5-FU effectively inhibited the: growth of HT29-xenografted subcutaneous tumours in nude mice. Therefore, AdCA-UPRT/5-FU treatment had the potential to enhance the actions of 5-FU at both the DNA and RNA levels. Treatment augmented the sensitivity of human colon cancer cells to 5-FU both in vitro and in vivo. We conclude that adenoviral-mediated transfer of the E. coli UPRT gene into colon cancer cells can achieve biochemical modulation of 5-FU and this provides a new approach in the treatment of colorectal cancer. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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

4.7
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