4.6 Article

Suppressed tumour growth and enhanced chemosensitivity by RNA interference targeting Aurora-A in the PC3 human prostate cancer model

期刊

BJU INTERNATIONAL
卷 106, 期 1, 页码 121-127

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09047.x

关键词

prostate cancer; Aurora-A; RNA interference

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES To investigate the inhibitory effects of Aurora-A expression in prostate cancer cells on their growth and chemosensitivity. PATIENTS AND METHODS Aurora-A expression in radical prostatectomy specimens obtained from 193 patients were evaluated by immunohistochemical staining. We then established PC3 cells in which the expression vector containing short-hairpin RNA (shRNA) targeting Aurora-A was introduced (PC3/sh-A). The growth and the sensitivity to docetaxel in PC3/sh-A were compared with those in PC3 transfected with control vector alone (PC3/C). RESULTS Immunohistochemistry showed that there were various levels of Aurora-A expression in most prostate cancer tissues, and the expression levels of Aurora-A in prostate cancer were significantly related to Gleason score. Expression levels of both Aurora-A mRNA and protein in PC3/sh-A were approximate to 20% of those in PC3/C. In vitro growth of PC3/sh-A was significantly worse than that of PC3/C, and the proportion of PC3/sh-A in the G2-M phase was significantly greater than that of PC3/C. The 50% inhibitory concentration of docetaxel in PC3/sh-A decreased by 67% compared with that in PC3/C. Tumour volume in nude mice injected with PC3/sh-A was significantly smaller than that with PC3/C. Furthermore, treatment of nude mice bearing PC3/sh-A tumour with docetaxel (10 mg/kg, once weekly for 4 weeks) achieved a synergistic cytotoxic effect, despite the lack of an enhanced antitumour effect of docetaxel on PC3/C tumours. CONCLUSIONS The suppression of Aurora-A using shRNA could be a useful therapeutic strategy against androgen-independent prostate cancer, through growth inhibition as well as enhanced chemosensitivity.

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