4.7 Article

Antiangiogenic antitumor activities of IGFBP-3 are mediated by IGF-independent suppression of Erk1/2 activation and Egr-1-mediated transcriptional events

期刊

BLOOD
卷 118, 期 9, 页码 2622-2631

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-08-299784

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 CA100816, R01 CA109520, P50 CA907007]
  2. National Institutes of Health through M.D. Anderson's Cancer Center [CA016672]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most antiangiogenic therapies currently being evaluated in clinical trials target the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway; however, the tumor vasculature can acquire resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy by shifting to other angiogenesis mechanisms. Insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) has been reported to suppress tumor growth and angiogenesis by both IGF-dependent and IGF-independent mechanisms; however, understanding of its IGF-independent mechanisms is limited. We observed that IGFBP-3 blocked tumor angiogenesis and growth in non-small cell lung cancer and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Conditioned media from an IGFBP-3-treated non-small cell lung cancer cell line displayed a significantly decreased capacity to induce HUVEC proliferation and aortic sprouting. In cancer cells, IGFBP-3 directly interacted with Erk1/2, leading to inactivation of Erk1/2 and Elk-1, and suppressed transcription of early growth response protein 1 and its target genes, basic fibroblast growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor. These data suggest that IGF-independent Erk1/2 inactivation and decreased IGFBP-3-induced Egr-1 expression block the autocrine and paracrine loops of angiogenic factors in vascular endothelial and cancer cells. Together, these findings provide a molecular framework of IGFBP-3's IGF-independent antiangiogenic antitumor activities. Future studies are needed for development of IGFBP-3 as a new line of anti-angiogengic cancer drug. (Blood. 2011; 118(9):2622-2631)

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