4.7 Article

Laminin-332 promotes the invasion of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma via PI3K activation

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 98, 期 5, 页码 974-980

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604252

关键词

laminin-332; PI3K pathway; oesophageal cancer; basement membrane; prognostic factor

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Laminin-332 is major component of epithelial basement membrane, and has an important role in cell migration and tumour invasion. Recently, the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) activation induced by laminin-332 during carcinogenesis or tumour invasion has been highlighted in skin squamous cell carcinoma. The expression of laminin-332 in 126 resected oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) specimens was immunohistochemically examined to determine its associations with the clinicopathological characteristics, and the effect of laminin-332 on the invasiveness and the PI3K activation was assessed by in vitro experiments using ESCC cell lines (ESCCs). Sections with immunostaining signals in > 30% cancer cells, which were observed in 55 of 126 cases, were judged to be positive for laminin-332. The positivity was significantly correlated with pTNM stage and poor prognosis. Inactivation of the PI3K pathway by laminin-332 blocking antibody suppressed the invasiveness of TE8 cell line, which secreted laminin-332 at high level and had high PI3K activity. The addition of the purified laminin-332 activated the PI3K pathway and increased the invasiveness of TE11 cell line, which secreted laminin-332 at lower level and had low PI3K activity. The deactivation of PI3K pathway using the PI3K inhibitor decreased the invasiveness of ESCCs and the secretion of laminin-332 in vitro. The expression of laminin-332 was one of the prognostic factors of ESCC. Laminin-332 could provide the autocrine positive-feedback loop through PI3K activation, contributing the invasive ability. Therefore, the inhibitor of PI3K pathway might be useful as the anticancer therapies for ESCC.

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