4.7 Article

CD9P-1 expression correlates with the metastatic status of lung cancer, and a truncated form of CD9P-1, GS-168AT2, inhibits in vivo tumour growth

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 104, 期 3, 页码 496-504

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6606033

关键词

CD9P-1; CD9; lung cancer; tetraspanin; tumour growth

类别

资金

  1. Gene Signal Laboratories

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Loss of CD9 expression has been correlated with a higher motility and metastatic potential of tumour cells originating from different organs. However, the mechanism underlying this loss is not yet understood. METHODS: We produced a truncated form of partner 1 of CD9 (CD9P-1), GS-168AT2, and developed a new monoclonal antibody directed towards the latter. We measured the expression of CD9 and CD9P-1 in human lung tumours (hLTs), and monitored the level of CD9 in NCl-H460, in vitro and in vivo, in the presence and absence of GS-168AT2. RESULTS: Loss of CD9 is inversely related to the expression of CD9P-1, which correlates with the metastatic status of hLT (n = 55). In vitro, GS-168AT2 is rapidly internalised and degraded at both the membrane and cytoplasm of NCl-H460, and this correlates with the association of GS-168AT2 with both CD9 and CD81. Intraperitoneal injections of GS-168AT2 in NCl-H460-xenografted Nude mice led to drastic inhibition of tumour growth, as well as to the downregulation of CD9, but not of CD81, in the tumour core. CONCLUSION: These findings show for the first time that CD9P-1 expression positively correlates with the metastatic status of hLT, and that the upregulation of CD9P-1 expression could be one of the mechanisms underlying the loss of CD9 in solid tumours. Our study also reveals that, under certain conditions, loss of CD9 could be a tumour growth-limiting phenomenon rather than a tumour growth-promoting one. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 104, 496-504. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6606033 www.bjcancer.com Published online 4 January 2011 (C) 2011 Cancer Research UK

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