4.5 Article

Selective inhibition of ion transport mechanisms regulating intracellular pH reduces proliferation and induces apoptosis in cholangiocarcinoma cells

期刊

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 60-69

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2006.07.013

关键词

apoptosis; Cholangiocarcinoma; intracellular pH; Na+/H+ exchanger; Na+-dependent Cl-/HCO3-; exchanger

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Cells within the acidic extracellular environment of solid tumours maintain their intracellular pH through the activity of the Na+/H+ exchanger and the Na+ dependent Cl-/HCO3- exchanger. The inhibition of these mechanisms could therefore inhibit cancer cell growth. Aim. We evaluated the effect of two selective inhibitors of these transporters (cariporide and S3705) on proliferation and apoptosis of human cholangiocarcinoma cells (HUH-28 and Mz-ChA-1 cells) as a function of external pH (7.4 and 6.8). Methods/results. HUH-28 cells incubated for 24 h at external pH 7.4 or 6.8 without inhibitors maintained intracellular pH at physiological level, whereas incubation with cariporide and/or S3705 caused the intracellular pH of cells to drop. Incubation of HUH-28 cells with cariporide and/or S3705 was able to reduce proliferation, evaluated by a colorimetric ELISA method, and to induce apoptosis, evaluated by measuring caspase-3 activity and Annexin-V staining, and these effects were more evident at external pH 6.8. S3705 but not cariporide was able to inhibit serum-induced phosphorylation of ERK1/2, AKT and BAD, intracellular molecules involved in cancer cell proliferation and survival. Similar results were obtained in Mz-ChA-1 cells. Conclusions. (1) Inhibition of intracellular pH regulatory mechanisms by cariporide and S3705 reduces proliferation and induces apoptosis in cholangiocarcinoma cells; and (2) these drugs might have potential therapeutic value against cholangiocarcinoma. (C) 2006 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier 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

4.5
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