4.5 Article

Rho-kinase inhibitor, fasudil, suppresses glioblastoma cell line progression in vitro and in vivo

期刊

CANCER BIOLOGY & THERAPY
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 875-884

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.4161/cbt.9.11.11634

关键词

fasudil; Rho-kinase; invasion; apoptosis; matrix metalloproteinase; glioblastoma

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30872645]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province of China [Y2008C57]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is growing evidence that the Rho/Rho-kinase (ROCK) signaling pathway is upregulated in tumors and plays a key role in cancer invasion and proliferation. The aim of this study was to explore the anti-tumor effects of Rho/ROCK inhibitor, fasudil, including the possible mechanisms involved in the suppression of the glioblastoma (GBM) cell line progression in vitro and in vivo. After T98G and U251 cells were treated with various concentrations of fasudil, Y27632, and ROCK siRNA, the effects of ROCK inhibitors on migration, invasion, invasion-related gene expressions, proliferation and apoptosis of cultured tumor cells were examined. The results indicated that fasudil significantly inhibited not only proliferation, migration and invasiveness (p < 0.05) but also the mRNA and protein expressions of matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) in a dose-dependent manner. Moreover, fasudil treatment resulted in a dose-dependent increase of apoptosis in T98G and U251. The intracranial xenograft models were established. The cryosection of the tumor and the survival time of mice in each group indicated that fasudil could inhibit glioma invasion and growth in vivo. Based on the results, fasudil suppresses the progression of GBM in vitro and in vivo by inhibiting ROCK. This could be linked to the decreased MMP-2 expression and the induction of apoptosis in tumor cells. The Rho/ROCK signaling pathway may prove to be a promising target in anti-tumor therapy. Fasudil may be an attractive anti-tumor drug candidate for the treatment of GBM.

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