4.5 Article

Expression of the new CXCL12 receptor, CXCR7, in gliomas

期刊

CANCER BIOLOGY & THERAPY
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 242-253

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.4161/cbt.11.2.13951

关键词

glioma; chemokine; CXCL12; CXCR4; CXCR7; CXCL11; immunohistochemistry

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gliomas are very invasive brain tumors with poor prognosis and therefore any attempt to limit tumor cell dissemination in the brain is expected to improve glioma treatment. The recent deorphanization of CXCR7 as additional receptor for CXCL12 and CXCL11 has raised key issues on its interaction with the CXCL12/CXCR4 axis as a mechanism to modulate glioma cell migration. In this work we investigated protein and mRNA expression of the two chemokines CXCL12 and CXCL11, together with their receptors CXCR4 and CXCR7 in human glioma specimens and cell lines by immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry and quantitative real-time PCR. The main purpose of this study was to find out whether and at what extent CXCR4 and CXCR7 are differentially expressed in glioma cells. In human glioma specimens the levels of CXCL11 and CXCR4 mRNA were significantly higher in glioblastomas compared to non-tumor controls or low grade gliomas, whilst no difference was found for CXCL12 and CXCR7 mRNA expression. In cell lines, flow cytometry and immunocytochemical experiments showed CXCR4 was mainly expressed irrespective of its membrane or intracellular localization. In contrast, a predominant intracellular localization together with a negligible membrane expression of CXCR7 was found in all cells examined. In in vitro experiments CXCR4 and CXCR7 antagonists and the silencing of CXCR4 showed complete inhibition of glioma proliferation. Our findings, in agreement with previous data, suggest that in human glioma cells the prevalent intracellular localization of CXCR7 might modulate the functionality of CXCL11/12 either acting as a scavenger for these chemokines or interfering with the signaling pathways activated by the stimulation of CXCR4.

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