4.8 Article

Gemcitabine and cytosine arabinoside cytotoxicity: Association with lymphoblastoid cell expression

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 68, 期 17, 页码 7050-7058

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-0405

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIH [GM61388]
  2. The Pharmacogenetics Research Network [CA102701]
  3. The Pancreatic Cancer Specialized Programs of Research Excellence [CA136780, K22 CA130828]
  4. ASPET-Astellas Award
  5. PhRMA Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two cytidine analogues, gemcitabine (dFdC) and 1-beta-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine (AraC), show significant therapeutic effect in a variety of cancers. However, response to these drugs varies widely. Evidence from tumor biopsy samples shows that expression levels for genes involved in the cytidine transport, metabolism, and bioactivation pathway contribute to this variation in response. In the present study, we set out to test the hypothesis that variation in gene expression both within and outside of this pathway might influence sensitivity to gemcitabine and AraC. Specifically, Affymetrix U133 Plus 2.0 GeneChip and cytotoxicity assays were performed to obtain basal mRNA expression and IC50 values for both drugs in 197 ethnically defined Human Variation panel lymphoblastoid cell lines. Genes with a high degree of association with IC50 values were involved mainly in cell death, cancer, cell cycle, and nucleic acid metabolism pathways. We validated selected significant genes by performing real-time quantitative reverse transcription-PCR and selected two representative candidates, NT5C3 (within the pathway) and FKBP5 (outside of the pathway), for functional validation. Those studies showed that down-regulation of NT5C3 and FKBP5 altered tumor cell sensitivity to both drugs. Our results suggest that cell-based model system studies, when combined with complementary functional characterization, may help to identify biomarkers for response to chemotherapy with these cytidine analogues.

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

4.8
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