4.8 Article

Cardiac Glycosides Inhibit p53 Synthesis by a Mechanism Relieved by Src or MAPK Inhibition

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 69, 期 16, 页码 6556-6564

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-0891

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [CA111554, CA118762]
  2. DOD concept Award [W81XWH-08-1-0539]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

p53 is regulated at multiple levels. We report here that p53, in multiple lines of human cancer cells, is down-regulated by cardiac glycoside drugs digoxin and ouabain, potent inhibitors of Na+/K+-ATPase. These drugs reduced the basal levels of p53 protein at nanomolar concentrations in a dose-, time-, and cancer cell line-dependent manner, but independent of p53 status of wild-type or mutant. The drugs also reduced the levels of p53 induced by its activators as well as p53 transfected into human cancer cells, regardless of its status. Interestingly, the drugs had no effect on endogenous p53 in two immortalized human cell lines. Mechanistically, p53 reduction occurred not at the mRNA levels but at the protein levels, as a result of reduced protein synthesis rather than enhanced degradation. The cellular sensitivity to drug-induced p53 reduction was not associated with the levels of alpha subunits of Na+/K+-ATPase in different cell lines. Although lowering extracellular K+ did not reduce p53 as did ouabain and digoxin, it did potentiate both digoxin- and ouabain-induced p53 reduction in sensitive lines. Finally, p53 reduction seems to be triggered by activation of Src/mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathways upon drug binding to the Na+/K+-ATPase and can be completely blocked by the inhibitors of Src or MAP/ERK kinase. This is the first report that cardiac glycoside drugs, by initiating the Src/MAPK signaling pathways, reduce the p53 levels via inhibition of p53 protein synthesis. The drugs may be useful in the treatment of human cancers with a gain-of-function p53 mutation. [Cancer Res 2009;69(16):6556-64]

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