4.6 Article

Peanut agglutinin appearance in the blood circulation after peanut ingestion mimics the action of endogenous galectin-3 to promote metastasis by interaction with cancer-associated MUC1

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 35, 期 12, 页码 2815-2821

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgu216

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. American Institute for Cancer Research [10A001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peanut agglutinin (PNA), which accounts for similar to 0.15% of the weight of the common peanut, is a carbohydrate-binding protein that binds the oncofoetal Thomsen-Friedenreich (TF) disaccharide (galactose beta 1,3N-acetylgalactosamine alpha-) that is overexpressed by similar to 90% of human cancers. Previous studies have shown that PNA is highly resistant to cooking and digestion and rapidly enters the human blood circulation after peanut ingestion. This study investigates the hypothesis that PNA appearance in the circulation after peanut ingestion may mimic the actions of endogenous TF-binding human galectin-3 in metastasis promotion. It shows that PNA at concentrations similar to those found in blood circulation after peanut ingestion increases cancer cell heterotypic adhesion to the blood vascular endothelium and enhances the formation of tumour cell homotypic aggregates, two important steps in the metastasis cascade, and enhances metastasis in a mouse metastasis model. These effects of PNA are shown to result from its interaction with the cancer-associated TF disaccharide on the transmembrane mucin protein MUC1, causing MUC1 cell surface polarization that reveals underlying cell surface adhesion molecules. Thus, PNA appearance in the blood circulation after peanut ingestion mimics the actions of endogenous galectin-3 and promotes cancer cell metastatic spread by interaction with cancer-associated TF/MUC1. As metastasis accounts for the majority of cancer-associated fatality, regular consumption of peanuts by cancer patients would therefore be expected to have an adverse effect on cancer survival.

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

4.6
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