4.6 Article

Mechanisms of nitric oxide-mediated inhibition of EMT in cancer Inhibition of the metastasis-inducer snail and induction of the metastasis-suppressor RKIP

期刊

CELL CYCLE
卷 9, 期 24, 页码 4931-4940

出版社

LANDES BIOSCIENCE
DOI: 10.4161/cc.9.24.14229

关键词

epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT); nitric oxide; NF kappa B; Raf-1 kinase inhibitor protein (RKIP); snail

资金

  1. Bodossaki Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of nitric oxide (NO) in cancer has been controversial and is based on the levels of NO and the responsiveness of the tumor type. It remains unclear whether NO can inhibit the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) in cancer cells. EMT induction is mediated, in part, by the constitutive activation of the metastasis-inducer transcription factor, Snail and EMT can be inhibited by the metastasis-suppressor Raf-1 kinase inhibitor protein (RKIP) and E-cadherin. Snail is transcriptionally regulated by NF kappa B and in turn, Snail represses RKIP transcription. Hence, we hypothesized that high levels of NO, that inhibit NF kappa B activity, may also inhibit Snail and induce RKIP and leading to inhibition of EMT. We show that treatment of human prostate metastatic cell lines with the NO donor, DETANONOate, inhibits EMT and reverses both the mesenchymal phenotype and the cell invasive properties. Further, treatment with DETANONOate inhibits Snail expression and DNA-binding activity in parallel with the upregulation of RKIP and E-cadherin protein levels. The pivotal roles of Snail inhibition and RKIP induction in DETANONOate-mediated inhibition of EMT were corroborated by both Snail silencing by siRNA and by ectopic expression of RKIP. The in vitro findings were validated in vivo in mice bearing PC-3 xenografts and treated with DETANONOate. The present findings show, for the first time, the novel role of high subtoxic concentrations of NO in the inhibition of EMT. Thus, NO donors may exert therapeutic activities in the reversal of EMT and metastasis.

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