4.8 Article

Global secretome analysis identifies novel mediators of bone metastasis

期刊

CELL RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 9, 页码 1339-1355

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/cr.2012.89

关键词

cancer; metastasis; proteomics; secretome; bone

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01CA134519, R01CA141062]
  2. Department of Defense, Brewster Foundation
  3. Champalimaud Foundation
  4. NSF grant [CBET-0941143]
  5. NJCCR SEED grant
  6. Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health [DP2OD007447]
  7. NRSA predoctoral fellowship from the National Institutes of Health
  8. NSF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bone is the one of the most common sites of distant metastasis of solid tumors. Secreted proteins are known to influence pathological interactions between metastatic cancer cells and the bone stroma. To comprehensively profile secreted proteins associated with bone metastasis, we used quantitative and non-quantitative mass spectrometry to globally analyze the secretomes of nine cell lines of varying bone metastatic ability from multiple species and cancer types. By comparing the secretomes of parental cells and their bone metastatic derivatives, we identified the secreted proteins that were uniquely associated with bone metastasis in these cell lines. We then incorporated bioinformatic analyses of large clinical metastasis datasets to obtain a list of candidate novel bone metastasis proteins of several functional classes that were strongly associated with both clinical and experimental bone metastasis. Functional validation of selected proteins indicated that in vivo bone metastasis can be promoted by high expression of (1) the salivary cystatins CST1, CST2, and CST4; (2) the plasminogen activators PLAT and PLAU; or (3) the collagen functionality proteins PLOD2 and COL6A1. Overall, our study has uncovered several new secreted mediators of bone metastasis and therefore demonstrated that secretome analysis is a powerful method for identification of novel biomarkers and candidate therapeutic targets.

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