4.2 Article

Epigenetic Control of Trefoil Factor Family (TFF) Peptide Expression in Human Retinoblastoma Cell Lines

期刊

CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 1001-1014

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000366316

关键词

Trefoil factor family peptides; Retinoblastoma; Epigenetics; Promoter methylation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Recent studies demonstrated that epigenetic mechanisms are involved in the regulation of trefoil factor family (TFF) peptide expression in cancer. In human tissues with endogenous TFF1, TFF2 or TFF3 gene expression, the corresponding promoter is unmethylated and in organs without TFF expression, the promoter of the three genes is highly methylated. Methods: Retinoblastoma (Rb) cell lines were treated with the DNA methyltransferase inhibitor 5-Aza-2'deoxycytidine (5-Aza-dC), the histone deacetylase inhibitor 4-Phenylbutyric acid (PBA) or both and analyzed for changes (i) in TFF mRNA expression by Real-time PCR and (ii) in the methylation status of the TFF promoters by genomic bisulfite sequencing. Results:The degree of promoter methylation correlates with endogenous TFF expression in the retinoblastoma cell lines analyzed. Nearly all Rb cell lines exhibiting high endogenous TFF1 expression displayed low methylation of the CpGs in the corresponding promoter region. Low expression of TFF3 in Rb cell lines is linked with high density methylation of the TFF3 promoter. 5-Aza-dC treatment induced TFF1 and TFF3 expression in nearly all cell lines investigated and combined treatment with PBA further increased this effect. The number of methylated CpG dinucleotides of the TFF promoter is clearly reduced upon treatment with 5-Aza-dC and combined treatment with PBA further extended the degree of demethylation. Conclusion: Our data clearly show that the expression of TFF3 in retinoblastoma cell lines is epigenetically regulated, whereas the level of TFF1 and TFF2 seems to be regulated by other or additional mechanisms. Copyright (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.2
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