4.5 Article

TRAIL-secreting mesenchymal stem cells promote apoptosis in heat-shock-treated liver cancer cells and inhibit tumor growth in nude mice

期刊

GENE THERAPY
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 317-327

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/gt.2013.88

关键词

stTRAIL-MSCs; apoptosis; liver cancer; RFA; heat shock

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of the People's Republic of China [30972894, 81272688]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liver cancer is one of the top six leading causes of cancer-related death. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an important means of treating liver cancer. Residual cancer after RFA is the most frequent cause of recurrence in cases of liver cancer. The main difference between residual cancer cells and ordinary liver cancer cells is that residual cancer cells experience heat shock The secretable form of trimeric human tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (stTRAIL) induces apoptosis in a variety of human cancers but not in normal tissues. It has shown potent cancer-selective killing activity and has drawn considerable attention as a possible cancer therapy. In the present work, the therapeutic potential of this stTRAIL-based gene therapy was evaluated in hepatocellular carcinoma subjected to RFA. Rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs) were isolated and transduced with a lentiviral vector encoding stTRAIL (stTRAIL-MSCs, T-MSCs). Cells treated with heat treatment at 43 degrees C for 45 min served as simulated residual cancer cells. After treatment with T-MSCs, apoptosis in heat-shock-treated liver cancer cells increased significantly, and caspase-3 was upregulated. When T-MSCs were subcutaneously injected into nude mice, they localized to the tumors and inhibited tumor growth, significantly increasing survival. Collectively, the results of the present study indicate that BMMSC can provide a steady source of stTRAIL and may be suitable for use in the prevention of the recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after RFA with secretable trimeric TRAIL.

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

4.5
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