4.7 Article

Nf2/Merlin controls progenitor homeostasis and tumorigenesis in the liver

期刊

GENES & DEVELOPMENT
卷 24, 期 16, 页码 1718-1730

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gad.1938710

关键词

EGFR; Merlin; NF2; cholangiocellular carcinoma; hepatocellular carcinoma; liver progenitor

资金

  1. International Human Frontier Science Program Organization
  2. Tucker-Gosnell Foundation
  3. Department of Defense (DOD)
  4. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  5. Children's Tumor Foundation (CTF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The molecular signals that control the maintenance and activation of liver stem/progenitor cells are poorly understood, and the role of liver progenitor cells in hepatic tumorigenesis is unclear. We report here that liver-specific deletion of the neurofibromatosis type 2 (Nf2) tumor suppressor gene in the developing or adult mouse specifically yields a dramatic, progressive expansion of progenitor cells throughout the liver without affecting differentiated hepatocytes. All surviving mice eventually developed both cholangiocellular and hepatocellular carcinoma, suggesting that Nf2(-/-) progenitors can be a cell of origin for these tumors. Despite the suggested link between Nf2 and the Hpo/Wts/Yki signaling pathway in Drosophila, and recent studies linking the corresponding Mst/Lats/Yap pathway to mammalian liver tumorigenesis, our molecular studies suggest that Merlin is not a major regulator of YAP in liver progenitors, and that the overproliferation of Nf2 (/) liver progenitors is instead driven by aberrant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity. Indeed, pharmacologic inhibition of EGFR blocks the proliferation of Nf2(-/-) liver progenitors in vitro and in vivo, consistent with recent studies indicating that the Nf2-encoded protein Merlin can control the abundance and signaling of membrane receptors such as EGFR. Together, our findings uncover a critical role for Nf2/Merlin in controlling homeostasis of the liver stem cell niche.

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

4.7
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