4.5 Article

Expression of focal adhesion kinase in uveal melanoma and the effects of Hsp90 inhibition by 17-AAG

Journal

PATHOLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Volume 210, Issue 11, Pages 739-745

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.prp.2014.06.023

Keywords

Focal adhesion kinase; Uveal melanoma; Hsp90; Immunohistochemistry

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Focal adhesion kinase (FAK) is implicated in tumor progression and metastatic cascade, and has been shown to be overexpressed in a variety of human cancers. However, the role of FAK in human uveal melanoma (UM) is not well defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the expression of FAK in UM tumors and normal eyes, and to determine the effect of Hsp90 inhibition on FAK expression in UM cells. Methods: FAK expression was assessed in 39 UM specimens, FAK[pY397] expression was assessed in 51 UM specimens, and both FAK and FAK[pY397] expression were assessed in 20 normal eyes. The expression of FAK and FAK[pY397] was detected by Western blot in five UM cell lines after treatment with 10 mu mol/L of 17-AAG. Results: FAK was positive in 87.2% and FAK[pY397] in 90% of UM specimens. Low FAK expression was detected in non-tumor structures and in normal eyes. The cell lines with the most proliferative, invasive phenotype (92.1, SP6.5 and MKT-BR) displayed high expression of FAK[pY397], and the levels of FAK and FAK[pY397] were decreased in the presence of 17-AAG starting with 24 h of exposure. Conclusion: FAK and FAK[pY397] were overexpressed in human UM tumors compared to normal ocular tissue and high levels of FAKE [pY397] were seen in the most aggressive UM cell lines. Hsp90 inhibition led to downregulation of FAK expression. We propose a role for FAK in the pathogenesis of UM. Future studies are needed to explore the use of Hsp90 inhibitors as a feasible approach for modulating FAK in UM. (C) 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available