4.4 Article

Cells surviving fractional killing by TRAIL exhibit transient but sustainable resistance and inflammatory phenotypes

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE CELL
卷 24, 期 14, 页码 2186-2200

出版社

AMER SOC CELL BIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1091/mbc.E12-10-0737

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cancer Center Support (Core) from the National Cancer Institute [P30-CA14051]
  2. National Institutes of Health [UL1 RR 025758, P01-CA139980]
  3. National Institutes of Health Pre-doctoral Training Grant [GM07226]
  4. [NIH-P50-NS40828]
  5. [NIH-P30-HD18655]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When clonal populations of human cells are exposed to apoptosis-inducing agents, some cells die and others survive. This fractional killing arises not from mutation but from preexisting, stochastic differences in the levels and activities of proteins regulating apoptosis. Here we examine the properties of cells that survive treatment with agonists of two distinct death receptors, tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) and anti-FasR antibodies. We find that survivor cells are highly resistant to a second ligand dose applied 1 d later. Resistance is reversible, resetting after several days of culture in the absence of death ligand. Reset cells appear identical to drug-naive cells with respect to death ligand sensitivity and gene expression profiles. TRAIL survivors are cross-resistant to activators of FasR and vice versa and exhibit an NF-kappa B-dependent inflammatory phenotype. Remarkably, reversible resistance is induced in the absence of cell death when caspase inhibitors are present and can be sustained for 1 wk or more, also without cell death, by periodic ligand exposure. Thus stochastic differences in cell state can have sustained consequences for sensitivity to prodeath ligands and acquisition of proinflammatory phenotypes. The important role played by periodicity in TRAIL exposure for induction of opposing apoptosis and survival mechanisms has implications for the design of optimal therapeutic agents and protocols.

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

4.4
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