4.7 Article

Overexpression of RRM2 decreases thrombspondin-1 and increases VEGF production in human cancer cells in vitro and in vivo: implication of RRM2 in angiogenesis

期刊

MOLECULAR CANCER
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1476-4598-8-11

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 91010] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In addition to its essential role in ribonucleotide reduction, ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) small subunit, RRM2, has been known to play a critical role in determining tumor malignancy. Overexpression of RRM2 significantly enhances the invasive and metastatic potential of tumor. Angiogenesis is critical to tumor malignancy; it plays an essential role in tumor growth and metastasis. It is important to investigate whether the angiogenic potential of tumor is affected by RRM2. Results: We examined the expression of antiangiogenic thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1) and proangiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in two RRM2-overexpressing KB cells: KB-M2-D and KB-HURs. We found that TSP-1 was significantly decreased in both KB-M2-D and KB-HURs cells compared to the parental KB and mock transfected KB-V. Simultaneously, RRM2-overexpressing KB cells showed increased production of VEGF mRNA and protein. In contrast, attenuating RRM2 expression via siRNA resulted in a significant increased TSP-1 expression in both KB and LNCaP cells; while the expression of VEGF by the two cells was significantly decreased under both normoxia and hypoxia. In comparison with KB-V, overexpression of RRM2 had no significant effect on proliferation in vitro, but it dramatically accelerated in vivo subcutaneous growth of KB-M2-D. KB-M2-D possessed more angiogenic potential than KB-V, as shown in vitro by its increased chemotaxis for endothelial cells and in vivo by the generation of more vascularized tumor xenografts. Conclusion: These findings suggest a positive role of RRM2 in tumor angiogenesis and growth through regulation of the expression of TSP-1 and VEGF.

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