4.7 Article

MAPK pathway activation leads to Bim loss and histone deacetylase inhibitor resistance: rationale to combine romidepsin with an MEK inhibitor

期刊

BLOOD
卷 121, 期 20, 页码 4115-4125

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-08-449140

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research
  2. Celgene Corporation
  3. NCI [RO1 CA132098]
  4. National Institutes of Health, Cancer Center Support Grant [P30 CA010815]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To identify molecular determinants of histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDI) resistance, we selected HuT78 cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) cells with romidepsin in the presence of P-glycoprotein inhibitors to prevent transporter upregulation. Resistant sublines were 250- to 385-fold resistant to romidepsin and were resistant to apoptosis induced by apicidin, entinostat, panobinostat, belinostat, and vorinostat. A custom TaqMan array identified increased insulin receptor (INSR) gene expression; immunoblot analysis confirmed increased protein expression and a four-to eightfold increase in mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) kinase (MEK) phosphorylation in resistant cells compared with parental cells. Resistant cells were exquisitely sensitive to MEK inhibitors, and apoptosis correlated with restoration of proapoptotic Bim. Romidepsin combined with MEK inhibitors yielded greater apoptosis in cells expressing mutant KRAS compared with romidepsin treatment alone. Gene expression analysis of samples obtained from patients with CTCL enrolled on the NCI1312 phase 2 study of romidepsin in T-cell lymphoma suggested perturbation of the MAPK pathway by romidepsin. Immunohistochemical analysis of Bim expression demonstrated decreased expression in some skin biopsies at disease progression. These findings implicate increased activation of MEK and decreased Bim expression as a resistance mechanism to HDIs, supporting combination of romidepsin with MEK inhibitors in clinical trials.

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