4.6 Article

Antitumor potential of SLPI promoter controlled recombinant caspase-3 expression in laryngeal carcinoma

期刊

CANCER GENE THERAPY
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 328-335

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/cgt.2012.5

关键词

apoptosis; caspase-3; gene therapy; larynx; squamous cell carcinoma; tissue-specific promoter

资金

  1. Department of Public Health of Zhejiang Province of China [2008A089, 2009A102, 2007A086]
  2. Department of Science and Technology of Zhejiang Province [2008F1029]
  3. Department of Education of Zhejiang Province [Y200804137]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study is to develop a specific and efficient targeted gene therapy candidate approach for laryngeal carcinomas. Several promoters of human squamous cell carcinoma antigen 2(SCCA2), secretory leukocyte protease inhibitor (SLPI) and Survivin genes were cloned from human genomic DNA and evaluated for tumor-specific transcription potential in human laryngeal carcinoma Hep-2 cells by dual luciferase assays. One SLPI promoter fragment (677 bp) showed the highest efficiency and specificity, and was used to control the expression of a recombinant active caspases-3 (revCasp3), which could trigger apoptosis without activation of its upstream cascade elements once expressed in a cell, in an adenoviral vector (Ad-SLPI-revCasp3), and its antitumor efficacy was assessed. In vitro infection with Ad-SLPI-revCasp3 showed revCasp3 could be specifically expressed in Hep-2 cells, resulting in efficient activation of endogenous Caspase-3 and subsequent apoptosis of Hep-2 cells. In Hep-2 nude mice xenograft model, intratumoral administration of Ad-SLPI-revCasp3 significantly inhibited tumor growth without obvious loss of body weight and obvious hepatic toxicity. In summary, our study showed the specific and efficient apoptosis-inducing potential of Ad-SLPI-revCasp3, and this makes it a new candidate approach of targeted gene therapy for laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma, which needs further systematic investigation.

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

4.6
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