4.8 Article

In Vivo Disruption of an Rb-E2F-Ezh2 Signaling Loop Causes Bladder Cancer

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 74, 期 22, 页码 6565-6577

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-1218

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. MICINN [SAF2012-34378, SAF2011-26122-C02-01, JCI-2010-06167]
  2. Comunidad Autonoma de Madrid [S2006/BIO-0232, S2010/BMD-2470]
  3. MSyC grants [ISCIII-RETIC RD06/0020/0029, RD12/0036/0009, ISCIII-FIS PI12/01959]
  4. Fundacion Sandra Ibarra
  5. MMA Foundation [AP99782012, 40100017]
  6. NIH [R01 CA114102]
  7. Instituto de Salud Carlos III

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bladder cancer is a highly prevalent human disease in which retinoblastoma (Rb) pathway inactivation and epigenetic alterations are common events. However, the connection between these two processes is still poorly understood. Here, we show that the in vivo inactivation of all Rb family genes in the mouse urothelium is sufficient to initiate bladder cancer development. The characterization of the mouse tumors revealed multiple molecular features of human bladder cancer, including the activation of E2F transcription factor and subsequent Ezh2 expression and the activation of several signaling pathways previously identified as highly relevant in urothelial tumors. These mice represent a genetically defined model for human high-grade superficial bladder cancer. Whole transcriptional characterizations of mouse and human bladder tumors revealed a significant overlap and confirmed the predominant role for Ezh2 in the downregulation of gene expression programs. Importantly, the increased tumor recurrence and progression in human patients with superficial bladder cancer is associated with increased E2F and Ezh2 expression and Ezh2-mediated gene expression repression. Collectively, our studies provide a genetically defined model for human high-grade superficial bladder cancer and demonstrate the existence of an Rb-E2F-Ezh2 axis in bladder whose disruption can promote tumor development. (C) 2014 AACR.

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

4.8
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