4.5 Article

Magmas, a Gene Newly Identified as Overexpressed in Human and Mouse ACTH-Secreting Pituitary Adenomas, Protects Pituitary Cells from Apoptotic Stimuli

期刊

ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 151, 期 10, 页码 4635-4642

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/en.2010-0441

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of University and Scientific and Technological Research
  2. Novartis Pharma Italy
  3. Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Ferrara
  4. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro
  5. Associazione Ferrarese dell'Ipertensione Arteriosa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pituitary tumors are mostly benign, being locally invasive in 5-35% of cases. Deregulation of several genes has been suggested as a possible alteration underlying the development and progression of pituitary tumors. We here report the identification of a cDNA, corresponding to Magmas gene (mitochondria-associated protein involved in granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor signal transduction), which is highly expressed in two different ACTH-secreting mouse pituitary adenoma cell lines as compared with normal pituitary as well as in two thirds of 64 examined pituitary adenomas as compared with human normal pituitary. Tim 16, the mitochondrial protein encoded by Magmas, was indeed expressed in a mouse ACTH-secreting pituitary adenoma cell line, AtT-20 D16v-F2 cells, in a subcellular compartment likely corresponding to mitochondria. Magmas silencing determined a reduced rate of DNA synthesis, an accumulation in G1 phase, and a concomitant decrease in S phase in At-T20 D16v-F2 cells. Moreover, Magmas-silenced cells displayed basal caspase 3/7 activity and DNA fragmentation levels similar to control cells, which both increased under proapoptotic stimuli. Our data demonstrate that Magmas is overexpressed in mouse and human ACTH-secreting pituitary adenomas. Moreover, our results show that Magmas protects pituitary cells from apoptosis, suggesting its possible involvement in neoplastic transformation. (Endocrinology 151: 4635-4642, 2010)

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

4.5
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