4.7 Article

Mucin overexpression limits the effectiveness of 5-FU by reducing intracellular drug uptake and antineoplastic drug effects in pancreatic tumours

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 164-173

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.008

关键词

Anticancer activity; Antitumour; Cancer; Fluorouracil; Human diseases; Mice; Mucin; Mucus overproduction; Pancreatic cancer; Therapeutic mechanism

类别

资金

  1. Provost Research Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current treatments for pancreatic cancer have failed to effectively manage the disease, and hence, more effective treatment approaches are urgently needed. Studies suggest that mucin O-glycosylation limits the cytotoxic effect of fluorouracil (5-FU) against the growth of human pancreatic cancer cells in vitro. In the present study, we investigated the relationship between the levels of mucin O-glycosylation expressed in pancreatic tumours and the antitumour effect of 5-FU. The inhibition of O-glycosylation was achieved by intratumoural (IT) injections of benzyl-alpha-GalNAc. Immunohistochemical staining of human pancreatic tumours revealed relatively high (Capan-1) and moderate (HPAF-II) expression levels of MUC1 mucin compared to MUC1 negative control (U-87 MG human glioblastoma) tumours. The antitumour effects of 5-FU (given systemically) against Capan-1 tumours improved significantly following IT injections of benzyl-alpha-GalNAc. Histochemical staining of tumour sections revealed a reduced number of neoplastic cells in tumours exposed to benzyl-alpha-GalNAc prior to 5-FU treatment compared to 5-FU alone. Furthermore, intracellular uptake of 5-FU by Capan-1 cells was significantly greater following injections of benzyl-alpha-GalNAc; however, no such effect was observed with U-87 MG cells. Mucin overexpression reduces intracellular drug uptake, antineoplastic and antitumour drug effects, which may have important clinical implications in treatment. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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