MATERIALS AND METHODS: BCR-ABL positive CML cells resistant to imatinib (K562-R) were developed by overexposure of K562 cell lines to the drug. Cytotoxicity was determined by MTS assays and IC50 values calculated. Apoptosis assays were performed using annexin V-FITC binding assays and analyzed by flow cytometry. Methylation profiles were investigated using methylation specific PCR and sequencing analysis of SOCS-1 and SOCS-3 genes. Gene expression was assessed by quantitative real-time PCR, and protein expression and phosphorylation of STAT1, 2 and 3 were examined by Western blotting.
RESULTS: The IC50 for imatinib on K562 was 362 nM compared to 3,952 nM for K562-R (p=0.001). Percentage of apoptotic cells in K562 increased upto 50% by increasing the concentration of imatinib, in contrast to only 20% in K562-R (p<0.001). A change from non-methylation of the SOCS-3 gene in K562 to complete methylation in K562-R was observed. Gene expression revealed down- regulation of both SOCS-1 and SOCS-3 genes in resistant cells. STAT3 was phosphorylated in K562-R but not K562.
CONCLUSIONS: Development of cells resistant to imatinib is feasible by overexposure of the drug to the cells. Activation of STAT3 protein leads to uncontrolled cell proliferation in imatinib resistant BCR-ABL due to DNA methylation of the SOCS-3 gene. Thus SOCS-3 provides a suitable candidate for mechanisms underlying the development of imatinib resistant in CML patients.
METHODS: We used multiple search strategies in MEDLINE through PubMed to seek for suitable articles that had case-control design with gastric cancer as outcome.
RESULTS: The outcomes of our study shows protection (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, P = 0.003) and susceptibility (OR 1.94, P = 0.0004), both significant with low and medium-high intake of capsaicin, respectively, although under relatively heterogeneous conditions (P(heterogeneity) = <0.0001). Outlier analysis resulted in loss of overall heterogeneity (P = 0.14) without affecting the pooled ORs. Among the subgroups, low intake elicited protection in both Korean (OR 0.37) and Mexican (OR 0.63) populations while high intake rendered these subgroups susceptible (OR 2.96 and OR 1.57, respectively). These subgroup values were highly significant (P = 0.0001-0.01) obtained in heterogeneous conditions (P(heterogeneity)
MATERIALS AND METHODS: ER+ MCF7 and ER- MDA-MB-231 cell lines were subjected to two-dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE) and spots of interest were identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of- flight/time- of-flight (MALDI-TOF/TOF) mass spectrometry (MS) analysis after downregulation of RhoGDIα using short interfering RNA (siRNA) and upregulated using GFP-tagged ORF clone of RhoGDIα.
RESULTS: The results showed a total of 35 proteins that were either up- or down-regulated in these cells. Here we identifed 9 and 15 proteins differentially expressed with silencing of RhoGDIα in MCF-7 and the MDA-MB-231 cells, respectively. In addition, 10 proteins were differentially expressed in the upregulation of RhoGDIα in MCF7, while only one protein was identified in the upregulation of RhoGDIα in MDA-MB-231. Based on the biological functions of these proteins, the results revealed that proteins involved in cell migration are more strongly altered with RhoGDI-α activity. Although several of these proteins have been previously indicated in tumorigenesis and invasiveness of breast cancer cells, some ohave not been previously reported to be involved in breast cancer migration. Hence, these proteins may serve as useful candidate biomarkers for tumorigenesis and invasiveness of breast cancer cells.
CONCLUSIONS: Future studies are needed to determine the mechanisms by which these proteins regulate cell migration. The combination of RhoGDIα with other potential biomarkers may be a more promising approach in the inhibition of breast cancer cell migration.