970 resultados para corticotropin releasing factor
Resumo:
Two major signaling pathways, those triggered by estrogen (E(2)) and by the Wnt family, interact in the breast to cause growth and differentiation. The estrogen receptors ER(alpha) and ER(beta) are activated by binding E(2) and act as ligand-dependent transcription factors. The effector for the Wnt family is the Tcf family of transcription factors. Both sets of transcription factors recognize discrete but different nucleotide sequences in the promoters of their target genes. By using transient transfections of reporter constructs for the osteopontin and thymidine kinase promoters in rat mammary cells, we show that Tcf-4 antagonizes and Tcf-1 stimulates the effects of activated ER/E(2). For mutants of the former promoter, the stimulatory effects of ER(alpha)/E(2) can be made to be dependent on Tcf-1, and for the latter promoter the effects of the T cell factors (TCFs) are dependent on ER/E(2). Direct interaction between ERs and Tcfs either at the Tcf/ER(alpha)-binding site on the DNA or in the absence of DNA is established by gel retardation assays or by coimmunoprecipitation/biosensor methods, respectively. These results show that the two sets of transcription factors can interact directly, the interaction between ERs and Tcf-4 being antagonistic and that between ERs and Tcf-1 being synergistic on the activity of the promoters employed. Since Tcf-4 is the major Tcf family member in the breast, it is suggested that the antagonistic interaction is normally dominant in vivo in this tissue.
Resumo:
Purpose: Up to now, there have been no established predictive markers for response to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/HER1/erbB1) inhibitors alone and in combination with chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. To identify markers that predict response to EGFR-based chemotherapy regimens, we analyzed the response of human colorectal cancer cell lines to the EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, gefitinib (Iressa, AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE), as a single agent and in combination with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Experimental Design: Cell viability was assessed using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide and crystal violet cell viability assays and analyzed by ANOVA. Apoptosis was measured by flow cytometry, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, and caspase 3 cleavage. EGFR protein phosphorylation was detected by Western blotting. Results: Cell lines displaying high constitutive EGFR phosphorylation (a surrogate marker for EGFR activity) were more sensitive to gefitinib. Furthermore, in cell lines exhibiting low constitutive EGFR phosphorylation, an antagonistic interaction between gefitinib and oxaliplatin was observed, whereas in cell lines with high basal EGFR phosphorylation, the interaction was synergistic. In addition, oxaliplatin treatment increased EGFR phosphorylation in those cell lines in which oxaliplatin and gefitinib were synergistic but down-regulated EGFR phosphorylation in those lines in which oxaliplatin and gefitinib were antagonistic. In contrast to oxaliplatin, 5-FU treatment increased EGFR phosphorylation in all cell lines and this correlated with synergistic decreases in cell viability when 5-FU was combined with gefitinib. Conclusions: These results suggest that phospho-EGFR levels determine the sensitivity of colorectal cancer cells to gefitinib alone and that chemotherapy-mediated changes in phospho-EGFR levels determine the nature of interaction between gefitinib and chemotherapy.
Resumo:
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) levels were studied in 23 patients (10 myeloma, 13 relapsed Hodgkin's disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or germ cell tumours), post autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT). The two groups had similar previous chemotherapy and numbers of CD34+ cells transplanted. All patients received G-CSF by injection starting 8 d post transplantation. Twenty out of 23 patients showed raised endogenous levels of G-CSF before cytokine administration. Myeloma patients showed significantly lower levels of endogenous G-CSF than the other patients (0.767 versus 3.262 ng/ml, P <0.05). Further rises in G-CSF levels were seen following the administration of exogenous G-CSF which then fell, despite ongoing administration of G-CSF, as neutrophil recovery occurred.