| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Regular Articles |
Departments of 1 Medicine, 2 Surgery, 3 Molecular Genetics and Biochemistry, 4 Biostatistics, and 5 Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and 6 University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
5 mock-infected cells and that cell death is further augmented when the IRF-1-infected cells are cultured with Adriamycin. Moreover, in a xenogeneic mouse model of breast carcinoma, in vivo treatment of tumor-bearing mice with intratumoral Ad-IRF-1 injections results in tumor growth inhibition. In resected tumors from mice that had been treated with Ad-IRF-1, tumor cells that express the IRF-1 transgene have a predominant IRF-1-positive, survivin-negative phenotype. Collectively, these observations suggest that therapies designed to enhance IRF-1 expression within tumor cells may represent novel treatment strategies for breast cancer. | INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
5-infected MDA-MB-468 cells when compared with uninfected cells. Survivin is a Mr 16,500 intracellular protein (9) , characterized by a 70-amino acid motif termed BIR (10) , and it has been shown to inhibit cell death induced by various apoptotic stimuli (10, 11, 12) . In genome-wide searches, survivin constituted the fourth top transcriptome in various cancers, yet its expression was low or undetectable in identical normal tissues (13) . Among 60 human tumor cell lines used for the National Cancer Institutes anticancer drug screening program, the highest relative levels of survivin were present in lung and breast cancer cell lines (10) . In primary tissues, survivin mRNA has been detected in 90.2% of cases of breast cancers investigated, whereas only 23% of adjacent noncancerous breast tissues expressed detectable levels of survivin (14) . Using an antisurvivin antibody, 70.7% of breast cancer specimens of histologic stages I to III obtained from patients with invasive breast carcinomas who did not receive any form of treatment before surgery expressed cytoplasmic survivin. Adjacent normal tissues did not express the survivin protein (15) . Similarly, in other studies, 79.1% of breast carcinomas were positive for survivin expression (16) . In addition, the apoptotic index was significantly lower in survivin-positive tumors than in survivin-negative tumors, and the overall 5-year survival for patients with survivin-positive tumors was less than patients with survivin-negative tumors. Taken together, these data suggest that decreased apoptosis that correlated with survivin expression may be a predictive indicator of poorer prognosis in breast carcinoma (15) .
Given these correlates, therapeutic strategies have targeted survivin expression. Antisense oligonucleotides and dominant negative survivin mutants that inhibit survivin expression or function have been evaluated (17)
. In addition, a phosphorylation-defective survivin mutant, Thr34
Ala, has been shown to trigger apoptosis and enhance cell death in both in vitro and in vivo model systems (18)
. In addition, adenoviruses (Ads) encoding ribozymes were shown to decrease the level of survivin mRNA in MCF-7 breast carcinoma cells and resulted in a 2-fold increase in the number of apoptotic cells (19)
.
In these current studies, we show a decrease in survivin expression and increased cell death after infecting MDA-MB-468 and SK-BR-3 breast cancer cells to ectopically express the IRF-1 using a recombinant Ad (Ad-IRF-1). These data supported our screening microarray analysis that revealed a 15-fold down-regulation of survivin in Ad-IRF-1-infected MDA-MB-468 tumor cells compared with uninfected cells.
Reduction in survivin expression occurs in a p53-independent manner. Interestingly, p21 was up-regulated after Ad-IRF-1 infection of tumor cells. Increased apoptosis was observed in IRF-1-infected cells, and tumor cell death was enhanced when IRF-1-infected cells were cultured with the chemotherapeutic drug Adriamycin. Lastly, in vivo studies show tumor growth inhibition in mice treated with the Ad-IRF-1 recombinant virus, with resected tumor nodules exhibiting deficient expression of survivin after IRF-1 infection in situ.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Microarray Analysis by Affymetrix Chip Hybridization.
For cDNA preparation, total RNA was extracted and purified from Ad-
5, Ad-IRF-1, and uninfected MDA-MB-468 cells with the Qiagen RNeasy kit (Qiagen, San Diego, CA), and the chips were prepared and analyzed as described previously (24)
.
Ad-IRF-1 Construction and Characterization.
The construction of these viruses has been described previously (24)
. Briefly, a recombinant E1- and E3-deleted Ad containing the mouse IRF-1 gene under a constitutive cytomegalovirus promoter (Ad-IRF-1) was constructed through Cre-lox/recombination as described previously (25)
. Briefly, the mouse IRF-1 gene was inserted into the shuttle vector pAdlox to create Ad-IRF-1. Recombinant Ad-IRF-1 was generated by cotransfection of SfiI-digested pAdlox-mIRF-1 and
5 helper virus DNA into the Ad packaging cell line CRE8, which expresses Cre recombinase. Recombinant viruses were propagated on CRE8 or 293 cells and purified by cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation and subsequent dialysis. Titers of viral particles were determined by optical densitometry. Ad-
5 was a kind gift from Dr. S. Hardy (Somatix, Alameda, CA). Confirmation of high efficiency adenoviral infection was performed by infection with the enhanced green fluorescent protein. Cells were infected with increasing multiplicities of infection (MOIs), and infected cells were identified by fluorescent microscopy. The functionality of the recombinant Ad-IRF-1 construct had been confirmed by immunofluorescence staining showing increased expression of major histocompatiblity complex (MHC) class I proteins (26
, 27)
in TS/A and C3L5 murine mammary adenocarcinomas and up-regulation of MHC class I in MDA-MB-468, SK-BR-3, MCF-7, and other human breast cell lines infected with Ad-IRF-1. In addition, the growth inhibitory response of MDA-MB-468 and SK-BR-3 cells infected with Ad-IRF-1 was confirmed via the reduction of the yellow tetrazolium 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazolyl-2)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide cell proliferation assay and compared to Ad-
5 control-infected cells. Cytokines well known to be up-regulated by IRF-1, including IFN-
and IFN-ß (28)
, have also been demonstrated in high levels in the media of all Ad-IRF-1-infected breast cancer cell lines versus controls by ELISA. Moreover, we performed liposome transfection of the MDA-MB-468 cell line with a plasmid encoding the human IRF-1 gene, and we observed identical down-regulation of survivin in transfected cells versus controls, but only at one time point because of the transient and less efficient nature of liposome transfection (data not shown).
Ad-IRF-1 Infection.
MDA-MB-468 cells plated in 10-cm plates were washed once in PBS, and serum-free Opti-MEM (Invitrogen Life Technologies) media were added. For adenoviral infection, recombinant Ad at a MOI of 10 was added. Cells were subsequently incubated for 4 hours at 37°C at 5% CO2. After 4 hours, the serum-free media were aspirated, and fresh culture media were added. For the SK-BR-3 cells, a MOI of 25 was used. The MCF-7 cells were infected at a MOI of 50. Previous experiments were conducted to determine the MOIs necessary to achieve equal IRF-1 protein expression in each cell line.
Western Blots.
Immunoblotting was performed as described previously (24)
. Anti-IRF antibody (1:10,000; Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA), antihuman survivin (1:1,000; R&D Systems, Inc., Minneapolis, MN), anti-p53 (1:250; BD PharMingen, San Diego, CA), antihuman Bcl-2 (BD Transduction Laboratories, San Jose, CA), and antihuman p21 (1:250; BD PharMingen) were added for 1 hour at room temperature. Equal loading of protein was assessed by using ß-actin (1:1,000; Abcam, Inc., Cambridge, MA) as a control. Horseradish peroxidase-conjugated goat antimouse or antirabbit at a concentration of 1:10,000 was added. Protein bands were visualized with Supersignal (West Pico Chemiluminescent Substrate; Pierce Biotechnology, Inc., Rockford, IL) according to the manufacturers instructions. The bands were exposed on Kodak film (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY) to detect the chemiluminescence signals. Densitometric visualization was performed using the White/UV Transilluminator (UVP Products, Upland, CA), and analysis was performed using Labworks (UVP Products) software.
Apoptosis Assay.
To evaluate the induction of apoptosis, MDA-MB-468 cells were either uninfected (Opti-MEM alone) or infected with Ad-
5 or Ad-IRF-1. After 24 hours, Adriamycin (500 nmol/L; Sigma-Aldrich Corp., St. Louis, MO) was added to the uninfected or infected cultures. Twenty four hours after Adriamycin addition, apoptosis of tumor cells was measured by staining with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-conjugated annexin V and propidium iodide using the annexin V-FITC apoptosis detection kit according to the manufacturers instructions (BD PharMingen). Cell apoptosis was analyzed by flow cytometry using a Beckman Coulter cytometer (Fullerton, CA).
In vivo Treatment of Tumor-Bearing Mice.
All animal studies were conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Council on Animal Care at the University of Pittsburgh and the National Research Councils Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Female Nude nu/nu-nubr (46 weeks old) or Fox Chase severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mice (2935 days old) were purchased from Charles River Laboratories International (Wilmington, MA).
MDA-MB-468 cells growing in log phase were resuspended in Hanks balanced salt solution, and 6 x 106 cells were inoculated subcutaneously along the mammary line of female SCID mice. When tumors reached
30 to 35 mm3 by perpendicular measurements, mice were randomized (n = 58 mice per group) and received intratumoral injection with 4 x 108 plaque-forming units (pfu) of Ad-IRF-1, Ad-
5, or saline in a total volume of 30 µL. Treatment was repeated approximately every 12 days, with a total of five treatments. Tumors were measured by serial measurements of perpendicular diameters using digital calipers. Tumor volumes were calculated according to the formula 0.52 x (width)2 x length (29)
. Animals that were moribund or had tumors greater than approximately 4,189 mm3 in volume were sacrificed.
Immunohistochemistry of Resected Tumor Nodules.
Nude mice were inoculated with 1 x 107 MDA-MB-468 cells resuspended in Hanks balanced salt solution. When tumors reached 4 x 4 mm by perpendicular measurements, mice were treated intratumorally with 4 x 108 pfu of Ad-IRF-1 or Ad-
5 in a total of 30 µL. Treated tumors were excised from nude mice 24 hours after treatment and placed in 2% paraformaldehyde. Immunohistochemistry was performed to evaluate IRF-1 and survivin protein expression. The C-20 rabbit polyclonal antibody purchased from Santa Cruz Biotechnology was used to detect IRF-1, and a polyclonal antibody that detects survivin purchased from R&D Systems was used to determine survivin expression. Briefly, 5-µm tumor sections were washed in PBS, followed by three washes in bovine serum albumin (BSA), and blocked for 40 minutes in 5% goat serum (Sigma-Aldrich). After washing the samples in BSA, tumor sections were incubated with the IRF-1 antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology) for 1 hour. The samples were then washed in BSA and incubated with Cy3-conjugated goat antirabbit Fab fragment (Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories, West Grove, PA) for 1 hour, washed in BSA, and incubated with the antisurvivin antibody for 1 hour. After incubation with the antisurvivin antibody, samples were washed in BSA and incubated in goat antirabbit Alexa 488 (Molecular Probes, Inc., Eugene, OR) for 1 hour and washed in BSA and PBS. Hoechst dye (Sigma-Aldrich) was added for 30 seconds, and samples were washed in PBS and then mounted. Several photos (x10 magnification) of the whole tumor were taken with an Olympus BX51 fluorescent microscope (Olympus America, Melville, NY).
Statistical Analyses.
Murine tumor dimensions were measured three times a week from the 3rd through the 10th week. Tumor volumes were calculated and natural log-transformed to stabilize daily variances. Tumor growth rate was described with random coefficient polynomial regression models. Tests of treatment group differences were conducted for 1 day each week by comparing predicted (population marginal) means and their SE. P values were adjusted by simulated data from the null multivariate t distribution with the same covariance as the observed data. Differences in tumor growth with adjusted P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. For apoptosis studies, data were transformed to improve normality and stabilize variances by taking the square root of the percentage of cells that were positive for annexin V. The data were then analyzed in a two-way factorial design that tested Adriamycin at two levels (yes/no) and infections at three levels (none, vector alone, and IRF-1 virus). Pairwise comparisons were then applied as needed with the t test.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
5-infected MDA-MB-468 cells when compared with uninfected cells. To confirm these data, we infected MDA-MB-468 and SK-BR-3 breast cancer cell lines with Ad-IRF-1 or the Ad-
5 vector control at a MOI of 10 or 25, respectively, and harvested cells at 12-hour intervals for Western blotting analysis.
In previous studies, we had confirmed the functionality of the Ad-IRF-1 virus in these and other breast cancer cell lines by confirming the expression of MHC class I (26
, 27
, 30)
and the secretion of IFN-
and IFN-ß known to be up-regulated by IRF-1 in all Ad-IRF-1-infected breast cancer cell lines versus the control treatments (refs. 26
and 28; data not shown).
Ad-IRF-1-infected MDA-MB-468 and SK-BR-3 cells expressed IRF-1 by 12 hours after infection with an apparent peak at 24 hours (Fig. 1)
. Expression was absent in the Ad-
5 control-infected cells. The expression of survivin was also investigated in these infected cell lines and in uninfected cells. In support of our microarray analyses, the MDA-MB-468 Ad-IRF-1-infected cells expressed reduced levels of the survivin protein (Fig. 2)
. An
3-fold decrease in survivin expression was observed at 36 hours after infection, and the most profound decrease in survivin expression was observed at 48 hours after infection (Fig. 2A)
. Survivin expression was also decreased by
2-fold in the SK-BR-3 Ad-IRF-1-infected cells at the 36 hour time point, with an additional reduction observed at the 48 hour time point (Fig. 2B)
. Changes in survivin expression were not observed in either the MDA-MB-468 or SK-BR-3 cell lines infected with the Ad-
5 vector.
|
|
|
|
5 vector control. Twenty-four hours after infection, cells were treated with 500 nmol/L Adriamycin. Cells were harvested 24 hours after treatment, and cell death was then examined in the various tumor cell cohorts. Although
91% of uninfected cells (Fig. 5A)
5 (Fig. 5B)
5-infected cohort. In the presence of Adriamycin, the number of apoptotic cells increased in the Ad-IRF-1-infected cohort >3-fold when compared with the Ad-
5-infected cells. The number of apoptotic cells in the Ad-IRF-1-infected and Adriamycin-treated cells was almost doubled when compared with cells infected with Ad-IRF-1 alone. In addition, Fig. 5
|
5-infected cells. Although a slight increase in survivin expression was observed in IRF-1-infected cells treated with Adriamycin, the expression of survivin was much less than that of uninfected or Ad-
5-infected MDA-MB-468 tumor cells.
|
5 or Ad-IRF-1. Treatments were repeated at
12-day intervals. Tumor size was monitored, and tumor volumes were calculated. Although tumors continued to grow in both the saline-treated and Ad-
5-treated cohorts, tumor growth was inhibited in mice treated with Ad-IRF-1 (Fig. 7)
|
5 vector control. Twenty-four hours after treatment, tumors were excised and stained for IRF-1 and survivin. Tumors excised from the Ad-
5 vector control-treated cohort expressed survivin throughout the tumor tissue; however, IRF-1 was not expressed (Fig. 8A)
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Our results further suggest that the down-regulation of survivin is independent of wild-type p53 because both the MDA-MB-468 and SK-BR-3 cell lines harbor mutations in p53. Our results are in contrast to other studies that show a reduction in survivin mRNA levels when human cell lines are infected with wild-type p53 (35) . Moreover, studies using the H1299 (p53/) human non-small-cell lung cancer cell line stably transfected with a temperature-sensitive p53 allele displayed significant decreases in survivin RNA levels in the presence of wild-type p53 (36) .
To date, the mechanism by which wild-type p53 may mediate the repression of survivin is unclear. Wild-type p53 was shown to directly bind to the p53-binding site of the survivin promoter, and this consensus sequence was necessary to mediate repression (36) . On the other hand, recent studies have also shown that p53-dependent repression remained the same in H1299 (p53/) cells transfected with p53 expression plasmids and survivin luciferase reporter constructs containing mutations in the p53-binding site within the promoter (34) . Studies have also suggested that wild-type p53 may recruit histone deacetylase complexes that modify the local chromatin structure, leading to repressed survivin transcription (35) . In our studies, the breast cancer cell line MCF-7 that harbors a wild-type p53 gene did not exhibit lower levels of survivin protein expression. In fact, even in the presence of ectopic IRF-1, survivin expression did not change in this cell line.
Although wild-type p53 appeared not to be required for IRF-1 modulation of survivin expression, p21, a known p53 target gene, was up-regulated in IRF-1-infected MDA-MB-468 and SK-BR-3 cells. P21 interacts with cyclin/cyclin-dependent kinase complexes and may inhibit their activity (37 , 38) , resulting in cell cycle arrest in G1 or G2 (39 , 40) . Several studies have shown that the induction of p21 transcription is p53 dependent (39 , 41 , 42) , and the p21 promoter contains two conserved p53-binding sites (32) .
There are also several p53-independent mechanisms that result in p21 activation. These include binding of the transcription factor Sp1 (43) , tumor suppressor protein BRCA1 (44) , and activator protein 2 (45) to the p21 promoter. In our studies, although p53 was mutated, p21 was up-regulated in IRF-1-infected MDA-MB-468 and SK-BR-3 cells. Recently, direct binding of IRF-1 to the IRF-E binding site within the human p21 gene promoter has been demonstrated (33) . Similarly, during DNA damage, IRF-1 activates the p21 promoter independent of p53 (46) . HCT116 human colon cancer cells that have deleted both p53 alleles also up-regulate p21 when infected with Ad-IRF-1, whereas enhancement of p21 expression was not observed in HCT116 cells transfected with wild-type p53. Moreover, greater growth inhibition was observed in IRF-1-infected HCT116 cells lacking p53 than in wild-type cells (47) . These data support the contention that in the absence of wild-type p53, the introduction of IRF-1 can result in p21 up-regulation and down-regulation of survivin. Similarly, recent studies have shown that p53-deficient H1299 human non-small-cell lung cancer cells transduced with a p21-adenoviral vector alone is sufficient to repress survivin mRNA levels (34) . Collectively, these studies suggest that p21 is sufficient for mediating the negative regulation of survivin gene expression.
In addition, our studies demonstrated an additive effect of Ad-IRF-1 infection and chemotherapy in promoting cell death. MDA-MB-468 cells were infected with Ad-IRF-1 and either left untreated or treated with Adriamycin. There was an increase in the number of apoptotic and necrotic cells in Ad-IRF-1-infected MDA-MB-468 cells compared with cells treated with Adriamycin alone. Our statistical analyses on three independent experiments demonstrated that the effect of the combination of IRF-1 and Adriamycin on cell death was additive. Moreover, we observed a slight increase in survivin expression in cells infected with IRF-1 and treated with Adriamycin. Despite this minimal increase in survivin expression, cell death was enhanced when these Ad-IRF-1-infected cells were treated with Adriamycin. It is possible that this observed increase in survivin in IRF-1/Adriamycin-treated cells is biologically insignificant. In addition, it is possible that the mechanisms that mediate enhanced apoptosis in Ad-IRF-1/Adriamycin-treated cells may differ from cells infected with Ad-IRF-1 or treated solely with Adriamycin. Future studies will address these mechanisms. It should be noted that an increase in both survivin mRNA and protein expression has been shown in an Adriamycin-treated cholangiocarcinoma cell line (48) . Moreover, in K562 erythrocytic and HL60 leukemia cells that have acquired resistance to Adriamycin, K562/ADR, or HL60R, an increase in survivin mRNA has also been shown (49 , 50) .
Finally, we investigated the effect of IRF-1 on tumor growth in tumor-bearing immunodeficient mice. Recent studies have shown that the C3-L5 murine mammary adenocarcinoma cell line transduced ex vivo with Ad-IRF-1 did not grow in 80% of syngeneic C3H/HeJ mice (24)
. Ex vivo infection of the TS/A murine mammary adenocarcinoma cell line with Ad-IRF-1 was also effective in prolonging tumor growth in mice. Moreover, IRF-1 was shown to increase the expression of three proapoptotic genes that included bak, caspase-8, and caspase-7 (24)
. We have extended these studies to investigate a xenograft mouse model system using the human MDA-MB-468 cell line. Intratumoral treatment of MDA-MB-468 nodules with injected Ad-IRF-1 virus resulted in tumor growth inhibition that was statistically significant when compared with the Ad-
5 vector-treated cohort. Statistically significant decreases in tumor volumes were computed between days 56 and 70 inclusive after the mice had received five IRF-1 intratumoral injections. The final IRF-1 treatment occurred at day 68 after tumor inoculation, and statistically significant decreases in tumor volumes were no longer computed beyond 70 days after tumor inoculation. Despite the rapidity of induction of IRF-1 and subsequent decrease in survivin expression in the MDA-MB-468 cell line infected with Ad-IRF-1 in vitro, it appears that multiple injections were required to allow for maximal efficacy in our in vivo model system. Moreover, an increase in the frequency of treatments may be required. These results may be attributed to the greater number of tumor cells in the growing tumor nodule. It is possible that at a low tumor burden in vivo, IRF-1 expression allows for increased tumor cell death. At a higher tumor burden, however, the level of IRF-1 expression may not be sufficient to overcome the increased number of survivin-positive tumor cells. Future studies will investigate whether variations in viral dose and the frequency of intratumoral treatments can further enhance the antitumor affects of this therapy. To investigate survivin expression in IRF-1-treated and Ad-
5-injected nodules, tumors were excised and stained for both IRF-1 and survivin protein expression. IRF-1-treated nodules had a predominant IRF-positive, survivin-negative phenotype. Thus, in support of our in vitro data, ectopic expression of IRF-1 results in a decrease in survivin expression in situ, culminating in tumor growth inhibition.
These data support the contention that survivin is a useful diagnostic marker in the cancer setting and that the loss of survivin severely impairs the survival and growth potential of tumor cells in situ. Strategies targeting the regulation of survivin expression and function may prove effective in treating a wide range of malignancies. Given the high percentage of survivin-positive lesions in breast cancer patients, therapeutics that target survivin may be effective treatment modalities that can be used solely or in combination with conventional regimens, such as chemotherapies. Indeed, our data show enhanced tumor cell death resulting from the treatment of IRF-1-infected cells with the chemotherapeutic drug Adriamycin. The molecular mechanisms, however, involved in this additive effect will be addressed in future studies. Collectively, enhancing IRF-1 expression in breast cancer cells via gene therapy strategies or through the use of other pharmacological reagents may lead to new modalities for the treatment of patients with breast cancer and possibly other malignancies.
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Requests for reprints: Eva Pizzoferrato, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Hillman Cancer Center, 5117 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Phone: 412-623-4713; Fax: 412-623-4720; E-mail: pizzoferatoe{at}msx.upmc.edu
7 Y. Liu, A. Gambotto, M. J. Armstrong, W. J. Storkus, and J. H. Yim, unpublished data. ![]()
Received 6/23/04. Revised 9/ 7/04. Accepted 9/10/04.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
growth inhibition of human breast carcinoma cell lines. J Interferon Cytokine Res 2003;23:501-11.[CrossRef][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. Frontini, M. Vijayakumar, A. Garvin, and N. Clarke A ChIP-chip approach reveals a novel role for transcription factor IRF1 in the DNA damage response Nucleic Acids Res., March 1, 2009; 37(4): 1073 - 1085. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S.-m. Yie, B. Lou, S.-r. Ye, M. Cao, X. He, P. Li, K. Hu, L. Rao, S.-m. Wu, H.-b. Xiao, et al. Detection of Survivin-Expressing Circulating Cancer Cells (CCCs) in Peripheral Blood of Patients with Gastric and Colorectal Cancer Reveals High Risks of Relapse Ann. Surg. Oncol., November 1, 2008; 15(11): 3073 - 3082. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Moschonas, M. Kouraki, P. G. Knox, E. Thymiakou, D. Kardassis, and A. G. Eliopoulos CD40 Induces Antigen Transporter and Immunoproteasome Gene Expression in Carcinomas via the Coordinated Action of NF-{kappa}B and of NF-{kappa}B-Mediated De Novo Synthesis of IRF-1 Mol. Cell. Biol., October 15, 2008; 28(20): 6208 - 6222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Park, K. Kim, E.-J. Lee, Y.-J. Seo, S.-N. Lim, K. Park, S. B. Rho, S.-H. Lee, and J.-H. Lee Elevated level of SUMOylated IRF-1 in tumor cells interferes with IRF-1-mediated apoptosis PNAS, October 23, 2007; 104(43): 17028 - 17033. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Kroger, A. Stirnweiss, J. E. Pulverer, K. Klages, M. Grashoff, J. Reimann, and H. Hauser Tumor Suppression by IFN Regulatory Factor-1 Is Mediated by Transcriptional Down-regulation of Cyclin D1 Cancer Res., April 1, 2007; 67(7): 2972 - 2981. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Asanuma, T. Torigoe, K. Kamiguchi, Y. Hirohashi, T. Ohmura, K. Hirata, M. Sato, and N. Sato Survivin Expression Is Regulated by Coexpression of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor via Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase/AKT Signaling Pathway in Breast Cancer Cells Cancer Res., December 1, 2005; 65(23): 11018 - 11025. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. B. Bouker, T. C. Skaar, R. B. Riggins, D. S. Harburger, D. R. Fernandez, A. Zwart, A. Wang, and R. Clarke Interferon regulatory factor-1 (IRF-1) exhibits tumor suppressor activities in breast cancer associated with caspase activation and induction of apoptosis Carcinogenesis, September 1, 2005; 26(9): 1527 - 1535. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |