Smad4, a common-mediator of Smads, plays a central role in forming complexes with receptor-phosphorylated Smads, and then transduces transforming growth factor (TGF)-β signals into the nuclei. Although many cellular factors are involved in TGF-β induced epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and cell migration, very little is known with the mechanism of Smad4 regulation on pro-oncogenes response by TGF-β. Herein, we demonstrate the interaction of Sentrin-specific protease 2 (SENP2) with Smad4 through SENP2 residue 363~400. The same segment is also important for desumoylation of Smad4, and able to relieve sumoylation-mediated TGF-β repression. The SENP2363~400 segment is critical for TGF-β-induced cell migration, which is correlated with SENP2363~400 deletion mutant failed to increase matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9 and EMT marker gene expression. Moreover, our results suggest that the interaction and desumoylation between SENP2 and Smad4 promote cell migration in triple-negative breast cancer cells. Altogether, our data show how SENP2 regulates its substrate for desumoylation, and also the role of SENP2 in TGF-β induced cancer cell migration.
Background: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is characterized by high metastatic potential, and the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) has been shown to play a key role in multiple cancer progression, migration and metastasis and is the leading cause of poor prognosis. Currently, tumor necrosis factor-α-induced protein 8 (TNFAIP8/TIPE) is a newly discovered tumorigenesis factor, and TNFAIP8 and the EMT influence the migration of renal cancer cells. Methods: In this study, we first analyzed the relationship between TNFAIP8 and ccRCC using bioinformatics, followed by immunohistochemistry to evaluate the relationship between the two in clinical samples. Subsequently, reverse transcription PCR and western blotting confirmed the expression of TNFAIP8 in ccRCC cells. Furthermore, we measured the migration and invasion abilities by using wound healing and transwell assays after overexpression or knockdown of TNFAIP8 in cells. In addition, we verified whether TNFAIP8 affects the EMT process in ccRCC by quantitative real-time PCR, western blotting, immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence experiments. Results: Through database analysis, we found that TNFAIP8 was highly expressed in ccRCC patients and was positively correlated with tumor stage and grade, indicating that TNFAIP8 is associated with the development of advanced ccRCC and poor prognosis. We subsequently confirmed that TNFAIP8 was abnormally overexpressed in clinical samples and ccRCC cell lines and that TNFAIP8 promoted ccRCC cell migration and invasion in vitro. Finally, we found that TNFAIP8 regulated EMT-related molecule expression and regulated the EMT process. Conclusion: High expression of TNFAIP8 reinforces migration and regulates the EMT in ccRCC, conferring the metastatic potential of ccRCC and suggesting that TNFAIP8 may be a potential therapeutic target for the treatment of advanced ccRCC.
XRCC1 is an essential scaffold protein for base excision repair (BER) and helps to maintain genomic stability. XRCC1 has been indicated as a substrate for small ubiquitin-like modifier modification (SUMOylation); however, how XRCC1 SUMOylation is regulated in cells and how SUMOylated XRCC1 regulates BER activity are not well understood. Here, we show that SUMOylation of XRCC1 is regulated in cells under methyl-methanesulfonate (MMS) treatment and facilitates BER. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) is activated by MMS immediately and synthesizes poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR), which in turn promotes recruitment of SUMO E3 TOPORS to XRCC1 and facilitates XRCC1 SUMOylation. A SUMOylation-defective mutant of XRCC1 had lower binding activity for DNA polymerase beta (POLB) and was linked to a lower capacity for repair of MMS-induced DNA damages. Our study therefore identified a pathway in which DNA damage-induced poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation (PARylation) promotes SUMOylation of XRCC1, which leads to more efficient recruitment of POLB to complete BER.
Background Our aim was to determine a useful combination of blood biomarkers that can predict 28-day mortality of sepsis upon arrival at the Emergency Department (ED). Material/Methods Based on Sepsis-3.0, 90 sepsis patients were enrolled and divided into survivor and nonsurvivor groups with day 28 as the study end point. After comparing the demographic data and clinical characteristics of patients, we evaluated the predictive validity of a combination of markers including interleukin-6 (IL-6), procalcitonin (PCT), and lactate at arrival at the ED. Independent risk factors were found by using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, and the prognostic value of markers was determined by the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results There were 67 (74.4%) survivors and 23 (25.6%) nonsurvivors. The levels of IL-6 (survivors vs nonsurvivors: median 205.30 vs 3499.00 pg/mL, P =0.012) and lactate (survivors vs nonsurvivors: median 2.37 vs 5.77 mmol/L, P =0.003) were significantly lower in survivor group compared with the nonsurvivor group. Markers including IL-6, PCT, lactate, and neutrophil-to-white blood cell ratio (NWR) were independent risk factors in predicting 28-day mortality due to sepsis. The combination of these 4 markers provided the best predictive performance for 28-day mortality of patients with sepsis, on arrival at the ED (AUC of 0.823, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.723–0.924), and its accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity were 74.4% (95% CI 64.0–82.8%), 91% (95% CI 80.9–96.3%), and 65% (95% CI 42.8–82.8%), respectively. Conclusions The combination of IL-6, PCT, lactate, and NWR measurements is a potential predictor of 28-day mortality for patients with sepsis, at arrival at the ED. Further research is needed to confirm our findings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.