2023
DOI: 10.1080/07391102.2023.2206914
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cucurbitacin-B inhibits cancer cell migration by targeting mortalin and HDM2: computational and in vitro experimental evidence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…shown that CuB has anti-migration ability in cancer cell lines (Huifu et al, 2023;Kaewmeesri et al, 2022). Although anti-migration activity seems to be due to inhibition of STAT3 and enhancement of STAT1 signaling, our results suggest that the reason could be binding G-actin (Guo et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…shown that CuB has anti-migration ability in cancer cell lines (Huifu et al, 2023;Kaewmeesri et al, 2022). Although anti-migration activity seems to be due to inhibition of STAT3 and enhancement of STAT1 signaling, our results suggest that the reason could be binding G-actin (Guo et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…Besides, the F‐actin polymerization rate was analyzed and compared with the other actin‐binding drugs, jasplakinolide and cytochalasin D, and it has been realized that CuI (200 nM) reduced the polymerization rate of F‐actin nearly as much as jasplakinolide and cytochalasin D. In our study, the formation of large cytoplasmic actin aggregates was observed in HUVECs by fluorescence microscopy, similar to Kenecht's study (Knecht et al., 2010 ). Recent studies have shown that CuB has anti‐migration ability in cancer cell lines (Huifu et al., 2023 ; Kaewmeesri et al., 2022 ). Although anti‐migration activity seems to be due to inhibition of STAT3 and enhancement of STAT1 signaling, our results suggest that the reason could be binding G‐actin (Guo et al., 2018 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%