2016
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.7040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Metformin inhibits 17β-estradiol-induced epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition via βKlotho-related ERK1/2 signaling and AMPKα signaling in endometrial adenocarcinoma cells

Abstract: The potential role of metformin in treating endometrial cancer remains to be explored. The current study investigated the role of metformin in 17β-estradiol-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in endometrial adenocarcinoma cells. We found that 17β-estradiol promoted proliferation and migration, attenuated apoptosis in both estrogen receptor (ER) positive and ER negative endometrial adenocarcinoma cells (Ishikawa and KLE cells, respectively). Metformin abolished 17β-estradiol-induced cell proliferat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

4
50
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
4
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our study findings with metformin and compound C, not only support for the anti‐fibrotic effects of metformin, but also indicate that metformin's effects on albumin‐induced EMT are independent to that of AMPK activation in renal cells. This was evident from metformin's persistent inhibitory effect on α‐SMA expression despite AMPK inhibition using compound C. Consensus with our findings, a study by Liu, Qi, et al (2016) in endometrial carcinoma (KLE cells) reported that the addition of compound C did not alter metformin's ability to prevent EMT associated with cancer progression (Liu, Qi, et al, ). Thus, we infer that metformin's inhibitory effects on EMT are AMPK‐independent.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Our study findings with metformin and compound C, not only support for the anti‐fibrotic effects of metformin, but also indicate that metformin's effects on albumin‐induced EMT are independent to that of AMPK activation in renal cells. This was evident from metformin's persistent inhibitory effect on α‐SMA expression despite AMPK inhibition using compound C. Consensus with our findings, a study by Liu, Qi, et al (2016) in endometrial carcinoma (KLE cells) reported that the addition of compound C did not alter metformin's ability to prevent EMT associated with cancer progression (Liu, Qi, et al, ). Thus, we infer that metformin's inhibitory effects on EMT are AMPK‐independent.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Moreover, the potential role of metformin in treating gynecologic oncology has been explored in a number of studies. A study reported that metformin inhibits βKlotho-related ERK1/2 signaling and AMPKα signaling to reverse the EMT in endometrial adenocarcinoma [26]. However, none of research involves the relationship of mTOR pathway and PKM2.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The plausible mechanism underlying this synergistic anti-proliferative effect of the metformin and MPA combination on Ishikawa cells could include AMPK-independent pathways, including factors of the Rag family of GTPases, hypoxia inducible factor (HIF) target gene, and regulated in development and the DNA damage response I (REDD1) (17). Other studies confirmed that there was no significant increase in p-AMPKα expression at low doses of metformin, ≤ 1000 μM, in Ishikawa, KLE, and USPC cells (18, 19). In these studies, high dose metformin ≥10 mM was shown to be necessary to bring about a significant increase in p-AMPKα expression.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…However, our study has some limitations in that metformin was not shown as an AMPK activator. However, there are a few studies which did not support metformin as a potent AMPK activator, not only in proliferation (18), but also in invasion (22). Some values were out of the expected ranges, for example, MMP-9 concentration after treatment with 1000 μM metformin only, which was expected to be lower than that of 100 μM metformin.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%