骨桥蛋白通过调控MMP-2和VEGF参与肝癌细胞侵袭的机制研究

目的：骨桥蛋白（Osteopontin,OPN）在肝癌细胞侵袭中的作用机制。方法：采用siRNA干涉的方法处理人肝癌细胞,用PCR和Western-blot法检测OPN的表达;用transwell小室检测不同处理后的HepG2和MHCC97H细胞的侵袭能力;采用Western．b1．ot和ELISA方法检测基质金属蛋白酶-2（matrixmetalloproteinase-2,MMP-2）和血管内皮生长因子（vascularendothelialgrowthfactor,VEGF）蛋白表达和活力的变化情况。结果：在不同肝癌细胞系中,随着肝癌细胞系侵袭能力的增强,OPN的表达逐渐增高。siRNA可以降低HepG2和MHCC97H细胞中OPN的表达,并且能够降低HepG2和MHCC97H细胞的侵袭能力;抑制OPN的表达能够降低MMP-2和VEGF蛋白表达和蛋白活性。结论：OPN在肝癌侵袭过程中起着重要作用,其作用机制可能是通过调控MMP-2和VEGF蛋白表达和活性来参与肝癌的侵袭,OPN可作为肝癌侵袭转移治疗的新靶点。     

热休克蛋白27在转移潜能不同人肝癌细胞系中的表达及机制研究

利用不同转移潜能肝癌细胞系探讨热休克蛋白27(HSP27)参与肝癌细胞转移潜能形成的可能分子机制.细胞免疫荧光技术、RT-PCR和免疫印迹技术显示,HSP27在转移潜能不同的肝癌细胞Hep3B、MHCC97L和MHCC97H中定位于细胞浆,亦可见于细胞核,HSP27 mRNA和蛋白质的表达水平与肝癌细胞转移潜能呈正相关.高转移潜能肝癌细胞系MHCC97H的HSP27 RNA干扰试验结果显示,HSP27 RNA干扰后MHCC97H的侵袭(MHCC97H组:21.36±2.92;对照RNAi组:19.88±2.23;RNAi组:11.40±2.05)、运动能力(MHCC97H组:26.35±3.29;对照RNAi组:24.43±3.17;RNAi组:10.92±2.27)明显减弱,细胞凋亡显著增加(MHCC97H组:15.12%;对照RNAi组:17.56%;RNAi组:27.64%).同时进行信号转导基因芯片检测发现,HSP27干扰后核因子κB(NF-κB)通路抑制,并且免疫印迹显示细胞核内活化的NF-κBp65减少,细胞内磷酸化IκBα降低.另外,免疫共沉淀检测发现,在肝癌细胞内HSP27可与IKKβ、IκBα共沉淀,且在HSP27RNA干扰后IKKβ与IKKα结合能力下降.这些结果提示,HSP27可能通过参与细胞内NF-κB通路的激活,影响细胞凋亡和细胞运动,在肝癌细胞侵袭转移过程中发挥作用.     

Notch信号通路对肝癌细胞迁移能力及E-cadherin，COX-2表达的影响

目的:探讨Notch信号通路对肝癌细胞迁移能力及钙粘附蛋白E(E-cadherin)、环氧化酶-2(COX-2)表达的影响。方法:体外培养肝癌细胞系(SMMC-7721、MHCC97H)、正常非肿瘤肝细胞系(HL-7702),Transwell小室用于测定细胞的迁移侵袭能力,Western blot蛋白印迹法用于测定Notch1、E-cadherin、COX-2蛋白的表达水平,并采用DAPT阻断Notch信号通路,比较肝癌细胞系与正常非肿瘤肝细胞系的迁移侵袭能力及肝癌细胞中E-cadherin、COX-2蛋白的表达水平的改变。结果:SMMC-7721细胞、MHCC97H细胞的迁移能力强于HL-7702细胞,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);相比于HL-7702细胞,MHCC97H细胞、SMMC-7721细胞中的Notch1、COX-2表达水平均显著升高,E-cadherin的表达水平明显降低(P0.05);DAPT处理后,SMMC-7721细胞、MHCC97H细胞发生迁移的能力均弱于对照组,差异有统计意义(P0.05);DAPT处理后,SMMC-7721细胞、MHCC97H细胞内COX-2、Notch1的表达量明显降低,而E-cadherin的表达水平升高(P0.05)。结论:Notch信号通路参与肝癌细胞迁移过程,其机制可能与E-cadherin、COX-2的表达相关。     

基于JAK2/STAT3信号通路探讨白藜芦醇对骨肉瘤MG-63细胞凋亡及迁移的影响

摘要 目的：研究白藜芦醇(RES)通过蛋白酪氨酸激酶2/信号转导子与激活子3（JAK2/STAT3）信号通路对人骨肉瘤体外细胞株MG-63细胞凋亡、侵袭和迁移的影响。方法：体外培养MG-63细胞,以不同浓度的RES作用于MG-63细胞。Annexin V-FITC/PI双染流式细胞术检测不同时间和不同浓度的RES对MG-63细胞凋亡的影响。划痕实验和Transwell实验检测不同时间和不同浓度的RES对MG-63细胞侵袭和迁移能力的影响。免疫印迹实验检测不同时间和不同浓度的RES对MG-63细胞磷酸化蛋白酪氨酸激酶2（p-JAK2）、磷酸化信号转导子与激活子3（p-STAT3）、凋亡相关蛋白B淋巴细胞瘤-2（Bcl-2）、Bcl-2家族促凋亡蛋白（Bax）及基质金属蛋白酶（MMP）-2、MMP-9表达的影响。结果：RES浓度越高,时间越久,MG-63细胞凋亡率越高（P<0.05）。RES浓度越高,MG-63细胞迁移和侵袭能力越弱(P<0.05)。RES处理MG-63细胞后其p-JAK2、p-STAT3、Bcl-2以及MMP-2、MMP-9的表达明显降低,而Bax蛋白表达明显升高,且p-JAK2、p-STAT3、Bax、Bcl-2以及MMP-2、MMP-9的表达水平变化具有RES浓度依赖性（P<0.05）。结论：RES可能通过调控JAK2/STAT3信号通路促使人骨肉瘤MG-63细胞凋亡,并抑制MG-63细胞侵袭和迁移。     

棕榈酸促进肝癌细胞侵袭转移的分子机制

目的:探讨棕榈酸(Palmiticacid,PA)对人肝癌细胞系SMMC-7721侵袭转移能力的影响,并通过检测肝癌细胞系中CD147-MMPs信号通路在PA影响下的变化,初探PA影响肝癌细胞侵袭转移的分子机制。方法:PA(0、20、50、100μM)作用SMMC-7721细胞后(8、16、24h),MTT法检测细胞增殖,划痕及Transwell实验评价细胞迁移侵袭能力,Western-blot及real-time PCR检测CD147蛋白及其mRNA的水平,ELISA检测基质金属蛋白酶(MMP-2,MMP-9)的水平。结果:与对照组相比,PA作用SMMC-7721细胞后,细胞存活率无显著差异(P0.05);细胞迁移和侵袭能力显著增高(P0.05);CD147蛋白及其mRNA的表达显著增高(P0.05);培养上清中MMP-9的浓度显著增高(P0.05),MMP-2的水平则无变化。不同的梯度组之间相比较,细胞迁移和侵袭能力、CD147的表达水平(蛋白及其mRNA)以及培养上清中MMP-9的浓度均随PA作用时间和作用剂量的增大而产生更显著的增高。结论:PA通过活化CD147-MMPs信号通路促进SMMC-7721细胞的迁移侵袭。     

NDRG2 通过调控CD24 影响肝癌细胞侵袭能力的研究

目的：阐明NDRG2（N-Myc downstream-regulated gene 2）在肝癌细胞中对CD24 的调控及其对乳腺癌细胞侵袭能力的影响。 方法：Western blot 检测低转移性的肝癌细胞Huh7、高转移性的肝癌细胞系MHCC97h 及正常人肝细胞系L-02 中NDRG2 和 CD24 的表达;通过腺病毒载体上调MHCC97h 细胞中NDRG2 的水平,或利用siRNA 下调Huh7 细胞中NDRG2 的表达,检测 CD24 的变化以及细胞侵袭能力的改变。结果：MHCC97h 细胞中NDRG2 基因和蛋白的表达水平低于Huh7 细胞,而CD24 的表达 水平高于Huh7 细胞;在MHCC97h 细胞中上调NDRG2 可以抑制CD24 的表达并抑制其侵袭能力,而在Huh7 细胞中下调 NDRG2 的表达可以提高CD24 的水平及细胞的侵袭能力。结论：NDRG2 可能通过影响CD24 参与调控肝癌细胞的侵袭能力。     

NDRG2通过调控CD24影响肝癌细胞侵袭能力的研究

目的：阐明NDRG2（N-Myc downstream-regulated gene2）在肝癌细胞中对CD24的调控及其对乳腺癌细胞侵袭能力的影响。方法：Western blot检测低转移性的肝癌细胞Huh7、高转移性的肝癌细胞系MHCC97h及正常人肝细胞系L-02中NDRG2和CD24的表达;通过腺病毒载体上调MHCC97h细胞中NDRG2的水平,或利用siRNA下调Huh7细胞中NDRG2的表达,检测CD24的变化以及细胞侵袭能力的改变。结果：MHCC97h细胞中NDRG2基因和蛋白的表达水平低于Huh7细胞,而CD24的表达水平高于Huh7细胞;在MHCC97h细胞中上调NDRG2可以抑制CD24的表达并抑制其侵袭能力,而在Huh7细胞中下调NDRG2的表达可以提高CD24的水平及细胞的侵袭能力。结论：NDRG2可能通过影响CD24参与调控肝癌细胞的侵袭能力。     

转移潜能不同人肝癌细胞系差异蛋白Annexin1的功能解析

解析比较蛋白质组学筛出的差异蛋白Annexin1的生物学功能,证实其是否在肝癌转移复发中发挥作用. 分别以RT-PCR、蛋白质印迹及细胞免疫化学对差异蛋白Annexin1在转移潜能不同人肝癌细胞系中的表达情况进行再验证,然后构建Annexin1反义表达质粒,转染高转移潜能人肝癌细胞系MHCC97H,通过对MHCC97H细胞的运动、侵袭、凋亡、生长周期、MMPs分泌、克隆形成等系列检测,观察目的蛋白表达降低对其生物学行为的影响,特别是转移特性的影响. 验证结果均证实Annexin1在有转移潜能人肝癌细胞系MHCC97L、MHCC97H中呈高表达. 转染Annexin1反义重组表达质粒后,MHCC97H细胞中Annexin1的表达被成功抑制. 依据MHCC97H/pcDNA3.1(+) AS Annexin1,MHCC97H/ pcDNA3.1(+),MHCC97H的检测排序,转染反义重组质粒后的MHCC97H细胞穿过上室底膜的细胞数 (运动实验) 分别为：11.13±3.31,18.88±2.03,21.86±3.38;穿过人工基底膜细胞数 (侵袭实验) 分别是：16.43±2.23,16.40±1.57,16.86±1.52;细胞平均集落形成率 (克隆形成实验) 分别为：(14.33±0.46)%,(19.35±0.49)%,(20.25±0.35)%;MHCC97H细胞凋亡比例 (FCM分析) 依次为22.2%,6.44%,6.97%;细胞周期各时相的比例依次为：G0-G1期79.5%/76.34%/80.5%,S期13.26%/14.4%/9.69% ,G2-M期7.25%/9.26%/9.81%;细胞培养上清MMP9的定量结果依次为：26.37 μg/L,28.00 μg/L,31.90 μg/L;MMP2定量结果依次为29.46 μg/L,26.37 μg/L,26.53 μg/L. 明胶酶谱分析细胞培养上清显示,转染Annexin1反义重组表达质粒的MHCC97H细胞分泌的MMP9活性与对照比变化不明显. 综合上述结果发现,转染Annexin1反义表达质粒MHCC97H细胞运动能力及集落形成率明显降低,凋亡细胞的比例增加,而侵袭潜能,细胞周期时相,细胞分泌MMP2、MMP9的量均变化不明显. 提示,差异蛋白Annexin1可能通过影响细胞凋亡和细胞运动在肝癌细胞侵袭转移过程中发挥作用.     

肝癌转移相关的核心岩藻糖基化 蛋白质表达谱的研究

通过比较研究不同转移潜能肝癌细胞系中核心岩藻糖基化蛋白质表达谱的差别,筛查与转移相关的重要糖蛋白 . 用 SDS- 聚丙烯酰胺凝胶电泳 (SDS-PAGE) 、双向电泳 (2-DE) 和凝集素印迹技术联合基质辅助激光解吸飞行时间串联质谱 (MALDI-TOF-MS/MS) 分析,建立 3 种不同转移潜能人肝癌细胞系 Hep3B 、 MHCC97L 和 MHCC97H 的核心岩藻糖基化蛋白质表达图谱 . 比较研究发现,不同转移潜能肝癌细胞呈现不同的 SDS-PAGE/LCA 凝集素印迹图谱, MHCC-97H 和 MHCC-97L 在 35~45 ku 和 45~60 ku 间出现了 Hep3B 未见的条带 . 在核心岩藻糖基化蛋白质表达图谱中, Hep3B、 MHCC97L 和 MHCC97H 分别平均检测到 (55±7) 个蛋白质点 (n=3), (60±6) 个蛋白质点 (n=3), (61±4) 个蛋白质点 (n=3);以各自双向电泳图谱为参考胶,Hep3B、 MHCC97L 和 MHCC97H 分别与其匹配的平均匹配点数为 (25±3) 个 (n=3), (30±4) 个 (n=3), (28±3) 个 (n=3). 该图谱中,与 Hep3B 相比, MHCC97L 有 13 个点未匹配,其中 9 个点为 Hep3B( － )/MHCC97L(+); MHCC97H 有 9 个点未匹配,其中 6 个点为 Hep3B( － )/MHCC97H(+), MALDI-TOF-MS/MS 可鉴定出 Annexin1、 Keratin 8 等 12 种差异蛋白质 . 这些结果证实了不同转移潜能的肝癌细胞有明显的核心岩藻基化糖蛋白差异性表达 . 提示肝癌转移可能与这些差异糖蛋白及其核心岩藻糖基化有关 .     

溶血磷脂酸对不同转移性肝癌细胞迁移行为的影响

旨在研究溶血磷脂酸(Lysophosphatidic acid,LPA)对两种转移性不同的肝癌细胞MHCC97H和Hep G2迁移行为的影响。采用Transwell法检测肝癌细胞的迁移能力,RT-PCR检测肝癌细胞中LPA受体(LPA receptor,LPAR)m RNA水平的表达。结果显示,LPA对低转移性肝癌细胞Hep G2的迁移没有明显影响,但显著促进高转移性肝癌细胞MHCC97H的迁移能力。LPA对两种细胞的增殖都没有明显影响。RT-PCR实验发现两种肝癌细胞中LPAR的表达呈现差异,LPAR1在MHCC97H细胞中表达,但Hep G2细胞不表达。用LPAR1/3抑制剂Ki16425阻断MHCC97H中LPAR1的作用后发现,LPA对MHCC97H细胞的促迁移作用消失,表明LPA通过与LPAR1作用促进了MHCC97H细胞的迁移。LPA对不同转移性肝癌细胞迁移能力的影响存在差异,该差异可能来自于细胞表达LPAR的不同。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor