Identification of Wnt family inhibitors: a pituitary tumor directed whole genome approach.

Department of Endocrinology, Waikato Hospital, Private Bag 3200, Hamilton 3240, Waikato, New Zealand.
Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology (Impact Factor: 4.04). 03/2010; 326(1-2):48-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.mce.2010.02.039
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Wnt signaling pathways are important regulators of normal embryological development including that of the pituitary gland. Altered Wnt pathway expression is common in many human tumors however until recently the role of these pathways in human pituitary tumorigenesis has received little attention. The advent of microarray analysis has identified several Wnt pathway inhibitors that are frequently perturbed in pituitary tumors. In this review we summarize the role of these inhibitors in other human tumor types and review the current state of knowledge of Wnt inhibitor expression in pituitary tumors.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bromocriptine is an effective treatment for most prolactinomas. Estrogen receptor (ER) antagonists are an alternative for treating patients with bromocriptine-resistant prolactinomas (BCRP). Previously, we reported that fulvestrant, a selective ER antagonist, significantly inhibited the proliferation of, and prolactin secretion by, MMQ cells, a prolactin-secreting rat pituitary cell line, an exemplary model for prolactinoma. In this study, we used fulvestrant to block ERα expression by MMQ cells and analyzed the expression of β-catenin and Wnt inhibitory factor-1 (WIF1) to investigate the effects of fulvestrant on the Wnt signaling pathway. In addition, we examined the gene expression of ERα, β-catenin and WIF1 in clinical BCRP specimens to explore the correlation between gender and clinical features. There was no significant difference in β-catenin expression between fulvestrant-treated cells and untreated cells, whereas WIF1 expression was higher in the treated cells. In clinical BCRP specimens, ERα expression was higher (especially in male patients), whereas β-catenin expression was similar to normal pituitaries. In addition, WIF1 expression was significantly lower in BCRP specimens than in normal pituitaries. The tumor volume was larger in male patients than in female patients. Prolactin concentration was positively correlated with tumor volume, and a positive linear correlation was observed between ERα expression and tumor volume. In conclusion, the anti-tumor activity of fulvestrant on MMQ cells seems to be associated with ERα and the non-canonical Wnt pathway, and higher ERα levels in male patients with BCRP may contribute to the larger tumor volumes observed. Fulvestrant holds promise as a therapeutic agent for BCRP.
    Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 03/2013; · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We reported that weight loss induces bone loss which is prevented by exercise training; however, the mechanism for this observation remains unclear. Sclerostin, an inhibitor of bone formation, has been found to increase in states of unloading and may mediate the changes in bone metabolism associated with weight loss and exercise. The objective of the study was to determine the effect of lifestyle intervention in obese older adults on sclerostin levels, and on hip geometry parameters. A total of 107 obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) older (≥65 years) adults were randomly assigned to control, diet, exercise, and combined diet-exercise for 1 year. Sclerostin levels were measured by ELISA at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, while hip geometry parameters were obtained from bone mineral density (BMD) images done by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry using hip structure analysis at baseline and 12 months. Both the diet and diet-exercise groups had significant decreases in body weight (-9.6% and -9.4%, respectively), whereas weight was stable in the exercise and control groups. Sclerostin levels increased significantly and progressively in the diet group (6.6% ± 1.7% and 10.5% ± 1.9% at 6 and 12 months, respectively, all p < 0.05), whereas they were unchanged in the other groups; in particular, they were stable in the diet-exercise group (0.7% ± 1.6% and 0.4% ± 1.7% at 6 and 12 months, respectively, all p = 0.05). Hip geometry parameters showed significant decreases in cross-sectional area, cortical thickness, and BMD; and increases in buckling ratio at the narrow neck, intertrochanter, and femoral shaft. These negative changes on bone geometry were not observed in the diet-exercise group. Significant correlations between changes in sclerostin and changes in certain hip geometry parameters were also observed (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the increase in sclerostin levels with weight loss that was prevented by exercise may partly mediate the negative effects of weight loss on bone metabolism and the osteoprotective effect of exercise training.
    Journal of bone and mineral research: the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research 01/2012; 27(5):1215-21. · 6.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Signaling by the Wnt family of secreted glycoproteins plays important roles in embryonic development and adult homeostasis. Wnt signaling is modulated by a number of evolutionarily conserved inhibitors and activators. Wnt inhibitors belong to small protein families, including sFRP, Dkk, WIF,Wise/SOST, Cerberus, IGFBP, Shisa,Waif1, APCDD1, and Tiki1. Their common feature is to antagonize Wnt signaling by preventing ligand-receptor interactions or Wnt receptor maturation. Conversely, the Wnt activators, R-spondin and Norrin, promote Wnt signaling by binding to Wnt receptors or releasing a Wnt-inhibitory step.With few exceptions, these antagonists and agonists are not pure Wnt modulators, but also affect additional signaling pathways, such as TGF-b and FGF signaling. Here we discuss their interactions with Wnt ligands and Wnt receptors, their role in developmental processes, as well as their implication in disease.
    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine 03/2013; 3(3):a015081. · 7.56 Impact Factor