Search

Background The results showed that the deciding factor is the culture medium in which the bacteria and the graphene oxide (GO) are incubated at the initial manipulation step. These findings allow better use of GO and GO-based materials more and be able to clearly apply them in the field of biomedical nanotechnology. Results To study the use of GO sheets applied in the field of biomedical nanotechnology, this study determines whether GO-based materials [GO, GO-polyoxyalkyleneamine (POAA), and GO-chitosan] stimulate or inhibit bacterial growth in detail. It is found that it depends on whether the bacteria and GO-based materials are incubated with a nutrient at the initial step. This is a critical factor for the fortune of bacteria. GO stimulates bacterial growth and microbial proliferation for Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria and might also provide augmented surface attachment for both types of bacteria. When an external barrier that is composed of GO-based materials forms around the surface of the bacteria, it suppresses nutrients that are essential to microbial growth and simultaneously produces oxidative stress, which causes bacteria to die, regardless of whether they have an outer-membrane-Gram-negative-bacteria or lack an outer-membrane-Gram-positive-bacteria, even for high concentrations of biocompatible GO-POAA. The results also show that these GO-based materials are capable of inducing reactive oxygen species (ROS)-dependent oxidative stress on bacteria. Besides, GO-based materials may act as a biofilm, so it is hypothesized that they suppress the toxicity of low-dose chitosan. Conclusion Graphene oxide is not an antimicrobial material but it is a general growth enhancer that can act as a biofilm to enhance bacterial attachment and proliferation. However, GO-based materials are capable of inducing ROS-dependent oxidative stress on bacteria. The applications of GO-based materials can clearly be used in antimicrobial surface coatings, surface-attached stem cells for orthopedics, antifouling for biocides and microbial fuel cells and microbial electro-synthesis. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12951-017-0328-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The tumour suppressor p53 is known to prevent cancer progression by inhibiting proliferation and inducing apoptosis of tumour cells. Slug, an invasion promoter, exerts its effects by repressing E-cadherin transcription. Here we show that wild-type p53 (wtp53) suppresses cancer invasion by inducing Slug degradation, whereas mutant p53 may stabilize Slug protein. In non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), mutation of p53 correlates with low MDM2, high Slug and low E-cadherin expression. This expression profile is associated with poor overall survival and short metastasis-free survival in patients with NSCLC. wtp53 upregulates MDM2 and forms a wtp53-MDM2-Slug complex that facilitates MDM2-mediated Slug degradation. Downregulation of Slug by wtp53 or MDM2 enhances E-cadherin expression and represses cancer cell invasiveness. In contrast, mutant p53 inactivates Slug degradation and leads to Slug accumulation and increased cancer cell invasiveness. Our findings indicate that wtp53 and p53 mutants may differentially control cancer invasion and metastasis through the p53-MDM2-Slug pathway.

Background Head and neck cancer (HNC) is a highly invasive cancer. Aurora-A has been reported for a number of malignancies. However, the identity of downstream effectors responsible for its aggressive phenotype in HNC remains underinvestigated. Methods The mRNA and protein expression levels of Aurora-A and FLJ10540 were assessed in HNC specimens and cell lines using RT-qPCR, western blot, Oncomine, and microarray database analysis. The downstream molecular mechanisms of Aurora-A were confirmed by RT-qPCR, western blot, luciferase reporter, confocal microscopy analyses, immunoprecipitation, colony formation, cell viability, and xenograft model. Cellular functions in response to Aurora-A-modulated downstream targets such as FLJ10540 and MMPs were examined in vitro and in vivo, including cell growth, motility and chemosensitivity. Aurora-A/FLJ10540/MMPs expression was determined in cancer and adjacent normal tissues from HNC patients by immunohistochemistry approach. Results In the current study, Aurora-A exhibited similar gene expression profiles with FLJ10540 by using accessibly public microarray and Oncomine database analysis, raising the possibility that these molecules might coordinately participate in cancer progression and metastasis of HNC. These two molecules connection were also examined in cell lines and tissues of HNC. Aurora-A overexpression could not only bind to the promoter of FLJ10540 to induce FLJ10540 expression, but also increase both mRNA and protein levels of MMP-7 and MMP-10 in HNC cells. Conversely, depletion of Aurora-A expression by using siRNA or Aurora-A kinase inhibitor, MLN8237, suppressed FLJ10540, MMP-7 and MMP-10 mRNA and protein expressions in vitro and in vivo. In addition, the FLJ10540-PI3K complex was destroyed by inhibition the Aurora-A kinase activity. Forced overexpression of FLJ10540 in Aurora-A-depleted or in MLN8237-treated HNC cells attenuated the effect on cytotoxicity to cisplatin. Elevated Aurora-A expression in HNC cells led to the characteristics of more aggressive malignancy, including enhanced chemoresistance and increased the abilities of proliferation, migration and invasion, which was required for FLJ10540/MMP-7 or FLJ10540/MMP-10 expressions. Finally, immunohistochemical analysis of human HNC specimens showed a significant positively correlation among Aurora-A, FLJ10540, MMP-7 and MMP-10 expressions. Conclusion Together, our findings define a novel mechanism by which Aurora-A promotes cell malignancy, with potential implications for understanding the clinical action of Aurora-A. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12943-015-0348-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.