Analysis shows that increased NTSR1 correlates with poor survival in LUAD, suggesting IGF2BP3’s role in promoting drug resistance.
NTSR1 is a high-affinity receptor for neurotensin. Its abnormal expression correlates with cancer development. However, its mechanisms in promoting the malignant progression and Irinotecan resistance in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) remain unelucidated. NTSR1 expression in LUAD and its relationship with patients' prognosis were analyzed by bioinformatics analysis. NTSR1 expression in a human normal pulmonary epithelial cell line and LUAD cell lines was detected by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and western blot (WB). Cell proliferation ability was examined using the cell counting kit-8 assay and colony formation assay. Flow cytometry was employed to detect cell cycle and apoptosis. The Transwell assay was undertaken to assess cell migration and invasion ability. DNA damage was detected using the comet assay and γ-H2AX immunofluorescence. Dot-blot and methylated RNA immunoprecipitation (MeRIP)-qPCR were employed to examine m6A methylation levels. The interaction between IGF2BP3 and NTSR1 was verified by RNA immunoprecipitation (RIP) and dual luciferase experiments. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was applied to analyze protein expression in mouse tumor tissues. NTSR1 was upregulated in LUAD cells, affecting patients' dismal overall survival. NTSR1 knockdown hindered cell proliferation, migration, and invasion, reinforced apoptosis and Irinotecan sensitivity. Mechanistically, IGF2BP3 interacted with NTSR1 and induced m6A methylation modification to enhance transcriptional stability, advancing the malignant progression of LUAD and irinotecan resistance. Additionally, NTSR1 knockdown enhanced the sensitivity of LUAD to Irinotecan in mice and induced DNA damage. Overall, IGF2BP3-mediated NTSR1 m6A methylation expedites LUAD malignant progression and reinforces irinotecan resistance. Targeting this pathway may be an effective method for treating LUAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ding et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: