Evaluates targeted inhibition of B4GALT3-mediated glycosylation in hepatocellular carcinoma, implying a novel therapeutic approach.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Aberrant protein glycosylation contributes significantly to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progression. β-1,4-Galactosyltransferase 3 (B4GALT3), an enzyme involved in glycosylation, is overexpressed in HCC and promotes tumour growth by stabilizing integrin β1 (ITGB1). This study aimed to evaluate B4GALT3 as a therapeutic target and develop a precision nanotherapeutic approach for HCC. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Bioinformatics analyses using TCGA-LIHC datasets identified B4GALT3 as a prognostic biomarker in HCC. Functional assays assessed the role of B4GALT3 in proliferation, migration, invasion and ITGB1 glycosylation in HCC cells. Subsequently, enzyme-responsive 612-AYR nanoparticles were engineered to deliver a specific B4GALT3 inhibitor selectively to tumour sites. The nanoparticles' biocompatibility, tumour-targeting capability, retention and therapeutic efficacy were evaluated in both subcutaneous and orthotopic HCC mouse models. KEY RESULTS: B4GALT3 enhanced HCC cell proliferation, migration, and invasion by increasing ITGB1 glycosylation, stabilizing its protein level and activating downstream signalling and cell-cycle pathways. The 612-AYR nanoparticles demonstrated excellent biocompatibility, tumour-specific accumulation and prolonged retention in vivo. Treatment with these nanoparticles markedly suppressed tumour growth and metastasis in both mouse models through effective disruption of the B4GALT3-ITGB1 signalling axis. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Targeting aberrant glycosylation via enzyme-responsive 612-AYR nanoparticles delivering a B4GALT3 inhibitor presents a promising precision therapeutic approach for HCC. This integrated strategy combining glycosylation-targeted molecular biology and advanced nanotechnology offers a novel paradigm for personalized cancer treatment, holding significant therapeutic and diagnostic potential.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: