↓ Skip to main content

Lithium Suppresses Hedgehog Signaling via Promoting ITCH E3 Ligase Activity and Gli1–SUFU Interaction in PDA Cells

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Lithium Suppresses Hedgehog Signaling via Promoting ITCH E3 Ligase Activity and Gli1–SUFU Interaction in PDA Cells
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2017.00820
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xinshuo Wang, Zijian Fang, Anlin Wang, Cheng Luo, Xiaodong Cheng, Meiling Lu

Abstract

Dysregulation of Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway is one of the hallmarks of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). Lithium, a clinical mood stabilizer for the treatment of mental disorders, is known to suppress tumorigenic potential of PDA cells by targeting the Hh/Gli signaling pathway. In this study, we investigated the molecular mechanism of lithium induced down-regulation of Hh/Gli1. Our data show that lithium promotes the poly-ubiquitination and proteasome-mediated degradation of Gli1 through activating E3 ligase ITCH. Additionally, lithium enhances interaction between Gli1 and SUFU via suppressing GSK3β, which phosphorylates SUFU and destabilizes the SUFU-Gli1 inhibitory complex. Our studies illustrate a novel mechanism by which lithium suppresses Hh signaling via simultaneously promoting ITCH-dependent Gli1 ubiquitination/degradation and SUFU-mediated Gli1 inhibition.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 19%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Professor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 19%
Neuroscience 2 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 8 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,452,930
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#10,217
of 16,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,112
of 294,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#157
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,314 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 294,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.