Review Special Issues

The interplay of long non-coding RNAs and MYC in cancer

  • Received: 25 August 2015 Accepted: 18 November 2015 Published: 01 December 2015
  • Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are a class of RNA molecules that are changing how researchers view eukaryotic gene regulation. Once considered to be non-functional products of low-level aberrant transcription from non-coding regions of the genome, lncRNAs are now viewed as important epigenetic regulators and several lncRNAs have now been demonstrated to be critical players in the development and/or maintenance of cancer. Similarly, the emerging variety of interactions between lncRNAs and MYC, a well-known oncogenic transcription factor linked to most types of cancer, have caught the attention of many biomedical researchers. Investigations exploring the dynamic interactions between lncRNAs and MYC, referred to as the lncRNA-MYC network, have proven to be especially complex. Genome-wide studies have shown that MYC transcriptionally regulates many lncRNA genes. Conversely, recent reports identified lncRNAs that regulate MYC expression both at the transcriptional and post-transcriptional levels. These findings are of particular interest because they suggest roles of lncRNAs as regulators of MYC oncogenic functions and the possibility that targeting lncRNAs could represent a novel avenue to cancer treatment. Here, we briefly review the current understanding of how lncRNAs regulate chromatin structure and gene transcription, and then focus on the new developments in the emerging field exploring the lncRNA-MYC network in cancer.

    Citation: Michael J. Hamilton, Matthew D. Young, Silvia Sauer, Ernest Martinez. The interplay of long non-coding RNAs and MYC in cancer[J]. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(4): 794-809. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.4.794

    Related Papers:

    [1] Ariosto Silva, Alexander R. A. Anderson, Robert Gatenby . A multiscale model of the bone marrow and hematopoiesis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2011, 8(2): 643-658. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2011.8.643
    [2] Jason M. Graham, Bruce P. Ayati, Prem S. Ramakrishnan, James A. Martin . Towards a new spatial representation of bone remodeling. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2012, 9(2): 281-295. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2012.9.281
    [3] Katrine O. Bangsgaard, Morten Andersen, Vibe Skov, Lasse Kjær, Hans C. Hasselbalch, Johnny T. Ottesen . Dynamics of competing heterogeneous clones in blood cancers explains multiple observations - a mathematical modeling approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 7645-7670. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020389
    [4] Evans K. Afenya . Using Mathematical Modeling as a Resource in Clinical Trials. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2005, 2(3): 421-436. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2005.2.421
    [5] Urszula Ledzewicz, Heinz Schättler . Controlling a model for bone marrow dynamics in cancer chemotherapy. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2004, 1(1): 95-110. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2004.1.95
    [6] Thanh Nam Nguyen, Jean Clairambault, Thierry Jaffredo, Benoît Perthame, Delphine Salort . Adaptive dynamics of hematopoietic stem cells and their supporting stroma: a model and mathematical analysis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 4818-4845. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019243
    [7] Eugene Kashdan, Svetlana Bunimovich-Mendrazitsky . Hybrid discrete-continuous model of invasive bladder cancer. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(3): 729-742. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.729
    [8] Fabien Crauste . Global Asymptotic Stability and Hopf Bifurcation for a Blood Cell Production Model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2006, 3(2): 325-346. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2006.3.325
    [9] Zamra Sajid, Morten Andersen, Johnny T. Ottesen . Mathematical analysis of the Cancitis model and the role of inflammation in blood cancer progression. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(6): 8268-8289. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019418
    [10] Avner Friedman, Harsh Vardhan Jain . A partial differential equation model of metastasized prostatic cancer. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(3): 591-608. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.591
  • Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are a class of RNA molecules that are changing how researchers view eukaryotic gene regulation. Once considered to be non-functional products of low-level aberrant transcription from non-coding regions of the genome, lncRNAs are now viewed as important epigenetic regulators and several lncRNAs have now been demonstrated to be critical players in the development and/or maintenance of cancer. Similarly, the emerging variety of interactions between lncRNAs and MYC, a well-known oncogenic transcription factor linked to most types of cancer, have caught the attention of many biomedical researchers. Investigations exploring the dynamic interactions between lncRNAs and MYC, referred to as the lncRNA-MYC network, have proven to be especially complex. Genome-wide studies have shown that MYC transcriptionally regulates many lncRNA genes. Conversely, recent reports identified lncRNAs that regulate MYC expression both at the transcriptional and post-transcriptional levels. These findings are of particular interest because they suggest roles of lncRNAs as regulators of MYC oncogenic functions and the possibility that targeting lncRNAs could represent a novel avenue to cancer treatment. Here, we briefly review the current understanding of how lncRNAs regulate chromatin structure and gene transcription, and then focus on the new developments in the emerging field exploring the lncRNA-MYC network in cancer.


    1. Introduction

    Metastasis, (meta, "next", and stasis "placement") is the process by which a primary tumor spreads to a secondary distance location.

    This process occurs in anatomical sites providing the necessary environment of vascularization, oxygen and food allowing to camouflage its action for triggering the fast growing of cancer.

    The process presents several stages: Invasion to the surrounding extracellular matrix, intravasation, dissemination thorough the circulation system, extravasation in different organs, settlement into latency in a pre-metastatic niche, reactivation and generation of a new tumor. Only a small percentage of metastatic cancer cells survive to the circulation system, and those that get out of the circulatory system rapidly die if they can not find the appropriate micro environment.

    Metastasis is the final stage of cancer and the major cause of death in patients with cancer. For that reason, many anticancer therapies focus on Metastasis inhibition. Thus anti-metastasis treatments have different targets depending on the stage of the process they act. Angiogenesis, Cancer Stem Cells and metastatic niche, the role played by the inmune system (promoting or inhibiting metastasis) are some of the interesting issues in the area at extracellular level.

    The motivation of this work relies on creating a mathematical model to describe the tumor cells movement towards a metastasis location into the bone marrow and the influence of the inhibition of chemoattractant receptors in metastatic tumor cells due to the drugs action. The mathematical model shows the importance of the balance between the chemotactic and random movements to reach the pre-metastatic niche.

    Prostate cancer skeletal involvement is a complicated process, in which bone provides a favorable medium for tumor growth, resulting in alterations in bone remodeling and development of cancer-associated bone lesions. Prostate cancer and the bone microenvironment communicate and interact with each other through the progression of skeletal metastasis.

    The pre-metastatic niche is a microenvironment in a specific location which facilitates the invasion and survival of metastatic tumor cells and may host a secondary tumor once the metastatic cancer cells start to proliferate (see [12]). The pre-metastatic niche microenvironment is formed by different types of cells: endothelial cells, mesenchymal progenitor cells, cancer associated fibroblasts (CAFs), myeloid cells and osteoclast; chemical signals: CXCL-12 and TGF-$\beta$ among others and the extracellular matrix (see [12] for more details).

    Three different sources of metastatic niche have been already reported (see [12]):

    1.-Native stem cell niches that metastatic cells may occupy in the host tissues;

    2.-Niche functions provided by stromal cells not belonging to stem cell niches;

    3.-Stem cell niche components that the cancer cells themselves may produce.

    There exist at least two different types of pre-metastatic niches in the bone marrow, the osteoblast or endosteal niche and the vascular niche.

    Osteoblast and osteoclast populations are the main agents involved in bone remodeling. In particular, osteoblasts mineralize the bone, while osteoclasts are responsible for bone resorption. There exists a dynamic equilibrium between osteoblasts and osteoclasts to maintain the bone tissue in normal adult vertebrates. This dynamical equilibrium existing in a healthy bone is perturbed by the chemical factors secreted by tumor cells.

    The osteoblast niche is composed by osteoblast cells lining the endosteal surface which secretes a large variety of cytokines, growth factors and other signaling molecules that regulate the differentiation, the self-renewal and proliferation of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). The hematopoietic stem cells are a blood cell type which are host at the osteoblast niche in normal vertebrates (see [3]). The differentiation of HSCs produces myeloid cells, as macrophages, neutrophils, dendritic cells, etc, and lymphoid lineages as T-cells and B-cells among others.

    Among the signaling molecules, CXCL-12, also known as stroma derivated factor 1 (SDF-1), is relatively highly expressed in the bone marrow (BM) (see [6]) and its receptor, CXCR-4, is expressed in HSCs and progenitors cells (see [9]). The retention in the BM of HSCs is regulated by the balance between CXCL-12 and Sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) produced by mature red blood cells in the circulatory system, which recruits HSCs to the circulation.

    CXCL-12 is mainly produced by osteoblast cells, but it is also secreted by mesenchymal cells, endothelial precursor cells, cancer associated fibroblasts (CAFs) among others (see [13] and [16] for more details). The osteoblasts are activated by parathyroid hormone (PTH) and PTH-related protein (PTHrP), through the PTH/PTHrP receptor (PPR) (see [2] and [3]).

    Prostate cancer cells produce other pro-osteoblastic factors that enhance bone mineralization as wingless int (Wnt), transforming growth factor-$\beta$ (TGF-$\beta$), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), interleukin-6 (Il-6), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), endothelin (ET), fibroblast growth factor 1 (FGF-1), FGF-2, FGF-8, insulin-like growth factor (IGF), osteoprotegerin (OPG), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), etc. Prostate cancer cells also produce pro-osteoclastic factors as RANK-L tumor necrosis factor $\alpha$ (TNF$\alpha$), interluekin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-8, IL-11, macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF), prostaglandin, etc.

    It is known that CXCR-4 is overexpresed in metastatic solid tumor in prostate and breast cancer. The path CXCL-12 / CXCR-4 is used to localize the osteoblast niche (see [17]) and drives the cancer cells to the niche following the chemical gradients of CXCL-12 (chemotaxis).

    Recently, several therapeutic strategies have been investigated to target the path CXCL-12/CXCR-4 to inhibit chemotactic movement (see for instance [7] and [11]). In [11], the authors present a novel therapeutic strategy and study the blockade of the path CXCL-12/CXCR-4 by AMD11070 in melanomas, comparing its effects with the inhibitor AMD3100. In this work, we consider the action of the inhibitor by reducing the chemosensitivity of the tumor cells, two different types of simulations are presented:

    ● when inhibitor is not present, and the tumor cell movement is composed of the combination of chemotaxis and random walk

    ● and when the action of chemotaxis is strongly reduced by the drug.

    In the first case, the computational model shows how the tumor cell arrives at the niche while in the second case, the random movement is dominant and the cell doesn't arrive at the niche, at least during the computational time. The simulations show the existence of a threshold value in the rate chemotaxis / random coefficients: $\chi/D$. Over such threshold value the cancer cell arrives at the niche and bellow it the cancer cell does not. The simulations show that the success of the therapy depends on the capacity to modify such rate by reducing the chemoattractant sensitivity.

    In the following section, we introduce a mathematical model to describe the tumor cells movement towards a metastasis location into the BM. The description of the numerical scheme of resolution and some numerical simulations are performed in sections 3 and 4 respectively. The simulations illustrate the qualitative behavior of the solutions, which reproduce the migration of tumor cells from blood vessels to the osteoblastic niche in BM following the chemical gradients of CXCL-12.


    2. Mathematical model

    In this section we present a mathematical model to describe tumor cells migration from blood vessels in BM to the osteoblast niche. The domain $\Omega:=\{(x, y)\in [,1] \times [0,1]\}$, represents a rescaled version of a cross section of the BM, between a blood vessel inside the bone ($x=1$) and the compact bone surface ($x=0$) where the osteoblast resides (see Figure 1).

    Figure 1. Geometry of the problem.

    We consider two different types of cells, osteoblasts, whose density shall be denoted by ''$b$" and metastatic cancer cells (MCCs) and two diffusive unknowns, the CXCL-12 concentration, denoted by ''$w$", and ''$u$" which describes the tumor factors concentration, including osteoprotegerin (OPG), TGF-$\beta$ and PTHrP among others.


    2.1. Metastatic cancer cells

    We consider a finite number of MCCs, $N$, and denote its position by $(x_i, y_i)=(x_{i}(t), y_{i}(t))$ for $i=1, ..., N$. We assume that the movement of the cancer cells is due to the combination of the action of the vector field generated by the gradient of the CXCL-12 concentration and a random walk term:

    $ (x^{\prime}_i, y_i^{\prime})=\chi(w) \nabla w(t, x_i(t), y_i(t))+D(cos(2\pi\theta_{ij}(t)), sin(2\pi\theta_{ij}(t)))\label{eq1} $ (1)

    where $\chi(w)$ is the chemoattractant coefficient describing the cell sensitivity to CXCL-12, typically given by a decreasing function. For simplicity we take $\chi(w)=\chi_0/(1+w)$ for a positive constant $\chi_0$.The number $\theta_{ij}(t)$, for $t_j<t<t_{j+1}$, is a uniformly distributed random number in the interval $(0, 1)$ for a given increasing sequence of $t_j$. To initialize the model, the initial positions of the cancer cells $(x_i(0), y_i(0))$ are given.

    Experiments show that cell movement is also influenced by the existing fibers in the extracellular matrix. On this occasion, to simplify the system we assume a homogeneous distribution of fibers in space and time and no influence in the cell movement.

    Since the time from extravasation to the arrival of the pre-metastatic niche is small, we do not consider mitosis. Cancer cell death occurs if the cancer cell doesn$^{\prime}$t reach the niche before a given time $T$.


    2.2. Tumor factors: PTHrP, TGF-$\beta$, osteoprotegerin, etc

    We denote by $u$ the concentration of chemical factors secreted by prostate tumor cells, including osteoprotegerin (OPG), TGF-$\beta$ and PTHrP. The secretion of the tumor factors comes from two sources: MCCs inside the BM at the positions $(x_i, y_i)$ and the secretion from the primary tumor. The secretion from the tumor arrives at the BM through the existing blood vessels at the boundary of the domain, $x=1$. The secretion from the MCCs is introduced by the term

    $ \sum\limits_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi\epsilon_i}} e^{-\frac{1}{4\epsilon_i}[(x-x_i(t))^2+(y-y_i(t))^2]}.$

    Notice that

    $\lim\limits_{\epsilon_i \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\epsilon_i}} e^{-\frac{1}{4\epsilon_i}[(x-x_i(t))^2+(y-y_i(t))^2]} = \delta_{(x_i, y_i)}$

    where $ \delta_{(x_i, y_i)}$ is the Dirac delta function. We shall consider a constant diffusion coefficient "$D_u$" and a constant degradation rate "$\mu_u$", in the following equation:

    $ u_t- D_u\Delta u+ u \left( \mu_u +\frac{ b}{1+u} \right)= \sum\limits_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\epsilon_i}} e^{-\frac{1}{4\epsilon_i}[(x-x_i(t))^2+(y-y_i(t))^2]}, \label{eq2} $ (2)

    which models the evolution of the concentration of tumor factors $u$. This equation is complemented with the initial datum:

    $u(0, x, y)=u_0(x, y), (x, y)\in \bar{\Omega}$

    and the following boundary conditions

    $-D_u\frac{\partial u}{\partial n}=-F_u \;\;\rm{ at }\;\;\, x=1, -D_u\frac{\partial u}{\partial n}=0 \;\;\rm{ otherwise, } $

    where $F_u$ is a positive constant. The term $bu/1+u$, where $b$ is the density of the osteoblast population, describes the consumption of $u$ by osteoblasts. Notice that we assume that the osteoblast population is confined at the boundary $x=0$.


    2.3. Osteoblast density

    Bone remodeling is regulated by osteoblasts located at the endosteal surface in dynamic equilibrium with osteoclasts, which are responsible of bone reabsorption. The process involves several substances and different types of progenitors cells in a basic multicellular unit (BMU). TGF-$\beta$ activates osteoblast differentiation from mesenchymal precursors, increasing the bone formation (see [8]). Nuclear factor $\kappa$B ligand (RANKL) and OPG are expressed by osteoblasts and regulate osteoclast activity. In [8], the authors propose a mathematical model considering two unknowns, the number of osteoclasts at the BMU and the number of osteoblasts, denoted by "$c$" and "$b$" respectively. The evolution of osteoblasts in [8] is given by the ODE:

    $b^{\prime}= \alpha_2 cb^{g_{22}}- \beta_2 b, \alpha_2= 4 \ \mbox{day}^{-1}, \beta_2= 0.02 \ \mbox{day}^{-1}, g_{22} \geq 0.$

    As before mentioned, we assume that osteoblast are located only at the boundary $x=0$, and therefore $b$, the osteoblast density, is supposed to be a function of the spatial variable $y$. We consider that the osteoblast activation which depends on the TGF-$\beta$ concentration is given by the equation:

    $b_t =g(b, u)b, $

    where $g$ represents the growth rate of osteoblast, assumed logistic. To be precise, we shall consider the following equation for the evolution of $b$:

    $ b_t=\alpha b\left(\mu_b + \mu_{bu} \frac{u}{1+u}-b\right). \label{eq3} $ (3)

    where $\alpha $ is a proportionality constant and $\mu_b$ is the osteoblasts density at the equilibrium in the absence of TGF-$\beta$. The term $\mu_{bu} \frac{u}{1+u}$, results from considering that in the presence of TGF-$\beta$, the equilibrium is achieved at $b=\mu_b+ f(u)$ for a non-negative and monotone increasing function $f$, satisfying $f(0)=0$ and $\lim_{u \rightarrow \infty}f(u)=\mu_{bu}$ and assuming for simplicity that

    $f(u)= \mu_{bu}\frac{u}{1+u}.$

    Notice that we do not consider diffusion and transport of osteoblasts, see also [8]. The equation (3) is completed with an initial condition:

    $b(0, y)=b_0(y), y\in [0, 1].$

    2.4. CXCL-12 concentration

    CXCL-12 is secreted by osteoblasts, acting as a chemoattractant for the metastatic cancer cells which present CXCR-4 receptors at the surface. We denote by $w$ the concentration of CXCL-12. Since the amount of cancer cells inside the BM is small, we neglect the loss of CXCL-12 due to the formation of the complex ligand-receptor CXCL-12 / CXCR-4 and its dissociation (see [5] for parameters values in CXCL-12 / CXCR-4 complex formation).

    Hence, we assume that the evolution and distribution of $w$ satisfies the parabolic equation

    $w_t- D_w\Delta w+ \mu_w w=0. \label{eq4} $ (4)

    Diffusion of $w$ has also been considered in [4], where degradation rates of CXCL-12 are considered to be of the order of $2 \times 10^{-5} s^{-1}$. We assume that CXCL-12 is only produced by osteoblast at the bone boundary (osteoblast niche), i.e. $x=0$, and that the flux throughout the boundary is proportional to the osteoblast density, then the boundary conditions for (4) are:

    $-D_w\frac{\partial w}{\partial n}=-b, \mbox{ at } x=0 \mbox{and} -D_w\frac{\partial w}{\partial n}=0, \mbox{otherwise.} $

    The problem is completed with a given initial datum,

    $w(0, x, y)=w_0(x, y), (x, y)\in \bar{\Omega}.$

    3. Numerical resolution

    In this section, we shall describe the numerical scheme of resolution of the system (1)-(4).

    Due to the parabolic feature of the problem, we use a time marching scheme. Then, the solutions are computed with a decoupling iterative method. For this, we proceed to solve sequentially (1)-(4), in the following way: first, we solve the problem for the variable $u$ (employing the positions obtained for the cells in the previous step), then, we pass to solve the problem for the variable $b$ (by using the values obtained for $u$ in the present step), next, we solve the problem for the variable $w$ (considering the values of $b$ in the present step) and, finally, we compute the location of the cells in the present step by using the just updated values of $w$.

    The numerical resolution of the corresponding decoupled systems at each step in time will be carried out by means of well known methods. To be precise, the resulting problems for the variables $u$ and $w$ are solved with a linear triangular finite-element method, and the problem for $b$ with a semi-implicit Euler scheme.

    Next, we shall briefly describe the overall process of resolution.

    Let $t=T$ denote the final time of computation, let $P>1$ be a natural number and let $\Delta t=T/P$ be the mesh step in the coordinate $t$. For $m=0, 1, ..., P$, let $t_m=m\Delta t$ and define $u_m(x, y)$, $w_m(x, y)$, $b_m(y)$, $(x_{i, m}, y_{i, m})$ as follows:

    $u_m(x, y)=u(t_m, x, y), \, w_m(x, y)=w(t_m, x, y), \, b_m(y)=b(t_m, y)\, $
    $ \mbox{and} (x_{i, m}, y_{i, m})=(x_i(t_m), y_i(t_m)).$

    Notice that $u_0$, $w_0$, $b_0$ and $(x_{i, 0}, y_{i, 0})$ are given initial data. In order to discretizate with respect to the spatial coordinate, we will employ piecewise linear finite elements in an uniform triangular grid.

    For each $t_m$, $m=1, ..., P$, we consider the following uncoupled problems:

    ● Problem for $u_m$, the chemical factors secreted by prostate tumor cells:

    Given the location of the cells at the $m-$th level, $b_{m-1}$ and $u_{m-1}$, determine $u_m$ such that

    $\int_{\Omega}(1+\Delta t\mu_u) u_m \phi dxdy +\Delta t D_u\int_{\Omega} \nabla u_m \nabla \phi dxdy\\ =\int_{\Omega}u_{m-1}\phi dxdy-\Delta t\int_{\Omega}\mu_u \frac{u_{m-1}b_{m-1}}{1+u_{m-1}}dxdy\\ + \Delta t \sum\limits_{i=1}^N \int_{\Omega}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi\epsilon_i}} e^{-\frac{1}{4\epsilon_i}[(x-x_i(t))^2+(y-y_i(t))^2]}\phi dxdy+\Delta t \int_{\Gamma_1}F_{u}\phi dy, \, \forall \phi \in H^{1}(\Omega), $

    where $N$ is the number of cells and $\Gamma_1$ is the boundary $x=1$. Notice that $\phi \in H^{1}(\Omega)$ implies $\phi \in L^2(\Gamma_0)$ by the trace Theorem (see for example [1]).

    ● Problem for the osteoblast density:

    Given $b_{m-1}$ and $u_{m}$, we consider a semi-implicit Euler scheme to determine the values of $b_m$ at $x=0$, that is to say

    $b_m=b_{m-1}+\Delta t \alpha b_{m-1} \left(\mu_b+\mu_{bu}\frac{u_m}{u_m+1}-b_{m-1}\right).$

    ● Problem for the concentration of CXCL-12 secreted by the osteoblasts:

    Given $b_{m}$ and $w_{m-1}$, determine $w_m$ such that

    $\int_{\Omega}(1+\Delta t\mu_w) w_m \zeta dxdy +\Delta t D_w\int_{\Omega} \nabla u_m \nabla \zeta dxdy=$
    $\int_{\Omega}w_{m-1}\zeta dxdy+\Delta t \int_{\Gamma_0}b_{m}\zeta dy, \, \forall \zeta \in H^{1}(\Omega), $

    where $\Gamma_0$ is the boundary $x=0$. Notice that $\zeta \in L^2(\Gamma_0)$.

    ● And finally, the location for the tumor cells is computed with the updated values of $w$ at the $m$-th step in the following way:

    $(x_{i, m}, y_{i, m})\approx(x_{i, m-1}, y_{i, m-1})+\Delta t \chi (w_m) \nabla w_{m}(x_{i, m-1}, y_{i, m-1})+$
    $\Delta t D(cos(2\pi\theta_i(t_{m-1})), sin(2\pi\theta_i(t_{m-1}))), $

    in the sense that the positions of the cells are restricted to grids points, and

    $P_{i, m-1}=(x_{i, m-1}, y_{i, m-1})+\Delta t \chi (w_m) \nabla w_{m}(x_{i, m-1}, y_{i, m-1})+$
    $\Delta t D(cos(2\pi\theta_i(t_{m-1})), sin(2\pi\theta_i(t_{m-1})))$

    could not coincide with the coordinate of a grid point. To cope with this fact, we define $(x_{i, m}, y_{i, m})$ as the nearest grid point to the location given by $P_{i, m-1}$.


    4. Numerical simulations and biological interpretation

    In this section we present some numerical results and their biological interpretation in order to illustrate the dynamical behavior of the different variables.

    As we mentioned in previous sections, we consider a square domain $\Omega =\{(x, y)\in [0,1]\times [0,1]\}$, which resembles a rescaled version of a cross section of the BM. The boundaries $x=0$ and $x=1$ represent the compact bone and the blood vessel boundary, respectively. The size of the step in time used in our simulations is $\Delta t=10^{-4}$ and regarding the spatial discretization, we consider a structured triangular mesh with $101\times 101$ spatial nodes.

    We consider two scenarios in order to illustrate the effect of a therapeutic strategy consisting in targeting the path CXCL-12-CXCR-4 to inhibit chemotactic movement of the metastatic tumor cell. In the first scenario, we assume that no treatment has been applied and hence, the tumor cell movement is directed by a combination of chemotaxis and random walk. In this case the values of the parameters which we considered are:

    $\chi_0=10, \, D=1, \, \mu_u=1, \, \alpha=1, \, \mu_b=0.5, \, F_u=10^{-5}, \, \epsilon_i=10^{-4}, \\ \mu_{bu}=100, \, \mu_w=100\, \mbox{ and }\, D_u=D_w=5\cdot 10^3.$ (5)

    In the second scenario, a drug is used to inhibit the chemoattractant action. In this case, the parameter values which were considered are:

    $\chi_0=0.01, \, D=1, \, \mu_u=1, \, \alpha=1, \, \mu_b=0.5, \, F_u=10^{-5}, \, \epsilon_i=10^{-4}, \\ \mu_{bu}=100, \, \mu_w=100\, \mbox{ and }\, D_u=D_w=5\cdot 10^3.$ (6)

    In both scenarios, we assume that a cell, coming form the blood vessels, arrives in the domain and that is located initially at the point $(0.9, 0.6)$. We also consider that a niche is already established, and we consider that the initial profile for the osteoblast density is

    $b_0(y)=10e^{-100(x-0.4)^2}.$

    The roles of the different parameters are the expected taking into account their positions in the equations.

    ● We observe the existence of a threshold value in the rate chemotaxis / random coefficients, $\chi/D$, such that over the threshold value, the cancer cell arrives at the niche and bellow it the cancer cell does not. The simulations show that the success of the therapy depends on the capacity to modify the rate by reducing the chemoattractant sensitivity.

    ● Increasing the diffusion parameter $D_w$ we obtain a faster response of the system. If the values of $D_u$ are of order 1 and $D_w$ is large enough, we also have a fast response, but in this case the values for the variables $u$ and $w$ increase considerably compared with the values obtained for $D_u$ and $D_w$ large.

    ● As expected, we have obtained that the value of $\mu_{bu}$ plays an important role in the qualitative behavior of $b$. Increasing $\mu_{bu}$ we obtain a higher production of $b$ in case the cell arrived the niche and secretes tumor factors. Notice that it regulates the effect of the tumor factors on the osteoblast population.

    ● The role of the rest of the parameters are the expected.

    In Figures 2-3, we illustrate the paths followed by the cells in both scenarios. We can observe that in the first case, the cells arrive at the niche, as there is no inhibition of the chemoattractant receptors, however in the second case ($\chi_0=0.01$) when a drug has been introduced to inhibit the action of the chemoattractant, the cell does not arrive at the niche and its movement is mainly directed by the random walk part. In Figures 2-3, at the bottom, we can observe in both cases, the evolution of the osteoblast density $b$, which shows increasing values over time in the first scenario, and decreasing values in the second one. Notice that the effect of the tumor factors $u$ in $b$ only takes place when the cell is already located at the niche.

    Figure 2. Results of the first scenario simulation, where therapeutic treatment had not been applied: Above we show the trajectory followed by the cell in the period of time [0, 0.04]. At the bottom, there appear the results obtained for the osteoblast density at different times.
    Figure 3. Results of the second scenario simulation, where a therapeutic treatment inhibiting the chemotactic movement of the cell is applied: Above it is depicted the trajectory of the cell in the period of time [0, 0.2]. At the bottom, we illustrate the corresponding results for the osteoblast density at different times.

    In Figures 4-5, we present the results obtained for the tumor factors $u$ in different times. In fact, we show the corresponding level curves to appreciate better the influence of the secretion term

    $\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi \epsilon_i}} e^{-\frac{1}{4\epsilon_i}[(x-x_i(t))^2+(y-y_i(t))^2]}$
    Figure 4. Results of the first scenario simulation regarding the evolution of the variable $u$ , tumor factors. We show the corresponding the level curves of $u$ for $t=0.02, $ $0.025$ and $0.04$ .
    Figure 5. Results of the second scenario simulation for the variable $u$ . We present the corresponding level curves at times $t=0.02$ and $t=0.2$ .

    in the profile of $u$. We can observe that the region of bigger values of $u$ is in correspondence with the position of the cell.

    Finally, in Figures 6-7, we can see the results obtained for the CXCL-12 concentration, which resembles the behavior of $b$, depending on the scenario considered.

    Figure 6. Results of the first scenario for the variable $w$ , the chemoattractant CXCL-12 concentration at $t=0.02$ , when the cell has not reached the niche yet, and at time $t=0.08$ , when the cell is already well established in the niche.
    Figure 7. Results of the second scenario for the variable $w$ , the chemoattractant CXCL-12 concentration at $t=0.02$ and $t=0.2$ .

    5. Discussion

    We have presented a mathematical model to describe the tumor cells movement towards a metastasis location into the bone marrow and the influence of the inhibition of the chemoattractant receptors in the metastatic tumor cell due to the drugs action. Recently, several therapeutic strategies have been investigated to target the path CXCL-12 / CXCR-4 to inhibit chemotactic movement (see for instance [7] and [11]). In the model, we consider the evolution of signaling molecules CXCL-12 secreted by osteoblasts (bone cells responsible of the mineralization of the bone) and PTHrP (secreted by tumor cells) which activates osteoblast growth. The model consists of a coupled system of second order PDEs describing the evolution of CXCL-12 and PTHrP, an ODE of logistic type to model the osteoblasts density and an extra equation for each cancer cell. We simulate the system to illustrate the qualitative behavior of the solutions and the numerical method of resolution is presented in detail. In particular, we consider the following two scenarios to illustrate the effect of a therapeutic strategy which target the path CXCL-12/CXCR-4 to inhibit chemotactic movement of the tumor cell: The first scenario reflects the case where the inhibitor is not present, and the tumor cell movement is composed of the combination of chemotaxis and random walk. In the second scenario, the action of chemotaxis is strongly reduced by the drug used to inhibit the chemoattractant receptors. The simulations show the existence of a threshold value in the rate chemotaxis / random coefficients: $\chi/D$. Over such threshold value the cancer cell arrives at the niche and below it the cancer cell does not. The simulations show that the success of the therapy depends on the capacity to modify such rate by reducing the chemoattractant sensitivity.


    Acknowledgments

    The first author would like to thank MEC of Spain for supporting Projects TEC2012-39095-C03-02 and MTM2014-57158-R, and the second author for supporting Project MTM2013-42907-P.


    [1] Volders PJ, Verheggen K, Menschaert G, et al. (2015) An update on LNCipedia: a database for annotated human lncRNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 43: D174-180. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku1060
    [2] Amati B, Frank SR, Donjerkovic D, et al. (2001) Function of the c-Myc oncoprotein in chromatin remodeling and transcription. Biochim Biophys Acta 1471: M135-145.
    [3] Bretones G, Delgado MD, Leon J (2015) Myc and cell cycle control. Biochim Biophys Acta 1849: 506-516. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2014.03.013
    [4] Dang CV (2013) MYC, metabolism, cell growth, and tumorigenesis. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 3.
    [5] McMahon SB (2014) MYC and the control of apoptosis. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 4: a014407. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a014407
    [6] Vennstrom B, Sheiness D, Zabielski J, et al. (1982) Isolation and characterization of c-myc, a cellular homolog of the oncogene (v-myc) of avian myelocytomatosis virus strain 29. J Virol 42: 773-779.
    [7] Zheng GX, Do BT, Webster DE, et al. (2014) Dicer-microRNA-Myc circuit promotes transcription of hundreds of long noncoding RNAs. Nat Struct Mol Biol 21: 585-590. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2842
    [8] Winkle M, van den Berg A, Tayari M, et al. (2015) Long noncoding RNAs as a novel component of the Myc transcriptional network. FASEB J 29: 2338-2346. doi: 10.1096/fj.14-263889
    [9] Xiang JF, Yang L, Chen LL (2015) The long noncoding RNA regulation at the MYC locus. Curr Opin Genet Dev 33: 41-48. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2015.07.001
    [10] Rinn JL, Chang HY (2012) Genome regulation by long noncoding RNAs. Annu Rev Biochem 81: 145-166. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-051410-092902
    [11] Kapranov P, Cawley SE, Drenkow J, et al. (2002) Large-scale transcriptional activity in chromosomes 21 and 22. Science 296: 916-919. doi: 10.1126/science.1068597
    [12] Rinn JL, Euskirchen G, Bertone P, et al. (2003) The transcriptional activity of human Chromosome 22. Genes Dev 17: 529-540. doi: 10.1101/gad.1055203
    [13] Guttman M, Garber M, Levin JZ, et al. (2010) Ab initio reconstruction of cell type-specific transcriptomes in mouse reveals the conserved multi-exonic structure of lincRNAs. Nat Biotechnol 28: 503-510. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1633
    [14] Cabili MN, Trapnell C, Goff L, et al. (2011) Integrative annotation of human large intergenic noncoding RNAs reveals global properties and specific subclasses. Genes Dev 25: 1915-1927. doi: 10.1101/gad.17446611
    [15] Wu J, Okada T, Fukushima T, et al. (2012) A novel hypoxic stress-responsive long non-coding RNA transcribed by RNA polymerase III in Arabidopsis. RNA Biol 9: 302-313. doi: 10.4161/rna.19101
    [16] Derrien T, Johnson R, Bussotti G, et al. (2012) The GENCODE v7 catalog of human long noncoding RNAs: analysis of their gene structure, evolution, and expression. Genome Res 22: 1775-1789. doi: 10.1101/gr.132159.111
    [17] Gardini A, Shiekhattar R (2015) The many faces of long noncoding RNAs. FEBS J 282: 1647-1657. doi: 10.1111/febs.13101
    [18] Wilusz JE, Spector DL (2010) An unexpected ending: noncanonical 3' end processing mechanisms. RNA 16: 259-266. doi: 10.1261/rna.1907510
    [19] Zhang Y, Yang L, Chen LL (2014) Life without A tail: new formats of long noncoding RNAs. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 54: 338-349. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2013.10.009
    [20] Peart N, Sataluri A, Baillat D, et al. (2013) Non-mRNA 3' end formation: how the other half lives. Wiley Interdiscip Rev RNA 4: 491-506. doi: 10.1002/wrna.1174
    [21] Ravasi T, Suzuki H, Pang KC, et al. (2006) Experimental validation of the regulated expression of large numbers of non-coding RNAs from the mouse genome. Genome Res 16: 11-19.
    [22] Djebali S, Davis CA, Merkel A, et al. (2012) Landscape of transcription in human cells. Nature 489: 101-108. doi: 10.1038/nature11233
    [23] He S, Liu S, Zhu H (2011) The sequence, structure and evolutionary features of HOTAIR in mammals. BMC Evol Biol 11: 102. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-102
    [24] Brown JA, Bulkley D, Wang J, et al. (2014) Structural insights into the stabilization of MALAT1 noncoding RNA by a bipartite triple helix. Nat Struct Mol Biol 21: 633-640. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2844
    [25] Brown JA, Valenstein ML, Yario TA, et al. (2012) Formation of triple-helical structures by the 3'-end sequences of MALAT1 and MENbeta noncoding RNAs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 19202-19207. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1217338109
    [26] Smith MA, Gesell T, Stadler PF, et al. (2013) Widespread purifying selection on RNA structure in mammals. Nucleic Acids Res 41: 8220-8236. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt596
    [27] Somarowthu S, Legiewicz M, Chillon I, et al. (2015) HOTAIR forms an intricate and modular secondary structure. Mol Cell 58: 353-361. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.03.006
    [28] Mortimer SA, Kidwell MA, Doudna JA (2014) Insights into RNA structure and function from genome-wide studies. Nat Rev Genet 15: 469-479. doi: 10.1038/nrg3681
    [29] Ding Y, Tang Y, Kwok CK, et al. (2014) In vivo genome-wide profiling of RNA secondary structure reveals novel regulatory features. Nature 505: 696-700.
    [30] Kertesz M, Wan Y, Mazor E, et al. (2010) Genome-wide measurement of RNA secondary structure in yeast. Nature 467: 103-107. doi: 10.1038/nature09322
    [31] Lucks JB, Mortimer SA, Trapnell C, et al. (2011) Multiplexed RNA structure characterization with selective 2'-hydroxyl acylation analyzed by primer extension sequencing (SHAPE-Seq). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 11063-11068. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1106501108
    [32] Seetin MG, Kladwang W, Bida JP, et al. (2014) Massively parallel RNA chemical mapping with a reduced bias MAP-seq protocol. Methods Mol Biol 1086: 95-117. doi: 10.1007/978-1-62703-667-2_6
    [33] Underwood JG, Uzilov AV, Katzman S, et al. (2010) FragSeq: transcriptome-wide RNA structure probing using high-throughput sequencing. Nat Methods 7: 995-1001. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1529
    [34] Aviran S, Trapnell C, Lucks JB, et al. (2011) Modeling and automation of sequencing-based characterization of RNA structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 11069-11074. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1106541108
    [35] Rouskin S, Zubradt M, Washietl S, et al. (2014) Genome-wide probing of RNA structure reveals active unfolding of mRNA structures in vivo. Nature 505: 701-705.
    [36] Novikova IV, Hennelly SP, Sanbonmatsu KY (2013) Tackling structures of long noncoding RNAs. Int J Mol Sci 14: 23672-23684. doi: 10.3390/ijms141223672
    [37] Fatica A, Bozzoni I (2014) Long non-coding RNAs: new players in cell differentiation and development. Nat Rev Genet 15: 7-21. doi: 10.1038/nri3777
    [38] Batista PJ, Chang HY (2013) Long noncoding RNAs: cellular address codes in development and disease. Cell 152: 1298-1307. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.012
    [39] Batista PJ, Chang HY (2013) Cytotopic localization by long noncoding RNAs. Curr Opin Cell Biol 25: 195-199. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2012.12.001
    [40] Han X, Yang F, Cao H, et al. (2015) Malat1 regulates serum response factor through miR-133 as a competing endogenous RNA in myogenesis. FASEB J 29: 3054-3064. doi: 10.1096/fj.14-259952
    [41] Yoon JH, Abdelmohsen K, Kim J, et al. (2013) Scaffold function of long non-coding RNA HOTAIR in protein ubiquitination. Nat Commun 4: 2939.
    [42] McHugh CA, Chen CK, Chow A, et al. (2015) The Xist lncRNA interacts directly with SHARP to silence transcription through HDAC3. Nature 521: 232-236. doi: 10.1038/nature14443
    [43] Deng K, Guo X, Wang H, et al. (2014) The lncRNA-MYC regulatory network in cancer. Tumour Biol 35: 9497-9503. doi: 10.1007/s13277-014-2511-y
    [44] Beroukhim R, Mermel CH, Porter D, et al. (2010) The landscape of somatic copy-number alteration across human cancers. Nature 463: 899-905. doi: 10.1038/nature08822
    [45] Colombo T, Farina L, Macino G, et al. (2015) PVT1: a rising star among oncogenic long noncoding RNAs. Biomed Res Int 2015: 304208.
    [46] Walz S, Lorenzin F, Morton J, et al. (2014) Activation and repression by oncogenic MYC shape tumour-specific gene expression profiles. Nature 511: 483-487. doi: 10.1038/nature13473
    [47] Carramusa L, Contino F, Ferro A, et al. (2007) The PVT-1 oncogene is a Myc protein target that is overexpressed in transformed cells. J Cell Physiol 213: 511-518. doi: 10.1002/jcp.21133
    [48] Tseng YY, Moriarity BS, Gong W, et al. (2014) PVT1 dependence in cancer with MYC copy-number increase. Nature 512: 82-86.
    [49] Zanke BW, Greenwood CM, Rangrej J, et al. (2007) Genome-wide association scan identifies a colorectal cancer susceptibility locus on chromosome 8q24. Nat Genet 39: 989-994. doi: 10.1038/ng2089
    [50] Tenesa A, Farrington SM, Prendergast JG, et al. (2008) Genome-wide association scan identifies a colorectal cancer susceptibility locus on 11q23 and replicates risk loci at 8q24 and 18q21. Nat Genet 40: 631-637. doi: 10.1038/ng.133
    [51] Tomlinson I, Webb E, Carvajal-Carmona L, et al. (2007) A genome-wide association scan of tag SNPs identifies a susceptibility variant for colorectal cancer at 8q24.21. Nat Genet 39: 984-988. doi: 10.1038/ng2085
    [52] Nissan A, Stojadinovic A, Mitrani-Rosenbaum S, et al. (2012) Colon cancer associated transcript-1: a novel RNA expressed in malignant and pre-malignant human tissues. Int J Cancer 130: 1598-1606. doi: 10.1002/ijc.26170
    [53] Ahmadiyeh N, Pomerantz MM, Grisanzio C, et al. (2010) 8q24 prostate, breast, and colon cancer risk loci show tissue-specific long-range interaction with MYC. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107: 9742-9746. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910668107
    [54] Kim T, Cui R, Jeon YJ, et al. (2014) Long-range interaction and correlation between MYC enhancer and oncogenic long noncoding RNA CARLo-5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111: 4173-4178. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1400350111
    [55] Pomerantz MM, Ahmadiyeh N, Jia L, et al. (2009) The 8q24 cancer risk variant rs6983267 shows long-range interaction with MYC in colorectal cancer. Nat Genet 41: 882-884. doi: 10.1038/ng.403
    [56] Sur IK, Hallikas O, Vaharautio A, et al. (2012) Mice lacking a Myc enhancer that includes human SNP rs6983267 are resistant to intestinal tumors. Science 338: 1360-1363. doi: 10.1126/science.1228606
    [57] Tuupanen S, Turunen M, Lehtonen R, et al. (2009) The common colorectal cancer predisposition SNP rs6983267 at chromosome 8q24 confers potential to enhanced Wnt signaling. Nat Genet 41: 885-890. doi: 10.1038/ng.406
    [58] Xiang JF, Yin QF, Chen T, et al. (2014) Human colorectal cancer-specific CCAT1-L lncRNA regulates long-range chromatin interactions at the MYC locus. Cell Res 24: 513-531. doi: 10.1038/cr.2014.35
    [59] Deng L, Yang SB, Xu FF, et al. (2015) Long noncoding RNA CCAT1 promotes hepatocellular carcinoma progression by functioning as let-7 sponge. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 34: 18. doi: 10.1186/s13046-015-0136-7
    [60] He X, Tan X, Wang X, et al. (2014) C-Myc-activated long noncoding RNA CCAT1 promotes colon cancer cell proliferation and invasion. Tumour Biol 35: 12181-12188. doi: 10.1007/s13277-014-2526-4
    [61] Yang F, Xue X, Bi J, et al. (2013) Long noncoding RNA CCAT1, which could be activated by c-Myc, promotes the progression of gastric carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 139: 437-445. doi: 10.1007/s00432-012-1324-x
    [62] Ling H, Spizzo R, Atlasi Y, et al. (2013) CCAT2, a novel noncoding RNA mapping to 8q24, underlies metastatic progression and chromosomal instability in colon cancer. Genome Res 23: 1446-1461. doi: 10.1101/gr.152942.112
    [63] Kim T, Jeon YJ, Cui R, et al. (2015) Role of MYC-regulated long noncoding RNAs in cell cycle regulation and tumorigenesis. J Natl Cancer Inst 107.
    [64] Ye Z, Zhou M, Tian B, et al. (2015) Expression of lncRNA-CCAT1, E-cadherin and N-cadherin in colorectal cancer and its clinical significance. Int J Clin Exp Med 8: 3707-3715.
    [65] Alaiyan B, Ilyayev N, Stojadinovic A, et al. (2013) Differential expression of colon cancer associated transcript1 (CCAT1) along the colonic adenoma-carcinoma sequence. BMC Cancer 13: 196. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-196
    [66] Kim T, Cui R, Jeon YJ, et al. (2015) MYC-repressed long noncoding RNAs antagonize MYC-induced cell proliferation and cell cycle progression. Oncotarget.
    [67] Prensner JR, Chen W, Han S, et al. (2014) The long non-coding RNA PCAT-1 promotes prostate cancer cell proliferation through cMyc. Neoplasia 16: 900-908. doi: 10.1016/j.neo.2014.09.001
    [68] Yamamura S, Saini S, Majid S, et al. (2012) MicroRNA-34a modulates c-Myc transcriptional complexes to suppress malignancy in human prostate cancer cells. PLoS One 7: e29722. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029722
    [69] Siemens H, Jackstadt R, Hunten S, et al. (2011) miR-34 and SNAIL form a double-negative feedback loop to regulate epithelial-mesenchymal transitions. Cell Cycle 10: 4256-4271. doi: 10.4161/cc.10.24.18552
    [70] Benassi B, Flavin R, Marchionni L, et al. (2012) MYC is activated by USP2a-mediated modulation of microRNAs in prostate cancer. Cancer Discov 2: 236-247. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0219
    [71] Poliseno L, Salmena L, Zhang J, et al. (2010) A coding-independent function of gene and pseudogene mRNAs regulates tumour biology. Nature 465: 1033-1038. doi: 10.1038/nature09144
    [72] Salmena L, Poliseno L, Tay Y, et al. (2011) A ceRNA hypothesis: the Rosetta Stone of a hidden RNA language? Cell 146: 353-358. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.07.014
    [73] Ge X, Chen Y, Liao X, et al. (2013) Overexpression of long noncoding RNA PCAT-1 is a novel biomarker of poor prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer. Med Oncol 30: 588. doi: 10.1007/s12032-013-0588-6
    [74] Chung S, Nakagawa H, Uemura M, et al. (2011) Association of a novel long non-coding RNA in 8q24 with prostate cancer susceptibility. Cancer Sci 102: 245-252. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01737.x
    [75] Hung CL, Wang LY, Yu YL, et al. (2014) A long noncoding RNA connects c-Myc to tumor metabolism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111: 18697-18702. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1415669112
    [76] Chu C, Qu K, Zhong FL, et al. (2011) Genomic maps of long noncoding RNA occupancy reveal principles of RNA-chromatin interactions. Mol Cell 44: 667-678. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2011.08.027
    [77] Pickard MR, Williams GT (2015) Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of Action of Tumour Suppressor GAS5 LncRNA. Genes (Basel) 6: 484-499.
    [78] Hu G, Lou Z, Gupta M (2014) The long non-coding RNA GAS5 cooperates with the eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E to regulate c-Myc translation. PLoS One 9: e107016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107016
    [79] Mourtada-Maarabouni M, Pickard MR, Hedge VL, et al. (2009) GAS5, a non-protein-coding RNA, controls apoptosis and is downregulated in breast cancer. Oncogene 28: 195-208. doi: 10.1038/onc.2008.373
    [80] Pickard MR, Mourtada-Maarabouni M, Williams GT (2013) Long non-coding RNA GAS5 regulates apoptosis in prostate cancer cell lines. Biochim Biophys Acta 1832: 1613-1623. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2013.05.005
    [81] Sun M, Jin FY, Xia R, et al. (2014) Decreased expression of long noncoding RNA GAS5 indicates a poor prognosis and promotes cell proliferation in gastric cancer. BMC Cancer 14: 319. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-319
    [82] Tu ZQ, Li RJ, Mei JZ, et al. (2014) Down-regulation of long non-coding RNA GAS5 is associated with the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 7: 4303-4309.
    [83] Li LJ, Zhu JL, Bao WS, et al. (2014) Long noncoding RNA GHET1 promotes the development of bladder cancer. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 7: 7196-7205.
    [84] Yang F, Xue X, Zheng L, et al. (2014) Long non-coding RNA GHET1 promotes gastric carcinoma cell proliferation by increasing c-Myc mRNA stability. FEBS J 281: 802-813. doi: 10.1111/febs.12625
    [85] Lemm I, Ross J (2002) Regulation of c-myc mRNA decay by translational pausing in a coding region instability determinant. Mol Cell Biol 22: 3959-3969. doi: 10.1128/MCB.22.12.3959-3969.2002
    [86] Weidensdorfer D, Stohr N, Baude A, et al. (2009) Control of c-myc mRNA stability by IGF2BP1-associated cytoplasmic RNPs. RNA 15: 104-115.
    [87] Matouk IJ, DeGroot N, Mezan S, et al. (2007) The H19 non-coding RNA is essential for human tumor growth. PLoS One 2: e845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000845
    [88] Matouk IJ, Raveh E, Abu-lail R, et al. (2014) Oncofetal H19 RNA promotes tumor metastasis. Biochim Biophys Acta 1843: 1414-1426. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2014.03.023
    [89] Jiang X, Yan Y, Hu M, et al. (2015) Increased level of H19 long noncoding RNA promotes invasion, angiogenesis, and stemness of glioblastoma cells. J Neurosurg: 1-8.
    [90] Lottin S, Adriaenssens E, Dupressoir T, et al. (2002) Overexpression of an ectopic H19 gene enhances the tumorigenic properties of breast cancer cells. Carcinogenesis 23: 1885-1895. doi: 10.1093/carcin/23.11.1885
    [91] Luo M, Li Z, Wang W, et al. (2013) Long non-coding RNA H19 increases bladder cancer metastasis by associating with EZH2 and inhibiting E-cadherin expression. Cancer Lett 333: 213-221. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2013.01.033
    [92] Ma C, Nong K, Zhu H, et al. (2014) H19 promotes pancreatic cancer metastasis by derepressing let-7's suppression on its target HMGA2-mediated EMT. Tumour Biol 35: 9163-9169. doi: 10.1007/s13277-014-2185-5
    [93] Zhang EB, Han L, Yin DD, et al. (2014) c-Myc-induced, long, noncoding H19 affects cell proliferation and predicts a poor prognosis in patients with gastric cancer. Med Oncol 31: 914. doi: 10.1007/s12032-014-0914-7
    [94] Barsyte-Lovejoy D, Lau SK, Boutros PC, et al. (2006) The c-Myc oncogene directly induces the H19 noncoding RNA by allele-specific binding to potentiate tumorigenesis. Cancer Res 66: 5330-5337. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0037
    [95] Shi Y, Wang Y, Luan W, et al. (2014) Long non-coding RNA H19 promotes glioma cell invasion by deriving miR-675. PLoS One 9: e86295. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086295
    [96] Kallen AN, Zhou XB, Xu J, et al. (2013) The imprinted H19 lncRNA antagonizes let-7 microRNAs. Mol Cell 52: 101-112. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2013.08.027
    [97] Yan L, Zhou J, Gao Y, et al. (2015) Regulation of tumor cell migration and invasion by the H19/let-7 axis is antagonized by metformin-induced DNA methylation. Oncogene 34: 3076-3084. doi: 10.1038/onc.2014.236
    [98] Liao LM, Sun XY, Liu AW, et al. (2014) Low expression of long noncoding XLOC_010588 indicates a poor prognosis and promotes proliferation through upregulation of c-Myc in cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 133: 616-623. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.555
    [99] Mestdagh P, Fredlund E, Pattyn F, et al. (2010) An integrative genomics screen uncovers ncRNA T-UCR functions in neuroblastoma tumours. Oncogene 29: 3583-3592. doi: 10.1038/onc.2010.106
    [100] Atmadibrata B, Liu PY, Sokolowski N, et al. (2014) The novel long noncoding RNA linc00467 promotes cell survival but is down-regulated by N-Myc. PLoS One 9: e88112. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088112
    [101] Tee AE, Ling D, Nelson C, et al. (2014) The histone demethylase JMJD1A induces cell migration and invasion by up-regulating the expression of the long noncoding RNA MALAT1. Oncotarget 5: 1793-1804. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.1785
    [102] Liu PY, Erriquez D, Marshall GM, et al. (2014) Effects of a novel long noncoding RNA, lncUSMycN, on N-Myc expression and neuroblastoma progression. J Natl Cancer Inst 106.
    [103] Vadie N, Saayman S, Lenox A, et al. (2015) MYCNOS functions as an antisense RNA regulating MYCN. RNA Biol 12: 893-899. doi: 10.1080/15476286.2015.1063773
    [104] Stanton BR, Perkins AS, Tessarollo L, et al. (1992) Loss of N-myc function results in embryonic lethality and failure of the epithelial component of the embryo to develop. Genes Dev 6: 2235-2247. doi: 10.1101/gad.6.12a.2235
    [105] Stanton BR, Parada LF (1992) The N-myc proto-oncogene: developmental expression and in vivo site-directed mutagenesis. Brain Pathol 2: 71-83.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Tiina E. Kähkönen, Jenni Bernoulli, Jussi M. Halleen, Mari I. Suominen, Novel and Conventional Preclinical Models to Investigate Bone Metastasis, 2019, 5, 2198-6428, 48, 10.1007/s40610-019-0114-5
    2. Alexander Jinnah, Benjamin Zacks, Chukwuweike Gwam, Bethany Kerr, Emerging and Established Models of Bone Metastasis, 2018, 10, 2072-6694, 176, 10.3390/cancers10060176
    3. Victoria L. Thai, Katherine H. Griffin, Steven W. Thorpe, R. Lor Randall, J. Kent Leach, Tissue engineered platforms for studying primary and metastatic neoplasm behavior in bone, 2021, 115, 00219290, 110189, 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.110189
    4. Naoya Hatanaka, Mitsuru Futakuchi, Takashi Suzuki, 2021, Chapter 16, 978-981-16-4865-6, 235, 10.1007/978-981-16-4866-3_16
    5. Silvia Jerez, Emilene Pliego, Francisco J. Solis, Anna K. Miller, Antigen receptor therapy in bone metastasis via optimal control for different human life stages, 2021, 83, 0303-6812, 10.1007/s00285-021-01673-4
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(10277) PDF downloads(1478) Cited by(26)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(3)  /  Tables(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog