Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Merlot AM, Shafie NH, Yu Y, Richardson V, Jansson PJ, Sahni S, et al.
    Biochem Pharmacol, 2016 06 01;109:27-47.
    PMID: 27059255 DOI: 10.1016/j.bcp.2016.04.001
    The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) plays a major role in the synthesis, maturation and folding of proteins and is a critical calcium (Ca(2+)) reservoir. Cellular stresses lead to an overwhelming accumulation of misfolded proteins in the ER, leading to ER stress and the activation of the unfolded protein response (UPR). In the stressful tumor microenvironment, the UPR maintains ER homeostasis and enables tumor survival. Thus, a novel strategy for cancer therapeutics is to overcome chronically activated ER stress by triggering pro-apoptotic pathways of the UPR. Considering this, the mechanisms by which the novel anti-cancer agent, Dp44mT, can target the ER stress response pathways were investigated in multiple cell-types. Our results demonstrate that the cytotoxic chelator, Dp44mT, which forms redox-active metal complexes, significantly: (1) increased ER stress-associated pro-apoptotic signaling molecules (i.e., p-eIF2α, ATF4, CHOP); (2) increased IRE1α phosphorylation (p-IRE1α) and XBP1 mRNA splicing; (3) reduced expression of ER stress-associated cell survival signaling molecules (e.g., XBP1s and p58(IPK)); (4) increased cleavage of the transcription factor, ATF6, which enhances expression of its downstream targets (i.e., CHOP and BiP); and (5) increased phosphorylation of CaMKII that induces apoptosis. In contrast to Dp44mT, the iron chelator, DFO, which forms redox-inactive iron complexes, did not affect BiP, p-IRE1α, XBP1 or p58(IPK) levels. This study highlights the ability of a novel cancer therapeutic (i.e., Dp44mT) to target the pro-apoptotic functions of the UPR via cellular metal sequestration and redox stress. Assessment of ER stress-mediated apoptosis is fundamental to the understanding of the pharmacology of chelation for cancer treatment.
  2. Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.
    Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
    PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
  3. Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, Abedin MJ, Abeliovich H, Acevedo Arozena A, et al.
    Autophagy, 2016;12(1):1-222.
    PMID: 26799652 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links