The PRK/Rubisco shunt strongly influences Arabidopsis seed metabolism and oil accumulation, affecting more than carbon recycling

The carbon efficiency of storage lipid biosynthesis from imported sucrose in green Brassicaceae seeds is proposed to be enhanced by the PRK/Rubisco shunt, in which ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) acts outside the context of the Calvin–Benson–Bassham cycle to recycle CO2 molecules released during fatty acid synthesis. This pathway utilizes metabolites generated by the nonoxidative steps of the pentose phosphate pathway. Photosynthesis provides energy for reactions such as the phosphorylation of ribulose 5-phosphate by phosphoribulokinase (PRK). Here, we show that loss of PRK in Arabidopsis thaliana (Arabidopsis) blocks photoautotrophic growth and is seedling-lethal. However, seeds containing prk embryos develop normally, allowing us to use genetics to assess the importance of the PRK/Rubisco shunt. Compared with nonmutant siblings, prk embryos produce one-third less lipids—a greater reduction than expected from simply blocking the proposed PRK/Rubisco shunt. However, developing prk seeds are also chlorotic and have elevated starch contents compared with their siblings, indicative of secondary effects. Overexpressing PRK did not increase embryo lipid content, but metabolite profiling suggested that Rubisco activity becomes limiting. Overall, our findings show that the PRK/Rubisco shunt is tightly integrated into the carbon metabolism of green Arabidopsis seeds, and that its manipulation affects seed glycolysis, starch metabolism, and photosynthesis.ISSN:1040-4651ISSN:1531-298XISSN:1532-298

Automated VMAT planning for postoperative adjuvant treatment of advanced gastric cancer

Background: Postoperative/adjuvant radiotherapy of advanced gastric cancer involves a large planning target volume (PTV) with multi-concave shapes which presents a challenge for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. This study investigates the advantages of automated VMAT planning for this site compared to manual VMAT planning by expert planners. Methods: For 20 gastric cancer patients in the postoperative/adjuvant setting, dual-arc VMAT plans were generated using fully automated multi-criterial treatment planning (autoVMAT), and compared to manually generated VMAT plans (manVMAT). Both automated and manual plans were created to deliver a median dose of 45 Gy to the PTV using identical planning and segmentation parameters. Plans were evaluated by two expert radiation oncologists for clinical acceptability. AutoVMAT and manVMAT plans were also compared based on dose-volume histogram (DVH) and predicted normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) analysis. Results: Both manVMAT and autoVMAT plans were considered clinically acceptable. Target coverage was similar (manVMAT: 96.6 ± 1.6%, autoVMAT: 97.4 ± 1.0%, p = 0.085). With autoVMAT, median kidney dose was reduced on average by > 25%; (for left kidney from 11.3 ± 2.1 Gy to 8.9 ± 3.5 Gy (p = 0.002); for right kidney from 9.2 ± 2.2 Gy to 6.1 ± 1.3 Gy (p <  0.001)). Median dose to the liver was lower as well (18.8 ± 2.3 Gy vs. 17.1 ± 3.6 Gy, p = 0.048). In addition, Dmax of the spinal cord was significantly reduced (38.3 ± 3.7 Gy vs. 31.6 ± 2.6 Gy, p <  0.001). Substantial improvements in dose conformity and integral dose were achieved with autoVMAT plans (4.2% and 9.1%, respectively; p <  0.001). Due to the better OAR sparing in the autoVMAT plans compared to manVMAT plans, the predicted NTCPs for the left and right kidney and the liver-PTV were significantly reduced by 11.3%, 12.8%, 7%, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Delivery time and total number of monitor units were increased in autoVMAT plans (from 168 ± 19 s to 207 ± 26 s, p = 0.006) and (from 781 ± 168 MU to 1001 ± 134 MU, p = 0.003), respectively. Conclusions: For postoperative/adjuvant radiotherapy of advanced gastric cancer, involving a complex target shape, automated VMAT planning is feasible and can substantially reduce the dose to the kidneys and the liver, without compromising the target dose delivery

Galectin-3 Facilitates Cell Motility in Gastric Cancer by Up-Regulating Protease-Activated Receptor-1(PAR-1) and Matrix Metalloproteinase-1(MMP-1)

BACKGROUND: Galectin-3 is known to regulate cancer metastasis. However, the underlying mechanism has not been defined. Through the DNA microarray studies after galectin-3 silencing, we demonstrated here that galectin-3 plays a key role in up-regulating the expressions of protease-activated receptor-1 (PAR-1) and matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1) PAR-1 thereby promoting gastric cancer metastasis. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We examined the expression levels of Galectin-3, PAR-1, and MMP-1 in gastric cancer patient tissues and also the effects of silencing these proteins with specific siRNAs and of over-expressing them using specific lenti-viral constructs. We also employed zebrafish embryo model for analysis of in vivo gastric cancer cell invasion. These studies demonstrated that: a) galectin-3 silencing decreases the expression of PAR-1. b) galectin-3 over-expression increases cell migration and invasion and this increase can be reversed by PAR-1 silencing, indicating that galectin-3 increases cell migration and invasion via PAR-1 up-regulation. c) galectin-3 directly interacts with AP-1 transcriptional factor, and this complex binds to PAR-1 promoter and drives PAR-1 transcription. d) galectin-3 also amplifies phospho-paxillin, a PAR-1 downstream target, by increasing MMP-1 expression. MMP-1 silencing blocks phospho-paxillin amplification and cell invasion caused by galectin-3 over-expression. e) Silencing of either galectin-3, PAR-1 or MMP-1 significantly reduced cell migration into the vessels in zebrafish embryo model. f) Galectin-3, PAR-1, and MMP-1 are highly expressed and co-localized in malignant tissues from gastric cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Galectin-3 plays the key role of activating cell surface receptor through production of protease and boosts gastric cancer metastasis. Galectin-3 has the potential to serve as a useful pharmacological target for prevention of gastric cancer metastasis

Strategies to inhibit tumour associated integrin receptors: rationale for dual and multi-antagonists

YesThe integrins are a family of 24 heterodimeric transmembrane cell surface receptors. Involvement in cell attachment to the extracellular matrix, motility, and proliferation identifies integrins as therapeutic targets in cancer and associated conditions; thrombosis, angiogenesis and osteoporosis. The most reported strategy for drug development is synthesis of an agent that is highly selective for a single integrin receptor. However, the ability of cancer cells to change their integrin repertoire in response to drug treatment renders this approach vulnerable to the development of resistance and paradoxical promotion of tumor growth. Here, we review progress towards development of antagonists targeting two or more members of the RGD-binding integrins, notably αvβ3, αvβ5, αvβ6, αvβ8, α5β1, and αIIbβ3, as anticancer therapeutics

Radiotherapy and newly approved cancer drugs – A quantitative analysis of registered protocols for drugs approved for the treatment of solid tumors

Background/purpose: To evaluate the usage of RT in trial protocols for anti-cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods: Drugs which had been granted an FDA approval between 2010 and 2017 for the treatment of solid tumors in adults were identified. Use of RT in relation to each drug's approval date was reviewed on ClinicalTrials.gov. Results: Out of 42 drugs, none was initially approved for an indication which mandates RT. One drug (2.4%) has a post-approval label extension for sequential usage after RT. 5846 records were screened, exclusion of non-cancer trials and duplicates resulted in 4254 protocols out of which 2919 were industry-sponsored (68.6%). RT was tested in 350 (8.2%) studies. Out of 75 drug/RT trials which were initiated prior to approval, fourteen had not yet started recruitment, 45 were recruiting, one was completed, one prematurely terminated and fourteen fully-recruited but ongoing at approval time. Out of the fully-recruited or completed studies, results from four studies on three drugs were already published. In 52.4% of drugs, no patient had been treated with a drug/RT combination at the approval date. Drug/RT studies were less likely industry-sponsored (p < 0.001) and more likely initiated post-approval (p < 0.001) compared to drug-only trials. Despite this imbalance, pre-approval drug/RT trials were still mostly industry-sponsored (65.3%). Conclusion: No drug/RT data were publicly available in over 90% of newly approved anti-cancer drugs. These results indicate that clinicians must rely on postmarketing surveillance to identify drug/RT interactions as data from trials are unavailable at approval