LKB1/PEA3/ΔNp63 Pathway Regulates PTGS-2 (COX-2) Transcription in Lung Cancer Cells Upon Cigarette Smoke Exposure

This is the first study to show that cigarette smoking induced the LKB1/PEA 3/ΔNp63-dependent transcriptional regulation of inflammatory molecules, such as COX-2/PTGS-2. Using mainstream smoke extract (MSE) and sidestream smoke extract (SSE) as modeling tools for primary and secondhand smoking, we found that both MSE and SSE downregulated protein levels for LKB1, while upregulated protein levels for PEA 3 and COX-2 in a dose-dependent manner. Using the endogenous ChIP analysis, we further found that the C/EBPβ, NFκB, NF-Y (CHOP), PEA 3 (ETS) and ΔNp63 proteins bound to the specific area (-550 to -130) of the COX-2 promoter, while forming multiple protein complexes in lung cancer cells exposed to MSE and SSE. Our results define a novel link between various transcription factors occupying the COX-2 promoter and cellular response to cigarette smoke exposure bringing a new component, ΔNp63α, showing a critical role for cooperation between various chromatin components in regulation of COX-2 expression and, therefore strengthening the central role of inflammatory process in tumorigenesis of epithelial cells, especially after cigarette smoke exposure (both primary and secondhand)

Neurofilament Heavy Polypeptide Regulates the Akt-β-Catenin Pathway in Human Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Aerobic glycolysis and mitochondrial dysfunction are common features of aggressive cancer growth. We observed promoter methylation and loss of expression in neurofilament heavy polypeptide (NEFH) in a significant proportion of primary esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) samples that were of a high tumor grade and advanced stage. RNA interference-mediated knockdown of NEFH accelerated ESCC cell growth in culture and increased tumorigenicity in vivo, whereas forced expression of NEFH significantly inhibited cell growth and colony formation. Loss of NEFH caused up-regulation of pyruvate kinase-M2 type and down-regulation of pyruvate dehydrogenase, via activation of the Akt/β-catenin pathway, resulting in enhanced aerobic glycolysis and mitochondrial dysfunction. The acceleration of glycolysis and mitochondrial dysfunction in NEFH-knockdown cells was suppressed in the absence of β-catenin expression, and was decreased by the treatment of 2-Deoxyglucose, a glycolytic inhibitor, or API-2, an Akt inhibitor. Loss of NEFH activates the Akt/β-catenin pathway and increases glycolysis and mitochondrial dysfunction. Cancer cells with methylated NEFH can be targeted for destruction with specific inhibitors of deregulated downstream pathways

Deleted in Colorectal Cancer Is a Putative Conditional Tumor-Suppressor Gene Inactivated by Promoter Hypermethylation in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Deleted in colorectal cancer (DCC) is a candidate tumor-suppressor gene located at chromosome 18q21. However, DCC gene was found to have few somatic mutations and the heterozygous mice (DCC+/−) showed a similar frequency of tumor formation compared with the wild-type mice (DCC+/+). Recently, DCC came back to the spotlight as a better understating of its function and relationship with its ligand (netrin-1) had shown that DCC may act as a conditional tumor-suppressor gene. We evaluated hypermethylation as a mechanism for DCC inactivation in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). DCC promoter region hypermethylation was found in 75% of primary HNSCC. There was a significant correlation between DCC promoter region hypermethylation and DCC expression (assessed by immunohistochemistry; P = 0.021). DCC nonexpressing HNSCC cell lines JHU-O12 and JHU-O19 with baseline hypermethylation of the DCC promoter were treated with 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine (a demethylating agent) and reexpression of DCC was noted. Transfection of DCC into DCC-negative HNSCC cell lines resulted in complete abrogation of growth in all cell lines, whereas additional cotransfection of netrin-1 resulted in rescue of DCC-mediated growth inhibition. These results suggest that DCC is a putative conditional tumor-suppressor gene that is epigenetically inactivated by promoter hypermethylation in a majority of HNSCC. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(19): 9401-07

Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the environment: the challenge ahead.

Lifestyle factors are responsible for a considerable portion of cancer incidence worldwide, but credible estimates from the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) suggest that the fraction of cancers attributable to toxic environmental exposures is between 7% and 19%. To explore the hypothesis that low-dose exposures to mixtures of chemicals in the environment may be combining to contribute to environmental carcinogenesis, we reviewed 11 hallmark phenotypes of cancer, multiple priority target sites for disruption in each area and prototypical chemical disruptors for all targets, this included dose-response characterizations, evidence of low-dose effects and cross-hallmark effects for all targets and chemicals. In total, 85 examples of chemicals were reviewed for actions on key pathways/mechanisms related to carcinogenesis. Only 15% (13/85) were found to have evidence of a dose-response threshold, whereas 59% (50/85) exerted low-dose effects. No dose-response information was found for the remaining 26% (22/85). Our analysis suggests that the cumulative effects of individual (non-carcinogenic) chemicals acting on different pathways, and a variety of related systems, organs, tissues and cells could plausibly conspire to produce carcinogenic synergies. Additional basic research on carcinogenesis and research focused on low-dose effects of chemical mixtures needs to be rigorously pursued before the merits of this hypothesis can be further advanced. However, the structure of the World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety 'Mode of Action' framework should be revisited as it has inherent weaknesses that are not fully aligned with our current understanding of cancer biology

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the environment: the challenge ahead

Lifestyle factors are responsible for a considerable portion of cancer incidence worldwide, but credible estimates from the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) suggest that the fraction of cancers attributable to toxic environmental exposures is between 7% and 19%. To explore the hypothesis that low-dose exposures to mixtures of chemicals in the environment may be combining to contribute to environmental carcinogenesis, we reviewed 11 hallmark phenotypes of cancer, multiple priority target sites for disruption in each area and prototypical chemical disruptors for all targets, this included dose-response characterizations, evidence of low-dose effects and cross-hallmark effects for all targets and chemicals. In total, 85 examples of chemicals were reviewed for actions on key pathways/mechanisms related to carcinogenesis. Only 15% (13/85) were found to have evidence of a dose-response threshold, whereas 59% (50/85) exerted low-dose effects. No dose-response information was found for the remaining 26% (22/85). Our analysis suggests that the cumulative effects of individual (non-carcinogenic) chemicals acting on different pathways, and a variety of related systems, organs, tissues and cells could plausibly conspire to produce carcinogenic synergies. Additional basic research on carcinogenesis and research focused on low-dose effects of chemical mixtures needs to be rigorously pursued before the merits of this hypothesis can be further advanced. However, the structure of the World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety ‘Mode of Action’ framework should be revisited as it has inherent weaknesses that are not fully aligned with our current understanding of cancer biology

Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the environment: the challenge ahead

Lifestyle factors are responsible for a considerable portion of cancer incidence worldwide, but credible estimates from the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) suggest that the fraction of cancers attributable to toxic environmental exposures is between 7% and 19%. To explore the hypothesis that low-dose exposures to mixtures of chemicals in the environment may be combining to contribute to environmental carcinogenesis, we reviewed 11 hallmark phenotypes of cancer, multiple priority target sites for disruption in each area and prototypical chemical disruptors for all targets, this included dose-response characterizations, evidence of low-dose effects and cross-hallmark effects for all targets and chemicals. In total, 85 examples of chemicals were reviewed for actions on key pathways/ mechanisms related to carcinogenesis. Only 15% (13/85) were found to have evidence of a dose-response threshold, whereas 59% (50/85) exerted low-dose effects. No dose-response information was found for the remaining 26% (22/85). Our analysis suggests that the cumulative effects of individual (non-carcinogenic) chemicals acting on different pathways, and a variety of related systems, organs, tissues and cells could plausibly conspire to produce carcinogenic synergies. Additional basic research on carcinogenesis and research focused on low-dose effects of chemical mixtures needs to be rigorously pursued before the merits of this hypothesis can be further advanced. However, the structure of the World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety ‘Mode of Action’ framework should be revisited as it has inherent weaknesses that are not fully aligned with our current understanding of cancer biology

Tumor Protein (TP)-p53 Members as Regulators of Autophagy in Tumor Cells upon Marine Drug Exposure

Targeting autophagic pathways might play a critical role in designing novel chemotherapeutic approaches in the treatment of human cancers, and the prevention of tumor-derived chemoresistance. Marine compounds were found to decrease tumor cell growth in vitro and in vivo. Some of them were shown to induce autophagic flux in tumor cells. In this study, we observed that the selected marine life-derived compounds (Chromomycin A2, Psammaplin A, and Ilimaquinone) induce expression of several autophagic signaling intermediates in human squamous cell carcinoma, glioblastoma, and colorectal carcinoma cells in vitro through a transcriptional regulation by tumor protein (TP)-p53 family members. These conclusions were supported by specific qPCR expression analysis, luciferase reporter promoter assay, and chromatin immunoprecipitation of promoter sequences bound to the TP53 family proteins, and silencing of the TP53 members in tumor cells