4.8 Article

Paradoxical resistance of multiple myeloma to proteasome inhibitors by decreased levels of 19S proteasomal subunits

Journal

ELIFE
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

eLIFE SCIENCES PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.08153

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Collaborative Innovation Alliance
  2. National Institutes of Health [K99/R00 CA181494, U01 CA168370]
  3. University of California at San Francisco Onyx-Oncology Innovation Alliance
  4. Cancer Research Institute
  5. Jane Coffin Childs Memorial Fund for Medical Research
  6. Novo Nordisk
  7. Det Frie Forskningsrad
  8. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF14OC0008541] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research [PI Chunaram Choudhary] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hallmarks of cancer, including rapid growth and aneuploidy, can result in non-oncogene addiction to the proteostasis network that can be exploited clinically. The defining example is the exquisite sensitivity of multiple myeloma (MM) to 20S proteasome inhibitors, such as carfilzomib. However, MM patients invariably acquire resistance to these drugs. Using a next-generation shRNA platform, we found that proteostasis factors, including chaperones and stress-response regulators, controlled the response to carfilzomib. Paradoxically, 19S proteasome regulator knockdown induced resistance to carfilzomib in MM and non-MM cells. 19S subunit knockdown did not affect the activity of the 20S subunits targeted by carfilzomib nor their inhibition by the drug, suggesting an alternative mechanism, such as the selective accumulation of protective factors. In MM patients, lower 19S levels predicted a diminished response to carfilzomib-based therapies. Together, our findings suggest that an understanding of network rewiring can inform development of new combination therapies to overcome drug resistance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available