4.6 Article

Mitochondrial metabolic study guided by proteomics analysis in hepatocellular carcinoma cells surviving long-term incubation with the highest dose of sorafenib

期刊

AGING-US
卷 11, 期 24, 页码 12452-12475

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/aging.102582

关键词

hepatocellular carcinoma; insensitivity; mitochondria; complex I; sorafenib

资金

  1. Hebei Natural Science Foundation (Shijiazhuang, China) [H2016206030]
  2. Research and Development Foundation of Hebei Medical University [kyfz 064]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sorafenib is the standard first-line systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the low objective response rates in clinical studies suggest the existence of certain HCC cells that are inherently insensitive to sorafenib. To understand the molecular basis of insensitivity of HCC cells to sorafenib, this study developed 3 kinds of insensitive HCC cells through exposure to various concentrations of sorafenib and performed a quantitative proteome analysis of the surviving HepG2 cells. 520 unique proteins were concentration-dependently upregulated by sorafenib. Bioinformatics-assisted analysis of 520 proteins revealed that the metabolic pathways involved in central carbon metabolism were significantly enriched, and 102 mitochondrial proteins, especially components of the electron transport chain (ETC), were incrementally upregulated in the 3 kinds of insensitive cells. Conversely, we identified a rapid holistic inhibitory effect of sorafenib on mitochondria! function by the direct targeting of the complex I-linked electron transport and the uncoupling of mitochondria! oxidative phosphorylation (OXHPOS) in HCC cells. Core metabolic reprogramming involved in a compensatory upregulation of OXHPOS combined with elevated glycolysis supports the survival of HCC cells under the highest dose of sorafenib treatment. Altogether, our work thus elaborates an ETC inhibitor and unveils the proteomic landscape of metabolic reprogramming in drug insensitivity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据