4.6 Review

Regulation of autophagy by canonical and non-canonical ER stress responses

期刊

SEMINARS IN CANCER BIOLOGY
卷 66, 期 -, 页码 116-128

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.11.007

关键词

Canonical endoplasmic reticulum stress; Non-canonical endoplasmic reticulum stress; Unfolded protein response; Autophagy; Cancer

类别

资金

  1. country names are National Cancer Institute (USA) [1R01CA198015]
  2. National Cancer Institute (USA) [2 P01 CA165997]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer cells encounter numerous stresses that pose a threat to their survival. Tumor microenviroment stresses that perturb protein homeostasis can produce endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, which can be counterbalanced by triggering the unfolded protein response (UPR) which is considered the canonical ER stress response. The UPR is characterized by three major proteins that lead to specific changes in transcriptional and translational programs in stressed cells. Activation of the UPR can induce apoptosis, but also can induce cytoprotective programs such as autophagy. There is increasing appreciation for the role that UPR-induced autophagy plays in supporting tumorigenesis and cancer therapy resistance. More recently several new pathways that connect cell stresses, components of the UPR and autophagy have been reported, which together can be viewed as non-canonical ER stress responses. Here we review recent findings on the molecular mechanisms by which canonical and non canonical ER stress responses can activate cytoprotective autophagy and contribute to tumor growth and therapy resistance. Autophagy has been identified as a druggable pathway, however the components of autophagy (ATG genes) have proven difficult to drug. It may be the case that targeting the UPR or non-canonical ER stress programs can more effectively block cytoprotective autophagy to enhance cancer therapy. A deeper understanding of these pathways could provide new therapeutic targets in cancer.

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