4.6 Article

Paradoxical activation of AMPK by glucose drives selective EP300 activity in colorectal cancer

期刊

PLOS BIOLOGY
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000732

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish government [AEI,Mineco/FEDER SAF2016-79837-R, PID2019-110998RB-100, MICIU/FEDER: RTI2018-099343-B-100]
  2. European Union [PIEF-GA-2013-626098]
  3. EMBO Postdoctoral Long-Term Fellowship [ALTF 800-2013]
  4. Comunidad de Madrid: Ayudas Atraccion de Talento [2017-T1/BMD-5334]
  5. Comunidad de Madrid [FEDER-PEJD-2017-POST/BMD-3906]
  6. Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
  7. INSERM
  8. CNRS
  9. Universite Paris Descartes
  10. SFD (Societe Francophone du Diabete)
  11. Region Ile-deFrance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coordination of gene expression with nutrient availability supports proliferation and homeostasis and is shaped by protein acetylation. Yet how physiological/pathological signals link acetylation to specific gene expression programs and whether such responses are cell-type-specific is unclear. AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) is a key energy sensor, activated by glucose limitation to resolve nutrient supply-demand imbalances, critical for diabetes and cancer. Unexpectedly, we show here that, in gastrointestinal cancer cells, glucose activates AMPK to selectively induce EP300, but not CREB-binding protein (CBP). Consequently, EP300 is redirected away from nuclear receptors that promote differentiation towards beta-catenin, a driver of proliferation and colorectal tumorigenesis. Importantly, blocking glycogen synthesis permits reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulation and AMPK activation in response to glucose in previously nonresponsive cells. Notably, glycogen content and activity of the ROS/AMPK/EP300/beta-catenin axis are opposite in healthy versus tumor sections. Glycogen content reduction from healthy to tumor tissue may explain AMPK switching from tumor suppressor to activator during tumor evolution.

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