4.6 Article

A comparative pharmaco-metabolomic study of glutaminase inhibitors in glioma stem-like cells confirms biological effectiveness but reveals differences in target-specificity

期刊

CELL DEATH DISCOVERY
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41420-020-0258-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Duesseldorf School of Oncology (DSO) of HHU University
  2. SFF Grants of the HHU University, Duesseldorf, Germany
  3. Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung [03VP03791]
  4. Volkswagen Stiftung
  5. Hempel Family Foundation
  6. Brigitte-and Dr. Konstanze-Wegener Foundation
  7. NIHR
  8. MRC [MC_PC_17230] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer cells upregulate anabolic processes to maintain high rates of cellular turnover. Limiting the supply of macromolecular precursors by targeting enzymes involved in biosynthesis is a promising strategy in cancer therapy. Several tumors excessively metabolize glutamine to generate precursors for nonessential amino acids, nucleotides, and lipids, in a process called glutaminolysis. Here we show that pharmacological inhibition of glutaminase (GLS) eradicates glioblastoma stem-like cells (GSCs), a small cell subpopulation in glioblastoma (GBM) responsible for therapy resistance and tumor recurrence. Treatment with small molecule inhibitors compound 968 and CB839 effectively diminished cell growth and in vitro clonogenicity of GSC neurosphere cultures. However, our pharmaco-metabolic studies revealed that only CB839 inhibited GLS enzymatic activity thereby limiting the influx of glutamine derivates into the TCA cycle. Nevertheless, the effects of both inhibitors were highly GLS specific, since treatment sensitivity markedly correlated with GLS protein expression. Strikingly, we found GLS overexpressed in in vitro GSC models as compared with neural stem cells (NSC). Moreover, our study demonstrates the usefulness of in vitro pharmaco-metabolomics to score target specificity of compounds thereby refining drug development and risk assessment.

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