4.7 Article

Utilization of redox modulating small molecules that selectively act as pro-oxidants in cancer cells to open a therapeutic window for improving cancer therapy

期刊

REDOX BIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.redox.2021.101864

关键词

Cancer therapy; Antioxidant supplementation; Ascorbate

资金

  1. NIH [T32 CA078586, P01 CA217797, R01 CA169046, R01 CA182804]
  2. Gateway for Cancer Research [G-17-1500]
  3. Carver College of Medicine
  4. Holden Comprehensive Cancer center, NIH [P30 CA086862]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The metabolic differences between cancer cells and normal cells present an opportunity to develop new therapeutic approaches, and the pro-oxidant and antioxidant properties of melatonin, vitamin E, selenium, and vitamin C can be effectively utilized to improve cancer patient outcomes.
There is a rapidly growing body of literature supporting the notion that differential oxidative metabolism in cancer versus normal cells represents a metabolic frailty that can be exploited to open a therapeutic window into cancer therapy. These cancer cell-specific metabolic frailties may be amenable to manipulation with non-toxic small molecule redox active compounds traditionally thought to be antioxidants. In this review we describe the potential mechanisms and clinical applicability in cancer therapy of four small molecule redox active agents: melatonin, vitamin E, selenium, and vitamin C. Each has shown the potential to have pro-oxidant effects in cancer cells while retaining antioxidant activity in normal cells. This dichotomy can be exploited to improve responses to radiation and chemotherapy by opening a therapeutic window based on a testable biochemical rationale amenable to confirmation with biomarker studies during clinical trials. Thus, the unique pro-oxidant/ antioxidant properties of melatonin, vitamin E, selenium, and vitamin C have the potential to act as effective adjuvants to traditional cancer therapies, thereby improving cancer patient outcomes.

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

4.7
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