4.7 Review

The Good and Bad of Nrf2: An Update in Cancer and New Perspectives in COVID-19

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22157963

关键词

Nrf2; oxidative stress; cell death; cancer; COVID-19; NF-kappa B; inflammation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article discusses the roles of Nrf2 in both cancer and COVID-19, highlighting its protective function in normal cells but potential overstimulation in tumor cells. Nrf2 exhibits different mechanisms of action in cancer and COVID-19.
Nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) is a well-known transcription factor best recognised as one of the main regulators of the oxidative stress response. Beyond playing a crucial role in cell defence by transactivating cytoprotective genes encoding antioxidant and detoxifying enzymes, Nrf2 is also implicated in a wide network regulating anti-inflammatory response and metabolic reprogramming. Such a broad spectrum of actions renders the factor a key regulator of cell fate and a strategic player in the control of cell transformation and response to viral infections. The Nrf2 protective roles in normal cells account for its anti-tumour and anti-viral functions. However, Nrf2 overstimulation often occurs in tumour cells and a complex correlation of Nrf2 with cancer initiation and progression has been widely described. Therefore, if on one hand, Nrf2 has a dual role in cancer, on the other hand, the factor seems to display a univocal function in preventing inflammation and cytokine storm that occur under viral infections, specifically in coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). In such a variegate context, the present review aims to dissect the roles of Nrf2 in both cancer and COVID-19, two widespread diseases that represent a cause of major concern today. In particular, the review describes the molecular aspects of Nrf2 signalling in both pathological situations and the most recent findings about the advantages of Nrf2 inhibition or activation as possible strategies for cancer and COVID-19 treatment respectively.

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