4.7 Review

The Growing Complexity of Cancer Cell Response to DNA-Damaging Agents: Caspase 3 Mediates Cell Death or Survival?

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms17050708

关键词

Caspase 3; p21(WAF1) (CDKN1A); prostaglandin E-2; DNA damage response; ionizing radiation; DNA double-strand breaks; gamma H2AX foci; apoptosis; premature senescence; multinucleation

资金

  1. Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions [101201164]
  2. Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation-Prairies/North West Territories region
  3. Alberta Innovates [201201164, 201300709] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is widely stated that wild-type p53 either mediates the activation of cell cycle checkpoints to facilitate DNA repair and promote cell survival, or orchestrates apoptotic cell death following exposure to cancer therapeutic agents. This reigning paradigm has been challenged by numerous discoveries with different human cell types, including solid tumor-derived cell lines. Thus, activation of the p53 signaling pathway by ionizing radiation and other DNA-damaging agents hinders apoptosis and triggers growth arrest (e.g., through premature senescence) in some genetic backgrounds; such growth arrested cells remain viable, secrete growth-promoting factors, and give rise to progeny with stem cell-like properties. In addition, caspase 3, which is best known for its role in the execution phase of apoptosis, has been recently reported to facilitate ( rather than suppress) DNA damage-induced genomic instability and carcinogenesis. This observation is consistent with an earlier report demonstrating that caspase 3 mediates secretion of the pro-survival factor prostaglandin E-2, which in turn promotes enrichment of tumor repopulating cells. In this article, we review these and related discoveries and point out novel cancer therapeutic strategies. One of our objectives is to demonstrate the growing complexity of the DNA damage response beyond the conventional repair and survive, or die hypothesis.

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