4.6 Article

The Succinated Proteome of FH-Mutant Tumours

期刊

METABOLITES
卷 4, 期 3, 页码 640-654

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/metabo4030640

关键词

fumarate hydratase; succination; cysteine; renal cancer; hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC); oncometabolite; biomarker; reactive oxygen species (ROS)

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK project [A13349]
  2. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)/ERC [310837]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [310837] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inherited mutations in the Krebs cycle enzyme fumarate hydratase (FH) predispose to hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC). Loss of FH activity in HLRCC tumours causes accumulation of the Krebs cycle intermediate fumarate to high levels, which may act as an oncometabolite through various, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, mechanisms. One such mechanism, succination, is an irreversible non-enzymatic modification of cysteine residues by fumarate, to form S-(2-succino) cysteine (2SC). Previous studies have demonstrated that succination of proteins including glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 (KEAP1) and mitochondrial aconitase (ACO2) can have profound effects on cellular metabolism. Furthermore, immunostaining for 2SC is a sensitive and specific biomarker for HLRCC tumours. Here, we performed a proteomic screen on an FH-mutant tumour and two HLRCC-derived cancer cell lines and identified 60 proteins where one or more cysteine residues were succinated; 10 of which were succinated at cysteine residues either predicted, or experimentally proven, to be functionally significant. Bioinformatic enrichment analyses identified most succinated targets to be involved in redox signaling. To our knowledge, this is the first proteomic-based succination screen performed in human tumours and cancer-derived cells and has identified novel 2SC targets that may be relevant to the pathogenesis of HLRCC.

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