4.5 Article

Obatoclax and Lapatinib Interact to Induce Toxic Autophagy through NOXA

期刊

MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGY
卷 81, 期 4, 页码 527-540

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/mol.111.076851

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Defense [W81XWH-10-1-0009]
  2. National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [DK52825]
  3. National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute [CA141703, CA150218, F32-CA85159]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prior studies demonstrated that resistance to the ERBB1/2 inhibitor lapatinib could be overcome by the B cell CLL/lymphoma-2 (BCL-2) family antagonist obatoclax (GX15-070). Coadministration of lapatinib with obatoclax caused synergistic cell killing by eliciting autophagic cell death that was dependent upstream on mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation and increased p62 levels and downstream on activation of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase and inactivation of mammalian target of rapamycin. By immunohistochemical analysis, in drug combination-treated cells, microtubule-associated protein light chain 3 (LC3) associated with mitochondrial (cytochrome c oxidase), autophagosome (p62), and autolysosome (lysosomal associated membrane protein 2) proteins. Treatment of cells with 3-methyladenine or knockdown of beclin 1 was protective, whereas chloroquine treatment had no protective effect. Expression of myeloid cell leukemia-1 (MCL-1), compared with that of BCL-2 or BCL-2-related gene long isoform, protected against drug combination lethality. Lapatinib and obatoclax-initiated autophagy depended on NOXA-mediated displacement of the prosurvival BCL-2 family member, MCL-1, from beclin 1, which was essential for the initiation of autophagy. Taken together, our data argue that lapatinib and obatoclax-induced toxic autophagy is due to impaired autophagic degradation, and this disturbance of autophagic flux leads to an accumulation of toxic proteins and loss of mitochondrial function.

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

4.5
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