4.6 Review

Signaling Pathways Regulating Redox Balance in Cancer Metabolism

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00126

关键词

metabolic reprogramming; one-carbon metabolism; OXPHOS; oncometabolites; pentose phosphate pathway

类别

资金

  1. Italian Ministry for University and Research (MIUR, Rita Levi-Montalcini program for young researchers)
  2. Fondazione Umberto Veronesi
  3. Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro
  4. Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze [19515]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interplay between rewiring tumor metabolism and oncogenic driver mutations is only beginning to be appreciated. Metabolic deregulation has been described for decades as a bystander effect of genomic aberrations. However, for the biology of malignant cells, metabolic reprogramming is essential to tackle a harsh environment, including nutrient deprivation, reactive oxygen species production, and oxygen withdrawal. Besides the well-investigated glycolytic metabolism, it is emerging that several other metabolic fluxes are relevant for tumorigenesis in supporting redox balance, most notably pentose phosphate pathway, folate, and mitochondrial metabolism. The relationship between metabolic rewiring and mutant genes is still unclear and, therefore, we will discuss how metabolic needs and oncogene mutations influence each other to satisfy cancer cells' demands. Mutations in oncogenes, i.e., PI3K/AKT/mTOR, RAS pathway, and MYC, and tumor suppressors, i.e., p53 and liver kinase B1, result in metabolic flexibility and may influence response to therapy. Since metabolic rewiring is shaped by oncogenic driver mutations, understanding how specific alterations in signaling pathways affect different metabolic fluxes will be instrumental for the development of novel targeted therapies. In the era of personalized medicine, the combination of driver mutations, metabolite levels, and tissue of origins will pave the way to innovative therapeutic interventions.

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