4.6 Article

Hypoxia and oxygenation induce a metabolic switch between pentose phosphate pathway and glycolysis in glioma stem-like cells

期刊

ACTA NEUROPATHOLOGICA
卷 126, 期 5, 页码 763-780

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00401-013-1173-y

关键词

Glioblastoma stem cells; Hypoxia; Glycolysis; Pentose phosphate pathway; Migration; Invasion

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [LA1300/4-1]
  2. Deutsche Krebshilfe
  3. Georg and Jurgen Rickertsen Stiftung
  4. Rudolf Bartling Stiftung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fluctuations in oxygen tension during tissue remodeling impose a major metabolic challenge in human tumors. Stem-like tumor cells in glioblastoma, the most common malignant brain tumor, possess extraordinary metabolic flexibility, enabling them to initiate growth even under non-permissive conditions. We identified a reciprocal metabolic switch between the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP) and glycolysis in glioblastoma stem-like (GS) cells. Expression of PPP enzymes is upregulated by acute oxygenation but downregulated by hypoxia, whereas glycolysis enzymes, particularly those of the preparatory phase, are regulated inversely. Glucose flux through the PPP is reduced under hypoxia in favor of flux through glycolysis. PPP enzyme expression is elevated in human glioblastomas compared to normal brain, especially in highly proliferative tumor regions, whereas expression of parallel preparatory phase glycolysis enzymes is reduced in glioblastomas, except for strong upregulation in severely hypoxic regions. Hypoxia stimulates GS cell migration but reduces proliferation, whereas oxygenation has opposite effects, linking the metabolic switch to the go or grow potential of the cells. Our findings extend Warburg's observation that tumor cells predominantly utilize glycolysis for energy production, by suggesting that PPP activity is elevated in rapidly proliferating tumor cells but suppressed by acute severe hypoxic stress, favoring glycolysis and migration to protect cells against hypoxic cell damage.

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