4.6 Article

The TCA cycle and tumorigenesis: the examples of fumarate hydratase and succinate dehydrogenase

期刊

ANNALS OF MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 8, 页码 632-639

出版社

ROYAL SOC MEDICINE PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07853890310018458

关键词

apoptosis; fibroid; fumarate hydratase; hypoxia; Krebs/TCA cycle; leiomyoma; mitochondria; oxidative stress; paraganglioma; phaeochromocytoma; renal cell carcinoma; succinate dehydrogenase; tumorigenesis; tumour suppressor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is well documented that disturbances in mitochondrial function are associated with rare childhood disorders and possibly with many common diseases of ageing, such as Parkinson's disease and dementia. There has also been increasing evidence linking mitochondrial dysfunction with tumorigenesis. Recently, heterozygous germline mutations in two enzymes of the Krebs tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle) have been shown to predispose individuals to turnours. The two enzymes, fumarate hydratase (FH) and succinate dehydrogenase (SDH), are ubiquitously expressed, playing a vital role in adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production through the mitochondrial respiratory chain. Germline mutations in FH are associated with leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma, whilst SDH mutations are associated with predisposition to paraganglioma (PGL) and phaeochromocytoma (PCC). At present, there are few data to explain the pathway(s) involved in this predisposition to neoplasia through TCA cycle defects. We shall review the mechanisms by which mutations in FH and SDH might play a role in tumorigenesis. These include pseudo-hypoxia, mitochondrial dysfunction and impaired apoptosis, oxidative stress and anabolic drive. All of these mechanisms are currently poorly defined. To date, FH and SDH mutations have not been reported in non-familial leiomyomata, renal cancers, PCCs or PGLs. It remains entirely possible, however, that the underlying mechanisms of tumorigenesis in these sporadic tumours are the same as those in the Mendelian syndromes.

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