4.7 Review

Principles and Current Strategies for Targeting Autophagy for Cancer Treatment

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 654-666

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2634

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIH [P50CA097257]
  2. Burroughs Wellcome Fund
  3. American Brain Tumor Association
  4. Brain Tumor Society
  5. Accelerate Brain Cancer Cure
  6. Pediatric Brain Tumor
  7. Samuel G. Waxman Foundations
  8. [1K23CA120862-01A2]
  9. [W81XWH-09-1-0394]
  10. [W81XWH-09-1-0145]
  11. [U01 CA132194]
  12. [CA83817]
  13. [CA111456]
  14. [R37CA53370]
  15. [RO1CA130893]
  16. [RC1CA147961]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Autophagy is an evolutionarily conserved, intracellular self-defense mechanism in which organelles and proteins are sequestered into autophagic vesicles that are subsequently degraded through fusion with lysosomes. Cells, thereby, prevent the toxic accumulation of damaged or unnecessary components, but also recycle these components to sustain metabolic homoeostasis. Heightened autophagy is a mechanism of resistance for cancer cells faced with metabolic and therapeutic stress, revealing opportunities for exploitation as a therapeutic target in cancer. We summarize recent developments in the field of autophagy and cancer and build upon the results presented at the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) Early Drug Development meeting in March 2010. Herein, we describe our current understanding of the core components of the autophagy machinery and the functional relevance of autophagy within the tumor microenvironment, and we outline how this knowledge has informed preclinical investigations combining the autophagy inhibitor hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Finally, we describe ongoing clinical trials involving HCQ as a first generation autophagy inhibitor, as well as strategies for the development of novel, more potent, and specific inhibitors of autophagy. Clin Cancer Res; 17(4); 654-66. (C) 2011 AACR.

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

4.7
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