About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
ISRN Cell Biology
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 130360, 12 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2012/130360
Review Article

Overview of the Classical Histone Deacetylase Enzymes and Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors

1Epigenomic Medicine, Baker IDI Heart & Diabetes Institute, Alfred Medical Research and Education Precinct, Melbourne, VIC 8008, Australia
2Department of Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia

Received 25 September 2011; Accepted 12 October 2011

Academic Editors: A. Hergovich and R. S. Samant

Copyright © 2012 Katherine Ververis and Tom C. Karagiannis. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The important role of histone deacetylase enzymes in regulating gene expression, cellular proliferation, and survival has made them attractive targets for the development of histone deacetylase inhibitors as anticancer drugs. Suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (Vorinostat, Zolinza), a structural analogue of the prototypical Trichostatin A, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in 2006. This was followed by approval of the cyclic peptide, depsipeptide (Romidepsin, Istodax) for the same disease in 2009. Currently numerous histone deacetylase inhibitors are undergoing preclinical and clinical trials for the treatment of hematological and solid malignancies. Most of these studies are focused on combinations of histone deacetylase inhibitors with other therapeutic modalities, particularly conventional chemotherapeutics and radiotherapy. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the classical histone deacetylase enzymes and histone deacetylase inhibitors with an emphasis on potential combination therapies.

1. Introduction

Chromatin is a dynamic structure that, via numerous mechanisms including DNA methylation and posttranslational histone modifications, undergoes remodeling to facilitate metabolic processes including transcription, replication, and repair [1]. One of the well-investigated posttranslational histone modifications is acetylation which was first defined in the 1960s [2, 3]. Histone acetylation is controlled by the opposing actions of two groups of enzymes, namely, histone acetyltransferases (HATs) and histone deacetylases (HDACs) [46]. HATs catalyze the transfer of the acetyl moiety of the substrate acetyl-coA to the ε-amino group of lysine residues on histones. This neutralizes the positive charge of histones, weakening their interaction with the negatively charged DNA. This results in a more relaxed, transcriptionally permissive chromatin conformation [7, 8]. HDAC enzymes remove acetyl groups from histones resulting in a more condensed, transcriptionally repressive chromatin state [4, 5].

The 18 mammalian HDAC enzymes identified to date are categorized into two distinct groups. The class III HDAC enzymes which include the sirtuins 1–7 require nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) to deacetylate lysine residues [12, 13]. These have been implicated with numerous diseases and in the process of aging [14]. The remaining 11 enzymes are typically known as the classical HDAC enzymes and will be the focus of the remaining of this paper [9]. An intense interest in function and pharmacological manipulation of these enzymes rapidly followed the initial cloning and characterization of the first human HDACs in the 1990s [1523]. The different isoforms of the classical HDAC enzymes have undergone extensive phylogenetic analysis and are grouped into three different classes (Figure 1) [10]. Class 1 enzymes consisting of HDAC1, 2, 3, and 8 which share similarity with the yeast transcriptional regulator RDP3 are primarily localized in the nucleus [9, 10]. They are expressed ubiquitously and have important functional roles in regulating cellular proliferation and survival [11, 24]. In contrast, class II HDAC enzymes, which share homology with yeast Hda1, shuttle between the cytoplasm and nucleus, and they have more restricted tissue-specific expression patterns and regulatory functions [25, 26]. Class II enzymes are further subdivided into class IIa (HDAC4, 5, 7, and 9; shuttle between nucleus and cytoplasm) and class IIb (HDAC6 and 10; mainly cytoplasmic) [25, 26]. The functions of the different isoforms of HDAC enzymes have been reviewed recently [25, 26]. Of particular interest is HDAC6, a major cytoplasmic deacetylase which has been relatively well characterized, at least in part, because of work with tubacin, a specific inhibitor [27]. Numerous nonhistone protein targets for HDAC6 have been identified including α-tubulin, cortactin, other chaperones, and peroxiredoxins [2830]. An important role in cellular proliferation and survival has made HDAC6 an important target for cancer therapy. Recent findings have indicated the combined cytotoxic and apoptotic effects of the specific HDAC6 inhibitor tubacin with conventional chemotherapeutic agents in cancer but not normal cells [27]. Further, it has been shown that HDAC6 is an important target for protection and regeneration following central nervous system injury [29]. HDAC11 is the only member of class IV sharing similarity with both class I and class II enzymes [9]. Recent evidence indicates that HDAC11 has immunomodulatory roles [31].

130360.fig.001
Figure 1: Evolutionary relationship between the classical histone deacetylase enzymes (HDACs). The HDAC superfamily form evolutionary distinct groups according to their sequence homology to yeast. Class I enzymes share similarity with the yeast, reduced potassium dependency-3 (Rpd3), and consist of HDAC1, 2, 3, and 8. Rpd3 is most homologous to HDAC1 and HDAC2. The class II HDACs share homology to the yeast, histone deacetylase-1 (Hda1), and enzymes in this class form two separate subclasses. Class IIa is comprised of HDAC4, 5, 7, and 9; class IIb consists of HDAC6 and 10. Hda1 is most closely related to HDAC6. The phylogenetic tree shows that HDAC11 does not share enough homology with class I or class II HDACs so forms class IV and shares some identity to both Rpd3 and Hda1. The percentage of HDAC amino acid sequence identity/similarity to that of Rpd3 or Hda1 is shown in brackets, for HDAC11 the sequence identity/similarity to Hda1 is shown and to Rpd3 is given in brackets. The HDACs have a conserved deacetylase (DAC) domain with the C- and N-terminal tails represented as black lines. Nuclear localization signals, the myocyte enhancer factor-2- (MEF2-) binding domains, and the 14-3-3 chaperone-binding motifs with serine phosphorylation sites are shown. The number of amino acid residues of the longest isoform of each HDAC is shown on the right, and the chromosomal site of each HDAC is shown in brackets. H. sapiens: Homo sapiens; S. cerevisiae: Saccharomyces cerevisiae; SE14: Ser-Glu-containing tetradecapeptide repeats; ZnF: ubiquitin-binding zinc finger domain. Adapted from [911].

2. Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors

Several different structural groups of compounds are known to possess HDAC inhibition activity. The most widely investigated HDAC inhibitor is the prototypical hydroxamic acid, Trichostatin A [32]. Trichostatin A is a potent antifungal antibiotic that was isolated from a metabolite of Streptomyces hygroscopicus [32]. It is a potent broad-spectrum HDAC inhibitor with cell-free assays indicating a relatively high affinity for all of the class I, II, and IV enzymes [4, 33]. Another example of a hydroxamic is the clinically available suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (SAHA, Vorinostat, Zolinza) [34]. Like Trichostatin A, SAHA is a potent broad-spectrum HDAC inhibitor. Given its potent anticancer effects and favorable therapeutic window, SAHA was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in 2006 [34]. Other hydroxamic acids currently in clinical trials include belinostat (PXD101), panobinostat (LBH589), and givinostat (ITF-2357) [26, 35]. This class of compounds possesses HDAC inhibition activity in the nanomolar to low micromolar range [26, 35].

The cyclic peptides which include trapoxin and depsipeptide are also potent HDAC inhibitors. Depsipeptide (Romidepsin, Istodax) has also been approved by the FDA for the treatment of CTCL in 2009 [36]. Similarly, the benzamides which include entinostat (MS-275, SNDX 275) and MGCD0103 are potent HDAC inhibitors with activity in the low micromolar range [25, 34, 35]. The least potent class of HDAC inhibitors is the aliphatic acids which possess activity in the millimolar range [37]. This group includes valproic acid, a compound that has been used extensively in the clinic as an antiepileptic drug [3840]. We have used another example of an aliphatic acid, sodium butyrate, to highlight the anticancer effects of histone deacetylase inhibitors (Figure 2).

fig2
Figure 2: Overview of the biological effects of histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors in malignant and transformed cells, using sodium butyrate (NaB) as an example. (a) Simplified schematic representation of the molecular pathways accounting for the clinical potential of HDAC inhibitors in cancer therapy. The acetylation status of histones is regulated by the opposing actions of histone acetyltransferases (HATs) and HDACs. HDAC inhibitors mediate anticancer effects through histone-hyperacetylation-mediated changes ( Δ ) in the expression of certain genes and by directly interacting with numerous key intracellular nonhistone proteins including α-tubulin, heat-shock protein 90, and Ku70. HDAC inhibitors result in transcriptional activation and repression of 2–20% of genes; some of which are associated with differentiation, cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, growth inhibition, and cell death as well as inhibition of cancer cell migration, invasion, and angiogenesis. (b) Biological effects of sodium butyrate (NaB) in cancer and normal cells. (i) Sodium butyrate causes hyperacetylation of histones in H9c2 cardiac myocytes. Cells were differentiated with 10 nM all-trans-retinoic acid for 7 days in low serum media, before 24-hour incubation with 2 and 5 mM sodium butyrate. Total cell lysates were immunoblotted for acetylated histone H3, and unmodified histone H3 was used as a loading control. (ii) Sodium butyrate causes reduced cell viability in K562 human erythroleukemic cells and H9c2 cardiac myocytes. Cells were treated with the indicated concentrations of sodium butyrate for 24 hours, and relative cell viability was measured using the Cell Titer blue (Promega) assay kit. (iii) Sodium butyrate induces apoptosis in K562 cells. Cells were treated with 10 mM sodium butyrate for 24 hours, and caspase 3/7 activity was measured using the Apo-ONE Homogeneous (Promega) assay kit. (iv) Sodium butyrate causes K562 cells to arrest in the G1 phase of the cell cycle. Untreated cells (top) and cells treated with 5 mM sodium butyrate (bottom) for 24 hours were stained with propidium iodide, and the cell cycle distribution was examined by flow cytometry.

Briefly, HDAC inhibitors result in the accumulation of hyperacetylated histones and have been shown to alter the expression of approximately 2–20% of genes in malignant cell lines [4, 33, 41, 42]. Overall, HDAC inhibitors have been shown to decrease cellular proliferation, induce cell death, apoptosis, and differentiation, cause cell cycle arrest (G1 at lower concentrations and both G1 and G2/M at relatively high concentrations), and decrease migration, invasion, and angiogenesis in malignant and transformed cell lines [4, 33, 41, 42]. The effects of HDAC inhibitors are much less pronounced, by at least a factor 10, in normal cells providing the basis of their clinical utility in cancer [43]. To potentially improve the therapeutic index of HDAC inhibitors in cancer therapy, class-selective or isoform-specific compounds have been suggested. In this context, isoform-specific tubacin and PC-34051 which selectively inhibit HDAC6 and HDA8, respectively, are examples. Both compounds have recently been shown to possess anticancer effects [27, 28, 44]. However, the issue of selectivity remains controversial with arguments suggesting that the pleiotropic effects of broad-spectrum HDAC inhibitors, which are generally well tolerated, may be advantageous for cancer therapy given the heterogeneity and adaptability of malignant cells. However, it is generally accepted that selective compounds will most likely be more beneficial for nononcological applications of HDAC inhibitors which potentially include treatment cardiac hypertrophy, asthma, and various neurodegenerative disorders [4552].

3. Combinatorial Therapies with Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors

Although they possess intrinsic anticancer effects, it is widely accepted that HDAC inhibitors will be most effective when used in combination with other cancer modalities. There are numerous combinations that are currently undergoing preclinical and clinical evaluation. These include combinations with methyltransferase inhibitors such as azacitidine, receptor-mediated cytotoxics such as retinoic acid, and phototherapy [5357]. To highlight the advantages and potential complexities, here we will focus on combinations of HDAC inhibitors with the conventional anthracycline chemotherapeutics and radiotherapy (Figure 3).

fig3
Figure 3: Molecular pathways accounting for the additive and/or synergistic effects of combinations of HDAC inhibitors with chemotherapeutics or radiation. (a) Simplified schematic representation. Additive and/or synergistic cytotoxic effects with the use of combinations of HDAC inhibitors and chemotherapeutics may be the result of histone-acetylation-mediated changes in chromatin conformation per se (particularly in the cases where combinations with DNA targeting drugs such as anthracyclines, which require accessibility to DNA, are used). Similarly, HDAC inhibitors may enhance the cytotoxic effects of ionizing and ultraviolet (UV) radiation by increasing the accessibility of DNA to damage. A further mechanism involves HDACi-mediated regulation of gene transcription—in particular decreased expression of genes for Ku70, Ku86, DNA-PKcs, and Rad51 which are key components of double-strand break repair pathways. Paradoxically, HDAC inhibitors have been shown to protect from the effects of ionizing radiation in vivo by decreasing the expression of inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor, TNF-α, and fibrogenic growth factors such as TGF-β1 and TGF-β2. (b) Trichostatin A (TSA) augments DNA damage induced by DNA-targeted phototherapeutics (UVASens), ionizing radiation, and chemotherapeutic agents. In the example shown, DNA double-strand break formation was as assessed by staining for γH2AX foci. Cells were treated with 1 μM TSA for 24 hours prior to one-hour incubation with 0.1 μM UVASens. Cells were then irradiated with 10 J/m2 UVA and incubated for a further one hour before staining for γH2AX. Appropriate 10 J/m2 and UVASens only controls are also depicted. In separate experiments, cells were treated with 1 μM TSA for 24 hours prior to irradiation with 2 Gy (137Cs). Cells were stained for γH2AX foci one hour after irradiation. In other experiments, cells were treated with 1 μM TSA for 24 hours prior to one-hour incubation with 1 μM doxorubicin. Cells were washed and incubated for a further 24 hours prior to staining for γH2AX.

The anthracyclines, typified by daunomycin and its structural analogue doxorubicin, are front-line cancer chemotherapeutic agents with a clinical history spanning more than 50 years [58]. They are well-known DNA intercalators and topoisomerase II enzyme inhibitors. The mechanisms of action of anthracyclines involve inhibition of RNA synthesis, generation of reactive oxygen species, and accumulation of DNA lesions including the particularly lethal, DNA double-strand breaks [58, 59]. A plethora of studies have shown that HDAC inhibitors can potentiate the cytotoxic effects of anthracyclines. For example, Trichostatin A has been shown to augment doxorubicin-induced apoptosis and cell death in human erythroleukemic K562 cells, anaplastic thyroid carcinoma, and A549 alveolar adenocarcinoma cells [60, 61]. Similarly, SAHA and valproic acid have been shown to enhance the sensitivity of malignant cells to the effects of doxorubicin [62, 63]. HDAC inhibitors induce histone hyperacetylation, resulting in a more open transcriptionally permissive chromatin conformation, a phenomenon that has been verified by MNase digestion assays [64]. In addition, it has been shown that HDAC inhibitors increase the number of binding sites and also the affinity of those sites for anthracyclines in acetylated chromatin [65]. Therefore, it may be speculated that HDAC inhibitors may augment anthracycline-induced cell death, at least in part, by changing the chromatin architecture. However, HDAC-inhibitor mediated changes in gene expression and alteration of the function of nonhistone substrates is also involved as highlighted by studies with isoform-selective inhibitors [4, 2527].

The additive and/or synergistic cytotoxic effect provides the basis for the clinical trials using combinations of histone deacetylase inhibitors and anthracyclines for various malignancies [35]. However, potential complications have been identified. For example, depsipeptide has been shown to upregulate the MDR1 gene in leukemia cells resulting in resistance to doxorubicin [66]. Expression of the MDR1-encoded, P-glycoprotein pump, is well known to result in multidrug resistance, a major clinical problem in oncology, and the potential for reversal of repression of the MDR1 gene in malignant cells by a variety of HDAC inhibitors has been indicated by further studies [67]. In contrast, other more recent studies have indicated that HDAC inhibitors may suppress the expression of ABC transporters highlighting that this issue requires further clarification [68].

Another potential complication with the use of HDAC inhibitors is cardiac toxicity. Studies have shown that broad-spectrum HDAC inhibitors may possess cardiotoxic activity per se [69, 70]. Further studies have shown that pretreatment with HDAC inhibitors potentiates the DNA damaging and cytotoxic effects of doxorubicin in cell culture systems [71, 72]. It is well known that the dose-limiting side effect of anthracyclines is irreversible cardiac toxicity due to the generation of reactive oxygen species including the damaging hydroxyl radicals and hydrogen peroxide [73]. Cardiomyocytes are particularly susceptible given that they have relatively low levels of superoxide anion and hydrogen peroxide detoxifying enzymes compared to other cell types [73]. Studies using hypertrophic responses and induction of DNA double-strand breaks as endpoints have indicated that the broad-spectrum HDAC inhibitors, Trichostatin A, valproic acid, and sodium butyrate, augment the effects of doxorubicin [71, 72]. Similarly, in vivo studies highlight the controversies regarding the biology of HDAC inhibitors in the heart. For example, recent findings demonstrate that Trichostatin A and valproic acid protect from load- and agonist-induced cardiac hypertrophy in vivo [74, 75]. However, contrasting findings indicate that Trichostatin A worsens right ventricular dysfunction induced by pulmonary artery banding in rats [76]. Given these potential complications, combinatorial effects of more selective or isoform-specific HDAC inhibitors with conventional therapeutics may provide a therapeutic advantage. In this context, a recent study identified that the HDAC6-selective compound, tubacin, potentiates the effects of doxorubicin and etoposide in transformed cell lines [27]. Further evaluations in this direction are anticipated.

4. Combination of Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors with Radiotherapy

Early studies indicated that the short-chain fatty acid, sodium butyrate, potentiates colon and nasopharyngeal cancer cells to the cytotoxic effects of ionizing radiation [7780]. Although an unusual mechanism was used to describe the effect, a further study indicated that the prototypical HDAC inhibitor, Trichostatin A, also enhances the radiosensitivity of malignant cells [81]. Further studies have corroborated these findings indicating that virtually all broad-spectrum HDAC inhibitors including Trichostatin A, SAHA, depsipeptide, sodium butyrate, phenylbutyrate, tributyrin, and valproic acid potentiate radiation-induced cell death in malignant cells [8290]. At relatively high concentrations of HDAC inhibitor, dose modification factors (ratio of radiation doses in HDAC-inhibitor-treated and -untreated cells that yield the same level of survival) of ~2 have been observed [88]. At these higher concentrations, cell cycle arrest (G1 and G2), inhibition of DNA synthesis, and induction of apoptosis by the HDAC inhibitors has been speculated to account for the radiation sensitizing effect [8588]. At relatively lower HDAC inhibitor concentrations, a radiation sensitizing effect is also observed. A number of studies have established an association between HDAC inhibition and proteins involved in signal cascades in response to DNA damage [83, 84, 87, 9193]. In summary, the radiation sensitizing effects of HDAC inhibitors may involve the following mechanisms. Firstly, histone hyperacetylation changes chromatin architecture resulting in a more open chromatin confirmation, which may be more susceptible to initial radiation-induced DNA damage. Further, HDAC inhibitors may interact with key signal transduction proteins involved in DNA damage response pathways. Finally, HDAC inhibitors have been shown to regulate transcription of genes involved in the DNA double-strand break repair pathway. For example, it has been shown that pretreatment with SAHA attenuates the radiation-induced increase in the DNA repair proteins Rad51 and DNA-PKcs [90]. Similarly, sodium butyrate has been shown to decrease the expression of the DNA repair proteins Ku70, Ku86, and DNA-PKcs in melanoma cell lines [83]. In addition, using bleomycin, doxorubicin, and etoposide to induce DNA double-strand breaks as assessed by accumulation of γH2AX foci, it has been shown that histone deacetylase inhibitors target Ku70 acetylation resulting in sensitization [94].

In the context of combinations with radiotherapy, valproic acid which has long clinical history in the treatment of epilepsy is important [89]. Preclinical studies have indicated that the HDAC inhibitor sensitizes human glioma cell lines to the effects of ionizing radiation (X-rays) both in vitro and in vivo [89]. As reviewed recently, valproic acid has been combined with the alkylating agent temozolomide and radiation for the potential treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. The strategy is currently undergoing evaluation in a phase II clinical trial [95].

5. Radioprotective Effects of Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors

Paradoxically, emerging evidence is indicating that HDAC inhibitors possess radioprotective activities. Early studies indicated that pretreatment with phenylbutyrate offers a modest radioprotective effect in human normal and cancer cells [96]. Further studies indicated that phenylbutyrate protects from cutaneous radiation syndrome in vivo [97, 98]. The radioprotective properties of HDAC inhibitors is thought to involve repression of inflammatory cytokines (e.g., interleukin- (IL-) 1, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor- (TNF-)α) and fibrogenic growth factors (e.g., transforming growth factor- (TGF-)β) [97, 99101]. These are known to be involved in the inflammatory response to radiation and particular, prolonged secretion of TNF-α and TGF-β from epithelial, endothelial, and connective tissue cells is implicated in cutaneous radiation syndrome [102]. In addition to phenylbutyrate, the broad-spectrum HDAC inhibitors Trichostatin A and valproic acid have been shown to protect from radiation-induced skin injury and from radiation-induced lethality in mice [103]. These effects were also correlated with decreased TNF-α, TGF-β1, and TGF-β2 expression [97]. Further research in this direction with phenylbutyrate has indicated that the HDAC inhibitor can protect mice from acute γ-radiation-induced lethality. The effects were correlated with an attenuation of DNA damage and apoptosis [104]. Interestingly prophylactic and postirradiation administrations of phenylbutyrate afforded radioprotection presenting interesting potential clinical applications. Prophylaxis would be appropriate for radiotherapy prior to exposure to irradiation, and postirradiation administrations would appropriate in cases of inadvertent radiation exposure.

6. Conclusions

HDAC inhibitors have emerged as an important new class of anticancer therapeutics. Although they possess potent cytotoxic and apoptotic effects alone, it is anticipated that they will be most useful when used in combination with other cancer modalities. This is reflected by the majority of current clinical trials which predominantly involve combinations of HDAC inhibitors with conventional chemotherapeutics and radiotherapy. An important question in the field remains on whether class-selective or isoform-specific compounds will have a greater therapeutic efficacy than the classical broad-spectrum HDAC inhibitors. Broad-spectrum HDAC inhibitors have pleiotropic anticancer effects, and this may be advantageous given the heterogeneity and adaptability of malignant cells. On the other hand, class- or isoform-selective compounds may offer a greater therapeutic window with decreased off-target effects. There is currently an intense research effort aimed at further understanding the function of HDAC enzymes, and there is an increasing availability of more specific compounds. Therefore, it is anticipated that the issue of selectivity will be clarified, perhaps opening further opportunities for clinical translation of this class of compounds.

Conflict of Interests

Both K. Ververis and T. C. Karagiannis declare that they have no direct financial relation with the commercial identities mentioned in this paper that might lead to a conflict of interests.

Acknowledgments

The support of the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering is acknowledged. T. C. Karagiannis was the recipient of AINSE awards. Epigenomic Medicine Laboratory is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. K. Ververis is supported by a Baker IDI postgraduate scholarship. This paper was supported in part by the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program. The authors would like to acknowledge the use of the facilities provided by Monash Micro Imaging at AMREP and, particularly, the expert assistance from Drs. Stephen Cody and Iśka Carmichael.

References

  1. T. Kouzarides, “Chromatin modifications and their function,” Cell, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 693–705, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  2. V. G. Allfrey, R. Faulkner, and A. E. Mirsky, “Acetylation and methylation of histones and their possible role in the regulation of RNA synthesis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 786–794, 1964.
  3. V. G. Allfrey and A. E. Mirsky, “Structural modifications of histones and their possible role in the regulation of RNA synthesis,” Science, vol. 144, no. 3618, p. 559, 1964. View at Scopus
  4. M. Dokmanovic, C. Clarke, and P. A. Marks, “Histone deacetylase inhibitors: overview and perspectives,” Molecular Cancer Research, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 981–989, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  5. M. H. Kuo and C. D. Allis, “Roles of histone acetyltransferases and deacetylases in gene regulation,” BioEssays, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 615–626, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. P. A. Wade, D. Pruss, and A. P. Wolffe, “Histone acetylation: chromatin in action,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 128–132, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. S. Y. Roth, J. M. Denu, and C. D. Allis, “Histone acetyltransferases,” Annual Review of Biochemistry, vol. 70, pp. 81–120, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  8. B. C. Smith and J. M. Denu, “Chemical mechanisms of histone lysine and arginine modifications,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, vol. 1789, no. 1, pp. 45–57, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  9. A. J. M. de Ruijter, A. H. Van Gennip, H. N. Caron, S. Kemp, and A. B. P. Van Kuilenburg, “Histone deacetylases (HDACs): characterization of the classical HDAC family,” Biochemical Journal, vol. 370, no. 3, pp. 737–749, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  10. I. V. Gregoretti, Y. M. Lee, and H. V. Goodson, “Molecular evolution of the histone deacetylase family: functional implications of phylogenetic analysis,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 338, no. 1, pp. 17–31, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  11. S. Minucci and P. G. Pelicci, “Histone deacetylase inhibitors and the promise of epigenetic (and more) treatments for cancer,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 38–51, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  12. J. Landry, A. Sutton, S. T. Tafrov et al., “The silencing protein SIR2 and its homologs are NAD-dependent protein deacetylases,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 97, no. 11, pp. 5807–5811, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  13. K. G. Tanner, J. Landry, R. Sternglanz, and J. M. Denu, “Silent information regulator 2 family of NAD-dependent histone/protein deacetylases generates a unique product, 1-O-acetyl-ADP-ribose,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 97, no. 26, pp. 14178–14182, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  14. M. C. Haigis and L. P. Guarente, “Mammalian sirtuins—emerging roles in physiology, aging, and calorie restriction,” Genes and Development, vol. 20, no. 21, pp. 2913–2921, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  15. W. M. Yang, Y. L. Yao, J. M. Sun, J. R. Davie, and E. Seto, “Isolation and characterization of cDNAs corresponding to an additional member of the human histone deacetylase gene family,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 272, no. 44, pp. 28001–28007, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  16. J. Taunton, C. A. Hassig, and S. L. Schreiber, “A mammalian histone deacetylase related to the yeast transcriptional regulator Rpd3p,” Science, vol. 272, no. 5260, pp. 408–411, 1996.
  17. W. M. Yang, C. Inouye, Y. Zeng, D. Bearss, and E. Seto, “Transcriptional repression by YY1 is mediated by interaction with a mammalian homolog of the yeast global regulator RPD3,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 93, no. 23, pp. 12845–12850, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. C. M. Grozinger, C. A. Hassig, and S. L. Schreiber, “Three proteins define a class of human histone deacetylases related to yeast Hda1p,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 96, no. 9, pp. 4868–4873, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. H. Y. Kao, M. Downes, P. Ordentlich, and R. M. Evans, “Isolation of a novel histone deacetylase reveals that class I and class II deacetylases promote SMRT-mediated repression,” Genes and Development, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 55–66, 2000.
  20. E. Hu, Z. Chen, T. Fredrickson et al., “Cloning and characterization of a novel human class I histone deacetylase that functions as a transcription repressor,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 275, no. 20, pp. 15254–15264, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  21. X. Zhou, P. A. Marks, R. A. Rifkind, and V. M. Richon, “Cloning and characterization of a histone deacetylase, HDAC9,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 19, pp. 10572–10577, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  22. J. J. Tong, J. Liu, N. R. Bertos, and X. J. Yang, “Identification of HDAC10, a novel class II human histone deacetylase containing a leucine-rich domain,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1114–1123, 2002.
  23. L. Gao, M. A. Cueto, F. Asselbergs, and P. Atadja, “Cloning and functional characterization of HDAC11, a novel member of the human histone deacetylase family,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 277, no. 28, pp. 25748–25755, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  24. P. A. Marks, R. A. Rifkind, V. M. Richon, R. Breslow, T. Miller, and W. K. Kelly, “Histone deacetylases and cancer: causes and therapies,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 194–202, 2001.
  25. P. A. Marks, “Histone deacetylase inhibitors: a chemical genetics approach to understanding cellular functions,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, vol. 1799, no. 10-12, pp. 717–725, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  26. P. A. Marks and W. S. Xu, “Histone deacetylase inhibitors: potential in cancer therapy,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 107, no. 4, pp. 600–608, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  27. M. Namdar, G. Perez, L. Ngo, and P. A. Marks, “Selective inhibition of histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6) induces DNA damage and sensitizes transformed cells to anticancer agents,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 46, pp. 20003–20008, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  28. S. J. Haggarty, K. M. Koeller, J. C. Wong, C. M. Grozinger, and S. L. Schreiber, “Domain-selective small-molecule inhibitor of histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6)-mediated tubulin deacetylation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 100, no. 8, pp. 4389–4394, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  29. R. B. Parmigiani, W. S. Xu, G. Venta-Perez et al., “HDAC6 is a specific deacetylase of peroxiredoxins and is involved in redox regulation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 28, pp. 9633–9638, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  30. X. Zhang, Z. Yuan, Y. Zhang et al., “HDAC6 modulates cell motility by altering the acetylation level of cortactin,” Molecular Cell, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 197–213, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  31. A. Villagra, F. Cheng, H. W. Wang et al., “The histone deacetylase HDAC11 regulates the expression of interleukin 10 and immune tolerance,” Nature Immunology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 92–100, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  32. M. Yoshida, M. Kijima, M. Akita, and T. Beppu, “Potent and specific inhibition of mammalian histone deacetylase both in vivo and in vitro by trichostatin A,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 265, no. 28, pp. 17174–17179, 1990. View at Scopus
  33. M. Dokmanovic and P. A. Marks, “Prospects: histone deacetylase inhibitors,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 293–304, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  34. P. A. Marks and R. Breslow, “Dimethyl sulfoxide to vorinostat: development of this histone deacetylase inhibitor as an anticancer drug,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 84–90, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  35. P. A. Marks, “The clinical development of histone deacetylase inhibitors as targeted anticancer drugs,” Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1049–1066, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  36. C. Campàs-Moya, “Romidepsin for the treatment of cutaneous t-cell lymphoma,” Drugs of Today, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 787–795, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  37. M. Göttlicher, S. Minucci, P. Zhu et al., “Valproic acid defines a novel class of HDAC inhibitors inducing differentiation of transformed cells,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 20, no. 24, pp. 6969–6978, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  38. R. A. Blaheta and J. Cinatl, “Anti-tumor mechanisms of valproate: a novel role for an old drug,” Medicinal Research Reviews, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 492–511, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  39. C. U. Johannessen, “Mechanisms of action of valproate: a commentatory,” Neurochemistry International, vol. 37, no. 2-3, pp. 103–110, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. G. Rosenberg, “The mechanisms of action of valproate in neuropsychiatric disorders: can we see the forest for the trees?” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 64, no. 16, pp. 2090–2103, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  41. J. E. Bolden, M. J. Peart, and R. W. Johnstone, “Anticancer activities of histone deacetylase inhibitors,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 769–784, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  42. R. W. Johnstone, “Histone-deacetylase inhibitors: novel drugs for the treatment of cancer,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 287–299, 2002. View at Scopus
  43. W. K. Kelly and P. A. Marks, “Drug insight: Histone deacetylase inhibitors—development of the new targeted anticancer agent suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid,” Nature Clinical Practice Oncology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 150–157, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  44. W. Tang, T. Luo, E. F. Greenberg, J. E. Bradner, and S. L. Schreiber, “Discovery of histone deacetylase 8 selective inhibitors,” Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 2601–2605, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  45. A. Banerjee, C. M. Trivedi, G. Damera, et al., “Trichostatin a abrogates airway constriction, but not inflammation in mouse and human asthma models,” American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology. In press.
  46. J. H. Choi, S. W. Oh, M. S. Kang, H. J. Kwon, G. T. Oh, and D. Y. Kim, “Trichostatin A attenuates airway inflammation in mouse asthma model,” Clinical and Experimental Allergy, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 89–96, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  47. C. L. Antos, T. A. McKinsey, M. Dreitz et al., “Dose-dependent blockade to cardiomyocyte hypertrophy by histone deacetylase inhibitors,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 278, no. 31, pp. 28930–28937, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  48. J. Backs and E. N. Olson, “Control of cardiac growth by histone acetylation/deacetylation,” Circulation Research, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 15–24, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  49. M. Haberland, R. L. Montgomery, and E. N. Olson, “The many roles of histone deacetylases in development and physiology: implications for disease and therapy,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 32–42, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  50. Y. Kong, P. Tannous, G. Lu et al., “Suppression of class I and II histone deacetylases blunts pressure-overload cardiac hypertrophy,” Circulation, vol. 113, no. 22, pp. 2579–2588, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  51. T. A. McKinsey, E. N. Olson, and Berger, “Dual roles of histone deacetylases in the control of cardiac growth,” Novartis Foundation Symposium, vol. 259, pp. 132–145, 2004. View at Scopus
  52. D. M. Chuang, Y. Leng, Z. Marinova, H. J. Kim, and C. T. Chiu, “Multiple roles of HDAC inhibition in neurodegenerative conditions,” Trends in Neurosciences, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 591–601, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  53. S. E. Touma, J. S. Goldberg, P. Moench et al., “Retinoic acid and the histone deacetylase inhibitor trichostatin a inhibit the proliferation of human renal cell carcinoma in a xenograft tumor model,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 3558–3566, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  54. B. Briggs, K. Ververis, A. L. Rodd, L. J. L. Foong, F. M. D. Silva, and T. C. Karagiannis, “Photosensitization by iodinated DNA minor groove binding ligands: evaluation of DNA double-strand break induction and repair,” Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 145–152, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  55. F. A. A. Kwa, A. Balcerczyk, P. Licciardi, A. El-Osta, and T. C. Karagiannis, “Chromatin modifying agents—the cutting edge of anticancer therapy,” Drug Discovery Today, vol. 16, no. 13-14, pp. 543–547, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  56. M. Bots and R. W. Johnstone, “Rational combinations using HDAC inhibitors,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 3970–3977, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  57. S. D. Gore, “Combination therapy with DNA methyltransferase inhibitors in hematologic malignancies,” Nature Clinical Practice Oncology, vol. 2, supplement 1, pp. S30–S35, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  58. G. N. Hortobagyi, “Anthracyclines in the treatment of cancer. An overview,” Drugs, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1–7, 1997. View at Scopus
  59. R. C. Young, R. F. Ozols, and C. E. Myers, “The anthracycline antineoplastic drugs,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 305, no. 3, pp. 139–153, 1981. View at Scopus
  60. L. Pan, J. Lu, X. Wang et al., “Histone deacetylase inhibitor trichostatin a potentiates doxorubicin-induced apoptosis by up-regulating PTEN expression,” Cancer, vol. 109, no. 8, pp. 1676–1688, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  61. J. H. Rho, D. Y. Kang, K. J. Park et al., “Doxorubicin induces apoptosis with profile of large-scale DNA fragmentation and without DNA ladder in anaplastic thyroid carcinoma cells via histone hyperacetylation,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 465–471, 2005. View at Scopus
  62. M. G. Catalano, N. Fortunati, M. Pugliese et al., “Valproic acid, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, enhances sensitivity to doxorubicin in anaplastic thyroid cancer cells,” Journal of Endocrinology, vol. 191, no. 2, pp. 465–472, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. E. R. Sampson, V. Amin, E. M. Schwarz, R. J. O'Keefe, and R. N. Rosier, “The histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat selectively sensitizes fibrosarcoma cells to chemotherapy,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 623–632, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  64. T. C. Karagiannis, H. Kn, and A. El-Osta, “Disparity of histone deacetylase inhibition on repair of radiation-induced DNA damage on euchromatin and constitutive heterochromatin compartments,” Oncogene, vol. 26, no. 27, pp. 3963–3971, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  65. L. Sprigg, A. Li, F. Y. M. Choy, and J. Ausió, “Interaction of daunomycin with acetylated chromatin,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 53, no. 17, pp. 6457–6465, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  66. Y. Tabe, M. Konopleva, R. Contractor et al., “Up-regulation of MDR1 and induction of doxorubicin resistance by histone deacetylase inhibitor depsipeptide (FK228) and ATRA in acute promyelocytic leukemia cells,” Blood, vol. 107, no. 4, pp. 1546–1554, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  67. S. Hauswald, J. Duque-Afonso, M. M. Wagner et al., “Histone deacetylase inhibitors induce a very broad, pleiotropic anticancer drug resistance phenotype in acute myeloid leukemia cells by modulation of multiple ABC transporter genes,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 3705–3715, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  68. H. Kim, S.-N. Kim, Y.-S. Park et al., “HDAC inhibitors downregulate MRP2 expression in multidrug resistant cancer cells: implication for chemosensitization,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 807–812, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  69. G. Wu, C. Nan, J. C. Rollo, X. Huang, and J. Tian, “Sodium valproate-induced congenital cardiac abnormalities in mice are associated with the inhibition of histone deacetylase,” Journal of Biomedical Science, vol. 17, no. 1, article 16, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  70. M. H. Shah, P. Binkley, K. Chan et al., “Cardiotoxicity of histone deacetylase inhibitor depsipeptide in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 12, no. 13, pp. 3997–4003, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  71. T. C. Karagiannis, A. J. Lin, K. Ververis et al., “Trichostatin A accentuates doxorubicin-induced hypertrophy in cardiac myocytes,” Aging, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 659–668, 2010.
  72. K. Ververis, A. L. Rodd, M. M. Tang, A. El-Osta, and T. C. Karagiannis, “Histone deacetylase inhibitors augment doxorubicin-induced DNA damage in cardiomyocytes,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 68, no. 24, pp. 4101–4114, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  73. E. Salvatorelli, S. Guarnieri, P. Menna et al., “Defective one- or two-electron reduction of the anticancer anthracycline epirubicin in human heart: relative importance of vesicular sequestration and impaired efficiency of electron addition,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 281, no. 16, pp. 10990–11001, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  74. D. J. Cao, Z. V. Wang, P. K. Battiprolu et al., “Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors attenuate cardiac hypertrophy by suppressing autophagy,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 108, no. 10, pp. 4123–4128, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  75. Y. K. Cho, G. H. Eom, H. J. Kee et al., “Sodium valproate, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, but not captopril, prevents right ventricular hypertrophy in rats,” Circulation Journal, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 760–770, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. H. J. Bogaard, S. Mizuno, A. A. Al Hussaini et al., “Suppression of histone deacetylases worsens right ventricular dysfunction after pulmonary artery banding in rats,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 183, no. 10, pp. 1402–1410, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  77. C. M. Arundel and J. T. Leith, “Effects of nucleoside analogs and sodium butyrate on recovery from potentially lethal X ray damage in human colon tumor cells,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 593–601, 1987. View at Scopus
  78. J. T. Leith, “Effects of sodium butyrate and 3-aminobenzamide on survival of Chinese hamster HA-1 cells after X radiation,” Radiation Research, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 186–191, 1988. View at Scopus
  79. C. M. Arundel, A. S. Glicksman, and J. T. Leith, “Enhancement of radiation injury in human colon tumor cells by the maturational agent sodium butyrate (NaB),” Radiation Research, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 443–448, 1985. View at Scopus
  80. Y. L. Chung, Y. H. W. Lee, S. H. Yen, and K. H. Chi, “A novel approach for nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatment uses phenylbutyrate as a protein kinase C modulator: implications for radiosensitization and EBV-targeted therapy,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1452–1458, 2000. View at Scopus
  81. S. Biade, C. C. Stobbe, J. T. Boyd, and J. D. Chapman, “Chemical agents that promote chromatin compaction radiosensitize tumour cells,” International Journal of Radiation Biology, vol. 77, no. 10, pp. 1033–1042, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  82. R. Furumai, Y. Komatsu, N. Nishino, S. Khochbin, M. Yoshida, and S. Horinouchi, “Potent histone deacetylase inhibitors built from trichostatin A and cyclic tetrapeptide antibiotics including trapoxin,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 87–92, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  83. A. Munshi, J. F. Kurland, T. Nishikawa et al., “Histone deacetylase inhibitors radiosensitize human melanoma cells by suppressing DNA repair activity,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 11, no. 13, pp. 4912–4922, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  84. J. H. Kim, J. H. Shin, and I. H. Kim, “Susceptibility and radiosensitization of human glioblastoma cells to trichostatin A, a histone deacetylase inhibitor,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1174–1180, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  85. R. V. Nome, A. Bratland, G. Harman, O. Fodstad, Y. Andersson, and A. H. Ree, “Cell cycle checkpoint signaling involved in histone deacetylase inhibition and radiation-induced cell death,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 1231–1238, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  86. Y. Zhang, M. Jung, A. Dritschilo, and M. Jung, “Enhancement of radiation sensitivity of human squamous carcinoma cells by histone deacetylase inhibitors,” Radiation Research, vol. 161, no. 6, pp. 667–674, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. M. Jung, A. Velena, B. Chen, P. A. Petukhov, A. P. Kozikowski, and A. Dritschilo, “Novel HDAC inhibitors with radiosensitizing properties,” Radiation Research, vol. 163, no. 5, pp. 488–493, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. T. C. Karagiannis, K. N. Harikrishnan, and A. El-Osta, “The histone deacetylase inhibitor, trichostatin A, enhances radiation sensitivity and accumulation of γH2A.X,” Cancer Biology and Therapy, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 787–793, 2005. View at Scopus
  89. K. Camphausen, D. Cerna, T. Scott et al., “Enhancement of in vitro and in vivo tumor cell radiosensitivity by valproic acid,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 380–386, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  90. P. Chinnaiyan, G. Vallabhaneni, E. Armstrong, S. M. Huang, and P. M. Harari, “Modulation of radiation response by histone deacetylase inhibition,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 223–229, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  91. Y. Zhang, M. Adachi, X. Zhao, R. Kawamura, and K. Imai, “Histone deacetylase inhibitors FK228, N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-[N-(pyridin-3-yl-methoxycarbonyl)amino-methyl]benzamide and m-carboxycinnamic acid bis-hydroxamide augment radiation-induced cell death in gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma cells,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 301–308, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  92. K. Camphausen, T. Scott, M. Sproull, and P. J. Tofilon, “Enhancement of xenograft tumor radiosensitivity by the histone deacetylase inhibitor MS-275 and correlation with histone hyperacetylation,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 10, no. 18, pp. 6066–6071, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  93. K. Camphausen, W. Burgan, M. Cerra et al., “Enhanced radiation-induced cell killing and prolongation of γH2AX foci expression by the histone deacetylase inhibitor MS-275,” Cancer Research, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 316–321, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  94. C. S. Chen, Y. C. Wang, H. C. Yang et al., “Histone deacetylase inhibitors sensitize prostate cancer cells to agents that produce DNA double-strand breaks by targeting Ku70 acetylation,” Cancer Research, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 5318–5327, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  95. J. E. Shabason, P. J. Tofilon, and K. Camphausen, “Grand rounds at the National Institutes of Health: HDAC inhibitors as radiation modifiers, from bench to clinic,” Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 2735–2744, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  96. A. C. Miller, T. Whittaker, A. Thibault, and D. Samid, “Modulation of radiation response of human tumour cells by the differentiation inducers, phenylacetate and phenylbutyrate,” International Journal of Radiation Biology, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 211–218, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  97. Y. L. Chung, A. J. Wang, and L. F. Yao, “Antitumor histone deacetylase inhibitors suppress cutaneous radiation syndrome: implications for increasing therapeutic gain in cancer radiotherapy,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 317–325, 2004. View at Scopus
  98. L. Paoluzzi and W. D. Figg, “Histone deacetylase inhibitors are potent radiation protectants,” Cancer Biology and Therapy, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 612–613, 2004. View at Scopus
  99. A. J. Singer and R. A. F. Clark, “Cutaneous wound healing,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 341, no. 10, pp. 738–746, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  100. P. Fedorocko, A. Egyed, and A. Vacek, “Irradiation induces increased production of haemopoietic and proinflammatory cytokines in the mouse lung,” International Journal of Radiation Biology, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 305–313, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  101. K. Randall and J. E. Coggle, “Long-term expression of transforming growth factor TGFβ1 in mouse skin after localized β-irradiation,” International Journal of Radiation Biology, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 351–360, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  102. S. Delanian, M. Martin, A. Bravard, C. Luccioni, and J.-L. Lefaix, “Abnormal phenotype of cultured fibroblasts in human skin with chronic radiotherapy damage,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 255–261, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  103. S. L. Brown, A. Kolozsvary, J. Liu, S. Ryu, and H. K. Jae, “Histone deacetylase inhibitors protect against and mitigate the lethality of total-body irradiation in mice,” Radiation Research, vol. 169, no. 4, pp. 474–478, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  104. A. C. Miller, S. Cohen, M. Stewart, R. Rivas, and P. Lison, “Radioprotection by the histone deacetylase inhibitor phenylbutyrate,” Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 585–596, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed