Journal of Oncology

Journal of Oncology / 2019 / Article
Special Issue

Changes in Cell Signaling Pathways as a Goal of Targeted Therapy of Solid Tumors

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 |Article ID 5956867 | 11 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5956867

mTOR-Mediated Antioxidant Activation in Solid Tumor Radioresistance

Academic Editor: Vladimir Jurisic
Received18 Sep 2019
Revised20 Nov 2019
Accepted30 Nov 2019
Published20 Dec 2019

Abstract

Radiotherapy is widely used for the treatment of cancer patients, but tumor radioresistance presents serious therapy challenges. Tumor radioresistance is closely related to high levels of mTOR signaling in tumor tissues. Therefore, targeting the mTOR pathway might be a strategy to promote solid tumor sensitivity to ionizing radiation. Radioresistance is associated with enhanced antioxidant mechanisms in cancer cells. Therefore, examination of the relationship between mTOR signaling and antioxidant mechanism-linked radioresistance is required for effective radiotherapy. In particular, the effect of mTOR signaling on antioxidant glutathione induction by the Keap1-NRF2-xCT pathway is described in this review. This review is expected to assist in the identification of therapeutic adjuvants to increase the efficacy of radiotherapy.

1. Introduction

Ionizing radiation is a therapeutic method that can induce cell death in tumors through direct or indirect damage, such as covalent bond breakage and reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulation in cells [13]. Although radiotherapy efficacy is somewhat different depending on tumor type, excellent outcomes have been shown in many clinical reports [4]. Therefore, approximately 50% of patients with solid tumors undergo radiotherapy [5]. However, radioresistance has been observed in several types of tumors, including melanoma [6, 7]. In general, radiation upregulates radioresistant genes in tumor cells [8]. These upregulated genes are closely related to survival mechanisms, such as DNA repair, metabolic changes, tumor recurrence, and malignant transformation [9]. Thus, controlling the signals associated with radiation-induced resistant genes might be a major strategy in radiotherapy to reduce the irradiation burden in the host [10, 11]. For this reason, the discovery of adjuvants targeting radioresistant molecules is important for effective radiotherapy [12, 13].

mTOR is a major signaling protein that can affect cell survival through interaction with other cellular signal cascades. mTOR, which is a serine-threonine kinase, can form two distinct multiprotein complexes, mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) and mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2) [14]. mTORC1 consists of five proteins, namely, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), regulatory-associated protein of mTOR (Raptor), proline-rich AKT substrate 40 kDa (PRAS40), DEP-domain-containing mTOR-interacting protein (Deptor), and mammalian lethal with Sec13 protein 8 (mLST8) [15]. In general, mTORC1 activation is known to be regulated by energy status, amino acids, oxygen conditions, and various growth factors (Figure 1) [16]. Once mTORC1 is activated, lipid synthesis, protein synthesis, mitochondrial metabolism, and microtubule organization can be induced in cells [17]. However, autophagy is actually inhibited by mTORC1 as indicated in Figure 1. Sterol regulatory element-binding protein 1 (SREBP1) can stimulate lipid synthesis, but it is suppressed by lipin 1 in the nucleus [18]. However, activated mTORC1 promotes SREBP1-mediated lipid synthesis through inhibiting lipin 1 translocation into the nucleus by inducing its phosphorylation [19]. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ coactivator-1α (PGC-1α) controls mitochondrial biogenesis and promotes mitochondrial metabolism [20]. In addition, PGC-1α regulates ROS generated during mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) [21]. mTORC1 activates these functions of PGC-1α [22]. Furthermore, mTORC1 not only promotes microtubule organization through cytoplasmic linker protein-170 (CLIP-170) phosphorylation but also controls protein synthesis via the ribosomal protein S6 kinase beta-1 (S6K1) and the eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E (eIF4E)-binding protein 1 (4E-BP1) [23, 24]. Moreover, mTORC1 inhibits Unc-51-like autophagy activating kinase 1- (ULK1-) mediated autophagy [25]. Because mTOR is connected to networks formed by various signaling pathways in the cell survival process, mTOR signaling is important in tumor studies.

The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway is associated with tumorigenesis, metastasis, and tumor therapeutic resistance [26]. In particular, the survival of tumor patients is affected by upregulated PI3K/AKT/mTOR cascade activity. mTOR phosphorylation was observed in 64.1% of tumor tissues obtained from gallbladder cancer (GBC) patients, and mTOR phosphorylation levels were associated with poor prognosis in these patients [27]. The poor survival of human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients was related to enhanced levels of phospho-AKT (491/528; 92.99%) and phospho-S6 (466/528; 88.26%) in their tumor tissues [28]. The induction of mTOR activation was also associated with poor prognosis in solid tumor patients, such as breast cancer, melanoma, gastric cancer, and urothelial carcinoma [2932]. Although enhanced mTOR signaling activation has been reported to not be associated with the survival of some tumor patients, targeting mTOR signaling is still a reasonable approach for tumor radiotherapy [3336]. Any protein in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway can be targeted for the clinical inhibition of mTOR activation in tumor tissues [37, 38]. In particular, clinically targeting mTOR signaling during radiotherapy could increase tumor radiosensitivity [39]. Sirolimus analogs (rapalogs and mTOR inhibitors), such as everolimus, temsirolimus, and ridaforolimus, not only improved radiotherapy efficiency but also reduced tumor recurrence [4043]. These previous studies implicate that blocking mTOR signaling in tumors might be an effective strategy in radiotherapy.

High levels of antioxidant molecules in tumors have been identified as factors that make antitumor therapy difficult in many previous studies [44, 45]. Therefore, targeting antioxidant mechanisms might be a good therapeutic strategy for efficient radiotherapy [46]. Recent studies have reported that antioxidant mechanisms can be regulated by mTOR signaling [4749]. In this review, the effects of mTOR inhibition on the antioxidative Keap1-NRF2 pathway in solid tumors during radiotherapy and the underlying mechanisms are assessed.

2. mTOR Activates Antioxidant Defense Mechanisms in Radioresistant Solid Tumors

2.1. Mitochondrial ROS Generation and the KEAP1-NRF2 Pathway

NADH generated during glycolysis and the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle transfers two electrons to complex I (NADH: ubiquinone oxidoreductase) in the mitochondrial matrix [50]. FADH2 produced in the TCA cycle also transfers electrons to complex II (succinate dehydrogenase) [51]. Electrons from complexes I and III are subsequently transferred to ubiquinone, complex III (coenzyme Q cytochrome C reductase), and complex IV (cytochrome c oxidase) [52]. Complex IV transfers electrons to oxygen, and then, reduced oxygen forms water via a reaction with two hydrogen ions [53]. H+ ions are pumped into mitochondrial intermembrane spaces through complexes I, III, and IV during electron transfer processes, and a hydrogen ion gradient is generated around the inner mitochondrial membrane [54]. ATPs are synthesized using the energy induced by H+ ions entering into the intermembrane spaces through complex V (ATP synthase) [55]. Electrons leaked from complexes I and III partially reduce oxygen to form ROS, such as superoxide during OXPHOS [56]. Approximately 90% of intracellular ROS are estimated to be produced during OXPHOS in mitochondria [57]. Proper ROS levels stimulate cell proliferation, mediate signal cascades, and initiate immune responses, but excessive ROS levels lead to cell death [58]. Therefore, when ROS are induced, the cell activates antioxidant mechanisms for homeostasis [59]. Once superoxide is produced in mitochondria, manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD/SOD2) converts it to hydrogen peroxide [60]. Hydrogen peroxide, one of the ROS, must be converted to water. Glutathione (GSH) and thioredoxin (TRX) systems controlled by the Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1-nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (KEAP1-NRF2) pathway are required for this chemical change (Figure 2) [61]. Intracellular oxidative stress can directly and immediately promote the expression of antioxidant enzymes via the KEAP1-NRF2 pathway [62]. KEAP1 induces NRF2 degradation through its polyubiquitination on the NRF2-ECH homology-like domain 2 (Neh2) domain of NRF2 in cells under normal conditions [63]. However, when intracellular ROS are induced, ROS oxidize cysteine residues in the intervening region (IVR) of KEAP1, and structurally modified KEAP1 is detached from NRF2 [64]. Free NRF2 translocated into the nucleus forms a heterodimer with small musculoaponeurotic fibrosarcoma (sMaf), and the transcriptional factors then bind to antioxidant response elements (AREs) to promote antioxidant gene expression [65]. SLC7A11 (xCT) forms a complex known as the xCT system, with CD98 (SLC3A2 or 4F2) and the CD44 variant isoform (CD44v) [66]. CD98 and CD44v contribute to the stability of the xCT system; in particular, CD44v helps to locate xCT on the cell surface [67]. The xCT system, a cystine-glutamate antiporter, mediates the influx of extracellular cystine and the efflux of glutamate transformed by glutaminase 1 (GLS1) from glutamine [68]. One cystine molecule transported into the cell is reduced to two cysteine molecules by cystine reductase (CR) [69]. Cysteine and glutamate are synthesized to γ-glutamyl-cysteine via heterodimeric glutamate-cysteine ligase (GCL) consisting of GCLC (catalytic subunit) and GCLM (modulating subunit), and the ligated product is then converted to glutathione via the glutathione synthetase- (GSS-) mediated addition of glycine [70]. Glutathione peroxidase (GPX) promotes H2O2 reduction to H2O during the oxidation of GSH (reduced form) to glutathione disulfide (GSSG, oxidized form) [71]. Oxidized GSSG is returned to the reduced form of GSH by glutathione reductase (GSR) [72]. In addition to the GSH system, NRF2 induces gene expression of the TRX system [73]. Thioredoxin reductase (TXNRD) oxidizes NADPH to NADP+ to reduce the oxidized form of thioredoxin (TXN) [74]. The reduced TXN induces H2O2 reduction to H2O through the redox reaction of peroxiredoxin (PRX) [75]. Thus, the KEAP1-NRF2 pathway can be regarded as an essential mechanism for antioxidant defense.

2.2. mTOR-Dependent Antioxidant Mechanism in Solid Tumors

ROS can be controlled by NRF2-mediated antioxidant mechanisms in normal cells, consequently maintaining cellular homeostasis [76]. However, in various solid tumors, because antioxidant mechanisms are activated at higher levels than in normal cells, tumor cells can be more tolerant to excessive ROS levels than normal cells [77]. NRF2-dependent antioxidant enzymes such as SOD, glutathione peroxidase (GPX), glutathione reductase (GSR), peroxiredoxin (PRX), and thioredoxin reductase (TXNRD) are upregulated in tumor cells, and high expression of these proteins is associated with poor prognosis in tumor patients (Table 1) [7883]. Mitochondrial SOD2 was shown to be highly expressed in ovarian cancer patients and contribute to antitumor therapy resistance [84]. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cells overexpressing GPX1 were resistant to cisplatin-induced ROS through PI3K/AKT pathway activation [85]. In pancreatic cancer cells, GPX4 was shown to be essential for the maintenance of stemness, and PRX1 was required for p38-mediated invasion [86]. A high level of PRX2 in colorectal cancer patients was associated with tumor progression and poor diagnosis [87]. Inhibition of GSR and TXNRD attenuated tumor growth in an NSCLC patient-derived xenograft model [88]. High γ-glutamylcysteine synthetase (γ-GCS) activity in human HCC cells was related to radioresistance [89]. In general, radiation promotes GSH synthesis [90]. Because rapamycin and everolimus can affect GSH synthesis, the use of mTOR inhibitors might increase the effectiveness of radiotherapy [91, 92]. In addition to antioxidant enzymes, the NRF2-dependent xCT system could promote the radioresistance of solid tumors. xCT was related to radioresistance in human breast cancer and mouse melanoma cell lines [93, 94]. CD98 contributed to radioresistance in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma [95]. CD44v induced radioresistance in human pancreatic cancer cells via increasing xCT stability [96]. These results suggest that antioxidant proteins controlled by the KEAP1-NRF2 pathway could be factors that make tumor therapy difficult. Therefore, targeting the KEAP1-NRF2 pathway might be a strategy to improve the efficacy of radiotherapy. In a recent study, xCT was reported to be modulated by mTOR signaling in human melanoma subjected to radiation [97]. The transcriptional activity of NRF2 can be regulated by mTOR inhibitors. Temsirolimus suppressed NRF2 translocation into the nucleus in RCC4 cells, a human renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cell line [98]. Everolimus reduced the phosphorylation of NRF2 in ARPE-19 adult retinal pigment epithelial cells [99]. In general, KEAP1 is important for the transcriptional regulation of NRF2. Intracellular ROS promote NRF2 activity through the structural transformation of KEAP1 [64]. KEAP1 can also be dissociated from NRF2 by mTORC1. mTORC1 phosphorylates serine 351 in the Keap1‐interacting region (KIR) of sequestosome 1 (SQSTM1/p62) [100]. Phosphorylated SQSTM1/p62 promotes KEAP1 degradation during selective autophagy [101]. Degradation of KEAP1 via autophagy activation does not necessarily occur in an mTOR-dependent manner [102, 103]. Moreover, mRNA expression of NRF2 is dependent on the transcriptional activity of eIF4F [104]. Activated mTORC1 signaling disturbs the inhibitory effect of 4E-BP1 on eIF4E through the phosphorylation of 4E-BP1 [105]. In other words, mTORC1 signaling activation could mediate NRF2 expression. Tuberous sclerosis complexes 1 and 2 (TSC1 and TSC2), also known as hamartin and tuberin, respectively, attenuate mTORC1 activity via inhibiting Ras homolog enriched in brain (Rheb) [106]. In a TSC1-null bladder cancer xenograft model, not only mTORC1 hyperactivation but also upregulated NRF2, GCLM, GCLC, and GSR expressions were observed [107]. Overall, previous studies suggest that the antioxidant mechanism could be mediated by NRF2 and that NRF2 expression and activation could be dependent on mTOR signaling (Figure 3).


Type of cancerLevelEffectsRef.

Glutathione peroxidase (GPX)Breast cancerHighMetastasis↑[80]
Patient mortality↑
Bladder cancerHighRecurrence↑[91]
Oral squamous cell carcinomaHighMetastasis↑[92]
Poor survival↑
Gastric carcinomaHighMetastasis↑[108]
Progression↑
Hepatocellular carcinomaHighPoor prognosis↑[109]
Recurrence↑

Glutathione reductase (GR)GlioblastomaHighDrug resistance↑[81]
Poor survival↑

Glutamate-cysteine ligase (GLC)Hepatocellular carcinomaHighProgression↑[110]
Drug resistance↑
Poor survival↑
Breast cancerHighDrug resistance↑[111]
MelanomaHighMalignancy↑[112]
Lung adenocarcinomaHighRecurrence↑[113]
Poor survival↑

Glutaminase 1 (GLS1)Colorectal cancerHighMetastasis↑[114]
Poor prognosis↑
Poor survival↑
Hepatocellular carcinomaHighMalignancy↑[115]
Poor prognosis↑
Cancer stem cells
Breast cancerHighIn HER2-type↑[116]

SLC7A11 (xCT)Colorectal cancerHighRecurrence↑[117]
Poor survival↑
Non-small-cell lung carcinomaHighPoor survival↑[118]
GliomaHighPoor survival↑[119]
Hepatocellular carcinomaHighPoor survival↑[120]
Breast cancerHighPoor prognosis↑[121]

2.3. The Regulation of Antioxidant Defense via mTOR Inhibition in Solid Tumors Subjected to Radiation

Tumor tissues are formed by the uncontrolled proliferation of cancerous cells [122]. As tumor tissues develop, it is difficult for some tumor cells to obtain nutrients and oxygen because blood vessels are unevenly distributed in tissues [123]. In particular, OXPHOS and ROS production in mitochondria depend on the supply of oxygen [124]. Therefore, the oxygen levels in the tumor microenvironment should be considered in the regulation of antioxidant defense through mTOR inhibition in solid tumors. Mitochondrial OXPHOS is stably induced in tumor cells under sufficient oxygen supply, but not under pseudohypoxic conditions [125]. Although higher ROS levels are induced in tumor cells than in normal cells, ROS levels could be properly controlled through the KEAP1-NRF2 pathway [126]. Because tumor cells are exposed to nutrients and various growth factors, such as epidermal growth factor (EGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), mTOR signaling activation is promoted in the cells under normoxic conditions [127]. Moreover, radiation promotes not only ROS generation but also OXPHOS. In general, radiation causes mitochondrial damage and ROS production [128]. Irradiated tumor cells might use metabolism through glycolysis rather than OXPHOS because of mitochondrial damage [129]. However, irradiation with a single dose of 5 Gy promoted OXPHOS via mTOR-mediated enzymatic inhibition of hexokinase II in tumor cell lines (breast cancer MCF-7 cells, colon cancer HCT116 cells, and glioblastoma U87 cells) associated with the Warburg effect [130]. This implies that radiation might enhance OXPHOS in rapidly proliferating tumor cells. Thus, the inhibition of mTOR signaling might make tumor cells sensitive to radiation-induced ROS via the attenuation of NRF2-mediated antioxidant mechanisms under normoxic conditions. Unlike normal oxygen conditions, hypoxia can be caused in tumor cells located in tumor tissues with little blood vessel distribution [131]. The levels of OXPHOS and ROS generation could be reduced in tumor cells under persistent hypoxic conditions [132]. Hypoxia promotes the stability of hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) [133]. HIF-1α induces regulated in development and DNA damage response 1 (REDD1) expression [134]. mTOR activity is completely inhibited in REDD1-overexpressing cells under normoxic conditions, and continuous hypoxia can weaken its activity in tumor cells [135, 136]. Therefore, it might be difficult to expect the regulatory effects of mTOR inhibition on tumor antioxidant defense under extreme hypoxic conditions. However, under these conditions, not only might all mitochondrial OXPHOS, ROS generation, and mTOR activity be reduced but also necrotic cell death could be induced in hypoxic tumor tissues [137]. Therefore, the inhibition of mTOR signaling is expected to make tumor cells sensitive to radiation-induced ROS via KEAP1-NRF2 pathway attenuation, except for in the continuously hypoxic regions in the tumor tissues (Figure 4).

3. Cell Death Mechanisms Induced by mTOR Inhibition during Radiotherapy

3.1. The Promotion of Cell Death by mTOR Inhibition in Irradiated Tumors

Radiation induces reductions in tumor volumes and inhibits tumor metastasis [138, 139]. mTOR inhibitors, such as rapalogs, have been demonstrated to increase the radiosensitivity of tumors in previous studies. Rapamycin is an efficient drug to enhance radiosensitivity in various tumor types [39, 140]. Everolimus suppressed epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and angiogenesis [35, 40]. Everolimus also inhibited tumor stemness and recurrence [141, 142]. Therefore, the use of mTOR blockers might be a rational approach when treating tumor patients using radiotherapy. Ionizing radiation mainly causes apoptosis in tumor cells [143]. Various types of cell death including necrosis, apoptosis, pyroptosis, ferroptosis, and autophagy could be induced depending on the properties of adjuvants [144147]. The inhibition of mTOR signaling induces autophagy [148]. Tumor cells can survive via autophagy under nutrient-depleted conditions, but autophagy can cause cell death in tumors depending on the surrounding environment [149]. Resistance to apoptosis and radiation has been observed in various tumor types [8]. Thus, targeting mTOR signaling can be effective in inducing autophagic cell death in apoptosis-resistant tumors during radiotherapy [150].

3.2. mTOR Inhibition and Ferroptosis in Radiotherapy

Induction of cell death in tumors is an important strategy to promote tumor radiosensitivity. The induction of ferroptosis has recently been reported to improve antitumor therapy in a tumor study [151]. Ferroptosis is a type of cell death with morphology similar to necrosis, accompanied by excessive iron accumulation and lipid peroxidation [152]. However, unlike necrosis, ferroptosis is a form of regulated cell death mediated by the Fenton reaction [153]. A recent study showed that IFN-γ secreted by CD8+ T cells can induce ferroptosis in tumor cells during immunotherapy with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD1 [154]. However, further investigations are needed to determine whether ferroptosis can be induced in tumors to improve radiosensitivity during tumor radiotherapy. The inhibition of mTOR activation can induce autophagy in tumor tissues. Autophagy promotes the degradation of ferritin, which contains Fe2+, thereby increasing the Fe2+ level in the cytoplasm [155]. mTOR overexpression suppressed ferroptosis, whereas mTOR depletion enhanced ferroptosis in cardiomyocytes [156]. High levels of NRF2 and GSH inhibited ferroptosis, but mTOR inhibition reduced the inhibitory effects of both NRF2 and GSH on ferroptosis [157]. This indicates that ferroptosis might be associated with the autophagic process [158]. In a recent study, nanoparticles bound to erastin and rapamycin efficiently suppressed tumor growth [159]. Therefore, the inhibition of mTOR signaling might induce ferroptosis as well as autophagy in irradiated solid tumors.

4. Conclusion

Ionizing irradiation should not only reduce tumor volume but also suppress tumor recurrence in tumor radiotherapy. However, because radioresistance is observed in various solid tumors, the use of proper adjuvants is important to effectively treat tumor patients. Adjuvants used in radiotherapy should not only increase the sensitivity of tumors to radiation but also induce optimal cell death. In particular, the induction of regulated cell death (RCD) by adjuvants is imperative in host immunity during radiotherapy. In this review, the effects of mTOR inhibition on tumor radiosensitivity were discussed. Tumor cells can be resistant to ROS through mTOR-mediated antioxidant defense. Thus, the inhibition of mTOR signaling in these tumor types could attenuate the expression of antioxidant enzymes and make tumors sensitive to ROS. In addition, the inhibition of mTOR might induce RCD, such as autophagy and ferroptosis, in tumors during irradiation. There is a lack of validation of the regulatory effects of mTOR inhibition on antioxidant mechanisms during radiotherapy. Thus, further studies on mTOR inhibitors are required for efficient radiotherapy. In this review, the attenuation of the KEAP1-NRF2 pathway through inhibiting mTOR signaling has been suggested as an approach to enhance radiosensitivity.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), which is funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning of the Republic of Korea (2014M2B2A9030381, 2015M2B2A6028602, and 2018R1D1A1B07049097).

References

  1. E. B. Golden and L. Apetoh, “Radiotherapy and immunogenic cell death,” Seminars in Radiation Oncology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 11–17, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. G. Borrego-Soto, R. Ortiz-López, and A. Rojas-Martínez, “Ionizing radiation-induced DNA injury and damage detection in patients with breast cancer,” Genetics and Molecular Biology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 420–432, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. G.-Y. Liou and P. Storz, “Reactive oxygen species in cancer,” Free Radical Research, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 479–496, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. S. Mehta, V. Suhag, M. Semwal, and N. Sharma, “Radiotherapy: basic concepts and recent advances,” Medical Journal Armed Forces India, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 158–162, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. Q. Wu, A. Allouch, I. Martins et al., “Modulating both tumor cell death and innate immunity is essential for improving radiation therapy effectiveness,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 8, p. 613, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. L. D. Cranmer, “Melanoma’s radioresistant reputation challenged,” Oncology (Williston Park), vol. 24, no. 7, p. 656, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  7. A. Malik, M. Sultana, A. Qazi et al., “Role of natural radiosensitizers and cancer cell radioresistance: an update,” Analytical Cellular Pathology, vol. 2016, Article ID 6146595, 8 pages, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. L. Tang, F. Wei, Y. Wu et al., “Role of metabolism in cancer cell radioresistance and radiosensitization methods,” Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 37, no. 1, p. 87, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. H. E. Barker, J. T. E. Paget, A. A. Khan, and K. J. Harrington, “The tumour microenvironment after radiotherapy: mechanisms of resistance and recurrence,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 409–425, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. S. Qu, Y. Guo, S. T. Huang, and X. D. Zhu, “Inhibition of STAT1 sensitizes radioresistant nasopharyngeal carcinoma cell line CNE-2R to radiotherapy,” Oncotarget, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 8303–8310, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. C. Chin, J. H. Bae, M. J. Kim et al., “Radiosensitization by targeting radioresistance-related genes with protein kinase A inhibitor in radioresistant cancer cells,” Experimental & Molecular Medicine, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 608–618, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. L. A. Gharzai, M. D. Green, K. A. Griffith et al., “Adjuvant radiation improves recurrence-free survival and overall survival in adrenocortical carcinoma,” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, vol. 104, no. 9, pp. 3743–3750, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. X. Xu, H. Y. Xie, D. Zhou et al., “Comparison and prognostic analysis of adjuvant radiotherapy versus salvage radiotherapy for treatment of radically resected locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2016, Article ID 8548694, 8 pages, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. J. Kim and K.-L. Guan, “mTOR as a central hub of nutrient signalling and cell growth,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 63–71, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. H. Zhou and S. Huang, “The complexes of mammalian target of rapamycin,” Current Protein & Peptide Science, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 409–424, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. S. Sengupta, T. R. Peterson, and D. M. Sabatini, “Regulation of the mTOR complex 1 pathway by nutrients, growth factors, and stress,” Molecular Cell, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 310–322, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. T. T. Jesus, P. F. Oliveira, M. Sousa, C. Y. Cheng, and M. G. Alves, “Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR): a central regulator of male fertility?” Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 235–253, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. S. J. Ricoult and B. D. Manning, “The multifaceted role of mTORC1 in the control of lipid metabolism,” EMBO Reports, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 242–251, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. T. R. Peterson, S. S. Sengupta, T. E. Harris et al., “mTOR complex 1 regulates lipin 1 localization to control the SREBP pathway,” Cell, vol. 146, no. 3, pp. 408–420, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. V. S. LeBleu, J. T. O’Connell, K. N. Gonzalez Herrera et al., “PGC-1α mediates mitochondrial biogenesis and oxidative phosphorylation in cancer cells to promote metastasis,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 992–1003, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. S. Baldelli, K. Aquilano, and M. R. Ciriolo, “PGC-1α buffers ROS-mediated removal of mitochondria during myogenesis,” Cell Death & Disease, vol. 5, no. 11, p. e1515, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. T. Wenz, “Mitochondria and PGC-1alpha in aging and age-associated diseases,” Journal of Aging Research, vol. 2011, Article ID 810619, 12 pages, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. X. Jiang and R. S. Yeung, “Regulation of microtubule-dependent protein transport by the TSC2/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway,” Cancer Research, vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 5258–5269, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. D. C. Fingar, C. J. Richardson, A. R. Tee, L. Cheatham, C. Tsou, and J. Blenis, “mTOR controls cell cycle progression through its cell growth effectors S6K1 and 4E-BP1/eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 200–216, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. J. Kim, M. Kundu, B. Viollet, and K.-L. Guan, “AMPK and mTOR regulate autophagy through direct phosphorylation of Ulk1,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 132–141, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. D. Li, H. Ji, X. Niu et al., “Tumor-associated macrophages secrete CCL2 and induce tamoxifen resistance by activating PI3K/Akt/mTOR in breast cancer,” Cancer Science, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. P. Leal, P. García, A. Sandoval et al., “Immunohistochemical expression of phospho-mTOR is associated with poor prognosis in patients with gallbladder adenocarcinoma,” Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, vol. 137, no. 4, pp. 552–557, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. L. Zhou, Y. Huang, J. Li, and Z. Wang, “The mTOR pathway is associated with the poor prognosis of human hepatocellular carcinoma,” Medical Oncology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 255–261, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. P. Bakarakos, I. Theohari, A. Nomikos et al., “Immunohistochemical study of PTEN and phosphorylated mTOR proteins in familial and sporadic invasive breast carcinomas,” Histopathology, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 876–882, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. C.-H. Sun, Y.-H. Chang, and C.-C. Pan, “Activation of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway correlates with tumour progression and reduced survival in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder,” Histopathology, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 1054–1063, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. T. Murayama, M. Inokuchi, Y. Takagi et al., “Relation between outcomes and localisation of p-mTOR expression in gastric cancer,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 782–788, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. M. Karbowniczek, C. S. Spittle, T. Morrison, H. Wu, and E. P. Henske, “mTOR is activated in the majority of malignant melanomas,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 980–987, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. V. K. Anagnostou, G. Bepler, K. N. Syrigos et al., “High expression of mammalian target of rapamycin is associated with better outcome for patients with early stage lung adenocarcinoma,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 4157–4164, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. L. Li, D. Liu, Z. X. Qiu, S. Zhao, L. Zhang, and W. M. Li, “The prognostic role of mTOR and p-mTOR for survival in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 2, Article ID e0116771, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. Y. Chen, W.-W. Li, P. Peng et al., “mTORC1 inhibitor RAD001 (everolimus) enhances non-small cell lung cancer cell radiosensitivity in vitro via suppressing epithelial-mesenchymal transition,” Acta Pharmacologica Sinica, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1085–1094, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. G. W. Vicary and J. Roman, “Targeting the mammalian target of rapamycin in lung cancer,” The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, vol. 352, no. 5, pp. 507–516, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. K. Kakumoto, J. Ikeda, M. Okada, E. Morii, and C. Oneyama, “mLST8 promotes mTOR-mediated tumor progression,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 4, Article ID e0119015, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. S. A. Wander, D. Zhao, A. H. Besser et al., “PI3K/mTOR inhibition can impair tumor invasion and metastasis in vivo despite a lack of antiproliferative action in vitro: implications for targeted therapy,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 138, no. 2, pp. 369–381, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. L. Chang, P. H. Graham, J. Hao et al., “PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway inhibitors enhance radiosensitivity in radioresistant prostate cancer cells through inducing apoptosis, reducing autophagy, suppressing NHEJ and HR repair pathways,” Cell Death & Disease, vol. 5, no. 10, p. e1437, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. P. C. Manegold, C. Paringer, U. Kulka et al., “Antiangiogenic therapy with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor RAD001 (Everolimus) increases radiosensitivity in solid cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 892–900, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. H. Ushijima, Y. Suzuki, T. Oike et al., “Radio-sensitization effect of an mTOR inhibitor, temsirolimus, on lung adenocarcinoma A549 cells under normoxic and hypoxic conditions,” Journal of Radiation Research, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 663–668, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. R. J. Amato, G. Wilding, G. Bubley, J. Loewy, F. Haluska, and M. E. Gross, “Safety and preliminary efficacy analysis of the mTOR inhibitor ridaforolimus in patients with taxane-treated, castration-resistant prostate cancer,” Clinical Genitourinary Cancer, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 232–238, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. E. T. Shinohara, A. Maity, N. Jha, and R. A. Lustig, “Sirolimus as a potential radiosensitizer in squamous cell cancer of the head and neck,” Head & Neck, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 406–411, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. Y. Qu, H. Zhang, S. Zhao, J. Hong, and C. Tang, “The effect on radioresistance of manganese superoxide dismutase in nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” Oncology Reports, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1005–1011, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. A. Singh, M. Bodas, N. Wakabayashi, F. Bunz, and S. Biswal, “Gain of Nrf2 function in non-small-cell lung cancer cells confers radioresistance,” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 1627–1637, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. Z. Xu, Y. Zhang, J. Ding et al., “miR-17-3p downregulates mitochondrial antioxidant enzymes and enhances the radiosensitivity of prostate cancer cells,” Molecular Therapy-Nucleic Acids, vol. 13, pp. 64–77, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. Q. Lu, Y. Zhou, M. Hao et al., “The mTOR promotes oxidative stress-induced apoptosis of mesangial cells in diabetic nephropathy,” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, vol. 473, pp. 31–43, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. C. F. Malone, C. Emerson, R. Ingraham et al., “mTOR and HDAC inhibitors converge on the TXNIP/thioredoxin pathway to cause catastrophic oxidative stress and regression of RAS-driven tumors,” Cancer Discovery, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 1450–1463, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. H. G. Hambright, P. Meng, A. P. Kumar, and R. Ghosh, “Inhibition of PI3K/AKT/mTOR axis disrupts oxidative stress-mediated survival of melanoma cells,” Oncotarget, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 7195–7208, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. D. R. Martin and D. V. Matyushov, “Electron-transfer chain in respiratory complex I,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 5495, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. R. Dhingra and L. A. Kirshenbaum, “Succinate dehydrogenase/complex II activity obligatorily links mitochondrial reserve respiratory capacity to cell survival in cardiac myocytes,” Cell Death & Disease, vol. 6, no. 10, Article ID e1956, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. J. A. Enriquez and G. Lenaz, “Coenzyme q and the respiratory chain: coenzyme q pool and mitochondrial supercomplexes,” Molecular Syndromology, vol. 5, no. 3-4, pp. 119–140, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. M. S. Piepenbrink, X. Li, P. H. O’Connell, and K. A. Schat, “Marek’s disease virus phosphorylated polypeptide pp38 alters transcription rates of mitochondrial electron transport and oxidative phosphorylation genes,” Virus Genes, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 102–112, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. M. P. Siegel, S. E. Kruse, G. Knowels et al., “Reduced coupling of oxidative phosphorylation in vivo precedes electron transport chain defects due to mild oxidative stress in mice,” PLoS One, vol. 6, no. 11, Article ID e26963, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. J. Zheng and V. D. Ramirez, “Inhibition of mitochondrial proton F0F1-ATPase/ATP synthase by polyphenolic phytochemicals,” British Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 130, no. 5, pp. 1115–1123, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. A. Phaniendra, D. B. Jestadi, and L. Periyasamy, “Free radicals: properties, sources, targets, and their implication in various diseases,” Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 11–26, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. N. Nissanka and C. T. Moraes, “Mitochondrial DNA damage and reactive oxygen species in neurodegenerative disease,” FEBS Letters, vol. 592, no. 5, pp. 728–742, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. M. Ogrunc, “Reactive oxygen species: the good, the bad, and the enigma,” Molecular & Cellular Oncology, vol. 1, no. 3, Article ID e964033, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. L. He, T. He, S. Farrar, L. Ji, T. Liu, and X. Ma, “Antioxidants maintain cellular redox homeostasis by elimination of reactive oxygen species,” Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 532–553, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. T. Fukai and M. Ushio-Fukai, “Superoxide dismutases: role in redox signaling, vascular function, and diseases,” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1583–1606, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. M. Cebula, E. E. Schmidt, and E. S. J. Arnér, “TrxR1 as a potent regulator of the Nrf2-Keap1 response system,” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 823–853, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. I. Bellezza, I. Giambanco, A. Minelli, and R. Donato, “Nrf2-Keap1 signaling in oxidative and reductive stress,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Molecular Cell Research, vol. 1865, no. 5, pp. 721–733, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. P. Canning, F. J. Sorrell, and A. N. Bullock, “Structural basis of Keap1 interactions with Nrf2,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 88, pp. 101–107, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. R. Saito, T. Suzuki, K. Hiramoto et al., “Characterizations of three major cysteine sensors of Keap1 in stress response,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 271–284, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  65. C. Li, L. Cheng, H. Wu et al., “Activation of the KEAP1NRF2ARE signaling pathway reduces oxidative stress in Hep2 cells,” Molecular Medicine Reports, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 2541–2550, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  66. M. Toyoda, K. Kaira, Y. Ohshima et al., “Prognostic significance of amino-acid transporter expression (LAT1, ASCT2, and xCT) in surgically resected tongue cancer,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 110, no. 10, pp. 2506–2513, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. N. Kobayashi, S. Okazaki, O. Sampetrean, J. Irie, H. Itoh, and H. Saya, “CD44 variant inhibits insulin secretion in pancreatic beta cells by attenuating LAT1-mediated amino acid uptake,” Scientific Reports, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 2785, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. C. S. Shin, P. Mishra, J. D. Watrous et al., “The glutamate/cystine xCT antiporter antagonizes glutamine metabolism and reduces nutrient flexibility,” Nature Communications, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 15074, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. B. D. Paul, J. I. Sbodio, and S. H. Snyder, “Cysteine metabolism in neuronal redox homeostasis,” Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 513–524, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. C. C. Franklin, D. S. Backos, I. Mohar, C. C. White, H. J. Forman, and T. J. Kavanagh, “Structure, function, and post-translational regulation of the catalytic and modifier subunits of glutamate cysteine ligase,” Molecular Aspects of Medicine, vol. 30, no. 1-2, pp. 86–98, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. E. Lubos, J. Loscalzo, and D. E. Handy, “Glutathione peroxidase-1 in health and disease: from molecular mechanisms to therapeutic opportunities,” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 1957–1997, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. I. Sato, K. Shimatani, K. Fujita et al., “Glutathione reductase/glutathione is responsible for cytotoxic elemental sulfur tolerance via polysulfide shuttle in fungi,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 286, no. 23, pp. 20283–20291, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. J.-L. Roh, H. Jang, E. H. Kim, and D. Shin, “Targeting of the glutathione, thioredoxin, and Nrf2 antioxidant systems in head and neck cancer,” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 106–114, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. S. Lee, S. M. Kim, and R. T. Lee, “Thioredoxin and thioredoxin target proteins: from molecular mechanisms to functional significance,” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 1165–1207, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. J. Madrigal-Matute, C.-E. Fernandez-Garcia, L. M. Blanco-Colio et al., “Thioredoxin-1/peroxiredoxin-1 as sensors of oxidative stress mediated by NADPH oxidase activity in atherosclerosis,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 86, pp. 352–361, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. S. Vomund, A. Schafer, M. Parnham, B. Brune, and A. von Knethen, “Nrf2, the master regulator of anti-oxidative responses,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 18, no. 12, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. D. Zhou, L. Shao, and D. R. Spitz, “Reactive oxygen species in normal and tumor stem cells,” Advances in Cancer Research, vol. 122, pp. 1–67, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. A. Cruz-Gregorio, I. Martinez-Ramirez, J. Pedraza-Chaverri, and M. Lizano, “Reprogramming of energy metabolism in response to radiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma,” Cancers, vol. 11, no. 2, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. L. Yi, H. Shen, M. Zhao et al., “Inflammation-mediated SOD-2 upregulation contributes to epithelial-mesenchymal transition and migration of tumor cells in aflatoxin G1-induced lung adenocarcinoma,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 7953, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. B. V. Jardim, M. G. Moschetta, C. Leonel et al., “Glutathione and glutathione peroxidase expression in breast cancer: an immunohistochemical and molecular study,” Oncology Reports, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1119–1128, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. Z. Zhu, S. Du, Y. Du, J. Ren, G. Ying, and Z. Yan, “Glutathione reductase mediates drug resistance in glioblastoma cells by regulating redox homeostasis,” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 93–104, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. T. E. Forshaw, R. Holmila, K. J. Nelson et al., “Peroxiredoxins in cancer and response to radiation therapies,” Antioxidants, vol. 8, no. 1, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. T. D. Ahrens, S. Timme, J. Ostendorp et al., “Response of esophageal cancer cells to epigenetic inhibitors is mediated via altered thioredoxin activity,” Laboratory Investigation, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 307–316, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. T. Amano, T. Chano, T. Isono, F. Kimura, R. Kushima, and T. Murakami, “Abundance of mitochondrial superoxide dismutase is a negative predictive biomarker for endometriosis-associated ovarian cancers,” World Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 24, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. B. Chen, Z. Shen, D. Wu et al., “Glutathione peroxidase 1 promotes NSCLC resistance to cisplatin via ROS-induced activation of PI3K/AKT pathway,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2019, Article ID 7640547, 12 pages, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. G. Peng, Z. Tang, Y. Xiang, and W. Chen, “Glutathione peroxidase 4 maintains a stemness phenotype, oxidative homeostasis and regulates biological processes in Panc1 cancer stemlike cells,” Oncology Reports, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 1264–1274, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. L. Peng, R. Wang, J. Shang, Y. Xiong, and Z. Fu, “Peroxiredoxin 2 is associated with colorectal cancer progression and poor survival of patients,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 15057–15070, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. X. Yan, X. Zhang, L. Wang et al., “Inhibition of thioredoxin/thioredoxin reductase induces synthetic lethality in lung cancers with compromised glutathione homeostasis,” Cancer Research, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 125–132, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. L.-C. Lin, C.-F. Chen, C.-T. Ho, J.-J. Liu, T.-Z. Liu, and C.-L. Chern, “γ-Glutamylcysteine synthetase (γ-GCS) as a target for overcoming chemo- and radio-resistance of human hepatocellular carcinoma cells,” Life Sciences, vol. 198, pp. 25–31, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. R. S. Patwardhan, D. Sharma, R. Checker, M. Thoh, and S. K. Sandur, “Spatio-temporal changes in glutathione and thioredoxin redox couples during ionizing radiation-induced oxidative stress regulate tumor radio-resistance,” Free Radical Research, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 1218–1232, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. E. Wieczorek, Z. Jablonowski, B. Tomasik et al., “Different gene expression and activity pattern of antioxidant enzymes in bladder cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 841–848, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. J. R. Lee, J.-L. Roh, S. M. Lee et al., “Overexpression of glutathione peroxidase 1 predicts poor prognosis in oral squamous cell carcinoma,” Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, vol. 143, no. 11, pp. 2257–2265, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. L. Cobler, H. Zhang, P. Suri, C. Park, and L. A. Timmerman, “xCT inhibition sensitizes tumors to gamma-radiation via glutathione reduction,” Oncotarget, vol. 9, no. 64, pp. 32280–32297, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. M. Nagane, E. Kanai, Y. Shibata et al., “Sulfasalazine, an inhibitor of the cystine-glutamate antiporter, reduces DNA damage repair and enhances radiosensitivity in murine B16F10 melanoma,” PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 4, Article ID e0195151, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. D. Digomann, I. Kurth, A. Tyutyunnykova et al., “The CD98 heavy chain is a marker and regulator of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma radiosensitivity,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 3152–3163, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. K. Tsubouchi, K. Minami, N. Hayashi et al., “The CD44 standard isoform contributes to radioresistance of pancreatic cancer cells,” Journal of Radiation Research, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 816–826, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. C. Li, H. Chen, Z. Lan et al., “mTOR-dependent upregulation of xCT blocks melanin synthesis and promotes tumorigenesis,” Cell Death & Differentiation, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 2015–2028, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. K. Bray, R. Mathew, A. Lau et al., “Autophagy suppresses RIP kinase-dependent necrosis enabling survival to mTOR inhibition,” PLoS One, vol. 7, no. 7, Article ID e41831, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. H. Hu, L. Hao, C. Tang, Y. Zhu, Q. Jiang, and J. Yao, “Activation of KGFR-Akt-mTOR-Nrf2 signaling protects human retinal pigment epithelium cells from Ultra-violet,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 495, no. 3, pp. 2171–2177, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. Y. Ichimura, S. Waguri, Y.-S. Sou et al., “Phosphorylation of p62 activates the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway during selective autophagy,” Molecular Cell, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 618–631, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. Y. Katsuragi, Y. Ichimura, and M. Komatsu, “p62/SQSTM1 functions as a signaling hub and an autophagy adaptor,” FEBS Journal, vol. 282, no. 24, pp. 4672–4678, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. A. Lampada, J. O’Prey, G. Szabadkai, K. M. Ryan, D. Hochhauser, and P. Salomoni, “mTORC1-independent autophagy regulates receptor tyrosine kinase phosphorylation in colorectal cancer cells via an mTORC2-mediated mechanism,” Cell Death & Differentiation, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1045–1062, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. A. Scrivo, M. Bourdenx, O. Pampliega, and A. M. Cuervo, “Selective autophagy as a potential therapeutic target for neurodegenerative disorders,” The Lancet Neurology, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 802–815, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. S. C. Lee, J. Zhang, J. Strom et al., “G-quadruplex in the NRF2 mRNA 5 untranslated region regulates de novo NRF2 protein translation under oxidative stress,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 37, no. 1, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. C. C. Thoreen, “Many roads from mTOR to eIF4F,” Biochemical Society Transactions, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 913–916, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. J. Huang and B. D. Manning, “The TSC1-TSC2 complex: a molecular switchboard controlling cell growth,” Biochemical Journal, vol. 412, no. 2, pp. 179–190, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. M. Zarei, H. Du, A. H. Nassar et al., “Tumors with TSC mutations are sensitive to CDK7 inhibition through NRF2 and glutathione depletion,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 216, no. 11, pp. 2635–2652, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. D. Liu, L. Sun, J. Tong, X. Chen, H. Li, and Q. Zhang, “Prognostic significance of glutathione peroxidase 2 in gastric carcinoma,” Tumor Biology, vol. 39, no. 6, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. T. Liu, X. F. Kan, C. Ma et al., “GPX2 overexpression indicates poor prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma,” Tumor Biology, vol. 39, no. 6, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. J. Sun, C. Zhou, Q. Ma et al., “High GCLC level in tumor tissues is associated with poor prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection,” Journal of Cancer, vol. 10, no. 15, pp. 3333–3343, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. M. Fiorillo, F. Sotgia, D. Sisci, A. R. Cappello, and M. P. Lisanti, “Mitochondrial “power” drives tamoxifen resistance: NQO1 and GCLC are new therapeutic targets in breast cancer,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 20309–20327, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. D. Mougiakakos, R. Okita, T. Ando et al., “High expression of GCLC is associated with malignant melanoma of low oxidative phenotype and predicts a better prognosis,” Journal of Molecular Medicine, vol. 90, no. 8, pp. 935–944, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. N. Hiyama, T. Ando, K. Maemura et al., “Glutamate-cysteine ligase catalytic subunit is associated with cisplatin resistance in lung adenocarcinoma,” Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 303–307, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. L. Xiang, J. Mou, B. Shao et al., “Glutaminase 1 expression in colorectal cancer cells is induced by hypoxia and required for tumor growth, invasion, and metastatic colonization,” Cell Death & Disease, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 40, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. B. Li, Y. Cao, G. Meng et al., “Targeting glutaminase 1 attenuates stemness properties in hepatocellular carcinoma by increasing reactive oxygen species and suppressing Wnt/beta-catenin pathway,” EBioMedicine, vol. 39, pp. 239–254, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. S. Kim, D. H. Kim, W.-H. Jung, and J. S. Koo, “Expression of glutamine metabolism-related proteins according to molecular subtype of breast cancer,” Endocrine-Related Cancer, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 339–348, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  117. K. Sugano, K. Maeda, H. Ohtani, H. Nagahara, M. Shibutani, and K. Hirakawa, “Expression of xCT as a predictor of disease recurrence in patients with colorectal cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 677–682, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  118. X. Ji, J. Qian, S. M. J. Rahman et al., “xCT (SLC7A11)-mediated metabolic reprogramming promotes non-small cell lung cancer progression,” Oncogene, vol. 37, no. 36, pp. 5007–5019, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  119. S. M. Robert, S. C. Buckingham, S. L. Campbell et al., “SLC7A11 expression is associated with seizures and predicts poor survival in patients with malignant glioma,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 7, no. 289, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. H. Kinoshita, H. Okabe, T. Beppu et al., “Cystine/glutamic acid transporter is a novel marker for predicting poor survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma,” Oncology Reports, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 685–689, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. L. A. Timmerman, T. Holton, M. Yuneva et al., “Glutamine sensitivity analysis identifies the xCT antiporter as a common triple-negative breast tumor therapeutic target,” Cancer Cell, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 450–465, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. M. A. Feitelson, A. Arzumanyan, R. J. Kulathinal et al., “Sustained proliferation in cancer: mechanisms and novel therapeutic targets,” Seminars in Cancer Biology, vol. 35, pp. S25–S54, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  123. P. Vaupel, F. Kallinowski, and P. Okunieff, “Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review,” Cancer Research, vol. 49, no. 23, pp. 6449–6465, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  124. D. B. Zorov, M. Juhaszova, and S. J. Sollott, “Mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS) and ROS-induced ROS release,” Physiological Reviews, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 909–950, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  125. G. Solaini, G. Sgarbi, and A. Baracca, “Oxidative phosphorylation in cancer cells,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Bioenergetics, vol. 1807, no. 6, pp. 534–542, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. J. Kim and Y. S. Keum, “NRF2, a key regulator of antioxidants with two faces towards cancer,” Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, vol. 2016, Article ID 2746457, 7 pages, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. C. C. Dibble and B. D. Manning, “Signal integration by mTORC1 coordinates nutrient input with biosynthetic output,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 555–564, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. T. Shimura, M. Sasatani, H. Kawai et al., “A comparison of radiation-induced mitochondrial damage between neural progenitor stem cells and differentiated cells,” Cell Cycle, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 565–573, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  129. J. Zhong, N. Rajaram, D. M. Brizel et al., “Radiation induces aerobic glycolysis through reactive oxygen species,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 390–396, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. C. L. Lu, L. Qin, H. C. Liu, D. Candas, M. Fan, and J. J. Li, “Tumor cells switch to mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation under radiation via mTOR-mediated hexokinase II inhibition--a Warburg-reversing effect,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 3, Article ID e0121046, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  131. J. V. Gaustad, T. G. Simonsen, L. M. K. Andersen, and E. K. Rofstad, “Vascular abnormalities and development of hypoxia in microscopic melanoma xenografts,” Journal of Translational Medicine, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 241, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  132. M. P. Murphy, “How mitochondria produce reactive oxygen species,” Biochemical Journal, vol. 417, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  133. A. E. Greijer and E. van der Wall, “The role of hypoxia inducible factor 1 (HIF-1) in hypoxia induced apoptosis,” Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 1009–1014, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  134. M. P. DeYoung, P. Horak, A. Sofer, D. Sgroi, and L. W. Ellisen, “Hypoxia regulates TSC1/2 mTOR signaling and tumor suppression through REDD1-mediated 14 3 3 shuttling,” Genes & Development, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 239–251, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  135. C. Regazzetti, F. Bost, Y. Le Marchand-Brustel, J.-F. Tanti, and S. Giorgetti-Peraldi, “Insulin induces REDD1 expression through hypoxia-inducible factor 1 activation in adipocytes,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 285, no. 8, pp. 5157–5164, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  136. H. Cam, J. B. Easton, A. High, and P. J. Houghton, “mTORC1 signaling under hypoxic conditions is controlled by ATM-dependent phosphorylation of HIF-1α,” Molecular Cell, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 509–520, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  137. J. M. Brown, “Tumor hypoxia in cancer therapy,” Methods in Enzymology, vol. 435, pp. 297–321, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  138. M. Vilalta, M. Rafat, and E. E. Graves, “Effects of radiation on metastasis and tumor cell migration,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 73, no. 16, pp. 2999–3007, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  139. R. Nassim, J. J. Mansure, S. Chevalier, F. Cury, and W. Kassouf, “Combining mTOR inhibition with radiation improves antitumor activity in bladder cancer cells in vitro and in vivo: a novel strategy for treatment,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 6, Article ID e65257, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  140. D. Zhang, J. Xiang, Y. Gu et al., “Inhibition of mammalian target of rapamycin by rapamycin increases the radiosensitivity of esophageal carcinoma Eca109 cells,” Oncology Letters, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 575–581, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  141. S. Matsubara, Q. Ding, Y. Miyazaki, T. Kuwahata, K. Tsukasa, and S. Takao, “mTOR plays critical roles in pancreatic cancer stem cells through specific and stemness-related functions,” Scientific Reports, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 3230, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  142. S. L. Zhang, L. Liang, Y. Ji, Z. M. Wang, and Y. H. Zhou, “The benefit of everolimus in recurrent/epithelioid angiosarcoma patients: case reports and literature review,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 55, pp. 95023–95029, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  143. P. Maier, L. Hartmann, F. Wenz, and C. Herskind, “Cellular pathways in response to ionizing radiation and their targetability for tumor radiosensitization,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 17, no. 1, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  144. B. Bucci, S. Misiti, A. Cannizzaro et al., “Fractionated ionizing radiation exposure induces apoptosis through caspase-3 activation and reactive oxygen species generation,” Anticancer Research, vol. 26, no. 6B, pp. 4549–4557, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  145. Y. Tsuboi, M. Kurimoto, S. Nagai et al., “Induction of autophagic cell death and radiosensitization by the pharmacological inhibition of nuclear factor-kappa B activation in human glioma cell lines,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 594–604, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  146. M. Naito, C. Hashimoto, S. Masui, and T. Tsuruo, “Caspase-independent necrotic cell death induced by a radiosensitizer, 8-nitrocaffeine,” Cancer Science, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 361–366, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  147. H. H. W. Chen and M. T. Kuo, “Improving radiotherapy in cancer treatment: promises and challenges,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 37, pp. 62742–62758, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  148. M. Paquette, L. El-Houjeiri, and A. Pause, “mTOR pathways in cancer and autophagy,” Cancers, vol. 10, no. 1, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  149. L. Lin and E. H. Baehrecke, “Autophagy, cell death, and cancer,” Molecular & Cellular Oncology, vol. 2, no. 3, Article ID e985913, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  150. S. S. Yea and D. A. Fruman, “Achieving cancer cell death with PI3K/mTOR-targeted therapies,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1280, no. 1, pp. 15–18, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  151. Y. Mou, J. Wang, J. Wu et al., “Ferroptosis, a new form of cell death: opportunities and challenges in cancer,” Journal of Hematology & Oncology, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 34, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  152. S. J. Dixon, K. M. Lemberg, M. R. Lamprecht et al., “Ferroptosis: an iron-dependent form of nonapoptotic cell death,” Cell, vol. 149, no. 5, pp. 1060–1072, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  153. H. Feng and B. R. Stockwell, “Unsolved mysteries: how does lipid peroxidation cause ferroptosis?” PLoS Biology, vol. 16, no. 5, Article ID e2006203, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  154. W. Wang, M. Green, J. E. Choi et al., “CD8+ T cells regulate tumour ferroptosis during cancer immunotherapy,” Nature, vol. 569, no. 7755, pp. 270–274, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  155. W. Hou, Y. Xie, X. Song et al., “Autophagy promotes ferroptosis by degradation of ferritin,” Autophagy, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1425–1428, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  156. Y. Baba, J. K. Higa, B. K. Shimada et al., “Protective effects of the mechanistic target of rapamycin against excess iron and ferroptosis in cardiomyocytes,” American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, vol. 314, no. 3, pp. H659–H668, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  157. M. Abdalkader, R. Lampinen, K. M. Kanninen, T. M. Malm, and J. R. Liddell, “Targeting Nrf2 to suppress ferroptosis and mitochondrial dysfunction in neurodegeneration,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 12, p. 466, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  158. M. Gao, P. Monian, Q. Pan, W. Zhang, J. Xiang, and X. Jiang, “Ferroptosis is an autophagic cell death process,” Cell Research, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1021–1032, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  159. Y. Li, X. Wang, J. Yan et al., “Nanoparticle ferritin-bound erastin and rapamycin: a nanodrug combining autophagy and ferroptosis for anticancer therapy,” Biomaterials Science, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 3779–3787, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2019 Yunseo Woo et al. 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.

324 Views | 171 Downloads | 0 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder