Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity / 2016 / Article
Special Issue

Modulation of Oxidative Stress: Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Aspects

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2016 |Article ID 4251912 | 17 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4251912

Redox Control of Multidrug Resistance and Its Possible Modulation by Antioxidants

Academic Editor: Sidhartha D. Ray
Received12 Aug 2015
Revised14 Nov 2015
Accepted18 Nov 2015
Published05 Jan 2016


Clinical efficacy of anticancer chemotherapies is dramatically hampered by multidrug resistance (MDR) dependent on inherited traits, acquired defence against toxins, and adaptive mechanisms mounting in tumours. There is overwhelming evidence that molecular events leading to MDR are regulated by redox mechanisms. For example, chemotherapeutics which overrun the first obstacle of redox-regulated cellular uptake channels (MDR1, MDR2, and MDR3) induce a concerted action of phase I/II metabolic enzymes with a temporal redox-regulated axis. This results in rapid metabolic transformation and elimination of a toxin. This metabolic axis is tightly interconnected with the inducible Nrf2-linked pathway, a key switch-on mechanism for upregulation of endogenous antioxidant enzymes and detoxifying systems. As a result, chemotherapeutics and cytotoxic by-products of their metabolism (ROS, hydroperoxides, and aldehydes) are inactivated and MDR occurs. On the other hand, tumour cells are capable of mounting an adaptive antioxidant response against ROS produced by chemotherapeutics and host immune cells. The multiple redox-dependent mechanisms involved in MDR prompted suggesting redox-active drugs (antioxidants and prooxidants) or inhibitors of inducible antioxidant defence as a novel approach to diminish MDR. Pitfalls and progress in this direction are discussed.

1. Introduction

It is common knowledge that multiple drug resistance (MDR) has crucial negative impact on the clinical outcomes of conventional cytotoxic anticancer therapies and of those based on specific drugs targeting molecular pathways implicated in cancer cell functions and survival strategies. Since the discovery of the first ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp), ABC drug transporters have become targets for improving anticancer chemotherapy. Up to now, more than 49 different ABC transporters have been found and cloned [1]. A majority of MDR modulators or reversals are themselves substrates of the transporters that compete with anticancer agents for the efflux from tumour cells [2]. Frustrating the great expectations raised, ABC transporter/modulators/reversals proved to have insufficient clinical efficacy and very high toxicity. Novel “biological” approaches have been recently developed in laboratory to modulate ABC transporter-mediated MDR, including a monoclonal antibody that binds specifically to P-gp, thus suppressing drug transport, small interfering RNA technology to decrease the expression of ABCB1, antisense oligonucleotides, and agents attenuating P-gp transcription [3]. Though very promising, these “biologicals” are still lacking clinical proof-of-concept data.

In any case, the evident and numerous adverse effects of MDR modulators stimulated additional studies on physiological role(s) of MDR in the human organism. It has been reported that MDR relies not exclusively on transporting systems for drug uptake and efflux, but also on intracellular drug metabolism and DNA damage [4]. Transporting and metabolic systems defining MDR are expressed in the majority of normal cells, are essential for nutrients uptake and metabolites efflux, and play a vital role in protecting cells against xenobiotics. Hence, harsh inhibition of a functionally essential mechanism results in general intoxication.

To gain protection against foreign invasions and maintain homeostasis, the human organism employs several types of physical, chemical, and biological defence systems. For example, skin and other lining epithelia mechanically prevent invasion of relatively large organic and inorganic particles. The immune system has been evolved to fight cellular invaders and high-molecular-weight compounds of biological origin.

The chemical defence system, consisting of biosensoring, transmitting, and responsive elements, has been evolved, starting from primitive eukaryotes and lower plants [5], to protect multicellular organisms against environmental chemical insults (xenobiotics) and to maintain homeostasis of endogenous low-molecular-weight metabolites (endobiotics) [6]. Being exposed to xenobiotic (drug) stress, an organism is challenged to rapid and appropriate adaptation by activating constitutive and expressing inducible systems, thus attenuating negative biological consequences. For this purpose, an array of gene families and molecular pathways have been developed during evolution to prevent cellular access, to detoxify and eliminate toxins, and to repair chemical damage. The active efflux proteins, for example, P-glycoproteins (P-gp) [7], multidrug resistance (MDR) proteins [8], and multixenobiotic resistance (MXR) proteins [9], directly eliminate slightly lipophilic organic xenobiotics from cells serving as the first line of chemical defence. Escaping the first-line guardians, once in the cytoplasm, toxic nucleophilic compounds undergo biotransformation by the oxidative phase I enzymes (cytochrome P450 (CYP), flavoprotein monooxygenase, hemeoxygenase, amine oxidases, xanthine oxidase, and others) to become electrophilic. The electrophile is subjected to reductive or conjugative modification by phase II enzymes (glutathione-S-transferases (GSTs), UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs), catechol-O-methyl transferases (COMT), N-acetyl transferases (NATs), and many others).

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated as by-products of phase I reactions are rapidly reduced to nontoxic “physiological” levels by antioxidant enzymes (superoxide dismutases (SODs), catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidases (GPx), peroxiredoxins (PRx), and nonenzymatic antioxidants, such as reduced glutathione (GSH), uric acid, ascorbic acid, and ceruloplasmin, among others). All these constitutive protective systems are sufficient to cope with low levels of xenobiotics or endobiotics. The inducible chemical defence relies on the array of stress responsive genes. In this case, chemical stressors like anticancer chemotherapeutics should first be recognised by specific sensors which, in turn, transmit alarm signals to activate or express de novo transporting, biotransforming, and detoxifying enzymes.

The primary member of mammalian proteins-sensors of organic chemicals is the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), activated by planar aromatic hydrocarbons of natural or synthetic origin [1012]. A second group of chemical sensors comprises nuclear receptors, such as pregnane X, constitutive androstane, peroxisome proliferators-activated, liver-X, and farnesoid-X receptors, recognising a wide variety of xeno- and endobiotics [1214]. Nuclear factor erythroid-derived 2-related factors (Nrf1 and Nrf2) and related cap’n’collar- (CNC-) basic leucine zipper proteins belong to another family of sensors activated by oxidants and electrophiles [15, 16]. Activation of such recognition elements after ligand binding may result in alterations of ion channel conductivity, kinase machinery, and cytoplasmic and nuclear transcription factors, inducing cell response (signal transduction).

Signal transduction is often mediated by redox substances (superoxide anion radical, hydrogen peroxide, lipid peroxides, aldehydes, and others) [1721]. At moderate concentrations, they are signals to start gene transcription via activation of transcription factors (nuclear factor κB (NF-κB), activator protein 1 (AP-1), and antioxidant response element- (ARE-) binding proteins) or initiating the protein kinase cascade [5, 16, 19]. The latter pathway leads to the interaction with specific ARE of DNA motifs on promoters of antioxidant defence enzymes such as GST, Mn-superoxide dismutase (MnSOD), and glutamyl-cysteine ligase, among others [15].

Inherited or acquired alterations at any key point of the chemical defence system might lead to chronic intoxication and numerous human pathologies (chronic inflammation, degeneration, carcinogenesis, multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome, etc.) in the inherited or acquired MDR, respectively (Figure 1). Usually, the course of anticancer chemotherapy induces the overexpression of drug transporters MDR/MXR/P-gp [3, 4], activation of sensoring receptors, electrophile/oxidant sensors, transcription factors, and overexpression/activation of detoxifying/antioxidant enzymes [1]. Collectively, it causes rapid metabolism and elimination of both the anticancer drugs and cytotoxic by-products targeting tumour cells. Since the chemical defence system is ubiquitous for all human organs and tissues and central to organism functions, the attempts for its pharmacological suppression in order to diminish MDR potentially bear the risk of a multitude of undesired side effects. Upon the pharmacological interaction with components of universal chemical defence system, the “good guy” evolved on purpose to protect multicellular organisms from low-molecular-weight chemicals could become a “bad guy” blocking desired therapeutical effects of anticancer drugs (MDR).

On the grounds of our current knowledge, redox regulation of multiple molecular pathways essential for human chemical defence system can be implicated differentially in normal host and in tumour cells. Owing to the fact that redox balance in tumour cells is greatly altered as compared to that of normal host cells [22, 23], selective redox inhibitors targeting tumour-associated chemical defence as a cause of MDR should be developed. Regarding potential health effects of redox modulators on tumours, they are mainly attributed to cancer chemoprevention, direct anticancer action (for comprehensive review, see [23]), cancer sensitisation to conventional chemotherapeutics, preferentially through MDR suppression/reversal, cancer sensitisation to radio- and photodynamic therapies, and protection of normal host organs/tissues against damage by chemo- and radiotherapy (Figure 2).

This review will discuss existing and perspective possibilities of differential targeted modulation of redox-dependent components/pathways of intrinsic and induced chemical defence as an emerging strategy for combinatory anticancer therapies to overcome MDR. Molecular pathways-targets for MDR attenuation or even reversal by redox-active substances will be described in detail.

2. Intrinsic Multidrug Resistance (MDR): Is It Possible to Overcome It by Redox Modulation?

2.1. Inherited Overexpression of Drug Transporters Accelerates Drug Efflux from Target Cells

Some individuals possess the so-called intrinsic MDR having never been exposed to chemotherapy. Genetical predisposition to resist xenobiotic stress could, in principle, be explained in terms of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of complex MDR system components, starting from drug transporters, censoring receptors, and xenobiotic/drug metabolising enzymes (see several examples below). On the other hand, a leading hypothesis indicates intrinsic MDR as a result of chronic (“silent”) exposure to low-level xenobiotic stressors or endogenous disturbances of lipid, glucose, and/or hormone metabolism. Therefore, the molecular pathways of its regulations are similar to those characteristic for acquired/chemotherapy-induced MDR. In this line, the development of intrinsic MDR correlates with increased risk of carcinogenesis, and the process is under network-like redox control (for comprehensive review, see [1]). It appears that the classical paradigm of cancer chemoprevention with redox-active nontoxic substances could be interpreted in terms of intrinsic MDR prevention. Furthermore, intrinsic MDR is a hallmark of stem cells, both normal and tumour, because high resistance to any toxin would guarantee survival and maintenance of stem cell populations.

2.2. Gene Polymorphisms Influencing Drug Metabolising Enzymes May Result in Ultrafast Drug Elimination or Extremely Slow Formation of Cytotoxic Redox By-Products

The cytochrome P450 (CYP) system is a superfamily of isozymes, located in the smooth endoplasmic reticulum, mainly in the liver, but also in extrahepatic tissues (e.g., intestinal mucosa, lung, kidney, brain, lymphocytes, placenta, and skin), involved in the biotransformation of numerous lipophilic xenobiotics into more hydrophilic, less toxic, and more easily excreted metabolites [11, 24, 25]. The major CYP enzymes involved in human drug metabolism belong to families 1, 2, and 3, the specific drug metabolising isoforms being Cyp1A2, Cyp2C9, Cyp2C19, Cyp2D6, and Cyp3A4/3A5.

Each CYP isoform is a product of specific gene. For some isoforms, the existence of genetic polymorphisms has been demonstrated. The allelic variants may be due to the deletion of the entire gene, SNPs, deletion or insertion of fragments of DNA within the gene, or multiplication of gene copies, leading to absent, deficient, or enhanced enzyme activity. Thus, the population can be classified into Extensive Metabolisers (EM, individuals with normal capacity), Poor Metabolisers (PM, individuals with reduced/null metabolic activity), and Ultrarapid Metabolisers (UM, individuals with a higher-than-normal metabolic activity). It seems that opposite populations of PM and UM could be at risk of constitutive MDR, because UM would rapidly metabolise/excrete parent molecules of anticancer drugs, while PM would not produce ROS as by-products of anticancer drug metabolism. These by-products possess strong cytotoxicity against cancer cells. Hence, the routine clinical diagnostics based on determination of CYP SNPs produce a reliable prediction of individual chemosensitivity/chemoresistance/MDR to anticancer therapies. Several polymorphisms have been connected with the inducibility or enzymatic activity of the abovementioned drug metabolising CYP isoforms [6].

2.3. Redox-Active Inhibitors of Drug Transporters and Receptors Associated with Drug Detoxifying Enzymes: Hopes and Reality

Notwithstanding the growing interest and great hopes for natural nontoxic redox agents to prevent/inhibit/reverse MDR ([26]; in this review), drug development remains rather complicated due to low bioavailability, defined by restricted absorption through intestine, lining epithelia, and skin [24, 25], rapid metabolism, and excretion. Absorbed MDR inhibitors become themselves targets for the classical pathways of xenobiotic detoxification/drug metabolism [2729]. In phase I, they are predominantly metabolised by microsomal CYPs. Then, phase II glucuronidation by UGT [30], sulfation by phenol and catecholamine specific sulfotransferases (SULT1A1 and SULT1A3) [11], methylation by COMT [31], and binding with glutathione through GST occur [12, 28].

To improve candidate MDR inhibitor bioavailability and attenuate its metabolic disruption, several approaches have been implied such as injectable forms, other sophisticated drug delivery systems, combination with adjuvants like piperine and caffeine to diminish glucuronidation, and chemical modification of parent molecules to bypass efficient metabolic guardians [6, 24, 27].

A very high probability of drug-drug interactions between the adjuvant therapeutics for MDR inhibition and anticancer therapies themselves, as inducers of MDR, should also be taken into consideration [32]. It has been reported that potential MDR suppressors of herbal origin may easily interact with the same efflux (P-gp) and metabolic (Cyp3A4) pathways as anticancer agents do, resulting in opposite outcomes: inhibition or expression of MDR components, depending on timing, dosages, posology, and route of drug administration [33]. Recent findings have shown that this kind of drug-drug interaction is highly influenced by genetic polymorphisms of efflux proteins (MDR1) and metabolic enzymes (Cyp3A5) [34].

Emerging evidence shows that MDR could be an evolutionary defined mechanism to preserve normal and cancer stem cell populations. In this direction, redox signalling becomes a probable candidate to maintain cell stemness [1]. Therefore, the development of clinically efficient redox modulators of MDR should selectively target cancer stem cells, while leaving normal stem cells intact.

3. Redox Dependence of Acquired Multidrug Resistance: Modulation by Direct and Indirect Antioxidants

Most chemotherapeutic agents generate ROS, which bind to specific structures within the cancer cells and promote cell death. Chemotherapeutic agents disturb the redox homeostasis in cells and change their ability to cope with excessive ROS levels through the production of protective direct antioxidants [35]. Direct antioxidants are modified in this process and need to be resynthesised [36]. Glutathione (GSH) is considered as the main redox buffer in a cell because it supplies large amounts (millimolar concentrations) of reducing equivalents [37]. The intracellular thiol redox status is described as the ratio of reduced to oxidised forms of thiols (GSH/GSSG), which decreases under oxidative stress conditions, and GSH reversibly forms mixed disulfide bonds between protein thiols (S-glutathionylation) to prevent protein oxidation [38]. Besides GSH, thioredoxin (Trx), another important endogenous antioxidant, provides protection against oxidative stress [39, 40]. Nrf2 regulates Trx and sulfiredoxin enzymes, which are involved in the regeneration of the reduced form of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) and synthesis of GSH [41]. Among the potential mediators of chemoresistance, Trx plays critical roles in the regulation of cellular redox homeostasis and redox-regulated chemoresistance [4244].

In a recent study, Zhang et al. have shown that inhibiting Nrf2 expression through the transfection of shRNA plasmids in non-small-cell lung cancer cells significantly inhibited the expressions of glutathione pathway genes, antioxidants, and multidrug resistance proteins and induced the generation of ROS, decreased the level of GSH, and inhibited cell proliferation [45]. It has been reported that diffuse large B lymphoma cells expressed higher-than-normal basal levels of Trx, which was associated with decreased survival. Suppressed Trx inhibited cell growth and clonogenicity and sensitised the lymphoma cells to doxorubicin [44]. In a recent study, Raninga et al. [46] have reported the cytoprotective role of tTrx1 and thioredoxin reductase 1 (TrxR1) enzyme in multiple myeloma. Trx inhibitors were utilised in a variety of human cancers including acute myeloid leukemia [47], colorectal cancer [48], and lung cancer [49] to inhibit tumour growth and to stimulate ROS-induced apoptosis. Auranofin, a TrxR1 inhibitor, caused oxidative stress-induced cytotoxicity and apoptosis in cancers including chronic myeloid leukemia [50], chronic lymphocytic leukemia [51], prostate cancer [52], and breast cancer [53]. Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) activation is commonly observed in multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, gastric cancer, lung cancer, and laryngeal carcinoma. Dietary gamma-tocotrienol inhibited both induced and constitutive activation of STAT3 in multiple myeloma and prostate cancer cell lines [54]. High-dose intravenous ascorbate inhibited NADPH-oxidase and was selectively toxic to tumours with low CAT activity [55]. Recent study has reported that a naphthoquinone derivative induced cell death depending on Bax deficiency. In conclusion, it has been suggested that naphthoquinone might be clinically feasible to overcome chemoresistance [56].

Plant-origin polyphenols or their synthetic derivatives have been recognised as redox-active molecules with relatively low toxicity. Some of them, for example, luteolin, apigenin, and chrysin, exert both direct and indirect antioxidant effects by scavenging ROS and increasing Nrf2 activity, followed by the induction of its target antioxidant genes [57]. The natural polyphenols are also substrates for ABC transporters as they bind to the active sites of the transporters and reduce drug efflux [58]. The prooxidant capacity of some polyphenols (quercetin, epigallocatechin gallate) allowed their identification as chemotherapeutic adjuvants since they selectively enhanced cytotoxic effects of chemotherapeutics [59]. Shin et al. have reported that some specific polyphenols triggered cell cycle arrest and apoptotic cell death in cisplatin-resistant A2780/Cis human ovarian cancer cells [60].

3.1. Antioxidant-Associated Modification of Drug Transporting Systems

Elevated GSH levels trigger chemoresistance by different pathways: direct interaction with drugs and ROS, prevention of protein and DNA damage, and induction of DNA repair. For example, MRP1 causes efflux of some xenobiotics (e.g., vincristine, daunorubicin) through a cotransport mechanism with GSH [26, 6163]. Oxidative stress was more cytotoxic towards B16 melanoma cells with low GSH concentrations [64]. Tumour cells overexpressing γ-glutamyl-transpeptidase were more resistant to H2O2 and chemotherapeutics, such as doxorubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil [65]. GST-related chemoresistance modulated protein-protein interactions with members of the mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinases including c-Jun N-terminal kinase 1 and apoptosis signal-regulating kinase 1 and altered balance of kinases during drug treatment [66]. This complex mechanism involved the interaction of promoter regions for GST and GGT with NF-κB and Nrf2 followed by upregulation of several detoxification genes, such as ferritin, GSH-S-reductase, and hemeoxygenase-1. Hypoxia induced breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) expression in tissues by interacting with heme and porphyrins thus increasing levels of cytoprotective protoporphyrins [67]. Overexpression of BCRP is known to induce resistance to various chemotherapeutic drugs, such as topotecan and methotrexate [68].

3.1.1. MDR Induction and Possibility to Inhibit It by Redox-Active Substances Affecting Glutathione Metabolism

Definite redox-active compounds, such as quinones, polyphenols, oligomeric proanthocyanidins, ergothioneine, ovothiols, tannins, or terpenes, behave as redox modulators and trigger redox-related events, such as ROS increase and GSH depletion, causing apoptosis of cancer cells [69]. In general, redox modulations in cancer cells could initiate cell differentiation or could induce apoptosis [70]. Acetaminophen, a widely used drug to combat pregnancy-connected toxicity [71], induced ROS production in human choriocarcinoma cells by reducing BCRP and GSH content and activating Nrf2-targeted genes: NAD(P)H dehydrogenase, quinone 1 (NQO1), and hemeoxygenase-1. On the other hand, genetic knockout of TrxR1 gene resulted in liver insensitivity to acetaminophen due to drastic disruption of the link between redox homeostasis and drug metabolism in the liver [72]. Glyoxalase 1, a key enzyme converting α-oxoaldehydes into corresponding α-hydroxy acids, has been found to be amplified in many primary tumours and cancer cell lines [73]. In this regard, Young et al. [73] have reported that overexpression of both enzymes glyoxalase 1 and transglutaminase 2, an enzyme catalysing polyamine conjugation/deamidation, led to increased tumour cell survival, drug resistance, and metastasis [74]. The use of photodynamic anticancer therapy is particularly attractive because of its specificity and selectivity [75]. Hypericin, a naphthodianthrone, is a promising photosensitizer, which is feasible for photodynamic therapy, for fluorescence diagnosis, and for topical applications [76]. Mikešová et al. [77] have shown that hypericin content in cells, GSH levels, and redox status correlated with hypericin-induced photocytotoxicity. In contrast, resveratrol attenuated cisplatin toxicity by maintaining GSH levels [78, 79]. It has also been demonstrated that buthionine sulfoximine, an inhibitor of GSH biosynthesis, increased the sensitivity of the cells to chemotherapeutics, while N-acetyl cysteine exhibited the reverse effect, particularly in drug-resistant cells [61, 62, 80]. Malabaricone-A, a diarylnonanoid with a potency of MDR reversal, induced depletion of GSH, inhibited GPx activity, and caused redox imbalance [81]. Collectively, molecular pathways-targets for MDR modulation by GSH controlling agents are schematically presented in Figure 3.

3.1.2. Overexpression of ABC Transporters: Effects of NADPH-Oxidase and CYP Inhibitors

NADPH-oxidase (NOX) is an oxidoreductase and plays crucial roles in cell growth, proliferation, and regulation of phosphatases and transcription factors via redox-sensitive cysteine residues [82]. Elevated NOX expression has been shown in breast cancer [83], colon cancer [84], and neuroblastoma cells [85]. Barth et al. have demonstrated that pharmacological block of glucosylceramide synthase, a stimulator of NOX activity, substantially improved cytotoxicity of chemotherapeutics in glioblastoma cells [86]. The molecular mechanism of anticancer effects of cisplatin involves activation of Akt/mTOR pathway regulated by NOX-generated ROS, and NOX inhibition by diphenyl iodonium was critical for cisplatin cytotoxicity [87].

Overexpression of the drug and xenobiotic metabolising cytochrome P450 enzymes for a long time has been considered as one of the major mechanisms of chemoresistance in solid tumours [88, 89]. Types 1 and 2 CYPs have been proven to activate procarcinogens into ultimate carcinogens [90]. CYPs have become therapeutic targets in anticancer protocols amid their involvement in the activation and/or inactivation of chemotherapeutic drugs [91]. Molina-Ortiz et al. reported that altered CYP expression played a crucial role in the therapy of Rhabdomyosarcoma patients [92]. The in vitro antitumour action of natural product austocystin D has been explained by selective activation of CYP enzymes leading to DNA damage [93].

3.2. Chemotherapy-Induced Inflammatory Responses May Cause Redox-Regulated Multidrug Chemoresistance

To increase clinical efficacy of chemotherapy and combat MDR, molecular and cellular processes promoting inflammation have been targeted due to the common knowledge that (i) inflammatory cells are present within tumours and (ii) tumours arise at sites of chronic inflammation [94, 95]. Cancer promotion and progression stages are accelerated by ROS generated by immune cells, mediators of inflammation [96]. The induction of antioxidant defence enzymes in tumours as an adaptation to oxidative attacks from host immune cells might contribute to chemoresistance. Thus, hydrogen peroxide-resistant thymic lymphoma cells with increased catalase and total SOD activities, altered GSSG/GSH redox potential, and oxidised NADP+/NADPH pool exhibited resistance to conventional chemotherapeutics, such as cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and glucocorticoids [97]. Chemotherapeutic agents caused release of ATP into the extracellular space as they induced tumour cell death [98]. Following accumulation of adenosine in tumours through CD39 and CD73, immune responses were suppressed [99]. Clayton et al. showed that exosome-expressing CD39 and CD73 suppressed T cells through adenosine production [100]. Oxidative stress has putative impact on the activation and regulation of protein kinase C (PKC) with redox-sensitive regions in both N-terminal regulatory domain and C-terminal catalytic domain. Rimessi et al. [101] have demonstrated that PKCζ induced resistance to apoptotic agents following its translocation into the nucleus as a result of oxidative stress. Nuclear PKCζ inhibitor restored the apoptotic susceptibility of doxorubicin-resistant cells by forming a complex with the proinflammatory transcription factor NF-κB and promoting IL-6 synthesis, thus favouring tumorigenesis and MDR [102].

3.2.1. Activation of NF-κB-Dependent Pathways and Their Inhibition by Antioxidants

NF-κB is the key transcription factor involved in the inflammatory pathway. NF-κB is constitutively active in many of the signalling pathways implicated in cancer. Hyperactivation of NF-κB in cancer cells promotes cancer cell survival by inducing the upregulation of antiapoptotic proteins such as MnSOD and Bcl-2 family members and the inhibition of proapoptotic proteins and is linked directly to the inflammation-induced chemoresistance. NF-κB protects against oxidative stress and activates transcription factor c-myc, MMP gene expression, and tumour angiogenesis and remodels extracellular matrix, while NF-κB inhibition blocks cell proliferation [95, 103106]. NF-κB is associated with aberrant growth, resistance to apoptosis, and overexpression of the genes involved in cell cycle promotion in cancer cells. In a recent study, it has been shown that isorhamnetin, a metabolite of quercetin, enhanced antitumour effects of chemotherapeutic drug capecitabine through negative regulation NF-κB [107]. Singh et al. have reported that tea polyphenols inhibited cisplatin enhanced activity of NF-κB [108]. FADD-like IL-1beta-converting enzyme inhibitory protein (FLIP) is a potent inhibitor of caspase-8-mediated apoptosis involved in NF-κB activation. Talbott et al. revealed that FLIP regulates NF-κB through protein S-nitrosylation, a key posttranslational mechanism controlling cell death and survival strategies [109]. Overexpression of cyclin D1 in cancer cells was reported in cisplatin chemoresistance. In contrast, reduction of cyclin D1 expression resulted in the increased sensitivity to cisplatin due to reduced NF-κB activity and apoptosis [110]. It was shown that vitamin E compounds, such as δ- and γ-tocotrienol, inhibited NF-κB activity, cell growth, cell survival, and tumour growth. In parallel, δ-tocotrienol augmented sensitivity of pancreatic cancer to gemcitabine [111].

Curcumin, a nontoxic food additive extensively used for food flavouring [112], has been found to suppress human hepatoma through inhibition of tumour cell proliferation, cell cycle arrest in G2/M phase, and induction of apoptosis [113]. Numerous publications have reported curcumin as a sensitiser for a number of anticancer drugs [114], first of all, cisplatin [115]. Results of recent studies have also suggested that curcumin was a reversal of induced MDR by multiple mechanisms such as the inhibition of ABC transporter expression and function, activation of ATPase, and modulation of NF-κB activity during anticancer therapy [116]. In contrast, caffeic acid, a natural phenolic, prevented antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects induced by paclitaxel in lung cancer cells by the activation of NF-κB-survivin-Bcl-2 axis, thus contributing to acquired MDR [117].

3.2.2. Activation of Phosphoinositol-3 Pathway and Its Inhibition in a Redox Fashion

The phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase (PI3K) pathway has been widely considered to be associated with oncogenesis, cancer progression, and multiple hallmarks of malignancy [118]. Consistently, PI3K pathway is a common mechanism of resistance to antineoplastic agents [119]. Of note, resistance to PI3K inhibitors may also develop due to aberrant compensatory signalling through other pathways [120]. The three main molecules in this pathway are PI3K, Akt, and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). Recently, it has been reported that PI3K-mTOR inhibitor enhanced the cytotoxicity of temozolomide, an advanced chemotherapy for malignant gliomas [121].

Since activation of integrins, proteins expressed on the cytoplasmic membrane of malignant cells, is controlled directly by a redox site by disulfide exchange in their extracellular domain, redox modifications of thiols could alter essential functions of integrins [122]. It was suggested that inactivation of VLA-4 integrin by nontoxic tellurium compound was due to its binding to the thiol groups of cysteines that decreased PI3K/Akt/Bcl-2 signalling while enhancing drug sensitivity [123]. Gao et al. demonstrated that the natural bioflavonoid apigenin reversed drug-resistant phenotype by its suppressor effect on PI3K/Akt/Nrf2 pathway in doxorubicin-resistant Nrf2 overexpressing cells [124].

3.2.3. Activation of Toll-Like Receptors (TLRs) by Chemotherapeutics and Inhibitory Effects of Redox Modulators

Recent studies implicate bacterial, parasitic, and viral infections as a possible link between inflammation and carcinogenesis [125]. One possible redox-sensitive signalling pathway connecting infection-associated inflammation and carcinogenesis is mediated by Toll-like receptors (TLRs). The hypothesis is that bacterial products, such as lipopolysaccharide, could activate TLR4-MyD88 axis in tumour cells followed by the production of proinflammatory cytokines, overexpression of antiapoptotic signals (XIAP and pAkt), and, finally, acquisition of chemoresistance by ovarian cancer cells [126]. Both in vivo and in vitro experiments have shown that anticancer drug paclitaxel exerted two opposite modes of action: killing of breast cancer cells and enhancement of their survival through activation of TLR4 pathway [127]. The authors suggested that simultaneous TLR4 block could reverse MDR to paclitaxel and improve efficacy of the anticancer therapy.

Activation of TLRs in cancer cells seems to contribute to the tumour growth, cancer cell survival, and MDR via a signalling cascade involving cytokine/chemokine production [128]. It was shown that ligation to the TLR2 in lung cancer cells induced activation of mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK) and NF-κB, a classical pathway of survival strategy [129]. Stimulation of TLR7/TLR8 in pancreas cancer cells resulted in elevated NF-κB and COX-2 expression, increased cancer cell proliferation, and reduced chemosensitivity [130]. Active TLR-4/MyD88 signalling was also found in epithelial ovarian cancer cells and influenced the drug response [131]. The relationships between the expressions of TLR-4, MyD88, and NF-κB have been examined in epithelial ovarian cancer patients. Increased MyD88 expression was found to be associated with poor survival rate [132].

3.3. Chemotherapy-Induced Redox-Dependent Stress Responses Leading to Adaptation

Along with killing cancer cells, chemotherapeutic agents induce their stress and adaptive responses. Signalling pathways and gene expression in response to chemotherapeutics play pivotal roles in the development of acquired MDR [133]. Key functional aspects of cellular stress response include damage to membrane lipids, proteins, and DNA and alterations in the redox status, energy metabolism, cell cycle, and proliferation [134]. Thus, there is clear-cut evidence that upregulation of nonenzymatic and enzymatic antioxidant defence, molecular chaperones, and stress responsive proteins are responsible for acquired MDR [135]. These molecular pathways are potential targets to enhance the cytotoxic effects of chemotherapeutics and to overcome drug resistance.

3.3.1. Nrf2 as a Perspective Target to Overcome MDR in Tumours

Nrf2, a redox-sensitive transcription factor, plays a crucial role in redox homeostasis during oxidative stress. Nrf2 is sequestered in cytosol by an inhibitory protein Keap1 causing its proteosomal degradation [136]. In response to oxidative stress, Nrf2 translocates to nucleus and binds to ARE that increases the expression of antioxidant genes such as hemeoxygenase-1, NAD(P)H: quinone oxidoreductase 1, aldo-keto reductases, and several ATP-dependent drug efflux pumps [137]. Many genes involved in phase II metabolism are also induced by Nrf2, including GSTs, UGT, and UDP-glucuronic acid synthesis enzymes [138]. While Nrf2 upregulation causes chemoresistance, its blockade sensitises a variety of cancer cells, including neuroblastoma, breast, ovarian, prostate, lung, and pancreatic cancer cells, to chemotherapeutic drugs [139]. Several flavonoid compounds have been reported to be potent Nrf2 inhibitors, such as epigallocatechin 3-gallate, luteolin, and brusatol [140, 141]. Nrf2 was upregulated in hepatocellular carcinoma and positive correlation was found between Nrf2 expression and antiapoptotic Bcl-xL and MMP-9 [142]. Quercetin treatment increased the total cellular amount and nuclear accumulation of Nrf2 protein in malignant mesothelioma cells [143]. In vitro suppression of Keap1 in human prostate and non-small-cell lung carcinoma cell lines elevated Nrf2 activity and increased sensitisation to various chemotherapeutic agents and radiotherapy [144, 145]. These results demonstrated that Nrf2 inhibitors are effective adjuvants of chemotherapeutic drugs.

3.4. Chemotherapy-Induced Prosurvival and Antiapoptotic Cellular Strategies: Roles for Anti- and Prooxidants

Cellular redox homeostasis is maintained by the balance between endogenous antioxidant defence system, including antioxidant enzymes such as SOD, catalase (CAT), GPX, GSH, proteins, and low-molecular-weight scavengers, such as uric acid, coenzyme Q, and lipoic acid, and the prooxidant molecules, leading to the formation of several highly oxidising derivatives.

3.4.1. p53 Proapoptotic Protein

p53 is considered as the guardian of the genome, and several gene mutations encoding p53 have been detected in several tumour cells. Under physiological conditions, activated p53 plays a key role in tumour prevention by promoting synthesis of antioxidant enzymes. ROS-induced DNA damage activates p53, leading to apoptosis via the mitochondrial intrinsic pathway and increasing the synthesis of prooxidant enzymes. Since p53 is a redox-sensitive factor, ROS negatively modulates its activity via oxidative modification of the cysteine residues at the DNA-binding site. It has been proposed that the loss of p53 function in cancer cells is associated with their ability to avoid apoptosis [146]. Mutations of p53 are involved in resistance to chemotherapy [147]. It was demonstrated that p53 regulated Nrf2 negatively and interfered with the ability of Nrf2 to bind to DNA. A low level of p53 favoured binding of Nrf2 to DNA. In a recent study, the treatment with bortezomib, which is a selective proteasome inhibitor, induced Myelocytomatosis Viral Oncogene Neuroblastoma (MYCN) downregulated p53 expression, leading to cell survival in neuroblastoma [148].

3.4.2. Bcl-2 Antiapoptotic Protein

Bcl-2 protein is a member of a family of apoptosis-modulating proteins which protects against a variety of apoptotic stimuli, mainly acting at the mitochondrial level. In addition to its antiapoptotic action, Bcl-2 has been shown to exert potent antioxidant effects [149] such as protection of lipid membranes against peroxidation reactions, maintenance of cellular redox status (i.e., NADH/NAD+ and GSH/GSSG in a reduced state) in response to oxidative stress [150], and elevation of cellular levels of glutathione and reducing equivalents [151]. Bcl-2 upregulates antioxidant defence systems, and its mitochondrial localisation contributes to achieving this effect. Bcl-2 is capable of forming ion channels as a regulator of mitochondrial permeability transition [152]. Mitochondrial permeability transition blockade prevents release of cytochrome c, an apoptosis initiating factor. Herrmann et al. reported that Bcl-2 selectively regulates nuclear localisation of cell death regulators such as p53 and NF-κB [153]. Cellular redox state via thiols plays a major role in regulating mitochondria-mediated events during apoptosis, and oxidation of mitochondrial thiols is an apoptotic sensor. GSH is involved in detoxifying reactions and it has a high intracellular concentration. It serves as the major reducing peptide within all of the cells, due to its sulfhydryl group buffering and removing free radicals generated during metabolic processes such as respiration. GSH is an important factor for Bcl-2 ability to suppress apoptosis. Chaiswing et al. observed that thiol redox status and activities and expression of several antioxidant enzymes exhibited distinct patterns in two prostate cancer cell lines at different growth phases, suggesting that modulation of thiol redox status might be useful as a therapeutic tool to modify cancer cell proliferation and tumour aggressiveness [154]. Mitochondrial metabolism is altered in malignant cells so that, in contrast to normal or benign cells, malignant cells accumulate citrate due to low activity of mitochondrial aconitase, become citrate-oxidising cells, and exhibit low amounts of citrate. The higher rate of mitochondrial substrate metabolism explains the increased levels of ROS associated with malignancy and metastasis. The foregoing discussion illustrates the importance of GSH in mitochondrial function and redox status, in determining the metastatic aggressiveness and sensitivity of cancer cells to chemotherapeutic agents, and provides the rationale for mitochondrial GSH as a potential therapeutic target in cancer [155].

3.5. Chemotherapy-Induced Transcription and Activity of Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Ah) Receptor

AhR is a basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor that, prior to ligand binding, is stabilised in the cytoplasm by direct interaction with several proteins such as heat shock protein 90, its cochaperon, and X-associated protein 2. Upon binding to aromatic ligands, toxins, drugs, phytochemicals, and sterols, the AhR-ligand complex shuttles from cytoplasm to the nucleus, where it heteromerises with the AhR nuclear translocator (Arnt) to form the transcription complex able to bind to xenobiotic responsive elements (XRE) DNA-binding motifs located in the promoter region of the target drug metabolising genes, such as phase I (mainly, Cyp1 subfamily) and II metabolising enzymes and Nrf2 [156158]. One of the downstream targets for AhR is BCRP encoded by ABCC3 gene [159161]. The coordinate AhR- and Nrf2-dependent transcriptional regulation of human UGTs by utilising both XRE- and ARE-binding motifs takes place to protect cells from xenobiotic and oxidative stresses [162]. The elegant study with genetically modified mice has clearly demonstrated that Nrf2 is required for ligand-associated induction of classical “AhR battery” genes NQO1, GST isoforms, and UGTs [163]. Apart from metabolic enzymes, a number of growth factors, cytokines, chemokines, and their receptors are downstream gene targets for activated AhR [164, 165]. AhR is also functionally connected with epidermal growth factor receptor, presumably, through NF-κB-regulated pathway [166], thus influencing the epithelial cell proliferation. AhR can also cross-talk and directly interact with proteins involved in major redox-regulated signalling pathways such as NF-κB and various kinases such as Src, JNK, p38, and MAPK [167] and with oestrogen receptors to mediate oestrogen metabolism [168, 169]. Recent studies have unraveled unsuspected physiological roles and novel alternative ligand-specific pathways for this receptor that allowed hypothesising numerous pharmacological roles of AhR ligands useful for the development of a new generation of anti-inflammatory and anticancer drugs [159, 170].

The AhR-mediated regulation of aromatic hydrocarbons metabolism has been implicated in a variety of cancers [164, 171] affecting different stages of carcinogenesis. If metabolic activation of the organic molecules increased the levels of their adducts with DNA thus promoting cancer initiation, anticancer drug- or toxin-induced AhR activation played a pivotal role in cancer promotion and progression [172, 173]. Elevated AhR expression associated with constitutive nonligand activation has been found in several cancers as evidenced by the nuclear localisation of AhR and induced downstream gene Cyp1A1 [174, 175]. Stable knockdown of AhR decreased the tumorigenic and metastatic properties of breast cancer cell line in vitro and in vivo. On the other hand, AhR overexpression in nontumour human mammary epithelial cells transformed them in cells with malignant phenotype [176]. Of importance, AhR knockdown downregulated the expression of ABCC3; overexpression of this gene in breast cancer has been strongly associated with acquired MDR [177] and resistance to paclitaxel, a drug widely used in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer [178]. Inherited polymorphisms in AhR, for example, substitution Arg554Lys, and its machinery [179, 180] or presence of endogenous ligands-stimulators for the receptor (cAMP, bilirubin, prostaglandins, oxidative lipids, etc.) could be implicated into inherited MDR.

To suppress AhR transcription pharmacologically several approaches have been proposed, including the modulation of protein-protein interaction between transcription factor, coactivators, and corepressors [160, 167, 181]. A number of dietary polyphenols with redox properties (resveratrol, quercetin, curcumin, etc.), indoles, tryptophane metabolites, bilirubin, and oxidised products of lipid metabolism have been suggested as nontoxic ligands-activators or ligands-inhibitors of AhR expression by competitive and noncompetitive pathways [181, 182]. If ligands-activators of AhR are regarded as potential anti-inflammatory agents [181184], redox-active ligands able to suppress AhR expression/functions could be candidates for MDR reversals. For example, 7-ketocholesterol, a major dietary oxysterol, may actually strongly inhibit AhR activation [185]. Alpha-naphthoflavone is considered as a classical AhR antagonist blocking activation of XRE-containing reporter gene and Cyp1 upregulation in hepatoma cells [186]. However, alpha-naphthoflavone is also a partial agonist of AhR and acts as a competitive inhibitor exclusively in the presence of another agonist. Recently, more selective pure ligands-antagonists of AhR have been developed such as 2-methyl-2H-pyrazole-3-carboxylic acid (2-methyl-4-o-tolylazo-phenyl)-amide, 3′-methoxy-4′-nitroflavone, 3′,4′-dimethoxyflavone, and 6,2′,4′-trimethoxyflavone. These were able to block the induction of Cyp1A1-dependent ethoxyresorufin O-deethylase (EROD) activity [187190]. They all belong to redox-active flavones and after proper clinical studies on safety and efficacy could be feasible for combinatory anticancer therapy to combat MDR. Among a number of plant polyphenols used for topical application, exclusively the phenylpropanoid verbascoside and flavonoid quercetin proved to be strong inhibitors of UV- or FICZ-upregulated AhR-Cyp1A1-Cyp1B1 axis in human keratinocytes [184], suggesting their potency as topical MDR suppressors/reversals.

4. Conclusions

The multiple pleiotropic interactions of redox-active molecules so far demonstrated on the molecular pathways controlling cellular MDR, from xenobiotic cellular uptake inhibition to the modulation of phase I/II enzyme detoxification, to the inhibition of Toll-like receptor activation and/or AhR expression and function, provide a consistent rationale for the necessity of more intense and systematic research efforts in the field of anti-/prooxidant adjuvants for anticancer chemotherapy, to attempt clinically effective MDR inhibition with tolerable toxicity.

The design and implementation of more selected and targeted clinical studies centred on redox-active candidate MDR-interfering molecules will possibly contribute to overcoming the presently dominating clinical practice, which confers a constantly growing interest in redox modulators and antioxidants as a mere palliative against the potent cytotoxicity of conventional and biologic anticancer drugs.


ABC:ATP-binding cassette
AhR:Aryl hydrocarbon receptor
Akt:Protein kinase B
AP-1:Activator protein 1
ARE:Antioxidant response element
Bcl2:Apoptosis regulator Bcl-2
BCRP:Breast cancer resistance protein
COMT:Catechol-O-methyl transferase
CYP:Cytochrome P450
EM:Extensive Metabolisers
FLIP:FADD-like IL-1beta-converting enzyme inhibitory protein
GPx:Glutathione peroxidase
GSH/GSSG:Reduced glutathione/oxidised glutathione
JNK1:c-Jun N-terminal kinase 1
Keap 1:Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1
MDR:Multiple drug resistance
MMP:Matrix metalloproteinase
mTOR:Mammalian target of rapamycin
MXR:Multiple xenobiotic resistance
NADPH:Nicotinamide dinucleotide phosphate, reduced form
NAT:N-Acetyl transferase
NF-B:Nuclear factor kappa B
NQO1:NAD(P)H: quinone oxidoreductase 1
Nrf1/2:Nuclear factor E2-related factor 1/2
PKC:Protein kinase C
PM:Poor Metabolisers
RNS:Reactive nitrogen species
ROS:Reactive oxygen species
SNP:Single nuclear polymorphism
SOD:Superoxide dismutase
STAT3:Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3
SULT1A1/A3:Sulfotransferases A1/A3
TNF:Tumour necrosis factor alpha
TLR:Toll-like receptor
TrxR:Thioredoxin reductase
UM:Ultrarapid Metabolisers
XRE:Xenobiotic responsive elements.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.


  1. M. T. Kuo, “Redox regulation of multidrug resistance in cancer chemotherapy: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities,” Antioxidants and Redox Signaling, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 99–133, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. S. Shukla, S. Ohnuma, and S. V. Ambudkar, “Improving cancer chemotherapy with modulators of ABC drug transporters,” Current Drug Targets, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 621–630, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. W. W. Ma and A. A. Adjei, “Novel agents on the horizon for cancer therapy,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 111–137, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. T. Nakanishi and D. D. Ross, “Breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP/ABCG2): its role in multidrug resistance and regulation of its gene expression,” Chinese Journal of Cancer, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 73–99, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. J. V. Goldstone, A. Hamdoun, B. J. Cole et al., “The chemical defensome: environmental sensing and response genes in the Strongylocentrotus purpuratus genome,” Developmental Biology, vol. 300, no. 1, pp. 366–384, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. L. Korkina, M. G. Scordo, I. Deeva, E. Cesareo, and C. De Luca, “The chemical defensive system in the pathobiology of idiopathic environment—associated diseases,” Current Drug Metabolism, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 914–931, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. S. V. Ambudkar, S. Dey, C. A. Hrycyna, M. Ramachandra, I. Pastan, and M. M. Gottesman, “Biochemical, cellular, and pharmacological aspects of the multidrug transporter,” Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, vol. 39, pp. 361–398, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. S. P. C. Cole and R. G. Deeley, “Multidrug resistance mediated by the ATP-binding cassette transporter protein MRP,” BioEssays, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 931–940, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  9. B. Sarkadi, C. Özvegy-Laczka, K. Német, and A. Váradi, “ABCG2—a transporter for all seasons,” FEBS Letters, vol. 567, no. 1, pp. 116–120, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. M. S. Denison and S. R. Nagy, “Activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor by structurally diverse exogenous and endogenous chemicals,” Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, vol. 43, pp. 309–334, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. P. Pavek and Z. Dvorak, “Xenobiotic-induced transcriptional regulation of xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes of the cytochrome P450 super-family in human extrahepatic tissues,” Current Drug Metabolism, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 129–143, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. D. Kluth, A. Banning, I. Paur, R. Blomhoff, and R. Brigelius-Flohé, “Modulation of pregnane X receptor- and electrophile responsive element-mediated gene expression by dietary polyphenolic compounds,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 315–325, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. K. W. Bock and C. Köhle, “Coordinate regulation of drug metabolism by xenobiotic nuclear receptors: UGTs acting together with CYPs and glucuronide transporters,” Drug Metabolism Reviews, vol. 36, no. 3-4, pp. 595–615, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. C. D. Klaassen and A. L. Slitt, “Regulation of hepatic transporters by xenobiotic receptors,” Current Drug Metabolism, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 309–328, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. T. Nguyen, P. J. Sherratt, and C. B. Pickett, “Regulatory mechanisms controlling gene expression mediated by the antioxidant response element,” Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, vol. 43, pp. 233–260, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. A. K. Jaiswal, “Nrf2 signaling in coordinated activation of antioxidant gene expression,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1199–1207, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. B. Fadeel and S. Orrenius, “Apoptosis: a basic biological phenomenon with wide-ranging implications in human disease,” Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 258, no. 6, pp. 479–517, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. L. Góth, P. Rass, and A. Páy, “Catalase enzyme mutations and their association with diseases,” Molecular Diagnosis, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 141–149, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. J. G. Scandalios, “Oxidative stress: Molecular perception and transduction of signals triggering antioxidant gene defenses,” Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 995–1014, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. A. Bindoli and M. P. Rigobello, “Principles in redox signaling: from chemistry to functional significance,” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 18, no. 13, pp. 1557–1593, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. A. Ayala, M. F. Muñoz, and S. Argüelles, “Lipid peroxidation: production, metabolism, and signaling mechanisms of malondialdehyde and 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal,” Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, vol. 2014, Article ID 360438, 31 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. C. M. Cabello, W. B. Bair III, and G. T. Wondrak, “Experimental therapeutics: targeting the redox Achilles heel of cancer,” Current Opinion in Investigational Drugs, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 1022–1037, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  23. G. T. Wondrak, “Redox-directed cancer therapeutics: molecular mechanisms and opportunities,” Antioxidants and Redox Signaling, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 3013–3069, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. L. G. Korkina, S. Pastore, C. De Luca, and V. A. Kostyuk, “Metabolism of plant polyphenols in the skin: beneficial versus deleterious effects,” Current Drug Metabolism, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 710–729, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. F. Oesch, E. Fabian, B. Oesch-Bartlomowicz, C. Werner, and R. Landsiedel, “Drug-metabolizing enzymes in the skin of man, rat, and pig,” Drug Metabolism Reviews, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 659–698, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. A. Cort and T. Ozben, “Natural product modulators to overcome multidrug resistance in cancer,” Nutrition and Cancer, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 411–423, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. P. Anand, A. B. Kunnumakkara, R. A. Newman, and B. B. Aggarwal, “Bioavailability of curcumin: problems and promises,” Molecular Pharmaceutics, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 807–818, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. J. D. Lambert, S. Sang, A. Y. H. Lu, and C. S. Yang, “Metabolism of dietary polyphenols and possible interactions with drugs,” Current Drug Metabolism, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 499–507, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. R. Cermak, “Effect of dietary flavonoids on pathways involved in drug metabolism,” Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism and Toxicology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 17–35, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. S. Muranaka, H. Fujita, T. Fujiwara et al., “Mechanism and characteristics of stimuli-dependent ROS generation in undifferentiated HL-60 cells,” Antioxidants and Redox Signaling, vol. 7, no. 9-10, pp. 1367–1376, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. J. Axelrod and R. Tomchick, “Enzymatic O-methylation of epinephrine and other catechols,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 233, no. 3, pp. 702–705, 1958. View at: Google Scholar
  32. R. S. Rapaka and P. M. Coates, “Dietary supplements and related products: a brief summary,” Life Sciences, vol. 78, no. 18, pp. 2026–2032, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. D. Pal and A. K. Mitra, “MDR- and CYP3A4-mediated drug-herbal interactions,” Life Sciences, vol. 78, no. 18, pp. 2131–2145, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. D. Li, A. Abudula, M. Abulahake, A.-P. Zhu, Y.-Q. Lou, and G.-L. Zhang, “Influence of CYP3A5 and MDR1 genetic polymorphisms on urinary 6β-hydroxycortisol/cortisol ratio after grapefruit juice intake in healthy Chinese,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 775–784, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. V. J. Victorino, L. Pizzatti, P. Michelletti, and C. Panis, “Oxidative stress, redox signaling and cancer chemoresistance: putting together the pieces of the puzzle,” Current Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 21, no. 28, pp. 3211–3226, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. L. E. Tebay, H. Robertson, S. T. Durant et al., “Mechanisms of activation of the transcription factor Nrf2 by redox stressors, nutrient cues, and energy status and the pathways through which it attenuates degenerative disease,” Free Radical Biology & Medicine, vol. 88, pp. 108–146, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. K. Aoyama and T. Nakaki, “Glutathione in cellular redox homeostasis: association with the excitatory amino acid carrier 1 (EAAC1),” Molecules, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 8742–8758, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. H. F. Gilbert, “Thiol/disulfide exchange equilibria and disulfide bond stability,” Methods in Enzymology, vol. 251, pp. 8–28, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  39. G. M. Cunningham, M. G. Roman, L. C. Flores et al., “The paradoxical role of thioredoxin on oxidative stress and aging,” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, vol. 576, pp. 32–38, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. A. Perkins, L. B. Poole, and P. A. Karplus, “Tuning of peroxiredoxin catalysis for various physiological roles,” Biochemistry, vol. 53, no. 49, pp. 7693–7705, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. Y. Hirotsu, F. Katsuoka, R. Funayama et al., “Nrf2-MafG heterodimers contribute globally to antioxidant and metabolic networks,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 40, no. 20, pp. 10228–10239, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. D. T. Lincoln, E. M. Ali Emadi, K. F. Tonissen, and F. M. Clarke, “The thioredoxin-thioredoxin reductase system: over-expression in human cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 2425–2433, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  43. S. J. Kim, Y. Miyoshi, T. Taguchi et al., “High thioredoxin expression is associated with resistance to docetaxel in primary breast cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 11, no. 23, pp. 8425–8430, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. C. Li, M. A. Thompson, A. T. Tamayo et al., “Over-expression of Thioredoxin-1 mediates growth, survival, and chemoresistance and is a druggable target in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma,” Oncotarget, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 314–326, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. B. Zhang, C. Xie, J. Zhong, H. Chen, H. Zhang, and X. Wang, “A549 cell proliferation inhibited by RNAi mediated silencing of the Nrf2 gene,” Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 3905–3916, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. P. V. Raninga, G. Di Trapani, S. Vuckovic, M. Bhatia, and K. F. Tonissen, “Inhibition of thioredoxin 1 leads to apoptosis in drug-resistant multiple myeloma,” Oncotarget, vol. 6, no. 17, pp. 15410–15424, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. Y. Tan, L. Bi, P. Zhang et al., “Thioredoxin-1 inhibitor PX-12 induces human acute myeloid leukemia cell apoptosis and enhances the sensitivity of cells to arsenic trioxide,” International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 4765–4773, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  48. F. Wang, F. Lin, P. Zhang et al., “Thioredoxin-1 inhibitor, 1-methylpropyl 2-imidazolyl disulfide, inhibits the growth, migration and invasion of colorectal cancer cell lines,” Oncology Reports, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 967–973, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. B. R. You, H. R. Shin, and W. H. Park, “PX-12 inhibits the growth of A549 lung cancer cells via G2/M phase arrest and ROS-dependent apoptosis,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 301–308, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. J.-J. Liu, Q. Liu, H.-L. Wei, J. Yi, H.-S. Zhao, and L.-P. Gao, “Inhibition of thioredoxin reductase by auranofin induces apoptosis in adriamycin-resistant human K562 chronic myeloid leukemia cells,” Die Pharmazie, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 440–444, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. W. Fiskus, N. Saba, M. Shen et al., “Auranofin induces lethal oxidative and endoplasmic reticulum stress and exerts potent preclinical activity against chronic lymphocytic leukemia,” Cancer Research, vol. 74, no. 9, pp. 2520–2532, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. N. Park and Y.-J. Chun, “Auranofin promotes mitochondrial apoptosis by inducing annexin A5 expression and translocation in human prostate cancer cells,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health—Part A: Current Issues, vol. 77, no. 22–24, pp. 1467–1476, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. N.-H. Kim, H. J. Park, M.-K. Oh, and I.-S. Kim, “Antiproliferative effect of gold(I) compound auranofin through inhibition of STAT3 and telomerase activity in MDA-MB 231 human breast cancer cells,” BMB Reports, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 59–64, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. R. Kannappan, V. R. Yadav, and B. B. Aggarwal, “γ-tocotrienol but not γ-tocopherol blocks STAT3 cell signaling pathway through induction of protein-tyrosine phosphatase SHP-1 and sensitizes tumor cells to chemotherapeutic agents,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 285, no. 43, pp. 33520–33528, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. M. F. McCarty, J. Barroso-Aranda, and F. Contreras, “A two-phase strategy for treatment of oxidant-dependent cancers,” Medical Hypotheses, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 489–496, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. J. Wang, W. Guo, H. Zhou et al., “Mitochondrial p53 phosphorylation induces Bak-mediated and caspase-independent cell death,” Oncotarget, vol. 6, no. 19, pp. 17192–17205, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. L. M. Shelton, B. K. Park, and I. M. Copple, “Role of Nrf2 in protection against acute kidney injury,” Kidney International, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 1090–1095, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. C.-P. Wu, S. Ohnuma, and S. V. Ambudkar, “Discovering natural product modulators to overcome multidrug resistance in cancer chemotherapy,” Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 609–620, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. V. Stepanic, A. Gasparovic, K. Troselj, D. Amic, and N. Zarkovic, “Selected attributes of polyphenols in targeting oxidative stress in cancer,” Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 496–509, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. S. Y. Shin, H. Jung, S. Ahn et al., “Polyphenols bearing cinnamaldehyde scaffold showing cell growth inhibitory effects on the cisplatin-resistant A2780/Cis ovarian cancer cells,” Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1809–1820, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. I. Akan, S. Akan, H. Akca, B. Savas, and T. Ozben, “Multidrug resistance-associated protein 1 (MRP1) mediated vincristine resistance: effects of N-acetylcysteine and Buthionine sulfoximine,” Cancer Cell International, vol. 5, no. 1, article 22, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. I. Akan, S. Akan, H. Akca, B. Savas, and T. Ozben, “N-acetylcysteine enhances multidrug resistance-associated protein 1 mediated doxorubicin resistance,” European Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 683–689, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. M. Yildiz, C. Celik-Ozenci, S. Akan et al., “Zoledronic acid is synergic with vinblastine to induce apoptosis in a multidrug resistance protein-1 dependent way: an in vitro study,” Cell Biology International, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 278–282, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. M. Benlloch, A. Ortega, P. Ferrer et al., “Acceleration of glutathione efflux and inhibition of γ- glutamyltranspeptidase sensitize metastatic B16 melanoma cells to endothelium-induced cytotoxicity,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 280, no. 8, pp. 6950–6959, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. N. Traverso, R. Ricciarelli, M. Nitti et al., “Role of glutathione in cancer progression and chemoresistance,” Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, vol. 2013, Article ID 972913, 10 pages, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. K. Itoh, T. Chiba, S. Takahashi et al., “An Nrf2/small Maf heterodimer mediates the induction of phase II detoxifying enzyme genes through antioxidant response elements,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 236, no. 2, pp. 313–322, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. P. Krishnamurthy and J. D. Schuetz, “Role of ABCG2/BCRP in biology and medicine,” Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, vol. 46, pp. 381–410, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. K. Noguchi, K. Katayama, and Y. Sugimoto, “Human ABC transporter ABCG2/BCRP expression in chemoresistance: basic and clinical perspectives for molecular cancer therapeutics,” Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 53–64, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. C. Jacob, V. Jamier, and L. A. Ba, “Redox active secondary metabolites,” Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 149–155, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. F. Q. Schafer and G. R. Buettner, “Redox environment of the cell as viewed through the redox state of the glutathione disulfide/glutathione couple,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1191–1212, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. A. G. Blazquez, O. Briz, E. Gonzalez-Sanchez, M. J. Perez, C. I. Ghanem, and J. J. G. Marin, “The effect of acetaminophen on the expression of BCRP in trophoblast cells impairs the placental barrier to bile acids during maternal cholestasis,” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, vol. 277, no. 1, pp. 77–85, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. S. V. Iverson, S. Eriksson, J. Xu et al., “A Txnrd1-dependent metabolic switch alters hepatic lipogenesis, glycogen storage, and detoxification,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 63, pp. 369–380, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. T. W. Young, F. C. Mei, G. Yang, J. A. Thompson-Lanza, J. Liu, and X. Cheng, “Activation of antioxidant pathways in ras-mediated oncogenic transformation of human surface ovarian epithelial cells revealed by functional proteomics and mass spectrometry,” Cancer Research, vol. 64, no. 13, pp. 4577–4584, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. D.-Y. Lee and G.-D. Chang, “Methylglyoxal in cells elicits a negative feedback loop entailing transglutaminase 2 and glyoxalase 1,” Redox Biology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 196–205, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. P. Agostinis, K. Berg, K. A. Cengel et al., “Photodynamic therapy of cancer: an update,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 250–281, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. B. Krammer and T. Verwanger, “Molecular response to hypericin-induced photodamage,” Current Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 793–798, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. L. Mikešová, J. Mikeš, J. Kovaľ et al., “Conjunction of glutathione level, NAD(P)H/FAD redox status and hypericin content as a potential factor affecting colon cancer cell resistance to photodynamic therapy with hypericin,” Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 470–483, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. J.-H. Kim, C. Chen, and A.-N. Tony Kong, “Resveratrol inhibits genistein-induced multi-drug resistance protein 2 (MRP2) expression in HepG2 cells,” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, vol. 512, no. 2, pp. 160–166, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. M. A. Valentovic, J. G. Ball, J. M. Brown et al., “Resveratrol attenuates cisplatin renal cortical cytotoxicity by modifying oxidative stress,” Toxicology in Vitro, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 248–257, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. D.-J. Tai, W.-S. Jin, C.-S. Wu et al., “Changes in intracellular redox status influence multidrug resistance in gastric adenocarcinoma cells,” Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 291–296, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. A. Manna, A. K. Bauri, S. Chattopadhyay, and M. Chatterjee, “Generation of redox imbalance mediates the cytotoxic effect of Malabaricone-A in a multidrug resistant cell line,” Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1156–1163, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. K. Bedard and K.-H. Krause, “The NOX family of ROS-generating NADPH oxidases: physiology and pathophysiology,” Physiological Reviews, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 245–313, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. K. A. Graham, M. Kulawiec, K. M. Owens et al., “NADPH oxidase 4 is an oncoprotein localized to mitochondria,” Cancer Biology & Therapy, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 223–231, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. R. Wang, W.-M. Dashwood, H. Nian et al., “NADPH oxidase overexpression in human colon cancers and rat colon tumors induced by 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP),” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 128, no. 11, pp. 2581–2590, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. B. M. Barth, S. Stewart-Smeets, and T. B. Kuhn, “Proinflammatory cytokines provoke oxidative damage to actin in neuronal cells mediated by Rac1 and NADPH oxidase,” Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 274–285, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. B. M. Barth, S. J. Gustafson, M. M. Young et al., “Inhibition of NADPH oxidase by glucosylceramide confers chemoresistance,” Cancer Biology & Therapy, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1126–1136, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. J. Su, Y. Xu, L. Zhou et al., “Suppression of chloride channel 3 expression facilitates sensitivity of human glioma U251 cells to cisplatin through concomitant inhibition of Akt and autophagy,” Anatomical Record, vol. 296, no. 4, pp. 595–603, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. M. C. E. McFadyen, W. T. Melvin, and G. I. Murray, “Cytochrome P450 enzymes: novel options for cancer therapeutics,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 363–371, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  89. T. Oyama, N. Kagawa, N. Kunugita et al., “Expression of cytochrome P450 in tumor tissues and its association with cancer development,” Frontiers in Bioscience, vol. 9, pp. 1967–1976, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. D. W. Nebert and D. W. Russell, “Clinical importance of the cytochromes P450,” The Lancet, vol. 360, no. 9340, pp. 1155–1162, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. X. Ding and L. S. Kaminsky, “Human extrahepatic cytochromes P450: function in xenobiotic metabolism and tissue-selective chemical toxicity in the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts,” Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, vol. 43, pp. 149–173, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. D. Molina-Ortiz, R. Camacho-Carranza, J. F. González-Zamora et al., “Differential expression of cytochrome P450 enzymes in normal and tumor tissues from childhood rhabdomyosarcoma,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 4, Article ID e93261, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. K. M. Marks, E. S. Park, A. Arefolov et al., “The selectivity of austocystin D arises from cell-line-specific drug activation by cytochrome P450 enzymes,” Journal of Natural Products, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 567–573, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. D. J. Taxman, J. P. MacKeigan, C. Clements, D. T. Bergstralh, and J. P.-Y. Ting, “Transcriptional profiling of targets for combination therapy of lung carcinoma with paclitaxel and mitogen-activated protein/extracellular signal-regulated kinase kinase inhibitor,” Cancer Research, vol. 63, no. 16, pp. 5095–5104, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  95. S. Reuter, S. C. Gupta, M. M. Chaturvedi, and B. B. Aggarwal, “Oxidative stress, inflammation, and cancer: how are they linked?” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 1603–1616, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. L. M. Coussens and Z. Werb, “Inflammation and cancer,” Nature, vol. 420, no. 6917, pp. 860–867, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. M. E. Tome, J. B. Frye, D. L. Coyle et al., “Lymphoma cells with increased anti-oxidant defenses acquire chemoresistance,” Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 845–852, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. Z. Zhu, Z. Shen, and C. Xu, “Inflammatory pathways as promising targets to increase chemotherapy response in bladder cancer,” Mediators of Inflammation, vol. 2012, Article ID 528690, 11 pages, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. S. Deaglio, K. M. Dwyer, W. Gao et al., “Adenosine generation catalyzed by CD39 and CD73 expressed on regulatory T cells mediates immune suppression,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 204, no. 6, pp. 1257–1265, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. A. Clayton, S. Al-Taei, J. Webber, M. D. Mason, and Z. Tabi, “Cancer exosomes express CD39 and CD73, which suppress T cells through adenosine production,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 187, no. 2, pp. 676–683, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. A. Rimessi, E. Zecchini, R. Siviero et al., “The selective inhibition of nuclear PKCzeta restores the effectiveness of chemotherapeutic agents in chemoresistant cells,” Cell Cycle, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1040–1048, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. F. Balkwill, K. A. Charles, and A. Mantovani, “Smoldering and polarized inflammation in the initiation and promotion of malignant disease,” Cancer Cell, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 211–217, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. S. Delhalle, V. Deregowski, V. Benoit, M.-P. Merville, and V. Bours, “NF-κB-dependent MnSOD expression protects adenocarcinoma cells from TNF-α-induced apoptosis,” Oncogene, vol. 21, no. 24, pp. 3917–3924, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. J. C. Cusack, R. Liu, and A. S. Baldwin, “NF- kappa B and chemoresistance: potentiation of cancer drugs via inhibition of NF- kappa B,” Drug Resistance Updates, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 271–273, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  105. S. Cuní, P. Pérez-Aciego, G. Pérez-Chacón et al., “A sustained activation of PI3K/NF-κB pathway is critical for the survival of chronic lymphocytic leukemia B cells,” Leukemia, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1391–1400, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. K. Schulze-Osthoff, M. K. A. Bauer, M. Vogt, and S. Wesselborg, “Oxidative stress and signal transduction,” International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 336–342, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  107. K. A. Manu, M. K. Shanmugam, L. Ramachandran et al., “Isorhamnetin augments the anti-tumor effect of capeciatbine through the negative regulation of NF-κB signaling cascade in gastric cancer,” Cancer Letters, vol. 363, no. 1, pp. 28–36, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. M. Singh, K. Bhui, R. Singh, and Y. Shukla, “Tea polyphenols enhance cisplatin chemosensitivity in cervical cancer cells via induction of apoptosis,” Life Sciences, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 7–16, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. S. J. Talbott, S. Luanpitpong, C. Stehlik et al., “S-nitrosylation of FLICE inhibitory protein determines its interaction with RIP1 and activation of NF-κB,” Cell Cycle, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 1948–1957, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. X. Zhou, Z. Zhang, X. Yang, W. Chen, and P. Zhang, “Inhibition of cyclin D1 expression by cyclin D1 shRNAs in human oral squamous cell carcinoma cells is associated with increased cisplatin chemosensitivity,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 124, no. 2, pp. 483–489, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. K. Husain, R. A. Francois, T. Yamauchi, M. Perez, S. M. Sebti, and M. P. Malafa, “Vitamin E δ-tocotrienol augments the antitumor activity of gemcitabine and suppresses constitutive NF-κB activation in pancreatic cancer,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 2363–2372, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. B. B. Aggarwal, A. Kumar, and A. C. Bharti, “Anticancer potential of curcumin: preclinical and clinical studies,” Anticancer Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 363–398, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  113. Y. Hu, S. Wang, X. Wu et al., “Chinese herbal medicine-derived compounds for cancer therapy: a focus on hepatocellular carcinoma,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 149, no. 3, pp. 601–612, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. Y. Kwon, “Curcumin as a cancer chemotherapy sensitizing agent,” Journal of the Korean Society for Applied Biological Chemistry, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 273–280, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. B. B. Aggarwal, I. D. Bhatt, H. Ichikawa et al., “Curcumin-biological and medicinal properties,” in Turmeric the Genus Curcuma, P. N. Ravindran, K. N. Babu, and K. Sivaraman, Eds., pp. 297–368, CRC Press, New York, NY, USA, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  116. X. Xue, J.-L. Yu, D.-Q. Sun et al., “Curcumin as a multidrug resistance modulator—a quick review,” Biomedicine & Preventive Nutrition, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 173–176, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  117. C.-L. Lin, R.-F. Chen, J. Y.-F. Chen et al., “Protective effect of caffeic acid on paclitaxel induced anti-proliferation and apoptosis of lung cancer cells involves NF-κb pathway,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 6236–6245, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. S. J. Klempner, A. P. Myers, and L. C. Cantley, “What a tangled web we weave: emerging resistance mechanisms to inhibition of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase pathway,” Cancer Discovery, vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 1345–1354, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  119. A. Bellacosa, C. C. Kumar, A. D. Cristofano, and J. R. Testa, “Activation of AKT kinases in cancer: implications for therapeutic targeting,” Advances in Cancer Research, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 29–86, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. T. A. Yap, L. Bjerke, P. A. Clarke, and P. Workman, “Drugging PI3K in cancer: refining targets and therapeutic strategies,” Current Opinion in Pharmacology, vol. 23, pp. 98–107, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. Z. Yu, G. Xie, G. Zhou et al., “NVP-BEZ235, a novel dual PI3K-mTOR inhibitor displays anti-glioma activity and reduces chemoresistance to temozolomide in human glioma cells,” Cancer Letters, vol. 367, no. 1, pp. 58–68, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. T. Laragione, V. Bonetto, F. Casoni et al., “Redox regulation of surface protein thiols: identification of integrin alpha-4 as a molecular target by using redox proteomics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 100, no. 25, pp. 14737–14741, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  123. A. Layani-Bazar, I. Skornick, A. Berrebi et al., “Redox modulation of adjacent thiols in vla-4 by as101 converts myeloid leukemia cells from a drug-resistant to drug-sensitive state,” Cancer Research, vol. 74, no. 11, pp. 3092–3103, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. A.-M. Gao, Z.-P. Ke, J.-N. Wang, J.-Y. Yang, S.-Y. Chen, and H. Chen, “Apigenin sensitizes doxorubicin-resistant hepatocellular carcinoma BEL-7402/ADM cells to doxorubicin via inhibiting PI3K/Akt/Nrf2 pathway,” Carcinogenesis, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1806–1814, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  125. C. De Luca, Z. Kharaeva, and L. Korkina, “Is there a role for antioxidants in the prevention of infection-associated carcinogenesis and in the treatment of infection-driven tumours?” Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 120–135, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. M. G. Kelly, A. B. Alvero, R. Chen et al., “TLR-4 signaling promotes tumor growth and paclitaxel chemoresistance in ovarian cancer,” Cancer Research, vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 3859–3868, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. S. Rajput, L. D. Volk-Draper, and S. Ran, “TLR4 is a novel determinant of the response to paclitaxel in breast cancer,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1676–1687, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. S. Ioannou and M. Voulgarelis, “Toll-like receptors, tissue injury, and tumourigenesis,” Mediators of Inflammation, vol. 2010, Article ID 581837, 9 pages, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  129. B. Huang, J. Zhao, S. Shen et al., “Listeria monocytogenes promotes tumor growth via tumor cell toll-like receptor 2 signaling,” Cancer Research, vol. 67, no. 9, pp. 4346–4352, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. T. Grimmig, N. Matthes, K. Hoeland et al., “TLR7 and TLR8 expression increases tumor cell proliferation and promotes chemoresistance in human pancreatic cancer,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 857–866, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  131. M. Muccioli, L. Sprague, H. Nandigam, M. Pate, and F. Benencia, “Toll-like receptors as novel therapeutic targets for ovarian cancer,” ISRN Oncology, vol. 2012, Article ID 642141, 8 pages, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  132. D. Kim, H. C. Dan, S. Park et al., “AKT/PKB signaling mechanisms in cancer and chemoresistance,” Frontiers in Bioscience, vol. 10, pp. 975–987, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  133. E. Tiligada, “Chemotherapy: induction of stress responses,” Endocrine-Related Cancer, vol. 13, supplement 1, pp. S115–S124, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  134. D. Kültz, “Molecular and evolutionary basis of the cellular stress response,” Annual Review of Physiology, vol. 67, pp. 225–257, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  135. M. Landriscina, F. Maddalena, G. Laudiero, and F. Esposito, “Adaptation to oxidative stress, chemoresistance, and cell survival,” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 2701–2716, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  136. S. Singh, S. Vrishni, B. K. Singh, I. Rahman, and P. Kakkar, “Nrf2-ARE stress response mechanism: a control point in oxidative stress-mediated dysfunctions and chronic inflammatory diseases,” Free Radical Research, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 1267–1288, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  137. K. Shen, D. Cui, L. Sun, Y. Lu, M. Han, and J. Liu, “Inhibition of IGF-IR increases chemosensitivity in human colorectal cancer cells through MRP-2 promoter suppression,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 113, no. 6, pp. 2086–2097, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  138. K. C. Wu, J. Y. Cui, and C. D. Klaassen, “Effect of graded nrf2 activation on phase-I and -II drug metabolizing enzymes and transporters in mouse liver,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 7, Article ID e39006, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  139. X.-J. Wang, Z. Sun, N. F. Villeneuve et al., “Nrf2 enhances resistance of cancer cells to chemotherapeutic drugs, the dark side of Nrf2,” Carcinogenesis, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1235–1243, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  140. X. Tang, H. Wang, L. Fan et al., “Luteolin inhibits Nrf2 leading to negative regulation of the Nrf2/ARE pathway and sensitization of human lung carcinoma A549 cells to therapeutic drugs,” Free Radical Biology & Medicine, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 1599–1609, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  141. D. Ren, N. F. Villeneuve, T. Jiang et al., “Brusatol enhances the efficacy of chemotherapy by inhibiting the Nrf2-mediated defense mechanism,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 1433–1438, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  142. M. Zhang, C. Zhang, L. Zhang et al., “Nrf2 is a potential prognostic marker and promotes proliferation and invasion in human hepatocellular carcinoma,” BMC Cancer, vol. 15, article 531, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  143. Y. J. Lee, D. M. Lee, and S. H. Lee, “Nrf2 expression and apoptosis in quercetin-treated malignant mesothelioma cells,” Molecules and Cells, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 416–425, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  144. L. Zhan, H. Zhang, Q. Zhang et al., “Regulatory role of KEAP1 and NRF2 in PPARγ expression and chemoresistance in human non-small-cell lung carcinoma cells,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 758–768, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  145. Y. Soini, M. Eskelinen, P. Juvonen et al., “Nuclear Nrf2 expression is related to a poor survival in pancreatic adenocarcinoma,” Pathology Research and Practice, vol. 210, no. 1, pp. 35–39, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  146. A. J. León-González, C. Auger, and V. B. Schini-Kerth, “Pro-oxidant activity of polyphenols and its implication on cancer chemoprevention and chemotherapy,” Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 371–380, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  147. D. Kandioler-Eckersberger, C. Ludwig, M. Rudas et al., “TP53 mutation and p53 overexpression for prediction of response to neoadjuvant treatment in breast cancer patients,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 50–56, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  148. A. L. Furfaro, S. Piras, M. Passalacqua et al., “HO-1 up-regulation: a key point in high-risk neuroblastoma resistance to bortezomib,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta—Molecular Basis of Disease, vol. 1842, no. 4, pp. 613–622, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  149. M. Lee, D.-H. Hyun, K.-A. Marshall et al., “Effect of overexpression of Bcl-2 on cellular oxidative damage, nitric oxide production, antioxidant defenses, and the proteasome,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 1550–1559, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  150. D. M. Hockenbery, Z. N. Oltvai, X.-M. Yin, C. L. Milliman, and S. J. Korsmeyer, “Bcl-2 functions in an antioxidant pathway to prevent apoptosis,” Cell, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 241–251, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  151. D. W. Voehringer, “BCL-2 and glutathione: alterations in cellular redox state that regulate apoptosis sensitivity,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 27, no. 9-10, pp. 945–950, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  152. S. L. Schendel, Z. Xie, M. O. Montal, S. Matsuyama, M. Montal, and J. C. Reed, “Channel formation by antiapoptotic protein Bcl-2,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 94, no. 10, pp. 5113–5118, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  153. J. L. Herrmann, E. Bruckheimer, and T. J. McDonnell, “Cell death signal transduction and Bcl-2 function,” Biochemical Society Transactions, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1059–1065, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  154. L. Chaiswing, J. M. Bourdeau-Heller, W. Zhong, and T. D. Oberley, “Characterization of redox state of two human prostate carcinoma cell lines with different degrees of aggressiveness,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 202–215, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  155. L. H. Lash, D. A. Putt, and A. D. Jankovich, “Glutathione levels and susceptibility to chemically induced injury in two human prostate cancer cell lines,” Molecules, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 10399–10414, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  156. J. Niestroy, A. Barbara, K. Herbst, S. Rode, M. van Liempt, and P. H. Roos, “Single and concerted effects of benzo[a]pyrene and flavonoids on the AhR and Nrf2-pathway in the human colon carcinoma cell line Caco-2,” Toxicology in Vitro, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 671–683, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  157. H. I. Swanson, “Cytochrome P450 expression in human keratinocytes: an aryl hydrocarbon receptor perspective,” Chemico-Biological Interactions, vol. 149, no. 2-3, pp. 69–79, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  158. A. Rannug and E. Fritsche, “The aryl hydrocarbon receptor and light,” Biological Chemistry, vol. 387, no. 9, pp. 1149–1157, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  159. D. W. Nebert, A. L. Roe, M. Z. Dieter, W. A. Solis, Y. Yang, and T. P. Dalton, “Role of the aromatic hydrocarbon receptor and [Ah] gene battery in the oxidative stress response, cell cycle control, and apoptosis,” Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 65–85, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  160. L. Stejskalova, Z. Dvorak, and P. Pavek, “Endogenous and exogenous ligands of aryl hydrocarbon receptor: current state of art,” Current Drug Metabolism, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 198–212, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  161. E. S. Shen and J. P. Whitlock Jr., “Protein-DNA interactions at a dioxin-responsive enhancer: mutational analysis of the DNA-binding site for the liganded Ah receptor,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 267, no. 10, pp. 6815–6819, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  162. S. Kalthoff, U. Ehmer, N. Freiberg, M. P. Manns, and C. P. Strassburg, “Intercation between oxidative stress sensor Nrf2 and xenobiotic-activated aryl hydrocarbon receptor in the regulation of the human phase II detoxifying UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A10,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 285, no. 9, pp. 5993–6002, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  163. R. L. Yeager, S. A. Reisman, L. M. Aleksunes, and C. D. Klaassen, “Introducing the ‘TCDD-inducible AhR-Nrf2 gene battery’,” Toxicological Sciences, vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 238–246, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  164. H. I. Swanson and C. A. Bradfield, “The AH-receptor: genetics, structure and function,” Pharmacogenetics, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 213–230, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  165. T. Haarmann-Stemmann, H. Bothe, and J. Abel, “Growth factors, cytokines and their receptors as downstream targets of arylhydrocarbon receptor (AhR) signaling pathways,” Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 508–520, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  166. Q. Ma, “Influence of light on aryl hydrocarbon receptor signaling and consequences in drug metabolism, physiology and disease,” Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism and Toxicology, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 1267–1293, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  167. A. Puga, C. Ma, and J. L. Marlowe, “The aryl hydrocarbon receptor cross-talks with multiple signal transduction pathways,” Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 713–722, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  168. C. M. Klinge, K. Kaur, and H. I. Swanson, “The aryl hydrocarbon receptor interacts with estrogen receptor alpha and orphan receptors COUP-TFI and ERRα1,” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, vol. 373, no. 1, pp. 163–174, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  169. F. Ohtake, K.-I. Takeyama, T. Matsumoto et al., “Modulation of estrogen receptor signaling by association with the activated dioxin receptor,” Nature, vol. 423, no. 6939, pp. 545–550, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  170. E. Guyot, A. Chevallier, R. Barouki, and X. Coumoul, “The AhR twist: ligand-dependent AhR signaling and pharmaco-toxicological implications,” Drug Discovery Today, vol. 18, no. 9-10, pp. 479–486, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  171. M. A. Callero and A. I. Loaiza-Pérez, “The role of aryl hydrocarbon receptor and crosstalk with estrogen receptor in response of breast cancer cells to the novel antitumor agents benzothiazoles and aminoflavone,” International Journal of Breast Cancer, vol. 2011, Article ID 923250, 9 pages, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  172. H. Eguchi, T. Ikuta, T. Tachibana, Y. Yoneda, and K. Kawajiri, “A nuclear localization signal of human aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator/hypoxia-inducible factor 1β is a novel bipartite type recognized by the two components of nuclear pore-targeting complex,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 272, no. 28, pp. 17640–17647, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  173. Y. Kanno, Y. Miyama, Y. Takane, T. Nakahama, and Y. Inouye, “Identification of intracellular localization signals and of mechanisms underlining the nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of human aryl hydrocarbon receptor repressor,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 364, no. 4, pp. 1026–1031, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  174. P. S. Wong, W. Li, C. F. Vogel, and C. F. Matsumura, “Characterization of MCF mammary epithelial cells overexpressing the Arylhydrocarbon receptor (AhR),” BMC Cancer, vol. 9, article 234, pp. 234–10, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  175. G. D. Goode, B. R. Ballard, H. C. Manning, M. L. Freeman, Y. Kang, and S. E. Eltom, “Knockdown of aberrantly upregulated aryl hydrocarbon receptor reduces tumor growth and metastasis of MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cell line,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 133, no. 12, pp. 2769–2780, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  176. G. Goode, S. Pratap, and S. E. Eltom, “Depletion of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor in MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells altered the expression of genes in key regulatory pathways of cancer,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 6, Article ID e100103, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  177. L. Partanen, J. Staaf, M. Tanner, V. J. Tuominen, Å. Borg, and J. Isola, “Amplification and overexpression of the ABCC3 (MRP3) gene in primary breast cancer,” Genes Chromosomes and Cancer, vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 832–840, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  178. C. O'Brien, G. Cavet, A. Pandita et al., “Functional genomics identifies ABCC3 as a mediator of taxane resistance in HER2-amplified breast cancer,” Cancer Research, vol. 68, no. 13, pp. 5380–5389, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  179. D. Caccamo, E. Cesareo, S. Mariani et al., “Xenobiotic sensor- and metabolism-related gene variants in environmental sensitivity-related illnesses: a survey on the Italian population,” Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, vol. 2013, Article ID 831969, 9 pages, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  180. S. Helmig, J. U. Seelinger, J. Döhrel, and J. Schneider, “RNA expressions of AHR, ARNT and CYP1B1 are influenced by AHR Arg554Lys polymorphism,” Molecular Genetics and Metabolism, vol. 104, no. 1-2, pp. 180–184, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  181. P. B. Busbee, M. Rouse, M. Nagarkatti, and P. S. Nagarkatti, “Use of natural AhR ligands as potential therapeutic modalities against inflammatory disorders,” Nutrition Reviews, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 353–369, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  182. V. Kostyuk, A. Potapovich, A. Stancato et al., “Photo-oxidation products of skin surface squalene mediate metabolic and inflammatory responses to solar UV in human keratinocytes,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 8, Article ID e44472, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  183. S. Pastore, D. Lulli, P. Fidanza et al., “Plant polyphenols regulate chemokine expression and tissue repair in human keratinocytes through interaction with cytoplasmic and nuclear components of epidermal growth factor receptor system,” Antioxidants and Redox Signaling, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 314–328, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  184. A. I. Potapovich, D. Lulli, P. Fidanza et al., “Plant polyphenols differentially modulate inflammatory responses of human keratinocytes by interfering with activation of transcription factors NFκB and AhR and EGFR-ERK pathway,” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, vol. 255, no. 2, pp. 138–149, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  185. J.-F. Savoure, M. Antenos, M. Quesne, J. Xu, E. Milgrom, and R. F. Casper, “7-ketocholesterol is an endogenous modulator for the arylhydrocarbon receptor,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 276, no. 5, pp. 3054–3059, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  186. A. Wilhelmsson, M. L. Whitelaw, J.-A. Gustafsson, and L. Poellinger, “Agonistic and antagonistic effects of α-naphthoflavone on dioxin receptor function: role of the basic region helix-loop-helix dioxin receptor partner factor arnt,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 269, no. 29, pp. 19028–19033, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  187. S.-H. Kim, E. C. Henry, D.-K. Kim et al., “Novel compound 2-methyl-2H-pyrazole-3-carboxylic acid (2-methyl-4-o-tolylazo-phenyl)-amide (CH-223191) prevents 2,3,7,8-TCDD-induced toxicity by antagonizing the aryl hydrocarbon receptor,” Molecular Pharmacology, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 1871–1878, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  188. J.-E. Lee and S. Safe, “3′, 4′-dimethoxyflavone as an aryl hydrocarbon receptor antagonist in human breast cancer cells,” Toxicological Sciences, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 235–242, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  189. I. A. Murray, C. A. Flaveny, B. C. DiNatale et al., “Antagonism of aryl hydrocarbon receptor signaling by 6,2′,4′- trimethoxyflavone,” Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, vol. 332, no. 1, pp. 135–144, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  190. Y.-F. Lu, M. Santostefano, B. D. M. Cunningham, M. D. Threadgill, and S. Safe, “Identification of 3′-methoxy-4′-nitroflavone as a pure aryl hydrocarbon (Ah) receptor antagonist and evidence for more than one form of the nuclear Ah receptor in MCF-7 human breast cancer cells,” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, vol. 316, no. 1, pp. 470–477, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2016 Aysegul Cort 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.

More related articles

1787 Views | 882 Downloads | 23 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.