Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 7316492, 17 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7316492
Review Article

Nrf2 and Notch Signaling in Lung Cancer: Near the Crossroad

Laboratory of Oncology, IRCCS “Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza” Hospital, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy

Received 4 April 2016; Revised 8 July 2016; Accepted 20 September 2016

Academic Editor: Kum Kum Khanna

Copyright © 2016 Angelo Sparaneo 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.

Abstract

The transcription factor Nrf2 (NF-E2 related factor 2) is a master regulator of the cell antioxidant response associated with tumor growth and resistance to cytotoxic treatments. In particular, Nrf2 induces upregulation of cytoprotective genes by interacting with the closely situated AREs (Antioxidant Response Elements) in response to endogenous or exogenous stress stimuli and takes part to several oncogenic signaling pathways. Among these, the crosstalk with Notch pathway has been shown to enhance cytoprotection and maintenance of cellular homeostasis, tissue organization by modulating cell proliferation kinetics, and stem cell self-renewal in several organs. The role of Notch and Nrf2 related pathways in tumorigenesis is highly variable and when they are both abnormally activated they can synergistically cause neoplastic proliferation by promoting cell survival, differentiation, invasion, and metastases. NFE2L2, KEAP1, and NOTCH genes family appear in the list of significantly mutated genes in tumors in both combined and individual sets, supporting the crucial role that the aberrant Nrf2-Notch crosstalk might have in cancerogenesis. In this review, we summarize current knowledge about the alterations of Nrf2 and Notch pathways and their reciprocal transcriptional regulation throughout tumorigenesis and progression of lung tumors, supporting the potentiality of putative biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

1. Introduction

Notch receptors (Notch1–Notch4) are a family of transmembrane proteins which interact with ligands of the Delta and/or Jagged/Serrate family. These receptors play a key role in the normal development of tissues and cell types, through diverse effects on differentiation, survival, and proliferation [13]. In tumors, Notch signaling has been observed to exert either oncogenic or antiproliferative effects within the mechanisms of cell invasion and metastases development.

The Nrf2 is a key regulator of the cell adaptive response to reactive oxygen species (ROS) and xenobiotics through the interaction with its master negative regulator, the Keap1 protein. Currently, the dark side of Nrf2 has emerged and growing evidences suggest that constitutive upregulation of Nrf2 is linked to cancer development and progression and contributes to chemo- and radioresistance.

Notch and Nrf2 are both transcription factors and their related pathways were discovered independently [4]. However, recent data have demonstrated the existence of a Nrf2-Notch crosstalk which supports cytoprotection and improves maintenance of cellular homeostasis and tissue organization. This review will mainly focus on the available scientific data which underlie the biological relevance of Nrf2 and Notch pathways and their crosstalk in lung tumors and suggest the potentiality of molecularly targeted agent combinations to overcome resistance to therapies.

2. Notch Signaling

NOTCH genes encode for highly conserved cell membrane receptors from Drosophila to humans that orchestrate a complex signaling pathway involving a number of ligands, negative and positive modifiers, and transcription factors [5]. In mammals, four Notch receptors (Notch1 to Notch4) and two families of Notch ligands (Jagged1 and Jagged2 and Delta-like-1, Delta-like-3, and Delta-like-4) have been described to play a critical role in the cell-contact-dependent cellular communications [2, 3, 6].

Although the overall structure of Notch receptors is similar, there are significant differences in the protein domains. The Notch1–4 receptors share an extracellular portion which contains a variable number of epidermal growth factor- (EGF-) like repeats: the Notch1 and Notch2 receptors contain 36 EGF repeats, whereas Notch3 contains 34 repeats and Notch4 contains 29 repeats. The other difference is in the transactivation domain (TAD). Notch1 and Notch2 contain a strong and a weak TAD, respectively, Notch3 has a potent but specific TAD best suited to the activation of the HES-5 promoter. In contrast, Notch4 does not contain a TAD. These structural differences may offer clues to the functional divergence among mammalian Notch paralogs [7].

The EGF-like repeats of extracellular portion of Notch are essential for ligand binding. The bond between ligands and extracellular Notch domains activates the intracellular portion and promotes intracellular sequential proteolytic cleavages by a metalloproteases of ADAM’s family. Then the Notch intracellular domain (NICD) is released from the cytoplasmic membrane and translocates as active form into the nucleus, where it enhances the expression of several target genes encoding for Hairy Enhancer of Split (HES) family proteins, HES-related proteins (HEY), and p21cip1/waf1, cyclin D1 and 3, c-myc, and Her2, in a cell-context-dependent manner [3, 8, 9].

Beside this canonical pathway activation, additional noncanonical Notch signaling pathways have been described. These additional pathways are independent from CSL (CBF1, Suppressor of Hairless, and Lag-1) transcription factor and related to other different transcription factors, such as beta-catenin, HIF-1a (hypoxia-inducible factor-1a), NF-kB (nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells), and estrogen receptor ERα (Figure 1) [1013].

Figure 1: Canonical and noncanonical Notch signaling pathways. Notch signaling has a pleiotropic effect and is involved in cell survival, cell proliferation, cell metabolism, and differentiation. Canonical Notch pathway is primed by interaction of the Notch protein with a cell bound ligand. Upon interaction, Notch results cleaved, firstly by ADAM 10/17 protease and then by cleavage by the γ- secretase. Furthermore, Notch activated (NICD) translocates into nucleus and interacts with CSL protein, where, upon interaction, the proteins complex is converted into a transcriptional activator of targets genes. Noncanonical Notch pathways may be activated either dependently or independently of ligand interaction and may be γ-secretase dependent or independent. Noncanonical Notch signaling interacts with mTORC2, AKT, Wnt, HIF-1α, NFκB, and PI3K pathways at either the cytoplasmic or nuclear levels. The gene regulatory region of the major Notch1 transcript has been described to possess a functional ARE through which Nrf2 can regulate Notch1 gene expression. In the activated state (orange arrow, transient upon stress stimuli or constitutive due to mutations in tumor cells), de novo synthesized Nrf2 protein accumulates into the nucleus, where it activates the transcription of several ARE-genes, including NOTCH1. In the basal state (green arrow), Keap1 binds Nrf2 and induces its ubiquitination. Upon ubiquitination, Nrf2 is degraded by proteasome complex.

The Notch transcriptional machinery and signaling pathway are conserved among species, but in mammals this system shows the peculiarity to induce several, even opposite, biological effects depending on specific tissue types [4, 14]. Notch signaling networks can regulate a wide range of events in embryonic and postnatal development, including proliferation, apoptosis, border formation, and cell fate decisions. Aberrant expression of Notch receptors and Notch target genes have been reported in different human malignancies, including lung, skin, pancreas, breast, and colon cancers [1520]. In lung tumors, depending on the subtype or specific molecular profiles, Notch family activity is often deregulated and activates several oncogenic pathways via direct or indirect induction [21, 22].

In a transgenic mouse model, Notch1 was overexpressed in the alveolar epithelium and induced alveolar hyperplasia and pulmonary adenomas through regulating type II lung epithelial cells. Moreover, the concomitant expression of MYC led to a progression to adenocarcinoma and metastases, indicating a synergistic effect between Notch1 and other oncogenes [23]. It has also been reported that Notch1 signaling plays a central role in the negative modulation of cell growth in lung adenocarcinoma through the ADAM metalloproteases and promotes apoptosis escape through a negative modulation of the p53 stability at protein level. These findings might explain the correlation between Notch1 activation and poor prognosis in NSCLC patients without TP53 mutations [2428]. Few data have been provided so far concerning the roles of Notch1 in lung adenocarcinoma harboring mutations in other lung cancer driver genes, such as PIK3CA or EGFR (Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor). In NSCLC cell lines, it has been preliminary observed that the expression of the active form of Notch1 (NICD1) leads to increased proliferation activity, malignant transformation, and tumor growth in presence of EGF (Epidermal Growth Factor), suggesting that EGFR activation may be essential for Notch-mediated malignant transformation and tumor growth [25].

Notch1 signaling has been shown to also act either as a negative or as a positive regulator of Phosphatase and Tensin Homologue gene (PTEN) transcription [29]. PTEN downregulation is modulated by Notch1 through the activation of the transcription factor hair and enhancer of SPLIT (HES1), whereas PTEN upregulation derives from the inhibition of the binding protein suppressor of hairless (RBPJ), also known as CBF-1 [3032]. In NSCLC and malignant mesothelioma cells, the activation of PTEN transcription by Notch1 upregulation has been observed to lead the prosurvival phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway [2932].

In contrast with the role of Notch1 in promoting tumor initiation and progression, Notch2 shows a tumor suppressive activity by mediating cell differentiation in lung carcinogenesis. This evidence was also supported by immunohistochemical analysis of human NSCLC samples showing the loss or downregulation of Notch2 compared with normal lung tissues [33, 34]. In malignant mesothelioma (MM) cells Notch2 also appears to be diminished with a consequent decrease of toxic effects and a general benefit for cells [35]. Finally, the effect of Notch3 in lung carcinoma has been observed to be strongly dependent on cell type being a tumor suppressor in Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) and a tumor promoting in NSCLC by differentially modulating cell adhesion, Epithelial Mesenchymal Transition (EMT), and cell motility [36].

Various studies have assessed the clinicopathological and prognostic value of Notch1 and Notch3 expression in NSCLC, but the results remain controversial. NSCLC tissues have significantly higher Notch1 protein levels compared to lung normal tissues, with strong variations in different studies and even within the same histotypes. Overall, Notch signaling can be suggested as a valuable biomarker to predict tumor progression in NSCLC. Overexpression of Notch1 and Notch3 has been associated with increased risk of lymph node metastasis and advanced TNM (tumor size, lymph nodes, and metastases) stages. Notch1 also represents an independent prognostic factor in surgically resected adenocarcinoma patients with a major impact in combination with VEGF-A (Vascular Epidermal Growth Factor-Alpha) upregulation [37, 38]. Future investigations might clarify the usefulness of targeting Notch signaling in specific subpopulation of NSCLC patients [39].

A key role of Notch signaling has been recently highlighted in the context of SCLC growth and resistance to therapy. Stable expression of the active form of Nocth1 in SCLC cells inhibits cell proliferation and decreases the expression of several neuroendocrine markers [40]. Moreover, alteration of Notch-Ascl1-Rb-p53 axis has been recently described as major driver of secondary transition from NSCLC to neuroendocrine phenotype and SCLC [41]. These findings provide a novel cellular mechanism for lung histology transition [42] and suggest Notch signaling reactivation as a possible therapeutic strategy for SCLC patients [43].

Finally, emerging evidences suggest that Notch signaling participates to the process of EMT, a highly coordinated process observed when epithelial cells lose some or most epithelial characteristics and acquire properties that are typical of mesenchymal cells. The transition of epithelial cells to mesenchymal cells is essential during embryogenesis and includes phenotypic changes such as loss of cell-cell adhesion, loss of cell polarity, and the acquisition of migratory and invasive properties. Accumulating evidences suggest that aberrant activation of the EMT developmental program contributes to tumor initiation, invasion, metastasis, and acquisition of therapeutic resistance [44, 45]. Notch, Wnt, Hedgehog (Hh), and TGF-b pathways induce well-differentiated epithelial cells to convert into motile mesenchymal cells in tumors via the activation of multiple EMT transcription factors, including Twist, Snail, Slug, and ZEB [46] and their deregulation correlates with poor clinical outcomes [47]. These findings corroborate the hypothesis that Notch1 and Notch3 may represent typical markers of stem-like cells indifferent solid tumors, including lung cancer [48].

3. Mechanisms of Notch Deregulation in Cancer

Notch receptors have been found deregulated in many tumors, and the prevalence and location of mutations within each Notch receptor coding gene varied considerably according to the tumor type [49]. Many identified mutations are heterozygous and correlate with a haploinsufficiency in tissue pattering and suggest that loss of a single copy functionally impairs signaling and therefore induces tumorigenesis. In general, NOTCH1 gene mutations are more frequently recognized than in the other NOTCH receptor genes. This was in part, but not entirely, due to the greater number of tumors with Notch1 sequencing data. For head and neck cancer (HNSCC) and lung and breast cancers, NOTCH1 mutations were relatively recurrent (5–15%) and clustered at or near identified important domains.

In lung cancer, the deregulation of the Notch pathway is mainly correlated with activating missense mutations mostly affecting the ligand-binding domain (EGF repeats 11 and 12) or the ankyrin domains which lead to a ligand-independent activation [50]. NOTCH1 activating mutations have been defined as a common event in human NSCLC [51] and have been correlated to poor prognosis and response to therapy in lung patients without p53 mutations [52]. To note, NOTCH1 mutations in SqCC appeared to be more frequent than pulmonary adenocarcinoma, and their typical location in close proximity of the ligand-binding domain leads to the speculation that Notch1 is more likely to function as a tumor suppressor in SqCC than in the adenocarcinoma histology [49]. However, the real frequency of NOTCH1 mutations in NSCLC remains to be determined. The limited size and intrinsic variations of the just reported studied cohorts, along with the differences in sequencing strategy, do not allow a definitive conclusion on the magnitude of this event [53].

By contrast, mutations affecting the NOTCH family genes have been widely assessed and described as one of the most mutated pathways driving neuroendocrine features and SCLC. Different missense changes affecting all NOTCH1–NOTCH4 genes with different frequency in relation to the different histologies of lung neuroendocrine tumors have been reported [54]. In SCLC, frequent damaging mutations have been identified in the extracellular domain with an incidence of about 25%, suggesting that Notch may act a tumor suppressor [55], leading to growth inhibition and neuroendocrine markers reduction [56].

Mutations in NOTCH1–NOTCH4 family genes (28%) have also been recently reported in Large Cell Neuroendocrine Cancer (LCNEC) by genomic analysis. Many mutations were located in the extracellular EGF-like domain and were mainly associated with NSCLC-like subgroup but differ from the typical mutation pattern of lung adenocarcinoma. This represents an additional, strong evidence of the crucial role of Notch in lung neuroendocrine development [57].

In addition to direct mutations of NOTCH genes, alternative mechanisms of Notch deregulation have been reported in lung cancers. Molecular profiling of alternative splicing variants in lung adenocarcinoma have revealed frequent alternative splicing events affecting the NUMB gene, similar to primary breast and colon cancers. These abnormal isoforms lack normal activity and aberrantly induce the reduction of Numb protein expression levels and activation of the Notch signaling pathway there by promoting cell proliferation [58].

Finally, recent evidences indicate that there is a significant crosstalk between Notch and microRNAs. As a key component of the Notch-mediated transcription complex, Notch can regulate expression of a number of microRNAs; at the same time, Notch ligands, Notch receptors, or Notch effectors are regulated by microRNAs [59]. Indeed, members of five different families of miRNAs (miR-2, miR-4, miR-7, miR-11, and miR-79) have been shown to negatively regulate Notch target genes by recognizing conserved binding motifs within their transcripts [60]. However, few evidences about the role of this epigenetic mechanism of expression regulation have been provided in lung cancer. Pharmacological induction of miR-34a decreased the expression of Notch1 and its downstream targets including HES-1, Cyclin D1, Survivin, and Bcl-2, impairing Notch signaling, cell proliferation, and invasion and inducing apoptosis in NSCLC cells [61].

4. Nrf2 Signaling

Nrf2 is a basic region-leucine zipper (bZIP) transcription factor that acts as a master modulator of cellular protection against carcinogens and oxidative damage in organisms. Although diverse mechanisms might be involved, it is speculated that the induction of phase II cytoprotective enzymes by Nrf2 chemical inducers occurs, at least in part, by modulating the activities of intracellular signaling kinases [62]. In the cellular basal state, the majority of de novo synthesized Nrf2 is repressed by physical interaction with Keap1, which is an adaptor protein to Cullin 3- (Cul3-) dependent ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation [6367]. When cells are exposed to exogenous and endogenous toxic substances and to oxidative damage, a specific pattern of Keap1 cysteine modification arises [66]. By consequence, the Keap1 releases Nrf2 which translocates into the nucleus where it forms a heterodimer with small Maf proteins. This complex specifically recognizes enhancer sequences known as Antioxidant Response Elements (AREs), located in the regulatory regions of genes encoding for cellular defense enzymes, and activates their expression through the transcription machinery [68, 69]. Several Nrf2 target genes have been identified so far, and the number has increased through the recent technical advances [70]. Apart from the major cytoprotective functions of Nrf2 targeted genes, many of these genes also play in the context of oncogenesis, cell proliferation, apoptosis, and tumor cell growth in many cancer types (Figure 2). Recently, the involvement of Nrf2 has also been recognized in mitochondrial physiology as inductor of respiration substrates, membrane potential maintenance, integrity, and biogenesis [7074].

Figure 2: Keap1/Nrf2 axis in lung cancer. Under basal conditions (green arrow), Nrf2 is sequestered in the cytoplasm by the Keap1-Cul3 complex and rapidly degraded in the ubiquitin-proteasome dependent manner. This Keap1-mediated degradation activity requires two reactive cysteine residues of Keap1, located into the IVR domain. Upon stress stimuli (orange arrow), modification of these cysteine residues of Keap1 inhibits ubiquitin conjugation to Nrf2 by the Keap1-Cul3 complex, thereby provoking Nrf2-Keap1 impairment and resulting in the nuclear accumulation of de novo synthesized Nrf2 protein and enhancement of target genes transcription.

Scientific findings in several neoplastic backgrounds underlined how the Nrf2 activity is clearly connected with oncogenic kinase pathways, structural proteins, hormonal regulation, other transcription factors, and epigenetic enzymes involved in the pathogenesis of tumors [75].

The large-scale genomic studies of NSCLC by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) consortium and others have supported that Nrf2 deregulation represents one of the major cancer driver pathways in the specific histotypes of SqCC where cigarette exposure can activate the oxidant stress response [76] and LCNEC of the lung with Non-Small-Cell Carcinoma features [77, 78]. Several mechanistic studies proved opposite roles of Nrf2 during carcinogenesis, either protective or promoting malignant progression [79]. The latter is supported by many clinical observations showing that constitutive upregulation is strongly associated with cancer development, progression, and resistance to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy in NSCLC [7982]. Measuring nuclear Nrf2 abundance in NSCLC patients might be a useful index to predict the efficacy of platinum-based treatments. Nuclear accumulation of Nrf2 correlated with worse NSCLC cancer-specific survival and worse progress-free survival in three independent datasets of SqCC patients treated with surgery only [8385]. As the main negative regulator of Nrf2, Keap1 activity and impairment also correlated with NSCLC survival. Our group discovered that NSCLC patients harboring KEAP1 alterations had worse progression-free survival compared with other patients [86]. Similarly, Takahashi et al. found that KEAP1 mutations caused an increase of Nrf2 expression in NSCLC patients and were correlated with worse progression-free and overall survival [87].

Along with KEAP1 mutations, the expression levels of two Nrf2 downstream transcripts expressions, Ho-1 [88, 89] and Nqo1 [9092], were found significantly associated with tumor invasiveness and patients survival in NSCLC advanced stage. In this regard, a recent extensive meta-analysis of microarray data for 240 Nrf2-mediated genes expression signature identify a group of 50 genes (NFE2L2-associated molecular signature, NAMS) that predicts a worse clinical outcome in 60% of NSCLC cohorts analyzed. These data corroborate the idea that NAMS could represent a promising prognostic biomarker in human lung cancer [93]. Correlation of Nrf2 downstream transcripts expression with tumor invasiveness and patients survival in NSCLC advanced stage has been also reported for Ho-1 [88, 89] and Nqo1 [9092].

Three major crosstalks between Nrf2 and other classical oncogenic signaling pathways such as phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) [94], Kirsten retrovirus-associated DNA sequence (K-ras), [95] and Notch [4] have been reported in lung cancer as having a strong impact on tumor resistance outcome. The PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway is commonly deregulated in several human malignancies including NSCLC [96], and activated PI3K signal increased accumulation of Nrf2 into the nucleus to enhance the transcription of enzymes involved in the pentose phosphate pathway [72]. Since radiotherapy agents can effectively induce apoptosis through generation of ROS [97] it was observed that specific PI3K inhibitor such as NVP-BKM120 can be used in SqCC to decrease Nrf2 protein levels and sensitize NFE2L2 or KEAP1-mutant cells to radiation [94]. KRAS gene mutations occur approximately in 20–30% of NSCLCs and confer to cancer cells resistance and survival [98, 99]. Promoter analysis showed that a TPA response element (TRE) located in exon1 of NFE2L2 gene was activated by Kras. Thus, oncogenic Kras confers in NSCLC chemoresistance by upregulating Nrf2, enhancing the antitumor efficacy of cisplatin and providing a strong preclinical rationale to improve the management of lung tumors harboring KRAS mutations with Nrf2 pathway inhibitors [79, 95, 100].

5. Mechanisms of Nrf2 Deregulation in Cancer

Firstly described in NSCLC cell lines and tissues by Singh et al. in 2006, molecular impairment of Keap1/Nrf2 axis has been then extensively investigated in lung with different mutation clusters found to be related to specific histological subtypes. The overexpression of nuclear Nrf2 and the subsequent increase in the antioxidant defense in lung cancer cells are mainly related to genetic and epigenetic alterations of the KEAP1 and NFE2L2 genes [101]. Somatic mutations of the KEAP1 gene frequently affect the DC domain and produce a decrease in Keap1-promoted Nrf2 ubiquitination by Cul3 or the impairment of nuclear export of Nrf2 by Keap1/Cul3 complexes. In both cases, under cellular stress condition, Nrf2 escapes degradation and translocates into the nucleus to induce the expression of its target genes [102104]. Mutations in NFE2L2 gene were also widely described in lung tumors, suggesting a strong link between molecular perturbations of the Nrf2 pathway and tissue exposure to ROS [105]. NFE2L2 mutations should determine a constitutive activation and have been found to mainly cluster within the DLG and ETGE motifs, which are hotspot sites for Nrf2 binding to the Keap1 DC binding domain. In particular, the ETGE mutant proteins are not ubiquitinated and concentrate in the nucleus, whereas mutations in the DLG resulting in the stabilization of Nrf2 increased its nuclear translocation and Nrf2 de novo molecules synthesis [106, 107].

Mutations and copy number alterations of NFE2L2 and KEAP1 and/or deletion or mutation of CUL3 were observed in 25–34% of SqCC among the classical alterations associated with this smoking-related histology subtype of lung cancer [77, 84]. Instead, a low incidence of KEAP1 mutations has been reported in advanced stage ADC patients with different ethnicity (3–19%) and a lower incidence of EGFR mutations [108, 109], except for papillary adenocarcinoma tumors subtypes (60%) [110]. In addition, TCGA analysis of lung adenocarcinomas has shown that the odds of a tumor carrying a KEAP1 mutation increased more than sixfold among tumors with LKB1 loss. LKB1-deficient tumors are susceptible to oxidative stress because they are unable to produce the appropriate adaptive responses in metabolism and biosynthesis. The high level of overlap in loss of function of KEAP1 and LKB1 genes may suggest that selective pressure exists for the activation of Nrf2 as a secondary protective mechanism to compensate for LKB1 loss [111].

More recently, new experimental evidences have demonstrated a mutual regulation between Nrf2 and microRNAs, especially in the mechanisms of tumor chemoresistance. Indeed, several miRNAs have been validated to target Nrf2 and thus affect its signaling pathway, although only few data have been collected in lung tumor [112115]. On the other hand, Nrf2 has been demonstrated to regulate the expression of different miRNAs. For instance, functional studies in human lung fibroblasts reported as Nrf2/miR-140 signaling confers radioprotection by inducing Nrf2 nuclear translocation and subsequent activation of miR-140 transcription [116]. Moreover, miR-200a reactivation by histone deacetylation has been reported to destabilize Keap1 transcript in resistant lung tumor cell lines [117], whereas Nrf2-dependent regulation of miR-1 and miR-206 has been described to crucially promote non-small-cell lung proliferation and tumorigenesis by modulating the pentose phosphate pathway [118].

Lately, KEAP1 alterations have emerged as an important molecular feature of neuroendocrine tumors of the lung. By performing genome/exome and transcriptome sequencing Fernandez-Cuesta et al. have demonstrated that it is possible to distinguish an LCNEC SCLC-like group, carrying MYCL1 amplifications and mutations in both RB1 and TP53 genes from an AD/SQ-like group, harboring CDKN2A deletions, TTF1 amplifications, and frequent mutations in KEAP1 and STK11. This represents a picture of an evolutionary trunk that can branch to SCLC or AD/SQ on the basis of a different genetic background [112]. These data have been confirmed by Rekhtman et al., who reported an incidence of 31% of KEAP1 mutations in LCNEC NSCLC-like subset [78].

In addition to somatic mutations, other mechanisms affecting Nrf2 expression in lung tumors have been found, even though this field still remains mostly unexplored. For instance, there are compelling evidences that epigenetic regulation might play a key role in modulating Keap1/Nrf2 axis in lung cancer cells [119]. Hypermethylation of the KEAP1 promoter region was firstly described by Wang et al. as a pivotal mechanism in the modulation of the KEAP1 mRNA expression in cell lines and primary lung tumors that could be restored by 5-Aza treatment [120]. A larger study from our group on a cohort of resected primary NSCLCs confirmed these results and further proposed the epigenetic inactivation of KEAP1 by promoter hypermethylation as the main mechanism which leads to reduced or absent Keap1 protein expression previously reported in NSCLC. Genetic and epigenetic analyses on this cohort suggest KEAP1 biallelic inactivation as molecular marker of worst prognosis [86]. It has been recently demonstrated by in vitro analysis that the methylation status of KEAP1 can also predict the tumor cells sensitivity to radiation. Importantly, when radiation is combined with the angiogenesis inhibitor Genestein, there is an increase of ROS levels and cell apoptosis via overexpression of Nrf2, GSS, and Ho-1 in lung adenocarcinoma cells [121]. A possible role of histone deacetylation/acetylation in the epigenetic regulation of the Keap1/Nrf2 pathway has been reported in human NSCLC, where hMOF-mediated acetylation of Nrf2 increased its nuclear retention and the transcription of its downstream genes, subsequently modulating tumor growth and drug resistance [122]. This new role of histone modification in the modulation of Nrf2 has been supported by Li et al., who showed that decreased Ezh2 expression significantly correlated with elevated expression of Nrf2 and its target genes, both in lung cancer tissues and in cell lines [113].

More recently, among the epigenetic mechanisms, new experimental evidences have demonstrated that miRNAs may crucially modulate the Nrf2 expression and affect its signaling pathway in a chemoresistance context [114116, 119]. Nevertheless, most of the data have been reported in epithelial tumors such as breast and colon, whereas only few have been provided in lung cancer. On the other hand, functional studies on human lung fibroblasts reported as Nrf2/miR-140 signaling confer radioprotection by inducing Nrf2 nuclear translocation and subsequent activation of miR-140 transcription [117]. MiR-200a reactivation by histone deacetylation has been reported to destabilize Keap1 transcript in resistant lung tumor cell lines [118], whereas Nrf2-dependent regulation of miR-1 and miR-206 has described as crucial in non-small-cell lung proliferation and tumorigenesis through the modulation of the pentose phosphate pathway [123].

6. Nrf2-Notch Pathways Crosstalk in Lung Cancer

Nrf2, Keap1, and Notch1 rank among the first frequently mutated genes in tumors and were deemed to be significant both in the combined sets of tumors and in individual tumor types. This observation leads to the speculative general notion that the outcome from aberrant Nrf2-Notch crosstalk by molecular impairment in these genes might enhance tumorigenesis and progression to cancer [4], especially in the stem cell (SC) context.

A number of experimental models have been employed to demonstrate that Nrf2 is involved in the maintenance of the stem cell phenotype. ROS have more recently been found to have useful roles in SC proliferation and differentiation [129]. However, the functional significance of the ROS status in different types of SCs, the downstream signaling events, and the role of ROS in SC self-renewal for repair and homeostasis is controversial [130132]. In Drosophila intestinal stem cells, loss of the CncCbZIP-CNC (cap-n-collar subfamily of basic leucine zipper) transcription factor has been reported to increase ROS levels and cell proliferation rates, suggesting that CncC is required to keep the intestinal stem cells in a state of quiescence and to prevent them from entering the cell cycle [130]. In mouse hematopoietic stem cells, loss of Nrf2 has been shown to lead to an expansion of the progenitor pool of myeloid and lymphoid lineages, again suggesting that Nrf2 supports stem cell renewal and proliferative quiescence [133]. A reciprocal Nrf2-Notch transcriptional regulation has been described in hepatobiliary system, having a key role in liver development and in maintenance of hepatic function and its deregulation might be one of the main pathways for promoting cancer [134136].

Less evidences have been provided for a clear Notch-Nrf2 crosstalk in lung cancer. The airway epithelium is constantly exposed to environmental oxidants and therefore serves as an interesting model system to study redox signaling. Cigarette smoke is known to cause oxidative stress-induced airway injury [137], diseases, and cancer airway-related through well-known mechanisms [138].

Additionally, Nrf2 has been implicated in the self-renewal of human airway basal stem cells, but in this case the flux of ROS levels appeared to be the critical factor. In the same context, Notch1 signaling pathway was implicated in helping dynamic changes in ROS levels [138] and has been noted to be essential in early lung development and in the regulation of stem cell self-renewal; thus, when abnormally activated these pathways can cause neoplastic proliferation, representing an early event in tumorigenesis [139]. Beside this, an inverse modulation of Notch by Nrf2 was observed. The gene regulatory region of the major Notch1 transcript has been described to possess a functional ARE region through which Nrf2 can directly regulate Notch1 gene expression, thus promoting airway basal stem cells’ self-renewal [138, 140]. Finally, recent data have shown that Nrf2 strongly regulates Notch1 activity and promotes radiation-induced apoptosis through Nrf2 mediated Notch1 signaling in NSCLC cells. Thus, Notch signaling is an important determinant in radioresistance of lung cancer cells [141] (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Integrated network of Nrf2-Notch crosstalk in lung. Links for biological events occurring in lung involving Nrf2 and Notch interaction with other signaling networks. Black lines indicate interaction, green arrows indicate activation, and red arrows indicate repression.

An indirect suggestion of a functional interdependence in the Notch and Nrf2 pathways comes from recently published studies of genomic analysis in LCNECs. Genes mutation profiling revealed a high incidence of NOTCH genes family (33%) and KEAP1-NFE2L2 (39%) alterations in specific subsets of LCNECs. In particular, NOTCH genes family alterations represent one of the most relevant differences in NSCLC-like LCNEC from classic lung adenocarcinoma and are of particular interest because they give a strong evidence for their crucial role of Notch receptors in neuroendocrine fate specifications in normal and tumor development [55, 57]. However, despite the overall similarity, the most relevant differences identified in SCLC-like LCNEC were an elevated rate of KEAP1-NFE2L2 mutations that rarely occur in conventional SCLC but are frequent in SqCC, suggesting a stronger histogenetic relationship of some conventional SCLCs and SqCCs [78]. Finally, frequent cooccurring mutations NFE2L2, KEAP1, and NOTCH1 in a study on more than four thousand human cancers support the notion that the outcome from aberrant Nrf2–Notch crosstalk by mutations in these genes might specifically enhance tumorigenesis and progression to cancer [142].

7. Therapeutic Targeting of Notch and Nrf2 Pathways

The central role of Notch signaling in cancer, cancer stem cell maintenance, and angiogenesis has significantly fostered the transition from preclinical research into clinical application of alternative targeted compounds, including small molecule inhibitors and large mAbs (monoclonal antibodies) targeting Notch signaling [143]. At the same time, the adjuvant effect of these inhibitors in combination with current chemotherapeutics is still under evaluation in different clinical trials (Table 1) [144].

Table 1: Details of selected trials with therapeutic Notch-targeting agents for lung cancer treatment.

The interaction between Notch receptor(s) and ligand(s) takes place within a tight cell-to-cell compartment. Following ligand-receptor association, the sequential two-steps cleavage by the ADAM/TACE proteinase and γ-secretase, respectively, culminates in the functional activation of Notch signaling. Numerous preclinical models have documented so far the anticancer effects of different classes of compounds inhibiting Notch signaling activation such as siRNAs, GSIs, and mAbs [145], with encouraging results for clinical implementation in combination with either chemotherapy or targeted agents [146]. Among these, the oral GSI PF-0308414 showed clinical activity in a phase I study in patients with advanced stage solid tumors [147].

In this context, Notch pathway inhibition is currently under investigation as novel therapeutic option of SCLC. For instance, the fully human IgG2 antibody Tarextumab (TRXT, OMP59R5) combined with chemotherapy has been shown to significantly reduce tumor recurrence in patient-derived SCLC xenografts, by targeting Notch2/Notch3 [148]. On the strength of these results, a phase I/II study of Tarextumab in combination with six cycles of cisplatin and etoposide in ES-SCLC, followed by Tarextumab maintenance (PINNACLE, NCT01859741), is currently ongoing [149].

Alternative approaches for targeting Notch signaling in lung cancer may include several natural agents, such as curcumin (3,3′-diindolylmethane, DIM), resveratrol 3,5-bis (2,4-difluorobenzylidene)-4-piperidone (DiFiD), and epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) [150], whose anticancer activity has been demonstrated in both in vitro and in vivo models of other solid tumors [151, 152].

Similarly, the pharmacological inhibition of Nrf2 signaling may represent a further therapeutic strategy for cancer treatment, especially in those patients carrying increased levels of Nrf2 (Table 2). Indeed, recent reports have demonstrated that the high levels of Nrf2 are significantly associated to chemo- and radioresistance, rendering the development of novel Nrf2 inhibitors particularly intriguing [153]. For example, it has been demonstrated that all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and retinoic acid receptor-α (RARα) agonists can directly sequester Nrf2 and prevent its binding to the ARE, leading to the global downregulation of Nrf2-dependent gene expression [154]. Similar outcomes have been reported as a result of the physical blocking of Nrf2 operated by other nuclear receptors, such as peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ (PPARγ), estrogen receptor-α (ERα), estrogen-related receptor-β (ERRβ), and glucocorticoid receptor (GR) [155].

Table 2: Details of selected trials or scientific reports on therapeutic Nrf2-inhibition for lung cancer treatment.

An increasing number of natural compounds are known to also exert a strong effect on Nrf2, thus corroborating the idea of a cross-link with Notch pathway. Among these, sulforaphane thereby induces an activation of the Nrf2/Keap1 cellular detoxification cascade by reacting with thiols of Keap1 DGR domain [156, 157], whereas benzo(a)pyrene(B(a)P) has been shown to inhibits carcinogenesis process in lung mouse model by promoting ROS-mediated apoptosis [158, 159]. Similar mechanism of action has been observed with Oltiplraz, known as a dithiolthione substitute able to induce phase II enzymes, which exhibited a chemoprevention effect in mouse lung adenocarcinoma [160, 161]. Resveratrol restored cigarette smoke exposure- (CSE-) depleted GSS (glutathione synthetase) levels by upregulating GCL (γ-glutamate cysteine ligase) by reducing CSE-mediated Nrf2 modifications [162]. Intriguingly, many studies has shown that curcumin, a natural phenolic compound, which is extracted from a member of the ginger family, has a dually role as inhibitor of Notch1 in osteosarcoma cells and a Nrf2 activator in normal tissues [163, 164].

In conclusion, the therapeutic Nrf2 targeting holds great promise for the treatment of lung cancers especially because it has documented a beneficial adjuvant effect in combination with any category of chemotherapeutics, both ROS generating and non-ROS generating agents. To date, one limitation is represented by the lack of few selective inhibitors for Nrf2 and related pathway. Another limitation is represented by the high risk of off-target toxic effects that most of the Nrf2-targeting drugs may generate due to unspecific interactions with other proteins by their electrophilic surface [165]. Nevertheless, the rational design of nonreactive small molecules directly targeting the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway appears to be the most promising strategy to limit the toxic effects often related to indirect inhibitors and increases stability and bioavailability, as compared with peptide inhibitors [166, 167].

8. Concluding Remarks

There are compelling evidences that developmental pathways, including Notch, act in concert with other pathways such as Nrf2 pathway involved in resistance to therapy, rather than as a simple on-off switch. Notch can play as tumor suppressor or oncogene depending on the cell type [168] and interestingly, Nrf2 likely functions in a similar fashion [169]. Nrf2 acts as a prosurvival factor through the expression of its cytoprotective target genes, and molecular deregulation of either Nrf2 or Keap1 is widely described in lung cancer, such as Notch family impairment. In tumors, Nrf2 and Notch signaling pathways appear to mutually regulate each other in which Notch1 is an Nrf2 target gene and Nrf2 is a RBPjk target gene. The roles of the Nrf2-Notch bidirectional interaction in driving or impeding a tumor lung phenotype are still unclear mainly in the context of stem cell renewal and cell proliferation and differentiation. Pharmacological interventions based on these transcription factors collaboration are demanded close with a further explorations of the regulation of this crosstalk in cellular and lung tissue context.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente RC1503LO51 and GR Program 2010-2316264 to Lucia Anna Muscarella and by the AIRC/MGAF Grant 12983 (to Lucia Anna Muscarella). The authors thank Dr. Andreina Guarnieri for the English revision and Barbara Pasculli for the assistance in rewriting the paragraph “targeting Notch and Nrf2 pathways” and professional English editing.

References

  1. J. L. de la Pompa, A. Wakeham, K. M. Correia et al., “Conservation of the Notch signalling pathway in mammalian neurogenesis,” Development, vol. 124, no. 6, pp. 1139–1148, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. E. R. Andersson and U. Lendahl, “Therapeutic modulation of Notch signalling-are we there yet?” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 357–378, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. S. Yamamoto, K. L. Schulze, and H. J. Bellen, “Introduction to notch signaling,” Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 1187, pp. 1–14, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. N. Wakabayashi, D. V. Chartoumpekis, and T. W. Kensler, “Crosstalk between Nrf2 and Notch signaling,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 88, pp. 158–167, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  5. S. Artavanis-Tsakonas, M. D. Rand, and R. J. Lake, “Notch signaling: cell fate control and signal integration in development,” Science, vol. 284, no. 5415, pp. 770–776, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. N. Takebe, L. Miele, P. J. Harris et al., “Targeting Notch, Hedgehog, and Wnt pathways in cancer stem cells: clinical update,” Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 445–464, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. I. Espinoza and L. Miele, “Notch inhibitors for cancer treatment,” Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 139, no. 2, pp. 95–110, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. T. Borggrefe and F. Oswald, “The Notch signaling pathway: transcriptional regulation at Notch target genes,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 1631–1646, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. E. C. Bozkulak and G. Weinmaster, “Selective use of ADAM10 and ADAM17 in activation of Notch1 signaling,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 29, no. 21, pp. 5679–5695, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. C. Sahlgren, M. V. Gustafsson, S. Jin, L. Poellinger, and U. Lendahl, “Notch signaling mediates hypoxia-induced tumor cell migration and invasion,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 17, pp. 6392–6397, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. M. V. Gustafsson, X. Zheng, T. Pereira et al., “Hypoxia requires Notch signaling to maintain the undifferentiated cell state,” Developmental Cell, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 617–628, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. L. Hao, P. Rizzo, C. Osipo et al., “Notch-1 activates estrogen receptor-α-dependent transcription via IKKα in breast cancer cells,” Oncogene, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 201–213, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. P. Hayward, T. Kalmar, and A. M. Arias, “Wnt/Notch signalling and information processing during development,” Development, vol. 135, no. 3, pp. 411–424, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. P. Andersen, H. Uosaki, L. T. Shenje, and C. Kwon, “Non-canonical Notch signaling: emerging role and mechanism,” Trends in Cell Biology, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 257–265, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. A. T. Baker, A. Zlobin, and C. Osipo, “Notch-EGFR/HER2 bidirectional crosstalk in breast cancer,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 4, article 360, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. K. Connolly, P. Manders, P. Earls, and R. J. Epstein, “Papillomavirus-associated squamous skin cancers following transplant immunosuppression: one Notch closer to control,” Cancer Treatment Reviews, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 205–214, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. E. S. Knudsen, E. M. O'Reilly, J. R. Brody, and A. K. Witkiewicz, “Genetic diversity of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and opportunities for precision medicine,” Gastroenterology, vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 48–63, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. C. Damaskos, T. Karatzas, I. D. Kostakis, L. Nikolidakis, A. Kostakis, and G. Kouraklis, “Nuclear receptors in pancreatic tumor cells,” Anticancer Research, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 6897–6911, 2014. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. F. E. Bertrand, C. W. Angus, W. J. Partis, and G. Sigounas, “Developmental pathways in colon cancer: crosstalk between WNT, BMP, Hedgehog and Notch,” Cell Cycle, vol. 11, no. 23, pp. 4344–4351, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. X. Tan, U. Apte, A. Micsenyi et al., “Epidermal growth factor receptor: a novel target of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway in liver,” Gastroenterology, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 285–302, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. Y. Li, J. A. Burns, C. A. Cheney et al., “Distinct expression profiles of Notch-1 protein in human solid tumors: Implications for development of targeted therapeutic monoclonal antibodies,” Biologics, vol. 4, pp. 163–171, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  22. C. Talora, D. C. Sgroi, C. P. Crum, and G. Paolo Dotto, “Specific down-modulation of Notch1 signaling in cervical cancer cells is required for sustained HPV-E6/E7 expression and late steps of malignant transformation,” Genes and Development, vol. 16, no. 17, pp. 2252–2263, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. T. D. Allen, E. M. Rodriguez, K. D. Jones, and J. M. Bishop, “Activated Notch1 induces lung adenomas in mice and cooperates with Myc in the generation of lung adenocarcinoma,” Cancer Research, vol. 71, no. 18, pp. 6010–6018, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. V. Sriuranpong, M. W. Borges, R. K. Ravi et al., “Notch signaling induces cell cycle arrest in small cell lung cancer cells,” Cancer Research, vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 3200–3205, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. A. Baumgart, S. Seidl, P. Vlachou et al., “ADAM17 regulates epidermal growth factor receptor expression through the activation of Notch1 in non-small cell lung cancer,” Cancer Research, vol. 70, no. 13, pp. 5368–5378, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. Y. Zheng, C. C. de la Cruz, L. C. Sayles et al., “A rare population of CD24+ITGB4+Notchhi cells drives tumor propagation in NSCLC and requires Notch3 for self-renewal,” Cancer Cell, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 59–74, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. Q. Zheng, H. Qin, H. Zhang et al., “Notch signaling inhibits growth of the human lung adenocarcinoma cell line A549,” Oncology Reports, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 847–852, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. M.-M. Jin, Y.-Z. Ye, Z.-D. Qian, and Y.-B. Zhang, “Notch signaling molecules as prognostic biomarkers for non-small cell lung cancer,” Oncology Letters, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 3252–3260, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. A. Di Cristofano and P. P. Pandolfi, “The multiple roles of PTEN in tumor suppression,” Cell, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 387–390, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. T. Palomero, M. L. Sulis, M. Cortina et al., “Mutational loss of PTEN induces resistance to NOTCH1 inhibition in T-cell leukemia,” Nature Medicine, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 1203–1210, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. W. H. Chappell, T. D. Green, J. D. Spengeman, J. A. McCubrey, S. M. Akula, and F. E. Bertrand, “Increased protein expression of the PTEN tumor suppressor in the presence of constitutively active Notch-1,” Cell Cycle, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 1389–1395, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. J. T. Whelan, S. L. Forbes, and F. E. Bertrand, “CBF-1 (RBP-Jκ) binds to the PTEN promoter and regulates PTEN gene expression,” Cell Cycle, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 80–84, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. S. Licciulli, J. L. Avila, L. Hanlon et al., “Notch1 is required for Kras-induced lung adenocarcinoma and controls tumor cell survival via p53,” Cancer Research, vol. 73, no. 19, pp. 5974–5984, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. A. Baumgart, P. K. Mazur, M. Anton et al., “Opposing role of Notch1 and Notch2 in a Kras(G12D)-driven murine non-small cell lung cancer model,” Oncogene, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 578–588, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. I. Graziani, S. Eliasz, M. A. De Marco et al., “Opposite effects of Notch-1 and Notch-2 on mesothelioma cell survival under hypoxia are exerted through the Akt pathway,” Cancer Research, vol. 68, no. 23, pp. 9678–9685, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. W. A. Hassan, R. Yoshida, S. Kudoh, Y. Motooka, and T. Ito, “Evaluation of role of Notch3 signaling pathway in human lung cancer cells,” Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, vol. 142, no. 5, pp. 981–993, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  37. L. Zhou, S. Wu, L. Yu, X. Gong, W. Song, and Z. Cheng, “Expression of CD133 and Notch1 in non-small cell lung cancer and the clinicopathological significance,” Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 196–201, 2015. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. T. Donnem, S. Andersen, K. Al-Shibli, S. Al-Saad, L.-T. Busund, and R. M. Bremnes, “Prognostic impact of Notch ligands and receptors in nonsmall cell lung cancer: coexpression of Notch-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor-A predicts poor survival,” Cancer, vol. 116, no. 24, pp. 5676–5685, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. X. Yuan, H. Wu, H. Xu et al., “Meta-analysis reveals the correlation of Notch signaling with non-small cell lung cancer progression and prognosis,” Scientific Reports, vol. 5, article 10338, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. W. A. Hassan, R. Yoshida, S. Kudoh et al., “Notch1 controls cell chemoresistance in small cell lung carcinoma cells,” Thoracic Cancer, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 123–128, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  41. P. L. Wagner, N. Kitabayashi, C. Yao-Tseng, and A. Saqi, “Combined small cell lung carcinomas: genotypic and immunophenotypic analysis of the separate morphologic components,” American Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 131, no. 3, pp. 376–382, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. W. A. Hassan, R. Yoshida, S. Kudoh, K. Hasegawa, K. Niimori-Kita, and T. Ito, “Notch1 controls cell invasion and metastasis in small cell lung carcinoma cell lines,” Lung Cancer, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 304–310, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  43. H. Wael, R. Yoshida, S. Kudoh, K. Hasegawa, K. Niimori-Kita, and T. Ito, “Notch1 signaling controls cell proliferation, apoptosis and differentiation in lung carcinoma,” Lung Cancer, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 131–140, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. A. Singh and J. Settleman, “EMT, cancer stem cells and drug resistance: an emerging axis of evil in the war on cancer,” Oncogene, vol. 29, no. 34, pp. 4741–4751, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. Z. Wang, Y. Li, D. Kong et al., “Acquisition of epithelial-mesenchymal transition phenotype of gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic cancer cells is linked with activation of the notch signaling pathway,” Cancer Research, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 2400–2407, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. M. Xie, L. Zhang, C.-S. He et al., “Activation of Notch-1 enhances epithelial-mesenchymal transition in gefitinib-acquired resistant lung cancer cells,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 113, no. 5, pp. 1501–1513, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. I. Espinoza and L. Miele, “Deadly crosstalk: Notch signaling at the intersection of EMT and cancer stem cells,” Cancer Letters, vol. 341, no. 1, pp. 41–45, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. X. Yuan, H. Wu, N. Han et al., “Notch signaling and EMT in non-small cell lung cancer: biological significance and therapeutic application,” Journal of Hematology and Oncology, vol. 5, no. 7, article 87, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. R. Schwanbeck, “The role of epigenetic mechanisms in notch signaling during development,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 230, no. 5, pp. 969–981, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. X.-Y. Ding, J. Ding, K. Wu et al., “Cross-talk between endothelial cells and tumor via delta-like ligand 4/Notch/PTEN signaling inhibits lung cancer growth,” Oncogene, vol. 31, no. 23, pp. 2899–2906, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. A. M. Egloff and J. R. Grandis, “Molecular pathways: context-dependent approaches to Notch targeting as cancer therapy,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 18, no. 19, pp. 5188–5195, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. B. Westhoff, I. N. Colalucaa, G. D'Ario et al., “Alterations of the Notch pathway in lung cancer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, vol. 106, no. 52, pp. 22293–22298, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  53. L. Ding, G. Getz, D. A. Wheeler et al., “Somatic mutations affect key pathways in lung adenocarcinoma,” Nature, vol. 455, no. 7216, pp. 1069–1075, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  54. L. Meder, K. König, L. Ozretic et al., “NOTCH, ASCL1, p53 and RB alterations define an alternative pathway driving neuroendocrine and small cell lung carcinomas,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 138, no. 4, pp. 927–938, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. J. George, J. S. Lim, S. J. Jang et al., “Comprehensive genomic profiles of small cell lung cancer,” Nature, vol. 524, no. 7563, pp. 47–53, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  56. M. Kunnimalaiyaan and H. Chen, “Tumor suppressor role of Notch-1 signaling in neuroendocrine tumors,” Oncologist, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 535–542, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. D. W. Ball, “Achaete-scute homolog-1 and Notch in lung neuroendocrine development and cancer,” Cancer Letters, vol. 204, no. 2, pp. 159–169, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. C. M. Misquitta-Ali, E. Cheng, D. O'Hanlon et al., “Global profiling and molecular characterization of alternative splicing events misregulated in lung cancer,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 138–150, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. Y.-Y. Mo, H. Tang, and L. Miele, “Notch-associated microRNAs in cancer,” Current Drug Targets, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1157–1166, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. E. C. Lai, B. Tam, and G. M. Rubin, “Pervasive regulation of Drosophila Notch target genes by GY-box-, Brd-box-, and K-box-class microRNAs,” Genes & Development, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1067–1080, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. X. Ji, Z. Wang, A. Geamanu, A. Goja, F. H. Sarkar, and S. V. Gupta, “Delta-tocotrienol suppresses Notch-1 pathway by upregulating miR-34a in nonsmall cell lung cancer cells,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 131, no. 11, pp. 2668–2677, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. H. Motohashi and M. Yakamoto, “Carcinogenesis and transcriptional regulation through Maf recognition elements,” Cancer Science, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 135–139, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. A. Kobayashi, M.-I. Kang, H. Okawa et al., “Oxidative stress sensor Keap1 functions as an adaptor for Cul3-based E3 ligase to regulate proteasomal degradation of Nrf2,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 24, no. 16, pp. 7130–7139, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. P. Canning, F. J. Sorrell, and A. N. Bullock, “Structural basis of Keap1 interactions with Nrf2,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 88, pp. 101–107, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  65. P. Canning, C. D. O. Cooper, T. Krojer et al., “Structural basis for Cul3 protein assembly with the BTB-Kelch family of E3 ubiquitin ligases,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 288, no. 11, pp. 7803–7814, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. K. R. Sekhar, G. Rachakonda, and M. L. Freeman, “Cysteine-based regulation of the CUL3 adaptor protein Keap1,” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, vol. 244, no. 1, pp. 21–26, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. K. I. Tong, Y. Katoh, H. Kusunoki, K. Itoh, T. Tanaka, and M. Yamamoto, “Keap1 recruits Neh2 through binding to ETGE and DLG motifs: characterization of the two-site molecular recognition model,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 2887–2900, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. T. H. Rushmore, M. R. Morton, and C. B. Pickett, “The antioxidant responsive element. Activation by oxidative stress and identification of the DNA consensus sequence required for functional activity,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 266, no. 18, pp. 11632–11639, 1991. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. B. M. Hybertson and B. Gao, “Role of the Nrf2 signaling system in health and disease,” Clinical Genetics, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 447–452, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. D. Malhotra, E. Portales-Casamar, A. Singh et al., “Global mapping of binding sites for Nrf2 identifies novel targets in cell survival response through chip-seq profiling and network analysis,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 38, no. 17, pp. 5718–5734, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. I. Gañán-Gómez, Y. Wei, H. Yang, M. C. Boyano-Adánez, and G. García-Manero, “Oncogenic functions of the transcription factor Nrf2,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 65, pp. 750–764, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  72. Y. Mitsuishi, K. Taguchi, Y. Kawatani et al., “Nrf2 redirects glucose and glutamine into anabolic pathways in metabolic reprogramming,” Cancer Cell, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 66–79, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. S. K. Niture and A. K. Jaiswal, “Nrf2-induced antiapoptotic Bcl-xL protein enhances cell survival and drug resistance,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 57, pp. 119–131, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. S. K. Niture and A. K. Jaiswal, “Nrf2 protein up-regulates antiapoptotic protein Bcl-2 and prevents cellular apoptosis,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 287, no. 13, pp. 9873–9886, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. K. Taguchi, H. Motohashi, and M. Yamamoto, “Molecular mechanisms of the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway in stress response and cancer evolution,” Genes to Cells, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 123–140, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. M. T. Landi, T. Dracheva, M. Rotunno et al., “Gene expression signature of cigarette smoking and its role in lung adenocarcinoma development and survival,” PLoS ONE, vol. 3, no. 2, Article ID e1651, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, “Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers,” Nature, vol. 489, no. 7417, pp. 519–525, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  78. N. Rekhtman, M. C. Pietanza, M. D. Hellmann et al., “Next-generation sequencing of pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma reveals small cell carcinoma-like and non-small cell carcinoma-like subsets,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 22, no. 14, pp. 3618–3629, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  79. H. Satoh, T. Moriguchi, J. Takai, M. Ebina, and M. Yamamoto, “Nrf2 prevents initiation but accelerates progression through the kras signaling pathway during lung carcinogenesis,” Cancer Research, vol. 73, no. 13, pp. 4158–4168, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. H. M. Leinonen, E. Kansanen, P. Pölönen, M. Heinäniemi, and A.-L. Levonen, “Dysregulation of the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway in cancer,” Biochemical Society Transactions, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 645–649, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. Y. Huang, W. Li, Z.-Y. Su, and A.-N. T. Kong, “The complexity of the Nrf2 pathway: beyond the antioxidant response,” Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 1401–1413, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. S. Murakami and H. Motohashi, “Roles of Nrf2 in cell proliferation and differentiation,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine B, vol. 88, pp. 168–178, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  83. H. Yang, W. Wang, Y. Zhang et al., “The role of NF-E2-related factor 2 in predicting chemoresistance and prognosis in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer,” Clinical Lung Cancer, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 166–171, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. L. M. Solis, C. Behrens, W. Dong et al., “Nrf2 and Keap1 abnormalities in non-small cell lung carcinoma and association with clinicopathologic features,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 16, no. 14, pp. 3743–3753, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. D. W. Cescon, D. She, S. Sakashita et al., “NRF2 pathway activation and adjuvant chemotherapy benefit in lung squamous cell carcinoma,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 2499–2505, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  86. L. A. Muscarella, P. Parrella, V. D'Alessandro et al., “Frequent epigenetics inactivation of KEAP1 gene in non-small cell lung cancer,” Epigenetics, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 710–719, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. T. Takahashi, M. Sonobe, T. Menju et al., “Mutations in Keap1 are a potential prognostic factor in resected non-small cell lung cancer,” Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 500–506, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. M. S. Degese, J. E. Mendizabal, N. A. Gandini et al., “Expression of heme oxygenase-1 in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and its correlation with clinical data,” Lung Cancer, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 168–175, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. J.-R. Tsai, H.-M. Wang, P.-L. Liu et al., “High expression of heme oxygenase-1 is associated with tumor invasiveness and poor clinical outcome in non-small cell lung cancer patients,” Cellular Oncology, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 461–471, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. J. M. Kolesar, S. C. Pritchard, K. M. Kerr, K. Kim, M. C. Nicolson, and H. McLeod, “Evaluation of NQO1 gene expression and variant allele in human NSCLC tumors and matched normal lung tissue,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1119–1124, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  91. J. M. Kolesar, S. E. Dahlberg, S. Marsh et al., “The NQO12/2 polymorphism is associated with poor overall survival in patients following resection of stages II and IIIa non-small cell lung cancer,” Oncology Reports, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1765–1772, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  92. Z. Li, Y. Zhang, T. Jin et al., “NQO1 protein expression predicts poor prognosis of non-small cell lung cancers,” BMC Cancer, vol. 15, no. 1, article 207, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. Z. Qian, T. Zhou, C. I. Gurguis et al., “Nuclear factor, erythroid 2-like 2-associated molecular signature predicts lung cancer survival,” Scientific Reports, vol. 5, article 16889, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  94. M. E. Abazeed, D. J. Adams, K. E. Hurov et al., “Integrative radiogenomic profiling of squamous cell lung cancer,” Cancer Research, vol. 73, no. 20, pp. 6289–6298, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. S. Tao, S. Wang, S. J. Moghaddam et al., “Oncogenic KRAS confers chemoresistance by upregulating NRF2,” Cancer Research, vol. 74, no. 24, pp. 7430–7441, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  96. P. Y. Yip, “Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-AKT-mammalian target of rapamycin (PI3K-Akt-mTOR) signaling pathway in non-small cell lung cancer,” Translational Lung Cancer Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 165–176, 2015. View at Google Scholar
  97. S. Lee, M.-J. Lim, M.-H. Kim et al., “An effective strategy for increasing the radiosensitivity of Human lung Cancer cells by blocking Nrf2-dependent antioxidant responses,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 807–816, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  98. T. D. Clay, P. A. Russell, H. Do et al., “Associations between the IASLC/ATS/ERS lung adenocarcinoma classification and EGFR and KRAS mutations,” Pathology, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 17–24, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  99. B. Lee, T. Lee, S. H. Lee, Y. L. Choi, and J. Han, “Clinicopathologic characteristics of EGFR, KRAS, and ALK alterations in 6,595 lung cancers,” Oncotarget, vol. 7, no. 17, pp. 23874–23884, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  100. G. M. DeNicola, F. A. Karreth, T. J. Humpton et al., “Oncogene-induced Nrf2 transcription promotes ROS detoxification and tumorigenesis,” Nature, vol. 475, no. 7354, pp. 106–110, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  101. A. Singh, V. Misra, R. K. Thimmulappa et al., “Dysfunctional KEAP1-NRF2 interaction in non-small-cell lung cancer,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 3, no. 10, article e420, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  102. S. K. Niture and A. K. Jaiswal, “Prothymosin-α mediates nuclear import of the INrf2/ Cul3·Rbx1 complex to degrade nuclear Nrf2,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 284, no. 20, pp. 13856–13868, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. O.-H. Lee, A. K. Jain, V. Papusha, and A. K. Jaiswal, “An auto-regulatory loop between stress sensors INrf2 and Nrf2 controls their cellular abundance,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 282, no. 50, pp. 36412–36420, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  104. Z. Sun, S. Zhang, J. Y. Chan, and D. D. Zhang, “Keap1 controls postinduction repression of the Nrf2-mediated antioxidant response by escorting nuclear export of Nrf2,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 27, no. 18, pp. 6334–6349, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  105. Y. Mitsuishi, H. Motohashi, and M. Yamamoto, “The Keap1-Nrf2 system in cancers: stress response and anabolic metabolism,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 2, article 200, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  106. T. Shibata, T. Ohta, K. I. Tong et al., “Cancer related mutations in NRF2 impair its recognition by Keap1-Cul3 E3 ligase and promote malignancy,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 36, pp. 13568–13573, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  107. Y. R. Kim, J. E. Oh, M. S. Kim et al., “Oncogenic NRF2 mutations in squamous cell carcinomas of oesophagus and skin,” Journal of Pathology, vol. 220, no. 4, pp. 446–451, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  108. Clinical Lung Cancer Genome Project (CLCGP) and Network Genomic Medicine (NGM), “A genomics-based classification of human lung tumors,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 5, no. 209, p. 209ra153, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  109. Y. Kim, P. S. Hammerman, J. Kim et al., “Integrative and comparative genomic analysis of lung squamous cell carcinomas in East Asian patients,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 121–128, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  110. Q. K. Li, A. Singh, S. Biswal, F. Askin, and E. Gabrielson, “KEAP1 gene mutations and NRF2 activation are common in pulmonary papillary adenocarcinoma,” Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 230–234, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  111. J. M. Kaufman, J. M. Amann, K. Park et al., “LKB1 loss induces characteristic patterns of gene expression in human tumors associated with NRF2 activation and attenuation of PI3K-AKT,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 794–804, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  112. L. Fernandez-Cuesta, M. Peifer, X. Lu et al., “Abstract 1531: cross-entity mutation analysis of lung neuroendocrine tumors sheds light into their molecular origin and identifies new therapeutic targets,” Cancer Research, vol. 74, no. 19, supplement, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  113. Z. Li, L. Xu, N. Tang et al., “The polycomb group protein EZH2 inhibits lung cancer cell growth by repressing the transcription factor Nrf2,” FEBS Letters, vol. 588, no. 17, pp. 3000–3007, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  114. M. T. M. Van Jaarsveld, J. Helleman, A. W. M. Boersma et al., “miR-141 regulates KEAP1 and modulates cisplatin sensitivity in ovarian cancer cells,” Oncogene, vol. 32, no. 36, pp. 4284–4293, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  115. B. N. Chorley, M. R. Campbell, X. Wang et al., “Identification of novel NRF2-regulated genes by ChIP-Seq: influence on retinoid X receptor alpha,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 40, no. 15, pp. 7416–7429, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  116. N. M. Shah, S. A. Rushworth, M. Y. Murray, K. M. Bowles, and D. J. MacEwan, “Understanding the role of NRF2-regulated miRNAs in human malignancies,” Oncotarget, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 1130–1142, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  117. N. Duru, R. Gernapudi, Y. Zhang et al., “NRF2/miR-140 signaling confers radioprotection to human lung fibroblasts,” Cancer Letters, vol. 369, no. 1, pp. 184–191, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  118. T. Murray-Stewart, C. L. Hanigan, P. M. Woster, L. J. Marton, and R. A. Casero Jr., “Histone deacetylase inhibition overcomes drug resistance through a miRNA-dependent mechanism,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 2088–2099, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  119. Y. Guo, S. Yu, C. Zhang, and A. N. Kong, “Epigenetic regulation of Keap1-Nrf2 signaling,” Free Radical Biology & Medicine, vol. 88, part B, pp. 337–349, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  120. R. Wang, J. An, F. Ji, H. Jiao, H. Sun, and D. Zhou, “Hypermethylation of the Keap1 gene in human lung cancer cell lines and lung cancer tissues,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 373, no. 1, pp. 151–154, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  121. X. Liu, C. Sun, B. Liu et al., “Genistein mediates the selective radiosensitizing effect in NSCLC A549 cells via inhibiting methylation of the keap1 gene promoter region,” Oncotarget, vol. 7, no. 19, pp. 27267–27279, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  122. Z. Chen, X. Ye, N. Tang et al., “The histone acetylranseferase hMOF acetylates Nrf2 and regulates anti-drug responses in human non-small cell lung cancer,” British Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 171, no. 13, pp. 3196–3211, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  123. A. Singh, C. Happel, S. K. Manna et al., “Transcription factor NRF2 regulates miR-1 and miR-206 to drive tumorigenesis,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 123, no. 7, pp. 2921–2934, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  124. C. Xia, X. Bai, X. Hou et al., “Cryptotanshinone reverses cisplatin resistance of human lung carcinoma A549 cells through down-regulating Nrf2 pathway,” Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 816–824, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  125. 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 and Medicine, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 1599–1609, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  126. S. Chian, R. Thapa, Z. Chi, X. J. Wang, and X. Tang, “Luteolin inhibits the Nrf2 signaling pathway and tumor growth in vivo,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 447, no. 4, pp. 602–608, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  127. S. Homma, Y. Ishii, Y. Morishima et al., “Nrf2 enhances cell proliferation and resistance to anticancer drugs in human lung cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 3423–3432, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  128. S. Vartanian, T. P. Ma, J. Lee et al., “Application of mass spectrometry profiling to establish brusatol as an inhibitor of global protein synthesis,” Molecular & Cellular Proteomics, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1220–1231, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  129. K. Wang, T. Zhang, Q. Dong, E. C. Nice, C. Huang, and Y. Wei, “Redox homeostasis: the linchpin in stem cell self-renewal and differentiation,” Cell Death and Disease, vol. 4, no. 3, article e537, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  130. C. E. Hochmuth, B. Biteau, D. Bohmann, and H. Jasper, “Redox regulation by keap1 and Nrf2 controls intestinal stem cell proliferation in drosophila,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 188–199, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  131. Y.-Y. Jang and S. J. Sharkis, “A low level of reactive oxygen species selects for primitive hematopoietic stem cells that may reside in the low-oxygenic niche,” Blood, vol. 110, no. 8, pp. 3056–3063, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  132. J. E. Le Belle, N. M. Orozco, A. A. Paucar et al., “Proliferative neural stem cells have high endogenous ROS levels that regulate self-renewal and neurogenesis in a PI3K/Akt-dependant manner,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 59–71, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  133. J. J. Tsai, J. A. Dudakov, K. Takahashi et al., “Nrf2 regulates haematopoietic stem cell function,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 309–316, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  134. N. Wakabayashi, S. Shin, S. L. Slocum et al., “Regulation of Notch1 signaling by Nrf2: implications for tissue regeneration,” Science Signaling, vol. 3, no. 130, article ra52, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  135. Y. Zong, A. Panikkar, J. Xu et al., “Notch signaling controls liver development by regulating biliary differentiation,” Development, vol. 136, no. 10, pp. 1727–1739, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  136. N. Wakabayashi, J. J. Skoko, D. V. Chartoumpekis et al., “Notch-Nrf2 axis: regulation of Nrf2 gene expression and cytoprotection by notch signaling,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 653–663, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  137. E. Barreiro, V. I. Peinado, J. B. Galdiz et al., “Cigarette smoke-induced oxidative stress: a role in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease skeletal muscle dysfunction,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 182, no. 4, pp. 477–488, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  138. M. K. Paul, B. Bisht, D. O. Darmawan et al., “Dynamic changes in intracellular ROS levels regulate airway basal stem cell homeostasis through Nrf2-dependent notch signaling,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 199–214, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  139. C. D. Peacock and D. N. Watkins, “Cancer stem cells and the ontogeny of lung cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 26, no. 17, pp. 2883–2889, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  140. N. Wakabayashi, S. L. Slocum, J. J. Skoko, S. Shin, and T. W. Kensler, “When NRF2 talks, who's listening?” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 1649–1663, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  141. Q. Zhao, A. Mao, J. Yan et al., “Downregulation of Nrf2 promotes radiation-induced apoptosis through Nrf2 mediated Notch signaling in non-small cell lung cancer cells,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 765–773, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  142. M. S. Lawrence, P. Stojanov, C. H. Mermel et al., “Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumour types,” Nature, vol. 505, no. 7484, pp. 495–501, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  143. N. Takebe, D. Nguyen, and S. X. Yang, “Targeting Notch signaling pathway in cancer: clinical development advances and challenges,” Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 141, no. 2, pp. 140–149, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  144. X. Yuan, H. Wu, H. Xu et al., “Notch signaling: an emerging therapeutic target for cancer treatment,” Cancer Letters, vol. 369, no. 1, pp. 20–27, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  145. Y. Wu, C. Cain-Hom, L. Choy et al., “Therapeutic antibody targeting of individual Notch receptors,” Nature, vol. 464, no. 7291, pp. 1052–1057, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  146. R. Olsauskas-Kuprys, A. Zlobin, and C. Osipo, “Gamma secretase inhibitors of Notch signaling,” OncoTargets and Therapy, vol. 6, pp. 943–955, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  147. W. A. Messersmith, G. I. Shapiro, J. M. Cleary et al., “A phase I, dose-finding study in patients with advanced solid malignancies of the oral γ-secretase inhibitor PF-03084014,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 60–67, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  148. W.-C. Yen, M. M. Fischer, F. Axelrod et al., “Targeting notch signaling with a Notch2/Notch3 antagonist (tarextumab) inhibits tumor growth and decreases tumor-initiating cell frequency,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 2084–2095, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  149. M. C. Pietanza, L. A. Byers, J. D. Minna, and C. M. Rudin, “Small cell lung cancer: will recent progress lead to improved outcomes?” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 2244–2255, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  150. A. Ahmad, W. A. Sakr, and K. M. Rahman, “Novel targets for detection of cancer and their modulation by chemopreventive natural compounds,” Frontiers in Bioscience, vol. 4, pp. 410–425, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  151. S. N. Pinchot, R. Jaskula-Sztul, L. Ning et al., “Identification and validation of Notch pathway activating compounds through a novel high-throughput screening method,” Cancer, vol. 117, no. 7, pp. 1386–1398, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  152. D. Subramaniam, N. D. Nicholes, A. Dhar et al., “3,5-bis(2,4-difluorobenzylidene)-4-piperidone, a novel compound that affects pancreatic cancer growth and angiogenesis,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 2146–2156, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  153. M. C. Jaramillo and D. D. Zhang, “The emerging role of the Nrf2-Keap1 signaling pathway in cancer,” Genes & Development, vol. 27, no. 20, pp. 2179–2191, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  154. J. W. Xiu, J. D. Hayes, C. J. Henderson, and C. R. Wolf, “Identification of retinoic acid as an inhibitor of transcription factor Nrf2 through activation of retinoic acid receptor alpha,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 49, pp. 19589–19594, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  155. S. H. Ki, I. J. Cho, D. W. Choi, and S. G. Kim, “Glucocorticoid Receptor (GR)-associated SMRT binding to C/EBPβ TAD and Nrf2 Neh4/5: role of SMRT recruited to GR in GSTA2 gene repression,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 4150–4165, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  156. L. Yang, D. L. Palliyaguru, and T. W. Kensler, “Frugal chemoprevention: targeting Nrf2 with foods rich in sulforaphane,” Seminars in Oncology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 146–153, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  157. F. Hong, M. L. Freeman, and D. C. Liebler, “Identification of sensor cysteines in human Keap1 modified by the cancer chemopreventive agent sulforaphane,” Chemical Research in Toxicology, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1917–1926, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  158. D. Kalpana Deepa Priya, R. Gayathri, and D. Sakthisekaran, “Role of sulforaphane in the anti-initiating mechanism of lung carcinogenesis in vivo by modulating the metabolic activation and detoxification of benzo(a)pyrene,” Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 9–16, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  159. G. H. Jo, G.-Y. Kim, W.-J. Kim, K. Y. Park, and Y. H. Choi, “Sulforaphane induces apoptosis in T24 human urinary bladder cancer cells through a reactive oxygen species-mediated mitochondrial pathway: the involvement of endoplasmic reticulum stress and the Nrf2 signaling pathway,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1497–1506, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  160. S. H. Choi, Y. M. Kim, J. M. Lee, and S. G. Kim, “Antioxidant and mitochondrial protective effects of oxidized metabolites of oltipraz,” Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism and Toxicology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 213–224, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  161. S. Sharma, P. Gao, and V. E. Steele, “The chemopreventive efficacy of inhaled oltipraz particulates in the B[a]P-induced A/J mouse lung adenoma model,” Carcinogenesis, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1721–1727, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  162. A. Kode, S. Rajendrasozhan, S. Caito, S.-R. Yang, I. L. Megson, and I. Rahman, “Resveratrol induces glutathione synthesis by activation of Nrf2 and protects against cigarette smoke-mediated oxidative stress in human lung epithelial cells,” American Journal of Physiology—Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology, vol. 294, no. 3, pp. L478–L488, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  163. R. Garg, S. Gupta, and G. B. Maru, “Dietary curcumin modulates transcriptional regulators of phase I and phase II enzymes in benzo[a]pyrene-treated mice: mechanism of its anti-initiating action,” Carcinogenesis, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1022–1032, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  164. Y. Li, J. Zhang, D. Ma et al., “Curcumin inhibits proliferation and invasion of osteosarcoma cells through inactivation of Notch-1 signaling,” The FEBS Journal, vol. 279, no. 12, pp. 2247–2259, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  165. S. Magesh, Y. Chen, and L. Hu, “Small molecule modulators of Keap1-Nrf2-ARE pathway as potential preventive and therapeutic agents,” Medicinal Research Reviews, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 687–726, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  166. L. Hu, S. Magesh, L. Chen et al., “Discovery of a small-molecule inhibitor and cellular probe of Keap1-Nrf2 protein-protein interaction,” Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 3039–3043, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  167. Z.-Y. Jiang, M.-C. Lu, L.-L. Xu et al., “Discovery of potent Keap1-Nrf2 protein-protein interaction inhibitor based on molecular binding determinants analysis,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 2736–2745, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  168. F. Radtke and K. Raj, “The role of Notch in tumorigenesis: oncogene or tumour suppressor,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 756–767, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  169. A. Lau, N. F. Villeneuve, Z. Sun, P. K. Wong, and D. D. Zhang, “Dual roles of Nrf2 in cancer,” Pharmacological Research, vol. 58, no. 5-6, pp. 262–270, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus