New frontiers in the treatment of colorectal cancer: Autophagy and the unfolded protein response as promising targets.

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC), despite numerous therapeutic and screening attempts, still remains a major life-threatening malignancy. CRC etiology entails both genetic and environmental factors. Macroautophagy/autophagy and the unfolded protein response (UPR) are fundamental mechanisms involved in the regulation of cellular responses to environmental and genetic stresses. Both pathways are interconnected and regulate cellular responses to apoptotic stimuli. In this review, we address the epidemiology and risk factors of CRC, including genetic mutations leading to the occurrence of the disease. Next, we discuss mutations of genes related to autophagy and the UPR in CRC. Then, we discuss how autophagy and the UPR are involved in the regulation of CRC and how they associate with obesity and inflammatory responses in CRC. Finally, we provide perspectives for the modulation of autophagy and the UPR as new therapeutic options for CRC treatment.

Related collections

Most cited references 325

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.

C N Estevez, S M Lee, Qing Zhong … (2012)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

0 comments Cited 785 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The microbiome and butyrate regulate energy metabolism and autophagy in the mammalian colon.

Dallas R Donohoe, Nikhil Garge, Xinxin Zhang … (2011)

The microbiome is being characterized by large-scale sequencing efforts, yet it is not known whether it regulates host metabolism in a general versus tissue-specific manner or which bacterial metabolites are important. Here, we demonstrate that microbiota have a strong effect on energy homeostasis in the colon compared to other tissues. This tissue specificity is due to colonocytes utilizing bacterially produced butyrate as their primary energy source. Colonocytes from germfree mice are in an energy-deprived state and exhibit decreased expression of enzymes that catalyze key steps in intermediary metabolism including the TCA cycle. Consequently, there is a marked decrease in NADH/NAD(+), oxidative phosphorylation, and ATP levels, which results in AMPK activation, p27(kip1) phosphorylation, and autophagy. When butyrate is added to germfree colonocytes, it rescues their deficit in mitochondrial respiration and prevents them from undergoing autophagy. The mechanism is due to butyrate acting as an energy source rather than as an HDAC inhibitor. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 681 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: results of the German CAO/ARO/AIO-94 randomized phase III trial after a median follow-up of 11 years.

Rolf Sauer, Torsten Liersch, Susanne Merkel … (2012)

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has been established as standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer after first results of the CAO/ARO/AIO-94 [Working Group of Surgical Oncology/Working Group of Radiation Oncology/Working Group of Medical Oncology of the Germany Cancer Society] trial, published in 2004, showed an improved local control rate. However, after a median follow-up of 46 months, no survival benefit could be shown. Here, we report long-term results with a median follow-up of 134 months. A total of 823 patients with stage II to III rectal cancer were randomly assigned to preoperative CRT with fluorouracil (FU), total mesorectal excision surgery, and adjuvant FU chemotherapy, or the same schedule of CRT used postoperatively. The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a difference of 10% in 5-year overall survival as the primary end point. Secondary end points included the cumulative incidence of local and distant relapses and disease-free survival. Of 799 eligible patients, 404 were randomly assigned to preoperative and 395 to postoperative CRT. According to intention-to-treat analysis, overall survival at 10 years was 59.6% in the preoperative arm and 59.9% in the postoperative arm (P = .85). The 10-year cumulative incidence of local relapse was 7.1% and 10.1% in the pre- and postoperative arms, respectively (P = .048). No significant differences were detected for 10-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases (29.8% and 29.6%; P = .9) and disease-free survival. There is a persisting significant improvement of pre- versus postoperative CRT on local control; however, there was no effect on overall survival. Integrating more effective systemic treatment into the multimodal therapy has been adopted in the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial to possibly reduce distant metastases and improve survival.