Oncogenesis Stress Signaling

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

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.

autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is a membranous intracellular organelle and the first compartment of the secretory pathway. As such, the ER contributes to the production and folding of approximately one-third of cellular proteins, and is thus inextricably linked to the maintenance of cellular homeostasis and the fine balance between health and disease. Specific ER stress signalling pathways, collectively known as the unfolded protein response (UPR), are required for maintaining ER homeostasis. The UPR is triggered when ER protein folding capacity is overwhelmed by cellular demand and the UPR initially aims to restore ER homeostasis and normal cellular functions. However, if this fails, then the UPR triggers cell death. In this review, we provide a UPR signalling-centric view of ER functions, from the ER's discovery to the latest advancements in the understanding of ER and UPR biology. Our review provides a synthesis of intracellular ER signalling revolving around proteostasis and the UPR, its impact on other organelles and cellular behaviour, its multifaceted and dynamic response to stress and its role in physiology, before finally exploring the potential exploitation of this knowledge to tackle unresolved biological questions and address unmet biomedical needs. Thus, we provide an integrated and global view of existing literature on ER signalling pathways and their use for therapeutic purposes.

Some environmental contaminants interact with hormones and may exert adverse consequences as a result of their actions as endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Exposure in people is typically a result of contamination of the food chain, inhalation of contaminated house dust or occupational exposure. EDCs include pesticides and herbicides (such as dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane or its metabolites), methoxychlor, biocides, heat stabilisers and chemical catalysts (such as tributyltin), plastic contaminants (e.g. bisphenol A), pharmaceuticals (i.e. diethylstilbestrol; 17α-ethinylestradiol) or dietary components (such as phytoestrogens). The goal of this review is to address the sources, effects and actions of EDCs, with an emphasis on topics discussed at the International Congress on Steroids and the Nervous System. EDCs may alter reproductively-relevant or nonreproductive, sexually-dimorphic behaviours. In addition, EDCs may have significant effects on neurodevelopmental processes, influencing the morphology of sexually-dimorphic cerebral circuits. Exposure to EDCs is more dangerous if it occurs during specific 'critical periods' of life, such as intrauterine, perinatal, juvenile or puberty periods, when organisms are more sensitive to hormonal disruption, compared to other periods. However, exposure to EDCs in adulthood can also alter physiology. Several EDCs are xenoestrogens, which can alter serum lipid concentrations or metabolism enzymes that are necessary for converting cholesterol to steroid hormones. This can ultimately alter the production of oestradiol and/or other steroids. Finally, many EDCs may have actions via (or independent of) classic actions at cognate steroid receptors. EDCs may have effects through numerous other substrates, such as the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor and the retinoid X receptor, signal transduction pathways, calcium influx and/or neurotransmitter receptors. Thus, EDCs, from varied sources, may have organisational effects during development and/or activational effects in adulthood that influence sexually-dimorphic, reproductively-relevant processes or other functions, by mimicking, antagonising or altering steroidal actions.

PURPOSE: In patients with resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma, surgery plus perioperative platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care. Perioperative chemotherapy remains debatable for gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H). PATIENTS AND METHODS: NEONIPIGA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04006262) phase II study evaluated neoadjuvant nivolumab 240 mg once every two weeks ×6 and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every six weeks ×2, followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab 480 mg once every four weeks (nine injections) in patients with locally advanced resectable dMMR/MSI-H, clinical (c) tumor (T)2-T4 node (N)x metastasis (M)0 gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma. The primary end point was a pathological complete response (pCR) rate. RESULTS: Between October 2019 and June 2021, 32 patients with dMMR/MSI-H gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma were enrolled. The median age was 65.5 years (range, 40-80). Clinical stages were cT2-T3N0 (n = 9), cT2-T3N1 (n = 22), and cT3N1M1 (n = 1, wrongly included). With a median follow-up of 14.9 months (95% CI, 10.6 to 17.6), 32 patients received neoadjuvant immunotherapy (27 patients completed all cycles). Neoadjuvant therapy-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in six patients (19%). Twenty-nine patients underwent surgery; three did not have surgery and had complete endoscopic response with tumor-free biopsies and a normal computed tomography scan (two refused surgery and one had metastasis at inclusion). The rate of surgical morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification) was 55% (one postoperative death occurred). All 29 patients had an R0 resection, and 17 (58.6%; 90% CI, 41.8 to 74.1) had pCR (pathological T0N0). Becker tumor regression grades 1a, 1b, 2, and 3 were observed in 17 patients, three (including two pathological T0N1), two, and seven patients, respectively. Of the 29 patients with surgery, 23 received adjuvant nivolumab. At database lock, no patient had relapse and one died without relapse. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab and ipilimumab-based neoadjuvant therapy is feasible and associated with no unexpected toxicity and a high pCR rate in patients with dMMR/MSI-H resectable gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma.

UNLABELLED: Stress induced by the accumulation of unfolded proteins in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is observed in many human diseases, including cancers. Cellular adaptation to ER stress is mediated by the unfolded protein response (UPR), which aims at restoring ER homeostasis. The UPR has emerged as a major pathway in remodeling cancer gene expression, thereby either preventing cell transformation or providing an advantage to transformed cells. UPR sensors are highly regulated by the formation of dynamic protein scaffolds, leading to integrated reprogramming of the cells. Herein, we describe the regulatory mechanisms underlying UPR signaling upon cell intrinsic or extrinsic challenges, and how they engage cell transformation programs and/or provide advantages to cancer cells, leading to enhanced aggressiveness or chemoresistance. We discuss the emerging cross-talk between the UPR and related metabolic processes to ensure maintenance of protein homeostasis and its impact on cell transformation and tumor growth. SIGNIFICANCE: ER stress signaling is dysregulated in many forms of cancer and contributes to tumor growth as a survival factor, in addition to modulating other disease-associated processes, including cell migration, cell transformation, and angiogenesis. Evidence for targeting the ER stress signaling pathway as an anticancer strategy is compelling, and novel agents that selectively inhibit the UPR have demonstrated preliminary evidence of preclinical efficacy with an acceptable safety profile.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) have a poor prognosis. Selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) is a promising treatment option for hepatic tumors, but no prospective studies of combination SIRT with chemotherapy have been published to our knowledge. OBJECTIVE: To determine the response rate after SIRT combined with chemotherapy in patients with unresectable ICC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This phase 2 clinical trial, the Yttrium-90 Microspheres in Cholangiocarcinoma (MISPHEC) trial, included patients with unresectable ICC who have never received chemotherapy or intra-arterial therapy and were treated at 7 centers which had experience with SIRT between November 12, 2013, and June 21, 2016. Statistical analysis was performed from March 31, 2017, to June 17, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Concomitant first-line chemotherapy with cisplatin, 25 mg/m2, and gemcitabine, 1000 mg/m2 (gemcitabine reduced to 300 mg/m2 for the cycles just before and after SIRT), on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle for 8 cycles. Selective internal radiotherapy was administered during cycle 1 (1 hemiliver disease) or cycles 1 and 3 (disease involving both hemilivers) using glass Y90 microspheres. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Response rate at 3 months according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1. Secondary end points were toxic effects, progression-free survival, overall survival, disease control rate, and response rate according to Choi criteria. RESULTS: Of 41 patients included in the study, 26 (63%) were male, with a mean (SD) age of 64.0 (10.7) years. Response rate according to RECIST was 39% (90% CI, 26%-53%) at 3 months according to local review and was confirmed at 41% as best response by central review; disease control rate was 98%. According to Choi criteria, the response rate was 93%. After a median follow-up of 36 months (95% CI, 26-52 months), median progression-free survival was 14 months (95% CI, 8-17 months), with progression-free survival rates of 55% at 12 months and 30% at 24 months. Median overall survival was 22 months (95% CI, 14-52 months), with overall survival rates of 75% at 12 months and 45% at 24 months. Of 41 patients, 29 (71%) had grades 3 to 4 toxic effects; 9 patients (22%) could be downstaged to surgical intervention, with 8 (20%) achieving R0 (microscopic-free margins) surgical resection. After a median of 46 months (95% CI, 31 months to not reached) after surgery, median relapse-free survival was not reached among patients who underwent resection. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Combination chemotherapy and SIRT had antitumor activity as first-line treatment of unresectable ICC, and a significant proportion of patients were downstaged to surgical intervention. A phase 3 trial is ongoing.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) lacks targeted therapies and has a worse prognosis than other breast cancer subtypes, underscoring an urgent need for new therapeutic targets and strategies. IRE1 is an endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress sensor, whose activation is predominantly linked to the resolution of ER stress and, in the case of severe stress, to cell death. Here we demonstrate that constitutive IRE1 RNase activity contributes to basal production of pro-tumorigenic factors IL-6, IL-8, CXCL1, GM-CSF, and TGFβ2 in TNBC cells. We further show that the chemotherapeutic drug, paclitaxel, enhances IRE1 RNase activity and this contributes to paclitaxel-mediated expansion of tumor-initiating cells. In a xenograft mouse model of TNBC, inhibition of IRE1 RNase activity increases paclitaxel-mediated tumor suppression and delays tumor relapse post therapy. We therefore conclude that inclusion of IRE1 RNase inhibition in therapeutic strategies can enhance the effectiveness of current chemotherapeutics.

The unfolded protein response (UPR) is an adaptive cellular program used by eukaryotic cells to cope with protein misfolding stress. During tumor development, cancer cells are facing intrinsic (oncogene activation) and extrinsic (limiting nutrient or oxygen supply) challenges, with which they must cope to survive. Moreover, chemotherapy represents an additional extrinsic challenge that cancer cells are facing and to which they adapt in the case of resistance. As of today, resistance to chemotherapy and targeted therapies is one of the important issues that oncologists have to deal with for treating cancer patients. In this review, we first describe the key molecular mechanisms controlling the UPR and their implication in solid cancers. Then, we review the literature that connects cancer chemotherapy resistance mechanisms and activation of the UPR. Finally, we discuss the possible applications of targeting the UPR to bypass drug resistance.

Proteostasis imbalance is emerging as a major hallmark of cancer, driving tumor aggressiveness. Evidence suggests that the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), a major site for protein folding and quality control, plays a critical role in cancer development. This concept is valid in glioblastoma multiform (GBM), the most lethal primary brain cancer with no effective treatment. We previously demonstrated that the ER stress sensor IRE1α (referred to as IRE1) contributes to GBM progression, through XBP1 mRNA splicing and regulated IRE1-dependent decay (RIDD) of RNA Here, we first demonstrated IRE1 signaling significance to human GBM and defined specific IRE1-dependent gene expression signatures that were confronted to human GBM transcriptomes. This approach allowed us to demonstrate the antagonistic roles of XBP1 mRNA splicing and RIDD on tumor outcomes, mainly through selective remodeling of the tumor stroma. This study provides the first demonstration of a dual role of IRE1 downstream signaling in cancer and opens a new therapeutic window to abrogate tumor progression.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world. The "economically developed countries" life style, including diet, constitutes a risk factor favoring this cancer. Diet modulation may lower digestive cancer incidence. Among promising food components, dairy propionibacteria were shown to trigger apoptosis of human colon cancer cells, via the release of short-chain fatty acids acetate and propionate. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A fermented milk, exclusively fermented by P. freudenreichii, was recently designed. In this work, the pro-apoptotic potential of this new fermented milk was demonstrated on HGT-1 human gastric cancer cells. Fermented milk supernatant induced typical features of apoptosis including chromatin condensation, formation of apoptotic bodies, DNA laddering, cell cycle arrest and emergence of a subG1 population, phosphatidylserine exposure at the plasma membrane outer leaflet, reactive oxygen species accumulation, mitochondrial transmembrane potential disruption, caspase activation and cytochrome c release. Remarkably, this new fermented milk containing P. freudenreichii enhanced the cytotoxicity of camptothecin, a drug used in gastric cancer chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Such new probiotic fermented milk may thus be useful as part of a preventive diet designed to prevent gastric cancer and/or as a food supplement to potentiate cancer therapeutic treatments.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib, a kinase inhibitor active against various solid tumours, induces oxidative stress and ferroptosis, a new form of oxidative necrosis, in some cancer cells. Clinically-applicable biomarkers that reflect the impact of sorafenib on the redox metabolism of cancer cells are lacking. METHODS: We used gene expression microarrays, real-time PCR, immunoblot, protein-specific ELISA, and gene reporter constructs encoding the enzyme luciferase to study the response of a panel of cancer cells to sorafenib. Tumour explants prepared from surgical hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) samples and serum samples obtained from HCC patients receiving sorafenib were also used. RESULTS: We observed that genes of the metallothionein-1 (MT1) family are induced in the HCC cell line Huh7 exposed to sorafenib. Sorafenib increased the expression of MT1G mRNA in a panel of human cancer cells, an effect that was not observed with eight other clinically-approved kinase inhibitors. We identified the minimal region of the MT1G promoter that confers inducibility by sorafenib to a 133 base pair region containing an Anti-oxidant Response Element (ARE) and showed the essential role of the transcription factor NRF2 (Nuclear factor erythroid 2-Related Factor 2). We examined the clinical relevance of our findings by analysing the regulation of MT1G in five tumour explants prepared from surgical HCC samples. Finally, we showed that the protein levels of MT1 increase in the serum of some HCC patients receiving sorafenib, and found an association with reduced overall survival. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that MT1 constitute a biomarker adapted for exploring the impact of sorafenib on the redox metabolism of cancer cells.

Cellular stress induced by the accumulation of misfolded proteins at the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is a central feature of secretory cells and is observed in many tissues in various diseases, including cancer, diabetes, obesity, and neurodegenerative disorders. Cellular adaptation to ER stress is achieved by the activation of the unfolded protein response (UPR), an integrated signal transduction pathway that transmits information about the protein folding status at the ER to the cytosol and nucleus to restore proteostasis. In the past decade, ER stress has emerged as a major pathway in remodeling gene expression programs that either prevent transformation or provide selective advantage in cancer cells. Controlled by the formation of a dynamic scaffold onto which many regulatory components assemble, UPR signaling is a highly regulated process that leads to an integrated reprogramming of the cell. In this Review, we provide an overview of the regulatory mechanisms underlying UPR signaling and how this pathway modulates cancer progression, particularly the aggressiveness and chemotherapeutic resistance exhibited by glioblastoma, a form of brain cancer. We also discuss the emerging cross-talk between the UPR and related metabolic processes to ensure maintenance of proteostasis, and we highlight possible therapeutic opportunities for targeting the pathway with small molecules.

The extracellular matrix (ECM) plays an instrumental role in determining the spatial orientation of epithelial polarity and the formation of lumens in glandular tissues during morphogenesis. Here, we show that the Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER)-resident protein anterior gradient-2 (AGR2), a soluble protein-disulfide isomerase involved in ER protein folding and quality control, is secreted and interacts with the ECM. Extracellular AGR2 (eAGR2) is a microenvironmental regulator of epithelial tissue architecture, which plays a role in the preneoplastic phenotype and contributes to epithelial tumorigenicity. Indeed, eAGR2, is secreted as a functionally active protein independently of its thioredoxin-like domain (CXXS) and of its ER-retention domain (KTEL), and is sufficient, by itself, to promote the acquisition of invasive and metastatic features. Therefore, we conclude that eAGR2 plays an extracellular role independent of its ER function and we elucidate this gain-of-function as a novel and unexpected critical ECM microenvironmental pro-oncogenic regulator of epithelial morphogenesis and tumorigenesis.

Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress generates reactive oxygen species (ROS) that induce apoptosis if left unabated. To limit oxidative insults, the ER stress PKR-like endoplasmic reticulum Kinase (PERK) has been reported to phosphorylate and activate nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (NRF2). Here, we uncover an alternative mechanism for PERK-mediated NRF2 regulation in human cells that does not require direct phosphorylation. We show that the activation of the PERK pathway rapidly stimulates the expression of NRF2 through activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4). In addition, NRF2 activation is late and largely driven by reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated during late protein synthesis recovery, contributing to protecting against cell death. Thus, PERK-mediated NRF2 activation encompasses a PERK-ATF4-dependent control of NRF2 expression that contributes to the NRF2 protective response engaged during ER stress-induced ROS production.

The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is a multifunctional organelle that constitutes the entry into the secretory pathway. The ER contributes to the maintenance of cellular calcium homeostasis, lipid synthesis and productive secretory, and transmembrane protein folding. Physiological, chemical, and pathological factors that compromise ER homeostasis lead to endoplasmic reticulum stress (ER stress). To cope with this situation, cells activate an adaptive signaling pathway termed the unfolded protein response (UPR) that aims at restoring ER homeostasis. The UPR is transduced through post-translational, translational, post-transcriptional, and transcriptional mechanisms initiated by three ER-resident sensors, inositol-requiring protein 1α, activating transcription factor 6α, and PRKR-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase. Determining the in and out of ER homeostasis control and UPR activation still represents a challenge for the community. Hence, standardized criteria and methodologies need to be proposed for monitoring ER homeostasis and ER stress in different model systems. Here, we summarize the pathways that are activated during ER stress and provide approaches aimed at assess ER homeostasis and stress in vitro and in vivo mammalian systems that can be used by researchers to plan and interpret experiments. We recommend the use of multiple assays to verify ER stress because no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one.

FVB/N-Tg (MMTV-PyMT)(634Mul)-transgenic mice develop multifocal mammary tumors with a high incidence of pulmonary metastasis. We have demonstrated previously that mammary tumors derived from transgene-positive F1 progeny in particular inbred strains display altered latency, tumor growth rates, and metastatic rates when compared with the FVB/NJ homozygous parent. To identify genes with expression that might be critical in modifying the biological behavior of MMTV-PyMT tumors, we performed a detailed comparative analysis of expression profiles from mammary tumors arising in the parental FVB/NJ background and F1 progeny from crosses with I/LnJ, LP/J, MOLF/Ei, and NZB/B1NJ mice. Compared with normal mammary glands, gene expression profiles of tumors from all five strains exhibited up-regulation of genes involved in cell growth (e.g., Cks1 and CDC25C) and down-regulation of cell adhesion molecules, with many genes associated previously with human breast cancer such as STAT2, CD24 antigen, gelsolin, and lipocalin2. To identify genes with significant variation in expression between the five different genotypes, significance analysis of microarrays (SAM) and one-way ANOVA were used. Three definable groupings of tumors were identified: (a) tumors derived in the LP/J F1 and MOLF/Ei F1 strains in which tumor growth and dissemination are suppressed and latency prolonged; (b) the most aggressive tumors from the FVB/NJ parental strain and I/LnJ F1 genomic backgrounds; and (c) an intermediate virulence phenotype with tumors from NZB/B1NJ-F1 crosses. These array based assessments correlated well with a composite phenotype ranking using a "virulence" index. The gene expression signature that is associated with a high metastatic rate in the mouse contains the same 17 genes described recently as the signature gene set predictive of metastasis in human tumors (1) with 16 of the 17 genes exhibiting the same directional change in expression associated with human metastases. These results demonstrate that the genetic analysis of mouse models of tumorigenesis may be highly relevant to human cancer and that the metastatic phenotype of a tumor may be affected by the germline genetic configuration of the host.

In contrast to mammals, teleost fish have a very labile genetic sex determination. Sex differentiation is influenced by a combination of hormonal, social and environmental factors and teleost fishes exhibit many examples of hermaphroditism. This means that the brain of fish is not irreversibly sexualized early in life. This review aims at highlighting some unique features of fish that may explain their brain sexual plasticity. Unlike mammals, in which brain aromatase activity decreases after birth, adult teleosts exhibit an intense aromatase activity due to strong expression of one of two aromatase genes (aromatase A or cyp19a1a and aromatase B or cyp19a1b) that arose from a gene duplication event. Interestingly, aromatase B is only expressed in radial glial cells (RGC) of adult fish. These cells persist throughout life and act as progenitors in the brain of both developing and adult fish. In agreement with the fact that brain aromatase activity is correlated with sex steroid levels, the high expression of cyp19a1b is due to an autoregulatory loop through which estrogens and aromatizable androgens upregulate aromatase expression. Given the well-established roles of estrogens and aromatase on brain sexualization, these features suggest that the brain of fish conserves properties of embryonic mammalian brain throughout life - high neurogenic activity and high aromatase expression in progenitor cells correlated with sex steroid levels. The permanent dialogue between the brain and the gonad would permit sex changes and thus the emergence of a variety of reproductive strategies. Other hypotheses are also discussed.

CD90 is a membrane GPI-anchored protein with one Ig V-type superfamily domain that was initially described in mouse T cells. Besides the specific expression pattern and functions of CD90 that were described in normal tissues, i.e., neurons, fibroblasts and T cells, increasing evidences are currently highlighting the possible involvement of CD90 in cancer. This review first provides a brief overview on CD90 gene, mRNA and protein features and then describes the established links between CD90 and cancer. Finally, we report newly uncovered functional connections between CD90 and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress signaling and discuss their potential impact on cancer development.