4.6 Article

O-GlcNAcylated c-Jun antagonizes ferroptosis via inhibiting GSH synthesis in liver cancer

期刊

CELLULAR SIGNALLING
卷 63, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2019.109384

关键词

Erastin; O-GlcNAcylation; Phosphorylation; Glutathione; Transcription; Promoter

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81601829, 81702741, 81772941, 81871727]
  2. Shanghai Municipal Education Commission [18CG16]
  3. Shanghai Education Development Foundation [18CG16]
  4. Shanghai Sailing Program [19YF1444800]
  5. Nurture projects for basic research of Shanghai Chest Hospital [2018YNJCQ06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ferroptosis is a metabolism-related cell death. Stimulating ferroptosis in liver cancer cells is a strategy to treat liver cancer. However, how to eradicate liver cancer cells through ferroptosis and the obstacles to inducing ferroptosis in liver cancer remain unclear. Here, we observed that erastin suppressed the malignant phenotypes of liver cancer cells by inhibiting O-GlcNAcylation of c-Jun and further inhibited protein expression, transcription activity and nuclear accumulation of c-Jun. Overexpression of c-Jun-WT with simultaneous PuGNAc treatment conversely inhibited erastin-induced ferroptosis, whereas overexpression of c-Jun-WT alone or overexpression of c-Jun-S73A (a non-O-GlcNAcylated form of c-Jun) with PuGNAc treatment did not exert a similar effect. GSH downregulation induced by erastin was restored by overexpression of c-Jun-WT with simultaneous PuGNAc treatment. In addition, overexpression of c-Jun-WT, but not its S73A mutant, induced PSAT1 and CBS transcription via directly binding to their promoter regions, suggesting that GSH synthesis is regulated by O-GlcNAcylated c-Jun. A positive correlation between c-Jun O-GlcNAcylation and GSH was observed in clinical samples. Collectively, O-GlcNAcylated c-Jun represents an obstructive factor to ferroptosis, and targeting O-GlcNAcylated c-Jun might be helpful for treating liver cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据