4.7 Article

Identification of BBOX1 as a Therapeutic Target in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

期刊

CANCER DISCOVERY
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 1706-1721

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0288

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas [RR190058]
  2. American Cancer Society [RSG-18-059-01-TBE]
  3. NCI Breast SPORE program [P50-CA58223]
  4. NCI [R01-CA148761]
  5. BCRF
  6. Cancer Center Core Support Grant [P30 CA016086]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive and highly lethal disease. Because of its heterogeneity and lack of hormone receptors or HER2 expression, targeted therapy is limited. Here, by performing a functional siRNA screening for 2-OG-dependent enzymes, we identified gamma-butyrobetaine hydroxylase 1 (BBOX1) as an essential gene for TNBC tumorigenesis. BBOX1 depletion inhibits TNBC cell growth while not affecting normal breast cells. Mechanistically, BBOX1 binds with the calcium channel inositol-1,4,5-trisphosphate receptor type 3 (IP3R3) in an enzymatic-dependent manner and prevents its ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation. BBOX1 depletion suppresses IP3R3-mediated endoplasmic reticulum calcium release, therefore impairing calcium-dependent energy-generating processes including mitochondrial respiration and mTORC1-mediated glycolysis, which leads to apoptosis and impaired cell-cycle progression in TNBC cells. Therapeutically, genetic depletion or pharmacologic inhibition of BBOX1 inhibits TNBC tumor growth in vitro and in vivo. Our study highlights the importance of targeting the previously uncharacterized BBOX1-IP3R3-calcium oncogenic signaling axis in TNBC. SIGNIFICANCE: We provide evidence from unbiased screens that BBOX1 is a potential therapeutic target in TNBC and that genetic knockdown or pharmacologic inhibition of BBOX1 leads to decreased TNBC cell fitness. This study lays the foundation for developing effective BBOX1 inhibitors for treatment of this lethal disease.

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

4.7
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