4.3 Article

Changes in metabolism affect expression of ABC transporters through ERK5 and depending on p53 status

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 1114-1129

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.23305

关键词

ABC transporter; p53; ERK5; oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS); dichloroacetate (DCA)

资金

  1. Region Languedoc Roussillon
  2. AOI from CHU Montpellier [221826]
  3. La Ligue Regionale contre le Cancer Comitte Languedoc-Rousillon
  4. Fondation de France [0057921]
  5. Ministere de l'Enseignement Superieur et de la Recherche

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Changes in metabolism require the efflux and influx of a diverse variety of metabolites. The ABC superfamily of transporters regulates the exchange of hundreds of substrates through the impermeable cell membrane. We show here that a metabolic switch to oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS), either by treating cells with dichloroacetate (DCA) or by changing the available substrates, reduced expression of ABCB1, ABCC1, ABCC5 and ABCG2 in wild-type p53-expressing cells. This metabolic change reduced histone changes associated to active promoters. Notably, DCA also inhibited expression of these genes in two animal models in vivo. In contrast, OXPHOS increased the expression of the same transporters in mutated (mut) or null p53-expressing cells. ABC transporters control the export of drugs from cancer cells and render tumors resistant to chemotherapy, playing an important role in multiple drug resistance (MDR). Wtp53 cells forced to perform OXPHOS showed impaired drug clearance. In contrast mutp53 cells increased drug clearance when performing OXPHOS. ABC transporter promoters contain binding sites for the transcription factors MEF2, NRF1 and NRF2 that are targets of the MAPK ERK5. OXPHOS induced expression of the MAPK ERK5. Decreasing ERK5 levels in wtp53 cells increased ABC expression whereas it inhibited expression in mutp53 cells. Our results showed that the ERK5/MEF2 pathway controlled ABC expression depending on p53 status.

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

4.3
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