4.7 Review

Repositioning chloroquine and metformin to eliminate cancer stem cell traits in pre-malignant lesions

期刊

DRUG RESISTANCE UPDATES
卷 14, 期 4-5, 页码 212-223

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.drup.2011.04.003

关键词

Breast cancer; DCIS; Autophagy; Hypoxia; EMT; Cancer stem cells; OIS; Oncogene-induced senescence

资金

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria (FIS), Spain [CP05-00090, PI06-0778, RD06-0020-0028]
  2. Fundacion Cientifica de la Asociacion Espanola Contra el Cancer (AECC, Spain)
  3. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (MICINN, Spain) [SAF2009-11579]
  4. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria (FIS), Spain [CD08/00283]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ideal oncology drugs would be curative after a short treatment course if they could eliminate epithelium-originated carcinomas at their non-invasive, pre-malignant stages. Such ideal molecules, which are expected to molecularly abrogate all the instrumental mechanisms acquired by migrating cancer stem cells (CSCs) to by-pass tumour suppressor barriers, might already exist. We here illustrate how system biology strategies for repositioning existing FDA-approved drugs may accelerate our therapeutic capacity to eliminate CSC traits in pre-invasive intraepithelial neoplasias. First, we describe a signalling network signature that overrides bioenergetics stress- and oncogene-induced senescence (OIS) phenomena in CSCs residing at pre-invasive lesions. Second, we functionally map the anti-malarial chloroquine and the anti-diabetic metformin (old drugs) to their recently recognized CSC targets (new uses) within the network. By discussing the preclinical efficacy of chloroquine and metformin to inhibiting the genesis and self-renewal of CSCs we finally underscore the expected translational impact of the old drugs-new uses repurposing strategy to open a new CSC-targeted chemoprevention era. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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