Title |
MUC1 and HIF-1alpha Signaling Crosstalk Induces Anabolic Glucose Metabolism to Impart Gemcitabine Resistance to Pancreatic Cancer
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cancer Cell, July 2017
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.06.004 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Surendra K. Shukla, Vinee Purohit, Kamiya Mehla, Venugopal Gunda, Nina V. Chaika, Enza Vernucci, Ryan J. King, Jaime Abrego, Gennifer D. Goode, Aneesha Dasgupta, Alysha L. Illies, Teklab Gebregiworgis, Bingbing Dai, Jithesh J. Augustine, Divya Murthy, Kuldeep S. Attri, Oksana Mashadova, Paul M. Grandgenett, Robert Powers, Quan P. Ly, Audrey J. Lazenby, Jean L. Grem, Fang Yu, José M. Matés, John M. Asara, Jung-whan Kim, Jordan H. Hankins, Colin Weekes, Michael A. Hollingsworth, Natalie J. Serkova, Aaron R. Sasson, Jason B. Fleming, Jennifer M. Oliveto, Costas A. Lyssiotis, Lewis C. Cantley, Lyudmyla Berim, Pankaj K. Singh |
Abstract |
Poor response to cancer therapy due to resistance remains a clinical challenge. The present study establishes a widely prevalent mechanism of resistance to gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer, whereby increased glycolytic flux leads to glucose addiction in cancer cells and a corresponding increase in pyrimidine biosynthesis to enhance the intrinsic levels of deoxycytidine triphosphate (dCTP). Increased levels of dCTP diminish the effective levels of gemcitabine through molecular competition. We also demonstrate that MUC1-regulated stabilization of hypoxia inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) mediates such metabolic reprogramming. Targeting HIF-1α or de novo pyrimidine biosynthesis, in combination with gemcitabine, strongly diminishes tumor burden. Finally, reduced expression of TKT and CTPS, which regulate flux into pyrimidine biosynthesis, correlates with better prognosis in pancreatic cancer patients on fluoropyrimidine analogs. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 9 | 28% |
Australia | 2 | 6% |
France | 1 | 3% |
Spain | 1 | 3% |
Argentina | 1 | 3% |
Canada | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 17 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 17 | 53% |
Scientists | 13 | 41% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 251 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 53 | 21% |
Researcher | 38 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 25 | 10% |
Student > Master | 19 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 6% |
Other | 29 | 12% |
Unknown | 72 | 29% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 73 | 29% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 30 | 12% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 12% |
Chemistry | 10 | 4% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 4% |
Other | 18 | 7% |
Unknown | 82 | 33% |