Advertisement
JBC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M604356200 on August 23, 2006

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 281, Issue 42, 31440-31447, October 20, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
281/42/31440    most recent
M604356200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fribley, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Wang, C.-Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fribley, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Wang, C.-Y.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Proteasome Inhibitor PS-341 Induces Apoptosis in Cisplatin-resistant Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cells by Induction of Noxa*Formula

Andrew M. Fribley{ddagger}, Benjamin Evenchik{ddagger}, Qinghua Zeng{ddagger}, Bae Keun Park{ddagger}, Jean Y. Guan{ddagger}, Honglai Zhang{ddagger}, Timothy J. Hale§, Maria S. Soengas, Randal J. Kaufman||, and Cun-Yu Wang{ddagger}1

From the {ddagger}Laboratory of Molecular Signaling and Apoptosis, Department of Biologic and Materials Sciences, School of Dentistry, the §Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, and the Department of Dermatology and Cancer Center, ||Howard Hughes Medical Institution and Department of Biological Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

Received for publication, May 8, 2006 , and in revised form, August 22, 2006.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Cisplatin is one of the most common DNA-damaging agents used for treating patients with solid tumors such as squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Unfortunately, significant levels of resistance in SCC cells emerge rapidly following cisplatin treatment. Here we report that the proteasome inhibitor PS-341, the representative of a new class of chemotherapeutic drugs, was capable of inducing apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells via the endoplasmic reticulum stress. PS-341 stimulated the phosphorylation of PERK and the unfolded protein response, resulting in the induction of the transcription factor ATF-4. Importantly, the Bcl-2 homology domain 3-only (BH3-only) protein Noxa was found to be strongly induced in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells by PS-341 but not by cisplatin. The knock-down of Noxa using small interference RNA significantly abolished PS-341-mediated apoptosis in SCC cells. Using eIF2{alpha} mutant mouse embryonic fibroblasts, we found that functional eIF2{alpha} played an essential role in PS-341-induced Noxa expression. Taken together, our novel findings reveal a direct link between PS-341-induced endoplasmic reticulum stress and the mitochondria-dependent apoptotic pathway and suggest that PS-341 may be utilized for overcoming cisplatin-resistance in human SCC.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The proteasome inhibitor PS-341 (also known as Velcade or Bortezomib), represents a new class of chemotherapeutic drugs that has been demonstrated to induce apoptosis independently or synergistically with conventional cancer therapy in both solid and hematological tumors. PS-341 is a dipeptidyl boronic acid derivative that specifically inhibits the function of the 26 S proteasome (1). The 26 S proteasome is a large multisubunit ATP-dependent threonine protease complex found in the cytoplasm and nucleus of all eukaryotic cells; its principle function is to degrade proteins via the ubiquitin pathway (2). Many proteasomal substrates are known to mediate pathways that are dysregulated in human cancers. Also, the 26 S proteasome pathway degrades the misfolded or unfolded proteins and thereby maintains normal cellular functions (1).

The inhibition of the 26 S proteasome by the proteasome inhibitors such as PS-341 may lead to the accumulation of the misfolded or unfolded proteins in ER,2 resulting in ER stress (3). The ER stress subsequently induces a coordinated cellular response called the unfolded protein response (UPR). Although the UPR inhibits general protein translation to reduce the protein loads in the ER lumen, it also specifically up-regulates a set of genes such as molecular chaperons to alleviate the ER stress. Most studies have focused on how the UPR as well as the signaling molecules in UPR activated by the ER stress provides a protection against apoptosis (4, 5). For example, the deletion of PERK, an initiating kinase in the UPR, has been found to potentiate the ER stress-mediated apoptosis (6). Similarly, the inhibition of the phosphorylation of the subunit of eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2 (eIF2{alpha}) rendered cells sensitive to glucose deprivation (7). However, in ER stress-associated human chronic diseases, the ER stress eventually activates apoptotic signaling pathways to induce apoptosis, thereby resulting in tissue destruction. Although caspase-12 has been found to play a critical role in the ER stress-mediated apoptosis (4, 5), the molecular signaling pathway that is associated with the ER stress-mediated apoptosis is not fully understood.

We have recently found that the proteasome inhibitor PS-341 potently induced apoptosis in head and neck SCC cell lines through the induction of ER stress in addition to the inhibition of the pro-survival nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-{kappa}B) signaling pathway (3). SCC cells comprise >90% of all malignancies diagnosed in the oral cavity and the head and neck region and is a tremendous public health challenge around the world. The 5-year survival rate for patients with head and neck cancer is one of the lowest of any major cancers and has remained un-improved over the last 20 years (8–10). Cisplatin has been a cornerstone chemotherapy treatment for patients with SCC. Unfortunately, significant numbers of resistant SCC cells emerge rapidly following initial cisplatin treatment. Thus, many retrospective clinical studies reported that cisplatin was unable to increase survival when administered as a monotherapy or in combination with surgery or radiotherapy (11–13). Cisplatin is a platinum-containing compound that induces DNA damage by binding to DNA and forming adducts that impair de novo synthesis. Mechanisms of cisplatin resistance are known to be dependent on a myriad of factors, including loss of p53, aberrant levels of cell cycle regulators such as cyclin D1, and Bcl-2 family proteins (14–16). Initial reductions in tumor burden are overshadowed by the ability of cisplatin-resistant cells to proliferate and emerge as recurrent or metastatic diseases for which the median survival plummets to ~6 months (17, 18).


Figure 1
View larger version (69K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1.
PS-341 induces apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells. A, PS-341, but not cisplatin, killed cisplatin-resistant SCC cells. Cisplatin-resistant UMSCC-5PT and UMSCC-10BPT cells were treated with PS-341 (0.5 µM) and cisplatin (50 µM) for 24 h. Cell viability was determined by trypan blue exclusion assay. The assays were performed with triplicate samples, and the results are representative of three independent experiments. Error bars depict standard deviation. B and C, PS-341 induced cell death in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells in a dose- and time-dependent fashion. UMSCC-5PT cells were treated with PS-341 for the indicated time periods or concentrations. Cell viability was determined by trypan blue exclusion assay. The assays were performed with duplicate samples, and the results are representative of three independent experiments. D, both PS-341 and cisplatin killed cisplatin-sensitive SCC cells. UMSCC-5 and UMSCC-23 cells were treated with PS-341 or cisplatin for 24 h. Cell viability was determined by trypan blue exclusion assay. The assays were performed with triplicate samples, and the results are representative of three independent experiments. Error bars show standard deviation. E, PS-341 induced apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells. UMSCC-5 and UMSCC-5PT cells were treated with PS-341 or cisplatin for 0, 16, and 24 h. After treatment, the detached and attached cells were pooled, and genomic DNAs were extracted with phenol/chloroform. Genomic DNAs were separated on a 1.2% agarose gel. F, PS-341 induced caspase activation in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells. Cisplatin-resistant SCC cells were treated with PS-341 for 0, 8, 16, and 24 h. The whole cell extracts were prepared with radioimmune precipitation assay buffer, and 50-µg aliquots of protein extracts were resolved on a 12% SDS-PAGE gel. The membrane was probed with antibodies against caspase-9 and -3 (1:500). For loading control, the membrane was stripped and re-probed with anti-GAPDH monoclonal antibodies (1:5,000).

 
Based on the unique ability of PS-341 to induce apoptosis in SCC cells (1–3), we were interested in investigating the potential of PS-341 to induce apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cell lines. Moreover, we wished that the studies might further help us to understand the molecular mechanism by which PS-341 induced apoptosis in SCC cells. We found that PS-341 was able to overcome cisplatin resistance and induce apoptosis in a panel of cisplatin-resistant SCC cell lines. Unlike cisplatin, PS-341 induced the markers of the ER stress, such as Gadd34, phosphorylation of the ER-resident stress-sensing kinase PERK, and a strong induction of the transcription factor ATF-4. Although the pro-apoptotic BH3-only protein Noxa was induced by both cisplatin and PS-341 in cisplatin-sensitive SCC cells, Noxa was strongly induced by PS-341, but not cisplatin, in cisplatin-resistant cells. The knock-down of Noxa by siRNA was able to significantly reduce the ability of PS-341 to induce apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells. Taken together, our results elucidate a novel apoptotic signaling pathway that is activated by PS-341 through the ER stress and suggest that PS-341 may be utilized for treating cisplatin-resistant cancers.


Figure 2
View larger version (86K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2.
PS-341 induces ER stress in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells. A and B, cells were treated with PS-341 for the indicated time periods. Whole cell extracts were prepared, and 50-µg aliquots of proteins were examined with polyclonal antibodies against phospho-PERK, ATF-4, and GADD-34. For loading control, the membranes were stripped and re-probed with monoclonal antibodies against {alpha}-tubulin or GAPDH.

 

   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Reagents and Cell Culture—PS-341, kindly provided by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was dissolved in Me2SO to a concentration of 10 mM and stored at –20 °C; the concentration of Me2SO in culture never exceeded 1:5000. Cisplatin (cis-diammineplatinum(II) dichloride) was purchased from Sigma. UMSCC cell lines were all obtained from Dr. Thomas Carey at The University of Michigan and were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium with 10% fetal bovine serum and penicillin-streptomycin (Invitrogen). Wild-type (S/S) and mutant (A/A) eIF2-{alpha} mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium with 10% fetal bovine serum and penicillin-streptomycin and supplemented with minimal essential medium amino acids solution and minimal essential medium non-essential amino acids solution (Invitrogen).

Western Blot Analysis—Cells (2 x 106) were plated in 10-cm tissue culture dishes 16–24 h before treatment with PS-341, cisplatin, or vehicle control. Cells were treated, unless otherwise indicated, with 1.0 µM PS-341 or 50 µM cisplatin. Whole cell lysates were prepared using modified radioimmune precipitation assay buffer containing phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride and protease inhibitors (Sigma-Aldrich). 25- to 80-µg aliquots of lysates were resolved on 8% or 12% SDS-polyacrylamide gels and transferred to a polyvinylidene difluoride membrane (Immun-Blot, Bio-Rad) with a Bio-Rad semi-dry transfer apparatus. Membranes were blocked with 5% milk for 1 h at room temperature and probed with primary antibodies overnight at 4 °C. Antibodies were acquired from the following manufacturers: Puma, Phospho-PERK, Caspase-9, and Caspase-12 from Cell Signaling; Caspase-3, ATF-4 (CREB-2), Gadd34, and Gadd153/CHOP from Santa Cruz Biotechnology; Noxa from Abcam, Inc.; monoclonal {alpha}-tubulin and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) were from Sigma and Chemicon International, respectively. Following incubation with horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibodies, membranes were visualized by using an enhanced chemiluminescence reagent (Pierce).

Northern Blot Analysis and Real-time Reverse Transcription-PCR—Total RNAs were harvested from cells using TRIzol (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer's instructions. For Northern analysis, 5- to 10-µg aliquots of total RNAs were resolved on 1.5% agarose formaldehyde gels and transferred to a Zeta-Probe GT Genomic Tested Blotting (nitrocellulose) membrane (Bio-Rad) overnight. The membranes were hybridized with 32P-labeled cDNA probes and exposed to autoradiographic film. The cDNA template used to generate the Northern probe was generated using the SuperScript First-Strand Synthesis System (Invitrogen) according the manufacturer's protocol. The human Noxa cDNA was obtained from ATCC. Northern probes were released with NotI/SalI. The human Puma expression vector pCEP4-HA-PUMA was a gift from Bert Vogelstein at the Johns Hopkins Oncology Center. Real-time RT-PCR using Cyber Green (Applied Biosystems) was carried out with an Applied Biosystems ABI 770 sequence analyzer. The real-time PCR primers for mouse Noxa were 5'-CGCCAGTGAACCCAACG-3' (forward) and 5'-TTATGTCCGGTGCACTCCAC-3' (reverse).

siRNA and Plasmid Transfection—The mouse ATF-4 mammalian expression vector was provided by David Ron at the New York University School of Medicine. Expression plasmid or an empty vector control (0.8 µg) was transfected into HNSCC cells for 4 h with Lipofectamine 2000 according to the manufacturer's protocol. Trypan blue exclusion assay was performed 24 and 48 h following transfection to determine the percentage of cell death. As a transfection control, an expression plasmid containing green fluorescent protein was co-transfected into the cells (0.3 µg). For siRNA transfection, cells (3.5 x 105) were plated in 6-cm tissue culture dishes the day before transfection. siRNA (100 nM) was transfected into HNSCC cells overnight with Oligofectamine diluted in Opti-MEM (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer's protocol. 48 h following transfection cells were treated with 1.0 µM PS-341 as indicated. siRNA for Puma (NM_014417 [GenBank] , targeting sequence: 5'-GGAGGGUCCUGUACAAUCUUU-3') and Noxa (NM_021127 [GenBank] , targeting sequence: AAACUGAACUUCCGGCAGAUU-3') were synthesized at Dharmacon; luciferase control siRNA was also from Dharmacon.

DNA Ladder—PS-341- or cisplatin-treated cells were lysed and treated with 100 µg/ml proteinase K for 2 h at 50°C. DNA was extracted three times with phenol-chloroform mixed 1:1 and three times with chloroform alone. Precipitated DNAs were washed with 70% ethanol, and 5 µg of each sample was resolved on a 1.5% agarose gel.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
PS-341 Induces Apoptosis in Cisplatin-resistant SCC Cell Lines—Recent work from our laboratory demonstrated that, unlike other common chemotherapeutic drugs, PS-341 was able to induce ER stress and apoptosis in SCC cell lines (3). Based on this finding, we hypothesized that PS-341 might be able to induce apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cell lines. To test this hypothesis, we utilized two cell lines, UMSCC-5PT and UMSCC-10BPT, both of which have been cultured to resistance with increasing concentrations of cisplatin to mimic the clinical dilemma of recurrent cisplatin-resistant SCC (16). As shown in Fig. 1A, whereas a dose of cisplatin as high as 50 µM only weakly induced cell death, both cell lines were very sensitive to PS-341-induced cytotoxicity. Additionally, we also found that UMSCC-1 cells that naturally displayed high resistance to cisplatin were sensitive to PS-341. Fig. 1 (B and C) revealed that PS-341 induced cell death in UMSCC-5PT cells in a time- and dose-dependent fashion. Moreover, Annexin-V and propidium iodide staining and fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis also confirmed that PS-341 strongly induced cell death in cisplatin-resistant UMSCC-5PT cells (supplemental Fig. S1). As a control, we found that both cisplatin and PS-341 could induce apoptosis in cisplatin-sensitive UMSCC-23 and UMSCC-5 cells, indicating that cisplatin was functional (Fig. 1D). To determine whether PS-341 killed cisplatin-resistant cells via an apoptotic mechanism, we harvested genomic DNAs from SCC cells treated with PS-341 or cisplatin. As shown in Fig. 1E, both cisplatin and PS-341 induced DNA fragmentations in cisplatin-sensitive UMSCC-5 cells. Whereas the DNA laddering was not observed in cisplatin-treated UMSCC-5PT cells, PS-341 strongly induced DNA fragmentation in these cells. Consistently, we found that caspase-9 and -3 in cisplatinresistant SCC cells were activated by PS-341 but not by cisplatin (Fig. 1F). Taken together, these results suggest that PS-341 could induce apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells.


Figure 3
View larger version (75K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3.
PS-341 strongly induces Noxa in SCC cells. A, induction of Noxa in cisplatin-sensitive UMSCC-23 cells by PS-341 or cisplatin. Cells were treated with PS-341 or cisplatin for the indicated time periods. 50-µg aliquots of cell lysates were probed with anti-Noxa or anti-Puma antibodies. GAPDH was utilized as an internal control. B, the induction of Noxa and Puma in UMSCC-5PT cells by PS-341 and cisplatin. Cells were treated with PS-341 or cisplatin for the indicated time periods. 50-µg aliquots of cell lysates were probed with anti-Noxa and anti-Puma antibodies. {alpha}-Tubulin was utilized as an internal control. C, the induction of Noxa, but not Puma, in UMSCC-10BPT cells by PS-341 or cisplatin. Cells were treated with PS-341 or cisplatin for the indicated time periods. 50-µg aliquots of cell lysates were probed with anti-Noxa and anti-Puma antibodies. {alpha}-Tubulin was utilized as an internal control. D, the induction of Noxa by PS-341 in UMSCC-1 cells detected by Western blot analysis. E, the induction of Noxa gene expression in UMSCC-23 cells by PS-341 or cisplatin. Cells were treated with PS-341 or cisplatin for the indicated time periods. 5-µg aliquots of total RNAs were probed with 32P-labeled Noxa cDNA probes. For loading control, the membrane was stripped and reprobed with 32P-labeled GAPDH cDNA probes. F, the induction of Noxa gene expression by PS-341 in UMSCC-5PT cells. Cells were treated with PS-341 or cisplatin for the indicated time periods. 5-µg aliquots of total RNAs were probed with 32P-labeled Noxa cDNA probes. For loading control, the membrane was stripped and re-probed with 18 S cDNA probes.

 
PS-341 Induces the ER Stress in Cisplatin-resistant SCC Cells—Based on our previous findings that PS-341 induced the ER stress in SCC cells (3), we hypothesized that the ability of PS-341 to induce apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cell lines might also be preceded by the ER stress. As shown in Fig. 2 (A and B, top panel), the stimulation of PS-341, but not cisplatin, induced the phosphorylation of the ER membrane-resident stress-sensing kinase PERK, a hallmark of ER stress (4, 5), in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells. It is known that activated PERK can phosphorylate eIF2{alpha} to attenuate protein synthesis and to regulate the expression of the UPR-dependent genes during the ER stress. Importantly, studies from knock-out mice have found that PERK is required for increased translation of the transcription factor ATF-4 in response to the ER stress, which plays a critical role in the induction of UPR-dependent genes (4, 5). Consistently, Western blot analysis demonstrated that ATF-4 was induced by PS-341, but not cisplatin, in SCC cells (Fig. 2, A and B). Also, the UPR regulatory protein GADD-34 was induced by PS-341 but not cisplatin (Fig. 2, A and B). Interestingly, we found that, in contrast to MEFs, the UPR-associated CHOP was negligibly induced by PS-341 in SCC cells (data not shown). Taken together, these data suggest that PS-341, but not cisplatin, is able to induce the ER stress in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells.

PS-341 Induces Expression of the BH3-only Protein Noxa in Cisplatin-resistant SCC Cells—Having established that PS-341 was able to induce markers of ER stress in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells, we sought to identify downstream factors responsible for the induction of apoptosis. Elegant studies by Scorrano et al. (19) have demonstrated that both Bax and Bak also played an essential role in the ER stress-induced apoptosis. Indeed, we found that the deletion of Bax and Bak also provided protection against PS-341-mediated apoptosis in MEFs. However, both Bax and Bak were not induced by PS-341 in cisplatin-resistant cells (data not shown). Recently, two insightful studies reported that the ER stress-inducing agent thapsigargin could up-regulate the BH3-only Bcl-2 family member Puma in some cells by unknown mechanisms (20, 21). The BH3-only subset of the Bcl-2 family has at least eight members, including Noxa and Puma, and is currently understood to induce apoptosis by promoting the release of cytochrome c from mitochondria (22, 23). Therefore, we first examined whether Puma was induced by PS-341. Western blot analysis found that PS-341 weakly or negligibly induced Puma in cisplatin-sensitive UMSCC-23 cells (Fig. 3A) and cisplatin-resistant UMSCC-5PT cells (Fig. 3B) and UMSCC-10BPT cells (Fig. 3C). Interestingly, compared with PS-341, cisplatin strongly induced Puma in cisplatin-resistant UMSCC-5PT cells, but not in UMSCC-10BPT cells (Fig. 3, B and C). These results suggest that Puma might not be a critical pro-apoptotic protein induced by PS-341. Since another BH3-only protein Noxa was reported to be highly inducible upon apoptotic stimulation, we also examined whether Noxa was induced by PS-341 in SCC cells. As shown in Fig. 3A, Western blot analysis found that Noxa was significantly induced by PS-341 in cisplatin-sensitive UMSCC-23 cells. Importantly, Noxa was also strongly induced by PS-341 in cisplatin-resistant UMSCC-5PT, UMSCC-10BPT, and UMSCC-1 cells (Fig. 3, B–D). Because PS-341 might block the degradation of Noxa at the protein level, we also performed Northern blot analysis to examine whether PS-341 induced Noxa mRNA expression. As shown in Fig. 3 (E and F), Noxa mRNA was rapidly induced by PS-341 in UMSCC-23 and UMSCC-5PT cells. In summary, our results suggest that PS-341 might induce Noxa to overcome cisplatin-resistance in SCC cells.


Figure 4
View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 4.
The induction of Noxa by PS-341 is dependent on the phosphorylation of eIF2{alpha} in MEFs. A, the inhibition of eIF2{alpha} phosphorylation suppressed PS-341-mediated apoptosis. eIF2{alpha}S/S MEFs or eIF2{alpha}A/A MEFs were treated with PS-341 for 24 h. Cell viability was determined by trypan blue exclusion assay. The experiments were repeated three times, and the results represent the average values from three independent experiments. B, the inhibition of eIF2{alpha} phosphorylation attenuated PS-341-induced caspase activation. Cells were treated with PS-341 for the indicated time periods. 50-µg aliquots of cell lysates were probed with anticaspase-3 or anti-caspase-12 antibodies. {alpha}-Tubulin was utilized as a loading control. C, eIF2{alpha}S/S MEFs and eIF2{alpha}A/A MEFs were treated with PS-341 for the indicated time periods. 50-µg aliquots of proteins were probed with anti-ATF-4 or anti-CHOP antibodies. For loading control, the membrane was stripped and reprobed with anti-{alpha}-tubulin antibodies. D, the induction of Noxa by PS-341 was dependent on eIF2{alpha} phosphorylation. MEFs were treated with PS-341 for the indicated time periods, and the total RNAs were extracted with TRIzol. 1-µg aliquots of total RNAs were utilized for real-time RT-PCR.

 
PS-341-induced UPR Plays a Critical Role in PS-341-induced Noxa Expression—When the ER membrane-resident kinase PERK becomes phosphorylated in response to the ER stress, it phosphorylates eIF2{alpha}, which leads to a general inhibition of protein synthesis (4, 5). Studies by Scheuner et al. (7) have found that eIF2{alpha} phosphorylation played a critical role in the induction of UPR-dependent genes and promoted cell survival in response to ER stress. To further investigate the role of UPR in PS-341-mediated apoptosis, we utilized MEFs that express a mutant form of eIF2{alpha} (eIF2{alpha}A/A), which cannot be phosphorylated by PERK. Interestingly, we found that eIF2{alpha}A/A MEFs were significantly resistant to PS-341-mediated apoptosis compared with wild-type MEFs (eIF2{alpha}S/S) (Fig. 4A). Although caspase-12 was processed in both cells, the activation of caspase-3 was significantly delayed in eIF2{alpha}A/A MEFs (Fig. 4B). Furthermore, we observed that PS-341 was unable to induce ATF-4 or the ER stress pro-apoptotic transcription factor Gadd153/CHOP in eIF2-{alpha} mutant cells compared with wild-type cells by Western blot analysis (Fig. 4C). Because there were no commercial antibodies for mouse Noxa available, a real-time RT-PCR for Noxa was performed. As shown in Fig. 4D, our real-time RT-PCR revealed an induction of Noxa mRNA in eIF2{alpha}S/S MEFS but not eIF2{alpha}A/A MEFs in a time-dependent manner. This finding demonstrated that functional eIF2{alpha} and an intact UPR response were necessary in MEFs for PS-341 to induce accumulation of Noxa.

Noxa Plays a Critical Role in PS-341-induced Apoptosis in Cisplatin-resistant HNSCC Cells—To further determine whether Noxa played a critical role in the induction of apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells, we first examined whether overexpression of Noxa could induce apoptosis by transient transfection in which GFP was utilized as a reporter. As shown in Fig. 5A, ectopic expression of Noxa significantly induced apoptosis in UMSCC-5PT cells 24 h after transfection of Noxa. To determine whether Noxa played an essential role in PS-341-induced apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells, we utilized siRNA to knock down Noxa expression. Noxa siRNA, but not control siRNA for luciferase, significantly reduced PS-341-induced Noxa expression by 70–80% (Fig. 5B). As shown in Fig. 5 (C and D), the knock-down of Noxa significantly provided protection against PS-341-mediated apoptosis in both cisplatin-resistant UMSCC-5PT and UMSCC-10BPT cells. Moreover, we also examined whether the knock-down of Puma affected PS-341-induced apoptosis in UMSCC-5PT cells. As shown in Fig. 5 (E and F), the reduction of Puma expression did not inhibit PS-341-mediated apoptosis. Our results suggest that the induction of Noxa by PS-341 plays a critical role in the induction of apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells.


Figure 5
View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 5.
Noxa plays a critical role in PS-341-mediated apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells. A, the overexpression of Noxa induced apoptosis in UMSCC-5PT cells. Cells were co-transfected with pcDNA-EGFP reporter and pCMV-SPORT-Noxa or control vector. 24 h after transfection, the dead cells were counted from five different fields. The results are average values from three independent experiments. p < 0.01. B, knockdown of Noxa induced by PS-341 in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells. SCC cells were transfected with Noxa siRNA or control luciferase siRNA using oligofectamine. 36 h after infection, cells were treated with PS-341 for 8 h, and cell lysates were probed with anti-Noxa antibodies. {alpha}-Tubulin was utilized as an internal control. C and D, knock-down of Noxa using siRNA partially suppressed PS-341-induced apoptosis. Cells were transfected with siRNA as described in B. 36 h after transfection, cells were treated with PS-341 for 24 h. Cell viability was determined by trypan blue exclusion assay. The results are average values from three independent experiments (p < 0.01). E, knock-down of Puma in UMSCC-5PT cells. Cells were transfected with Puma siRNA or control siRNA using oligofectamine. 36 h after infection, cells were treated with PS-341 for 8 h, and cell lysates were probed with anti-Puma antibodies. {alpha}-Tubulin was utilized as an internal control. F, knock-down of Puma did not affect PS-341-induced apoptosis in UMSCC-5PT cells. The results are average values from three independent experiments.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
In this study we demonstrated that PS-341 potently induced cell death in a panel of cisplatin-resistant SCC cell lines. Activation of caspases 9 and 3 and DNA fragmentation were observed in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells treated with PS-341, indicating the activation of the intrinsic apoptotic pathway. Consistent with our previous observation that PS-341 could induce ER stress in cisplatin-sensitive SCC cells (3), we found that PS-341, but not cisplatin, was able to induce markers of ER stress in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells. We observed phosphorylation of the ER membrane-resident stress-sensing kinase PERK and an accumulation of ATF-4 and Gadd34 following treatment with PS-341. Most importantly, we identified that Noxa played a critical role in the ER stress-mediated apoptosis induced by PS-341, providing a molecular link between the ER stress and activation of apoptosis.

Previously, it has been demonstrated that the ER stress stimulates caspase-12 activation in MEFs, which appeared to be mitochondria-independent (25). Indeed, we found that PS-341 could induce caspase-12 activation in MEFs. However, caspase-12 is not functionally expressed in human cells (26). Currently, it is not clear whether there is a caspase-12-like caspase activated by PS-341 in human SCC cells. Thus, we cannot rule out that PS-341 may also activate a mitochondria-independent pathway to induce apoptosis in SCC cells. Interestingly, studies by Scorrano et al. (19) have found that Bax and Bak could be detected in ER, and there is a link between the ER stress and the mitochondrial pathway. The deletion of Bax and Bak provided protection against the ER-stress mediated apoptosis. Noxa has been found to function upstream of Bax and Bak to promote cytochrome c release from mitochondria to the cytosol, resulting in the activation of caspase-9 (28, 29). By identification of Noxa, our results suggest that PS-341-induced ER stress can activate the mitochondria-dependent apoptotic pathway to induce apoptosis in SCC cells.

Several groups have reported the induction of pro-apoptotic BH3-only proteins in a variety of cell lines following treatment with different stress-inducing drugs through an unknown mechanism (27–30). In our studies, Western blot analysis with whole cell lysates prepared from cisplatin-sensitive SCC cells treated with PS-341 or cisplatin revealed an accumulation of both Noxa and Puma. Whereas Puma was weakly or negligibly induced by PS-341 in UMSCC-5PT and UMSCC-10BPT cells, we found that cisplatin induced Puma accumulation in UMSCC-5PT cells, although these cells are resistant to cisplatin, indicating that Puma may not be critical for PS-341 to overcome cisplatin resistance. Additionally, it is possible that specific inhibitors of Puma that may be highly expressed in SCC cells suppressed the pro-apoptotic activities of Puma. In contrast, we found that PS-341, but not cisplatin, strongly induced Noxa in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells, indicating that the ability of PS-341 to up-regulate Noxa might be an important mechanism by which it was able to overcome cisplatin resistance. Moreover, the depletion of Noxa by siRNA significantly compromised PS-341-mediated apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells, validating that Noxa is critical for PS-341-mediated apoptosis. However, the knock-down of Noxa did not completely abolish PS-341-induced apoptosis. It was possible that PS-341 might induce apoptosis in SCC cells by inducing other BH3-only proteins. Although we did not observe that PS-341 induced other BH3-only proteins by gene expression profile (3), it is possible that PS-341 may induce the accumulation of BH3-only proteins by inhibiting proteasomal degradations in SCC cells. Several studies have reported that PS-341 could induce the level of Bik proteins to promote apoptosis (31–33). Thus, in the future, it will be interesting to examine whether PS-341 promotes Bik accumulation by inhibiting its degradation in SCC cells.

Noxa was originally identified as a mediator of p53-dependent apoptosis in irradiated MEFs (24). Given the fact that Noxa is a target of p53 and that p53 is itself very tightly regulated by the 26 S proteasome (30), it is tempting to hypothesize that PS-341 might lead to increased expression of Noxa by increasing cellular pools of p53. However, SCC cell lines used in our studies were p53-deficient (16). Consistent with our studies, Perez-Galan et al. (34) reported that PS-341 also induced Noxa in mantle-cell lymphoma cells independent of p53. Previously, there were several reports that PS-341 could induce apoptosis in human cancer cells in the absence of p53 (35–38). Our results reported here suggest that PS-341 may induce p53-independent apoptosis through the induction of Noxa.

Previously, most studies have focused on how the ER stress activates the UPR to provide protection against apoptosis (4, 5). The inactivation of PERK or the inhibition of eIF2{alpha} phosphorylation has been found to promote the ER stress-mediated apoptosis (6, 7). However, there are also some studies suggesting that the UPR may induce pro-apoptotic genes to induce apoptosis. For example, the deletion of the ER stress-responsive transcription factor CHOP in a mouse model has been found to inhibit cholesterol-induced apoptosis in macrophages via the UPR (39). The death receptor 5 has been found to be regulated by the ER stress in prostate cancer cells and colorectal cancer cells (40, 41). It is well known that the expression of CHOP is dependent on ATF-4 activation (4, 5). Although CHOP was strongly induced by PS-341 in MEFs, it was weakly or negligibly induced by PS-341 in SCC cells. Interestingly, we found that PS-341 strongly induced ATF-4 in SCC cells, suggesting that CHOP is not responsible for PS-341-mediated apoptosis in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells. Using eIF2{alpha}A/A MEF cells that have an alanine substitution at serine 51 of eIF2{alpha}, the target of activated PERK, we found that PS-341 was unable to induce ATF-4 and CHOP/Gadd153. Importantly, we observed that PS-341 potently up-regulated Noxa mRNA in eIF2{alpha}S/S MEFs but not in eIF2{alpha}A/A MEFs, suggesting the necessity of eIF2{alpha} phosphorylation prior to Noxa induction. Moreover, we found that the knock-down of ATF-4 by siRNA also significantly reduced the up-regulation of Noxa by PS-341 (supplemental Fig. S2). Taken together, our results suggest that, although the PERK-eIF2{alpha} signaling pathway can promote cell survival, it can also potently induce apoptosis by inducing the pro-apoptotic genes in response to the ER stress.

Although dramatic initial reductions in tumor burden have been observed in patients receiving cisplatin therapy, resistant neoplastic cells very often proliferate and present as re-current or metastatic diseases, which grimly translates to survival rates of about 6 months for head and neck cancer patients (16–18). The ability to resist or develop resistance to cisplatin has been observed in several human cancers, including HNSCC, ovarian, and non-small cell lung cancers, which has fueled an intense search for novel adjuvant strategies. Given the fact that the chemoresistance is a significant problem in cancer therapy, our results suggest that PS-341 may offer a novel alternative for treating recurrent cancer patients. Interestingly, we found that Noxa was induced by cisplatin in cisplatin-sensitive SCC cells, but not in cisplatin-resistant SCC cells, which suggests that Noxa may play a critical role in cisplatin-mediated apoptosis. Noxa may be an important biomarker for predicting the chemosensitivity of cisplatin for patients with SCC.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This study was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants R01DE013848 and R01DE15964 (to C.-Y. W.) and T32-DE0757 (to A. M. F.). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

Formula The on-line version of this article (available at http://www.jbc.org) contains supplemental Figs. S1 and S2. Back

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed: Laboratory of Molecular Signaling and Apoptosis, Dept. of Biologic and Materials Sciences, University of Michigan, 1011 N. University Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1078. Tel.: 734-615-4386; Fax: 734-647-2110; E-mail: cunywang{at}umich.edu.

2 The abbreviations used are: ER, endoplasmic reticulum; BH3, Bcl-2-homology domain; MEF, mouse embryonic fibroblast; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; UPR, unfolded protein response; eIF2, eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2; GAPDH, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase; RT, reverse transcription; siRNA, small interference RNA; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HNSCC, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; PERK, RNA-dependent protein kinase-like ER kinase. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Dr. Thomas Carey for SCC cell lines and Lin Tao for PCR analysis.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Adams, J. (2004) Nat. Rev. Cancer 4, 349–360[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Maniatis, T. (1999) Genes Dev. 13, 505–510[Free Full Text]
  3. Fribley, A., Zeng, Q., and Wang, C. Y. (2004) Mol. Cell. Biol. 24, 9695–9704[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Kaufman, R. J. (2002) J. Clin. Inv. 110, 1389–1398[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Ron, D. (2002) J. Clin. Inv. 110, 383–388
  6. Harding, H. P., Zhang, Y., Zeng, H., Novoa, I., Lu, P. D., Calfon, M., Sadri, N., Yun, C., Popko, B., Paules, R., Stojdl, D. F., Bell, J. C., Hettmann, T., Leiden, J. M., and Ron, D. (2003) Mol. Cell 11, 619–633[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Scheuner, D., Song, B., McEwen, E., Liu, C., Laybutt, R., Gillespie, P., Saunders, T., Bonner-Weir, S., and Kaufman, R. J. (2001) Mol. Cell 7, 1165–1176[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Patel, V., Leethanakul, C., and Gutkind, J. S. (2001) Crit. Rev. Oral Biol. Med. 12, 55–63[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Zeng, Q., Li, S., Chepeha, D. B., Giodano, T. J., Li, J., Zhang, H., Polverini, P. J., Nor, J., Kitajewski, J., and Wang, C.-Y. (2005) Cancer Cell 8, 13–23[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Ando, N., Iizuka, T., Ide, H., Ishida, K., Shinoda, M., Nishimaki, T., Takiyama, W., Watanabe, H., Isono, K., Aoyama, N., Makuuchi, H., Tanaka, O., Yamana, H., Ikeuchi, S., Kabuto, T., Nagai, K., Shimada, Y., Kinjo, Y., and Fukuda, H. (2003) J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 4592–4596[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Licitra, L., Grandi, C., Guzzo, M., Mariani, L., Lo Vullo, S., Valvo, F., Quattrone, P., Valagussa, P., Bonadonna, G., Molinari, R., and Cantu, G. (2003) J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 327–333[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Foote, R. L., Kasperbauer, J. L., Okuno, S. H., Nichols, D. A., Olsen, K. D., Brown, P. D., Garces, Y. I., Sargent, D. J., and Strome, S. E. (2005) Cancer 103, 559–568[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Akervall, J., Guo, X., Qian, C. N., Schoumans, J., Leeser, B., Kort, E., Cole, A., Resau, J., Bradford, C., Carey, T., Wennerberg, J., Anderson, H., Tennvall, J., and Teh, B. T. (2004) Clin. Cancer Res. 10, 8204–8213[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Duffey, D. C., Chen, Z., Dong, G., Ondrey, F. G., Wolf, J. S., Brown, K., Siebenlist, U., and Van Waes, C. (1999) Cancer Res. 59, 3468–3474[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Akervall, J., Kurnit, D. M., Adams, M., Zhu, S., Fisher, S. G., Bradford, C. R., and Carey, T. E. (2004) Acta Otolaryngol. 124, 851–857[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Bradford, C. R., Zhu, S., Ogawa, H., Ogawa, T., Ubell, M., Narayan, A., Johnson, G., Wolf, G. T., Fisher, S. G., and Carey, T. E. (2003) Head Neck 25, 654–661[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Sturgis, E. M., Wei, Q., and Spitz, M. R. (2004) Semin. Oncol. 31, 726–733[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Torigoe, T., Izumi, H., Ishiguchi, H., Yoshida, Y., Tanabe, M., Yoshida, T., Igarashi, T., Niina, I., Wakasugi, T., Imaizumi, T., Momii, Y., Kuwano, M., and Kohno, K. (2005) Curr. Med. Chem. Anti-Cancer Agents 5, 15–27
  19. Scorrano, L., Oakes, S. A., Opferman, J. T., Cheng, E. H., Sorcinelli, M. D., Pozzan, T., and Korsmeyer, S. J. (2003) Science 300, 135–139[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Reimertz, C., Kogel, D., Rami, A., Chittenden, T., and Prehn, J. H. (2003) J. Cell Biol. 162, 587–597[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Futami, T., Miyagishi, M., and Taira, K. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 826–831[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Cory, S., Huang, D. C., and Adams, J. M. (2003) Oncogene 22, 8590–8607[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Wang, X. (2001) Genes Dev. 15, 2922–2933[Free Full Text]
  24. Oda, E, Ohki, R., Murasawa, H., Nemoto, J., Shibue, T., Yamashita, T., Tokino, T., Taniguchi, T., and Tanaka, N. (2000) Science 288, 1053–1058[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Nakagawa, T., Zhu, H., Morishima, N., Li, E., Xu, J., Yanker, B., and Yuan, J. (2000) Nature 403, 98–103[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Fischer, H., Koenig, U., Eckhart, L., and Tschachler, E. (2002) Biochem. Biophy. Res. Commun. 293, 722–726[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Simon, N. W., Chen, L., Dewson, G., Wei, A., Naik, E., Fletcher, J. I., Adams, J. M., and Huang, D. C. S. (2005) Genes Dev. 19, 1294–1305[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Cheng, E., Wei, M. C., Weiler, S., Flavell, R. A., Mak, T. W., Lindsten, T., and Korsmeyer, S. J. (2001) Mol. Cell 8, 705–711[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Qin, J. Z., Stennett, L., Bacon, P., Bodner, B., Hendrix, M. J., Seftor, R. E. Seftor, E. A., Margaryan, N. V., Pollock, P. M., Curtis, A., Trent, J. M. Bennett, F., Miele, L., and Nickoloff, B. J. (2004) Mol. Can. Ther. 3, 895–902
  30. Vousden, K. H., and Prives, C. (2005) Cell 120, 7–10[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Nikrad, M., Johnson, T., Puthalalath, H., Coultas, L., Adams, J., and Kraft, A. S. (2005) Mol. Cancer Ther. 4, 443–449[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Zhu, H., Zhang, L., Dong, F., Guo, W., Wu, S. Teraishi, F., Davis, J. J., Chiao, P. J., and Fang, B. (2005) Oncogene 24, 4993–4999[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Yeung, B. H., Huang, D., and Sinicrope, F. A. (2006) J. Biol. Chem. 281, 11923–11932[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Perez-Galan, P., Roue, G., Villamor, N., Montserrat, E., Campo, E., and Colomer, D. (2006) Blood 107, 257–264[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Ling, Y. H., Liebes, L., Zou, Y., and Perez-Soler, R. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 33714–33723[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Lenz, H. J. (2003) Cancer Treat. Rev. 29, Suppl. 1, 41–48
  37. Hideshima, T., Richardson, P., Chauhan, D., Palombella, V. J., Elliott, P. J., Adams, J., and Anderson. K. C. (2001) Can. Res. 61, 3071–3076[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Hideshima, T., Mitsiades, C., Akiyama, M., Hayashi, T., Chauhan, D., Richardson, P., Schlossman, R., Podar, K., Munshi, N. C., Mitsiades, N., and Anderson, K. C. (2003) Blood 101, 1530–1534[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Feng, B., Yao, P. M., Li, Y., Devlin, C. M., Zhang, D., Harding, H. P., Sweeney, M., Rong, J. X., Kuriakose, G., Fisher, E. A., Marks, A. R., Ron., D., and Tabas, I. (2003) Nat. Cell Biol. 5, 781–792[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Shiraishi, T., Yoshida, T., Nakata, S., Horinaka, M., Wakada, M., Mizutani, Y., Miki, T., and Sakai, T. Can. Res. 65, 6364–6370
  41. Yamaguchi, H., Bhalla, K., and Wang, H. (2003) Can. Res. 63, 1483–1489[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Mol. Pharmacol.Home page
R. Li, Y. Zang, C. Li, N. S. Patel, J. R. Grandis, and D. E. Johnson
ABT-737 Synergizes with Chemotherapy to Kill Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cells via a Noxa-Mediated Pathway
Mol. Pharmacol., May 1, 2009; 75(5): 1231 - 1239.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
Q. Wang, H. Mora-Jensen, M. A. Weniger, P. Perez-Galan, C. Wolford, T. Hai, D. Ron, W. Chen, W. Trenkle, A. Wiestner, et al.
ERAD inhibitors integrate ER stress with an epigenetic mechanism to activate BH3-only protein NOXA in cancer cells
PNAS, February 17, 2009; 106(7): 2200 - 2205.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
D. D. Jandial, S. Farshchi-Heydari, C. A. Larson, G. I. Elliott, W. J. Wrasidlo, and S. B. Howell
Enhanced Delivery of Cisplatin to Intraperitoneal Ovarian Carcinomas Mediated by the Effects of Bortezomib on the Human Copper Transporter 1
Clin. Cancer Res., January 15, 2009; 15(2): 553 - 560.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.Home page
C. A. Rabik, M. L. Fishel, J. L. Holleran, K. Kasza, M. R. Kelley, M. J. Egorin, and M. E. Dolan
Enhancement of Cisplatin [cis-Diammine Dichloroplatinum (II)] Cytotoxicity by O6-Benzylguanine Involves Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., November 1, 2008; 327(2): 442 - 452.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BloodHome page
S. T. Nawrocki, J. S. Carew, K. H. Maclean, J. F. Courage, P. Huang, J. A. Houghton, J. L. Cleveland, F. J. Giles, and D. J. McConkey
Myc regulates aggresome formation, the induction of Noxa, and apoptosis in response to the combination of bortezomib and SAHA
Blood, October 1, 2008; 112(7): 2917 - 2926.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Molecular Cancer TherapeuticsHome page
M. Lioni, K. Noma, A. Snyder, A. Klein-Szanto, J. A. Diehl, A. K. Rustgi, M. Herlyn, and K. S.M. Smalley
Bortezomib induces apoptosis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma cells through activation of the p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway
Mol. Cancer Ther., September 1, 2008; 7(9): 2866 - 2875.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.Home page
S. Lu, J. Yang, X. Song, S. Gong, H. Zhou, L. Guo, N. Song, X. Bao, P. Chen, and J. Wang
Point Mutation of the Proteasome {beta}5 Subunit Gene Is an Important Mechanism of Bortezomib Resistance in Bortezomib-Selected Variants of Jurkat T Cell Lymphoblastic Lymphoma/Leukemia Line
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., August 1, 2008; 326(2): 423 - 431.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
Y. Wei, J. Jiang, D. Liu, J. Zhou, X. Chen, S. Zhang, H. Zong, X. Yun, and J. Gu
Cdc34-mediated Degradation of ATF5 Is Blocked by Cisplatin
J. Biol. Chem., July 4, 2008; 283(27): 18773 - 18781.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Molecular Cancer TherapeuticsHome page
C. Li, R. Li, J. R. Grandis, and D. E. Johnson
Bortezomib induces apoptosis via Bim and Bik up-regulation and synergizes with cisplatin in the killing of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells
Mol. Cancer Ther., June 1, 2008; 7(6): 1647 - 1655.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
M. A. Nikiforov, M. Riblett, W.-H. Tang, V. Gratchouck, D. Zhuang, Y. Fernandez, M. Verhaegen, S. Varambally, A. M. Chinnaiyan, A. J. Jakubowiak, et al.
Tumor cell-selective regulation of NOXA by c-MYC in response to proteasome inhibition
PNAS, December 4, 2007; 104(49): 19488 - 19493.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
281/42/31440    most recent
M604356200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fribley, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Wang, C.-Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fribley, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Wang, C.-Y.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 All ASBMB Journals   Molecular and Cellular Proteomics 
 Journal of Lipid Research   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement