BACKGROUND: Neomorphic IDH1 mutations disrupt the redox balance by promoting reactive oxygen species (ROS) production. However, the mechanism by which IDH1-mutant cells maintain ROS homeostasis remains elusive. It is also not known whether reprogrammed ROS homeostasis establishes targetable vulnerability in IDH1-mutated cancers. METHODS: We investigated ROS homeostasis in wild-type (GSC827, GSC923, GSC627, and GSC711) and IDH1-mutated cells (IDH1R132C- and IDH1R132H-transduced U87, U251; MGG152, and TS603 cells). We analyzed the stability and transcriptional activity of NRF2 in IDH1-mutated cells. The oxidative DNA damage was analyzed using NRF2-targeting small interfering RNA. Moreover, we evaluated the effect of the NRF2 inhibitor brusatol in an IDH1-mutated subcutaneous xenograft nude mouse model (control group, n = 5; brusatol-treated group, n = 6). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: We showed that IDH1-mutated cells develop a dependency on the NRF2 antioxidative pathway. Genetic or pharmacologic blockade of NRF2 not only disrupted ROS homeostasis (mean [SD] ROS levels increased by 317 [42.1]%, P = .001, in IDH1R132C and by 286. 5 [48.7]%, P = .003, in IDH1R132H cells) but also enhanced oxidative DNA damage and decreased proliferation of IDH1-mutated cells. Brusatol selectively suppressed IDH1-mutated cancer progression in vivo (mean [SD] final tumor volume was 761.6 [391.6] mm3 in the control and 246.2 [215] mm3 in the brusatol-treated group, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: IDH1 mutation reprograms ROS homeostasis in cancer cells, which leads to dependency on the NRF2 antioxidant pathway for ROS scavenging. NRF2 blockade might be a novel therapeutic approach to treat malignancies with IDH1 mutation. Published by Oxford University Press 2019. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
BACKGROUND: Neomorphic IDH1 mutations disrupt the redox balance by promoting reactive oxygen species (ROS) production. However, the mechanism by which IDH1-mutant cells maintain ROS homeostasis remains elusive. It is also not known whether reprogrammed ROS homeostasis establishes targetable vulnerability in IDH1-mutated cancers. METHODS: We investigated ROS homeostasis in wild-type (GSC827, GSC923, GSC627, and GSC711) and IDH1-mutated cells (IDH1R132C- and IDH1R132H-transduced U87, U251; MGG152, and TS603 cells). We analyzed the stability and transcriptional activity of NRF2 in IDH1-mutated cells. The oxidative DNA damage was analyzed using NRF2-targeting small interfering RNA. Moreover, we evaluated the effect of the NRF2 inhibitor brusatol in an IDH1-mutated subcutaneous xenograft nude mouse model (control group, n = 5; brusatol-treated group, n = 6). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: We showed that IDH1-mutated cells develop a dependency on the NRF2 antioxidative pathway. Genetic or pharmacologic blockade of NRF2 not only disrupted ROS homeostasis (mean [SD] ROS levels increased by 317 [42.1]%, P = .001, in IDH1R132C and by 286. 5 [48.7]%, P = .003, in IDH1R132H cells) but also enhanced oxidative DNA damage and decreased proliferation of IDH1-mutated cells. Brusatol selectively suppressed IDH1-mutated cancer progression in vivo (mean [SD] final tumor volume was 761.6 [391.6] mm3 in the control and 246.2 [215] mm3 in the brusatol-treated group, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS:IDH1 mutation reprograms ROS homeostasis in cancer cells, which leads to dependency on the NRF2 antioxidant pathway for ROS scavenging. NRF2 blockade might be a novel therapeutic approach to treat malignancies with IDH1 mutation. Published by Oxford University Press 2019. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: Dongmei Ren; Nicole F Villeneuve; Tao Jiang; Tongde Wu; Alexandria Lau; Henry A Toppin; Donna D Zhang Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Isaac S Harris; Aislinn E Treloar; Satoshi Inoue; Masato Sasaki; Chiara Gorrini; Kim Chung Lee; Ka Yi Yung; Dirk Brenner; Christiane B Knobbe-Thomsen; Maureen A Cox; Andrew Elia; Thorsten Berger; David W Cescon; Adewunmi Adeoye; Anne Brüstle; Sam D Molyneux; Jacqueline M Mason; Wanda Y Li; Kazuo Yamamoto; Andrew Wakeham; Hal K Berman; Rama Khokha; Susan J Done; Terrance J Kavanagh; Ching-Wan Lam; Tak W Mak Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Chunzhang Yang; Rajiv R Iyer; Albert C H Yu; Raymund L Yong; Deric M Park; Robert J Weil; Barbara Ikejiri; Roscoe O Brady; Russell R Lonser; Zhengping Zhuang Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jeongwu Lee; Svetlana Kotliarova; Yuri Kotliarov; Aiguo Li; Qin Su; Nicholas M Donin; Sandra Pastorino; Benjamin W Purow; Neil Christopher; Wei Zhang; John K Park; Howard A Fine Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Stefan Kölker; Verena Pawlak; Barbara Ahlemeyer; Jürgen G Okun; Friederike Hörster; Ertan Mayatepek; Josef Krieglstein; Georg F Hoffmann; Georg Köhr Journal: Eur J Neurosci Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 3.386
Authors: Adedamola Olayanju; Ian M Copple; Holly K Bryan; George T Edge; Rowena L Sison; Min Wei Wong; Zheng-Quan Lai; Zhi-Xiu Lin; Karen Dunn; Christopher M Sanderson; Ahmad F Alghanem; Michael J Cross; Ewa C Ellis; Magnus Ingelman-Sundberg; Hassan Z Malik; Neil R Kitteringham; Christopher E Goldring; B Kevin Park Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 7.376
Authors: Yang Liu; Ying Pang; Chunzhang Yang; Karel Pacak; Boqun Zhu; Ondrej Uher; Veronika Caisova; Thanh-Truc Huynh; David Taieb; Katerina Hadrava Vanova; Hans Kumar Ghayee; Jiri Neuzil; Mark Levine Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-03-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Bingbing Dai; Jithesh J Augustine; Ya'an Kang; David Roife; Xinqun Li; Jenying Deng; Lin Tan; Leona A Rusling; John N Weinstein; Philip L Lorenzi; Michael P Kim; Jason B Fleming Journal: Cell Death Dis Date: 2021-07-10 Impact factor: 8.469