MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract C284: IRE1 and PERK as targets of cellular adaptation and survival to hypoxia.

2013· article· en· W2075821315 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Cojocari, Ravi N. Vellanki, Brandon Sit, Marianne Koritzinsky, Bradly G. Wouters

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsCentre for Social InnovationOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnfolded protein responseATF6Hypoxia (environmental)Integrated stress responseXBP1Gene knockdownEndoplasmic reticulumCancer researchBiologyCell biologySignal transductionChemistryApoptosisTranslation (biology)BiochemistryGeneRNA splicingMessenger RNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hypoxia is an important and unique feature of the solid tumour microenvironment. Hypoxia promotes resistance to radiotherapy, aggressive disease phenotypes, and poor patient prognosis. Consequently, therapies directed against hypoxic cells are needed to improve patient outcome. Hypoxic stress leads to the activation of several adaptive pathways including the unfolded protein response (UPR). The UPR is activated in response to hypoxia-induced stress in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and consists of three distinct signaling pathways initiated by the ER-membrane resident proteins PERK, IRE1 and ATF6. Previous work using genetic models has implicated the PERK pathway, as well as downstream components of the IRE1 pathway (XBP1) as important mediators of hypoxia tolerance and tumor response to therapy. Here we employed short hairpin RNAs (shRNAs) and recently developed small-molecule inhibitors of IRE1 (4μ8c) and PERK (GSK-compound 39) to investigate the relative importance of these two pathways in promoting hypoxia tolerance and their potential as therapeutic targets. We tested the pathway activity of PERK and IRE1 by quantitative PCR and western blotting. Hypoxia tolerance was measured by in vitro clonogenic assays. First, knockdown experiments using two different shRNAs showed that IRE1 is essential for survival of HCT116 colorectal cancer cells during mild hypoxia while PERK was essential in both normoxia and hypoxia. Interestingly, the IRE1 knockdown cells had a significantly altered glycolytic metabolism, a known mechanism of hypoxia adaptation. Using our small-molecule IRE1 inhibitor, we show that 4μ8c is a potent and non-toxic inhibitor of IRE1 RNase activation in response to both hypoxia and other ER stress-inducing agents. This compound effectively inhibited IRE1 induced activation of the downstream target genes in both HCT116 colorectal cancer and KP4 pancreatic cancer cell lines under hypoxia. However, despite potent inhibition of IRE1 activation and the, 4μ8c had no effect on cell proliferation or clonogenic survival of HCT116 and KP4 cells during exposure to hypoxia or anoxia. Similarly, 4μ8c inhibition of IRE1 did not sensitize cells to other ER stress inducing agents. In contrast, genetic inactivation of PERK signaling or treatment with the highly selective and potent PERK inhibitor GSK-compound 39 substantially reduced tolerance to hypoxia, anoxia and other ER stress inducing agents. Our results demonstrate that although hypoxia potently activates both PERK and IRE1 arms of the UPR pathway, the PERK arm is uniquely important for promoting adaptation and survival during hypoxia-induced ER stress. Furthermore, our results suggest that newly developed and orally available PERK inhibitors such as GSK-compound 39 are selectively toxic to hypoxic cells, and thus warrant further development for use in combination therapies with radiation. Citation Information: Mol Cancer Ther 2013;12(11 Suppl):C284. Citation Format: Dan Cojocari, Ravi Vellanki, Brandon Sit, Marianne Koritzinsky, Bradly G. Wouters. IRE1 and PERK as targets of cellular adaptation and survival to hypoxia. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2013 Oct 19-23; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2013;12(11 Suppl):Abstract nr C284.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicCancer, Hypoxia, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207