Mitochondrial Redox Signaling and Tumor Progression.

Cancer cell can reprogram their energy production by switching mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation to glycolysis. However, mitochondria play multiple roles in cancer cells, including redox regulation, reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, and apoptotic signaling. Moreover, these mitochondrial roles are integrated via multiple interconnected metabolic and redox sensitive pathways. Interestingly, mitochondrial redox proteins biphasically regulate tumor progression depending on cellular ROS levels. Low level of ROS functions as signaling messengers promoting cancer cell proliferation and cancer invasion. However, anti-cancer drug-initiated stress signaling could induce excessive ROS, which is detrimental to cancer cells. Mitochondrial redox proteins could scavenger basal ROS and function as "tumor suppressors" or prevent excessive ROS to act as "tumor promoter". Paradoxically, excessive ROS often also induce DNA mutations and/or promotes tumor metastasis at various stages of cancer progression. Targeting redox-sensitive pathways and transcriptional factors in the appropriate context offers great promise for cancer prevention and therapy. However, the therapeutics should be cancer-type and stage-dependent.

Involvement of MEK-ERK1-2 pathway in the anti-oxidant response in C6 glioma cells after diesel exhaust particles exposure.

Ultrafine particles translocate to the central nervous system and activate oxidative stress-related pathways. The transcription factor Nrf2 activation by ERK1-2 has been suggested as a key regulator of cellular response to oxidative stress. C6 glioma cells have been treated with different doses of diesel exhaust particles (25µg/ml, DEP25, and 50µg/ml, DEP50), for different times. Cells have been screened for oxidative stress and inflammatory markers, and for the activation of the MEK-ERK1-2 pathway. The same markers have been examined after inhibition of MEK, the kinase upstream to ERK1-2. 3h and 24h of DEP25 and DEP50 induced a significant increase in HO-1 levels. After 24h, DEP25 and DEP50 induced an increase in HO-1 and Cyp1b1 levels, while increase in OGG1 level was observed only with DEP25. After 5h of treatment with DEP25, ERK1-2 resulted phosphorylated, concomitantly with a significant increase in HO-1 levels, no changes in iNOS levels, and decreased levels of anti-oxidant enzymes. After treatment with MEK inhibitor U0126, ERK1-2 showed no activation, with a consequent decrease in Nrf2, no increase in HO-1 and a significant increase of iNOS. MEK inhibitor is able to deplete anti-oxidant enzymes. In conclusion, the MEK-ERK1-2 pathway is involved in regulating the anti-oxidant strategies to compensate the oxidative status induced by DEP treatment.

Unraveling the mechanism responsible for the contrasting tolerance of Synechocystis and Synechococcus to Cr(VI): Enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidants.

Two unicellular cyanobacteria, Synechocystis and Synechococcus, showed contrasting tolerance to Cr(VI); with Synechococcus being 12-fold more tolerant than Synechocystis to potassium dichromate. The mechanism responsible for this differential sensitivity to Cr(VI) was explored in this study. Total content of photosynthetic pigments as well as photosynthetic activity decreased at lower concentration of Cr(VI) in Synechocystis as compared to Synechococcus. Experiments with (51)Cr showed Cr to accumulate intracellularly in both the cyanobacteria. At lower concentrations, Cr(VI) caused excessive ROS generation in Synechocystis as compared to that observed in Synechococcus. Intrinsic levels of enzymatic antioxidants, i.e., superoxide dismutase, catalase and 2-Cys-peroxiredoxin were considerably higher in Synechococcus than Synechocystis. Content of total thiols (both protein as well as non-protein) and reduced glutathione (GSH) was also higher in Synechococcus as compared to Synechocystis. This correlated well with higher content of carbonylated proteins observed in Synechocystis than Synechococcus. Additionally, in contrast to Synechocystis, Synechococcus exhibited better tolerance to other oxidative stresses like high intensity light and H2O2. The data indicate that the disparity in the ability to detoxify ROS could be the primary mechanism responsible for the differential tolerance of these cyanobacteria to Cr(VI).