Importance of phase 2 gene regulation in protection against electrophile and reactive oxygen toxicity and carcinogenesis

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2571(02)00038-9Get rights and content

Introduction

Tumor cells are monoclonal descendants of normal cells. They arise by a prolonged (often several decades) multistage process comprising the accumulation of damaging genetic and molecular changes that may lead to dysplastic and premalignant phenotypes and ultimately to invasion and metastasis. At any point in time, many cells in the body are believed to exist at some stage of this progression toward malignancy, but fortunately very few of these cells complete this journey and develop into clinically significant tumors. Therefore, for much of its temporal history, the development of cancer is a silent process: the stages of transformation and the locations of the abnormal cells are largely unknown. An important consequence of this sequence of events is that it presents multiple targets and a long time-frame in which to delay, interrupt, and even reverse the process of carcinogenesis. It is much easier to interrupt the carcinogenic process than to treat the established disease.

Since the number of new diagnoses of cancer is expected to double in the United States in the next 25–30 years, it is axiomatic that even dramatic advances in treatment cannot alleviate much of the enormous burden of cancer on individuals, on society, and on the medical care system. Similar crises are afflicting other parts of the world where, as in the US, populations are aging and mortality from cardiovascular diseases is declining. It is therefore mandatory to dedicate more effort to devising practical strategies for blocking carcinogenesis and thereby reducing the risk of cancer (Alberts et al., 1999).

The important role of xenobiotic metabolism in regulating carcinogenesis has been recognized for nearly 50 years (Conney et al., 1956; Miller and Miller, 1966). But only more recently has persuasive evidence accumulated that selective induction of protective phase 2 proteins is a highly effective, sufficient and probably quite safe strategy for reducing cellular susceptibility to electrophiles and reactive oxygen intermediates which are the principal causes of malignancy (Talalay et al., 1995; Kensler, 1997; Talalay (1999), Talalay (2000)).

Section snippets

Role of enzyme induction in protection against carcinogenesis: chemistry of phase 2 enzyme inducers

The induction of phase 2 enzymes involves enhanced gene expression resulting in increases in both mRNA and protein levels (Pearson et al., 1983; Benson et al., 1984; see reviews by Hayes et al., 1999; Hayes and McMahon, 2001). Inducers belong to two families: monofunctional inducers that elevate phase 2 enzymes selectively and bifunctional inducers that upregulate both phase 1 (principally cytochromes P450) and phase 2 enzymes (De Long et al., 1987; Prochaska and Talalay, 1988). Monofunctional

Evidence for the protective effects of phase 2 enzymes against oxidants and electrophiles: development of a bioassay for NAD(P)H:quinone reductase

Several complementary and compelling lines of evidence support the conclusion that phase 2 enzymes protect animals and their cells against the toxic and neoplastic effects of carcinogens (electrophiles and reactive oxygen intermediates), that these enzymes do not normally operate at maximal capacity, and that their induction is an effective strategy for further reducing vulnerability to carcinogens. Much of the evidence for this suggestion, which was first made nearly 25 years ago (Benson et al

Role of the antioxidant response element (ARE), the Nrf2 transcription factor, and the companion protein Keap1 in phase 2 gene regulation

Considerable insight has been obtained recently into the molecular details of how inducers signal enhanced transcription of phase 2 genes. Many phase 2 genes contain upstream promoter elements with the consensus sequence TGACnnnGC, designated the antioxidant response elements (ARE) (Rushmore et al., 1991; Jaiswal, 1994; Hayes and McMahon, 2001). Prominent among the transcription factors known to interact with AREs is Nrf2, which was shown by overexpression and by mobility shift assays to bind

Enhanced susceptibility to carcinogens and loss of protective efficacy of phase 2 enzyme inducers in mice deficient in the Nrf2 transcription factor

Recognition that the Nrf2 transcription factor is critical for the regulation of phase 2 genes (Venugopal and Jaiswal, 1996; Itoh et al., 1997) highlighted the issue of whether disruption of the nrf2 gene affected susceptibility to carcinogenesis and the response to chemoprotective inducers. Itoh and colleagues (1997) observed that the expression of glutathione transferase Ya and quinone reductase in wild-type (nrf2+/+)and heterozygous (nrf2+/−) mice was relatively normal and induced by the

Identity of the cellular sensor for phase 2 inducers

Very recent experiments have provided substantial insight into the details of the phase 2 gene induction mechanism (Dinkova-Kostova et al., 2002). The enormous chemical diversity of inducers suggested that a complementary cellular receptor was unlikely to be the sensor that recognized these inducers and switched on the enhanced transcription of phase 2 genes. The universal chemical reactivity of inducers with thiol groups, and the close correlation of inducer potencies with thiol reactivities

Summary

A growing body of evidence supports the view that induction of phase 2 enzymes is an effective strategy for lowering the susceptibility of animals and their cells to the carcinogenic effects of electrophiles and reactive oxygen intermediates, and thereby decreasing the risk of developing cancer. Many inducers of phase 2 genes are present in edible plants. They belong to a variety of chemical classes that have few apparent chemical similarities, and are therefore unlikely to react with a

Acknowledgements

Studies from the authors’ laboratory were supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services (CA 94076 and CA 93780), the American Institute for Cancer Research, and the Cancer Research Foundation of America. It is a pleasure to acknowledge generous support from the Lewis B. and Dorothy Cullman Foundation, the Barbara Lubin Goldsmith Foundation, and the McMullan Family Fund.

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (61)

  • S Yannai et al.

    Characterization of flavonoids as monofunctional or bifunctional inducers of quinone reductase in murine hepatoma cell lines

    Food Chem Toxicol

    (1998)
  • L.M Zipper et al.

    The Keap1 BTB/POZ dimerization function is required to sequester Nrf2 in cytoplasm

    J Biol Chem

    (2002)
  • D.S Alberts et al.

    Prevention of cancer in the next millenniumreport of the chemoprevention working group to the American Association for Cancer Research

    Cancer Res

    (1999)
  • A.M Benson et al.

    Elevation of hepatic glutathione S-transferase activities and protection against mutagenic metabolites of benzo(a)pyrene by dietary antioxidants

    Cancer Res

    (1978)
  • A.M Benson et al.

    Elevation of extrahepatic glutathione S-transferase and epoxide hydratase activities by 2(3)-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole

    Cancer Res

    (1979)
  • A.M Benson et al.

    Increase of NAD(P)H:quinone reductase by dietary antioxidantspossible role in protection against carcinogenesis and toxicity

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (1980)
  • A.M Benson et al.

    Kinetics of glutathione transferase, glutathione transferase messenger RNA, and reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (phosphate)quinone reductase induction by 2(3)-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole in mice

    Cancer Res

    (1984)
  • L.C Chang et al.

    Activity-guided constituents of Tephrosia purpurea with the potential to induce the phase II enzyme, quinone reductase

    J Nat Prod

    (1997)
  • A.H Conney et al.

    The metabolism of methylated aminoazo dyes. V. Evidence for induction of enzyme synthesis in the rat by methylcholanthrene

    Cancer Res

    (1956)
  • M.J De Long et al.

    1,2-Dithiol-3-thione analogs: effects on NAD(P)Hquinone reductase and glutathione levels in murine hepatoma cells

    Carcinogenesis

    (1986)
  • M.J De Long et al.

    Induction of NAD(P)H:quinone reductase in murine hepatoma cells by phenolic antioxidants, azo dyes and other chemoprotectorsa model system for the study of anticarcinogens

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (1986)
  • M.J De Long et al.

    Role of cytochrome P1-450 in the induction of NAD(P)Hquinone reductase in a murine hepatoma cell line and its mutants

    Carcinogenesis

    (1987)
  • A.T Dinkova-Kostova et al.

    Relation of structure of curcumin analogs to their potencies as inducers of phase 2 detoxication enzymes

    Carcinogenesis

    (1999)
  • A.T Dinkova-Kostova et al.

    Chemoprotective properties of phenylpropenoids, bis(benzylidene)cycloalkanones, and related Michael reaction acceptorscorrelation of potencies as phase 2 enzyme inducers and radical scavengers

    J Med Chem

    (1998)
  • A.T Dinkova-Kostova et al.

    Potency of Michael reaction acceptors as inducers of enzymes that protect against carcinogenesis depends on their reactivity with sulfhydryl groups

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (2001)
  • A.T Dinkova-Kostova et al.

    Direct evidence that sulfhydryl groups of Keap1 are the sensors regulating induction of phase 2 enzymes that protect against carcinogens and oxidants

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (2002)
  • P.A Egner et al.

    Regulation of phase 2 enzyme induction by oltipraz and other dithiolethiones

    Carcinogenesis

    (1994)
  • J.W Fahey et al.

    Pinostrobin from honey and Thai ginger (Boesenbergia pandurata)a potent flavonoid inducer of mammalian phase 2 chemoprotective and antioxidant enzymes

    J Agric Food Chem

    (2002)
  • J.W Fahey et al.

    Broccoli sproutsan exceptionally rich source of inducers of enzymes that protect against chemical carcinogens

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (1997)
  • J.W Fahey et al.

    Sulforaphane inhibits extracellular, intracellular and antibiotic-resistant strains of Helicobacter pylori and prevents benzo[a]pyrene-induced stomach tumors

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (2002)
  • Cited by (265)

    • Maintaining blood retinal barrier homeostasis to attenuate retinal ischemia-reperfusion injury by targeting the KEAP1/NRF2/ARE pathway with lycopene

      2021, Cellular Signalling
      Citation Excerpt :

      The nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (NRF2) pathway is a possible molecular target in BRB homeostasis maintenance. NRF2 is an emerging regulator of cellular resistance to oxidative stress resulting from different causes, including I/R [14–17], regularly suppressed by Kelch-like erythroid cell-derived protein with CNC homology-associated protein 1 (KEAP1) and degraded through ubiquitination-proteasomal protocols [18–20]. Activated NRF2 is detached from KEAP1 and phosphorylated.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text