Advertisement
Reviews

NRF2 Activation in Cancer: From DNA to Protein

Erica W. Cloer, Dennis Goldfarb, Travis P. Schrank, Bernard E. Weissman and Michael B. Major
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-2723 Published March 2019

Abstract

The Cancer Genome Atlas catalogued alterations in the Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 and nuclear factor erythroid 2–related factor 2 (NRF2) signaling pathway in 6.3% of patient samples across 226 studies, with significant enrichment in lung and upper airway cancers. These alterations constitutively activate NRF2-dependent gene transcription to promote many of the cancer hallmarks, including cellular resistance to oxidative stress, xenobiotic efflux, proliferation, and metabolic reprogramming. Almost universally, NRF2 activity strongly associates with poor patient prognosis and chemo- and radioresistance. Yet to date, FDA-approved drugs targeting NRF2 activity in cancer have not been realized. Here, we review various mechanisms that contribute to NRF2 activation in cancer, organized around the central dogma of molecular biology (i) at the DNA level with genomic and epigenetic alterations, (ii) at the RNA level including differential mRNA splicing and stability, and (iii) at the protein level comprising altered posttranslational modifications and protein–protein interactions. Ultimately, defining and understanding the mechanisms responsible for NRF2 activation in cancer may lead to novel targets for therapeutic intervention.

Introduction

Redox biology encompasses cell biological processes driven by reactive oxygen species (ROS; ref. 1). Uncontrolled redox reactions increase levels of oxidative stress and lead to the accumulation of ROS and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) within the cell. Elevated levels of ROS and RNS damage DNA, RNA, protein, and lipids (1, 2); therefore, regulation of redox levels within the cell is critical for cellular homeostasis and effective disease prevention (1, 3–11). The transcription factor nuclear factor erythroid 2–related factor 2 (NFE2L2, hereafter referred to as NRF2) is central for the cellular response to ROS and oxidative stress. Decades of research confirm that NRF2 activity improves cellular fitness under stress and is thus beneficial for normal cellular physiology. It is now increasingly clear that cancer cells subvert NRF2 activity to promote tumor growth and dissemination (reviewed in depth by Rojo de la Vega and colleagues; ref. 12).

In 2012 The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) consortium reported whole-exome sequencing (WES) and RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) of tumors from patients with lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC; 178 patients) and lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD; 183 patients; refs. 13, 14). In addition to known tumor suppressors (i.e., TP53) and oncogenes (i.e., KRAS), both studies revealed significant and mutually exclusive alterations to NRF2 (19% of LUSC; not significantly mutated in LUAD) and to its negative regulator Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 (KEAP1; 12% of both LUAD and LUSC; refs. 13, 14). Looking across all organ systems, 226 TCGA studies have catalogued genetic mutations and copy number alterations to the KEAP1–NRF2 signaling pathway, most notably lung (LUSC and LUAD; 31.4% and 24%, respectively), uterine (20.6%), head and neck (17.4%), esophageal (19.8%), and bladder carcinomas (14.8%; refs. 13–19).

As reviewed in the following sections, nongenomic mechanisms of NRF2 activation are also common in cancer. Recently, a Pan-Can analysis of NRF2 transcriptional activity revealed 32 direct NRF2 cancer target genes (20). Evaluation of their composite expression across more than 9,000 TCGA samples demonstrated NRF2 hyperactivity in expected tumor types (e.g., LUSC and HNSCC), as well as in tumor types lacking strong genomic evidence of NRF2 pathway activity (e.g., liver/LIHC, kidney/KIRP, pancreas/PAAD, and stomach/STAD; ref. 20). Collectively, conservative estimations from mutation rates and projected cancer incidence suggest that more than 86,000 patients in the United States will be diagnosed with NRF2-mutant/hyperactive cancer in 2018 (15–19, 21). Of the 1,735,350 new cases of diagnosed cancer predicted by the American Cancer Society for the U.S. population in 2018, 5% or more of these cases are estimated to be NRF2 pathway mutant and hyperactive (21). These mutational rates likely underrepresent the true number of NRF2 hyperactive tumors, given the various nongenomic mechanisms of NRF2 activation discussed in this review.

KEAP1–NRF2 Signaling

A broad range of aberrant NRF2 activity levels can contribute to cellular pathology. Low levels of NRF2 activity lead to increased intracellular ROS, damage to cellular structures (e.g., DNA, mitochondria, proteins, and lipids), and apoptosis (1, 4, 7, 22). Consequently, cells with low levels of NRF2 and elevated ROS are at risk for neurodegeneration, cardiovascular disease, and chronic inflammation (4, 7, 8, 23–27). In contrast, high NRF2 activity leads to cellular resiliency in the face of various stressors, including ROS, genotoxic stress, and metabolic stress (3, 9, 25, 28). Thus, mutations and alterations that increase NRF2 activity contribute to cancer progression and the development of chemo- and radioresistance (29).

Under basal conditions, cytosolic KEAP1 functions as an adapter for the E3 ubiquitin ligase Cullin-3 (CUL3) and constitutively targets NRF2 for ubiquitylation and degradation via the ubiquitin proteasome system (30, 31). Upon exposure to oxidative stress or xenobiotic challenge, reactive cysteine residues within KEAP1 are modified, leading to a conformational change in KEAP1 structure that prevents the degradation of NRF2 (4, 7, 9, 10, 30, 32–39). De novo synthesized NRF2 accumulates and translocates to the nucleus where it heterodimerizes with small musculoaponeurotic fibrosarcoma (sMAF) proteins, MAFF, MAFG, and MAFK (40–42). NRF2–sMAF heterodimers bind to antioxidant response elements (ARE)/electrophile responsive elements to promote the transcription of more than 200 genes (3, 43). NRF2 transcription regulates the expression of genes that govern various processes within the cell including: (i) antioxidant response, (ii) drug detoxification, (iii) cellular metabolism, and (iv) inflammation (4, 7–9, 12, 25, 27, 44). While great progress has been made, much remains to be learned of how NRF2 and its target genes contribute to cancer progression and therapeutic response.

NRF2 Activation in Cancer: Genomic Alterations to DNA

Alterations to NFE2L2, CUL3, and KEAP1 frequently occur at the genomic level, resulting in enhanced NRF2 protein expression and transactivation activity (5, 6, 9, 25, 27, 31, 45–58). NFE2L2, located on a copy number–amplified region of chromosome 2q31.2, can be genetically modified through promoter demethylation, copy number amplifications (CNA), oncogene-induced transcription of NRF2 via cMYCERT2, BRAFV600E, and KRASG12D, or by gain-of-function somatic mutations in the DLG or ETGE motifs required for KEAP1 association (Fig. 1A; refs. 13, 14, 31, 51, 54, 56, 59–63). Genomic alterations to NFE2L2 vary with tumor site and type. Demethylation of the NFE2L2 promoter frequently occurs in lung and colorectal cancers; in contrast, CNA of NFE2L2 appears most prominently in ovarian and head and neck tumors (15, 16). The mutational signature of NFE2L2 is also distinct within tumors affecting the same organ. For example, NFE2L2 mutations within the DLG and ETGE motifs required for KEAP1 association frequently occur in LUSC; however, NFE2L2 mutations rarely appear in LUAD (15, 16). The mechanisms underlying these differences in tumor-specific mutation spectra and CNAs remain unclear but could reflect the genomic instabilities inherent to each tumor.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

NRF2-activating genomic and transcriptional alterations to NFE2L2, CUL3, and KEAP1 DNA and mRNA. A, Schematic of genetic and epigenetic modifications to NFE2L2, CUL3, and KEAP1 DNA. Densities of copy number alterations across chromosome 2 (NFE2L2 and CUL3) and chromosome 19 (KEAP1) are shown for LUSC (light red) and HNSCC (dark red). B, Schematic of alterations to NFE2L2, CUL3, and KEAP1 mRNA. NFE2L2 mRNA is regulated by more than 20 miRNAs and by alternative splicing. Two alternative splicing events for NFE2L2 have been detected in two different NRF2 isoforms in LUSC and HNSCC. CUL3 and KEAP1 are regulated by two and four miRNAs, respectively. Association of CUL3 and KEAP1 mRNA with RBM47 results in decreased mRNA transcripts.

CUL3, located on a copy number–deleted region of chromosome 2q36.2, is functionally inactivated by homozygous deletion or by loss-of-function (LOF) mutations, resulting in loss of KEAP1-dependent NRF2 ubiquitylation and subsequent NRF2 stabilization (Fig. 1A; refs. 13, 14). CUL3 deletions arise most frequently in bladder and head and neck tumors, whereas uterine (7.75%) and LUSC (7%) cancers generally possess CUL3 mutations (15, 16). In contrast to the comprehensive analyses of NFE2L2 or KEAP1 mutations, the functional consequences of patient-derived CUL3 mutations remains understudied (31, 59, 61, 64). Inactivating mutations in CUL3 may disrupt CUL3 homodimerization, CUL3–KEAP1 heterodimerization, or CUL3 neddylation (65, 66). In comparison with KEAP1 and NFE2L2, mutations in CUL3 occur less frequently, perhaps reflecting the critical role of CUL3 as an E3 ligase for a family of broad complex, bric-à-brac, tramtrack (BTB)-containing proteins beyond just KEAP1 (15, 16). A summary of NFE2L2, CUL3, and KEAP1 across TCGA samples from 8,871 patients is provided in Supplementary Table S1.

KEAP1, located in a copy number–neutral region on chromosome 19p13.2, can be functionally inactivated by promoter hypermethylation, homozygous deletion, or by KEAP1 LOF mutations (Fig. 1A; refs. 13, 31, 46, 58). KEAP1 promoter methylation appears in breast, colon, and lung carcinomas and is known to accelerate tumor progression (67, 68). Intriguingly, homozygous deletions of KEAP1 are rare, suggesting that normal and tumor cells rely on NRF2-independent functions of KEAP1 (Fig. 1A; refs. 15, 16). In fact, KEAP1 ubiquitylates proteins involved in cell-cycle regulation such as MCM3, although the biological function of this interaction remains understudied (69, 70). KEAP1 mutations occur most frequently in LUAD and LUSC tumors (15, 16). Previous studies estimate that 75% of KEAP1 LUSC and 92% of KEAP1 LUAD somatic missense mutations abrogate KEAP1 protein function (31, 59). Of these functional mutations, more than 50% presumably result in hypomorphic suppression of NRF2 transcriptional activity (31, 59). Differences in NRF2 transcriptional programming between KEAP1 functionally inactive and hypomorphic classes of mutations may reveal differentially expressed genes with clinical importance.

NRF2 Activation in Cancer: Transcriptional Alterations to mRNA

Changes in RNA expression and stability of NFE2L2, CUL3, and KEAP1 can also lead to increased expression of NRF2 protein and its downstream targets. Cellular mRNA levels can be regulated by miRNAs, alternative splicing events, and by RNA-binding chaperones. miRNAs are short, noncoding RNAs that bind to the 3′-untranslated regions of mRNAs, resulting in changes to mRNA stability (71). Alternative splicing of mRNA can result in functionally inactive or unstable proteins. In addition, association of mRNAs with RNA-binding proteins or RNA chaperones can lead to altered transcript levels for a given gene (71).

NRF2 transcript levels in cancer are regulated by miRNAs and alternative splicing of exon 2 or the combination of exons 2 and 3. To date, more than 20 miRNAs have been reported to impact NRF2 RNA levels. For example, a miRNA library screen using the ARE reporter assay identified four miRNAs that regulate NRF2 miR-507, -634, -450a, and 129-5p whose downregulation was observed in patient samples with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (72). A summary of miRNAs regulating NFE2L2 mRNA (along with miRNA tables for CUL3 and KEAP1) is provided in Supplementary Table S2. Downregulation of miRNAs that decrease NRF2 mRNA in patient samples could also result in NRF2 stabilization; however, no studies have identified candidates (73). NRF2 transcripts are also alternatively spliced in patient samples (45). A 2017 analysis of RNA-seq transcript variants from patient samples with elevated NRF2 activity in the absence of KEAP1 or NFE2L2 mutations identified alternatively spliced transcripts of NRF2 lacking exon 2 or both exons 2 and 3. Exon 2 contains the DLG and ETGE motifs required for KEAP1 association; thus, KEAP1 is unable to ubiquitylate and degrade these alternatively spliced NRF2 variants (Fig. 1B; ref. 45). Currently, this alternative splicing event has only been detected in LUSC and head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC); however, additional studies of other tumor types may identify additional instances of NFE2L2 alternative splicing (45).

Of the few reports describing miRNAs that regulate CUL3, only miR-101 and miR-455 have been shown to target CUL3 and activate NRF2 signaling (Fig. 1B; refs. 74, 75) However, whether the downregulation of miR-101 in other tumor types or miR-455 found in colorectal cancers results in elevated NRF2 activity remains unclear.

A number of miRNAs impacting KEAP1 have been reported, including miR-200a, miR-7, miR-432, and miR-141 (Fig. 1B; ref. 76). Of these miRNAs, only miR-200a definitively activates NRF2 signaling in breast cancer cells; consequently, a careful examination of miRNAs regulating KEAP1 expression in patient tumors merits further examination. RNA-binding proteins also regulate KEAP1 mRNA stability. For example, the RNA-binding motif 47 (RBM47) protein associates with both KEAP1 and CUL3 mRNA (77, 78). RBM47 association with KEAP1 mRNA results in increased protein expression levels in the A549 LUAD-mutant KEAP1 cancer cell line, suggesting that tumors may downregulate RBM47 to decrease KEAP1 transcript levels (77). RBM47 is downregulated in breast cancer where it suppresses breast cancer progression and metastasis (78). Given the many functions of NRF2 in cancer progression, it is possible that RBM47 loss promotes breast cancer progression in part through NRF2 activation (77, 78). Further studies of the family of RBM proteins in cancer may reveal proteins regulators that control the levels of NFE2L2, CUL3, or KEAP1 mRNA.

NRF2 Activation in Cancer: Posttranslational Modifications and Alterations to the KEAP1–NRF2 Protein Interaction Networks

NRF2 at the protein level

NRF2 is a cap‘n’collar basic leucine zipper transcription factor comprised of 605 (human; 597 murine) amino acids (Fig. 2A; refs. 79, 80). NRF2 contains seven NRF2-ECH homology (Neh) domains, each with distinct functions and posttranslational modifications (Fig. 2A). NRF2–sMAF heterodimerization is required for sMAF activation as sMAF proteins lack transactivation domains; therefore, sMAF homodimers act as functional repressors. Overexpression of sMAF proteins results in decreased NRF2 transcriptional activity; however, no studies have described differential gene expression or mutations of sMAF family proteins within tumors (81). Interestingly, a number of miRNAs targeting sMAF proteins are known to be altered in the TCGA Pan-Can dataset; however, whether these miRNAs promote NRF2 activation remains to be determined (82). The Neh2 domain is essential for KEAP1 cytosolic regulation of NRF2 and contains the two motifs required for KEAP1 association (the 29DLG31 and 79ETGE82 motifs for human NRF2) as well as the seven lysine residues targeted by KEAP1-dependent ubiquitylation (4, 7, 9, 10, 23, 27, 48, 53, 83, 84). The Neh2 domain also contains serine 40 (S40) that is phosphorylated by protein kinase C (PKC; refs. 57, 85, 86). PKC phosphorylation at S40 results in KEAP1–NRF2 dissociation and nuclear localization of NRF2. Unexpectedly, NRF2 target gene expression is not significantly altered by PKC-dependent S40 phosphorylation of NRF2 (57, 85, 86). The Neh6 domain contains two beta-transducin repeat-containing E3 ubiquitin protein ligase (BTrCP; hereafter BTRC) degron motifs: 343DSGIS347 and 382DSAPGS387 for human NRF2 (48, 83, 84). BTRC associates with the Skp1-Cullin 1 (CUL1) F-box–containing complex to form the ubiquitylation complex that targets NRF2 for proteasomal degradation within the nucleus of cells (48, 83, 84). Serine phosphorylation of the DSGIS motif by glycogen synthase kinase 3-beta drives the NRF2–Neh6–BTRC association, resulting in NRF2 degradation (48, 83, 84). Whether BTRC alterations contribute to NRF2 activity in cancer has not been reported, but given the lack of NRF2 mutations in the DSGIS motif, it likely does not play a major role (15, 16). Dynamic changes to NRF2 phosphorylation, ubiquitylation, or interacting proteins alter NRF2 protein levels and subcellular localization; consequently, these events should be carefully examined in various tumor types to determine the functional impact on NRF2 transcriptional activity.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

NRF2-activating alterations to NRF2, CUL3, and KEAP1 protein and protein–protein interactions. A, Schematic of posttranslational alterations to NRF2, CUL3, and KEAP1 proteins and protein interaction networks. Protein domains are annotated for NRF2, CUL3, and KEAP1 along with functional interactions for each domain. Essential amino acid residues for protein function are indicated at the corresponding residue. NES, nuclear export sequence; NLS, nuclear localization sequence; CREBBP, creb-binding protein; RXRA, retinoid X receptor alpha; and CHD6, chromodomain helicase DNA–binding protein 6. Kernel density estimations (KDE) are provided above each protein and demonstrate the oncogenic mutational signature for NRF2 (n = 140), and the tumor suppressor signature for CUL3 (n = 33) and KEAP1 (n = 149). KDEs reflect mutation data for only the top five cancer sites with the most frequent mutations in NRF2, CUL3, and KEAP1 from cBioPortal. B, Cartoon illustrating NRF2-competitive–binding proteins containing KEAP1- and NRF2-binding motifs. C, Cartoon illustrating metabolite-dependent PTMs of KEAP1, namely the formation of 2-SC adducts on KEAP1 protein as a consequence of fumarate hydratase (FH) enzyme loss observed in renal cell carcinoma or itaconate–cysteine (I-C) adducts observed in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-activated macrophages. S-glutathionylated KEAP1 (KEAP1-SSG) and methylimidazole crosslink between proximal cysteine and arginine residues (MICA) are also listed.

CUL3 at the protein level

Human and murine CUL3 is a 768 amino acid protein comprised of three domains: a low-complexity region, a CULLIN domain, and a CULLIN-neddylation domain (Fig. 2A; refs. 65, 66). Neddylation of CUL3 by the Nedd-8 activating enzyme (NAE) is required for ubiquitylation activity, and small-molecule NAE inhibitors such as pevonedistat (MLN4924) result in stabilization of CUL3 substrates, including robust NRF2 transcriptional activation (87). Current clinical trials are testing the efficacy of MLN4924 in patients with hematologic malignancies. Whether NRF2 activation impacts the efficacy of MLN4924 treatment, either as a single agent or in combination with conventional chemotherapies, remains untested.

KEAP1 at the protein level

KEAP1 was identified in 1999 via a yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) screen utilizing the Neh2 domain of NRF2 as bait (88). Human and murine KEAP1 is comprised of 624 amino acids, 27 of which are cysteines (25 in mouse). KEAP1 contains a BTB domain, an intervening region (IVR, also known as the BACK domain), and a C-terminal double glycine region composed of six KELCH repeat domains (Fig. 2A; refs. 3, 7, 9, 89). Modifications to specific amino acid residues alter KEAP1 homodimerization, CUL3 or NRF2 association, or KEAP1 redox sensing via one or more of its reactive cysteines. Mutations that disrupt these essential functions of KEAP1 protein result in NRF2 stabilization and increased transcriptional activity in cancer. KEAP1 mutations span the entire coding sequence of KEAP1 as indicated by the mutation density of 149 mutations for KEAP1; however, additional studies examining classes of KEAP1 inactivating mutations demonstrated enrichment for KEAP1-inactivating and hypomorphic mutations at highly conserved and frequently mutated amino acid residues within the KEAP1 protein (Fig. 2A; refs. 31, 90). In general, predicting the effects of KEAP1 mutations found in tumors upon NRF2 signaling remains difficult and thus requires the use of biochemical and functional assays.

In addition to mutations, several studies have identified NRF2-competitive–binding proteins that prevent KEAP1 association with the DLG or ETGE of NRF2 resulting in impaired NRF2 ubiquitylation. The expression of these competitive binders in both in vitro and in vivo models of cancer contribute to NRF2 hyperactivity and confer protection from DNA-damaging agents in a NRF2-dependent manner (91–97). These competitive-binding partners include: (i) ETGE-containing proteins, dipeptidyl peptidase 3 (DPP3), partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2), Wilms Tumor suppressor (WTX), minichromosome maintenance complex component 3 (MCM3), nuclear factor erythroid 2–related factor 1 (NFE2L1), and cyclin-dependent kinase 20 (CDK20); (ii) DPSTGE-containing protein p62/Sequestosome 1 (p62/SQSTM1); (iii) DLT-containing protein inhibitor of apoptosis stimulating protein of p53 (PPP1R13L; hereafter iASPP), which associates with the KRR motif of NRF2 required for KEAP1 association; and (iv) CDK inhibitor 1A (CDKN1A; hereafter p21), which contains a 154KRR motif analogous to the arginine triad motif of KEAP1 (Fig. 2B; refs. 69, 70, 91, 94–99). Proteomic analysis of the KEAP1 protein interaction network revealed that 42.8% (18/42 proteins) of high-confidence interactors contained either an ETGE, ESGE, or both motifs (91). Although not all of these interactors have been independently validated or examined in patient samples, overexpression of these proteins may result in increased NRF2 transcriptional activity and merit further examination. In addition to proteins containing ETGE or ESGE motifs, proteins containing a DPSTGE, DLT, or KRR motif should be considered as potential novel KEAP1-interacting proteins and/or competitive binders. Across the proteome, a significant number of proteins contain putative-binding motifs for KEAP1 and NRF2; a summary of all proteins containing KEAP1- and NRF2-binding motifs is provided in Supplementary Table S3 (100). Of 6,689 unique proteins containing KEAP1- and NRF2-binding motifs, only 532 are known to interact with NRF2, CUL3, or KEAP1 (Supplementary Table S3). Differential expression of these proteins in the absence of direct alterations to KEAP1, CUL3, or NFE2L2 may result in elevated NRF2 expression and transcriptional activity. In fact, increased DPP3 expression in LUSC and breast cancer results in increased expression of NRF2 target genes (91, 101).

Intriguingly, proteins that associate with KEAP1 impact KEAP1 stability without disrupting the KEAP1–NRF2 binding interface. For example, RNA-binding motif 45 (RBM45) is known to bind and stabilize KEAP1 protein in motor neurons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (102). Although changes in RBM45 expression in tumors have not been extensively studied, recent proteomic studies examining reactive cysteines in KEAP1-mutant non–small cell lung cancer cell lines revealed protein–protein interactions between the cysteine-reactive nuclear factor receptor subfamily 0 group B member 1 (NR0B1) and RBM45 (103). The protein complex of NR0B1, RBM45, and SNW domain containing protein 1 (SNW1) promotes NRF2-dependent transcription further establishing a role for RBM45 in KEAP1–NRF2 signaling in cancer cells (103).

Posttranslational modifications (PTM) that functionally inactivate KEAP1 also exist. KEAP1 ubiquitylation results in p62-dependent autophagic degradation of KEAP1 (104). KEAP1 phosphorylation also occurs, although the functional impact of these events is unclear (105). KEAP1 can also be metabolically modified as seen in papillary renal cell carcinomas deficient for the tumor suppressor fumarate hydratase (106, 107). The loss of fumarate hydratase results in the formation of S-(2-succinyl) adducts (2SC) on C151 and C288 that may increase NRF2 transcriptional activity by modifying KEAP1 structure (Fig. 2C; refs. 6, 51, 106). KEAP1 is also metabolically modified by S-glutathionylation (KEAP1-SSG), which inactivates KEAP1 repression of NRF2 and results in NRF2 nuclear localization (108, 109). In addition, it was recently reported that the mitochondrial metabolite itaconate activates NRF2-dependent transcription through alkylation of KEAP1 on C151, C257, C273, C288, and C297. Although a role for itaconate has been identified in peritoneal tumors, studies examining the interplay between itaconate, KEAP1, and NRF2 hyperactivation in cancer have not yet been reported (110, 111). Recently, Bollong and colleagues identified a new PTM for KEAP1, methylimidazole crosslink between proximal cysteine and arginine residues (MICA; ref. 112). MICA occurs as a result of cysteine modification by methylglyoxal (MGO), a glycolytic metabolite, and promotes formation of a KEAP1 high-molecular weight dimer, resulting in increased NRF2 transcription (112). Additional studies in patient samples may identify novel KEAP1 PTMs from oncometabolites.

Clinical Applications of NRF2 in the Context of Cancer Prevention and Treatment

NRF2 activation in the context of cancer is often described as having a unique duality: NRF2 activation prior to tumor initiation or progression is chemopreventive whereas NRF2 activation for an established tumor enables increased proliferation and resistance to chemo- and radiotherapies. The tumor-promoting effects of NRF2 activation has been poetically described as “the dark side” of NRF2 (55). Therefore, clinical diagnostic testing for pathway activation, as well as the development of small-molecule inducers and inhibitors of NRF2 may prove beneficial for patient treatment depending on context and tumor development.

Many studies suggest therapeutic applications for NRF2 inducers in the prevention of cancer as well as for the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders and chronic inflammation (3, 7, 9, 10, 23, 26, 28, 113–117). NRF2 small-molecule inducers are thought to inactivate KEAP1 function through degradation of KEAP1 protein, slowed KEAP1 conformational cycling, covalent modifications of KEAP1, or through dissociation of the KEAP1–NRF2 complex, resulting in NRF2 stabilization and transcriptional activity (7, 118, 119). Tert-butylhydroquinone decreases KEAP1 half-life by promoting autophagic degradation of KEAP1 (104). Sulforaphane decreases the rate of KEAP1 conformational cycling, perhaps slowing the rate of NRF2 ubiquitylation or degradation (104, 120). Mechanistically, many of the NRF2 small-molecule inducers modify reactive cysteines in KEAP1, resulting in its functional inactivation (35). Inducers have been broadly categorized into five classes based on the KEAP1 cysteine reactivity profile (7, 36, 118, 121). Class I inducers are KEAP1 C151-dependent; class II inducers are specific to the C288 residue in the IVR of KEAP1; class III molecules require KEAP1 C151, C273, and C288; class IV compounds activate NRF2 through other cysteine residues in KEAP1 and do not require C151, C273, C288. Examples of class IV–reactive cysteines include C226 and C613, which are responsive to transition metal ions (i.e., As3+, Cd2+, Se4+, and Zn2+), and are capable of forming a disulfide bridge following exposure to hydrogen peroxide or hydrogen sulfide (122–124). C434 can also be targeted by class IV compounds, specifically 8-nitroguanosine 3′,5′-cyclic monophosphate (3). The primary mechanism of class V NRF2 inducers is disruption of the KEAP1–NRF2 interaction (7, 25, 118). Examples of class I–V inducers are provided in Supplementary Table S4. Although not assigned to a specific class, the NEDD8-activating enzyme inhibitor (NAE1; hereafter, MLN4924) and the CYP450 inhibitor oltipraz also induce NRF2 activation (107, 125–130). To date, the CYP450 inhibitor oltipraz and sulforaphane, an isothiocyanate derived from broccoli sprouts, are the only NRF2 inducers to reach phase I and II clinical trials for the prevention of cancer (107, 127, 128, 131, 132).

Multiple reports have established that hyperactivation of NRF2 is detrimental for survival in patients with cancer (5, 8, 9, 25, 47, 49, 52, 133–135). Therefore, developing NRF2-specific chemotherapeutics for the treatment of NRF2-hyperactive cancers has become a major goal (51, 136). NRF2 inhibitors function primarily through disruption of nuclear NRF2 transcriptional activity and have been historically identified through high-throughput screening of NRF2-ARE transcriptional activity (137). Examples of these compounds include all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA), ARE expression modulator 1 (AEM1), ML385, 1-(2-Cyclohexylethoxy)aniline (IM3829), brusatol, and clobetasol propionate (CP; refs. 57, 138–141). ML385 disrupts NRF2–sMAF heterodimerization via direct association with the Neh1 domain of NRF2 (141). CP results in NRF2 nuclear degradation in a BTRC-dependent manner. Both of these small molecules highlight how molecular understanding of the mechanisms driving NRF2 regulation and activation can yield candidates for therapeutic intervention. Although both ML385 and CP were effective in preclinical studies using cellular-based assays and animal models of cancer, they remain untested in clinical trials for patients with NRF2-hyperactive tumors.

Conclusion

In summary, numerous studies have established multiple genomic, transcriptional, and proteomic mechanisms for NRF2 activation in cancer. Identification of these mechanisms has further defined NRF2 as an oncogene and KEAP1 as a tumor suppressor across tumor types. Increased mechanistic understanding of KEAP1–NRF2 signaling in cancer has not yet translated into targeted therapies or diagnostic testing for patients with NRF2-hyperactive tumors. Considering the many mechanisms of NRF2 pathway activation observed in cancer, it is maybe not surprising that a standardized diagnostic strategy is not available to identify patients with NRF2-hyperactive tumors. Many studies have linked NRF2 activation to radioresistance and therefore could provide guidance for treatment escalation or deescalation. Transcription-oriented techniques such as RNA-seq or NanoProbe would likely be the most applicable. The lack of available lead compounds for NRF2 inhibition may reflect the historical challenges associated with targeting transcription factors for the treatment of cancer. However, the emerging insights into upstream and downstream regulators of KEAP1–NRF2 signaling, such as kinases, phosphatases, and other proteins controlling PTMs and protein–protein interactions, may provide new opportunities for clinical interventions.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Acknowledgments

The authors kindly thank the members of the Major and Weissman laboratories for constructive comments and discussion regarding this manuscript. This research was supported by the following: American Cancer Society (RSG-14- 1657 068-01-TBE, to M.B. Major); NIH/NCI (NIH/NCI RO1-CA216051, to M.B. Major and B.E. Weissman); Cancer Cell Biology Training Program T32 (CA071341-1659 16) and NC TraCS TL1 Predoctoral Training Program T32 (5TL1TR001110-02) 1660 (to E.W. Cloer); Integrated Training in Cancer Model Systems T32 (CA009156) and AAO/HNSF Translational Innovator Award (to T.P. Schrank).

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Research Online (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received September 13, 2018.
  • Revision received November 16, 2018.
  • Accepted December 11, 2018.
  • Published first February 13, 2019.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Schieber M,
    2. Chandel NS
    . ROS function in redox signaling and oxidative stress. Curr Biol 2014;24:R453–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Nguyen T,
    2. Yang CS,
    3. Pickett CB
    . The pathways and molecular mechanisms regulating Nrf2 activation in response to chemical stress. Free Radic Biol Med 2004;37:433–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Dinkova-Kostova AT,
    2. Kostov RV,
    3. Canning P
    . Keap1, the cysteine-based mammalian intracellular sensor for electrophiles and oxidants. Arch Biochem Biophys 2017;617:84–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Itoh K,
    2. Mimura J,
    3. Yamamoto M
    . Discovery of the negative regulator of Nrf2, Keap1: a historical overview. Antioxid Redox Signal 2010;13:1665–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Kansanen E,
    2. Kuosmanen SM,
    3. Leinonen H,
    4. Levonen AL
    . The Keap1-Nrf2 pathway: mechanisms of activation and dysregulation in cancer. Redox Biol 2013;1:45–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Leinonen HM,
    2. Kansanen E,
    3. Polonen P,
    4. Heinaniemi M,
    5. Levonen AL
    . Role of the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway in cancer. Adv Cancer Res 2014;122:281–320.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Suzuki T,
    2. Yamamoto M
    . Stress-sensing mechanisms and the physiological roles of the Keap1-Nrf2 system during cellular stress. J Biol Chem 2017;292:16817–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Taguchi K,
    2. Motohashi H,
    3. Yamamoto M
    . Molecular mechanisms of the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway in stress response and cancer evolution. Genes Cells 2011;16:123–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Taguchi K,
    2. Yamamoto M
    . The KEAP1-NRF2 system in cancer. Front Oncol 2017;7:85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Zhang DD
    . The Nrf2-Keap1-ARE signaling pathway: the regulation and dual function of Nrf2 in cancer. Antioxid Redox Signal 2010;13:1623–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Zhang DD
    . Mechanistic studies of the Nrf2-Keap1 signaling pathway. Drug Metab Rev 2006;38:769–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Rojo de la Vega M,
    2. Chapman E,
    3. Zhang DD
    . NRF2 and the hallmarks of cancer. Cancer Cell 2018;34:21–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers. Nature 2012;489:519–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Imielinski M,
    2. Berger AH,
    3. Hammerman PS,
    4. Hernandez B,
    5. Pugh TJ,
    6. Hodis E,
    7. et al.
    Mapping the hallmarks of lung adenocarcinoma with massively parallel sequencing. Cell 2012;150:1107–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Cerami E,
    2. Gao J,
    3. Dogrusoz U,
    4. Gross BE,
    5. Sumer SO,
    6. Aksoy BA,
    7. et al.
    The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov 2012;2:401–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Gao J,
    2. Aksoy BA,
    3. Dogrusoz U,
    4. Dresdner G,
    5. Gross B,
    6. Sumer SO,
    7. et al.
    Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal 2013;6:pl1.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Weinstein JN,
    2. Collisson EA,
    3. Mills GB,
    4. Shaw KR,
    5. Ozenberger BA,
    6. et al.
    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Weinstein JN, Collisson EA, Mills GB, Shaw KR, Ozenberger BA, et al. The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project. Nat Genet 2013;45:1113–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Ciriello G,
    2. Miller ML,
    3. Aksoy BA,
    4. Senbabaoglu Y,
    5. Schultz N,
    6. Sander C
    . Emerging landscape of oncogenic signatures across human cancers. Nat Genet 2013;45:1127–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Kandoth C,
    2. McLellan MD,
    3. Vandin F,
    4. Ye K,
    5. Niu B,
    6. Lu C,
    7. et al.
    Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types. Nature 2013;502:333–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Levings DC,
    2. Wang X,
    3. Kohlhase D,
    4. Bell DA,
    5. Slattery M
    . A distinct class of antioxidant response elements is consistently activated in tumors with NRF2 mutations. Redox Biol 2018;19:235–49.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2018. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2018. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2018/cancer-facts-and-figures-2018.pdf.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Sykiotis GP,
    2. Bohmann D
    . Stress-activated cap'n'collar transcription factors in aging and human disease. Sci Signal 2010;3:re3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Ahmed SM,
    2. Luo L,
    3. Namani A,
    4. Wang XJ,
    5. Tang X
    . Nrf2 signaling pathway: pivotal roles in inflammation. Biochim Biophys Acta 2017;1863:585–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Keleku-Lukwete N,
    2. Suzuki M,
    3. Yamamoto M
    . An overview of the advantages of KEAP1-NRF2 system activation during inflammatory disease treatment. Antioxid Redox Signal 2018;29:1746–55.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Suzuki M,
    2. Otsuki A,
    3. Keleku-Lukwete N,
    4. Yamamoto M
    . Overview of redox regulation by Keap1–Nrf2 system in toxicology and cancer. Curr Opin Toxicol 2016;1:29–36.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Yamazaki H,
    2. Tanji K,
    3. Wakabayashi K,
    4. Matsuura S,
    5. Itoh K
    . Role of the Keap1/Nrf2 pathway in neurodegenerative diseases. Pathol Int 2015;65:210–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Baird L,
    2. Dinkova-Kostova AT
    . The cytoprotective role of the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway. Arch Toxicol 2011;85:241–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Pandey P,
    2. Singh AK,
    3. Singh M,
    4. Tewari M,
    5. Shukla HS,
    6. Gambhir IS
    . The see-saw of Keap1-Nrf2 pathway in cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2017;116:89–98.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Kensler TW,
    2. Wakabayashi N,
    3. Biswal S
    . Cell survival responses to environmental stresses via the Keap1-Nrf2-ARE pathway. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2007;47:89–116.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Kobayashi A,
    2. Kang MI,
    3. Okawa H,
    4. Ohtsuji M,
    5. Zenke Y,
    6. Chiba T,
    7. et al.
    Oxidative stress sensor Keap1 functions as an adaptor for Cul3-based E3 ligase to regulate proteasomal degradation of Nrf2. Mol Cell Biol 2004;24:7130–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Hast BE,
    2. Cloer EW,
    3. Goldfarb D,
    4. Li H,
    5. Siesser PF,
    6. Yan F,
    7. et al.
    Cancer-derived mutations in KEAP1 impair NRF2 degradation but not ubiquitination. Cancer Res 2014;74:808–17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Kobayashi A,
    2. Ohta T,
    3. Yamamoto M
    . Unique function of the Nrf2-Keap1 pathway in the inducible expression of antioxidant and detoxifying enzymes. Methods Enzymol 2004;378:273–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Kobayashi M,
    2. Yamamoto M
    . Molecular mechanisms activating the Nrf2-Keap1 pathway of antioxidant gene regulation. Antioxid Redox Signal 2005;7:385–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. McMahon M,
    2. Itoh K,
    3. Yamamoto M,
    4. Hayes JD
    . Keap1-dependent proteasomal degradation of transcription factor Nrf2 contributes to the negative regulation of antioxidant response element-driven gene expression. J Biol Chem 2003;278:21592–600.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Takaya K,
    2. Suzuki T,
    3. Motohashi H,
    4. Onodera K,
    5. Satomi S,
    6. Kensler TW,
    7. et al.
    Validation of the multiple sensor mechanism of the Keap1-Nrf2 system. Free Radic Biol Med 2012;53:817–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Yamamoto T,
    2. Suzuki T,
    3. Kobayashi A,
    4. Wakabayashi J,
    5. Maher J,
    6. Motohashi H,
    7. et al.
    Physiological significance of reactive cysteine residues of Keap1 in determining Nrf2 activity. Mol Cell Biol 2008;28:2758–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Zhang DD,
    2. Hannink M
    . Distinct cysteine residues in Keap1 are required for Keap1-dependent ubiquitination of Nrf2 and for stabilization of Nrf2 by chemopreventive agents and oxidative stress. Mol Cell Biol 2003;23:8137–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Zhang DD,
    2. Lo SC,
    3. Cross JV,
    4. Templeton DJ,
    5. Hannink M
    . Keap1 is a redox-regulated substrate adaptor protein for a Cul3-dependent ubiquitin ligase complex. Mol Cell Biol 2004;24:10941–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Zhang DD,
    2. Lo SC,
    3. Sun Z,
    4. Habib GM,
    5. Lieberman MW,
    6. Hannink M
    . Ubiquitination of Keap1, a BTB-Kelch substrate adaptor protein for Cul3, targets Keap1 for degradation by a proteasome-independent pathway. J Biol Chem 2005;280:30091–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Rushmore TH,
    2. Morton MR,
    3. Pickett CB
    . The antioxidant responsive element. Activation by oxidative stress and identification of the DNA consensus sequence required for functional activity. J Biol Chem 1991;266:11632–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Rushmore TH,
    2. Pickett CB
    . Xenobiotic responsive elements controlling inducible expression by planar aromatic compounds and phenolic antioxidants. Methods Enzymol 1991;206:409–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Rushmore TH,
    2. Kong AN
    . Pharmacogenomics, regulation and signaling pathways of phase I and II drug metabolizing enzymes. Curr Drug Metab 2002;3:481–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Georgakopoulos ND,
    2. Frison M,
    3. Alvarez MS,
    4. Bertrand H,
    5. Wells G,
    6. Campanella M
    . Reversible Keap1 inhibitors are preferential pharmacological tools to modulate cellular mitophagy. Sci Rep 2017;7:10303.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    1. Iso T,
    2. Suzuki T,
    3. Baird L,
    4. Yamamoto M
    . Absolute amounts and status of the Nrf2-Keap1-Cul3 complex within cells. Mol Cell Biol 2016;36:3100–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Goldstein LD,
    2. Lee J,
    3. Gnad F,
    4. Klijn C,
    5. Schaub A,
    6. Reeder J,
    7. et al.
    Recurrent loss of NFE2L2 exon 2 is a mechanism for Nrf2 pathway activation in human cancers. Cell Rep 2016;16:2605–17.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    1. Hanada N,
    2. Takahata T,
    3. Zhou Q,
    4. Ye X,
    5. Sun R,
    6. Itoh J,
    7. et al.
    Methylation of the KEAP1 gene promoter region in human colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 2012;12:66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Hayes JD,
    2. McMahon M
    . NRF2 and KEAP1 mutations: permanent activation of an adaptive response in cancer. Trends Biochem Sci 2009;34:176–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Hayes JD,
    2. McMahon M,
    3. Chowdhry S,
    4. Dinkova-Kostova AT
    . Cancer chemoprevention mechanisms mediated through the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway. Antioxid Redox Signal 2010;13:1713–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Homma S,
    2. Ishii Y,
    3. Morishima Y,
    4. Yamadori T,
    5. Matsuno Y,
    6. Haraguchi N,
    7. et al.
    Nrf2 enhances cell proliferation and resistance to anticancer drugs in human lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:3423–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Huang Y,
    2. Li W,
    3. Su ZY,
    4. Kong AN
    . The complexity of the Nrf2 pathway: beyond the antioxidant response. J Nutr Biochem 2015;26:1401–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Jaramillo MC,
    2. Zhang DD
    . The emerging role of the Nrf2-Keap1 signaling pathway in cancer. Genes Dev 2013;27:2179–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Jiang T,
    2. Chen N,
    3. Zhao F,
    4. Wang XJ,
    5. Kong B,
    6. Zheng W,
    7. et al.
    High levels of Nrf2 determine chemoresistance in type II endometrial cancer. Cancer Res 2010;70:5486–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Lau A,
    2. Villeneuve NF,
    3. Sun Z,
    4. Wong PK,
    5. Zhang DD
    . Dual roles of Nrf2 in cancer. Pharmacol Res 2008;58:262–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Solis LM,
    2. Behrens C,
    3. Dong W,
    4. Suraokar M,
    5. Ozburn NC,
    6. Moran CA,
    7. et al.
    Nrf2 and Keap1 abnormalities in non-small cell lung carcinoma and association with clinicopathologic features. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:3743–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Wang XJ,
    2. Sun Z,
    3. Villeneuve NF,
    4. Zhang S,
    5. Zhao F,
    6. Li Y,
    7. et al.
    Nrf2 enhances resistance of cancer cells to chemotherapeutic drugs, the dark side of Nrf2. Carcinogenesis 2008;29:1235–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Singh A,
    2. Misra V,
    3. Thimmulappa RK,
    4. Lee H,
    5. Ames S,
    6. Hoque MO,
    7. et al.
    Dysfunctional KEAP1-NRF2 interaction in non-small-cell lung cancer. PLoS Med 2006;3:e420.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Bryan HK,
    2. Olayanju A,
    3. Goldring CE,
    4. Park BK
    . The Nrf2 cell defence pathway: Keap1-dependent and -independent mechanisms of regulation. Biochem Pharmacol 2013;85:705–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Martinez VD,
    2. Vucic EA,
    3. Thu KL,
    4. Pikor LA,
    5. Lam S,
    6. Lam WL
    . Disruption of KEAP1/CUL3/RBX1 E3-ubiquitin ligase complex components by multiple genetic mechanisms: association with poor prognosis in head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2015;37:727–34.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    1. Berger AH,
    2. Brooks AN,
    3. Wu X,
    4. Shrestha Y,
    5. Chouinard C,
    6. Piccioni F,
    7. et al.
    High-throughput phenotyping of lung cancer somatic mutations. Cancer Cell 2016;30:214–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.↵
    1. Campbell JD,
    2. Alexandrov A,
    3. Kim J,
    4. Wala J,
    5. Berger AH,
    6. Pedamallu CS,
    7. et al.
    Distinct patterns of somatic genome alterations in lung adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas. Nat Genet 2016;48:607–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Padmanabhan B,
    2. Tong KI,
    3. Ohta T,
    4. Nakamura Y,
    5. Scharlock M,
    6. Ohtsuji M,
    7. et al.
    Structural basis for defects of Keap1 activity provoked by its point mutations in lung cancer. Mol Cell 2006;21:689–700.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Ohta T,
    2. Iijima K,
    3. Miyamoto M,
    4. Nakahara I,
    5. Tanaka H,
    6. Ohtsuji M,
    7. et al.
    Loss of Keap1 function activates Nrf2 and provides advantages for lung cancer cell growth. Cancer Res 2008;68:1303–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    1. DeNicola GM,
    2. Karreth FA,
    3. Humpton TJ,
    4. Gopinathan A,
    5. Wei C,
    6. Frese K,
    7. et al.
    Oncogene-induced Nrf2 transcription promotes ROS detoxification and tumorigenesis. Nature 2011;475:106–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Pandey RM,
    2. Gupta R,
    3. Misra A,
    4. Misra P,
    5. Singh V,
    6. Agrawal A,
    7. et al.
    Determinants of urban-rural differences in cardiovascular risk factors in middle-aged women in India: a cross-sectional study. Int J Cardiol 2013;163:157–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Chen HY,
    2. Chen RH
    . Cullin 3 ubiquitin ligases in cancer biology: functions and therapeutic implications. Front Oncol 2016;6:113.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Chen Z,
    2. Sui J,
    3. Zhang F,
    4. Zhang C
    . Cullin family proteins and tumorigenesis: genetic association and molecular mechanisms. J Cancer 2015;6:233–42.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    1. Wang R,
    2. An J,
    3. Ji F,
    4. Jiao H,
    5. Sun H,
    6. Zhou D
    . Hypermethylation of the Keap1 gene in human lung cancer cell lines and lung cancer tissues. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2008;373:151–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Muscarella LA,
    2. Barbano R,
    3. D'Angelo V,
    4. Copetti M,
    5. Coco M,
    6. Balsamo T,
    7. et al.
    Regulation of KEAP1 expression by promoter methylation in malignant gliomas and association with patient's outcome. Epigenetics 2011;6:317–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Mulvaney KM,
    2. Matson JP,
    3. Siesser PF,
    4. Tamir TY,
    5. Goldfarb D,
    6. Jacobs TM,
    7. et al.
    Identification and characterization of MCM3 as a Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 (KEAP1) substrate. J Biol Chem 2016;291:23719–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. 70.↵
    1. Tamberg N,
    2. Tahk S,
    3. Koit S,
    4. Kristjuhan K,
    5. Kasvandik S,
    6. Kristjuhan A,
    7. et al.
    Keap1-MCM3 interaction is a potential coordinator of molecular machineries of antioxidant response and genomic DNA replication in metazoa. Sci Rep 2018;8:12136.
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.↵
    1. Fabrizio FP,
    2. Sparaneo A,
    3. Trombetta D,
    4. Muscarella LA
    . Epigenetic versus genetic deregulation of the KEAP1/NRF2 Axis in solid tumors: focus on methylation and noncoding RNAs. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2018;2018:2492063.
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.↵
    1. Yamamoto S,
    2. Inoue J,
    3. Kawano T,
    4. Kozaki K,
    5. Omura K,
    6. Inazawa J
    . The impact of miRNA-based molecular diagnostics and treatment of NRF2-stabilized tumors. Mol Cancer Res 2014;12:58–68.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. 73.↵
    1. Narasimhan M,
    2. Patel D,
    3. Vedpathak D,
    4. Rathinam M,
    5. Henderson G,
    6. Mahimainathan L
    . Identification of novel microRNAs in post-transcriptional control of Nrf2 expression and redox homeostasis in neuronal, SH-SY5Y cells. PLoS One 2012;7:e51111.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. Xu D,
    2. Zhu H,
    3. Wang C,
    4. Zhu X,
    5. Liu G,
    6. Chen C,
    7. et al.
    microRNA-455 targets cullin 3 to activate Nrf2 signaling and protect human osteoblasts from hydrogen peroxide. Oncotarget 2017;8:59225–34.
    OpenUrl
  75. 75.↵
    1. Kim JH,
    2. Lee KS,
    3. Lee DK,
    4. Kim J,
    5. Kwak SN,
    6. Ha KS,
    7. et al.
    Hypoxia-responsive microRNA-101 promotes angiogenesis via heme oxygenase-1/vascular endothelial growth factor axis by targeting cullin 3. Antioxid Redox Signal 2014;21:2469–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    1. Kabaria S,
    2. Choi DC,
    3. Chaudhuri AD,
    4. Jain MR,
    5. Li H,
    6. Junn E
    . MicroRNA-7 activates Nrf2 pathway by targeting Keap1 expression. Free Radic Biol Med 2015;89:548–56.
    OpenUrl
  77. 77.↵
    1. Sakurai T,
    2. Isogaya K,
    3. Sakai S,
    4. Morikawa M,
    5. Morishita Y,
    6. Ehata S,
    7. et al.
    RNA-binding motif protein 47 inhibits Nrf2 activity to suppress tumor growth in lung adenocarcinoma. Oncogene 2016;35:5000–9.
    OpenUrl
  78. 78.↵
    1. Vanharanta S,
    2. Marney CB,
    3. Shu W,
    4. Valiente M,
    5. Zou Y,
    6. Mele A,
    7. et al.
    Loss of the multifunctional RNA-binding protein RBM47 as a source of selectable metastatic traits in breast cancer. Elife 2014;3:e02734.
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    1. Moi P,
    2. Chan K,
    3. Asunis I,
    4. Cao A,
    5. Kan YW
    . Isolation of NF-E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2), a NF-E2-like basic leucine zipper transcriptional activator that binds to the tandem NF-E2/AP1 repeat of the beta-globin locus control region. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994;91:9926–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. 80.↵
    1. Higgins LG,
    2. Hayes JD
    . The cap'n'collar transcription factor Nrf2 mediates both intrinsic resistance to environmental stressors and an adaptive response elicited by chemopreventive agents that determines susceptibility to electrophilic xenobiotics. Chem Biol Interact 2011;192:37–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Katsuoka F,
    2. Yamamoto M
    . Small Maf proteins (MafF, MafG, MafK): history, structure and function. Gene 2016;586:197–205.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  82. 82.↵
    1. Jacobsen A,
    2. Silber J,
    3. Harinath G,
    4. Huse JT,
    5. Schultz N,
    6. Sander C
    . Analysis of microRNA-target interactions across diverse cancer types. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2013;20:1325–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    1. Hayes JD,
    2. Chowdhry S,
    3. Dinkova-Kostova AT,
    4. Sutherland C
    . Dual regulation of transcription factor Nrf2 by Keap1 and by the combined actions of beta-TrCP and GSK-3. Biochem Soc Trans 2015;43:611–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.↵
    1. Chowdhry S,
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. McMahon M,
    4. Sutherland C,
    5. Cuadrado A,
    6. Hayes JD
    . Nrf2 is controlled by two distinct beta-TrCP recognition motifs in its Neh6 domain, one of which can be modulated by GSK-3 activity. Oncogene 2013;32:3765–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    1. Huang HC,
    2. Nguyen T,
    3. Pickett CB
    . Phosphorylation of Nrf2 at Ser-40 by protein kinase C regulates antioxidant response element-mediated transcription. J Biol Chem 2002;277:42769–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. 86.↵
    1. Huang HC,
    2. Nguyen T,
    3. Pickett CB
    . Regulation of the antioxidant response element by protein kinase C-mediated phosphorylation of NF-E2-related factor 2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000;97:12475–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  87. 87.↵
    1. Zhao Y,
    2. Morgan MA,
    3. Sun Y
    . Targeting Neddylation pathways to inactivate cullin-RING ligases for anticancer therapy. Antioxid Redox Signal 2014;21:2383–400.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    1. Itoh K,
    2. Wakabayashi N,
    3. Katoh Y,
    4. Ishii T,
    5. Igarashi K,
    6. Engel JD,
    7. et al.
    Keap1 represses nuclear activation of antioxidant responsive elements by Nrf2 through binding to the amino-terminal Neh2 domain. Genes Dev 1999;13:76–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  89. 89.↵
    1. Canning P,
    2. Sorrell FJ,
    3. Bullock AN
    . Structural basis of Keap1 interactions with Nrf2. Free Radic Biol Med 2015;88:101–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    1. Cloer EW,
    2. Siesser PF,
    3. Cousins EM,
    4. Goldfarb D,
    5. Mowrey DD,
    6. Harrison JS,
    7. et al.
    p62-dependent phase separation of patient-derived KEAP1 mutations and NRF2. Mol Cell Biol 2018 Aug 20 [Epub ahead of print].
  91. 91.↵
    1. Hast BE,
    2. Goldfarb D,
    3. Mulvaney KM,
    4. Hast MA,
    5. Siesser PF,
    6. Yan F,
    7. et al.
    Proteomic analysis of ubiquitin ligase KEAP1 reveals associated proteins that inhibit NRF2 ubiquitination. Cancer Res 2013;73:2199–210.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. 92.↵
    1. Ma J,
    2. Cai H,
    3. Wu T,
    4. Sobhian B,
    5. Huo Y,
    6. Alcivar A,
    7. et al.
    PALB2 interacts with KEAP1 to promote NRF2 nuclear accumulation and function. Mol Cell Biol 2012;32:1506–17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  93. 93.↵
    1. Orthwein A,
    2. Noordermeer SM,
    3. Wilson MD,
    4. Landry S,
    5. Enchev RI,
    6. Sherker A,
    7. et al.
    A mechanism for the suppression of homologous recombination in G1 cells. Nature 2015;528:422–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.↵
    1. Chen W,
    2. Sun Z,
    3. Wang XJ,
    4. Jiang T,
    5. Huang Z,
    6. Fang D,
    7. et al.
    Direct interaction between Nrf2 and p21(Cip1/WAF1) upregulates the Nrf2-mediated antioxidant response. Mol Cell 2009;34:663–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. 95.↵
    1. Esposito F,
    2. Cuccovillo F,
    3. Russo L,
    4. Casella F,
    5. Russo T,
    6. Cimino F
    . A new p21waf1/cip1 isoform is an early event of cell response to oxidative stress. Cell Death Differ 1998;5:940–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. 96.↵
    1. Villeneuve NF,
    2. Sun Z,
    3. Chen W,
    4. Zhang DD
    . Nrf2 and p21 regulate the fine balance between life and death by controlling ROS levels. Cell Cycle 2009;8:3255–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    1. Camp ND,
    2. James RG,
    3. Dawson DW,
    4. Yan F,
    5. Davison JM,
    6. Houck SA,
    7. et al.
    Wilms tumor gene on X chromosome (WTX) inhibits degradation of NRF2 protein through competitive binding to KEAP1 protein. J Biol Chem 2012;287:6539–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  98. 98.↵
    1. Tian W,
    2. Rojo de la Vega M,
    3. Schmidlin CJ,
    4. Ooi A,
    5. Zhang DD
    . Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 (KEAP1) differentially regulates nuclear factor erythroid-2-related factors 1 and 2 (NRF1 and NRF2). J Biol Chem 2018;293:2029–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. 99.↵
    1. Wang Q,
    2. Ma J,
    3. Lu Y,
    4. Zhang S,
    5. Huang J,
    6. Chen J,
    7. et al.
    CDK20 interacts with KEAP1 to activate NRF2 and promotes radiochemoresistance in lung cancer cells. Oncogene 2017;36:5321–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.↵
    The UniProt Consortium. UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res 2017;45:D158–D169.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    1. Lu K,
    2. Alcivar AL,
    3. Ma J,
    4. Foo TK,
    5. Zywea S,
    6. Mahdi A,
    7. et al.
    NRF2 induction supporting breast cancer cell survival is enabled by oxidative stress-induced DPP3-KEAP1 Interaction. Cancer Res 2017;77:2881–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  102. 102.↵
    1. Bakkar N,
    2. Kousari A,
    3. Kovalik T,
    4. Li Y,
    5. Bowser R
    . RBM45 modulates the antioxidant response in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis through interactions with KEAP1. Mol Cell Biol 2015;35:2385–99.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  103. 103.↵
    1. Bar-Peled L,
    2. Kemper EK,
    3. Suciu RM,
    4. Vinogradova EV,
    5. Backus KM,
    6. Horning BD,
    7. et al.
    Chemical proteomics identifies druggable vulnerabilities in a genetically defined cancer. Cell 2017;171:696–709.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. 104.↵
    1. Taguchi K,
    2. Fujikawa N,
    3. Komatsu M,
    4. Ishii T,
    5. Unno M,
    6. Akaike T,
    7. et al.
    Keap1 degradation by autophagy for the maintenance of redox homeostasis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012;109:13561–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. 105.↵
    1. Huo L,
    2. Li CW,
    3. Huang TH,
    4. Lam YC,
    5. Xia W,
    6. Tu C,
    7. et al.
    Activation of Keap1/Nrf2 signaling pathway by nuclear epidermal growth factor receptor in cancer cells. Am J Transl Res 2014;6:649–63.
    OpenUrl
  106. 106.↵
    1. Kinch L,
    2. Grishin NV,
    3. Brugarolas J
    . Succination of Keap1 and activation of Nrf2-dependent antioxidant pathways in FH-deficient papillary renal cell carcinoma type 2. Cancer Cell 2011;20:418–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. 107.↵
    1. Lu MC,
    2. Ji JA,
    3. Jiang ZY,
    4. You QD
    . The Keap1-Nrf2-ARE pathway as a potential preventive and therapeutic target: an update. Med Res Rev 2016;36:924–63.
    OpenUrl
  108. 108.↵
    1. Wang L,
    2. Qu G,
    3. Gao Y,
    4. Su L,
    5. Ye Q,
    6. Jiang F,
    7. et al.
    A small molecule targeting glutathione activates Nrf2 and inhibits cancer cell growth through promoting Keap-1 S-glutathionylation and inducing apoptosis. RSC Advances 2018;8:792–804.
    OpenUrl
  109. 109.↵
    1. Carvalho AN,
    2. Marques C,
    3. Guedes RC,
    4. Castro-Caldas M,
    5. Rodrigues E,
    6. van Horssen J,
    7. et al.
    S-Glutathionylation of Keap1: a new role for glutathione S-transferase pi in neuronal protection. FEBS Lett 2016;590:1455–66.
    OpenUrl
  110. 110.↵
    1. Mills EL,
    2. Ryan DG,
    3. Prag HA,
    4. Dikovskaya D,
    5. Menon D,
    6. Zaslona Z,
    7. et al.
    Itaconate is an anti-inflammatory metabolite that activates Nrf2 via alkylation of KEAP1. Nature 2018;556:113–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  111. 111.↵
    1. Weiss JM,
    2. Davies LC,
    3. Karwan M,
    4. Ileva L,
    5. Ozaki MK,
    6. Cheng RY,
    7. et al.
    Itaconic acid mediates crosstalk between macrophage metabolism and peritoneal tumors. J Clin Invest 2018;128:3794–805.
    OpenUrl
  112. 112.↵
    1. Bollong MJ,
    2. Lee G,
    3. Coukos JS,
    4. Yun H,
    5. Zambaldo C,
    6. Chang JW,
    7. et al.
    A metabolite-derived protein modification integrates glycolysis with KEAP1-NRF2 signalling. Nature 2018;562:600–4.
    OpenUrl
  113. 113.↵
    1. Giudice A,
    2. Arra C,
    3. Turco MC
    . Review of molecular mechanisms involved in the activation of the Nrf2-ARE signaling pathway by chemopreventive agents. Methods Mol Biol 2010;647:37–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. 114.↵
    1. Johnson JA,
    2. Johnson DA,
    3. Kraft AD,
    4. Calkins MJ,
    5. Jakel RJ,
    6. Vargas MR,
    7. et al.
    The Nrf2-ARE pathway: an indicator and modulator of oxidative stress in neurodegeneration. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008;1147:61–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. 115.↵
    1. Yang Y,
    2. Jiang S,
    3. Yan J,
    4. Li Y,
    5. Xin Z,
    6. Lin Y,
    7. et al.
    An overview of the molecular mechanisms and novel roles of Nrf2 in neurodegenerative disorders. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2015;26:47–57.
    OpenUrl
  116. 116.↵
    1. Houghton AM
    . Mechanistic links between COPD and lung cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2013;13:233–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. 117.↵
    1. Boutten A,
    2. Goven D,
    3. Artaud-Macari E,
    4. Boczkowski J,
    5. Bonay M
    . NRF2 targeting: a promising therapeutic strategy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Trends Mol Med 2011;17:363–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. 118.↵
    1. Saito H
    . Toxico-pharmacological perspective of the Nrf2-Keap1 defense system against oxidative stress in kidney diseases. Biochem Pharmacol 2013;85:865–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. 119.↵
    1. Guntas G,
    2. Lewis SM,
    3. Mulvaney KM,
    4. Cloer EW,
    5. Tripathy A,
    6. Lane TR,
    7. et al.
    Engineering a genetically encoded competitive inhibitor of the KEAP1-NRF2 interaction via structure-based design and phage display. Protein Eng Des Sel 2016;29:1–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    1. Baird L,
    2. Lleres D,
    3. Swift S,
    4. Dinkova-Kostova AT
    . Regulatory flexibility in the Nrf2-mediated stress response is conferred by conformational cycling of the Keap1-Nrf2 protein complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013;110:15259–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  121. 121.↵
    1. Li L,
    2. Kobayashi M,
    3. Kaneko H,
    4. Nakajima-Takagi Y,
    5. Nakayama Y,
    6. Yamamoto M
    . Molecular evolution of Keap1. Two Keap1 molecules with distinctive intervening region structures are conserved among fish. J Biol Chem 2008;283:3248–55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  122. 122.↵
    1. McMahon M,
    2. Lamont DJ,
    3. Beattie KA,
    4. Hayes JD
    . Keap1 perceives stress via three sensors for the endogenous signaling molecules nitric oxide, zinc, and alkenals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:18838–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  123. 123.↵
    1. Fourquet S,
    2. Guerois R,
    3. Biard D,
    4. Toledano MB
    . Activation of NRF2 by nitrosative agents and H2O2 involves KEAP1 disulfide formation. J Biol Chem 2010;285:8463–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  124. 124.↵
    1. Hourihan JM,
    2. Kenna JG,
    3. Hayes JD
    . The gasotransmitter hydrogen sulfide induces nrf2-target genes by inactivating the keap1 ubiquitin ligase substrate adaptor through formation of a disulfide bond between cys-226 and cys-613. Antioxid Redox Signal 2013;19:465–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  125. 125.↵
    1. Luo Z,
    2. Pan Y,
    3. Jeong LS,
    4. Liu J,
    5. Jia L
    . Inactivation of the Cullin (CUL)-RING E3 ligase by the NEDD8-activating enzyme inhibitor MLN4924 triggers protective autophagy in cancer cells. Autophagy 2012;8:1677–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. 126.↵
    1. Zhao Y,
    2. Xiong X,
    3. Jia L,
    4. Sun Y
    . Targeting Cullin-RING ligases by MLN4924 induces autophagy via modulating the HIF1-REDD1-TSC1-mTORC1-DEPTOR axis. Cell Death Dis 2012;3:e386.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. 127.↵
    1. Lu MC,
    2. Ji JA,
    3. Jiang YL,
    4. Chen ZY,
    5. Yuan ZW,
    6. You QD,
    7. et al.
    An inhibitor of the Keap1-Nrf2 protein-protein interaction protects NCM460 colonic cells and alleviates experimental colitis. Sci Rep 2016;6:26585.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  128. 128.↵
    1. Lu MC,
    2. Yuan ZW,
    3. Jiang YL,
    4. Chen ZY,
    5. You QD,
    6. Jiang ZY
    . A systematic molecular dynamics approach to the study of peptide Keap1-Nrf2 protein-protein interaction inhibitors and its application to p62 peptides. Mol Biosyst 2016;12:1378–87.
    OpenUrl
  129. 129.↵
    1. Ramos-Gomez M,
    2. Dolan PM,
    3. Itoh K,
    4. Yamamoto M,
    5. Kensler TW
    . Interactive effects of nrf2 genotype and oltipraz on benzo[a]pyrene-DNA adducts and tumor yield in mice. Carcinogenesis 2003;24:461–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  130. 130.↵
    1. Sharma S,
    2. Gao P,
    3. Steele VE
    . The chemopreventive efficacy of inhaled oltipraz particulates in the B[a]P-induced A/J mouse lung adenoma model. Carcinogenesis 2006;27:1721–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. 131.↵
    1. Kelley MJ,
    2. Glaser EM,
    3. Herndon JE II.,
    4. Becker F,
    5. Bhagat R,
    6. Zhang YJ,
    7. et al.
    Safety and efficacy of weekly oral oltipraz in chronic smokers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:892–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  132. 132.↵
    1. Dinkova-Kostova AT,
    2. Fahey JW,
    3. Kostov RV,
    4. Kensler TW
    . KEAP1 and done? Targeting the NRF2 pathway with sulforaphane. Trends Food Sci Technol 2017;69:257–69.
    OpenUrl
  133. 133.↵
    1. Bauer AK,
    2. Hill T III.,
    3. Alexander CM
    . The involvement of NRF2 in lung cancer. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2013;2013:746432.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  134. 134.↵
    1. Choi B-h,
    2. Kwak M-K
    . Shadows of NRF2 in cancer: resistance to chemotherapy. Curr Opin Toxicol 2016;1:20–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  135. 135.↵
    1. DeNicola GM,
    2. Chen PH,
    3. Mullarky E,
    4. Sudderth JA,
    5. Hu Z,
    6. Wu D,
    7. et al.
    NRF2 regulates serine biosynthesis in non-small cell lung cancer. Nat Genet 2015;47:1475–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  136. 136.↵
    1. Menegon S,
    2. Columbano A,
    3. Giordano S
    . The dual roles of NRF2 in cancer. Trends Mol Med 2016;22:578–93.
    OpenUrl
  137. 137.↵
    1. Moehlenkamp JD,
    2. Johnson JA
    . Activation of antioxidant/electrophile-responsive elements in IMR-32 human neuroblastoma cells. Arch Biochem Biophys 1999;363:98–106.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  138. 138.↵
    1. Bollong MJ,
    2. Yun H,
    3. Sherwood L,
    4. Woods AK,
    5. Lairson LL,
    6. Schultz PG
    . A small molecule inhibits deregulated NRF2 transcriptional activity in cancer. ACS Chem Biol 2015;10:2193–8.
    OpenUrl
  139. 139.↵
    1. Ren D,
    2. Villeneuve NF,
    3. Jiang T,
    4. Wu T,
    5. Lau A,
    6. Toppin HA,
    7. et al.
    Brusatol enhances the efficacy of chemotherapy by inhibiting the Nrf2-mediated defense mechanism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011;108:1433–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  140. 140.↵
    1. Choi EJ,
    2. Jung BJ,
    3. Lee SH,
    4. Yoo HS,
    5. Shin EA,
    6. Ko HJ,
    7. et al.
    A clinical drug library screen identifies clobetasol propionate as an NRF2 inhibitor with potential therapeutic efficacy in KEAP1 mutant lung cancer. Oncogene 2017;36:5285–95.
    OpenUrl
  141. 141.↵
    1. Singh A,
    2. Venkannagari S,
    3. Oh KH,
    4. Zhang YQ,
    5. Rohde JM,
    6. Liu L,
    7. et al.
    Small molecule inhibitor of NRF2 selectively intervenes therapeutic resistance in KEAP1-deficient NSCLC tumors. ACS Chem Biol 2016;11:3214–25.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
NRF2 Activation in Cancer: From DNA to Protein
Erica W. Cloer, Dennis Goldfarb, Travis P. Schrank, Bernard E. Weissman and Michael B. Major
Cancer Res March 1 2019 (79) (5) 889-898; DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-2723
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Advertisement