Skip to content

Advertisement

What do you think about BMC? Take part in

Open Access

Targeting protein quality control pathways in breast cancer

BMC Biology201715:109

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-017-0449-4

Published: 16 November 2017

Abstract

The efficient production, folding, and secretion of proteins is critical for cancer cell survival. However, cancer cells thrive under stress conditions that damage proteins, so many cancer cells overexpress molecular chaperones that facilitate protein folding and target misfolded proteins for degradation via the ubiquitin-proteasome or autophagy pathway. Stress response pathway induction is also important for cancer cell survival. Indeed, validated targets for anti-cancer treatments include molecular chaperones, components of the unfolded protein response, the ubiquitin-proteasome system, and autophagy. We will focus on links between breast cancer and these processes, as well as the development of drug resistance, relapse, and treatment.

Breast cancer subtypes and cellular protein quality control pathways

Breast cancer is a complex and heterogeneous disease that remains the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in women and is responsible for the greatest proportion of cancer-related deaths in women [1]. Breast cancers are divided into different subtypes depending on the expression of hormone receptors, including estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2 or erbB2) [2, 3]. Luminal breast cancers are characterized by ER overexpression and fall into the luminal A or B class, in which, respectively, either both ER and PR are overexpressed or ER is overexpressed and HER2 may also be overexpressed. HER2-positive breast cancer, in which HER2 is overexpressed, represents another subtype, and can be diagnosed at a younger age compared to the luminal A and luminal B cancers. Finally, triple negative breast cancers (TNBC) are ER-, PR-, and HER2-negative [2, 3].

ER-positive breast cancer groups are especially prevalent and mainly afflict postmenopausal women because luminal cells become more sensitive to estrogen (17β-estradiol or E2) levels as a result of hormonal fluctuations [4]. Activation of the ER signaling cascade stimulates cell division, tumor growth, and metastasis. Therefore, ER-positive patients are initially treated with anti-estrogen therapies [5] (Table 1). Tamoxifen was one of the first FDA approved drugs used to treat these patients, is a non-steroid inhibitor of the receptor, and blocks downstream signaling [6, 7]. However, in many tamoxifen treated patients, ER activation was still detected, highlighting the demand for improved compounds and new targets [8]. In fact, since tamoxifen was approved, different ER-targeted drugs were introduced that downregulate the receptor, induce receptor degradation, or attenuate ER signaling (Table 1) [912]. Nevertheless, endocrine-treatment resistance remains one of the leading causes of breast cancer mortality [12, 13].
Table 1

Examples of drugs used in ER-positive breast cancer treatment

Drug name

Notes

Developmental stage

References

Fulvestrant (Faslodex)

Induces ER degradation, nonsteroidal selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD)

FDA approved

[288292]

Tamoxifen

Nonsteroidal selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM)

FDA approved

[6, 288, 293295]

Raloxifene hydrochloride

Nonsteroidal selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM)

FDA approved

[296301]

Toremifene (Fareston)

Nonsteroidal selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM)

FDA approved

[301, 302]

ARN-810

Nonsteroidal selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD)

Clinical trial

[303, 304]

AZD9496

Nonsteroidal selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD)

Clinical trial

[305, 306]

RAD1901

Nonsteroidal selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD)

Clinical trial

[307309]

Letrozole (Femara)

Nonsteroidal inhibitor of estrogen synthesis (aromatase inhibitor)

FDA approved

[310313]

Anastrozole (Arimidex)

Nonsteroidal inhibitor of estrogen synthesis (aromatase inhibitor)

FDA approved

[314317]

Exemestane (Aromasin)

Nonsteroidal inhibitor of estrogen synthesis (aromatase inhibitor)

FDA approved

[318321]

BEZ235

Dual inhibitor of PI3K and mTOR

Clinical trial

[322325]

SAR245409

PI3K inhibitor

Clinical trial

[285, 313]

Taselisib

Class I PI3K alpha inhibitor

Clinical trial

[326328]

Buparlisib

PI3K inhibitor, competes for the ATP binding

Clinical trial

[63, 326]

Venetoclax (ABT-199)

Bcl-2 inhibitor

Clinical trial

[329, 330]

Everolimus (Afinitor)

Inhibitor of mTORC1 used both in luminal A and in HER2-positive tumors

FDA approved

[277279, 283]

Temsiroliums

Inhibitors of mTORC1 used in luminal A, TNBC, and HER2-positive tumors

Clinical trial

[331]

Vorinostat (SAHA)

Global inhibitor of HDAC

Clinical trial

[332334]

Entinostat

Inhibitor of HDAC1 and HDAC3

Clinical trial

[335, 336]

Panobinostat

Specific inhibitor of HDAC

Clinical trial

[337339]

Rapamycin

mTOR inhibitor

HER- and ER-positive breast cancer cells

[340344]

SNIPER(ER)

PROTAC-mediated ER degradation in breast cancer cells

ER-positive breast cancer cells

[98, 345]

BHPI

Modulator of ER-dependent UPR response

ER-positive breast cancer cells

[168, 187, 188, 346]

MAb159

Monoclonal antibody against BiP

ER-positive breast cancer cells

[222]

Plumbagin

BiP downregulator, induces BIK levels

ER-positive breast cancer cells

[220]

Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG)

Inhibits cellular oxidation and DNA methyltransferase to block EGFR and HER2 activation and can induce UPR response by binding BiP

TNBC, ER- and HER2-positive breast cancer cells

[347352]

Resveratrol

Activates SIRT-1 and inhibits TNF-induced activation of NFkB. Used in combination with bortezomib, reduces cell viability through autophagy inhibition

ER- and HER2-positive breast cancer cells

[353, 354]

Hydroxychloroquine

Autophagy inhibitor, suppresses lysosomal acidification

Clinical trial

[167, 225]

The HER2 amplified class represents 15–20% of all the breast cancers and patients with this variant have benefited from significant clinical successes [3, 14]. HER2 plays a key role in cellular hemostasis and tissue development (such as during epithelial mammary gland organization [15]). There are four members of the HER tyrosine kinase family, HER, HER2, HER3, and HER4 (also known as EGFR, erbB2, erbB3, and erbB4, respectively), and maintenance of proper receptor numbers at the plasma membrane is critical for signal transduction [15, 16]. Upon ligand binding, the receptors homo- or hetero-dimerize, inducing an intracellular signaling cascade [17]. Receptor endocytosis also represents a key regulatory event [16]. While many ligands for EGRF, HER3, and HER4 are known, no HER2 ligand has been identified. Moreover, in contrast to the other family members, HER2 is the preferred dimerization partner of the other HERs, in particular HER3, which activates downstream PI3K/Akt signaling [1821]. Preclinical studies supported a key function for HER3 in promoting the growth of HER2-positive breast cancer cells [22], and these patients are now prime candidates for trastuzumab (Herceptin, a monoclonal antibody against HER2), perstuzumab (Perjeta, a HER2 and HER3 dimerization inhibitor), and lapatinib (Tykerb, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor), as well as for other compounds directed against HER2 and/or downstream kinases (Table 2). Yet despite the apparent specificity of these drugs, some patients remain resistant to these treatments [23], mainly due to metastasis and receptor mutations, which reduces patient survival and increases tumor relapse [24]. Moreover, ~ 10% of metastatic luminal breast cancers metastasize to the brain, and in this case the only treatment options include chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery [12]. Therefore, the identification of markers during early stage therapy is also of fundamental importance.
Table 2

Examples of drugs used in HER2 breast cancer treatment

Drug name

Notes

Developmental stage

References

Trastuzumab (Herceptin)

Monoclonal antibody against HER2

FDA approved

[355360]

Ado trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1)

Bifunctional antibody-drug (trastuzumab linked to ematansine, DM1). Binds HER2 and inhibits microtubule assembly/disassembly

FDA approved

[361364]

Eetumaxomab

Monoclonal antibody with CD3 and HER2 recognition sites

Clinical trial

[365, 366]

Pertuzumab (Perjeta)

Recombinant humanized antibody against domain II of HER2

FDA approved

[284, 367, 368]

MM-111

Antibody against HER2-HER3 dimers

Clinical trial

[369, 370]

Lapatinib (Tykerb)

Irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor in luminal B cancers

FDA approved

[371, 372]

Afatinib

Irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor

Clinical trial

[373375]

Canertinib

Irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor

Clinical trial

[19, 376, 377]

Neratinib

Irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor, effective against EGFR, HER2, and HER4

Clinical trial

[378381]

Gefitinib

EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor

Clinical trial

[382, 383]

Erlotinib hydrochloride (Erlotinib)

Reversibly binds to the intracellular catalytic domain of EGFR; used also in TBNC cancers

Clinical trial

[383385]

Sapitinib

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor effective in luminal B resistant cells

Clinical trial

[380, 386]

Sorafenib

Blocks the enzyme RAF kinase, inhibiting cancer cell proliferation and autophagy induction

Clinical trial

[63, 387389]

Sildenafil citrate

Selectively inhibits cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP)-specific type 5 phosphodiesterase

Clinical trial

[63]

MM-121

Human monoclonal antibody against HER3

Clinical trial

[267, 390392]

MM-302

Doxorubicin encapsulated within liposomes, and conjugated to a monoclonal antibody against HER2. Inhibits HER2 and topoisomerase II

Clinical trial

[393, 394]

ARRAY-380

Reversible selective HER2 inhibitor

Clinical trial

[395]

TAK-285

HER2-EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor

HER2-positive breast cancer cells

[396399]

Everolimus (Afinitor)

Inhibitor of mTORC1 used both in luminal A and in HER2-positive tumors

FDA approved

[277279, 283]

Temsiroliums

Inhibitor of mTORC1 used in luminal A, TNBC, and HER2-positive tumors

Clinical trial

[331]

GDC-0941

PI3K inhibitor

Clinical trial

[400, 401]

SAR245408

PI3K inhibitor

Clinical trial

[402, 403]

17-AAG

Hsp90 inhibitor

Clinical trial

[404406]

Retaspinmycin (IPI-504)

Hsp90 inhibitor

Clinical trial

[406408]

Genetespib

Hsp90 inhibitor used in metastatic HER2 breast cancers

Clinical trial

[409412]

Pazopanib

inhibitor of VEGFRs able to inhibit Hsp90 ATPase activity

Clinical trial

[63, 413, 414]

SNX-2112

Hsp90 inhibitor, effective in HER2 and luminal B breast cancers

Clinical trial

[83, 280, 415]

Geldanamycin

Hsp90 inhibitor

HER2-positive breast cancer cells

[20, 109, 114116]

KIN001-51

HER3 binder, impairs dimerization

HER2-positive breast cancer cells

[416, 417]

TX1-85-1

Induces HER3 degradation by covalent binding to a residue in the receptor

HER2-positive breast cancer cells

[100, 383]

TX2-121-1

Derivate of TX1-85-1 linked to adamantane group. Induces HER3 degradation

HER2-positive breast cancer cells

[100, 383]

Patritumab (AMG 888)

Monoclonal antibody directed against the ligand-binding pocket of HER3

Clinical trial

[418]

MEHD7945A

Monoclonal antibody directed against EGFR and HER3

Clinical trial

[419, 420]

Pilaralisib

Pan-class I PI3K inhibitor

HER2-positive breast cancer cells

[224, 421]

liposomal paclitaxel

Inhibits tubulin assembly/disassembly

FDA approved

[224, 421, 422]

hydroxychloroquine

Autophagy inhibitor, suppresses lysosomal acidification

Clinical trial

[167, 225]

Eeyarestatins

p97 inhibitor

HER2-positive breast cancer cells

[81, 85]

NMS-873

p97 inhibitor

HER2-positive breast cancer cells

[81]

HA15

Inhibitor of BiP ATPase activity

HER2-positive breast cancer cells

[173]

Over the past several years, alternative approaches to treat breast cancer have been pursued, focusing on the regulation of protein homeostasis (“proteostasis”) and stress response pathways [2530]. These approaches include modulation of protein degradation pathways mediated by the proteasome and autophagy, and the regulation of cellular stress responses, with particular attention paid to the unfolded protein response (UPR).

The ubiquitin-proteasome pathway utilizes a cascade of E1 ubiquitin-activating enzymes, E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes, and E3 ubiquitin ligases [3134]. Once a protein substrate has acquired at least four ubiquitin species, the substrate is delivered to the 26S proteasome, which houses three unique protease activities to destroy protein substrates. Protein ubiquitylation can be reverted by a family of proteins called deubiquitylating enzymes (DUBs) that are involved in removing mono- and poly-ubiquitin chains from proteins, thereby changing the fates of their targets and maintaining the pool of free ubiquitin [3537]. In contrast, autophagy is a process in which damaged proteins are encapsulated and degraded in double-membrane structures, called autophagolysosomes [3842]. During canonical autophagy (formally called macroautophagy), an isolation membrane encloses a portion of the cytoplasm containing misfolded proteins, protein aggregates, and even organelles to form a vesicle called the autophagosome. The contents of the autophagosomes are degraded upon subsequent fusion with lysosomes [2, 3841, 43, 44].

The proteasome pathway has been effectively targeted in select cancers, primarily because protein folding is an inherently slow, energy expensive, and inefficient pathway. Therefore, each cellular compartment is equipped with a variety of molecular chaperones and folding enzymes that coordinate protein folding; however, if protein folding is delayed or compromised, aberrant proteins are instead targeted to the ubiquitin-proteasome system [4548]. Proteasome inhibitors such as carfilzomib (Kyprolis) and bortezomib (Velcade) are especially effective for the treatment of multiple myeloma [49, 50] because myeloma cells produce high levels of misfolded or unassembled immunoglobulin subunits [5155]. Also, due to their higher proliferation rate, cancer cells require increased levels of ATP for enhanced protein production and there is a heightened demand on cellular protein folding pathways. Cancer cells can also become hypoxic, hypoglycemic, and acidic, which perturbs cellular hemostasis and—in particular—secretory protein folding in the endoplasmic reticulum [28, 56, 57]. Moreover, most cancer cells contain DNA duplications, deletions, inversions, and translocations, as well as altered chromosome numbers (aneuploidy) [58], which alters the stoichiometries of protein complexes. Consequently, many proteins become “orphaned” and misfold [59, 60]. To overcome the ensuing onslaught of these misfolded proteins, cancer cells also overexpress multiple chaperones to maintain cellular homeostasis [33, 48, 6163].

In the remainder of this review, we will discuss the links between protein folding, degradation, and transport and breast cancer survival with an emphasis on the different mechanisms involved in controlling secretory protein folding. The highlighted mechanisms include the endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation (ERAD) pathway, the unfolded protein response (UPR), and the autophagy pathway (Fig. 1). Finally, we will emphasize critical areas for further research that may improve breast cancer treatments.
Fig. 1.

Schematic representation of secretory protein folding and quality control, the unfolded protein response pathway, and the heat shock response. In the endoplasmic reticulum, unfolded proteins (black lines) can be recognized and bound by chaperones, such as BiP (yellow circles). The increase in the concentration of BiP-unfolded protein complexes in the endoplasmic reticulum favors induction of the unfolded protein response (UPR). The UPR is regulated by ATF6 (light blue rectangle), PERK (green dimers), and IRE1 (orange dimers), which reside in the endoplasmic reticulum membrane. Upon activation, the UPR can increase cellular folding capacity by increasing chaperone synthesis, inducing endoplasmic reticulum expansion, and increasing the concentration of components of the endoplasmic reticulum associated degradation (ERAD) machinery. During ERAD, unfolded proteins in the endoplasmic reticulum are recognized, ubiquitylated by E3 ubiquitin ligases, and retrotranslocated via the action of p97 (blue circle), an AAA-ATPase, to the cytosol where they are degraded by the proteasome. Misfolded, aggregation-prone proteins, protein aggresomes, and damaged organelles can alternatively be targeted for autophagy via encapsulation in double membrane vesicles known as autophagosomes (light brown vesicles). LC3BII is an established marker of cellular autophagy and is associated with autophagosome membranes (light green circles), and proteins can be directed to autophagy degradation via HDAC6 (purple hexagon). Upon fusion with lysosomes (red vesicles), the material incorporated in the autophagolysosome is degraded (orange vesicles). In the absence of stress, HSF1, HSP90, HSP70, and HDAC6 can form a complex in the cytoplasm. During stress (for example, an increase in the concentration of unfolded protein or heat), HSF1 (orange rectangle) can translocate to the nucleus and induce the transcription of other proteins, like chaperones, to increase the cellular folding capacity. This is known as the heat shock response. At the same time, Hsp90 and Hsp70 (green and white rounded rectangles, respectively) are involved in cytoplasmic protein folding, dictating the fate of their clients. If the client fails to attain its final conformation, it will be ubiquitylated and degraded by the proteasome

Proteasome-mediated degradation as a possible therapeutic target

Approximately one-third of all proteins in eukaryotes are targeted to the endoplasmic reticulum [45, 46, 64]. Nevertheless, proteins entering this compartment—which represents the first step in the secretory pathway—may misfold due to stochastic errors in the folding pathway or as a result of cellular stress. Cellular attempts to temper protein toxicity in the secretory pathway are based on two different mechanisms: first, the UPR can be induced, which increases the chaperone reservoir in the endoplasmic reticulum and induces endoplasmic reticulum expansion, and second, misfolded proteins can be targeted for degradation to either the lysosome (via autophagy) or to the proteasome [31, 65, 66]. The process that targets unfolded proteins in the endoplasmic reticulum to the proteasome is known as endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation, or ERAD.

ERAD is a multistep pathway, and many of the components required for this event are induced by the UPR [66, 67]. ERAD substrates are selected by a pool of chaperones and lectins and, in the case of soluble luminal substrates, are partially transported across the membrane to expose their cytoplasmic domains, which allows for ubiquitylation [34, 36, 68, 69]. The acquisition of a poly-ubiquitin chain recruits the AAA+ ATPase p97, which “retrotranslocates” ERAD substrates from the endoplasmic reticulum [7073]. Once retrotranslocated, ubiquitylated substrates are degraded by the 26S proteasome. p97 is not only involved in ERAD substrate retrotranslocation but also modulates protein trafficking in the secretory pathway, mitochondrial-associated protein degradation, the degradation of aberrant ribosome-associated proteins, chromatin remodeling, and autophagy, each of which is also associated with cancer [7480]. Recently, HER2-positive breast cancer cells were shown to have elevated levels of p97, suggesting in one study that ERAD contributes to cancer cell survival [81]. Based on these data and the importance of p97 during the disposal of misfolded proteins, p97 inhibitors are being examined for possible therapeutic applications in cancer cells. The eeyrestatins (Eer I and II) were the first generation of p97 inhibitors and in several studies were shown to reduce ERAD efficiency [8285]. HER2-positive cells are more sensitive to both eeyarestatin and NMS-873, a refined p97 inhibitor, compared to other breast cancer cells that did not overexpress HER2 [81]. Recently a new p97 inhibitor was characterized (CB-5083) as a potential anti-cancer drug both in multiple myeloma and in various solid tumors, including lung and colorectal carcinoma [86]. Thus far, clinical trials using this compound in breast cancer patients have not yet begun.

Human epidermal growth factor receptors, or HER family members, are selected for endosomal sorting and lysosomal degradation from the plasma membrane, and as noted above the regulation of receptor numbers at the plasma membrane is crucial for cell survival [87, 88]. However, the levels of HER3 that ultimately reside at the plasma membrane are also regulated in the endoplasmic reticulum by ERAD in a p97-dependent manner. In fact, HER3 is ubiquitylated by an E3 ubiquitin ligase known as Nrdp1 in the endoplasmic reticulum [88, 89]. Nrdp1 also ubiquitylates HER3 at the plasma membrane, which is required for endocytosis and lysosomal sorting/degradation [88, 90, 91]. Consistent with the importance of properly regulating the levels of HER3-containing heterodimers, Nrdp1 is suppressed in 57% of breast cancer tissues [9294]. This E3 ubiquitin ligase also interacts with HER4 in breast cancer cells [95]. One study suggested that, after endoplasmic reticulum stress and UPR induction, Nrdp1 becomes trapped in tubular structures, which impairs HER3 degradation [96]. These data highlight how ERAD, plasma membrane protein degradation, and stress may be linked to signal transduction pathways and proteostasis in cancer cells.

Based on its central role in protein quality control, compromising other early steps in the proteasome-dependent degradation pathway might deplete cancer cells of their oncogenic signaling potential and provide another therapeutic route. To this end, PROTACs were developed, which are heterobifunctional molecules that contain a binding motif for the target of interest and for an E3 ubiquitin ligase. Addition of the molecule induces selective degradation of a target via the proteasome or, less frequently, via chaperone-mediated autophagy [8, 97]. For example, a PROTAC was used to downregulate ER levels in breast cancer cells. Here, the PROTAC was composed of a methyl-ester of bestatin, which binds the cellular inhibitor of apoptosis protein-1 (IAP) and is linked to 4-hydroxy tamoxifen (4-OHT), which binds ER [98]. Under normal conditions, estrogen binding to ER leads to receptor translocation to the nucleus where it activates transcription [99]. However, the PROTAC induced cIAP1-mediated ubiquitylation and proteasomal degradation of ER in MCF7 cells, triggering necrotic cell death [98]. PROTAC technology also successfully decreased HER3 levels in breast cancer cells [100]. In the immediate future, it will be exciting to observe the effects of PROTACs in other cancer models and in animal models. Even with recent successes, the delivery and bioavailability of PROTACs remain the largest hurdles prior to clinical trials.

Targeting the Hsp70 and Hsp90 molecular chaperones in breast cancer

The Hsp70 and Hsp90 heat shock proteins are among the most abundant and important house-keeping chaperones and are overexpressed in many cancers [61, 101103]. These chaperones bind and release protein substrates via a complex ATP-regulated cycle and play central roles in multi-protein assemblies that mediate each event during protein folding, degradation, and activation (Fig. 1). Based on the fact that cancers amass misfolded proteins, and because they are over-expressed in some breast cancers, Hsp70 and Hsp90 have been targeted in breast cancer [104107].

Hsp90 helps fold several oncogenic proteins, such as BRAF, HER2, AKT, and CREF [108110], and elevated Hsp90 correlates with decreased survival in breast cancer patients [111]. Therefore, inhibition or knock down of Hsp90 is a viable target for cancer therapy, especially in HER2-positive breast cancers. Normally, HER2 is degraded after ligand-induced endocytosis [112, 113] and after binding select drugs [19].

A class of compounds developed to treat HER2-positive breast cancers includes derivatives of the benzoquinoid ansamycin antibiotic geldanamycin (GA; Table 2), which bind and inactivate Hsp90 and, in turn, induce HER2 degradation [20, 114, 115]. Hsp90 interacts with HER2 at the plasma membrane [109], and GA treatment leads to rapid HER2 downregulation by mediating ubiquitiylation and degradation [19, 115, 116]. It is unclear whether Hsp90 stabilizes HER2-containing heterodimers or if Hsp90-HER2 binding favors faster recycling to the plasma membrane in breast cancer cells. However, lapatinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor used to treat HER2-positive breast cancers, binds inactive HER2 and inhibits Hsp90–HER2 association to the same extent as GA and another analog, 17-AAG (Table 2). These data suggest that Hsp90 may be directly involved in dimer stabilization. On the contrary, lapatinib treatment does not induce HER2 degradation after ubiquitylation, which can occur via the action of another E3 ligase, CHIP; therefore, Hsp90 prevents CHIP recruitment [117, 118]. Recently, it was reported that kinase inhibitors, such as sorafenib (Nexavarand) and pazopanib (Votrient) (Table 2), were linked to the inhibition of Hsp90 activity in HER2-positive breast cancer cells [63]. Together, these results suggest that modulating HER tyrosine kinase activity, in conjunction with Hsp90, may become a valuable, new therapeutic strategy in breast cancer.

Even though promising pre-clinical data have emerged in HER2-positive breast cancers after treatment with Hsp90 inhibitors, in clinical trials no clear efficacy was detected. In fact, Hsp90 inhibition usually induces compensatory effects, such as increased expression of other heat shock proteins (Hsp70 and Hsp27) and activation of an anti-apoptotic response [61, 119122]. In particular, upon Hsp90 inhibition, overexpression of Hsp27 was reported to modulate the oxidative stress response in cancer cells, and higher levels of Hsp70 were also detected, which helps block apoptosis induction and reduces the efficacy of Hsp90 inhibitors [120, 121]. Moreover, in patients Hsp90 inhibitor exposure is limited due to poor drug solubility and liver toxicity [25, 123].

One cellular Hsp90 partner is HSF1, a transcription factor involved in the cytoplasmic stress response (Fig. 1) [124, 125]. In the absence of stress, Hsp90 and other chaperones form a complex with HSF1 [125, 126]. However, Hsp90 inhibitors alter the composition of the HSF1-containing complex, which releases HSF1 and stimulates HSF1-activated transcription of heat shock proteins [125, 127]. As might be expected, then, HSF1 is associated with cancer progression [128]. To date, specific inhibitors of HSF1 have not been identified, but this represents an active area of research.

Cytosolic Hsp70 as well an ER lumenal Hsp70 homolog, BiP (or GRP78; see below), also play important roles in breast cancer, as well as in many other cancers. Hsp70 upregulation has been detected in different types of cancers, including endometrial cancer, osteosarcoma, and renal carcinoma [129, 130], and higher levels of Hsp70 are associated with metastasis and resistance to chemotherapy in glioblastoma and breast, endometrial, and cervical cancers [45, 131133]. Hsp70 overexpression correlates with TNBC metastasis in murine models and human breast cancer patients [24], but knock down of cytosolic Hsc70 (a constitutive Hsp70) or Hsp70 (the inducible Hsp70) in breast cancer lines exhibits distinct responses, probably due to the relative expression levels of the two chaperones [61, 134]. However, dual knock down of the chaperones increased Hsp90 client ubiquitylation, that is, HER2, in ovarian cancer, suggesting a role for Hsp70 inhibitors in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. Moreover, Hsp70 inhibition induces caspase-3 and PARP cleavage as well as sustained apoptosis in breast cancer cells [135]. The proposed mechanism by which Hsp70 inhibition triggers cancer cell death involves lysosomal membrane permeabilization [136138]. Notably, Hsp70 binds bis-monoacylglycerol-phosphate, a membrane-bound anionic phospholipid that predominantly localizes to the inner lysosomal membrane, which maintains lysosomal membrane stability and cell survival. In rhabdomyosarcoma, on the other hand, cancer cell death mediated by Hsp70 inhibition was linked to UPR induction [139].

The unfolded protein response in breast cancer: a protective pathway and a potential therapeutic target

As described above, the UPR is an adaptive mechanism that restores endoplasmic reticulum homeostasis [28, 30, 65]. There are three UPR branches that are coordinately activated in mammalian cells: the inositol-requiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), PKR-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) branches [28, 140] (Fig. 1). Under normal conditions, PERK, IRE1, and ATF6 are maintained in an inactive form in the endoplasmic reticulum membrane by binding to BiP (also known as glucose-regulated protein 78 (GRP78)), which also recognizes unfolded secretory proteins with exposed hydrophobic patches and helps target misfolded proteins for proteasomal degradation via the ERAD pathway [141143]. As described later, BiP is also an important therapeutic target in cancer. During endoplasmic reticulum stress, BiP is released from PERK, IRE1, and ATF6 and binds misfolded proteins that begin to accumulate [144]. As a result, PERK phosphorylates eIF2α, inhibiting protein translation and leading to the expression of activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4) [145]. Higher levels of ATF4 in turn increase the levels of CHOP, a pro-apoptotic transcription factor (also known as DDIT3) and growth arrest and DNA damage-inducible protein 34 (GADD34). Both ATF4 and CHOP also upregulate the transcription of autophagy-related genes (ATGs) [146] and, after a prolonged response, induce cell death [147, 148]. In contrast, ATF6 is transported to the Golgi during endoplasmic reticulum stress and is cleaved to liberate a soluble, active transcription factor that induces the production of chaperones and redox related proteins, including BiP, GRP94, PDIA4, and PDIA6 [149151]. Finally, the release of BiP from IRE1 favors receptor oligomerization and autophosphorylation. In addition to its kinase activity, IRE1 is an endonuclease that catalyzes splicing of the X-box binding protein 1 (XBP1) message. Once the message is spliced and translated, the resulting Xbp1 transcription factor activates the synthesis of chaperones, ERAD components, and inflammatory responsive genes [151153].

UPR induction can be either protective or deleterious for cell survival, depending on the cancer. In fact, the UPR can even act as a pro-tumorigenic signal, increasing tumor cell protein folding capacity and drug resistance [154]. However, prolonged endoplasmic reticulum stress activates cell death pathways, such as mitochondrial-associated apoptosis [155, 156] and CHOP-dependent cell death (see above) [144, 157, 158]. Examples of these disparate functions include the fact that high levels of Xbp1 are present in some breast cancer tissues, and a greater amount of the spliced XBP1-message correlates with poor prognosis in TNBCs [159, 160]. It is also known that HIF1α, the hypoxia-inducing factor 1α, is hyperactive in TNBCs [161, 162]. A genome-wide map of the Xbp1 regulatory network in TNBCs suggested that Xbp1 tumorigenicity is assisted by the formation of a complex with HIF1α [162]. Moreover, an analysis of independent cohorts of patients with TNBC revealed that a spliced XBP1 signature correlated with HIF1α and hypoxia-associated signatures, underlying the importance of the IRE1/Xbp1 signaling pathway in TNBC. In addition, depletion of Xbp1 in TNBC cell lines inhibits tumor growth and relapse [162].

Another example in which the UPR can be either a pro-survival or a cell death signal is in the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT). The EMT favors tumorigenesis and drug resistance in mammary gland tumors [163, 164]. In human tumor tissues, EMT gene expression correlates with PERK–eIF2α responsive genes, but not with other branches of the UPR [163].

Endocrine therapies (such as tamoxifen and fulvestrant; Table 1) remain a mainstay for the treatment of ER-positive breast cancer patients. Although there is an initial positive response of a ~ 70% reduction in tumor volume (in treated patients), acquired resistance is ultimately evident in about half of all patients [28]. Interestingly, a rapid “anticipatory” UPR that is independent of endoplasmic reticulum stress is induced upon ligand binding to ER. By contrast, long-term treatments with tamoxifen and fulvestrant cause endoplasmic reticulum stress and induce the UPR, promoting cancer survival and drug resistance in ER-positive breast cancers [165169].

Anti-estrogen-resistant breast cancer cell lines express elevated levels of BiP and Xbp1 [170172], suggesting that UPR induction contributes to therapy resistance. One compound, HA15, targets BiP, which is one of the most highly induced targets of the UPR and plays a central role in UPR signaling (see above; Fig. 1). HA15 is effective in a breast cancer cell line and in other tumors, such as melanomas, and kills these cells after inducting an endoplasmic reticulum stress response [173]. These and other studies indicate that modulation of BiP activity and the UPR should be further coopted as therapeutic targets.

As mentioned above, the initiation factor eIF2α is phosphorylated by PERK, which attenuates the synthesis of new proteins and reduces the concentration of unfolded proteins in the endoplasmic reticulum [145, 174]. However, eIF2α can also be phosphorylated by other kinases, such as GCN2 (general control non-depressible 2), PKR (interferon-inducible dsRNA-activated protein kinase), and HRI (heme-regulated inhibitory) [175178]. During induction of the integrate stress response (ISR)—which is a specialized form of the UPR—GCN2-dependent eIF2α phosphorylation occurs after amino acid starvation, which also induces ATF4 [179]. In this case, ATF4 enhances the expression of autophagy-requiring genes (for example ATG5, 7, and 10) that facilitate cellular recovery after starvation. Consistent with these data, GCN2 silencing decreases cancer cell survival after amino acid starvation and attenuates tumor growth in murine models [180]. Elevated levels of ATF4 also correlate with resistance to chemotherapeutic agents, including DNA damaging agents (ionizing radiation, aphidicolin, hydroxyurea, cytarabine, etoposide, doxorubicin, and mafosfamide), celecoxib (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug), and bortezomib, in different cancers [181186]. These data suggest that differential sensitivities to proteasome inhibitors, like bortezomib, in breast cancer and multiple myeloma could be due to selective activation/upregulation of UPR components. Together, the UPR and ISR enable cancer cells to integrate multiple stress stimuli into a common control mechanism, centering on eIF2α phosphorylation and, depending on the duration and magnitude of the stress, acting as either a pro- or anti-tumorigenic signal [30]. Consequently, studies on UPR modulation are ongoing in breast cancer cells as well as in other cancers. For example, a small molecule, BHPI, was used to demonstrate that hyperactivation of the PERK branch of the UPR blocks proliferation of ER-positive breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer cells due to persistent inhibition of protein synthesis [168, 187, 188].

BiP upregulation is a marker for drug resistance in breast cancer

The endoplasmic reticulum folding capacity is in part limited by the chaperone reservoir. The expression of chaperones like BiP, GRP94, and calreticulin are tightly regulated [45, 47, 189, 190]. BiP was first discovered as a glucose responsive protein (hence the alternative name, GRP78) as well as via its association with immunoglobulin heavy chain [191193]. In addition, as described above, BiP plays a crucial role during UPR induction [144, 194, 195]. BiP protein levels are normally maintained at moderate levels in adult tissues such as brain, lung, and heart, but this chaperone is strongly induced in breast, melanoma, colon, and adenocarcinoma cancer cells [196200]. In many cases, BiP expression is associated with poor prognosis and chemotherapy resistance [201205]. A retrospective study also examined if BiP can be used as a marker of chemotherapy resistance in tumors. As hypothesized, one-third of breast cancer patients have high levels of BiP before treatment, and the risk of recurrence was greater in chemotherapy-treated patients with moderate to high BiP levels [202].

Even though BiP is an endoplasmic reticulum resident, where it regulates the UPR and catalyzes protein folding and ERAD, recent studies demonstrate that this chaperone can also reside at the cell surface, as well as in the cytosol, mitochondria, and nucleus; these data and other results suggest that BiP performs a novel function to regulate cell proliferation, invasion, and apoptosis [206208]. More generally, a cell surface proteomic analysis of tumor cells confirmed that several cytosolic heat shock proteins and endoplasmic reticulum chaperones, like BiP, reside on the extracellular surface of the plasma membrane, suggesting that chaperone relocation may be an adaptive response to stress induced by perturbations in proteostasis [38, 208]. Moreover, cell surface-resident BiP is more abundant in pancreatic and breast cancers [208].

The extracellular pool of BiP is associated with specific membrane glycoproteins and its amount is enriched after ER stress [209, 210]. As anticipated for a bona fide chaperone-based interaction, the substrate-binding site in BiP is required to interact with these partners [208]. However, the mechanism by which BiP translocates to the extracellular face of the plasma membrane is unclear. Nevertheless, UPR induction favors BiP secretion, possibly due to its overexpression, which in turn may overwhelm the machinery that retains proteins in the secretory pathway [211].

Several studies have demonstrated that BiP also binds BIK, a pro-apoptotic member of the Bcl2 family, impairing apoptotic cell death in ER-positive tumors [212]. The pro-apoptotic Bcl2 family members facilitate the release of cytochrome c from the mitochondrial membrane to the cytosol, which induces the apoptotic cascade [213215]. In contrast to other pro-apoptotic Bcl2 members that reside in the mitochondria, BIK is an endoplasmic reticulum membrane protein and does not interact directly with pro-apoptotic family members, such as BAX and BAK [214, 216]. BIK plays a critical role in promoting estrogen starvation or anti-estrogen-mediated cell death in human breast cancer cells [217], and BIK knock down impairs estrogen starvation-induced cell death in MCF7 cells [212]. Recent studies suggest that BiP upregulation suppresses BIK activity by inhibiting the apoptotic response after anti-estrogen therapies in ER-positive breast cancer [212, 218]. For this reason, the development of specific BiP inhibitors represents an important goal. In fact, a natural product of the naphthoquinone family, plumbagin, was identified that initiates cell death in ER-positive breast cancer cells by upregulating BIK levels [219, 220]. Plumbagin-mediated BiP inhibition also sensitized breast cancer cells to tamoxifen-mediated cell death. In addition, BiP knock down impaired the plumbagin-mediated increase in Bik, suggesting an inhibitory role of this compound on BiP-mediated downregulation of BIK in breast cancers [220]. Overall, BiP is emerging as a novel target to predict cancer outcomes and therapeutic options [209, 221223].

The role of autophagy in breast cancer

As outlined in the preceding sections, the autophagy pathway degrades misfolded and aggregating proteins in the cytoplasm, thereby helping to maintain cellular homeostasis after cellular stress. Autophagy also provides a mechanism to replenish cellular energy stores during starvation [3844, 224]. The autophagy pathway is associated with a variety of processes such as tumor suppression, aging, development, and microorganism elimination [41, 45]. The dependence of cancer cells on autophagy is dictated in part by the nature and the length of the stress [225]. For example, UPR induction together with autophagy upregulation are linked to endocrine tumor therapy resistance [158, 170, 226228]. More specifically, autophagy inhibition increases the anti-estrogen response in tumors [166, 167, 229233], and UPR induction promotes autophagy [146, 234, 235]. In addition, UPR induction, and in particular PERK activation, increases eIF2α phosphorylation and the translation of select mRNAs, like ATF4 [236238]. ATF4 then triggers the expression of genes involved in the ISR as well as those required for autophagy [178, 184, 239241] (also see above).

Several studies have demonstrated that lapatinib- or trastuzumab-resistant HER2-positive cancer cell lines can be obtained by upregulating the autophagy pathway [242, 243]. Interestingly, ATG12, a protein required for autophagosome elongation, was induced in HER2-positive resistant cells and its downregulation compromised acquired resistance [243, 244]. Up-regulation of ATG5, which is covalently attached to ATG12 during autophagy, also facilitated lapatinib resistance in HER2-positive cells [245]. Therefore, inhibition of these autophagic components might sensitize HER2-positive cancer cells to established treatments.

Autophagy also plays an important role during metastases in neoplastic breast cancer [246, 247]. Chloroquine and chloroquine derivatives (which inhibit autophagolysosome formation), as well as Bcl2 inhibitors (which inhibit early steps in the autophagy pathway), are currently in clinical trials to treat metastatic/invasive breast cancer, ductal carcinomas, and HER2-positive cancers [248250].

Recently, a correlation between autophagy and the expression of Runx2, a Runt-related transcription factor involved in cell survival during metabolic stress and breast cancer progression, was uncovered [247]. Runx2 promotes the metastatic spread of mammary tumors to the bone, which is a recurrent location for TNBC and luminal breast cancer metastasis [251]. Indeed, aberrant Runx2 expression in metastatic breast cancers altered the activity of PI3K, mTORC1, and AMPK, which function as upstream modulators of autophagy [251255]. Misregulation of PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathways is often associated with endocrine resistance in ER-positive breast cancers [3]. As might be anticipated, then, Runx2 knock down in a breast cancer cell line reduced metastatic dissemination, suggesting a link between Runx2 and autophagy [247].

A microtubule associated deacetylase, known as HDAC6, has also been suggested to link Runx2 and autophagosome formation/lysosomal fusion [247]. HDAC6 binds polyubiquitylated, misfolded proteins and couples them to the dynein motor complex, facilitating the trafficking of aggregated proteins to autophagosomes [235, 256]. In the absence of stress, HDAC6 is associated with p97, Hsp90, and HSF1 (Fig. 1) [126]. In turn, p97 function is associated with HDAC6-dependent fusion of aggresomes—which are microtubule-associated clusters of ubiquitylated and aggregated proteins—with autophagosomes [257, 258]. Based on its protein “segragase” activity, p97 dissociates HDAC6 from polyubiquitylated proteins and regulates HDAC6 shuttling, governing both proteasome- and autophagy-dependent clearance of misfolded proteins [259261]. In solid tumors, such as breast cancer, the use of a proteasome inhibitor has minimal effect [262, 263]. However, in other cancers, such as multiple myeloma, inhibition of both proteasome activity and HDAC6 using tubacin synergistically promote cell death through the accumulation of toxic polyubiquitylated protein aggregates [256, 264, 265]. These data suggest again that inhibition of both proteasome and autophagy-mediated degradation could be beneficial in some cancers.

Consistent with this view, treatment with the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib in a breast cancer cell line increased the levels of LC3B, a marker of autophagy, at both the protein and mRNA levels [235]. However, ATF4 knock-down limited LC3B induction after bortezomib treatment, confirming the importance of ATF4 as a mediator of the compensatory response in ER-positive cancer cells. In turn, HDAC6 is also linked to bortezomib resistance in MCF7 cells: Knock down of HDAC6 led to a synergistic effect on MCF7 cell death after bortezomib treatment [164, 266]. These data indicate that HDAC6 may be an important therapeutic target when proteasome activity is impaired. As new and improved inhibitors of the proteasome come on-line, synergistic effects of these compounds with specific HDAC6 inhibitors—and other autophagy inhibitors—should be assessed for their efficacy in breast cancer cells [267, 268].

Open questions and new therapeutic approaches in breast cancer

Based on emerging discoveries from basic research programs and from clinical trials, it is clear that protein quality control and stress response pathways are crucial for cancer cell survival. Therefore, the targeting of these pathways will not only improve patient treatment but also help answer fundamental questions related to cancer biology. To this end, novel compounds that modulate proteostasis pathways and cellular stress responses, such as the UPR, are currently being evaluated in cell and rodent models [14, 27, 29, 30, 80, 269, 270].

Even with these recent developments, numerous questions remain. For example, the sensitivity of different cancers (even within distinct cancer sub-types) to proteasome inhibitors is quite heterogeneous, and in some cases the lack of a correlation between preclinical models and patient outcomes remains mysterious [269]. Thus, it is vital that we define the factors and pathways that give rise to these phenomena. It is also important to identify novel biomarkers that predict drug efficacy, and in particular the efficacy of proteasome inhibitors [29]. One such biomarker might be the extent of autophagy induction, as discussed above, and studies with solid tumors suggest that autophagy is a source of bortezomib resistance [271, 272].

A second question relates to the dual role of UPR induction as either a pro-survival or a pro-death signal in cancer [146, 184, 241]. The recently discovered anticipatory UPR, which can be induced by ER signaling in breast cancer cells, is an intriguing candidate pathway to treat ER-positive breast cancer patients. At the same time, however, patients treated with endocrine therapies might not benefit from this potential treatment.

Nevertheless, induction of the PERK branch of the UPR is associated with increased autophagy [239241]. These data suggest that a combination of proteasome and PERK inhibitors, which place an increased burden on the proteasome, may sensitize tumors to canonical treatments. This would also allow for lower drug dosages, which may help avoid potential side effects and decrease the likelihood of drug-resistant point mutations in HER and ER [30]. However, it is unknown if blocking UPR-induced autophagy or inhibiting upstream UPR effectors will prove more effective. Regardless, combinatorial treatments remain the best option to avoid cancer cell resistance and cancer relapse [273], especially since most therapeutic treatments for HER2-positive breast cancers (radiotherapy, chemotherapy and HER2 inhibitors) activate autophagy [249, 250].

A third question is why markers to predict chemotherapy or radiotherapy effectiveness have not been fully verified [220]. However, as outlined in this review, cell surface BiP is a prime candidate to predict chemotherapy effectiveness. On the contrary, increased expression of BiP in neuroblastoma patients correlates with longer survival [274]. These contradictory findings in human clinical samples highlight the necessity for further studies on the role of BiP in different tumorigenic contexts. It is also important to consider whether induction of intra- versus extracellular BiP hint at different outcomes. Another problem in identifying biomarkers is that metastasis formation can occur at early stages or during late stage tumor development [275, 276]. Metastases arising from late stage primary tumors are more heterogeneous, which favors chemotherapeutic resistance.

Finally, it is worth noting that drug discovery efforts and clinical trials to modulate the activity of distinct components of the “proteostatis network”, including components of the proteasome-ubiquitin machinery, Hsp90, p97, and the autophagy pathway are in progress [86, 267, 268, 270, 277286]. When combined with standard and emerging therapies for each breast cancer cell sub-class, we envision that synergistic effects to improve clinical outcomes for patients will then become evident [8, 224, 287, 288].

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors give a special thanks to Dr. Amit Sabnis for his comments on the manuscript.

Related work in the Brodsky lab is supported by National Institutes of Health grants GM75061 and DK79307. S.S. acknowledges the receipt of a long-term EMBO post-doctoral fellowship (ALTF 823-2016).

Authors’ contribution

Both the authors have read and agreed on the content of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh

References

  1. Kohler BA, Sherman RL, Howlader N, Jemal A, Ryerson AB, Henry KA, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2011, featuring incidence of breast cancer subtypes by race/ethnicity, poverty, and state. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(6):djv048.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406(6797):747–52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Cancer Genome Atlas N. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2012;490(7418):61–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Howell A, Howell SJ, Evans DG. New approaches to the endocrine prevention and treatment of breast cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2003;52 Suppl 1:S39–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Cyrus K, Wehenkel M, Choi EY, Swanson H, Kim KB. Two-headed PROTAC: an effective new tool for targeted protein degradation. Chembiochem. 2010;11(11):1531–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Jordan VC. Antiestrogens and selective estrogen receptor modulators as multifunctional medicines. 1. Receptor interactions. J Med Chem. 2003;46(6):883–908.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Jordan VC. The new biology of estrogen-induced apoptosis applied to treat and prevent breast cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2015;22(1):R1–31.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Bondeson DP, Crews CM. Targeted protein degradation by small molecules. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2017;57:107–23.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Wakeling AE, Dukes M, Bowler J. A potent specific pure antiestrogen with clinical potential. Cancer Res. 1991;51(15):3867–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dauvois S, White R, Parker MG. The antiestrogen ICI 182780 disrupts estrogen receptor nucleocytoplasmic shuttling. J Cell Sci. 1993;106(Pt 4):1377–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Wittmann BM, Sherk A, McDonnell DP. Definition of functionally important mechanistic differences among selective estrogen receptor down-regulators. Cancer Res. 2007;67(19):9549–60.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Jankowitz RC, Oesterreich S, Lee AV, Davidson NE. New strategies in metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: searching for biomarkers to tailor endocrine and other targeted therapies. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(5):1126–31.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative G, Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Clarke M, Cutter D, et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378(9793):771–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke R, Tyson JJ, Dixon JM. Endocrine resistance in breast cancer--An overview and update. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2015;418(Pt 3):220–34.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Odiete O, Hill MF, Sawyer DB. Neuregulin in cardiovascular development and disease. Circ Res. 2012;111(10):1376–85.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Bertelsen V, Stang E. The mysterious ways of ErbB2/HER2 trafficking. Membranes (Basel). 2014;4(3):424–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilboa L, Ben-Levy R, Yarden Y, Henis YI. Roles for a cytoplasmic tyrosine and tyrosine kinase activity in the interactions of Neu receptors with coated pits. J Biol Chem. 1995;270(13):7061–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Harari D, Yarden Y. Molecular mechanisms underlying ErbB2/HER2 action in breast cancer. Oncogene. 2000;19(53):6102–14.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Citri A, Alroy I, Lavi S, Rubin C, Xu W, Grammatikakis N, et al. Drug-induced ubiquitylation and degradation of ErbB receptor tyrosine kinases: implications for cancer therapy. EMBO J. 2002;21(10):2407–17.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Citri A, Kochupurakkal BS, Yarden Y. The achilles heel of ErbB-2/HER2: regulation by the Hsp90 chaperone machine and potential for pharmacological intervention. Cell Cycle. 2004;3(1):51–60.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Garrett TP, McKern NM, Lou M, Elleman TC, Adams TE, Lovrecz GO, et al. The crystal structure of a truncated ErbB2 ectodomain reveals an active conformation, poised to interact with other ErbB receptors. Mol Cell. 2003;11(2):495–505.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee-Hoeflich ST, Crocker L, Yao E, Pham T, Munroe X, Hoeflich KP, et al. A central role for HER3 in HER2-amplified breast cancer: implications for targeted therapy. Cancer Res. 2008;68(14):5878–87.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Salami J, Crews CM. Waste disposal--an attractive strategy for cancer therapy. Science. 2017;355(6330):1163–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Sun B, Zhang S, Zhang D, Li Y, Zhao X, Luo Y, et al. Identification of metastasis-related proteins and their clinical relevance to triple-negative human breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(21):7050–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang X, Chen M, Zhou J, Zhang X. HSP27, 70 and 90, anti-apoptotic proteins, in clinical cancer therapy. Int J Oncol. 2014;45(1):18–30.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Shajahan AN, Riggins RB, Clarke R. The role of X-box binding protein-1 in tumorigenicity. Drug News Perspect. 2009;22(5):241–6.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Rajapaksa G, Nikolos F, Bado I, Clarke R, Gustafsson JA, Thomas C. ERbeta decreases breast cancer cell survival by regulating the IRE1/XBP-1 pathway. Oncogene. 2015;34(31):4130–41.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Clarke R, Cook KL. Unfolding the role of stress response signaling in endocrine resistant breast cancers. Front Oncol. 2015;5:140.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. McConkey DJ. The integrated stress response and proteotoxicity in cancer therapy. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2017;482(3):450–3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Ojha R, Amaravadi RK. Targeting the unfolded protein response in cancer. Pharmacol Res. 2017;120:258–66.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Vembar SS, Brodsky JL. One step at a time: endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008;9(12):944–57.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Finley D. Recognition and processing of ubiquitin-protein conjugates by the proteasome. Annu Rev Biochem. 2009;78:477–513.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Tsai YC, Weissman AM. Ubiquitylation in ERAD: reversing to go forward? PLoS Biol. 2011;9(3), e1001038.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Olzmann JA, Kopito RR, Christianson JC. The mammalian endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation system. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2013;5(9):a013185.Google Scholar
  35. Lam YA, Xu W, DeMartino GN, Cohen RE. Editing of ubiquitin conjugates by an isopeptidase in the 26S proteasome. Nature. 1997;385(6618):737–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Preston GM, Brodsky JL. The evolving role of ubiquitin modification in endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation. Biochem J. 2017;474(4):445–69.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Haq S, Ramakrishna S. Deubiquitylation of deubiquitylases. Open Biol. 2017;7(6):170016.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Shintani T, Klionsky DJ. Autophagy in health and disease: a double-edged sword. Science. 2004;306(5698):990–5.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Klionsky DJ. Autophagy. Curr Biol. 2005;15(8):R282–3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Klionsky DJ. Autophagy: from phenomenology to molecular understanding in less than a decade. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007;8(11):931–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Mizushima N, Klionsky DJ. Protein turnover via autophagy: implications for metabolism. Annu Rev Nutr. 2007;27:19–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Mizushima N. The exponential growth of autophagy-related research: from the humble yeast to the Nobel Prize. FEBS Lett. 2017;591(5):681–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Cuervo AM. Autophagy: many paths to the same end. Mol Cell Biochem. 2004;263(1):55–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Levine B, Klionsky DJ. Development by self-digestion: molecular mechanisms and biological functions of autophagy. Dev Cell. 2004;6(4):463–77.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Ellgaard L, Helenius A. Quality control in the endoplasmic reticulum. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2003;4(3):181–91.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Sitia R, Braakman I. Quality control in the endoplasmic reticulum protein factory. Nature. 2003;426(6968):891–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Anelli T, Sitia R. Protein quality control in the early secretory pathway. EMBO J. 2008;27(2):315–27.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Guerriero CJ, Brodsky JL. The delicate balance between secreted protein folding and endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation in human physiology. Physiol Rev. 2012;92(2):537–76.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Cavo M, Tacchetti P, Patriarca F, Petrucci MT, Pantani L, Galli M, et al. Bortezomib with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a randomised phase 3 study. Lancet. 2010;376(9758):2075–85.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Dimopoulos MA, Goldschmidt H, Niesvizky R, Joshua D, Chng WJ, Oriol A, et al. Carfilzomib or bortezomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): an interim overall survival analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(10):1327–37.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Hideshima T, Chauhan D, Ishitsuka K, Yasui H, Raje N, Kumar S, et al. Molecular characterization of PS-341 (bortezomib) resistance: implications for overcoming resistance using lysophosphatidic acid acyltransferase (LPAAT)-beta inhibitors. Oncogene. 2005;24(19):3121–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Stessman HA, Baughn LB, Sarver A, Xia T, Deshpande R, Mansoor A, et al. Profiling bortezomib resistance identifies secondary therapies in a mouse myeloma model. Mol Cancer Ther. 2013;12(6):1140–50.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Stessman HA, Mansoor A, Zhan F, Linden MA, Van Ness B, Baughn LB. Bortezomib resistance can be reversed by induced expression of plasma cell maturation markers in a mouse in vitro model of multiple myeloma. PLoS One. 2013;8(10), e77608.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Huang X, Dixit VM. Drugging the undruggables: exploring the ubiquitin system for drug development. Cell Res. 2016;26(4):484–98.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Raedler LA. Kyprolis (carfilzomib) received new indications as combination therapy for use in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2016;9(Spec Feature):93–6.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Clarke HJ, Chambers JE, Liniker E, Marciniak SJ. Endoplasmic reticulum stress in malignancy. Cancer Cell. 2014;25(5):563–73.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Kim H, Bhattacharya A, Qi L. Endoplasmic reticulum quality control in cancer: friend or foe. Semin Cancer Biol. 2015;33:25–33.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Williams BR, Amon A. Aneuploidy: cancer's fatal flaw? Cancer Res. 2009;69(13):5289–91.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Weaver BA, Cleveland DW. Decoding the links between mitosis, cancer, and chemotherapy: The mitotic checkpoint, adaptation, and cell death. Cancer Cell. 2005;8(1):7–12.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Deshais MA, Fisher AB, Hausman NL, Kahng S. Further investigation of a rapid restraint analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 2015;48(4):845–59.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Powers MV, Clarke PA, Workman P. Death by chaperone: HSP90, HSP70 or both? Cell Cycle. 2009;8(4):518–26.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Lanneau D, Wettstein G, Bonniaud P, Garrido C. Heat shock proteins: cell protection through protein triage. ScientificWorldJournal. 2010;10:1543–52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Booth L, Roberts JL, Ecroyd H, Tritsch SR, Bavari S, Reid SP, et al. AR-12 inhibits multiple chaperones concomitant with stimulating autophagosome formation collectively preventing virus replication. J Cell Physiol. 2016;231(10):2286–302.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Anelli T, Sannino S, Sitia R. Proteostasis and "redoxtasis" in the secretory pathway: Tales of tails from ERp44 and immunoglobulins. Free Radic Biol Med. 2015;83:323–30.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Ron D, Walter P. Signal integration in the endoplasmic reticulum unfolded protein response. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007;8(7):519–29.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith MH, Ploegh HL, Weissman JS. Road to ruin: targeting proteins for degradation in the endoplasmic reticulum. Science. 2011;334(6059):1086–90.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Raasi S, Wolf DH. Ubiquitin receptors and ERAD: a network of pathways to the proteasome. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2007;18(6):780–91.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Kostova Z, Wolf DH. For whom the bell tolls: protein quality control of the endoplasmic reticulum and the ubiquitin-proteasome connection. EMBO J. 2003;22(10):2309–17.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. McCaffrey K, Braakman I. Protein quality control at the endoplasmic reticulum. Essays Biochem. 2016;60(2):227–35.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Ye Y, Meyer HH, Rapoport TA. The AAA ATPase Cdc48/p97 and its partners transport proteins from the ER into the cytosol. Nature. 2001;414(6864):652–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhong X, Shen Y, Ballar P, Apostolou A, Agami R, Fang S. AAA ATPase p97/valosin-containing protein interacts with gp78, a ubiquitin ligase for endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(44):45676–84.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Ye Y, Shibata Y, Kikkert M, van Voorden S, Wiertz E, Rapoport TA. Recruitment of the p97 ATPase and ubiquitin ligases to the site of retrotranslocation at the endoplasmic reticulum membrane. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(40):14132–8.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Christianson JC, Olzmann JA, Shaler TA, Sowa ME, Bennett EJ, Richter CM, et al. Defining human ERAD networks through an integrative mapping strategy. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;14(1):93–105.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Ju JS, Fuentealba RA, Miller SE, Jackson E, Piwnica-Worms D, Baloh RH, et al. Valosin-containing protein (VCP) is required for autophagy and is disrupted in VCP disease. J Cell Biol. 2009;187(6):875–88.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Ju JS, Weihl CC. p97/VCP at the intersection of the autophagy and the ubiquitin proteasome system. Autophagy. 2010;6(2):283–5.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Heo JM, Livnat-Levanon N, Taylor EB, Jones KT, Dephoure N, Ring J, et al. A stress-responsive system for mitochondrial protein degradation. Mol Cell. 2010;40(3):465–80.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Wang Y, Ballar P, Zhong Y, Zhang X, Liu C, Zhang YJ, et al. SVIP induces localization of p97/VCP to the plasma and lysosomal membranes and regulates autophagy. PLoS One. 2011;6(8), e24478.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Chapman E, Fry AN, Kang M. The complexities of p97 function in health and disease. Mol Biosyst. 2011;7(3):700–10.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Verma R, Oania RS, Kolawa NJ, Deshaies RJ. Cdc48/p97 promotes degradation of aberrant nascent polypeptides bound to the ribosome. Elife. 2013;2, e00308.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Vekaria PH, Home T, Weir S, Schoenen FJ, Rao R. Targeting p97 to disrupt protein homeostasis in cancer. Front Oncol. 2016;6:181.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  81. Singh N, Joshi R, Komurov K. HER2-mTOR signaling-driven breast cancer cells require ER-associated degradation to survive. Sci Signal. 2015;8(378):ra52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Fiebiger E, Hirsch C, Vyas JM, Gordon E, Ploegh HL, Tortorella D. Dissection of the dislocation pathway for type I membrane proteins with a new small molecule inhibitor, eeyarestatin. Mol Biol Cell. 2004;15(4):1635–46.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Wang Q, Shinkre BA, Lee JG, Weniger MA, Liu Y, Chen W, et al. The ERAD inhibitor Eeyarestatin I is a bifunctional compound with a membrane-binding domain and a p97/VCP inhibitory group. PLoS One. 2010;5(11), e15479.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Cross BC, McKibbin C, Callan AC, Roboti P, Piacenti M, Rabu C, et al. Eeyarestatin I inhibits Sec61-mediated protein translocation at the endoplasmic reticulum. J Cell Sci. 2009;122(Pt 23):4393–400.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. Wang Q, Li L, Ye Y. Inhibition of p97-dependent protein degradation by Eeyarestatin I. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(12):7445–54.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Anderson DJ, Le Moigne R, Djakovic S, Kumar B, Rice J, Wong S, et al. Targeting the AAA ATPase p97 as an approach to treat cancer through disruption of protein homeostasis. Cancer Cell. 2015;28(5):653–65.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Mosesson Y, Mills GB, Yarden Y. Derailed endocytosis: an emerging feature of cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8(11):835–50.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Fry WH, Simion C, Sweeney C, Carraway 3rd KL. Quantity control of the ErbB3 receptor tyrosine kinase at the endoplasmic reticulum. Mol Cell Biol. 2011;31(14):3009–18.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Qiu XB, Goldberg AL. Nrdp1/FLRF is a ubiquitin ligase promoting ubiquitination and degradation of the epidermal growth factor receptor family member, ErbB3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99(23):14843–8.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  90. Cao Z, Wu X, Yen L, Sweeney C, Carraway 3rd KL. Neuregulin-induced ErbB3 downregulation is mediated by a protein stability cascade involving the E3 ubiquitin ligase Nrdp1. Mol Cell Biol. 2007;27(6):2180–8.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  91. Ingalla EQ, Miller JK, Wald JH, Workman HC, Kaur RP, Yen L, et al. Post-transcriptional mechanisms contribute to the suppression of the ErbB3 negative regulator protein Nrdp1 in mammary tumors. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(37):28691–7.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  92. Holbro T, Beerli RR, Maurer F, Koziczak M, Barbas 3rd CF, Hynes NE. The ErbB2/ErbB3 heterodimer functions as an oncogenic unit: ErbB2 requires ErbB3 to drive breast tumor cell proliferation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(15):8933–8.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  93. Yen L, Cao Z, Wu X, Ingalla ER, Baron C, Young LJ, et al. Loss of Nrdp1 enhances ErbB2/ErbB3-dependent breast tumor cell growth. Cancer Res. 2006;66(23):11279–86.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  94. Stern DF. ERBB3/HER3 and ERBB2/HER2 duet in mammary development and breast cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2008;13(2):215–23.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  95. Carraway 3rd KL. E3 ubiquitin ligases in ErbB receptor quantity control. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2010;21(9):936–43.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  96. Hatakeyama J, Wald JH, Rafidi H, Cuevas A, Sweeney C, Carraway 3rd KL. The ER structural protein Rtn4A stabilizes and enhances signaling through the receptor tyrosine kinase ErbB3. Sci Signal. 2016;9(434):ra65.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Neklesa TK, Winkler JD, Crews CM. Targeted protein degradation by PROTACs. Pharmacol Ther. 2017;174:138–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  98. Okuhira K, Demizu Y, Hattori T, Ohoka N, Shibata N, Kurihara M, et al. Molecular design, synthesis, and evaluation of SNIPER(ER) that induces proteasomal degradation of ERalpha. Methods Mol Biol. 2016;1366:549–60.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  99. Valley CC, Metivier R, Solodin NM, Fowler AM, Mashek MT, Hill L, et al. Differential regulation of estrogen-inducible proteolysis and transcription by the estrogen receptor alpha N terminus. Mol Cell Biol. 2005;25(13):5417–28.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  100. Xie T, Lim SM, Westover KD, Dodge ME, Ercan D, Ficarro SB, et al. Pharmacological targeting of the pseudokinase Her3. Nat Chem Biol. 2014;10(12):1006–12.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  101. Luo J, Solimini NL, Elledge SJ. Principles of cancer therapy: oncogene and non-oncogene addiction. Cell. 2009;136(5):823–37.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  102. Donnelly N, Storchova Z. Aneuploidy and proteotoxic stress in cancer. Mol Cell Oncol. 2015;2(2), e976491.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  103. Calderwood SK, Gong J. Heat shock proteins promote cancer: it's a protection racket. Trends Biochem Sci. 2016;41(4):311–23.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  104. Workman P, Clarke PA, Al-Lazikani B. Blocking the survival of the nastiest by HSP90 inhibition. Oncotarget. 2016;7(4):3658–61.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  105. Powers MV, Valenti M, Miranda S, Maloney A, Eccles SA, Thomas G, et al. Mode of cell death induced by the HSP90 inhibitor 17-AAG (tanespimycin) is dependent on the expression of pro-apoptotic BAX. Oncotarget. 2013;4(11):1963–75.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  106. Patel PD, Yan P, Seidler PM, Patel HJ, Sun W, Yang C, et al. Paralog-selective Hsp90 inhibitors define tumor-specific regulation of HER2. Nat Chem Biol. 2013;9(11):677–84.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  107. Schopf FH, Biebl MM, Buchner J. The HSP90 chaperone machinery. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2017;18(6):345–60.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  108. Basso AD, Solit DB, Chiosis G, Giri B, Tsichlis P, Rosen N. Akt forms an intracellular complex with heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) and Cdc37 and is destabilized by inhibitors of Hsp90 function. J Biol Chem. 2002;277(42):39858–66.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  109. Xu W, Yuan X, Xiang Z, Mimnaugh E, Marcu M, Neckers L. Surface charge and hydrophobicity determine ErbB2 binding to the Hsp90 chaperone complex. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2005;12(2):120–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  110. Whitesell L, Lindquist SL. HSP90 and the chaperoning of cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5(10):761–72.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  111. Pick E, Kluger Y, Giltnane JM, Moeder C, Camp RL, Rimm DL, et al. High HSP90 expression is associated with decreased survival in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2007;67(7):2932–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  112. Brennan PJ, Kumagai T, Berezov A, Murali R, Greene MI. HER2/neu: mechanisms of dimerization/oligomerization. Oncogene. 2000;19(53):6093–101.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  113. Colomer R, Montero S, Lluch A, Ojeda B, Barnadas A, Casado A, et al. Circulating HER2 extracellular domain and resistance to chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6(6):2356–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. Mimnaugh EG, Chavany C, Neckers L. Polyubiquitination and proteasomal degradation of the p185c-erbB-2 receptor protein-tyrosine kinase induced by geldanamycin. J Biol Chem. 1996;271(37):22796–801.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  115. Marx C, Held JM, Gibson BW, Benz CC. ErbB2 trafficking and degradation associated with K48 and K63 polyubiquitination. Cancer Res. 2010;70(9):3709–17.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  116. Xu W, Marcu M, Yuan X, Mimnaugh E, Patterson C, Neckers L. Chaperone-dependent E3 ubiquitin ligase CHIP mediates a degradative pathway for c-ErbB2/Neu. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99(20):12847–52.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  117. Kim S, Zhang S, Choi KH, Reister R, Do C, Baykiz AF, et al. An E3 ubiquitin ligase, Really Interesting New Gene (RING) Finger 41, is a candidate gene for anxiety-like behavior and beta-carboline-induced seizures. Biol Psychiatry. 2009;65(5):425–31.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  118. Scaltriti M, Verma C, Guzman M, Jimenez J, Parra JL, Pedersen K, et al. Lapatinib, a HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, induces stabilization and accumulation of HER2 and potentiates trastuzumab-dependent cell cytotoxicity. Oncogene. 2009;28(6):803–14.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  119. Voellmy R, Boellmann F. Chaperone regulation of the heat shock protein response. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2007;594:89–99.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  120. McCollum AK, Teneyck CJ, Sauer BM, Toft DO, Erlichman C. Up-regulation of heat shock protein 27 induces resistance to 17-allylamino-demethoxygeldanamycin through a glutathione-mediated mechanism. Cancer Res. 2006;66(22):10967–75.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  121. Guo F, Rocha K, Bali P, Pranpat M, Fiskus W, Boyapalle S, et al. Abrogation of heat shock protein 70 induction as a strategy to increase antileukemia activity of heat shock protein 90 inhibitor 17-allylamino-demethoxy geldanamycin. Cancer Res. 2005;65(22):10536–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  122. Sidera K, Patsavoudi E. HSP90 inhibitors: current development and potential in cancer therapy. Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov. 2014;9(1):1–20.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  123. Wu J, Liu T, Rios Z, Mei Q, Lin X, Cao S. Heat shock proteins and cancer. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2017;38(3):226–56.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  124. Zou J, Guo Y, Guettouche T, Smith DF, Voellmy R. Repression of heat shock transcription factor HSF1 activation by HSP90 (HSP90 complex) that forms a stress-sensitive complex with HSF1. Cell. 1998;94(4):471–80.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  125. Ali A, Bharadwaj S, O'Carroll R, Ovsenek N. HSP90 interacts with and regulates the activity of heat shock factor 1 in Xenopus oocytes. Mol Cell Biol. 1998;18(9):4949–60.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  126. Home T, Jensen RA, Rao R. Heat shock factor 1 in protein homeostasis and oncogenic signal integration. Cancer Res. 2015;75(6):907–12.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  127. Bagatell R, Paine-Murrieta GD, Taylor CW, Pulcini EJ, Akinaga S, Benjamin IJ, et al. Induction of a heat shock factor 1-dependent stress response alters the cytotoxic activity of hsp90-binding agents. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6(8):3312–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. Mendillo ML, Santagata S, Koeva M, Bell GW, Hu R, Tamimi RM, et al. HSF1 drives a transcriptional program distinct from heat shock to support highly malignant human cancers. Cell. 2012;150(3):549–62.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  129. Santarosa M, Favaro D, Quaia M, Galligioni E. Expression of heat shock protein 72 in renal cell carcinoma: possible role and prognostic implications in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 1997;33(6):873–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  130. Uozaki H, Ishida T, Kakiuchi C, Horiuchi H, Gotoh T, Iijima T, et al. Expression of heat shock proteins in osteosarcoma and its relationship to prognosis. Pathol Res Pract. 2000;196(10):665–73.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  131. Nanbu K, Konishi I, Mandai M, Kuroda H, Hamid AA, Komatsu T, et al. Prognostic significance of heat shock proteins HSP70 and HSP90 in endometrial carcinomas. Cancer Detect Prev. 1998;22(6):549–55.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  132. Vargas-Roig LM, Gago FE, Tello O, Aznar JC, Ciocca DR. Heat shock protein expression and drug resistance in breast cancer patients treated with induction chemotherapy. Int J Cancer. 1998;79(5):468–75.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  133. Brondani Da Rocha A, Regner A, Grivicich I, Pretto Schunemann D, Diel C, Kovaleski G, et al. Radioresistance is associated to increased Hsp70 content in human glioblastoma cell lines. Int J Oncol. 2004;25(3):777–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. Seo SJ, Kim HT, Cho G, Rho HM, Jung G. Sp1 and C/EBP-related factor regulate the transcription of human Cu/Zn SOD gene. Gene. 1996;178(1-2):177–85.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  135. Rodina A, Vilenchik M, Moulick K, Aguirre J, Kim J, Chiang A, et al. Selective compounds define Hsp90 as a major inhibitor of apoptosis in small-cell lung cancer. Nat Chem Biol. 2007;3(8):498–507.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  136. Nylandsted J, Gyrd-Hansen M, Danielewicz A, Fehrenbacher N, Lademann U, Hoyer-Hansen M, et al. Heat shock protein 70 promotes cell survival by inhibiting lysosomal membrane permeabilization. J Exp Med. 2004;200(4):425–35.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  137. Nylandsted J, Jaattela M, Hoffmann EK, Pedersen SF. Heat shock protein 70 inhibits shrinkage-induced programmed cell death via mechanisms independent of effects on cell volume-regulatory membrane transport proteins. Pflugers Arch. 2004;449(2):175–85.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  138. Kirkegaard T, Roth AG, Petersen NH, Mahalka AK, Olsen OD, Moilanen I, et al. Hsp70 stabilizes lysosomes and reverts Niemann-Pick disease-associated lysosomal pathology. Nature. 2010;463(7280):549–53.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  139. Sabnis AJ, Guerriero CJ, Olivas V, Sayana A, Shue J, Flanagan J, et al. Combined chemical-genetic approach identifies cytosolic HSP70 dependence in rhabdomyosarcoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(32):9015–20.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  140. Walter P, Ron D. The unfolded protein response: from stress pathway to homeostatic regulation. Science. 2011;334(6059):1081–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  141. Fourie AM, Sambrook JF, Gething MJ. Common and divergent peptide binding specificities of hsp70 molecular chaperones. J Biol Chem. 1994;269(48):30470–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. Skowronek MH, Hendershot LM, Haas IG. The variable domain of nonassembled Ig light chains determines both their half-life and binding to the chaperone BiP. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95(4):1574–8.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  143. Rothman JE, Schekman R. Molecular mechanism of protein folding in the cell. Cell. 2011;146(6):851–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  144. Bertolotti A, Zhang Y, Hendershot LM, Harding HP, Ron D. Dynamic interaction of BiP and ER stress transducers in the unfolded-protein response. Nat Cell Biol. 2000;2(6):326–32.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  145. Tsaytler P, Harding HP, Ron D, Bertolotti A. Selective inhibition of a regulatory subunit of protein phosphatase 1 restores proteostasis. Science. 2011;332(6025):91–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  146. B'Chir W, Maurin AC, Carraro V, Averous J, Jousse C, Muranishi Y, et al. The eIF2alpha/ATF4 pathway is essential for stress-induced autophagy gene expression. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(16):7683–99.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  147. Zinszner H, Kuroda M, Wang X, Batchvarova N, Lightfoot RT, Remotti H, et al. CHOP is implicated in programmed cell death in response to impaired function of the endoplasmic reticulum. Genes Dev. 1998;12(7):982–95.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  148. Breckenridge DG, Germain M, Mathai JP, Nguyen M, Shore GC. Regulation of apoptosis by endoplasmic reticulum pathways. Oncogene. 2003;22(53):8608–18.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  149. Yamamoto K, Yoshida H, Kokame K, Kaufman RJ, Mori K. Differential contributions of ATF6 and XBP1 to the activation of endoplasmic reticulum stress-responsive cis-acting elements ERSE, UPRE and ERSE-II. J Biochem. 2004;136(3):343–50.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  150. Yamamoto K, Sato T, Matsui T, Sato M, Okada T, Yoshida H, et al. Transcriptional induction of mammalian ER quality control proteins is mediated by single or combined action of ATF6alpha and XBP1. Dev Cell. 2007;13(3):365–76.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  151. Shoulders MD, Ryno LM, Genereux JC, Moresco JJ, Tu PG, Wu C, et al. Stress-independent activation of XBP1s and/or ATF6 reveals three functionally diverse ER proteostasis environments. Cell Rep. 2013;3(4):1279–92.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  152. Urano F, Bertolotti A, Ron D. IRE1 and efferent signaling from the endoplasmic reticulum. J Cell Sci. 2000;113(Pt 21):3697–702.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. Lee AH, Iwakoshi NN, Glimcher LH. XBP-1 regulates a subset of endoplasmic reticulum resident chaperone genes in the unfolded protein response. Mol Cell Biol. 2003;23(21):7448–59.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  154. Hazari YM, Bashir A, Haq EU, Fazili KM. Emerging tale of UPR and cancer: an essentiality for malignancy. Tumour Biol. 2016;37(11):14381–90.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  155. Shu CW, Huang CM. HSP70s: from tumor transformation to cancer therapy. Clin Med Oncol. 2008;2:335–45.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  156. Bonora M, Wieckowsk MR, Chinopoulos C, Kepp O, Kroemer G, Galluzzi L, et al. Molecular mechanisms of cell death: central implication of ATP synthase in mitochondrial permeability transition. Oncogene. 2015;34(12):1608.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  157. Rutkowski DT, Arnold SM, Miller CN, Wu J, Li J, Gunnison KM, et al. Adaptation to ER stress is mediated by differential stabilities of pro-survival and pro-apoptotic mRNAs and proteins. PLoS Biol. 2006;4(11), e374.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  158. Clarke R, Cook KL, Hu R, Facey CO, Tavassoly I, Schwartz JL, et al. Endoplasmic reticulum stress, the unfolded protein response, autophagy, and the integrated regulation of breast cancer cell fate. Cancer Res. 2012;72(6):1321–31.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. Rhodes DR, Chinnaiyan AM. Bioinformatics strategies for translating genome-wide expression analyses into clinically useful cancer markers. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004;1020:32–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  160. Kharabi Masouleh B, Geng H, Hurtz C, Chan LN, Logan AC, Chang MS, et al. Mechanistic rationale for targeting the unfolded protein response in pre-B acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(21):E2219–28.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  161. Montagner M, Enzo E, Forcato M, Zanconato F, Parenti A, Rampazzo E, et al. SHARP1 suppresses breast cancer metastasis by promoting degradation of hypoxia-inducible factors. Nature. 2012;487(7407):380–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  162. Chen X, Iliopoulos D, Zhang Q, Tang Q, Greenblatt MB, Hatziapostolou M, et al. XBP1 promotes triple-negative breast cancer by controlling the HIF1alpha pathway. Nature. 2014;508(7494):103–7.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  163. Feng YX, Sokol ES, Del Vecchio CA, Sanduja S, Claessen JH, Proia TA, et al. Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition activates PERK-eIF2alpha and sensitizes cells to endoplasmic reticulum stress. Cancer Discov. 2014;4(6):702–15.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  164. Feng YX, Sokol ES, Gupta PB. The endoplasmic reticulum may be an Achilles' heel of cancer cells that have undergone an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Mol Cell Oncol. 2014;1(2), e961822.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  165. Ishii Y, Papa L, Bahadur U, Yue Z, Aguirre-Ghiso J, Shioda T, et al. Bortezomib enhances the efficacy of fulvestrant by amplifying the aggregation of the estrogen receptor, which leads to a proapoptotic unfolded protein response. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(8):2292–300.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  166. Cook KL, Shajahan AN, Warri A, Jin L, Hilakivi-Clarke LA, Clarke R. Glucose-regulated protein 78 controls cross-talk between apoptosis and autophagy to determine antiestrogen responsiveness. Cancer Res. 2012;72(13):3337–49.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  167. Cook KL, Warri A, Soto-Pantoja DR, Clarke PA, Cruz MI, Zwart A, et al. Hydroxychloroquine inhibits autophagy to potentiate antiestrogen responsiveness in ER+ breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(12):3222–32.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  168. Andruska N, Zheng X, Yang X, Helferich WG, Shapiro DJ. Anticipatory estrogen activation of the unfolded protein response is linked to cell proliferation and poor survival in estrogen receptor alpha-positive breast cancer. Oncogene. 2015;34(29):3760–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  169. Yu L, Andruska N, Zheng X, Shapiro DJ. Anticipatory activation of the unfolded protein response by epidermal growth factor is required for immediate early gene expression and cell proliferation. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2016;422:31–41.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  170. Gomez BP, Riggins RB, Shajahan AN, Klimach U, Wang A, Crawford AC, et al. Human X-box binding protein-1 confers both estrogen independence and antiestrogen resistance in breast cancer cell lines. FASEB J. 2007;21(14):4013–27.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  171. Davies MP, Barraclough DL, Stewart C, Joyce KA, Eccles RM, Barraclough R, et al. Expression and splicing of the unfolded protein response gene XBP-1 are significantly associated with clinical outcome of endocrine-treated breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2008;123(1):85–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  172. Zhang X, Cook KL, Warri A, Cruz IM, Rosim M, Riskin J, et al. Lifetime genistein intake increases the response of mammary tumors to tamoxifen in rats. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(3):814–24.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  173. Cerezo M, Lehraiki A, Millet A, Rouaud F, Plaisant M, Jaune E, et al. Compounds triggering ER stress exert anti-melanoma effects and overcome BRAF inhibitor resistance. Cancer Cell. 2016;30(1):183.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  174. Marciniak SJ, Yun CY, Oyadomari S, Novoa I, Zhang Y, Jungreis R, et al. CHOP induces death by promoting protein synthesis and oxidation in the stressed endoplasmic reticulum. Genes Dev. 2004;18(24):3066–77.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  175. Chen JJ. Regulation of protein synthesis by the heme-regulated eIF2alpha kinase: relevance to anemias. Blood. 2007;109(7):2693–9.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. Chen JJ, Throop MS, Gehrke L, Kuo I, Pal JK, Brodsky M, et al. Cloning of the cDNA of the heme-regulated eukaryotic initiation factor 2 alpha (eIF-2 alpha) kinase of rabbit reticulocytes: homology to yeast GCN2 protein kinase and human double-stranded-RNA-dependent eIF-2 alpha kinase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991;88(17):7729–33.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  177. Teske BF, Wek SA, Bunpo P, Cundiff JK, McClintick JN, Anthony TG, et al. The eIF2 kinase PERK and the integrated stress response facilitate activation of ATF6 during endoplasmic reticulum stress. Mol Biol Cell. 2011;22(22):4390–405.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  178. Rzymski T, Milani M, Singleton DC, Harris AL. Role of ATF4 in regulation of autophagy and resistance to drugs and hypoxia. Cell Cycle. 2009;8(23):3838–47.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  179. Sood R, Porter AC, Olsen DA, Cavener DR, Wek RC. A mammalian homologue of GCN2 protein kinase important for translational control by phosphorylation of eukaryotic initiation factor-2alpha. Genetics. 2000;154(2):787–801.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  180. Hamanaka RB, Bennett BS, Cullinan SB, Diehl JA. PERK and GCN2 contribute to eIF2alpha phosphorylation and cell cycle arrest after activation of the unfolded protein response pathway. Mol Biol Cell. 2005;16(12):5493–501.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  181. Levenson VV, Davidovich IA, Roninson IB. Pleiotropic resistance to DNA-interactive drugs is associated with increased expression of genes involved in DNA replication, repair, and stress response. Cancer Res. 2000;60(18):5027–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  182. Tsutsumi S, Namba T, Tanaka KI, Arai Y, Ishihara T, Aburaya M, et al. Celecoxib upregulates endoplasmic reticulum chaperones that inhibit celecoxib-induced apoptosis in human gastric cells. Oncogene. 2006;25(7):1018–29.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  183. Fung H, Liu P, Demple B. ATF4-dependent oxidative induction of the DNA repair enzyme Ape1 counteracts arsenite cytotoxicity and suppresses arsenite-mediated mutagenesis. Mol Cell Biol. 2007;27(24):8834–47.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  184. Rzymski T, Milani M, Pike L, Buffa F, Mellor HR, Winchester L, et al. Regulation of autophagy by ATF4 in response to severe hypoxia. Oncogene. 2010;29(31):4424–35.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  185. Bobrovnikova-Marjon E, Grigoriadou C, Pytel D, Zhang F, Ye J, Koumenis C, et al. PERK promotes cancer cell proliferation and tumor growth by limiting oxidative DNA damage. Oncogene. 2010;29(27):3881–95.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  186. Kim JE, Lee JI, Jin DH, Lee WJ, Park GB, Kim S, et al. Sequential treatment of HPV E6 and E7-expressing TC-1 cells with bortezomib and celecoxib promotes apoptosis through p-p38 MAPK-mediated downregulation of cyclin D1 and CDK2. Oncol Rep. 2014;31(5):2429–37.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  187. Andruska ND, Zheng X, Yang X, Mao C, Cherian MM, Mahapatra L, et al. Estrogen receptor alpha inhibitor activates the unfolded protein response, blocks protein synthesis, and induces tumor regression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(15):4737–42.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  188. Shapiro DJ, Livezey M, Yu L, Zheng X, Andruska N. Anticipatory UPR activation: a protective pathway and target in cancer. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2016;27(10):731–41.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  189. Braakman I, Bulleid NJ. Protein folding and modification in the mammalian endoplasmic reticulum. Annu Rev Biochem. 2011;80:71–99.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  190. Benham AM. Protein secretion and the endoplasmic reticulum. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2012;4(8):a012872.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  191. Bole DG, Hendershot LM, Kearney JF. Posttranslational association of immunoglobulin heavy chain binding protein with nascent heavy chains in nonsecreting and secreting hybridomas. J Cell Biol. 1986;102(5):1558–66.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  192. Lee AS. The glucose-regulated proteins: stress induction and clinical applications. Trends Biochem Sci. 2001;26(8):504–10.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  193. van Anken E, Pena F, Hafkemeijer N, Christis C, Romijn EP, Grauschopf U, et al. Efficient IgM assembly and secretion require the plasma cell induced endoplasmic reticulum protein pERp1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(40):17019–24.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  194. Okamura K, Kimata Y, Higashio H, Tsuru A, Kohno K. Dissociation of Kar2p/BiP from an ER sensory molecule, Ire1p, triggers the unfolded protein response in yeast. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2000;279(2):445–50.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  195. van Anken E, Braakman I. Endoplasmic reticulum stress and the making of a professional secretory cell. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2005;40(5):269–83.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  196. Dent P, Yacoub A, Grant S, Curiel DT, Fisher PB. MDA-7/IL-24 regulates proliferation, invasion and tumor cell radiosensitivity: a new cancer therapy? J Cell Biochem. 2005;95(4):712–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  197. Lee AS. GRP78 induction in cancer: therapeutic and prognostic implications. Cancer Res. 2007;67(8):3496–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  198. Ni M, Zhou H, Wey S, Baumeister P, Lee AS. Regulation of PERK signaling and leukemic cell survival by a novel cytosolic isoform of the UPR regulator GRP78/BiP. PLoS One. 2009;4(8), e6868.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  199. Kaira K, Toyoda M, Shimizu A, Imai H, Sakakura K, Nikkuni O, et al. Decreasing expression of glucose-regulated protein GRP78/BiP as a significant prognostic predictor in patients with advanced laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2016;38(10):1539–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  200. Kaira K, Toyoda M, Shimizu A, Mori K, Shino M, Sakakura K, et al. Expression of ER stress markers (GRP78/BiP and PERK) in patients with tongue cancer. Neoplasma. 2016;63(4):588–94.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  201. Davidson DJ, Haskell C, Majest S, Kherzai A, Egan DA, Walter KA, et al. Kringle 5 of human plasminogen induces apoptosis of endothelial and tumor cells through surface-expressed glucose-regulated protein 78. Cancer Res. 2005;65(11):4663–72.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  202. Lee E, Nichols P, Spicer D, Groshen S, Yu MC, Lee AS. GRP78 as a novel predictor of responsiveness to chemotherapy in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2006;66(16):7849–53.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  203. Ranganathan AC, Zhang L, Adam AP, Aguirre-Ghiso JA. Functional coupling of p38-induced up-regulation of BiP and activation of RNA-dependent protein kinase-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase to drug resistance of dormant carcinoma cells. Cancer Res. 2006;66(3):1702–11.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  204. Ermakova SP, Kang BS, Choi BY, Choi HS, Schuster TF, Ma WY, et al. (-)-Epigallocatechin gallate overcomes resistance to etoposide-induced cell death by targeting the molecular chaperone glucose-regulated protein 78. Cancer Res. 2006;66(18):9260–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  205. Schwarze S, Rangnekar VM. Targeting plasma membrane GRP78 for cancer growth inhibition. Cancer Biol Ther. 2010;9(2):153–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  206. Luo B, Lee AS. The critical roles of endoplasmic reticulum chaperones and unfolded protein response in tumorigenesis and anticancer therapies. Oncogene. 2013;32(7):805–18.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  207. Ni M, Zhang Y, Lee AS. Beyond the endoplasmic reticulum: atypical GRP78 in cell viability, signalling and therapeutic targeting. Biochem J. 2011;434(2):181–8.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  208. Tsai YL, Zhang Y, Tseng CC, Stanciauskas R, Pinaud F, Lee AS. Characterization and mechanism of stress-induced translocation of 78-kilodalton glucose-regulated protein (GRP78) to the cell surface. J Biol Chem. 2015;290(13):8049–64.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  209. Arap MA, Lahdenranta J, Mintz PJ, Hajitou A, Sarkis AS, Arap W, et al. Cell surface expression of the stress response chaperone GRP78 enables tumor targeting by circulating ligands. Cancer Cell. 2004;6(3):275–84.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  210. Gonzalez-Gronow M, Selim MA, Papalas J, Pizzo SV. GRP78: a multifunctional receptor on the cell surface. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2009;11(9):2299–306.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  211. Barlowe CK, Miller EA. Secretory protein biogenesis and traffic in the early secretory pathway. Genetics. 2013;193(2):383–410.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  212. Fu Y, Li J, Lee AS. GRP78/BiP inhibits endoplasmic reticulum BIK and protects human breast cancer cells against estrogen starvation-induced apoptosis. Cancer Res. 2007;67(8):3734–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  213. Kluck RM, Esposti MD, Perkins G, Renken C, Kuwana T, Bossy-Wetzel E, et al. The pro-apoptotic proteins, Bid and Bax, cause a limited permeabilization of the mitochondrial outer membrane that is enhanced by cytosol. J Cell Biol. 1999;147(4):809–22.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  214. Cheng EH, Wei MC, Weiler S, Flavell RA, Mak TW, Lindsten T, et al. BCL-2, BCL-X(L) sequester BH3 domain-only molecules preventing BAX- and BAK-mediated mitochondrial apoptosis. Mol Cell. 2001;8(3):705–11.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  215. Wei MC, Zong WX, Cheng EH, Lindsten T, Panoutsakopoulou V, Ross AJ, et al. Proapoptotic BAX and BAK: a requisite gateway to mitochondrial dysfunction and death. Science. 2001;292(5517):727–30.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  216. Germain M, Mathai JP, Shore GC. BH-3-only BIK functions at the endoplasmic reticulum to stimulate cytochrome c release from mitochondria. J Biol Chem. 2002;277(20):18053–60.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  217. Hur J, Chesnes J, Coser KR, Lee RS, Geck P, Isselbacher KJ, et al. The Bik BH3-only protein is induced in estrogen-starved and antiestrogen-exposed breast cancer cells and provokes apoptosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(8):2351–6.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  218. Zhou H, Zhang Y, Fu Y, Chan L, Lee AS. Novel mechanism of anti-apoptotic function of 78-kDa glucose-regulated protein (GRP78): endocrine resistance factor in breast cancer, through release of B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) from BCL-2-interacting killer (BIK). J Biol Chem. 2011;286(29):25687–96.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  219. Ahmad A, Banerjee S, Wang Z, Kong D, Sarkar FH. Plumbagin-induced apoptosis of human breast cancer cells is mediated by inactivation of NF-kappaB and Bcl-2. J Cell Biochem. 2008;105(6):1461–71.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  220. Kawiak A, Domachowska A, Jaworska A, Lojkowska E. Plumbagin sensitizes breast cancer cells to tamoxifen-induced cell death through GRP78 inhibition and Bik upregulation. Sci Rep. 2017;7:43781.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  221. Miao YR, Eckhardt BL, Cao Y, Pasqualini R, Argani P, Arap W, et al. Inhibition of established micrometastases by targeted drug delivery via cell surface-associated GRP78. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(8):2107–16.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  222. Liu R, Li X, Gao W, Zhou Y, Wey S, Mitra SK, et al. Monoclonal antibody against cell surface GRP78 as a novel agent in suppressing PI3K/AKT signaling, tumor growth, and metastasis. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(24):6802–11.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  223. Zhang Y, Zhao Q, Jiang Y, Yuan Z, Yang L. ATP-tumor chemosensitivity assay directed chemotherapy in patients with cervical cancer. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2013;38(12):1223–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  224. Zambrano J, Yeh ES. Autophagy and apoptotic crosstalk: mechanism of therapeutic resistance in HER2-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer (Auckl). 2016;10:13–23.Google Scholar
  225. Maycotte P, Thorburn A. Targeting autophagy in breast cancer. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(3):224–40.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  226. Clarke R, Shajahan AN, Wang Y, Tyson JJ, Riggins RB, Weiner LM, et al. Endoplasmic reticulum stress, the unfolded protein response, and gene network modeling in antiestrogen resistant breast cancer. Horm Mol Biol Clin Investig. 2011;5(1):35–44.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  227. Gu Z, Lee RY, Skaar TC, Bouker KB, Welch JN, Lu J, et al. Association of interferon regulatory factor-1, nucleophosmin, nuclear factor-kappaB, and cyclic AMP response element binding with acquired resistance to Faslodex (ICI 182,780). Cancer Res. 2002;62(12):3428–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  228. Parmar JH, Cook KL, Shajahan-Haq AN, Clarke PA, Tavassoly I, Clarke R, et al. Modelling the effect of GRP78 on anti-oestrogen sensitivity and resistance in breast cancer. Interface Focus. 2013;3(4):20130012.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  229. Clarke R, Shajahan AN, Riggins RB, Cho Y, Crawford A, Xuan J, et al. Gene network signaling in hormone responsiveness modifies apoptosis and autophagy in breast cancer cells. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2009;114(1-2):8–20.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  230. Crawford AC, Riggins RB, Shajahan AN, Zwart A, Clarke R. Co-inhibition of BCL-W and BCL2 restores antiestrogen sensitivity through BECN1 and promotes an autophagy-associated necrosis. PLoS One. 2010;5(1), e8604.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  231. Samaddar JS, Gaddy VT, Duplantier J, Thandavan SP, Shah M, Smith MJ, et al. A role for macroautophagy in protection against 4-hydroxytamoxifen-induced cell death and the development of antiestrogen resistance. Mol Cancer Ther. 2008;7(9):2977–87.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  232. Schoenlein PV, Periyasamy-Thandavan S, Samaddar JS, Jackson WH, Barrett JT. Autophagy facilitates the progression of ERalpha-positive breast cancer cells to antiestrogen resistance. Autophagy. 2009;5(3):400–3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  233. Schwartz-Roberts JL, Shajahan AN, Cook KL, Warri A, Abu-Asab M, Clarke R. GX15-070 (obatoclax) induces apoptosis and inhibits cathepsin D- and L-mediated autophagosomal lysis in antiestrogen-resistant breast cancer cells. Mol Cancer Ther. 2013;12(4):448–59.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  234. Ogata M, Hino S, Saito A, Morikawa K, Kondo S, Kanemoto S, et al. Autophagy is activated for cell survival after endoplasmic reticulum stress. Mol Cell Biol. 2006;26(24):9220–31.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  235. Milani M, Harris AL. Targeting tumour hypoxia in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(18):2766–73.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  236. Harding HP, Zhang Y, Bertolotti A, Zeng H, Ron D. Perk is essential for translational regulation and cell survival during the unfolded protein response. Mol Cell. 2000;5(5):897–904.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  237. Ma Y, Brewer JW, Diehl JA, Hendershot LM. Two distinct stress signaling pathways converge upon the CHOP promoter during the mammalian unfolded protein response. J Mol Biol. 2002;318(5):1351–65.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  238. Wek RC, Cavener DR. Translational control and the unfolded protein response. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2007;9(12):2357–71.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  239. Harding HP, Zhang Y, Zeng H, Novoa I, Lu PD, Calfon M, et al. An integrated stress response regulates amino acid metabolism and resistance to oxidative stress. Mol Cell. 2003;11(3):619–33.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  240. Lu PD, Harding HP, Ron D. Translation reinitiation at alternative open reading frames regulates gene expression in an integrated stress response. J Cell Biol. 2004;167(1):27–33.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  241. Rouschop KM, van den Beucken T, Dubois L, Niessen H, Bussink J, Savelkouls K, et al. The unfolded protein response protects human tumor cells during hypoxia through regulation of the autophagy genes MAP1LC3B and ATG5. J Clin Invest. 2010;120(1):127–41.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  242. Chen S, Chen CM, Yu KD, Yang WT, Shao ZM. A prognostic model to predict outcome of patients failing to achieve pathological complete response after anthracycline-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105(6):577–85.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  243. Cufi S, Vazquez-Martin A, Oliveras-Ferraros C, Corominas-Faja B, Cuyas E, Lopez-Bonet E, et al. The anti-malarial chloroquine overcomes primary resistance and restores sensitivity to trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. Sci Rep. 2013;3:2469.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  244. Cufi S, Vazquez-Martin A, Oliveras-Ferraros C, Corominas-Faja B, Urruticoechea A, Martin-Castillo B, et al. Autophagy-related gene 12 (ATG12) is a novel determinant of primary resistance to HER2-targeted therapies: utility of transcriptome analysis of the autophagy interactome to guide breast cancer treatment. Oncotarget. 2012;3(12):1600–14.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  245. Yoon JH, Her S, Kim M, Jang IS, Park J. The expression of damage-regulated autophagy modulator 2 (DRAM2) contributes to autophagy induction. Mol Biol Rep. 2012;39(2):1087–93.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  246. White J. Defining target volumes in breast cancer radiation therapy for the future: back to basics. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;93(2):277–80.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  247. Tandon M, Othman AH, Ashok V, Stein GS, Pratap J. The role of Runx2 in facilitating autophagy in metastatic breast cancer cells. J Cell Physiol. 2017;233(1):559–71.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  248. Martin AP, Mitchell C, Rahmani M, Nephew KP, Grant S, Dent P. Inhibition of MCL-1 enhances lapatinib toxicity and overcomes lapatinib resistance via BAK-dependent autophagy. Cancer Biol Ther. 2009;8(21):2084–96.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  249. Zarzynska JM. The importance of autophagy regulation in breast cancer development and treatment. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:710345.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  250. Jain K, Paranandi KS, Sridharan S, Basu A. Autophagy in breast cancer and its implications for therapy. Am J Cancer Res. 2013;3(3):251–65.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  251. Tandon M, Chen Z, Othman AH, Pratap J. Role of Runx2 in IGF-1Rbeta/Akt- and AMPK/Erk-dependent growth, survival and sensitivity towards metformin in breast cancer bone metastasis. Oncogene. 2016;35(36):4730–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  252. Ferrari N, McDonald L, Morris JS, Cameron ER, Blyth K. RUNX2 in mammary gland development and breast cancer. J Cell Physiol. 2013;228(6):1137–42.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  253. Onodera Y, Miki Y, Suzuki T, Takagi K, Akahira J, Sakyu T, et al. Runx2 in human breast carcinoma: its potential roles in cancer progression. Cancer Sci. 2010;101(12):2670–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  254. Tandon M, Chen Z, Pratap J. Runx2 activates PI3K/Akt signaling via mTORC2 regulation in invasive breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(1):R16.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  255. Yang Z, Zhang B, Liu B, Xie Y, Cao X. Combined Runx2 and Snail overexpression is associated with a poor prognosis in breast cancer. Tumour Biol. 2015;36(6):4565–73.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  256. Rodriguez-Gonzalez A, Lin T, Ikeda AK, Simms-Waldrip T, Fu C, Sakamoto KM. Role of the aggresome pathway in cancer: targeting histone deacetylase 6-dependent protein degradation. Cancer Res. 2008;68(8):2557–60.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  257. Yao TP. The role of ubiquitin in autophagy-dependent protein aggregate processing. Genes Cancer. 2010;1(7):779–86.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  258. Lee JY, Yao TP. Quality control autophagy: a joint effort of ubiquitin, protein deacetylase and actin cytoskeleton. Autophagy. 2010;6(4):555–7.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  259. Garcia-Mata R, Gao YS, Sztul E. Hassles with taking out the garbage: aggravating aggresomes. Traffic. 2002;3(6):388–96.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  260. Boyault C, Zhang Y, Fritah S, Caron C, Gilquin B, Kwon SH, et al. HDAC6 controls major cell response pathways to cytotoxic accumulation of protein aggregates. Genes Dev. 2007;21(17):2172–81.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  261. Dargemont C, Ossareh-Nazari B. Cdc48/p97, a key actor in the interplay between autophagy and ubiquitin/proteasome catabolic pathways. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1823(1):138–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  262. Papandreou CN, Logothetis CJ. Bortezomib as a potential treatment for prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2004;64(15):5036–43.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  263. Demo SD, Kirk CJ, Aujay MA, Buchholz TJ, Dajee M, Ho MN, et al. Antitumor activity of PR-171, a novel irreversible inhibitor of the proteasome. Cancer Res. 2007;67(13):6383–91.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  264. Shao Y, Gao Z, Marks PA, Jiang X. Apoptotic and autophagic cell death induced by histone deacetylase inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(52):18030–5.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  265. Haggarty SJ, Koeller KM, Wong JC, Grozinger CM, Schreiber SL. Domain-selective small-molecule inhibitor of histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6)-mediated tubulin deacetylation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(8):4389–94.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  266. Shenkman M, Groisman B, Ron E, Avezov E, Hendershot LM, Lederkremer GZ. A shared endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation pathway involving the EDEM1 protein for glycosylated and nonglycosylated proteins. J Biol Chem. 2013;288(4):2167–78.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  267. Wang S, Huang J, Lyu H, Cai B, Yang X, Li F, et al. Therapeutic targeting of erbB3 with MM-121/SAR256212 enhances antitumor activity of paclitaxel against erbB2-overexpressing breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(5):R101.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  268. Papadopoulos KP, Burris 3rd HA, Gordon M, Lee P, Sausville EA, Rosen PJ, et al. A phase I/II study of carfilzomib 2-10-min infusion in patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013;72(4):861–8.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  269. Deshaies RJ. Proteotoxic crisis, the ubiquitin-proteasome system, and cancer therapy. BMC Biol. 2014;12:94.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  270. Zhou HJ, Wang J, Yao B, Wong S, Djakovic S, Kumar B, et al. Discovery of a first-in-class, potent, selective, and orally bioavailable inhibitor of the p97 AAA ATPase (CB-5083). J Med Chem. 2015;58(24):9480–97.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  271. Pandey UB, Batlevi Y, Baehrecke EH, Taylor JP. HDAC6 at the intersection of autophagy, the ubiquitin-proteasome system and neurodegeneration. Autophagy. 2007;3(6):643–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  272. Guo JY, Xia B, White E. Autophagy-mediated tumor promotion. Cell. 2013;155(6):1216–9.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  273. Glickman MS, Sawyers CL. Converting cancer therapies into cures: lessons from infectious diseases. Cell. 2012;148(6):1089–98.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  274. Gifford JB, Huang W, Zeleniak AE, Hindoyan A, Wu H, Donahue TR, et al. Expression of GRP78, master regulator of the unfolded protein response, increases chemoresistance in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15(5):1043–52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  275. Wuicik L, Cavalli LR, Cornelio DA, Schmid Braz AT, Barbosa ML, Lima RS, et al. Chromosome alterations associated with positive and negative lymph node involvement in breast cancer. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2007;173(2):114–21.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  276. Okita R, Ohsumi S, Takashima S, Saeki T, Aogi K, Nishimura R. Synchronous liver metastases of intracystic papillary carcinoma with invasion of the breast. Breast Cancer. 2005;12(4):327–30.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  277. Ellard SL, Clemons M, Gelmon KA, Norris B, Kennecke H, Chia S, et al. Randomized phase II study comparing two schedules of everolimus in patients with recurrent/metastatic breast cancer: NCIC Clinical Trials Group IND.163. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(27):4536–41.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  278. Jerusalem G, Fasolo A, Dieras V, Cardoso F, Bergh J, Vittori L, et al. Phase I trial of oral mTOR inhibitor everolimus in combination with trastuzumab and vinorelbine in pre-treated patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;125(2):447–55.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  279. Morrow PK, Wulf GM, Ensor J, Booser DJ, Moore JA, Flores PR, et al. Phase I/II study of trastuzumab in combination with everolimus (RAD001) in patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer who progressed on trastuzumab-based therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(23):3126–32.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  280. Chandarlapaty S, Scaltriti M, Angelini P, Ye Q, Guzman M, Hudis CA, et al. Inhibitors of HSP90 block p95-HER2 signaling in trastuzumab-resistant tumors and suppress their growth. Oncogene. 2010;29(3):325–34.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  281. Chan CH, Li CF, Yang WL, Gao Y, Lee SW, Feng Z, et al. The Skp2-SCF E3 ligase regulates Akt ubiquitination, glycolysis, herceptin sensitivity, and tumorigenesis. Cell. 2012;149(5):1098–111.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  282. Baselga J, Bradbury I, Eidtmann H, Di Cosimo S, de Azambuja E, Aura C, et al. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9816):633–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  283. Baselga J, Campone M, Piccart M, Burris 3rd HA, Rugo HS, Sahmoud T, et al. Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(6):520–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  284. Baselga J, Cortes J, Kim SB, Im SA, Hegg R, Im YH, et al. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(2):109–19.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  285. Baselga J, Segalla JG, Roche H, Del Giglio A, Pinczowski H, Ciruelos EM, et al. Sorafenib in combination with capecitabine: an oral regimen for patients with HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(13):1484–91.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  286. Auner HW, Moody AM, Ward TH, Kraus M, Milan E, May P, et al. Combined inhibition of p97 and the proteasome causes lethal disruption of the secretory apparatus in multiple myeloma cells. PLoS One. 2013;8(9), e74415.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  287. Lopez-Tarruella S, Jerez Y, Marquez-Rodas I, Martin M. Neratinib (HKI-272) in the treatment of breast cancer. Future Oncol. 2012;8(6):671–81.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  288. Leignadier J, Dalenc F, Poirot M, Silvente-Poirot S. Improving the efficacy of hormone therapy in breast cancer: The role of cholesterol metabolism in SERM-mediated autophagy, cell differentiation and death. Biochem Pharmacol. 2017;144:18–28.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  289. Nawaz Z, Stancel GM, Hyder SM. The pure antiestrogen ICI 182,780 inhibits progestin-induced transcription. Cancer Res. 1999;59(2):372–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  290. Howell A. Fulvestrant ('Faslodex'): current and future role in breast cancer management. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2006;57(3):265–73.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  291. Long X, Nephew KP. Fulvestrant (ICI 182,780)-dependent interacting proteins mediate immobilization and degradation of estrogen receptor-alpha. J Biol Chem. 2006;281(14):9607–15.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  292. Perey L, Paridaens R, Hawle H, Zaman K, Nole F, Wildiers H, et al. Clinical benefit of fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer and primary or acquired resistance to aromatase inhibitors: final results of phase II Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research Trial (SAKK 21/00). Ann Oncol. 2007;18(1):64–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  293. Manni A, Trujillo J, Marshall JS, Pearson OH. Antiestrogen-induced remissions in stage IV breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rep. 1976;60(10):1445–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  294. Veronesi U, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, Bonanni B, Boyle P, Viale G, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: late results of the Italian Randomized Tamoxifen Prevention Trial among women with hysterectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(9):727–37.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  295. Poirot M, Chailleux C, Mesange F, Bayard F, Faye JC. Characterization of the membranous antiestrogen binding protein: II. Purification to homogeneity. J Recept Res. 1994;14(1):37–46.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  296. Grese TA, Cho S, Finley DR, Godfrey AG, Jones CD, Lugar 3rd CW, et al. Structure-activity relationships of selective estrogen receptor modulators: modifications to the 2-arylbenzothiophene core of raloxifene. J Med Chem. 1997;40(2):146–67.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  297. Cummings SR, Eckert S, Krueger KA, Grady D, Powles TJ, Cauley JA, et al. The effect of raloxifene on risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: results from the MORE randomized trial. Multiple outcomes of Raloxifene evaluation. JAMA. 1999;281(23):2189–97.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  298. Liu H, Lee ES, Gajdos C, Pearce ST, Chen B, Osipo C, et al. Apoptotic action of 17beta-estradiol in raloxifene-resistant MCF-7 cells in vitro and in vivo. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(21):1586–97.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  299. Kawagoe J, Ohmichi M, Takahashi T, Ohshima C, Mabuchi S, Takahashi K, et al. Raloxifene inhibits estrogen-induced up-regulation of telomerase activity in a human breast cancer cell line. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(44):43363–72.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  300. Morishima S, Shibata MA, Ohmichi M, Otsuki Y. Raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, induces mitochondria-mediated apoptosis in human endometrial carcinoma cells. Med Mol Morphol. 2008;41(3):132–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  301. Brennan M, Lim B. The actual role of receptors as cancer markers, biochemical and clinical aspects: receptors in breast cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2015;867:327–37.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  302. Vogel CL. Update on the current use of hormonals as therapy in advanced breast cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 2003;14(4):265–73.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  303. Xiong R, Zhao J, Gutgesell LM, Wang Y, Lee S, Karumudi B, et al. Novel selective estrogen receptor downregulators (SERDs) developed against treatment-resistant breast cancer. J Med Chem. 2017;60(4):1325–42.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  304. Lai A, Kahraman M, Govek S, Nagasawa J, Bonnefous C, Julien J, et al. Identification of GDC-0810 (ARN-810), an orally bioavailable selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) that demonstrates robust activity in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer xenografts. J Med Chem. 2015;58(12):4888–904.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  305. De Savi C, Bradbury RH, Rabow AA, Norman RA, de Almeida C, Andrews DM, et al. Optimization of a novel binding motif to (E)-3-(3,5-Difluoro-4-((1R,3R)-2-(2-fluoro-2-methylpropyl)-3-methyl-2,3,4,9-tetra hydro-1H-pyrido[3,4-b]indol-1-yl)phenyl)acrylic acid (AZD9496), a potent and orally bioavailable selective estrogen receptor downregulator and antagonist. J Med Chem. 2015;58(20):8128–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  306. Weir HM, Bradbury RH, Lawson M, Rabow AA, Buttar D, Callis RJ, et al. AZD9496: An oral estrogen receptor inhibitor that blocks the growth of ER-positive and ESR1-mutant breast tumors in preclinical models. Cancer Res. 2016;76(11):3307–18.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  307. Garner F, Shomali M, Paquin D, Lyttle CR, Hattersley G. RAD1901: a novel, orally bioavailable selective estrogen receptor degrader that demonstrates antitumor activity in breast cancer xenograft models. Anticancer Drugs. 2015;26(9):948–56.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  308. Wardell SE, Nelson ER, Chao CA, Alley HM, McDonnell DP. Evaluation of the pharmacological activities of RAD1901, a selective estrogen receptor degrader. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2015;22(5):713–24.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  309. Bihani T, Patel HK, Arlt H, Tao N, Jiang H, Brown JL, et al. Elacestrant (RAD1901), a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), has antitumor activity in multiple ER+ breast cancer patient-derived xenograft models. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(16):4793–804.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  310. Trunet PF, Bhatnagar AS, Chaudri HA, Hornberger U. Letrozole (CGS 20267), a new oral aromatase inhibitor for the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal patients. Acta Oncol. 1996;35 Suppl 5:15–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  311. Dixon JM, Love CD, Bellamy CO, Cameron DA, Leonard RC, Smith H, et al. Letrozole as primary medical therapy for locally advanced and large operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;66(3):191–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  312. Buzdar AU, Robertson JF, Eiermann W, Nabholtz JM. An overview of the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of the newer generation aromatase inhibitors anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane. Cancer. 2002;95(9):2006–16.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  313. Blackwell K, Burris H, Gomez P, Lynn Henry N, Isakoff S, Campana F, et al. Phase I/II dose-escalation study of PI3K inhibitors pilaralisib or voxtalisib in combination with letrozole in patients with hormone-receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer refractory to a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;154(2):287–97.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  314. Geisler J, King N, Dowsett M, Ottestad L, Lundgren S, Walton P, et al. Influence of anastrozole (Arimidex), a selective, non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor, on in vivo aromatisation and plasma oestrogen levels in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1996;74(8):1286–91.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  315. Dowsett M. Theoretical considerations for the ideal aromatase inhibitor. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;49 Suppl 1:S39–44. discussion S73–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  316. Bonneterre J, Buzdar A, Nabholtz JM, Robertson JF, Thurlimann B, von Euler M, et al. Anastrozole is superior to tamoxifen as first-line therapy in hormone receptor positive advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2001;92(9):2247–58.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  317. Choueiri TK, Alemany CA, Abou-Jawde RM, Budd GT. Role of aromatase inhibitors in the treatment of breast cancer. Clin Ther. 2004;26(8):1199–214.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  318. Evans TR, Di Salle E, Ornati G, Lassus M, Benedetti MS, Pianezzola E, et al. Phase I and endocrine study of exemestane (FCE 24304), a new aromatase inhibitor, in postmenopausal women. Cancer Res. 1992;52(21):5933–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  319. Geisler J, King N, Anker G, Ornati G, Di Salle E, Lonning PE, et al. In vivo inhibition of aromatization by exemestane, a novel irreversible aromatase inhibitor, in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 1998;4(9):2089–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  320. Yardley DA, Ismail-Khan RR, Melichar B, Lichinitser M, Munster PN, Klein PM, et al. Randomized phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of exemestane with or without entinostat in postmenopausal women with locally recurrent or metastatic estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer progressing on treatment with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(17):2128–35.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  321. Robarge JD, Desta Z, Nguyen AT, Li L, Hertz D, Rae JM, et al. Effects of exemestane and letrozole therapy on plasma concentrations of estrogens in a randomized trial of postmenopausal women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;161(3):453–61.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  322. Muranen T, Selfors LM, Worster DT, Iwanicki MP, Song L, Morales FC, et al. Inhibition of PI3K/mTOR leads to adaptive resistance in matrix-attached cancer cells. Cancer Cell. 2012;21(2):227–39.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  323. Leung E, Rewcastle GW, Joseph WR, Rosengren RJ, Larsen L, Baguley BC. Identification of cyclohexanone derivatives that act as catalytic inhibitors of topoisomerase I: effects on tamoxifen-resistant MCF-7 cancer cells. Invest New Drugs. 2012;30(6):2103–12.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  324. Ji Y, Di W, Yang Q, Lu Z, Cai W, Wu J. Inhibition of autophagy increases proliferation inhibition and apoptosis induced by the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor NVP-BEZ235 in breast cancer cells. Clin Lab. 2015;61(8):1043–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  325. Hamunyela RH, Serafin AM, Akudugu JM. Strong synergism between small molecule inhibitors of HER2, PI3K, mTOR and Bcl-2 in human breast cancer cells. Toxicol In Vitro. 2017;38:117–23.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  326. Baselga J, Cortes J, Im SA, Clark E, Ross G, Kiermaier A, et al. Biomarker analyses in CLEOPATRA: a phase III, placebo-controlled study of pertuzumab in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, first-line metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(33):3753–61.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  327. Hoeflich KP, Guan J, Edgar KA, O'Brien C, Savage H, Wilson TR, et al. The PI3K inhibitor taselisib overcomes letrozole resistance in a breast cancer model expressing aromatase. Genes Cancer. 2016;7(3-4):73–85.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  328. Juric D, Krop I, Ramanathan RK, Wilson TR, Ware JA, Sanabria Bohorquez SM, et al. Phase I dose-escalation study of taselisib, an oral PI3K inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer Discov. 2017;7(7):704–15.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  329. Vaillant F, Merino D, Lee L, Breslin K, Pal B, Ritchie ME, et al. Targeting BCL-2 with the BH3 mimetic ABT-199 in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Cancer Cell. 2013;24(1):120–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  330. Deeks ED. Venetoclax: first global approval. Drugs. 2016;76(9):979–87.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  331. Fleming GF, Ma CX, Huo D, Sattar H, Tretiakova M, Lin L, et al. Phase II trial of temsirolimus in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136(2):355–63.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  332. Munster PN, Thurn KT, Thomas S, Raha P, Lacevic M, Miller A, et al. A phase II study of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat combined with tamoxifen for the treatment of patients with hormone therapy-resistant breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2011;104(12):1828–35.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  333. Ward CS, Eriksson P, Izquierdo-Garcia JL, Brandes AH, Ronen SM. HDAC inhibition induces increased choline uptake and elevated phosphocholine levels in MCF7 breast cancer cells. PLoS One. 2013;8(4), e62610.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  334. Deming DA, Ninan J, Bailey HH, Kolesar JM, Eickhoff J, Reid JM, et al. A Phase I study of intermittently dosed vorinostat in combination with bortezomib in patients with advanced solid tumors. Invest New Drugs. 2014;32(2):323–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  335. Wardley AM, Pivot X, Morales-Vasquez F, Zetina LM, de Fatima Dias Gaui M, Reyes DO, et al. Randomized phase II trial of first-line trastuzumab plus docetaxel and capecitabine compared with trastuzumab plus docetaxel in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(6):976–83.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  336. Yardley DA, Peacock NW, Dickson NR, White MB, Vazquez ER, Foust JT, et al. A phase II trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine, epirubicin, and docetaxel as primary treatment of patients with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2010;10(3):217–23.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  337. Rao R, Nalluri S, Kolhe R, Yang Y, Fiskus W, Chen J, et al. Treatment with panobinostat induces glucose-regulated protein 78 acetylation and endoplasmic reticulum stress in breast cancer cells. Mol Cancer Ther. 2010;9(4):942–52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  338. Fortunati N, Marano F, Bandino A, Frairia R, Catalano MG, Boccuzzi G. The pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor LBH589 (panobinostat) alters the invasive breast cancer cell phenotype. Int J Oncol. 2014;44(3):700–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  339. Tan WW, Allred JB, Moreno-Aspitia A, Northfelt DW, Ingle JN, Goetz MP, et al. Phase I study of Panobinostat (LBH589) and Letrozole in postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer patients. Clin Breast Cancer. 2016;16(2):82–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  340. Le Bihan S, Marsaud V, Mercier-Bodard C, Baulieu EE, Mader S, White JH, et al. Calcium/calmodulin kinase inhibitors and immunosuppressant macrolides rapamycin and FK506 inhibit progestin- and glucocorticosteroid receptor-mediated transcription in human breast cancer T47D cells. Mol Endocrinol. 1998;12(7):986–1001.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  341. Pang H, Faber LE. Estrogen and rapamycin effects on cell cycle progression in T47D breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;70(1):21–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  342. Zhou X, Tan M, Stone Hawthorne V, Klos KS, Lan KH, Yang Y, et al. Activation of the Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin/4E-BP1 pathway by ErbB2 overexpression predicts tumor progression in breast cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(20):6779–88.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  343. Chiang GG, Abraham RT. Targeting the mTOR signaling network in cancer. Trends Mol Med. 2007;13(10):433–42.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  344. Wang G, Yin T. Rapamycin enhances the antiproliferative effect of transforming growth factor-beta on MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. Exp Ther Med. 2017;14(1):748–52.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  345. Okuhira K, Demizu Y, Hattori T, Ohoka N, Shibata N, Nishimaki-Mogami T, et al. Development of hybrid small molecules that induce degradation of estrogen receptor-alpha and necrotic cell death in breast cancer cells. Cancer Sci. 2013;104(11):1492–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  346. Mao C, Livezey M, Kim JE, Shapiro DJ. Antiestrogen resistant cell lines expressing estrogen receptor alpha mutations upregulate the unfolded protein response and are killed by BHPI. Sci Rep. 2016;6:34753.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  347. Braicu C, Gherman CD, Irimie A, Berindan-Neagoe I. Epigallocatechin-3-Gallate (EGCG) inhibits cell proliferation and migratory behaviour of triple negative breast cancer cells. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2013;13(1):632–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  348. Luo HQ, Xu M, Zhong WT, Cui ZY, Liu FM, Zhou KY, et al. EGCG decreases the expression of HIF-1alpha and VEGF and cell growth in MCF-7 breast cancer cells. J BUON. 2014;19(2):435–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  349. Ranzato E, Magnelli V, Martinotti S, Waheed Z, Cain SM, Snutch TP, et al. Epigallocatechin-3-gallate elicits Ca2+ spike in MCF-7 breast cancer cells: essential role of Cav3.2 channels. Cell Calcium. 2014;56(4):285–95.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  350. Moradzadeh M, Hosseini A, Erfanian S, Rezaei H. Epigallocatechin-3-gallate promotes apoptosis in human breast cancer T47D cells through down-regulation of PI3K/AKT and Telomerase. Pharmacol Rep. 2017;69(5):924–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  351. Zeng L, Yan J, Luo L, Ma M, Zhu H. Preparation and characterization of (-)-Epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG)-loaded nanoparticles and their inhibitory effects on Human breast cancer MCF-7 cells. Sci Rep. 2017;7:45521.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  352. Hong OY, Noh EM, Jang HY, Lee YR, Lee BK, Jung SH, et al. Epigallocatechin gallate inhibits the growth of MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells via inactivation of the beta-catenin signaling pathway. Oncol Lett. 2017;14(1):441–6.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  353. Mondal A, Bennett LL. Resveratrol enhances the efficacy of sorafenib mediated apoptosis in human breast cancer MCF7 cells through ROS, cell cycle inhibition, caspase 3 and PARP cleavage. Biomed Pharmacother. 2016;84:1906–14.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  354. Andreani C, Bartolacci C, Wijnant K, Crinelli R, Bianchi M, Magnani M, et al. Resveratrol fuels HER2 and ERalpha-positive breast cancer behaving as proteasome inhibitor. Aging (Albany NY). 2017;9(2):508–23.Google Scholar
  355. Vogel C, Cobleigh MA, Tripathy D, Gutheil JC, Harris LN, Fehrenbacher L, et al. First-line, single-agent Herceptin(R) (trastuzumab) in metastatic breast cancer. a preliminary report. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37 Suppl 1:25–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  356. Pegram M, Slamon D. Biological rationale for HER2/neu (c-erbB2) as a target for monoclonal antibody therapy. Semin Oncol. 2000;27(5 Suppl 9):13–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  357. Baselga J. Clinical trials of Herceptin(R) (trastuzumab). Eur J Cancer. 2001;37 Suppl 1:18–24.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  358. Vogel CL, Cobleigh MA, Tripathy D, Gutheil JC, Harris LN, Fehrenbacher L, et al. Efficacy and safety of trastuzumab as a single agent in first-line treatment of HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(3):719–26.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  359. Burstein HJ, Keshaviah A, Baron AD, Hart RD, Lambert-Falls R, Marcom PK, et al. Trastuzumab plus vinorelbine or taxane chemotherapy for HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer: the trastuzumab and vinorelbine or taxane study. Cancer. 2007;110(5):965–72.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  360. Saini KS, Azim Jr HA, Metzger-Filho O, Loi S, Sotiriou C, de Azambuja E, et al. Beyond trastuzumab: new treatment options for HER2-positive breast cancer. Breast. 2011;20 Suppl 3:S20–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  361. Barok M, Tanner M, Koninki K, Isola J. Trastuzumab-DM1 causes tumour growth inhibition by mitotic catastrophe in trastuzumab-resistant breast cancer cells in vivo. Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13(2):R46.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  362. LoRusso PM, Weiss D, Guardino E, Girish S, Sliwkowski MX. Trastuzumab emtansine: a unique antibody-drug conjugate in development for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(20):6437–47.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  363. Krop IE, Modi S, LoRusso PM, Pegram M, Guardino E, Althaus B, et al. Phase 1b/2a study of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), paclitaxel, and pertuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18(1):34.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  364. Michel LL, Bermejo JL, Gondos A, Marme F, Schneeweiss A. T-DM1 as a new treatment option for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer in clinical practice. Anticancer Res. 2015;35(9):5085–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  365. Kiewe P, Hasmuller S, Kahlert S, Heinrigs M, Rack B, Marme A, et al. Phase I trial of the trifunctional anti-HER2 x anti-CD3 antibody ertumaxomab in metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(10):3085–91.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  366. Tinoco G, Warsch S, Gluck S, Avancha K, Montero AJ. Treating breast cancer in the 21st century: emerging biological therapies. J Cancer. 2013;4(2):117–32.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  367. Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im YH, Roman L, Tseng LM, Liu MC, et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(1):25–32.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  368. Geretti E, van Meeteren LA, Shimizu A, Dudley AC, Claesson-Welsh L, Klagsbrun M. A mutated soluble neuropilin-2 B domain antagonizes vascular endothelial growth factor bioactivity and inhibits tumor progression. Mol Cancer Res. 2010;8(8):1063–73.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  369. Kirouac DC, Du JY, Lahdenranta J, Overland R, Yarar D, Paragas V, et al. Computational modeling of ERBB2-amplified breast cancer identifies combined ErbB2/3 blockade as superior to the combination of MEK and AKT inhibitors. Sci Signal. 2013;6(288):ra68.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  370. McDonagh CF, Huhalov A, Harms BD, Adams S, Paragas V, Oyama S, et al. Antitumor activity of a novel bispecific antibody that targets the ErbB2/ErbB3 oncogenic unit and inhibits heregulin-induced activation of ErbB3. Mol Cancer Ther. 2012;11(3):582–93.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  371. Konecny GE, Pegram MD, Venkatesan N, Finn R, Yang G, Rahmeh M, et al. Activity of the dual kinase inhibitor lapatinib (GW572016) against HER-2-overexpressing and trastuzumab-treated breast cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2006;66(3):1630–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  372. Johnston S, Pippen Jr J, Pivot X, Lichinitser M, Sadeghi S, Dieras V, et al. Lapatinib combined with letrozole versus letrozole and placebo as first-line therapy for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(33):5538–46.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  373. Yap TA, Vidal L, Adam J, Stephens P, Spicer J, Shaw H, et al. Phase I trial of the irreversible EGFR and HER2 kinase inhibitor BIBW 2992 in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(25):3965–72.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  374. Lin NU, Winer EP, Wheatley D, Carey LA, Houston S, Mendelson D, et al. A phase II study of afatinib (BIBW 2992), an irreversible ErbB family blocker, in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer progressing after trastuzumab. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(3):1057–65.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  375. Harbeck N, Huang CS, Hurvitz S, Yeh DC, Shao Z, Im SA, et al. Afatinib plus vinorelbine versus trastuzumab plus vinorelbine in patients with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer who had progressed on one previous trastuzumab treatment (LUX-Breast 1): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(3):357–66.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  376. Erlichman C, Boerner SA, Hallgren CG, Spieker R, Wang XY, James CD, et al. The HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor CI1033 enhances cytotoxicity of 7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin and topotecan by inhibiting breast cancer resistance protein-mediated drug efflux. Cancer Res. 2001;61(2):739–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  377. Brunner-Kubath C, Shabbir W, Saferding V, Wagner R, Singer CF, Valent P, et al. The PI3 kinase/mTOR blocker NVP-BEZ235 overrides resistance against irreversible ErbB inhibitors in breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129(2):387–400.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  378. Wong KK, Fracasso PM, Bukowski RM, Lynch TJ, Munster PN, Shapiro GI, et al. A phase I study with neratinib (HKI-272), an irreversible pan ErbB receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(7):2552–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  379. Awada A, Colomer R, Inoue K, Bondarenko I, Badwe RA, Demetriou G, et al. Neratinib plus paclitaxel vs trastuzumab plus paclitaxel in previously untreated metastatic ERBB2-positive breast cancer: the NEfERT-T randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(12):1557–64.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  380. Zuo WJ, Jiang YZ, Wang YJ, Xu XE, Hu X, Liu GY, et al. Dual characteristics of novel HER2 kinase domain mutations in response to HER2-targeted therapies in human breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(19):4859–69.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  381. Echavarria I, Lopez-Tarruella S, Marquez-Rodas I, Jerez Y, Martin M. Neratinib for the treatment of HER2-positive early stage breast cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2017;17(8):669–79.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  382. Baselga J. Combined anti-EGF receptor and anti-HER2 receptor therapy in breast cancer: a promising strategy ready for clinical testing. Ann Oncol. 2002;13(1):8–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  383. Lim SM, Xie T, Westover KD, Ficarro SB, Tae HS, Gurbani D, et al. Development of small molecules targeting the pseudokinase Her3. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2015;25(16):3382–9.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  384. Kim TE, Murren JR. Erlotinib OSI/Roche/Genentech. Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2002;3(9):1385–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  385. Liu CY, Huang TT, Huang CT, Hu MH, Wang DS, Wang WL, et al. EGFR-independent Elk1/CIP2A signalling mediates apoptotic effect of an erlotinib derivative TD52 in triple-negative breast cancer cells. Eur J Cancer. 2017;72:112–23.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  386. Fu X, Creighton CJ, Biswal NC, Kumar V, Shea M, Herrera S, et al. Overcoming endocrine resistance due to reduced PTEN levels in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer by co-targeting mammalian target of rapamycin, protein kinase B, or mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(5):430.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  387. Moreno-Aspitia A. Clinical overview of sorafenib in breast cancer. Future Oncol. 2010;6(5):655–63.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  388. Bazzola L, Foroni C, Andreis D, Zanoni V, R Cappelletti M, Allevi G, et al. Combination of letrozole, metronomic cyclophosphamide and sorafenib is well-tolerated and shows activity in patients with primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(1):52–60.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  389. Ferrario C, Strepponi I, Esfahani K, Charamis H, Langleben A, Scarpi E, et al. Phase I/II trial of sorafenib in combination with vinorelbine as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. PLoS One. 2016;11(12), e0167906.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  390. Huang J, Wang S, Lyu H, Cai B, Yang X, Wang J, et al. The anti-erbB3 antibody MM-121/SAR256212 in combination with trastuzumab exerts potent antitumor activity against trastuzumab-resistant breast cancer cells. Mol Cancer. 2013;12(1):134.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  391. Schoeberl B, Faber AC, Li D, Liang MC, Crosby K, Onsum M, et al. An ErbB3 antibody, MM-121, is active in cancers with ligand-dependent activation. Cancer Res. 2010;70(6):2485–94.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  392. Curley MD, Sabnis GJ, Wille L, Adiwijaya BS, Garcia G, Moyo V, et al. Seribantumab, an anti-ERBB3 antibody, delays the onset of resistance and restores sensitivity to letrozole in an estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer model. Mol Cancer Ther. 2015;14(11):2642–52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  393. Espelin CW, Leonard SC, Geretti E, Wickham TJ, Hendriks BS. Dual HER2 Targeting with trastuzumab and liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin (MM-302) demonstrates synergistic antitumor activity in breast and gastric cancer. Cancer Res. 2016;76(6):1517–27.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  394. Martin M, Lopez-Tarruella S. Emerging therapeutic options for HER2-positive breast cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35:e64–70.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  395. Moulder SL, Borges VF, Baetz T, McSpadden T, Fernetich G, Murthy RK, et al. Phase I study of ONT-380, a HER2 inhibitor, in patients with HER2 + -advanced solid tumors, with an expansion cohort in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(14):3529–36.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  396. Doi T, Takiuchi H, Ohtsu A, Fuse N, Goto M, Yoshida M, et al. Phase I first-in-human study of TAK-285, a novel investigational dual HER2/EGFR inhibitor, in cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(4):666–72.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  397. Nakayama A, Takagi S, Yusa T, Yaguchi M, Hayashi A, Tamura T, et al. Antitumor activity of TAK-285, an investigational, non-Pgp substrate HER2/EGFR kinase inhibitor, in cultured tumor cells, mouse and rat xenograft tumors, and in an HER2-positive brain metastasis model. J Cancer. 2013;4(7):557–65.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  398. Takagi S, Banno H, Hayashi A, Tamura T, Ishikawa T, Ohta Y. HER2 and HER3 cooperatively regulate cancer cell growth and determine sensitivity to the novel investigational EGFR/HER2 kinase inhibitor TAK-285. Oncoscience. 2014;1(3):196–204.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  399. Meng X, Li Y, Tang H, Mao W, Yang H, Wang X, et al. Drug response to HER2 gatekeeper T798M mutation in HER2-positive breast cancer. Amino Acids. 2016;48(2):487–97.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  400. Krop IE, Beeram M, Modi S, Jones SF, Holden SN, Yu W, et al. Phase I study of trastuzumab-DM1, an HER2 antibody-drug conjugate, given every 3 weeks to patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(16):2698–704.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  401. Wang L, Yu X, Wang C, Pan S, Liang B, Zhang Y, et al. The anti-ErbB2 antibody H2-18 and the pan-PI3K inhibitor GDC-0941 effectively inhibit trastuzumab-resistant ErbB2-overexpressing breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8(32):52877–88.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  402. Tolaney S, Burris H, Gartner E, Mayer IA, Saura C, Maurer M, et al. Phase I/II study of pilaralisib (SAR245408) in combination with trastuzumab or trastuzumab plus paclitaxel in trastuzumab-refractory HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149(1):151–61.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  403. Abramson VG, Supko JG, Ballinger T, Cleary JM, Hilton JF, Tolaney SM, et al. Phase Ib study of safety and pharmacokinetics of the PI3K inhibitor SAR245408 with the HER3-neutralizing human antibody SAR256212 in patients with solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(14):3520–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  404. Modi S, Stopeck AT, Gordon MS, Mendelson D, Solit DB, Bagatell R, et al. Combination of trastuzumab and tanespimycin (17-AAG, KOS-953) is safe and active in trastuzumab-refractory HER-2 overexpressing breast cancer: a phase I dose-escalation study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(34):5410–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  405. Gartner EM, Silverman P, Simon M, Flaherty L, Abrams J, Ivy P, et al. A phase II study of 17-allylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin in metastatic or locally advanced, unresectable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131(3):933–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  406. Modi S, Stopeck A, Linden H, Solit D, Chandarlapaty S, Rosen N, et al. HSP90 inhibition is effective in breast cancer: a phase II trial of tanespimycin (17-AAG) plus trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer progressing on trastuzumab. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(15):5132–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  407. Hanson BE, Vesole DH. Retaspimycin hydrochloride (IPI-504): a novel heat shock protein inhibitor as an anticancer agent. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2009;18(9):1375–83.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  408. Modi S, Saura C, Henderson C, Lin NU, Mahtani R, Goddard J, et al. A multicenter trial evaluating retaspimycin HCL (IPI-504) plus trastuzumab in patients with advanced or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139(1):107–13.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  409. Jhaveri K, Taldone T, Modi S, Chiosis G. Advances in the clinical development of heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) inhibitors in cancers. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1823(3):742–55.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  410. Xiang L, Gilkes DM, Chaturvedi P, Luo W, Hu H, Takano N, et al. Ganetespib blocks HIF-1 activity and inhibits tumor growth, vascularization, stem cell maintenance, invasion, and metastasis in orthotopic mouse models of triple-negative breast cancer. J Mol Med (Berl). 2014;92(2):151–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  411. Friedland JC, Smith DL, Sang J, Acquaviva J, He S, Zhang C, et al. Targeted inhibition of Hsp90 by ganetespib is effective across a broad spectrum of breast cancer subtypes. Invest New Drugs. 2014;32(1):14–24.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  412. Jiang J, Lu Y, Li Z, Li L, Niu D, Xu W, et al. Ganetespib overcomes resistance to PARP inhibitors in breast cancer by targeting core proteins in the DNA repair machinery. Invest New Drugs. 2017;35(3):251–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  413. Gril B, Palmieri D, Qian Y, Anwar T, Liewehr DJ, Steinberg SM, et al. Pazopanib inhibits the activation of PDGFRbeta-expressing astrocytes in the brain metastatic microenvironment of breast cancer cells. Am J Pathol. 2013;182(6):2368–79.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  414. Cristofanilli M, Johnston SR, Manikhas A, Gomez HL, Gladkov O, Shao Z, et al. A randomized phase II study of lapatinib + pazopanib versus lapatinib in patients with HER2+ inflammatory breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;137(2):471–82.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  415. Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN, Chrysikos D, Papadimitriou CA, Dimopoulos MA, Psaltopoulou T. Hsp90 inhibitors in breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast. 2013;22(5):569–78.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  416. Arnold LD, Calderwood DJ, Dixon RW, Johnston DN, Kamens JS, Munschauer R, et al. Pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidines containing an extended 5-substituent as potent and selective inhibitors of lck I. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2000;10(19):2167–70.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  417. Burchat AF, Calderwood DJ, Hirst GC, Holman NJ, Johnston DN, Munschauer R, et al. Pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidines containing an extended 5-substituent as potent and selective inhibitors of lck II. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2000;10(19):2171–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  418. Mukai H, Saeki T, Aogi K, Naito Y, Matsubara N, Shigekawa T, et al. Patritumab plus trastuzumab and paclitaxel in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Sci. 2016;107(10):1465–70.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  419. Schaefer G, Haber L, Crocker LM, Shia S, Shao L, Dowbenko D, et al. A two-in-one antibody against HER3 and EGFR has superior inhibitory activity compared with monospecific antibodies. Cancer Cell. 2011;20(4):472–86.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  420. Tao JJ, Castel P, Radosevic-Robin N, Elkabets M, Auricchio N, Aceto N, et al. Antagonism of EGFR and HER3 enhances the response to inhibitors of the PI3K-Akt pathway in triple-negative breast cancer. Sci Signal. 2014;7(318):ra29.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  421. Jiang H, Rugo HS. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer: how the latest results are improving therapeutic options. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2015;7(6):321–39.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  422. Ruttala HB, Ko YT. Liposome encapsulated albumin-paclitaxel nanoparticle for enhanced antitumor efficacy. Pharm Res. 2015;32(3):1002–16.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Brodsky et al. 2017

Advertisement