Back to Journals » OncoTargets and Therapy » Volume 7

Cytoprotection “gone astray’’: Nrf2 and its role in cancer

Authors Geismann C, Arlt A, Sebens S, Schäfer H

Received 30 March 2014

Accepted for publication 9 June 2014

Published 26 August 2014 Volume 2014:7 Pages 1497—1518

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S36624

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 5



Claudia Geismann,1 Alexander Arlt,1 Susanne Sebens,2 Heiner Schäfer1

1Laboratory of Molecular Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine I, 2Inflammatory Carcinogenesis Research Group, Institute of Experimental Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany

Abstract: Nrf2 has gained great attention with respect to its pivotal role in cell and tissue protection. Primarily defending cells against metabolic, xenobiotic and oxidative stress, Nrf2 is essential for maintaining tissue integrity. Owing to these functions, Nrf2 is regarded as a promising drug target in the chemoprevention of diseases, including cancer. However, much evidence has accumulated that the beneficial role of Nrf2 in cancer prevention essentially depends on the tight control of its activity. In fact, the deregulation of Nrf2 is a critical determinant in oncogenesis and found in many types of cancer. Therefore, amplified Nrf2 activity has profound effects on the phenotype of tumor cells, including radio/chemoresistance, apoptosis protection, invasiveness, antisenescence, autophagy deficiency, and angiogenicity. The deregulation of Nrf2 can result from various epigenetic and genetic alterations directly affecting Nrf2 control or from the complex interplay of Nrf2 with numerous oncogenic signaling pathways. Additionally, alterations of the cellular environment, eg, during inflammation, contribute to Nrf2 deregulation and its persistent activation. Therefore, the status of Nrf2 as anti- or protumorigenic is defined by many different modalities. A better understanding of these modalities is essential for the safe use of Nrf2 as an activation target for chemoprevention on the one hand and as an inhibition target in cancer therapy on the other. The present review mainly addresses the conditions that promote the oncogenic function of Nrf2 and the resulting consequences providing the rationale for using Nrf2 as a target structure in cancer therapy.

Keywords: xenobiotic and oxidative stress, tumorigenesis, cancer therapy, transcription factor, carcinogen

Introduction

The integrity and function of mammalian cells is under the tight control of numerous homeostatic signaling pathways that provide protection against endogenous and environmental hazards. However, the deregulation and amplification of these pathways can cause devastating diseases, as particularly seen in cancer, where cytoprotective mechanisms are often inadequately engaged, giving rise to highly stress-tolerant cells that escape homeostatic control.

One prominent example is the oxidative and xenobiotic stress-response pathway, under the control of Nrf2, which has an essential role in cytoprotection.14 Based on this role, in particular by preventing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage and mutagenic events, Nrf2 was regarded for a long time as a tumor inhibitor, thus providing the rationale of tumor-prevention strategies using Nrf2 activators.58 However, this view had to be modified when it was recognized that deregulated Nrf2 activity can also favor a malignant phenotype and promote carcinogenesis.6,912 Ample evidence has accumulated that Nrf2 either acts itself as a proto-oncogene or that Nrf2 supports the transforming potential of other proto-oncogenes. For example, the Nrf2-dependent upregulation of antioxidative and antiapoptotic pathways essentially contributes to the forced proliferation and survival of kRas-transformed cells. 13 Other Nrf2 effects that add to a malignant phenotype include an altered metabolism and an enhanced regulated protein turnover by the ubiquitin–proteasome system.

Therefore, under homeostatic conditions, Nrf2-dependent cytoprotective effects avoid excessive cellular damage and dysfunction, but when they lose their tight control, these effects substantially add to the malignant phenotype of cancer cells. Accordingly, enhanced Nrf2 activity has been found in a great number of solid and hematologic tumors resulting either from mutational events, epigenetic effects, or constitutive stress adaptation. This condition of deregulated Nrf2 provides several growth advantages to cancer cells, including antisenescence, proliferation, and antiapoptosis, as well as a profound resistance to drugs and radiotherapy. Therefore, Nrf2 has become of great interest with regard to its use in therapy and the diagnosis of malignant diseases.

The present review primarily discusses the most recent aspects regarding the role of Nrf2 in the initiation and development of cancer. Other findings beyond this issue have been the subject of many excellent reviews on the dual role of Nrf2 in tumorigenesis, published recently.512

Oxidative and xenobiotic stress

During evolution, cells became exposed to an oxygen-enriched (aerobic) atmosphere, and thereby acquired essential growth advantages. In particular, an oxidative metabolism along with a maximum of energy yield has favored the development of complex (higher) organisms, but many hazards also arose from oxygen. Deriving from molecular oxygen, various reactive molecules and free radicals (eg, superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radical, hydroxyl ion, and nitric oxide) can form, which are collectively designated as reactive oxygen species (ROS).14,15 Besides environmental conditions, eg, heat and irradiation, ROS are also produced biologically in aerobic cells. In these cells, most ROS are generated as by-products during mitochondrial electron transport. ROS are also produced as intermediates of enzymatic oxidation reactions, having an important role as intra- and intercellular messengers. 16 In addition, ROS – mainly released by phagocytes – are effective in the cellular defense against microbes, thus having a pivotal role in innate immunity. 17

Owing to their deleterious effects on cell components (lipids, proteins, and DNA) ROS need to be efficiently neutralized in aerobic cells, and a balance between generation and removal of ROS is an essential prerequisite for cellular survival. This balance is maintained by a number of tightly regulated defense mechanisms, a failure of which leads to a condition termed oxidative stress. 18 If left uncompensated, oxidative stress impacts on cellular and tissue integrity, particularly through accumulating DNA damage, giving rise to severe pathologies, 19 including cancer.20,21 Representing the major protection system in higher organisms, Nrf2 drives ROS detoxification22,23 through inducing expression of many antioxidative enzymes, such as glutamate–cysteine ligase catalytic/modifier subunit (GCLC/M) and glutathione S-reductase for glutathione synthesis and recovery, heme oxygenase (HO)-1, peroxiredoxin-1/4, superoxide dismutases, thioredoxin or thioredoxin reductase 1, and aldo-keto reductases (AKRs).24,25

Another environmental hazard for cells emerges from xenobiotics, collectively designating natural or synthetic compounds foreign to the organism’s metabolism and biochemistry. 26 Xenobiotics include drugs, food additives, environmental pollutants, and fungal or microbial toxins making up hundreds of thousands of compounds affecting cellular integrity, 27 and the exposure to these foreign compounds is known as xenobiotic stress. To cope with this stress condition, all major groups of organisms possess particular metabolic pathways to detoxify potentially hazardous compounds. 26 However, intermediates of xenobiotic metabolism may become toxic as well, and sometimes give rise to ROS formation. 28

Detoxication of these xenobiotic compounds includes three phases. 29 In phase I, xenobiotics are oxidized by enzymes like nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1), reduced by enzymes like alcohol dehydrogenase, aldehyde dehydrogenases (ALDHs) and AKRs or hydroxylated by cytochrome P450 monooxygenases. 30 In phase II, the phase I products are conjugated to hydrophilic compounds, such as glucuronic acid (by uridine 5′-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferases [UGTs]), sulfate (by sulfotransferases), or glutathione (by glutathione S-transferases [GSTs]), thereby generating water-soluble products that can be easily eliminated from the body. 31 In phase III, these products are exported from cells by ABC/MRP or ABC/MDR transporters. Notably, many phase I, II, and III enzymes are target genes of Nrf2.32 These include NQO1, AKR1B1, ALDH3A1, GSTA1, GSTN1, UGT1A1, ABCB6, or ABCC15.24,25,32,33

The CNC-bZIP protein family and control of Nrf2 signaling

Together with two closely related proteins – Nrf1 and Nrf3 – as well as with NF-E2 and Bach-1, and Bach-2, Nrf2 belongs to a family of transcription factors termed CNC-bZIP proteins. 34 Quite unique to Nrf2 is the Neh2 domain near to the amino-terminal end, which serves as interaction domain with the Nrf2 inhibitory protein Keap1.35 This interaction depends on the low-affinity binding of a DLG and the high-affinity binding of an ETGE motif. Under homeostatic conditions, Nrf2 is kept at low levels when bound via DLG and ETGE to a homodimer of Keap1 through the DC domain of either one of the Keap1 subunits, leading to Cullin3/Rbx1-catalyzed polyubiquitination and subsequent proteasomal degradation of Nrf2 (Figure 1A).36,37 During conditions of oxidative/electrophilic or xenobiotic stress, the Cullin3/Rbx1-dependent polyubiquitination of Nrf2 under the assistance of Keap1 is blocked, thereby leading to the accumulation of Nrf2 protein and its subsequent translocation to the nucleus (Figure 1B). 36 The derepression of Nrf2 in this way depends on the dissociation of the Nrf2 polyubiquination site from Cullin3/Rbx1 without releasing Nrf2 from the protein complex (according to the hinge–latch model, in which the ETGE motif remains bound to Keap1), hence saturating Keap1 and competing with free Nrf2 that instead can enter the nucleus (Figure 2).38,39 An alternative mode of induction occurs through the release of Cullin3 from Keap1, thereby directly impeding the polyubiquitination of Nrf2. 40 During Nrf2 activation, Keap1 itself can be Lys63 polyubiquitinated, 41 which does not target the protein to the proteasome (in contrast to the Lys48 polyubiquitination of Nrf2), but instead seems to destabilize its Cullin3 interaction. Recently, the ubiquitin-specific protease-15 deubiquitinase was identified to deubiquitinate Keap1, 42 thereby restoring Cullin3 recruitment and accordingly Nrf2 suppression. This ubiquitination/deubiquitination of Keap1 may function as an additional Nrf2-regulatory mechanism.

Figure 1 (A and B) Principle of controlling Nrf2 by Keap1 and its activation.
Notes: (A) Under homeostatic conditions, Nrf2 is kept at low levels through its Keap1-dependent targeting to Cullin3/Rbx1-mediated Lys-48 polyubiquitination and subsequent proteasomal degradation. (B) During exposure to stress activators, the interaction between Nrf2 and Keap1 is weakened, thereby impairing Nrf2 polyubiquitination. While free Nrf2 then can enter the nucleus and drive antioxidant response element (ARE)-dependent gene expression along with certain modifications (eg, Ser-40 phosphorylation, acetylation), Keap-1 can be subject to Lys-63 polyubiquitination that leads to the release of Nrf2. Ubiquitin-specific protease (USP)-15 deubiquitinase reverses Keap1 polyubiquitination.

Figure 2 Interaction of Nrf2 and Keap1 according to the hinge–latch model.
Notes: Nrf2 tightly binds to homodimeric Keap1 through interaction of the ETGE and DLG motifs within the Neh2 domain and either one of the double-glycine repeat (DGR) sites of Keap1. This configuration facilitates polyubiquitination of Nrf2 by Cullin3/Rbx1. Upon sulfhydryl modifications of certain cysteine residues of Keap1, the DLG motif of Nrf2 is released from the interaction with the DGR site. This blocks polyubiquitination of Nrf2, which however remains bound to the Keap1 dimer through the ETGE/DGR interaction. Thereby, Keap1 is saturated with Nrf2 leaving yet-unbound Nrf2 free and capable of entering the nucleus.
Abbreviations: DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid; BTB, bric-a-brac; IVR, intervening region.

Along with its release from Keap1-dependent suppression, Nrf2 undergoes certain posttranslational modifications 43 that support its nuclear translocation and binding to the antioxidant response element (ARE)/electrophile response element (EpRE) serving as a recognition motif in the target gene promoters: 1) PKC-dependent phosphorylation on Ser-40, 44 2) phosphorylation through the MAPK/PERK signaling pathway in response to endoplasmic reticulum/unfolded protein stress 45 or by casein kinase 2, 46 and 3) CBP/p300- or hMOF (males absent on the first)-mediated acetylation of lysyl residues within the Neh1 domain of Nrf2,47,48 facilitating binding to the ARE/EpRE sites. 49 The activation of Nrf2 is further promoted by additional signal transduction pathways, eg, ERK, JNK, or PI3K/Akt.38,50,51 Negative control of Nrf2 is exerted by (for example) p38/MAPK, GSK3B, or PTEN.5254

For DNA binding, Nrf2 further needs to heterodimerize with other bZIP proteins, eg, with c-Jun or with one of seven Maf proteins.55,56 These proteins – in particular the three small Maf proteins Maf-F, -G, and -K (themselves lacking transactivation activity) – associate with extended ARE/EpRE motifs at the promoters, and are essential for binding of Nrf2 to the core ARE/EpRE motif and thereby for Nrf2-dependent transactivation. 57

The interaction of Nrf2 with Maf proteins is also under the control of several signal-transduction pathways, eg, ERK, JNK, p38/MAPK, and PI3K/Akt,5860 and requires additional cofactors, eg, JDP2. 61 In contrast to Maf proteins, the two proteins 62 Bach-1 and Bach-2 act rather as transcriptional repressors of Nrf2.6365

The major principle of Nrf2 activation is the redox-dependent alteration of the Keap1 conformation conferred by the sulfhydryl groups of more than 20 intrinsic cysteine residues. ROS and electrophilic compounds lead to disulfide formation and cysteine conjugates, respectively, similarly affecting the function of Keap1 as an E3-ligase receptor for Nrf2.6668 There is a restriction of cysteine residues within the Keap1 protein, eg, Cys251, Cys273, and Cys288, with respect to the access of electrophilic compounds defining the activity of Nrf2-inducing substances like tert-butylhydroquinone (tBHQ), diethyl maleate, sulforaphane, 15-deoxy-Δ12,14-prostaglandin J2, 4-hydroxynonena, bardoxolone methyl (CDDO), curcumin, resveratrol, and many more.69,70 Meanwhile, hundreds of natural product-derived compounds have been established as inducers of the Nrf2/ARE pathway, including polyphenols, quinones, organosulfur compounds, polyenes, flavonoids, chalcones, and terpenoids. These agents have been successfully tested in experimental prevention studies with inflammatory bowel and neurodegenerative diseases, diabetes, and metabolic disorders, as well as lung, heart, and kidney diseases. 71 All these effectors of the Nrf2/ARE pathway are summarized in a comprehensive review by Kumar et al. 72

Representing an alternative mechanism of Nrf2 control, a ternary complex of Keap1 and Nrf2 is tethered to the outer mitochondrial membrane through PGAM5, 73 a member of the phosphoglycerate mutase family. Thereby, PGAM5 builds up a molecular framework that provides a direct link between mitochondrial functions and Nrf2-dependent antioxidant gene expression. Intriguingly, Keap1 has been reported to interfere also with the Bcl-xL apoptosis inhibitor in a PGAM5-dependent fashion. 74 Another condition of Keap1 deactivation is its interaction with phospho-p62 accumulating during autophagy deficiency. 75 Consequently, Keap1 fails to control Nrf2 stabilization if bound to phospho-p62, and autophagy-deficient cells show up with enhanced Nrf2 activation. 76 A similar disrupting effect on Keap1-mediated control of Nrf2 has been reported for the cyclin inhibitor p21/Waf1. 77 Therefore, the prosurvival effects described for p21 may at least partially rely on increased Nrf2 activation along with antioxidative protection. Besides Keap1, the E3 ligase receptor and F-box protein βTrCP is able to control the stability of the Nrf2 protein when phosphorylated in the Neh6 domain by GSK3B.78,79

The tumor suppressor p53 is also capable of preventing Nrf2 activation, 80 an effect involving destabilization of the Nrf2 protein and regarded as another mode of action by which p53 controls apoptosis. 81 This is restricted to cytotoxic stress conditions, because p53 also positively affects Nrf2, eg, through its target gene p21/Waf1. Hence, the modulation of Nrf2 by p53 is exerted in two ways, differentially affecting basal and stress-induced Nrf2 activity. Moreover, certain mutations of p53 even result in decreased Nrf2 activation and thereby in the amplification of oxidative stress, 82 pointing to the complexity of the cross talk between p53 and Nrf2. 81

Furthermore, negative regulation of Nrf2 is exerted by the GSK3B/Src-Fyn tyrosine-kinase pathway.54,83 Upon Fyn-dependent phosphorylation, Nrf2 is redirected to the cytoplasm, where it is bound to Keap1, itself being a target gene of Nrf2. 84 Nrf2 activation is also impaired by the NF-κB subunit p65/RelA, which coimports Keap1 into the nucleus, 85 and by E-cadherin, which blocks nuclear translocation of Nrf2 in a β-catenin-dependent fashion. 86 Other pathways negatively interfering with Nrf2 include those initiated by TFGβ1 87 through ATF3, 88 by nuclear hormone receptors, eg, estrogen receptor alpha (ERα), estrogen related receptor beta (ERRβ), glucocorticoid receptor (GR), 89 and under certain conditions also retinoid receptors (RXRα/RARα).9093 Since the complex regulation of Nrf2 activation and the structural basis thereof have been the subject of numerous excellent reviews found in the recent literature,9–11,94,95 this issue is not addressed in greater detail here.

The antitumorigenic role of Nrf2

Before the protumorigenic effects exerted by Nrf2 are outlined in detail, some key aspects of its tumor-inhibiting potential should be briefly highlighted here. Over the years, a plethora of studies demonstrated that Nrf2 exerts tumor-preventive activity through its cytoprotective effects. These protect cells from DNA damage and the deterioration of proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids if exposed to oxidative and xenobiotic stress.5,7,8 Accordingly, an impaired function of Nrf2 accounts for many stress-induced pathological disorders, 96 which could be most impressively seen in per-se viable Nrf2-knockout mice. 97 For instance, greater tissue damage in the lung, kidney, brain, liver, eye, or heart was seen in Nrf2-knockout mice subjected to acute insults like cigarette smoke, hyperoxia, ischemic reperfusion, portal vein embolization, and chemical toxins or when being subject of aging.96,98102 Similarly, mice treated with the mutagen azoxymethane and/or the colitis-inducing chaotropic agent dextran sulfate sodium became much more sensitive to colonic inflammation and colon cancer formation if the Nrf2 gene had been ablated.103105 Likewise, nitrosamine-induced carcinogenesis in the bladder, ultraviolet-induced skin carcinogenesis, or aflatoxin-induced formation of human hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) was greatly enhanced in Nrf2-deficient mice when compared with Nrf2-proficient mice.106110 Accordingly, the cancer-preventive effects of Nrf2-inducing agents like oltipraz or CDDO–imidazole were abrogated in such mouse models if Nrf2-dependent gene expression had been shut down.111,112 Other chemoprevention strategies, eg, by curcumin or sulforaphane, were also affected by Nrf2 deficiency in mouse models for such organ sites as the lung, kidney, breast, liver, small intestine, stomach, and skin.96,111,113116 For instance, development of colon tumors in APCMin mice was efficiently prevented by sulforaphane, but this effect was abrogated in Nrf2-deficient mice. Moreover, mice expressing an aberrant APC protein were per se more sensitive to colon-tumor formation if the Nrf2 gene had been ablated. 117 These observations strongly indicate that Nrf2 also protects from deleterious effects initiated by certain genetic alterations, eg, of the APC gene, presumably through the inhibition of further, ROS-dependent genetic lesions and by interfering with metabolic alterations that could favor tumorigenesis. Under certain conditions, Nrf2 can suppress metastasis formation, eg, in pulmonary cancer in mice, which was shown to be related to control of the redox balance in inflammatory cells, including myeloid-derived suppressor cells. 118

Additional evidence for the view that Nrf2 exerts antitumor effects, eg, in hormone-sensitive tumors, was provided by the observation that Nrf2 interferes with nuclear hormone receptors, eg, in prostate cancer. A recent study showed that Nrf2 and the related CNC-bZIP protein Nrf1 differentially modulate AR transactivation in prostate cancer. 119 While an N-terminally truncated variant of Nrf1 (p65-Nrf1) promoted the expression of androgen-regulated genes and thereby facilitated recurrent growth of castration-resistant prostate cancer cells in the presence of residual trace amounts of androgens, Nrf2 inhibited this effect of Nrf1. Besides a role as transdominant repressor of Nrf2, 120 p65-Nrf1 is obviously able directly to form a transactivation complex with the AR, and Nrf2 dampens the formation of p65-Nrf1. 119

Altogether, there seems to be no doubt that Nrf2 can efficiently protect from cancer initiation/development, mainly by mitigating genotoxic insults that emerge from exposure to carcinogens and extrinsically or intrinsically generated ROS. This issue has been addressed by numerous, sometimes enthusiastic, articles and reviews published recently.7,121123 Indeed, as long as the cytoprotective action of Nrf2 is kept under tight control, it could serve as a target in cancer prevention. Based on this idea, many efforts have been undertaken to establish conditions of increased Nrf2 activity and thereby to avoid ROS or carcinogen-induced tissue damage and hence pathologies like cancer. In fact, most of these studies were first carried out in cell-culture settings and then in animal studies – mainly in Nrf2-proficient versus -deficient mice – by using established disease models. It was therefore not surprising that as long as the investigators made use of timely Nrf2 activation close to the damaging and disease-causing insult, a favorable response was always quite well (and mostly) affected by Nrf2 knockout. This included not only cancer but also other severe pathologies, such as diabetes, obesity, pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases, or neurodegenerative disorders.29,70,124128

Considering Nrf2 in this way as an inducible and cancer-preventive target, several population-based clinical trials have been conducted or are under way, particularly in the People’s Republic of China. 129 For example, CDDO, sulforaphane, and oltipraz applications have been shown to be well tolerated in humans, resulting in elevated levels of cytoprotective enzymes.130,131 Moreover, aflatoxin intoxication as a risk factor for HCC was decreased by oltipraz during a 12-week study with a high-risk Chinese population. 132 Other trials, however, eg, with CDDO or bardoxolone, have been unsuccessful or resulted in severe side effects. 133 Even though most of these trials still await evaluation, the rather positive view regarding Nrf2-based prevention strategies has begun to change. Since the oncogenic activity of Nrf2 has been clearly demonstrated, concerns regarding the safe use of Nrf2 activators, eg, in long-term administration, are increasing. Therefore, more efforts are needed to better understand the modalities by which Nrf2 can be used as a therapeutic target. For example, the use of the recently established conditional Nrf2-knockout mouse, 134 allowing ablation of the gene in a cell/tissue-specific and even better in a temporarily controlled fashion (if crossed with the appropriate CreER[T] system), would bring detailed insights into the dual role of Nrf2 in carcinogenesis and by what cellular context this dualism is defined.

The protumorigenic role of Nrf2

Molecular mechanisms of Nrf2 amplification in cancer

It is well established that a great number of tumors frequently exhibit enhanced Nrf2 activity, which may essentially contribute to a malignant phenotype. Nrf2 amplifications range from a frequency of 20%–25% in some tumor types up to 80%–95% in lung, breast, ovarian, endometrial, pancreatic, colorectal, or prostate cancer.6,911,95,135,136 This amplified Nrf2 activation manifests in increased nuclear accumulation of Nrf2, 137 and even more in its Ser-40 phosphorylated form, 138 and by greater expression levels of phase II and antioxidative enzymes, as well as a wide range of other Nrf2-regulated genes. Besides a few exceptions, such as acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome, 139 the presence of activated Nrf2 in tumors generally correlates with a poor clinical outcome, as reported for (for example) pancreatic, cervical, or lung cancer, and indicates poor responsiveness to chemo- and/or radiotherapy. However, the exact modalities by which Nrf2 is deregulated and thereby becomes protumorigenic are quite complex and only partially understood.9,10

By conferring protection from oxidative stress or carcinogen-induced damage of cellular components – in particular, DNA, thereby avoiding mutational events – Nrf2 primarily acts in a tumor-preventive fashion. However, Nrf2 may become protumorigenic if persistently activated. This can result from certain genetic and epigenetic alterations affecting the Nrf2/Keap1 pathway, from other oncogenic pathways, or from long-term exposure of epithelial cells to persistent oxidative stress. For example, the latter occurs during chronic inflammation (Figure 3), and represents a condition favoring the early onset of malignant transformation. In fact, precursor lesions of tumors already exhibit elevated Nrf2 activities with considerable frequency,140143 presumably reflecting a critical stage when Nrf2 is part of the cellular stress adaptation and exerts pro- as well as antitumorigenic effects. At that point, additional events could then direct Nrf2 to act as an oncogene.

Figure 3 The dual role of Nrf2 in cancer.
Notes: As long as it is kept under homeostatic control, Nrf2 activation protects cellular components like DNA from damaging insults arising from acute/temporary oxidative and xenobiotic stress. In this way, Nrf2 prevents tumor development. When deregulated by 1) epigenetic and genetic alterations affecting the Keap1–Nrf2 pathway, 2) persistent stress conditions, and/or 3) oncogenic pathways, Nrf2 activation facilitates the growth and survival of transformed cells, thus promoting tumorigenesis.
Abbreviations: ROS, reactive oxygen species; DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid; tBHQ, tert-butylhydroquinone; SFN, sulforaphane.

It is well established that certain somatic genetic alterations affecting the KEAP1 gene (frequencies of up to 30% in gallbladder, ovarian, or lung cancer) or the Nrf2 gene itself (less frequent) directly impact on Nrf2 signaling.95,135,144,145 The most common genetic alterations affect Keap1 in its DC domain, and here mainly within the DLG motif, thereby disrupting Nrf2 binding. In lung cancer, these mutations are found with the greatest frequency. Other tumor entities exhibit mutations in the intervening region (IVR) domain (eg, in prostate cancer) and sometimes in the bric-a-brac (BTB) domain of the KEAP1 gene (eg, in liver and ovary cancer). These mutations impair the interaction of Keap1 with Cullin3 and its homodimerization, thereby affecting polyubiquitination and binding of Nrf2, respectively.95,135 Many of the mutations affect the reactive cysteine residues residing in the IVR and DC domains of Keap1, while others affect additional amino acids, eg, serine at position 104 in the BTB domain, essential for Keap1 homodimerization. Another set of cancer-derived mutations that have been identified include those of glycine (positions 186, 423), arginine (positions 320 or 470), and other amino acids within the BTB, IVR, and DC domains. As shown for lung cancer, these mutations do not impair polyubiquitination of Nrf2, but instead suppress its degradation. 146 The functional significance and underlying mechanisms of these so-called superbinder mutations still need to be elucidated.

In contrast to the rather widespread mutations in the KEAP1 gene, gain-of-function-like mutations in the Nrf2 gene are restricted to the DLG and ETGE motifs within the Neh2 domain. 147 These mutations are found, eg, in skin, larynx, lung, and squamous esophageal cancers,148,149 but overall are much less frequently found in tumors than KEAP1 mutations.

Moreover, a number of epigenetic alterations affecting Keap1 expression have been described that can lead to disinhibition of Nrf2 in cancer cells as well.95,135,144 In several tumor entities, disruption of Keap1 expression due to CpG DNA hypermethylation has been reported. These modifications are found in 51% of breast, 20% of colorectal, and 12% of lung cancers, accounting for decreased levels of Keap1 and conversely enhanced Nrf2 activation.94,150 Accordingly, 5′-aza-2′-deoxycytidine (5-Aza-dC) treatment could restore Keap1 expression and the control of Nrf2 activity in a number of tumor cell lines.151,152 Interestingly, a recent study revealed that Keap1-promoter hypermethylation is more frequent in preinvasive breast neoplasms than in the breast cancers. 141 Furthermore, Nrf2 was identified as a methylation target. During the development of prostate cancer in TRAMP (transgenic adenocarcinoma of the mouse prostate) mice, a modified expression of Nrf2 based on hypermethylation was demonstrated, 153 and treatment with 5-Aza-dC restores the expression of Nrf2 and its target genes. Another study showed that curcumin, a DNA hypomethylating agent, reverses the methylation status of the Nrf2 promoter and leads to reexpression of Nrf2/NQO1. 154 A DNA methylation-dependent alteration of the inhibitory feedback loop between the integrin adaptor protein p66Shc and Nrf2 has been demonstrated in lung cancer, accounting for tumoral Nrf2 upregulation. 155

Also a number of micro-ribonucleic acids (miRNAs) have been reported to attenuate Keap1 expression. miR141 and miR200a, both member of the miR200 family, suppress Keap1 and are overexpressed in ovarian and breast cancers, respectively.156,157 Downregulation of Nrf2-suppressing miRNAs has been described in cancer cells as well. Recent studies identified decreased targeting of Nrf2 by miR28 in breast cancer, 158 and four miRNAs are downregulated in esophageal squamous cell carcinomas (miR-507, -634, -450a, and -129-5p), 159 the reexpression of which negatively regulate Nrf2 and its oncogenic pathways.

Besides these genetic and epigenetic effects that have been mainly found in solid-tumor entities, metabolic conditions marked by fumarate hydratase deficiency lead to cysteine succinylation of Keap1, hampering its Nrf2 suppressive activity.160,161 Nrf2 activation may be enhanced also in hematologic tumors and/or deregulated in solid tumors through its cross talk with different tumor-associated pathways and proto-oncogenes. This is outlined in the next section.

Cross talk of Nrf2 with oncogenic and tumor-suppressor pathways

Numerous signaling pathways have been shown to cooperate intimately with Nrf2. These pathways are either oncogenic per se and assisted by Nrf2 to induce a transformed phenotype (eg, the kRas or PI3K/Akt pathway), or are Nrf2-dependently modulated to favor malignant transformation (eg, the ubiquitin/proteasome pathway, metabolic pathways). Therefore, inhibition of Nrf2 would either dampen the oncogenic potential of certain pathways or even switch off cellular functions that are essential for cancer cell survival. Moreover, tumor-suppressor pathways can positively and negatively cooperate with Nrf2 (eg, p53), depending on the duration of oxidative and genotoxic stress. Following are several pathways that have been reported to be part of the oncogenic activity of Nrf2.

Nrf2 and kRas, BRaf, and cMyc oncogenes

A number of studies reported a close association of kRas transformation and an increased activity of Nrf2 along with accelerated cell growth and increased cellular survival. In a pancreatic cancer mouse model, 13 it was shown that oncogenic kRas activates expression of a series of antioxidant and metabolic genes via Nrf2 that are collectively used as the reducing power for ROS detoxification. 162 During kRas-dependent lung carcinogenesis in mice, Nrf2 seems to have two roles: a preventive one during tumor initiation and a promoting one during tumor progression and metastasis formation.163,164 In non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Nrf2 has been shown to be a downstream mediator of both EGFR and Ras signaling, making Nrf2 an important molecular target for the treatment of NSCLC with mutations in the EGFR and KRAS genes. 165 BRaf mutations or mutated H-Ras autonomously driving activation of the ERK pathway similarly enhance Nrf2-dependent cytoprotection.13,166 The involvement of Nrf2 in oncogene-dependent pathways confers protection from ROS and provides reducing power for biosynthesis in proliferating cells. Interestingly and in striking contrast, Nrf2-dependent oxidative stress response is suppressed in H-Ras-transformed mesenchymal stem cells and breast cancer cells through the Ras/Raf/Erk pathway, thus indicating that oncogenic Ras and Nrf2 may also negatively cooperate in certain types of tumors. 167

Like kRas, the cMyc oncogene has been linked to Nrf2-dependent cytoprotection. In a transgenic mouse model, cMyc has been shown to directly increase Nrf2 gene expression, 13 and a recent study in Drosophila revealed Myc-dependent activation of Nrf2 through an increased expression and phosphorylation of p62 as well as activation of PERK. 168 In contrast, cMyc has been reported to interfere negatively with Nrf2 transactivation, causing suppression of phase II enzyme expression. 169

Nrf2 and the PI3K/Akt pathway, PTEN, and mTOR

Since activation of Nrf2 is linked to the PI3K/Akt pathway there is a clear association in cancers that frequently are subject to amplification of PI3K/Akt. By inducing cell proliferation, apoptosis, migration, and differentiation, the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway is a major determinant in cancer development and malignant progression. 170 In multiple studies with cancer and/or epithelial cell lines, it was shown that Nrf2-mediated defense mechanisms against intracellular ROS are induced by the activated PI3K/Akt signaling pathway.171173 Accordingly, functional loss of PTEN, an event occurring frequently in cancer, can lead to enhanced Nrf2 activation along with greater cytoprotection.53,174 Moreover, PTEN deficiency might affect the GSK3β-dependent regulation of Fyn 175 or the recruitment of Nrf2 to βTrCP, 176 thereby preventing Keap1-independent control of Nrf2 activation.

Beyond that, Nrf2 acts not only downstream of Akt but also synergizes with Akt for providing growth advantages to tumor cells. In an experimental study with breast cancer cells, the transcriptional coactivator AIB1 was able to activate Akt and Nrf2 concurrently. Activated AIB1 results in an enhanced oncogenic effect of Akt through an upregulation of antiapoptotic Bcl-2 as well as an Nrf2-mediated increase of antioxidative enzymes, both leading to enhanced growth and chemoresistance. 177

Besides the reports on mTOR controlling Nrf2 activation, eg, through modulation of the Keap1 sequestration by the autophagy protein p62/SQSTM1, 178 an upregulation of the mTOR pathway in response to an amplified Nrf2 activation has been demonstrated. As one underlying mechanism, an indirect induction of the small G-protein RagD by activated Nrf2 has been proposed. 179 Consequently, tumors exhibiting enhanced Nrf2 activity may serve as an indicator for sensitivity against mTOR inhibitors.

Nrf2 and estrogen/ER

There are different pathways by which estrogen (E2) contributes to cancer development. Besides DNA–E2 adduct formation leading to DNA mutations that are critical for cancer initiation, it is known that oxidative estrogen metabolites generate ROS, 180 and the induction of Nrf2-dependent detoxifying enzymes, eg, NQO1, is regarded as an important mechanism to remove these toxic agents. 91 Through ERα and ERβ, estrogen differentially affects Nrf2 activation, and hence it has been shown that estrogen inhibits Nrf2 activity, resulting in augmented genotoxicity. This inhibition can result from physical interactions between ERα and Nrf2, 181 from competitive binding of ERα and the histone deacetylase SIRT1 to the promoter of Nrf2-inducible genes like NQO1, 91 or from interference with p300 recruitment leading to histone acetylation of Nrf2 target genes. 182 Moreover, estrogen-dependent decrease of miR-200a in breast cancer cells has been reported, resulting in increased cytoplasmic Keap1 levels and consequently in reduced Nrf2 expression. 156 Likewise, modulation of the miR-200 family by ERRα 183 may affect the Keap/Nrf2 pathway.

In contrast to ERα-mediated Nrf2 repression, ERβ-dependent Nrf2 induction has been reported. Equol, a specific activator of ERβ, leads to an induction of the PI3K/Akt pathway in endothelial cells, which in turn causes a translocation of activated Nrf2 into the nucleus. 184 Similar results were published for breast epithelial cells, and estrogen has been recently shown to induce Nrf2 activity in BRCA1-deficient breast cancer cells through activating the PI3K/Akt pathway. 185 Moreover, estrogen-bound ERβ forms a complex with Nrf2, and leads subsequently to an upregulation of ARE-dependent Nrf-2 target genes in MCF7 and MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells. 186

Nrf2 and NF-κB

The cross talk with NF-κB as another important tumor-driving pathway certainly has a crucial role in the shaping of the Nrf2 function toward a protumorigenic one. 187 On the one hand, both pathways negatively interfere with each other. 188 Therefore, activated NF-κB competes with Nrf2 for CBP coactivators and leads to histone deacetylase 3 binding to the ARE/EpRE and thereby to Nrf2 inactivation. 189 Induction of NF-κB target genes, such as COX2, can also lead to Nrf2 suppression. 190 Therefore, anti-inflammatory agents, such as resveratrol,191,192 curcumin, 193 shogaol derivatives, 194 or ethyl 3′,4′,5′-trimethoxythionocinnamate, 195 may suppress NF-κB signaling pathways and activate Nrf2 at the same time. Nrf2 also averts cellular damage of inflammation-exposed cells, thereby indirectly preventing sustained NF-κB activation. 188 On the other hand, under conditions of NF-κB-driven immune responses, Nrf2 may be activated indirectly by NF-κB as a result of the oxidative stress during inflammation. Moreover, a direct inducing effect of NF-κB on Nrf2 expression has been recently reported in acute myeloid leukemia cells, 196 and several common target genes of NF-κB and Nrf2, such as IL8, HO1, GCLC, and Gαi2, have been described. 188 Evidence also exists that Nrf2 may trigger the activation of NF-κB. This results from increased proteasome activity, which can potentiate degradation of the NF-κB inhibitor IκBα. 197

Nrf2 and the apoptosis regulators Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL

Both Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL represent ARE-controlled target genes of Nrf2.198,199 Accordingly, Nrf2 activation leads to an increased expression of these apoptosis-regulating proteins. Through the upregulation of Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL, amplified Nrf2 activity would therefore directly confer apoptosis protection to tumor cells, a condition essentially adding to the oncogenic effect of Nrf2 and its impact on a malignant phenotype. In addition to the direct transcriptional control by Nrf2, the fate of these two apoptosis regulators has been shown to be influenced by their interaction with Keap1 affecting their protein stability. 74 However, the physiological significance of this effect is not clear yet.

Nrf2 and p53

The tumor-suppressor gene p53, which substantially defines the cellular fate by regulating both pro- and antiapoptotic responses, is another cross-talk partner of Nrf2.188,200 When kept at homeostatic low protein levels, p53 controls ROS production and the cellular redox status 201 by modulating antioxidative and metabolic gene expression, eg, GLS2 and C12orf5.202,203 In this way, p53 may exert chemoprotective or tumor-suppressive effects in collaboration with Nrf2. 200 Moreover, p53 is stabilized through Nrf2 target genes like NQO1, 204 and in turn p53 has been shown to support Nrf2 activity, 82 thus pointing to a positive-feedback mechanism between both pathways. By contrast, p53 can also be suppressed through Nrf2-dependent induction of MDM2, representing an ARE-regulated target gene. 205 Therefore, the interplay between p53 and Nrf2 is of a complex nature and subject to subtle fine tuning that might be severely impaired in cancer.

Nrf2 and Notch

By controlling cell fate and cell renewal, the Notch pathway has a pivotal role in development and tissue homeostasis. Even though it exerts tumor-suppressive activities, the hyperactivation of Notch signaling has been implicated as oncogenic in several types of cancer. 206 Recently, activation of the Notch pathway was reported to control the Nrf2 promoter, leading to increased Nrf2 expression. 207 In turn, Nrf2 cooperates with the Notch pathway through inducing the expression of the soluble Notch ligand JAG1. 208 Therefore, the interplay between Nrf2 and Notch may represent a condition turning both Nrf2 and Notch protumorigenic, eg, with respect to self-renewal of cancer stem cells. 209

Nrf2 and caveolin

Recent studies have demonstrated that direct interaction with the scaffold protein caveolin 1 reduces the cytoprotective effects of Nrf2.210,211 Moreover, in colon cancer cells, loss of caveolin 1 contributes to a transformed phenotype in an Nrf2-dependent fashion. 212 When restoring caveolin 1 expression, a p53-dependent senescence pathway is initiated, due to the suppressed oxidative stress response. 212 Caveolin 1 has been shown also to modulate TFGβ1-dependent signaling in cancer cells, eg, related to epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT), 213 providing a possible link between oncogenic TFGβ1 and Nrf2 activation.

Nrf2 and autophagy

Representing the basic degradation machinery of cell components and organelles, selective autophagy is an integral part of the cellular stress response and cell-fate decision. 214 Selective autophagic cargos, such as ubiquitinated organelles, assemble together with the scaffold protein p62/SQSTM1 phosphorylated in an mTORC1-dependent manner. Intriguingly, phospho-p62 interferes with the Keap1/Nrf2 pathway, 178 and the accumulation of phospho-p62 leads to the persistent activation of Nrf2 in autophagy-deficient cells.75,215 Consequently, autophagy deficiency in cancer cells is accompanied by the cytoprotective and growth-supportive effects of Nrf2 that add, eg, to the growth of HCCs.76,216 The role of the Keap1/Nrf2 pathway in the control of selective autophagy is underscored by the fact that p62 is a target gene of Nrf2. 217 Therefore, Nrf2 may compensate for the deficiency of selective autophagy on the one hand and for the resulting cytotoxicity on the other hand. Accordingly, in other tumor entities, an increase of selective autophagy has been demonstrated that may be linked to the enhanced Nrf2 activity resulting from other amplification mechanisms.218,219 By contrast, Nrf2 has been shown to block autophagy induction by temozolomide in glioma or by mitoquinone in breast cancer cells,220,221 and a recent study demonstrated that tBHQ-mediated induction of autophagy is required for full activation of Nrf2 in hepatocytes. 222 These findings point to a complex interrelation between autophagy and cellular redox control.

Nrf2 as modulator of HIF1α and angiogenesis

Experimental evidence strongly suggests that Nrf2 also controls the fate of HIF1α and thereby contributes to angiogenesis.223,224 By stabilizing HIF1α through its impact on mitochondrial O2 consumption and ROS formation, Nrf2 promotes VEGF-dependent microvessel formation in tumors, eg, in colon cancer or glioblastoma. Accordingly, Nrf2 inhibition suppresses tumor growth in vitro and in vivo, involving reduced tumor vascularization and invasiveness as a direct result of HIF1α destabilization and downregulation.225,226

Nrf2 as modulator of the ubiquitin/proteasome pathway

The huge battery of Nrf2 target genes includes a cluster of more than 20 genes encoding for proteasomal subunits of both the 20S core and the 19S regulatory particle.227229 Accordingly, Nrf2 activation confers increased proteasomal activity, probably reflecting the need for renewal of the protein-degradation machinery in cells subjected to ROS-dependent protein damage.230,231 The resulting gain of proteasome activity further enables cells to drive signaling pathways crucial for proliferation and survival more efficiently.232235 Therefore, in particular, tumor cells acquire substantial growth advantages from this condition, as recently reported for colon and pancreatic cancer.138,197,236 Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) used for the therapy of certain types of tumors, eg, multiple myeloma, are likewise able to induce Nrf2237,238 and thereby a compensatory mechanism by de novo synthesis of proteasomal proteins. 239 Therefore, enhanced Nrf2 activation must be regarded as one condition accounting for the failure of PI-based therapies in solid tumors. 240 Recent studies have demonstrated that TCF11/Nrf1 has an essential role in maintaining proteasomal homeostasis also, adding to the oxidative stress-associated effects of Nrf2. 241

Nrf2 as modulator of EMT and TFGβ1 signaling

EMT is a transdifferentiation process by which epithelial/carcinoma cells can acquire an invasive and metastatic phenotype. Moreover, EMT-associated alterations have been discussed in the context of adaptation to oxidative stress. While inducing effects of ROS on EMT and a role of TFGβ1 through interfering with Nrf2 have been shown recently,87,242,243 the effects of Nrf2 on EMT and TFGβ1 signaling are a matter of considerable debate. On the one hand, several reports indicate that Nrf2 prohibits the fibrotic reaction through TFGβ1, an effect that was attributed to a direct inhibition of Smad3 and thereby of EMT-related gene expression,244,245 and Nrf2 has been shown to decrease the motility of hepatoma cells. 246 On the other hand, Nrf2 is able to promote a motile and invasive phenotype of glioma, gallbladder carcinoma, or esophageal squamous carcinoma cells,247,248 eg, through induction of matrix metallopeptidase (MMP)-2/9 expression, and favors tumor invasiveness and metastasis formation in mice. 249 Given an involvement in EMT and EMT-associated alterations, Nrf2 would have a particularly great impact on early events in malignant transformation that precede its later effects on tumor progression (eg, chemoresistance) or tumor angiogenesis.223,225

Nrf2 and metabolic reprogramming

Another hallmark of cancer is an altered metabolism (metabolic reprogramming), 250 ensuring glucose as a source for biomass production along with cell proliferation and tumor growth. Recent data have indicated that Nrf2 cooperates with the PI3K/Akt pathway in the metabolic reprogramming of cancer cells.66,251,252

A number of key enzymes of the glycolysis (eg, phosphofructokinase), pentose phosphate pathway (PPP; eg, glucose-6-phosophate dehydrogenase [G6PD], phosphogluconate dehydrogenase, transketolase, transaldolase [TALDO]-1) and lipogenesis (eg, malic enzyme [ME]-1, isocitrate dehydrogenase 1) have been shown to be upregulated by Nrf2. Accordingly, the amplified activity of Nrf2 has been associated with oncogenic metabolism with, eg, high levels of lactate or inosine monophosphate and low levels of fructose-6-phosphate, sedoheptulose-7 phosphate, or pyruvate. Some (eg, TALDO1, ME1) of these genes are direct ARE-regulated targets of Nrf2. Moreover, the cellular repertoire of glycolytic, PPP, or tricarboxylic acid cycle enzymes, as well as of electron transport-chain components, can change and result in a shift toward anabolic/catabolic pathways by epigenetic effects through Nrf2-inducible miRNAs, eg, miR-29a/b, miR-320a, and miR-143. Similarly, through its inducing effect on HDAC4, Nrf2 leads to downregulation of miR1 and miR206, thereby increasing the expression of PPP-associated genes (eg, G6PD, TALDO1) and favoring a tumor-proliferative phenotype. 253

Nrf2 and drug/radiotherapy resistance of cancer

A marked property of tumor cells exhibiting elevated Nrf2 activity is a profound protection from anticancer drugs or radiotherapy-induced cell death. Therefore, Nrf2 is a potent determinant of chemo- and/or radioresistance of cancer. This includes resistance of NSCLC, cervical cancer, endometrial serous carcinoma, or cholangiocarcinoma cells to treatment with cisplatin,177,254,255 pancreatic cancer cells to treatment with gemcitabine, 256 colon and gastric cancer cells to treatment with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU),257,258 hepatocellular carcinoma cells to treatment with doxorubicin, 259 or prostate cancer cells to treatment with mitoxantrone or topotecan. 260

Additionally, anticancer drugs themselves can elicit Nrf2-dependent cytoprotection. For example, oxaliplatin 261 and PIs like bortezomib (BTZ) are strong inducers of Nrf2, and thereby can lead to chemoresistance. BTZ has been shown to induce drug resistance in neuroblastoma cells through Nrf2-dependent HO1 expression. Likewise, proteasome inhibition results in upregulation of proteasomal gene expression due to increased Nrf2 activation, and obviously also Nrf1 activation, which confers not only resistance to PIs but also further growth advantages to cancer cells.

A detailed secretome analysis identified a cluster of drug-metabolizing and prosurvival Nrf2 target genes in cancer stem cells, underscoring the pivotal role of Nrf2 in intrinsic chemoresistance. 262 For example, ABC transporters like MRP3, MRP4, or MRP5 are upregulated by Nrf2, facilitating the efflux of anticancer drugs like cisplatin, 5-FU, or gemcitabine out of cancer cells.256,263 In addition, Nrf2-inducible metabolizing enzymes, such as AKR1B10, 264 affecting drugs like daunorubicin or idarubicin, 259 NQO1, or HO1 affecting drugs like gemcitabine, cisplatin, doxorubicin, or daunorubicin contribute to the detoxification of anticancer drugs and thereby to chemoresistance (collectively discussed by Na and Surh 265). Furthermore, Nrf2-induced expression of survival genes like BCL2 contributes to reduced apoptotic responses to anticancer drugs, and the Nrf2-dependent expression of proteasomal genes promotes growth and survival-related pathways depending on the ubiquitin/proteasome pathway.

Likewise, the sensitivity of cells to irradiation-induced cell damage and thereby cell death is under the control of Nrf2. A number of Nrf2 target genes, such as HO1 and PRX1, have been shown to directly suppress cytotoxic effects by irradiation, 265 which manifest through ROS formation and ROS-dependent DNA damage. Accordingly, radioresistance due to Nrf2 amplification 266 has been reported for, eg, NSCLC, head and neck, pancreatic or prostate cancer, glioma, and esophageal squamous carcinoma.

Nrf2 inhibition in cancer therapy

As outlined earlier and demonstrated by numerous experimental and preclinical studies within the last decade, Nrf2 inhibitors represent rational tools to prevent malignant progression in cancer, whereas activators of Nrf2 are obviously more suited for cancer prevention. As long as the action of Nrf2 fits into still-homeostatic control of cellular and tissue integrity, its pharmacological activation by bioactive compounds seems to be a reasonable measure for prevention of diseases, like cancer. However, upon exposure to persistent oxidative stress (eg, during chronic inflammation) and/or when adapting a premalignant phenotype, cells may take advantage of Nrf2 activation to undergo malignant transformation. Therefore, the molecular mechanisms defining these two conditions need to be unraveled in order to assess the use of Nrf2 either as an activation target in prevention strategies or as an inhibition target in anticancer therapy. As outlined earlier, genetic and epigenetic alterations or long-lasting and/or insufficiently compensated environmental stress (toward ROS and xenobiotics) are conditions making Nrf2 protumorigenic. This property of Nrf2 then manifests even more when facing additional oncogenic pathways (Figure 3).

Regardless of the still-limited knowledge of the exact modalities by which Nrf2 switches from being anti- to protumorigenic, numerous experimental attempts have been made to block tumor growth and progression or to improve anticancer therapy through inhibiting Nrf2. There have been many Nrf2 short hairpin RNA (shRNA)- or small interfering RNA-based studies197,226,240,254,255,267 in cell-culture settings or using mouse models that demonstrated sensitization of tumor cells to apoptosis, suppression of tumor-cell proliferation or lower invasiveness, and reduced tumor vascularization. Furthermore, reexpression of miR-507, -634, -450a, and -129-5p has been shown to suppress esophageal squamous cell carcinoma through dampening Nrf2 signaling. 159

However, while all these studies indicated substantial benefits from genetic silencing of Nrf2 to reduce proliferation, viability, and chemo/radioresistance of cancer cells, its immediate application is expected to be limited by insufficient delivery of such nucleic acids as miRNAs or shRNAs into cells. In this respect, small molecules are preferable for clinical applications. More emphasis has now been given to Nrf2 inhibition by using pharmacological compounds affecting Nrf2 activation.

Strategies for pharmacological Nrf2 inhibition

A number of studies have already reported Nrf2-inhibitory effects of established compounds, but validation of these effects has either proven unsuccessful or a transfer into clinical application that way has seemed unlikely. For example, all-trans-retinoic acid and other RARα ligands are able to inhibit Nrf2, 92 but the significance of the negative interference between RARα and Nrf2 is not clear, because a positive effect of retinoic acids on Nrf2 has been reported as well. 268 Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see whether inhibiting Nrf2 in retinoid-based chemotherapy might act synergistically with other anticancer drugs. Tarumoto et al reported that ascorbic acid, a reducing reagent, can overcome resistance to the anticancer drug imatinib by inhibiting Nrf2 activity, 269 but this effect was indirect. Kweon et al showed that epigallocatechin 3-gallate can inhibit Nrf2 activity and thereby HO1 expression in A549 NSCLC cells, but only at rather high concentrations, 270 limiting its safe use in the clinic.

When considering novel, naturally derived compounds for inhibiting Nrf2, one should keep in mind that these may have considerable toxicities. As an example, the mycotoxin ochratoxin A is an efficient inhibitor of Nrf2, but exerts nephrotoxicity and kidney carcinogenic effects. 271 Therefore, depending on the cellular context, biological drugs may be inappropriate or at least strongly limited in their use in clinical settings. Therefore, the number of reports on more or less specific Nrf2 inhibitors that may be biologically safe in such attempts is still quite few.

One of the first reports on drug-mediated Nrf2 inhibition described a chemosensitizing effect of brusatol, a quassinoid compound from an evergreen shrub from Southeast Asia, on A549 NSCLC cells. 272 Brusatol potently and reversibly inhibited Nrf2 through an increasing effect on Keap1-mediated polyubiquitination of Nrf2, thereby promoting Nrf2 degradation and suppressing Nrf2 activity. In that way, brusatol decreased Nrf2 target gene expression and increased anticancer drug-induced but not basal apoptosis. Moreover, brusatol sensitized A549 tumors for chemotherapy with cisplatin in a murine xenograft model in an Nrf2-dependent fashion, without obvious toxicity. Interestingly, even in the presence of certain mutant-Keap1 variants, brusatol exerted Nrf2 inhibitory effects, thus having the potential to compensate for an impaired Keap1-inhibitory function. However, previous studies have shown that brusatol can activate NF-κB. 273 Thereby, on the one hand, brusatol may lead to increased growth and survival of tumor cells through its inducing effect on the NF-κB pathway. On the other hand, through the reported negative interference of NF-κB with Nrf2 activation,189,190 brusatol may inhibit Nrf2 via NF-κB. Therefore, brusatol can exert differential effects on two crucial stress- and tumor-related pathways depending on its dose and presumably the tumor type as well. Another property of brusatol – the rapid reversibility of Nrf2 inhibition – may further limit its efficacy in cancer therapy. This would imply the need for an extended administration of the drug to efficiently target the amplified Nrf2. In addition, a compensatory increase of Nrf2 activity could occur as a rebound effect from brusatol treatment.

Similarly in A459 cells, the vegetable-derived flavonoid luteolin has been shown to suppress Nrf2 activation independently of Keap1 through an enhanced turnover of Nrf2 mRNA. Along with decreasing Nrf2 activity, luteolin augmented the responsiveness of A459 and also MCF7 breast cancer or Caco2 colon cancer cells to anticancer drug (oxaliplatin, bleomycin, doxorubicin)-induced apoptosis, and thereby acted as a potent chemosensitizer. However, this Nrf2-inhibitory effect was limited to a particular dose of luteolin, and may considerably depend on the cellular context, because this compound has been shown to efficiently induce Nrf2 activation in several other tumor cell lines, thereby acting cytoprotectively.274,275 Moreover, protection from azoxymethane/dextran sulfate sodium-induced colorectal cancer in mice by luteolin has been ascribed to its Nrf2-inducing properties. 276 Therefore, the use of luteolin as an Nrf2 inhibitor in chemosensitization may be hampered by its dual effects on Nrf2.

The synthetic compound IM3829 (cyclohexyl-ethoxy-aniline) was demonstrated to enhance the responsiveness of NSCLC cells to radiotherapy-induced apoptosis through inhibiting Nrf2 and expression of its target genes. As observed with luteolin, IM3829 affects the stability of Nrf2 mRNA independently of Keap1. In a mouse tumor xenograft model, IM8329 potently enhanced the efficacy of radiotherapy. 277 Further studies are needed to demonstrate the safety of this compound for its use as radiosensitizer.

The coffee-derived alkaloid trigonelline has been previously shown to exert a profound inhibitory effect on Nrf2. 278 A recent study further reported inhibition of Nrf2 activation in several pancreatic cancer cell lines by trigonelline. 138 It was shown that trigonelline is capable of preventing the nuclear accumulation of Nrf2, an effect insensitive to treatment with the nuclear export inhibitor leptomycin B. Thereby, trigonelline potently inhibited the expression of Nrf2 target genes, including those of proteasomal subunit proteins. This was accompanied by a decrease of proteasome activity, making pancreatic cancer cells more sensitive to anticancer drugs as well as to death ligands, eg, TRAIL. In a mouse xenograft tumor model, trigonelline treatment also exerted a profound Nrf2 inhibitory and a marked chemosensitizing effect without any measurable toxicity. A major advantage of using this substance in ongoing studies is given by the fact that trigonelline has been already tested in human clinical trials and is well tolerated.279,280

Another study reported suppression of Nrf2 in pancreatic cancer cells by the PI3K-p110a inhibitor PIK-75. 256 By reducing Nrf2 protein levels, PIK-56 decreased the expression of Nrf2 target genes, including MRP5, the expression of which is induced by anticancer drugs like gemcitabine. PIK-75 treatment augmented the apoptosis of pancreatic cancer cells and potentiated gemcitabine toxicity through blocking Nrf2-dependent MRP5 expression. Accordingly, a marked reduction of in vivo tumor growth in a mouse xenograft model was observed after PIK-75 treatment, and a synergistic effect of PIK-75 was observed when given in combination with gemcitabine. 256 PIK-75 is thus a promising drug, as it has a great impact on tumor-cell viability.

The same holds true for the natural flavonoids chrysin and apigenin, which have been described as effective adjuvant sensitizers to reduce anticancer-drug resistance of HCC cells by downregulating Nrf2 activation.171,259 Through affecting the PI3K/Akt- and Erk-dependent activation of Nrf2, these compounds have been shown to increase the responsiveness to anticancer drugs. This effect could be attributed to decreased expression of Nrf2 targets like HO-1, MRP5, and AKR1B10. Another natural flavonoid, wogonin, has been shown to decrease Nrf2 protein levels and thereby expression of HO-1 and NQO1 in MCF7 breast cancer cells, accompanied by sensitization to doxorubicin. 281 This action of wogonin is obviously also dependent on suppression of the PI3K/Akt/Nrf2 pathway. However, it still needs to be validated whether these PI3K/Akt interfering compounds are safe in clinical settings.

Another approach investigated the effect of treatment with 2-deoxy-d-glucose (2-DG) and 6-aminonicotinamide (6-AN) on the radiosensitivity of head and neck squamous carcinoma cells. It was shown that 2-DG/6-AN treatment reduced Nrf2 activity through upregulated Keap1 expression, thereby decreasing Nrf2-dependent resistance to radiotherapy. 282

Most if not all of these strategies described so far deal with substances that affect other pathways as well. The use of them may be thus restricted to tumor cells exhibiting Nrf2 amplification, whereas in other conditions in chemo/radioresistant cancer cells, eg, amplified NF-κB, these drugs should rather be excluded from cancer therapy. More data are thus needed to assess under what conditions these compounds will have beneficial effects, eg, in chemosensitization, and when they will not. The ongoing search for other drugs – in particular, those having greater selectivity for inhibiting Nrf2 – is certainly an important task. However, it is quite obvious that plant-derived substances are very often limited in their specificity for a selected target. Owing to the broad target reactivity, these substances have been evolutionarily conserved to provide greatest protection of the host from environmental threats. Synthetic derivatives with greater target selectivity are therefore needed to get more reliable Nrf2 inhibitors.

Conclusion and outlook

Regardless of the dual role of Nrf2 in oncogenesis, deregulated Nrf2 activity in tumors essentially contributes to the manifestation of cancer hallmarks and associates with poor prognosis and therapy resistance. This undeniably underscores the dark side of Nrf2. From experimental data using mouse models, it has become clear that Nrf2 affects tumorigenesis in a time- and context-dependent fashion. However, it could also be learned that a generalized prediction of the ultimate outcome of tumor development with respect to the Nrf2 status is rather difficult. This is exemplified by two studies on kRas-driven cancer in mice. On the one hand, it was reported that Nrf2 prevents the initiation of chemically induced lung cancer, but favors its malignant progression later on depending on mutated kRas. 163 On the other hand, it was shown that Nrf2 exerts its protumorigenic effects at an earlier stage of pancreatic carcinogenesis initiated by mutated kRas. 13 Given the advantages transformed cells can gain from Nrf2 activation, greater survival and growth-favoring metabolic effects may pave the way quite early for local tumor development. Later on, the multiple effects of Nrf2 on tumor vascularization, invasiveness, and cancer stem cell self-renewal may contribute to cancer progression and metastasis formation as well. It is therefore evident that the decision to make use of Nrf2 as an activation or inhibition target for a given therapy requires an accurate estimation of its different roles during each step of tumorigenesis, which can vary from tumor to tumor.

Certainly, the use of Nrf2 as an inducible target in cancer-prevention strategies is still an attractive option when considering, eg, acute/temporary exposure to environmental hazards like aflatoxin, benzo(a)pyrene, or diesel exhaust. However, long-term application seems not to be suitable as long as it is not fully known how Nrf2 is kept under homeostatic control and when/how this control gets lost. Nrf2 can be regarded instead as a useful marker for the assessment of particular cancer phenotypes, such as chemo- and radioresistance or autophagy deficiency. Under these conditions, Nrf2 gain-of-function mutations or amplified Nrf2-inducing signaling pathways directly relate to the malignant phenotype, whereas Keap1 mutations may have additional effects. Therefore, predicting the clinical outcome of alterations in the Keap1/Nrf2 pathway may be sometimes difficult, and from the plethora of data it is also clear that cross talk with other tumor-related pathways has a pivotal role in shaping the effects of Nrf2 on the cellular phenotype. This includes effects on proliferation and senescence, which are particularly relevant in oncogenic kRas background on the one hand and p53 status on the other hand. While mutated kRas drives proliferative pathways, accompanied by ROS formation giving rise to additional growth advantages through the induction of Nrf2-dependent cytoprotection, certain p53 mutants could still negatively interfere with Nrf2, but others might not. Likewise, NF-κB, albeit having the potential of directly or indirectly inducing Nrf2, can competitively suppress Nrf2 too. Therefore, during inflammation, Nrf2 can add its cytoprotective actions to the prosurvival effect of NF-κB, but Nrf2 and NF-κB can also negatively interfere with each other. As another example, nuclear hormone receptors, such as RARs, ERα, or the ARs exert complex interactions with the Keap1/Nrf2 pathway, and thereby define the role of Nrf2 to act as either a tumor suppressor or tumor promoter.

In view of the complexity of the cross talk between Nrf2 and its numerous signaling-network partners, it is clear that we still know too little about the direction in which Nrf2 may act during tumorigenesis to judge its general use as a therapeutic inhibition target. Nevertheless, its temporary use as a sensitizer in chemo/radiotherapy will be certainly advantageous if really specific and safe-in-use Nrf2 inhibitors are established. As already outlined, most existing Nrf2-inhibiting compounds do not fit these criteria so far. On the one hand, these compounds can have severe cytotoxicities when affecting vital tissue-protection mechanisms, eg, in the kidney. On the other hand, drugs affecting upstream pathways like the PI3K/Akt pathway can exert antitumor effects independently of Nrf2. In addition, possible limitations of manipulating the Keap1/Nrf2 pathway may relate to the numerous actions of Keap1 independently of controlling Nrf2. Therefore, Keap1 influences NF-κB activation through interfering with IκB kinase phosphorylation, PPARγ, and several other pathways. Therefore, much effort is still needed in the search for novel compounds and engineered small molecules that target Nrf2 more specifically.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the German Cluster of Excellence “Inflammation at Interfaces” for funding.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.


References

1.

Kang KW, Lee SJ, Kim SG. Molecular mechanism of nrf2 activation by oxidative stress. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2005;7(11–12): 1664–1673.

2.

Osburn WO, Kensler TW. Nrf2 signaling: an adaptive response pathway for protection against environmental toxic insults. Mutat Res. 2008;659(1–2):31–39.

3.

Kaspar JW, Niture SK, Jaiswal AK. Nrf2:INrf2 (Keap1) signaling in oxidative stress. Free Radic Biol Med. 2009;47(9):1304–1309.

4.

Suzuki T, Motohashi H, Yamamoto M. Toward clinical application of the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2013;34(6): 340–346.

5.

Giudice A, Montella M. Activation of the Nrf2-ARE signaling pathway: a promising strategy in cancer prevention. Bioessays. 2006;28(2): 169–181.

6.

Lau A, Villeneuve NF, Sun Z, Wong PK, Zhang DD. Dual roles of Nrf2 in cancer. Pharmacol Res. 2008;58(5–6):262–270.

7.

Kwak MK, Kensler TW. Targeting NRF2 signaling for cancer chemoprevention. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2010;244(1):66–76.

8.

Hayes JD, McMahon M, Chowdhry S, Dinkova-Kostova AT. Cancer chemoprevention mechanisms mediated through the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2010;13(11):1713–1748.

9.

Sporn MB, Liby KT. NRF2 and cancer: the good, the bad and the importance of context. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12(8):564–571.

10.

Jaramillo MC, Zhang DD. The emerging role of the Nrf2-Keap1 signaling pathway in cancer. Genes Dev. 2013;27(20):2179–2191.

11.

Shelton P, Jaiswal AK. The transcription factor NF-E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2): a protooncogene? FASEB J. 2013;27(2):414–423.

12.

Zhang DD. The Nrf2-Keap1-ARE signaling pathway: The regulation and dual function of Nrf2 in cancer. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2010;13(11): 1623–1626.

13.

DeNicola GM, Karreth FA, Humpton TJ, et al. Oncogene-induced Nrf2 transcription promotes ROS detoxification and tumorigenesis. Nature. 2011;475(7354):106–109.

14.

Cadenas E. Biochemistry of oxygen toxicity. Annu Rev Biochem. 1989;58:79–110.

15.

Halliwell B, Gutteridge JM. Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.

16.

Inoue M, Sato EF, Nishikawa M, et al. Mitochondrial generation of reactive oxygen species and its role in aerobic life. Curr Med Chem. 2003;10(23):2495–2505.

17.

Conner EM, Grisham MB. Inflammation, free radicals, and antioxidants. Nutrition. 1996;12(4):274–277.

18.

Poli G, Leonarduzzi G, Biasi F, Chiarpotto E. Oxidative stress and cell signalling. Curr Med Chem. 2004;11(9):1163–1182.

19.

Knight JA. Diseases related to oxygen-derived free radicals. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 1995;25(2):111–121.

20.

Klaunig JE, Kamendulis LM. The role of oxidative stress in carcinogenesis. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2004;44:239–267.

21.

Reuter S, Gupta SC, Chaturvedi MM, Aggarwal BB. Oxidative stress, inflammation, and cancer: how are they linked? Free Radic Biol Med. 2010;49(11):1603–1616.

22.

Cho HY, Reddy SP, Kleeberger SR. Nrf2 defends the lung from oxidative stress. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2006;8(1–2):76–87.

23.

Nguyen T, Nioi P, Pickett CB. The Nrf2-antioxidant response element signaling pathway and its activation by oxidative stress. J Biol Chem. 2009;284(20):13291–13295.

24.

Chorley BN, Campbell MR, Wang X, et al. Identification of novel NRF2-regulated genes by ChIP-Seq: influence on retinoid X receptor alpha. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(15):7416–7429.

25.

Malhotra D, Portales-Casamar E, Singh A, et al. Global mapping of binding sites for Nrf2 identifies novel targets in cell survival response through ChIP-Seq profiling and network analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38(17):5718–5734.

26.

Johnson CH, Patterson AD, Idle JR, Gonzalez FJ. Xenobiotic metabolomics: major impact on the metabolome. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2012;52:37–56.

27.

Idle JR, Gonzalez FJ. Metabolomics. Cell Metab. 2007;6(5): 348–351.

28.

Williams GM, Jeffrey AM. Oxidative DNA damage: endogenous and chemically induced. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000;32(3): 283–292.

29.

Li X, Schuler MA, Berenbaum MR. Molecular mechanisms of metabolic resistance to synthetic and natural xenobiotics. Annu Rev Entomol. 2007;52:231–253.

30.

Lewis DF. Human P450s in the metabolism of drugs: molecular modelling of enzyme-substrate interactions. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2005;1(1):5–8.

31.

Xu C, Li CY, Kong AN. Induction of phase I, II and III drug metabolism/transport by xenobiotics. Arch Pharm Res. 2005;28(3):249–268.

32.

Hayes JD, Dinkova-Kostova AT. The Nrf2 regulatory network provides an interface between redox and intermediary metabolism. Trends Biochem Sci. 2014;39(4):199–218.

33.

Hirotsu Y, Katsuoka F, Funayama R, et al. Nrf2-MafG heterodimers contribute globally to antioxidant and metabolic networks. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(20):10228–10239.

34.

Moi P, Chan K, Asunis I, Cao A, Kan YW. Isolation of NF-E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2), a NF-E2-like basic leucine zipper transcriptional activator that binds to the tandem NF-E2/AP1 repeat of the beta-globin locus control region. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994;91(21): 9926–9930.

35.

Itoh K, Wakabayashi N, Katoh Y, et al. Keap1 represses nuclear activation of antioxidant responsive elements by Nrf2 through binding to the amino-terminal Neh2 domain. Genes Dev. 1999;13(1):76–86.

36.

Cullinan SB, Gordan JD, Jin J, Harper JW, Diehl JA. The Keap1-BTB protein is an adaptor that bridges Nrf2 to a Cul3-based E3 ligase: oxidative stress sensing by a Cul3-Keap1 ligase. Mol Cell Biol. 2004;24(19):8477–8486.

37.

Katoh Y, Iida K, Kang MI, et al. Evolutionary conserved N-terminal domain of Nrf2 is essential for the Keap1-mediated degradation of the protein by proteasome. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2005;433(2): 342–350.

38.

Kobayashi A, Kang MI, Watai Y, et al. Oxidative and electrophilic stresses activate Nrf2 through inhibition of ubiquitination activity of Keap1. Mol Cell Biol. 2006;26(1):221–229.

39.

Tong KI, Kobayashi A, Katsuoka F, Yamamoto M. Two-site substrate recognition model for the Keap1-Nrf2 system: a hinge and latch mechanism. Biol Chem. 2006;387(10–11):1311–1320.

40.

Rachakonda G, Xiong Y, Sekhar KR, Stamer SL, Liebler DC, Freeman ML. Covalent modification at Cys151 dissociates the electrophile sensor Keap1 from the ubiquitin ligase CUL3. Chem Res Toxicol. 2008;21(3):705–710.

41.

Zhang DD, Lo SC, Sun Z, Habib GM, Lieberman MW, Hannink M. Ubiquitination of Keap1, a BTB-Kelch substrate adaptor protein for Cul3, targets Keap1 for degradation by a proteasome-independent pathway. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(34):30091–30099.

42.

Villeneuve NF, Tian W, Wu T, et al. USP15 negatively regulates Nrf2 through deubiquitination of Keap1. Mol Cell. 2013;51(1):68–79.

43.

Niture SK, Kaspar JW, Shen J, Jaiswal AK. Nrf2 signaling and cell survival. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2010;244(1):37–42.

44.

Huang HC, Nguyen T, Pickett CB. Regulation of the antioxidant response element by protein kinase C-mediated phosphorylation of NF-E2-related factor 2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97(23):12475–12480.

45.

Cullinan SB, Zhang D, Hannink M, Arvisais E, Kaufman RJ, Diehl JA. Nrf2 is a direct PERK substrate and effector of PERK-dependent cell survival. Mol Cell Biol. 2003;23(20):7198–7209.

46.

Apopa PL, He X, Ma Q. Phosphorylation of Nrf2 in the transcription activation domain by casein kinase 2 (CK2) is critical for the nuclear translocation and transcription activation function of Nrf2 in IMR-32 neuroblastoma cells. J Biochem Mol Toxicol. 2008;22(1):63–76.

47.

Sun Z, Chin YE, Zhang DD. Acetylation of Nrf2 by p300/CBP augments promoter-specific DNA binding of Nrf2 during the antioxidant response. Mol Cell Biol. 2009;29(10):2658–2672.

48.

Chen Z, Ye X, Tang N, et al. The histone acetylranseferase [sic] hMOF acetylates Nrf2 and regulates anti-drug responses in human non-small cell lung cancer. Br J Pharmacol. 2014;171(13):3196–3211.

49.

Kawai Y, Garduno L, Theodore M, Yang J, Arinze IJ. Acetylation-deacetylation of the transcription factor Nrf2 (nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2) regulates its transcriptional activity and nucleocytoplasmic localization. J Biol Chem. 2011;286(9):7629–7640.

50.

Kang SJ, Ryoo IG, Lee YJ, Kwak MK. Role of the Nrf2-heme oxygenase-1 pathway in silver nanoparticle-mediated cytotoxicity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2012;258(1):89–98.

51.

Yu R, Chen C, Mo YY, et al. Activation of mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways induces antioxidant response element-mediated gene expression via a Nrf2-dependent mechanism. J Biol Chem. 2000;275(51):39907–39913.

52.

Yu R, Mandlekar S, Lei W, Fahl WE, Tan TH, Kong AN. p38 Mitogen-activated protein kinase negatively regulates the induction of phase II drug-metabolizing enzymes that detoxify carcinogens. J Biol Chem. 2000;275(4):2322–2327.

53.

Sakamoto K, Iwasaki K, Sugiyama H, Tsuji Y. Role of the tumor suppressor PTEN in antioxidant responsive element-mediated transcription and associated histone modifications. Mol Biol Cell. 2009;20(6):1606–1617.

54.

Jain AK, Jaiswal AK. GSK-3β acts upstream of Fyn kinase in regulation of nuclear export and degradation of NF-E2 related factor 2. J Biol Chem. 2007;282(22):16502–16510.

55.

Blank V. Small Maf proteins in mammalian gene control: mere dimerization partners or dynamic transcriptional regulators? J Mol Biol. 2008;376(4):913–925.

56.

Motohashi H, Shavit JA, Igarashi K, Yamamoto M, Engel JD. The world according to Maf. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25(15):2953–2959.

57.

Kannan MB, Solovieva V, Blank V. The small MAF transcription factors MAFF, MAFG and MAFK: current knowledge and perspectives. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1823(10):1841–1846.

58.

Benkhelifa S, Provot S, Nabais E, Eychène A, Calothy G, Felder-Schmittbuhl MP. Phosphorylation of MafA is essential for its transcriptional and biological properties. Mol Cell Biol. 2001;21(14): 4441–4452.

59.

Sii-Felice K, Pouponnot C, Gillet S, et al. MafA transcription factor is phosphorylated by p38 MAP kinase. FEBS Lett. 2005;579(17): 3547–3554.

60.

Ro YT, Jang BK, Shin CY, Park EU, Kim CG, Yang SI. Akt regulates the expression of MafK, synaptotagmin I, and syntenin-1, which play roles in neuronal function. J Biomed Sci. 2010;17:18.

61.

Tanigawa S, Lee CH, Lin CS, et al. Jun dimerization protein 2 is a critical component of the Nrf2/MafK complex regulating the response to ROS homeostasis. Cell Death Dis. 2013;4:e921.

62.

Oyake T, Itoh K, Motohashi H, et al. Bach proteins belong to a novel family of BTB-basic leucine zipper transcription factors that interact with MafK and regulate transcription through the NF-E2 site. Mol Cell Biol. 1996;16(11):6083–6095.

63.

Hoshino H, Kobayashi A, Yoshida M, et al. Oxidative stress abolishes leptomycin B-sensitive nuclear export of transcription repressor Bach2 that counteracts activation of Maf recognition element. J Biol Chem. 2000;275(20):15370–15376.

64.

Dhakshinamoorthy S, Jain AK, Bloom DA, Jaiswal AK. Bach1 competes with Nrf2 leading to negative regulation of the antioxidant response element (ARE)-mediated NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 gene expression and induction in response to antioxidants. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(17):16891–16900.

65.

Jyrkkänen HK, Kuosmanen S, Heinäniemi M, et al. Novel insights into the regulation of antioxidant-response-element-mediated gene expression by electrophiles: induction of the transcriptional repressor BACH1 by Nrf2. Biochem J. 2011;440(2):167–174.

66.

Mitsuishi Y, Taguchi K, Kawatani Y, et al. Nrf2 redirects glucose and glutamine into anabolic pathways in metabolic reprogramming. Cancer Cell. 2012;22(1):66–79.

67.

Niture SK, Khatri R, Jaiswal AK. Regulation of Nrf2 – an update. Free Radic Biol Med. 2014;66:36–44.

68.

Mitsuishi Y, Motohashi H, Yamamoto M. The Keap1-Nrf2 system in cancers: stress response and anabolic metabolism. Front Oncol. 2012;2:200.

69.

Zhang DD, Hannink M. Distinct cysteine residues in Keap1 are required for Keap1-dependent ubiquitination of Nrf2 and for stabilization of Nrf2 by chemopreventive agents and oxidative stress. Mol Cell Biol. 2003;23(22):8137–8151.

70.

Yamamoto T, Suzuki T, Kobayashi A, et al. Physiological significance of reactive cysteine residues of Keap1 in determining Nrf2 activity. Mol Cell Biol. 2008;28(8):2758–2770.

71.

Magesh S, Chen Y, Hu L. Small molecule modulators of Keap1-Nrf2-ARE pathway as potential preventive and therapeutic agents. Med Res Rev. 2012;32(4):687–726.

72.

Kumar H, Kim IS, More SV, Kim BW, Choi DK. Natural product-derived pharmacological modulators of Nrf2/ARE pathway for chronic diseases. Nat Prod Rep. 2014;31(1):109–139.

73.

Lo SC, Hannink M. PGAM5 tethers a ternary complex containing Keap1 and Nrf2 to mitochondria. Exp Cell Res. 2008;314(8):1789–1803.

74.

Niture SK, Jaiswal AK. Inhibitor of Nrf2 (INrf2 or Keap1) protein degrades Bcl-xL via phosphoglycerate mutase 5 and controls cellular apoptosis. J Biol Chem. 2011;286(52):44542–44556.

75.

Komatsu M, Kurokawa H, Waguri S, et al. The selective autophagy substrate p62 activates the stress responsive transcription factor Nrf2 through inactivation of Keap1. Nat Cell Biol. 2010;12(3):213–223.

76.

Inami Y, Waguri S, Sakamoto A, et al. Persistent activation of Nrf2 through p62 in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. J Cell Biol. 2011;193(2):275–284.

77.

Chen W, Sun Z, Wang XJ, et al. Direct interaction between Nrf2 and p21 (Cip1/WAF1) upregulates the Nrf2-mediated antioxidant response. Mol Cell. 2009;34(6):663–673.

78.

Chowdhry S, Zhang Y, McMahon M, Sutherland C, Cuadrado A, Hayes JD. Nrf2 is controlled by two distinct beta-TrCP recognition motifs in its Neh6 domain, one of which can be modulated by GSK-3 activity. Oncogene. 2013;32(32):3765–3781.

79.

Rada P, Rojo AI, Evrard-Todeschi N, et al. Structural and functional characterization of Nrf2 degradation by the glycogen synthase kinase 3/beta-TrCP axis. Mol Cell Biol. 2012;32(17):3486–3499.

80.

Faraonio R, Vergara P, Di Marzo D, et al. p53 Suppresses the Nrf2-dependent transcription of antioxidant response genes. J Biol Chem. 2006;281(52):39776–39784.

81.

Chen W, Jiang T, Wang H, et al. Does Nrf2 contribute to p53-mediated control of cell survival and death? Antioxid Redox Signal. 2012;17(12):1670–1675.

82.

Kalo E, Kogan-Sakin I, Solomon H, et al. Mutant p53R273H attenuates the expression of phase 2 detoxifying enzymes and promotes the survival of cells with high levels of reactive oxygen species. J Cell Sci. 2012;125(Pt 22):5578–5586.

83.

Niture SK, Jain AK, Shelton PM, Jaiswal AK. Src subfamily kinases regulate nuclear export and degradation of transcription factor Nrf2 to switch off Nrf2-mediated antioxidant activation of cytoprotective gene expression. J Biol Chem. 2011;286(33):28821–28832.

84.

Sun Z, Zhang S, Chan JY, Zhang DD. Keap1 controls postinduction repression of the Nrf2-mediated antioxidant response by escorting nuclear export of Nrf2. Mol Cell Biol. 2007;27(18):6334–6349.

85.

Yu M, Li H, Liu Q, et al. Nuclear factor p65 interacts with Keap1 to repress the Nrf2-ARE pathway. Cell Signal. 2011;23(5):883–892.

86.

Kim WD, Kim YW, Cho IJ, Lee CH, Kim SG. E-cadherin inhibits nuclear accumulation of Nrf2: implications for chemoresistance of cancer cells. J Cell Sci. 2012;125(Pt 5):1284–1295.

87.

Bakin AV, Stourman NV, Sekhar KR, et al. Smad3-ATF3 signaling mediates TGF-beta suppression of genes encoding phase II detoxifying proteins. Free Radic Biol Med. 2005;38(3):375–387.

88.

Brown SL, Sekhar KR, Rachakonda G, Sasi S, Freeman ML. Activating transcription factor 3 is a novel repressor of the nuclear factor erythroid-derived 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2)-regulated stress pathway. Cancer Res. 2008;68(2):364–368.

89.

Kratschmar DV, Calabrese D, Walsh J, et al. Suppression of the Nrf2-dependent antioxidant response by glucocorticoids and 11β-HSD1-mediated glucocorticoid activation in hepatic cells. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36774.

90.

Zhou W, Lo SC, Liu JH, Hannink M, Lubahn DB. ERRβ: a potent inhibitor of Nrf2 transcriptional activity. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2007;278(1–2):52–62.

91.

Yao Y, Brodie AM, Davidson NE, Kensler TW, Zhou Q. Inhibition of estrogen signaling activates the NRF2 pathway in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;124(2):585–591.

92.

Wang XJ, Hayes JD, Henderson CJ, Wolf CR. Identification of retinoic acid as an inhibitor of transcription factor Nrf2 through activation of retinoic acid receptor alpha. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(49):19589–19594.

93.

Wang H, Liu K, Geng M, et al. RXRα inhibits the NRF2-ARE signaling pathway through a direct interaction with the Neh7 domain of NRF2. Cancer Res. 2013;73(10):3097–3108.

94.

Bryan HK, Olayanju A, Goldring CE, Park BK. The Nrf2 cell defence pathway: Keap1-dependent and -independent mechanisms of regulation. Biochem Pharmacol. 2013;85(6):705–717.

95.

Gañán-Gómez I, Wei Y, Yang H, Boyano-Adánez MC, García-Manero G. Oncogenic functions of the transcription factor Nrf2. Free Radic Biol Med. 2013;65:750–764.

96.

Slocum SL, Kensler TW. Nrf2: control of sensitivity to carcinogens. Arch Toxicol. 2011;85(4):273–284.

97.

Chan K, Lu R, Chang JC, Kan YW. NRF2, a member of the NFE2 family of transcription factors, is not essential for murine erythropoiesis, growth, and development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93(24):13943–13948.

98.

Cho HY, Kleeberger SR. Nrf2 protects against airway disorders. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2010;244(1):43–56.

99.

Kudoh K, Uchinami H, Yoshioka M, Seki E, Yamamoto Y. Nrf2 activation protects the liver from ischemia/reperfusion injury in mice. Ann Surg. 2014;260(1):118–127.

100.

Liu M, Reddy NM, Higbee EM, et al. The Nrf2 triterpenoid activator, CDDO-imidazolide, protects kidneys from ischemia-reperfusion injury in mice. Kidney Int. 2014;85(1):134–141.

101.

Shirasaki K, Taguchi K, Unno M, Motohashi H, Yamamoto M. NF-E2-related factor 2 promotes compensatory liver hypertrophy after portal vein branch ligation in mice. Hepatology. 2014;59(6): 2371–2382.

102.

Zhao Z, Chen Y, Wang J, et al. Age-related retinopathy in NRF2-deficient mice. PLoS One. 2011;6(4):e19456.

103.

Osburn WO, Karim B, Dolan PM, et al. Increased colonic inflammatory injury and formation of aberrant crypt foci in Nrf2-deficient mice upon dextran sulfate treatment. Int J Cancer. 2007;121(9): 1883–1891.

104.

Khor TO, Huang MT, Kwon KH, Chan JY, Reddy BS, Kong AN. Nrf2-deficient mice have an increased susceptibility to dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis. Cancer Res. 2006;66(24):11580–11584.

105.

Khor TO, Huang MT, Prawan A, et al. Increased susceptibility of Nrf2 knockout mice to colitis-associated colorectal cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2008;1(3):187–191.

106.

Iida K, Itoh K, Kumagai Y, et al. Nrf2 is essential for the chemopreventive efficacy of oltipraz against urinary bladder carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 2004;64(18):6424–6431.

107.

Liby KT, Royce DB, Risingsong R, et al. Synthetic triterpenoids prolong survival in a transgenic mouse model of pancreatic cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2010;3(11):1427–1434.

108.

Saw CL, Huang MT, Liu Y, Khor TO, Conney AH, Kong AN. Impact of Nrf2 on UVB-induced skin inflammation/photoprotection and photoprotective effect of sulforaphane. Mol Carcinog. 2011;50(6):479–486.

109.

Xu C, Huang MT, Shen G, et al. Inhibition of 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene-induced skin tumorigenesis in C57BL/6 mice by sulforaphane is mediated by nuclear factor E2-related factor 2. Cancer Res. 2006;66(16):8293–8296.

110.

Yates MS, Kwak MK, Egner PA, et al. Potent protection against aflatoxin-induced tumorigenesis through induction of Nrf2-regulated pathways by the triterpenoid 1-[2-cyano-3-,12-dioxooleana-1,9(11)-dien-28-oyl]imidazole. Cancer Res. 2006; 66(4):2488–2494.

111.

McMahon M, Itoh K, Yamamoto M, et al. The Cap’n’Collar basic leucine zipper transcription factor Nrf2 (NF-E2 p45-related factor 2) controls both constitutive and inducible expression of intestinal detoxification and glutathione biosynthetic enzymes. Cancer Res. 2001;61(8):3299–3307.

112.

Ramos-Gomez M, Dolan PM, Itoh K, Yamamoto M, Kensler TW. Interactive effects of nrf2 genotype and oltipraz on benzo[a]pyrene-DNA adducts and tumor yield in mice. Carcinogenesis. 2003;24(3): 461–467.

113.

Shen G, Xu C, Hu R, et al. Modulation of nuclear factor E2-related factor 2-mediated gene expression in mice liver and small intestine by cancer chemopreventive agent curcumin. Mol Cancer Ther. 2006;5(1):39–51.

114.

Sussan TE, Rangasamy T, Blake DJ, et al. Targeting Nrf2 with the triterpenoid CDDO-imidazolide attenuates cigarette smoke-induced emphysema and cardiac dysfunction in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(1):250–255.

115.

Zheng H, Whitman SA, Wu W, et al. Therapeutic potential of Nrf2 activators in streptozotocin-induced diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes. 2011;60(11):3055–3066.

116.

Ramos-Gomez M, Kwak MK, Dolan PM, et al. Sensitivity to carcinogenesis is increased and chemoprotective efficacy of enzyme inducers is lost in nrf2 transcription factor-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(6):3410–3415.

117.

Cheung KL, Lee JH, Khor TO, et al. Nrf2 knockout enhances intestinal tumorigenesis in Apc(min/+) mice due to attenuation of anti-oxidative stress pathway while potentiates inflammation. Mol Carcinog. 2014;53(1):77–84.

118.

Satoh H, Moriguchi T, Taguchi K, et al. Nrf2-deficiency creates a responsive microenvironment for metastasis to the lung. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31(10):1833–1843.

119.

Schultz MA, Hagan SS, Datta A, et al. Nrf1 and Nrf2 transcription factors regulate androgen receptor transactivation in prostate cancer cells. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e87204.

120.

Wang W, Kwok AM, Chan JY. The p65 isoform of Nrf1 is a dominant negative inhibitor of ARE-mediated transcription. J Biol Chem. 2007;282(34):24670–24678.

121.

Kundu JK, Surh YJ. Nrf2-Keap1 signaling as a potential target for chemoprevention of inflammation-associated carcinogenesis. Pharm Res. 2010;27(6):999–1013.

122.

Liu J, Gu X, Robbins D, et al. Protandim, a fundamentally new antioxidant approach in chemoprevention using mouse two-stage skin carcinogenesis as a model. PLoS One. 2009;4(4):e5284.

123.

Zhao CR, Gao ZH, Qu XJ. Nrf2-ARE signaling pathway and natural products for cancer chemoprevention. Cancer Epidemiol. 2010;34(5): 523–533.

124.

Ashrafian H, Czibik G, Bellahcene M, et al. Fumarate is cardioprotective via activation of the Nrf2 antioxidant pathway. Cell Metab. 2012;15(3):361–371.

125.

Chartoumpekis DV, Ziros PG, Psyrogiannis AI, et al. Nrf2 represses FGF21 during long-term high-fat diet-induced obesity in mice. Diabetes. 2011;60(10):2465–2473.

126.

Johnson JA, Johnson DA, Kraft AD, et al. The Nrf2-ARE pathway: an indicator and modulator of oxidative stress in neurodegeneration. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1147:61–69.

127.

LaPash Daniels CM, Austin EV, Rockney DE, et al. Beneficial effects of Nrf2 overexpression in a mouse model of Alexander disease. J Neurosci. 2012;32(31):10507–10515.

128.

Uruno A, Furusawa Y, Yagishita Y, et al. The Keap1-Nrf2 system prevents onset of diabetes mellitus. Mol Cell Biol. 2013;33(15): 2996–3010.

129.

Kensler TW, Egner PA, Agyeman AS, et al. Keap1-nrf2 signaling: a target for cancer prevention by sulforaphane. Top Curr Chem. 2013;329:163–177.

130.

Cornblatt BS, Ye L, Dinkova-Kostova AT, et al. Preclinical and clinical evaluation of sulforaphane for chemoprevention in the breast. Carcinogenesis. 2007;28(7):1485–1490.

131.

Egner PA, Chen JG, Wang JB, et al. Bioavailability of sulforaphane from two broccoli sprout beverages: results of a short-term, cross-over clinical trial in Qidong, China. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4(3): 384–395.

132.

Kensler TW, Ng D, Carmella SG, et al. Modulation of the metabolism of airborne pollutants by glucoraphanin-rich and sulforaphane-rich broccoli sprout beverages in Qidong, China. Carcinogenesis. 2012;33(1):101–107.

133.

Zoja C, Benigni A, Remuzzi G. The Nrf2 pathway in the progression of renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014;29 Suppl 1: i19–i24.

134.

Reddy NM, Potteti HR, Mariani TJ, Biswal S, Reddy SP. Conditional deletion of Nrf2 in airway epithelium exacerbates acute lung injury and impairs the resolution of inflammation. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2011;45(6):1161–1168.

135.

Taguchi K, Motohashi H, Yamamoto M. Molecular mechanisms of the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway in stress response and cancer evolution. Genes Cells. 2011;16(2):123–140.

136.

Lister A, Nedjadi T, Kitteringham NR, et al. Nrf2 is overexpressed in pancreatic cancer: implications for cell proliferation and therapy. Mol Cancer. 2011;10:37.

137.

Soini Y, Eskelinen M, Juvonen P, et al. Nuclear Nrf2 expression is related to a poor survival in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Pathol Res Pract. 2014;210(1):35–39.

138.

Arlt A, Sebens S, Krebs S, et al. Inhibition of the Nrf2 transcription factor by the alkaloid trigonelline renders pancreatic cancer cells more susceptible to apoptosis through decreased proteasomal gene expression and proteasome activity. Oncogene. 2013;32(40): 4825–4835.

139.

Garcia-Manero G, Tambaro FP, Bekele NB, et al. Phase II trial of vorinostat with idarubicin and cytarabine for patients with newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(18):2204–2210.

140.

Chen N, Yi X, Abushahin N, et al. Nrf2 expression in endometrial serous carcinomas and its precancers. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2010;4(1):85–96.

141.

Barbano R, Muscarella LA, Pasculli B, et al. Aberrant Keap1 methylation in breast cancer and association with clinicopathological features. Epigenetics. 2013;8(1):105–112.

142.

Al Saati T, Clerc P, Hanoun N, et al. Oxidative stress induced by inactivation of TP53INP1 cooperates with KrasG12D to initiate and promote pancreatic carcinogenesis in the murine pancreas. Am J Pathol. 2013;182(6):1996–2004.

143.

Petrelli A, Perra A, Cora D, et al. MicroRNA/gene profiling unveils early molecular changes and nuclear factor erythroid related factor 2 (NRF2) activation in a rat model recapitulating human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Hepatology. 2014;59(1):228–241.

144.

Ma Q, He X. Molecular basis of electrophilic and oxidative defense: promises and perils of Nrf2. Pharmacol Rev. 2012;64(4): 1055–1081.

145.

Yoo NJ, Kim HR, Kim YR, An CH, Lee SH. Somatic mutations of the KEAP1 gene in common solid cancers. Histopathology. 2012;60(6):943–952.

146.

Hast BE, Cloer EW, Goldfarb D, et al. Cancer-derived mutations in KEAP1 impair NRF2 degradation but not ubiquitination. Cancer Res. 2014;74(3):808–817.

147.

Shibata T, Ohta T, Tong KI, et al. Cancer related mutations in NRF2 impair its recognition by Keap1-Cul3 E3 ligase and promote malignancy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(36):13568–13573.

148.

Kim YR, Oh JE, Kim MS, et al. Oncogenic NRF2 mutations in squamous cell carcinomas of oesophagus and skin. J Pathol. 2010;220(4):446–451.

149.

Solis LM, Behrens C, Dong W, et al. Nrf2 and Keap1 abnormalities in non-small cell lung carcinoma and association with clinicopathologic features. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(14):3743–3753.

150.

Wang R, An J, Ji F, Jiao H, Sun H, Zhou D. Hypermethylation of the Keap1 gene in human lung cancer cell lines and lung cancer tissues. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008;373(1):151–154.

151.

Hanada N, Takahata T, Zhou Q, et al. Methylation of the KEAP1 gene promoter region in human colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:66.

152.

Zhang P, Singh A, Yegnasubramanian S, et al. Loss of Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 function in prostate cancer cells causes chemoresistance and radioresistance and promotes tumor growth. Mol Cancer Ther. 2010;9(2):336–346.

153.

Yu S, Khor TO, Cheung KL, et al. Nrf2 expression is regulated by epigenetic mechanisms in prostate cancer of TRAMP mice. PLoS One. 2010;5(1):e8579.

154.

Khor TO, Huang Y, Wu TY, Shu L, Lee J, Kong AN. Pharmacodynamics of curcumin as DNA hypomethylation agent in restoring the expression of Nrf2 via promoter CpGs demethylation. Biochem Pharmacol. 2011;82(9):1073–1078.

155.

Du W, Jiang Y, Zheng Z, et al. Feedback loop between p66(Shc) and Nrf2 promotes lung cancer progression. Cancer Lett. 2013;337(1): 58–65.

156.

Eades G, Yang M, Yao Y, Zhang Y, Zhou Q. miR-200a regulates Nrf2 activation by targeting Keap1 mRNA in breast cancer cells. J Biol Chem. 2011;286(47):40725–40733.

157.

van Jaarsveld MT, Helleman J, Boersma AW, et al. miR-141 regulates KEAP1 and modulates cisplatin sensitivity in ovarian cancer cells. Oncogene. 2013;32(36):4284–4293.

158.

Yang M, Yao Y, Eades G, Zhang Y, Zhou Q. MiR-28 regulates Nrf2 expression through a Keap1-independent mechanism. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129(3):983–991.

159.

Yamamoto S, Inoue J, Kawano T, Kozaki K, Omura K, Inazawa J. The impact of miRNA-based molecular diagnostics and treatment of NRF2-stabilized tumors. Mol Cancer Res. 2014;12(1):58–68.

160.

Adam J, Hatipoglu E, O’Flaherty L, et al. Renal cyst formation in Fh1-deficient mice is independent of the Hif/Phd pathway: roles for fumarate in KEAP1 succination and Nrf2 signaling. Cancer Cell. 2011;20(4):524–537.

161.

Kinch L, Grishin NV, Brugarolas J. Succination of Keap1 and activation of Nrf2-dependent antioxidant pathways in FH-deficient papillary renal cell carcinoma type 2. Cancer Cell. 2011;20(4): 418–420.

162.

Kong B, Qia C, Erkan M, Kleeff J, Michalski CW. Overview on how oncogenic Kras promotes pancreatic carcinogenesis by inducing low intracellular ROS levels. Front Physiol. 2013;4:246.

163.

Satoh H, Moriguchi T, Takai J, Ebina M, Yamamoto M. Nrf2 prevents initiation but accelerates progression through the Kras signaling pathway during lung carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 2013;73(13): 4158–4168.

164.

Bauer AK, Hill T 3rd, Alexander CM. The involvement of NRF2 in lung cancer. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2013;2013:746432.

165.

Yamadori T, Ishii Y, Homma S, et al. Molecular mechanisms for the regulation of Nrf2-mediated cell proliferation in non-small-cell lung cancers. Oncogene. 2012;31(45):4768–4777.

166.

Banerjee P, Basu A, Datta D, Gasser M, Waaga-Gasser AM, Pal S. The heme oxygenase-1 protein is overexpressed in human renal cancer cells following activation of the Ras-Raf-ERK pathway and mediates anti-apoptotic signal. J Biol Chem. 2011;286(38): 33580–33590.

167.

Funes JM, Henderson S, Kaufman R, et al. Oncogenic transformation of mesenchymal stem cells decreases Nrf2 expression favoring in vivo tumor growth and poorer survival. Mol Cancer. 2014;13(1):20.

168.

Nagy P, Varga A, Pircs K, Hegedus K, Juhász G. Myc-driven overgrowth requires unfolded protein response-mediated induction of autophagy and antioxidant responses in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet. 2013;9(8):e1003664.

169.

Levy S, Forman HJ. C-Myc is a Nrf2-interacting protein that negatively regulates phase II genes through their electrophile responsive elements. IUBMB Life. 2010;62(3):237–246.

170.

Romano G. The role of the dysfunctional Akt-related pathway in cancer: establishment and maintenance of a malignant cell phenotype, resistance to therapy, and future strategies for drug development. Scientifica (Cairo). 2013;2013:317186.

171.

Gao AM, Ke ZP, Shi F, Sun GC, Chen H. Chrysin enhances sensitivity of BEL-7402/ADM cells to doxorubicin by suppressing PI3K/Akt/Nrf2 and ERK/Nrf2 pathway. Chem Biol Interact. 2013;206(1): 100–108.

172.

Deng X, Rui W, Zhang F, Ding W. PM2.5 induces Nrf2-mediated defense mechanisms against oxidative stress by activating PIK3/AKT signaling pathway in human lung alveolar epithelial A549 cells. Cell Biol Toxicol. 2013;29(3):143–157.

173.

Stachel I, Geismann C, Aden K, et al. Modulation of nuclear factor E2-related factor-2 (Nrf2) activation by the stress response gene immediate early response-3 (IER3) in colonic epithelial cells: a novel mechanism of cellular adaption to inflammatory stress. J Biol Chem. 2014;289(4):1917–1929.

174.

Taguchi K, Sakata K, Ohashi W, Imaizumi T, Imamura J, Hattori Y. Tonic inhibition by G protein-coupled receptor kinase 2 of Akt/endothelial nitric oxide synthase signaling in human vascular endothelial cells under conditions of hyperglycemia with high insulin levels. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2014;349(2):199–208.

175.

Dey N, Crosswell HE, De P, et al. The protein phosphatase activity of PTEN regulates SRC family kinases and controls glioma migration. Cancer Res. 2008;68(6):1862–1871.

176.

Huang W, Lv X, Liu C, et al. The N-terminal phosphodegron targets TAZ/WWTR1 protein for SCFβ-TrCP-dependent degradation in response to phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibition. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(31):26245–26253.

177.

Chen Q, Li W, Wan Y, et al. Amplified in breast cancer 1 enhances human cholangiocarcinoma growth and chemoresistance by simultaneous activation of Akt and Nrf2 pathways. Hepatology. 2012;55(6): 1820–1829.

178.

Lerner C, Bitto A, Pulliam D, et al. Reduced mammalian target of rapamycin activity facilitates mitochondrial retrograde signaling and increases life span in normal human fibroblasts. Aging Cell. 2013;12(6):966–977.

179.

Shibata T, Saito S, Kokubu A, Suzuki T, Yamamoto M, Hirohashi S. Global downstream pathway analysis reveals a dependence of oncogenic NF-E2-related factor 2 mutation on the mTOR growth signaling pathway. Cancer Res. 2010;70(22):9095–9105.

180.

Gaikwad NW, Yang L, Rogan EG, Cavalieri EL. Evidence for NQO2-mediated reduction of the carcinogenic estrogen ortho-quinones. Free Radic Biol Med. 2009;46(2):253–262.

181.

Ansell PJ, Lo SC, Newton LG, et al. Repression of cancer protective genes by 17β-estradiol: ligand-dependent interaction between human Nrf2 and estrogen receptor alpha. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2005;243(1–2):27–34.

182.

Lo R, Matthews J. The aryl hydrocarbon receptor and estrogen receptor alpha differentially modulate nuclear factor erythroid-2-related factor 2 transactivation in MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2013;270(2):139–148.

183.

Lam SS, Mak AS, Yam JW, Cheung AN, Ngan HY, Wong AS. Targeting estrogen-related receptor alpha inhibits epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and stem cell properties of ovarian cancer cells. Mol Ther. 2014;22(4):743–751.

184.

Zhang T, Liang X, Shi L, et al. Estrogen receptor and PI3K/Akt signaling pathway involvement in S-(-)equol-induced activation of Nrf2/ARE in endothelial cells. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e79075.

185.

Gorrini C, Gang BP, Bassi C, et al. Estrogen controls the survival of BRCA1-deficient cells via a PI3K-NRF2-regulated pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(12):4472–4477.

186.

Montano MM, Deng H, Liu M, Sun X, Singal R. Transcriptional regulation by the estrogen receptor of antioxidative stress enzymes and its functional implications. Oncogene. 2004;23(14):2442–2453.

187.

Arlt A, Schäfer H, Kalthoff H. The ‘N-factors’ in pancreatic cancer: functional relevance of NF-κB, NFAT and Nrf2 in pancreatic cancer. Oncogenesis. 2012;1:e35.

188.

Wakabayashi N, Slocum SL, Skoko JJ, Shin S, Kensler TW. When NRF2 talks, who’s listening? Antioxid Redox Signal. 2010;13(11): 1649–1663.

189.

Liu GH, Qu J, Shen X. NF-κB/p65 antagonizes Nrf2-ARE pathway by depriving CBP from Nrf2 and facilitating recruitment of HDAC3 to MafK. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2008;1783(5):713–727.

190.

Healy ZR, Lee NH, Gao X, et al. Divergent responses of chondrocytes and endothelial cells to shear stress: cross-talk among COX-2, the phase 2 response, and apoptosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(39):14010–14015.

191.

Chen CY, Jang JH, Li MH, Surh YJ. Resveratrol upregulates heme oxygenase-1 expression via activation of NF-E2-related factor 2 in PC12 cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005;331(4):993–1000.

192.

Manna SK, Mukhopadhyay A, Aggarwal BB. Resveratrol suppresses TNF-induced activation of nuclear transcription factors NF-kappa B, activator protein-1, and apoptosis: potential role of reactive oxygen intermediates and lipid peroxidation. J Immunol. 2000;164(12):6509–6519.

193.

Balogun E, Foresti R, Green CJ, Motterlini R. Changes in temperature modulate heme oxygenase-1 induction by curcumin in renal epithelial cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003;308(4):950–955.

194.

Gan FF, Ling H, Ang X, et al. A novel shogaol analog suppresses cancer cell invasion and inflammation, and displays cytoprotective effects through modulation of NF-κB and Nrf2-Keap1 signaling pathways. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2013;272(3):852–862.

195.

Kumar S, Singh BK, Prasad AK, Parmar VS, Biswal S, Ghosh B. Ethyl 3′,4′,5′-trimethoxythionocinnamate modulates NF-κB and Nrf2 transcription factors. Eur J Pharmacol. 2013;700(1–3):32–41.

196.

Rushworth SA, Zaitseva L, Murray MY, Shah NM, Bowles KM, MacEwan DJ. The high Nrf2 expression in human acute myeloid leukemia is driven by NF-κB and underlies its chemo-resistance. Blood. 2012;120(26):5188–5198.

197.

Arlt A, Bauer I, Schafmayer C, et al. Increased proteasome subunit protein expression and proteasome activity in colon cancer relate to an enhanced activation of nuclear factor E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2). Oncogene. 2009;28(45):3983–3996.

198.

Niture SK, Jaiswal AK. Nrf2-induced antiapoptotic Bcl-xL protein enhances cell survival and drug resistance. Free Radic Biol Med. 2013;57:119–131.

199.

Niture SK, Jaiswal AK. Nrf2 protein up-regulates antiapoptotic protein Bcl-2 and prevents cellular apoptosis. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(13):9873–9886.

200.

Rotblat B, Melino G, Knight RA. NRF2 and p53: Januses in cancer? Oncotarget. 2012;3(11):1272–1283.

201.

Vurusaner B, Poli G, Basaga H. Tumor suppressor genes and ROS: complex networks of interactions. Free Radic Biol Med. 2012;52(1):7–18.

202.

Suzuki S, Tanaka T, Poyurovsky MV, et al. Phosphate-activated glutaminase (GLS2), a p53-inducible regulator of glutamine metabolism and reactive oxygen species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(16): 7461–7466.

203.

Bensaad K, Tsuruta A, Selak MA, et al. TIGAR, a p53-inducible regulator of glycolysis and apoptosis. Cell. 2006;126(1):107–120.

204.

Asher G, Lotem J, Kama R, Sachs L, Shaul Y. NQO1 stabilizes p53 through a distinct pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99(5): 3099–3104.

205.

You A, Nam CW, Wakabayashi N, Yamamoto M, Kensler TW, Kwak MK. Transcription factor Nrf2 maintains the basal expression of Mdm2: an implication of the regulation of p53 signaling by Nrf2. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2011;507(2):356–364.

206.

Capaccione KM, Pine SR. The Notch signaling pathway as a mediator of tumor survival. Carcinogenesis. 2013;34(7):1420–1430.

207.

Wakabayashi N, Skoko JJ, Chartoumpekis DV, et al. Notch-Nrf2 axis: regulation of Nrf2 gene expression and cytoprotection by notch signaling. Mol Cell Biol. 2014;34(4):653–663.

208.

Kim JH, Thimmulappa RK, Kumar V, et al. NRF2-mediated Notch pathway activation enhances hematopoietic reconstitution following myelosuppressive radiation. J Clin Invest. 2014;124(2):730–741.

209.

Zhu J, Wang H, Sun Q, et al. Nrf2 is required to maintain the self-renewal of glioma stem cells. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:380.

210.

Li W, Liu H, Zhou JS, et al. Caveolin-1 inhibits expression of antioxidant enzymes through direct interaction with nuclear erythroid 2 p45-related factor-2 (Nrf2). J Biol Chem. 2012;287(25): 20922–20930.

211.

Zheng Y, Morris A, Sunkara M, Layne J, Toborek M, Hennig B. Epigallocatechin-gallate stimulates NF-E2-related factor and heme oxygenase-1 via caveolin-1 displacement. J Nutr Biochem. 2012;23(2):163–168.

212.

Volonte D, Liu Z, Musille PM, et al. Inhibition of nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related factor (Nrf2) by caveolin-1 promotes stress-induced premature senescence. Mol Biol Cell. 2013;24(12):1852–1862.

213.

Cosset EC, Godet J, Entz-Werle N, et al. Involvement of the TGFβ pathway in the regulation of α5 β1 integrins by caveolin-1 in human glioblastoma. Int J Cancer. 2012;131(3):601–611.

214.

Green DR, Levine B. To be or not to be? How selective autophagy and cell death govern cell fate. Cell. 2014;157(1):65–75.

215.

Lau A, Wang XJ, Zhao F, et al. A noncanonical mechanism of Nrf2 activation by autophagy deficiency: direct interaction between Keap1 and p62. Mol Cell Biol. 2010;30(13):3275–3285.

216.

Ichimura Y, Waguri S, Sou YS, et al. Phosphorylation of p62 activates the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway during selective autophagy. Mol Cell. 2013;51(5):618–631.

217.

Jain A, Lamark T, Sjøttem E, et al. p62/SQSTM1 is a target gene for transcription factor NRF2 and creates a positive feedback loop by inducing antioxidant response element-driven gene transcription. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(29):22576–22591.

218.

Bray K, Mathew R, Lau A, et al. Autophagy suppresses RIP kinase-dependent necrosis enabling survival to mTOR inhibition. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41831.

219.

Park SH, Kim JH, Chi GY, et al. Induction of apoptosis and autophagy by sodium selenite in A549 human lung carcinoma cells through generation of reactive oxygen species. Toxicol Lett. 2012;212(3): 252–261.

220.

Rao VA, Klein SR, Bonar SJ, et al. The antioxidant transcription factor Nrf2 negatively regulates autophagy and growth arrest induced by the anticancer redox agent mitoquinone. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(45):34447–34459.

221.

Zhou Y, Wang HD, Zhu L, et al. Knockdown of Nrf2 enhances autophagy induced by temozolomide in U251 human glioma cell line. Oncol Rep. 2013;29(1):394–400.

222.

Li S, Li J, Shen C, et al. tert-Butylhydroquinone (tBHQ) protects hepatocytes against lipotoxicity via inducing autophagy independently of Nrf2 activation. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1841(1): 22–33.

223.

Kim TH, Hur EG, Kang SJ, et al. NRF2 blockade suppresses colon tumor angiogenesis by inhibiting hypoxia-induced activation of HIF-1α. Cancer Res. 2011;71(6):2260–2275.

224.

Ji X, Wang H, Zhu J, et al. Correlation of Nrf2 and HIF-1α in glioblastoma and their relationships to clinicopathologic features and survival. Neurol Res. 2013;35(10):1044–1050.

225.

Ji X, Wang H, Zhu J, et al. Knockdown of Nrf2 suppresses glioblastoma angiogenesis by inhibiting hypoxia-induced activation of HIF-1α. Int J Cancer. 2014;135(3):574–584.

226.

Shen H, Yang Y, Xia S, Rao B, Zhang J, Wang J. Blockage of Nrf2 suppresses the migration and invasion of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma cells in hypoxic microenvironment. Dis Esophagus. Epub September 13, 2013.

227.

Kwak MK, Kensler TW. Induction of 26S proteasome subunit PSMB5 by the bifunctional inducer 3-methylcholanthrene through the Nrf2-ARE, but not the AhR/Arnt-XRE, pathway. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2006;345(4):1350–1357.

228.

Kwak MK, Wakabayashi N, Greenlaw JL, Yamamoto M, Kensler TW. Antioxidants enhance mammalian proteasome expression through the Keap1-Nrf2 signaling pathway. Mol Cell Biol. 2003;23(23):8786–8794.

229.

Schaedler S, Krause J, Himmelsbach K, et al. Hepatitis B virus induces expression of antioxidant response element-regulated genes by activation of Nrf2. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(52):41074–41086.

230.

Pickering AM, Linder RA, Zhang H, Forman HJ, Davies KJ. Nrf2-dependent induction of proteasome and Pa28αβ regulator are required for adaptation to oxidative stress. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(13):10021–10031.

231.

Höhn TJ, Grune T. The proteasome and the degradation of oxidized proteins: Part III – Redox regulation of the proteasomal system. Redox Biol. 2014;2:388–394.

232.

Chen J, Regan RF. Increasing expression of heme oxygenase-1 by proteasome inhibition protects astrocytes from heme-mediated oxidative injury. Curr Neurovasc Res. 2005;2(3):189–196.

233.

Ren S, Smith MJ, Louro ID, et al. The p44S10 locus, encoding a subunit of the proteasome regulatory particle, is amplified during progression of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Oncogene. 2000;19(11):1419–1427.

234.

Rho JH, Qin S, Wang JY, Roehrl MH. Proteomic expression analysis of surgical human colorectal cancer tissues: up-regulation of PSB7, PRDX1, and SRP9 and hypoxic adaptation in cancer. J Proteome Res. 2008;7(7):2959–2972.

235.

Hu Z, Pan XF, Wu FQ, et al. Synergy between proteasome inhibitors and imatinib mesylate in chronic myeloid leukemia. PLoS One. 2009;4(7):e6257.

236.

Sebens S, Bauer I, Geismann C, et al. Inflammatory macrophages induce Nrf2 transcription factor-dependent proteasome activity in colonic NCM460 cells and thereby confer anti-apoptotic protection. J Biol Chem. 2011;286(47):40911–40921.

237.

Du ZX, Yan Y, Zhang HY, et al. Proteasome inhibition induces a p38 MAPK pathway-dependent antiapoptotic program via Nrf2 in thyroid cancer cells. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(5):E763–E771.

238.

Ebert B, Kisiela M, Malatkova P, El-Hawari Y, Maser E. Regulation of human carbonyl reductase 3 (CBR3; SDR21C2) expression by Nrf2 in cultured cancer cells. Biochemistry. 2010;49(39): 8499–8511.

239.

Kraft DC, Deocaris CC, Wadhwa R, Rattan SI. Preincubation with the proteasome inhibitor MG-132 enhances proteasome activity via the Nrf2 transcription factor in aging human skin fibroblasts. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1067:420–424.

240.

Rushworth SA, Bowles KM, MacEwan DJ. High basal nuclear levels of Nrf2 in acute myeloid leukemia reduces sensitivity to proteasome inhibitors. Cancer Res. 2011;71(5):1999–2009.

241.

Koch A, Steffen J, Krüger E. TCF11 at the crossroads of oxidative stress and the ubiquitin proteasome system. Cell Cycle. 2011;10(8): 1200–1207.

242.

Gorowiec MR, Borthwick LA, Parker SM, Kirby JA, Saretzki GC, Fisher AJ. Free radical generation induces epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in lung epithelium via a TGF-β1-dependent mechanism. Free Radic Biol Med. 2012;52(6):1024–1032.

243.

Okita Y, Kamoshida A, Suzuki H, et al. Transforming growth factor-beta induces transcription factors MafK and Bach1 to suppress expression of the heme oxygenase-1 gene. J Biol Chem. 2013;288(28): 20658–20667.

244.

Oh CJ, Kim JY, Choi YK, et al. Dimethylfumarate attenuates renal fibrosis via NF-E2-related factor 2-mediated inhibition of transforming growth factor-beta/Smad signaling. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e45870.

245.

Choi HK, Pokharel YR, Lim SC, et al. Inhibition of liver fibrosis by solubilized coenzyme Q10: role of Nrf2 activation in inhibiting transforming growth factor-β1 expression. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2009;240(3):377–384.

246.

Rachakonda G, Sekhar KR, Jowhar D, et al. Increased cell migration and plasticity in Nrf2-deficient cancer cell lines. Oncogene. 2010;29(25):3703–3714.

247.

Pan H, Wang H, Zhu L, Mao L, Qiao L, Su X. The role of Nrf2 in migration and invasion of human glioma cell U251. World Neurosurg. 2013;80(3–4):363–370.

248.

Zhang L, Wang N, Zhou S, Ye W, Jing G, Zhang M. Propofol induces proliferation and invasion of gallbladder cancer cells through activation of Nrf2. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2012;31:66.

249.

Ji XJ, Chen SH, Zhu L, et al. Knockdown of NF-E2-related factor 2 inhibits the proliferation and growth of U251MG human glioma cells in a mouse xenograft model. Oncol Rep. 2013;30(1):157–164.

250.

Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–674.

251.

Hayes JD, Ashford ML. Nrf2 orchestrates fuel partitioning for cell proliferation. Cell Metab. 2012;16(2):139–141.

252.

Shimizu T, Tolcher AW, Papadopoulos KP, et al. The clinical effect of the dual-targeting strategy involving PI3K/AKT/mTOR and RAS/MEK/ERK pathways in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(8):2316–2325.

253.

Singh A, Happel C, Manna SK, et al. Transcription factor NRF2 regulates miR-1 and miR-206 to drive tumorigenesis. J Clin Invest. 2013;123(7):2921–2934.

254.

Ma X, Zhang J, Liu S, Huang Y, Chen B, Wang D. Nrf2 knockdown by shRNA inhibits tumor growth and increases efficacy of chemotherapy in cervical cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2012;69(2): 485–494.

255.

Jiang T, Chen N, Zhao F, et al. High levels of Nrf2 determine chemoresistance in type II endometrial cancer. Cancer Res. 2010;70(13): 5486–5496.

256.

Duong HQ, Yi YW, Kang HJ, et al. Inhibition of NRF2 by PIK-75 augments sensitivity of pancreatic cancer cells to gemcitabine. Int J Oncol. 2014;44(3):959–969.

257.

Akhdar H, Loyer P, Rauch C, Corlu A, Guillouzo A, Morel F. Involvement of Nrf2 activation in resistance to 5-fluorouracil in human colon cancer HT-29 cells. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(12):2219–2227.

258.

Hu XF, Yao J, Gao SG, et al. Nrf2 overexpression predicts prognosis and 5-FU resistance in gastric cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(9):5231–5235.

259.

Gao AM, Ke ZP, Wang JN, Yang JY, Chen SY, Chen H. Apigenin sensitizes doxorubicin-resistant hepatocellular carcinoma BEL-7402/ADM cells to doxorubicin via inhibiting PI3K/Akt/Nrf2 pathway. Carcinogenesis. 2013;34(8):1806–1814.

260.

Singh A, Wu H, Zhang P, Happel C, Ma J, Biswal S. Expression of ABCG2 (BCRP) is regulated by Nrf2 in cancer cells that confers side population and chemoresistance phenotype. Mol Cancer Ther. 2010;9(8):2365–2376.

261.

Wang XJ, Li Y, Luo L, et al. Oxaliplatin activates the Keap1/Nrf2 antioxidant system conferring protection against the cytotoxicity of anticancer drugs. Free Radic Biol Med. 2014;70:68–77.

262.

Emmink BL, Verheem A, Van Houdt WJ, et al. The secretome of colon cancer stem cells contains drug-metabolizing enzymes. J Proteomics. 2013;91:84–96.

263.

Mahaffey CM, Zhang H, Rinna A, Holland W, Mack PC, Forman HJ. Multidrug-resistant protein-3 gene regulation by the transcription factor Nrf2 in human bronchial epithelial and non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Free Radic Biol Med. 2009;46(12):1650–1657.

264.

Nishinaka T, Miura T, Okumura M, Nakao F, Nakamura H, Terada T. Regulation of aldo-keto reductase AKR1B10 gene expression: involvement of transcription factor Nrf2. Chem Biol Interact. 2011;191(1–3):185–191.

265.

Na HK, Surh YJ. Oncogenic potential of Nrf2 and its principal target protein heme oxygenase-1. Free Radic Biol Med. 2014;67:353–365.

266.

Zhou S, Ye W, Shao Q, Zhang M, Liang J. Nrf2 is a potential therapeutic target in radioresistance in human cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;88(3):706–715.

267.

Manandhar S, Lee S, Kwak MK. Effect of stable inhibition of NRF2 on doxorubicin sensitivity in human ovarian carcinoma OV90 cells. Arch Pharm Res. 2010;33(5):717–726.

268.

Tan KP, Kosuge K, Yang M, Ito S. NRF2 as a determinant of cellular resistance in retinoic acid cytotoxicity. Free Radic Biol Med. 2008;45(12):1663–1673.

269.

Tarumoto T, Nagai T, Ohmine K, et al. Ascorbic acid restores sensitivity to imatinib via suppression of Nrf2-dependent gene expression in the imatinib-resistant cell line. Exp Hematol. 2004;32(4): 375–381.

270.

Kweon MH, Adhami VM, Lee JS, Mukhtar H. Constitutive overexpression of Nrf2-dependent heme oxygenase-1 in A549 cells contributes to resistance to apoptosis induced by epigallocatechin 3-gallate. J Biol Chem. 2006;281(44):33761–33772.

271.

Limonciel A, Jennings P. A review of the evidence that ochratoxin A is an Nrf2 inhibitor: implications for nephrotoxicity and renal carcinogenicity. Toxins (Basel). 2014;6(1):371–379.

272.

Ren D, Villeneuve NF, Jiang T, et al. Brusatol enhances the efficacy of chemotherapy by inhibiting the Nrf2-mediated defense mechanism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(4):1433–1438.

273.

Cuendet M, Gills JJ, Pezzuto JM. Brusatol-induced HL-60 cell differentiation involves NF-κB activation. Cancer Lett. 2004;206(1):43–50.

274.

Wruck CJ, Claussen M, Fuhrmann G, et al. Luteolin protects rat PC12 and C6 cells against MPP+ induced toxicity via an ERK dependent Keap1-Nrf2-ARE pathway. J Neural Transm Suppl. 2007;(72):57–67.

275.

Lin CW, Wu MJ, Liu IY, Su JD, Yen JH. Neurotrophic and cytoprotective action of luteolin in PC12 cells through ERK-dependent induction of Nrf2-driven HO-1 expression. J Agric Food Chem. 2010;58(7):4477–4486.

276.

Pandurangan AK, Ananda Sadagopan SK, Dharmalingam P, Ganapasam S. Luteolin, a bioflavonoid inhibits azoxymethane-induced colorectal cancer through activation of Nrf2 signaling. Toxicol Mech Methods. 2014;24(1):13–20.

277.

Lee S, Lim MJ, Kim MH, et al. An effective strategy for increasing the radiosensitivity of human lung cancer cells by blocking Nrf2-dependent antioxidant responses. Free Radic Biol Med. 2012;53(4):807–816.

278.

Boettler U, Sommerfeld K, Volz N, et al. Coffee constituents as modulators of Nrf2 nuclear translocation and ARE (EpRE)-dependent gene expression. J Nutr Biochem. 2011;22(5):426–440.

279.

van Dijk AE, Olthof MR, Meeuse JC, Seebus E, Heine RJ, van Dam RM. Acute effects of decaffeinated coffee and the major coffee components chlorogenic acid and trigonelline on glucose tolerance. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(6):1023–1025.

280.

Olthof MR, van Dijk AE, Deacon CF, Heine RJ, van Dam RM. Acute effects of decaffeinated coffee and the major coffee components chlorogenic acid and trigonelline on incretin hormones. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2011;8:10.

281.

Zhong Y, Zhang F, Sun Z, et al. Drug resistance associates with activation of Nrf2 in MCF-7/DOX cells, and wogonin reverses it by down-regulating Nrf2-mediated cellular defense response. Mol Carcinog. 2013;52(10):824–834.

282.

Sharma PK, Varshney R. 2-Deoxy-D-glucose and 6-aminonicotinamide-mediated Nrf2 down regulation leads to radiosensitization of malignant cells via abrogation of GSH-mediated defense. Free Radic Res. 2012;46(12):1446–1457.

Creative Commons License © 2014 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.